How close is the published The Silmarillion to JRRT's Silmarillion?

[Mornorngûr]

I personally consider 'The Silmarillion' to be canon, whilst at the same time incorporating into my point of view all the later writings that fit the general history without drastically altering the storyline.

For example we could accept Orodreph as being Felagund's nephew rather than brother, because it in no way really interrupts the basic flow of events or story. However we can not accept that Feanor burnt his youngest son along with the ships, and even less that he burnt both of them (as suggested in HoME-11) because this would drastically alter the history, and does not fit in with the story.

Another example could be that we can accept that Turgon saved Idril from drowning during the crossing; but we can not accept that Celeborn came from Valinor with Galadriel (Well I refuse to accept it anyway )

[Galin]

I also do not think the Silmarillion was ever intended to be canon, nor is held to be so by Christopher Tolkien.

To me The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin very generally fulfill Tolkien's intentions as far as 'the book experience' goes, in comparison to the scholarly experience of HME. In this general sense it doesn't matter much who Gil-galad's father is for example [I note however that Gil-galad's parentage is left obscure in The Children of Hurin tables], although the lack of any framework, even if a brief recounting of who wrote what for instance [if known], would, I think, add a distinct something that is 'lacking' in the current version.

Christopher Tolkien himself noted that he should have attempted some sort of framework, but to me this is quite different from second guessing who Gil-galad's father should have been [he noted he should have left this obscure], or if Orodreth should have been Galadriel's brother or not.

Anyway I think there was at least one revision to the first edition of The Silmarillion with respect to the numbering of the Numenorean Kings and Queens [emphasis on I think]; and if I recall correctly The Lord of the Rings itself has been edited in this respect, so now the detail matches in certain editions.


Anyway, yes HME has infiltrated the Silmarillion threads and threads in general.

What's the solution, then? Everyone can't be an HOME scholar, devoting much time to study of earlier drafts and variants, not to mention various noted and letters produced by J.R.R.T. in his later years.

Possibly to make certain threads '1977 Silmarillion only', but that's really only a solution to a specific aspect of discussing the Elder Days. Some have not read HME nor want to, but I agree that the 1977 Silmarillion can be used as a 'shared internal canon'.

I mean Christopher Tolkien's version is the only book version to work with and we are not likely to get another -- which, if we did, would probably contain more descisions not everyone would agree with in any case.

Based on what can be found in HME and elsewhere, everyone's personal Silmarillions will possibly be different, and even very different: for example [since someone already brought it up], I can imagine the death of one of Feanor's sons at Losgar being 'internally true', but then again I don't have to produce a one volume Silmarillion for 'everyone's bookshelves' in which that choice has to become a reality on paper, and involves more considerations than simply imagining the 'truth' about Middle-earth.

And if one is Robert Foster for example, I think it makes sense to describe this 'shared' version in any guide [whether he had HME to work with or not].

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galin

I also do not think the Silmarillion was ever intended to be canon, nor is held to be so by Christopher Tolkien.

I would be interested to know if CT or the Estate has ever issued any statement to that effect.

Originally Posted by Galin

Possibly to make certain threads '1977 Silmarillion only', but that's really only a solution to a specific aspect of discussing the Elder Days. Some have not read HME nor want to, but I agree that the 1977 Silmarillion can be used as a 'shared internal canon'.

I mean Christopher Tolkien's version is the only book version to work with and we are not likely to get another -- which, if we did, would probably contain more descisions not everyone would agree with in any case.

You have more clearly stated my own belief. HOME leaves far too much leeway for endless debates for me, as an "average" Tolkien reader, to be comfortable with. Unless CT or the Estate later produces something better, the best bet for me is the published Silmarillion.

Originally Posted by Galin

Based on what can be found in HME and elsewhere, everyone's personal Silmarillions will possibly be different

Just so, and for the purposes of an internet forum discussion, it's much easier to have a common standard, or else it's pointless.

[Mithalwen]

I don't see that there is a huge problem. I can't recall him using canon as a term but I might be wrong. In note39 to Cirion and Eorl in UT he suggests independent and distinct traditions to re solve differences in versions of the origins of the house of Dol Amroth which doesn't suggest a slave to the concept of canon.

I find that there are almost always factual errors anytime anything I happen to really know about is reported in the media and there are often variants in legends, even in the interpretation of historical evidence, it is almost more authentic to have variants in a synthetic mythology. As with real history it is a question of balancing evidence and probabilities. Of course not everyone is going to get involved in it the texts to that extent.

[Galin]

Incidentally [since it came up in the thread] I accept what Galadriel says in Fellowship of the Ring about Nargothrond and so on, and what it says in The Road Goes Ever On about her movements [crossing the mountains of Lindon]. Both these works are published by JRRT himself in any case [whether or not they seem to contradict each other].

The first doesn't state what mountains are being referred to, even if readers think they know because they know the details of the external variations, nor is The Silmarillion published by the author, if something from it should contradict something Tolkien already published.

