Discussion: BoLT1 - Foreword

[Nóm]

Welcome to the Book of Lost Tales discussion.

Before we begin:
I will do some summarizing and paraphrasing along with providing quotes and the reason for this is to hit, in the shortest form possible by me, some of the points that I measure to be most important in telling the history of the writing and publication of the Book of Lost Tales and of The Silmarillion. The up-side of this is that it will be simpler and perhaps easier reading for those who find the Foreword to be a tad dry and just want to get on with the tales, however, the down-side is that it is open to error. So, I ask that people be aware that I am far from being a BoLT expert (beginner in fact) and that they should take what they read in the book as the accurate source of information and use my post as something to which they can compare their take on the Forward or start discussions from. I also ask that anyone correct any errors on my part, not least of all for the sake of those who do not heed that first suggestion. ;)

Wow... where to start?

A little about The Silmarillion:
The Book of Lost Tales was started in 1916-17 and was the first narrative concerning Middle-earth but was left incomplete several years later. Before the Lost Tales were complete Tolkien turned to writing long poems; The Children of Hurin in alliterative form and The Lay of Luthien. The prose form of the mythology began from a new starting point from an outline (or "sketch" as Tolkien called it) written in 1926. It's intention was to give the background information necessary for understanding the alliterative poem. This prose from of the mythology developed into the tales of The Silmarillion.

Christopher addresses some concerns about the publication of the Silmarillion, he quotes Professor Shippey regarding a consideration and within that quote Prof. Shippey quotes his father about that same consideration, the one that I find most interesting. That is, the consideration that The Lord of the Rings is full of depth becaucause the history of Middle-earth is hinted at and breifly refered to throughout the book, often in the form of songs, and that to go there into that mysterious past and have those stories reveiled in full would take away the magic that results from the glimpses. Also, that the tales of history could not be expected to keep the charm they have from being glimpsed at in the large setting of The Lord of the Rings.
Christopher Tolkien says this:
When after his death the question arose of publishing 'The Silmarillion' in some form, I attached no importance to this doubt. The effect that 'the glimpses of a large history in the background' have in The Lord of the Rings is incontestable and of utmost importance, but I did not think that the 'glimpses' used there with such art should preclude all further knowledge of the 'large history'.
But because these tales of the earliest history are told in a different mode they should not be measured by the same criteria as they are measured in The Lord of the Ring. To move back in imagined time, does not have to mean that to hear the tales of the first age and the Creation story, would be to run out of depth.
Christopher says:
'Depth' in this sense implies a relation between different temporal layers or levels within the same world. Provided that the reader has a place, a point of vantage, in the imagined time from which to look back, the extreme oldness of the extremely old can be made apparant and made to be felt continuously.
This, the Lord of the Rings does for the tales of the earliest days.


Phew... enough for now.
All questions and comments welcomed.

[Maedhros]

