Talk:Middle-earth canon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien and his legendarium. Please visit the project page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Assessment B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

With this information now in its own article, it could probably use some editing to make it stand on its own a bit better. This also gives us the opportunity to discuss the topic and related issues at greater length if we'd like. And incidentally, I hope people don't think it's too much self-promotion to include the link to my essay at the end of the page; I honestly think it's a good discussion of the issue, and I've gotten a fair bit of positive feedback from others who have seen it. --Steuard 02:30, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 What to list 2 Point of the article 3 Just added... 4 Discussion of "mecanon" template 5 Reference at Canon (fiction) 6 Gil-galad 7 Recent substantial revision 8 Correcting Steuard's mis-statements of fact 9 Removing links 10 'Canon' as the Paradigm Example of 'Missing the Point' 11 Agenda-driven Vandalism 12 Self-promotion 13 "This encyclopedia" 14 The Deed is Done 15 map caption 16 Middle-earth "cycle"? 17 Debate section removal 18 Sil vs. HoME 19 "As told to. . ." issue

[edit] What to list

Maybe we should list all the writings from HoMe and state if they are canon , final intent etc. for each of them? Ausir 20:53, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let’s first establish there is a consensus! I belief that we can safely state that the Annals of Aman and the Grey Annals (as far as they go) are author’s final intent, as well as the complete The Peoples of Middle-earth — i.e. HoMe X, XI, XII. Anything earlier would have to be quantified: The Book of Lost Tales certainly cannot be taken as canon even where it does not disagree with later writings, but on the other hand the later Lay of Leithian is author’s final intent again. [[User:Anárion|Image:Anarion.png]] 20:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should first list the exceptions - stuff from HoMe that does contradict The Silmarillion, but is considered canon? The most important ones that I remember are Gil-galad, Amras, Argon and Orodreth. Ausir 21:05, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To add to the list, I suggest the Nauglamír (and thus the actual fate of Thingol), as well as the rest of the Wanderings of Húrin. I suggest leaving out the "round world" stuff  — it is incompatible with all else. [[User:Anárion|Image:Anarion.png]] 21:17, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would love to see a list like this, but it will certainly take a while to create (and to agree on!). I've got the beginnings of one as part of my "Custom Tolkien Book List": make sure to tell it to give information on canon and to "list all parts in database", and each book and section will have a "canonicity" note in italics. I classify each book (and each section, if they differ) as "True canon", "Adopted canon", "Final intent", "Ambiguous final intent", "Reconstructed", or "Developmental", as explained on the list. I'd like to hear any comments on that classification scheme, and on my chosen labels. (For the record, my database of book sections isn't comprehensive, as it's intended mainly to facilitate reading order recommendations.) --Steuard 16:34, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, Round World should not be included in the canon (even though I liked the changes, but it was never finished). I also think Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth should definitely be considered canon. Ausir 21:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Point of the article

Is the point of this article a) to establish what is really canon (which seems unlikely, since it is a subjective judgment), b) to establish what the fan community considers as canon, or c) to establih what is considered canon for the purposes of Wikipedia articles? The intent should be clear within the article. --Aranel 03:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It can't be a), as you point out: people have different preferences on this issue. And b) is complicated for the same reason: the "fan community" doesn't necessarily agree, and shouldn't be forced to. On the other hand, there are some broad trends in the fan community that are probably worth discussing in Wikipedia, and this is the place. But the main purpose has got to be c), given the way that we've (tentatively?) chosen to organize Wikipedia articles about Middle-earth. I would hope that c) would come close to agreeing with the general trends in b)! --Steuard 16:34, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Just added...

"Furthermore, the chapters in the published Silmarillion about ruin of Doriath and the fall of Gondolin, especially the former, were largely written by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Gavriel Kay, and do not represent Tolkien's conceptions at all. "

Surely this is too strong a statement...isn't it? --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 02:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is what Christopher Tolkien himself has said. This may be too strong for Gondolin, but it's certainly not too strong for Doriath, where Christopher and Kay seem to have basically made up a story to fill the gap, at least for the earlier part, which explicitly contradicts the last note outlines that Tolkien wrote on the subject. john k 02:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is basically the exact wording CRRT used. The latter part of the Turinssaga as published in the Silmarillion is not according to author's intent at all. Similarily Gondolin was not rewritten since the 1920s… [[User:Anárion|Ана́рыён]] 10:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yep, it's mostly because they failed to find the Wanderings of Hurin when they were editing Silmarillion. Ausir 11:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I still think that "do not represent Tolkien's conceptions at all" is a bit strong. If it's based on material that Tolkien did write in the 1920s, then it's not fair to say that it did not at all represent Tolkien's conceptions. (Perhaps someone who has the volume that references than this could add a quotation, or at least a reference?) --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 16:37, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gondolin, possibly yes. Doriath? No. The published Silmarillion version deviates immensely from Tolkien's intent, and is almost completely new writing by CRRT and Kay, and not based on JRRT's work. [[User:Anárion| (Anárion)]] 16:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Instead of trying to further express my reservations I just made a slight edit. I think it still carries the meaning of the original. I just didn't like the tone—it was factually accurate, but it made me think immediately of additions that were malicious, careless, or presumptuous, which of course was not the intent at all. (And I'm sorry to keep going on about citing our references, but of all the articles that require back-up documentation, this is the most significant. I'm not trying to avoid doing the work myself, but I don't own all of the relevant books here.) --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of "mecanon" template

Work on the Eru Ilúvatar page recently led to some discussion of the "canon/versions" template at Template:mecanon. Because that discussion (now found at Template talk:mecanon) is relevant both to the template and to the general canon issue, I figured I should add a pointer to it here. One important upshot of the discussion there, in my mind, is that this article (and possibly the template) should probably give more prominent attention to the not uncommon view that no Middle-earth "canon" can exist, and perhaps should somehow make it clear that our use of the "canon" concept in organizing Wikipedia's Tolkien material may not reflect the views of the whole community. (I still firmly believe that Wikipedia's Tolkien content needs to impose some notion of "canon" for the sake of non-experts and ease of use, of course.) --Steuard 05:37, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reference at Canon (fiction)

I have just added a section on Middle-earth to the discussion at Canon (fiction), since this article is probably one of the most thorough discussions of canon issues on Wikipedia (even though it has a long way to go). Since my contribution there is supposed to be a summary of this article, I figure it's important to give everyone here a chance to correct or improve it. --Steuard 06:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gil-galad

Isn't Gil-galad being son of Fingon important to the storyline, because if he was the son of Orodreth wouldn't the Kingship of Noldor have been passed down from Turgon to his great-grandchild Elrond instead? Is that explained anywhere? --GingerM 17:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gil-galad as son of Fingon was a mistake. He was the son of Orodreth. This is actually the only way it makes sense Gil-galad became king: take a look at the High Kings section of Ñoldor. If Gil-galad were Fingon's son, Turgon would not have become king in his stead. Jordi·✆ 22:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand that bit about Fingon to Turgon but wasn't Elrond Turgon's great grand child so wouldn't Elrond become King and Gil-galad his heir? --GingerM 13:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Elros and Elrond were not yet born when Turgon was killed. They in fact never claimed the title even after Gil-galad's death, possibly because they was not fully Elven. Elrond /was/ for all intents and purposes the highest leader of the remaining Eldar in Eriador. Jordi·✆ 14:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks I understand now. --GingerM 16:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent substantial revision

Recently, Michael Martinez has made substantial revisions to this article. At Talk:Middle-earth, I have commented on similar revisions that he (apparently) has made to the main Middle-earth article, and I refer the community to my comments there for a longer discussion. In brief, Mr. Martinez has revised these articles to reflect his personal point of view that

"Readers must be careful not to confuse the various mythologies depicted in these writings as a continuous stream of revisions, for they are not successive revisions of the same stories, but rather are successive experimentations in the development of fictional mythologies and folk-lores."

This perspective may or may not be common among Tolkien scholars; I personally have only heard it espoused by Mr. Martinez, but that is not the point. There are many Tolkien fans who see the evolution of Tolkien's legendarium as far more continuous than Mr. Martinez suggests (see, for instance, Wayne Hammond's essay "A Continuing and Evolving Creation" in Tolkien's Legendarium). Thus, I believe that some editing to ensure NPOV is necessary here. However, I don't think I'm the one to do it: Mr. Martinez and I have been opposite sides of some intense debates in the past, and I don't entirely trust myself to be impartial.

For the record, I am also restoring the link to my essay "Tolkien's Parish", which Mr. Martinez deleted from this article. I am very open to arguments that it is not on topic for the article or that the essay is not of broad interest or value, but as the community has accepted the link for quite some time, I am not willing to accept its deletion without community consensus to that effect.--Steuard 20:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Correcting Steuard's mis-statements of fact

This perspective may or may not be common among Tolkien scholars; I personally have only heard it espoused by Mr. Martinez, but that is not the point.

But that is the point, really, isn't it, Steuard? I can certainly dredge up all those citations from Christopher Tolkien (and J.R.R. Tolkien himself) that I have provided you in the past.

What I wrote in the article accurately reflects what Christopher Tolkien himself has been careful to say in THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH.

Since I have not done so in the other discussions, I will provide citations here (and these are the same citations you have been repeatedly shown before through numerous online discussions).

Christopher's opening remarks from THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, PART ONE's foreword --

"THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, written between sixty and seventy years ago, was the first substantial work of imaginitive literature by J.R.R. Tolkien, and the first emergence in narrative of the Valar, of the Children of Iluvatar, Elves and Men, of the Dwarves and the Orcs, and of the lands in which their history is set, Valinor beyond the western ocean, and Middle-earth, the 'Great Lands' between the seas of east and west. Some fifty-seven years after my father ceased to work on the LOST TALES, THE SILMARILLION, profoundly transformed from its distant forerunner, was published; and sixty years have passed since then."

Here Christopher not only STIPULATES that his father "ceased to work on the LOST TALES" but that that work was the "distant forerunner" of THE SILMARILLION. Clearly, he was not describing these works as phases of the same development. (NOTE: I have been citing this passage on the Internet since 1996, maybe longer. Steuard should know it by heart now.)

Christopher's opening sentence to THE SHAPING OF MIDDLE-EARTH:

"Before giving the 'Sketch of the Mythology', the earliest form of the prose 'Silmarillion', there are some brief prose texts that can be conveniently collected here."

Since the 'Sketch of the Mythology' is described as "the earliest form of the prose 'Silmarillion'", Christopher clearly views THE BOOK OF LOST TALES as a separate and distinct work.

Same book, Chapter II, paragraph 3, begins with:

"The 'Sketch' represents a new starting-point in the history of 'The Silmarillion'; for which it is a quite brief synopsis, the further written development of the prose form proceeded from it in a direct line. It is clear from details that need not be repeated here that it was originally written in 1926 (after the LAY OF THE CHILDREN OF HURIN had been abandoned, III.3); but it was afterwards revised, in places very heavily, and this makes it a difficult text to present in a way that is both accurate and readily comprehensible...."

"NEW starting-point in the history of 'The Silmarillion'" (Christopher's use of quotes around the name of the Silmarillion book refer to the book HE published, not to the collective versions of his father's Silmarillion mythologies).

From the foreword to THE BOOK OF LOST TALES, Part One:

"The LOST TALES never reached or even approached a form in which my father could have considered their publication before he abandoned them; they were experimental and provisional, and the tattered notebooks in which they were written were bundled away and left unlooked at as the years passed...."

The arguing has devolved on numerous occasions to pointless bickering over either J.R.R. Tolkien's or Christopher Tolkien's failure to anticipate some absurd demand for specific wording on any given point.

Christopher published THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH to explain to readers exactly how the published SILMARILLION came about. He discussed numerous works which had absolutely nothing to do with the book's contents -- including THE LORD OF THE RINGS, which contributed virtually nothing to the published SILMARILLION text but nonetheless had a profound influence on the final work -- a work J.R.R. Tolkien himself had no direct hand in producing.

