[The Saucepan Man]

What you seem to be saying is that within Middle earth 'evil' is a verifiable 'fact', which confirms my position that the moral/ethical dimension must be taken into account in any discussion about 'canonicity'(please correct me if I've misunderstood your position).

The moral/ethical dimension must be taken into account in so far as we are able to determine it from the "facts" presented in the text, but excluding the author's own position to the extent that it differs from that stated in the text or remains unaddressed in it. So, to take the example of homosexuality, whatever Tolkien's views on this issue (about which we know little, if anything, for certain), there is (as far as I am aware) nothing within his writings which either condones or condemns it. One could say that it simply doesn't exist within Middle-earth, but that would be like saying that, just because Tolkien did not mention them, hippopotami and ostriches do not exist within his world. Homosexuality doesn't figure within the stories with which we are concerned because, like hippos and ostirches, it is not relevant to them. As to whether it is permissible within fan fiction, well that must, I suppose, be a matter for individual interpretation.

Edit (after cross-posting with Fordim):

If you are going to allow that a fuller appreciation of the names' meanings gives us 'more' or 'better' information then does that not mean necessarily that there are some readers who are better readers? That is, people who have the knowledge or wherewithal to figure out what the names mean will do a better job of understanding than those who don't?

I'm probably going back over old ground here (and making my own rut alongside Bb's), but I would not say that, just because someone has a greater understanding of what the author's intentions were or a better appreciation of his linguistic tricks, their reading experience is in any way more valuable than anyone else's. The reading experience is not one which, as far as I am concerned, can be objectively quantified and compared with that of another. So, while I accept that some readers will be more widely-read, or more knowledgeable, or more in tune with the author's own religious/moral standpoint, that does not make them "better readers" in my book (pun intended ).