The Statures of Elves and Men: Changes

[arathorn]

I'm sorry Galin but since I met you and saw your name in other forums including this you always treated both quotes as contradictory and every-time I see it I just try to persuade otherwise not just because I believe it but because Tolkien has enough and much more contradictory things than this thus we shouldn't over-think things like you do although it has a point that I recognize.
Well Christopher made a book with "Part 2 - Late Writings" , which included Of Dwarves and Men like we already know and for example the part where Fingolfin is stronger than Feanor is dropped to "...Feanor, great in mind and body beyond the measure of the Eldar", but the simple mention that Fingolfin was strong even in comparison to Feanor in the past, still makes him very strong.
Finally it's always good to argue with you I guess

[Galin]

Well yes I lean toward the opinion that these quotes embody different ideas, but again I've said it's quite possible (if more strained in my opinion) that these quotes agree with each other -- and I know I've said that much more than once now, at the least in other conversations with you elsewhere. And I don't agree I'm over-thinking things, including when I interpret Tolkien's description in reaction to P. Baynes artwork (I really need an easier term for this text) compared to the description in ODAM -- I interpreted these things that way naturally.

Well Christopher made a book with "Part 2 - Late Writings" , which included Of Dwarves and Men like we already know and for example the part where Fingolfin is stronger than Feanor is dropped to "...Feanor, great in mind and body beyond the measure of the Eldar", but the simple mention that Fingolfin was strong even in comparison to Feanor in the past, still makes him very strong.

If that's your answer to why you trust Christopher Tolkien over Hammond and Scull here then you've lost me, as you seem to be saying that since Christopher Tolkien published Of Dwarves And Men, but not (all of) Tolkien's reactions to Pauline Bayne's artwork, then the former has more weight than the latter. If so I strongly disagree with that. I think you are jumping to conclusions about some motive or opinion of Christopher Tolkien's with respect to the weighting of texts.

CJRT also didn't publish Tolkien's Osanwe-Kenta for example, or all the notes to The Shibboleth of Feanor, but there is no indication from him that he thinks these texts are 'lesser' in some way and thus have been given to other scholars to publish and comment on.

Finally it's always good to argue with you I guess

You guess? Are you sure

[arathorn]

Well yes I lean toward the opinion that these quotes embody different ideas, but again I've said it's quite possible (if more strained in my opinion) that these quotes agree with each other -- and I know I've said that much more than once now, at the least in other conversations with you elsewhere.

Yes that's exactly what I was talking about, you should in other threads at least tell the other possibility not just when I say otherwise or someone else.[/u][/u][/u]

Wel I don't happen to agree I'm 'over-thinking' things, including when I interpret Tolkien's description in reaction to P. Baynes artwork (I really need an easier term for this text) compared to the description in ODAM -- I interpreted these things that way naturally.


But man there are many and much more contradicted things. I don't think we should get stuck in another contradiction when it simply can get match perfectly and while there is no other passage that support that idea.

If that's your answer to why you trust Christopher Tolkien over Hammond and Scull here then you've really lost me, as you seem to be saying that since Christopher Tolkien published Of Dwarves And Men, but not Tolkien's reactions to Pauline Bayne's artwork, then the former has more weight than the latter.


I just think that Christopher should have access to that passage since he talked about Eldar height more than once and I talked about Feanor thing to say that what was written there(PME) was probably his latest thoughts.

If so I srongly disagree with that. I think you are jumping to conclusions based on some imagined motive or opinion of Christopher Tolkien's about the weighting of texts.


I think I would put more weight in latest writings given by Christopher than Hammond (not that the latter is wrong). Anyway in my interpretation both say the same thing so we can forget about that...

CJRT also didn't publish Tolkien's Osanwe-Kenta for example, or all the notes to The Shibboleth of Feanor, but there is no indication from him that he thinks these texts are 'lesser' for having been given to other scholars to publish and comment on.


Agreed It's just that if some of them publish something different and contradictory with the same topic Christopher already published many times that should mean Christopher already have the knowledge and chose to ignore or he didn't know (which isn't likely).

You guess? Are you sure

Yeah sometimes you prefer to put more contradiction in a work that already has a lot of them and I must admit that ****es me off sometimes. Although currently I'm kind off accustomed with that.

[Galin]

Yes that's exactly what I was talking about, you should in other threads at least tell the other possibility not just when I say otherwise or someone else.

So you think I 'should' always post an interpretation I disagree with and think is strained, and not just in reaction to you or someone else posting another? Actually, when I originally started adding new information to threads that concerned this matter, I'm not sure it had even yet occurred to me that anyone would think these quotations agreed with each other.

