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

[Galin]

Galin, if I understand what you are suggesting it is that Christopher decided to make a compromise by mostly using the Annals for this section so that he could include Uinen, but that substituted in the brief phrase from the Quenta in which only Osse instructs the Teleri, not both he and Uinen as stated in the Annals, so that her role wouldn't be too big? Wow! That is a degree of intentionality for beyond anything that I have ever considered.

No, that is not what I'm suggesting Doug.

Does CJRT or anyone know for certain that Tolkien did not intend to go with (for his Silmarillion) the tradition that Uinen did not instruct the Teleri at any point, as in Quenta Silmarillion, or did not befriend the Teleri on the coasts of Middle-earth, as in Quenta Silmarillion?

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Originally Posted by Galin

No, that is not what I'm suggesting Doug.

Then I have no idea what it that you are suggesting.

Does CJRT or anyone know for certain that Tolkien did not intend to go with (for his Silmarillion) the tradition that Uinen did not instruct the Teleri at any point, as in Quenta Silmarillion, or did not befriend the Teleri on the coasts of Middle-earth, as in Quenta Silmarillion?

Only Christopher could answer that. All we know is what the evidence that we have available tells us. And that is that Christopher choose to use the Annals version of the story, not the Quenta version. But that he also substituted in a brief phrase from the Quenta version into the Annals version that changes it so that instead of both Osse and Uinen being present and both of them instructing the Teleri (as Tolkien wrote in the Annals version) or only Osse being present and therefore only he instructs the Teleri (as Tolkien wrote in the Annals version), both Osse and Uinen are identified as being present but only Osse is identified as instructing the Teleri. Which leave the impression, whether or it was initial, that Christopher changed Uinen's role from an active role (which is traditionally more associated with males) to a more passive role (which is traditionally more associated with females).

[Galin]

Voronwe wrote: Only Christopher could answer that.

So as far as anyone can tell, we don't know if Tolkien himself certainly intended to have his Silmarillion note Uinen as an instructor of the Teleri here, given that we have conflicting traditions on the question. Even CJRT might not know.

All we know is what the evidence that we have available tells us. And that is that Christopher choose to use the Annals version of the story, not the Quenta version. But that (…) Which leave the impression, whether or it was initial, that Christopher changed Uinen's role from an active role (which is traditionally more associated with males) to a more passive role (which is traditionally more associated with females).'

Yet a re-presentation of the same evidence from a different perspective and focus could be employed to describe the bare evidence in HME.

I have no idea if CJRT thought that a 'mere' friendship with the Teleri and Uinen could be imagined, even if not specifically stated, to include a flow of knowledge from Maia to Elf, as arguably with a High Elf befriending Men, but in any case I don't think CJRT need have any doubts that Osse was intended as the instructor of the Teleri here.

Again, by comparison, a competing tradition makes no mention of Uinen in any role, arguably casting doubt about her despite what is noted in Annals of Aman section 6. And according to part of your opinion about what reduces a character -- which seems a bit 'mathematical' to me but that aside for the moment -- Osse himself could be said to be reduced given a choice of the Annals over Quenta Silmarillion.

A choice of QS alone here would have left Uinen wholly out, as well as noting Osse as teacher of the Teleri more often than in the 1977 Silmarillion. By employing the Annals for certain sections of the tale here, the end result is that Osse is 'reduced' (in this mathematical sense) and Uinen is given a role that at least arguably includes 'teaching' by contact -- despite that that role is given to Osse specifically -- again since he is without a doubt given that role by JRRT.

_______________

Jallanite wrote: By using the word implication Hostetter admits up front that his opinions are based entirely on inference and not based on anything that Kane has said. In short, Hostetter is making it up, though he probably doesn't altogether know it. Hostetter admits that he does not find anywhere his inference as an "explicit charge''.

Of course CFH is talking about what he thinks Doug has implied, and thus uses the word implication. And since I doubt you would argue that the lack of an explicit charge means that there can be no implications, to my mind what we really have here is you again stating your opinion that you think no implication exists.


Keeping in mind…

Jallanite posted: 'I admit fully that it is very easy to infer that Kane intended to attribute misogyny to Christopher Tolkien.'

