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

[Galin]

I don't agree I have been evasive; but to Voronwe: if you're still reading, sorry if my comments seem to criticize your book merely in light of what I think you could or 'should' have done; but again, you criticize CJRT enough times with personal opinions of what you think he should have done, as is your right. Onward.

Looking as the matter of the daughters of Indis (FM = Finwe And Miriel):

In FM1 the daughters Findis, Irime and Faniel are noted, with the order altered to > Faniel and Irime. Laws and Customs version A agrees: Findis, Faniel and Irime. FM2 agrees again with Findis, Faniel Irime, and the footnote points out the order of birth here, which agrees with the order noted in Laws and Customs A.

'Three daughters and two sons, in this order: Findis, Nolofinwe, Faniel, Arafinwe, and Irime.'

FM3: as in FM4, so Findis Finvain, Faniel FM4: Findis, Finvain, Faniel with the seeming order being: Findis, Fingolfin, Finvain, Finarfin, and Faniel.

All these names and their order arise in the same general time frame, but we can see that one of the names changes form, and that Faniel again becomes the last female as opposed to the second female born, and she is the last child born after Finarfin.

Jumping ahead to The Shibboleth of Feanor, note 26 and note 28. In note 26 Christopher Tolkien refers to a number of genealogical tables dated to around 1959, where in all these tables there are still three daughters: Findis, Faniel, and Irime.

Obviously these tables agree with some, but not all, of the work from the Later Quenta Silmarillion phase II described earlier.

So later, Faniel has disappeared and now Indis has only two daughters, and the younger daughter appears both as Irime and Irien. And here Irime/Irien would appear to be the third child of Indis, not the last child, as she was in the old number and order. CJRT notes that while writing the Shibboleth of Feanor his father clearly had these older tables in front of him 'and alterations made to the latest of the four agree with statements made in it.' But despite the drop to two daughters in the text, CJRT also notes that no correction was made to any of the tables with three daughters. And:

'It is strange that my father should give the name of the second daughter of Finwe as both Irime and Irien within the space of a few lines. Possibly he intended Irien at the first occurrence but inadvertently wrote Irime, the name found in all the genealogies (note 26).'

True enough, but not the name found in all the texts, considering where Finvain appears twice for Irime.

This is the presentation as found in Arda Reconstructed:

Finally, a reference to the 'five children' of Indis and Finwe is removed. A footnote lists three daughters in addition to the sons Fingolfin and finarfin (whose names are actually spelled that way): Findis, Finvain, and Faniel.* However, there is no mention of any of these daughters anywhere in the published Silmarillion (even in the genealogical table in the back). This is another small detail that shows how Christopher lessened the female presence in the tale.'

*footnote (back of book) In a later text, Tolkien appears to have dropped Finvain and changed Faniel's name to either 'Irime' of 'Irien' (see Pome, 343, 359 nn. 26 and 28).

And while I don't expect AR to have covered the changes in the detail here or in HME, a descriptive sentence could have conveyed that the matter was a bit more complex -- and in my opinion including the Shibboleth in the text proper instead of a footnote at the end of the book would have illustrated, in a more compelling way to the reader -- that in the last text concerning this matter, the actual name of one of the now two daughters (making four children not five obviously) wasn't even certain.


I think what you chose to present as a footnote at the back of the book would have had more force in the text proper for giving the reader of AR another option as to why these daughters were not included in the table (besides being minor characters). AR does not speculate in the text proper, or in the footnote, that the ambiguity of names in the last version could have been one of the reasons these characters get no mention in the 1977 Silmarillion.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Doug, you responded to my posts, I'm responding to yours.

Apparently, it doesn't matter whether I respond or not, since I explicitly made a point of NOT responding to your last post (with difficulty, because my general policy is to always respond to people who address me, out of common courtesy), and yet you still came back with more criticism.

