# Has Anyone Ever Rewritten The Silmarrilion?



## Bucky (Dec 28, 2007)

Stupid Question?

I doubt it knowing Tolkien fanatics & the history of this book......

First, Christopher Tolkien himself writes in the Foreward of The Silm, 'A complete consistentency is not to be looked for ' in the book.
How true. 
Then, CT himself, in his never ending search through his father's papers (and for more money by publishing them, LOL!), opens endless cans of worms by letting out information in HoME that contradicts the published text of The Silmarillion, such as 'The Wanderings of Hurin', where he states that he wishes he hadn't changed the story 'Of The Ruin of Doriath' or the many ancestors of Finwe mentioned in 'The Shibboleth of Feanor', some of whom are not even mentioned in The Silm.....

And then, there's the parentage of Gil-Galad.....

Not to mention the many extended stories (like 'The Fall of Gondolin' & 'The Children of Hurin', which has been acsessable for YEARS, NOTHING new was in the recently published book).

Anyhow, has anyone undertaken to put all or most of the available information together and if so, where is it available?
It must be online somewhere........


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 28, 2007)

A couple of years ago a group of fans on barrowdownssite set out to do a complete rewrite of the Sil. When I heard about it they were working on the story of 'The Fall of Gondolin'. I don't know how much more has been done or what has happened to thier work.


----------



## Eledhwen (Jan 4, 2008)

*Re: Has Anyone Ever Rewritten The Silmarillion?*

Here's the discussion: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=4435

And here's a more recent 'unofficial outline' for a new Sil: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=4435

Interesting to see our old friend Michael Martinez in there!

(BTW Bucky; it's one R and two Ls in Silma*rill*ion. You might want to edit your title so it shows up in searches)


----------



## Elthir (Jan 4, 2008)

I would like to add my opinion on some things:

A) The published Silmarillion was not constructed to present any 'final' or ultimate or complete version of the unfinished work, nor to always include Tolkien's latest work or ideas on a given subject -- no more than the new Children of Hurin, for example, seeks to incorporate Tolkien's 'last' known jottings or notions.

It is a standalone one version reading experience (in the form it was 'meant' to be in, in this respect).

2) The published Silmarillion is _a_ presentation, one type. _The History of Middle-Earth_ is another type of presentation. Consistency with the first presentation is hardly the issue, but explanation of the Silmarillion's true state was a large part of the reason to publish _The History of Middle-Earth_.

Sure, along the way Christopher naturally enough does express some 'regrets' with respect to the constructed version. But something like Gil-galad's parentage, for example, is hardly that important in the grand scheme of things, considering that no one is or was entitled to have ever read a word of any of JRRT's unpublished work. And this parentage was an idea of Tokien's of course, though not his 'last', but considering _Myth's Transformed,_ and now, some of the details in _Parma Eldalamberon_ 17, one can only imagine what JRR Tolkien's ultimate legendarium would have been.

III) Keep in mind the difference between the long prose version of _The Fall of Gondolin_ and the Silmarillion tradition proper. Christopher Tolkien's chapter in the constructed Silmarillion was not an update of the long prose version of course, which was not intended by JRRT himself to 'replace' the Silmarillion chapter but accompany it.

§) Two points in which I think a rewrite could be worth the effort: 

§C) Add framework. Tolkien would surely have done something in 'introduction' -- something to explain what the texts are, or some of them at least, even in brief, or their imagined authorship or internal history. Christopher Tolkien notes his reluctance here in _The Book of Lost Tales I._

§5) Perhaps a rewrite of the _Fall of Doriath_. Here however I would stress again that I'll bet as a reading experience few would find fault with the chapter had no _History of Middle-Earth_ ever been published. Also, the lack of later Tolkien-written versions _is_ a problem not easily solved, but if Christopher Tolkien, through many more years of study, did feel he could 'better' it and keep the editorial hand less intrusive, then I would say why not.

But not that he will or should, especially at this time in his life. Presentation two or _The History of Middle-Earth_ volumes actually represent years of incredible work, and the fact that they also 'allow' Tolkien fans to second guess or criticize the constructed version of 1977 is, in my opinion, a further testament to the son himself.

Fans can now only rewrite or re-imagine a 'new' Silmarillion because Christopher gave them two great gifts. The Silmarillion 'book experience', and the incredibly complex materials behind it (and _much more_) -- materials that not only contain great beauty, but serve to illuminate both JRR Tolkien and his work.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 5, 2008)

* Myth's Transformed, and now, some of the details in Parma Eldalamberon 17, *

What are they?

And yes, I realize that CT opened up these can of worms himself, but as a person who tends to read Middle-Earth as a historian & not as a novel reader, I struggle with 'unfinshed tales', know what I mean?


----------



## Elthir (Jan 5, 2008)

_Myth's Transformed_ is a section in Morgoth's Ring dealing with Tolkien (thinking about) altering his legends in some interesting and possibly radical ways, or at least having certain ideas (like the world being flat at one time) be confused or Mannish notions. 

_Parma Eldalamberon_ is a linguistic journal and in number 17 there's 'new' material from JRRT.


----------



## Sauron (Jan 18, 2008)

I personally like the Silmarillion as is without any alterations -what I think does need to be done is to have some more light shed on what happened during the Second Age when Numenor was ascendant. Tolkien (JRR and Chris) never really put much in the way of effort here that they did into the Third or the First ages. All they did was simply skim over most of it, and focused on the final years of the Second Age, beginning with Numenor's fall and culminating with the Last Alliance. There is plenty of room here for creative and imaginative writers and film directors to apply their energies -certainly more so than trying to rewrite the Silmarillion or the LOTR trilogy.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 22, 2008)

I think that the 4 shorter stories around The Silm proper are fine works as they are all finished, especially Alkabeth - you gotta love Suaron standing on top of his temple defying the lightning. 

Yet CT himself has opened a can of worms with HoME & as an 'historian' of Middle-Earth, I can't help look for definitive answers......


----------



## Elthir (Jan 22, 2008)

'The Silmarillion', again in the widest sense, is very evidently a literary entity of a singular nature. I would say it can only be defined in terms of its history; and that history is with this book largely completed (...). It is indeed the only 'completion' possible, because it was always 'in progress'; the published work is not in any way a completion, but a construction devised out of the existing materials.' Christopher Tolkien

Christopher presented what is.

But you can still develop a history from this: for example I imagine _Amros_ dying in the Burning of the Ships as the 'truth'. The fact that this might contradict earlier _unpublished_ conceptions bothers me not at all, nor even the fact that Christopher did not use 'my' version (Tolkien's of course) in the constructed version in 1977 -- as_ his_ version (Christopher's) wasn't intended to be definitive anyway.


----------