The reason why I and others didn't twig to what Hostetter claims to see in the book is that the ideas were simply too absurd to arise. Hostetter raises an idea which he admits "makes no sense" and then insists on interpreting two (?) sentences in the book as though Kane believed that senseless idea.

Well, when you encounter an argument that you feel makes no sense to you for some reason, I doubt you automatically conclude that your interpretation must be wrong. You might second guess your own interpretation, but when you consider the evidence and you still end up with the same interpretation…

… well let's put it this way: you don't want anyone to lie, right

Hostetter admits: 'I didn't address the nature of the edits themselves, and deliberately so, since I need to sit down with the books and study the specifics of a change for myself before I can offer a (possible) explanation for them, and I haven't had time to do that.'

That speaks for itself. Hostetter appears to have only skimmed the book and been enraged because of a single inference Hostetter made from very few (two?) remarks without looking at them in context and without considering that Kane was probably unlikely to have meant to imply something which was obviously absurd. Hostetter thinks it absurd. I think it absurd.

Carl wrote books plural -- while you write 'book' singular.

And from the context of the discussion it seems to me that CFH is talking about looking closer at The History of Middle-Earth (books) and the 'edits' that concern both Uinen and Galadriel (both examples having been raised the post preceding the statement in question), and then possibly giving his own explanations regarding these examples.

And actually his post (the same post) continues directly with…

Elfwine wrote: (Though one possibility specifically concerning superlatives springs to mind even without consulting the sources: if one is combining superlative-laden texts from different periods, it would be all too easy to have conflicting superlatives if one is not very careful, lest, e.g., two characters are both declared to be "strongest" or "fairest" etc. Just a thought, not saying that is the case here.)

I would say the 'sources' or the 'books' are The History of Middle-Earth volumes.

You appear to demand that no book should contain any statement from which you might infer something which the author did not intend.

This is rather generalized and exaggerated in my opinion.

If you accept Kane's statements that the meaning you infer was not intended and accept that many readers did not and do not see the meaning you infer, than you really ought to accept that Hostetter was perhaps just pressing a point for far more than it was meant, as are you.

So far I don't see we have many readers commenting in the first place. Not in this thread yet, and besides Doug, in the linked thread, only 5 actually stated an opinion one way or the other -- specifically concerning deliberateness or misogyny I mean.

And of the 5 who actually gave an opinion, 4 agreed with an implication of deliberateness at least, while River thought an unconscious bias was what Doug was getting at. Soli specifically states that he does not make the jump to misogyny and does not think Doug implied this -- despite that he agrees with an implied deliberateness however.

Soli wrote: Actually, Doug never does once IIRC imply or derive or point an accusing finger at any purported 'motive' for CT's supposedly having gender-cleansed the text- in other words he doesn't call him a misogynist, and the attribution is a leap which does not follow necessarily as the only possible hypothesis.

Elfwine (CFH) replied: "soli": to my mind, accusing Christopher (even by implication) of "having gender-cleansed the text", with the gender being "female", of course, is equivalent to charging him with misogyny. What distinction do you see?

And Soli never responded to that as far as I recall. In any case later he posted:

Soli wrote: 'Although I don't make the leap to 'misogyny', I can't see how the book can be read in any other way than as saying CT removed or reduced females on purpose. One doesn't proceed systematically by accident.

River responded: One can proceed systematically based on unconscious biases, however. I think that's what Voronwe is getting at.

Which is essentially the same point (River's point) that I later challenged Doug about. In the following review, I add a break that wasn't there in the original.

The latter, Kane sees as only one example in a larger trend of reducing the roles of female characters in The Silmarillion: "There are at least eight female characters whose role or character could be said to be reduced to a greater or lesser extent by the editorial decisions made [by Christopher]: Uinen, Galadriel, Míriel, Nerdanel, Indis, Ungoliant, Arien, and Nellas (in addition to the removal of the two or three daughters of Finwë and Indis, of Baragund and Belegund's older sister, Beleth[,] and of Andreth from the Athrabeth)" (252). Of all the changes Christopher made, this is "perhaps [Kane's] biggest complaint" (26).

