Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 

Topic: Canon

Post Info
Royal Guard of Menegroth - Rank 5
Status: Offline
Posts: 619
Date: Sep 12, 2006
Canon

I have been reading through quite a bit of the posts in the various forums and I am noticing something that comes up quite often. Someone will use a quote from one of the many books to support their point of view and then someone else will counter with "...that may be an edit by Christopher Tolkien... or ....that was from Tolkiens earlier writings..."

Personally I accept the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, and the LoTR books as canon. Everything else is up for debate. I'd like to know the thoughts of other members.

__________________
Therefore I say that we will go on, and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be the matter of song until the last days of Arda
Valar
Status: Offline
Posts: 140
Date: Sep 12, 2006

As far as canon goes, Lord of the Rings is often seen as the primary book as far as canoncity goes.  But, personally I think pretty much any of the books could fall under Canon, except for Tolkien's very earliest drafts and writings.  (Book of Lost Tales...Treason of Isengard...etc), these are Tolkien's early drafts and are just interesting to read to see how the story started, but as far as Canon goes, I doubt they would be of any use.  Everything else, I can see as being canonical.  Why?  Because in Tolkien's will, he passed full literary powers over to Christopher to alter, edit, change, do whatever he felt like needed with his works that remained unpublished:


’Upon Trust to allow my son Christopher full access to the same unpublished works in order that he may act as my Literary Executor with full power to publish edit alter rewrite or complete any work of mine which may be unpublished at my death or to destroy the whole or any part or parts of any such unpublished works as he in his absolute discretion may think fit and subject thereto’


Christopher is given 'full' powers of the Literary Executor with whatever is unpublished, he could edit, alter, delete...etc.  However, out of the respect for his father and love for his work, I doubt Chris would do such a think as make any sort of awful rewrites to the story.  Also, I doubt Tolkien would pass this on to someone who he didn't feel would do a good job with it.  Christopher knows more about his father and his intentions with the story more than anyone (except JRR of course).  So, as far as canoncity goes, I usually argue everything except from Tolkien's earliest drafts (so pretty much from The Hobbit and up).



__________________
I am Lórien, Lord of Dreams, my true name is 'Irmo' in Quenya.
Samwise Gamgee - rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2372
Date: Sep 12, 2006

This is what I do:


Take Lotr, Silmarillion, Hobbit and Unfinished Tales as solid evidence.


Take the 12 books of the history of ME as evidence.


If there is a quote in the History of Middel-earth that is not disputed by any of the main books then it stands. If it is then the main books previal in authority.



__________________
My Master Sauron the Great bids thee Welcome....
Witchking of Angmar - Rank 10
Status: Offline
Posts: 3118
Date: Sep 12, 2006
as a fan I don't give a **** what canon is
as a person that finds lore interesting I see canon as any version of any story which does not have a later version (anything Tolkien wrote, and did not later change or abandon in his thoughts)

__________________
Honor, Freedom, Fatherland
Royal Guard of Menegroth - Rank 5
Status: Offline
Posts: 619
Date: Sep 12, 2006
So what do you do when the later thoughts conflict directly with the earlier published text?

__________________
Therefore I say that we will go on, and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be the matter of song until the last days of Arda
Witchking of Angmar - Rank 10
Status: Offline
Posts: 3118
Date: Sep 13, 2006
then I consider the later version as canon
in some cases the earlier version does fit the other texts better
but it could be because Tolkien planned to make other changes as well, but he never had time to make them

__________________
Honor, Freedom, Fatherland
Peoples of Beleriand - Rank 1
Status: Offline
Posts: 5
Date: Apr 23, 2007
The letters of J.R.R. Tolkien also contain a huge amount of information that may also be taken as definitive since a lot of Tolkiens own thoughts concerning his work are contained in these letters. I believe a canon is difficult to define, since the latest draft in terms of date may not have been intended as the final form. In some cases it is possible Tolkien may have been considering abandoning a later piece of writing and reverting to something more akin to the earlier text. We will never know and I think this gives the whole work a much more 'magical' feel. In some cases there are no definitive end answers and due to this our exploration of middle-earth may be considered endless.

I

-- Edited by fornost at 15:06, 2007-04-23

__________________
Tom Bombadil
Status: Offline
Posts: 1886
Date: Apr 29, 2007
I am having wish lists in any of the Half Price Books for "The Letters" who will still do Wish Lists for people. So I hope I will find thm soon cheaply.

__________________

Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!

Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Jun 1, 2009
All,
Even though the last input to this Forum topic is two years old I would like to suggest or ask really what is meant by the term "Canon".
Tolkien has led us to places where creativity flows from abstracts, texts, manuscripts, and at least a dozen other literary formats including letters..
"Canon" can mean standard, rule, norm, principle, tenet, or even law.  It is even used as a descriptor of "sacred" text.
I know some of us hold "Tolkien" as sacred but I think the use of "canon" in the discussion here means a basic body of literature which we all agree are the "sources" from which we may draw "evidence" to support our opinions, discussions, and speculations.
I see that this topic has created or inspired some strong opinions.  And  there are some opinions stated which I share.
But while I share opinions with all I also want to point out that those opinions, however well supported, come from the many different meanings of "canon".
It is like comparing "apples to oranges".
I would like suggest a different criteria in the discussion of  "canon".  It is very simple.  Those works that were published by Tolkien before his death and those that followed after.  And that "canon" be applied only to those texts which are contained in Tolkien's literary estate.
For example;
The actual text of "Lord of the Rings" is not the same as the dialogue of the films.  It does not mean that either is "invalid".  The missing episodes, such as Tom Bombadil, change the over all flavor to those who hold the text as "sacred".  Yet the scenes of Lady Arwen rescuing Frodo do add to the beauty of the film without destroying the book.  Both film and book are separate works of art. What is important to note is that "The Lord of the Rings" was written solely by Tolkien.  The film was written by others.

So now I hope we can work through the question of  "canon" with the concept of "purity" and an understanding that Tolkien's work can be "canon" as standard, rule, norm, principle, tenet, or even law yet also see that Tolkien has grown beyond his written word and that each different artistic form has its own "canon".
Opinions?  Comments?



__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present

Anarion, Son of Elendil - rank 8
Status: Offline
Posts: 2161
Date: Jun 1, 2009
Canon generally means the works of the author himself. The History of Middle-earth, for example, is not considered canon as it wasn't published by Tolkien.

I understand what you mean by Tolkien's world taking on a life of its own, and therefore the derivitives of those branches can be considered the canon of the same tree, but I think the idea is flawed. The full extent of the tree, its style, shape, growth rate, complexities and goals are only known to one man - Tolkien. Therefore any deviations from that work, like the films, are not in the same vein. They may be good, take alot of the books into their own make-up, but they are fundamentally set apart, individual, and thus I don't think they come close to being canon.

__________________

Utúlie'n  aurë!  Aiya  Eldalië  ar  Atanatári,  utúlie'n  aurë! 
Auta  i  lómë! 
Aurë entuluva!

Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Jun 1, 2009
Glorfindel 1235,
What could be more "canon" of the film that the film itself.
Knowing what is different between book and film is important.
How can we understand or judge "The Hunt for Gollum" or "Born to Hope" without understanding Peter Jackson's work as film "canon" or excepting Tolkien's actual writing as a different "canon".

I do see your point of, "The full extent of the tree, its style, shape, growth rate, complexities and goals are only known to one man - Tolkien." And when it comes to his written work I totally agree. You are right on big time!!!
However your statement
"
Canon generally means the works of the author himself" I am at a total loss. I searched Websters, Oxford, New Age, and several other dictionaries. They don't come close to your definition.
This is what I was trying to explain...there can be no true understanding until we define our terms.
If "canon" means what the author wrote then every discrepancy he created within his work is also "canon".
I just can't buy that. Especially when someone else from his estate can change it at will and has. "Canon" is not the word.
Lord Lorien gave a quote from Tolkien's will; "
Upon Trust to allow my son Christopher full access to the same unpublished works in order that he may act as my Literary Executor with full power to publish edit alter rewrite or complete any work of mine which may be unpublished at my death or to destroy the whole or any part or parts of any such unpublished works as he in his absolute discretion may think fit and subject thereto"
He also wrote;"
Christopher is given 'full' powers of the Literary Executor with whatever is unpublished, he could edit, alter, delete...etc. However, out of the respect for his father and love for his work, I doubt Chris would do such a think as make any sort of awful rewrites to the story. Also, I doubt Tolkien would pass this on to someone who he didn't feel would do a good job with it. Christopher knows more about his father and his intentions with the story more than anyone (except JRR of course). So, as far as canoncity goes, I usually argue everything except from Tolkien's earliest drafts (so pretty much from The Hobbit and up)." ( Tolkien Forums > Utterly Miscellaneous > Canon > Lord Lorien > September 12th, 2006)
I suggest "authenticity" may be a more appropriate term. Or perhaps "original" or "copywrite" or "not edited".

Which takes us back, unfortunately, to the same problem...defining our terms.








-- Edited by Bear on Monday 1st of June 2009 12:42:49 AM

__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present

Anarion, Son of Elendil - rank 8
Status: Offline
Posts: 2161
Date: Jun 4, 2009
The definitions you looked up for 'canon' have to be put in context first. They are too generic as they are.

Here is an excellent source of information on 'Tolkien canon':

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Canon

I particularly like the part about blending the different versions that Tolkien made of things in his works (particularly in the First Age) into a simple explanation - naturally there would be different accounts, slightly, over time of what happened in the past. These versions therefore are cultural differences.

Tell me what you think.

-- Edited by Glorfindel1235 on Thursday 4th of June 2009 09:45:14 PM

__________________

Utúlie'n  aurë!  Aiya  Eldalië  ar  Atanatári,  utúlie'n  aurë! 
Auta  i  lómë! 
Aurë entuluva!

