From: mcresq@aol.com (Russ) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Which Cosmology? (was: Primeval Canon?) Lines: 54 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 11 Jan 2000 18:24:41 GMT References: <20000107003139.11326.00000092@nso-fc.aol.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler Message-ID: <20000111132441.26957.00000389@nso-fz.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!cyclone-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!news-east.rr.com!portc05.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:12457 In article <20000107003139.11326.00000092@nso-fc.aol.com>, pbachjson@aol.comnojunk (PaulB) writes: >HoME can provide plenty of "what if's" but cannot, IMHO, be used as the sole >source in proving or disproving any given musing by a reader. (Sort of like >needing at least two independent eye witnesses in a murder trial, but >physical >evidence can be taken at face value. You can, in fact, convict someone >without >eye witnesses, but physical evidence is _always_ neccessary as well. HoME >equals the eyewitness account, IMHO) > >PB Unfortunately, I got this thread off to the wrong start by using the word "canon" I probably should have asked what is the more accurate or authoritative cosmology. Anyway, I don't see how CJRT's Silmarillion is any more canon/authoritative/accurate than the latest writings found in War of the Jewels and Morgoth's Ring. The Silmarillion is simply CJRT's compilation and editing (ad in a few cases writing) of the same texts found in those volumes of HOME. I would call the HOME writings more authoritative because they represent Tolkien's actual writings. Let's look at an example. In the Silmarillion, CJRT used an earlier version of the death of Thingol and sacking of Doriath because his father hadn't yet gotten around to rewriting that part of the story. In effect, he ultilized the new text until it stopped then tacked on an older version for the ending. However, from JRRT's notes, it is clear that he was not going to use the story end that was found in the earlier text. CJRT came up with the cludgy ending that Thongol was killed in Menegroth, Melian left thus lifting the girdle and then the dwarf army invaded and attacked. However, I would consider that an throughly non authoritative ending to the story. IIRC, Tolkien himself was considering an ending in which Thingol and his army were drawn outside the Girdle and there he was killed. Anyway, there is a somewhat similar situation with the creation cosmology. This time, there is a later post-LOTR draft of Ainluindale. However, late in his life (at least according to CJRT) Tolkien most definitey rejected many of the details of the creation myth. Basically, since Tolkien's conceit was that Middle Earth is our earth and our world but in a mythical time, he wanted his cosmology to be consistent with our own. Thus for example, late in his life, he was getting rid of the "flat earth" in favor of the round earth. Melkor arrived after the rest of the Valar. The Sun and the Moon were early, not late creations. Men woke much earlier than previously reported. We see also in Finrod and Arabeth that the theology of Middle Earth was made more consistent with Tolkien's Catholic beliefs. I think the choice (if one must even be made) is between a completed but rejected cosmology as opposed to a new very different cosmology that was never really fleshed out before Tolkien died. Russ ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Which Cosmology? (was: Primeval Canon?) Organization: Xenite.Org: Science Fiction and Fantasy Message-ID: <85fvuv$16s_018@news.uswest.net> References: <20000107003139.11326.00000092@nso-fc.aol.com> <20000111132441.26957.00000389@nso-fz.aol.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 42 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:23:11 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.119.116 X-Trace: news.uswest.net 947618265 209.181.119.116 (Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:17:45 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:17:45 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news-out.uswest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!xenite1 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:12452 In article <20000111132441.26957.00000389@nso-fz.aol.com>, mcresq@aol.com (Russ) wrote: >I think the choice (if one must even be made) is between a completed but >rejected cosmology as opposed to a new very different cosmology that was never >really fleshed out before Tolkien died. There are many different cosmologies. Even the third edition of THE HOBBIT can stand on its own. It doesn't have to be related to other books. The same cannot be said of THE LORD OF THE RINGS, since it clearly builds on events in THE HOBBIT and makes reference to it, and it also makes reference to events which Tolkien intended to portray in *his* SILMARILLION. Christopher's SILMARILLION never pretended to be anything other than what it really is: a work intended to help satisfy the curiosity of his father's audience about what might have been pubished. It was never presented as the SILMARILLION J.R.R. Tolkien would have published, and the foreword to the first edition (I don't recall if people have said it's preserved in the second edition) states that "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". The book therefore can stand on its own, although it does (through "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age") make reference to events depicted in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Hence, we have three cosmologies, each of which is incorporated into a greater, less unified cosmology. Then Christopher brought out UNFINISHED TALES, the contents of which are mostly compatible with THE LORD OF THE RINGS and THE SILMARILLION (some of it in fact being source material for THE SILMARILLION). This book therefore expands the greater cosmology, and perhaps two of the lesser