<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 43</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Principles of editing the Silmarillion
I've edited my post of our current principles, adding suggestions by Lindil and jallanite.
Re: Elvish names and phrases: I rather agree with jallanite; my guideline (no. 4 by our most recent set of principles) was intended to ensure that we don't take too much liberty with the names; names in Tolkien are important, far more important than they are in many works. Just as we try to make sure that all the narrative details of our version fit his latest conceptions of the plot, we must also take care that all the names we use fit his latest conceptions of Quenya and Sindarin (and the miscellaneous other languages).
Re: Mr. Underhill's idea: In general, I again agree with jallanite. I don't see this project as an isolated effort that will end when we are done; I hope rather that it is one of the first steps toward a new interpretation of the Silmarillion. With all the constituent texts of the Silmarillion now available, it's possible for us to view it and use it in a multitude of ways. I think that trying to establish a canon version as we are doing here is a good start (of course, no single version can ever be considered authoratative), but I also think there's room for other versions.
As a matter of fact, I have been working on a solo project for a couple months that falls somewhere in between the project here and jallanite's above description of a fan-fiction version; my goal there is to basically follow the same principles we have here, but with greater allowance for 'creative writing,' where necessary, in order to achieve unity of style and proper proportions of plot. I think that such an effort is not so suitable for a group project, however; the more aesthetics are allowed, the harder any consensus will be. As a case in point, I consider the Tevildo story one of JRRT's worst writings, most improved in rewrites.
Re: The 2 major LotR conflicts with the rest of the Legendarium: I actually don't think that Treebeard's story is a conflict. It clearly does not coincide point for point with the Silmarillion, but it may merely reflect his and the Ents' view. He speaks about the 'darkness' in such broad generalities that I think we can ignore that section.
Having (perhaps) struck down one of those inconsistencies, I must, however, add another: the late change in The Hobbit whereby mention of the days before the sun and moon was removed. I believe this passage implies that the Elves wandered under the sun in the days before the awakening of Men; this clearly belongs with the whole Round Earth complex that we are rejecting.
I agree that the best way to do this is a bald statement against them; their omission, though necessary, really cannot be justified by any of our current rules. If others agree, I will add this to my previous post.
<<much MT writing not concerned with cosmology is quite acceptable. >>
Agreed.
<<For my suggested 6 e, add if this emendation of mine is
to be accepted: "Of the thirst and hunger of the thirty
moons" to "Of the thirst and hunger of the thwarting
mazes". >>
I think this allows the change. It would, in my opinion, disallow the change 'thirty moons' to 'thirteen moons' (a direct contradiction of the source). I think this is still the best change, if we indeed use the poem.
</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000320>Aiwendil </A> at: 7/22/01 3:26:15 pm
|