It is interesting to note that Tolkien's first writtings didn't include Hobbits, but we have already the Fall of Gondolin, The Music of the Ainur, etc.
There are some aspects regarding the Silmarillion in the Foreword that I would like to address.
The Silmarillion is commonly said to be a 'difficult' book, needing explanation and guidance on how to 'approach' it; and in this it is contrasted' to The Lord of the Rings. In Chapter 7 of his book The Road to Middle-earth Professor T. A. Shippey accepts that this is so ('The Silmarillion could never be anything but hard to read', p. 201), and expounds his view of why it should be. A complex discussion is not treated justly when it is extracted, but in his view the reasons an: essentially two (p. 185). In the first place, them is in The Silmarillion no 'mediation' of the kind provided by the hobbits (so, in The Hobbit, 'Bilbo acts as the link between modern times and the archaic world of dwarves and dragons').
There is, then, and very evidently, a question of literary 'taste' (or literary 'habituation') involved; and also a question of literary 'disappointment' -- the '(mistaken) disappointment in those who wanted a second Lord of the Rings' to which Professor Shippey refers. This has even produced a sense of outrage -- in one case formulated to me in the words 'It's like the Old Testament!': a dire condemnation against which, clearly, there can be no appeal (though this reader cannot have got very far before being overcome by the comparison). Of course, 'The Silmarillion' was intended to move the heart and the imagination, directly, and without peculiar effort or the possession of unusual faculties; but its mode is inherent, and it may be doubted whether any 'approach' to it can greatly aid those who find it unapproachable.
And as Nóm has already mentioned, there is the Literary Depth
One quality which [The Lord of the Rings] has in abundance is the Beowulfian 'impression of depth', created just as in the old epic by songs and digressions like Aragorn's lay of Tinúviel, Sam Gamgee's allusions to the Silmaril and the Iron Crown, Elrond's account of Celebrimbor, and dozens more. This, however, is a quality of The Lord of the Rings, not of the inset stories. To tell these in their own right and expect them to retain the charm they got from their larger setting would be a terrible error, an error to which Tolkien would be more sensitive than any man alive.
The interesting thing about the Book of Lost Tales is the way that the Tales are told in regard to the Published Silmarillion, in here, the Tales are told to a man (Eriol/Ælfwine) in the Mar Vanwa Tyaliéva (and other places) by Vairë, Rúmil, and others. It has an almost magical quality to it.
There is also in abundant the Poems and the end of the Tales, my favorite is the one at the End of the Cottage of Lost Play.
There are many qualities regarding the Valar and other characters that you will not see in the Published Silmarillion, but that you can see in the Tales. For example, I have always wondered why did Manwë was held to be the Noblest of the Ainur, but when I read The Chaining of Melko, I came to understand why.

[Nenya Evenstar]

Great job Confy! :D

I would like to start off first with a little added thoughts of my own. I am fascinated with all the concern that is shown in this forward concerning the possible lost of depth that the publishing of The Silmarillion might have brought on. I know from my own personal experience that after reading The Lord of the Rings I was only too happy to embrace The Silmarillion as the history to this epic work and as a link to fill in all those frequent touchings upon matters of that past which fill the lines of the Trilogy. I, though I made the mistake of accepting The Silmarillion as the one and only truth of the history of Arda, did not experience any of this loss of depth nor did I experience any bad emotions about the book. Rather, I became more awed and enthralled of this vast world that was layed out before my feet. I have to say that I feel the way The Silmarillion turned out did not cause The Lord of the Rings to lose any of its charm, but rather enhanced the charm and made it deeper.

Now that I am delving even deeper into the beginning works of the author and watching for myself the progression (as far as can be told) of the epic history of the Eldar Days, I can only say that to me the vastness of this great history has been even more enhanced. For now, instead of simply one published work (The Silmarillion) we have almost all of Tolkien's writings to study for ourselves. To me the depth has even more increased because these do indeed seem like simply myths, for in many cases we do not know in what form the author meant for the story to take on. So, I would like to say that, at least for me, Christopher Tolkien's (and indeed Tolkien himself for that matter) fear that The Lord of the Rings might lose its charm has not been justified. Instead, I see that epic Trilogy becoming enhanced by every new story I pick up. With the diverse amount of materials that are now present we now can see a much bigger and much deeper world than was present with only the publication of The Lord of the Rings.

However, this sense of depth that I perceive may only be because I am aware of all the other books and was never in a time when only The Silmarillion was available. I believe the other works were published so that the sense of depth was not lost. Though I personally do not feel that The Silmarillion took any depth away from The Lord of the Rings, I do know that the publishing of the extra works took away any doubt of losing this sense of depth. For this was indeed their purpose: To change any finality that was made by the publication of The Silmarillion and create once more the 'longitudinal' conception of Middle-earth.

I would like to point out for our discussion of the actual stories once we reach that point what Christopher Tolkien states in the Forward:
I do not suppose for one moment that my analyses will prove either altogether just or altogether accurate, and there must be clues to the solution of puzzling features in the Tales which I have failed to observe.
So, yes, just a reminder to keep the very analysis of Christopher which is incorporated at the end of every chapter at simply the level of an analysis.

