Quoth Michael DeleteThis @xenite.org (Michael Martinez) in article
<3b26e128.0406290818.42fefc00 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>:
> sbjensen DeleteThis @midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) wrote:
> > Quoth Michael DeleteThis @xenite.org (Michael Martinez):
> > > You have misunderstood the following sentence (which you cited
> > > later on):
> > > ...Taum Santoski and John Rateliff have minutely examined the
> > > proofs and shown conclusively that instead of correcting this
> > > one error my father decided to extend Thorin - Thror - Thrain
> > > right through the book; but that having done so he then changed
> > > all the occurrences back to Thorin - Thrain - Thror.
> > > The error was extended all the way through the proofs.
> > Exactly: the error was extended all the way through the proofs, _on_
> > the proofs.
> Okay, let me point out the other part, then: RIGHT THROUGH THE BOOK.
Sure... but I've never disputed that. In fact, I think I said as much
when I summarized the meaning of this quotation in my essay:
Again, to clarify what this says as compared to what both sides of
this discussion have asserted in the past, the proofs had the
reversed genealogy in just one place. Tolkien went through them
from front to back and reversed it everywhere on the proofs, and
then went back through and restored the original (and final) order.
So yes, he went through and reversed the genealogy "RIGHT THROUGH THE
BOOK": throughout the proofs (which were the most recent version of
"the book" at the time). That's what I said. (You seem to be
equating "the book" with "the typescript" in Christopher's comments,
rather than with "the proofs". Why?)
> > Oh, certainly, I agree that we shouldn't expect to be told the fine
> > points of _The Hobbit_'s backstory. My point above was not that the
> > details of Thrain I's history weren't mapped out, it was that most
> > readers probably wouldn't even have noticed that he was there.
> All you're doing is throwing massive contrivances into the argument.
This entire debate is about Tolkien's motives, about what was going on
in his head when he wrote the book. We all agree on what was
published when, and we're just arguing about what Tolkien meant by it.
So I think that my questions about Tolkien's purpose in introducing
Thrain I (according to <2T>) are quite relevant. If introducing the
character would likely do more harm than good (I realize that's an
"if") and Tolkien were likely to have recognized that (also an "if"),
then shouldn't we conclude that Tolkien would not have intentionally
done so? Supporting those "ifs" is one of the crucial points in my
argument, of course, but I don't think this approach is "contrived".
> > "King Thrain" on the map could very easily be regarded as a simple
> > error by readers even if <2T> is correct, and nothing in the rest
> > of the text makes it _obvious_ that it wasn't. (Given that both
> > Christopher Tolkien and Douglas Anderson have reached the
> > conclusion that the map was originally in error, you've got to
> > admit that must have been a pretty common "mistake".)
> No, I don't have to agree to that at all. This point-of-view has
> been largely influenced by Christopher's statement in THE TREASON OF
> ISENGARD. People are assuming that Christopher is right to begin
> with before checking the facts themselves...
If two people who know this story better than 99.9% of the people on
the planet can reach the conclusion that "King Thrain" was originally
an error (whether they talked to each other about it or not!), I'm
pretty sure that the average reader has at least a decent chance of
reaching that conclusion as well.
> > > > So Christopher's statement here should not be taken as absolutely
> > > > authoritative: he does not know the solution, and has not fully
> > > > studied _The Hobbit_'s history. Still, even when writing [Treason]
> > > > he was more of an expert on these matters than anyone involved in
> > > > these debates (among other things, he was present and often
> > > > actively involved throughout the book's development), so his
> > > > opinion should carry some weight. As far as I know, he has never
> > > > corrected it or otherwise indicated that he has changed his view,
> > > > despite a clear opportunity to do so in [Peoples] if he had wished.
> > > That is absolutely wrong.
> > Which part?
> The whole damned thing. Where did you get the idea that "he was
> more of an expert on these matters than anyone involved in these
> debates"?
Perhaps I wasn't clear: I meant "in our debates about <1T>/<2T> here
on the newsgroups", the ones that I'd talked about as background for
the essay in its introduction. I'm not more of an expert on the
history of _The Hobbit_ than Christopher Tolkien is. Nor is Conrad.
