‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Maédhros]

This is the problem with trying to construct a definitve Silmarillion by simply accepting the latest version of every story as Tolkien's 'best' version. There is no evidence to support this approach. Perhaps the reason he never re-wrote the Fall of Gondolin was because, however full of anachronisms the original may have been, however out of 'synch' it was with the later form of the mythology, it expressed something of his own personal experience in the best way, & he needed it to be left as it was, saying what it said. When we seperate the teller from the tale, & see the legendarium as a kind of 'real world' history, we inevitably run into this problem. We will, consciously or unconsciously, start to remove any difficult aspects (ie 'personal' to the author aspects) in order to create an (illusory) 'perfect' version. Perhaps the Fall of Gondolin with its tanks & troop carriers & Flamethrowers is the 'perfect' version - divorce it from the 'Legendarium' & look at it as a stand alone work - as some do with LotR & Hobbit - & ask yourself whether it needs a final 'perfect' form ('perfect' in this context seemingly only meaning a form which doesn't contradict the other stories Tolkien wrote).

I don't think that you truly get the point. It is false that we always use the latest version or idea of Tolkien in constructing a more complete Silmarillion if you will. Take the case of the Parentage of Gil Galad, there is a note in the end, which states that Gil-Galad resided in the Mouths of Sirion and that he had escaped the Fall of Nargothrond. If you take that to mean literarilly that, then there would be a huge gap in the Narn i Chîn Húrin, because there is no mention of Gil-Galad in there. This is one case in which, because that note could affect dramatically that structure, we left it alone.
The case of the Fall of Gondolin is interesting. First, it is untrue to say that he never worked on it. Of Tuor and his coming to Gondolin is the beginning of the rewriting of that Tale, and the quality and detail which JRRT added makes that version IMO superior to the first part of the Tale.
If you look into detail the typescripts that are pertinent to the Fall of Gondolin, you would notice that indeed there was never a clear rejection of the Mechanical Monsters used in the original Tale. Thanks to Findegil, we ended up using them in our version.

Tales grow out of the storyteller's own experience, & we respond out of our own. And in the end questions of 'canonicty' don't arise, because when we're 'enchanted' by the tale, those kind of questions are irrelevant. We can be moved by LotR even if we know nothing of the rest of the Legendarium. We can also be moved by the Fall of Gondolin in the Book of Lost Tales without having any context. If the spell is cast sufficiently well the tale will work on its own. If we change it simply to make it fit with other tales the same author wrote, we may only succeed in breaking the spell altogether - & for what result? To say we have a definitive version, we have produced the 'canon' & consigned the 'uncanonical' versions to the flames with the Heretics?

That is your opinion and that is ok, but I don't think that you can truly see the beauty of our Revised Fall of Gondolin. To have a description of the city of Gondolin, with all of the notes of Tolkien in there, the banners of Fingolfin, the house of the King, and the poem of the Horns of Ylmir to me is awesome.
I think that the text by themselves enchant you nonetheless, and definitely can stand on their own. A normal fan of JRRT is certainly welcome to enjoy those tales, but I believe that if you want more, a more scholarly approach to the works and evolution of the legendarium of JRRT, one cannot be content with that. I think that one has to look for more.

So, Maedhros, I can't accept your approach. I can't even accept the idea of 'casual readers' needing to be helped. There are readers who are 'enchanted' & readers who aren't. No-one who is 'enchanted' into Middle Earth feels 'casual' about it in any way. And pointing a 'canon' (am I the first one to make that joke? sorry if not ) at a new reader won't enchant them. It may drive them away, though, through feelings of inadequacy. That said, I wish you luck with your endevour, because you may well prove me wrong!

It is interesting your input and appreciated. The casual reader doesn't need to be helped because to me the casual reader won't truly submerge himself into the legendarium of JRRT. But what happens when someone reads the Published Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales , The Road Goes ever On and some of the Letters of JRRT and see the different status of Galadriel. Is there is a canonical version, is there a true version, is there a more likely version?