[gate7ole]

When I read for the first time the BOLT, I understood one thing: that the Silmarillion was not the end of the road, but the beginning. It cannot stand alone as the book that tells the history of the Elder Days. How can a book containing stories that are distant from each other even 20 years be considered coherent? Of course, at the time I read it for first (or second) time, I couldn’t see it. Heck, I can’t even see it now. But it MUST be so and here comes the publication of the HOME series to give us the tool to find out by ourselves. So, I welcome this brave effort that the guild of Scholars has started and hope that one day we will have covered all the twelve books.
The interesting discussion of Christopher Tolkien about the dangers of the publication of the Silmarillion has, I might say, puzzled me. Now, I can say that there is some right in these fears, but on a different layer. The publication of the book has changed my perception of the LOTR. It is less heroic, less tragic. I now understand that Men were to blame for many evils and that the deus-ex-machina used in more than two times in LOTR manages only to hide their incompetence to face the evil. Also, the depth of the Silmarillion exists, on a different way. A depth that runs forward the timeline of ME, towards the events of the War of the Ring. Finally, I can’t know whether the publication of these two books should be in reversed order, but I’m positive that the first book would always win our hearts.
Lastly, I would like to share my general impression on the BOLT itself, as the collection of the early “accounts” of some well-known stories. Some confused me, some fascinated me (“the fall of Gondolin”). But the greatest “gem” is for me the account of the condition of Eressëa. I don’t “like” the form of the Elves, they seem to have lost the sparkle of life in them. But that was the concept that never left Tolkien’s drafts: the fading of the Firstborn, opposed to how things would be in Arda Unmarred. But for these matters, I guess we will talk more when the time comes.

[Nóm]

As for the things brought up in the Foreword that Maedhros has pointed out:

I think the lack of mediation actually helps to give the effect of depth of time when reading the tales of the earlier days because it causes us to look back at the early days with the late third age as our 'vantage point'.

As for literary taste, I think that if one of the reasons that some do not prefer The Silmarillion to The Lord of The Rings, the lack of mediation in The Silmarillion is a matter of taste too... and I think some readers dislike that lack. At least, I do not know what else it could be, since in my opinion the tales are just as great as that of The Lord of the Rings... I decribe the events of the first age as "bigger... much bigger" I just don't know how else to put it.

My experiences and views on what I have read so far:

I too did not experience any loss of depth with the reading of The Silmarillion. One thought that I could not shake during my first reading of that book was that I was thankful that I had already read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings because this way I went into The Silmarillion reading about the creation and early days of a world that I already knew and loved and it did feel ancient. Though The Silmarillion is more dear to me than The Lord of the Rings, is it so in part because of what it does for The Lord of the Rings and what the two amount to when taken together. Though I first read The Lord of the RIngs way back last March, it was my reading of The Silmarillion last summer that really pulled me into all of this.

As for the effect it has had on my view of The Lord of the Rings... it has been for the better. Those glimpses of ancient history that we pick up in songs and such have gone from being interesting and giving depth, to be being almost painfully real but distant and I am sorry that those days are gone and that eventully everything will be gone.
One example of this is the Song o Elbereth Gilthoniel.
I really loved that part the first time I read the book, and I remember wondering about this Elbereth Gilthoniel and about the elves that sang of this queen beyond the western sea. My point of view was much like a hobbit's might be.
But now when I read it, my point of view is more that of the elves and instead of wondering about the song I am hit with the magnitude of the beauty and sorrow of the elves and I feel a pain of loss and see a reminder that everything will end.

One thing I have got from The Lord of The Rings, is that it leaves me with a strong sense of death, and time.
For me the book is about death and time... not good and evil as some people consider it to be about.
Reading The Silmarillion has upped this sense, and for me these books are very much about the elves, and the way mortals view them.
I feel in a way that I read These books from a elf-like point of view because we see long ages pass in these books, and when Bilbo and Frodo set sail into the west I have a feeling that could be compared a little to what the elves may feel when their end nears, be it the end of their time in Middle-earth or the end of their time in Arda and they remember the days of old and are sorry for the loss of them.
Just as the elves end with Arda, my experiences of Middle-earth ends when the Sam, Merry, and Pippin watch that ship sail out of sight.


