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

[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.

[Galin]

For the record I was not suggesting [and was only suggesting something as a possible solution to Inziladun's comments in any case] that HME be banned from this forum or any other.

One forum I post at simply has a separate sub-forum for discussion of the 1977 Silmarillion as a book -- for a 'common ground' discussion of that book as a work in itself, and in that forum alone, HME concerns do not sidetrack any threads. Or they are not supposed to, anyway.

And at least that's how it was when I first joined. Maybe not now.

Anyway for myself, I also don't think HME is really a problem in any case, it's just that I can understand the desire of some who don't wish to read it and want to discuss The Silmarillion as it is, without HME concerns [that they know nothing about perhaps] possibly sidetracking some threads.

Also, I'm aware of the external details that underlie Galadriel's statement in The Fellowship of the Ring, but that doesn't change the fact that she does not state, in Fellowship itself, what mountains she is referring to.

That was part of my point really: the 'external' details might inform the reader about the seemingly conflicting texts, but as we were not really meant to read the posthumously published descriptions [at least not necessarily all of them, and some as they are, in an arguably 'unfinished' state], especially 'rejected' draft material [we were not meant to read them from the author's perspective at least], we might, in my opinion, try to mentally strip this away when dealing with seeming variations.

Even doing so in this case, I admit things don't smooth over perfectly, but if the 'West' means Beleriand and Galadriel means the 'mountains' that stood between some of the Noldor and Celeborn in Doriath...

[Galin]

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.

Certainly Tolkien intended some purposed inconsistencies in his work, while others, even if author-published, were perhaps not really intended. That said [and not that you said otherwise], my issue is with the possible 'external muddle', meaning, those inconsistencies that 'really' are not, in an internal sense [supposed to be parts of the legendarium] -- as they are merely the not unexpected result of a creative mind creating.

Orodreth was not intended to be both Galadriel's brother and her nephew for example, or rather, there was not supposed to be existing variant texts within the legendarium that related both ideas.

On the other hand, there were supposed to be two internal variations of the history of the Elessar jewel -- or if that is in dispute, compare The Drowning of Anadune [Mannish perspective] to the tale of Numenor's fall in The Silmarillion.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

One forum I post at simply has a separate sub-forum for discussion of the 1977 Silmarillion as a book -- for a 'common ground' discussion of that book as a work in itself, and in that forum alone, HME concerns do not sidetrack any threads. Or they are not supposed to, anyway.

You might indicate the forum. It is not clear from what you say whether this group of discussions of the 1977 Silmarillion is simply one of several breakdowns of Tolkien’s writilng, none of which is necessarily supposed to be totally limited to the writing that they are mainly about. Many forums do have many more breakdowns that his one, but I have not seen any which tried to enforce any of them to only be about their main subject.

As an example, a questioner might be asking about more information about the Drúedain and it seems absurd to merely answer by saying that they are not mentioned in the published Silmarillion instead of also pointing out the mentions in Unfinished Tales and the HoME series with a short summary of what these works say, even if the original query as placed in a section of Silmarillion threads.

Likewise discussion of the Drúedain and proto-hominids seems to me to be reasonable, despite the fact that no such discussion appears anywhere in Tolkien’s work, so far as I am aware. I see more problems arising with attempts to limit discussion than with people getting more information than they want.

I rather expect that Inziladun wants to avoid mentions such as mine that Tolkien again and again indicates that much of the Silmarillion is, within his imaginary universe, only legend, and even untrue legend. If he and others can prevent anyone from mentioning such statements, then his incorrect theory becomes correct to the readers. It doesn’t even matter for Inziladun that Tolkien indicates this again and again because J. R. R. Tolkien does not say it in the published Silmarillion as edited by Christopher Tolkien.

Which is a good reason why posters in any forum, so far as I know, are not limited in the forum as Inziladun would like.

Anyway for myself, I also don't think HME is really a problem in any case, it's just that I can understand the desire of some who don't wish to read it and want to discuss The Silmarillion as it is, without HME concerns [that they know nothing about perhaps] possibly sidetracking some threads.

