[Maédhros]

I don't know that I would agree that the first part of Tuor & his coming to Gondolin is 'better' or more effective than the Fall of Gondolin. They are simply different - in the same way that the revised Hobbit is not 'better' than the first edition, just different. There is more detail in Tuor, but it is unfinished, & for all we know the finished story might have been very poor, & not compared at all with FoG in terms of narrative effect.
When you say that T&HCTG is superior 'in your opinion' you point up the problem with your approach. You decided to leave out a note in the Parentage of Gil Galad because you consider it would adversely affect the Narn. For me this approach is only going to produce, as I said, an entirely idiosyncratic version - another group of scholars could decide to include the residence of Gil Galad at the Havens & let the Narn go hang. You cannot approach Tolkien's work in this way, in my opinion, because there is no way to prove that Tolkien, if he'd had the time, or inclination, wouldn't have rewritten the Narn to accomodate the Gil Galad idea. Leaving in the mechanical monsters from FoG creates even bigger problems for a 'consistent' version, in that it changes our whole understanding of Morgoth & what capacity he had for technological development. If he could produce tanks & flame throwers, why didn't he use them against the Valar in the War of Wrath, & decide instead on using living creatures (Balrogs & Dragons) which could be killed.

There will always be a problem of interpretation and personal taste with this. That is why we in the Project have tried to come up with reasonable and logical rules. I disagree about your comment regarding Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin in that I believe that if Tolkien would have finished that account, it would never have been as you said been very poor because it was Tolkien who wrote it.
What is to be included and not included is not a matter of whim but a matter of great debate. Again I disagree with your assertion that the addition of the Mechanical Monsters in the FoG creates a problem. That is indeed a common notion that many people have but if you truly look at it in detail (as Findegil did) one would realize that they are not incompatible, and that is why we came to the conclusion to use it.

FoG is his attempt to mythologise the horrors of mechanised warfare, which his was the first generation to witness. It's the horror of the Somme battlefield seen (as Garth puts it) through 'enchanted eyes. It is far more that than part of a 'revised' Silmarillion. If you revise it to fit into a 'canon', an 'official' version (though I have to ask who the 'officials' are who will give final approval - is there an officiating body to whom you will offer up your completed version, who will stamp it 'officially approved', & declare all the other versions (including some of Tolkien's own) 'unofficial') you make it into something it was never intended to be.

CT had always thought of the idea to make a "Silmarillion". He doubted if that would be the right thing to do, or to just publish the typescripts, manuscripts
of his father as he did in HoME. Is CT Published Silmarillion the official version? No. Is the work that he did on it amazing? Yes, it was, and it was probably his work in editing it that allowed the publication of HoME. Of course now, CT had certain regrets in his "Silmarillion" which is a natural thing. We in the project are doing that just for the pleasure of having a more complete "Silmarillion". There can never be a truly canonical "Silmarillion" because the author is dead.

I disagree with this profoundly - the reader, 'casual' or otherwise, does not 'submerge' himself - he is either 'submerged' or 'enchanted', or he is not. And if he is 'submerged' he will be 'truly' submerged.

When you refer in such a negative way to 'normal fans' -

(Quote: A normal fan of JRRT is certainly welcome to enjoy those tales, but I believe that if you want more, a more scholarly approach to the works and evolution of the legendarium of JRRT, one cannot be content with that. I think that one has to look for more.)

- as opposed to 'abnormal' ones (& I suppose I must feel grateful for my 'normality' here!) My blood begins to boil

Sorry, but there are simply 'fans' - albeit some who simply love the tales & some who seem to want to dictate which tales shall be loved & which shall not.

It is a matter of opinion. I don't see anything wrong with my description of a normal fan of JRRT. I believe that if you are truly in love with the works, one would not stop with reading the manuscript, but would want to see all of the alterations and developments of the story.
Can all of JRRT's typescripts and manuscripts be taken at the same value? I don't think so. Take for example the Tale of Turambar and compare it with the later Narn i Chîn Húrin. It is my personal opinion that when Tolkien wrote the Narn he was a better writer than when we wrote the Tale of Turambar. How could both of these works have the same "canonical" value if the later one is an expanded revision with a great many additions of the story. When comparing these two tales, would the 1917 Tale have the same weight as the 1951 Narn? To me the answer would be of course not.
There is a difference between canonicity and love of the works. For me, the most beautiful story that JRRT wrote is the Cottage of Lost Play and it is the one that I like the most, even though I consider that JRRT abandoned that concept early on and I do not consider it canon.
We can guide people by stating that we consider certain texts to be more "canonical" than others with some rules, but we can't tell each reader what to like and what not to.