These are things I have come to think of in the last couple months, regarding the HoMe and my up-coming experiences with Tolkien's writings:

I fear what might happen once I've read all of these Lost Tales, and they have become a part of Middle-earth for me as The Fall of Gondolin in BoLT2 did (but that is a good thing), but I am not yet sure what to do with all of this about the Valar in BoLT1, that is... I am not sure if I really want to be reading it, because it is too different from what I read in The Silmarillion and I wonder if these conflicting versions would hinder my views because I would be unsure which story is closer to truth, and just exactly how true is that story. So far, I am of the thought that The version in The Silmarillion is the more accurate telling... and by far.
I am of this thought only because I want to be.
The problem with it is that if I choose that The Silmarillion is accurate, that renders BoLT very inaccurate and what does that do to my view of the FoG?
Can I rationalize and say that The tale of the FoG was just able to remain intact better than the story of the Valar.

Other portions of HoMe though, such as Morgoth's Ring, are of great interest to me and I read it with no regret, concerns, or confusion.

I have greater interest in the actual history of Middle-earth and it's people than I do about the evolution of Tolkien's writings. For this reason, and the big fact that most of my interest is in elves... I doubt that I will ever be a scholar... but remain just a reader.

I wonder how others who are just getting into this view it?

[Nenya Evenstar]

The publication of the book has changed my perception of the LOTR. It is less heroic, less tragic. I now understand that Men were to blame for many evils and that the deus-ex-machina used in more than two times in LOTR manages only to hide their incompetence to face the evil. Please elaborate! I am very interested, for I am unable to share this view. I'm wondering where you are coming from and am curious for some more info on why you feel it was less tragic. I, as you know, felt that The Silmarillion lent even a more tragic and heroic edge to The Lord of the Rings.

Nom, I am reminded of something you said once a great while ago about how you thought we both think somewhat alike. I feel so many of the same things you mentioned in your last post that it feels like I was talking! I also seem to see the books from an elfs point of view. I think the reason for this is because of the sadness and beauty of their race: it is something that we do not have in this world but wish existed. I feel that The Silmarillion added to this. I cannot agree with you more in this way! I cannot help but remember a few of Tolkien's letters in which he is talking about how his readers want more of hobbits. The Lord of the Rings started off as another hobbit's tale, but inevitably got deeper as the author went on. I wonder how many people actually consider it as a hobbit's tale now? For me it is more of a piece of history accented strongly with Elvishness, if you will. Perhaps the thought of The Silmarillion causing The Lord of the Rings to lose some of its depth depends on the point of view in which you read the stories? If you read them from the viewpoint of an Elf I can guarantee that you will see things differently than if you read them from the viewpoint of a Hobbit. And perhaps this is what gate7ole is referring to?

I am also just getting into BOLT. However, I do not feel like I will lose anything by reading stories that contradict each other. Contrary to Nom's thoughts on how she feels she will simply remain a reader instead of a scholar because of her viewpoint when reading the books, I do not feel this same way. I feel, even though I seem to read from an Elvish viewpoint, that I would like to know each and every bit about what exactly was going through Tolkien's mind that I can. I would prefer to not have a settled down fact because there is not settled fact. I'd rather have all the stories to turn to if need be even though I may not know which one is correct. I also enjoy developing and taking my own favorite parts to develop what I wish would be true, and I feel I will miss out on some of that if I do not read all of Tolkien's writings.

[gate7ole]

