What counts as "canon"?

[Ashbranch]

Is the concept of "canon" useful when discussing the works of Tolkien? The vast amount that has now been published of his writings over the course of his life now present us with many, many different versions of stories and events. In my opinion this is a good thing. If we take as an analogy the Arthurian myths of Britain, we find that they too exist in many variant and contradictory versions, and this only adds to their interest, rather than detracting from it. Indeed, part of the fascination is sifting through all the contrasictory tales looking for common elements, and seeing how one led to another, etc. As a historian of Middle-earth, I think this is all for the good.

[Lalwendë]

I always like this topic, in a weird kind of sadistic way

My take is definitely that the 'Sun' is Lord of the Rings, surrounded by satellite planets of The Hobbit and The Sil, while Unfinished Tales is a moon, and HoME is the asteroid belt. It's all in the solar system but some of it is more important.

I suppose whether the more contentious and contradictory parts of the texts are canon or not depends on whether or not they support the argument you are currently pursuing However considering what is and what is not acceptable to most as canon is useful, even though you will still get people who do not consider what might ordinarily be seen as canon as necessarily fitting into the rest of the legendarium (*thinks of davem and The Hobbit, with a chuckle*). Some seem to think of Tolkien's Letters as canon, but I'm more inclined to think of them as Tolkien's own critical/fanboy comments which may shed light or muddy the waters.

But there's a lot more to be said.....If you're interested in canon, you might want to see the Downs' own version of torment:

Abandon hope all ye who enter here!


Oh. My. God. No. It's the canonicity thread! Run for the hills!

[Ashbranch]

Hehe - that looks like a very long and involved thread! I pretty much agree with your suggestion that some works are more "cannon" than others, on a sort of sliding scale, though just to muddy the waters even further the text of LotR was changed by Tolkien for the various editions that came out in his lifetime, and indeed since. Same with the Hobbit, and the Sil, of course, was edited and in some places substantially altered by Christopher Tolkien.

[Lalwendë]

Yeah, you could even start asking which edition of each text is the only canonical one

Does a first or the latest edition of Lord of the Rings have greater authority?

[Ashbranch]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Yeah, you could even start asking which edition of each text is the only canonical one

Does a first or the latest edition of Lord of the Rings have greater authority?

I suppose Tolkien's most recent version of a thing is the most authoritative - hence Strider and not Trotter, say. But do we then extend this to "corrections" made posthumously? Recent editions of LotR have "corrected" the info about the kings of Numenor so that it conforms to that found in Unfinished Tales, for example.

[skip spence]

This is a debate I've never partaken in before and to be quite honest I find the little I've seen of it rather silly.

I suppose the only real canonical works would be The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Ring as they are published by JRRT himself. Then again there are many things in TH that in all likelihood made the author himself cringe afterwards, like for instance having Bilbo read a newspaper in the opening scene. This probably goes for LotR as well. Some of the ideas of JRRT's later writings might on the other hand contradict what was already published but still be better conceptions according to the author. So although JRRT appeared to have felt bound by what he already published, I don't think we readers must feel this way.

When there is a contradiction, I tend to "believe" in the version I like best, regardless of what others think is canon or not.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Ashbranch

I suppose Tolkien's most recent version of a thing is the most authoritative - hence Strider and not Trotter, say. But do we then extend this to "corrections" made posthumously? Recent editions of LotR have "corrected" the info about the kings of Numenor so that it conforms to that found in Unfinished Tales, for example.

Ah yes, but what about the timeline of Tolkien's work itself? In some of his very last work, you detect signs of it getting baggy round the edges and unravelling a little, and I have to admit, some of his last thoughts were not his clearest sadly.

Originally Posted by skip

Then again there are many things in TH that in all likelihood made the author himself cringe afterwards, like for instance having Bilbo read a newspaper in the opening scene.

Really? I don't find that odd at all. There must be some kind of printing press in The Shire due to all the books Bilbo seems to own, and literacy is reasonable (even though there are no signs of schools). I should think newspapers would be devoured by Hobbits what with their love of gossip.