‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[bilbo_baggins]

To disagree with your (hopefully) sarcastic statement, it would do wonders, SpM. Everyone here has lost me about a million posts ago.

But, I can try to say something.

To agree (I think) with some of you, the Bible is obviously 'canon' for several million people, whether they disagree on various and sundry details (I mean the really little ones, like real or fake wine used in Eachurist). The same can be true about Tolkien. Many people disagree on little things in Tolkien, and sometimes don't realize that they agree on the big things.

Hopefully, we all agree that LoTR was written by Tolkien. And, hopefully again, that he also wrote TH, helped to write Sil., and HoME. The Big things. To appreciate Tolkien, the reader must decide for himself whether it is right or wrong to pursue what Tolkien wanted, or to be content with his own interpretation of the text. True, there may be good things about following pure Tolkien doctrine (if I may use such a word with all its connotation's), but on the other hand, one may find that a fellow Tolkienite doesn't agree on small things. That is okay.

SpM: Well, I think that we have to recognise that some of the concepts that they use to support their dreadful views are “correctly” interpreted because they are implicit in the text (examples would be the importance of the bloodline of Numenor and the superiority in some respects (longetivity, prowess, hardiness) of the Dunedain over other types of Men).

Saucepan, if I may dare to tell you, I believe everybody sees the obviousness of the Numenoreans superiority. That's a big thing, that most people believe. If one does not believe this, they are just sidetracked. I think that I'm agreeing with you here.