[Findegil]

Maybe I should add a bit to Maédhros explaination of our approch for cannon. He had given rules that we created in long and very hard process of group-discussion (much thanks to Lindil and Aiwendil how had done the most work in it). And Maédhros does also defend the rules well my oppion. What he did not do and what I think is essential for any approch for "cannon" is giving the goal we are working for.
The goal is a as fully told legendarium of Eá as possible which is self consistent and which is true to the ideas of JRR Tolkien as fare as possible.
The benefit of such a text would be an easier approch to the spell casting texts like The Fall of Gondolin. How many readers have rebuke The Silmarillion as being boring an styled like an historical compendium? Didn't you enjoy The Narn because it was much fuller in styl then the short chapter in The Silmarillion? How many readers have ever enjoyed The Wanderings of Húrin?

Sorry, I have to run out of the door know. I hope to continue later.

Respectfully
Findegil

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, this discussion is splitting out into various threads, most of which I feel woefully unqualified to contribute to (although I still find them fascinating to read). So I will limit myself to responding on the issue of whether Fordim's "Eruism" (and I still feel it neccessary to use the quote marks ) is apparent from a reading of LotR alone.

There are so many markers of what I will obstinately now call Eruism without the “” that I cannot see how anyone could miss them.

I can only speak from experience but, as an 11 year old first time reader of LotR, I certainly missed them. In fact, despite having re-read the book on a number of occasions since, I never really considered the relevance of this issue until I joined this forum just over a year ago and began to read Tolkien's other works more widely.

Yes, the markers are there, as you say. It is difficult now to reconstruct how I reacted to them when I first read the book. Perhaps I was too busy enjoying the story itself to pay them any heed. Or perhaps I had some vague idea of divine powers at work in Middle-earth. I suspect the latter, although I certainly felt no need to know more about them at the time than the story itself told me. The references that you give, Fordim, do not, taken alone, provide concrete evidence of the existence of divine powers. They could simply represent the beliefs of the characters involved. And they do not necessarily point to the existence of a single supreme being. Of course, I am not, and have never been, an overtly religious person, and so that would undoubtedly have coloured my response to the book.

As I have said, I did try reading the (then recently published) Silmarillion shortly after reading LotR for the first or second time, but never got any further than the Ainulindale. So, on subsequent readings, I was tentatively aware of the existence of Eru and Middle-earth's creation story. But I don't think that it really impacted upon those subsequent readings.

So I would say no, reading the story itself does not necessarily give rise to an awareness of this concept of "Eruism". And I do not believe that such an awareness is a necessary prerequisite to an enjoyment of the story.

casual reader (dreadful phrase – who amongst us ever felt ‘casual’ when reading Tolkien’s utterly engrossing stories?

Ulp! I feel that I may have been responsible for coining that phrase. But I think that there are casual readers of Tolkien's works, at least of The Hobbit and LotR. There are those who read the story, think it a cracking good yarn, and then move on.

As I have said, I will refrain from dipping my toe in the many other issues that have been raised. Although I will reiterate one point, which, although it may be trite to say it, I feel is still important to bear in mind, as I believe that it underlies everything being discussed. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to approach Tolkien's works. Each individual is free to take from them what they will. If you want to accept some of his writings and reject others, then that is up to you. If you want to construct a "as fully told legendarium of Eá as possible which is self consistent and which is true to the ideas of JRR Tolkien as far as possible", then that is fine. If you want to write fan-fictions, whether "canonical" or not, then it is your right to do so. My only caveat is that the kinds of restrictions which I mentioned earlier may arise when you start to discuss your views, interpretations, opinions etc with, or to disseminate them to, others.

That, however, is not in any way intended to denigrate the value of this discussion which, as I have said, I am finding utterly engrossing.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry -

Your earlier post suggested Rimbaud and I took starkly different positions on the issue of class, particularly as it relates to Sam and Frodo. (The italics below are mine.)

Take, for example, a discussion some of us had back a year or so ago, on the question of the English mythology impetus behind LOTR. This discussion was brought back to mind now by Helen's most recent post. Helen characterised as a "Wild Theme" the statement, "Frodo degraded Sam by calling him a servant." The discussion was mainly between Child and Rimbaud, with Rimbaud suggesting that the relationship between Sam and Frodo was slightly or barely above the level of parody of the master servant relationship.

Rimbaud is far more acutely aware of the English social class structure--which still to this day informs English society--than any of we North Americans, even those who have visited England for some time.

This is a characterization of my stance that I would like to correct. There are two threads pertaining to this. The first was Concerning the Gaffer. where Bird, Child, and Rimbaud--posting in that order-- made strong arguments that the relationship between Frodo and Samwise was heavily influenced by class considerations. There were no differences between us.

