Gourt Home::Gourt :: Middle-earth canon
This article discusses the concept of literary ‘canon’ as it might be applied to J. R. R. Tolkien’s fictional Middle-earth legendarium.
Definition
Originally a term applied to questions of ecclesial law (and to questions of textual legitimacy with respect to books of the Bible on which those laws rest), ‘canon’ has also come to generally signify a body of writings or beliefs that are taken to be authoritative with respect to the questions or themes they address. In literature, the term often applies to the legitimate publication (both in the sense of ‘copyright’ and ‘final author-approved content’) of a given work, as well as to a body of ‘core’ materials that capture the essence of a given culture (e.g., the Canon of Western Civilization Literature) or subculture (e.g., the Geek canon).
As a derivative of the last two senses of the term given above, and as applied to fictional secondary worlds, ‘canon’ can also be a label attached to the entire universe of ‘secondary world facts’ that a reader or community of readers believes to be ‘true’ (or accurate, or internally consistent) with respect to the themes, events, characters and other literary objects of that fictional world. The conscious application of the term to a body of works of fiction implies the existence of inconsistent, contradictory secondary world facts. When applied by readers to J. R. R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth legendarium, the corpus that results has been called the ‘Middle-earth Canon’. Concerning Tolkien’s fictional works, this term is used of those specific texts, versions and details in which the secondary world of Middle-earth is held by some fans to be largely consistent. Thus, the Middle-earth Canon is intended to be a consistent version of facts drawn from scattered portions of Tolkien's texts. Critics of canon contend that this 'excludes' some facts and even whole stories written by Tolkien, but advocates argue that those elements remain valuable parts of Tolkien's work even when deemed inconsistent with the whole.
How the Question of Middle-earth Canonicity Arises
The question arises quickly, for the average reader, in the face of the complexities and inconsistencies that exist between the published versions of otherwise independent and free-standing Middle-earth tales (e.g., The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings). The question becomes much more complicated (and compelling) as the reader delves into the broader cycle, taking in The Silmarillion and the litany of works from which it was derived.
1. Tolkien's Way
As a result of the manner of its creation, the secondary world of Middle-earth is complicated. Its creator developed the various elements of his fictional mythology over the course of decades, making substantial changes up to and including the abandonment of major themes, important facts and entire tales, and wholesale rewrites and revisions of otherwise 'complete' narratives. Tolkien knew that, if he were ever to see the core of his cycle published, he was expected (by editors and readers of traditional fantasy fiction) to finalise and systematize a wholly unified mythology, such that inconsistencies and contradictions were removed. Thus, later in his life, Tolkien began to tighten the screws. But (according to T A Shippey’s The Road to Middle-earth, 2003 ed. 227-235) Tolkien was known as a bit of a procrastinator when it came to finalising anything, perhaps because of a 'calculated' laziness that prolonged the game of creation, or that preserved the tantalising yet unclear 'thing-on-the-horizon' he so dearly valued. Whatever the case, it appears somewhat certain that the senior Tolkien himself intentionally left some gaps in his works. In two of his letters he provided explanations and examples:- "I am doubtful myself about the undertaking The Silmarillion. Part of the attraction of the L.R. is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist. To go there is to destroy the magic, unless new unattainable vistas are again revealed. Also many of the older legends are purely 'mythological', and nearly all are grim and tragic: a long account of the disasters that destroyed the beauty of the Ancient World, from the darkening of Valinor to the Downfall of Númenor and the flight of Elendil." (#247)
- "…even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." (#144)
On top of all this, toward the end of Tolkien’s life, the focus of his writing shifted from pure story telling inspired by his philological pursuits to more philosophical concerns. This led to a considerable shift in tone and content, and a new set of 'breaches' between old works and new – even as he felt pressure to iron out the wrinkles. Thus, regarding the internal facts of Tolkien’s universe (historical, character, thematic etc.), this rather organic process, exacerbated by Tolkien’s personal nature and his literary druthers, resulted in entrenched disparities, contradictions and inconsistencies not only between cohesive, singular elements of the cycle, but occasionally within those elements themselves. Tolkien simply never finalised a unified, systematic and wholly internally consistent mythology/legendarium. Even those materials published in the author’s lifetime rarely if ever achieved (so far as he was concerned) a satisfactory state of completion and consistency. The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and The Road Goes Ever On were all published while Tolkien was alive. But The Hobbit was revised twice, and Lord of the Rings once — both because of inconsistencies.