But if the changes and omissions Kane describes do in fact constitute a purposeful reduction, then there is just as much reduction of the male characters (and almost certainly more). For Kane to call attention to only the female characters in this way — and to impute a motive to Christopher to actively reduce their presence in the narrative — strikes me as either disingenuous or careless.

http://www.mythsoc.org/reviews/arda.reconstructed/

So I guess it remains an opinion that to imply (however unintended) a deliberate reduction of female characters is to imply some measure of misogyny. However I don't see many opinions on the matter so far really, and silence does not necessarily mean a given person agrees with Doug or CFH.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

Well, when you encounter an argument that you feel makes no sense to you for some reason, I doubt you automatically conclude that your interpretation must be wrong. You might second guess your own interpretation, but when you consider the evidence and you still end up with the same interpretation…

Sometimes I do not automatically conclude that my interpretation must be wrong. But when I see an argument put forward that seems to me to be absurd, then I ought to reconsider whether I am reading my source correctly. Very, very often I find in such cases that I have misconstrued the argument, or at least probably misconstrued the argument.

What I try to attempt to do, and do not always do it, is to try to consider the argument as a whole. Which you also recommend. Yet you ignore entirely that Hostetter’s arguments rely almost entirely on his own inferences and that he largely backs down in the argument over the charges he originally made and then, bluntly, runs away.

I have suggested that you try to write down succinctly what you find so offensive about Kane’s book. You then suggested that you were merely following Hostetter’s arguments. So I indicated why I found them unconvincing. I still suggest you try to write down in the shortest form you can what you find so offensive about Kane’s book. Try to make it clear.

… well let's put it this way: you don't want anyone to lie, right

Who is supposedly lying? Kane, Hostetter, you, me? What you put forth as a clarification makes no sense of me at all.

Carl wrote books plural -- while you write 'book' singular.

Hofstetter presumably meant books, Ĭ presume referring to all the Middle-earth books by J. R. R. Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien’s comments on them while I meant book, Kane’s book.

This is a perfect example of someone, you, misreading a statement and automatically taking a completely unintended meaning. People do this all the time, although they shouldn’t. Then you laboriously attempt to prove that Hostetter meant by books is probably intended to mean what I had understood him to mean, although your statement is not exactly what I had understood him to mean.

I would say the 'sources' or the 'books' are The History of Middle-Earth volumes.

I do say that Hofstetter means those and other books by Tolkien, mainly Unfinished Tales, The Children of Húrin, The Silmarillion, and The Lord of the Rings and others.

You misunderstand me and then give an inadequate list of the books that Hostetter seems to me to be talking about. I would not pick up on this at all in an informal forum, save that you here show yourself to be sloppy in reading what I have written and sloppy in writing what you mean, all the time blaming me for being sloppy in referring to book when Hostetter wrote books when I did not intend them to have the same reference.

Your rule would seem to be take what one originally understands from a source, even if seems absurd, and insist that the writer meant exactly what one wrongly understands from it and stick with it. I don’t accept that rule. And I know you don’t either. But going one about it in this way suggests that at some level you realize that you are pushing an absurd reading, as though I were to insist that because you gave only the HoME series as what Hostetter means by books that you were insisting that Hostetter intended only this very limited canon.

This is rather generalized and exaggerated in my opinion.

That is the appearance that your mode of argument mostly gives to me.

So far I don't see we have many readers commenting in the first place. Not in this thread yet, and besides Doug, in the linked thread, only 5 actually stated an opinion one way or the other -- specifically concerning deliberateness or misogyny I mean.

And of the 5 who actually gave an opinion, 4 agreed with an implication of deliberateness at least, while River thought an unconscious bias was what Doug was getting at. Soli specifically states that he does not make the jump to misogyny and does not think Doug implied this -- despite that he agrees with an implied deliberateness however.

And on, and on, and on. To me, the remarks near the end of the debate and after Doug left the debate are the most important as they indicate what people concluded after listening to both parties. I don’t see the commentators jumping all over Kane, except for yourself. I do see a discussion over whether Doug was being needlessly belligerent in which only you think that he wasn’t.

Why do only you feel differently?

I admit that an argument based only on what some other people think has no strong validity. For me the crux is seeing Hostetter back down and then run away while Kane simply answered calmly. The other crux is that Hostetter argues largely from his own inferences while Kane does not.