ones (but they are not dependent upon it). THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH books examine the sources of THE SILMARILLION and the early drafts of THE LORD OF THE RINGS in a rather disjointed fashion. They introduce a new cosmology (for THE BOOK OF LOST TALES) and several rejected cosmologies (which evolved into the later cosmologies), including thoughts and notes for an incomplete cosmology which never saw full realization beyond the essays collected in MORGOTH'S RING. So there are several cosmologies which can be discussed, together or individually, but there is no one overall cosmology which incorporates all the works. ###### From: oscwr@emory.edu (Cal Rice) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Which Cosmology? (was: Primeval Canon?) Date: 11 Jan 2000 14:27:58 -0500 Organization: Emory University Lines: 26 Message-ID: <85g07u$kro$1@jet.cc.emory.edu> References: <20000107003139.11326.00000092@nso-fc.aol.com> <20000111132441.26957.00000389@nso-fz.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: jet.cc.emory.edu X-Trace: lendl.cc.emory.edu 947618878 4676 170.140.1.27 (11 Jan 2000 19:27:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@emory.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Jan 2000 19:27:58 GMT X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!uunet!ams.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!finch!lendl.cc.emory.edu!emory.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:12449 Russ (mcresq@aol.com) wrote: : . . . : I think the choice (if one must even be made) is between a completed but : rejected cosmology as opposed to a new very different cosmology that was never : really fleshed out before Tolkien died. All I can say is thank God (or Eru) that Christopher Tolkien did the best he could and got The Silmarillion published, preserving as nearly as was feasible what his father actually wrote, instead of chucking it all because Tolkien had late second thoughts. I love Tolkien's flat world and Illuvatar making it round, and the Lamps, and the Trees, and the origin of the Sun and the Moon, and the Silmaril that became Venus. Why anyone, Tolkien included (and yes I've read Myths Transformed) wants to take all of this away just so it will agree with today's cosmology is a depressing mystery to me. Just maybe the younger Tolkien was a better creator than the older Tolkien was critic of his own creation. The gifts of many artists and writers decline with old age. I think Christopher Tolkien did two wonderful things: First he constructed the radiant wonder that the published Silmarillion is; and then he (a model of unbelievable integrity) laid out all of the material from a sixty year span of his father's writing so that we can ponder the possibilities of the more general 'Silmarillion' forever. -cr -- ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Which Cosmology? (was: Primeval Canon?) References: <20000107003139.11326.00000092@nso-fc.aol.com> <20000111132441.26957.00000389@nso-fz.aol.com> <85g07u$kro$1@jet.cc.emory.edu> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 31 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:09:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: uchinews 947696968 128.135.12.7 (Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:09:28 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:09:28 CST Organization: The University of Chicago Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uchinews!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:12486 Quoth oscwr@emory.edu (Cal Rice): > Why anyone, Tolkien included (and yes I've read Myths Transformed) > wants to take all of this away just so it will agree with today's > cosmology is a depressing mystery to me. That's why I often suspect that if Tolkien had worked longer with the new ideas, he would have eventually abandoned them (just as he did his earlier round world creation story), or at the least have made _substantial_ modifications to bring them more in line with the older stories. It might have been cool to see what Tolkien could have made of the mythology if (for example) he had decided on his round world cosmology from the first time he came up with it (or earlier), but without the whole rewritten history, it's hard for us to judge. I agree with you: I can't imagine that it would have been as good. I _do_ tend to treat the flat world cosmology as "more canonical", despite the fact that some of the round world versions seem to be more recent. I've got essays archived on my web site that discuss my thoughts on canonical texts, but in brief, I see the creation stories as "Ambiguous Final Intent", where we've got to choose which story to accept (if we can make any decision at all). As I look at it, even if the round world version was the last one Tolkien was working on, we know that he had tried the idea before and abandoned it after further exploration failed to satisfy him. Considering the vast amount of mythology that depended on the flat world story (had hints of it been published yet?), I find it fairly likely that he was just exploring the round world idea again, and that he might very well have eventually gone back to the flat world story. Others may, of course, reach other conclusions; that's what "ambiguous" means. :) Steuard Jensen ###### From: pbachjson@aol.comnojunk (PaulB) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Which Cosmology? (was: Primeval Canon?) Lines: 80 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 13 Jan 2000 21:57:12 GMT References: <20000111132441.26957.00000389@nso-fz.aol.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler Message-ID: <20000113165712.08264.00000355@nso-cb.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!bignews.mediaways.net!remarQ-easT!remarQ.com!supernews.com!portc05.