What counts as "canon"?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I do find it anachronistic, yes. I did a quick google-search and found that the first true newspaper in English was from 1666. There are no doubt others here with more knowledge than I in these matters but I feel that the technological level of the world of LotR - with a few additional anachronisms excluded - much pre-dates the 17th century, although a direct comparison with actual history perhaps isn't advisable.

I don't know....The Shire seems to be more late 18th century or early 20th century to me, both in feel and in culture.

Though I have to say that maybe attaching real historical periods to different cultures in Tolkien's world is maybe not advisable in general, it being a fantasy world and all that. If you try and pin it down to one time frame something seems to slip out and stand out as being anachronistic.

[Nogrod]

I kind of share Skip's uneasiness with the newspaper in Bilbo's hand. I mean, if there were newspapers in such a "backward" place as Hobbitton there should be yellow press in Minas Tirith! Just think of the headlines!

Or, from the printing press a typewriter is not so far away...

But:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Though I have to say that maybe attaching real historical periods to different cultures in Tolkien's world is maybe not advisable in general, it being a fantasy world and all that.

This is very true. Even if one is compelled to join certain discoveries to others as it would be "natural" to do so. And maybe just because of that.

[lindil]

I would say what counts as canon depends on what one's goals are.

From 1977-80 The Silmarillion was canon along with RGEO, TH and LOtR and AoTB.

When UT came out and even more so HoM-E all became very tangled.

I think a good case for Children of Hurin being canon could be made, but less so these days for the Silmarillion.

For a canonical Silm such as it was when JRRT died , HoME volumes 10 and 11 are the final words, with the footnotes and commentary being necessary to untangle things as far as they can be.

When all is said and done, a few sentences and a few chapters in Silm are not, by CJRT's own admission canonical. Meaning JRRT's last known intention. The rest of the Silm is a more than serviceable condensed - 'intro and synopsis' of HoM-E really far more than a canonical version of the Silm.

But none of the Silm material in general ever received the final review and publication and years later re-review that LotR did.

So the quest for an objective canon is more or less in vain, the quest for a reasonably certain final draft is far more possible - in most chapters.

My advice is read 'em and enjoy. And unless you love footnotes*, don't let them scare you from UT, HoME 10-11 especially and much of 12 [not counting the LotR appendices].

These volumes contain JRRT's most sublime writings.

Tolkien was a genius and a creative explorer, he was not methodical except when outside pressures came to bear. Those pressures never were strong enough in the case of the Silm material, so instead of a completed Silm, we got a completed LotR.

heading off now to enjoy the many leaves of the tree that were collected and saved...

thanks for the reminder...

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by lindil

My advice is read 'em and enjoy. And unless you love footnotes*, don't let them scare you from UT, HoME 10-11 especially and much of 12 [not counting the LotR appendices].

These volumes contain JRRT's most sublime writings.

Eh? You don't say.

Guess it's time to re-address these. If lindil says so....
*anticipates curling up with HoME 10*

[radagastly]

Originally posted by lindil:

I would say what counts as canon depends on what one's goals are.

I must disagree. Tolkien clearly wanted to reach a point where he could publish "The Silmarillion" in his lifetime, but did not. What he did publish is "The Hobbit," "The Lord of the Rings" and a couple of other small pieces set in Middle Earth. Whatever he agreed was ready to publish was canon. Everything else is just notes. Sorry, but as interesting as they are, as complete as they seem to be to us fans, they simply aren't done yet.

In college, I took a course in the writings of Ibsen and Strindburg. In Ibsen's first realist play, "A Doll's House," the final line is Torvald saying, "Nora, We're saved!" In the fair-copy, sent to the publisher, the final line was "Nora, I'm saved!" Ibsen had drawn a line through the orginal text to add an element to Torvald's character. He changed it at the last minute. It wasn't even done that way in the original performance.

The point is that authors change their minds constantly until the final version is set in stone (or at least typeface!). What's more, they have every right to do so. The fact that Tolkien did not send "The Silmarillion" to a publisher in his lifetime is obvious evidence that he was not yet satisfied with it.

Please don't think that I don't find "The Silmarillion" enjoyable or entertaining, or even informative. I do! But if it's creator wasn't satisfied with it, why should I be? I don't own a copy of "Letters," but I suspect that once the popularity of the sixties set in, Tolkien's publishers were after him to write anything else that would sell as well. Anything set in Middle-Earth. They would just want stories with his name on them.

Tolkien wasn't like that, however. He never succombed. There seems to be some implication that "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" were not originally intended to be set in the same Middle-Earth that Tolkien had written about in "The Silmarillion." At least "The Hobbit" was just a children's fantasy, told to his children and then written down for publication. "The Lord of the Rings" was drawn, persuaded, towards the older world, the older work, that Tolkien had written down for his own use, his own edification, and, as such, became the transition between it's origin and it's inspiration, something larger, something truly epic. As Frodo learns more about the history of the world in which he finds himself, so do we! This is what takes us back to Tolkien's musings, his earlier thoughts, that include "The Silmarillion" and his other, scholarly writings from those earlier times. They aren't completely reconciled, however. There are slight factual differences which most readers can ignore. But, of course, US FANS seem to revel in these details, and as such, declare as "canon," anything that Tolkien wrote that was not specifically contradicted by these other works.

