Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Big research projects (was: Lawsuit about Tolkien)

Expand Messages
  • michael_martinez2
    ... Maeglin ... this ... I m at work again. :) THE WAR OF THE JEWELS explains the processes he used to create those chapters. Of Maeglin was more like a
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 12, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In mythsoc@y..., "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@s...> wrote:
      > At 12:06 AM 2/12/2002 , Michael Martinez wrote:
      > >That's a reasonable summary for what Christopher devoted MORGOTH'S
      > >RING and THE WAR OF THE JEWELS to explaining, but he had to draw
      > >upon "The Fall of Gondolin" directly for some parts in "Of
      Maeglin"
      > >and "Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin".
      >
      > Did he? I must have missed that. Do you have any references for
      this
      > handy? If not, I'll put it on my mental "check up on this" list.

      I'm at work again. :)

      THE WAR OF THE JEWELS explains the processes he used to create those
      chapters. "Of Maeglin" was more like a negative-use than an actual
      use. That is, he tried to create a coherent story while glossing
      over various names he felt should not have been used in it
      (Glorfindel and Ecthelion, for example, would have been responsible
      for losing Aredhel). "Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin" relies
      extensively upon the fragmentary "Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin"
      (a post-LoTR text published in UNFINISHED TALES) up to the point
      where it breaks off (Tuor's arrival at Gondolin). From that point
      onward, the only detailed source Christopher had available was "The
      Fall of Gondolin", so he engaged in some radical compression.

      These two chapters do appear to be weak, after reading the
      explanations Christopher offers for how he constructed them. But
      they are much more satisfying than "Of the Ruin of Doriath", which
      departed from JRRT's briefly stated ideas radically.

      > OK, I must have misunderstood you. The origin of Celeborn is the
      > most prominent example of contradictory texts of the sort that I
      > thought you were including in your canon, as opposed to ones like
      > BLT that you're leaving out. Can you give a better example of the
      > sort of contradictory (not just vague) texts you are including as
      > canonical?

      I use the second history of Celeborn and Galadriel (in UNFINISHED
      TALES) as my primary source for information regarding events in
      Eregion and the War of the Elves and Sauron, even though in this
      second history Amroth is their son (and not the son of the ubiquitous
      Amdir/Malgalad).

      I also use a lot of the information in "Quendi and Eldar", even
      though some of the points made there contradicted earlier material.
      One case deals with Eol's relationship to Thingol. I think that,
      in "Quendi and Eldar", he is a Tatyarin Elf (an Avar) who has somehow
      become a part of Thingol's realm. Hence, his resentment of the
      Noldor is explained by an aside which states that the Tatyarin Avari
      felt the Noldor (their western cousins) were arrogant. I'm not sure,
      but I think Tolkien eventually restored Eol to the Sindar. I tend to
      disregard the tradition of Eol as a Tatya, but I accept other points
      regarding the Tatyar.

      > >But let me stress again that I change canons on an almost hourly
      > >basis, depending upon who I am discussing something with or
      > >writing for, and what the topic is. I can't stay within the
      > >confines of a single canon, and yet I cannot work with the
      > >gelatinous complexity of all the Tolkien works.
      >
      > Understood; but for me to find this very practical (as opposed to
      > theoretical) approach useful for detailed subcreational study, I
      > hope you will supply commentary and justification of what you
      > consider canonical and what reliable on various topics, even at the
      > risk of popping out of the subcreational stance and into
      > the "literary work" stance to do it. My instincts on what should
      > be worked with on a given point may be different from yours, and
      > others' instincts different from either of ours, so I want
      > to know what sources such a work is using or not using.

      The book will represent a variety of perspectives and
      interpretations. I don't necessarily agree with them all. I am the
      primary author, but mine is not the only voice which will be evident
      in the book. Although I have set a fairly definitive canonical
      standard for myself, I've already run into a couple of situations
      where I have had to accept compromise. But it was true compromise,
      with both parties making some concessions to the others.

      I suppose we run the risk of being criticized for creating a work by
      committee. But the other people involved in the project are
      contributing things which are simply beyond me. And I think that, in
      the end, this book (if published) will earn a high degree of
      credibility because it won't be perceived as one person's point-of-
      view or interpretation. People will undoubtedly find things to
      object to -- that is inevitable. But what we are doing has not
      really been attempted before (at least -- nothing like it has ever
      been published -- I suppose there could have been many failed
      attempts).

      I can only hope people will appreciate the effort once they see it.
      Early reaction to the proposal has been completely enthusiastic. I
      just have to go forward believing that we'll be able to sustain the
      enthusiasm sufficiently to get the project to completion. After
      that, it will be up to the readers to make the final call.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.