Talk:War of Wrath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Middle-earth Wikiproject This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
Assessment
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I don't believe the Valar themselves went to Beleriand, Eonwë was their representative. Wording of the article needs to be changed to reflect this. Thu 11:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the Valar feared that their direct involvement (in war) would literary lay waste to too much of Middle-earth, as they had done in the earlier wars, and would therefore not go into battle in person. The War of Wrath was fought with the Elves from Valinor alongside a great Maiar host, for no elf, man or dwarf was said to have the ability to overthrow Morgoth for he was still a Vala, who Mandos himself said could not be defeated by the children of Eru.

The Maiar, however, were of same "stock" as Morgoth and in enough numbers they would have had the ability to overthrow him. And since Beleriand sank under the waves because of the force this conflict wrought, one has to assume that the Elves of Valinor could not have caused all that commotion on their own, nor would Morgoth have any reason or even need to literary smash apart his own foundation of power in Middle-earth at that time, that is to say Angband.

And as a side-note, I believe that in the earlier sketches of the War of Wrath, the Valar did come into battle in person and defeated Morgoth in open combat. Actually I believe it was Tulkas who wrestled Morgoth to the ground and bound him with the great chain. It wasn't put into words in the Silmarillion. It only mentions "The Host of Valinor" with Eonwë as its herald. So in the end it is just speculation, although logical speculation, that there were "just" maiar and elves (with human&dwarven allies from Beleriand) in the Host of Valinor.

Fred26 18:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Silmarillion definitely mentions the Valar's involvement in the War of Wrath. Hence the drowning of Beleriand. It was Tulkas who wrestled Morgoth, but Aule may have had a part in the application of the chain.

Well I think that is the problem: The silmarillion never mentiones specifically any Valar on location, only Eonwë the Maia. That chain used was reportedly so heavy that 3-4 maiar were required to lift it but at least they were maiar. If we speculate upon what the Silmarillion actually say: it can be argued that if Aule and Tulkas took care of Morgoth personally, they did so after teh actual fighting had ceased. Again we can only speculate since it is not stated anywhere in the Silmarillion, (my version anyways), that Manwë or Tulkas led the armies into battle personally or actually did any fighting. The earlier drafts, mich of which Tolkien would discard from any "finished" product, mentiones the whole tale of Tulkas wrestling Morgoth and literary punching him in the face once they fought their way into Angband, but in that draft Eonwë is the Son of Manwë, a concept Tolkien discarded later and made the Valar and Maiar childless. So only Christopher Tolkien had access to all the materials and had to make the logical reasoning to turn Silmarillion into what it is based on what he learned from his father and his surviving notes. Quite a task I can imagine.
The whole thing is quite a web of tales and sources considering how much material is available and that Christopher Tolkien had to sort out which material on a specific subject was the "final word" made by his Father. I honestly think the Valar were present in one form or another, and as I said above: they most likely helped cause the terrible damage on Beleriand. But the Silmarillion, which is a compiliation by Chris Tolkien of his fathers work, must be given priority over the earlier drafts versions of the War of Wrath. And the Silmarillion section on the War of Wrath simply does not mention the Valar as having taken part in person. Only "Hosts of Valar" which mentions Eonwë, Vanyar Elves, Noldor Elves and human/dwarven allies. Remember, Chris Tolkien had access to ALL the materials of his fathers, and his fathers notes about the different versions and the ones that were the newest. So we can assume all we want here, logical and reasonable as our conclusians may be, we can't have the final word on the subject and the article should reflect this and base its information as it is written in the Silmarillion.
Fred26 14:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


For instance, I just remembered the whole discussion about Orcs and their origins. In the beginnin, J. Tolkien made the Orcs descendants of the Elves, which Morgoth had captured and mutilated, and thus breeding a new race. But! Later he was prone to have the whole concept changed so that the orcs "Forefathers" were actually Mankind as to fit in with the whole uncorruptible spirit of the Elves or something like that. It was never drafted into the Silmarillion though. I don't know if he actually changed his written versions or if he simple talked about it in his now famous "Letters of Tolkien". It is interesting nonetheless.

