Trashing the Silmarillion

[Sister Golden Hair]

How much of the labor of the Silmarillion is actually JRRT's? I have bought and read some of the HoMe which gives different accounts of events as published in the Silmarillion. Inoldonil informed me that the Nauglamir was actually made for Thingol and not Finrod :mad: The Silmarillion was edited by C.T.. So are the HoMe. Why are the accounts in the histories more acceptable than in the Sil.? Should I just trash my Silmarillion and believe the histories now? I loved the Silmarillion, but the HoMe are changing the story that I grew to love so much. Now I don't know what versions to believe.:confused: Maybe I should trash the HoMe, but I can't:( Thoughts please?

[Captain Stern]

That's exactly how I feel :( I looove the Silmarillion!

[Elvellon]

If I remember correctly, Christopher Tolkien decided for that particular version of the Silmarillion because it was the most complete of the latest versions the professor wrote.
We must also remember that the professor changed many times his opinion. There is no guarantee that the latest version he wrote would be the one he would choose to develop and publish as the “official” Silmarilion. Nevertheless, HoME does clarify many subjects about Tolkien’s universe and is invaluable.

[Ñólendil]

Of course it does! Though I don't agree that the published Silmarillion is the best version possible. It is certainly not made up of the latest ideas (late in his life J. R. R. Tolkien wrote some experimental essays that would radically change his entire mythology so as to be in accord with science, and stuck to that, for one thing). Look at the Foreword: On my father's death it fell to me to try to bring the work into publishable form. It became clear to me that to attempt to present, within the covers of a single book, the diversity of the materials--to show The Silmarillion as in truth a continuing and evolving creation extending over more than half a century--would in fact lead only to confusion and the submerging of what is essential. I set myself therefore to work out a single text, selecting and arranging in such a way as seemed to me to produce the most coherent and internally self-consistent narrative. In this work the concluding chapters (from the death of Túrin Turambar) introduced peculiar difficulties, in that they had remained unchanged for many years, and were in some respects in serious disharmony with more developed conceptions in other parts of the book.

A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost.

In the War of the Jewels, Vol. XI of HoMe and Part II of the History of the Silmarillion, C. Tolkien actually wondered whether a self-contained-one-book Silmarillion should have been attempted. The Silmarillion is a wonderful story. In my opinion, however, if you want to find out 'what really happened', you have to study all the different texts and work it out yourself, gathering what you think are 'facts', asking questions and forming theories.

But this needn't be done at all, you can still enjoy a good book.

[Eru]

Good points. But no matter how many published works one reads, one can only form one's own opinion which will, inevitably differ from another's. Hence the lively debates that ensue!

Obviously it would be blasphemous to suggest that Tolkien's 'notes' and essays had remained simply that, and not been published posthumously. Certainly it might have lessened the confusion (namely mine, lol).

[Michael Martinez]

No one should be led to trash either The Silmarillion or the stories which Christopher drew upon to compose the published book. The value of reading and studying the sources varies for each of us. Some people, such as linguists, want to learn more about select portions of the imaginary world J.R.R. Tolkien created. Some people want to learn more about the process of evolution which led to books like The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion.

In terms of understanding Tolkien's vision of Middle-earth -- which emerged in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and underwent subsequent enlargement and revision throughout the rest of his life -- it is acceptable to ignore the first four volumes of The History of Middle-earth, but the information provided in the next 8 books is only partially useful, as there are many rewrites and inconsistencies.

There is no canonical definition of Middle-earth. Tolkien never wrote down any sort of "Bible" for Middle-earth. There is no governing document which distinguishes between "correct" stuff and "incorrect" stuff. So one must develop a sense about what works with what.

Regrettably, some people disregard common sense and just start grabbing at passages willy-nilly, tossing them into discussions as if they have any sort of authority on their own. Nothing in Tolkien's writings overrides anything else. Everything must be placed into a context, and the same passages may have multiple contexts.

If you simply want to learn more about Middle-earth, you still must define what the scope of your authority for that Middle-earth shall be. No one can make that definition for you; but you may devise an invalid or illogical definition. It is easier to point out why something should not be included than it is to ascertain what should or must be included.

[markedel]

Well some things change Gnomish-Noldor etc. and much of the HoME material has evolved. Also at the end of his life the good professor became very nitpicky, as his fans were, it's an evolving process, and the Silmarillion is part of the process, but not all of it.