Sourcing Taxonomy?

bropous · 01-14-2002, 02:31 PM

I've been evolving in my opinions lately as to the various levels of "authority" our various sources for backing up our arguments possess. To go past simple opinion into true analysis, one must support hypotheses on aspects of Tolkien's works with citeable observations.

However, which writings are of more "reliable" authority than others? Are all of Tolkien's writings on an equal "authoritative" basis?

I propose a "taxonomic" ranking of Tolkien's works on Middle-Earth, as a common yardstick from which we can draw observations whether a point has actually been proven, or remains unsupported hypothetical assertion.

PRIMARY: The only primary sources on Middle-Earth, in my opinion, are The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Why? Because these are the only works which Professor Tolkien completely edited and re-edited himself, are the only "finished" products we possess by the Master, and are the most complete products of his long literary career which are available. One might also include in this category "the Adventures of Tom Bombadil" and "The Road Goes Ever On."

SECONDARY: "Letters of JRR Tolkien." In these, the words have been edited and re-edited by JRR, however, they have not been polished off as a completed "book" by him. The Letters give valuable insight into how the books on Middle-Earth were written, as well as further cogitation and exposition on this point or that point by the Master himself. However, I feel these do not hold the same "authority" that JRR's Hobbit or LotR do, as finished and completed works.

TERTIARY: "The Silmarillion" and the twelve-volume "History of Middle-Earth." I relegate these to the third category simply because they are not completed works by JRR, but instead were edited by his son Christopher from incomplete writings. Christopher is the most learned expert on his father's writings, but he is not his father, as I am sure he would himself readily admit. These works either received the editing and re-editing process by JRR only in part, or are compliations of fragmentary writings, some of which JRR may very well have ended up discarding altogether, and I am not so convinced we can use them chapter-and-verse to argue [politely] issues raised in the Primary sources. Using these as more authoritative sources may very well give rise to additional inconsistent views of what JRR's final vision of them might have been.

QUATERNARY: Commentaries by any other authors on the subject of Middle-Earth besides Christpher Tolkien.

I know there will be disagreements with [a few, if not a majority] of my fellow Mooters on this issue, and I am eager to hear your thoughts as to which of JRR's writings we should hold as more "reliable" when used as citations or sources to back up our various stances. All discussion in the Moot does NOT have to be on the level of term papers, I absolutely agree. However, when we are attempting to make a serious point, and attempting to move past just opinion and convince others of our intellectual stance, I think it may be helpful to have a common standard by which we may judge, for ourselves, the assertions of our fellows.

Humbly submitted by this EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMEDDCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO, and by no means do I lay this down as an unbreakable "Golden Rule", just as a friendly suggestion to avoid disagreements like "my sources are better than your sources."

What would be YOUR alternative rankings? I eagerly await you folks' insights and comments, in agreement or to the contrary.

Kiri · 01-14-2002, 03:42 PM

Your typology echoes what I've seen elsewhere, as far as I can tell, although other typologies are less rigid--especially since Tolkien would even go so far as to make changes in details between _Lord of the Rings_ editions.

There is also a body of his writings that were not published in any of the sources you cite but have been published in things like _Journal of Elf Stuff with a Highly Irregular and Unpredictable Publication Schedule_, or whatever it's actually called.

***Earniel*** · 01-15-2002, 06:04 PM

I think agree here with you, Bropous. I have only been here a few day in the Entmoot and I already learned that there are more books than I even imagined. That made me feel very confused, but I think I nearly got it figured out, thanks to the many helpfull comments I got and not least of all by this interessting ranking.

Since you asked how others viewed the ranking. My ranking would go as follows:

FIRST: I would consider the Lord of the rings as primary source. It was written in my opinion when Tolkien had created most of the details and history of Middle-earth.

SECOND: The Hobbit, Tolkien had no idea what the history before and after the Hobbit would be. Although he kept largely true to the Hobbit writing LOTR, there are some part I feel he would have liked to change or gave it a twist so that something would fit better in his new view.

THIRD: This would be the Silmarillion. Most parts were written by Tolkien himself and this book was nearly ready. But his son edited it and I don't know how much he had to add or change to make it a decent ensemble.

As for the other books, I don't know them, hadn't even heard of them untill 3 days ago. But considered the fact that Tolkien appartently changed his mind a lot and that the other books seem all to be edited, I wonder at their significance. So how sure can we be about which parts Tolkien had discarded and which not?

I would like to here a more expert-opinion (than mine)about this. Anyone?

Kiri · 01-15-2002, 07:18 PM

The "other books" you so casually dismiss have a great deal of information. The Silmarillion is not by JRR Tolkien. It is by Christopher Tolkien, based on materials by JRR Tolkien.

***Earniel*** · 01-16-2002, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kiri
The "other books" you so casually dismiss have a great deal of information. The Silmarillion is not by JRR Tolkien. It is by Christopher Tolkien, based on materials by JRR Tolkien.

I don't casually dismiss the other books. But I don't know them so I can hardly include them in my ranking can I? And from what I heard on this message board I take it that there is a lot of discussion going on which ideas Tolkien wanted to use and which he discarded.

