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

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

I don't believe that anyone in any way decided to reduce female roles specifically, and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue. Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.

I really don’t understand what you are on about. I could equally claim that “even possibly raising the question of free speech is serious stuff in my opinion”, implying that you are against free speech.

Note, that I am NOT doing this. The point of this thread for me, and I started it if that matters, is not particularly Kane’s “choice of presentation in raising this issue”. That issue was only one of many points I raised. Is it your contention that any discussion of anything beyond Kane’s “choice of presentation” is not to the point of the thread? I disagree.

It was Hofstetter who originally “raised the question of misogyny” and who later rather backed down from his accusations. I don’t see that Kane is accusing Christopher Tolkien of misogyny.

Kane does indicate that Christopher Tolkien did not do a perfect job of editing his father’s work. Christopher Tolkien has explicitly said the same. This project itself is partly based on that premise.

Kane again and again expresses his puzzlement about some of Christopher Tolkien’s choices. Most of those cases also puzzle me.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I really don’t understand what you are on about. I could equally claim that “even possibly raising the question of free speech is serious stuff in my opinion”, implying that you are against free speech. Note, that I am NOT doing this.

What I'm on about there is merely that if one is going to raise an issue like 'reducing the roles of women' I think he or she should be very careful to avoid the implication of misogyny, especially if it's not what one intends to say or imply.

And you didn't raise the matter or present it, Doug Kane did of course; you simply referred to it briefly, and I invited readers here to see, at least in more detail, how Mr. Kane presented the issue, and his responses to Mr. Hostetter's points and opinions particularly (and others in the thread too of course).


If you're not interested in the linked thread, or don't think it helps at all then that's fine. I assume other people might read this thread however, and maybe they might be interested.

The point of this thread for me, and I started it if that matters, is not particularly Kane’s “choice of presentation in raising this issue”. That issue was only one of many points I raised. Is it your contention that any discussion of anything beyond Kane’s “choice of presentation” is not to the point of the thread? I disagree.

That's not my contention, for the record.

It was Hofstetter who originally “raised the question of misogyny” and who later rather backed down from his accusations. I don’t see that Kane is accusing Christopher Tolkien of misogyny.

Ok, that's your opinion and characterization. No problem of course. And I'll let other readers here decide for themselves as well; again if they are interested in this particular matter.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

What I'm on about there is merely that if one is going to raise an issue like 'reducing the roles of women' I think he or she should be very careful to avoid the implication of misogyny, especially if it's not what one intends to say or imply.

Kane didn’t raise the issue of misogyny. In the discussion which you cite, Kane very clearly points out that he never raised an accusation of misogyny in his book and never speculated on Christopher Tolkien’s thoughts on any of the issues which Kane did raise. Kane seems to me to have been very careful in what he wrote. That can’t prevent others from making inferences, sometimes even wrong inferences (and possibly correct inferences). I admit fully that it is very easy to infer that Kane intended to attribute misogyny to Christopher Tolkien.

One might also claim that Christopher Tolkien should have avoided the implication of misogyny or that J. R. R. Tolkien should have avoided the implication of misogyny by including more women. Something called an implication may be in fact be only a reader’s inference, and even an unfounded inference. Yes, one should be careful in writing to avoid providing unintended ideas to the reader. Similarly one should avoid making unfounded inferences from what another debater claims. If I have done so, I apologize.

And you didn't raise the matter or present it, Doug Kane did of course; you simply referred to it briefly, and I invited readers here to see, at least in more detail, how Mr. Kane presented the issue, and his responses to Mr. Hostetter's points and opinions particularly (and others in the thread too of course).

That is fair enough. But your other comments appear to support Hofstetter’s side. So I commented. I don’t read the debate as a victory of Hofstetter. Others might, I suppose.

If you're not interested in the linked thread, or don't think it helps at all then that's fine. I assume other people might read this thread however, and maybe they might be interested.

Where did you get the idea that I was not interested? I commented on the thread. Being interested is not necessarily at all the same as being in agreement, sometimes quite the opposite. And, yes, I am inferring here.

That's not my contention, for the record.

You contended:

... and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue.

I am pleased that you are withdrawing this contention.

Ok, that's your opinion and characterization. No problem of course. And I'll let other readers here decide for themselves as well; again if they are interested in this particular matter.

Fair enough.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Kane didn’t raise the issue of misogyny.

I didn't say he did, I noted he raised the matter or 'reducing the roles of women', which he did.

In the discussion which you cite, Kane very clearly points out that he never raised an accusation of misogyny in his book and never speculated on Christopher Tolkien’s thoughts on any of the issues which Kane did raise. Kane seems to me to have been very careful in what he wrote.

It seems then that you think Mr. Kane 'very carefully' writes (to quote Aelfwine)...

'Saying that "it appears that the roles of female characters are systematically reduced" (which you write at least twice in the book) is not the same thing as saying that "a significant number of editorial choices together have the effect of reducing the role of women in the book". The former implies deliberateness ("systematic") and comprehensiveness ("female characters" -- not, I note, "some female characters" -- and, again, "systematic"). The latter, while still arguable,* at least avoids those implications. It's a great pity that you didn't write the latter instead of the former.'