Michael Martinez 06:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

A Wikipedia talk page really isn't the place to debate this subject in all its gory detail. Wikipedia, after all, is primarily a reference site, not a discussion forum. You and I (and many other experts) have discussed these quotes and many more at great length in the past (anyone who's interested can find those debates on Google Groups), and we clearly disagree on what they mean. That's precisely the kind of situation that the NPOV policy here is meant to address. And that's all that I hoped to indicate with my comments above.--Steuard 20:11, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing links

For the record, I am also restoring the link to my essay "Tolkien's Parish", which Mr. Martinez deleted from this article. I am very open to arguments that it is not on topic for the article or that the essay is not of broad interest or value, but as the community has accepted the link for quite some time, I am not willing to accept its deletion without community consensus to that effect.--Steuard 20:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I have removed the link, because it is entirely self-promotional and violates the spirit of the Wikipedia precept of NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW.

At the very least, you could have included links to other essays about canon (as your essay is not so much about canon as a justification for your own vision of what Middle-earth should be).

Michael Martinez 06:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I have re-restored the link, but now with a description that makes it clearer that the essay is just one person's point of view. I included the link here in the first place because I felt that the essay could be of reasonably broad interest to readers of the article. It gives one perspective on why defining "canonical" texts can be worthwhile, and discusses some of the issues that arise when trying to do so (in greater depth than I expect this encyclopedia article would). If you know of other essays on similar topics that would be useful to add here, I'm sure the links would be appreciated!--Steuard 20:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

And now I have deleted the link. Wikipedia should not be representing or endorsing "one person's point of view". And while you felt, a few months ago, that the essay was of broad or general interest, I don't feel that way at all. It is only barely partially relevant to what the Wikipedia Tolkien canon article is doing.

Many people have written articles on Tolkien canon. I have written at least two, and they have been translated (or will be) into various languages including Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, and who knows what else. That doesn't mean it's helpful to people who read the Wikipedia article to link to every individual's point of view on canon.

And favoritism is, I am pretty sure, DEFINITELY against the guidelines. Do it for one, you have to do it for all. That is the only fair way to present individual points of view. Michael Martinez 18:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This perspective may or may not be common among Tolkien scholars; I personally have only heard it espoused by Mr. Martinez, but that is not the point.

But that is the point, really, isn't it, Steuard? I can certainly dredge up all those citations from Christopher Tolkien (and J.R.R. Tolkien himself) that I have provided you in the past.

it is precisely the point. If this is an ongoing argument outside Wikipedia, the fact of the argument's existence should be reflected by Wikipedia. It may be disputable how much space each view deserves, based on the support it gets among experts, but it is not admissible to remove links to one point of view on grounds that other links should have been added for balance. This way, Wikipedia would go nowhere. It is, rather, up to you to provide these links that should be put next to the biased link you have made out. But more important than the links section is the actual article text. The aim should be to fairly describe the controversy there, and use the links for reference (instead of abusing the links section for scoring points). I am not taking sides here, btw, I haven't looked into the controvesy, and didn't know that it even existed in such a dichotomous form. dab (ᛏ) 14:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The "controversy" is limited to a relatively small group of people who generally have not carried their arguments beyond the Tolkien news groups. I refrained from making changes for a long time for personal reasons.

However, this so-called controversy has been propagated by a handful of people through the years as a means of justifying their very unconventional methods of patching unattributed citations together to "prove" points in arguments. Their methods do not hold up well under scrutiny, but neither is their point of view widely held or propagated by the critical Tolkien community. I know many of the Tolkien scholars and have read their books and papers and they do not make the kinds of arguments that Steuard has claimed they do.

SOME authoritative people speak of "the mythology" or "the legendarium" in the same way that Christopher Tolkien and his father have -- that is, they are addressing the theoretical whole which doesn't, in fact, exist in any collection of writings. It cannot exist because J.R.R. Tolkien never produced the collection. We have fragments, notes, and a few complete texts and that is it. But to Tolkien there was always a concept in mind, a concept which changed radically through the years, and which was partially expressed through various unconnected mythologies and successive stages of development where older mythologies were gradually merged together.

To elevate this "controversy" to the status of a major consideration would be inappropriate and misleading. The literature doesn't reflect Steuard's point of view, much as he might wish it did. Nor am I espousing "my point of view", except as it would have been written for me by J.R.R. Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien.

If you honestly feel this extremely minor controversy (which has never been mentioned in the literature) deserves mention on Wikipedia, then I suggest a separate article would be more appropriate for documenting it.

In the meantime, the link Steuard provided brings nothing of value to the article on Middle-earth canon because it is a justification for Steuard's personal selections of canon which have nothing to do with what the Wikipedia article is concerned with.

The Middle-earth canon article is presented as an explanation to the Wikipedia readers of what was used and why as the basis of canon in the various Tolkien articles. I cite the concluding paragraph --

This choice of canon means that this encyclopedia includes a number of corrections to the information in The Silmarillion as published. For example, the article on Gil-galad states that he is the son of Orodreth, the article on Amras mentions his death in the burning of the ships of the Teleri, and Argon, Findis and Irimë have articles of their own. Details of the history of the Nauglamír and the fall of Doriath are treated as uncertain, and the story of the Wanderings of Húrin is accepted as accurate. Information on earlier or alternate versions of the stories is provided when possible.

Frankly, I don't see the need for or relevance of external links with respect to this matter.

All that needs to be said should be said in this article itself. I have taken it as the guideline for the corrections I have made to various articles in Wikipedia. I have not tried to make an issue of what I think would be an appropriate canon versus what was chosen by concensus a few years ago. Michael Martinez 17:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, this article serves two purposes: to introduce and define the concept of the "Middle-earth canon" in the first place, and to define the specific conventions for canonicity that are used in Wikipedia. My essay is obviously irrelevant to the second purpose, but could be of interest to those exploring the first.

As for points of view "mentioned in the literature", I have given a reference above to an essay by a well-regarded Tolkien scholar (Wayne Hammond) which I believe takes a position on this issue closer to my own than to yours. And to the degree that online discussion forums capture Tolkien scholarship in action, we've both been active there. But no, I have not seen this controversy mentioned in published literature. Perhaps if Wikipedia discusses it, that will be a step in that direction.--Steuard 20:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

My response follows --

As I understand it, this article serves two purposes: to introduce and define the concept of the "Middle-earth canon" in the first place, and to define the specific conventions for canonicity that are used in Wikipedia. My essay is obviously irrelevant to the second purpose, but could be of interest to those exploring the first. Steuard 20:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

The problem here, Steuard, is that you are using Wikipedia as a self-promotional tool to link to your site and your essays. But your "Tolkien's Parish" essay devotes precisely 5 paragraphs to the general topic of defining canon and identifying canonical texts -- and in the course of those 5 paragraphs you make some rather sweeping generalizations without offering any substantiation or justification for them.

So, rather than thrust yourself upon the Wikipedia readers, I suggest you ask yourself exactly why you feel you should be singling out YOUR essay over any of the many other discussions of Tolkien canon available on the Internet. I find nothing particularly of interest in your essay which hasn't already been covered in the Wikipedia article.

Which specific points does your essay make that elevate it for premier selection?

As for points of view "mentioned in the literature", I have given a reference above to an essay by a well-regarded Tolkien scholar (Wayne Hammond) which I believe takes a position on this issue closer to my own than to yours... Steuard 20:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you made that clear without citing a single sentence from the essay. I, on the other hand, have had a few discussions with Wayne Hammond and I feel he understands the inspecific nature of the legendarium better than you.

...And to the degree that online discussion forums capture Tolkien scholarship in action, we've both been active there... Steuard 20:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Tolkien news groups are hardly a fount of Tolkien scholarship. Nor do they reflect the general interests of the online Tolkien community, which is diverse and largely unaware of the news groups.

...But no, I have not seen this controversy mentioned in published literature. Perhaps if Wikipedia discusses it, that will be a step in that direction.--Steuard 20:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

What would be the benefit to Tolkien readership at large to learn about the silly flame wars of the Tolkien news groups, Steuard? On the other hand, why should Wikipedia give credence to the unorthodox and largely illogical points of view which have permeated the Tolkien news groups?

I can see how you or one of the other people who share your ideas could feel vindicated, perhaps even validated, if a consensus developed here in favor of reporting the news group discussions as if they were more than a virtual pebble in an ocean of worldwide and decades-long Tolkien discussions. But given the complete lack of moderation and peer-review (or even editorial review) that prevails there, I see no value in describing, listing, or mentioning any part of any news group discussion -- not even any of those great flame-free debates of years past which lasted for weeks with people offering citations all over the place.

They are not substantive, they contribute nothing to general Tolkien scholarship, and they certainly don't reflect the interests and pursuits of the majority of online Tolkien fans who really couldn't care less about whether manuscript D really came before Text C or was an amanuensis typescript or just something JRRT scribbled on the coffee table.

The Middle-earth canon article should be left free of such nonsense. It is a guide to help the Wikipedia readers understand the frame of reference for the articles about Tolkien's Middle-earth. It should not be subverted into a vehicle for advocating obscure points-of-view masquerading as controversies.

The Balrog Wings War was the most significant event in the Tolkien news group, and it really only achieved signicance because the news media found out about it and made a habit of mentioning it by name in passing. That is NOT worth mentioning in an article intended to explain what is being treated as canonical.

Everyone with a Web browser can use a search engine. Let them find your essays the same way they find mine and everyone else's: by searching for them.

Michael Martinez 03:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'Canon' as the Paradigm Example of 'Missing the Point'

Reading this discussion page has been a real hoot; not least because of M. Martinez's elaborate defenses of nothing, and his attacks against nothing. Now, before anyone gets mad, let me explain: one can make appeals to authority (scholars, experts, famous folk etc.) without ever providing justification for one's beliefs - this is why the 'appeal to authority' is considered a fallacious line of reasoning. That being said, it certainly won't do any harm to take into consideration the ideas and writings of people (like T A Shippey, V Flieger, M Drout, C Tolkien - to name a few) who are both personally and professionally connected to what might be called 'Tolkien Studies' - people who's professional training has given a certain 'weight' to their opinions. After having read books and articles by such people, I have come to the following conclusions -

1. The Middle-earth Cycle is (to a degree) commensurable with non-fictional mytho-historical cycles (like the bodies of Greek and Roman mythology, and the Eddas and the Vedas of the world). This commensurability extends to include the complicated (and fascinating) existence of universal plot/story elements that butt up against contradictory versions, incomplete stubs and divergent developments. That is to say, Tolkien has managed to create an authentic, yet fictional, Mytho-Historic Cycle, complete with various versions, irreconcilable contradictions and independent, branching streams of development. Some (like Shippey) talk about this almost slyly - giving readers (me, at least) the impression that they find the Cycle's overwhelming incompletedness and complexity somehow intentional. Considering the fact that Tolkien was an expert on myth, and has been quoted often concerning his opinion as to what are the most intriguing parts of myths (the unanswered questions they pose), to 'accuse' him of intentionally creating a conundrum is not altogether baseless. What's most important here is that, regardless of Tolkien's intentions, the fact of the Cycle's "incomplete complexity" must itself have a tremendous impact on the article to which this discussion page is attached (i.e., the question of what is 'Canon'). It means that, for all intents and purposes, it is not only impossible to create a seamless, internally consistent narrative that begins with the Music of the Ainur and ends with Frodo's sailing on the Last Ship; but that it is reckless and wholly ignorant as well. It would actually destroy the body of literature that J. R. R. Tolkien himself (like no other person before or since) created. It would, in fact, destroy some of the most thought-provoking and beautiful elements of the Middle-earth Cycle.

2. It seems to me that the whole idea of the 'Canon' designation is an attempt by frustrated readers to a) feel competent about their knowledge of what 'did' or 'did not' happen in Middle-earth, and to b) have everything nice and neat and orderly-like (like hobbits who want it all laid out, clear and simple with no contradictions!). But these attempts show a terrible lack of self-confidence. Surely one can become an expert on Middle-earth AND be comfortable with the idea that the Middle-earth Cycle is, like any non-fictional body of mythic histories, chock full of incomplete and contradictory complexities. There is no reason (except laziness) that one cannot write an article on Middle-earth for Wikipedia that, at every point, references all the versions and contradictions - just as any thorough article on, say, the Greco-Roman Artemis/Diana would do.

