Canon: what ARE we babbling about?

[HerenIstarion]

This thread is made following mark 12:30's bidding. It was originally posted by her here, and is reposted with the goal of making a poll out of it.

I suppose she'll post introduction in the post to follow. Or else she may not, as the entries are self-explaining, so plunge in, folks

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

This thread is made following mark 12:30's bidding.

Bidding! Nay, gentle H-I, your offer was kind and generous, and happily accepted. Thank you. I am grateful.

[Encaitare]

I'm not really sure what I consider canon, so I am not voting just yet. But I just wanted to say I'm glad this has at last been poll-itized. (And also that option 5 makes me giggle, ie: "The Barrow-Wight told me it's canon, so it must be so!")

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Encaitare

I'm not really sure what I consider canon, so I am not voting just yet. But I just wanted to say I'm glad this has at last been poll-itized. (And also that option 5 makes me giggle, ie: "The Barrow-Wight told me it's canon, so it must be so!")

I'd be surprised if the Wight himself woudn't defer to Mister Underhill, lindil, and Sharku...

[obloquy]

The Canon is built from all extant writings. It contains all concepts that do not conflict with either tone or letter of the rest of the canon: for example, we cannot consider The Hobbit strictly canonical due to anomalies (or abandoned ideas). With regard to The Hobbit, it is important to view the story as an embellished or fanciful adventure novel from Bilbo's perspective. When a conflict does arise, the latest writing rules, unless the concepts presented therein are underdeveloped to the point that they create irreconcilable holes in the established mythos. In which case we must consider the ideas to be possible alternatives and investigate the ramifications of accepting them as canonical.



IMO

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by obloquy

With regard to The Hobbit, it is important to view the story as an embellished or fanciful adventure novel from Bilbo's perspective.

Why? I have never gone along with this idea that Bilbo must have exagerrated the tale of his adventure. Why can we not simply take it at face value (accepting, of course, the changes made to his account of his encounter with Gollum, as explained in LotR)? Why are Giants, for example, merely products of Bilbo's overactive imagination when the Stone Trolls and Dragon are clearly not? Why should we dismiss Bilbo's tale as a collection of febrile ramblings when we take the account written by Frodo and Sam as gospel? Why should Bilbo's account of his own story be considered fanciful, when his collation of Elvish history is taken as accurate?

Of course, you can view The Hobbit in that way if you wish, but it's not compulsory to do so. Nor is it unreasonable to interpret it as a faithful account.

As for the poll, Canon is defined in the dictionary (in this context) as:

... the recognised genuine works of a particular author; a list of these.

Strictly speaking, that includes only the works which Tolkien himself completed and which were published in his lifetime. At a stretch, it might also include his unfinished tales as per the state that they were in at the time of his death and as subsequently published. But it would exclude The Silmarillion, which was edited by his son, and his letters, notes and the like.

Unfortunately, there's no option which precisely matches that, so I'll go with the "published during his lifetime" option, ie his completed works.

Edit: Actually, I'll go with the second option, although I would exclude The Silmarillion as edited/adapted by Christopher Tolkien.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by obloquy

The Canon is built from all extant writings. It contains all concepts that do not conflict with either tone or letter of the rest of the canon: for example, we cannot consider The Hobbit strictly canonical due to anomalies (or abandoned ideas). With regard to The Hobbit, it is important to view the story as an embellished or fanciful adventure novel from Bilbo's perspective.

Here was the departure from the discussion of canon to the discussion of tone and conflicts.

Saucie and I disagree that The Hobbit is any less canonical because it has a more whimsical style. Bilbo is just a more whimsical hobbit. Shall we imagine what LotR would have been like had it been penned entirely by Sam? Or Pippin? But though the tone would have been quite different, the tale would not have been less "MIddle-Earth", or less from "The Perilous Realm".

Edit: On the changes to The Hobbit: I think they were brilliant. It turns the whole thing into a living tale. "I have Bilbo's *original* version that he told the dwarves! Cool!"