2. The Hobbit
Tolkien did not initially conceive of or write The Hobbit as a part of the greater Middle-earth legendarium captured in The Silmarillion (the latter being based on tales begun in 1916). Rather, with The Hobbit, Tolkien was simply populating an imaginary landscape with ready-to-hand characters and locations for a children's adventure story. For his own amusement and utility, Tolkien borrowed several references to his (at that time) unpublished Silmarillion mythology to give the newer story a sense of depth; an internal history, replete with mysterious myths and legends (as noted above, this was Tolkien’s nature and preference). Thus Gandalf and Thorin Oakenshield wield swords from Gondolin, and Elrond (ruler of Rivendell) is called Half-elven. As far as The Hobbit was originally concerned, the mere mention of these 'externally referencing' details were the end of it (or so Tolkien thought).These otherwise random Middle-earth references were, in their original conception, merely that – random. But, after the success of The Hobbit, Tolkien developed, at the urging of his publisher, a sequel that from the outset he also fully meant to be an episode (the last episode, perhaps) of the cycle laid out in The Silmarillion. This dramatic shift in the relationship between Hobbits (of the family Baggins) and the Middle-earth (of the Valar, Eldar and Edain) meant that The Hobbit as originally published contained serious flaws with respect to the 'truth' or the 'consistency' of details inhabiting the self-contained secondary world of Middle-earth. With Lord of the Rings being both fully sequel to The Hobbit, and fully sequel to The Silmarillion, Tolkien was faced with making the The Hobbit's facts and history 'fit' with those of The Silmarillion. As a result, successive editions of The Hobbit were produced in order to rectify many (though not all) inconsistencies. Among simple inconsistencies surviving into the later edition, the careful reader will note that Bilbo and the Dwarves took far too long to reach Rivendell when a map from Lord of the Rings is used to gauge the distance; this inconsistency can only be explained with great difficulty if at all. There are additional problems as well, such as the exact location of the Troll encounter, and so on.
There is still no general consistency across all of these works (see below), although the most agreement between sources may be found with the second (1950) edition of The Hobbit, the second (1965) edition of Lord of the Rings, and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and The Road Goes Ever On. In the 2004 edition of Lord of the Rings, Christopher Tolkien, Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull carefully supervised a complete standardisation and silently corrected several errors that came about in the text. These changes are documented in A Reader's Companion.
3. The Silmarillion
The end of the author’s life in 1973 without a clear sense of resolution or finality to his works, followed by the posthumous publication of The Silmarillion, has created a vacuum that the typical literary definition of ‘canon’ cannot fill: there can be no final, copyrighted, author-approved and contradiction-free version of the entire cycle – it simply was never finished before the author died.Published in 1977, four years after Tolkien’s death, The Silmarillion itself represents a compressed and abridged cycle of Middle-earth’s oldest tales that achieved its final form only under the editorial control of Christopher Tolkien, who attempted the organising and publishing of his father’s greatest project. The younger Tolkien compiled an approximation of what his father might have produced; however, he warned readers not to look for consistency between the posthumous work and items published earlier. Throughout his commentaries in the twelve volumes of The History of Middle-earth, Christopher has pointed out many discrepancies between his final editorial selections/alterations in ‘’The Silmarillion’’ and what he later claimed would have been his father's true intentions. It is also known that significant portions of the chapters published in The Silmarillion about the ruin of Doriath and the fall of Gondolin (especially the former) were written by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Gavriel Kay; thus it cannot be certain that the chapters as published represent J.R.R. Tolkien's own ideas about how those stories ought to be handled. (It is important to note that Tolkien never significantly revised the latter third of the Quenta Silmarillion, though it came from the earliest narratives of his youth.)
4. Suspension of Disbelief
Despite the ‘just-like-a-real-myth-cycle’ feeling that Tolkien’s profession, habits, designs and death permanently imparted to his works, for some readers the weight of inconsistencies presses down sorely on any ‘suspension of disbelief’. This bracketing of standard reality is necessary for those who would engage any narrative authentically – as would a good audience member when a play or movie (or poem or psalm or proverb) clearly consists in fiction (whether normal or fantastical), yet is temporarily ‘entered into’ as an experience both artistic and educational for the observer. Without the suspension of disbelief, there is no reality to a movie, or play, or novel. Without this special sense of ‘secondary reality’, the reader cannot engage the characters, experience the plot, or ‘feel’ the piece at all. True fans of a given literary cycle immerse themselves in the secondary world. This immersion profits them greatly, as it is the only way to experience the sublimities of Myth. Thus, for many readers, it is critical that an internal consistency be established for Tolkien’s secondary world. Yet fans can cut each other to shreds over the question of contradictory details of secondary world facts. Such disputes have even made the (primary world) nightly news; thus many Tolkien fans — and others — were made aware of the infamous ‘Balrog Wings’ conflict that played out over the internet.It is in the face of these pressures – deceased intentional procrastinator, convoluted, layered and inconsistent texts, questions surrounding the editorial process, the inalienably requisite suspension of disbelief, and the sake of pleasant, productive argument – that the concept of a ‘Middle-earth Canon’ arises.