Being lies with Eru - Rank 1
Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date: Jun 5, 2009
(Mae's Mom)

Sorry for the interuption to MaeMae123's perusing of the forum but this one caught my eye. I think that in our endevour to be correct or to fully understand, on a specific and even eccentric level, Tolkien's work, we forget to acknowledge that what we study and take pride in our knowledge of, is a work of art, as has been stated. There is, on many occasions and subjects, no clear definition or answer because it was a work in progress. Tolkien created a more historically sound "legend" or story than most cultures were able to create over a period of decades or centuries. For there to be a few grey areas or flub-ups is to be expected and overlooked. Many times we look for a hidden reason or meaning for an anomaly when it realy was just a typo or a mistake, even on Tolkien's part. (He was just human afterall ) Whatever we individually accept as "canon" we are still analizing a shifting foundation; a work of art in progress. I think that there not being a set boundry or accepted format is one of the great things about this forum. I love the difference in opinion and the unrestricted discourse here. Let the confusion continue and the discusion reign.

__________________
Anarion, Son of Elendil - rank 8
Status: Offline
Posts: 2161
Date: Jun 7, 2009
A prime example thats just occured to me of canon is the Dagor Dagorath. In the earlier writings it all involved Melkor breaking back into the world and waging the greatest battle ever known on the plains of Valinor. There are differing versions as to what happens but in one version Turin Turambar comes back and slays Morgoth himself, thus avenging his kin. But much later on Tolkien changed the entire thing so that the War of Wrath, at the end of the First Age, was the Dagor Dagorath. Basically he scrubbed the whole idea of his works having a proper 'Apocalypse' type battle in the far distant future.
Yet its the former idea of having an 'End of the world' battle that people generally class as the 'correct' version, despite it being earlier. And its that version that made it into the Silmarillion. As to why, I'm not sure.

__________________

Utúlie'n  aurë!  Aiya  Eldalië  ar  Atanatári,  utúlie'n  aurë! 
Auta  i  lómë! 
Aurë entuluva!

Fundin, Lord of Moria - Rank 5
Status: Offline
Posts: 564
Date: Jun 8, 2009
I particularly like the part about blending the different versions that Tolkien made of things in his works (particularly in the First Age) into a simple explanation - naturally there would be different accounts, slightly, over time of what happened in the past. These versions therefore are cultural differences.

For example, would the tale of Amros dying in the burning of the ships be considered part of the legendarium -- along with the version in which he is not burned -- due to these versions hailing from variant sources?

Tolkien arguably was going to have a purposed measure of this sort of thing, echoing Primary World texts, but on the other hand the measure is his, and readers might be spoiling the soup with too much of one ingredient, so to speak.

While the idea has a nice enough general ring to it, we could easily be imaginatively accepting material that Tolkien himself considered rejected. As of today and for myself, I think Amros was to die -- no variant tradition -- and so that's how I imagine the history (Christopher Tolkien did not have this luxury by the way, at least when constructing the Silmarillion in the 1970s anyway). For another example, I think multiple traditions might speak to the shape of the World. In any case I have only slim 'evidence' to suggest these two things, and am guessing at a 'final' legendarium which will never be of course.

On the thread in general: canon is one thing, textual parity another... or so I like to put it sometimes; and Tolkien-published text carries great weight on my particular scale.

 wink





-- Edited by Galin on Monday 8th of June 2009 04:35:00 AM

__________________
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Jun 8, 2009
Galin,
That Tolkien wrote a "canon" might be.  But "canon" can mean accepted by all.  Your point;
"
For another example, I think multiple traditions might speak to the shape of the World. In any case I have only slim 'evidence' to suggest these two things, and am guessing at a 'final' legendarium which will never be of course..." makes sense.  Clinging to one tradition can deny another.
"In general (for the thread) canon is one thing, textual parity another... or so I like to put it sometimes; and Tolkien-published text carries great weight on my particular scale."
This makes sense to me.  Tolkien had time to edit his published works and edited them to his standards.
In this case I can see that there is a final edition..
But Tolkien's creativity, spontaneity,  and constantly evolving  text, text that was written and re-written many times, convinces me that a term like "canon", in whatever definition, can only loosely be applied.
"I particularly like the part about blending the different versions that Tolkien made of things in his works (particularly in the First Age) into a simple explanation - naturally there would be different accounts, slightly, over time of what happened in the past. These versions therefore are cultural differences."
Difference I expect. This is, as lomoduin points out, art. The fact that it is living and growing says let the discussion battle on.
Damn the "canon's"!!!  Full speed ahead!


__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present

Samwise Gamgee - rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2372
Date: Jun 8, 2009
As to the subject of 'cultural differences', I suppose that has to be confined to the scale of the event at hand. The Last Battle that was mentioned was a good example. And maybe stuff like the fate of Ungoliant, which may well be told differently among one 'clan' of Elves than another.

Its a good theory for 'ironing out the creases', so to speak, but obviously can't be used to cure the unfortunate problem of the lack of a complete and sound consistency throughout all of the works.

__________________
My Master Sauron the Great bids thee Welcome....
Rohirrim of Edoras - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 396
Date: Jun 10, 2009
Ha, Ha!! Great pun, Bear!! I'm a pirate at heart, I loved it!!

__________________
The winds of heaven do not blow gentle.
 
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard