Quote:
Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin
Well, of course not.
|
Well, as obvious as the question admittedly was, here's another, what does that say then, about author-published work being canon?
Quote:
The thing is, we know that T was willing on occasion to contradict published material, and then regularize the change in print: vide Finrod > Finarfin and Inglor > Finrod.
For that matter, even the published "canon" is not necessarily consistent. Were we to take the Lorien chapters alone, Celeborn would clearly be a Danian (Nando by the later system); he had become a Sinda by the time the Appendix was written but the main narrative was never revised to match, and you have to kinda squint to make the retcon look consistent. See also TRGEO version of Celeborn/Galadriel, especially the "ban."
|
To me this is noting inconsistency within canon, which affects canon not at all. The first edition Hobbit was notably changed, as well as described by Tolkien as Bilbo's inconsistent version. Bilbo's not Tolkien's; the canon contains at least two versions of the same story. And if we want "closer to the truth" we can follow the lead of internal characters like Gandalf.
As for Celeborn canon, the reader is free to hold up, for comparison, various descriptions, in effort to find out/interpret/discern the "truth" of a thing. For example the suggestion within the chapter
The Mirror of Galadriel versus two direct statements that tell the reader, clearly and easily, that Celeborn was one of the Sindar. We can squint if we know the "posthumous reality", or wink knowingly, though on the other hand, for all we know Tolkien felt no need to revise certain statements here, since a Sindarin Celeborn can (arguably) work well enough... and even if a given someone thinks a Sindarin Celeborn doesn't work well enough, the canon remains -- sometimes it's grey instead of black and white.
... like Celeborn the "Grey" [I know WCH knows, but
Sindar means "Greys or Grey Ones"]. Okay bad pun, moving on.
Did a Troll really bake bread for a Hobbit named Perry-the-Winke? To my mind it's canon whether it happened or not, 'cause Tolkien published it as part of the (imagined) real texts from which he translooted stuff (verb tense: "past afflicted" of translate).