3. Take for example, if you will, the question of the nature of Orcs: what is 'canon', with respect to this question? We have the author saying one thing at one point (that Orcs are made in mockery of Elves, as Trolls are of Ents), and another thing at another point (that Orcs are actually tortured, deformed Elves), with a final switchback for good measure (he ends claiming Orcs are soul-less beings animated by the sparks (if you will) of Melkor's diffused being - made in 'mockery', or failed imitation, of the relationship between Eru and his truly be-souled creations (Eldar/Edain/Dwarves). So what is 'canon'? I'll tell you what is CANON - in some versions, Orcs are Perverted Elves. In others, they are Melkor's golems (not 'gollums' - golems). In either event, we are presented with problems; if the former, then how can we not pity them - indeed, how can we not seek their redemption - and how can they be continuously born in crawling masses (i.e., which dead Elves deserve the distinction of rebirth as millions of miserable Orcs?); if the latter, then how can they seem so 'human' in their conversations, actions and motivations? At the end of the day, one can argue about these things - even suggest (as I would) that the soul-less Orc is more consistent with other themes and stories, and yet one can yet consider ALL of it - all versions - 'canon'. If you can't see this simple fact, then you end up debating the nature of Balrog 'wings' as if there were ONE ANSWER. You forget what the Middle-earth Cycle is, and you sully it (even trivialize it) with your arbitrary limitations.

4. There remains the question of 'unauthorized' edits and additions. The only thing that can be said for sure here is that 1) one must demonstrate exactly which lines of which version are suspect (and why they are suspect), and 2) one must demonstrate that suspect sections are inconsistent with respect to the broader themes and storylines. There is a quote of Tolkien's - I'll find it eventually - where he talks about having just started the project, and that he hoped others would carry it forward and fill in the blanks. If it comes from his mouth, then I guess you'll need to take it as 'canon'. What we are looking for, then, is someone (with incredible talent and the right education) to tell us what may well have happened to Dior's sons; what may well have happened to the first six ships sent out by Turgon; what may well have happened to Mim's people at the hands of the recently-returned exiles; what may well have happened to the realm of Arnor (in detail) and its wars with Angmar; who IS the witch-king? What was his mother like? This realm is .... is .... infinite. The only criteria are, as I said just before this, that we have an incredible talent (or talents) with the right education and the right skill to tell these stories AS THEY MIGHT WELL HAVE HAPPENED.

Taking all the above points into consideration, I think anyone should be able to see that the entire 'Canon' designation (and the dispute surrounding it) is pointless, irrelevant and perhaps even counter-productive. I am running out of time today, but I would love to say more about this article. I also think that many of my above points need to be incorporated into the article, which I may do at a later date, if anyone will help me refine and develop them by presenting opinions and counter-arguments here, in this discussion page. Ultimately, the article will need to be removed, as the whole notion is based on ... a fiction (no pun). black thorn of brethil 21:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that many Tolkien fans or scholars would disagree with your primary observations that Tolkien's countless interrelated Middle-earth tales are impossible to reconcile and that those complexities themselves have value (whether that was intentional or not). And I know that some agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion: that any attempt to define a Middle-earth "canon" is fundamentally misguided.

For my part, I can enjoy reading about Middle-earth in two rather different ways. One is to study and appreciate the intricate beauty of the mythological cycle in all its countless variations, just as you advocate. But the other is to appreciate Middle-earth as a "sub-created" world with (in some sense) its own internal reality and consistency. The concept of "canon" is antithetical to the first sort of enjoyment (and obviously has no relevance there except possibly as similar concepts influenced Tolkien's writing). But as I argue in my essay Tolkien's Parish, some notion of "canon" is implicit at the heart of that second approach. To the extent that Tolkien intended Middle-earth to be a true "Secondary World", he himself sought to build upon and extend some sort of "canon" to ensure a self-consistent sub-creation. (And that he did so is pretty clear from examples in his writing: consider his abandonment of much of "The Problem of -ros" due to conflicts with the published LotR, for example.)

At any rate, I don't like the suggestion that only one of those two ways to enjoy Middle-earth is the "right" way. And I know from long experience that most readers find the "mythological cycle" side of things deadly dull: the "Secondary World" perspective is all that most people will ever see of Tolkien's works, and I refuse to condemn them for it. That's the justification for treating the "canonical" perspective as the initial point of view in Wikipedia's Middle-earth articles. I do very much agree with your stated goal for their eventual content: I'd love to see every Middle-earth article here discuss the evolution of the mythology. But those discussions could easily swamp the "basic" information that more casual readers would hope to see. I consider the current approach ("canon" first, then detailed discussion of variants) to be a reasonable compromise.--Steuard 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I do apologize to readers for the length of this post. I promise that, if you bear with me, you will find it particularly relevant and (eventually) useful in the context of the entire ‘canon’ discussion. Furthermore, I maintain that all my points (or at least the general ideas behind them) need to be incorporated into the ‘canon’ article.

As it directly relates to the entire concept of this Wiki-entry, and is thus quite germane to this discussion page, I read your essay, Steuard, and wish to comment here: It was nicely done, but that’s about it. There are fatal assumptions your line of reasoning makes; once relieved of the false impression of their reality, the legitimacy of the ‘canon’ concept falls as fast as does any house of cards deprived of its base.

Assumption 1 (on the basis of which you argue that a ‘canon’ is necessary): "There must be a universally imposed consistency on the details (as well as the broader ‘laws’/concepts) of any ‘secondary world’ for its ‘spell’ to be maintained." [my wording] But this is not the case with the primary world, let alone any secondary world. Have you ever played the child’s game ‘telephone’? Or have you ever been party to an incident where a set of rational, well-placed witnesses each provided different (sometimes contradictory) interpretations of what took place? There certainly is no ‘’detailed’’, particular consistency between the reports on reality provided by this world’s inhabitants – yet the ‘spell’ (for most of us, at any rate) is not ‘broken’. What happens instead is that we develop and function with the concept of ‘p.o.v.’ balanced by ‘’general’’ consistency. True: Gravity must work (all the time, more or less) for one to feel comfortable operating under the assumptions implied by the concept of Gravity. Yet one need not to agree with every person on every point concerning ‘how dinner went last night’, or ‘what is our family genealogy’, or even ‘what we said to each other yesterday’ – these things can be disputed, disputable, contradictory even; yet the ‘spell’ is never broken: the sense of reality of this world as a whole is not diminished (nor do we doubt, generally, the sanity of those with whom we dispute these kinds of facts). The world is real, believable, yet we find ourselves in disagreement (sometimes severe). You make a grave mistake if you quote Tolkien (the artist "makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is 'true': it accords with the laws of that world. ... The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed.") and you assume that he means things like the question of whether Celeborn is a Telerian prince of Alqualondë (cousin to Galadriel; making their marriage at least close to incest/taboo [according to the story of Maeglin and Idril Celebrindal]), or an Avari Nandor from what later is called Eregion. The fact is, Tolkien’s contradictory details are commensurate with the contradictions inherent in any non-fictional mytho-historical cycle; these millennia-old cycles almost always fail to maintain detailed, particular consistency, yet hold a broad or general consistency (what I take Tolkien to have meant by “the laws of that world”), and seemed sufficient to the cultures that believed in them. Rather than the Galadriel-question, we should be examining the ‘’motives’’ of the same characters portrayed in different ways, the ‘’themes’’ of disparate episodes, the ‘’consistency’’ of events with the “metaphysics” of Middle-earth etc.

All this is not to say that non-fictional history holds no examples of when conflicting, petty details resulted in systemization and ‘canonization’. Indeed, it is quite the opposite (just think of the development of Christianity). But only one thing has ever resulted from an arbitrary and forced systemization of any mytho-historical tradition: the repression and corruption of the core values (laws) those traditions meant to communicate (again, cf. Christianity, Islam, even Mahayana Buddhism). Like Melkor’s attempts to do what he cannot do (which start as attempts to create, then fail, then morph to attempts to control, mar or destroy) there is an irony attached to the concept of ‘canon’: it betrays itself. It attempts to imitate creation in Middle-earth (by creating a ‘canon’ for Middle-earth; the equivalent of creating a specific reality, as if the ‘canonizer’ is in fact the author [or the ‘author channeled’; perhaps by an amateur store-front psychic]). Yet these attempts fail to create anything but a twisted imitation of the author’s ‘intentions’ (which are wholly inaccessible to the would-be canonizer). I suppose, in a sense, the whole misguided ‘canon’ endeavor might produce some good – it reinforces how precious the inconsistencies and contradictions in Middle-earth really are, and only serves to glorify Tolkien’s skill as the greatest myth-maker ever known. Conclusions here? 1. Particular details need not to be rectified for mytho-historical cycle to maintain its ‘spell’. 2. Canonizer = Failed Attempt to Usurp the Role of Creator. (Yes, it is true. I am in fact claiming that Steuard is none other than the Dreadful Dark; i.e., Melkor himself.)

Assumption 2 (on the basis of which you propose your criteria for ‘canonicity’): "There is the possibility of a single, unified ‘canon’ ‘’not’’ based on arbitrary personal tastes, but rather on the application of an objective, rationally-derived litmus test, or set of criteria." [again, my wording] Indeed, you propose a list of six criteria that you suggest might be applied to questions of inconsistency in the Middle-earth Cycle (with an eye to producing a satisfactory ‘canon’ to which one can appeal in moments of confusion or doubt), yet a reasonable argument could be made as to the legitimacy of each particular point or criterion. E.g., why would the 'amount of information' provided be a test of ‘canonicity’? Between two conflicting points – why take the one that ‘has more information’ (instead of basing one’s decision on ‘what is more consistent’)? This directly contradicts the earlier ‘Ockham’s Razor criterion’ (#1): amazingly (but not surprisingly), your own six points fail to maintain a satisfactory internal consistency! Furthermore, even if one accepted these criteria as legitimate, a further, baseless assumption is being made – that they will reduce the confusion. In fact, their application could (would) certainly devolve into a battleground of opinion and p.o.v. (what is ‘satisfying’, for example? can one NOT go on for days about it?) I am, for the sake of other readers, going to hold off giving further reasons/examples of why these criteria are unsatisfactory and/or ultimately useless – if you need them, let me know. Suffice it say for now that these criteria, being devoid of any concrete rationale that might justify their employment, can rest on no base other than personal taste – things that appeal to ‘’you’’, personally, and that you cannot expect ANY others to value equally. Thus, I propose that NO CRITERIA FOR CANONICITY COULD EVER BE DEVISED OR EMPLOYED THAT WOULD NOT REPRESENT THE BASELESS IMPOSITION OF NON-AUTHORIAL TASTE AND OPINIONS, AND THAT WOULD NOT ULTIMATELY DECAY INTO A NEXT-LEVEL DISPUTE (not shouting here myself – just emphasizing).

This is not say that your opinion, Steuard, on what details or facts are most consistent, most reasonable and valuable, in the histories of Middle-earth, is not itself valuable and important – of course it is! It is part of the interplay of this community – yet it can never be established as ‘law’ in any sense, even if it is shared by a clear majority of Tolkien-readers. The establishment of such authority is simply beyond your authority - or anyone else's. Tolkien is Dead. Thus, we have a secondary world much like the primary: a generally consistent experience enriched by independent points of view that enrich (even when contradictory) the broader experience. Any attempt to regulate or delimit that experience is tantamount to baseless primary-world thought-control, repression, religious/philosophical imposition; it is, in short, literary fascism; it is perverted, corrupt and self-defeating. As the free-flow of ideas threatens not the primary world, but rather enriches it, complicates it and elevates it, the ‘spell’ of the secondary is by no means threatened by a free-speaking community of participants who are welcome (encouraged) to express their own points of view without ever being welcome to play the role of God and actually ‘’write’’ the laws the rest of us are merely trying to comprehend. Think about the nature of the Ainur and their relationship to the Themes provided them by Eru (pbuh): never were they permitted to define and proscribe the possibilities for elaboration present, or the consequences the realization of any given possibility would generate; yet they were free to play with the matter of creation – to choose which elements they most wanted to express. In conclusion (and thank you for allowing me this – large – space to speak), it is clear that 1) the concept of ‘canon’ is fatally flawed and counter-productive (unless it increases the positive valuation of the Cycle as canon-less and canon-proof); 2) the application of the concept of ‘canon’ is itself impossible; 3) one is left with nothing less than a community of opinions, a context into which our passion for Middle-earth can fit, can grow and develop, and can provide each of us a measure of self-revelation.black thorn of brethil 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My first general response is simply to raise a practical question: what approach to these issues will provide the most value for Wikipedia users? Based simply on readership of the various books, I expect that most people looking for the Númenor entry here have read LotR but not Silm., and may never have heard of UT or HoMe. Those users are probably hoping to understand the backstory of LotR a bit better, but only a tiny fraction of them will have any interest in Tolkien's process of composition. I believe that they would be ill-served by a Numenor article whose primary focus was the evolution of the Numenor story in all its myriad forms (from The Lost Road to The Drowning of Anadune to the Akallabeth and everything in between, to say nothing of connections to various histories of the Edain in Beleriand or of the founding of Gondor). That information should certainly be in the Numenor article, but I contend that it should begin only after the "basic" questions relevant to most users are addressed. And any attempt to answer those "basic" questions implies a choice of canon. Hence this article.

