Douglas Charles Kane’s “Arda Reconstucted: The Creation of the Published Simarillion”

[Galin]

Voronwe wrote: Regarding your question about minor characters, I honestly don't think in those terms, so it is really difficult for me to pin down which of that list I could call "minor" and which I would not. Obviously, Finwe and Indis' daughters would fall into that category! Beyond that, I'm not sure that I could say. I'm not trying to evasive, it just isn't really something that I have thought about.

OK

Regarding Arien, I'm not sure why you are asking that. The edits that I identify regarding Arien are that two references to her beauty are removed from passages taken from the Annals, but there was not substituted passages added in from teh Quenta.

Right, but I'm considering a theory about why these edits were made and wondered if we could narrow down the external chronology.

(...) It is true that the Quenta is the main source for the latter part of Chapter 5, but only for portions that turn to matters having nothing to do with Osse and Uinen. For the part of the chapter that they appear, the Annals are the main source. So it doesn't really make sense to me to say that the reason why Christopher changed the text to have only Osse instructing the Teleri is that it is consistent with the Quenta tradition.

What do you think about a 'blend' though, a compromise after considering and weighing both traditions, where one tradition is all Osse as instructor of the Teleri (3 references) with no Uinen even present.

If I recall correctly a choice of Annals of Aman leaves out the instruction of Osse when the Teleri are on Eressea (from QS), where he alone teaches the Teleri 'strange musics and sea-lore' (similarly worded in AAm) -- and a choice of Quenta Silmarillion for this entire section would have left Uinen wholly out in any case (not mentioned at all at any point, befriending or teaching).

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Galin, if I understand what you are suggesting it is that Christopher decided to make a compromise by mostly using the Annals for this section so that he could include Uinen, but that substituted in the brief phrase from the Quenta in which only Osse instructs the Teleri, not both he and Uinen as stated in the Annals, so that her role wouldn't be too big? Wow! That is a degree of intentionality for beyond anything that I have ever considered.

[Galin]

Galin, if I understand what you are suggesting it is that Christopher decided to make a compromise by mostly using the Annals for this section so that he could include Uinen, but that substituted in the brief phrase from the Quenta in which only Osse instructs the Teleri, not both he and Uinen as stated in the Annals, so that her role wouldn't be too big? Wow! That is a degree of intentionality for beyond anything that I have ever considered.

No, that is not what I'm suggesting Doug.

Does CJRT or anyone know for certain that Tolkien did not intend to go with (for his Silmarillion) the tradition that Uinen did not instruct the Teleri at any point, as in Quenta Silmarillion, or did not befriend the Teleri on the coasts of Middle-earth, as in Quenta Silmarillion?

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Originally Posted by Galin

No, that is not what I'm suggesting Doug.

Then I have no idea what it that you are suggesting.

Does CJRT or anyone know for certain that Tolkien did not intend to go with (for his Silmarillion) the tradition that Uinen did not instruct the Teleri at any point, as in Quenta Silmarillion, or did not befriend the Teleri on the coasts of Middle-earth, as in Quenta Silmarillion?

Only Christopher could answer that. All we know is what the evidence that we have available tells us. And that is that Christopher choose to use the Annals version of the story, not the Quenta version. But that he also substituted in a brief phrase from the Quenta version into the Annals version that changes it so that instead of both Osse and Uinen being present and both of them instructing the Teleri (as Tolkien wrote in the Annals version) or only Osse being present and therefore only he instructs the Teleri (as Tolkien wrote in the Annals version), both Osse and Uinen are identified as being present but only Osse is identified as instructing the Teleri. Which leave the impression, whether or it was initial, that Christopher changed Uinen's role from an active role (which is traditionally more associated with males) to a more passive role (which is traditionally more associated with females).

[Galin]

Voronwe wrote: Only Christopher could answer that.

So as far as anyone can tell, we don't know if Tolkien himself certainly intended to have his Silmarillion note Uinen as an instructor of the Teleri here, given that we have conflicting traditions on the question. Even CJRT might not know.

All we know is what the evidence that we have available tells us. And that is that Christopher choose to use the Annals version of the story, not the Quenta version. But that (…) Which leave the impression, whether or it was initial, that Christopher changed Uinen's role from an active role (which is traditionally more associated with males) to a more passive role (which is traditionally more associated with females).'

