"Canonicity II": Has Yours Changed?

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Mostly, I think, with a little more life behind me and with a fair amount of pondering things that might matter a bit more (like, the canon of Scripture), I find that I don't quite know how to define canon. Is it "what actually happened in Middle-earth," which is a bit nonsensical a question for fiction. Is it "what Tolkien intended," which requires an answer to the question of WHEN and also admits of no obvious authority (Tolkien being dead and all). I've had to settle on "well, canon is what I think happened." This is generally consistent and it does have an authority I can appeal to... it just takes all the ammunition out of telling someone else they're wrong, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I think that's where the Tolkien fandom differs from other fandoms, like Star Wars or Star Trek. This website is pretty much my only experience interacting with other Tolkien fans. I've joined other forums, but I think they were all purged in the spambot attacks or I just never contributed. What I've found here is there really is a lot of debate and differences over "what is canon?" Which feels different from Star Wars and Star Trek fandoms.

I think there is "Author canon" (or for us, Tolkien canon) that is everything the author ever wrote or said in his life is considered canon. Even within that there are different opinions. Formendacil says he places more weight on what Tolkien wrote last. There are others (from the great Canon thread) that would probably say it's whatever ideas Tolkien held onto the longest, or others who accept Lord of the Rings as the only authorial canon. If another one of Tolkien's stories contradicts the Lord of the Rings, then whatever is written in Lord of the Rings is "true." That's just a few general arguments over "what is an author's canon?" And it is hard to define when there are so many differences within a fandom.

Then Morsul brings up an interesting point and that is "adaptive canon." How do adaptations of Tolkien's works change the canon? Whether I like to admit it or not, the LOTR movies changed my reading of the books (not The Hobbit, because it gets so far removed from the story, that I wouldn't even call it "adaptive canon.") Legate commented to me elsewhere that when he first saw the trailer to FOTR, he hated the look of Boromir. Sean Bean in a strawberry blonde wig was not at all how Boromir was 'supposed' to look. But after watching the film he thought Boromir was treated the best, or was the best representation of his book counterpart.

That was interesting because Sean Bean's Boromir is in my opinion, softer and a less haughty Boromir. However, when you do read the text you get glimpses that even if he's obstinate and argues a lot over where to lead the Fellowship, there was a relationship and high level of respect shown between him and Aragorn. That's the Boromir who gets highlighted in the films and now I honestly don't think it's possible to read the book and not go in with the preconceived vision "Sean Bean is Boromir."

I called it "fan canon" in my first post, but actually I think I prefer "head canon." "Head canon" would be, in my opinion, represented in the linked Letter of the Law Thread. That may not be a perfect example, but it is one's personalized interpretation of the text. Therefore, it's your own interpretation of what is "true." Head canon has no weight, except to yourself, but I've always found the acceptance of it on the Barrow-downs refreshing.

That's not to say "anything goes" here. Like, "I think Galadriel is actually a man who cross-dresses, because it's said that she competed with the greatest athletes of the Noldor in her youth. And a woman could not compete on the same level as male athletes." I mean if I were to seriously make that argument here, I know I'd have to come with far more ammunition than a single quote about Galadriel equaling the mightiest Noldor athletes.

But my point is there seems to be a lack of "fandom canon," which is I think positive as a community. For example, I think the Star Wars fandom (and I could be wrong because I've never been personally engaged into that community, just observations from others who are) there is a canon that seems "whatever is widely agreed on by the majority is the Truth." Here, I've never had the feeling. I mean, to me it's simple Balrog's don't have wings, but there's never been a "community canon" that shouts down opposing opinions. So, like Form I find it hard to define what canon is, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Kuruharan]

For me, no, my standard of canon has not really changed although my opinions about some things within that canon have changed.

For me the biggest change I've had since my early days is an increasing understanding of what I consider to be flaws in Tolkien's writing, either conceptually or structurally, although in these latter days I tend to worry less about those.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Here, I've never had the feeling. I mean, to me it's simple Balrog's don't have wings, but there's never been a "community canon" that shouts down opposing opinions.

I don't know about that. I've seen debates in the Tolkien community get pretty consistently heated sometimes.

[Pitchwife]

I don't think it has, in the sense that I don't really care - or, to put it a little less brusquely, the quest for an established canon, the attempt to canonise an authoritative text of Tolkien's legendarium and weed out uncanonical variants, doesn't interest me very much.

The discussion here reminded me of Mnemo's old thread Tolkien and Negative Capability, and revisiting it I found I can still largely subscribe to what I wrote back then. Also I still think the distinction of writing vs worldbuilding is relevant here. Let me try to explain.

If your focus of interest is in Middle-earth as a secondary world to be fleshed out in fan fic or role-playing games, you'll want to keep it coherent and lore-friendly. You'll have to make up your mind whether sentient demonic cats are a thing in this world, or only sentient demonic wolves, and whether the vampire Thuringwethil was a werebat or something more Dracula-like; and if you want to use Tevildo and Oikeroi you can't have Sauron and Draugluin/Carcharoth in the same setting.

If, on the the other hand, your interest is in Tolkien's writings as works of literature, the existence of widely differing versions is in itself not a problem; but there's a further bifurcation. If you approach the Professor's writings as a philologist trying to establish a definitive text of What Tolkien Intended (or at least What Tolkien intended at a given time) you're back at the quest for coherence, sorting canonic wheat from uncanonic chaff.

But if you just read Tolkien for your own aesthetic pleasure (and if you haven't guessed it, this is my preferred approach) all that ceases to be a problem, and you can appreciate each and any stage of the legendarium for its own merits. You can have Tevildo and Carcharoth living happily side by side in your imagination (as far as this is possible for felines and canines); you can have the fairy-tale BoLT story of Melko being chased up the Great Pine of Palúrien (again, much like a cat!), but also the metaphysic speculations of Morgoth's Ring, and I wouldn't want to forego either.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

For me, anyway, my attitude is very process-oriented. Tolkien's corpus, published and un-, is a collective artifact which was the work of one author's lifetime. Sometimes he changed his mind. Sometimes he made mistakes. That is what I find fascinating. I just don't see much point in efforts to rather artificially determine One Truth when there is no underlying truth- it's all fiction.
--------------
Note on 'adaptive canon'- no way. Does not and can not exist, any more than The Ten Commandments is 'adaptive' Scriptural canon.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

My Cannon is Tolkiens published works and i think the published Silmarillion must be or no consensus can be made. I hold post LOTR writings that went unpublished by J.R.R as close to cannon as can be.


For me, I do what J.R.R did in his letters time and again, resolve supposed contradictions and mistakes. And don't hold every word he ever wrote as cannon, only published materials he finished and Christophers published Silmarillion.