Will a "definitive" version of The Silmarillion ever be released?

[lindil]

I think if the right person [douglas anderson or one of the other folks already close to CJRT] were to present him with an 'Expanded Silmarillion' that did not try and change the 77/99 Silmarillion but instead supplemented it with a 'best of Unfinished Tales/HoM-E' it could fly.


And unless CJRT has put some clause of non-tampering in with ANY Silmarilion ever published by the estate after his well-earned repose, it is more likely to come out after. He spent a big chunk of his life trying to do right by his father and undoubtedly feels rather attached to the treatment[s] he has given the Silmarillion[s].

I do think a gorgeous multi-volume set with the 'canonical' (note quotes ) Silm in the center, and the annals [old below and new above] and the most interesting additions and variants in boxes where appropriate would be gorgeous and frankly much needed. So many people never make it to HoM-E where imo in the post LotR volumes some of his best writing lays, read by a small % of M-E lovers.

If I had been more foresighted, I would have skewed the whole Translations from the Elvish Project in that direction, but frankly the idea did not occur to me until after we [ Aiwendil and I ] had the long, hard debate over Rog/principles of editing and I was nearing the end of my active involvement with the truly massive undertaking.

Nonetheless, the TftE as it stands is doing a brilliant thing by sticking to JRRT's words and themes far closer than CJRT did editorially, and someone someday will be able to get a Doctorate out of their work if they know of it that is.

So I do hope it gets done, and I see it would help the Silmarillion take it's rightful place alongside LotR as an equal work - not just in size but in depth of story, which the edited version simply does not allow for very easily if at all.

The Osanwe Kenta, the Laws and Customs of the Eldar and the Athrabeth, the wanderings of Hurin are some of JRRT's most moving to me writings, and them being buried in HoM-E is a minor tragedy, relieved only by the fact that they ARE available. Though some not even in HoM-E!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lindil

The Osanwe Kenta, the Laws and Customs of the Eldar and the Athrabeth, the wanderings of Hurin are some of JRRT's most moving to me writings, and them being buried in HoM-E is a minor tragedy, relieved only by the fact that they ARE available. Though some not even in HoM-E!

I was all ready to be dismissive and them remembered that the Osanwe Kenta is only available in a very obscure and hard to source little pamphlet. The Osanwe Kenta, which blew apart all my previous ideas about Tolkien's creation...so yes, a publication with all of that included would be amazing. Not least because then i can talk to more people about the ideas in it.

But, in general, the thing Tolkien most lacked was the Tight Deadline. I have this fear now of writers who haven't got that threat hanging over them because so many of them seem to get unravelled and baggy the longer they take to get the next installment of a book out *cough* georgerrmartin *cough*. In contrast, you have JK Rowling who was obliged to keep the installments coming, as her main audience of kids aren't known for their patience and they will insist on growing up! She polished off the whole series satisfactorily and coherently, and in spite of the modern trend for writers to be utterly incapable of finishing a story correctly.

Had Tolkien had his publisher standing over him cracking the whip, I suspect we would have had a definitive and neatly completed Sil, even though he himself would never have been quite satisfied.

[Findegil]

I think Allen& Unwin did what they could to make Tolkien publish faster. But at first Tolkien was an amateur writer, his profession earned him and his family a living and he presited on beening satisfied with the story before publication.

I think the only chance for devinite 'Silmarillion' was lost when Allen and Unwin turned down Tolkiens idea to publish 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Silmarillion' together.

Now a day with the autor dead, I don't see who would be in the position to make any definition for the 'definitive' version of 'The Silmarillion'. The literary executers don't have the power to enforce such a thing. Christopher Tolkien did already try that, with no success as this discussion clearly shows. No body else would be more entiteled to try and thus any try would be discussed out of 'devinitivness' as soon as it is out in public.

To be fair: Christopher Tolkien was in the position to enfoce a 'definitive' version of 'The Silmarillion' and for a long time his version was exactly that. But I am very greatfull to him that he had chosen to public all the conflicting versions included in 'The History of Middle-Earth' that made his own version of 'The Silmarillion' questionable.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Findegil

(...) Now a day with the autor dead, I don't see who would be in the position to make any definition for the 'definitive' version of 'The Silmarillion'. The literary executers don't have the power to enforce such a thing. Christopher Tolkien did already try that, with no success as this discussion clearly shows. (...) To be fair: Christopher Tolkien was in the position to enfoce a 'definitive' version of 'The Silmarillion' and for a long time his version was exactly that. But I am very greatfull to him that...