Jallanite wrote: That can’t prevent others from making inferences, sometimes even wrong inferences (and possibly correct inferences). I admit fully that it is very easy to infer that Kane intended to attribute misogyny to Christopher Tolkien.

So it's 'very easy' and 'very careful' is yet in there somewhere? Can you think of ways in which Mr. Kane could have been more careful that readers not very easily infer this?

You contended: '... and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue.'

I am pleased that you are withdrawing this contention.

I'm not withdrawing that, as all I'm saying there, or attempting to say, is that the linked thread is not really about anyone reacting to an explicit accusation -- the linked thread is rather generally about the presentation (of this idea that the roles of women have been reduced), and obviously includes specific citations from that presentation.


And incidentally, the exchange was:

Jallanite wrote: 'The point of this thread for me, and I started it if that matters, is not particularly Kane’s “choice of presentation in raising this issue”. That issue was only one of many points I raised. Is it your contention that any discussion of anything beyond Kane’s “choice of presentation” is not to the point of the thread? I disagree.

Galin wrote: That's not my contention, for the record.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

I didn't say he did, I noted he raised the matter or 'reducing the roles of women', which he did.

You said (emphasis mine):

I don't believe that anyone in any way decided to reduce female roles specifically, and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue. Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.

You also said:

Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.

I do not believe that writers should be held to account for every possible interpretation or misinterpretation of their work. I find that idea absurd.

It seems then that you think Mr. Kane 'very carefully' writes (to quote Aelfwine)...

“Systematically” does not for me necessarily imply deliberateness. I simply don’t agree with Hofstetter’s nitpicking to such a degree, and there’s an end.

So it's 'very easy'... and 'very careful' is yet in there somewhere? Can you think of ways in which Mr. Kane could have been more careful that readers not very easily infer this?

A writer is not to blamed for everything that a reader might infer. People infer racism and sexism in The Lord of the Rings (and their arguments are not entirely without merit). The only real answer is not to write anything. If one finds that female roles are significantly reduced in the Silmarillion, then perhaps one shouldn’t write about it. One should be dishonest and hide the data. One shouldn’t dare say anything that would be controversial to anyone.

Of course you don’t believe that.

Yes, if Kane had written to Hofstetter’s ex eventu specs, then Kane’s book would be arguably improved, but not by much. Hofstetter ended up by agreeing that Kane did not intend any explicit crticism of Christopher Tolkien and that the change of a few phrases would satisfy him. Those changes to me really don’t amount to much. It looks to me like an attempt by Hofstetter to save face after his attack crumbled.

I'm not 'withdrawing' that, as all I'm saying there is that the linked thread is not really about anyone reacting to an explicit accusation -- the linked thread is rather generally about the presentation (of this idea that the roles of women have been reduced), and obviously includes specific citations from that presentation.

What you said was:

... and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue.

I understood “the thread” to be this thread in which we are posting, not the thread you referenced. A bad inference.

One of the continued points of disagreement between Kane and Hofstetter was that Kane insisted in arguing on what he actually wrote while Hofstetter insisted on arguing on Hofstetter’s inferences from what Kane wrote.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I do not believe that writers should be held to account for every possible interpretation or misinterpretation of their work. I find that idea absurd.

(...) A writer is not to blamed for everything that a reader might infer. People infer racism and sexism in The Lord of the Rings (and their arguments are not entirely without merit). The only real answer is not to write anything. If one finds that female roles are significantly reduced in the Silmarillion, then perhaps one shouldn’t write about it. One should be dishonest and hide the data. One shouldn’t dare say anything that would be controversial to anyone.

Of course you don’t believe that.

Perhaps I am guilty of speaking generally when I'm really thinking about the context of Arda Constructed. That is, I would find it a bit hard to believe that anyone could be unaware that even merely stating that the roles of women have been systematically reduced wasn't probably, and at least 'possibly', going to be taken as suggestive in some negative way.

Doug Kane writes: Well, I for one understand Carl's indignation. I certainly expected that to be the most controversial part of my book, and I'm sure that Carl won't be the only person upset about it.

So no, I don't expect writers to be held to account for every 'possible' interpretation, but again (I would think that), given these fairly specific circumstances, such an interpretation would be expected as probable, and at the least possible -- that is, if one is not careful.

And why is Mr. Kane sure that Carl won't be the only person upset about this criticism? If he is being very careful as you say, and doesn't believe Christopher Tolkien deliberately reduced the role of women, why should he expect anyone to be upset here, or that the criticism should prove to be the most controversial of his book?

“Systematically” does not for me necessarily imply deliberateness. I simply don’t agree with Hofstetter’s nitpicking to such a degree, and there’s an end.

I'm curious then, as to what you think 'systematically' means in the context of Mr. Kane's statement.

(...) Those changes to me really don’t amount to much. It looks to me like an attempt by Hofstetter to save face after his attack crumbled.

What I see is Carl Hostetter taking Mr. Kane's word for it that he didn't intend certain things, despite his presentation.

[jallanite]

I don’t see any point in continuing this

You are not going to change your opinion so far as I can tell. And I am not going to change my opinion from anything said here.