Didn't mean to stay away so long, but I've been very busy at work for the past six months or so. Anyway, in response to some information published in the new book by Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull, The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion , I've written a new essay for MERP.COM.
"Flying away on a wing and a hair ..."
Description: Authoritative new books about Middle-earth are few and far between. Quite often, when a newly published book provides new information about Middle-earth, our long-cherished ideas are challenged and must be re-evaluated.
Main text: The History of Middle-earth stutters to a very non-profound ending with Christopher Tolkien's final notes on "Tal-Elmar" at the end of The Peoples of Middle-earth. His role in the long meticulous process of organizing and publishing his father's notes and manuscripts ends quietly. So many questions remain unanswered by the twelfth volume of HOME that many people express considerable frustration. "Is that all there is to Middle-earth?" they ask.
The answer then in 1996 was both "yes" and "no". "Yes" because the megalithic understructure of the details had been carefully laid out, except for one minor area. "No" because Christopher paid scant attention to the development of The Hobbit, a task which had been delegated to the late Taum Santoski. Upon Santoski's death, the responsibility fell to John Rateliff, who has yet to produce the much anticipated, long desired history of The Hobbit (which at one time had the working title of Mr. Baggins).
Douglas Anderson's Annotated Hobbit, revised and updated in 2002, serves as the Tolkien community's primary resource for studying the development of The Hobbit. A vital secondary source is J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist & Illustrator, edited by Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull. A few comments by Christopher scattered throughout the History of Middle-earth books round out the limited resources we have for studying JRRT's work on The Hobbit.
But Tolkien's remaining unpublished linguistic materials have been conferred to the editorial care of a small group of linguists working with Carl Hostetter. The strict conditions attached to the materials are mired in dispute and recrimination within the relatively small Tolkien linguistic community. Some of the foremost Tolkien linguists have pressed hard for speedier access to the material. The conflict occasionally spills over into non-linguistic discussions, but has largely been contained within the circles of Tolkien linguistic studies.
Many ardent Tolkien readers are no strangers to conflict. The worlds of Tolkien scholarship, both formal and informal, resound to the heated cries of inflammatory debate. I don't know any Tolkien scholars who haven't privately said to me, "You may find an answer with so-and-so, but don't mention my name as it won't open any doors for you." In fact, I've found myself saying that on a few occasions.
One might feel that, with Tolkien's death in 1973, sufficient time should have passed for everyone to have studied everything. The art of Tolkien analysis, if not Tolkien criticism, should by now be well-defined and considered almost scientific. But the magic of Tolkien's craft is that it continues producing new discoveries almost on a yearly basis. The last significant release of material regarding Middle-earth in Tolkien's life was probably the 1969 Pauline Baines map. The map included maybe half a dozen place-names no one had seen before (such as Edhellond, Lond Daer Ened, and Framsburg).
I'll check in over the next few days. I actually have another project coming up in January that I feel many of you will be interested in. It's not about me, it's about online Tolkien fans.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Author of Visualizing Middle-earth, Parma Endorion: Essays on Middle-earth, 3rd edition, and Understanding Middle-earth.
posted
At Carl Hostetter's suggestion, I have modified one of the paragraphs in the essay so that it reads as follows to more accurately reflect who is in charge of the linguistic materials that have been released for study by the Tolkien Estate (Christopher Gilson is, in fact, the chief member of the group). I have also added reference to Marquette and the Bodleian Library.
But much of Tolkien's remaining unpublished linguistic materials have been conferred to the editorial care of a small group of linguists working with Christopher Gilson (Parma Eldalamberon) and Carl Hostetter (Vinyar Tengwar). The strict conditions for use of these (photocopied - the original manuscripts have not been released) source materials are mired in dispute and recrimination within the relatively small Tolkien linguistic community. Some of the foremost Tolkien linguists have pressed hard for speedier access to the material. The conflict occasionally spills over into non-linguistic discussions, but has largely been contained within the circles of Tolkien linguistic studies. Some additional materials from the Tolkien archives at Marquette University and the Bodleian Library at Oxford also provide the linguists with new information.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Author of Visualizing Middle-earth, Parma Endorion: Essays on Middle-earth, 3rd edition, and Understanding Middle-earth.
posted
I’m sorry, Mr. Martinez. I really am at a loss over something in your article. You build up an extremely convincing argument, and then the final coup de grace is this passage:
quote: In 1998, another person who firmly believed that Balrogs did not and should not ever have wings appealed to the highest voice of authority. He wrote to Christopher Tolkien and asked a question which, to this day, has not been disclosed (to me). I inferred from what he openly shared of Christopher's reply that he did not simply ask whether the Balrog should or should not be viewed as winged. The letter was sent after a lengthy exchange over numerous textual changes Christopher had discussed in detail in The Treason of Isengard. Christopher's reply, as reported by the correspondent, was:
I was as a rule not sent the later material from Markette (sic) - the typescripts made by my father - and have never seen them in many cases...Thus the final typescript (following the fair copy manuscript C, (The Treason of Isengard pp 202-33) of The Bridge of Khazad-dum (Markette no. 3/3/25) I never saw. I presume that it was there that the mention of the Balrog's wings being spread from wall to wall entered. You could ask Chuck Elston, the infinitely helpful archivist at Markette, to look up 3/3/25 for you. But then it probably wouldn't be very helpful to you, without any precise knowledge of when my father typed it: although in a letter of 28 February 1949 he wrote that I am finding the labour of typing a fair copy of the "Lord of the Rings" v. great. I myself never thought that the second mention of the wings of the Balrog had any different signification from the first.
