What Counts as 'Canon' in the Lord of the Rings?

[tslfrontman]

Christopher tidying up and reorganizing his father's work into the Silmarillion is a pretty appropriate echo of Frodo writing after Bilbo's stories 🤌

[jasonknight]

I particularly loved how Tolkien revised his own cannon in The Hobbit when he rewrote how Bilbo came by the ring initially. Fixing a plot hole by casting Bilbo as an unreliable narrator, hinting that the power of the ring was so that it could corrupt even the most honest of hobbits, was pure genius.

[mike-mzyz]

I love the idea of Tolkien in the afterlife walking through the old forest outside of the shire running into characters he thought of but never put to paper.

[amcmanusmusic]

I’ve never considered The Silmarillion to be anything but pure canon, even knowing everything that you explained. The fact that it was a life-long work for Christopher Tolkien to honor his father’s notes with integrity is one of the reasons that make it canon for me.

[iainmc]

A - Published by J.R.R. (Absolute Canon)
B - Edited by Christopher et al (as if seen through a frosted mirror)
C - Middle Earth stories/films published with good intentions (as if seen in a dream)
D - Created without good intentions (the hand of Saruman)
E - Created for nefarious intentions (the work of Mordor)

I always found it frustrating that the Tolkien Estate were so unwilling to allow others to try to portray the work of J.R.R. ... now I know, after Christopher's death, that they were completely right.

[williampalmer]

The main thing for me that distinguishes you from those other Tolkien related channels is the informal and personable presentation, and the wide range of topics you cover. From "how to dress like an Elf" to analyzing the nature of evil in Middle Earth, every week is an enjoyable visit to the part-time Shire.

[PracticalBibleStudies]

For me, the canon closed with Christopher Tolkien. Anytime Chris contradicts John, we should refer back to the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.

[jamesbell]

To me, there's A-canon and B-canon with Middle Earth literature. The latest edited/published versions of LotR and The Hobbit during Tolkien's lifetime are A-canon and anything Middle Earth or Arda-related published posthumously by the estate is B-canon. None of the films or shows are Tolkien canon. As for Bombadil, I think he transcends all universes and is canon everywhere an old forest exists. :)

[LeoAngora]

In the end, canon is a human agreement of what we believe is true/official, like we currently do with historic texts. Discussing Tolkien canon suits greatly Tolkien's desire to treat his work as a narrative of historic events.

[JagoHazzard]

I think the real question is, is The Lord of the Rings canon in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil?

[RingsLoreMaster]

" [a]n unhealthy obsession with the Ring ", that's an understatement. Smeagol was IMHO, enslaved by the Ring

[LeoAngora]

The need of canon, as you correctly point out, is the need of consistency. That's why we need canon for within Tolkien's own contradictions, canon to separate what Tolkien wrote and didn't, canon to align all other media within the intended narrative and world building rules, and so on.

[zestotemp]

As Corey Olsen points out, The Hobbit as originally conceived and written was not compatible with the legendarium as it existed in Tolkien’s head at the time. The Hobbit takes Elrond half-elven, Gondolin, the nauglafring, and the Necromancer (Thu/Sauron) from the 1930s Silm., which are close but they are not exactly the same. Then you have Thranduil, who is Thingol rehashed, and the arkenstone is the silmaril rehashed. We have the concept that it occurs in the 3rd age, but nothing in the text suggests that and in fact when it was written there was no 2nd or 3rd age. The location of the Shire relative to Beleriand is also indeterminate. In the 1930s Silm, there are no Misty mountains, and in the Hobbit, there are no Blue Mountains. LOTR and some clever retconning make The Hobbit fit, since it was generally light on lore. In a genius move Tolkien glued the Hobbit and the Silmarillion together using LOTR, which extended the sense of depth in all three. It is not a perfect fit though, so he comes to the trick up his sleeve that he’s always had: the unreliable narrator. On the micro scale: Bilbo lied when he wrote his story. And whoever wrote about Frodo seeing the coasts of Valinor was writing fiction, since no eye-witnesses returned. On the macro scale: the “translator” of the work from Westron to English took some liberties here and there when the text was obscure, and the manuscripts may be corrupted. I think eventually he got too caught up in the idea of his legendarium as a “found story” passed down through generations. The Numenor legend tells how the world “became bent” (went from flat to spherical). Tolkien wanted to delete this and all references to a flat earth because, as a good historian, he knew that cultures have believed in a round world for a long time—they would not have passed down the flat earth version, rather they would have changed the story. To include both flat and round earth, and a transition between the two, has no analogue in authentic myths of various cultures. I think he went too far here—he was getting caught up in issues of “canon” when in fact the stories stand alone, and as parts of a whole, just fine. The frame story is the least compelling aspect.

[dismaspickman]

Good discussion. The canon comes from JRR Tolkien and his established works, and one might consider things that his son Christopher arranged as "deuterocanonical" for lack of a better term (a second continued canon that is not apocryphal or dubious, but is as close to a cohesive interpretation/expansion as can exist). Everything else is a "retelling", or "inspired by", or "an interpretation of" and even "fan fiction". Tolkien placed themes he deemed essential in his work (and Christopher attempted to maintain them) either initially or through revision. The weakening of those themes, which often occurs through interpretation, via opinions and ideologies of other creatives, is not and cannot be considered canon--no matter how much it tickles the preferences of the modern audience. Tolkien was allowed to change the canon as he saw fit, as its author and creator. His son, who sought to preserve the work of his father, created something akin to a definitive continuation as can exist. Those who purchase (or have purchased) the IP, and attempt to make money off of its popularity, are by definition creating a work that is, at best, inspired by LOTR. Unfortunately, further interpretations can (and I suspect will, sadly) have very little to do with the themes of Tolkien and simply be someone else's story painted Middle-earth.

[sagequerido]

@jess_of_the_shire It strikes me that one of the things that makes you special as a Tolkien content creator is your emotional understanding of the professor and his work. There are lots of fine folks talking about the books & films, but few that feel so personal. So glad to have you in the community, keep up the great work ❤

[varvara]

I find it interesting that fanfic-writers and readers seem to have the clearest grasp on why and how canon is used, in my opinion. Since it is tremendusly important for both the writer and the reader to be on the same page of what is happening in the fanfic, the writer usually specifies what do they understand as "canon" - which means, which events are going to be accepted as existing and thus referred to without extra notice in the text.
With the case of LOTR, everyone in fanfiction seems to see film-canon and book-canon as two separate entities, which are frequently mixed into more specific variations of "canon" accepted by a given writer. It is increadibly interesting, that people seem to understand in that way such a controversial thing as canon so universally (especially compared to the discussions of canon elsewhere even in the same fandom).

[grubslekcin]

What Tolkien wrote is Canon, that which he didn't, isn't. It is simply fan fiction. Good or bad, it isn't Tolkiens words.

[obadijahparks]

Tolkien wasn't merely a writer, he was more of a philosopher, and theologian, that loved to write. The released was simply what he wanted to share as is; everything else is what was to find yourself.

[richardmurrayaalbcassist]

As Baum said, he doesn't mind any interpretation of OZ as long as it is quality

[j.t.leavell]

20:28 This reminds me of a Tolkien quote I really like.
"There is a place called ‘heaven’ where the good here unfinished is completed; and where the stories unwritten, and the hopes unfulfilled, are continued. We may laugh together yet."