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:12558 In article <20000111132441.26957.00000389@nso-fz.aol.com>, mcresq@aol.com (Russ) writes: >In article <20000107003139.11326.00000092@nso-fc.aol.com>, >pbachjson@aol.comnojunk (PaulB) writes: > >>HoME can provide plenty of "what if's" but cannot, IMHO, be used as the sole >>source in proving or disproving any given musing by a reader. (Sort of like >>needing at least two independent eye witnesses in a murder trial, but >>physical >>evidence can be taken at face value. You can, in fact, convict someone >>without >>eye witnesses, but physical evidence is _always_ neccessary as well. HoME >>equals the eyewitness account, IMHO) >> >>PB > >Unfortunately, I got this thread off to the wrong start by using the word >"canon" I probably should have asked what is the more accurate or >authoritative cosmology. > >Anyway, I don't see how CJRT's Silmarillion is any more >canon/authoritative/accurate than the latest writings found in War of the >Jewels and Morgoth's Ring. The Silmarillion is simply CJRT's compilation and >editing (ad in a few cases writing) of the same texts found in those volumes >of >HOME. I would call the HOME writings more authoritative because they >represent >Tolkien's actual writings. >Major snip giving good examples< >I think the choice (if one must even be made) is between a completed but >rejected cosmology as opposed to a new very different cosmology that was >never >really fleshed out before Tolkien died. > >Russ Very good points and examples. My major thesis is simply that trying to decide what the final decision of any dead author _might have been_ _had he lived_ is something I find very unsettling. The use of dates to prove greater or lesser validity, in particular, dictates a linearity on the art of writing that I find repugnant. In everyday life people change there minds, go back to a previous idea, take giant leaps ahead; all before coming to a final decision on a topic. To take up the final point Russ makes above, I accept that Tolkien did not finish fleshing out his cosmology to his own satisfaction. The question then becomes why anyone would presume to state that a particular set of unpublished (or post-humously published, for that matter,) writing should or should not be accepted as more valid than another, or that _any_ would neccessarally (sp?) represent what an author would finally have settled on. I accept the Silmarrillion as "more canonical" merely because it is consistant and whole. Russ' point will probably more it further down toward the level of HoME for me, but I still appreciate the editorial unity that CJRT provided. If CJRT decided to re-edit to lot into a new whole, would I accept the new one over the old? I have no idea, but I accept CJRT's role as an editor, and believe that any other editor would suggest similar choices be made in order to make the work consistant. That's what their there for. Unfortunately, HoME demonstrates that there wasn't just one choice to be had, and yet one had to be made. It was made, I accept it with my grain of salt and move on. To reitterate and expand, I accept HoME and (now moreso) The Silmarillion & UT as places to find & answer interesting questions of "what if" and provide "best guess" scenarios, but I cannot accept them as proof positive of any final choice JRRT would have made. Joyfully this view also allows me to insert my opinion into ME and thereby expand my experience of it's creation with no one to tell me I'm absolutely wrong and it couldn't be. The best someone else can do is say is "As far as we know Tolkien never explored _that_ idea in _that_ way." Who knows, maybe if he was alive to read this NG, we all might have given him new trains of thought to pursue. PB "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." -JRRT ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien From: Michael@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) Subject: Re: Which Cosmology? (was: Primeval Canon?) Organization: Xenite.Org: Science Fiction and Fantasy Message-ID: <85ltfa$17g_018@news.uswest.net> References: <20000111132441.26957.00000389@nso-fz.aol.com> <20000113165712.08264.00000355@nso-cb.aol.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Lines: 26 Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:17:30 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.181.118.248 X-Trace: news.uswest.net 947812325 209.181.118.248 (Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:12:05 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:12:05 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-out.uswest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!xenite1 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:12547 In article <20000113165712.08264.00000355@nso-cb.aol.com>, pbachjson@aol.comnojunk (PaulB) wrote: >To take up the final point Russ makes above, I accept that Tolkien did not >finish fleshing out his cosmology to his own satisfaction. The question then >becomes why anyone would presume to state that a particular set of unpublished >(or post-humously published, for that matter,) writing should or should not be >accepted as more valid than another, or that _any_ would neccessarally (sp?) >represent what an author would finally have settled on. If the criterion for validity is consistency with other writings (from any period of time) then it is certainly acceptable to review unpublished writings. If the criterion is something else, it may not be acceptable. One of the reasons why I asked "which cosmology" or "which canon" was that there is no consistency across Tolkien's writings, but neither is there homogeneity. One must pick and choose and create a framework within which there is some definite relevance. It makes no sense to use, say, THE BOOK OF LOST TALES to comment upon THE LORD OF THE RINGS (or even THE SILMARILLION). They are wholly separate works from the same hand, relating similar themes but not telling the same stories. On the other hand, it is worthwhile to compare "Narn i Chin Hurin" to "Of Turin Turambar" in THE SILMARILLION because the Narn was a source for that chapter.