History of the Canon Concept
Efforts at a 'canon' for Middle-earth go back to Tolkien himself, who indicated that he often felt bound by what had been published before. Even when he altered The Hobbit to bring the story of the finding of the Ring in line with later changes, Tolkien retained the original as the version which Bilbo told when trying to justify his acquisition of the Ring. Likewise, in preparing The Silmarillion for publication, Christopher Tolkien made editorial alterations to remove many possible inconsistencies with The Lord of the Rings. Since then Christopher Tolkien has repeatedly identified elements which he believes he 'got wrong', and he has provided reasons for his believing that one version or another was his father's 'intent'. All of this is inherent in trying to create a consistent 'history' for Middle-earth.
Originally, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were simply treated as any other literary 'canon' — automatically and rather unconsciously. There were debates over how to interpret the texts themselves, but no real question as to their validity or consistency. Small issues of 'canonicity' began with the publication of The Silmarillion and questions regarding how to resolve remaining contradictions between it and the other texts. As alternate ideas of Tolkien's were published in Unfinished Tales and the History of Middle-earth series, the 'canonicity' of all the 'new' material in The Silmarillion was similarly called into question.
Fan organisations, societies and internet user-groups all became fora for debates over the exact nature of characters & events in Middle-earth. An alt.fan.tolkien group was started in 1992, and rec.arts.books.tolkien in 1993. Readers found themselves becoming deeply acquainted with the most specific sorts of details. Tolkien's notebooks, his letters, and even the personal remembrances of those who knew him, all became critical 'evidence' for clues as to the 'canonicity' of this or that detail.
Broadly speaking, today there are those who believe that the concept of canon is both necessary and possible, and those who believe that it is neither (see below). The importance of this debate comes to the fore when one appeals to reference sources for information on Middle-earth. By all accounts, there is a need for consistency in the way in which reference materials deal with the facts and details of Middle-earth, whether they apply (from behind, as it were) the filter of canon (so that articles simply read 'Gil-galad' is the son of Orodreth), or they simply note the discrepancies as they come up.
How the Concept of Canonicity Might be Applied to Published Elements of the Middle-earth Cycle
A delicate example of the canon question is the lineage of Gil-galad. In the published Silmarillion he is said to be the son of Fingon, but (as disclosed in the History of Middle-earth) Tolkien considered many genealogical arrangements before actually deciding that he was in fact the son of Orodreth (who himself was no longer a son of Finarfin, but rather his grandson).
As a second example, most readers were told (in The Silmarillion) that Finwë had three children (all sons); Fëanor by his first wife Míriel, and Fingolfin and Finarfin by Indis. However, later publications reveal that this is not in accordance with Tolkien’s latest wishes, since his later versions also mention two daughters; Findis and Irimë, by his second wife (Findis was in fact Finwë's first child by Indis).
So what is the genealogy of Gil-galad? How many children did Finwë have? If the published Silmarillion is taken as canon, all later material must be discarded (no Findis and Irimë). But, if the later writings by Tolkien are taken as canon, The Silmarillion must be rewritten if it is to remain consistent with the rest of the secondary world it represents. Christopher Tolkien has stated he will not undertake this task, as he is now retired. So the reader is left with a published Quenta Silmarillion which contradicts the original author's intentions, but which is the only authoritative (in one of the literary senses of ‘canon’) narrative in existence for most of the traditions. Perhaps one can compare this phenomenon with the fact that ancient histories on Earth itself can also be vague and contradictionary by nature.
The solution to such problems (unless and until The Silmarillion is rewritten) is to apply the concept of ‘canon’ to each question. The concept might be applied by claiming, for example, priority of the later-revealed writings over those published in The Silmarillion in 1977. This claim would be made on the basis of the latest clear intentions of the author. Thus, Middle-earth Canon on the question of Gil-galad’s lineage might be that he is not the son of Fingon, but rather he is the son of Orodreth (himself not the son of Finarfin, but rather his grandson), and The Silmarillion, in this respect is incorrect. Furthermore, it might be ‘canon’ to state that Finwë had five children, including Findis and Irimë.
Applying the logic used above, some canonists argue that latest editions of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are fully canon, but that the status of The Silmarillion and other posthumous writings is more complex. In their view, The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales are treated as generally canon, but corrections published in History of Middle-earth take precedence. Late writings by Tolkien published in History of Middle-earth that do not contradict more established texts are also generally treated as canon.
See also
External links
- These links are to websites where the Middle-earth Canon issue is discussed by readers, fans etc. Readers are strongly encouraged to add more links.
- Tolkien's Parish (an essay by Steuard Jensen).
- Is Your Canon on the Loose? (an essay by Michael Martinez).
- Encyclopedia of Arda (includes a note on canon page bottom).
"Middle-earth canon"