As far I know a lot of the material of the Silmarillion was ready. I thought that it just needed some final touches, but that he died before he could do that and that his son finished it. I don't pretend I'm an expert because I'm far from that, I'm just giving my opinion. But I'm willing to stand corrected.

bropous · 01-16-2002, 11:12 AM

Stand up and be corrected, young hobbit!

Actually, Tolkien wanted to publish "The Silmarillion" at the same time he wanted to publish the finished "Lord of the Rings". However, if you look closely at the "Silmarillion" the literary style is a bit diferent from that of LotR. I htink this shows the qork of Christopher. That's why I relegate it to the third tier of the proposed hierarchy.

As kiri pointed out, Tolkien revised even LotR between different editions, but he did the same with the Hobbit, including a major re-write of the fifth chapter. So, I reserve these for the first tier as they were the most finished works he produced, although he would probably have continued to issue rewrites here and there, and we couldn't start off a classification with the secodn tier, could we?

Worry not about not hearing of the other books, Earniel, I wasn't even aware that the "History of Middle-Earth" was a twelve-volume set...and as an aside, I'd also like to place "Unfinished Tales" in the third tier. I accidentally skipped that one.

Kiri · 01-16-2002, 11:26 AM

And, to add fire to the fuel, Christopher Tolkien has admitted that the ancestry of Gil-Galad presented in the Silmarillion was a mistake of his making--one that he has always regretted. Part of the problem is that the materials from which the Silmarillion was compiled were not published until the last volumes of History of Middle Earth, so we had no idea just how much the material of T- le Pere differed from what T- le Fils actually wrote and published.

Of course, ultimately, if the wishes of Le Pere (sic) are truly followed, then the question of "canonicity" should become irrelevant as his works would become the core of a corpus as broad and variegated as that which surrounds Arthur.

After all, one doesn't come across 15th-century critiques of Malory that complain about how La Morte is "uncanonical", even though it is at great variance with an appreciable body of earlier Arthurian material! Of course, there is an awful lot of sheer rubbish of an Arthurian bent out there--but gold is very often surrounded by a vaster sample of ordinary stone or soil, is it not?

And that's the crux of the matter. Is Middle Earth a mythology, free to be mined and to grow organically, or is is a mere work of literature, which has to be embalmed and preserved "intact" at any cost?

***Earniel*** · 01-16-2002, 02:23 PM

Alright then I hereby stand up am officially corrected. Everbody happy?

Hope I didn't tread on too many hairy feet

bropous · 01-17-2002, 09:17 PM

You didn't step on anyone's toes, dear hobbit. I was only joking about "stand up and be corrected"!

As for whether Middle-Earth is a mythology or a work of literature, I will take the easy way out and state it is a work of literature which builds a mythology. As to whether it should be allowed to grow, I think someone had pointed out that Tolkien wanted to leave room for others to take off on the material...

01-14-2002, 02:31 PM	#1
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	Sourcing Taxonomy? I've been evolving in my opinions lately as to the various levels of "authority" our various sources for backing up our arguments possess. To go past simple opinion into true analysis, one must support hypotheses on aspects of Tolkien's works with citeable observations. However, which writings are of more "reliable" authority than others? Are all of Tolkien's writings on an equal "authoritative" basis? I propose a "taxonomic" ranking of Tolkien's works on Middle-Earth, as a common yardstick from which we can draw observations whether a point has actually been proven, or remains unsupported hypothetical assertion. PRIMARY: The only primary sources on Middle-Earth, in my opinion, are The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Why? Because these are the only works which Professor Tolkien completely edited and re-edited himself, are the only "finished" products we possess by the Master, and are the most complete products of his long literary career which are available. One might also include in this category "the Adventures of Tom Bombadil" and "The Road Goes Ever On." SECONDARY: "Letters of JRR Tolkien." In these, the words have been edited and re-edited by JRR, however, they have not been polished off as a completed "book" by him. The Letters give valuable insight into how the books on Middle-Earth were written, as well as further cogitation and exposition on this point or that point by the Master himself. However, I feel these do not hold the same "authority" that JRR's Hobbit or LotR do, as finished and completed works. TERTIARY: "The Silmarillion" and the twelve-volume "History of Middle-Earth." I relegate these to the third category simply because they are not completed works by JRR, but instead were edited by his son Christopher from incomplete writings. Christopher is the most learned expert on his father's writings, but he is not his father, as I am sure he would himself readily admit. These works either received the editing and re-editing process by JRR only in part, or are compliations of fragmentary writings, some of which JRR may very well have ended up discarding altogether, and I am not so convinced we can use them chapter-and-verse to argue [politely] issues raised in the Primary sources. Using these as more authoritative sources may very well give rise to additional inconsistent views of what JRR's final vision of them might have been. QUATERNARY: Commentaries by any other authors on the subject of Middle-Earth besides Christpher Tolkien. I know there will be disagreements with [a few, if not a majority] of my fellow Mooters on this issue, and I am eager to hear your thoughts as to which of JRR's writings we should hold as more "reliable" when used as citations or sources to back up our various stances. All discussion in the Moot does NOT have to be on the level of term papers, I absolutely agree. However, when we are attempting to make a serious point, and attempting to move past just opinion and convince others of our intellectual stance, I think it may be helpful to have a common standard by which we may judge, for ourselves, the assertions of our fellows. Humbly submitted by this EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMEDDCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO, and by no means do I lay this down as an unbreakable "Golden Rule", just as a friendly suggestion to avoid disagreements like "my sources are better than your sources." What would be YOUR alternative rankings? I eagerly await you folks' insights and comments, in agreement or to the contrary. __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

