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

[Galin]

OK but you name 11 characters in all, and can't we add at least 3 more characters, leaving 6 (in addition to your Galadriel, Uinen, Ungoliant)?

I mean I'm not sure that the choice to not include the Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth (which leaves out Andreth but reduces the presence of Finrod, and leaves out an interesting detail about Aegnor) as an appendix to The Silmarillion easily falls into a characterization of choosing a shorter version of something over a longer version. The 6 I would list so far...

Galadriel
Uinen
Arien
Andreth
Beleth
Ungoliant

Arguably leaving (short versions versus long)...

Miriel
Nerdanel
Indis
Indis' daughters (although merely a footnote, at least in FM4 in any case)
Nellas (the long version here is the Narn)

But not all of them. For instance, the two removals of the description of Galadriel as "valiant."

Please forgive me for restating a point here about Galadriel, but I'm guessing not everyone is going to read the linked thread. For now I won't go into my full case for why I think Galadriel has not been reduced in character, but I'll just note (and not that you said otherwise of course) that despite the changes you are referencing from HME here, the Silmarillion version that Christopher Tolkien published nonetheless specifically describes Galadriel as '... the only woman of the Noldor to stand that day tall and valiant among the contending princes, was eager...'

Or substituting the Quenta passage in which only Ossë teaches the Teleri sea-lore for the Annals text in which both he and Uinen do so, despite the fact that the Annals is the main source for the that portion of that chapter (Chapter 5).

For that portion yes, but is not the Quenta the main source for chapter five in general?

If memory serves, on your chart you list it as the main source more often than the Annals of Aman at least. And unless I've missed something (possible, obviously), the Quenta passages for this part of the story do not mention Uinen at all, neither as present with Osse on the coasts of Middle-earth, or later upon Eressea. In the Quenta tradition (MR sections 36, 37) it is Osse not Uinen who comes to the coast to befriend the Teleri, and it's only Osse who instructs them at this point. And it is Osse not Uinen who later teaches them upon Eressea, and later again (43 and commentary) Osse alone teaches the Teleri the craft of ship building.

That's the Quenta tradition. The Annals however note (again, some Teleri having remained on the coasts of Middle-earth): 'And Osse and Uinen came to them and befriended them and taught them all manner of sea-lore and sea-music.' Annals of Aman section 66

But again, in the Quenta it is Osse alone who taught the teleri 'strange musics and sea-lore' -- although here when upon Tol Eressea -- as earlier it is only said in the Quenta that Osse instructed the Teleri generally. Thus when Christopher Tolkien merges the two texts it seems to me that he decides to give Uinen her presence with the Teleri, but keep Osse as the instructor of these specific things...

'... and Osse and Uinen came to them and befriended them; and Osse instructed them, sitting upon a rock near to the margin of the land, and of him they learned all manner of sea-lore and sea-music.' 1977 Silmarillion

Thus the result of Christopher Tolkien employing the Annals for this portion of the story gives Uinen a presence in the book here, but Osse, who is much more weighted as instructor of the Teleri in the overall scenario, is given his specific teaching of music and lore -- taken from the Eressean passage in the Quenta.

Again, unless I've missed something here about the Quenta tradition.



By the way (something else I've wondered about), may I ask is there anyone outside of Uinen and Galadriel that you feel cannot be characterized as a minor character with respect to the Silmarillion?

[jallanite]

Finally, Galin, your are getting down to the discussions in Arda Reconstructed itself moving away from what I perceive as innuendo against the messenger which surely misses that point. If the messenger has presented the data mostly correctly, then the fact that occasionally he or she has stumbled occasionally becomes no more than a minor flaw such as the greatest of us are liable to make. If the messenger has grossly misrepresented the data then blaming the messenger in himself or herself is unnecessary. It is the misrepresentation that will put the blame on the messenger over any heated words.

No statement made by myself can every fully represent my ideas (imperfect as they must be) on the composing of the published Silmarillion. Again and again one thinks one has found some principle that guided Christopher Tolkien, and then one comes across a passage which goes against the proposed principle.

But certainly that Christopher Tolkien so often did not select from the fullest account means that along with often matters dropped, obviously matters pertaining to females were dropped, sometimes only a word or phrase. But I do not mean anything I might put forth to be taken as something that must have guided Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay at all times throughout their work. But yes, loss of female-oriented material as part of general shrinkage is in itself sufficient to explain why the loss appears to be systematic, though it does not explain every case.

Why, for example, did Christopher Tolkien remove Findis, Finvain, and Faniel, the three daughters of Finwë by Indis? Possibly because they only appear in a single footnote and can easily be seen as simply more clutter in a work arguably already overstuffed with minor characters.