Turn the argument on its head. Should Hostetter or you be blamed for saying that Christopher Tolkien is not a misogynist and have to defend your position. Should either of you be attempting to claim that you have not actually said that Christopher Tolkien is not a misogynist. If it is wrong to blame or appear to blame someone who is not a misogynist for being a misogynist, why is it not equally wrong to claim or appear to claim that someone who is a misogynist is not a misogynist?

Indeed, logically, it is equally wrong to claim that someone who is not a misogynist is not a misogynist if one cannot prove it and to claim that someone who is a misogynist is a misogynist if one cannot prove it.

Yet you appear nonplussed every time Kane pleads ignorance about things he does not know about and which he should not be expected to know about. It is as though you really believe that Kane ought to know that there are rules that one must assume that Christopher Tolkien is not in any way a misogynist (and, if need be, falsely claim it). Anything which Kane has written which leads to any doubt on the matter is unacceptable, regardless of his ignorance of what Christopher Tolkien’s opinions may be and regardless of truth.

I entirely reject this argument. Kane should not speak at all of things he does not know, and Kane indeed only unambiguously speaks of the possibility that Christopher Tolkien’s editing of his father’s work might look like misogyny. No more. That to me appears fully reasonable.

You are now attempting to prove that Kane’s treatment of Christopher Tolkien’s remarks on Ossë and Uinen are incorrect, but the sources are so complex that I doubt you can show anything unambiguously. And, if you could, you would only show that, in this one place, Kane is unambiguously in error. You might end only by showing that Kane is arguably in error, and arguably not in error. Or you might fail entirely. I admit that this is probably one of the most dubious parts of Kane’s work, and by choosing it you by default admit that at least most of Kane’s work stands up.

So keep at it.

And by not considering at all most of my feelings when I read Hostetter’s remarks you help to confirm that those feelings were correct.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I do see a discussion over whether Doug was being needlessly belligerent in which only you think that he wasn’t.

I think you meant "Carl" there, not "Doug".

Beyond that, I appreciate your defense. I frankly don't have the wherewithall to continue to engage with Galin about this. It gets to the point where it leaves the realm of "discussion" and reaches the point of "stalking". It seems to be close to reaching that point.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Voronwë_the_Faithful

I think you meant "Carl" there, not "Doug".

Beyond that, I appreciate your defense. I frankly don't have the wherewithall to continue to engage with Galin about this. It gets to the point where it leaves the realm of "discussion" and reaches the point of "stalking". It seems to be close to reaching that point.

Doug, you responded to my posts, I'm responding to yours. It's discussion and has been quite civil in my opinion.

You gave one characterization about the Uinen issue, I think I gave another perspective. You could have simply agreed or disagreed with it, commented on it in some way, or said nothing. My post wasn't just 'last wordism' in my opinion. I also have the right to respond to Jallanite's posts, and if it happens to be about your book then so be it. If you want to bow out, feel free of course. You knew your book would be controversial, so yes it's being discussed on the web.

I think you are overreacting here. It took me a while to get back to my responses here, but that's just 'real life' as they say, and I wanted to read up on some things first, which took me some time to get to.

Jallanite wrote: Hofstetter presumably meant books, Ĭ presume referring to all the Middle-earth books by J. R. R. Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien’s comments on them while I meant book, Kane’s book.

Right, and what you wrote was that Carl appeared to have 'only skimmed' Doug's book, which was only your assumption. That at least is pointed out, whether or not I was truly 'sloppy' in reading your post, as you assert.

And on, and on, and on. To me, the remarks near the end of the debate and after Doug left the debate are the most important as they indicate what people concluded after listening to both parties. I don't see the commentators jumping all over Kane, except for yourself.

What remarks 'near the end of the debate' indicate what 'people' concluded? I have already noted that only so many people even responded specfically to the issues Carl raised. As for others, if I recall correctly for some we don't even know if they have necessarily read the book -- one person indicated earlier that he/she hadn't read the book, came back and said he/she had -- but still made no comment about the matter specifically.

You are now attempting to prove that Kane’s treatment of Christopher Tolkien’s remarks on Ossë and Uinen are incorrect, but the sources are so complex that I doubt you can show anything unambiguously.

