I don't accept 'canonicity' as a useful term when discussing Tolkien. The most we can say is that "he said X at this time, and Y at this time." We can go further where Y clearly supplanted X, as in successive drafts of the same story. But I see no reason to discount Tolkien's latest considered opinion on a matter just because an (apparent) other opinion saw print in the 1950s.
__________________
The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it.
|