The second was Losing Sight of the Basics... I believe this is the one you were thinking of. The discussion in this thread went all over creation, touching on many subjects. Somewhere in there, Rimbaud and I agreed that class was critical in British history from the early modern period forward. There was only one point of difference in our view. Rimbaud argued that class distinctions operated during the medieval period (prior to 1300), while I (and Littlemanpoet ) contended this was not so. Disparities of wealth obviously existed, but "class" implies a certain degree of consciousness on the part of the members of that group. Most medieval historians do not feel that medieval man ever reached such a consciousness. The earliest hints we have are in the 14th and 15th century when certain small uprisings occur among the peasants. But many would deny that class feeling even played a part in this.

In that same thread, I agreed with Rimbaud that the issue of class was clearly present in Tolkien's Shire because of its Victorian/Edwardian calque, and was a significant factor in Sam and Frodo's relationship. So I am truly not aware of any discussion where we stood on opposite sides concerning Samwise in the manner you describe. Rimbaud did have a one-sentence reference to the "perceived Englishness of the books" as being " only slightly removed from parody", but this was never explcitly tied to Sam or our discussion on class as a factor in history.

I think we also have to guard against another danger: the assumption that if you belong to a particular group, you have an inherent advantage in posting on questions of a certain type. I know you did not mean that when you spoke of Rimbaud's innate advantage in being born in England and having a close look at the class system there. But I have seen this stretched and misused elsewhere: for example, someone arguing that a woman's opinion is inherently more valuable on a question such as whether Tolkien was "prejudiced" against women, since the woman would have the advantage of studying such problems more closely. I am uncomfortable with that.

This post is definitely a side road, but I knew of no other way to distinguish my views from what was said earlier in the thread. For both family and academic reasons, I have strong feelings about class and the role it still plays in shaping how we treat and view each other. I can rightfully be accused of too much nostalgia in viewing certain aspects of life. But when it comes to a serious historical assessment, or considering Sam and Frodo's early relationship, issues of class seem paramount to me.

Sharon

[Bêthberry]

Child,

I regret that my words clearly have struck a strong chord with you, someone whose work and posts I admire, and one which chimes off time with this thread. Please let me clarify, for in all honestly I did not intend the mischaracterisation which you feel and, also in all honestly, I do believe there was a "starkly different position on class."

First, I was by no means attributing Helen's statement ("Frodo degraded Sam by calling him a servant") to either you or Rimbaud; I used it as an example of how a naive statement by an undeveloped or immature reader can spark ideas and, in fact, hit upon an important issue in a book without really understanding it. The ideas sparked in my mind was my memory of the discussion on the thread, Losing Sight of the Basics, which you have very kindly found and linked.

I meant that naive North American readers, of the kind who would make the claim suggested by Helen, would perhaps naturally not understand a class based society such as that suggested by Sam and Frodo in The Shire. It also recalled something to my mind that I did not state here, nor back on the original thread, yet perhaps it is not inappropriate to explain it now. I had a colleague, a Canadian married to an Englishman, who recounted to me her first experience of visiting England with her husband in the late 1980's. She could not understand how often he was riled by mild comments from others. And she could not understand how he would receive certain kind of comments where she would not. Finally she asked her husband about it. He claimed that his accent (not to me a working class accent at all) still drew snide remarks from those who spoke middle or higher class accents. When she asked why she was immune to this, he explained it was because she was not English and missed the subtle nuances of social play that still existed. Here were two academics, Child, whose differing social contexts in fact created very different experiences even now, of the English class system. It was this kind of intimate experience I was thinking of when I tried to understand how Helen's "imaginary" reader could misunderstand the role of servant, someone with much less experience than my two friends.

Rimbaud's initial comment contained the reference to parody. Parody, however, was not an issue you raised with him. Where you did agree with him was, as you have stated here, that class issues clearly were a significant factor in Sam's and Frodo's relationship.

Child's last comment on this point:

I do agree with your assessment of Frodo and Sam. Class is a definite factor. Indeed, at the beginning of the story, it is the single most important element in their relationship. In my mind, this is because the Shire is a definite "calque" on Victorian/Edwardian society which was running over with class consciousness.