Fred26 14:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

First off, Sindar ARE Eldar. All Elves who left Cuiviénen, regardless of wether they made it to Aman or not, are Eldar. The rest are Avari, and these hardly (if at all) appear in the tales. Most of the Silvan Elves were (in theory) Eldar as well: their ancestors mainly were the people of Lenwë/Dan, of whom the most western "tribe" became the Laiquendi of Ossiriand. There is no indication these, or even the Avari, were *not* summoned by Ëonwë after the downfall of the Morgoth. Obviously though most of the Avari would refuse the summons as they never listened to the Valar in the first place (or they would have been Eldar), and most of the Silvan Elves (of remote Telerin stock) loved Middle-earth too much and had not been involved in the war so if they heard the summons at all, likely would have refused. As a minor edit I have replaced Elrond as a notable "stayer" with Gil-galad: Elrond's promincence only started in the Second Age. And he isn't fully Elven anyway. Gil-galad, as the last Ñoldorin prince and "highest" Elf in Middle-earth after Galadriel is far more important and should be mentioned instead. -- Jordi·✆ 22:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Course of the War

Sorry about such a huge reversion, but all this guesswork shouldn't be in an article. See WP:NOR. The problem is the synthesis of material and reasoning from it in a speculative way, giving numbers where the only source available did not.

Vol II of HoME can't be used as a source really, except for articles about that stage of the mythology's development. "Lost Tales" is far too primitive to be reliable for the later mythology, and we have no reason to think that Tolkien retained these details of the battle. (Not that I remember this bit in the book off the top of my head, but that's what was cited for the major points. It's been a while since I last looked at it.) In any event, mixing-and-matching information from that stage with information from later stages doesn't work, as they're often incompatible. For example, you obviously had to decide to use Eönwë rather than Fionwë even though your source material doesn't have that first name.

Some of it can be preserved, without the original work, as a description of the War of Wrath as originally conceived and clearly described as such, but not as the "one true" course of events.

Please don't use level 1 headers in articles (Like this: =Header text=). Headers for article sections should be no higher than level 2 (==Header text==). See Help:Section#Creation and numbering of sections.

Horizontal lines in articles are deprecated, so please don't use them. They add unnecessary clutter. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your input but what you see is not guesswork. The approach to History of Middle-earth is an inclusive one in which aspects that are not contradicted in the later stories is included and used to clarify that which was compressed in the Silmarillion. Previously, before the additions I made, the original text of the article was basically a fan's rewrite of the passages in the Silmarillion which anyone can read in the book. The numbers are derived from numerical statements made by Tolkien all along and statements of ratios and I was still developing the references. Vol. II is cited for a couple of obscure points not as the main source - I was still in the middle of it. Don't mind the layout changes as I'm new to wiki. and am sometimes at a loss as to how to format.
Tttom1 05:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Tttom
Well, that's one approach, but when you do that you create a synthesis that doesn't reflect any stage in Tolkien's thinking on the subject but is rather your own work. On what grounds are you using this approach?
And I'm sorry, but I don't recall Tolkien mentioning any specific numbers. He made a couple of vague numerical references in an allusive or poetic way, but you can't really use those to derive troop counts.
Again, please don't use horizontal lines. You only see them in older talk pages from before the current Wikipedia syntax was developed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
For developing significant chunks of article like this, especially if it's going to be in a seriously disordered state for a time, a better approach is to write the material in your userspace and then paste it into the article when complete. You can create subdirectories like so: User:Tttom/Sandbox If you click on that link, and then on the "Start the page" link, you'll create a new file under your User page where you can experiment all you like until you end up with something satisfactory. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of flame wars and while wiki says 'be bold' leaving the earlier text such as in this article and working from the outside may soothe other writer and prevent a wholesale deletion reaction.
I see those lines everywhere in wiki, graphically to me, they're no big deal. I was using them to distingush very different areas, I thought. e.g. 'etymology' or lists. But I have no particular attachment to them. There seems to be alot of confusion of 'mode' in Tolk articles where interior, in universe history is confused with exterior, literary development history sometimes in the same sentence, with little or nothing separating them, not even a line.
Years ago I did an extensive study on Elves' Houses and Kindreds published in Mythlore magazine and one on Orc armies and hosts published in Parma Eldalamberon magazine, if I recall. Plenty of numbers and ratios are present throughout and the books released since then, like HoMe X, XI, XII support the estimates with new info - such as clear ratio statements by Tolkien in XI Quendi and Eldar p.381 where the proportions of the Elven clans are given - "According to Noldorin historians the proportions..." would be the authoritative quote from which to draw estimates.
SOME NUMBERS: Silmarillion, p.190," Turgon...ten thousand strong" and elsewhere; reference point ratio: Sil. p.193 "assailed by a foe thrice greater..."History of Middle-earth, Vol. XII, p.307, " Beor...having no more...than two thousand full-grown men..."; "three hosts of the Folk of Hador...each host was as great as all the Folk of Beor..."; "probably more numerous than the Folk of Beor...the Folk of Haleth...". see History of Middle-earth, Vol. XI, p.219, "...after some fifty years many thousands had entered the lands of the kings."The History of Middle-earth, Vol. IV, p.302, "There came afresh a hundred thousand Orcs..."; Vol. V, p.137, "a hundred thousand Orcs"
Is the article you reverted to not a fan's rewrite of the actual passage and therefore their own work? Does such a rehash reflect author's thinking, or reader's thinking? I have read the, ahem, canonicity section. Years ago I was part of the linguistic community (E.L.F.) wherein this debate is pretty hot. The approach I use the one in which if the earlier statements are not in contradiction to later ones, they made be used judiciously, reasonably and with common sense. Fionwe>Eonwe is a clear change by Tolk, (granted, if Tolk. lived to 100 he probably would have changed that again). Others are less clear, e.g. if Noldorin & gnomes are said in vol II to have been defeated in Tasarinan during that account of the war of wrath but Noldorin, a Vala, is removed in later accounts (as it is clearly stated the Valar did not come to M.e. for WoW) do we eliminate the whole episode? On what basis? We know gnomes=Noldor; we know Qenya: Tasarinan=Quenya: Tasarinan; we know Q.: Tasarinan=N.Nan-tathren= Sindarin:Nan-tathren, we can suppose 36 years of fighting still included a setback in the Vale of Willows (and we can suppose, judiciously, reasonably and with common sense, because in Vol. II Tolkien said it happened and never subsequently said it didn't). Why not mention it?
Tttom1 15:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Tttom
We don't do flamewars here.
I'm not going to dispute this subject with you, as its really beside the point. The kind of work you're describing, based on assumptions and figures tangential to the subject at hand and working forward from there to create a synthesis based on a work of fiction and presenting it as a canonical portion of that work, is the kind of original research contrary to Wikipedia policy. Even moreso when it's written in an "in-universe" style and not as a presentation of a fictional world. As I said, if you want to trace the evolution of Tolkien's depiction and thought on this war as evident from what he wrote about it, that's a perfectly suitable subject. But not as it was. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't do flame wars - I don't do flame wars. I get your point on presenting interpretation as canonical. I never intended it to be seen as 'canon'. I intended to get readers to read the other books and think about how much those books say, they should be read as well. Frankly, I can't even understand that concept for this kind of fiction in-universe, or ex-universe. I think you're right that presenting the evolution of text may be the way to go for this, ex-universe. I'll try reworking that info in that light. Thanks for kicking it around with me.Tttom1 01:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Tttom
TCC is right to say that you need to avoid repackaging and presenting the material in your own way, no matter how correct it might seem. Presenting the evolution of the text over time is about the only way this sort of thing can be done. First say which HoME volume, and then, if possible, say when Tolkien wrote it. Then, if you can find work by others interpreting this, then state their interpretation and give a reference (eg. Mallorn, Mythlore, Christopher Tolkien's notes in HoME, etc). But make clear that even Christopher Tolkien's notes are no more than his interpretation - in some cases it is not possible to say with any certainty what Tolkien intended, then, or in the light of later work. Carcharoth 17:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Of course he is right about repackaging. And that applies to the article as reverted to as well, which as it now stands, is a fan repackaging of the prose used in the Sil. - why isn't that deleted? I worked solely from Tolkien's own statements, and was footnoting the relevant statement, about this over time to show what they seem to mean. I can't say I entirely agree that 'original thoughts' constitutes the forbidden 'original work', especially where the only source is the original author. As I said above, I am rewriting in an ex-universe format. Please don't mistake a compressed tone here for combativeness, it isn't. I would appreciate your response to this: in LotR appdx B, p.363, it says: "The First Age ended with the Great Battle in which the Host of Valinor broke and overthrew Morgoth.". If I then write: 'The Host of Valinor was larger than any other host of Elves and Men' and to support that I cite in a footnote the comparison to it in Sil. p.293 to that of the Last Alliance- is my conclusion 'original work' because I think the words 'none greater' indicate that the Host of Valinor was the 'biggest' of all the hosts of Elves & Men'? Tttom1 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Tttom
