"Canonicity II": Has Yours Changed?

[Findegil]

Posted by William Cloud Hickling:

For me, anyway, my attitude is very process-oriented. Tolkien's corpus, published and un-, is a collective artifact which was the work of one author's lifetime. Sometimes he changed his mind. Sometimes he made mistakes. That is what I find fascinating. I just don't see much point in efforts to rather artificially determine One Truth when there is no underlying truth- it's all fiction.

This is, I think, a valid view for what I will call studying the Tolkien corpus as literature. But it does not help if you are more interested in the study of the 'Legend' itself rather than its literary value. You are of course fully right that there can not be a 'canon' since there is no true story behind - it's all fiction. That is why I do not like the name canon and canonicity for discussions like this one, but as yet nothing better had come up. Nonetheless in my point of view, the Legend of Middle-earth would never have been such a success in publication, if it would not have provoked the reader to look ever deeper into it. It is for sure part of Tolkien's successful literary techniques to create that kind of depth behind the told story - most of it in a kind 'real', since he had already written the background stories (e.g. Elrond recalling the End of the First Age or Aragorn singing part of the Lay of Leithian), some feigned since he only later drafted them (like the Cats of Queen Beruthiel or the Five Wizards). I think that only a fraction of the people out there that have bought one or more of Christopher Tolkien's editions of his father's earlier or later works have done so to study JRR Tolkien's corpus as literature. Another fraction (and it might be the greater one) were more interested in the stories itself. When ever I was at a meeting of Tolkien enthusiast, I could determine these fractions. You might call them LIT. and FAN. (you can choose if it is short for 'fantasy' or 'fanatic' or both). Even if the meeting was focused on LIT. in the audience you would find some FAN. and anyhow by some speaker you would mark that they have started their interest in Tolkien or fantasy as genre as FAN. even so they have come to speak now as LIT. (So you could argue that LIT. would be more grown ups while FAN. would be more childish or that for LIT. the 'spell' has been broken while FAN. do everything to maintain it - but both would be polarising more than seems necessary.)

Let's come to my approach to what is here call 'canonicity'. I am with William Cloud Hickling about The Silmarillion, but for a quiet different reason. For me there are only 4 sources in priority 1 - books published by JRR Tolkien:
- The Lord of the Rings (including the Appendices
- The Hobbit
- The Adventures of Tom Bombadil
- The Road Goes Ever On

It is a strange mix and the books have even in themself some failures never corrected (e.g. Ghan-buri-Ghan counting the Rider of the Mark) and some inconsistencies from one to the other (e.g. Thorin and Co needing much less than a day ride from Mitheithel to Trolls while Strider needs several days or Galadriel have set a ban on her return or not between LotR and RGEO).

Prio 2 is sources given out to a restricted public by JRR Tolkien e.g.:
- Letters by JRR Tolkien (not so much what he sent to his family or his publisher, but more so what he sent to readers asking questions.
- Parts of The Lost Tales that JRR Tolkien published in today arcane publications. This includes some of the poetry from that period.
- Parts of The Lost Tales that JRR Tolkien read to some public audience (so not the Inclings or similar private groups). Here I think mostly of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin.
...

Prio 3 are sources published in a documentray style by Chirstopher Tolkien and others e.g.:
- Unfinsihed Tales
- The History of Middel-earth
- Beren and Lúthien
- Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin
- The History of the Hobbit
- [b]Param Eldalamberon[/(b]
...

Only in Prio 4 will be found books published by Christopher Tolkien as belles-lettres:
- The Silmarillion
- The Children of Hurin