My reservations about "class" do not apply to the Shire, but only those elements of Middle-earth which look back to an older model.

There was an amicable decision to disagree about a particular aspect--at least that was and remains my interpretation of the thread.

Rimbaud's posts:

Child, greatly though I admire your erudition and knowledge on the subject, I disagree with you on this point. In a most amicable way, of course. The medieval period in England (and, as I argued previously, all prior recorded periods) are dominated by race and class. There were gradations of Jutes and Angles and Saxons and there were distinct hierachies between and within them...

[He provides several other paragraphs of examples in this post and then this in a following one.}

I am not willing to enter into heated debate on the origins of class - the nomenclature itself has now been questioned, which gives rise to a host of definition-based arguments - but it is important to contextualise; Tolkien was writing in the mid and post War periods of class dissolution and the issue would have been at the forefront of educated thinking.

Child's reply:

Rimbaud: I always like your posts. They make me think and this time is no exception. But I fear we'll have to agree to disagree. The critical point for me is not the disparity in wealth, which certainly existed. I feel that class implies a certain consciousness on the part of the members of that group. And I do not believe medieval man ever reached such a consciousness. He simply did not picture himself in this way. The earliest hints of this are in the 14th and 15th century when certain small uprisings occur among the peasants. But many medievalists would dispute even this.

This is, to me, a matter of professional difference among academics, issues of definitions, procedures and applications. It is similar to the differences you and I have about literature. Philosophical differences, to my mind, do cause us to read things differently.

But in all reality my main purpose in recalling the thread was to demonstrate just how siginficant that poor old newbie's honest ignorance could be. That you found occasion to feel I misrepresented you I thoroughly regret.


Respectfully,
Bethberry

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Oh how wonderful, Bêthberry – an itemised list of questions for me to answer! [*Fordim drools on his keyboard*]

I shall tackle them (best I may) one by one:

First, it seems to me that you are suggesting a poetics for fantasy that differentiates it from realistic (for want of a better word) fiction. Do you intend this?

Yes, I rather I suppose that I am; but in this I am merely following in the (much larger) footsteps of Professor Tolkien, and the theories that he laid out in “On Fairy-Stories”. The reasons for this are best to be found in his writings, but I shall attempt to delineate my own below.

Second, are you making this claim for all writers of fantasy, or just Tolkien? On what basis do you or would you eliminate other writers?

For the moment I am merely theorising about what I’ve found in Tolkien’s Middle-Earth without having given any thought to other fantasy writers – so I shan’t attempt to address the issue of “eliminating” them quite yet.

However…

It does strike me that of all the fantasy novels I’ve read, Tolkien has been the most (but not the only) successful subcreator. This is due, I think, to two things. First, by the time he came to write TH and LotR, he already had a vast storehouse of works to draw on. The ‘reality’ of Middle-Earth pre-existed the historia he generated in response to that reality. This gives M-E an authenticity that other subcreated worlds lack. In essence, he created a narrative to suit a world that already existed; in all the other fantasy novels I’ve read, the world was created to serve the purpose of the narrative. Second, Tolkien began his subcreation from the point at which all reality (or realities) are created – with language. Everything in M-E is the result of his experiments in language creation. One of my favourite quotes from Letters (and I can hear Saucepan Man falling out of his chair with undignified mirth at my expense as I cite this!) is in a letter to Christopher from 1958:

“Nobody believes me when I say that my long book is an attempt to create a world in which a form of language agreeable to my personal aesthetic might seem real. But it is true. An enquirer (among many) asked what the L.R. was all about, and whether it was an ‘allegory.’ And I said that it was an effort to create a situation in which a common greeting would be elen sila lúmenn’ omentielmo.”

To quote a text that is probably quite familiar to many of the people participating in this thread: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Third, you will have to run by me again your point that since our reading of Middle-earth has no reference to our 'real' world, we are totally dependent upon the author for giving it credibility. This seems to me to overlook many other forms of narrative which aren't 'based' on our real world. How do we read ancient texts of early mythology? Or even translations from other cultures which would not, at least on first read, have this already-known distinction between Primary and Secondary worlds.