I agree one might wonder why Galadriel would be referring to 'mountains' that are, at the time of her statement, possibly long sunk beneath the Sea, but the timing reference is to the fall of Nargothrond and Gondolin too... not exactly events that occurred lately, especially from a Hobbit perspective.


I do think [my opinion] that Christopher Tolkien made an effort, at least, to be consistent with The Lord of the Rings. And in my opinion the posthumously published texts are different animals than author-published work, especially where seeming or 'obvious' inconsistencies are concerned.

[Morthoron]

I love The Silmarillion. I have loved it since I first read it on the day it was released in the States. Having read the entire HoMe series has not altered my feelings for the book. For all its warts and incongruities, it is great and stirring literature and a mythological masterwork of which the events in The Lord of the Rings are merely the tail end.

I will neither change my opinion nor revert to some warped "1977 Silmarillion Only" discussion threads at this curmudgeonly point in my crotchety old age. The whole idea is plain dumb and I'll have none of it.

Now, you damn kids get off my lawn!

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I would be interested to know if CT or the Estate has ever issued any statement to that effect.

I don’t believe either of them have. Just as the BBC has never officially stated that any of the Doctor Who material is either canon or not canon. Whether something is canon or not canon is something for fans to concern themselves with. And fans often mean different things by canon.

The term was originally introduced into Sherlock Holmes fandom, and referred to the more official status of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories as opposed to others, particularly films, and radio plays, and live dramas.

As to statements by CT or the Estate, note that on the dust jacket of Tolkien’s The Fall of Arthur it is stated: “The Fall of Arthur, the only venture by J.R.R. Tolkien into the legends of Arthur King of Britain ...”. This entirely ignores “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” in J. R. R. Tolkien’s Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: Pearl: Sir Orfeo.

I would not feel at all comfortable in ignoring Christopher Tolkien’s continual mentions of places where he feels the published Silmarillion falls down. I would not feel at all comfortable in a forum that banned mentions of particular books other than for legal reasons.

You have more clearly stated my own belief. HOME leaves far too much leeway for endless debates for me, as an "average" Tolkien reader, to be comfortable with. Unless CT or the Estate later produces something better, the best bet for me is the published Silmarillion.

Yet you do not complain in the thread http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18457 when Zigûr follow your beginning post with a quotation from Tolkien’s Letters and from Morgoth’s Ring. You jump in immediately on Mithalwen’s thread at http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18434 which begins with “Aldarion and Erendis: The Mariner’s Wife” from Unfinished Tales. I am not willing to follow what you say especially when you yourself do not do so. It appears you simply want things to be easier, like a school essay which allow only particular texts to be cited to make marking easier.

I’ve never read any complaints about anyone citing material published after Tolkien’s death in any Tolkien forum so far as I can recall. No Tolkien forum, so far as I know has any such rule. You are inventing a problem that doesn’t exist and has never existed. Invent all you want, but this supposed problem is only your own invention. It seems to me to be more “pointless” to attempt to add a rule to the forum that no-one but you wants and is not needed.

Originally Posted by Galin

Incidentally [since it came up in the thread] I accept what Galadriel says in Fellowship of the Ring about Nargothrond and so on, and what it says in The Road Goes Ever On about her movements [crossing the mountains of Lindon]. Both these works are published by JRRT himself in any case [whether or not they seem to contradict each other].

From Unfinished Tales, “The History of Galadriel and Celeborn”:

Thus, at the onset, it is certain that the earlier conception was that Galadriel went east over the mountains from Beleriand alone, before the end of the First Age, and met Celeborn in his own land of Lórien; this is explicitly stated in unpublished writings, and the same idea underlies Galadriel’s words to Frodo in The Fellowship of the Ring II 7, where she says of Celeborn that ‘He has dwelt in the West since the days of dawn, and I have dwelt with him for years uncounted; for ere the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin I passed over the mountains, and together through ages of the world we have fought the long defeat.’ In all probability Celeborn was in this conception a Nandoran Elf (that is one of the Teleri who refused to cross the Misty Mountains on the Great Journey from Cuiviénen).

These unpublished writings seems to be cited in The Peoples of Middle-earth (HoME XII), page 185, by Christopher Tolkien:

In one of the earliest texts of the work Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age my father wrote of Galadriel: ‘A Queen she was and lady of the woodland elves, yet she was herself of the Noldor and had come from Beleriand in the days of the Exile.’ To this he added subsequently: ‘For it is said by some that she was a handmaid of Melian the immortal in the realm of Doriath’; but striking this out at once he substituted: ‘For it is said by some that she was the daughter of Felegund the Fair and escaped from Nargothrond in the day of its destruction.’ In the following text this was changed to read: ‘And some have said that she was the daughter of Felegund the Fair and fled from Nargothrond before its fall, and passed over the mountains into Eriador ere the coming of Fionwë’; this in turn he altered to: ‘For she was the daughter of Felagund the Fair and the elder sister of Gil-galad, though seldom had they met, for ere Nargothrond was made or Felagund was driven from Dorthonion, she passed east over the mountains and forsook Beleriand, and first of all the Noldor came to the inner lands; and too late she heard the summons of Fionwë.’ – In the Annals of Aman and the Grey Annals she had become, as she remained, the sister of Felagund.