In the past I have, with respect to various topics, explained that my interpretation of something is not the only interpretation 'out there'. And I have at times, if not always, actually included counter arguments that I know exist but that I disagree with. That said, when I give my opinion on Balrog wings, for instance, I don't always refer to every counter argument I have ever read on the web.

Do you really see everyone on the web always posting any and all counter arguments about a given matter, simply because they know some other argument (or arguments) exist(s)?

Your opinion about how I 'should' post about this is noted in any case

But man there are many and much more contradicted things. I don't think we should get stuck in another contradiction when it simply can get match perfectly and while there is no other passage that support that idea.

That opinion arises from your interpretation in the first place ('match perfectly' for example). I don't write the texts: if I see something I think contradicts something else, I'll note it. Maybe.

I just think that Christopher should have access to that passage since he talked about Eldar height more than once and I talked about Feanor thing to say that what was written there (PME) was probably his latest thoughts.

Well Christopher Tolkien published parts of these 'Hammond and Scull descriptions' in Unfinished Tales actually, just not all of them. And no, there is no indication that the mere publication by Christopher Tolkien, of ODAM, makes ODAM necessarily later that the other description.

I think I would put more weight in latest writings given by Christopher than Hammond (not that the latter is wrong). Anyway in my interpretation both say the same thing so we can forget about that...

Yet you haven't proven which text is later than the other however. If you can I would love to know myself.

Agreed It's just that if some of them publish something different and contradictory with the same topic Christopher already published many times that should mean Christopher already have the knowledge and chose to ignore or he didn't know (which isn't likely).

As I guessed you're jumping to conclusions about what this 'means'. Hammond and Scull noted that they and CJRT were reluctant to publish these late notes, in context, while Pauline Baynes was still alive...

... because Tolkien was not happy with these particular illustrations.

CJRT published some of them in UT (without the explanation that they were, in part, Tolkien's reaction to the artwork of P. Baynes). Now there is more from J. Rateliff and Hammond and Scull, with the fuller, external context explained, as the artist has passed on.

But still we don't have all of it published as yet!

Yeah sometimes you prefer to put more contradiction in a work that already has a lot of them and I must admit that ****es me off sometimes. Although currently I'm kind off accustomed with that.

That's not how I would characterize what I prefer to do

[Galin]

... and I must admit that ****es me off sometimes. Although currently I'm kind off accustomed with that.

Well... may I suggest you try to keep calm then

Sorry I couldn't resist.

[arathorn]

Do you really see everyone on the web always posting any and all counter arguments about a given matter, simply because they know some other argument (or arguments) exist(s)?

I though that after all we have been through you at least recognize another possibility that wouldn't leave contradiction and that it has very strong arguments that could prove this (until now I haven't seen anyone who couldn't actually see my possibility or at least see dubious interpretation except you of course).

That opinion arises from your interpretation in the first place ('match perfectly' for example). I don't write the texts: if I see something I think contradicts something else, I'll note it. Maybe.

It's my opinion but if I'm right what would be the height of the race in which their shortest are 6'6''? about 7' (since Tolkien never gives a really exact height). But like I said the point isn't that but the fact that nothing supports your last interpretation.

Yet you haven't proven one is later than the other however. If you can I would love to know myself.

I said to forget that since independent of the date both says the same thing(tome of course).

As I guessed you're jumping to conclusions about what this 'means'. Hammond and Scull noted that they and CJRT were reluctant to publish these late notes, in context, while Pauline Baynes was still alive...

... because Tolkien was not happy with these particular illustrations.

CJRT published some of them in UT (without the explanation that they were, in part, Tolkien's reaction to the artwork of P. Baynes). Now there is more from J. Rateliff and Hammond and Scull, with the fuller, external context explained, as the artist has passed on.


I was saying that Chris already "posted" a lot about Eldar height so why didn't he posted that? Or do you think he never saw that passage?

That's not how I would characterize what I prefer to do

" I don't write the texts: if I see something I think contradicts something else, I'll note it" that was said by you and pretty much proves what I was talking about

[Galin]

I though that after all we have been through you at least recognize another possibility that wouldn't leave contradiction and that it has very strong arguments that could prove this (until now I haven't seen anyone who couldn't actually see my possibility or at least see dubious interpretation except you of course).

Actually more than once I've said that I recognize the 'possibility' of your argument now that we have spoken. But no, I don't agree that your argument is 'very strong', sorry.

It's my opinion but if I'm right what would be the height of the race in which their shortest are 6'6''? about 7' (since Tolkien never gives a really exact height). But like I said the point isn't that but the fact that nothing supports your last interpretation.

