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

[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.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

It's nice to see that people are still talking about my book! jallanite, I'm very pleased that you found the book to be helpful. That is most gratifying.

Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done. I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was). There are, as I have mentioned before, a couple of phrases that I would write differently if I had the opportunity to do so to make that more clear, although I agree with jallanite that ultimately those changes would not have made much difference to people's reactions. I think that people like Carl, Galin, and others would still have been just as upset about me raising the issue at all.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Voronwë_the_Faithful

It's nice to see that people are still talking about my book! jallanite, I'm very pleased that you found the book to be helpful. That is most gratifying.

You are welcome.

Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done.

I agree.

I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).

And you very carefully did not imply that Christopher Tolkien purposely did any of the things for which you blame him. When one is attempting to make a complete book out of numerous outlines, and attempting to do so reasonably quickly, then one almost has to mess up on occasion.

Obviously Christopher Tolkien, had he taken three times as long, would have done better. But how much better would have been a work which his father had left in such an unfinished state? I was very disappointed with The Silmarillion when it first came out, and still am, but Christopher Tolkien’s further works make it clear what he had to deal with and he has largely now given us all that his father had produced, something which at the time would have seemed impossible to publish.

I do not agree with all of your personal opinions which appear in your book, but it is those personal opinions (which you make it quite plain are only personal opinions) which make the book come alive for me. And obviously its main value and appeal is its detail and accuracy.

[Galin]

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote: There are, as I have mentioned before, a couple of phrases that I would write differently if I had the opportunity to do so to make that more clear, although I agree with jallanite that ultimately those changes would not have made much difference to people's reactions.

Well phrasing can sometimes make a notable difference, and you seem to agree that you were not careful enough in general here, if you would write even a couple things differently -- and considering this matter, I would have thought you would have made yourself crystal clear and have no regrets at this point.

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote: I think that people like Carl, Galin, and others would still have been just as upset about me raising the issue at all.

I wouldn't say 'upset' for myself, but perplexed rather.

And can we say what an implication is not? it's not something that is expressed directly... but it looks to me like it's somewhat subjective whether you did or did not 'imply' purpose with phrasing like 'clear pattern' and even the appearance of a systematic reduction, keeping in mind that you agree that you've raised the question of misogyny in your reader's minds at least. And you've stated that you don't and can't know if reducing the roles of females was done intentionally, and here you note that you doubt very much that it was -- but in your book do you give this opinion?

A book that isn't shy of opinions, it seems to me

And incidentally, I think employing unconscious or unintentional (in a thread, the book aside for a moment) still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Jallanite, thank you for your kind words!

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

I would have thought you would have made yourself crystal clear and have no regrets at this point.

“I would have thought” is far from crystal clear. “I would have thought you would have made yourself” is even less clear. What is the point of all those woulds? To avoid making yourself clear?

I wouldn't say 'upset' for myself, but perplexed rather.

Another would.

And can we say what an implication is not? it's not something that is expressed directly... but it looks to me like it's somewhat subjective whether you did or did not 'imply' purpose with phrasing like 'clear pattern' and even the appearance of a systematic reduction, keeping in mind that you agree that you've raised the question of misogyny in your reader's minds at least. And you've stated that you don't and can't know if reducing the roles of females was done intentionally, and here you note that you doubt very much that it was -- but in your book do you give this opinion?

You appear to be attempting to make an implication while trying to look like you are not making an implication. No the book does not give the opinion you are seeking, nor the opposite opinion. Kane is very careful to not attribute any opinions to Christopher Tolkien beyond occasionally quoting Christopher Tolkien. It would be a critical sin to attribute an opinion which cannot be substantiated.

You want Kane to lie.

A book that isn't shy of opinions, it seems to me

The book contains many opinions in the nature of personal preferences by the author. It does not, I believe, contain any opinions on the unknowable opinions of others.

And incidentally, I think employing unconscious or unintentional (in a thread, the book aside for a moment) still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.

Maybe the reason Galin continues on this track is that Galin fears that Christopher Tolkien “unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.” It was not Kane who invented this possibility of interpretation. It was Christopher Tolkien who in his choices in his editing of The Silmarillion chose to include some passages in which females were less active or omitted entirely over other passages in which females were more prominent. Galin, and others of the same opinion, are classically shooting the one who is sending a message from which they infer something they don’t like.

If Galin thinks that argument is unfair, then he should stop using that same style of argument and innuendo against Kane.

Kane, in this thread very carefully wrote:

Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done. I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).

Galin attempts to twist this to mean that “this still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women,” despite Kane’s clear statement that “I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).”

I do not see that Kane can say more much more honestly. I do not see that Galin can say much more honestly. What does Galin want Kane to say honestly? I don’t think Galin is able to say.

Neither Galin nor Kane (and probably no-one viewing this thread) knows Christopher Tolkien well enough to be able to honestly say that at some level Christopher Tolkien is never a sexual bigot. Even if they did say it, they might just be wrong.

I accuse Galin of vicious innuendo which demands a response that almost no-one can honestly give.

If Galin is really honestly inferring what he seems to be interring, then perhaps he ought to blame himself for so inferring, if he finds the inferences he make so troubling to him.

I read Kane’s book and the inference that Christopher Tolkien was purposely attempting to get back at women by reducing their role in The Silmarillion never occurred to me. For me, it was Galin who raised that as a possibility. I took it as a given that the reduction of female roles was simply part of Christopher Tolkien often preferring a shorter version in the published Silmarillion over a longer version, and agree with Kane that this was mostly unfortunate.

[lindil]

voronwe, you wrote arda reconstructed?

really look forward to reading it!

jallanite -great to see you!

[lindil]

just read your interview with MMb @ xenite
, very well done.

How cool CJRT read and commented on it.

Love to hear/see more of his comments, especially if he refers to his own decisions he would revisit. Anyway, thanks again for such a huge undertaking!