And to come back to the topic of the thread: Yes, this has changed over time. As you may guess the above priority are a mix of attitude of the author against the text (ready for full publication or for restricted audience, a draft, ...) and level of information we have about the content of the text and the circumstances of composition. Earlier my view on 'canonicity' was rather based on the time of composition modified a bit by 'completeness' of the given information (a later rewritten small detail would only change that detail and not render the full described older story un-valid). It was like looking on a pastiche-picture: In some parts the original canvas with its first painting would still be seen, in other there was layer upon layer of new material. Some overlapping each other, some extending the picture. With each new layer covering what was beneath (a bit like the First Lord of the Ring map). But some layers would only be like a thin net: fine threads of narrative drafts with some knots where more substantial information is given, while other would be like a piece of new canvas glued on the old picture (full retelling of a tale).
Today we have to add some transparency to that picture: the higher the priority given above the more 'dense' that piece of pastiche is. Thus, with in the same priority time of composition is still the sorting criterium. But looking through the more transparent parts, they would look 'denser' if the layer beneath shows the same and more blurred if it is different. A later low priority source could thus still have an effect on an earlier high priority source, but it is no longer covering it. But sources of high priority will cover the deeper (older) layers well enough, and these layers may only peep trough where the high priority sources leave some gaps.

To take up the discussion from above: A FAN. will study the sources to discover what parts are still to been seen (looking form atop the pastiche) or he would make a parallel (horizontal) cut (lifting up some layer) and look on a the remaining layers for the fascination of that layer itself. A LIT. would rather make a crosscut to follow the development of some elements that return in many layers or he would cut out a single layer to analyse the technique used in that layer.

I hope this makes some sense at all, but the example of the pastiche was the best I could come up with. And for sure for greater clearness, the LIT. and FAN. characterisation is painted much more black and white than it is in real life. So if anyone found this characterisation embarrassing, please take this as an apologise. It was not meant in any harmful or disrespecting way. It is just a difference a percieve that often leads to misunderstanding on both sides, especially in canon-discussion like this.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Galin]

You [William Hicklin] are of course fully right that there can not be a 'canon' since there is no true story behind - it's all fiction.

Why not canon with respect to fiction? As in "material considered to be part of a fictional universe" (American Heritage Dictionary)

That is why I do not like the name canon and canonicity for discussions like this one, but as yet nothing better had come up.

Agreed here. And I feel as if -- whether or not it's true -- that when I say "not canon" with respect to a given work, folks are possibly attaching some "negative" meaning to the characterization that I don't intend.

[Mithadan]

If there is not some negative connotation to "not canon," (triple negative, woo hoo!) then we are about to enter the Twilight Zone. The LoTR and Hobbit movies did enough violence to the Tolkien "canon" (if anyone can suggest another word for it, I'm open to considering it; but it's been used in discussions here since around 2001). Now we will soon have one or more series that are, at best, loosely based upon the mythos.

Try visiting even the most "reputable" wikis for Star Trek, Harry Potter and Star Wars and you will find entries for video game storylines, fan-produced movies, etc. In a short time, we will see at least one Middle Earth series set in the Second Age and possibly some version of the Silmarillion as well. I am hoping they will be well-crafted. I will not refuse to watch them (until I cannot bring myself to do so, as is generally the case with the Hobbit movies). But will their interpretations someday be part of a future canon (maybe the word is legitimate or faithful?) debate? Will people someday read Tolkien's actual writings and be disappointed that they differ from the Hollywood depictions?

In my mind, this is why a discussion of "canon" is an abundantly appropriate topic for discussion here.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

If there is not some negative connotation to "not canon," (triple negative, woo hoo!) then we are about to enter the Twilight Zone.

Fair enough. Emphasis on "negative" characterization that I don't intend, I guess. And granted, that's hard or even impossible to know (unless I explain what I intend, and explain it well enough), but that's why I agree that "canon"
is perhaps not the best word here.

Like WCH, I too can look at the whole corpus and find it fascinating in various ways. And as a reader imaginatively engaging with "the story" as true, being under the intended spell of the writer, I can also know (to take an oft-cited case) which version of Celeborn's history is true -- and why paint that idea -- the idea the author chose for a once and future readership -- with the same colour as every other idea about Celeborn that happened to pass through Tolkien's mind at some point?

I've seen plenty of threads that begin with questions about something within Tolkien's world. To borrow the Gil-galad question: who is Gil-galad's father?

Since Tolkien didn't himself publish the answer, let the debate begin. Personally I take JRRT's last known thoughts on the matter -- as I think "the arrow of time" is the best I can do to try and follow where the Subcreator is going. But if Tolkien himself had published Fingon, what would the "canonical" answer be? Fingon, or a list of every idea Tolkien ever had about Gil-galad's parentage?

