The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - * * Principles of editing the Fall of Gondolin/Translations from the Elvish * *

jallanite · 07-08-2001, 01:09 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 36</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Principles of editing the Silmarillion

Ok, I would like to make point 5 into point 7, (more on point 6 below) remove the note about demonstrable error from point 1, and reword it as point 5, something like:

5. Information in sources of lower level priority are to be preferred over information in sources of higher level priority where the item of information in source of higher level priority can be reasonably demonstrated to be an error, whether a "slip of the pen" or from inadequate checking of previous writing.

This then covers errors at all levels. CT has identified a number of these in HoME, and often they would be also covered by 2c, for example being forced to accept that Turgon is now a son of Finwë and his taken over much of Fingolfin's role, as in "Maeglin" and note 9 to the late writings Glorfindel discussion. But some errors may not also be covered by 2c.

Point number 4 of the original suggested principles is missing here.

I suggest reintroducing it as:

6. The actual words used by Tolkien in a passage may only be changed, including change by deletion or addition, when:
a) they are minimally changed to agree with statements elsewhere in the canon recognized as of greater validity or to are replaced with words or phrases from later or alternate restatements of the same material for reasons of consistancy or are changed to agree with alternate phrasings used by Tolkien of the same or better validity
**********b) they are minimally changed to avoid great awkwardness of expression such as ungrammatical constructions or too great a difference in style from the passage in which they are now to be inserted
**********c) they are minimally added to in order to expand a sentence fragments or an incomplete phrase into a construction that fits grammatically in the new environment
**********d) they are deleted to avoid redundancy in new passages compiled from more than one source

I think the word "minimally" covers a lot of the problems. On style, for example, if pulling in one specially archaic phrase or sentence from BoLT material into a later account that was very modern in phrasing, it is allowable to modernize the syntax and grammar to fit the new environment, but minimally. (E.g. change word order, replace final -eth on a verb with -s, change historical present to past tense.) But no paraphasing or gross restatements allowed, other than if Tolkien uses a particular word very often in the new environment instead of an archaic word used in the old environment, then the word from the new environment could be substituted.

For 4c, consider these two phrases from two outlines in "The Tale of Eärendel" in The Book of Lost Tales 2 (HoME 2):<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Coming thither of Elwing, and the love of her and Eärendel as girl and boy.<hr></blockquote><blockquote>Quote:<hr> Eärendel and Elwing love one another as boy and girl.<hr></blockquote>These are I believe the only occurrences of this information, one in verbless point form and one in the present tense. Such a rule is required to insert such material into complete narratives without unpleasant and unneeded awkwardness, possibly with initial linking word(s) such as "then", "afterwards", etc., words understood in the point form environment where their meaning is implicit though they themselves are not found there.

This does get into aesthetics, but I think that unavoidable. What is important is that this kind of tinkering only takes place conceptually after a text has been extablished using higher priority criteria. We can't insert invention. We can't delete what is in the text without reason. We can't rewrite what is already intelligible and grammatical and can be fitted in without change. There must be reasons.

We probably should give examples for each point also, as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. A few good examples are often worth more than the most precise wording in indicating what is actually meant. E.g. for "latest ideas", as a counter-example pick something from LQ*2 that actually goes back to the 1937 version of the Silmarillion and is totally obsolete, yet still occurs in this relatively late text, e.g. Haleth the Hunter who in this latest Silmarillion manuscript still exists and accidently finds the gate of Gondolin with Húrin. This better indicates that latest idea is not always latest text than trying to word this into the principles.

</p>

07-08-2001, 01:09 PM	#14
jallanite Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 479	<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton Posts: 36</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: Principles of editing the Silmarillion Ok, I would like to make point 5 into point 7, (more on point 6 below) remove the note about demonstrable error from point 1, and reword it as point 5, something like: 5. Information in sources of lower level priority are to be preferred over information in sources of higher level priority where the item of information in source of higher level priority can be reasonably demonstrated to be an error, whether a "slip of the pen" or from inadequate checking of previous writing. This then covers errors at all levels. CT has identified a number of these in HoME, and often they would be also covered by 2c, for example being forced to accept that Turgon is now a son of Finwë and his taken over much of Fingolfin's role, as in "Maeglin" and note 9 to the late writings Glorfindel discussion. But some errors may not also be covered by 2c. Point number 4 of the original suggested principles is missing here. I suggest reintroducing it as: 6. The actual words used by Tolkien in a passage may only be changed, including change by deletion or addition, when: a) they are minimally changed to agree with statements elsewhere in the canon recognized as of greater validity or to are replaced with words or phrases from later or alternate restatements of the same material for reasons of consistancy or are changed to agree with alternate phrasings used by Tolkien of the same or better validity ********b) they are minimally changed to avoid great awkwardness of expression such as ungrammatical constructions or too great a difference in style from the passage in which they are now to be inserted ******c) they are minimally added to in order to expand a sentence fragments or an incomplete phrase into a construction that fits grammatically in the new environment *******d) they are deleted to avoid redundancy in new passages compiled from more than one source I think the word "minimally" covers a lot of the problems. On style, for example, if pulling in one specially archaic phrase or sentence from BoLT material into a later account that was very modern in phrasing, it is allowable to modernize the syntax and grammar to fit the new environment, but minimally. (E.g. change word order, replace final -eth* on a verb with -s, change historical present to past tense.) But no paraphasing or gross restatements allowed, other than if Tolkien uses a particular word very often in the new environment instead of an archaic word used in the old environment, then the word from the new environment could be substituted. For 4c, consider these two phrases from two outlines in "The Tale of Eärendel" in The Book of Lost Tales 2 (HoME 2):<blockquote>*Quote:<hr> Coming thither of Elwing, and the love of her and Eärendel as girl and boy.<hr></blockquote><blockquote>Quote:<hr> Eärendel and Elwing love one another as boy and girl.<hr></blockquote>These are I believe the only* occurrences of this information, one in verbless point form and one in the present tense. Such a rule is required to insert such material into complete narratives without unpleasant and unneeded awkwardness, possibly with initial linking word(s) such as "then", "afterwards", etc., words understood in the point form environment where their meaning is implicit though they themselves are not found there. This does get into aesthetics, but I think that unavoidable. What is important is that this kind of tinkering only takes place conceptually after a text has been extablished using higher priority criteria. We can't insert invention. We can't delete what is in the text without reason. We can't rewrite what is already intelligible and grammatical and can be fitted in without change. There must be reasons. We probably should give examples for each point also, as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. A few good examples are often worth more than the most precise wording in indicating what is actually meant. E.g. for "latest ideas", as a counter-example pick something from *LQ2** that actually goes back to the 1937 version of the Silmarillion and is totally obsolete, yet still occurs in this relatively late text, e.g. Haleth the Hunter who in this latest Silmarillion manuscript still exists and accidently finds the gate of Gondolin with Húrin. This better indicates that latest idea is not always latest text than trying to word this into the principles. </p>