Originally posted by lindil:
Quote:
|
I would say what counts as canon depends on what one's goals are.
|
I must disagree. Tolkien clearly wanted to reach a point where he could publish "The Silmarillion" in his lifetime, but did
not. What he
did publish is "The Hobbit," "The Lord of the Rings" and a couple of other small pieces set in Middle Earth. Whatever he agreed was ready to publish was canon. Everything else is just notes. Sorry, but as interesting as they are, as complete as they seem to be to us fans, they simply aren't done yet.
In college, I took a course in the writings of Ibsen and Strindburg. In Ibsen's first realist play, "A Doll's House," the final line is Torvald saying, "Nora, We're saved!" In the fair-copy, sent to the publisher, the final line was "Nora, I'm saved!" Ibsen had drawn a line through the orginal text to add an element to Torvald's character. He changed it at the last minute. It wasn't even done that way in the original performance.
The point is that authors change their minds constantly until the final version is set in stone (or at least typeface!). What's more, they have every right to do so. The fact that Tolkien did not send "The Silmarillion" to a publisher in his lifetime is obvious evidence that he was not yet satisfied with it.
Please don't think that I don't find "The Silmarillion" enjoyable or entertaining, or even informative. I do! But if it's creator wasn't satisfied with it, why should I be? I don't own a copy of "Letters," but I suspect that once the popularity of the sixties set in, Tolkien's publishers were after him to write anything else that would sell as well. Anything set in Middle-Earth. They would just want stories with his name on them.
Tolkien wasn't like that, however. He never succombed. There seems to be some implication that "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" were not originally intended to be set in the same
Middle-Earth that Tolkien had written about in "The Silmarillion." At least "The Hobbit" was just a children's fantasy, told to his children and then written down for publication. "The Lord of the Rings" was drawn, persuaded, towards the older world, the older work, that Tolkien had written down for his own use, his own edification, and, as such, became the transition between it's origin and it's inspiration, something larger, something truly epic. As Frodo learns more about the history of the world in which he finds himself, so do we! This is what takes us back to Tolkien's musings, his earlier thoughts, that include "The Silmarillion" and his other, scholarly writings from those earlier times. They aren't completely reconciled, however. There are slight factual differences which most readers can ignore. But, of course, US FANS seem to revel in these details, and as such, declare as "canon," anything that Tolkien wrote that was not specifically contradicted by these other works.
Of course, this is ridiculious. Mark Twain once said, "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightening and a lightening bug!" Authors and their most devout fans seem to agonize over the smallest details, while ignoring the scope and depth and grandeur of the original inspiration. This is especially true of Tolkien (though not exclusive to him.)
Originally posted by lindil:
Quote:
|
Tolkien was a genius and a creative explorer, he was not methodical except when outside pressures came to bear. Those pressures never were strong enough in the case of the Silm material, so instead of a completed Silm, we got a completed LotR.
|
I couldn't agree more. I guess my case is identical to your's, lindil, except that I never tried to embrace any canon, except the canon published by Tolkien himself. My copy of "The Silmarillion" is a first printing of the American edition, which I bought when it was published, (I didn't eat that week!) I find it to be a very moving work, though I credit that mostly to the genius of C. Tolkien than to his father.
My own grandfather was a lumberjack, who worked his way from Vancouver to Quebec with many fights and conflicts along the way. On his way back, he met my grandmother. She was only fifteen when they married, and they lived in a literal log cabin and he hunted and she went into the woods for berries and herbs.
If I was to write their story, who should the credit go to? As the author, I should own the specific words that convey their story, but they still lived the life being conveyed. Is this really any different than Christopher Tolkien publishing his father's major works in the best organization he could devise? I don't think so.
What I mean is that we would never have "The Silmarillion," "The Children of Hurin," "Unfinished Tales" or any of HoME without Christoper! Is his work canon?
No, I don't think so. As involved as C. T. was, (including all the maps, not to mention his position as "first-reader,") he did not create Middle-Earth. He is the publisher/editor who changed Ibsen's "We're saved!" to "I'm saved!" For what it's worth,