Now you are complaining that I included a minor point in a footnote rather than in the main text, and didn't elaborate on sufficiently for your taste. Certainly I could have included that information in the main text, and I could have elaborated further, but I felt that the information provided was sufficient to make the point that I was making, and that it was sufficiently minor that it belonged in a footnote. My editor agreed. I could have explicitly pointed out that the uncertainty of the names and even number of the daughters could have been a reason why Christopher did not include them, but I felt that the reader could certainly make that conclusion themselves. And, of course, the truth of the matter is that there are many characters included in the published Silmarillion whose names were uncertain, and that Christopher was perfectly willing to decide what name to use, so I don't really think that is a likely reason. Still, that discussion could have been more explicitly included in the book, and it is fair to point it out.

However, what I don't think is fair is this continued over the top harping on one point, with no leavening by any discussion of anything that you think might be valuable in the book. In my view, there is a certain point where this type of thing leaves the realm of valuable criticism and enters a realm of being ... something else. Clearly we have a different point of view of where that line is.

Galin, I generally like you. We have had some very interesting and stimulating discussions about Tolkien over the years on several different boards, and I value that. I just don't understand why you feel necessary to poke this particularly hornet's nest so incessantly. You have long since made the point that you feel that my point about the lessening of the female characters in the published work is neither accurate nor fair. I get it. Others have made that point too. However (with the notable exception of Carl, and even he didn't go on and on nearly as much as you have), all of the others that have made the point have also discussed other aspects of the book that they have found have made significant contributions to Tolkien scholarship (see, for instance, Merlin deTardo's and David Bratman's comments in the latest volume of Tolkien Studies). It is the fact that you just keep belaboring this same point over and over in every different way that you can possibly think of that I find tiresome. That having been said, you are certainly welcome to continue if that is what you feel compelled to do. I will respond if I feel it has any value to do so, and won't if I don't.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Voronwë_the_Faithful

Apparently, it doesn't matter whether I respond or not, since I explicitly made a point of NOT responding to your last post (with difficulty, because my general policy is to always respond to people who address me, out of common courtesy), and yet you still came back with more criticism.

OK, but this is a thread about your book Doug, and you were responding to my posts at least. Obviously I can still comment on your book here whether you continue to respond or not, as can anyone. And yes I had more criticism.

Now you are complaining that I included a minor point in a footnote rather than in the main text, and didn't elaborate on sufficiently for your taste. Certainly I could have included that information in the main text, and I could have elaborated further, but I felt that the information provided was sufficient to make the point that I was making, and that it was sufficiently minor that it belonged in a footnote. My editor agreed. I could have explicitly pointed out that the uncertainty of the names and even number of the daughters could have been a reason why Christopher did not include them, but I felt that the reader could certainly make that conclusion themselves.

OK fair enough. We have both stated our opinions on this point.

And, of course, the truth of the matter is that there are many characters included in the published Silmarillion whose names were uncertain, and that Christopher was perfectly willing to decide what name to use, so I don't really think that is a likely reason. Still, that discussion could have been more explicitly included in the book, and it is fair to point it out.

Thank you (if I have raised that much anyway). And I realize there are other characters with a measure of ambiguity surrounding the final forms of their names, and I'm suggesting that this example could have been a combination of that, plus that they are arguably very minor characters, as characters go (only briefly referred to).

However, what I don't think is fair is this continued over the top harping on one point, with no leavening by any discussion of anything that you think might be valuable in the book. In my view, there is a certain point where this type of thing leaves the realm of valuable criticism and enters a realm of being ... something else. Clearly we have a different point of view of where that line is.

Well, I'm not sure what makes it 'over the top harping'. Again Doug, you raise each and every example in your book (regarding the role of females) to essentially make or support the argument of a reduction of female roles.

So far I've commented on the specific examples: Galadriel, Uinen, and the 'daughters'... I think (without reading both threads again) and even if there's one more (that I've forgotten) that would only be half of the examples in AR raised to criticise CJRT's Silmarillion.