Yet a re-presentation of the same evidence from a different perspective and focus could be employed to describe the bare evidence in HME.

I have no idea if CJRT thought that a 'mere' friendship with the Teleri and Uinen could be imagined, even if not specifically stated, to include a flow of knowledge from Maia to Elf, as arguably with a High Elf befriending Men, but in any case I don't think CJRT need have any doubts that Osse was intended as the instructor of the Teleri here.

Again, by comparison, a competing tradition makes no mention of Uinen in any role, arguably casting doubt about her despite what is noted in Annals of Aman section 6. And according to part of your opinion about what reduces a character -- which seems a bit 'mathematical' to me but that aside for the moment -- Osse himself could be said to be reduced given a choice of the Annals over Quenta Silmarillion.

A choice of QS alone here would have left Uinen wholly out, as well as noting Osse as teacher of the Teleri more often than in the 1977 Silmarillion. By employing the Annals for certain sections of the tale here, the end result is that Osse is 'reduced' (in this mathematical sense) and Uinen is given a role that at least arguably includes 'teaching' by contact -- despite that that role is given to Osse specifically -- again since he is without a doubt given that role by JRRT.

_______________

Jallanite wrote: By using the word implication Hostetter admits up front that his opinions are based entirely on inference and not based on anything that Kane has said. In short, Hostetter is making it up, though he probably doesn't altogether know it. Hostetter admits that he does not find anywhere his inference as an "explicit charge''.

Of course CFH is talking about what he thinks Doug has implied, and thus uses the word implication. And since I doubt you would argue that the lack of an explicit charge means that there can be no implications, to my mind what we really have here is you again stating your opinion that you think no implication exists.


Keeping in mind…

Jallanite posted: 'I admit fully that it is very easy to infer that Kane intended to attribute misogyny to Christopher Tolkien.'

The reason why I and others didn't twig to what Hostetter claims to see in the book is that the ideas were simply too absurd to arise. Hostetter raises an idea which he admits "makes no sense" and then insists on interpreting two (?) sentences in the book as though Kane believed that senseless idea.

Well, when you encounter an argument that you feel makes no sense to you for some reason, I doubt you automatically conclude that your interpretation must be wrong. You might second guess your own interpretation, but when you consider the evidence and you still end up with the same interpretation…

… well let's put it this way: you don't want anyone to lie, right

Hostetter admits: 'I didn't address the nature of the edits themselves, and deliberately so, since I need to sit down with the books and study the specifics of a change for myself before I can offer a (possible) explanation for them, and I haven't had time to do that.'

That speaks for itself. Hostetter appears to have only skimmed the book and been enraged because of a single inference Hostetter made from very few (two?) remarks without looking at them in context and without considering that Kane was probably unlikely to have meant to imply something which was obviously absurd. Hostetter thinks it absurd. I think it absurd.

Carl wrote books plural -- while you write 'book' singular.

And from the context of the discussion it seems to me that CFH is talking about looking closer at The History of Middle-Earth (books) and the 'edits' that concern both Uinen and Galadriel (both examples having been raised the post preceding the statement in question), and then possibly giving his own explanations regarding these examples.

And actually his post (the same post) continues directly with…

Elfwine wrote: (Though one possibility specifically concerning superlatives springs to mind even without consulting the sources: if one is combining superlative-laden texts from different periods, it would be all too easy to have conflicting superlatives if one is not very careful, lest, e.g., two characters are both declared to be "strongest" or "fairest" etc. Just a thought, not saying that is the case here.)

I would say the 'sources' or the 'books' are The History of Middle-Earth volumes.

You appear to demand that no book should contain any statement from which you might infer something which the author did not intend.

This is rather generalized and exaggerated in my opinion.

If you accept Kane's statements that the meaning you infer was not intended and accept that many readers did not and do not see the meaning you infer, than you really ought to accept that Hostetter was perhaps just pressing a point for far more than it was meant, as are you.

So far I don't see we have many readers commenting in the first place. Not in this thread yet, and besides Doug, in the linked thread, only 5 actually stated an opinion one way or the other -- specifically concerning deliberateness or misogyny I mean.