So, there you have an answer from a higher authority than either Michael Martinez or Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull. Make of it what you will.
So if I’m correct, what we basically have here is a quote from Christopher Tolkien verifying the existence of Balrog wings.
I think this is an excellent piece of information, that could possibly permanently end this entire clichéd debate, but here is big question number one: Is this verifiable? This is a statement from Christopher, quoted by an unnamed source, quoted by you. The first rule of scholarship is to cite your sources and make those sources verifiable. If it is verifiable, in whatever form, why didn’t you note how this statement could be viewed? If it is not verifiable, why did you use this quote in the first place? If it cannot be viewed and verified by other scholars, it lacks any strength of argument.
Here is big question number two: Is Christopher Tolkien’s word enough to finally put this to rest? He may be the "highest voice of authority" alive today, but he is not the author of this work. Does Christopher Tolkien have proof from his father somehow to finish this argument, or is it simply his opinion? If it is simply his opinion, there will be those who quickly point out that it isn’t Christopher’s name on the front of their copy of The Lord of the Rings.
From: Helsinki | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I feel (and I believe other people involved in that discussion at the time also feel) that Christopher's comment is ambiguous. I feel it is so because I don't know what the question was that he was answering.
The person who shared that snippet posted it in a news group. His name is William Cloud Hicklin. He no longer visits that discussion group and, so far as I know, is no longer accessible through his old email. He claimed to have written to Christopher and asked him several questions. This was the only part of the letter that he shared.
There is, to my knowledge, no way to confirm that Christopher really wrote to Mr. Hicklin, but I have never found a reason to believe the claim is untrue. The idiom used in the snippet matches Christopher's writing style in The History of Middle-earth and Unfinished Tales. I believe the citation is legitimate.
But, as the essay notes, I've been wrong before.
And, no, I don't think Christopher's word is enough to put the issue to rest. I am pretty sure that I disagree with Christopher on at least one (relatively obscure) point regarding his father's work. The strength of conviction, based on facts Christopher himself provides, leads me to take that position contrary to his own statements (confirmed to me in private correspondence by a third party).
So, if a literalist like me is willing to disagree with Christopher Tolkien, I am sure other people will disagree with him too. In fact, I know people do disagree with him all the time.
The debate will probably never be settled.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Author of Visualizing Middle-earth, Parma Endorion: Essays on Middle-earth, 3rd edition, and Understanding Middle-earth.
Several years ago he took part in an extensive e-mail discussion that I followed (without taking part myself). I came away from that discussion with the following impressions:
1) What he said about his correspondence with Christopher Tolkien bears every sign of being trustworthy.
2) The attitude he displayed there towards scientific verifiability as described by Thorin, however, did not give out hope that he will be any help in that respect.
Also in the course of that discussion, he made certain statements on law (being a lawyer) that made me glad he was not the Attorney General: He would otherwise have created a sizeable diplomatic incident.
From: Amsterdam, Netherlands | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've done some extensive internet searching and have found a "fair" amount of information.
Yes, I think I must agree. Based upon what limited information I have, it seems that the statement is completely truthful. However, I am still sorry that it is not verifiable. Very unfortunate.
From: Helsinki | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes, the veracity of a statement can be unimpeachable and it turns out to be completely inaccurate (or untrue) without desire or intent on the author's part. Sometimes, the source can be questionable but the statement is legitimate.
This statement falls into one of those gray areas, I suppose.
Bill Hicklin and I did not agree on many issues, and there were some very bitter exchanges between us toward the end. But he was one of the most knowledgeable and well-read Tolkien fans in the news groups. We had some great discussions in earlier days that I still remember fondly.
His insights into legal aspects of Tolkien's sub-creativity helped me appreciate Tolkien's work even more, and had a profound impact on at least one of my essays ("Waiting for a king like you").
[ 01-03-2006, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Michael Martinez ]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Author of Visualizing Middle-earth, Parma Endorion: Essays on Middle-earth, 3rd edition, and Understanding Middle-earth.
quote:I myself never thought that the second mention of the wings of the Balrog had any different signification from the first.
I've read this quote at least ten times over, and I can't see how this verifies the existence of Balrog wings. It seems that this comment lacks the necessary context to say one way or the other.
From: South Forodwaith | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've read this quote at least ten times over, and I can't see how this verifies the existence of Balrog wings. It seems that this comment lacks the necessary context to say one way or the other.
That is my point. However, some people feel that Christopher is implicitly acknowledging some significance to both passages. It could be that Bill Hicklin only asked, "Is there any special significance to the second mention of the wings?"
I don't know why anyone would ask that question, but that is just a guess at what the question might have been.
Or perhaps it is merely the way he says "of the wings of the Balrog", which could mean he regards them to be "wings" (but not indicating what sort of wings he means).
[ 01-09-2006, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Michael Martinez ]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Author of Visualizing Middle-earth, Parma Endorion: Essays on Middle-earth, 3rd edition, and Understanding Middle-earth.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
