Re: The General Tolkien News Thread

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ }}

[Elthir]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet, but from a Bodleian Libraries "shop page" or whateveryacallit:

Great Tales Never End, The: Essays in Memory of Christopher Tolkien

_____

Includes essays by: Maxime H. Pascal; Priscilla Tolkien; Vincent Ferré; Verlyn Flieger; John Garth; Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull;  Carl F. Hostetter; Stuart D. Lee; Tom Shippey; Brian Sibley

Hardback
240 pages, 234 x 156 mm
51 colour illustrations
ISBN: 9781851245659
Publication June 2022

__________


And today the page "told" me that this book is "frequently bought together" with lapis drop earrings!

[halfwise]

I'd like to see a table of contents for that. I suppose we'll have to wait until it comes out.

[Elthir]

My essay was rejected for the appendix to GNOME. Now who will get to read . . .

Tolkien in Grey, the Great Behorsing

[two pages long, large font, seven illustrations]

Haha.

You will.

You just did!

Admit it.

[halfwise]

A bit too elthireal for my mind to grasp, I'm afraid.

[halfwise]

Amazon has delayed delivery until September 2.  Didn't I see earlier that (g)NOME was coming out in June?  Since I didn't jump on that one I suppose I shouldn't be put off by the later date.  And the price dropped a few bucks into the bargain.

[Elthir]

A bit too elthireal for my mind to grasp, I'm afraid.

Elthireal!

Excellent!

[malickfan]

You can read a tiny preview sample of The Nature of Middle Earth on Harper Collins website:

https://preview.aer.io/The_Nature_of_Middleearth-NDAxNzU2?social=1&retail=1&emailcap=0

Though the editor of the book has commented in this thread:

https://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=33704#forumpost33704

This is an odd thing. Tolkien's footnotes and my editorial endnotes have been stripped out, and the formatting of the main text is mangled. Hmm.

It's only a few weeks until release so a proper preview/list of content will be up before long anyway...

[malickfan]

According to this thread on the Barrowdowns forum, another unpublished text by Tolkien may see publication before long:

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=19520

[halfwise]

The gNOME seems to be very logically organized, starting with units of time, etc.  It seems to me Hostetter has a physical science background.  I'd still like to see a full table of contents.

Edit: Ha! I was somewhat right. here's a description I found:

Hostetter (born 1965) is a computer scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, head of the international Elvish Linguistic Fellowship, and a specialist in J.R.R. Tolkien's languages. Hostetter is the proprietor of the journals Vinyar Tengwar and Tengwestië, which assess Tolkien's linguistic material.

[malickfan]

I was aware of Hostetter's background and previous writings but I'm not sure if i've ever read anything he's edited, really curious to see how his approach differs to Christopher Tolkien's and why these writings haven't been seen until now.

Also looking forward to Elthir and Eldy's no doubt detailed thoughts and comments...

[halfwise]

I'll just say that he starts the way I start an introductory physics class, with units of measurement. Because you can't put the pieces together until you get the foundations laid. Any humanities person would squirrel that away in appendices or footnotes.

[Elthir]

CFH and I go way back [cough], in the sense that he once responded to something I said on the interweb.

Plus I have 49 issues of Vinyar Tengwar. Possibly 50 soon

Anyway [random comment warning], I've no doubt Mr. Hostetter will be as rigorous as possible as far as dating
these texts. For an imaginary example, ten pages of writing about how Elves age, dated 1958 -- while interesting
and wonderful and possibly even wonderfully complicated  -- could include concepts that were abandoned in one
sentence in 1959.


From a brief glance so far, interesting to see Tolkien wondering about the Valian Year -- if it should indeed equal 144 Sun Years -- given that The Annals of Aman were originally written with a much lower number in mind.

Can't wait for GNOME in any case!

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ When it comes to all this stuff and its many inherent contradictions I like to just lean into Tolkien's own conceit, he is merely trying to translate a bunch of documents from a long lost past, documents that come from different forgotten cultures at different times and often contradict each other in details or recollections. Just like reality history is not so much set in stone as it is a pick n' mix. You can settle on the version of events you are most comfortable with, and by most means it will be as supported and true as any other version of events. So long as its source is in those long lost documents Professor Tolkien so diligently translated for us }}

[Elthir]

{{ When it comes to all this stuff and its many inherent contradictions I like to just lean into Tolkien's own conceit, he is merely trying to translate a bunch of documents from a long lost past, documents that come from different forgotten cultures at different times and often contradict each other in details or recollections. Just like reality history is not so much set in stone as it is a pick n' mix. You can settle on the version of events you are most comfortable with, and by most means it will be as supported and true as any other version of events. So long as its source is in those long lost documents Professor Tolkien so diligently translated for us }}

My approach is decidedly different. Tolkien was an artist . . . or say, a chef, for the "soup-analogy", and he desired inconsistencies in his soup to produce the effect of "found" documents from a long past, written by various authors writing various kinds of texts -- abbreviated history, long prose tales, poetry, linguistic texts or jottings, Mannish traditions versus Elvish and so on . . .


. . . but so many, many variations in the extant corpus were not made in the interest of art, and if one really starts looking at them, they pile notably high . . . so much salt in the soup.