And of the 5 who actually gave an opinion, 4 agreed with an implication of deliberateness at least, while River thought an unconscious bias was what Doug was getting at. Soli specifically states that he does not make the jump to misogyny and does not think Doug implied this -- despite that he agrees with an implied deliberateness however.

Soli wrote: Actually, Doug never does once IIRC imply or derive or point an accusing finger at any purported 'motive' for CT's supposedly having gender-cleansed the text- in other words he doesn't call him a misogynist, and the attribution is a leap which does not follow necessarily as the only possible hypothesis.

Elfwine (CFH) replied: "soli": to my mind, accusing Christopher (even by implication) of "having gender-cleansed the text", with the gender being "female", of course, is equivalent to charging him with misogyny. What distinction do you see?

And Soli never responded to that as far as I recall. In any case later he posted:

Soli wrote: 'Although I don't make the leap to 'misogyny', I can't see how the book can be read in any other way than as saying CT removed or reduced females on purpose. One doesn't proceed systematically by accident.

River responded: One can proceed systematically based on unconscious biases, however. I think that's what Voronwe is getting at.

Which is essentially the same point (River's point) that I later challenged Doug about. In the following review, I add a break that wasn't there in the original.

The latter, Kane sees as only one example in a larger trend of reducing the roles of female characters in The Silmarillion: "There are at least eight female characters whose role or character could be said to be reduced to a greater or lesser extent by the editorial decisions made [by Christopher]: Uinen, Galadriel, Míriel, Nerdanel, Indis, Ungoliant, Arien, and Nellas (in addition to the removal of the two or three daughters of Finwë and Indis, of Baragund and Belegund's older sister, Beleth[,] and of Andreth from the Athrabeth)" (252). Of all the changes Christopher made, this is "perhaps [Kane's] biggest complaint" (26).

But if the changes and omissions Kane describes do in fact constitute a purposeful reduction, then there is just as much reduction of the male characters (and almost certainly more). For Kane to call attention to only the female characters in this way — and to impute a motive to Christopher to actively reduce their presence in the narrative — strikes me as either disingenuous or careless.

http://www.mythsoc.org/reviews/arda.reconstructed/

So I guess it remains an opinion that to imply (however unintended) a deliberate reduction of female characters is to imply some measure of misogyny. However I don't see many opinions on the matter so far really, and silence does not necessarily mean a given person agrees with Doug or CFH.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

Well, when you encounter an argument that you feel makes no sense to you for some reason, I doubt you automatically conclude that your interpretation must be wrong. You might second guess your own interpretation, but when you consider the evidence and you still end up with the same interpretation…

Sometimes I do not automatically conclude that my interpretation must be wrong. But when I see an argument put forward that seems to me to be absurd, then I ought to reconsider whether I am reading my source correctly. Very, very often I find in such cases that I have misconstrued the argument, or at least probably misconstrued the argument.

What I try to attempt to do, and do not always do it, is to try to consider the argument as a whole. Which you also recommend. Yet you ignore entirely that Hostetter’s arguments rely almost entirely on his own inferences and that he largely backs down in the argument over the charges he originally made and then, bluntly, runs away.

I have suggested that you try to write down succinctly what you find so offensive about Kane’s book. You then suggested that you were merely following Hostetter’s arguments. So I indicated why I found them unconvincing. I still suggest you try to write down in the shortest form you can what you find so offensive about Kane’s book. Try to make it clear.

… well let's put it this way: you don't want anyone to lie, right

Who is supposedly lying? Kane, Hostetter, you, me? What you put forth as a clarification makes no sense of me at all.

Carl wrote books plural -- while you write 'book' singular.

Hofstetter presumably meant books, Ĭ presume referring to all the Middle-earth books by J. R. R. Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien’s comments on them while I meant book, Kane’s book.

This is a perfect example of someone, you, misreading a statement and automatically taking a completely unintended meaning. People do this all the time, although they shouldn’t. Then you laboriously attempt to prove that Hostetter meant by books is probably intended to mean what I had understood him to mean, although your statement is not exactly what I had understood him to mean.

I would say the 'sources' or the 'books' are The History of Middle-Earth volumes.

I do say that Hofstetter means those and other books by Tolkien, mainly Unfinished Tales, The Children of Húrin, The Silmarillion, and The Lord of the Rings and others.

You misunderstand me and then give an inadequate list of the books that Hostetter seems to me to be talking about. I would not pick up on this at all in an informal forum, save that you here show yourself to be sloppy in reading what I have written and sloppy in writing what you mean, all the time blaming me for being sloppy in referring to book when Hostetter wrote books when I did not intend them to have the same reference.

Your rule would seem to be take what one originally understands from a source, even if seems absurd, and insist that the writer meant exactly what one wrongly understands from it and stick with it. I don’t accept that rule. And I know you don’t either. But going one about it in this way suggests that at some level you realize that you are pushing an absurd reading, as though I were to insist that because you gave only the HoME series as what Hostetter means by books that you were insisting that Hostetter intended only this very limited canon.

This is rather generalized and exaggerated in my opinion.

That is the appearance that your mode of argument mostly gives to me.

So far I don't see we have many readers commenting in the first place. Not in this thread yet, and besides Doug, in the linked thread, only 5 actually stated an opinion one way or the other -- specifically concerning deliberateness or misogyny I mean.

And of the 5 who actually gave an opinion, 4 agreed with an implication of deliberateness at least, while River thought an unconscious bias was what Doug was getting at. Soli specifically states that he does not make the jump to misogyny and does not think Doug implied this -- despite that he agrees with an implied deliberateness however.

And on, and on, and on. To me, the remarks near the end of the debate and after Doug left the debate are the most important as they indicate what people concluded after listening to both parties. I don’t see the commentators jumping all over Kane, except for yourself. I do see a discussion over whether Doug was being needlessly belligerent in which only you think that he wasn’t.

Why do only you feel differently?

I admit that an argument based only on what some other people think has no strong validity. For me the crux is seeing Hostetter back down and then run away while Kane simply answered calmly. The other crux is that Hostetter argues largely from his own inferences while Kane does not.

Turn the argument on its head. Should Hostetter or you be blamed for saying that Christopher Tolkien is not a misogynist and have to defend your position. Should either of you be attempting to claim that you have not actually said that Christopher Tolkien is not a misogynist. If it is wrong to blame or appear to blame someone who is not a misogynist for being a misogynist, why is it not equally wrong to claim or appear to claim that someone who is a misogynist is not a misogynist?

Indeed, logically, it is equally wrong to claim that someone who is not a misogynist is not a misogynist if one cannot prove it and to claim that someone who is a misogynist is a misogynist if one cannot prove it.

Yet you appear nonplussed every time Kane pleads ignorance about things he does not know about and which he should not be expected to know about. It is as though you really believe that Kane ought to know that there are rules that one must assume that Christopher Tolkien is not in any way a misogynist (and, if need be, falsely claim it). Anything which Kane has written which leads to any doubt on the matter is unacceptable, regardless of his ignorance of what Christopher Tolkien’s opinions may be and regardless of truth.

I entirely reject this argument. Kane should not speak at all of things he does not know, and Kane indeed only unambiguously speaks of the possibility that Christopher Tolkien’s editing of his father’s work might look like misogyny. No more. That to me appears fully reasonable.

You are now attempting to prove that Kane’s treatment of Christopher Tolkien’s remarks on Ossë and Uinen are incorrect, but the sources are so complex that I doubt you can show anything unambiguously. And, if you could, you would only show that, in this one place, Kane is unambiguously in error. You might end only by showing that Kane is arguably in error, and arguably not in error. Or you might fail entirely. I admit that this is probably one of the most dubious parts of Kane’s work, and by choosing it you by default admit that at least most of Kane’s work stands up.

So keep at it.

And by not considering at all most of my feelings when I read Hostetter’s remarks you help to confirm that those feelings were correct.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I do see a discussion over whether Doug was being needlessly belligerent in which only you think that he wasn’t.

I think you meant "Carl" there, not "Doug".

Beyond that, I appreciate your defense. I frankly don't have the wherewithall to continue to engage with Galin about this. It gets to the point where it leaves the realm of "discussion" and reaches the point of "stalking". It seems to be close to reaching that point.