Will a "definitive" version of The Silmarillion ever be released?

[Findegil]

I think Allen& Unwin did what they could to make Tolkien publish faster. But at first Tolkien was an amateur writer, his profession earned him and his family a living and he presited on beening satisfied with the story before publication.

I think the only chance for devinite 'Silmarillion' was lost when Allen and Unwin turned down Tolkiens idea to publish 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Silmarillion' together.

Now a day with the autor dead, I don't see who would be in the position to make any definition for the 'definitive' version of 'The Silmarillion'. The literary executers don't have the power to enforce such a thing. Christopher Tolkien did already try that, with no success as this discussion clearly shows. No body else would be more entiteled to try and thus any try would be discussed out of 'devinitivness' as soon as it is out in public.

To be fair: Christopher Tolkien was in the position to enfoce a 'definitive' version of 'The Silmarillion' and for a long time his version was exactly that. But I am very greatfull to him that he had chosen to public all the conflicting versions included in 'The History of Middle-Earth' that made his own version of 'The Silmarillion' questionable.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Findegil

(...) Now a day with the autor dead, I don't see who would be in the position to make any definition for the 'definitive' version of 'The Silmarillion'. The literary executers don't have the power to enforce such a thing. Christopher Tolkien did already try that, with no success as this discussion clearly shows. (...) To be fair: Christopher Tolkien was in the position to enfoce a 'definitive' version of 'The Silmarillion' and for a long time his version was exactly that. But I am very greatfull to him that...

Can I ask what you mean by Christopher Tolkien enforcing a definition for a definitive version of The Silmarillion?

In the Foreword to the 1977 Silmarillion Christopher Tolkien notes that he set himself to work out a single text, '... selecting and arranging in such a way as seemed to me to produce the most coherent and internally self-consistent narrative.' He had earlier noted that due to the complexity of the existing texts: '... a final and definitive version seemed unattainable' -- but I get the feeling that he is here (that is, this sentence read in the fuller context), speaking generally as he very briefly describes the 'history' of the texts. Or speaking from his father's perspective perhaps.


I'm not suggesting that Christopher Tolkien is necessarily saying here that the book is not to be considered a definitive version, but at least with respect to the Foreword I don't think he states that it is to be considered definitive in some sense. I take his comments to briefly describe the construction of a reader's version rather than a scholarly presentation, perhaps similar to the more recent presentation of The Children of Hurin.

Did Christopher Tolkien ever claim he had presented the version rather than a version? Or did readers rather treat the 1977 Silmarillion as definitive, having nothing else in any case -- before the more scholarly presentation was published -- especially considering that it wasn't until the 1990s (with Morgoth's Ring) that a notable amount of the 'later Quenta Silmarillion' could be compared to the constructed Silmarillion of 1977.

[Findegil]

Posted by Galin:

Can I ask what you mean by Christopher Tolkien enforcing a definition for a definitive version of The Silmarillion?

Christopher Tolkien over steped the task of an editor to get a coherent book from the scirpts of the Silmarillion komplex left to him by his father. Since his father entiteled him to do as he wished with his scripts, he is not to be blamed for it. And I did not mean 'enforcing' with any negativ conotation.
What he did was not enforcing a definition realy, he simply presented the result of such a definition: As long as nothing else was published, the product of that process 'The Silmarillion' of 1977 was THE 'definitive' version.

All publication about Middle-Earth that followed with the excaption of 'The Children of Húrin' were mere resource books showing JRR Tolkien's life long work on the theme. In his commentaries Christopher Tolkien himself does question some of his own decissions made for the 'The Silmarillion' of 1977, but he did not take the opportuinty to re-edit 'The Silamrillion' in these points when a new edition came out 2001.
Therefore the avarage reader will, if he is interrested enough to read that fare at all, come first to 'The Silmarillion'. Which makes that book still some kind of a definitiv version.

The alternative way (probably not possible in practise) would have been to start with 'Unfinished Tales' and 'The History of Middle-Earth' series. That would have meant no preselection or definition for devintivness by the editor but full freeness for the readers.

Thus in effect we have what was asked for: a 'definitive' version of 'The Silmarillion' of some kind. The issue is that we are not satisfied with it.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Findegil

Christopher Tolkien over steped the task of an editor to get a coherent book from the scirpts of the Silmarillion komplex left to him by his father.

With respect to the Fall of Doriath he overstepped the editorial bounds according to his own words, yes; only done because at the time he felt this was the best way to reconcile a part of the Silmarilion that hadn't been truly updated or fully revised since the 1930s. Choices have to be made for sake of consistency of course, and as far as I recall, Christopher Tolkien applied this term where it involved actual editorial invention, which is relatively quite rare with respect to the book as a whole.

And I did not mean 'enforcing' with any negativ conotation. What he did was not enforcing a definition realy, he simply presented the result of such a definition: As long as nothing else was published, the product of that process 'The Silmarillion' of 1977 was THE 'definitive' version.

Then you appear to agree that Christopher Tolkien didn't enforce a definition in any sense of 'with intent'. To me it seems to be the assumption of others, or the somewhat unavoidable result of having to consider something definitive in the sense that there is simply nothing else to compare it to. And if it was avoidable, for a while, in that a scholarly presentation could have been produced first, incidentally it looks like Christopher Tolkien's idea was to produce a scholarly tome first: Charles Noad has noted:

The fundamental problems, I believe, with the published Silmarillion lie in the fact that a 'literary' version was decided on in the first place. Apparently the idea of Guy Gavriel Kay, it was accepted, and the finished version was accordingly produced. In his speech at the 1987 World Science Fiction Convention, Kay said that the initial idea had been to produce a large, scholarly tome, in which the latest version of any particular chapter would have been given, together with extensive appendices and editorial apparatus showing how it had evolved from earlier versions.