[radagastly]

I must admit, I've always been a bit befuddled by the notion of "canon." It seems to revolve around questions of:
1. Is one section of text or detail consistent with other texts or details on the same topic?
2. Is a text or detail consistent with the author's intent?
There may be other questions that certain readers/fans/scholars may wish to impose, but it seems to mostly revolve around these two questions.

As for one text being consistent with all or any others on the same subject, I have no problem with inconsistencies. They exist even in our own real history. How many times was Julius Caesar stabbed in the Senate? Shakespeare says 33 times. Some historians have always said it was 22 times. A relatively modern historian (30 to 40 years ago) calculated (based on a variety of documentation) that the number of conspirators was between 11 and 14, and that they each stabbed him once. The only consistent and accurate answer to the question "How many times was Ceasar stabbed?" is "many."

I like the variations and inconsistencies that appear when the story is thought of as being told from various perspectives. A Hobbit writing the story of the war of the Ring would inherently include (or omit) details of that story that might well be ignored (or emphasized) if the same story is written by an elf or a man or a dwarf. These inconsistencies add a richness and reality to the story that would be completely absent if every detail was exactly consistent from the Ainulindale through the Final Battle.

As for the author's intent, I suppose if you were actually a real Necromancer, you could bring Tolkien back from the dead and ask him all the questions your heart desires. Personally, I think an author's intent is of little consequence until a work is published, at which point intent is completed superceded by the author's actual accomplishment, inconsistencies and all. I really don't care to see the early drafts of a story. I'd rather be engaged by the finished version.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

What's the solution, then?

I don’t see what the problem is to which you seek a solution.

Everyone can't be an HOME scholar, devoting much time to study of earlier drafts and variants, not to mention various notes and letters produced by J.R.R.T. in his later years. There's an endless capacity for debate if one takes your tack, for the fact is, if CT's version is unacceptable to you, there will never be an edition that satisfies. If that's all right with you, so be it.

That is certainly alright with me. As I pointed out, discussions do constantly slip into details not in the published Silmarillion. If you want to try to make a rule that no mention of material in HoME or other material published after Tolkien’s death is to be allowed in this forum, you are allowed to try. I don’t see you being successful.

Currently it is not necessary that members of this forum have even read The Lord of the Rings, much less the Silmarillion. There are no rules save that all discussions shouldtin some way relate to Tolkien, and even that is not really enforced.

For the purpose of discussion such as we have on this forum, there must be a standard to base opinions on, and The Silmarillion, for all its faults, fills the bill. I choose to see the published work as canon, because I do not see how it will be bettered.

There is a standard. The discussions are supposed to be related to Tolkien. That has until now been sufficient. Some discussions have been published solely about the volume Unfinished Tales. There is at least one thread solely on The Fall of Arthur. You are attempting to install new rules that have never been in place on this or any other Tolkien forum so far as I know. Can you understand why not?

I reject your limited standard on discussion just as much as Christopher Tolkien has and as most ĭf not all posters on this forum have, by being quite ready to discuss HoME material in any discussion where it fits. You surely know this. I don’t see anything to be gained by an attempt at dumbing down.

Originally Posted by Mornorngûr

I personally consider 'The Silmarillion' to be canon, whilst at the same time incorporating into my point of view all the later writings that fit the general history without drastically altering the storyline.

I personally reject the concept of canon.

Another example could be that we can accept that Turgon saved Idril from drowning during the crossing; but we can not accept that Celeborn came from Valinor with Galadriel (Well I refuse to accept it anyway )

Then don’t use the word “we”. Personally I accept all Tolkien fictional writing as just that, fiction. And that fiction, unpublished in Tolkien’s lifetime exists in variant versions, all of which is often discussed on this forum regardless of where it was published.

So you reject Tolkien’s later story that Galadriel came with Celeborn from Vainor separately from the other Exiles. Do you also reject Galadriel’s own statement of her origin as it appears in Book II chapter 7 of The Fellowship of the Ring:

He [Celeborn] has dwelt in the West since the days of dawn, and I have dwelt with him years uncounted; for ere the fall of Nargothron or Gondolin I passed over the mountains, aǹd together through ages of the world we have fought together the long defeat.

But the published Silmarillion claims in the last sentence of chapter 14:

But none of the Noldor went ever over Ered Lindon, while their realm lasted.

This is in accord with Tolkien’s later account in which during the Second Age, not the First, long after the fall of Nargothrond and Gondolin, and after Galadriel had married Celeborn, the two of them crossed the mountains into Lothlórien.

I neither reject nor accept any of the accounts, but merely note that they differ. Christopher Tolkien seems to do the same.