The Canon

[Kuruharan]

One of the reasons I originally asked the question was that I had seen a fair number of posts in discussions where a respondent would use the word 'canon' to validate his position or invalidate another's. I wanted to see the yardstick by which such replies were being measured.

Point of Note: Sometimes when someone is on the losing end of a debate, they'll inject a question of canon to try and divert the argument into a discussion of (for example) whether the comment about Glorfindel's hair color is really canonical, or if Tolkien was just having a bad day when he wrote that bit about Balrog wings.

This usually only leads to further confusion on the part of everyone. So I guess that the answer to your question is that the "yardstick" itself is rather murky.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

*whimpers*

Originally Posted by TheGreatElvenWarrior

Ahem, I'll back down. I don't mean to start a fight, now.

So a perfectly good canon debate goes out with a whimper?

Aww. Especially after you raised a good point: it's confusing to know which First Age endings/bits are canon and which aren't... because so much of it wasn't published by Tolkien himself.

The confusion stems, in part, from the incanonosity of it all! If you want First Age canon, I refer you to Strider's tale of Tinúviel (on topic! in the thread this was lifted from) in A Knife In The Dark, for example, or section I of Appendix A, The Numenorean Kings (especially the revised, second edition. It begins: "Feanor was...").

Anyway it's not a fight, despite this...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

From 2002? 14 years ago?

"The ways of Sauron and the necromancers are of Melkor."

[Galin]

It had the best title (in my opinion) of already existing canon debates.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The whole thing becomes a mess largely because Tolkien himself futzed around for nearly 20 years after the LR was published and never got the Silmarillion finished. Therefore it's hard to tell what he considered "done" (and even then of course he would still go back and change things). It's easy, but in my mind misleading, just to draw a bright line distinction between 'published' and 'unpublished'; confusion and uncertainty are part of Tolkien studies, not something to be airbrushed out of the picture. (Was Celeborn a Danian, a Sinda, or a Teler? All three).

There are a couple of cases where it's fairly safe to say the work was "finished" and in Tolkien's mind ready for publication, whenever the rest of the volume was done. These would include the Akallabeth, which T was willing to leave unaltered once done and which CT hardly had to edit (the only significant change was Fionwe > Eonwe); Ak also happens to be fully consonant with the LR appendices.

Things get a lot messier when it comes to the First Age, especially the early (pre-rebellion) and late (post-Turin) portions: the former because Tolkien decided in the late 50s on a massive cosmological upheaval, and the latter because he just never got around to it.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

The whole thing becomes a mess largely because Tolkien himself futzed around for nearly 20 years after the LR was published and never got the Silmarillion finished. Therefore it's hard to tell what he considered "done" (and even then of course he would still go back and change things).

Agreed, and exactly because of this last thing, in part, there is no "done" until something's been authorized by Tolkien to go to print, at which point he knows it's in the hands of a "present and future" readership.

It's easy, but in my mind misleading, just to draw a bright line distinction between 'published' and 'unpublished'; confusion and uncertainty are part of Tolkien studies, not something to be airbrushed out of the picture. (Was Celeborn a Danian, a Sinda, or a Teler? All three).

It's easy, but I don't agree it's misleading nor that it brushes away complexity (nor is it meant to). The "canonical" answer to your question is Sindarin. But that doesn't erase the complexity found in the posthumously published texts. And when Christopher Tolkien argues that his father surely would have felt bound by previously published text regarding Celebrimbor the Feanorean, anyone can agree or argue with even that... because in the end even Christopher Tolkien can't be certain...

... but what we can be certain about is what Tolkien himself chose to publish (in the case of Celeborn the Sindarin Elf, published twice in two different sources; in the case of Celebrimbor the Feanorean, the revised second edition), versus what JRRT was writing or musing about in private, unfinished papers and notes; and perhaps (or arguably) he was only even musing about something due to forgetting what already had been in print, or maybe because in private texts he was simply free to muse.

There are a couple of cases where it's fairly safe to say the work was "finished" and in Tolkien's mind ready for publication, whenever the rest of the volume was done. These would include the Akallabeth, which T was willing to leave unaltered once done and which CT hardly had to edit (the only significant change was Fionwe > Eonwe); Ak also happens to be fully consonant with the LR appendices.

Upon what do you base "willing to leave unaltered" though, and what other works are you referring to? We might agree that something looks like it's generally "done", yet we don't know if Tolkien might have had an inspirational wrench to toss in, for example, a "last minute" change of a detail... or ten. Tolkien himself might not have plans to revise something... until he sits down, just to fix a few phrases here or there, to polish things up before sending a final version to his publisher.

Did Feanor have seven sons? If so, did all seven live in Middle-earth after the burning of the ships at Losgar? Seemingly simple facts are not always so easy with Tolkien, and I have no problem with things being complicated. Actually I think the web too often simplifies certain "facts" when presenting them, when what we really have is opinions about canon lurking behind them, or just a jumbling-together of popular ideas, despite the complexity of the existing texts.

Things get a lot messier when it comes to the First Age, especially the early (pre-rebellion) and late (post-Turin) portions: the former because Tolkien decided in the late 50s on a massive cosmological upheaval, and the latter because he just never got around to it.

Agreed in general, although I would add that (I think) Tolkien decided to embrace the old concepts as mostly Mannish ideas, and "upheave them" by peppering in Western Elvish contradictions.

But would we be arguing First Age canon if Tolkien had finished and published his Silmarillion?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But would we be arguing First Age canon if Tolkien had finished and published his Silmarillion?

Well, of course not.

The thing is, we know that T was willing on occasion to contradict published material, and then regularize the change in print: vide Finrod > Finarfin and Inglor > Finrod.

For that matter, even the published "canon" is not necessarily consistent. Were we to take the Lorien chapters alone, Celeborn would clearly be a Danian (Nando by the later system); he had become a Sinda by the time the Appendix was written but the main narrative was never revised to match, and you have to kinda squint to make the retcon look consistent. See also TRGEO version of Celeborn/Galadriel, especially the "ban."