No I'm not attempting that Jallanite. I'm rather illustrating that Doug's statements are not the only way to characterize the Uinen matter, and clarifying (in some measure) what I meant about compromise earlier.

Jallanite wrote: (...) I admit that this is probably one of the most dubious parts of Kane’s work, and by choosing it you by default admit that at least most of Kane’s work stands up.

Do you mean the Uinen section is one of the most dubious parts of Kane's work?

In any case, focusing on one thing does not mean 'by default' I necessarily agree or disagree with anything else.

[jallanite]

When you post something that clearly and distinctly indicates what you find so offensive in Kane’s book, I will respond again.

Until you do, it is mostly useless to respond to your posts on Kane’s book which continually avoid indicating what statements by Kane you find so offensive and what you would have done in writing a similar book.

You continually evade any attempt to get a straight answer out of you on that head.

[Galin]

I don't agree I have been evasive; but to Voronwe: if you're still reading, sorry if my comments seem to criticize your book merely in light of what I think you could or 'should' have done; but again, you criticize CJRT enough times with personal opinions of what you think he should have done, as is your right. Onward.

Looking as the matter of the daughters of Indis (FM = Finwe And Miriel):

In FM1 the daughters Findis, Irime and Faniel are noted, with the order altered to > Faniel and Irime. Laws and Customs version A agrees: Findis, Faniel and Irime. FM2 agrees again with Findis, Faniel Irime, and the footnote points out the order of birth here, which agrees with the order noted in Laws and Customs A.

'Three daughters and two sons, in this order: Findis, Nolofinwe, Faniel, Arafinwe, and Irime.'

FM3: as in FM4, so Findis Finvain, Faniel FM4: Findis, Finvain, Faniel with the seeming order being: Findis, Fingolfin, Finvain, Finarfin, and Faniel.

All these names and their order arise in the same general time frame, but we can see that one of the names changes form, and that Faniel again becomes the last female as opposed to the second female born, and she is the last child born after Finarfin.

Jumping ahead to The Shibboleth of Feanor, note 26 and note 28. In note 26 Christopher Tolkien refers to a number of genealogical tables dated to around 1959, where in all these tables there are still three daughters: Findis, Faniel, and Irime.

Obviously these tables agree with some, but not all, of the work from the Later Quenta Silmarillion phase II described earlier.

So later, Faniel has disappeared and now Indis has only two daughters, and the younger daughter appears both as Irime and Irien. And here Irime/Irien would appear to be the third child of Indis, not the last child, as she was in the old number and order. CJRT notes that while writing the Shibboleth of Feanor his father clearly had these older tables in front of him 'and alterations made to the latest of the four agree with statements made in it.' But despite the drop to two daughters in the text, CJRT also notes that no correction was made to any of the tables with three daughters. And:

'It is strange that my father should give the name of the second daughter of Finwe as both Irime and Irien within the space of a few lines. Possibly he intended Irien at the first occurrence but inadvertently wrote Irime, the name found in all the genealogies (note 26).'

True enough, but not the name found in all the texts, considering where Finvain appears twice for Irime.

This is the presentation as found in Arda Reconstructed:

Finally, a reference to the 'five children' of Indis and Finwe is removed. A footnote lists three daughters in addition to the sons Fingolfin and finarfin (whose names are actually spelled that way): Findis, Finvain, and Faniel.* However, there is no mention of any of these daughters anywhere in the published Silmarillion (even in the genealogical table in the back). This is another small detail that shows how Christopher lessened the female presence in the tale.'

*footnote (back of book) In a later text, Tolkien appears to have dropped Finvain and changed Faniel's name to either 'Irime' of 'Irien' (see Pome, 343, 359 nn. 26 and 28).

And while I don't expect AR to have covered the changes in the detail here or in HME, a descriptive sentence could have conveyed that the matter was a bit more complex -- and in my opinion including the Shibboleth in the text proper instead of a footnote at the end of the book would have illustrated, in a more compelling way to the reader -- that in the last text concerning this matter, the actual name of one of the now two daughters (making four children not five obviously) wasn't even certain.


I think what you chose to present as a footnote at the back of the book would have had more force in the text proper for giving the reader of AR another option as to why these daughters were not included in the table (besides being minor characters). AR does not speculate in the text proper, or in the footnote, that the ambiguity of names in the last version could have been one of the reasons these characters get no mention in the 1977 Silmarillion.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Doug, you responded to my posts, I'm responding to yours.

Apparently, it doesn't matter whether I respond or not, since I explicitly made a point of NOT responding to your last post (with difficulty, because my general policy is to always respond to people who address me, out of common courtesy), and yet you still came back with more criticism.

Now you are complaining that I included a minor point in a footnote rather than in the main text, and didn't elaborate on sufficiently for your taste. Certainly I could have included that information in the main text, and I could have elaborated further, but I felt that the information provided was sufficient to make the point that I was making, and that it was sufficiently minor that it belonged in a footnote. My editor agreed. I could have explicitly pointed out that the uncertainty of the names and even number of the daughters could have been a reason why Christopher did not include them, but I felt that the reader could certainly make that conclusion themselves. And, of course, the truth of the matter is that there are many characters included in the published Silmarillion whose names were uncertain, and that Christopher was perfectly willing to decide what name to use, so I don't really think that is a likely reason. Still, that discussion could have been more explicitly included in the book, and it is fair to point it out.

However, what I don't think is fair is this continued over the top harping on one point, with no leavening by any discussion of anything that you think might be valuable in the book. In my view, there is a certain point where this type of thing leaves the realm of valuable criticism and enters a realm of being ... something else. Clearly we have a different point of view of where that line is.

Galin, I generally like you. We have had some very interesting and stimulating discussions about Tolkien over the years on several different boards, and I value that. I just don't understand why you feel necessary to poke this particularly hornet's nest so incessantly. You have long since made the point that you feel that my point about the lessening of the female characters in the published work is neither accurate nor fair. I get it. Others have made that point too. However (with the notable exception of Carl, and even he didn't go on and on nearly as much as you have), all of the others that have made the point have also discussed other aspects of the book that they have found have made significant contributions to Tolkien scholarship (see, for instance, Merlin deTardo's and David Bratman's comments in the latest volume of Tolkien Studies). It is the fact that you just keep belaboring this same point over and over in every different way that you can possibly think of that I find tiresome. That having been said, you are certainly welcome to continue if that is what you feel compelled to do. I will respond if I feel it has any value to do so, and won't if I don't.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Voronwë_the_Faithful

Apparently, it doesn't matter whether I respond or not, since I explicitly made a point of NOT responding to your last post (with difficulty, because my general policy is to always respond to people who address me, out of common courtesy), and yet you still came back with more criticism.

OK, but this is a thread about your book Doug, and you were responding to my posts at least. Obviously I can still comment on your book here whether you continue to respond or not, as can anyone. And yes I had more criticism.

Now you are complaining that I included a minor point in a footnote rather than in the main text, and didn't elaborate on sufficiently for your taste. Certainly I could have included that information in the main text, and I could have elaborated further, but I felt that the information provided was sufficient to make the point that I was making, and that it was sufficiently minor that it belonged in a footnote. My editor agreed. I could have explicitly pointed out that the uncertainty of the names and even number of the daughters could have been a reason why Christopher did not include them, but I felt that the reader could certainly make that conclusion themselves.

OK fair enough. We have both stated our opinions on this point.

And, of course, the truth of the matter is that there are many characters included in the published Silmarillion whose names were uncertain, and that Christopher was perfectly willing to decide what name to use, so I don't really think that is a likely reason. Still, that discussion could have been more explicitly included in the book, and it is fair to point it out.

Thank you (if I have raised that much anyway). And I realize there are other characters with a measure of ambiguity surrounding the final forms of their names, and I'm suggesting that this example could have been a combination of that, plus that they are arguably very minor characters, as characters go (only briefly referred to).

However, what I don't think is fair is this continued over the top harping on one point, with no leavening by any discussion of anything that you think might be valuable in the book. In my view, there is a certain point where this type of thing leaves the realm of valuable criticism and enters a realm of being ... something else. Clearly we have a different point of view of where that line is.

