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

[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]

Galin, if I understand what you are suggesting it is that Christopher decided to make a compromise by mostly using the Annals for this section so that he could include Uinen, but that substituted in the brief phrase from the Quenta in which only Osse instructs the Teleri, not both he and Uinen as stated in the Annals, so that her role wouldn't be too big? Wow! That is a degree of intentionality for beyond anything that I have ever considered.

[Galin]

Galin, if I understand what you are suggesting it is that Christopher decided to make a compromise by mostly using the Annals for this section so that he could include Uinen, but that substituted in the brief phrase from the Quenta in which only Osse instructs the Teleri, not both he and Uinen as stated in the Annals, so that her role wouldn't be too big? Wow! That is a degree of intentionality for beyond anything that I have ever considered.

No, that is not what I'm suggesting Doug.

Does CJRT or anyone know for certain that Tolkien did not intend to go with (for his Silmarillion) the tradition that Uinen did not instruct the Teleri at any point, as in Quenta Silmarillion, or did not befriend the Teleri on the coasts of Middle-earth, as in Quenta Silmarillion?

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Originally Posted by Galin

No, that is not what I'm suggesting Doug.

Then I have no idea what it that you are suggesting.

Does CJRT or anyone know for certain that Tolkien did not intend to go with (for his Silmarillion) the tradition that Uinen did not instruct the Teleri at any point, as in Quenta Silmarillion, or did not befriend the Teleri on the coasts of Middle-earth, as in Quenta Silmarillion?

Only Christopher could answer that. All we know is what the evidence that we have available tells us. And that is that Christopher choose to use the Annals version of the story, not the Quenta version. But that he also substituted in a brief phrase from the Quenta version into the Annals version that changes it so that instead of both Osse and Uinen being present and both of them instructing the Teleri (as Tolkien wrote in the Annals version) or only Osse being present and therefore only he instructs the Teleri (as Tolkien wrote in the Annals version), both Osse and Uinen are identified as being present but only Osse is identified as instructing the Teleri. Which leave the impression, whether or it was initial, that Christopher changed Uinen's role from an active role (which is traditionally more associated with males) to a more passive role (which is traditionally more associated with females).

[Galin]

Voronwe wrote: Only Christopher could answer that.

So as far as anyone can tell, we don't know if Tolkien himself certainly intended to have his Silmarillion note Uinen as an instructor of the Teleri here, given that we have conflicting traditions on the question. Even CJRT might not know.

All we know is what the evidence that we have available tells us. And that is that Christopher choose to use the Annals version of the story, not the Quenta version. But that (…) Which leave the impression, whether or it was initial, that Christopher changed Uinen's role from an active role (which is traditionally more associated with males) to a more passive role (which is traditionally more associated with females).'

Yet a re-presentation of the same evidence from a different perspective and focus could be employed to describe the bare evidence in HME.

I have no idea if CJRT thought that a 'mere' friendship with the Teleri and Uinen could be imagined, even if not specifically stated, to include a flow of knowledge from Maia to Elf, as arguably with a High Elf befriending Men, but in any case I don't think CJRT need have any doubts that Osse was intended as the instructor of the Teleri here.

Again, by comparison, a competing tradition makes no mention of Uinen in any role, arguably casting doubt about her despite what is noted in Annals of Aman section 6. And according to part of your opinion about what reduces a character -- which seems a bit 'mathematical' to me but that aside for the moment -- Osse himself could be said to be reduced given a choice of the Annals over Quenta Silmarillion.

A choice of QS alone here would have left Uinen wholly out, as well as noting Osse as teacher of the Teleri more often than in the 1977 Silmarillion. By employing the Annals for certain sections of the tale here, the end result is that Osse is 'reduced' (in this mathematical sense) and Uinen is given a role that at least arguably includes 'teaching' by contact -- despite that that role is given to Osse specifically -- again since he is without a doubt given that role by JRRT.

_______________

Jallanite wrote: 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 admits that he does not find anywhere his inference as an "explicit charge''.