01-16-2002, 11:12 AM	#6
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	Stand up and be corrected, young hobbit! Actually, Tolkien wanted to publish "The Silmarillion" at the same time he wanted to publish the finished "Lord of the Rings". However, if you look closely at the "Silmarillion" the literary style is a bit diferent from that of LotR. I htink this shows the qork of Christopher. That's why I relegate it to the third tier of the proposed hierarchy. As kiri pointed out, Tolkien revised even LotR between different editions, but he did the same with the Hobbit, including a major re-write of the fifth chapter. So, I reserve these for the first tier as they were the most finished works he produced, although he would probably have continued to issue rewrites here and there, and we couldn't start off a classification with the secodn tier, could we? Worry not about not hearing of the other books, Earniel, I wasn't even aware that the "History of Middle-Earth" was a twelve-volume set...and as an aside, I'd also like to place "Unfinished Tales" in the third tier. I accidentally skipped that one. __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

01-17-2002, 09:17 PM	#9
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	You didn't step on anyone's toes, dear hobbit. I was only joking about "stand up and be corrected"! As for whether Middle-Earth is a mythology or a work of literature, I will take the easy way out and state it is a work of literature which builds a mythology. As to whether it should be allowed to grow, I think someone had pointed out that Tolkien wanted to leave room for others to take off on the material... __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

01-14-2002, 03:42 PM	#2
Kiri Hobbit Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 42	Your typology echoes what I've seen elsewhere, as far as I can tell, although other typologies are less rigid--especially since Tolkien would even go so far as to make changes in details between _Lord of the Rings_ editions. There is also a body of his writings that were not published in any of the sources you cite but have been published in things like _Journal of Elf Stuff with a Highly Irregular and Unpredictable Publication Schedule_, or whatever it's actually called.

01-15-2002, 06:04 PM	#3
*Earniel* The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium) Posts: 14,363	I think agree here with you, Bropous. I have only been here a few day in the Entmoot and I already learned that there are more books than I even imagined. That made me feel very confused, but I think I nearly got it figured out, thanks to the many helpfull comments I got and not least of all by this interessting ranking. Since you asked how others viewed the ranking. My ranking would go as follows: FIRST: I would consider the Lord of the rings as primary source. It was written in my opinion when Tolkien had created most of the details and history of Middle-earth. SECOND: The Hobbit, Tolkien had no idea what the history before and after the Hobbit would be. Although he kept largely true to the Hobbit writing LOTR, there are some part I feel he would have liked to change or gave it a twist so that something would fit better in his new view. THIRD: This would be the Silmarillion. Most parts were written by Tolkien himself and this book was nearly ready. But his son edited it and I don't know how much he had to add or change to make it a decent ensemble. As for the other books, I don't know them, hadn't even heard of them untill 3 days ago. But considered the fact that Tolkien appartently changed his mind a lot and that the other books seem all to be edited, I wonder at their significance. So how sure can we be about which parts Tolkien had discarded and which not? I would like to here a more expert-opinion (than mine)about this. Anyone?

01-15-2002, 07:18 PM	#4
Kiri Hobbit Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 42	The "other books" you so casually dismiss have a great deal of information. The Silmarillion is not by JRR Tolkien. It is by Christopher Tolkien, based on materials by JRR Tolkien.

01-16-2002, 11:26 AM	#7
Kiri Hobbit Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 42	And, to add fire to the fuel, Christopher Tolkien has admitted that the ancestry of Gil-Galad presented in the Silmarillion was a mistake of his making--one that he has always regretted. Part of the problem is that the materials from which the Silmarillion was compiled were not published until the last volumes of History of Middle Earth, so we had no idea just how much the material of T- le Pere differed from what T- le Fils actually wrote and published. Of course, ultimately, if the wishes of Le Pere (sic) are truly followed, then the question of "canonicity" should become irrelevant as his works would become the core of a corpus as broad and variegated as that which surrounds Arthur. After all, one doesn't come across 15th-century critiques of Malory that complain about how La Morte is "uncanonical", even though it is at great variance with an appreciable body of earlier Arthurian material! Of course, there is an awful lot of sheer rubbish of an Arthurian bent out there--but gold is very often surrounded by a vaster sample of ordinary stone or soil, is it not? And that's the crux of the matter. Is Middle Earth a mythology, free to be mined and to grow organically, or is is a mere work of literature, which has to be embalmed and preserved "intact" at any cost?

01-16-2002, 02:23 PM	#8
*Earniel* The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium) Posts: 14,363	Alright then I hereby stand up am officially corrected. Everbody happy? Hope I didn't tread on too many hairy feet