Helen, Encaitare -
I have no doubt Frodo will be all right in the end, but I hereby assert my rights as a reader to make certain judgments! I have always considered myself to be someone who makes every effort to follow Tolkien not only in terms of the text of the book, but also the ideas set forward in the Letters and in the unpublished essays. I consider it a way of showing respect to the author. It is also a natural outcome of my training as a historian: to search for documented evidence and make a decision based on that evidence. And yet, thinking about Fordim's question, I came to the realization that there potentially could be certain situations where I would not be comfortable with that approach.
While I singled Frodo out as an example, and it happened to be the ending of the book, I did not mean to limit myself to that. I guess what I am saying is this: there might be instances where I would take my own clue from the existing book rather than follow an essay or letter that was outside the actual published text, especially if it represented a change in the way a character was presented. I would make a conscious choice to assert my own interpretation of the text rather than the explanation given by Tolkien. This would certainly not be something that would apply to Balrog Wings or Elf Ears, but there are theoretically other instances where it could come into play. I objected to PJ changing the depiction of key characters, and I just might do the same with Tolkien!
The chances of this occurring are about 1 in 500,000 as I doubt any posthumous papers will be found that fall into this category. Still, the fact that I would even consider this is somewhat surprising to me. I fear I will have to go back and edit my posts on Canonicity. This is what happens when you hang around with English majors and other 'literary folk'!