I hope that this article makes it clear that no single choice of canon could ever feel right to everyone (even while it makes a single arbitrary choice itself)! It should, and I think that's one of your main points above. For what it's worth, it's also a point that I tried to make in my essay, though your attempt to paraphrase me in your "Assumption 2" suggests that I wasn't clear enough. As I said in my essay,

"A major goal of this essay is to seek as much common ground as possible while recognizing that each person's priorities in defining canon differ. No single strategy is right for everyone."

And when introducing my suggested specific criteria, I said,

"The list that follows inevitably reflects my personal preferences, but I hope that it will seem at least reasonable to most readers."

Maybe that hope was simply naive. Still, I don't know that I've heard from any Tolkien fans who accept some concept of canon but who strongly disagree with the general approach I describe. On the other hand, I hope that neither I nor Wikipedia ever attempt to establish one view of Middle-earth canon as "law" in general! But as I argued above, for the purposes of this encyclopedia making some specific choice as a starting point could be worthwhile.

Finally, a few specific replies. First, it seems that your concern about my "Assumption 1" comes down to a fundamental philosophical difference of opinion. I would be deeply concerned about reality if I did not believe that there really was some objective "true" version of history (whether the history of last night or last century), even though I recognize that different observers may disagree on what that truth was. If I say that I had only cereal for breakfast and you say that I had only eggs, I firmly believe that at least one of us is wrong. Maybe it's just that I'm a scientist, but if I thought the answer to that question was important, I would look for objective ways of distinguishing between the two (asking other witnesses, measuring concentrations of vitamins in my blood, whatever). So no, I won't start to doubt reality if you and I disagree about what I ate. But even if my own memory of it is faulty, I firmly believe that I did make some specific choice about my morning meal! That's the level at which I want to insist that a sub-created world should have some consistent "true" history (whether we can identify it or not). And as I see it, Tolkien's writings show countless examples of him being concerned about this sort of consistency. I can't make sense of Tolkien's notion of a "Secondary World" in any other way.

Next, a comment on your description of a search for canon as an "arbitrary and forced systemization" of the Middle-earth legendarium. I don't like that word "forced", and I don't think it describes my own approach to canon at all. As I tried to describe in my essay, I view the process of identifying "canon" as something very incremental and tentative. I may have a "currently preferred theory" for what is "true" in Middle-earth, but I would never be so arrogant as to claim that it really was Truth. We agree: that was Tolkien's right, and no one else's. Again, this may be the scientist in me, but my perspective is that a search for "canon" is a process of identifying likely bounds on what Tolkien's complete vision for Middle-earth might have been. I can never say, "JRRT would have named Sam's eldest great-grandson Bilbo", but I'm pretty confident in saying "JRRT probably would not have named Sam's eldest great-grandson Vladimir". I don't consider that to be "usurping" anything.

I won't argue here about my specific suggested criteria or your concerns with them (though I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts privately; send me an email if you're so inspired). I clearly don't see them as mutually contradictory (in part because I explicitly assigned them a priority order), and I had hoped that it was clear that their intent was to establish whatever common ground is possible in discussions of different peoples' notions of canon. Part of their intended value was to identify places where personal preference comes into play, so that future discussions could start out with tolerance and respect for such differences. That influenced my "rankings" of them, too: I more or less started from "most objective" and went down to "most subjective", as I saw it.

Well, my reply is probably just as long as your comments, but I hope that I've given some sense of both why some concept of canon is important on Wikipedia and why I find a concept of canon to be enjoyable at times in my own reading. I suggest, though, that further discussion here focus on the first of those points: what form should Wikipedia's Middle-earth content take, and what role should canon play in it?--Steuard 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole concept of ‘canon’ is fatally flawed – this cannot be up for debate. There never will be an inarguable system that can be applied to Middle-earth to iron out its wrinkles. Any system so imposed will be the work of a cadre of individuals who, by virtue of their ceaseless monitoring of changes to Wikipedia articles, and by virtue of their numbers, simply force (and 'force' is the correct word) their views on Wikipedia readers.

But the wrinkles ‘’are’’ the system. I am not saying that Tolkien intended his work to be approached as a series of developing stories. I am not saying that he did not so intend. Rather, I am saying that such (an inconsistent cacophony of tales, poems, histories and mythologies) is what we have, indisputably and forever, and that any attempt to pick and choose – to elevate and/or suppress – amounts to presumption of the worst kind. And it will kill the Cycle. Yet it can be said that there is overwhelming evidence the author never intended to create a world of intimately defined and delimited ‘facts’, but rather that he strove to create a general framework within which interesting possibilities could be explored – forever (at least by him, if not by others).

In short, the achievement of ‘canon’ is utterly impossible and clearly destructive. But this does not diminish the observability of the ‘canon’ question as a phenomenon that finds fictional works attached to living cultures (or subcultures). After all, the ‘canon’ discussion is a real conversation that has an impact on how Wikipedia articles on Tolkien and his Cycle will be constructed. The fact remains that there is a population of Tolkien readers who must insist on rectifying contradictions in Tolkien’s work – this may never change. Aside from the fact that the pure arrogance of this insistence is tantamount to vandalism of the gravest kind, it nonetheless has value as an observable element of the impact that such works can have on the lives of otherwise anonymous individuals. As a cultural phenomenon, the ‘canon’ discussion deserves some kind of documentation? But where? Not inside Middle-earth articles, surely; but rather in a separate and distinct area – perhaps under the category of ‘Middle-earth fandom’ or ‘Middle-earth Impact’? Yet I don’t see this happening. I see ‘canonizers’ infecting Wikipedia articles on Tolkien’s work – like Jesuits burning the Gospel of Thomas.

Nonetheless, I (for one) will work actively to see that no articles on Tolkien or his creations ever fall victim to baseless external organizing or systematizing (with regards to the most particular sorts of details, that is). It is inconceivable that articles on Tolkien’s Middle-earth Cycle be infected by arbitrary posthumous editorial oversight: such impositions are the definition of ‘unencyclopedic’. This is to say that it is inconceivable save where such oversight is noted as an inexplicable expression of taste on the part of those who seek to participate in the creation and manipulation of Middle-earth as a secondary world (i.e., except where sections of these articles express [and so note as such] the actions of a class of fans we can call ‘mini-Morgoths’, or ‘those who, in jealousy, attempt to usurp the role of the Father and become themselves creators of beings and wills they can define and dominate.')

It has, perhaps, become apparent that no discussion of Middle-earth can occur that ignores the almost religious infatuation it inspires in a certain section of society – which infatuation is expressed as a desire to become an integral part of the creation (or, more accurately, the RE-creation) of Middle-earth.

Yet they strive to remake Middle-earth in their own image: and this fact cannot be passed over.

At each instance, it is important that the reader be informed of the emptiness of the concept of ‘canonicity’ as it is applied (though it is important to note the cultural phenomenon as it expresses itself at that moment). E.g., a reasonable article might contain the sentence “There is some dispute as to the ‘canonicity’ of this version of events, yet one remembers that the concept of ‘canon’ is, more or less, equivalent to wanking.” That is, without being facetious, the spirit (or tenor) such remarks need to take, if not the actual letter. I am wholly committed to this endeavor, and I invite those of like mind to join me black thorn of brethil 09:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I note that you have not made any attempt to address my first and most important question: what approach to these issues will provide the most value for Wikipedia users? I would appreciate it if you would do so. In particular, I am eager to hear your explanation of how a Númenor article that focused on the variant forms and evolution of Tolkien's Númenor legend would satisfy a person reading LotR for the first time who wondered "What is this 'Númenor' that they keep talking about?" and came here for the answer. I'm not saying that an approach that begins with some sort of "canon" is perfect or that everyone will be happy with it, but I believe that it's the best solution available to this sort of dilemma. Editors should of course feel free to provide evidence undercutting the very notion of "canon" in any given article's "other versions" section. :)

More personally, I must admit that I'm not too pleased to be accused of "forcing my views on Wikipedia readers", "pure arrogance", "vandalism of the gravest kind", "burning the Gospel of Thomas", or to be called a "mini-Morgoth" or other unpleasant names. I'm also dismayed to see you assert that "The whole concept of ‘canon’ is fatally flawed – this cannot be up for debate", when it's quite clear that it is up for debate, right here and now. Similarly, you say that "the achievement of ‘canon’ is... clearly destructive", when all that is "clear" is your own opinion on the matter. Your comments show a deep lack of respect for me and for the numerous others here who have contributed to this article, and it is hard to read them and still believe that you are discussing these issues in good faith.

Despite your accusations, I view my attempt to identify a Middle-earth canon as a very humble enterprise, one in which Tolkien's unique authority to make decisions and my own complete lack of such authority are constantly in focus. I also find those efforts to be enjoyable when I have the time for them, though it doesn't bother me that you do not. But in any case, you are free to ignore them, and I cannot see how any person's attempt to identify canon could ever interfere with the source texts themselves. (I have never advocated the burning of every copy of Tolkien's original draft of the Ainulindale! :) )--Steuard 17:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

One other point to make: to the extent that the approach in this article represents the current consensus of Wikipedia participants on how to handle the issue of "canon" in Middle-earth articles here, it would probably not be appropriate to make too many sweeping changes in other articles that contradict that policy until some new consensus is reached here. Your position on this issue may eventually be adopted (in whole or in part), but until then, some level of respect for the current policy is probably warranted.--Steuard 17:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

After rereading the above entries, I confess to be rather taken aback at the sarcastic tone that many of my own contributions seem to ... effuse. It's my style, and means to be pointed rather than insulting or personally offensive. That being said, I think I've made a good case that the article we are discussing needs to be revised, or that it needs at least a section devised by the anti-canon community. Truth be told, the article itself does not make clear what 'canon' is, who developed and determined the concept, how it is properly applied to Tolkien's works, and on what authority the term has received its 'franchise'. The article does mention in passing that there is a debate on whether 'canon' is possible - a passing mention. Then it launches into a host of examples that (seemingly) beg for rectification. Then it provides what is, for all intents and purposes, an authoritative list of works that are to be treated as 'canon' by "this encyclopedia".

I propose that the article be revised to include the missing information, or to at least point out the missing information. I also propose that the pro-canon crowd call an international congress - a kind of latter-day "Council of Nicea" - to a) clarify the concept of canon and how it is to be applied, and to b) produce the first Authorized Version of the Middle-earth Cycle, to which later generations can turn when ... in doubt. My tone is playful, but the content is serious - what point is there in developing this term if not to establish some kind of concrete, publishable Middle-earth Canon?

In the meantime, with respect to the way 'canon' is utilized in other articles concerning Middle-earth, I have a few very serious concerns. As said above, the concept of 'canon', when applied to Tolkien's work, is itself without a fixed definition or application, so one wonders how it can be employed at all. Nonetheless (and assuming that the 'canon' concept will, someday, be fully developed and applicable) it becomes a question (the question of this discussion page, if I am not mistaken) as to how the concept's application will affect Wikipedia entries on Middle-earth. This is a difficult question to answer, without a clear concept with which to work. If I understand correctly, the concept of 'canon' requires that a specific set of events (or a specific version of Middle-earth history) be put forward as being most in line with the author's intentions, most consistent with the rest of his works, most consistent with the major published works, etc. I don't know how much it would take to express this view of any fact/version. My own opinion is that 'less' is best. If one is trying to avoid overwhelming the skimming population with 'deeper level' information, then all that is necessary is a note. If the entry is about a published work like The Silmarillion, one would think a simple definition of the work would be accompanied by a (brief) synopsis of its contents, a few notes on the history of its composition, and a statement of its impact on various 'worlds' (literature, pop culture etc.) Also, there could be a note stating that some parts of the book are not considered authoritative by all readers (that is, if such is the case). Since those points could hardly be addressed in the article, it would make sense to provide links to websites where the issues are properly addressed. Sounds like an encyclopedic entry to me, no?

