Table of Contents for the Red Book
 

What all is the Red Book supposed to include? Just "There and Back Again," "The War of the Ring," and the little poems of the Tolkien Reader? Or does it include the Valaquenta and Silmarillion too? And if the Red Book wasn't the source of The Silmarillion, what was? The records of Aelfwine's trip? Or is that the "Book of Lost Tales"? And where does The Unfinished Tales fit into all of this?

I'm so confused. :confused:

Try to make it clear if you're referring to Tolkien's published work, or to the material in the book, to avoid any more confusion.

Elianna, even though it might get a little confusing from looking around on this site, The Red Book of Westmarch was only a semi-fictitious, quasi-real reference made by Tolkien. Supposedly the Book contains the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, and later writings by Samwise and his daughter Elanor (Appendices, LoTR).

The source of the Silmarillion was not the Red Book, as the Red Book was some sort of reference (to a book Tolkien somehow found, perhaps? and published the stories?) that he made. The Silm was the collection of stories, edited, that had a creational twist. It doesn't come from the Red Book, which was all about Hobbits.

Whether the Red Book in Middle-Earth had any poems like the ones Tolkien gave us is up to speculation.

Hope that answers your question.

bilbo_baggins

Allow me to cordially disagree here, quoting from the Prologue, Note on the Shire Records:

The Prologue goes on to describe that the original Red Book no longer exists, but the tht oldest and most accurate surviving copy, of the Thain's Book, the original copy, which apparently still exists. This copy, made by the scribe Findegil is described thus:

Now, I will readily grant that the above does not prove that the Silmarillion was derived from Bilbo's translations- but I believe it does leave the door open to that possibility. I'm also fairly certain that Tolkien himself alluded to that possibility in his letters, but as I do not have a copy of them, I cannot say for certain.

How Aelfwine's experiences fit in, I do not know.

My own pet theory is that Aelfwine is responsible for the older, pre-LotR form of the Silmarillion, which conforms less to the Lord of the Rings, and seems (to me) to be more the work of an Anglo-Saxon. Bilbo's translations, therefore, are in my little theory, a more scholarly work, from which is derived the more contradictory and confusing post-LotR versions of the [i]Silmarillion/i]. This is, of course, just a theory.

But a good one. Nicely done.

Still, in terms of RPGs, we have the possibility of writings by Sam and Elanor, which were lost, particularly about the Westmarch lands of The Shire, if I am not mistaken.

What a conundrum this makes for canonicity (as if we don't have enough already!). We could sub-create RPGs for events which were lost to the record of Middle-earth.

Plus, would this open us to the possibility that we could have two variants, Bilbo's versions and Frodo's, which, as written by different participants in events, could present slightly different points of view?

What fun medieval narratology/textuality makes!