I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I feel as though we are, “totally dependent upon the author for giving it credibility.” As I stated in an earlier post, the way I see my relation with LotR is a kind of process as I strive for my “absolute freedom” while simultaneously acknowledging the “presence” of Tolkien. I’ll use your Brighton Rock example to try and explain better:

Catholicism, for the sake of my analogy, is a big blanket that surrounds and wraps up in it Graham Greene, myself and Brighton Rock. This blanket has existed for a very long time and is the product of many weavers. Mr. Greene and I both are equally able to pick threads out of it, add to it, or attempt to tear it. We are both equally able to pull the blanket about the novel as we read it, or, alternately, to lift the novel out of the blanket and read it in another light.

Now, with LotR, things get more complicated. Tolkien, LotR and myself are still surrounded by the blanket of Catholicism…as we are by the other forms of ‘external’ codings/beliefs/genres (discourses?) that you ask about above. But there’s another blanket as well to contend with: the blanket of “Eruism” (Saucepan Man has shamed me into putting the “” back on that). This blanket was made by the author of the text, and as such, it does not surround me, but the text and Tolkien. In order to ‘get at’ LotR I have to accept that blanket as-is, for the reasons I’ve already gone into above. And this blanket has interpretative implications (Providence is a ‘real’ and historical force; Good and Evil are discreet forces in a bipolar relation; divinity is immanent, not transcendent).

It’s not that M-E has no reference to the ‘real world’, it’s just that its primary moral/interpretative referent is also subcreated: Eruism. And Eruism is as real as Frodo, the White Mountains, Trolls and Treebeard.

In essence: I can lift LotR ‘out’ of the blanket of Catholicism, but the blanket of Eruism is another matter – it’s a cloth-binding stitched onto the very boards of its covers

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

An aside: I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has been posting to this thread. It has been one of the most singularly rewarding experiences of my intellectual career, and I sincerely hope that this is only the beginning!

Quick Note to THE Ka: this thread was indeed my first post to the discussion forums (although I have been rpg-ing for a while), but the credit for the quality of the conversation must go entirely to the posters. Let me just say it loud and proud:

I love the Barrow Downs!

(Is there a special room reserved for people like me at Betty Ford?)

[HerenIstarion]

Well, I have been unlucky to miss this thread from its beginning, so I now would rather abstain from rushing in head on. My compliments to Fordim Hedgethistle for starting it up, and all participants for, well, participating. I would add a bit, though, which is, in fact, practical joke, but it seems rather relevant to what is so hotly discussed here. The source of it is located at http://www.mark-shea.com/, and I would like to give credit to lindil who have provided me with this piece for my amusement some months before. I hope you'll enjoy it:

************************************

The Lord of the Rings: A Source-Criticism Analysis

Experts in source-criticism now know that The Lord of the Rings is a
redaction of sources ranging from the Red Book of Westmarch (W) to Elvish
Chronicles (E) to Gondorian records (G) to orally transmitted tales of the
Rohirrim (R). The conflicting ethnic, social and religious groups which
preserved these stories all had their own agendas, as did the "Tolkien"
(T) and "Peter Jackson" (PJ) redactors, who are often in conflict with each
other as well but whose conflicting accounts of the same events reveals a
great deal about the political and religious situations which helped to
form our popular notions about Middle Earth and the so-called "War of the
Ring.".

Into this mix are also thrown a great deal of folk materials about a
supposed magic "ring" and some obscure figures named "Frodo" and "Sam". In
all likelihood, these latter figures are totems meant to personify the
popularity of Aragorn with the rural classes.

Because The Lord of the Rings is a composite of sources, we may be quite
certain that "Tolkien" (if he ever existed) did not "write" this work in
the conventional sense, but that it was assembled over a long period of time
by someone else of the same name. We know this because a work of the range,
depth, and detail of The Lord of the Rings is far beyond the capacity of
any modern expert in source-criticism to ever imagine creating themselves.

The tension between source materials and the various redactors is evident
in several cases. T is heavily dependent upon Gondorian records and clearly
elevates the claims of the Aragorn monarchy over the House of Denethor.
From this it is obvious that the real "War of the Ring" was a dynastic struggle
between these two clans for supremacy in Gondor. The G source, which plays
such a prominent role in the T-redacted account of Aragorn, is
significantly downplayed by the PJ redactor in favor of E versions. In the T account,
Aragorn is portrayed as a stainless saint, utterly sure of his claims to
the throne and so self-possessed that he never doubts for a moment his right
to seize power. Likewise, in the T account, the Rohirrim are conveniently
portrayed as willing allies and vassals to the Aragorn monarchy, living in
perfect harmony with the Master Race of Numenoreans who rule Gondor.