Nor are you. The only person whom I'm aware of ever posting to the
newsgroups who might be is Wayne Hammond, and it doesn't look like
he's ever talked about Thrain here. Even if Christopher Tolkien
hasn't studied that history in full depth, neither have we. He
_lived_ it. And we only know some parts of that history based on
_his_ comments (the whole name reversal period, for example).
> We are in no position to determine what he remembers. Nor is it right
> to assume that his judgement in the matter is better than anyone
> else's. He repeatedly pointed out his own mistakes and bad judgement
> throughout the writing of THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH. So, your
> paragraph is not only wrong, it's just pointlessly wrong.
I don't assume his judgement is better than anyone else's, but I don't
assume it's worse, either. He's had access to information that we
haven't, and he's clearly spent time discussing these issues with
those like Santoski and Rateliff who _have_ studied the books' history
in depth. So no, I don't think it's going overboard to say that "his
opinion should carry some weight".
> Nope. From the time that manuscript went to the publisher, there
> were TWO THRAINS. Period.
I agree that this is true of the <2T> position under the revised
history of the Thror/Thrain reversal that I've asserted, but you seem
to disagree with that position. So explain to me, if the submitted
manuscript had Thorin - Thror - Thrain throughout (so that the King
Thrain on the map could have been Thorin's grandfather), what evidence
there was at that point for an earlier Thrain? Just the word
"heirloom"? Or what?
> > > > Christopher Tolkien's endnote [33] reads exactly as follows:
> > > >
> > > > "'Thror ... founds the realm of Erebor': the history of Thror's
> > > > ancestors had not yet emerged."
> > > At this point in time, Tolkien had not created a genealogy for
> > > Thorin's family for inclusion in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. As
> > > estblished by the first edition of THE HOBBIT, named members of
> > > Thorin's family included [snip long list]
> > Ok... but I don't see how that's relevant.
> You never do, Steuard.
Do you really want to be the one that started with the personal jabs?
> It's relevant because it shows that Tolkien deliberately expanded
> Thorin's family when he prepared the book for publication.
> Hence, adding a second Thrain to the story was not a big humongous
> deal.
I totally agree with you here. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim
that it didn't add much to the story at all... but that the repeated
name (never explained in the first edition) could confuse some
readers, which would certainly detract from it. Why would Tolkien do
that? Did it somehow not occur to him that repeating the name could
confuse people?
> My point is that Christopher's comment about the genealogy in THE
> PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH is being taken out of context. He still,
> when he wrote that book, had not gone back to THE HOBBIT and
> examined all the changes which had been made to the story when it
> was prepared for publication.
So, in short, you're simply saying that he was wrong at this point in
[Peoples]. Fine. I disagree, but that's what we're trying to argue
here.
> > > > <2T> is now faced with a serious difficulty: why did
> > > > Tolkien write that Thror founded Erebor if he had
> > > > deliberately introduced the earlier King Thrain I?
> > > Tolkien wrote no such thing.
> > Er, which part of "Thror... founds the realm of Erebor" are you
> > suggesting that Tolkien didn't write, exactly?
> Tolkien wrote no such thing IN THE HOBBIT. Your reference wasn't
> clear to me.
The fact that it was written under my entry for "1949-50" wasn't a
clue? The fact that the quote from [Peoples] immediately preceded
that sentence (just five lines up) wasn't a clue? I'd generally offer
to rewrite the section to clarify it in a case like this (as I did
several points in my last reply), but I can't see any way of making
this one clearer.
> > > As you cited further on, Christopher specifically states that "in [the
> > > first draft of 'Durin's Folk'] and its accompanying genealogical
> > > table...it is seen that an important advance had been made from the
> > > text T 4 of the Tale of Years." (THE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH, p. 276).
> > Are you just agreeing with my summary here?
> No, just trying to point out the obvious, which clearly is escaping
> your notice. The T 4 text is not a major point, but you wag it like
> a tree in a storm.
How is it not a major point? It shows Tolkien himself entering
essentially the <1T> version of the Dwarves' history into an early
draft of the Tale of Years. Tolkien apparently taking my position
"is not a major point"?
> > > In the final text, Tolkien only introduced one brief rewrite
> > > (Thorin's account of the history of Erebor), which was not very
> > > substantial. He extensively modified the proofs for THE LORD OF THE
> > > RINGS, occasionally requiring significant retypesetting despite his
> > > best efforts to keep the changes small, so he wasn't afraid to make
> > > changes on proofs.