I think Tolkien is being brilliant when he introduces purposed inconsistencies and variations to echo something like the Kalevala, or other Primary World collections, but I say lean into the inconsistencies that Tolkien deemed would create this Primary World like feeling, rather than willy-nilly smashups that simply arise from a man changing his mind as he tries to find out the "truth" of a given story.

Subcreation is an art in which consistency will rule in ways readers will naturally not be aware of, from details to major concepts. And part of that art can indeed include variation of perspective, confusion -- but what does the artist consider "good confusion", and in what measure?

Tolkien's conceit already includes these things. That's why I'm quite in favor of a multi-perspective legendarium in the context of a Numenorean/Bilbo transmission. Again, there's an art to making such a legendarium . . .

. . . a kind of Elvish craft, one might say

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I suppose I'd see my caveat there being "So long as its source is in those long lost documents" which allows for taking the broader question of reality- that of an author making a creation- into account. In that which documents should be considered part of the conceit, and which should we consider merely the real world artist deciding which documents to create for inclusion in his conceit? And the fact Tolkien did not decide on many matters before his demise curtailed the possible answers emerging. }}

[Elthir]

Maybe apply that to my example so I can better understand?

Ten pages of writing about how Elves age, dated 1958 -- again, while interesting and wonderful and possibly even wonderfully complicated  -- are abandoned in one sentence in 1959.

At both points, both texts were intended to be internal.

There's an arguable example of this already in the Tolkien corpus, but I've invented the dates and page numbers for this basic example.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ The short (and somewhat cheeky) answer is this is why we have Lore Masters to worry about this sort of thing.   This is your job- you dont get to live rent free in that tower with complementary crows for nothing you know!  

Taking my own view on it, I'd see it all within the conceit, the first version was Tolkien's earlier attempt to translate some ancient documents, in which he made many errors in the translation and so later had to correct as his prowess at dealing with the languages and documents increased.
If the case were as drastic as a lengthy document then being undone with a single line as you give in example, I'd see that as Tolkien realising the original document was misinterpreted as a historic piece when it was more akin to a folk tale or faery story, and therefore the correct 'real' version would supersede it in importance. And of course at this stage all documents are not intended for publication, but are merely in the academical study and preparation stages. So they are 'internal' in that sense. }}

[Elthir]

Tolkien changed his mind about the Sindarin word for "ocean, sea" at least three times. Not for artistic reasons related to internal confusion, but Tolkien wrangling with Elvish. And when exactly did Tolkien the translator figure out the true word internally?

Also, this is example (of external revision) number 10,003 and counting


Instead, how about a thought out, internally intended linguistic confusion?


The translator records that certain folks later confused the name Galadriel to Galadhriel -- as both Celeborn and Galadriel seemed to contain "tree words" . . . Tolkien even invents a Silvan word galad "tree" to give more credence
to this confusion.

Brilliant subcreation slash art, I think  

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Ah but then you are a Lore Master, an odd breed concerned with such questions as when and why Tolkien made changes and what they effect and how his thought process might have played out. As a mere consumer of his art however I can happily just lean into his own conceit, he changed the Sindarin word for sea three times? No problem he wrongly mistranslated some early passages beleiving them to be in reference to the sea but later found out otherwise and settled on the most common word in Sindarin for sea ( English has after all lots of words and definitions for sea, I like Baldricks myself- "Big blue wobbly thing fish swim in." But if you got that to translate you might not decide to use it everytime you want to say sea!) In a sense its still just Tolkien wrangling with elvish, only not as creator but translator.
And in viewing it thus all those troublesome questions about when, why and what all simply disappear.
And whilst I hugely appreciate the work of Lore Masters and greatly enjoy your and Eldy's posts and find them fascinating and interesting in and of themselves, from the point of view of just appreciating the finished art its not entirely necessary either, as Tolkien's own conceit of translator covers for a multitude of sins and contradictions. }}

[Elthir]

We treat examples piecemeal as we must -- if we don't want to write a near endless post listing the existing contradictions from a rather notable posthumously published corpus. And certain troublesome questions might
vanish, in a sense, but on the other hand, your approach here (seemingly) un-vanishes such a list.

Or have you drawn a line in the corpus, so to speak? Are pre-Lord of the Rings writings off the table, for instance?


Anyway, I'm a reader. I only play a Loremaster on the web  

And part of the reason I like to know certain pesky details is to help me create those parts of Middle-earth that Tolkien never published -- to jump into Middle-earth and enjoy it -- and while I'm there I don't want to essentially invent inconsistencies. I like to play the game (that I feel) Tolkien wants me to play, including imagining certain things as "internal facts" . . .

For example, I like to imagine a character named Túrin son Húrin who wore the Dragon Helm against a worm named Glaurung . . . instead of imagining that that's not necessarily "true" -- because (to invent a general example) we also have an internal text in which Túrin son of "Úrin" wears a Dwarf-mask against "Glorund" (or whatever old names, or ideas, one can find).

Or that Tolkien the translator goofed yet again! And that's just two names plus one idea.