If the entry were dealing with a tale (like Ainulindalë or Aldarion and Erendis), it might look much the same: definition, synopsis, role the tale plays in Cycle, history of composition, 'canon' statements, see-also, links. I see the same thing for other dramatic objects that might have their own entries (a character, or the the Doom of Mandos). There would be basic, very general introduction to the object, and a set of references for those that would like to go deeper. Such general treatment would have the clear bonus of not getting too detailed, and thus not needing to explicitly address questions of 'canon' - that can be left to the external links - the proper fora for such debates/details.

Again the major stumbling blocks to the implementation of the Canonist Agenda (if I may be so bold) are the 1) lack of clear definition of the term, 2) lack of clear method of application, 3) lack of recognized authority. If these issues aren't addressed, I am afraid that attempts to insert Canonist opinions into what are supposed to be otherwise pov-free articles, must (according to the rules of this encyclopedia) result in amendation and/or arbitration. I'll keep my eyes open to see these questions addressed in the article, and to see what then will follow.black thorn of brethil 04:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the 'major stumbling blocks':

1. lack of clear definition of the term

   See Canon (fiction) for an entire article defining the term and how it is applied to numerous different works of fiction on Wikipedia.

2. lack of clear method of application

   I'm not sure what this means, but the method of application seems to be the use of Template:Mecanon to specify that the main article covers one commonly held view and 'Other versions of the legendarium' holds information on other versions and interpretations.

3. lack of recognized authority

   I think it is commonly agreed that JRR Tolkien is a recognized authority on Middle-earth. Some extend this also to Christopher Tolkien.

My own view is that the only true problem with 'canon' is that people will never agree on what it is. I suppose this is what the 'lack of recognized authority' was getting at... there was a recognized authority, but he died thirty years ago. However, while that will prevent any single absolute canon from ever being defined / commonly accepted it does not prevent the concept from being useful. There are numerous things which virtually everyone agrees on (i.e. 'Bilbo Baggins was a hobbit, not an elf'). Treating such as a potential 'canon' is not unreasonable... though some might then object that there was a rumor of Bilbo having had a 'faery' ancestor... and Tolkien indicated his ears were slightly elvish, and thus a 'part elvish Bilbo' theory might be mentioned in 'Other versions of the legendarium'. I think we should present information on all the drafts and all plausible views, but wherever possible the most commonly held should be given first. You seem to be suggesting that the details be left out to whatever degree is needed to avoid divergent versions... would that not inevitably lead to people who aren't aware that there ARE divergent versions just filling in the details of the one source they are familiar with? For instance, if we are not to discuss different versions / the concept of 'canon' at all then Gil-galad's parentage would have to be ignored entirely - at which point someone would certainly come along and add in that his father was Fingon... though that is founded solely on an editorial decision by CJRT which he has since declared to have been an error. Better to have all the details right there in the article. --CBDunkerson 13:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agenda-driven Vandalism

I don't have time to make a detailed analysis of who changed what, but someone came in with an intention to rewrite the canon article for their own purposes. I have removed several of the changes. Before those changes are restored and allowed to stand, they should be fully discussed here.Michael Martinez 14:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what person or combination of people made the changes that you've edited here, but to my eye it's pretty clear that most of them were not in any sense "vandalism": no disagreement about the proper content of the article deserves that name. (Somebody writing "Tolkien sucks!" between paragraphs is "vandalism". Somebody changing a page to say that Gil-Galad's father was Fingon isn't, even though they're wrong.) And as for saying "someone came in with an intention to rewrite the canon article for their own purposes", that's precisely what you did when you first showed up here and edited it so thoroughly to conform to your own perspective. Neither action was wrong; the point is to work toward some sort of consensus on an NPOV version of the article that's acceptable to the whole community.

Meanwhile, I considered at least some of your edits here to be very strongly POV, so I've revised them slightly into a more neutral state pending discussion here (or indefinitely, if people approve of my approach there). Personally, as you know, I consider your "distinct mythologies" take on Tolkien's writing to be entirely unsupported by JRRT, Christopher Tolkien, or any other recognized authority on the texts; I'd prefer not to see your point of view represented here at all. But given our long history together, I don't feel impartial enough to be the one to remove them entirely (and you would certainly object to that in any case); that's for the broader community to decide. I hope that you'll extend the same courtesy to the point of view that I (and Conrad and others) have advocated.

Oh, and incidentally, I saw your recent post to the Tolkien newsgroups about your canon/Balrog/etc. article. I think that including a handful of links in this article to essays discussing the canon question could be a good thing, and it seems reasonable to link to something of yours on the subject, my own essay, and any others out there that are well-regarded. Would that recent essay of yours be a good choice?--Steuard 16:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Steuard, you're one of the people who has come here to use Wikipedia to advance your own personal propaganda, so you'll have to accept that I'm not about to extend any credence to your lengthy rationalizations.

The purpose of the Middle-earth canon article is clearly to lay down the ground rules for the texts that the Wikipedia Middle-earth project will use as canon. It is not a vehicle for resolving news group arguments.Michael Martinez 04:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael, if you want to accuse me of using Wikipedia's Tolkien articles to advance a personal agenda, I would ask that you cite an example or two of my edits that you believe reflect that. I deny that I have made any (I don't believe that adding a handful of external links to essays and resources that have generated considerable praise is "propaganda"). In particular, I would point out that in this most recent edit of mine (which you just reverted with the altogether unjustified accusation of "vandalism") I explicitly tried to take a neutral point of view rather than just deleting your position (despite my belief that it is devoid of merit). And the purpose of this article is both to explain the general idea of a Middle-earth canon and to establish conventions for Wikipedia articles. I'm glad that we agree that it's not to resolve ongoing arguments.

If you believe that my suggested edits to this article were not appropriate, I humbly request that you attempt to improve them rather than simply discarding them, and that you discuss your concerns here before reverting good-faith edits. If you persist in reverting efforts to make this article neutral, I will take steps toward a more formal resolution as described in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. In the meantime, I'm restoring my attempt at a NPOV article in place of your single-POV version.

(Incidentally, why do you feel that a note on Findis's birth order is so important in this article?)--Steuard 17:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following text:

"Readers must be careful not to confuse the various mythologies depicted in these writings as a continuous stream of revisions, for they are not successive revisions of the same stories, but rather are successive experimentations in the development of fictional mythologies and folk-lores."

I believe this is directly contradicted by:

"But the mythology (and associated languages) first began to take shape during the 1914-18 war. The Fall of Gondolin (and the birth of Eärendil) was written in hospital and on leave after surviving the Battle of the Somme in 1916. The kernel of the mythology, the matter of Luthien Tinuviel and Beren, arose from a small woodland glade filled with 'hemlocks' (or other white umbellifers) near Roos on the Holderness peninsula - to which I occasionally went when free from regimental duties while in the Humber Garrison in 1918.

I came eventually and by slow degrees to write The Lord of the Rings to satisfy myself..." - JRRT, Letters #165 (~1966)

Tolkien consistently (as above) described his works from The Fall of Gondolin through Lord of the Rings and beyond as being part of "the mythology" rather than separate 'mythologies' as claimed. To all appearances they were indeed "successive revisions of the same stories". Please cite sources to the contrary if such exist. --CBDunkerson 17:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Conrad, it's not directly contradicted by that letter. I remind you again that partial citation, where you deliberately exclude relevant, pertinent sections of various texts does not in any way prove your points or make you look authoritative or knowledgeable.

"

 This business began so far back that it might be said to have begun
 at birth.  Somewhere about six years old I tried to write some 
 verses on a *dragon* about which I now remember nothing except that 
 it contained the expression *a green great dragon* and that I 
 remained puzzled for a very long time at being told that this should 
 be *great green*.  But the mythology (and associated languages) first 
 began to take shape during th 1914-18 war.  *The Fall of Gondolin* 
 (and the birth of Earendil) was written in hospital and on leave 
 after surviving the Battle of the Somme in 1916.  The kernel of the 
 mythology, the matter of *Luthien Tinuviel* and *Beren*, arose 
 from a small woodland glade filled with 'hemlocks' (or other white 
 umbellifers) near Roos on the Holderness peninsula -- to which I 
 occasionally went when free from regimental duties while in the 
 Humber Garrison in 1918." 

I know I have posted that citation where you could see it at least as far back as April 16 1999, according to the Google Groups archive. Now, either Tolkien's 6-year-old story about a "green great dragon" is part of Middle-earth or he was explicitly speaking about something else altogether.

As far as the various mythologies, Christopher quite clearly distinguishes between them in numerous citations I have provided for you in the news groups, as you are well aware.

In the Foreword to The War of the Jewels, Christopher Tolkien wrote:

"

 ...I use the term 'Silmarillion', of course, in a very wide sense
 this though potentially confusing is imposed by the extremely 
 complex relationship of the different 'works' -- especially but 
 not only that of the QUENTA SILMARILLION and the ANNALS; and my 
 father himself employed the name in this way...."

He and his father used "the mythology" in a similarly very broad sense, and that is undoubtedly why some scholars now prefer to speak of The Legendarium, which encompasses all of Tolkien's works without dwelling on the various mythical worlds.

This discussion page is not intended for one of your miscitation debates. Nor is the canon article intended to be a vehicle for misinformation regarding Tolkien's works.

Until you start providing clear, accurate, and unadulterated citations which are in no way misleading about the authors' original intentions, your arguments will bear no fruit with me. I have explained that to you many times through the years as well. Michael Martinez 21:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In the quoted passage Tolkien clearly says "the mythology" in reference to materials from The Fall of Gondolin through The Lord of the Rings. One singular mythology for texts written thirty years apart. Not multiple mythologies as you claim. The various false ad-hominem attacks you direct at me do nothing to obscure that fact. You draw attention to the 'dragon at age 6' as if this must prove the absence of connection, but if you really don't see how a 'Green Dragon' fits into the later mythology there may be no help for it. Nor does Christopher's statement that he (like his father) uses 'Silmarillion' to refer to a wider range of texts than just the Quenta in any way speak to whether there was one mythology or several... it's a completely unrelated factoid. Even now it is not uncommon to refer to The Fall of Gondolin as a 'Silmarillion' story... because though it was written separately it is still clearly part of the same mythological history. Attempts to explain away why JRRT (and CJRT) always use the term 'mythology' (singular) rather than 'mythologies' (plural) in reference to his Middle-earth stories do not make them cease to be. The fact is that there simply aren't any instances of JRRT saying that his Middle-earth stories were divided into separate mythologies, and thus there is no basis for this article to say it is 'a mistake' to treat them as one mythology. If that were a mistake, then it would be a mistake that the author made repeatedly;

"Having set myself a task, the arrogance of which I fully recognized and trembled at: being precisely to restore to the English an epic tradition and present them with a mythology of their own: it is a wonderful thing to be told that I have succeeded, at least with those who have still the undarkened heart and mind. It has been a considerable labour, beginning really as soon as I was able to begin anything, but effectively beginning when I was an undergraduate and began to explore my own linguistic aesthetic in language-composition. ... The early work was done in camps and hospitals between 1915 and 1918 - when time allowed. But I think alot of this kind of work goes on at other (to say lower, deeper, or higher introduces a false gradation) levels, when one is saying how-do-you-do, or even 'sleeping'. I have long ceased to invent (though even patronizing or sneering critics on the side praise my 'invention'): I wait till I seem to know what really happened. Thus, though I knew for years that Frodo would run into a tree-adventure somewhere far down the Great River, I have no recollection of inventing Ents." Letters #180

Frodo and the early work of 1915-1918 described as parts of the same "mythology of their own" for the English. One mythology. Singular. For texts written 30+ years apart. Again, not multiple mythologies as you claim, but can provide no citation for.