And would The Silmarillion have included most of the dropped material on females if at the time when Christopher Tolkien was working on it some criticism had appeared blaming J. R. R. Tolkien for sexism in his work? Most notably, The Hobbit contains only one named female,[FONT=Arial, sans-serif] Bilbo[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ʼs mother Belladonna Took, who was deceased by the time the story takes place.

That some others are bothered by Kane[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ʼs supposed insinuations about Christopher Tolkien[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ʼs[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] s[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]upposed misogyny. doesn[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ʼt impress me at all, having read the discussion. That is only a weak form of the appeal to authority fallacy,: some people were discussing something and some of them agreed with me, so there must be something to their position.

Nor is there any one method of identifying major or minor characters in The Silmarillion. It depend where one draws tjhe line and diffferent people will draws in in different places if they try to definitely distinguish between major and minor?
[/FONT][/FONT]

[Galin]

Finally, Galin, your are getting down to the discussions in Arda Reconstructed itself moving away from what I perceive as innuendo against the messenger which surely misses that point. If the messenger has presented the data mostly correctly, then the fact that occasionally he or she has stumbled occasionally becomes no more than a minor flaw such as the greatest of us are liable to make. If the messenger has grossly misrepresented the data then blaming the messenger in himself or herself is unnecessary. It is the misrepresentation that will put the blame on the messenger over any heated words.

You're obviously entitled to your perceptions about the thread Jallanite, and I think I have already responded to what you perceived to be innuendo. And as for presenting data mostly 'correctly'... for example have I misrepresented the data with respect to my commentary about Uinen and Osse above? I don't think so (and I certainly didn't intend to if I did), but my presentation is different from that found in AR in any case, and which would be part of a notably different presentation in general (in theory), when dealing with the same data.

That some others are bothered by Kane's supposed insinuations about Christopher Tolkien's supposed misogyny. doesn't impress me at all, having read the discussion. That is only a weak form of the appeal to authority fallacy,: some people were discussing something and some of them agreed with me, so there must be something to their position.

I was just pointing out (in reaction to the way you chose to phrase something) that I am not alone in my reaction to the way the argument is presented in Arda Reconstructed. I realize that the fact that others share my opinion in no way makes me right and others wrong; nor would even the majority opinion, if it could be known, automatically make those who hold it ojectively correct. That said, I likely never would have posted on the subject if I had been the only person to have reacted to Arda Reconstructed in this way, as I would be very strongly second guessing my personal reaction...

... so let's say: for what it's worth, despite that for you 'Galin' raised this possibility (and Galin alone in that context, as you chose to put it), again, someone else raised it well before I did.

Nor is there any one method of identifying major or minor characters in The Silmarillion. It depend where one draws tjhe line and diffferent people will draws in in different places if they try to definitely distinguish between major and minor?

Well if it's subjective, I note that I asked Doug Kane for a more complete list (out of the 11 female characters) of who he thinks cannot be called a minor character. He certainly doesn't need to answer, even if the reason is simply that the expects me to disagree with him about some example and doesn't want to discuss the matter further.

Voronwe wrote: 'Yes, many of the edits that affect the role of female characters result from Christopher choosing shorter versions.'

Edit: I just realized you might be (and probably are) talking about each specific edit, thus 'many'... while above I was looking at things differently. I guess what I'm saying is that: Arda Reconstructed does not appear to argue that the majority of the cases of 'reduction' (out of 11 cited) result from Christopher Tolkien choosing a shorter version over a longer version.

In that sense Andreth, Beleth (merely missing on a genealogical table) and Arien, which seems akin to the case of Galadriel in my opinion, are three more cases, leaving 6 out of 11 (as you agree with Uinen, Galadriel and Ungoliant it seems).

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Galin, I couldn't even begin to make a list of who I thought were "minor characters". Sorry.

[Galin]

Well I just meant out of the 11 characters noted above.

In other words, in addition to Galadriel, who do you think out of these 11 females should not be characterized as a minor character.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

You're obviously entitled to your perceptions about the thread Jallanite, and I think I have already responded to what you perceived to be innuendo. And as for presenting data mostly 'correctly'... for example have I misrepresented the data with respect to my commentary about Uinen and Osse above? I don't think so (and I certainly didn't intend to if I did), but my presentation is different from that found in AR in any case, and which would be part of a notably different presentation in general (in theory), when dealing with the same data.

In short, claim you have already answered. And the only words I intended to apply to your discussion of Uinen and Osse were complimentary. That I am to some extent entitled to my perceptions of this thread or anythng else should also go without saying. And no, I have not edited my perceptions of this thread, except to note that you no longer so free to put forth your inferences as facts.

I was just pointing out (in reaction to the way you chose to phrase something) that I am not alone in my reaction to the way the argument is presented in Arda Reconstructed. I realize that the fact that others share my opinion in no way makes me right and others wrong; nor would even the majority opinion, if it could be known, automatically make those who hold it ojectively correct. That said, I likely never would have posted on the subject if I had been the only person to have reacted to Arda Reconstructed in this way, as I would be very strongly second guessing my personal reaction...

Then why point out something that you admit does not really support the supposed correctness of your position that Doiuglas Charles Kane was wrong not to have stated openly in his book that he believed (without evidence one way or the other) that Christopher Tolkien was not pushing a misogynous viewpoint.

Is it because you do not anything better to use?

... so let's say: for what it's worth, despite that for you 'Galin' raised this possibility (and Galin alone in that context, as you chose to put it), again, someone else raised it well before I did.

And neither is worth anything beside the real question which is whether this possibility is true, which you avoid discussing because you have no evidence at all outside empty inferences.

Well if it's subjective, I note that I asked Doug Kane for a more complete list (out of the 11 female characters) of who he thinks cannot be called a minor character.

And Kane answered what comes down to the same answer I gave.

He certainly doesn't need to answer, even if the reason is simply that the expects me to disagree with him about some example and doesn't want to discuss the matter further.

More innuendo.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

And no, I have not edited my perceptions of this thread, except to note that you no longer so free to put forth your inferences as facts.

I don't agree I have put forth inferences as facts.

Then why point out something that you admit does not really support the supposed correctness of your position that Doiuglas Charles Kane was wrong not to have stated openly in his book that he believed (without evidence one way or the other) that Christopher Tolkien was not pushing a misogynous viewpoint.

That is an incorrect characterization of my position Jallanite.

And neither is worth anything beside the real question which is whether this possibility is true, which you avoid discussing because you have no evidence at all outside empty inferences.

Well, you posted earlier:

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.

I've already posted my opinion about Doug's presentation, and I largely agree with Carl Hostetter's points with respect to the 'evidence' in Arda Reconstructed.

And Kane answered what comes down to the same answer I gave.

Which answer in no way means one cannot arrive at an opinion about who is, or who is not, a minor character.

Galin wrote: He certainly doesn't need to answer, even if the reason is simply that the expects me to disagree with him about some example and doesn't want to discuss the matter further.

Jallanite responded: More innuendo.

innuendo: 'an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.'

There was no negative intent behind my statement Jallanite, in any case.

[Galin]

Doug, I don't recall at the moment, but is there any evidence that reveals which followed the other with respect to Annals of Aman and the early 1950s revision to Quenta Silmarillion?

I am thinking more specifically about the Arien case here -- if this section was possibly later than the QS revisions noted in Morgoth's Ring.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Looking at the handy Table 1 of Arda Reconstructed, I see that I dated (based on Christopher's comments, of course) the first phase of the later Quenta to c. 1950–52, whereas I dated the Annals of Aman to c. 1951–52. I'd have to look closer to see if there is any evidence as to which is later with regard to Arien. I'll post again when I get a chance to that.

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.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

I don't agree I have put forth inferences as facts.

I disagree.

That is an incorrect characterization of my position Jallanite.

Then you might try stating your position clearly.

I've already posted my opinion about Doug's presentation, and I largely agree with Carl Hostetter's points with respect to the 'evidence' in Arda Reconstructed.

I largely don't agree with Carl Hostetter’s points at all. Anyone can read them at http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/v...t=2184&start=0 .

Hostetter says to start with:

… your unsupported and scurrilous implication (and only just barely that, as opposed to an explicit charge) that in his editorial changes Christopher deliberately set about to "reduce" female characters in The Silmarillion.

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 dmits that he does not find anywhere his inference as an “explicit charge''. Would it be wrong to refer to Hostetter’s unsupported and scurrilous inference?

Hostetter later remarks:

I'm astonished that you didn't realize this, and even more that none of your reviewers or editors pointed this out to you.

Why should Kane or his editors realize Hostetter’s inferences? I am astonished myself that anyone would take Hostetter’s rant seriously. Because that is what I see. A vicious rant without foundations decorated with inflammatory language. No substance at all. Most of the remarks by others in the forum don’t indicate that Hostetter was successfully making his point.

Hostetter later states:

If Christopher Tolkien really were given to deliberately reducing the roles of female characters, just because they are female (as Doug seems really to believe), then why would he stop with The Silmarillion? Why not in other works? Indeed, why not in HoMe itself? It simply makes no sense.

Kane is supposed to believe something which Hostettter himself admits does not make any sense in Hostetter’s mind. The word seems is a giveaway that Hostetter’s argument is subjective. 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. I and, I presume, the reviewers, did not make such a silly assumption. We read the book as the author intended, without prompting.

Hostetter continues:

But when you write that "it appears that the roles of female characters are systematically reduced", you are making a far different kind of statement, and one that I cannot read as anything but an implication of deliberate reduction of female roles simply because they are female (which sure sounds like misogyny to me). Now, you may not have intended this implication (i.e., the use of the word "systematic" here may only have been an unfortunate and unconsidered choice); but in the event this statement as written does make that implication (nor is this statement the sole source of that implication).

More indications that Hostetter is only talking about what he has inferred, not about what Kane says. And if we are going down to the level of individual words, then it was dishonest of Hostetter not to note the word appears, which is often used to indicate that what follows is an appearance only. This statement is at worst only ambiguous. That Hostetter reads it as in implication of an idea that he finds absurd is a choice that Hostetter has made.

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.

Hostetter then admits:

Doug, I do accept your claim that you did not mean to imply deliberateness. But I nonetheless maintain that what you wrote in your book does in fact imply deliberateness, and very strongly, even though that was not your intent.

One cannot usually cannot prove implication, or it would not be implication but a definite statement. One might take a poll among people who have recently read Introduction to Arda and see what they each felt. If a majority of those polled felt as Hostetter did, then he has a strong point, that two(?) statements in the entire books have been shown objectively to be too strong and ought to have been further modified or explained.

Possibly even if only a few people have so understood the statements so that would also apply.

Going on and on and on about what was at worse a single error of judgment only makes the person going on and on and on about it look bad. Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger.... There are few books of supposed fact outside of books containing mathematical or logical proofs that are intended to reach the level of absolute perfection you call for. You appear to demand that no book should contain any statement from which you might infer something which the author did not intend.

How dare J. R. R. Tolkien allow readers to infer that a Balrog has wings?

The discussion you posted hardly supports Hostetter’s complaint. I see him as the clear loser.

Which answer in no way means one cannot arrive at an opinion about who is, or who is not, a minor character.

In theory yes. But I know of no writing or literary study which attempts to arrive at such an opinion even from people who use the terms.

One could assign a number to each character in a book based on number of mentions, including references of personal pronouns and aliases, and say that the numerically higher half of the list are major characters and the numerically lower half of the list are minor characters. But should the dividing point be at the halfway point of the numbers, or the median value, or something else? And what of characters like the gatekeeper in Macbeth who is a minor character but one of the most memorable characters in the play for most viewers. Should not being memorable also count, though it this case I doubt that it makes the gatekeeper a major character.

Its a silly idea in any case.

innuendo: 'an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.'

There was no negative intent behind my statement Jallanite, in any case.

You have continually made negative remarks about Kane’s book, specifically about what you and Hostetter think some remarks in the book imply, despite Kane’s statements and Hostetter’s admission that he accepts that what Hostetter inferred was not what Kane intended.

Innuendo.

I did not infer the same meaning as you, nor did apparently Kane’s editors nor did the reviews that I have seen. 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.

[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]

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.

Turning back to something that you wrote earlier.

Originally Posted by Galin

If memory serves, on your chart you list it as the main source more often than the Annals of Aman at least. And unless I've missed something (possible, obviously), the Quenta passages for this part of the story do not mention Uinen at all, neither as present with Osse on the coasts of Middle-earth, or later upon Eressea. In the Quenta tradition (MR sections 36, 37) it is Osse not Uinen who comes to the coast to befriend the Teleri, and it's only Osse who instructs them at this point. And it is Osse not Uinen who later teaches them upon Eressea, and later again (43 and commentary) Osse alone teaches the Teleri the craft of ship building.

That's the Quenta tradition. The Annals however note (again, some Teleri having remained on the coasts of Middle-earth): 'And Osse and Uinen came to them and befriended them and taught them all manner of sea-lore and sea-music.' Annals of Aman section 66

But again, in the Quenta it is Osse alone who taught the teleri 'strange musics and sea-lore' -- although here when upon Tol Eressea -- as earlier it is only said in the Quenta that Osse instructed the Teleri generally. Thus when Christopher Tolkien merges the two texts it seems to me that he decides to give Uinen her presence with the Teleri, but keep Osse as the instructor of these specific things...



Thus the result of Christopher Tolkien employing the Annals for this portion of the story gives Uinen a presence in the book here, but Osse, who is much more weighted as instructor of the Teleri in the overall scenario, is given his specific teaching of music and lore -- taken from the Eressean passage in the Quenta.

Again, unless I've missed something here about the Quenta tradition.

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. By including that statement that Osse and Uinen befriended them, but then changing it from saying that both of them instructed them to just saying that Osse instructed them, it lessens her role, and implies that it is not a female's place to be instructing in these matters. That is as clear as can be to me.