Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man
Who is to say what is in the spirit of Tolkien and what is not? There are obvious areas where we can agree, but there will also be many areas where we will not.
|
Duly noted.
Don't kill me for this but... because I am a simpleton I think you guys are stressing over this matter too much.While I cannot be more profound and deep in my response the explications that have circulated through this thread I'll get whatever it is out-of-my-system-right-away:
Quote:
ca•non•i•cal \ke-"na-ni-kel\ adj 1 : of, relating to, or forming a canon 2 : conforming to a general rule or acceptable procedure : orthodox 3 : of or relating to a clergyman who is a canon — ca•non•i•cal•ly \-k(e-)le\ adv
(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
|
To conform or not to conform? But:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aiwendil
"Canonical" is just a word, just a term. I would say that the conventional usage of the word is more in line with the restricted meaning "Tolkien's texts". But one ought to be able to alter one's definitions and use "canonical" to mean "not contradicting Tolkien's texts" without this necessitating any other changes in one's view.
|
So whatever we are conforming into is not always explicity justified correct? Hence, we are to "alter one's definitions". And that is the acceptable procedure?
...I know I know I'm shooting in the dark -- but the canonicity in this case applies solely to the reader at hand.
That's another thing to observe about the discussion taking place as well.Thank you for bearing this incoherant post.