[radagastly]

I must admit, I've always been a bit befuddled by the notion of "canon." It seems to revolve around questions of:
1. Is one section of text or detail consistent with other texts or details on the same topic?
2. Is a text or detail consistent with the author's intent?
There may be other questions that certain readers/fans/scholars may wish to impose, but it seems to mostly revolve around these two questions.

As for one text being consistent with all or any others on the same subject, I have no problem with inconsistencies. They exist even in our own real history. How many times was Julius Caesar stabbed in the Senate? Shakespeare says 33 times. Some historians have always said it was 22 times. A relatively modern historian (30 to 40 years ago) calculated (based on a variety of documentation) that the number of conspirators was between 11 and 14, and that they each stabbed him once. The only consistent and accurate answer to the question "How many times was Ceasar stabbed?" is "many."

I like the variations and inconsistencies that appear when the story is thought of as being told from various perspectives. A Hobbit writing the story of the war of the Ring would inherently include (or omit) details of that story that might well be ignored (or emphasized) if the same story is written by an elf or a man or a dwarf. These inconsistencies add a richness and reality to the story that would be completely absent if every detail was exactly consistent from the Ainulindale through the Final Battle.

As for the author's intent, I suppose if you were actually a real Necromancer, you could bring Tolkien back from the dead and ask him all the questions your heart desires. Personally, I think an author's intent is of little consequence until a work is published, at which point intent is completed superceded by the author's actual accomplishment, inconsistencies and all. I really don't care to see the early drafts of a story. I'd rather be engaged by the finished version.