Talk:The Silmarillion

          -----------------     

        Eldar           Avari   

  ---------------               

Vanyar Noldor Teleri            

     -----------------------    

  Teleri Sindar Nandor Laiquendi

[edit] Etymology Query

I would like to question the text entry: Ilúvatar (Father of All) is clearly borrowed from Norse mythology. Comparing vatar with Norwegian fader may be okay (although vatar has commonalities - to a greater or lesser extent - with just about all the Indo European languages), but Ilu seems to come from a semetic root; compare Hebrew El, Aramaic Elou and Arabic Allahu.

Can anyone provide justification of the text entry? If not, I may change it..

--Philopedia 21:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Helge Fauskanger, who is probably the world's foremost expert on Quenya (after Christopher Tolkien), suggests that the Elven languages draw upon root words from many languages, including Hebrew, Finnish, Germanic, Norse, reconstructed Indo-European, Arabic, and others.

The original meaning of the name, 'Sky-father', was devised for the first mythology, The Book of Lost Tales, which was set in pre-Anglo-Saxon England. The concept of a "sky-father" is common to many mythologies throughout the world. Tolkien undoubtedly knew as much. This would be an early indication of his extensive (later) practice of utilizing words in very generic forms.

There is no authoritative reference for declaring the derivation of Iluvatar from any one language or mythology. Michael Martinez 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guy Gavriel Kay

Someone keeps indicating that Guy Kay had a significant hand in developing the published Silmarillion. That is simply not true. He worked with Christopher Tolkien through one summer and is credited by Christopher with discussing ideas on how to handle the chapter "The Ruin of Doriath".Michael Martinez 21:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the revision history I imagine you must be referring to my changes though your description of them bears little resemblance to the reality. As apparently preferred by you the passage would read;

"The Silmarillion is a collection of J. R. R. Tolkien's works, edited and published posthumously by his son Christopher R. Tolkien, with some minor assistance from fantasy fiction writer Guy Gavriel Kay."

My change was to remove the words, "some minor". Your description of that as "Someone keeps indicating that Guy Kay had a significant hand..." seems strained at best. The words 'some minor' are POV. Removing them leaves only that CJRT worked "with assistance" from Kay... with no claim as to whether that was "some minor assistance" (as you say), 'significant assistance' (as I did not say), or (as Christopher Tolkien says in the Foreword of The Silmarillion); "In the difficult and doubtful task of preparing the text of the book I was very greatly assisted by Guy Kay, who worked with me in 1974-1975." --CBDunkerson 22:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's document Guy Kay's exact contributions to The Silmarillion as mentioned by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay himself. I'm unable to find anything but this citation.

 "In the story that appears in THE SILMARILLION the outlaws 
 who went with Hurin to Nargothrond were removed, as also 
 was the curse of Mim; and the only treasure that Hurin took 
 from Nargothrond was the Nauglamir -- which was here supposed 
 to have been made by the Dwarves for Finrod Felagund, and 
 to have been the most prized by him of all the hoard of 
 Nargothrond.  Hurin was represented as being at last freed 
 from the delusions inspired by Morgoth in his encounter 
 with Melian in Menegroth.  The Dwarves who set the Silmaril 
 in the Nauglamir were already in Menegroth engaged on other 
 works, and it was they who slew Thingol; at that time 
 Melian's power was withdrawn from Neldoreth and Region, and 
 she vanished out of Middle-earth, leaving Doriath unprotected. 
 The ambush and destruction of the Dwarves at Sarn Athrad was 
 given again to Beren and the Green Elves (following my 
 father's letter of 1963 quoted on p. 353, where however 
 he said that 'Beren had no army'), and from the same source 
 the Ents, 'Shepherds of the Trees', were introduced. 

 "This story was not lightly or easily conceived, but was the 
 outcome of long experimentation among alternative conceptions. 
 In this work Guy Kay took a major part, and the chapter that 
 I finally wrote owes much to my discussions with him.  It is, 
 and was, obvious that a step was being taken of a different 
 order from any other 'manipulation' of my father's own writing 
 in the course of the book: even in the case of the story of 
 The Fall of Gondolin, to which my father had never returned, 
 something could be contrived without introducing radical 
 changes in the narrative.  It seemed at that time that there 
 were elemets inherent in the story of the Ruin of Doriath as 
 it stood that were radically incompatible with 'The 
 Silmarillion' as projected, and that there was here an 
 inescapable choice: either to abandon that conception, or else 
 to alter the story. I think now that this was a mistaken view, 
 and that the undoubted difficulties could have been, and 
 should have been, surmounted without so far overstepping 
 the bounds of the editorial function." 

