How close is the published The Silmarillion to JRRT's Silmarillion?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

One forum I post at simply has a separate sub-forum for discussion of the 1977 Silmarillion as a book -- for a 'common ground' discussion of that book as a work in itself, and in that forum alone, HME concerns do not sidetrack any threads. Or they are not supposed to, anyway.

You might indicate the forum. It is not clear from what you say whether this group of discussions of the 1977 Silmarillion is simply one of several breakdowns of Tolkien’s writilng, none of which is necessarily supposed to be totally limited to the writing that they are mainly about. Many forums do have many more breakdowns that his one, but I have not seen any which tried to enforce any of them to only be about their main subject.

As an example, a questioner might be asking about more information about the Drúedain and it seems absurd to merely answer by saying that they are not mentioned in the published Silmarillion instead of also pointing out the mentions in Unfinished Tales and the HoME series with a short summary of what these works say, even if the original query as placed in a section of Silmarillion threads.

Likewise discussion of the Drúedain and proto-hominids seems to me to be reasonable, despite the fact that no such discussion appears anywhere in Tolkien’s work, so far as I am aware. I see more problems arising with attempts to limit discussion than with people getting more information than they want.

I rather expect that Inziladun wants to avoid mentions such as mine that Tolkien again and again indicates that much of the Silmarillion is, within his imaginary universe, only legend, and even untrue legend. If he and others can prevent anyone from mentioning such statements, then his incorrect theory becomes correct to the readers. It doesn’t even matter for Inziladun that Tolkien indicates this again and again because J. R. R. Tolkien does not say it in the published Silmarillion as edited by Christopher Tolkien.

Which is a good reason why posters in any forum, so far as I know, are not limited in the forum as Inziladun would like.

Anyway for myself, I also don't think HME is really a problem in any case, it's just that I can understand the desire of some who don't wish to read it and want to discuss The Silmarillion as it is, without HME concerns [that they know nothing about perhaps] possibly sidetracking some threads.

Christopher Tolkien has again and again indicated what he now sees as errors in his Silmarillion. Inziladun wants this not to be mentioned, because Christopher Tolkien has not produced a revised Silmarillion with changes. In short Inzaladun doesn’t want the truth revealed. Inzaladun is quite free to claim that Christopher Tolkien is wrong and that his Silmarillion is really perfect, despite what Christopher Tolkien has written. But he would rather that no-one who disagrees with him be allowed the write what they believe, because this might confuse new readers who don’t know that there are other versions of some of the material in The Silmarillion and works published in Tolkien’s lifetime.

Anyone is at liberty to ignore any post that they wish. There have been posts on this forum that I consider incorrect. But I have then argued against them or ignored them, not attempted to make it a rule that no-one be allowed to talk about them.

Also, I'm aware of the external details that underlie Galadriel's statement in The Fellowship of the Ring, but that doesn't change the fact that she does not state, in Fellowship itself, what mountains she is referring to.

Considering the other material I presented and the material in The Road Goes Ever On I now think that you are right, that Galadriel was primarily referring to the Eredluin / Ered Lindon. However it is also obvious that one must cross both the Eredluin / Ered Lindon and the Misty Mountains when traveling from Beleriand to Lórien. My intended point was that Tolkien in The Fellowship placed Galadriel’s journey to Lórien in the First Age and it is implied, though not definitely stated, that Galadriel married Celeborn upon arriving in his land of Lórien while in the Appendices in the revised version of The Lord of the Rings Galadriel and Celeborn, already married to each other, first journeyed to Lórien in the Second Age.

One can reconcile the two accounts by imagining that Galadriel did first go to Lórien in the first age and then returned to Beleriand late in the First Age and married Celeborn. Then Galadriel returned to Lórien a second time. But this disagrees with the statement in the published Silmarillion that no Noldor crossed the Ered Lindon during the First Age.

I felt that his apparent discrepancy was one of the matters to which Christopher Tolkien was referring when he wrote: “A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion and other published witing of my father’s) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost.”

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

You might indicate the forum. It is not clear from what you say whether this group of discussions of the 1977 Silmarillion is simply one of several breakdowns of Tolkien’s writilng, none of which is necessarily supposed to be totally limited to the writing that they are mainly about. Many forums do have many more breakdowns that his one, but I have not seen any which tried to enforce any of them to only be about their main subject.