Of course, this is ridiculious. Mark Twain once said, "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightening and a lightening bug!" Authors and their most devout fans seem to agonize over the smallest details, while ignoring the scope and depth and grandeur of the original inspiration. This is especially true of Tolkien (though not exclusive to him.)

Originally posted by lindil:

Tolkien was a genius and a creative explorer, he was not methodical except when outside pressures came to bear. Those pressures never were strong enough in the case of the Silm material, so instead of a completed Silm, we got a completed LotR.

I couldn't agree more. I guess my case is identical to your's, lindil, except that I never tried to embrace any canon, except the canon published by Tolkien himself. My copy of "The Silmarillion" is a first printing of the American edition, which I bought when it was published, (I didn't eat that week!) I find it to be a very moving work, though I credit that mostly to the genius of C. Tolkien than to his father.

My own grandfather was a lumberjack, who worked his way from Vancouver to Quebec with many fights and conflicts along the way. On his way back, he met my grandmother. She was only fifteen when they married, and they lived in a literal log cabin and he hunted and she went into the woods for berries and herbs.

If I was to write their story, who should the credit go to? As the author, I should own the specific words that convey their story, but they still lived the life being conveyed. Is this really any different than Christopher Tolkien publishing his father's major works in the best organization he could devise? I don't think so.

What I mean is that we would never have "The Silmarillion," "The Children of Hurin," "Unfinished Tales" or any of HoME without Christoper! Is his work canon?

No, I don't think so. As involved as C. T. was, (including all the maps, not to mention his position as "first-reader,") he did not create Middle-Earth. He is the publisher/editor who changed Ibsen's "We're saved!" to "I'm saved!" For what it's worth,

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

The fact that Tolkien did not send "The Silmarillion" to a publisher in his lifetime is obvious evidence that he was not yet satisfied with it.

Actually, he did, even before he had first finished LotR; it was rejected. In a letter from December of 1937 to his publisher (Allen & Unwin), he says, " My chief joy comes from learning the Silmarillion is not rejected with scorn." That was the earliest known submission of the manuscript, I believe, and he certainly attempted to have it published a number of times thereafter.

What becomes clear is that Tolkien was a scholar of languages and mythology first, and a storyteller second. His love for the world he was creating (combined with his personal beliefs and philosophies) prompted him to change his thinking about it and the details of it over and over again.

This is not at all unusual for writers who create complex "new worlds," about which they have many tales to tell. I have had the honor of being friends with the authors of several very successful and popular alternate world type series, and every one of them has tinkered with the details and the background well after the first books had been published and the readership base solidified. One would think that having already "put it out there," they would stick to what they'd had when they began, but they didn't. There were myriad reasons: certain things that would have worked in a single novel didn't work for many, their thinking about the purpose of the world they had created had changed, some things didn't fit with that reconception, other things worked better if certain aspects were changed -- all things that Tolkien appears to have considered and attempted as well. Is it a good idea? Sometimes, not always. Does later thinking and attempted revision invalidate earlier versions? Not necessarily. We know that JRRT admitted that after LotR was published, he had begun to rethink the mythological underpinnings of his world to make it fit better with his beliefs as a Roman Catholic. He also admitted this wasn't always able to be done, not without scrapping the whole thing and starting over (the matter of the orcs, their origins, and whether or not they had immortal souls was a particularly knotty sticking point, as I recall).

What CJRT published when the Silmarillion was first printed was, no doubt, the most complete and most cohesive version of the manuscript extant. That he admits to some accidental omissions and possible mistakes does not invalidate what was published; it's as much "canon" as he felt could be assembled at that point in time. His later analysis and feelings about possible revisions is his own authorial rethinking of a published work, combined with some second-guessing of what he believes his father had intended or wanted. It's a complicated situation, since the creator is not the one actually assembling what is to be published, and thus I suspect debates over what is "real canon" anent the Silmarillion and anything published after JRRT's death will go on forever.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The debate can provide different perspectives of the work, giving rise to different insights, all of which can be valuable. When a work is so cut and dried that it leaves no questions for the imagination to ponder, it's a rather barren ground for providing inspiration for new thoughts, new ideas, new creativity.

So here's to Tolkien and his ambiguous canon! Though frustrating when one wants to know specific answers, it is fertile soil for speculation, and a rich environment to feed each reader's own imagination. A wonderful legacy for many, many years to come, in my humble opinion.

[Morthoron]

A vastly entertaining thread, but canon is hogwash (I am actually getting more and more liberal regarding Tolkien canon as I get older). Let me explain by way of a simple example:

Read a history of WWII by an English or American author. Then read one by a Japanese historian. Next, try reading a WWII history written in Soviet Russia, and then another in 'supposedly' Democratic Russia.

I will guarantee these histories, if not profoundly different in their attitudes and factual presentation, will have at least several significant differences of opinions regarding certain events.

Now, which one of these 'real world' histories should be considered 'canonical'?

I rest my case for the time being.

P.S. The only things I would consider non-canonical in a Tolkien sense are those points that the author rejected outright (Trotter in the Hobbit, The Gnomes as opposed to Noldor, date changes in edition revisions, etc.). As someone in this thread (or maybe it was elsewhere) said, one takes the vast compendium of Middle-earth in its entirety as a history, and just like 'real' history there is some data that is more dubious than other more factual information; ergo, bring a salt shaker for the occasional necessary pinch.