Of course CFH is talking about what he thinks Doug has implied, and thus uses the word implication. And since I doubt you would argue that the lack of an explicit charge means that there can be no implications, to my mind what we really have here is you again stating your opinion that you think no implication exists.


Keeping in mind…

Jallanite posted: 'I admit fully that it is very easy to infer that Kane intended to attribute misogyny to Christopher Tolkien.'

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.

Well, when you encounter an argument that you feel makes no sense to you for some reason, I doubt you automatically conclude that your interpretation must be wrong. You might second guess your own interpretation, but when you consider the evidence and you still end up with the same interpretation…

… well let's put it this way: you don't want anyone to lie, right

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.

Carl wrote books plural -- while you write 'book' singular.

And from the context of the discussion it seems to me that CFH is talking about looking closer at The History of Middle-Earth (books) and the 'edits' that concern both Uinen and Galadriel (both examples having been raised the post preceding the statement in question), and then possibly giving his own explanations regarding these examples.

And actually his post (the same post) continues directly with…

Elfwine wrote: (Though one possibility specifically concerning superlatives springs to mind even without consulting the sources: if one is combining superlative-laden texts from different periods, it would be all too easy to have conflicting superlatives if one is not very careful, lest, e.g., two characters are both declared to be "strongest" or "fairest" etc. Just a thought, not saying that is the case here.)

I would say the 'sources' or the 'books' are The History of Middle-Earth volumes.

You appear to demand that no book should contain any statement from which you might infer something which the author did not intend.

This is rather generalized and exaggerated in my opinion.

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.

So far I don't see we have many readers commenting in the first place. Not in this thread yet, and besides Doug, in the linked thread, only 5 actually stated an opinion one way or the other -- specifically concerning deliberateness or misogyny I mean.

And of the 5 who actually gave an opinion, 4 agreed with an implication of deliberateness at least, while River thought an unconscious bias was what Doug was getting at. Soli specifically states that he does not make the jump to misogyny and does not think Doug implied this -- despite that he agrees with an implied deliberateness however.

Soli wrote: Actually, Doug never does once IIRC imply or derive or point an accusing finger at any purported 'motive' for CT's supposedly having gender-cleansed the text- in other words he doesn't call him a misogynist, and the attribution is a leap which does not follow necessarily as the only possible hypothesis.

Elfwine (CFH) replied: "soli": to my mind, accusing Christopher (even by implication) of "having gender-cleansed the text", with the gender being "female", of course, is equivalent to charging him with misogyny. What distinction do you see?

And Soli never responded to that as far as I recall. In any case later he posted:

Soli wrote: 'Although I don't make the leap to 'misogyny', I can't see how the book can be read in any other way than as saying CT removed or reduced females on purpose. One doesn't proceed systematically by accident.

River responded: One can proceed systematically based on unconscious biases, however. I think that's what Voronwe is getting at.

Which is essentially the same point (River's point) that I later challenged Doug about. In the following review, I add a break that wasn't there in the original.

The latter, Kane sees as only one example in a larger trend of reducing the roles of female characters in The Silmarillion: "There are at least eight female characters whose role or character could be said to be reduced to a greater or lesser extent by the editorial decisions made [by Christopher]: Uinen, Galadriel, Míriel, Nerdanel, Indis, Ungoliant, Arien, and Nellas (in addition to the removal of the two or three daughters of Finwë and Indis, of Baragund and Belegund's older sister, Beleth[,] and of Andreth from the Athrabeth)" (252). Of all the changes Christopher made, this is "perhaps [Kane's] biggest complaint" (26).

But if the changes and omissions Kane describes do in fact constitute a purposeful reduction, then there is just as much reduction of the male characters (and almost certainly more). For Kane to call attention to only the female characters in this way — and to impute a motive to Christopher to actively reduce their presence in the narrative — strikes me as either disingenuous or careless.

http://www.mythsoc.org/reviews/arda.reconstructed/

So I guess it remains an opinion that to imply (however unintended) a deliberate reduction of female characters is to imply some measure of misogyny. However I don't see many opinions on the matter so far really, and silence does not necessarily mean a given person agrees with Doug or CFH.