I distinctly remember being told HME was off topic in the Silmarillion forum when I first arrived 'there', but I guess that could have been someone's opinion of what the forum should be for, admittedly. But it hardly matters much if I am wrong about that... for myself, I interpreted Inziladun's comments to be about the frustration of not having at least one place where the 1977 Silmarillion could be discussed without sidetracking and debate due to HME and other sources.

But that said I was focusing too much about matters like orc origins for example -- as I can at least understand the frustration from some when threads which merely mention the idea of Orcs possibly being made from Elves [Eressean theory published in the constructed Silmarillion of course] get sidetracked into a HME based orc-origin thread. Especially if the person starting the thread, for instance, now could not even participate in a HME based side topic.

But yes then there would be a filter on everything and anything outside of The Silmarillion, and such a forum could, and would, weed out important contributions, points and opinions.

Also, I have to admit that for me getting sidetracked is not really a problem. As you say, read and respond to those things you want to read and respond to. I once started a thread that quickly went a wholly different way [with respect to what I wanted to discuss], but really there was nothing stopping me, or others, from continuing to post about the 'orginal topic' in the very same thread; and if no one else was interested... oh well, that's the way it goes sometimes.


About Galadriel, my attempt at reconciling the matter is to make Galadriel refer to crossing 'mountains' in Beleriand, then joining with Celeborn in Doriath [the 'West'], all in the First Age. If so I think this even agrees with the constructed Silmarillion reference that you pointed out -- except that I admit it is a bit odd for Galadriel to mean she crossed the mountains of Beleriand [Ered Wethrin perhaps], and not only that, but before the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin, when she would have done so before these realms were even established -- going by her seeming history according to the 'phase' of the early 1950s anyway!

I agree Tolkien very likely meant that Galadriel came to Lorien before the fall of Nargothrond and Gondolin, and met Celeborn the Nandorin Elf in Lorien, and when Celeborn became Sindarin [Appendices first edition] Tolkien possibly forgot to revise this earlier statement -- including for the second edition I guess, if so. But so far, I still prefer my idea [despite its problems] to giving Galadriel a trip back to Beleriand. As for the statement in chapter 14, that is easily enough revised from the author's perspective, having never been in print, but The Lord of the Rings and The Road Goes Ever On are not so easily dealt with in my opinion.

And I agree that Galadriel's statement was likely included in CJRT's comment about 'complete consistency' and so on.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

I distinctly remember being told HME was off topic in the Silmarillion forum when I first arrived 'there', but I guess that could have been someone's opinion of what the forum should be for, admittedly. But it hardly matters much if I am wrong about that... for myself, I interpreted Inziladun's comments to be about the frustration of not having at least one place where the 1977 Silmarillion could be discussed without sidetracking and debate due to HME and other sources.

For your own statement the forum that had a Silmarillion forum may have not had it only for Silmarillion material, despite what you were told when you arrived there. Therefore I still know of none among all the many Tolkien forums past or present which lays or layed any rules on speaking from any of Tolkien’s texts, save that they should be discussed in the proper place.

This forum has far places places than most, but seems none the worse for that.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Inzadadun’s frustration if it means limiting free speech. He or anyone may start a forum on a topic and say that he wants the discussion to only concern matters in The Silmarillion. But the forum as a whole, as with all Tolkien forums, so far as I am aware, allow almost any discussion of anything save for legal reasons or for reasons of the discussion being felt unsuitable for young people.

That has always been the case in this forum, which indeed even as a set for threads called The New Silmarillion dedicated to creating a better Silmarillion.

But that said I was focusing too much about matters like orc origins for example -- as I can at least understand the frustration from some when threads which merely mention the idea of Orcs possibly being made from Elves [Eressean theory published in the constructed Silmarillion of course] get sidetracked into a HME based orc-origin thread. Especially if the person starting the thread, for instance, now could not even participate in a HME based side topic.

That Orcs were created from Elves is simply stated in the published Silmarillion. Not much room for discussion is there? I can understand that some people do not like what Tolkien said on many issues, but that is simply the breaks. Perhaps they might like what Tolkien said in other places better, but Inzadadun doesn’t want this other material to be mentioned.