Source: The War of the Jewels, pages 346-7.

If you have anything else, please share it before vandalising the article any further.Michael Martinez 23:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The passage you quote mentions Guy Kay only once... to say that he "took a major part" in the chapter discussed. Neither this nor CJRT's previous statement that he was "very greatly assisted" by Guy Kay seem to validate your insistence on "some minor assistance". It is clearly POV, if not simply inaccurate. --CBDunkerson 00:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Assisting with one chapter out of an entire book is hardly a substantial contribution.Michael Martinez 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Christopher does not say that was the only part Kay contributed to... only that he "took a major part" there and "very greatly assisted" in the completion of the whole. Your insistence on "with some minor assistance" is thus simply unfounded and "with assistance" clearly more neutral point of view. Frankly, it would not be unreasonable to say 'with great assistance', given that CJRT stated so himself, but I haven't done that... I have merely attempted to replace a POV statement with a neutral one. --CBDunkerson 00:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I'll wait until your block for 3RR (which you broke here too) expires before changing it, but I can't agree with your changes to this article. Christopher Tolkien says he was "very greatly assisted" by Kay and that Kay "took a major part" in the Ruin of Doriath chapter. Frankly, I think that evidence would make the wording, 'with a great deal of assistance' accurate... but I'm willing to forego that level of detail and just use the neutral, 'with assistance'. On what grounds do you insist on 'with some minor assistance'? It contradicts the available evidence and presents a point of view which cannot be verified.

Ditto on 'mythologies'. I think Tolkien's repeated statements that all his 'Middle-earth' texts belong to a single mythology would make 'mythology' the correct wording here... but again I'm willing to forego that level of detail and use the neutral term 'writings'... allowing the reader to assume that these writings belonged to either one mythology or several as they choose. Why do you insist on 'mythologies'? Again, there are no instances where Tolkien says the stories should be so divided... making it impossible to ever verify that 'mythologies' was his intent. Even if we assume you are right, despite what seems to me overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there is no way you can ever direct someone to a passage proving your position... because no such passage exists. Your view can never be verified, so it can't be stated as 'fact' in an encyclopedia. At best, it could be included as an opinion, but even that is a stretch as there aren't even any citations from established sources expressing that opinion.

I'd prefer to be precise, and I don't think you have any viable grounds for objecting to 'great assistance' or 'mythology', but these details are not essential to this article so I'm willing to compromise. Your 'some minor' and 'mythologies' forms seem to me to be simply false, but are at best POV and unverifiable. The forms 'with assistance' and 'writings' are clearly accurate (if imprecise) and thus should be uncontroversial. You can't provide any citations for the forms you prefer (nor refute the citations disproving them), so why are you fighting against neutral wording? --CBDunkerson 14:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Does This Have to Do With the Silmarillion?

I cut out the following, which is long, rambling (apparently original research) and related to the Lord of the Rings and not Silmarillion. Seriously, what on Earth is this doing here: Elijahmeeks 09:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

On review, it looks like this was a recent edition which, along with the link, aren't in keeping with NPOV and other wikipedia standards. So I'll remove the link, too. Elijahmeeks 09:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I removed the addition. Not because I think that racial themes are not present in the works of Tolkien but because the manner in which they were portrayed in this article was offhand and surreptitious. A seperate article or such information in the article on Tolkien himself would be the proper place for such arguments, I feel. Elijahmeeks 09:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

See the existing Tolkien and racism article. --CBDunkerson 11:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that I left out a paragraph. Thanks for getting that. Elijahmeeks 15:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Having just read portions of Flieger's "Splintered Light", I have come up with some areas of interest, which seem not to be present in this article.

Coleridgian terms? Primary Imagination? Owen Barfield? Primary Light? The Cosmogonic account? The Silmarillion is labelled High Fantasy, yet it was an archetype, and really lacked the "sword of sorcery" that is invoked in that description. Shall not The Silmarillion be Cosmogonic Fantasy, in light of Barfield's theory of the fragmentation of meaning?

[edit] Linguistics

Having just read portions of Flieger's "Splintered Light", I have come up with some areas of interest, which seem not to be present in this article.

Coleridgian terms? Primary Imagination? Owen Barfield? Primary Light? The Cosmogonic account? The Silmarillion is labelled High Fantasy, yet it was an archetype, and really lacked the "sword of sorcery" that is invoked in that description. Shall not The Silmarillion be Cosmogonic Fantasy, in light of Barfield's theory of the fragmentation of meaning?

[edit] Synopsis

Shouldn't we have one. After all, i'm sure that's why come on here for Jammi568 11:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)