<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 41</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Principles of editing the Silmarillion
I like the suggested point 5 and change of 5 to 7. I had excluded point 4 in accordance with Lindil's suggestion that we treat style changes separately, but I like Jallanite's reintroduction of it. We might as well deal with it at this stage anyway, as already in the Fall of Gondolin we seem to require some sort of working guideline at least. This, then, is our current set of rules:
1. The first priority is always given to the latest editions of works published during Tolkien's lifetime.
2. Secondary priority is given to the latest ideas found among Tolkien's unpublished texts and letters, except where they:
a. violate the published canon without specifically correcting an error or
b. are proposed changes that do not clearly indicate the exact details that must be changed and how they are to be changed.
3. If no sources that fall under number 2 can be used to form the actual narrative of a section, then any text or summary created by Christopher Tolkien may be used, provided it does not violate the canon established for that section by numbers 1 and 2 above.
4. 4. No new names and no new expressions in Elvish or in any of J.R.R. Tolkien's special languages may be introduced; all names or expressions in J.R.R. Tolkien's special languages that are updated must be changed either in accordance with a universal change by Tolkien or with a logical reason and a sound etymology.
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.
6. The actual words used by J.R.R. Tolkien or the editor or summarizer of his work 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 or section/chapter into 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
e) they are, in verse passages, minimal changes that do not add new information to the tale, to maintain the proper metre and rhyme or alliterative pattern of the original verse.
7. It is not for us to decide what is aesthetically superior; where we have multiple options, we must choose from among them based on the above principles; personal aesthetics (if used at all) may only be used to decide between two options given equal validity by the above guidelines. A corallary is that we may not disregard anything written by JRRT unless it is invalidated by one of the above principles; i.e., we must have a REASON for rejecting something.
Though Lindil has (I believe) indicated a desire to alter 7 to allow greater leeway in aesthetics. I'll try an example for each; if others can think of better examples, by all means add them:
1. The later story of Galadriel in UT, giving her a separate departure from Aman and making Celeborn a Teler must be rejected because it violates The Road Goes Ever On.
2. a. This is basically the same as above (I wonder now if 2a is not redundant with 1? Better to have it more than needed than not enough, though, I suppose.)
b. The Myths Transformed texts that make the earth initially round, etc., may not be followed.
3. CRT's chapter 'Of the Fifth Battle' (a composite of GA and a separate text) may be used. This also allows us to use the UT texts that were minimally edited by CRT.
(A better example, though probably a controversial one, would be that this allows us to use CRT's story for the Ruin of Doriath).
4. We cannot, for instance, merely discard the name 'Rog' and replace it with a made up name.
5. (Stealing jallanite's examples for this and the next): We can ignore the slip in which Turgon replaces Fingolfin.
6. 'Coming thither of Elwing' can become 'Elwing came thither'.
7. We CANNOT make Gil-galad the son of Fingon for personal aesthetics; we CAN choose between compressing the wanderings of the fugitives of Gondolin and altering the season of their journey to Sirion.
About the corallary to 7: I think maybe we should delete this; the only example I could think of for it would be that we'd have to KEEP the mechanical dragons! Perhaps it should be reworded.
</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000320>Aiwendil </A> at: 7/22/01 3:10:31 pm
|