> >
> > On the other hand, his letter to Allen & Unwin of 23 Jun 1965 leading
> > up to the third edition _explicitly_ states that the planned full
> > re-setting of the book was what convinced him that the time had come
> > to make those changes in the text.
> Now you're assuming that he wanted to make those changes in 1950, but
> chose not to.
Not "assuming", merely "suggesting". The suggestion in question was
in a parenthetical note in my essay, and introduced with the tentative
words that it "may also have been due to" this motive. My primary
argument was that he was simply focused on LotR at the time, not on
revising _The Hobbit_.
> In Letter 128, written on 1 August 1950, he wrote: "THE HOBBIT: I
> return the proofs herewith. They did not require much correction,
> but did need some consideration." Doesn't sound like he was very
> concerned about the text in 1950.
True. Of course, he didn't submit the author's note including its
comments on Thrain for a month and a half after that, so there was
time for him to have noticed the difficulty in the meantime. After
all, when he first saw (and corrected) the proofs, he was rather
overwhelmed by the adoption of his changes to chapter 5, as Letter
#128 shows.
> > > > 24 Aug 1965: Tolkien submits his changes for the third edition
> > > > of _The Hobbit_ [Bib]. Most of the relevant changes relate to
> > > > the history of Erebor in Thror's time as related in chapter 1,
> > > > and read as follows:
> > > Hardly.
> > Hardly what? "Hardly read as follows"? I'll admit that I snipped
> > things down to focus on some essential features, but I didn't see
> > that as much of a distortion.
> You butchered the textual change, misrepresenting it completely. You
> didn't leave out "potential changes", you left out ACTUAL CHANGES.
By "potential changes to the history relating to Thror" (words snipped
from my previoius reply), I simply meant that the addition of Thror's
name and family to the story didn't necessarily involve a change to
the history that Tolkien intended. But I now see that all the
alterations could be important; I'll include them all in a revision,
if I make one. (In my defense, I _did_ at least mention that Thror's
name was added at several points in the new edition. But I'll readily
admit that I didn't recognize its impact on the possible readings of
the history presented.)
> > > The original passage read:
> > >
> > > Long ago in my grandfather's time some dwarves were driven out of
> > > the far North, and came with all their wealth and their tools to
> > > this Mountain...
> > > The revised passage reads:
> > >
> > > Long ago in my grandfather Thror's time our family was driven out
> > > of the far North, and came back with all their wealth and their
> > > tools to this Mountain...
> > > In the original conception, Thror's family was NOT driven out of
> > > the north. In the new conception ("Durin's Folk") they WERE
> > > driven out of the north.
> > Huh? In the original version, Thror wasn't mentioned by name, but
> > it's quite a stretch to claim that means he _wasn't_ driven out of
> > the north.
> It's quite a stretch to clain that he WAS driven out of the north.
> There is no indication in the original text that he was.
Both readings are certainly consistent with the original text, and I
should probably have said something to that effect in my essay. But
you didn't say that, you said that "Thror's family was NOT driven out
of the north" in the original conception. You didn't say that was
just one possibility, or even that it was the most likely possibility,
you said it was flat out true. So I'm very eager to know what your
evidence is.
> > (In particular, the phrasing here would be very odd if Thorin's
> > grandfather had already been king when the other Dwarves arrived:
> > his kingship is linked directly with the newfound wealth of the
> > Dwarves from the north.)
> The newfound wealth was linked to the period of his kingship. Nothing
> more.
So the claim is that he wasn't king before the new Dwarves showed up,
he just happened to live there? Why would these new Dwarves have made
him their king, anyway?
> > > > <2T> on the other hand would probably describe these changes
> > > As I have repeatedly stated through the years, you are by no means
> > > fit to state my positions for me, as you continually bungle the job.
> > Excellent. As I have repeatedly stated through the years, when I
> > tell you my understanding of your positions (often after a
> > citation of your actual words, or a reference to them like I gave
> > at the beginning of the essay), you get the opportunity to point
> > out where I have failed to understand your meaning.
> Rather than mis-state my positions so that I have to correct you,
> why don't you just quote me?