Christopher Tolkien has again and again indicated what he now sees as errors in his Silmarillion. Inziladun wants this not to be mentioned, because Christopher Tolkien has not produced a revised Silmarillion with changes. In short Inzaladun doesn’t want the truth revealed. Inzaladun is quite free to claim that Christopher Tolkien is wrong and that his Silmarillion is really perfect, despite what Christopher Tolkien has written. But he would rather that no-one who disagrees with him be allowed the write what they believe, because this might confuse new readers who don’t know that there are other versions of some of the material in The Silmarillion and works published in Tolkien’s lifetime.

Anyone is at liberty to ignore any post that they wish. There have been posts on this forum that I consider incorrect. But I have then argued against them or ignored them, not attempted to make it a rule that no-one be allowed to talk about them.

Also, I'm aware of the external details that underlie Galadriel's statement in The Fellowship of the Ring, but that doesn't change the fact that she does not state, in Fellowship itself, what mountains she is referring to.

Considering the other material I presented and the material in The Road Goes Ever On I now think that you are right, that Galadriel was primarily referring to the Eredluin / Ered Lindon. However it is also obvious that one must cross both the Eredluin / Ered Lindon and the Misty Mountains when traveling from Beleriand to Lórien. My intended point was that Tolkien in The Fellowship placed Galadriel’s journey to Lórien in the First Age and it is implied, though not definitely stated, that Galadriel married Celeborn upon arriving in his land of Lórien while in the Appendices in the revised version of The Lord of the Rings Galadriel and Celeborn, already married to each other, first journeyed to Lórien in the Second Age.

One can reconcile the two accounts by imagining that Galadriel did first go to Lórien in the first age and then returned to Beleriand late in the First Age and married Celeborn. Then Galadriel returned to Lórien a second time. But this disagrees with the statement in the published Silmarillion that no Noldor crossed the Ered Lindon during the First Age.

I felt that his apparent discrepancy was one of the matters to which Christopher Tolkien was referring when he wrote: “A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion and other published witing of my father’s) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost.”

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

You might indicate the forum. It is not clear from what you say whether this group of discussions of the 1977 Silmarillion is simply one of several breakdowns of Tolkien’s writilng, none of which is necessarily supposed to be totally limited to the writing that they are mainly about. Many forums do have many more breakdowns that his one, but I have not seen any which tried to enforce any of them to only be about their main subject.

I distinctly remember being told HME was off topic in the Silmarillion forum when I first arrived 'there', but I guess that could have been someone's opinion of what the forum should be for, admittedly. But it hardly matters much if I am wrong about that... for myself, I interpreted Inziladun's comments to be about the frustration of not having at least one place where the 1977 Silmarillion could be discussed without sidetracking and debate due to HME and other sources.

But that said I was focusing too much about matters like orc origins for example -- as I can at least understand the frustration from some when threads which merely mention the idea of Orcs possibly being made from Elves [Eressean theory published in the constructed Silmarillion of course] get sidetracked into a HME based orc-origin thread. Especially if the person starting the thread, for instance, now could not even participate in a HME based side topic.

But yes then there would be a filter on everything and anything outside of The Silmarillion, and such a forum could, and would, weed out important contributions, points and opinions.

Also, I have to admit that for me getting sidetracked is not really a problem. As you say, read and respond to those things you want to read and respond to. I once started a thread that quickly went a wholly different way [with respect to what I wanted to discuss], but really there was nothing stopping me, or others, from continuing to post about the 'orginal topic' in the very same thread; and if no one else was interested... oh well, that's the way it goes sometimes.


About Galadriel, my attempt at reconciling the matter is to make Galadriel refer to crossing 'mountains' in Beleriand, then joining with Celeborn in Doriath [the 'West'], all in the First Age. If so I think this even agrees with the constructed Silmarillion reference that you pointed out -- except that I admit it is a bit odd for Galadriel to mean she crossed the mountains of Beleriand [Ered Wethrin perhaps], and not only that, but before the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin, when she would have done so before these realms were even established -- going by her seeming history according to the 'phase' of the early 1950s anyway!