The quote you mention appears to be: "It is said that the host that was there assembled was fairer and more splendid in arms than any that has since been seen in Middle-earth, and none greater has been mustered since the host of the Valar went against Thangorodrim." (Silmarillion - Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age) - my opinion is that in this article we need to quote all relevant mentions of the War Wrath. Like Elrond's mention comparison of the Last Alliance host with the War of Wrath host at the Council of Elrond: "I remember well the splendour of their banners [...] It recalled to me the glory of the Elder Days and the hosts of Beleriand, so many great princes and captains were assembled. And yet not so many, nor so fair, as when Thangorodrim was broken, and the Elves deemed that evil was ended for ever, and it was not so.". On a personal level, the similarities between these passages is interesting, but edges towards original material, which is a step too far for a Wikipedia article. Carcharoth 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How about the way I've expanded the lead section, in this edit? Carcharoth 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine, but is front heavy on ex-universe links and facts better dealt with in footnotes. I'll do one feel free to adjust. TttomTttom1 23:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
"On a personal level, the similarities between these passages is interesting, but edges towards original material, which is a step too far for a Wikipedia article." hmmm...From original research "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source." The passages are fully attributable from a reliable published source - the LotR itself. "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source". I think its a logical deduction, fully attributable, to say that the Host of Valinor is largest host of Elves an Men to have been gathered in M.e. based of those 2 quotes and it neither changes the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source.
As I mentioned above I wrote an article some 20 years ago that was a study of Elven population in the FA in Mythlore No. 51 Vol 14, its the magazine of the Mythopoeic Society. Does that satisfy: "if you can find work by others interpreting this, then state their interpretation and give a reference (eg. Mallorn, Mythlore, Christopher Tolkien's notes in HoME, etc)" TttomTttom1 00:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to reference a Mythlore article. The trouble you will encounter with some people regarding Mythlore and Mallorn is that they are really fanzines, not peer-reviewed journals, but I personally don't have a problem with you referencing such articles. I had a quick look at what you wrote earlier that got reverted, and my general impression was that the references were good, but the text you added to the article was not really encyclopedic - remember, this is an encyclopedia, not Mythlore or Mallorn. Talking about what others have said is fine, but reproducing what they said isn't. A list of numbers doesn't really add much to the article unless you make it a lot clearer what the provenance of those numbers is - and when it comes down to it, it is really opinion, and that violates the 'balance' criteria of WP:NPOV - clear statements about what Tolkien wrote are more important than promoting what was written 20 years ago in an article in Mythlore. The Mythlore article probably warrants no more than a footnote in the article. I've written similar articles myself, but I wouldn't actually reference them in a Wikipedia article. I'd stick to referencing the 'primary' sources of Tolkien's works. Carcharoth 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as my comment about the similarities of the passages goes, that was something I spotted just then, and was nothing to do with the "battle numbers" you were talking about. Let me explain. Compare the two quotes in detail: "It is said that the host that was there assembled was fairer and more splendid in arms than any that has since been seen in Middle-earth, and none greater has been mustered since the host of the Valar went against Thangorodrim." and "I remember well the splendour of their banners [...] It recalled to me the glory of the Elder Days and the hosts of Beleriand, so many great princes and captains were assembled. And yet not so many, nor so fair, as when Thangorodrim was broken, and the Elves deemed that evil was ended for ever, and it was not so." - the bits they have in common are:
  • The hosts described as "fairer than" versus "so fair" and "splendid in arms" versus "splendour of their banners".
