[lindil]

maedhros:

in 2b, do we drop the later ideas and keep the original ones or do we just not mention the original one.
For example the Gil-Galad thing. Would the change be to make him of the House of Finarfin as Tolkien intended or just to leave his lineage uncertain.

.

Good point, I would have to look at the text wherein this is mentioned, it may be Aldarion and Erendis where he signs his name in the letter to Aldarion's father. However, I think it also comes up in The Silm [ refugees at Balar?]. So I would say if CRT added it to a manuscript that only named Gil-Galad and ommited parentage we would have an option. In general I think we want to try and include as much off the scattered thoughts and writings back into the narrative framework as is tasteful [ for instance many details of the noldorin princes to be found in the Shibboleth of Feanor - HoME 12].

the old proposed principle #7 -
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maedhros:

quote:I would be very interested in for example, how we would tackle the Fall of Gondolin. What would happen to the lo! that is in abundance in Bolt, in my humble opinion, some of it will have to be "edited" as to keep as smooth style as possible thought the whole Revised Silmarillion.

I am in agreement with you, I propose a principle #7 instead based on the following points mentioned below and I really do believe there is no way of making a Silmarillion as readable as CRT's without it. And certainly CRT has already done a good deal of it [applying stylistic revisions] with the HoME [esp Q30 ] texts and the Chapter on Gondolin in particular [although I would have to look it up to see just how much off hand].

There is no question that there is a striking stylistic variation between BoLT and Q30 and again between Q30 and HoME 5 and on. THe style in HoME 5,10-12 and UT is far more compatable. It is often more a question of amount of detail than anything else.

I am definetly in favor of adapting the later linguistic style [ as CRT did] to the earlier writings to be able to keep the Characters doing what they do and meaning the same things with there speech, but modyfing it.

If we do not we will have a far less readable work in many places that will I think have only a small interest of curiosity to the overs of the legendarium, instead of perhaps becoming the Standard which, if we do it right it could become.

If one only wants to create a canon of 'idea's and events'[like the number of balrog's and wether the dragon's were still mechanical or not] then readability is irrelavant. But if we want a work that can not only stand next to the published Silm but literally replace it in scope quality and accuracy, then we will have to go the extra mile and work whatever literary polish into the archaic language we can. Smooth out transitions to be able to incorporate obscure fragments or to connect disparate texts of the same subject.

These are all things that CRT had to do to give us a Silm that is as excellent as it is.

Now a parallel point is the case of Rog, where the name of a character it self is the problem.

CRT clearly and expicitly recognized this himself when he said

I removed the reference to Rog [Silm 77 p.242] on the grounds that it was abosolutely certainthat my father would not have retained this name as that of a lord of Gondolin.

emphasis mine

Now as far as I know this is a unique case, both for us and for CRT.

Now obviously my appeal to the authority of CRT is not as to the Pope for a Roman Catholic, otherwise we would all be content with our 'revised' 2001 Silmarilion which reapirs no major [acknowledged] mistakes in the Silmarillion. But I do think his POV is always worth noting and usually correct.

So in short for me we need to have a principle of aesthetic adjustment or perhaps some one can come up with a better name. Or we run the risk of our Elvish no longer sounding Elvish, because we have stuck to a principle, of 'it does not contradict anything so we used it'. With this principle we could apply it to Rog, and to the archaic speech in BoLT wherever we incorporate it into our work. I do not see this principle being applied much outside of the context of BoLT or parts of Q30 really, so I think fears of a widespread revision of everything based on aesthetic whim is unfounded, we have a very level headed and [ I am happy and proud to say] purist group here who, while one of us may go off on a tangent the buch of us are likely to hold firm, so i think we can be trusted with this rather more 'dangerous' principle. Furthermore, I see no way around it unless we want a rather freakish and inconsistent text.

Also imo we have already applied this principle of revision by aesthetics or 'feel' by second guessing the mechanical monsters as JRRT never 'specifically' ruled them out. The majority agreed it did not 'feel' right, and that JRRT probably would have abandoned it.

Anyway thanks to Maehdros for finally prying the lid off of the worm can.
Hopefully we will all have our say here and unless there is a strong consensus [which would be nice] bring this to a vote in the next month.

[ December 25, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]