Can I ask what you mean by Christopher Tolkien enforcing a definition for a definitive version of The Silmarillion?

In the Foreword to the 1977 Silmarillion Christopher Tolkien notes that he set himself to work out a single text, '... selecting and arranging in such a way as seemed to me to produce the most coherent and internally self-consistent narrative.' He had earlier noted that due to the complexity of the existing texts: '... a final and definitive version seemed unattainable' -- but I get the feeling that he is here (that is, this sentence read in the fuller context), speaking generally as he very briefly describes the 'history' of the texts. Or speaking from his father's perspective perhaps.


I'm not suggesting that Christopher Tolkien is necessarily saying here that the book is not to be considered a definitive version, but at least with respect to the Foreword I don't think he states that it is to be considered definitive in some sense. I take his comments to briefly describe the construction of a reader's version rather than a scholarly presentation, perhaps similar to the more recent presentation of The Children of Hurin.

Did Christopher Tolkien ever claim he had presented the version rather than a version? Or did readers rather treat the 1977 Silmarillion as definitive, having nothing else in any case -- before the more scholarly presentation was published -- especially considering that it wasn't until the 1990s (with Morgoth's Ring) that a notable amount of the 'later Quenta Silmarillion' could be compared to the constructed Silmarillion of 1977.

[Findegil]

Posted by Galin:

Can I ask what you mean by Christopher Tolkien enforcing a definition for a definitive version of The Silmarillion?

Christopher Tolkien over steped the task of an editor to get a coherent book from the scirpts of the Silmarillion komplex left to him by his father. Since his father entiteled him to do as he wished with his scripts, he is not to be blamed for it. And I did not mean 'enforcing' with any negativ conotation.
What he did was not enforcing a definition realy, he simply presented the result of such a definition: As long as nothing else was published, the product of that process 'The Silmarillion' of 1977 was THE 'definitive' version.

All publication about Middle-Earth that followed with the excaption of 'The Children of Húrin' were mere resource books showing JRR Tolkien's life long work on the theme. In his commentaries Christopher Tolkien himself does question some of his own decissions made for the 'The Silmarillion' of 1977, but he did not take the opportuinty to re-edit 'The Silamrillion' in these points when a new edition came out 2001.
Therefore the avarage reader will, if he is interrested enough to read that fare at all, come first to 'The Silmarillion'. Which makes that book still some kind of a definitiv version.

The alternative way (probably not possible in practise) would have been to start with 'Unfinished Tales' and 'The History of Middle-Earth' series. That would have meant no preselection or definition for devintivness by the editor but full freeness for the readers.

Thus in effect we have what was asked for: a 'definitive' version of 'The Silmarillion' of some kind. The issue is that we are not satisfied with it.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Findegil

Christopher Tolkien over steped the task of an editor to get a coherent book from the scirpts of the Silmarillion komplex left to him by his father.

With respect to the Fall of Doriath he overstepped the editorial bounds according to his own words, yes; only done because at the time he felt this was the best way to reconcile a part of the Silmarilion that hadn't been truly updated or fully revised since the 1930s. Choices have to be made for sake of consistency of course, and as far as I recall, Christopher Tolkien applied this term where it involved actual editorial invention, which is relatively quite rare with respect to the book as a whole.

And I did not mean 'enforcing' with any negativ conotation. What he did was not enforcing a definition realy, he simply presented the result of such a definition: As long as nothing else was published, the product of that process 'The Silmarillion' of 1977 was THE 'definitive' version.

Then you appear to agree that Christopher Tolkien didn't enforce a definition in any sense of 'with intent'. To me it seems to be the assumption of others, or the somewhat unavoidable result of having to consider something definitive in the sense that there is simply nothing else to compare it to. And if it was avoidable, for a while, in that a scholarly presentation could have been produced first, incidentally it looks like Christopher Tolkien's idea was to produce a scholarly tome first: Charles Noad has noted:

The fundamental problems, I believe, with the published Silmarillion lie in the fact that a 'literary' version was decided on in the first place. Apparently the idea of Guy Gavriel Kay, it was accepted, and the finished version was accordingly produced. In his speech at the 1987 World Science Fiction Convention, Kay said that the initial idea had been to produce a large, scholarly tome, in which the latest version of any particular chapter would have been given, together with extensive appendices and editorial apparatus showing how it had evolved from earlier versions.

This would have resulted in a massive volume, some 1300 printed pages long, say (about the size of the Scull and Hammond Reader's Guide to Tolkien), and two chapters in this style had already been produced when Kay arrived. However, Kay felt strongly that what was needed was a straightforward narrative, shorn of academic apparatus, which advice was eventually adopted by Christopher Tolkien. This approach was tried with 'The Coming of the Elves' where it was felt to work so well that Kay's approach was thereafter adopted. ('A Tower in Beleriand', Charles E. Noad, Amon Hen 91, May 1988, pp.16-18.) It may indeed have worked well, but such a procedure served to give a finished appearance to what was very often disparate and unfinished material.


Charles Noad, from his review of Arda Reconstructed

That is not to lay any kind of 'blame' on anyone, and the ultimate decision was Christopher Tolkien's of course, but in any case the idea put forth by some, to support that a one volume version needs revising, is that 'most' will be getting their Silmarillion experience through a one volume (what I call) 'reader's version' compared to a scholarly presentation -- which to my mind also supports that the former is what most readers really wanted in the first place; and that's what they got in the 1970s.

In his commentaries Christopher Tolkien himself does question some of his own decissions made for the 'The Silmarillion' of 1977, but he did not take the opportuinty to re-edit 'The Silamrillion' in these points when a new edition came out 2001. Therefore the avarage reader will, if he is interrested enough to read that fare at all, come first to 'The Silmarillion'. Which makes that book still some kind of a definitiv version.

They are free to assume it's intended as definitive despite the Foreword which explains that the book in their hands is not the finished product of the author, and is not being presented as such.

The average reader will likely pick up The Children of Hurin more than sift through Unfinished Tales and HME for the scholarly presentation. Does that make the recently published version 'definitive' if they do? Maybe in some sense; but once again that is simply the nature of the beast: the versions Tolkien intended for reader consumption -- in essence if not in detail -- are represented by The Children of Hurin and The Silmarillion one volume editions.

In his commentaries Christopher Tolkien himself does question some of his own decissions made for the 'The Silmarillion' of 1977, but he did not take the opportuinty to re-edit 'The Silamrillion' in these points when a new edition came out 2001.

If I recall correctly, there's not really all that much that Christopher Tolkien himself questioned. I wonder how short the list is actually; or how much on such a list would be deemed compelling enough matters to argue for a revised edition, given the subjective nature of that discussion.

(...) Thus in effect we have what was asked for: a 'definitive' version of 'The Silmarillion' of some kind. The issue is that we are not satisfied with it.

Some might be dissatisfied with it, but are you dissatisfied with The Silmarillion based on a reading of the book itself? Is it 'un-Tolkien-ian' in essence, or too much so? Even those inventions intended to reconcile The Fall of Doriath? To quote Mr. Noad again (same review)...

There is one point where Kane attempts a justification for a book such as this one. He notes (Kane, p. 216) that in The Road to Middle-earth Tom Shippey cites 'Thingol's death in the dark while he looks at the captured Light' (of the Silmaril) as an example of Tolkien’s genius for creating compelling images. However, 'Thingol's death in the dark recesses of Menegroth was completely an invention of the editors', hence 'The fact that as renown[ed] a Tolkien scholar as Shippey would have this kind of mistaken impression is a strong indication of the need for a work like the present one.'

Well now, catching out Shippey must count as pretty neat, but one might admire the editors for so well creating, out of the requirements of the reconstructed narrative, so Tolkienian an image. It must prove something.

[Inziladun]

I'm not nearly well-versed enough in the laborious process Tolkien had in writing the stories of the First Age to debate with some of the scholars here.

However, Tolkien himself is gone and unable to tell what his ultimate plans for consolidating the stories into a comprehensive volume were. That being the case, it is very unlikely that any version or variation of The Silmarillion will ever appear that will be universally accepted by both critics and readers. I think CT has done as good a job as can be done with the material he had to work with, and as I've said before, I really don't know anyone else in a better position than he to try and assemble the stories into a cohesive work.