I agree Tolkien very likely meant that Galadriel came to Lorien before the fall of Nargothrond and Gondolin, and met Celeborn the Nandorin Elf in Lorien, and when Celeborn became Sindarin [Appendices first edition] Tolkien possibly forgot to revise this earlier statement -- including for the second edition I guess, if so. But so far, I still prefer my idea [despite its problems] to giving Galadriel a trip back to Beleriand. As for the statement in chapter 14, that is easily enough revised from the author's perspective, having never been in print, but The Lord of the Rings and The Road Goes Ever On are not so easily dealt with in my opinion.

And I agree that Galadriel's statement was likely included in CJRT's comment about 'complete consistency' and so on.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

I distinctly remember being told HME was off topic in the Silmarillion forum when I first arrived 'there', but I guess that could have been someone's opinion of what the forum should be for, admittedly. But it hardly matters much if I am wrong about that... for myself, I interpreted Inziladun's comments to be about the frustration of not having at least one place where the 1977 Silmarillion could be discussed without sidetracking and debate due to HME and other sources.

For your own statement the forum that had a Silmarillion forum may have not had it only for Silmarillion material, despite what you were told when you arrived there. Therefore I still know of none among all the many Tolkien forums past or present which lays or layed any rules on speaking from any of Tolkien’s texts, save that they should be discussed in the proper place.

This forum has far places places than most, but seems none the worse for that.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Inzadadun’s frustration if it means limiting free speech. He or anyone may start a forum on a topic and say that he wants the discussion to only concern matters in The Silmarillion. But the forum as a whole, as with all Tolkien forums, so far as I am aware, allow almost any discussion of anything save for legal reasons or for reasons of the discussion being felt unsuitable for young people.

That has always been the case in this forum, which indeed even as a set for threads called The New Silmarillion dedicated to creating a better Silmarillion.

But that said I was focusing too much about matters like orc origins for example -- as I can at least understand the frustration from some when threads which merely mention the idea of Orcs possibly being made from Elves [Eressean theory published in the constructed Silmarillion of course] get sidetracked into a HME based orc-origin thread. Especially if the person starting the thread, for instance, now could not even participate in a HME based side topic.

That Orcs were created from Elves is simply stated in the published Silmarillion. Not much room for discussion is there? I can understand that some people do not like what Tolkien said on many issues, but that is simply the breaks. Perhaps they might like what Tolkien said in other places better, but Inzadadun doesn’t want this other material to be mentioned.

Also, I have to admit that for me getting sidetracked is not really a problem. As you say, read and respond to those things you want to read and respond to. I once started a thread that quickly went a wholly different way [with respect to what I wanted to discuss], but really there was nothing stopping me, or others, from continuing to post about the 'orginal topic' in the very same thread; and if no one else was interested... oh well, that's the way it goes sometimes.

Exactly.

About Galadriel, my attempt at reconciling the matter is to make Galadriel refer to crossing 'mountains' in Beleriand, then joining with Celeborn in Doriath [the 'West'], all in the First Age. If so I think this even agrees with the constructed Silmarillion reference that you pointed out -- except that I admit it is a bit odd for Galadriel to mean she crossed the mountains of Beleriand [Ered Wethrin perhaps], and not only that, but before the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin, when she would have done so before these realms were even established -- going by her seeming history according to the 'phase' of the early 1950s anyway!

The sole mention I made to The Silmarillion is the statement in chapter 14: “But none of the Noldor went ever over Ered Lindon, while their realm lasted.” That is very straightforward. My point was that even the accounts in the second edition of The Lord of the Rings do not agree between the accounts in the Appendices and Galadriel’s statement in Fellowship.

That people get frustrated with some forums is normal. But the answer to that is not putting down rules which prevent referring to particular works, except for obvious things like in this forum the book discussion should cover mainly books not films and the film discussions should cover mainly films and not books.

If a poster refers to something an interested reader doesn’t know about, the reader can always ask about it. If posters are referring to HoME material that the reader does not care about, the reader may always remark that the material doesn’t interest them and say why it doesn’t interest them.

Note that a statement that the reader simply accepts or rejects any material will probably usually seem very uninteresting to me without more information.

It would be far more frustrating when a reader’s query has an obvious answer but the answer is in HoME and one is not allowed to cite it because HoME is thought to be too difficult for the reader to understand.