Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mark12_30

So by your argument "THe Adventures of Tom Bombadil" isn't canon either. In order to be canon, the mood must be tragic? Then we throw out Sam's Oliphaunt, and his Troll Song-- it's absurd. Let's cut out "The Man In the Moon Stayed Up Too Late." Then we'll throw out Bombadil. And Pippin really must grow up and get serious. Boromir's sarcasm-- out. And Gandalf is not allowed any more fireworks-- they are beneath his dignity.

This tone thing has gone too far. Nobody in Middle-Earth is allowed to have fun. Including the Professor.

Here, here, Helen! Let me echo what SpM posted earlier.

I think we can get too carried away with defining what is consistent with "the Legendarium." That is all well and appropriate for discussion of the inner consistency of the mythology and for an individual opinion or interpretation of the matter.

However, as Helen implies, there are many other works by Tolkien which don't conform strictly to the mythology. But why should the mythology become the defining characteristic?

Going by traditional definitions that pertain to literary studies (for what that is worth), here's Dictionary.com's definition of canon:

A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: “the durable canon of American short fiction” (William Styron).

The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic: the entire Shakespeare canon.

Time was (and this is back in Tolkien's day), canon meant things that a writer published in his lifetime. In fact, students were not allowed to write dissertations on writers still alive, as such a dissertation would be incomplete, the writer still capable of producing more.

This is, of course, just one approach. It is, however, one which acknowledges all works a writer produces, not just those which conform to a standard developed later in life or after death.

Notoriously, Tolkien's ideas about Middle-earth changed as he wrote. This is the important thing about him: he did not achieve--and possibly never aspired to--a standard of art which imitated that of the elves. Time is everywhere in his work. Never again would he write in exactly the same style as he did for his children in TH. But he still went on to include silly Tom Bombadil in LOtR and another group of poems. He did not entirely lose a sense of whimsy and silliness. 'Smith' and 'Leaf by Niggle' are his works even if they don't quite fit his foreward to LotR.

Writers do not have to be consistent. They just have to be entertaining. And imaginative. And, in the case of fantasy, darn good at depicting a perilous realm. Maybe one way of thinking about this is to acknowledge that for Tolkien, the perilous realm was more than just Middle earth. And more than just tragedy or epic. "prose romance' covers a great deal.

Frankly, I agree with SpM that The Silm, as a work pubished after Tolkien's death and substantively editted and revised by Christopher Tolkien, is the questionable work. Without Tolkien pere's imprimateur, it is the Silm that 'fails' (sic), not TH.

EDIT: Opps. Cross posting with davem. Yes, blame oblo. The next best thing to Canada.