Just to make something perfectly clear,
davem I was not suggesting that you were flaming anyone or engaging in personal attacks. My great hesitation was with the way you reiterated that your definition of worth was the only one tenable and that the entire project could only be made legitimate by recourse to a final, ultimately 'authentic' 'authoritative' source, even after, it seemed to me, there were compelling arguments not only as to the value of the project for many and also about the legitimacy of literary activity as process regardless of 'end result.' I was in fact questioning your aim as much as you questioned that of the project.
Quote:
|
As for any academic value it may have - I can see it having some curiosity value, but there is a danger of it creating the false impression among new readers that this 'perfect' Sil would one day have existed - if only Tolkien had had the time to write it.
|
I would question the kind of thinking which is predicated upon fears of perceived misreading. How can we reject ideas and projects on the basis of perceived or alleged or anticipated effects in future readers? Surely, if the point is to engage in literary discussion to develop our minds rather than to find our own personal point of view established over that of others, then the answer to your concerns is to engage in the kind of discussion which would teach readers how to guard against this when reading. New readers think this is what Tolkien would have produced? An opportunity to explore his process further. This is the value of misreadings; they engender further discussion. Surely the only false or wrong interpretation is that which denies the possibility of further discussion.
This being the case (and I can see some might want to refute this kind of argument), why discredit a project simply because it might be poorly understood?