Please elaborate! I am very interested, for I am unable to share this view. I'm wondering where you are coming from and am curious for some more info on why you feel it was less tragic. I, as you know, felt that The Silmarillion lent even a more tragic and heroic edge to The Lord of the Rings.
I’ll unfold my course of thought, although it doesn’t concern BOLT at all.
The Lord of the Rings tells us a story about the war of Men against the evil of their time, Sauron. When I first read it, I was heavily impressed by the deeds of the characters of the book. I thought them to be mostly heroic actions. Then the devastating experience of Silmarillion changed my perspective. No, I no longer thought the Men of LOTR heroes. They were replaced by the Elves of the Elder Days in my heart. These fought an immensely more difficult war and not for their own mistakes. They were refused the aid by the Valar. And they almost perished. On the other hand the Men of Third Age were the remnants of the fallen Men. They managed to fall again during the Third Age years and let the enemy return Then they reached a dead-end, where a Halfling was prophesied to save them. The war was not won because of them. If it was not the Ents, Bilbo, Frodo, the Oathbreakers, they would have perished. Certainly they showed some valour, but in my eyes they were far lesser than the Elves of FA. Only a few characters of LOTR are tragic and heroic enough to be compared with the Eldar.
This was the impact of Silmarillion over LOTR. Mind that I don’t speak of the LOTR losing depth. Quite the opposite. I totally agree with everyone else about the subject. Something else was lost, highness and heroism. Also, I don’t see the Silmarillion from an elf’s point of view, but of a man’s. I see this sorrow and beauty that you describe and envy it (in a good way). I read the stories told about them, but I can’t put myself into them – I feel that I don’t deserve it. Whenever a man is responsible for great deeds, I’m proud for my race. When Uldor betrays, I’m ashamed. Then, when the background changes to Númenor and the Realms in Exile, I feel at home. I recognize the men’s weakness and can participate. And unlike Nóm, the ship that sails away taking the Ringbearers fills me with hope of a better future with our new king.
Nóm, I believe that you will soon change your mind about the approach of BOLT (and the other books). You have already tasted it. You know that there is more truth than the 400 pages of the Silmarillion provide. How can you just deny them, so that your acquired truth will remain intact? It is not the same as before when you didn’t know. Now you do and rejecting it would be a crime.

[Nóm]

You have already tasted it. You know that there is more truth than the 400 pages of the Silmarillion provide. How can you just deny them, so that your acquired truth will remain intact? It is not the same as before when you didn’t know. Now you do and rejecting it would be a crime.
I'm not going to deny anything, the fact that I am reading BoLT should be blatant proof of that.

It is just that because of the different versions, I will decide which one I think is more close to the true story. This does not mean that I will not enjoy the other versions or that I will deny them. They will just be viewed as different versions and enjoyed for what they are.

As far as any of this being a crime, that is your opinion and I strongly disagree with it. These are works of fiction, and the stuff in question was published after the author's death. How could it be crime for readers to select which version of a story that they think it closer to the truth?

If you accuse someone of crime because of the way they chose to view The Silmarillion and HoMe, you should be kind enough explain why you think it is a crime.

So, as I asked in my last post:
I wonder how others who are just getting into this view it?
Tell me, gate7ole (and anyone else who's interested in sharing)... how do you handle and view different versions? Do you not select which you think is closer to the truth?

[gate7ole]

If you accuse someone of crime because of the way they chose to view The Silmarillion and HoMe, you should be kind enough explain why you think it is a crime.
What I consider a crime is to reject the passages of Home before reading and analyzing them. Not afterwards. If it is afterwards, then the procedure of rejecting them will be a natural and acceptable choice to stick with the versions of the Sil. But this rejection should be a result of analysis and not of fear for any concequences on the already acquired knowledge. The latter is for me unacceptable.
I may not seem polite, but these are my sincere thoughts.
Tell me, gate7ole (and anyone else who's interested in sharing)... how do you handle and view different versions? Do you not select which you think is closer to the truth?
Of course. Here I already see that you have moved from your first statement. Because how will one select the closest to the truth version? Only by scholar approach. And I believe that we will all join forces together in this effort.

[Nóm]

You either missed the point of the last section of my second post in this thread, or I did not make myself clear. I suspect the former.
If you wish, go read it again, and if you come away with the same thoughts then I will reword it... otherwise I'm not going to bother, but I do not like the implications that I was ever rejecting HoMe and have comitted crimes against??? Tolkien?? The books? gate7ole's view???

This is all fiction and I think everyone can view and approach it however they want to.