RESPONSE: Please include your signature.

I'll include the previous paragraph, which makes it obvious Tolkien was not talking about a single coherent mythology, conceived of in 1917 and carried forward to 1956 (such a thing never existed).

"I do not (and never did) much enjoy the reading of 'literature'. For amusement and relaxation I like to read accounts of the structure and history (if known) of languages, though these accounts commonly offer a sense of disappointment similar to my experience of 'literature', the languages described seem seldom to "come off". 'Literature' seems for me almost always to miss the point -- i.e. what I hoped to find, except in falshes. I eventually, and by slow degrees, came to write The Lord of the Rings to satisfy myself: of course without success, at any rate not above 75%. But now (when the work is no longer hot, immediate, or so personal) certain factions of it, and espec. certain places still move me very powerfully. The heart remains in the description of Cerin Amroth (end of Vol. I, Bk ii ch. 6), but I am most stirred by the sound of the horses of Rohirrim at cockcrow; and most grieved by Gollum's failure (just) to repent when interrupted by Sam; this seems to me really like the real world in which the instruments of just retribution are seldom themselves just or holy; and the good are often stumbling-blocks.

"This business began so far back that it might be said to have begun at birth. Somewhere about 8 years old I tried to write some verses on a dragon -- about which I now remember nothing except that it contained the expression a green great dragon, and that I remained puzzled for a very long time at being told that this should be great green. But the mythology (and associated languages) first began to take shape during the 1914-18 war. The Fall of Gondolin (and the birth of Earendil) was written in hospital and on leave after surviving the 'Battle of the Somme' in 1916. The kernel of the mythology, the matter of Luthien Tinuviel & Beren arose from a small woodland glade filled with 'hemlocks' (or other white umbellifers) near Roos on the Holderness peninsular -- to which I occasionally went when free from regimental duties when in the Humber Garrison in 1919.

"Nothing has astonished me more (and I think my publishers) than the welcome given to the L.R. But it is, of course, a constant source of consolation and pleasure to me. And, I may say, a piece of singular good fortune, much envied by some of my contemporaries. Wonderful people still buy the book, and to a man 'retired' that is both grateful & comforting. There are a great many more things I could say. I rarely unlock my hreberloca /bosom/, or for such a purpose my wordhard /vocabulary/, but time and a sense of propriety stop me now. I have taken some time at intervals to write this since Christmas; I hope not hopelessly illegible; and if it is to reach you before Jan. 8, it had better take wings tomorrow.

NOTE: I took the source for this text from (http://www.leslie-turek.com/misc/tolkien.html) because I'm at work and don't have the book with me to quote.

Conrad's inexplicable focus on isolated and unconnected elements in the Tolkien texts does not need to be replicated in the Wikipedia articles, which are already struggling for coherence but at least represent a more communal point of view. Michael Martinez 23:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-promotion

Steuard wrote: "Michael, if you want to accuse me of using Wikipedia's Tolkien articles to advance a personal agenda, I would ask that you cite an example or two of my edits that you believe reflect that."

Steuard, the Middle-earth article discussion pages contain more than one suggestion by you that people look at and/or link to various essays you have written on topics with extremely colorful histories. Your most ardent arguments have been posted on behalf of minority viewpoints that have arisen from your unique experience in the news groups without regard for the sense of community vision that these Wikipedia articles are intended to represent.

You don't accept compromises on these issues. There are a thousand details I'd like to change in these articles but I leave them be because I don't view the Wikipedia as an opportunity to crusade for my viewpoints. When it comes down to impartiality, your frequent suggestions that people look at your various essays disqualify you in the most significant way. You are self-promotional, which is not in keeping with the Wikipedia philosophy.Michael Martinez 21:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. See, I thought you were accusing me of actually changing the main content of the articles themselves to promote some personal agenda. If you were merely refering to my handful of talk-page requests for comment on the value of external links to my writings, I misunderstood you. (You may note that the replies I've gotten here have been almost universally positive, by the way.) But surely you aren't suggesting that using talk pages to promote one's own preferred vision for an article's content is inappropriate? That's what they're for!

As for my suggestions that people on talk pages look at my essays, I've generally made those in cases where I felt they expressed my opinions on topics under discussion on those talk pages, my notion of canon not least. It seems more efficient than reposting the whole things here, and I see nothing wrong with it. And as for me not accepting compromises, that's just laughable. Even setting aside my history on the newsgroups (where as you recall I got quite a reputation as a peacemaker, whether successful or not), look at our recent history in this article: rather than just reverting your changes, I tried to write a neutral version (despite my completely disagreement with your position). Your subsequent reversion made no attempt at neutrality, and your charactarization of my attempt at compromise as "vandalism" was patently false.--Steuard 05:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "This encyclopedia"

Shouldn't Wikipedia:Avoid self reference come into play somewhere with this article? If this article is about the general nature of canon in Tolkien's unpublished work, and how various Tolkien scholars, and Christopher Tolkien, have addressed this issue, then it's okay. But much of the article seems to consist of a prescription of how "this encyclopedia" will deal with Tolkien canon issues. It seems to me that this is not an appropriate task for a wikipedia article in the main name space, and that it constitutes to some extent original research. If we want to have an article discussing how wikipedia will treat Tolkien canon issues in other articles on wikipedia, that article ought to be in the wikipedia name space, and not in the main name space. john k 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody out there? john k 07:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you are saying, but I am not sure if you are talking about the concept of this article, or simply the way it stands currently. Are there editable elements of the article that are self-referencing (i.e., that refer to Wikipedia or the Wikipedia project)? Or is the entire article as a concept (i.e., as the 'Wikipedia Canon' article) self-referencing? If the former, then simply edit out the self-references. If the latter, then propose how the issue could be handled without self-referencing. While reading the policy on self-referencing, I noticed also "...articles produced should be useful even outside the context of the project used to create it." This does seem to negate a significant portion of the purpose of the 'canon' article if it is designed as a Wiki-article only (useful only insofar as it defines how the Wikipedia community will apply the concept of 'canon' to Tolkien articles in Wikipedia). In fact, it could undermine the whole 'canon' project. Someone ought to get on it, or risk seeing it deleted altogether. black thorn of brethil 08:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the article. Where 'Middle-earth canon' is discussed the items 'used in this encyclopedia' are fairly common views. The issue of how to define a 'canon' for Middle-earth is an old and widespread one and thus certainly deserving of an article. I just changed the wording from self-referential definitions of how things are done here to views which are held by many. If we want to have specific and detailed lists for Wikipedia itself I'd suggest putting them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards (which currently just refers to this article for 'canon' issues). --CBDunkerson 14:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The question of canon with respect to Tolkien's works is highly charged, and as was originally explained when this article was first proposed, its purpose is to define for the Wikipedia visitors what canonical choices have been made to govern the Wikipedia Middle-earth project's articles. That means that self-reference is the purpose and function of the article.Michael Martinez 21:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for replying, all. Here's my view: an article on how to determine what is "canonical" is quite possibly appropriate, but needs to be done carefully. In particular, it has to be careful to avoid original research. An article "to define for Wikipedia visitors what canonical choices have been made to govern the Wikipedia Middle-earth project's articles" is not appropriate as an article in the main name space. As CBDunkerson suggests, this kind of issue ought to be dealt with in the wikipedia name space, because there is absolutely no way that the way wikipedia treats Middle-Earth canon is a subject worthy of an encyclopedia article.

Basically, an article in the main name space on "Middle-Earth canon" can discuss fan opinions on these issues, to the extent that a consensus of editors finds such things to be of encyclopedic value, and to be both notable and not original research, both of which are tricky for fandom issues. We can also discuss what Christopher Tolkien himself has said on the subject, and what Tolkien scholars may have said, to the extent that they've concerned themselves with the issue of canon. It seems to me that, for the most part, this is an issue which is not of great interest to actual literary scholars, who are generally not concerned with creating a single consistent "right" history of a fictional world, so it might be difficult to find sufficient material on the subject if we try to eschew fannish discussion. My personal view is that to the extent that there's a whole lot of fannish discussion of Tolkien canon, it is probably acceptable to have an article on this issue, but that we need to be really careful.

What is not appropriate is to have a wikipedia main name space article which is "how wikipedia treats X issue in our articles on the subject." This is the very definition of what should be in the wikipedia name space, and is completely inappropriate to the main name space. To the extent that this article is actually about "how wikipedia treat Middle-Earth canon in other articles," it should not be located here. john k 22:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If the canon artcle is not left in place, unaltered with respect to its purpose, the whole project will lose all semblance of coherence for casual visitors who want to know why things are described "so" and not "so". How often does that question arise? Who knows? Probably depends on the level of knowledge of the visitor.

But Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy need to be flexible. This topic has already been subjected to extensive manipulation and the canon article, if left alone, at least establishes which sources the other articles are expected to treat as authoritative. If it's ground-breaking, then let it break ground. Other things will become far more broken otherwise.Michael Martinez 23:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The current way of doing articles on these subjects is untenable, too. It's absurd for the article about Gil-galad to pretend that his parentage is clearly settled because Christopher Tolkien noted in the last volume of HOME that he thinks his father intended it to be that way, and only mention alternate versions (and, in this case, we actually only mention the Fingon alternate version, and not the version whereby Gil-galad is the son of Finrod Felagund, for instance) in a "other versions of the legendarium" section. Each article should explain on its own, in a natural way, the various canonical issues associated with the given topic. This is the basic way of wikipedia, and, as black thorn of brethil has noted, this is the way we deal with articles on real mythologica subjects. For instance, our Odysseus article notes straight out in the introduction the alternate versions as to who Odysseus's father was. I see no particular reason that the same way of doing things can't be done with Tolkien articles. If we do it this way, then there is no question of confusing readers - we are assuming that they are intelligent people who can understand that Tolkien's Silmarillion mythology (or mythologies) never attained final form, and thus that various points have been written about in different ways. It's absurd for wikipedia editors to feel that it is somehow our right to decide what is canonical and what is not. john k 23:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't be deciding what is and is not 'canonical', but I don't think it is unreasonable to recognize instances where most people see things a certain way. You note that there are other possible parentages for Gil-galad... this is true, but very few people have heard of or are interested in any but the two detailed. I think it would be great to include information on all of them, but I also think it makes sense to make greater note of the more 'accepted' theories. That's how I see the 'canon' concept on Wikipedia... not as 'what is true', but rather 'what many, but not all, fans think of as true'. Mixing all the possibilities together can get very confusing... there were actually alot of different versions of Gil-galad's parentage. Should the bit where he was descended from Feanor be given equal weight with the others? Does it really make sense to have three paragraphs (at least) towards the top on who his father was? That said, I agree that any standards for how we handle this do not belong in article space under normal wiki-practice. No reason they can't be stated elsewhere and leave this for a discussion of the issues surrounding the concept of 'canon'. --CBDunkerson 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So long as some reasonable means exists of verifying what percentage of people find Middle-earth to 'really be' a certain way, I don't see a problem with such being recorded in Middle-earth entries - a relevant fact is a relevant fact. I do also see value in being able to provide a synopsis of events (or a 'biography' for a character etc.) that is free from distracting notations, at least in the main body of the article. That being said, I think that the Middle-earth Canon article ought be about the 'movement' to establish that canon - about that movement's history, its claims, its disagreements and detractors. I do not think it should in any way exist as a means of explaining what happens to Wikipedia entries on Middle-earth (insofar as 'what happens' is not happening to Middle-earth entries in traditional encyclopedias). I do see John K's point that, as it stands, the article is a bizarre creature that laps continuously on the shores of self-reference. Something has got to give, and it ought not to be the 'rules' on Wikipedia - it's a can of worms sort of thing, a pandora's box ; it could change completely the central vision of what Wikipedia is. black thorn of brethil 02:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What reasonable means could there possibly be to demonstrate "what percentage of people find Middle-earth to "really be" a certain way? Is this even a relevant way of determining this? I would imagine that, on the issue of Gil-galad's paternity, the vast majority of people who have any idea who Gil-galad is have no idea who his father is (having read only LOTR). Of those who think they know who his father is, the vast majority (having read the Silmarillion, but not HOME) presumably think that Fingon is his father. In terms of how to deal with the Gil-galad issue, I would basically suggest that either a) the intro not mention his parentage at all, just saying that he was the last High King of the Noldor, of the house of Finwë, and the specifics be discussed at a later point in the article; or b) it mention Orodreth-as-father, but with an asterix leading to discussion of the issue in more detail. Otherwise, though, I basically agree with you. john k 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

John K

"The current way of doing articles on these subjects is untenable, too. It's absurd for the article about Gil-galad to pretend that his parentage is clearly settled because Christopher Tolkien noted in the last volume of HOME that he thinks his father intended it to be that way, and only mention alternate versions (and, in this case, we actually only mention the Fingon alternate version, and not the version whereby Gil-galad is the son of Finrod Felagund, for instance) in a "other versions of the legendarium" section....