This would have resulted in a massive volume, some 1300 printed pages long, say (about the size of the Scull and Hammond Reader's Guide to Tolkien), and two chapters in this style had already been produced when Kay arrived. However, Kay felt strongly that what was needed was a straightforward narrative, shorn of academic apparatus, which advice was eventually adopted by Christopher Tolkien. This approach was tried with 'The Coming of the Elves' where it was felt to work so well that Kay's approach was thereafter adopted. ('A Tower in Beleriand', Charles E. Noad, Amon Hen 91, May 1988, pp.16-18.) It may indeed have worked well, but such a procedure served to give a finished appearance to what was very often disparate and unfinished material.


Charles Noad, from his review of Arda Reconstructed

That is not to lay any kind of 'blame' on anyone, and the ultimate decision was Christopher Tolkien's of course, but in any case the idea put forth by some, to support that a one volume version needs revising, is that 'most' will be getting their Silmarillion experience through a one volume (what I call) 'reader's version' compared to a scholarly presentation -- which to my mind also supports that the former is what most readers really wanted in the first place; and that's what they got in the 1970s.

In his commentaries Christopher Tolkien himself does question some of his own decissions made for the 'The Silmarillion' of 1977, but he did not take the opportuinty to re-edit 'The Silamrillion' in these points when a new edition came out 2001. Therefore the avarage reader will, if he is interrested enough to read that fare at all, come first to 'The Silmarillion'. Which makes that book still some kind of a definitiv version.

They are free to assume it's intended as definitive despite the Foreword which explains that the book in their hands is not the finished product of the author, and is not being presented as such.

The average reader will likely pick up The Children of Hurin more than sift through Unfinished Tales and HME for the scholarly presentation. Does that make the recently published version 'definitive' if they do? Maybe in some sense; but once again that is simply the nature of the beast: the versions Tolkien intended for reader consumption -- in essence if not in detail -- are represented by The Children of Hurin and The Silmarillion one volume editions.

In his commentaries Christopher Tolkien himself does question some of his own decissions made for the 'The Silmarillion' of 1977, but he did not take the opportuinty to re-edit 'The Silamrillion' in these points when a new edition came out 2001.

If I recall correctly, there's not really all that much that Christopher Tolkien himself questioned. I wonder how short the list is actually; or how much on such a list would be deemed compelling enough matters to argue for a revised edition, given the subjective nature of that discussion.

(...) Thus in effect we have what was asked for: a 'definitive' version of 'The Silmarillion' of some kind. The issue is that we are not satisfied with it.

Some might be dissatisfied with it, but are you dissatisfied with The Silmarillion based on a reading of the book itself? Is it 'un-Tolkien-ian' in essence, or too much so? Even those inventions intended to reconcile The Fall of Doriath? To quote Mr. Noad again (same review)...

There is one point where Kane attempts a justification for a book such as this one. He notes (Kane, p. 216) that in The Road to Middle-earth Tom Shippey cites 'Thingol's death in the dark while he looks at the captured Light' (of the Silmaril) as an example of Tolkien’s genius for creating compelling images. However, 'Thingol's death in the dark recesses of Menegroth was completely an invention of the editors', hence 'The fact that as renown[ed] a Tolkien scholar as Shippey would have this kind of mistaken impression is a strong indication of the need for a work like the present one.'

Well now, catching out Shippey must count as pretty neat, but one might admire the editors for so well creating, out of the requirements of the reconstructed narrative, so Tolkienian an image. It must prove something.

[Inziladun]

I'm not nearly well-versed enough in the laborious process Tolkien had in writing the stories of the First Age to debate with some of the scholars here.

However, Tolkien himself is gone and unable to tell what his ultimate plans for consolidating the stories into a comprehensive volume were. That being the case, it is very unlikely that any version or variation of The Silmarillion will ever appear that will be universally accepted by both critics and readers. I think CT has done as good a job as can be done with the material he had to work with, and as I've said before, I really don't know anyone else in a better position than he to try and assemble the stories into a cohesive work.

[blantyr]

I have often called fantasy role playing games a shared daydream. One might argue that any form of fiction -- novel, movie, TV show, play, whatever -- might be understood as such. A distinction might be made in the degree to which the daydream is intended to be shared. Is the sub creator out to satisfy himself, or is he playing to an audience? Has he got to please an editor first? How many other people -- screenwriters, directors, actors, RPG players -- might have a finger in the pie?

The Silmarillion stories seem closer to a personal daydream than most fiction. Sure, they were shared somewhat with the Inklings. Still, I get the feeling that they were written for the author, not for the audience. In some sense this defines what the Silmarillion is.

Would the Silmarillion be different if he had a publishing contract, a due date, an editor with a big hammer and a target audience? Certainly. Would it be the same Silmarillion that a small group of people love but a lot of folks don't? Nope.

Christopher Tolkien's Silmarillion is the Silmarillion we've got. I think I'd have preferred and editor looking to create good stories rather than an academic trying to preserve a legacy. Not sure who I'd volunteer to edit such a volume, or whether it would sell, but I don't anticipate any such volume in the foreseeable future.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

However, Tolkien himself is gone and unable to tell what his ultimate plans for consolidating the stories into a comprehensive volume were.

I don't think he knew himself, as he kept changing them. In other words, if CJRT didn't choose one variation of each and publish it in The Sil, we'd just have a big collection of versions. Well, like we have the HOME that summarises the versions. Or, at best like the UT with half-completed ideas.

So even had Tolkien lived, I doubt we'd ever have a finished Sil.


I wonder a bit at how "easily" Frodo and Bilbo finish their parts of the Book compared to the author. I guess they knew what they're writing about while Tolkien, well, didn't.