Yet you already agreed that my interpretation of the 'artwork quote' itself is a valid interpretation!

Galin said: Yet you haven't proven one is later than the other however. If you can I would love to know myself.

Arathorn responded: I said to forget that since independent of the date both says the same thing (to me of course).

So you want me to forget that you stated that you would trust CJRT more than W. Hammond, even though both descriptions are Tolkien-written and you can't illustrate which is later than the other. The point was: the idea that CJRT published one and Hammond and Scull published the other has nothing to do with the date of the texts.

That was the thrust of this part of the discussion. And yes both say the same thing 'to you' obviously. But I've no idea why that should mean I should 'forget it'.

I was saying that Chris already "posted" a lot about Eldar height so why didn't he posted that? Or do you think he never saw that passage?

Now you're just repeating the question: as Christopher Tolkien himself published parts of the description in question, my guess is that he both saw and read the whole set of texts in which Tolkien reacts to the artwork of P. Baynes, which is a natural enough assumption in my opinion.

And I've already responded to this: you'll have to ask him why he didn't publish it all himself in Unfinished Tales, instead of allowing Hammond and Scull or J. Rateliff to publish other parts of it. He doesn't explain this... the problem remains, it seems to me, that you're trying to answer for him by suggesting that the parts he didn't publish in The History of Middle-Earth or elsewhere are somehow lesser in some way.

Or if not I've no idea what your argument about this really is.

And while you're at it maybe ask CJRT if the whole of these descriptions are going to be published at some point, now that the artist has passed on.

Galin wrote: That's not how I would characterize what I prefer to do

Arathorn responded: " I don't write the texts: if I see something I think contradicts something else, I'll note it" that was said by you and pretty much proves what I was talking about

Well, what you were talking about was the assertion that I: '... prefer to put more contradiction in a work that already has a lot of them...'

Which is not true. What I prefer to do is interpret a passage honestly. I don't 'prefer' more contradiction. I'll gladly read two (or more) passages in such a way that they can be said to agree -- but any arguable 'wriggling' in order to say that two passages 'agree' is a subjective measure.


And with respect to 'more contradiction' in another context, see my posts about 'canon' where I am often arguing that some are, in a sense 'creating' contradiction, or accepting 'contradiction' from an internal perspective where no contradiction 'truly exists' (again from an internal viewpoint), in my opinion.

Of course I am simplifying that argument for brevity here.

[arathorn]

The truth be said there is nothing that supports your thoughts about your interpretation. It's just a lonely passage with nothing backing that up while the other where Noldor and Numenoreans are seem as equal in height has a lot of notes including late ones.
I've seen you trying to match up Galadriel height of 6'4'' (as the tallest of all the woman of the Noldor) with you interpretation that the Noldor woman average 6'(ignoring "seldom less" in my opinion anyway) so she could be the tallest. Now come on!! we both know that even accepting your interpretation a 4 foot difference between the tallest and the average doesn't make sense at all.
That being said you tried to fit that so why can't you fit the other passages that are much easier. I mean that hole passage doesn't even make sense even more when he talks about Celeborn being 6'4'' too, even knowing he is a Teler LORD and recognized as tall, and by you 6'6'' is their average so how can he be below that??? - NOW THAT'S AN INCONSISTENCY WE SHOULD GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO.

[Galin]

The truth be said there is nothing that supports your thoughts about your interpretation.

There are (at least) two descriptions Tolkien made in reaction to the Baynes artwork, one about the Eldar, the other about the Numenoreans in which Elendil, in my opinion, is much shorter than in yet another note about Elendil's height. Elendil being 'only' 7 feet tall-ish (whether you agree with this or not) is included in my opinion along with the text on the Eldar -- since these texts do have an arguable connection, at least.

In any case it hardly matters. All we need is one text in which Tolkien changes his mind, and an interpretation of that text.

I've seen you trying to match up Galadriel height of 6'4'' (as the tallest of all the woman of the Noldor) with you interpretation that the Noldor woman average 6' (ignoring "seldom less" in my opinion anyway) so she could be the tallest. Now come on!! we both know that even accepting your interpretation a 4 foot difference between the tallest and the average doesn't make sense at all.

Four foot difference? Are you referring to something I said at another site? I would have to refresh my memory with my actual post and argument if so.

I mean that hole passage doesn't even make sense even more when he talks about Celeborn being 6'4'' too, even knowing he is a Teler LORD and recognized as tall, and by you 6'6'' is their average so how can he be below that??? - NOW THAT'S AN INCONSISTENCY WE SHOULD GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO.

Again I would have to see what I actually said, in full context, before (possibly) responding to what you are claiming I said.

Also large letters can be seen as yelling