The Problem of Rog

[Aiwendil]

Lindil wrote:

This of course is more or less our stated aim, but I wonder if we have, for the sake of a completely understandable conservatism in regards the texts, drawn our parameters, our freedom of editing too closely to acheive the initial goal of JRRT.

You are right that this is a separate discussion. If you want to open a new thread (or reopen the infamous "Principles"), I'll certainly closely consider any proposal.

But I am very hesitant to tear down any of the principles/goals decisions that we have made thus far - for several reasons. One is simply that they have proved good so far. Certainly we could come up with less rigorous principles that would allow us to bypass some of the difficult issues we are coming up against. But I think that in the long run the project is better off for rigorously facing those issues. Also it seems to me that the introduction of greater leeway would only worsen the debates. If, for example, we were to allow some of the strict principles to be overriden in difficult cases like "Rog", I take it you would either add a footnote or explanation for his name, or change the name, or delete him. In the same scenario, I would take the greater leeway as justification for keeping the name. We would reach the same impasse but with even fewer resources to try to get past it.

A final note - I think that our project is actually very different from the revision Tolkien began and intended to carry through. Undoubtedly there are many, many things that he would have changed but that we simply cannot change. He would have been revising the the very structure of the legendarium; we are, intentionally, leaving that structure as unchanged as possible.

btw Aiwendil, your last quote in the preceding post contained a repeat of your second to last quote. Mithadan's words were lost in the last one.

Thanks. Fixed.

My understanding of the Rog dilemna [ 'The problem of Rog'- actually I will have to rename the thread that - too apropos to pass up.] does not leave room for an implicit but an applied solution, for that still leaves the reader encountering the name 'unassisted' which is the very thing pretty much all of us agree would NOT have happened in any JRRT revision.

Brilliant name, by the way.

I think we approaching this whole thing from two slightly different perspectives: you from a reader's perspective and I from a canonical perspective. Perhaps this is for the best, since it covers more angles. Anyway, if the implicit solution is not to your liking (i.e., if to you it is no better than the "leave Rog" solution - which I admit it probably isn't) then there's no need to pursue it.

MT is only partially analagous to our Rog dilemna. MT contradicts even itself, it is in a sense a record of brainstorming sessions, so our principles clearly do not require us to edit the Silm based on such. This is essentially a 'How much do we incorporate from later ideas' question. Rog is the other end of the scale, a 'how far do we bend to accomadate obsolete aspects of the Lost Tales and early Q phase.

Yes, the MT analogy breaks down very quickly. But my point was that we are not trying (for we cannot try) to produce what JRRT would have produced. "JRRT would have changed it" is not enough to force us to change something (though it is enough to force us to consider changing it).

I don't, by the way, think that our rejection of MT is based primarily on its internal inconsistencies (which it certainly has, though I think they could be worked out). In my view, MT was rejected because it was merely a proposed change with no clear indication of what specific changes we would have had to make to implement it.

First off CJRT'thinks' it is obsolete is imo far too light of a description, he did that which I do not recall him doing anywhere else in the HoM-E, he stated flat out it would not have survived, no doubts.

Fair enough. I see this point as the collision of two very compelling arguments. On the one hand, Christopher is certain that it would have been changed. On the other hand, we have not one shred of actual evidence for that conclusion. I agree that Christopher's claim makes a strong case, but bear in mind that if he had not written that one sentence, we would have left "Rog" in without a second thought.

The -goth element seems exscusvvily used or bestowed upon evil beings though. Morgoth, and Gothmog.

I see the force your point would have had if "Rog" were indeed related to "-rog" in "Balrog". But (of course) "-goth" was used only in names for evil things simply because it means "enemy".

Do you have the Goldogrin/Gnomish Lexicon?

No, alas.

I am sure we could if needed bridge the longer detailed account with a one or 2 line condensation that leaves Rog out, but his and his companies actions in. Indeed, this goes back to the old recommendation of 'Keep the company of the Hammer of Wrath' but loose it's captain suggestion. If others are as concerned about consensus as Aiwendil is, that may be the closest we come, and I must say is looking more attractive by the hour.

This may be the only viable compromise solution.