The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Galin · 04-07-2010, 08:30 AM

Part of Pitchwife's response above inspires a slight niggle from me. Just a part

I think the two-part Elessar tale intends to echo the Primary World with purposed uncertainties that might arise in a legendarium, and arguably lends a measure of reality in this way. The 'Amroth matter' is external however, a writer writing, creating and revising, and there is no indication (that I'm aware of, and not that you said there was) that the Secondary World was to be ambiguous concerning Amroth as Galadriel's son. The (perhaps obvious) point could be made by pointing out that there's only two variations concerning the Elessar, not more, despite that at least one other 'history' exists (written earlier than the Elessar text).

I certainly enjoy the multi-source approach to the legendarium: I suggest that Tolkien 'ratified' the Mannish tradition The Drowning of Anadûnê in later years, for example, to stand in comparison to the mixed (Elvish/Mannish) tale published with the Silmarillion. I also like the approach exampled by the text on the Elessar-stone (despite my problems with The Elessar itself, as a very rough text). And I have no problem in general with ambiguities.

But in what measure, and in what circumstance, do these things add to the reality of the Subcreated World, rather than possibly (or arguably) undermine it? Again that's for the author to decide in each case: would the Secondary World be enhanced -- or undermined -- if there were two conflicting stories concerning whether or not Amroth was Galadriel's son, for instance. I have my opinion there (and in the end only Tolkien could really answer that question for himself), but in any case my point above is rather that 'Amroth as Galadriel's son or not' is not an internal matter anyway -- this idea appears to arise only from draft writings, in which context Tolkien subsequently rejected the notion. This issue was always an external one.

Despite these things, consistency within the Subcreated World looms large (and one can have mystery without creating specific conflicting versions, of course). And despite that Tolkien seemingly could not help himself at times*, publication became an important factor here -- not unnaturally, as it must for anyone trying to create a believable world.

And I like the way Eomer of the Rohirrim put it (with help from Lisa Simpson?)!

____________________

*I don't think it's a big deal really, but in the end I feel there was no real 'need' to change Inglor to Finrod for example -- especially as Tolkien's stated reason to do so between editions ultimately fell by the wayside, as Finarfin was retained and characterized as Sindarized in any case. Thus this change to the second edition resulted in a revision that didn't really fix Tolkien's problem, and seems like an external error by comparison (considering too that it lacks an internal explanation from the author).

04-07-2010, 08:30 AM	#4
Galin Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,036	Part of Pitchwife's response above inspires a slight niggle from me. Just a part I think the two-part Elessar tale intends to echo the Primary World with purposed uncertainties that might arise in a legendarium, and arguably lends a measure of reality in this way. The 'Amroth matter' is external however, a writer writing, creating and revising, and there is no indication (that I'm aware of, and not that you said there was) that the Secondary World was to be ambiguous concerning Amroth as Galadriel's son. The (perhaps obvious) point could be made by pointing out that there's only two variations concerning the Elessar, not more, despite that at least one other 'history' exists (written earlier than the Elessar text). I certainly enjoy the multi-source approach to the legendarium: I suggest that Tolkien 'ratified' the Mannish tradition The Drowning of Anadûnê in later years, for example, to stand in comparison to the mixed (Elvish/Mannish) tale published with the Silmarillion. I also like the approach exampled by the text on the Elessar-stone (despite my problems with The Elessar itself, as a very rough text). And I have no problem in general with ambiguities. But in what measure, and in what circumstance, do these things add to the reality of the Subcreated World, rather than possibly (or arguably) undermine it? Again that's for the author to decide in each case: would the Secondary World be enhanced -- or undermined -- if there were two conflicting stories concerning whether or not Amroth was Galadriel's son, for instance. I have my opinion there (and in the end only Tolkien could really answer that question for himself), but in any case my point above is rather that 'Amroth as Galadriel's son or not' is not an internal matter anyway -- this idea appears to arise only from draft writings, in which context Tolkien subsequently rejected the notion. This issue was always an external one. Despite these things, consistency within the Subcreated World looms large (and one can have mystery without creating specific conflicting versions, of course). And despite that Tolkien seemingly could not help himself at times, publication became an important factor here -- not unnaturally, as it must for anyone trying to create a believable world. And I like the way Eomer of the Rohirrim* put it (with help from Lisa Simpson?)! ____________________ I don't think it's a big deal really, but in the end I feel there was no real 'need' to change Inglor* to Finrod for example -- especially as Tolkien's stated reason to do so between editions ultimately fell by the wayside, as Finarfin was retained and characterized as Sindarized in any case. Thus this change to the second edition resulted in a revision that didn't really fix Tolkien's problem, and seems like an external error by comparison (considering too that it lacks an internal explanation from the author).