11723RE: [mythsoc] Joseph Pearce
- Mar 11, 2004At 02:01 PM 3/11/2004 -0600, Jay Hershberger wrote:
>Pearce's view of the HoME as "secondary" means--as I understood him--that itI don't know what "Tolkien's published works" means here, because HoME is
>should not be regarded as on the same level as Tolkien's published works,
>including the works of minor fiction and essays. Pearce regards the
>published Silmarillion as being included in the "primary" canon with H and
published works, and if it means "works published by Tolkien" it should
exclude _The Silmarillion_. As for "'primary' canon", what your canon
includes depends on what you want a canon for. To exclude HoME from any
study of Tolkien's literary thought or creativity would be a huge mistake.
>We never finished our conversations about this, especially regardingWeight for what purpose? For some purposes it weighs more, for others less.
>how CT's edition of the Silmarillion is somehow different in "weight" than
>My observation (not Pearce's) is that, even with the publication of HoMEThis is tautological, but it's also untrue. Many manuscripts are available
>(and I am slowly collecting them all!), until all of the manuscripts and
>papers are made available independently of CT, including the redundancies he
>chose to leave out of HoME, we must rely on CT's judgements.
for scholarly study, especially LOTR which is at Marquette and open to
general use, and one can judge CT's editorial ability from that. The idea
that we must reserve opinion until we can read every scrap of paper for
ourselves is absurd.
>Not that CT'sAnd so do plenty of other things, and so would they for some other scholar
>judgement is somehow suspicious or unreliable, but that his familial
>connection to his father, the family, and the estate, etc., does factor into
with no familial connection at all. The idea of expressing any kind of
special concern because he's the son of the author, that therefore wouldn't
apply if he weren't, is loathsome.
>But even CT's scholarship, editing, commentary, etc., will be, at some pointThere is considerable scholarly discussion of CT's editorial work (more of
>in the future, up for critical review (perhaps already has in some
HoME than of _The Silmarillion_) in the volume _Tolkien's Legendarium_
edited by Verlyn Flieger and Carl F. Hostetter. You might begin with my
essay in that volume, which specifically discusses the structure imposed on
HoME by the editor, and his qualifications for the job.
>Perhaps after all is revealed and examined ad nauseum,Why wait? That conclusion is obvious now.
>the judgement will be that CT did a terrific service to his father's
>and that his edition of the Silmarillion cannot be inWhat he might have done differently is in regards to having undertaken the
>anyway improved. I seem to recall CT once stating that he might do things a
>bit different now.
project in the manner he did at all, not in its details. This is discussed
in the foreword to volume 1 of HoME. A full understanding of how _The
Silmarillion_ was constructed can be obtained from studying vols. 4-5 and
10-11 of HoME.
- David Bratman
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>