Also, I have to admit that for me getting sidetracked is not really a problem. As you say, read and respond to those things you want to read and respond to. I once started a thread that quickly went a wholly different way [with respect to what I wanted to discuss], but really there was nothing stopping me, or others, from continuing to post about the 'orginal topic' in the very same thread; and if no one else was interested... oh well, that's the way it goes sometimes.

Exactly.

About Galadriel, my attempt at reconciling the matter is to make Galadriel refer to crossing 'mountains' in Beleriand, then joining with Celeborn in Doriath [the 'West'], all in the First Age. If so I think this even agrees with the constructed Silmarillion reference that you pointed out -- except that I admit it is a bit odd for Galadriel to mean she crossed the mountains of Beleriand [Ered Wethrin perhaps], and not only that, but before the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin, when she would have done so before these realms were even established -- going by her seeming history according to the 'phase' of the early 1950s anyway!

The sole mention I made to The Silmarillion is the statement in chapter 14: “But none of the Noldor went ever over Ered Lindon, while their realm lasted.” That is very straightforward. My point was that even the accounts in the second edition of The Lord of the Rings do not agree between the accounts in the Appendices and Galadriel’s statement in Fellowship.

That people get frustrated with some forums is normal. But the answer to that is not putting down rules which prevent referring to particular works, except for obvious things like in this forum the book discussion should cover mainly books not films and the film discussions should cover mainly films and not books.

If a poster refers to something an interested reader doesn’t know about, the reader can always ask about it. If posters are referring to HoME material that the reader does not care about, the reader may always remark that the material doesn’t interest them and say why it doesn’t interest them.

Note that a statement that the reader simply accepts or rejects any material will probably usually seem very uninteresting to me without more information.

It would be far more frustrating when a reader’s query has an obvious answer but the answer is in HoME and one is not allowed to cite it because HoME is thought to be too difficult for the reader to understand.

[Mithalwen]

While I think there is something flat earth about ignoring the existance of HoME, I did have a lot of sympathy for the Oxonmoot speaker who was pounced on and told here theory was WRONG because an essay in HOME contradicted it even though it was A valid interpretation of the event as recounted in the published Silmarillion.

It is hard to generalise when HOME contains different materials from definitively superceded drafts to notes that may have been a passing idea. We can't necessarily know if a last word on a subject was the final word with the unfinished posthumous works however I have to admit to being annoyed when I saw a discarded draft being claimed as a development of the material in the LOTR appendices as published because it suited the poster's hobbyhorse.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

While I think there is something flat earth about ignoring the existance of HoME, I did have a lot of sympathy for the Oxonmoot speaker who was pounced on and told here theory was WRONG because an essay in HOME contradicted it even though it was A valid interpretation of the event as recounted in the published Silmarillion.

I do not think, nor do I recall ever saying, that HOME should be completely ignored at any time. I myself have only read Volumes I-IV, but I do find them interesting.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

It is hard to generalise when HOME contains different materials from definitively superceded drafts to notes that may have been a passing idea. We can't necessarily know if a last word on a subject was the final word with the unfinished posthumous works however I have to admit to being annoyed when I saw a discarded draft being claimed as a development of the material in the LOTR appendices as published because it suited the poster's hobbyhorse.

Yes. My issue is with the bringing forth of HOME information with a concurrent argument of why it should take precedence over The Silmarillion. If someone wants to put more stock into HOME, fine. But everyone should not be expected to fall in line with that.

[Mithalwen]

I didn't mean it personally Inzil, I was speaking generally. I have heard tell of folk who don't like HoME mentioned because the like to pretend it is all real.

I can't say I have read every word of Home either.. but I find it fascinating and useful . I don't think the published Silmarillion has automatic precedence over HoME since it waa necessary in the first instance to have coherence and compromises had to be made. Not saying that CT wasn't best placed to make that judgement but we can't be certain that he chosec as his father would have done and so I don't see that drawing attention to other versions is wrong. We can't be certain what JRRT would have finally decided about Gil-galad in the way we can be sure that a hobbit called Trotter had been rejected as an idea. He was working on a Middle Earth pretty much till he dropped.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I didn't mean it personally Inzil, I was speaking generally. I have heard tell of folk who don't like HoME mentioned because the like to pretend it is all real.

All right. I was afraid I had given that impression, and that wasn't what I'd meant at all.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I can't say I have read every word of Home either.. but I find it fascinating and useful . I don't think the published Silmarillion has automatic precedence over HoME since it was necessary in the first instance to have coherence and compromises had to be made.