And obviously there are posthumously published texts that contain plenty of things that don't conflict with already published text. That said, however great or interesting these texts might be, however fascinating and worthy of attention they are, in my opinion they still haven't passed the same test as the author-published material has.

Will people someday read Tolkien's actual writings and be disappointed that they differ from the Hollywood depictions?

Maybe so.

For myself, I wouldn't consider a wiki "reputable enough" if it can't, or doesn't, distinguish Hollywood depictions, for example, from Tolkien's books.

[Mithadan]

For myself, I wouldn't consider a wiki "reputable enough" if it can't, or doesn't, distinguish Hollywood depictions, for example, from Tolkien's books.

I would generally not advocate considering a wiki to be "trustworthy." I was merely observing a fact; that on the internet generally, and in many "sources" in particular, the lines between original work and later "interpretations" are becoming increasingly blurred.

For those of us that cherish the original works, there is a value to defining (or attempting to define) a "canon" for our own appreciation and also for the reference of others.

[Huinesoron]

Findegil's discussion of LIT and FAN views, along with the release of NoME, have helped me crystalise my own view of canon, which is: it depends on context!

In some contexts, I hold to the LIT view that everything JRRT wrote is the Tolkien Canon. I have a document somewhere with all his statements on the nature of the Halls of Mandos - not to try and find 'the truth', but to see how his views evolved over time. NoME has made it clear to me that the "Myths Transformed" material, for instance, formed a major part of Tolkien's thinking in his last decade and a half, so this has to be considered in any view of the "Tolkien Canon" as a whole.

Straddling the middle ground between LIT and FAN is my desire to know what Tolkien's final view of Arda was. His ideas were constantly evolving, but he did have a view of the world when he died. It's not unfair to call that version the "truest" version of the Legendarium - the version that's truest to Tolkien's ideas. The issue, of course, is that he didn't record all his ideas - we have to reconstruct them from notes and scraps. The "Myths Transformed" material is a huge part of this - in his head, Tolkien would have had some concept of what he would do with the Lamps, or the Tale of the Sun and Moon, or the voyage of Earendil into the sky... but he doesn't seem to have written it down. This is a "Canon" we have to search for, like literary archaeology to discover something that is otherwise lost with the death of its creator.

But then there's the FAN view, which is: what was the latest and most complete story? Broadly, this is Hobbit+LotR+Silm+UT, but I'm entirely willing to add details from earlier versions or later notes that don't conflict with/break the story. Gil-Galad can be Orodreth's son, for instance - it changes nothing. But "Myths Transformed" goes right out the window, because it totally shatters several chapters of both the published and latest versions of the Silmarillion.

While the third "canon" is clearly the furthest from what Tolkien ultimately intended... Tolkien's works are fiction. "Myths Transformed" never became fiction; it stopped at worldbuilding, with no clear view on how to integrate it into the fiction. As the canon for Middle-earth as a story, this is the only one that works. (Unless you want to work in the Lost Tales canon, of course...!)

hS

[William Cloud Hicklin]

And then of course there is also the "common-base-of-assumptions" definition, not really the same as FAN above, which would essentially mean the published Silmarillion augmented by UT because that is what the vast majority have actually read. Not all that many, relatively speaking, have read Morgoth's Ring much less Nature of Middle-earth.

After all, generally the Arthurian "canon," at least in the English-speaking world, has come to mean Malory

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

( . . . ) Tolkien's works are fiction. "Myths Transformed" never became fiction; it stopped at worldbuilding, with no clear view on how to integrate it into the fiction.

My opinion here is that MT-ideas were not ultimately intended for the fiction of Quenta Silmarillion, but for works like the Awakening of the Quendi (pre-existing Sun) and The Drowning of Anadune (always round world) -- with "touches" in QS still being possible, like the Dome of Varda in LQSII for example. In other words, the "solution" to JRRT's problem (noted by Christopher Tolkien in MT) ultimately fit well with his "new" Numenorean slash Bilbo transmission, and a multi-perspective legendarium. Or in other, other words, I suggest that Tolkien realized he didn't have to drastically revise QS specifically, as it was now a mostly Mannish text.

That said, I've only read a few short sections of (G)NOME so far -- so I reserve the right to change my mind later!