* * Principles of editing the Fall of Gondolin/Translations from the Elvish * * - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Aiwendil · 06-18-2001, 11:33 AM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 30</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Principles of editing the Silmarillion

I would submit the following as a provisional set of rules to follow:

1. What is published is canon.

2. Tolkien's latest conceptions are canon, except where they: a) violate the 1st law or
b) contradict the rest of the legendarium in an intractible way.

3. No new names may be introduced; all names that are changed must be changed either in accordance with a universal change by JRRT or with a logical reason and a sound etymology.

4. The actual words used by Tolkien may not be changed unless:
a) they are changed only to bring them into agreement with established canon or
b) they are changed for unity of style (this is obviously a dubious one, requiring some debate).

5. It is not for us to decide what is aesthetically superior; where we have multiple options, we must choose from among them based on the above principles, not on our preferences. A corallary is that we may not disregard anything written by JRRT unless it is invalidated by one of the above principles; i.e., we must have a REASON for rejecting something. (This one might also have some exceptions that can be agreed upon.)

What does everyone else think?

</p>

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

06-18-2001, 11:33 AM	#2
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton Posts: 30</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: Principles of editing the Silmarillion I would submit the following as a provisional set of rules to follow: 1. What is published is canon. 2. Tolkien's latest conceptions are canon, except where they: a) violate the 1st law or b) contradict the rest of the legendarium in an intractible way. 3. No new names may be introduced; all names that are changed must be changed either in accordance with a universal change by JRRT or with a logical reason and a sound etymology. 4. The actual words used by Tolkien may not be changed unless: a) they are changed only to bring them into agreement with established canon or b) they are changed for unity of style (this is obviously a dubious one, requiring some debate). 5. It is not for us to decide what is aesthetically superior; where we have multiple options, we must choose from among them based on the above principles, not on our preferences. A corallary is that we may not disregard anything written by JRRT unless it is invalidated by one of the above principles; i.e., we must have a REASON for rejecting something. (This one might also have some exceptions that can be agreed upon.) What does everyone else think? </p> [ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]