[tar-ancalime]

davem said:

The texts themselves are just that - they're written as accounts by observers, or redactions by later writers from earlier texts, each one referring back to a time/place/event which we, the readers of those texts, can never experience directly. In other words, Tolkien is recounting to us 'old tales of long ago'.

and also:

So, do we have to accept all statements of 'fact' that Tolkien made as equally valid? Surely the facts of geography are unquestionable? But he changed certain geographical 'facts' over the course of his writings. Or 'facts' about the nature of his races - they changed. Or 'facts' about particular characters- again, same thing. Simply, he never stopped creating & changing the 'facts' about Middle earth, & if he'd lived he would have carried on doing that.

So what are we left with - talk about 'a fox that isn't there' - the more precisely you try to define 'canon' - either in terms of the facts of the world, or the writer's moral position, the more confused you become, & the less unquestionable 'facts' you find yourself with.

To me, this is the real crux of the matter--the fact that the "facts" continually change is what makes Middle-Earth seem so real. Reading about it is exciting because it is just like historical research: the accounts conflict. Places are described in one way in one source and in another way in another source. This is the ideal situation for what Tolkien was doing--presenting accounts by observers or later historians. I think it's vastly more appropriate that the accounts should not always line up.