Yet even the T redactor cannot eliminate from the R source the towering
Amazon figure of Eowyn, who is recorded as taking up arms the moment the
previous king of Rohan, Theoden, is dead. Clearly we are looking at
heavily reworked coup d'etat attempt by the princess of the Rohirrim against
Aragorn's supremacy. Yet this hard kernel of historical fact is cleverly
sublimated under folk materials (apparently legends of the obscure figure
of "Meriadoc"). Instead of the historical account of her attempt on Aragorn's
throne as it originally stood in R, she is instead depicted as engaging in
battle with a mythical "Lord of the Nazgul" (apparently a figure from W
sources) and shown fighting on Aragorn's side. This attempt to sublimate
Eowyn does not convince the trained eye of the source-criticism expert,
who astutely notes that Eowyn is wounded in battle at the same moment Denethor dies. Obviously, Eowyn and Denethor were in league against Aragorn but were defeated by the latter's partisans simultaneously.

This tendency to distort the historical record recurs many times in T.
Indeed, many scholars now believe the so-called "Madness of Denethor" in T
(which depicts Denethor as a suicide) is, in fact, a sanitized version of
the murder of Denethor by Aragorn through the administration of poison
(possibly distilled from a plant called athelas).

In contrast to T, the PJ redaction of Aragorn is filled with self-doubts
and frequently rebuked by PJ-redacted Elrond. Probably this is due to PJ's own
political and religious affiliations which seek, in particular, to exalt
the Elvish claims to supremacy against Numenorean claims.

T suggests some skill on Aragorn's part in the use of pharmaceutical (and
hallucinogenic?) plants which may account for some of the more "visionary"
moments of mysterious beings like "Black Riders" who appear to have been
tribal chieftains hostile to the Aragorn dynasty. PJ, however, exalts
Elrond's healing powers over Aragorn's. This is probably rooted in some
incident of psychosomatic healing repeatedly chronicled in different
sources. Thus, the G source also has an account of Frodo's "healing by
Aragorn" on the Field of Cormallen but E places it at Rivendell and
attributes the healing to Elrond. Since we know that "Frodo" is likely
just a figure representing the rural population and not an historical
personage, most scholars therefore conclude that "Frodo's" healing is just T's
symbolic representation of Aragorn's program of socio-economic appeasement of the agrarian class, while his healing by Elrond is a nature myth representing
the renewal of the annual crops.

Of course, the "Ring" motif appears in countless folk tales and is to be
discounted altogether. Equally dubious are the "Gandalf" narratives, which
appear to be legends of a shamanistic figure, introduced to the narrative
by W out of deference to local Shire cultic practice.

Finally, we can only guess at what the Sauron sources might have revealed,
since they must have been destroyed by victors who give a wholly negative
view of this doubtlessly complex, warm, human, and many-sided figure.
Scholars now know, of course, that the identification of Sauron with "pure
evil" is simply absurd. Indeed, many scholars have undertaken a "Quest for
the Historical Sauron" and are searching the records with growing passion
and urgency for any lore connected with the making of the One Ring. "It's
all legendary, of course," says Dr. S. Aruman, "Especially the absurd tale
of Frodo the Nine-Fingered. After all, the idea of anyone deliberately
giving up Power is simply impossible and would call into question the most
precious thesis of postmodern ideology: that everything is a power
struggle on the basis of race, class and gender. Still... I... should... very much
like to have a look at it. Just for scholarly purposes, of course."


***************************************

But I can't stand the temptation of giving you my opinion (in brief) too. Though I liked the initial post very much, I'd rather not indulge in things like to one I provided you with. And it seems to me ideas expressed in the initial post may lead to the like of the joke I hope you've found funny (or six legged bark eaters at that ).

On the whole, I seem to agree up to a point to both sides here. I tend to view the whole bulk of Tolkien's works as bundle of accounts by different authors, collected and summarized by Tolkien. But, whilst I retain my freedom to be picky among those accounts (so, I tend to view account of round sun more accurate than of two trees), I do not hold with adding up new theories from outside the boundaries defined by this collective authorship (which condensed on the end of Tolkien's pen, so to say. All else from outside is not canonical