  • The words "host" and "assembled", and the reference to "Thangorodrim".
  • The overall meaning of the passages is very similar.
The point here is that I am looking at the two passages from a historical perspective regarding Tolkien's history as a writer. Tolkien wrote one of these passages before the other one, and if possible it would be nice to find out which he wrote first. The similarities in the phrasings suggest that one is a variant on the other. There are other examples of this in Tolkien's writings, where he 'recycles' passages (to put it crudely). The reasons for this are probably manifold, both to replicate the sense of history being handed down within Middle-earth, the related conceit that Tolkien's books are compiled from different sources and traditions, and Tolkien as an author referring to previous passages to maintain internal consistency as an author, but changing the phrasing to suit different contexts (an aesthetic matter for an author). I hope this makes clear my comment that this is something outside of the scope of Wikipedia. Carcharoth 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. You said: I'll do one feel free to adjust. The way you footnoted what I wrote was perfect. Thanks for that! :-) I'm very happy now with the introduction. Do you think we could try and promote this style over the "in J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium" style? I think it is much better to spend a few footnoted sentences in an article's lead section setting the context for those who aren't aware of the dates (and let's face it, most readers of Wikipedia won't be aware of the dates of composition of much of the material), and onyl then launch the reader into a "story-internal" persepctive? By the way, you might also want to have a look at WP:WAF to see how Wikipedia in general approaches this kind of thing. I'm also going to raise this issue of style at the WikiProject talk page, which I think you are already aware of. Carcharoth 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

On the footnoting; thanks, glad you like it, my own feeling is footnotes keep the text clearer and moving and will allow a smoother segue into a more acceptable in-universe stance to wiki and Tolk fans. I just reread the fiction/style and leads like that should do. I brought up Mythlore as its a cut above the others in the SF/Fantasy community, at least it was. I'm not interested in self promoting Just want to use it when its relevant. Back then I worked on a number of mags - Parma Eldalamberon (which publishes, by estate permission, alot of Tolkien's linguistics material) and Vinyan Tengwar which also has had a working relationship with C. Tolkien, others too. Before long the linguistics got too tough for this artist, a lot of the original gang got very good at it and still do it.
As to dates of those lines, don't know offhand - think 2nd age falls in after 3rd age writings begin? Elrond line resonates better, for me, but that doesn't mean its later. CT's HoMe does show that JRR can peak and go right past it now and then. TttomTttom1 05:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Once again

Look, we cannot base this on very old material as if it represented Tolkien's final intentions or the way he ultimately meant to tell the story. You only have to compare the story of Tûr in Lost Tales to the incomplete developed "Of Tuor and his coming to Gondolin" in Unfinished Tales to see how Tolkien's ideas changed. We aren't free to make these kind of assumptions. Nor are we free to base parts of an article on surmise, no matter how reasonable it seems. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your diligence, but you must be selective in your deletions. If you think vol II is too old that's one thing. To delete it all is excessive and I'm going to have to ask you to restore it. You have not made any case for what you consider canon on this nor have you responded to my questions as to the content of this article as written. I changed layout as per your suggestions and left out what you considered 'original work' I think the balance falls within wiki guidelines.Tttom1 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the way you've approached it now is better than what TCC removed. But you still need to make clear that we don't know what Tolkien's final intent would have been. It is essential to just document and reference different passages as different stages or versions, and not let the whole imply a possible "reconstructed" battle - that is a big no-no. Towards that end, I would strongly recommend splitting the article into sections according to the source. ie. A section on the published Silmarillion (or the Quenta Silmarillion [meaning the text in HoME - I forget the exact name] if they are practically identical), BoLT2, and so on. Be careful not to say too much - otherwise you may breach copyright. At the end, give a brief set of conclusions drawing from stuff that Christopher Tolkien says in HoME (and others if you can find references). Then rewrite the lead section to summarise all this. Keep it short and sweet, with lots of references, and be careful not to let your own thoughts creep in. Hope that helps. If it works out, this article could become a model for how to do this for other topics. Carcharoth 11:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I was mostly AFK for the holidays.
