Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithalwen
(...) It is quite possible that the published Silmarillion is not what Christopher would have issued had the full archive been available to him at get go...as I recall a substantial amount of documents came to light later but I think he has more than corrected his "mistake" in the form of UT and HoME.
|
Hmm, I'm not sure there was relatively that much unavailable or unknown to Christopher Tolkien in the 1970s -- and at least one example that I do recall at the moment is the updated long prose Beren and Luthien, but it is very close to the poetic version, and as far as it goes introduces no substantial changes to the tale.
And for example where Christopher Tolkien has criticized himself:
The Fall of Doriath presents a somewhat unique scenario in any event, but given Christopher Tolkien's own regret here -- that he with Guy Kay could have done better in the way of sticking closer to the existing texts -- I'm pretty sure (although without checking) that he still had all the relevant material before him for consideration, at the time.
It seems to me that Christopher Tolkien has been criticized from both sides, so to speak -- for not taking up the mantle of writer in enough measure (I think Michael Drout, at least, expressed this desire in his review of The Children of Hurin) -- and for overstepping the bounds of the editorial function. Or some say the published Silmarillion is too long and 'boring' (!) while others think it should have included much more of what we now find in HME.
The History of Middle-Earth ('Silmarillion related' portion) may be very complete seeming, but Christopher Tolkien has noted that his private
History of the Silmarillion is actually longer and more detailed -- although one assumes the most notable and interesting information (the most notable from Christopher Tolkien's point of view, granting that this too can be opinion-based when one really wants to take up a detailed study of the Silmarillion) has made its way into the version on public bookshelves.