[Maedhros]

I fear what might happen once I've read all of these Lost Tales, and they have become a part of Middle-earth for me as The Fall of Gondolin in BoLT2 did (but that is a good thing), but I am not yet sure what to do with all of this about the Valar in BoLT1, that is... I am not sure if I really want to be reading it, because it is too different from what I read in The Silmarillion and I wonder if these conflicting versions would hinder my views because I would be unsure which story is closer to truth, and just exactly how true is that story. So far, I am of the thought that The version in The Silmarillion is the more accurate telling... and by far.
After reading the Foreword do you still believe that? It is an interesting question that you pose. Which version is closer to the truth? Is there such a thing like that? An interesting thing about the Published Silmarillion is that CT used completed versions of the stories in it, that does not mean that they were the later ideas or the way that Tolkien intended to be. (A clear example is the Parentage of Gil-Galad).
One of the things that I find more interesting about the Silmarillion, is that it's not a closed story. Even though the author is dead and the story is not finished, it leaves your imagination open. For example, What did Galadriel and Teleporno do in the rebellion of the Ñoldor? Why were they escaping in the first place? If they were innocent, then why did they share the ban along with the rest of the Exiles? Who made the Ellesar? Was Celebrimbor in Gondolin?
I think that there is something special about the Silmarillion that because it's unfinished will ever be a story in constant development in our minds.

[Nenya Evenstar]

Thank you, gate7ole. :) I won't elaborate on my thoughts concerning your post as, like you mentioned, this is a discussion of the Forward of BOLT. But thanks for sharing!

[Nóm]

What do you think of the idea that the tales of the Silmarillion were among Bilbo's translations from the elvish, preserved in the Red Book of Westmarch?

Why does Christopher decide that he was wrong for not making this idea definite?

Is there information elsewhere in HoMe that goes against this belief?


Originally posted by Maedhros
After reading the Foreword do you still believe that? It is an interesting question that you pose. Which version is closer to the truth? Is there such a thing like that? An interesting thing about the Published Silmarillion is that CT used completed versions of the stories in it, that does not mean that they were the later ideas or the way that Tolkien intended to be. (A clear example is the Parentage of Gil-Galad).
[Portion of quote removed]
I think that there is something special about the Silmarillion that because it's unfinished will ever be a story in constant development in our minds.
I don't even know what I believe in regards to this Maedhros. Right now I'm just open to whatever happens next. I suppose that a year from now my views will be much different than they are today. I expect they will grow and change throughout the course of my life.
You've been reading Tolkien for several years Maedhros, and have read the entire HoMe, yes?... How do you view BoLT in regards to it's relation with the published Silmarillion? How have your views evolved since you first began to read BoLT?

I don't know to what degree The Silmarillion or other tales of the Elder Days are special (to me) because they are unfinished. I think it could never be complete - that many of us would want to know more, regardless of how much was available to us. I can say, that the mysteries and the unknown in these books are more luring for me than any other fiction I have experienced, by far; they can be compared to the lure of things in our own world, such as outer space. This made-up history has grabbed my love and interest like our own world's history never could.

[Maedhros]

I don't even know what I believe in regards to this Maedhros. Right now I'm just open to whatever happens next. I suppose that a year from now my views will be much different than they are today. I expect they will grow and change throughout the course of my life.
You've been reading Tolkien for several years Maedhros, and have read the entire HoMe, yes?... How do you view BoLT in regards to it's relation with the published Silmarillion? How have your views evolved since you first began to read BoLT?
Not necessarily my views, but certain things about the characters. For instance, the nobility of Manwë, I believe is portrayed better in the Chaining of Melko, than in the Published Silmarillion.
Also, there is also the trends that the story took to reach it's final point, if you will.

[Nenya Evenstar]

What do you think of the idea that the tales of the Silmarillion were among Bilbo's translations from the elvish, preserved in the Red Book of Westmarch? I would personally prefer to think of these translations from the Red Book of Westmarch as being a combination of all the tales that we have here today. OR, since The Silmarillion was not a definite story and since Tolkien himself never seems to have actually come across a definite story, I believe that it is safest to assume that the translations were what Tolkien meant to be history though he himself may not have known what that history was at the moment. Who knows? Maybe Tolkien did have a sure idea of what really happened? But all in all, I think that what was preserved in the Red Book of Westmarch was either simply what Tolkien had in mind as the true history of Middle-earth or what we have today: a compilation of legends.
Why does Christopher decide that he was wrong for not making this definite?
I'm afraid I don't exactly understand... do you mean Christopher's not making The Silmarillion definite? If so, it seems to me that Christopher was trying to make The Silmarillion indefinite by publishing BOLT and other works.

