[The Saucepan Man]

Welcome to the Downs, eLRic. Great first post, particularly given that this is (in my opinion) turning out to be one of the most complex (and engrossing) discussions on the forum in recent times.

I largely agree with what you say, although I would come back to the question that I raised a post or two ago: what is fact and what is interpretation when we are talking about Tolkien's Letters and the texts which were not published in his lifetime?

And I don't think that we are bound to accept as the "truth" those premises which can correctly be categorised as "fact" within those materials. They will be greatly influential, and often decisive, when deciding what is "canon" or "Tolkien's historia" (as Fordim puts it). But the reader is free to accept or reject them when he or she is interpreting the primary texts from an individual persepctive. And of course, as I have said previously, most readers will be unaware of such "facts" when they first encounter the primary texts.

As for the contrasting views presented by Fordim and Sharon:

the search for the 'canon' of Middle-Earth is futile at best, misleading at worst

and

Before we charge forward with our individual interpretations, don't we need to try and puzzle out what Tolkien regarded as the heart of Middle-earth?

I would (in typical fashion ) say both yes and no to each proposition. There is, from an individual perspective, surely no "right" or "wrong" way of approaching Tolkien's works. It will depend upon what the individual wants to get out of them. Some may be content with the primary texts and look no further. Others may wish to bring their own interpretations to bear and may therefore regard any attempt to establish Tolkien's "canon" as futile (for them). Yet others may see great value in trying to assess what the author's intentions were, either as a finsihing point or (as Sharon put it) as a springboard for further contemplation (internal) and/or discussion (external).

But, when it comes to interacting with others, then we must bear in mind that each person will have their own perspective. We all bring our individual perspectives to the discussions in which we participate, and we will clearly choose to participate in those discussions which best accord with our perspectives. For example, since I am (professionally) most comfortable with assessing facts and applying "rules" to those facts, I tend to participate most frequently in discussions which seek establish the "facts" of Middle-earth from the writings of Tolkien to which we have access. I am less comfortable participating in those discussions concerning the application of the ideas and themes prevalent in Tolkien's works to the individual, since I find it more difficult to articulate my views in this regard (although I still read such discussions and find them of great interest). Others, such as davem, Helen, Sharon and Lyta Underhill are much more adept in this regard, and are able to offer extremely valuable insights as a result. Similarly, someone like Bêthberry is able to bring her impressive literary knowledge to bear, which is incredibly useful in discussions such as this, or discussions of the literary and mythological bases for Tolkien's works.

Which is not to say that people should avoid any particular discussion. Different perspectives and experiences will be of great value in many discussions, provided that we recognise that others will be looking at matters from a different angle to us and that they may be seeking to get something different out of a discussion. And it is important too to acknowledge that, in consequence, there are certain discussions in which our own perspective may be (at best) irrelevant or (at worst) counter-productive. So, for example, where someone has started a thread asking a particular "factual" question about the Legendarium, it is of little value expounding one's personal interpretation where this runs counter to what Tolkien has said in his writings. If, on the other hand, the thread seeks personal views on an aspect of Tolkien's writings (the circumstances underlying Frodo's "choice" at Sammath Naur, for example), then individual perspectives may be of great value, even if they contrast with Tolkien's own views.

So, in many discussions there will be room both for an analysis of what is "canon" and for individual interpretations. In others, only one of these approaches may be called for, or perhaps a different approach altogether will be required (there is little call for either, for example, in many Middle-earth Mirth threads ).

In summary, the freedom of the reader is boundless, but, on an external level, it may on occasion be circumscribed by the circumstances in which he or she is interacting with others.