Ttom, there was nothing to be selective about. It was all excessive as phrased. As I said, and as Carcharoth has reinforced, we cannot present a "reconstructed" battle here but only Tolkien's conception of the battle at different phases of the development of his mythology -- but we have no information at all about what he would have kept and what he would have discarded in the end. It's not a question at all of I consider canon, and I really wish you would believe me that "canon" issues are not at all relevant here. I am not involved in such arguments. Nor is this about what I personally consider original research. If it never reached a form that Tolkien himself published we cannot know his final intent, and he is the sole source here. We know for a fact that very much changed between LT and the completion of LotR. (For example, you use the phrase "faring forth" here, something not present in Tolkien's later writings. And whatever happened to characters like Makar and Meassa? Or the "rekindling of the Magic Sun"? Or the Olórë Mallë?) Any presentation of this battle using work that uses texts decades old at the time LotR was published, synthesizing it with later material, is therefore ipso facto original work.
It's not irrelevant that CJRT himself acknowledges that he made several errors in his published edition of Sil, so it's clearly very easy to go wrong; and that the only other older work of his father he considers complete enough for publication is the Narn i Hin Hurin. We just do not have enough information to put things together here the way you would like in any way that we can present it as Tolkien's work. A summary of its development is another matter entirely.
And I'm sorry, but I don't see any questions here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
TCC, I hope you enjoyed your holiday. I'm afraid we have to agree to disagree on much of this. I'm trying to accomodate that which I see is your side. I think your view that "we cannot know his final intent" is invalid as a reason to delete something that was obviously his intent. If what JRRT said in the Annals Vol V is the last thing he wrote in the annal form and it is in print and published (and it doesn't matter by whom - since it was with his permission - as nearly all publications are) then that is final. Any idea that there might be further change beyond that is certainly speculative, however likely. Maybe he would have changed it - but he didn't. It stands, as is.
When I ask you your view of canon its because what your saying prevents reference to say, the Lays of Beleriand, because they are what? Old? Incomplete? The decade is irrelevant. Your comment about pre- LotR publication suggests that your are indeed making a canon argument. The article is about the War of Wrath, not just the War of Wrath in LotR. If that was the case, no more than two lines could be said - because everything else is left out in LotR. I can't say what happened to the magic sun or those characters, I don't know. What happened to the camp of the host of the west beside Sirion? Since it was stated to have occured in published work and never subsequently contradicted by JRRT himself- nothing - there was a camp beside Sirion during the WoW (as mentioned in such and such). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tttom (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry for forgetting sign offTttom1 23:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between an author delegating his works to a literary executor on his death, who then may or may not publish it in some form on his own decision, and what works he actually intended for publication in some form at some point. He attempted to get Sil into some kind of shape to be published for years, but never successfully arrived at what he considered "canon" himself, and it is not for Wikipedia to do so. (What you might do in other fora is your own business, of course.) CJRT represents none of the HoME text as "final" anyway. And you do know what happened to those elements I mentioned if you read that series. They were eliminated from the mythology. JRRT later attempted to re-introduce something similar to the "Magic Sun" as you can read in Morgoth's Ring, but he seems to have abandoned that line IIRC. Makar and his wife were never heard of again.
Clearly LotR is not the only source text, and I didn't say anything to imply it was. I mention it because its writing and publication was a seminal event in the development of the mythology. Once it was before the public, Tolkien tended to regard facts presented as "set in stone" was was extremely reluctant to change it. In LotR he made some changes to his Elder Days settings and introduced new characters from that age, such as the Galadriel and Celeborn, that had to be accommodated. This entailed reordering on various scales.
The material in LoB was not only not contradicted by later material, but was used as sources for LotR, and prose versions appeared in print in Sil. Some material that reaches all the way back to the beginning of the mythology was alluded to as well, but not as it existed then. He never did complete an updated version of the Tuor/Gondolin story for example. He clearly intended to though. Even if he hadn't begun one, we can see he had to. Too much of the surrounding material had changed for it to be left as it was. But CJRT essentially had to write a good amount of it from scratch for Sil.