[Nóm]

Oops, didn't mean to be so unclear!

For not making it definite that The Tales of The Silmarillion were among Bilbo's lore books.

[Nenya Evenstar]

Ahhh... :) Then you have my answer. I would say I have no idea why he thought it was a mistake because I do not see it as a mistake at all. If he had made The Silmarillion tales definite, then he would have destroyed the level of mystery and legend that surrounds the books. If The Silmarillion had become a part of the definite LOTR, then a hole would have been created and the other works would have no longer had a place. It would have been a mistake, IMO.

[Nóm]

It would not have made the tales definite though. They wouldn't became any more a part of LR than they already are, they would just be the presentation of something breifly refered to in LR.

These tales, exactly as told in The Silmarillion may well have been in Bilbo's books. I do not see how it makes any difference, since they (tales in Bilbo's books) ultimately have their source in the elves.

Because I am unaware of any difference - I have no idea why CT decided that he was wrong to have not made the connection definite. I don't even know: Was it for the sake of the Sil. or LR that he decided this?

[jallan]

Nóm posted: Because I am unaware of any difference - I have no idea why CT decided that he was wrong to have not made the connection definite.

I think that Christopher Tolkien did not make the connection definite because his father did not make it definite.

As much as possible, except for a bit of creative work in the story of the Fall of Doriath, Christopher Tolkien used only his father's own words in buidling the Silmarillion narrative.

It is obvious enough that the Silmarillion material is part of Bilbo's Translations from the Elvish, J.R.R. Tolkien never explicitly stated it.

But from The Peoples of Middle-earth, (HoME 12), chapter I, "The Prologue", almost at the end, Christopher Tolkien notes: The Note on Shire Records entered in the Second Edition. In one of his copies of the First Edition my father noted: ‘Here should be inserted Note on the Shire Records’; but he wrote against this later: ‘I have decided against this. It belongs to Preface to The Silmarillion.’ With this compare my remarks in the Foreward to The Book of Lost Tales Part One, pp. 5–6.Other evidence that Tolkien had abandoned his idea that the Silmarillion tradition came directly from the Elves of Eressëa through the mariner Ælfwine appears in Morgoth’s Ring (HoME 10) in the sections “Myths Transformed” where the taleswere now to be partly genuine Elvish traditions but partly garblings introduced by Men, being a somewhat historically inaccurate Númenorean legendary cycle of tales.

[Nóm]

Thanks for the information, jallan. I have since read Myth's transformed, but I still wonder why CT says that in BoLT's foreword that he thinks now that he was mistaken in not making it definite. I do not see why that is a mistake?
I do not question why he did not do this.

[Nenya Evenstar]

I have since read Myth's transformed, but I still wonder why CT says that in BoLT's foreword that he thinks now that he was mistaken in not making it definite. I do not see why that is a mistake?I agree whole-heartedly. I stumbled over this part in my reading and couldn't quite twist it to make any sense.

[jallan]

Christopher Tolkien’s instroduction to The Book of Lost Tales 1 is in part in response to negative criticism and often wrong-headed criticism of the published Silmarillion.

People did have difficulty into getting into it, a difficulty that would have been alleviated for some had it been presented in a framework in which it was shown to be a summary of more extensive legends.

J.R.R. Tolkien considered the Silmarillion to be an existing chronicle within the world of The Lord of the Rings, but within that world to be garbled legend rather than history.

Obviously J.R.R. Tolkien did intend some sort of introduction of that kind, so set the work in a context, without which there is a certain lack.

Christopher Tolkien might, for example, have reprinted the Note on Shire Records, followed by some of his father's remarks discussing the legendary origins of the Silmarillion material that now appear in Morgoth’s Ring.

This, without any invented editorial additions by Christopher Tolkien would have provided the missing framework.

[Arvedui]

This thread has been moved out of the Guild of Scholar's Hall, and will hopefully be filled with the thoughts of more members.