Lord Petty, you seem to be making Tolkien a very stumbling translator given the external variations in names, words, the whole shifting of language histories, various fluid family trees, changing ideas, history . . . and dare I think you might think it? A Silmarillion that forgets Galadriel?

Anyway, I'm not saying that you don't like the things I'm saying I like (or like to do). Our approaches simply differ and I'm just trying to explain mine, if poorly.  


Oh. I also play an annoying person on the web sometimes! And in other places too!

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I dont need to draw any lines, that's a Lore Master way of thinking, divding the process up into periods of times and writings.
To take your Turin example, for me both texts hold their value. As I can simply view it as the first text Tolkien translated had some spelling mistakes and some details recorded differently, such as the helm he wore or the spelling of the dragons name. But a later text Tolkien translated and which was supported by other mentions of the same events in other translated texts makes it the more likely to be 'true'. But much like real history the older, seemingly less accurate account may hold truths the later text has lost. Or may simply have been recorded in error by its original author who may have got the story second or third hand or at some considerable time after the events recorded. Theres always a plausible reason for why both texts could exist and yet still be consistent with Tolkiens conceit.
So I dont have to pick and choose a text save for personal preferance, or where I think there is further supporting material translated to favour one text over the other.

Take Galadriel for example, I favour the background that was in Tolkiens mind when he wrote LotR's as for me its the most consistent with how she is presented there and her actions and words. But there are other accounts that differ about her past and her actions, those are not made invalid by me prefering one over the other however, I am choosing from the translated material. Other versions can simply be filed away as differing recordings of distant events by those not involved in them. And with all the elves leaving eventually its not suprising much of their individual history would be confused, forgotten or muddled over time by those who later recorded them. And if you take into account that many of these texts would have been translations or copies of copies made in Gondor or somewhere over a long period of time then its hardly suprising the ones Tolkien got hold of would be full of inconsitencies that may contradict other texts wrote at different times and by different people.

And not that I think Tolkien was a stumbling translator but that the scale of the task, the amount of documents and the need to learn and translate new languages would be daunting for any linguist to undertake without error. Plus he was a notoriously bad typer!

It also gives me the benefit that if I so choose I never have to step out of Tolkiens conceit, it can all remain real for me as there never was an author or creator besides Eru Illuvatar, just an english professor doing his best to translate remarkable lost texts.   }}

[Elthir]

{{ I dont need to draw any lines, that's a Lore Master way of thinking, divding the process up into periods of times and writings.

I think my approach represents a reader's thinking. Not that your approach doesn't.

In the Turin example, both imagined texts could have value in some sense, and yet in another sense, one arguably undermines the other regarding the ability to know what really happened. Or again, simply injects "Tolkien the translator didn't get it right" again!

And to what end? What's the "necessary" arguable value in having a variant text in which Tolkien gets the name of the Dragon wrong? Or was there something about a version with a Dwarf-mask instead of the (to me far more interesting) continuation of the history of the Dragon Helm, that "needed" to be suggested?

But much like real history the older, seemingly less accurate account may hold truths the later text has lost.'

And I think that if there are "truths" worth illustrating in this way, then that's exactly why Tolkien might purposely invent variations. Which he does.

The Drowning of Anadune being a major example.

Theres always a plausible reason for why both texts could exist and yet still be consistent with Tolkiens conceit.

Well, plausible can be subjective obviously. And to my mind, the sheer amount of inconsistencies here can wear at plausibility. Tolkien reigns himself in with respect to inconsistencies with already published work, as that well can run dry and he naturally doesn't want readers to notice the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain (film reference -- never read the books myself).

And if you take into account that many of these texts would have been translations or copies of copies made in Gondor or somewhere over a long period of time then its hardly suprising the ones Tolkien got hold of would be full of inconsitencies that may contradict other texts wrote at different times and by different people.

And so I lean into the purposed inconsistencies that Tolkien does incorporate into the legendarium -- the ones he thought made his world more believable in this context.

And not that I think Tolkien was a stumbling translator but that the scale of the task, the amount of documents and the need to learn and translate new languages would be daunting for any linguist to undertake without error. Plus he was a notoriously bad typer!

Without error is one thing . . .

. . . start with HOME part one, The Book of Lost Tales, and list the "internal errors" until you get to HOME 12 . . . and I'm guessing GNOME will have been published many years before you finish.

[halfwise]

I think trying to read everything under the conceit of flawed history would be too much of a strain.  Save that for the published work, or the nearly published in his lifetime.

Even that has difficulties.  I like my rebellious Galadriel indicated in LotR, but Unfinished Tales shows a move towards a "cleaned" version of her character.   Revisionist history?

[Elthir]

Not that you don't already know Halfy, but RGEO says the following about a beautifully rebellious Galadriel 

"After the overthrow of Morgoth at the end of the First Age a ban was set upon her return, and she had replied proudly that she had no wish to do so." JRRT, The Road Goes Ever On

I once had a conversation with someone who claimed RGEO, published by JRRT in the 1960s, was not an internal text. The claim was that Tolkien was here publishing his opinions about his world, as the author of Middle-earth -- rather than relating stuff to readers, in his guise as translator.

I disagreed with that claim. And still do