We are actually in the same situation with the War here. Compare Tolkien's treatment of the "gods" in LT with the later Valar. The Valar exist on a much more "cosmic" scale, responsible not only for Arda but for the organization of the entire cosmos of which Arda was only in infinitesimal part, albeit its dramatic center. The earthy and very human-like gods of LT could not have operated on anywhere near that scale; they occupied a very small universe, were less abstracted and aloof, experienced human emotions in a way the Valar generally did not, and were sometimes even fearful or timorous. That circumstance alone contradicts the earlier material in an indirect way, and may mandate a significant shift in the progress of the War. Regardless of how you make your case, and I acknowledge you could go however you want here, you have to admit there's a good chance that the War would have changed at least as much as the Gondolin stories. Possibly even more.
Since the author has given us no later detailed version of this at all that was consistent with other developments, and since everything he wrote from the era you're largely relying on developed in significant ways, we can't present this as if it had not. Not in Wikipedia, anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
"There is a difference between an author delegating his works to a literary executor on his death, who then may or may not publish it in some form on his own decision, and what works he actually intended for publication in some form at some point." There's a difference betweeen what is left out due to JRRTs notion he needed to compress and actual revision. Its what he wrote and its published. CTs views are his opinions, however persuasive in parts. I can see the desire for a later view of Tuor, the rewrite petered out, it has good stuff, but FoG in Vol. II stands.
"CJRT represents none of the HoME text as "final" anyway." - I never said he did. I said that the later annals were the last JRRT wrote in the annal form on this and therefore 'de facto' final. Your suggestion they would be different in rewrite is speculation, what I said is not speculation.
I understood you did not mean LotR is the only source text, I was pointing out the weakness of the general argument that says you can only use a certain sources in certain ways and its logical result 'reductio ad absurdum'. If its not said in LotR, or Sil, or wherever, it can't exist, even though it is said in Vol.V, or II. If what you mean is most of Vol I and II cannot be used, as I said before, that's one thing. I don't even disagree. If what you are saying is that nothing from I and II can be used, I do disagree. Its an exaggeration to say it was all discarded. As CT points out in HoMe XI p. 424 "Through so many years he was returning to Gilfanon's Tale in the Book of Lost Tales (I.232)."
And I disagree that we are in the same situation with WoW as the 'gods'. We are in the same situation with WoW as LoB, and by your argument - "The material (a small proportion of the whole) in LoB was not only not contradicted by later material, but was used as sources for LotR, and prose versions appeared in print in Sil." So too WoW. Tttom1 00:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You are still not understanding me. Please resist the temptation to carry over arguments you may have had elsewhere on the subject. I never said that if it didn't appear in LotR or Sil that it couldn't exist. I said that if we don't have a clear indication of his final intent (using LotR as a benchmark, since his mythology underwent significant alteration in many respects afterward) anything we do say perforce contains a certain amount of speculation, and that we may not do as Wikipedia editors. Yes, in some ways he did return to earlier material, and I even gave you an example. How far he would have gone with that, and how much he would have kept of what he did write of it, remains speculation.
I speculated about nothing, except as an example. That Tolkien was constantly rewriting and that his Sil material was in a constant state of flux, we know for a fact. That it might have changed is clearly true. One doesn't even step over the line in saying it probably would have changed, since nearly everything else did. It may well had changed in his mind in a way he never got around to writing down. (My wife is a professional fiction writer. Writers often hold ideas in their heads for a long time before getting it onto paper.) Insisting that it cannot have changed, I'm afraid, is pure speculation.
Your attempted reductio ad absurdum fails because you misapplied my argument. In the case of Lays we have significant corroborating material in print, and none of the material surrounding them changed significantly afterward. But this is another good example of what I was talking about. Compare "The Tale of Tinuviel" with the later Lay, and you'll see that the original cannot have stood as it was. Not only because Beren was a Gnome in the original, but because too much of the setting was different. It would have been nonsensical. We are actually in the same situation with the "Fall of Gondolin". The original is nonsensical against the developed setting.
