Re: The General Tolkien News Thread

[Elthir]

For myself I don't agree with every correction found in the 50th anniversary edition, although admittedly that's like saying I think I see a few needles in that nice haystack over there -- or at least things that I would call needles. I see no great reason to alter Silmarien's birth-year in Appendix B for example...

... I mean, how is she gonna know her true age at a given period in history?

The Tolkien Library also noted a corrected and updated Reader's Companion [The Lord of the Rings], so I'll assume the noted Tolkien scholars Hammond and Scull have read my posts about Shadowfax and will be including a corrected entry concerning the grey horse added to the second edition version of The Grey Havens.

Hmm, although they never mailed me to ask how I would reword this entry. That seems odd  

[Pettytyrant101]

Did you tell them you were Award winning?

[Elthir]

Drat. I wanted to seem humble and only told them I was previously and uncontrollably behorsed...

... but no doubt you've hit the nail here Petty: not telling these noted Tolkien scholars that I am award winning probably cost me on the Shadowfax issue. Or did it cost them?

Time will probably never tell.

[Elthir]

Here's another editorial correction being made: you will now find an 'extra' Numenorean ruler in your list of... erm, Numenorean rulers in Appendix A.

His name is Tar-Ardamin but he only comes from The Line of Elros [again, like with the matter of Silmarien already noted], a never published-by-author account. I think it more likely that JRRT simply counted wrong in the 1950s, so I would change the number in Appendix A, not add a king.

Interestingly that's what Christopher Tolkien did for the 1977 Silmarillion, he changed the number... but if I recall correctly, now that a king has been added to the list in Appendix A, CJRT went back to the second edition Silmarillion and changed the number again.

It's a domino thingy.

But if the number was simply changed in Appendix A and no new king was added, then... again that may appear to say I disagree with the change here...

... but I agree with the first one CJRT made in Silmarillion   

[halfwise]

Tar-Ardamin?  That's a bit too close to Tar-Admin for my tastes.  We don't need to be reminded of computer accounts in Middle Earth!  

[Pettytyrant101]

I love this sort of thing- only makes the secondary world somehow seem more real- its like when Egyptoligists discover some new Pharaoh no one had heard of and realise the King list is wrong for a Dynasty.

[Eldorion]

I feel the same way. That's why all the inconsistencies don't really bother me. There is no single "canon" in real world history or myths either.

[Elthir]

Tolkien's published inconsistencies don't bother me, nor the purposed variations found in the posthumously published writings...

... but 'fan-made inconsistencies' are something else I think, as are editorial inconsistencies, as these can undermine the art of subcreation in my opinion. Granted, even Tolkien 'faltered' a bit in this respect, again in my opinion, when the second edition came round...

... but he did not change Silmarien's year, nor add any Tar-Ardamin [adding this king arguably creates two kinds of inconsistencies], although JRRT didn't correct the number either. Tolkien did make a second edition revision to the list of Numenorean rulers however... although it might be hard to notice.

Of course this is bordering on 'canon' chat, and nobody wants that    not even in canon threads, probably.

[malickfan]

Michael C Drout has given a reaction to the announcement of The Beowulf translation, it clarifies a few issues in the older article:

http://wormtalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/tolkiens-beowulf-real-story.html

This on the other hand made me chuckle a bit:

http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/stories/2014/March/tolkien_translation_of_beowulf_adds_little__beyond_cash.html

Though she does have a point about copyright as we discussed in that other thread.

[halfwise]

both very illuminating, Malick.    Especially the one about every Anglo-saxon scholar having their own translation of Beowulf (or two or three) laying around just as a matter of course. Thanks!

[chris63]

[chris63]

[azriel]

Well said,that man. Morals, ethics, good manners, Dying breed these days  

[halfwise]

Of course the other important part of the quote is something along the lines of "those who sneer at fantasy as 'escapism' are really referring 'desertion'."

[Eldorion]

It's worth noting that the response to the whole "the enemies of escapism are usually prison guards" line is that (as Michael Moorcock famously said) prison guards love escapism, they only hate actual escape.

{{{I'm not entirely sure which side of the debate I came down on philosophically, though obviously there are plenty of escapist stories that I love to read/watch.}}}

[chris63]

[azriel]

Eh ? is that for real ? I see that there's supposed to be a film about Tolkien & Lewis but, Im feeling that's a wind up.

[chris63]

Wind up where ?

[azriel]

Im tempted to say "my arse" Chris but, I wont  

[chris63]

[azriel]

Should go in the utube thread but, as we got onto this subject ?

[azriel]

Now now Chris, dont pull faces, You'll get stuck like that one day !  

[Pettytyrant101]

Trailer is rather dry, and cheap, and I still dont know what sort of film its supposed to be- is it a docu or a docu-drama?

[azriel]

Gawd knows ? Id say an elaborate prank ?

[Eldorion]

It always cracks me up when people act like Lewis ever distanced himself from Christianity. He may have claimed to be an atheist at one point, but he was born an Anglican, died an Anglican, and only drifted away in the middle because he was "angry at God". It should go without saying that if you are angry at God, then you're probably not very confident in your purported disbelief.

Also, Narnia sux.