Well, I'm not sure what makes it 'over the top harping'. Again Doug, you raise each and every example in your book (regarding the role of females) to essentially make or support the argument of a reduction of female roles.

So far I've commented on the specific examples: Galadriel, Uinen, and the 'daughters'... I think (without reading both threads again) and even if there's one more (that I've forgotten) that would only be half of the examples in AR raised to criticise CJRT's Silmarillion.

Galin, I generally like you.

I like you as well, as far as I can tell through 'internet chat' anyway

We have had some very interesting and stimulating discussions about Tolkien over the years on several different boards, and I value that. I just don't understand why you feel necessary to poke this particularly hornet's nest so incessantly. You have long since made the point that you feel that my point about the lessening of the female characters in the published work is neither accurate nor fair. I get it.

OK, and I get why looking at each example might be annoying to the author. And I know you already get the main point Doug, but does that mean a more detailed argument or discussion about the presentation in AR (with anyone) is off the table on the web 'somewhere'?

Others have made that point too. However (with the notable exception of Carl, and even he didn't go on and on nearly as much as you have), all of the others that have made the point have also discussed other aspects of the book that they have found have made significant contributions to Tolkien scholarship (see, for instance, Merlin deTardo's and David Bratman's comments in the latest volume of Tolkien Studies). It is the fact that you just keep belaboring this same point over and over in every different way that you can possibly think of that I find tiresome.

Well in my opinion it's only the 'same point' in the sense that each example you raise in AR intends to be about the reduction of females roles in general. Every once in a while I look at the same exact examples that you raise, and even still haven't looked at all of them, and I am making different points about different examples. And sure even with this there has been some repetition, but in my opinion some of that can be due to this being a different site, or desired better clarity, and to discussion with someone who continues to challenge this or that.

That having been said, you are certainly welcome to continue if that is what you feel compelled to do. I will respond if I feel it has any value to do so, and won't if I don't.

Very well. And my latest opinion may seem 'minor' to you... but in my opinion it is both minor, and it isn't minor -- as it might fit into a larger criticism of this part of your book.

I suspect that maybe if I had had the time to have looked at all these examples in detail and posted my findings and opinions all at once somewhere, as part of my criticism of your presentation on this one issue, you might be reacting differently. But it probably took you some time to look at all these instances, in detail, in a criticism of Christopher Tolkien's presentation of The Silmarillion.

I suppose that might have been the better way to go about it. Or possibly no one would have read such a long post

Again I'm sorry I don't have much positive to say with respect to this part of your book. I've already praised AR as far as presenting the sources (that we know of) behind the published Silmarillion. And this isn't negative, but I usually rather like to jump into HME and see things for myself, although I do use your book now and again to see if it confirms something I've found. That doesn't mean it's not very helpful to those who don't use or own HME obviously.

I was comparing HME (or whatever) to the 1977 Silmarillion well before AR ever came out. As others were of course, and I'm guessing likely you, before you thought to publish a book about it.

[Galin]

Actually I have had second thoughts here and would like to apologize to Doug Kane (Voronwe_the_Faithful) and the folks at Barrow Downs at large.


I still hold to my opinions, but whatever I think might be 'fair' as far as looking at given examples from AR in detail, still I do not intend to annoy or harass anyone here, and I can see that I have done so whether looking at each example would be truly fair or not. And I can see how that can be harping.


Again, my apologies to Mr. Kane and everyone. No hard feelings on my part.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

Galin, I appreciate the apology, and also the interest that you have in my book.

[Galin]

Thanks Voronwe (I PM-ed you too but I'm not sure I did it correctly). By the way, is Amazon ultimately going to be selling the latest Tolkien Studies?

Off topic I know, but as (I think) you have an article in there, I thought maybe you might know.

[Voronwë_the_Faithful]

I see that not only do I have your 2 PMs, but two other PMs that people have sent me months ago that I never knew about. How embarrassing! They must think I am terribly rude! It's strange that I don't get notices for PMs, although perhaps there is a setting where I can change that.

With regard to your question about Tolkien Studies, unfortunately like last year the publisher, West Virginia University Press, elected not to get an ISBN number for this volume, meaning that it can't be sold by Amazon or other online vendors, other than WVUP itself. I think that is a very short-sighted decision, but it is what it is.