I understand your point, to be sure. I just think that in some instances it becomes necessary, when debating particular points about the works, to have a definite standard. Otherwise, there would seem to be little point in putting forth opinions at all, when they can be countered by endless citations of drafts and whatnot. When the published Silmarillion and other sources are at odds, I'm going with the Silm. Let others do as they like.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Yes. My issue is with the bringing forth of HOME information with a concurrent argument of why it should take precedence over The Silmarillion. If someone wants to put more stock into HOME, fine. But everyone should not be expected to fall in line with that.

Your statement “if someone wants to put more stock into HOME” mistates the point. I don”t know of anyone who “wants to put more stock into HOME” in general. People just state information about Tolkien from various pieces of data and argue about it and naturally include the published Silmarillion and HoME and various other writings by J. R. R.  Tolkien and Christoper Tolkien.

I accept no-ones’ attempted limitation on this material of any kind. One may on particular topics place more value on a section of HoME than a section of the published Silmarillion because for that topic the material found in HoME appears more pertinent to the discussion. One may also point out where appropriate that portions of the published Silmarillion were complete inventions by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay, not deriving from anything written by J. R. R. Tolkien.

One “should not be expected to fall in line” with any argument that one thinks does not stand up. One should argue back in return, or ignore the argument.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I just think that in some instances it becomes necessary, when debating particular points about the works, to have a definite standard. Otherwise, there would seem to be little point in putting forth opinions at all, when they can be countered by endless citations of drafts and whatnot.

You provided no indication of what you are talking about. There is certainly no point in providing opinions that “can be countered by endless citations of drafts and whatnot.” If there are really “endless citations of drafts and whatnot” than the opinion is probably invalid. That seems to me to be obvious.

When the published Silmarillion and other sources are at odds, I'm going with the Silm. Let others do as they like.

Are you then mindlessly going with whatever appears in the published Silmarillion in any discussion, regardless of what appears elsewhere, even if “endless citations of drafts and whatnot” are against it? That is not a very convincing position to take. So you believe that Galadriel’s statement in the Fellowship that she crossed into Lórien in the First Age is wrong and that the Silmarillion statement that no Noldor crossed the Ered Lindon in the First Age is correct.

In fact both Fellowship and the published Silmarillion are fictional stories and you shouldn’t believe anything in either of them.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Fair enough. I've never said the Silm was anything like perfect. However, I think it's nearest thing to a definitive history of the Elder Days available. If/when the Estate puts out something to supplement or supplant it, I'll be more than happy to roll with that.

So, even though the published Silmarillion is not perfect, you are happy to roll with it because it’s the nearest thing to a definitive history of the Elder Days available. What then of the HoME volumes covering the Elder Days plus Unfinished Tales and The Children of Húrin which include much more material?

More of us here are willing to roll with all this material. That this includes a lot of material which is difficult to remember as not a reason to reject this material. I suspect you really support The Silmarillion so much because accepting only that is easier, not because it can be logically argued. But you are ignoring much material that may make a paper by you convincing or obviously bogus.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

While I think there is something flat earth about ignoring the existance of HoME, I did have a lot of sympathy for the Oxonmoot speaker who was pounced on and told here theory was WRONG because an essay in HOME contradicted it even though it was A valid interpretation of the event as recounted in the published Silmarillion

I recall the first Tolkien paper I attended, at a conference in Toronto, in which the speaker laughed at the idea that Tolkien considered Gandalf an angel. This was before The Silmarillion or Letters had emerged, and then Unfinished Tales.

Maybe the reader you heard was equally WRONG. I’ve since encountered lots of wrong papers where the reader believes what he or she wants to believe.

If the reader you heard was on the ball, he would have mentioned the HoME essay and then briefly given some bogus reason why he was not considering it. As it is, apparently he was caught unprepared.

[Mithalwen]

Jallanite, it wasn't that kind of wrongness. I don't want to be more explicit since it would identify those concerned and I don't want to get into that kind of public row potentially based on memory and any notes I might be able to decipher. IIRC the speaker had to curtail the paper and time restriction also meant that they were denied the chance to respond. I could pm if you atr particularly curious.

[jallanite]

The information you provided is sufficient.

I gather you think that possibly the paper might have been fine given time and an oppurtunity to respond. I’ve been in that situation so I understand.