Douglas Charles Kane’s “Arda Reconstucted: The Creation of the Published Simarillion”

[Galin]

(...) Christopher Tolkien often omits what Kane feels should have been included. In particular, Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay often reduce the role of females in the work.

And as for the claim that CJRT reduced the role of females... I further suggest this discussion (especially that between Doug Kane and Carl Hostetter [Voronwe and Aelfwine]):

http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/v...t=2184&start=0

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

And as for the claim that CJRT reduced the role of females... I further suggest this discussion (especially that between Doug Kane and Carl Hostetter [Voronwe and Aelfwine]):

http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/v...t=2184&start=0

I don’t see that that thread helps at all. I see that my own statement is actually somewhat weaker than what Kane claims.

I doubt that Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay consciously decided to reduce female rolls and Kane never claims they did.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I don’t see that that thread helps at all. I see that my own statement is actually somewhat weaker than what Kane claims.

Well I do think the thread helps in explaining what you've simplified here (however purposely, for brevity no doubt) in but one sentence.

I doubt that Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay consciously decided to reduce female rolls and Kane never claims they did.

I don't believe that anyone in any way decided to reduce female roles specifically, and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue. Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

I don't believe that anyone in any way decided to reduce female roles specifically, and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue. Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.

I really don’t understand what you are on about. I could equally claim that “even possibly raising the question of free speech is serious stuff in my opinion”, implying that you are against free speech.

Note, that I am NOT doing this. The point of this thread for me, and I started it if that matters, is not particularly Kane’s “choice of presentation in raising this issue”. That issue was only one of many points I raised. Is it your contention that any discussion of anything beyond Kane’s “choice of presentation” is not to the point of the thread? I disagree.

It was Hofstetter who originally “raised the question of misogyny” and who later rather backed down from his accusations. I don’t see that Kane is accusing Christopher Tolkien of misogyny.

Kane does indicate that Christopher Tolkien did not do a perfect job of editing his father’s work. Christopher Tolkien has explicitly said the same. This project itself is partly based on that premise.

Kane again and again expresses his puzzlement about some of Christopher Tolkien’s choices. Most of those cases also puzzle me.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I really don’t understand what you are on about. I could equally claim that “even possibly raising the question of free speech is serious stuff in my opinion”, implying that you are against free speech. Note, that I am NOT doing this.

What I'm on about there is merely that if one is going to raise an issue like 'reducing the roles of women' I think he or she should be very careful to avoid the implication of misogyny, especially if it's not what one intends to say or imply.

And you didn't raise the matter or present it, Doug Kane did of course; you simply referred to it briefly, and I invited readers here to see, at least in more detail, how Mr. Kane presented the issue, and his responses to Mr. Hostetter's points and opinions particularly (and others in the thread too of course).


If you're not interested in the linked thread, or don't think it helps at all then that's fine. I assume other people might read this thread however, and maybe they might be interested.

The point of this thread for me, and I started it if that matters, is not particularly Kane’s “choice of presentation in raising this issue”. That issue was only one of many points I raised. Is it your contention that any discussion of anything beyond Kane’s “choice of presentation” is not to the point of the thread? I disagree.

That's not my contention, for the record.

It was Hofstetter who originally “raised the question of misogyny” and who later rather backed down from his accusations. I don’t see that Kane is accusing Christopher Tolkien of misogyny.

Ok, that's your opinion and characterization. No problem of course. And I'll let other readers here decide for themselves as well; again if they are interested in this particular matter.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

What I'm on about there is merely that if one is going to raise an issue like 'reducing the roles of women' I think he or she should be very careful to avoid the implication of misogyny, especially if it's not what one intends to say or imply.

Kane didn’t raise the issue of misogyny. In the discussion which you cite, Kane very clearly points out that he never raised an accusation of misogyny in his book and never speculated on Christopher Tolkien’s thoughts on any of the issues which Kane did raise. Kane seems to me to have been very careful in what he wrote. That can’t prevent others from making inferences, sometimes even wrong inferences (and possibly correct inferences). I admit fully that it is very easy to infer that Kane intended to attribute misogyny to Christopher Tolkien.

One might also claim that Christopher Tolkien should have avoided the implication of misogyny or that J. R. R. Tolkien should have avoided the implication of misogyny by including more women. Something called an implication may be in fact be only a reader’s inference, and even an unfounded inference. Yes, one should be careful in writing to avoid providing unintended ideas to the reader. Similarly one should avoid making unfounded inferences from what another debater claims. If I have done so, I apologize.

And you didn't raise the matter or present it, Doug Kane did of course; you simply referred to it briefly, and I invited readers here to see, at least in more detail, how Mr. Kane presented the issue, and his responses to Mr. Hostetter's points and opinions particularly (and others in the thread too of course).

That is fair enough. But your other comments appear to support Hofstetter’s side. So I commented. I don’t read the debate as a victory of Hofstetter. Others might, I suppose.

If you're not interested in the linked thread, or don't think it helps at all then that's fine. I assume other people might read this thread however, and maybe they might be interested.

Where did you get the idea that I was not interested? I commented on the thread. Being interested is not necessarily at all the same as being in agreement, sometimes quite the opposite. And, yes, I am inferring here.

That's not my contention, for the record.

You contended:

... and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue.

I am pleased that you are withdrawing this contention.

Ok, that's your opinion and characterization. No problem of course. And I'll let other readers here decide for themselves as well; again if they are interested in this particular matter.

Fair enough.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Kane didn’t raise the issue of misogyny.

I didn't say he did, I noted he raised the matter or 'reducing the roles of women', which he did.

In the discussion which you cite, Kane very clearly points out that he never raised an accusation of misogyny in his book and never speculated on Christopher Tolkien’s thoughts on any of the issues which Kane did raise. Kane seems to me to have been very careful in what he wrote.

It seems then that you think Mr. Kane 'very carefully' writes (to quote Aelfwine)...

'Saying that "it appears that the roles of female characters are systematically reduced" (which you write at least twice in the book) is not the same thing as saying that "a significant number of editorial choices together have the effect of reducing the role of women in the book". The former implies deliberateness ("systematic") and comprehensiveness ("female characters" -- not, I note, "some female characters" -- and, again, "systematic"). The latter, while still arguable,* at least avoids those implications. It's a great pity that you didn't write the latter instead of the former.'

Jallanite wrote: That can’t prevent others from making inferences, sometimes even wrong inferences (and possibly correct inferences). I admit fully that it is very easy to infer that Kane intended to attribute misogyny to Christopher Tolkien.

So it's 'very easy' and 'very careful' is yet in there somewhere? Can you think of ways in which Mr. Kane could have been more careful that readers not very easily infer this?

You contended: '... and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue.'

I am pleased that you are withdrawing this contention.

I'm not withdrawing that, as all I'm saying there, or attempting to say, is that the linked thread is not really about anyone reacting to an explicit accusation -- the linked thread is rather generally about the presentation (of this idea that the roles of women have been reduced), and obviously includes specific citations from that presentation.


And incidentally, the exchange was:

Jallanite wrote: 'The point of this thread for me, and I started it if that matters, is not particularly Kane’s “choice of presentation in raising this issue”. That issue was only one of many points I raised. Is it your contention that any discussion of anything beyond Kane’s “choice of presentation” is not to the point of the thread? I disagree.

Galin wrote: That's not my contention, for the record.