[Findegil]

Posted by William Cloud Hickling:

For me, anyway, my attitude is very process-oriented. Tolkien's corpus, published and un-, is a collective artifact which was the work of one author's lifetime. Sometimes he changed his mind. Sometimes he made mistakes. That is what I find fascinating. I just don't see much point in efforts to rather artificially determine One Truth when there is no underlying truth- it's all fiction.

This is, I think, a valid view for what I will call studying the Tolkien corpus as literature. But it does not help if you are more interested in the study of the 'Legend' itself rather than its literary value. You are of course fully right that there can not be a 'canon' since there is no true story behind - it's all fiction. That is why I do not like the name canon and canonicity for discussions like this one, but as yet nothing better had come up. Nonetheless in my point of view, the Legend of Middle-earth would never have been such a success in publication, if it would not have provoked the reader to look ever deeper into it. It is for sure part of Tolkien's successful literary techniques to create that kind of depth behind the told story - most of it in a kind 'real', since he had already written the background stories (e.g. Elrond recalling the End of the First Age or Aragorn singing part of the Lay of Leithian), some feigned since he only later drafted them (like the Cats of Queen Beruthiel or the Five Wizards). I think that only a fraction of the people out there that have bought one or more of Christopher Tolkien's editions of his father's earlier or later works have done so to study JRR Tolkien's corpus as literature. Another fraction (and it might be the greater one) were more interested in the stories itself. When ever I was at a meeting of Tolkien enthusiast, I could determine these fractions. You might call them LIT. and FAN. (you can choose if it is short for 'fantasy' or 'fanatic' or both). Even if the meeting was focused on LIT. in the audience you would find some FAN. and anyhow by some speaker you would mark that they have started their interest in Tolkien or fantasy as genre as FAN. even so they have come to speak now as LIT. (So you could argue that LIT. would be more grown ups while FAN. would be more childish or that for LIT. the 'spell' has been broken while FAN. do everything to maintain it - but both would be polarising more than seems necessary.)

Let's come to my approach to what is here call 'canonicity'. I am with William Cloud Hickling about The Silmarillion, but for a quiet different reason. For me there are only 4 sources in priority 1 - books published by JRR Tolkien:
- The Lord of the Rings (including the Appendices
- The Hobbit
- The Adventures of Tom Bombadil
- The Road Goes Ever On

It is a strange mix and the books have even in themself some failures never corrected (e.g. Ghan-buri-Ghan counting the Rider of the Mark) and some inconsistencies from one to the other (e.g. Thorin and Co needing much less than a day ride from Mitheithel to Trolls while Strider needs several days or Galadriel have set a ban on her return or not between LotR and RGEO).

Prio 2 is sources given out to a restricted public by JRR Tolkien e.g.:
- Letters by JRR Tolkien (not so much what he sent to his family or his publisher, but more so what he sent to readers asking questions.
- Parts of The Lost Tales that JRR Tolkien published in today arcane publications. This includes some of the poetry from that period.
- Parts of The Lost Tales that JRR Tolkien read to some public audience (so not the Inclings or similar private groups). Here I think mostly of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin.
...

Prio 3 are sources published in a documentray style by Chirstopher Tolkien and others e.g.:
- Unfinsihed Tales
- The History of Middel-earth
- Beren and Lúthien
- Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin
- The History of the Hobbit
- [b]Param Eldalamberon[/(b]
...

Only in Prio 4 will be found books published by Christopher Tolkien as belles-lettres:
- The Silmarillion
- The Children of Hurin

And to come back to the topic of the thread: Yes, this has changed over time. As you may guess the above priority are a mix of attitude of the author against the text (ready for full publication or for restricted audience, a draft, ...) and level of information we have about the content of the text and the circumstances of composition. Earlier my view on 'canonicity' was rather based on the time of composition modified a bit by 'completeness' of the given information (a later rewritten small detail would only change that detail and not render the full described older story un-valid). It was like looking on a pastiche-picture: In some parts the original canvas with its first painting would still be seen, in other there was layer upon layer of new material. Some overlapping each other, some extending the picture. With each new layer covering what was beneath (a bit like the First Lord of the Ring map). But some layers would only be like a thin net: fine threads of narrative drafts with some knots where more substantial information is given, while other would be like a piece of new canvas glued on the old picture (full retelling of a tale).
Today we have to add some transparency to that picture: the higher the priority given above the more 'dense' that piece of pastiche is. Thus, with in the same priority time of composition is still the sorting criterium. But looking through the more transparent parts, they would look 'denser' if the layer beneath shows the same and more blurred if it is different. A later low priority source could thus still have an effect on an earlier high priority source, but it is no longer covering it. But sources of high priority will cover the deeper (older) layers well enough, and these layers may only peep trough where the high priority sources leave some gaps.

To take up the discussion from above: A FAN. will study the sources to discover what parts are still to been seen (looking form atop the pastiche) or he would make a parallel (horizontal) cut (lifting up some layer) and look on a the remaining layers for the fascination of that layer itself. A LIT. would rather make a crosscut to follow the development of some elements that return in many layers or he would cut out a single layer to analyse the technique used in that layer.

I hope this makes some sense at all, but the example of the pastiche was the best I could come up with. And for sure for greater clearness, the LIT. and FAN. characterisation is painted much more black and white than it is in real life. So if anyone found this characterisation embarrassing, please take this as an apologise. It was not meant in any harmful or disrespecting way. It is just a difference a percieve that often leads to misunderstanding on both sides, especially in canon-discussion like this.

Respectfully
Findegil