Your objection is sensible inasfar as it goes, but considering the explosive growth of the Middle-earth project, how do you propose to handle this? We already have abusive people inserting their agendae into the articles and it's only going to get worse. So, you've noted the discrepancy, what is the solution?

Well, I would say the main solution is to have more information, and not less, in articles, and not to pretend that there is a clear "canon" on an issue when there obviously isn't. It is simply not clear how, for instance, we are to designate Orodreth's parentage - Tolkien's latest intention was apparently to make him son of Angrod. But the narrative of the Silmarillion as written makes him a son of Finarfin, and his role up to the Dagor Bragollach in the narrative (his being an active figure at the debate on whether or not to return to Middle-Earth, his role succeeding Finrod in charge of Tol Sirion) is basically inconsistent with him as a son of Angrod (not completely inconsistent, but awkward enough that one would imagine that Tolkien might have revised this, had he gotten a chance - given Orodreth's roles here to Angrod, for instance). Our article shouldn't try to reconcile two essentially disparate versions - the more complete, but older version, with Orodreth as son of Finarfin, and the completely fragmentary, but later version with Orodreth as son of Angrod. We should give our readers credit that they can understand that the Silmarillion is a complicated work, and that it doesn't necessarily fit together to give a "canonical" picture. Wikipedia is not a fan site, and the job of our article is not to describe the "real history" of Middle-Earth, since there is no such thing. In any wikipedia article, people will insert their agendas, but the usual rules work well enough for everything else. I don't see where Middle-Earth stuff becomes a specific problem. john k 05:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

black thorn of brethil

"Something has got to give, and it ought not to be the 'rules' on Wikipedia - it's a can of worms sort of thing, a pandora's box ;

Maybe, but these articles are just barely close to competent in some areas now. And the project has received a lot of attention under the current system. How would you propose it be corrected without inviting a massive amount of abusive miseditng such as is currently happening in three articles now? Michael Martinez 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the relationship is - bad edits will happen no matter what the standards are. We shouldn't set bad standards and pretend that this will somehow help in dealing with that. john k 05:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This entire discussion page is at serious risk of looking like a teen chat room. The hilarity of many of the comments above (including some of my own) is profound. The fiery heyday of the long-running debate between ex-pro-canon-comrades Martinez and Stu/Dunkerson must have been epic. But folks (I say this with no offense intended), in this forum it comes off as utterly ridiculous.

I don't, John, ever expect anyone to devise a reasonable method of determining the opinions of a clear majority of Tolkien readers (readers at any level). That is the point of the remark. But I am no longer going to debate here whether canonist thinking is supportable. It's not that the subject has lost its charm (quite the opposite). Rather, as a person becoming increasingly familiar with the way WP works, I am increasingly worried by an overriding set of concerns (brought to my attention by John and CB independently) that undermine the legitimacy of the entire article regardless of my opinions concerning canonicity.

The rules of Wikipedia seem clear with regards to articles that are self-referencing - they are not allowed. So long as this article maintains its self-referencing position, it is at risk of being rewritten or deleted altogether (I am in the process of learning the policies concerning such disputes; the processes and procedures). Since this is an entrenched WP policy, resistance may be futile. But there is a double-whammy here: the article (indeed, the entire canonist concept as here presented) is not framed as a report on externally established 'knowledge' (which would require some kind of proof on the opinions of 'the majority of readers', or 'the majority of experts', at the least), but rather seems to exist to propose solutions itself to the problem of inconsistencies in the 'legendarium' and the way in which those problems appear in WP articles. (Just reading this entire discussion page makes it quite clear what the framers/revisors of the article have in mind - which is the question of how this article will be useful to resolve questions of canon raised in other articles.) But such is a clear violation of WP policy on Primary Research. Should one of the canonists get something (i.e., canonist proposals) published in a fully peer-reviewed venue (journal, website, book), WP provides a space for his/her proposals in the form of an article discussing the details of his/her published work.

Until then ... well.

Lastly, I'll list my opinions: I agree that a host of Middle-earth articles, as they now stand, are seriously lacking. I agree that a guideline dealing with the unfinished and contradictory nature of Middle-earth mythology (see below) might be useful to aid in the construction of many Middle-earth articles. I also think that some people are engaging in a long-term revision war that includes some unique and original takes on Tolkien's mythology ('mythology' being defined by dictionaries as either a single myth, or a 'body of myths' encompassing a plurality in its singular form - e.g. 'Irish Mythology' or 'Greek Mythology' - so that I suppose a part [only a part, mind you] of the whole mythology-mythologies debate is based on flawed use of the language: after all, no one takes a course on Greek Mythologies, but rather on Greek Mythology. Thus, we also must being studying Middle-earth Mythology.)

I guess I think that some of the Middle-earth canon article is as confused an item as some of its supporters seem to be, and is only slightly less baselessly arrogant.

I'm working on an npov, non-self-referencing, non-solution-proposing article on the literary concept of 'canon' as it has been applied to Middle-earth mythology. If anybody wants to critique it, email me. black thorn of brethil 11:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Brethil - it seems to me that the literary concept of "canon" is ultimately dissimilary to the fannish concept of "canon." The original idea of a "canon" comes out of the Bible, and the disputes of theologians as to which books are truly part of the Bible, and which are not. Notice the difference here - Canon in this case is determined by religious authorities. This is not like "Middle-earth canon" at all. The latter is essentially a fannish enterprise to determine what "really" happened in an imaginary place. There's nothing wrong with fans doing things like this - I myself enjoy treating literary worlds as real and trying to reason things about them. But it's not really encyclopedic. A wikipedia article on Gil-galad or Orodreth should not attempt to describe the "canonical" character. This is a futile enterprise. It should give a good précis of the development of the character as a literary character, and explain the changes that they went through. To some extent, our articles already do this. But they need to do a better job of it. As to this article, we really need to massively overhaul it. john k 15:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

On 'self reference'... reviewing WP:ASR shows that technically one of the circumstances in which self-references are allowed is a vague ("neutral") self-reference. Saying 'In Wikipedia' would violate the policy because the same text might then be included in a printed document or mirrored/forked to another site. However, saying 'In this encyclopedia' works equally well whether the document is being read here on Wikipedia or somewhere it has been reproduced and is thus allowed when needed. That said, I think we'd still be better served having any community standards on 'how to arrange information from multiple versions' stored elsewhere. The concept of 'canon' for Middle-earth is (as seen here) a complicated and contenious enough issue to require an article on it's own, without combining in presentation standards - which traditionally have been kept in Wikipedia space... largely in Wikiprojects like the Middle-earth Wikiproject. --CBDunkerson 16:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the key sentence: Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. Similarly, if you read about Tolkien's works, you are presumably not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. I agree that a Wikiproject is the obvious place for material such as the second half of this article. john k 17:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

John - It is true that the term 'canon' originated with the labeling of certain church officials (canons) and grew to include disputes over church law and the authorized books of the Bible. But that is not the only common usage. It has, in the interim, become also a standard literary term that refers to 'authorized' versions (concerning copyright and content) of an author's literary endeavors. The terms 'canon', 'canonical' and 'canonicity' as applied to the entire body of Middle-earth writings are derivative of the standard, accepted literary term 'canon'. See, as a merely coincidental example, the following (interesting in its own right) link: (http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/canon/defcan.html) Also visit any good online dictionary and just look up 'canon' (e.g., m-w.com : "3 [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard] a : an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b : the authentic works of a writer c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature>." I think b) and c) are the usages from which 'Middle-earth canon' is derived.) Cheers. black thorn of brethil 06:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I otherwise agree with everything you're saying. I am still waiting for the 'authorities' to email me with requests for my proposed revision to this article. black thorn of brethil 06:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"B" doesn't work at all for the "middle earth canon" - the Lost Tales are, under that definition, just as canonical as the Lord of the Rings - all are authentic works of Tolkien. This sense of "canonical" would only apply if there were some Pseudo-Tolkien books out there, purporting to be by Tolkien, but not actually (well...there'd be one example under this definition of "non-canonical," and that'd be the published Silmarillion which is a mixture of actual Tolkien writing and stuff by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay, especially the last three chapters of the Quenta Silmarillion)...in terms of the third meaning, yes, "canonical" in that sense fits. In this sense, "canonical" obviously means "those works which, when combined, provide an internally consistent history of Middle-earth which corresponds as closely as possible to Tolkien's final intentions, except that whole Round Earth garbage that he started getting into, which we don't want to mess with." So, sure, that's a "canon" of some sort. The question is, to whom is this canon interesting? It is not interesting to literary scholars, who have no interest in creating an internally consistent history of Middle-earth. This is basically an issue of fandom, then. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with fandom, but it becomes quite difficult to actually determine what fandom thinks. One issue that could be discussed is the way the multifarious Tolkien reference works which have been published have dealt with the issue of canonicity. john k 16:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the way the multifarious(?) Tolkien-reference works have dealt with this issue is one thing that could be discussed. Tell us which other ways (discussed above) might also fit. black thorn of brethil 10:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Deed is Done

Nobody emailed to preview my edits. Thus, I've revised the original article, incorporating most of it into my revision. I removed the self-references, and the primary research. I left several sections blank ("History of the Movement" and "See Also"). I expect others who know more to complete these sections. It would be great if someone would lay out a history of the canon-movement as it took place on the newsgroups. I would like to add relevant links to the debates over canon (over the concept itself and over what is or is not to be considered canon), including original articles by other contributors. I also left the 'pro' and 'con' sections intentionally sparse, so as to create further debate on this discussion page, and to ensure the authenticity of those sections (I am 'con', so I did my best w/'pro', but I am sure it is not good enough - I left the 'con' very very sparse, to allow for community participation). Well? Comments? Questions? black thorn of brethil 08:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is going to need extensive reworking. It looks like you tossed almost everything and wrote a completely new version of the page. The new page also reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article (flowery wording and imagery rather than simple presentation) and presents a one-sided interpretation throughout the entirety of the text regardless of the small 'con' section. The 'pro' and 'con' can probably be worked into the text rather than occupying separate segments. For now I filled out the 'History' section and made a few other adjustments. The idea of a 'movement' advocating canon is completely backwards BTW... originally it was simply accepted that TH, LOTR, and Silm WERE canon. There were a few minor questions about inconsistencies and Christopher's editorial alterations, but the three books were essentially accepted as written. The movement away from 'canon' began with the publication of the various draft texts and has since progressed in every forum where they have been discussed... again, preceding the Usenet newsgroups. Nobody 'started' trying to define a 'canon'... rather, over time people have begun to suggest that we should stop doing so. --CBDunkerson 13:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure it will need reworking. It was a first attempt. But I certainly didn't toss everything. I incorporated everything that was not self-referencing or primary (I tossed things that said 'this is canon', for example). I will remove (eventually) what might be considered 'flowery'. Do point out specifics, to help me in this. (At the same time, your addition contains one of the longest attempts at a sentence that I've seen on WP.)