Galin, I generally like you.

I like you as well, as far as I can tell through 'internet chat' anyway

We have had some very interesting and stimulating discussions about Tolkien over the years on several different boards, and I value that. I just don't understand why you feel necessary to poke this particularly hornet's nest so incessantly. You have long since made the point that you feel that my point about the lessening of the female characters in the published work is neither accurate nor fair. I get it.

OK, and I get why looking at each example might be annoying to the author. And I know you already get the main point Doug, but does that mean a more detailed argument or discussion about the presentation in AR (with anyone) is off the table on the web 'somewhere'?

Others have made that point too. However (with the notable exception of Carl, and even he didn't go on and on nearly as much as you have), all of the others that have made the point have also discussed other aspects of the book that they have found have made significant contributions to Tolkien scholarship (see, for instance, Merlin deTardo's and David Bratman's comments in the latest volume of Tolkien Studies). It is the fact that you just keep belaboring this same point over and over in every different way that you can possibly think of that I find tiresome.

Well in my opinion it's only the 'same point' in the sense that each example you raise in AR intends to be about the reduction of females roles in general. Every once in a while I look at the same exact examples that you raise, and even still haven't looked at all of them, and I am making different points about different examples. And sure even with this there has been some repetition, but in my opinion some of that can be due to this being a different site, or desired better clarity, and to discussion with someone who continues to challenge this or that.

That having been said, you are certainly welcome to continue if that is what you feel compelled to do. I will respond if I feel it has any value to do so, and won't if I don't.

Very well. And my latest opinion may seem 'minor' to you... but in my opinion it is both minor, and it isn't minor -- as it might fit into a larger criticism of this part of your book.

I suspect that maybe if I had had the time to have looked at all these examples in detail and posted my findings and opinions all at once somewhere, as part of my criticism of your presentation on this one issue, you might be reacting differently. But it probably took you some time to look at all these instances, in detail, in a criticism of Christopher Tolkien's presentation of The Silmarillion.

I suppose that might have been the better way to go about it. Or possibly no one would have read such a long post

Again I'm sorry I don't have much positive to say with respect to this part of your book. I've already praised AR as far as presenting the sources (that we know of) behind the published Silmarillion. And this isn't negative, but I usually rather like to jump into HME and see things for myself, although I do use your book now and again to see if it confirms something I've found. That doesn't mean it's not very helpful to those who don't use or own HME obviously.

I was comparing HME (or whatever) to the 1977 Silmarillion well before AR ever came out. As others were of course, and I'm guessing likely you, before you thought to publish a book about it.

[Galin]

Actually I have had second thoughts here and would like to apologize to Doug Kane (Voronwe_the_Faithful) and the folks at Barrow Downs at large.


I still hold to my opinions, but whatever I think might be 'fair' as far as looking at given examples from AR in detail, still I do not intend to annoy or harass anyone here, and I can see that I have done so whether looking at each example would be truly fair or not. And I can see how that can be harping.


Again, my apologies to Mr. Kane and everyone. No hard feelings on my part.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Galin, I appreciate the apology, and also the interest that you have in my book.

[Galin]

Thanks Voronwe (I PM-ed you too but I'm not sure I did it correctly). By the way, is Amazon ultimately going to be selling the latest Tolkien Studies?

Off topic I know, but as (I think) you have an article in there, I thought maybe you might know.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

I see that not only do I have your 2 PMs, but two other PMs that people have sent me months ago that I never knew about. How embarrassing! They must think I am terribly rude! It's strange that I don't get notices for PMs, although perhaps there is a setting where I can change that.

With regard to your question about Tolkien Studies, unfortunately like last year the publisher, West Virginia University Press, elected not to get an ISBN number for this volume, meaning that it can't be sold by Amazon or other online vendors, other than WVUP itself. I think that is a very short-sighted decision, but it is what it is.