‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Bêthberry]

A very brief reply, Fordim before I dash out the door. I wonder if what you and Sharkey have hit upon could be termed a referential fallacy. Here we have the situation in which the only texts for which we could plausibly posit a Creator are those which were inextricably created solely by a Creator in a realm of fantasy, or faerie ouside our real world. Fascinating. A golem indeed.

[mark12_30]

Dear Doug,

You wrote:

Clearly, then, a broader definition of what is acceptable as canon is required. As Sharkû pointed out, this website has already gone past the dictionary.com definition of this term (thank goodness!!).

I have real heartache with this as some may have noticed. "Canon" is a perfectly good word as it stands, and re-defining it only makes things harder on all of us. Those who haven't read this thread willl think it means one thing, and confusion will abound (it already does, why make it worse?)

I have no problem with the heart of what Fordim is suggesting; I have a problem with calling in "canon". "Canon" isn't what I write, unless you call it "Helen's canon", in which case I doubt it would interest this board.

Certainly good fanfic/ RPGs are worth writing-- and worth enjoying, and worth exploring, and the better they are the more we enjoy them; but I think if you asked some of the most successful writers here (I hold up Mithadan as a stellar example) who have written fanfic considered very "canonically friendly" (Tales from Tol Eressea!), he would be the first to protest: "My work isn't canon." He's said so in the past. Also, Piosenniel has stated in the above-linked thread that she feels the same way. I believe Child would also (Sharon, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Tolkien, as I understand him, set the precedent of inventing new words such as "eucatastrophe" when he was forging into new territory. Can't we follow in his path? Or can we differentiate between "Tolkien's canon" and "Middle-Earth (something)canon(something)? Help, please, linguists. Let's invent a new word. We need one.

I think that what Fordim is driving towards (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is a treatment of Middle Earth lore as real history, with Professor Tolkien as the most reliable source, but not the ultimate truth. A canon-friendly world, but not one which relies on the words of Tolkien alone. This scenario would see works of Middle Earth history by from Mark 12:30, Bêthberry, Child of the 7th Age and others considered and debated with an eye critical not only to the story, but to its historical accuracy. I don't know if so-called fanfics are regarded in this way at present, but they certainly could be.

This sounds all fine and good, and I'm all for it-- and intensely honored and flattered and pleased to be included in your list--- just please, please, don't call it "Canon" plain and simple. That crown belongs to Tolkien alone, and I for one would lose so much sleep.