As to the 'History' question, there must be a better description available somewhere than "it simply was accepted...", or "the movement ... has since progressed in every forum..." Which fora? What are notable examples of the canon-debate, historically speaking? There has to be a way to describe, in an encyclopedic manner, the ways in which the canon debate has lived - a starting point might be journals and magazines, the oldest fan organizations & societies, followed by the internet and newsgroups etc. Hasn't anyone researched this? Sounds like a bonafide grad-school project. black thorn of brethil 20:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the history is "notable" in an encyclopedic sense. I've been involved in a 'larger Tolkien community' since the birth of the Tolkien newsgroups on Usenet and could probably rummage up a fair number of details from the newsletters, societies, and mailing lists prior to that... but why? That's trivia at best. There are no 'great moments in canon philosophy' to uncover. The books were accepted as written. Then there were doubts based on alternate versions. Now there is debate over the applicability of the canon concept. That is the 'history'... natural, inevitable under the circumstances, and taking place in parallel everywhere the books were discussed. I was talking about these issues with a handful of local friends in the late 80s before the Tolkien newsgroups were created. Scattered similar discussions took place on older Usenet newsgroups. Issues of canon are discussed in early Vinyar Tengwar and other newsletters I have. Et cetera. Much more isolated communities - all following the same path. At this point, and going forward, I see those who know only TH, LotR, and Silm generally treating those as 'canon' while those who have read the many other texts are split between seeing some subset as 'canon' and ignoring canon altogether. I don't foresee that situation changing until the copyrights expire in 40+ years. --CBDunkerson 14:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

CB - I edited and moved your 'C Tolkien's questionable interests' paragraph on the basis of stylistic considerations alone - it was an impossibly long run-on sentence, and belonged more to the 'How Canon Arises' section, than to the 'How Canon is Applied' section. It was simply a question of eliminating ambiguities from such an interesting paragraph. I hope that I did good - please trounce me if I did not. Also, someone came in and added wholly incongruous (bizarre, actually) remarks that, in addition to their weirdness, made use of strong language that shouted for citation. I removed the 'Eraserhead' random additions, but I think the whole paragraph still needs some citations to indicate a source. It is quite a strong statement to make, no? black thorn of brethil 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrrrm? I didn't write that. Comparing the version after my changes to the current, it looks like you alterred one word of your own text and edited/moved some stuff added by someone else. Overall, I don't see much support for (or value to) that passage. --CBDunkerson 14:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Terribly sorry. Looked at the page history wrong. Not your work. Removed the entire paragraph.black thorn of brethil 18:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No problems. Figured that was the case. --CBDunkerson 18:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits made to reflect concerns raised above. Added links to sites relevant to canon discussion. Expanded 'history' section a bit. Please make more suggestions/edits.black thorn of brethil 20:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] map caption

can the map caption say that the map is a non-canon map, rather than seen as by some. Surely no-one, not even the rpg players would think that is canon? -- Astrokey44|talk 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The article itself discusses the ambiguity inherent in the term 'Middle-earth canon', which explains why the article cannot say that something is or is not canon. Rather, it can say that 'some find a to be canon' (for example). Simply put, this preserves npov.

2. Who is 'no-one'? It's important to remember that no legitimate, organized and comprehensive body exists to oversee questions of canonicity; no method or rules have been devised or articulated; no reasonable means of tallying fans and readers for their impressions has been invented; and thus no formal canon yet exists. Instead, we have groups and subgroups of fans and readers who, by coincidence of common communication, have come to their own (often conflicting) conclusions. What one labels canon, another may label wrong. Again, a Wikipedia article will need to respect this situation until it changes - npov.

3. Is this map based wholly on Tolkien, or has it been tampered with? If we find the map to contain completely made-up (i.e., fanwank) material, then of course it is not legitimate or authentic - but that is not a canon question. In my opinion, it is best to say simply that parts of the map are ridiculous independent fabrications, or blatant fanwank, and not bring up the c-word at all. In short, the canon question is only about contradictions within Tolkien's works; it is not about other people's illegitimate additions to his work (Fall of Doriath excepted).

4. I was thinking the map was added as an example of a disputable element of Middle-earth; something based on contradictions in the texts themselves, something to which the canon question could be applied, over which debates could happen. But if parts of this map are unambiguously invented b.s., then maybe a better example ought to be found. - black thorn of brethil 05:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The various cities in the south and east as portrayed on that map were not invented by Tolkien. They were added for a role-playing game and, in fact, the map seems likely to be a copyright violation. On those grounds I'm removing it from the article and will adjust the copyright tag if I can verify that it is copyrighted. --CBDunkerson 11:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle-earth "cycle"?

I'm actually quite happy with how this article is shaping up, despite some of my earlier concerns. It seems like a balanced treatment of the subject, and considerably more encyclopedic than the previous version. (Should it link prominently to a "Wikipedia conventions on canon" page on the Middle-earth project, though?) I have a few quibbles here and there, but nothing too major. (The implication that Tolkien's push for consistency was due to pressure from "editors and readers of traditional fantasy fiction" seems off base, for example: On Fairy Stories seems to make it clear that "the inner consistency of reality" was one of Tolkien's own top priorities in fiction.)

The only point that I find a bit odd while reading it is the frequent use of the term "Middle-earth cycle", or "cycle" generally. I certainly understand that the term "cycle" is frequently used when discussing real-life mythic cycles, but I had never heard it applied to Middle-earth before our discussion here. In my experience, Middle-earth folks tend to use the term "legendarium" (or even just "mythology") to mean much the same thing. That seems to be supported by Google statistics: a search for "Middle-earth cycle" turns up "about 230" hits, a fair number of which seem to be derived from these recent Wikipedia entries/modifications. On the other hand, "Middle-earth legendarium" gives "about 18,400" hits.

So is there any compelling reason to use the apparently less standard term "cycle" in this article? (That's not a rhetorical question! I might well just be ignorant of an important subtlety of usage, or of important precedent. But to my current ear, all this talk about the "cycle" just feels a bit off, or at least like a substantial split from existing scholarship on the subject.)--Steuard 20:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate section removal

I'm removing the "Debate" section, per 'Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought' which includes debate such as that. Userpie 00:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sil vs. HoME

Before I get any comments, yes I have read all the books, including the sections where the two books contradict each other. I don't understand why Wikipedia only seems to talk about the version in the HoME series. Tolkien might have thought about making changes to the Sil, but he didn't (example: Gil-Galad's father). The Encyclopedia of Arda, which is generally considered the greatest Tolkien Encyclopedia on the internet, places Gil-Galad as son of Fingon. This is because the Simarillion is considered more valuable then HoME. I'm not saying Wikipedia should follow this, because that would be wrong too. I think both should be treated as equals, so these article should consist of two parts, where ever contradictions occur. - High King of the Noldor 12:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are aware that JRR Tolkien had nothing to do with the published Silmarillion, a book severely edited and published after his death, and that this book's version of stories was based on editing decisions by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay? The notion of Gil-galad's father for example was taken from a single discarded note by CJRT, but after he started studying his fathers writings with more details he realized this was never intended to be the final result, and later notes pointed to Orodreth as Gil-galad's real father. Something similar same applies for numerous other inconsistencies between the HoMe and the published Silmarillion.

Chris Tolkien himself has stated in multiple places in HoMe that if he had studied the material more closely, the published Silmarillion would have been very different. It is due to the author that the canonicity of the published Silmarillion is made questionable, and it is because of that reason that generally here it is decided to follow JRRT's final intent (with exceptions), and not the published Silmarillion (which according to its primary editor is wrong in many places).

All articles dealing with content which is contradicted by the published Silmarillion should contain a section discussing this. Last time I checked, all of them have such a section ("Other versions of the legendarium"). -- Jordi·✆ 13:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that I don't agree with that it is currently called "other versions". If you put it like that, it would seem that there is only one correct version and all others are wrong. You can't just ignore the content of the Silmarillion because later Chris finds some irregularities. I would agree with you if Chris found these mistakes too big, and decided they shouldn't be published anymore, but he didn't. Until this very day all Silmarillion books that are made say Gil-Galad is the son of Fingon (okay, I keep talking about this one example, but I feel the same about all the others). Wikipedia should remain neutral on this point and treat the two versions as equal - High King of the Noldor 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Treating both versions as equal is not the way to go. You cannot reconcile "Gil-galad is the son of Fingon" (published Silm) with "Fingon never married and had no children" & "Gil-galad is the son of Orodreth" (JRRT) without hopelessly confusing the articles.

I do agree the wording of Other versions of… is not optimal. Perhaps it should be renamed to Differences with the published Silmarillion, and the header edited to make note of these kind of problems as arising from the editing problems.

As for your claim the publisher finds some irregularities, CJRT was not the publisher of the published Silm: he was the primary editor, and in places the original author (together with Kay). The publisher is Allen & Unwin (now HarperCollins). As the primary editor and secondary author of the work, as well as the executor of his father's estate where his writings are concerned, and likely the world's primary expert on the work, I believe we can take CJRT's statements at face value when he says "Gil-galad is the son of Arothir [=Orodreth], nephew of Finrod […] There can be no doubt that this was my father's last word on the subject [which] was obviously impossible to introduce [] into the published Silmarillion. It would nonetheless have been very much better to have left Gil-galad's parentage obscure.". HoMe XII, pp350-351. To paraphrase: "Gil-galad was Orodreth's son, but it proved too hard to introduce this in the Silmarillion. His parentage should therefore not have been addressed at all".

I do not see how this can possibly be reconciled with "Fingon […] his young son Ereinion (who was after named Gil-galad)[…]", as it stands in the Silmarillion, when we have it from the author of that sentence that this was a mistake. -- Jordi·✆ 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote you just used, proves my point that the Gil-Galad being the son of Fingon was indeed wrong, but "impossible to change". Gil-Galad remains the son of Fingon in the Silmarillion. Then we must ask ourselves the question which of the two books has the most importance. In my opinion, The Silmarillion is more known, more published and better structured then HoME, and therefor cannot be considered inferiour to HoME, which it is in the current situation. Of course this is just my opinion and I don't know how many people agree with me and how many don't. Perhaps each of these contradition's pages should start with "The Sil says so and HoME says so.." followed by the article in which the differences are explained further? - High King of the Noldor 22:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess the point is this: from the discussion in HoMe, we learn that "Gil-galad is the son of Fingon" is not something that Tolkien would ever have published had he finished The Silmarillion himself: in Christopher Tolkien's words, it was an "ephemeral" idea that JRRT abandoned almost at once, not something that was at any point an intrinsic part of the Silmarillion narrative. As such, Christopher Tolkien has written that including that statement in The Silmarillion as published was his own mistake. It was not in any sense a serious alternative that Tolkien used extensively before deciding to revise it. To me, insisting that "Gil-galad is the son of Fingon" be included here as one of the significant possibilities feels very much like insisting that a typographical error be taken seriously ("No, see, Aragorn was sometimes also called Arogarn! It says so right here, in this published book!").

I'm also not sure what you mean when you say "I would agree with you if Chris found these mistakes too big, and decided they shouldn't be published anymore, but he didn't." How much clearer does it get than "This was a mistake, it should never have been published in the form that it was"? Christopher has made it clear that he's not going to rewrite The Silmarillion: the effort would simply be too great for relatively little payoff, and the enormous research that went into HoMe has simply shown just how difficult such a project would be. For the minority who do care about these sorts of details, practically all of the corrections and ambiguities that Christopher Tolkien has identified have been spelled out in HoMe. What more do you want from him?--Steuard 01:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to generally agreeing with what others have said about errors and editorial alterations in The Silmarillion I would add that this is not just a 'Silmarillion vs History of Middle-earth' issue. There are often four or five different versions in HoME, contadictions between The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion, et cetera. That is why the section is called 'other versions' (plural). There can be many of these and we generally try to cover all of them. Finally, on 'Encyclopedia of Arda' being the 'greatest Tolkien encyclopedia on the internet'. It used to be, but I don't think that is the case any longer. Amongst other things... they DON'T cover the various different versions of the story, and when errors are spotted there is no way to directly correct them. --CBD 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "As told to. . ." issue

Hi, I'm new here but I thought I'd raise an issue on Tolkien canonicity. That's the fact that Tolkien was usually careful to keep the sourcing on his own documents 'historical' within the world of Middle-earth itself -- the whole "Red Book of Westmarch" thing, with its numerous scribal annotations in the appendices and the fact that it was supposed to be accompanied by "Translations from Books of Lore" or "Translations from the Elvish" by Bilbo -- i.e. by The Silmarillion. I don't think this solves any questions about whether Balrogs have wings, or who Gil-galad's father was, but it does show that Tolkien not only accidentally and haphazardly complicated things but that he intentionally blurred the sources. The question of canonicity is thus itself incorporated into the Middle-earth canon. Jackmitchell