You should be willing to at least consider that the original War of Wrath might be similarly nonsensical, perhaps in ways you have not yet thought of. All we have published of it is an outline. Yes, it agrees with the original as far as it goes -- in outline -- but then, "Tinuviel" agrees with the "Lay" in outline as well even though they're incompatible in other ways. (You apparently did not read my post carefully. I didn't compare the War with the gods, I compared it with "Gondolin". I mentioned the gods as an example of how the relevant setting had changed. The characters fighting the War in LT are not of the same order as those fighting it in Sil.) We cannot speculate here on what a published form of a more detailed version would have looked like. As you said, we have nothing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I do so consider, that in parts, it is inconsistent. It might be nonsensical, if your opinion is the whole corpus must be consistent, which you argue is JRRTs intent, if not his practice. The reality is - those are the published works. I'm not arguing for nonsensicality, I'm stating and referencing a couple of parts of a small section that are not struck out and do not contradict later versions. In proportion to the whole the amount of material from LoB to LoB in LotR is small; in proportion to the whole the amount of material on WoW from Vol. IV, V in LotR and Sil is large. From the 'canon' article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-earth_canon
"Thus, the Middle-earth Canon is intended to be a consistent version of facts drawn from scattered portions of Tolkien's texts. Critics of canon contend that this 'excludes' some facts and even whole stories written by Tolkien, but advocates argue that those elements remain valuable parts of Tolkien's work even when deemed inconsistent with the whole. Given that J.R.R. Tolkien was concerned with creating a body of mythopoeic work, internal consistency may not be a desirable goal."
And the answer to my question about the original article: "Another reason to avoid both in-universe perspective and lengthy, detailed plot synopses is that, in sufficient quantity, they may be construed as a copyright violation." from MoS. Lets see if this sig works, TttomTttom1 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I do understand you. Do you understand me?
You should place your signature at the end of what you write. :-) From the looks of it, you have set up your signature to display your username. You don't need to do that - the four tildes will automatically supply username link and timestamp.
Now, as for Middle-earth Canon - ignore the Wikipedia article, as it is an unreferenced mess. The key point here is the decision to include some things and exclude others. That is precisely what Wikipedia editors cannot do. The most you can do is briefly summarise and rephrase, with references, what Christopher Tolkien has published in HoME. Think of this article as a guide to everything Tolkien ever wrote about the War of Wrath, but not a selective guide. You have to include everything, and not mislead by omission. Condense, paraphrase, summarise, but don't skew things so the lay reader is left with the wrong impression. If, and only if, someone reputable presents a notable "Middle-earth Canon", you can mention that. But don't turn the article into an example of a particular attempt to contruct a Middle-earth Canon. Admittedly {{ME-canon}} might be misleading people about this. Maybe a broader discussion is needed elsewhere. Carcharoth 03:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, Tttom, you seem determined to miss the point entirely. I believe I've already explained myself sufficiently, but no, you don't understand what I'm saying because you're apparently responding to something other than what I've written. If I revert you again, you can find the reason in the voluminous text above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip on the signature. I'm not making a 'canon' argument, TCC did, then denied he did - and that's why I quoted from the wiki article. It doesn't matter that the canon article isn't referenced - that is a typical canon argument in and outside wiki. If I were writing the 'Canon of Middle-earth', and I am not, it would be referenced. "Think of this article as a guide to everything Tolkien ever wrote about the War of Wrath" - It is not possible to include everything JRRT wrote about WoW without violating copyright and it certainly is not done elsewhere in wik and an impossible, as well as impractical bar, to set. I think what I've recently added to WoW is in plain english, and in my own words, fair and neutral, appropriately laid out, quoted and referenced and meets wiki standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tttom (talk • contribs) 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC).Tttom1 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOSF : "Plot summaries can be written from an out-of-universe perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes"). This gives the summary a more grounded tone and makes it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the source material. This style of writing should be preferred for plot summaries that encompass multiple works, such as a series of novels. Such conventions are not as important for plot summaries of single works, such as novels that are not part of a series; nevertheless, some real-world language at the beginning of such summaries is often good style."Tttom1 13:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Middle-earth canon article is probably about to be deleted, unless people respond positively to my suggestion to strip it of all its unsourced opinion. Anything on that topic will have to start from scratch and be a lot more restrained. There should indeed be an internal document at WP:M-E (maybe there is, I haven't checked), that makes canon issues clearer. My opinion is that we should not be constrained by canon, but where relevant we should explain why it can be an issue. Carcharoth 14:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)