As I said, "This is a well-accepted technique for reducing
miscommunication in discussions." (My mother is a neutral
facilitator, so I was raised with way more of this stuff than I care
to remember.
) You explain your point. Then I repeat it back to
you in my own words so that you can tell whether I've understood you
or not. (Just parroting your words back at you could never establish
that!) You correct me, then I try again, until I've gotten it right.
At that point, even if we still disagree, at least we're both
confident that I understand what we disagree on.
So once again, it's not an attempt to warp your words or to construct
a straw-man argument. It's an attempt to give you the opportunity to
tell me what I've misunderstood about your position. And just quoting
you directly could never accomplish that.
> > > > <1T> starts out at a disadvantage: it requires us to
> > > > believe that Tolkien made a significant error... But that
> > > > is its only difficulty, at least based on the aspects of
> > > > textual history discussed above.
> > > Hardly, since the naming of the Arkenstone was never altered in
> > > the original HOBBIT edition typescript and proofs.
> > That's why I specified "at least based on the aspects of textual
> > history discussed above".
> The "Hardly, since...." is in reply to your absurd conclusion "but
> that is [<1T>'s] only difficulty", which is pure bullshit.
As is still quoted above, that conclusion was stated to apply only to
the aspects of textual history discussed so far. I'd made it clear
that aspects of the history related to the Arkenstone would be
discussed later, in any case. If you think that my statement here is
"bullshit", fine, but give a valid reason. The only reason you gave
was explicitly one that my conclusion had excluded.
> > > Bullshit. The invention of the older Thrain lends historical
> > > depth to the story.
> > As I've pointed out, as presented in the original version of _The
> > Hobbit_, for many readers he would probably have actually
> > detracted from the historical veracity of the book
> And this is yet another example of how you are presenting your view as
> if it is some indisputable fact. What you think many readers would or
> would not have done has no bearing on the issue of how many Thrains
> Tolkien put into his story in 1936.
Most people don't use the word "probably" when stating an absolute
fact. I certainly don't. But I stand by that "probably", and I have
more respect for Tolkien's instincts as a storyteller to think that he
would have deliberately caused the confusion that the unexplained
repetition of "Thrain"s was likely to cause.
> > > Tolkien referred to the halls of Erebor as ancient, and he
> > > clearly intended the reader to understand that Thorin had a huge
> > > family with multiple halls...
> > I agree, all of that is made clear in all editions of the book. But
> > what does any of this have to do with an earlier Thrain in particular?
> Because Thror's halls wouldn't have been "ancient" if he had been the
> only King under the Mountain.
They would have been about 350 years old at the time of the story.
That sounds pretty old to me. Would I call it "ancient"? Maybe,
maybe not. But I don't think there are strict rules about that sort
of thing. This could be suggestive of an older history, or it could
just be a reflection of the tone of the story.
> You have predicated your argument largely on a fallacious reading of
> Christopher's comments, wherein he stipulates that the Thror-Thrain
> mixup was extended RIGHT THROUGH THE BOOK (and was not confined to a
> single passage, as you ridiculously contend).
Not once have I contended that Tolkien's Thror/Thrain reversal was
never extended "right through the book". I have simply asserted a
correction to the point in the book's history when that extension took
place. I believe that correction is in closer agreement with
Christopher Tolkien's description of the history involved.
> > > All that said, much of this <1T> stuff is circular. That is, it is
> > > founded upon Christopher's statement in THE TREASON OF ISENGARD.
> > I have no idea just how old the <1T> notion is, to be honest.
> > [Bib] mentions several studies of the revisions to _The Hobbit_
> > dating to the early and mid-1980s (on p. 32), but I haven't been
> > able to find copies of them to see what they have to say.
> The first edition of THE ANNOTATED HOBBIT would be one such study.
> It was, in fact, considered the most exhaustive resource at the time
> for the subject.
Oh, certainly. But it doesn't say anything about <1T>/<2T>, as far as
I have found. That's why I mentioned those other earlier studies as
interesting places to look.
> > ... And in a sense, those "several students of the lore of the period"
> > who (if they really existed) wrote to Tolkien and asked if the map was
> > in error before the second edition were the first <1T> advocates.
> > I very much suspect that many people would have taken the <1T> position
> > long before [Treason] was published.
> Well, you've just gone and proved the whole danged argument with
> THAT sound conclusion!
Wait, what? I thought we were talking about whether or not the <1T>
idea predated Christopher Tolkien's statement of it in [Treason], not
about the "whole danged argument". I cited an example of
pre-[Treason] people who seem to have believed <1T>. I said (partly
based on that) that I thought it was likely that there were many
people of the sort. How is that unsound?
> > > > As for the <2T> position, it is also faced with a challenge
> > > > here: for <2T>, the difficulty that Anderson outlines is
> > > > present from the very first published version of the text
> > > There is no difficulty here.
> > No difficulty as long as one is willing to grant the <2T>
> > interpretation of the phrase "my father", anyway. But I'm not.
> One does not NEED to interpret the phrase "my father".
I'm not sure what you mean by "interpret" here. To me, any time you
hear or read a phrase you have to "interpret" its meaning. That's
what listening (or reading) _is_. And that's doubly true when the
word has more than one definition: you have to "interpret" which
definition is intended. Sometimes that's obvious, sometimes it's less
so, but it's certainly part of both oral and written communication.
So yes, one does need to "interpret" the phrase "my father".
Otherwise, it's just a meaningless collection of lines scratched on a
page. And as the OED (for example) lists 10 definitions for "father",
some effort of "interpretation" to figure out which one is intended is
required.
> It is YOU (and perhaps those who agree with your contention in this
> point) who insist on "interpretation" -- that is, you claim
> (wrongly) that it can only refer to Thorin's direct, immediate
> predecessor.
I still don't understand what you mean by "interpretation" here. You
make it sound like it's a bad thing, or possible to avoid.
> > I would love to see any example in which Tolkien uses "my father"
> > (without qualifiers like "of old" that explicitly change its
> > meaning) to refer to an ancestor more remote than a parent. I
> > don't even think I've seen an example of this in any published
> > writing, so feel free to share those as well. As I said in my
> > original essay, if that usage does exist anywhere, I can only
> > conclude that it's exceedingly rare.
> Well, since you keep ruling out the most obvious examples, it's no
> wonder other such examples become "exceedingly rare".
None of the examples I've seen cited seem to fit as parallels to
Thorin's usage in the passages in question. The phrase "my father" is
awfully specific.
> Tolkien's characters don't often refer to their remote ancestors in
> the singular. Aragorn uses the word "father" when addressing
> Saruman at the edge of Fangorn Forest. Are we to assume that
> Aragorn thought Saruman was Arathorn II?
Did he call him "my father"? No. That "my" is what most firmly
convinces me that Thorin is talking about his literal father.
> That is, your argument is an argument of convenience. Since it
> would be INconvenient for you to have to concede that Thorin could
> be referring to anyone other than his immediate predecessor when he
> says "that stone was my father's", you conveniently insist that some
> corrobative use of "my father" be offered as proof that Tolkien was
> using "my father" that way.
And yet, as I outlined in that final paragraph of this section of my
essay that you still haven't responded to, <1T> doesn't actually lose
anything if your broad understanding of "my father" is correct. In
fact, most of its remaining difficulties disappear in that case. But
the broader meaning of "my father" is absolutely required for <2T>, or
at least it seems to be based on your argument. Even if that meaning
is the right one, that's not an argument _favoring_ <2T> over <1T>, it
just means you get to stay in the game.
I'll admit that my take on the phrase "my father" would (if true) be a
serious blow to <2T>. But it's not such a crucial link in the chain
that I'd stoop to outright deception to establish it.
> You might as well demand that we prove Saruman WASN'T Aragorn's
> father, because Aragorn clearly says, "Well, father, what can we do
> for you."
I've seen plenty of examples in literature of "father" being used as a
term of respect for an old man. I haven't seen any examples of "my
father" being used that way.
> > Incidentally, you didn't comment on the final paragraph of this
> > section where I argued as follows:
> Because your argument failed so early on, I was being kind in pointing
> out other egregious errors of fact.
Are you saying that my argument in the paragraph failed early on, or
that my argument in the essay did. Because if you mean the former,
I'd love to hear where.
Steuard Jensen
>> Stay informed about: One Thrain or Two: A detailed textual history 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
