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

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

It's nice to see that people are still talking about my book! jallanite, I'm very pleased that you found the book to be helpful. That is most gratifying.

Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done. I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was). There are, as I have mentioned before, a couple of phrases that I would write differently if I had the opportunity to do so to make that more clear, although I agree with jallanite that ultimately those changes would not have made much difference to people's reactions. I think that people like Carl, Galin, and others would still have been just as upset about me raising the issue at all.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Voronwë_the_Faithful

It's nice to see that people are still talking about my book! jallanite, I'm very pleased that you found the book to be helpful. That is most gratifying.

You are welcome.

Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done.

I agree.

I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).

And you very carefully did not imply that Christopher Tolkien purposely did any of the things for which you blame him. When one is attempting to make a complete book out of numerous outlines, and attempting to do so reasonably quickly, then one almost has to mess up on occasion.

Obviously Christopher Tolkien, had he taken three times as long, would have done better. But how much better would have been a work which his father had left in such an unfinished state? I was very disappointed with The Silmarillion when it first came out, and still am, but Christopher Tolkien’s further works make it clear what he had to deal with and he has largely now given us all that his father had produced, something which at the time would have seemed impossible to publish.

I do not agree with all of your personal opinions which appear in your book, but it is those personal opinions (which you make it quite plain are only personal opinions) which make the book come alive for me. And obviously its main value and appeal is its detail and accuracy.

[Galin]

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote: There are, as I have mentioned before, a couple of phrases that I would write differently if I had the opportunity to do so to make that more clear, although I agree with jallanite that ultimately those changes would not have made much difference to people's reactions.

Well phrasing can sometimes make a notable difference, and you seem to agree that you were not careful enough in general here, if you would write even a couple things differently -- and considering this matter, I would have thought you would have made yourself crystal clear and have no regrets at this point.

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote: I think that people like Carl, Galin, and others would still have been just as upset about me raising the issue at all.

I wouldn't say 'upset' for myself, but perplexed rather.

And can we say what an implication is not? it's not something that is expressed directly... but it looks to me like it's somewhat subjective whether you did or did not 'imply' purpose with phrasing like 'clear pattern' and even the appearance of a systematic reduction, keeping in mind that you agree that you've raised the question of misogyny in your reader's minds at least. And you've stated that you don't and can't know if reducing the roles of females was done intentionally, and here you note that you doubt very much that it was -- but in your book do you give this opinion?

A book that isn't shy of opinions, it seems to me

And incidentally, I think employing unconscious or unintentional (in a thread, the book aside for a moment) still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Jallanite, thank you for your kind words!

[Bêthberry]

There's supposed to be a panel discussion on Tolkien and feminism at RotR so I'm sure this point will come up there.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Bêthberry, I will be very interested to hear of any discussion on this subject at RotR.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

I would have thought you would have made yourself crystal clear and have no regrets at this point.

“I would have thought” is far from crystal clear. “I would have thought you would have made yourself” is even less clear. What is the point of all those woulds? To avoid making yourself clear?

I wouldn't say 'upset' for myself, but perplexed rather.

Another would.

And can we say what an implication is not? it's not something that is expressed directly... but it looks to me like it's somewhat subjective whether you did or did not 'imply' purpose with phrasing like 'clear pattern' and even the appearance of a systematic reduction, keeping in mind that you agree that you've raised the question of misogyny in your reader's minds at least. And you've stated that you don't and can't know if reducing the roles of females was done intentionally, and here you note that you doubt very much that it was -- but in your book do you give this opinion?

You appear to be attempting to make an implication while trying to look like you are not making an implication. No the book does not give the opinion you are seeking, nor the opposite opinion. Kane is very careful to not attribute any opinions to Christopher Tolkien beyond occasionally quoting Christopher Tolkien. It would be a critical sin to attribute an opinion which cannot be substantiated.

You want Kane to lie.

A book that isn't shy of opinions, it seems to me

The book contains many opinions in the nature of personal preferences by the author. It does not, I believe, contain any opinions on the unknowable opinions of others.

And incidentally, I think employing unconscious or unintentional (in a thread, the book aside for a moment) still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.

Maybe the reason Galin continues on this track is that Galin fears that Christopher Tolkien “unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.” It was not Kane who invented this possibility of interpretation. It was Christopher Tolkien who in his choices in his editing of The Silmarillion chose to include some passages in which females were less active or omitted entirely over other passages in which females were more prominent. Galin, and others of the same opinion, are classically shooting the one who is sending a message from which they infer something they don’t like.

If Galin thinks that argument is unfair, then he should stop using that same style of argument and innuendo against Kane.

Kane, in this thread very carefully wrote:

Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done. I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).

Galin attempts to twist this to mean that “this still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women,” despite Kane’s clear statement that “I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).”

I do not see that Kane can say more much more honestly. I do not see that Galin can say much more honestly. What does Galin want Kane to say honestly? I don’t think Galin is able to say.

Neither Galin nor Kane (and probably no-one viewing this thread) knows Christopher Tolkien well enough to be able to honestly say that at some level Christopher Tolkien is never a sexual bigot. Even if they did say it, they might just be wrong.

I accuse Galin of vicious innuendo which demands a response that almost no-one can honestly give.

If Galin is really honestly inferring what he seems to be interring, then perhaps he ought to blame himself for so inferring, if he finds the inferences he make so troubling to him.

I read Kane’s book and the inference that Christopher Tolkien was purposely attempting to get back at women by reducing their role in The Silmarillion never occurred to me. For me, it was Galin who raised that as a possibility. I took it as a given that the reduction of female roles was simply part of Christopher Tolkien often preferring a shorter version in the published Silmarillion over a longer version, and agree with Kane that this was mostly unfortunate.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

“I would have thought” is far from crystal clear. “I would have thought you would have made yourself” is even less clear. What is the point of all those woulds? To avoid making yourself clear?

The point seems clear enough to me: given that Doug admitted he is raising the question of misogyny in his reader's minds, one might assume he would be very careful about choosing his phrasing here (especially being a fan of Christopher Tolkien after all, as he states he is) -- but yet not very long after the book is published, Doug admits he would like to alter certain phrasing.

And yes, I don't think Doug considered this argument well enough before he published his book -- in general, and not just because of certain examples of phrasing.

You appear to be attempting to make an implication while trying to look like you are not making an implication. No the book does not give the opinion you are seeking, nor the opposite opinion. Kane is very careful to not attribute any opinions to Christopher Tolkien beyond occasionally quoting Christopher Tolkien. It would be a critical sin to attribute an opinion which cannot be substantiated.

You want Kane to lie.

No, the point with the section you quoted is that Doug offers plenty of his own opinions in the book and in these threads -- so why didn't he give the opinion in his book that he doesn't think there was purpose behind this 'clear pattern'?

Again if clarity is wanted (and why not), I just wonder why he chose to readily enough give that opinion in discussion, but not in the book.

Maybe the reason Galin continues on this track is that Galin fears that Christopher Tolkien “unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women.”

Well for the record, I fear no such thing

Kane, in this thread very carefully wrote:

Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done. I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).

Galin attempts to twist this to mean that “this still leaves it open that you maybe think Christopher Tolkien unconsciously and unintentionally revealed that he has something against women,” despite Kane’s clear statement that “I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was).”

That's not a twist Jallanite: rather it takes Doug at his word but notes that there is a distinction that, as far as I know, he has never commented on. For all I know right now 'maybe' Doug does hold this opinion. I could have worded things better perhaps -- or simply put the matter in question form as I often enough do, and maybe by not doing so the statement seemed more to accuse Doug of something rather than raise the distinction; again even despite my use of maybe above.

There was no intentional accusation, but (and not that anyone cares, I know) recently someone stated that he/she thought I asked too many questions (I can link to the thread if anyone actually does care), and as I had just put a statement into question form (in the same post), instead I thought I would make my 'incidentally' comment a statement rather, knowing that Doug could easily speak to my 'maybe' if he desired.

But anyway, I sincerely think that only going so far as to say there was no conscious purpose does not necessarily mean that the person giving that opinion still might not believe there was some unconscious 'revelation' here.

I do not see that Kane can say more much more honestly. I do not see that Galin can say much more honestly. What does Galin want Kane to say honestly? I don’t think Galin is able to say.

If you want it more directly: Doug do you believe Christopher Tolkien unintentionally revealed that he has something against women?

You (Doug) don't have to answer obviously, even if you have an opinion to that; but again it's not necessarily the same thing as stating that you don't believe the 'reduction' in female characters was on purpose.

Neither Galin nor Kane (and probably no-one viewing this thread) knows Christopher Tolkien well enough to be able to honestly say that at some level Christopher Tolkien is never a sexual bigot. Even if they did say it, they might just be wrong.

I accuse Galin of vicious innuendo which demands a response that almost no-one can honestly give. If Galin is really honestly inferring what he seems to be interring, then perhaps he ought to blame himself for so inferring, if he finds the inferences he make so troubling to him.

I'm rather, and simply, looking for an opinion Jallanite. Earlier Doug gave his opinion about 'purpose' -- despite that he yet can't say he knows for sure, as he doesn't know Christopher Tolkien well enough -- and I'm asking for an opinion about a distinction that goes beyond that.

I've heard plenty of opinions about Christopher Tolkien in various threads, from people who don't know him.

I read Kane’s book and the inference that Christopher Tolkien was purposely attempting to get back at women by reducing their role in The Silmarillion never occurred to me. For me, it was Galin who raised that as a possibility. I took it as a given that the reduction of female roles was simply part of Christopher Tolkien often preferring a shorter version in the published Silmarillion over a longer version, and agree with Kane that this was mostly unfortunate.

Well, while that may be true for you given the circumstances here, if you or anyone will read (or read again) the linked thread, it will be obvious that I am not the only one who raised the question of implied misogyny, and am certainly not even the first to do so in the linked thread.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

If you want it more directly: Doug do you believe Christopher Tolkien unintentionally revealed that he has something against women?

No.

I believe that the edits that Christopher Tolkien was responsible for (though won't don't know to what extent Guy Kay contributed to them) had the effect of significantly lessening the role of women in the published Silmarillion and in my opinion that has a detrimental effect on the book. I doubt very much that this was done intentionally (as I have said repeatedly. I don't know Christopher well enough to have any idea about whether it somehow reflects on his attitude towards women in general.

I respect the massive effort that Christopher has dedicated to preserving his father's legacy and making as much of his writing available as possible. By all accounts, he is a man of courtesy and principle, both of which I appreciate. I recognize that in working on publishing The Silmarillion he faced many challenges that contributed to its deficiencies (some of which he himself has subsequently acknowledged, although I wish he would provide more information about the editing process and the decisions that he made).

[Galin]

OK, thank you Doug. So given your full answer, I take it that your initial 'no' essentially means that you don't have an opinion either way -- as you don't know Christopher Tolkien well enough to have any idea about whether this pattern, as you call it, somehow reflects on his attitude towards women in general.

And I also wonder if you agree...

Jallanite wrote: I read Kane's book and the inference that Christopher Tolkien was purposely attempting to get back at women by reducing their role in The Silmarillion never occurred to me. For me, it was Galin who raised that as a possibility. I took it as a given that the reduction of female roles was simply part of Christopher Tolkien often preferring a shorter version in the published Silmarillion over a longer version, and agree with Kane that this was mostly unfortunate.

... that this last sentence could stand as an accurate enough summation of your argument in Arda Reconstructed -- that the reduction in female roles was 'simply' part of Christopher Tolkien 'often' preferring a shorter version over a longer one.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

It would be easy for me to say "yes, that's it" and let that be the end of it, but I'm not sure that I can say that it is that simple. Yes, many of the edits that affect the role of female characters result from Christopher choosing shorter versions. But not all of them. For instance, the two removals of the description of Galadriel as "valiant." Or substituting the Quenta passage in which only Ossë teaches the Teleri sea-lore for the Annals text in which both he and Uinen do so, despite the fact that the Annals is the main source for the that portion of that chapter (Chapter 5). Neither of those edits are a result of choosing a shorter version over a longer one. Nor is using the older story of Melkor being the one that wounds the Two Trees rather than the new story of Ungoliant destroying them on her own while Melkor cravenly stands in the shadows. I don't know why those choices were made, but they can't be so simply explained away.

[lindil]

voronwe, you wrote arda reconstructed?

really look forward to reading it!

jallanite -great to see you!

[lindil]

just read your interview with MMb @ xenite
, very well done.

How cool CJRT read and commented on it.

Love to hear/see more of his comments, especially if he refers to his own decisions he would revisit. Anyway, thanks again for such a huge undertaking!

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Lindil, I'll look forward to hearing what you think of it. I'm glad that you enjoyed Michael's interview. I hope you saw his recent one with John Garth. He does a great job!