[Child of the 7th Age]

The last humorous post actually raises a serious point. Exactly who is "canon" important to? Presumably, if you are trying to do the kind of project as you guys are doing on the Silm, it's very, very important since so many editing decisions would stem from it. And if you are doing scholarly writing for an academic journal, it would bear some relevence.

But the latter point isn't even %100 true. The book of essays Tolkien's Legendarium certainly has articles in it which cite heavily off the books that are lower down in the canon. And these essays are pretty highly thought of. (At least that's what T.A. Shippey says.) (I'm especially thinking of the great article on the role of Elf-friends.)

But what about the "average" Tolkien fan (whatever that means). To tell the honest truth, if I read something that speaks to me, I don't always look to see where it stands in terms of "canon".

Now, I'm no expert on HoMe and these other pieces, but as I learn more I find that I really like some of the later writings, precisely because Tolkien seems willing to push himself further on some issues, be more explicit, than he is in LotR. I'm talking about things like the notes in the Road Goes Ever on, writings in Morgoth's Ring like Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, the osanwe-kenta stuff in Vinyar Tengwar, and the article on Galadriel in UT.

However scholars rate these pieces, I'm personally always going to think of them as the most fully developed and truest expression of some of Tolkien's ideas. And I suspect there may be others who feel this way too.

So where does that leave "canon"?

I know this sounds funny, but is "canon" really something we can define when we're still so close to Tolkien's life? If we assume LotR is going to last and become a "classic", don't we have to get some perspective on his writng before we can make definitive statements on canon--although I do understand anyone doing an editing job has to make some practical decisions about what to include.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit