[Galin]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

But a note on the word 'canon' now -- I think we are working through something of a shibboleth. A canon is not a group of set or finalised texts: every canon is always in motion, being changed, being reinterpreted, etc. Even the Biblical canon was arrived at in historical time (at the Council of Nicacea) and continues to be reworked to this day (some Bibles have the apocrypha in a separate section, some do not). The 'canon' of American literature didn't use to include writers like Mark Twain (too childish) or Toni Morrison (too black): but as American society changed, so did the canon, and now just try finding any course or program in American Lit anywhere in the world that doesn't include both these writers.

Yet these changes still appear to me to be an attempt to define a group of "finalized" texts, and in any case the matter of a single author who produced a handful of works (Middle-earth based) should not nearly be so complicated as the "canon of American Literature" in my opinion, or of such Biblical proportions.

I think the attempt here to determine a final set of 'canonical' texts for Middle-Earth is doomed to failure (as is becoming perfectly clear). I think the list of canon provided by Mark 12:30 above is about as close as we're going to get.

Ahh, but let's look again at Mark's post below. Maybe we aren't doomed just yet.

The real issue is, I think, what is it do we want to accomplish by the act of making some texts 'canonical' and others not.

Great question! My admittedly poorly expressed and simplified answer starts with the desire to engage with the writer/artist/subcreated-world; and perhaps especially readers dealing with fantastic subcreation naturally want to know the story. It's part of the joy of reading, and when there is confusion (or seeming confusion), as Sam's Elanor might say at some point: "is it true?" Yet we don't know what is true about Celeborn (to continue the example), as arguably his clan hints at his history (even when employing posthumously published texts to fill out that history), and so if Celeborn is a Nando, and a Teler, and a Sinda all at once, then in another sense he is none of these things...

... and a false sense of contradiction is injected, where none was intended by the artist/writer/subcreator. And Elanor, naturally, still wants to know what the story is.

My position, in brief: the search for the 'canon' of Middle-Earth is futile at best, misleading at worst, for it maintains the fiction of an authorially established 'truth' when what we should be doing is looking at all available texts and evaluating, thinking about and arguing about each of them on their own merits (as well as how they relate to one another) without worrying about if they do or do not 'fit' into some idealised (and wholly imaginary) Canon of Truth (which will only ever really be the truth-as-imagined-by-the-person-putting-forward-the-canon).

Yet you/we can look at all available texts, think about them and discuss them on their own merits, without worrying about if they fit into the canon or not. I don't think anyone would claim that canonicity must lurk over every discussion to the effect of weeding out opinions and ideas. Anyway, looking at Mark's post that you referred to, but here with my emphasis [makes me think Mike Myers from View from the Top, something like: don't put the emphAsis on the wrong syllable]:

levels of 'canonicity' for original Tolkien work:

(A) Tolkien's Original published works in his lifetime. Most agree on this.

(B) Tolkien's Original works whether published or not. Hotly debated in terms of timeline and "final word".

(C) Letters. Also hotly debated. C7A: Use to clarify author's intent when stated.

Over the years I have found that most do agree that anything Tolkien himself published, or approved for publication in his lifetime, is canon. And like Mark I have to say "most", because in my experience there are some who do not hold The Hobbit as canon. I think that's, yet again, a matter of inconsistency within canon rather; and anyway, it appears that the "translator" himself considered even the first edition Hobbit canon.

But what folks often enough don't agree on (in canon discussions) concerns the posthumously published works, which of course includes the letters. Again, what does that say about finding an all agreed upon canon? Is the line in the collective sand becoming clearer? Can I try to say something by rather annoyingly putting it in question form?

Originally Posted by davem

He clearly was not writing them as part of a 'canon' - which is the point. Tolkien probably wouldn't have thought of some (any?) of his writings as 'canonical' & others as not.

But for instance, Tolkien did actually reject an idea because it conflicted with something already in print. And not only do we have a neat example (ros), we have Christopher Tolkien illustrating his father's worry about this late in life. I say: of course Tolkien had to mind what's already in print, and can't we use "canon" for this? Tolkien had to mind the color of Boromir's boots, or had to mind keeping a character "consistent" [by the writer's measure anyway] throughout the work, and plenty of stuff in between and all around!

And even when Tolkien consciously decides to inject an inconsistency, I argue that this concern is still there, very arguably illustrated by the author's attempts to keep things internal, to smooth the inconsistency in an internal way: again, Bilbo wasn't telling the whole truth about Gollum and the Ring, but that is his version nonetheless, and notably, it's also found in "Red Book related" writings. It remains canon.

To my mind Tolkien is quite aware of what this dance is about. In my opinion this is part of the "Elvish-craft", part of casting the spell on the reader, part of the art of writing and the joy of reading.

I would say that he wouldn't consider any of the letters in that way. We can't even know if he was being serious in all of them.

Agreed. Tolkien letters were never in the hands of a readership at large while he was alive -- the letters were never meant for a readership at large, and were never going to be published, from Tolkien's perspective. To me it seems bordering on silly for Tolkien to feel he needed to mind what he had written to one person, a number of days, months, years, decades ago, if a new and/or better concept came to mind.

How folks employ the letters today is another matter, and some do appear to take the "Death of Author" stance.

Obviously, we have to make a clear distinction between what Tolkien himself produced (to the extent that we can separate it from Christopher's contributions), but once we start trying to pigeonhole certain of Tolkien's writings as 'canonical' & other writings as not, we will not find any clear demarcation lines to help us, because Tolkien didn't think about his writings in that way.

I disagree here, Not only did Tolkien think of already published text differently than private writings, but to me it's only reasonable that he do so. For example, Tolkien cannot (as he himself says) make ros a Beorian word because "canon" already notes that ros is a Sindarin word -- most of this fails, he noted, meaning the ideas that went along with Beorian ros too. But actually, in my opinion, Tolkien can make ros a Beorian word, if he really wants to -- but the distinction for me is that the new idea, whether taken up or not into "canon", is compared to a different animal, a different animal compared to something he wrote last year/last month/yesterday, in some story or note that no has ever seen, and only will see if he allows it.

It's not the same simply because the art of subcreation will not be undermined in any way. Inconsistencies and purposed inconsistencies are weighed, but yet if the Red Book never numbered Feanor's sons, Feanor can have seven, or five, or however many sons Tolkien wills it; and he can change Amras to Amros without a thought that any foundations of Middle-earth might stir.

Christopher Tolkien notes (Unfinished Tales, The History of Galadriel and Celeborn): "It may be noted that Galadriel did not appear in the original story of the rebellion and flight of the Noldor, which existed long before she did; and also, of course, that after her entry into the stories of the First Age he actions could still be transformed radically, since The Silmarillion had not been published."

Of course! And the other side of that coin would seem to be, what had already appeared in publication is a natural concern as far as transformation goes, radical or not.

By the way, JRRT actually did change Amras to Amros. So what's this character's real name according to canon