We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: A little help

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Angmar
    Posts
    42

    A little help

    I have been browsing these forums recently, and have seen the terms Canon alot. I know that all the books were all not written by Tolkien, some were finished by his son if i remember correctly. I am wondering what the term Canon means, and which books were unfinished by Tolkien, and later finished by his son, or if any of the books concerning ME were written solely by his son, but perhaps with his fathers notes, etc. Also concerning HOME books, I have heard mention that they were not all written by Tolkien, and I wonder which ones were not. Thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the cupboard under the stairs. (or is it under the stalls?)
    Posts
    2,980
    Generally speaking (and I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) when we refer to the "canon" we mean the following:
    The Hobbit
    The Lord Of The Rings (all 3 volumes)
    The Silmarillion
    The Adventures Of Tom Bombadill

    and maybe, The Children Of Hurin

    Only 3 of those were written by JRRT exclusively; The Hobbit, The Lord Of The Rings, and The Adventures Of TB.

    The Silmarillion was finished by Christopher Tolkien and we are not sure exactly what portions he authored. The notes left to him were apparently in quite a mess and he had to "adjust" some things in order to make the narrative consistent.

    The Children Of Hurin is a compilation of various tales that JRRT wrote and these bits were done in various styles and Christopher put them together into a coherent novel (And I for one think he did a fine job).

    The HOME books are compilations of JRRTs notes put together by Christopher.
    "Just like Mary Shelly, Just like Frankenstein, Break your chains, And count your change, And try to walk the line"

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Real Start Date: Mettarë, 2988 T.A.
    Posts
    1,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozzarellala View Post
    I am wondering what the term Canon means...
    Oh, that's a sticky, tricky term here. Much as in the Irish craic, it's not 100% translatable into real language. So perhaps I can only clearly illustrate much of canon's local flavor by using it in a sentence:

    "If you refuse to acquiesce unquestioningly to my static, immutable vision of every esoteric detail within an unfinished history created and re-created and re-re-created by a long-dead professor of Anglo-Saxon whom I never had the pleasure of meeting, I will have to blow your irredeemably ignorant head clean off with this canon."

    In other words, if an angry-sounding forum poster mentions the word, duck! :P

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    182

    You can trust on canon

    As far as I'm concerned, canon as a term means something related to a concept (in this case Middle-Earth) which is written/said by the author/authors/creators and could be taken as a trustworthy note. For example, Tolkien clearly indicates that Gimli is a dwarf, we can take that as canon information. But if it is stated somewhere not made by Tolkien that Gimli is a frog, one can assume it most likely isn't true.

    Okey, that was maybe too unreal example.

    Another example could be that in some fan-made comic/short story/prose about M-E, exists a elven king Eurovindelier (I hope this isn't anyone's name) who holds one of the Rings. Despite the story being realistic (M-E realistic), it most likely isn't made by Tolkien and then the story shouldn't be taken as something which has happened or will happen in the Middle-Earth.

    In brief: canon is something trustworthy and non-canon is fan fiction or something which hasn't been confirmed to be trustworthy.

    Yes, I know, difficult to explain such a vague term~ : D

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Dweorg View Post
    As far as I'm concerned, canon as a term means something related to a concept (in this case Middle-Earth) which is written/said by the author/authors/creators and could be taken as a trustworthy note. For example, Tolkien clearly indicates that Gimli is a dwarf, we can take that as canon information. But if it is stated somewhere not made by Tolkien that Gimli is a frog, one can assume it most likely isn't true.

    Okey, that was maybe too unreal example.

    Another example could be that in some fan-made comic/short story/prose about M-E, exists a elven king Eurovindelier (I hope this isn't anyone's name) who holds one of the Rings. Despite the story being realistic (M-E realistic), it most likely isn't made by Tolkien and then the story shouldn't be taken as something which has happened or will happen in the Middle-Earth.

    In brief: canon is something trustworthy and non-canon is fan fiction or something which hasn't been confirmed to be trustworthy.

    Yes, I know, difficult to explain such a vague term~ : D
    Yeah, this is basically it. By canon usually the following is meant: the original product and/or story as the original creator has meant it.

    An example: This also happens a lot with Star Wars. Everything that George Lucas has worked on (which is 6 Star Wars films, a couple of games and the TV-series and animatied film "The Clone Wars" and every comic and novel that he authorized (about 80% of the Star Wars comics and novels that are sold in stores have been accepted by George Lucas as "canon". All other things do not belong to the canon.

    A Lord of the Rings example: The 1977 animated film "The Hobbit", the 1978 animated film "The Lord of the Rings" and the 1980 animated film "The Return of the King" are all part of the canon, because Christopher Tolkien had decided that these filmmakers could get the rights to make an "official" film. The Peter Jackson trilogy from 2001-2003 is also part of the canon for the same reason. However, the (in my opinion great) independent, fan-made films "The Hunt for Gollum" and "Born of Hope" from 2009 do NOT belong to the canon, for they have not the official rights to make these movies and sell them.

    Now that J.R.R. Tolkien has passed away, though (may he rest in peace), it is becoming increasingly difficult to decide what is canon and what is not. As far as the books go, it is all said and done, but other media are more difficult. Christopher Tolkien, J.R.R. Tolkien's son and heir to the books, notes, writing, world and legacy of his father, hates the Peter Jackson films and regrets ever having sold the rights to New Line Cinema. So can this still be considered true canon? I don't know what he thinks of LotRO, by the way, and if he has even heard of it.
    The Road goes ever on and on, down from the door where it began.
    Now far ahead the Road has gone, and I must follow, if I can.
    ~Bilbo Baggins~

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the cupboard under the stairs. (or is it under the stalls?)
    Posts
    2,980
    Quote Originally Posted by DwarfFriend View Post
    ...snip...

    A Lord of the Rings example: The 1977 animated film "The Hobbit", the 1978 animated film "The Lord of the Rings" and the 1980 animated film "The Return of the King" are all part of the canon, because Christopher Tolkien had decided that these filmmakers could get the rights to make an "official" film. The Peter Jackson trilogy from 2001-2003 is also part of the canon for the same reason. However, the (in my opinion great) independent, fan-made films "The Hunt for Gollum" and "Born of Hope" from 2009 do NOT belong to the canon, for they have not the official rights to make these movies and sell them.

    ...snip...
    I disagree friend.
    If the creator didn't create it then it's not the real deal.
    The films you mentioned have (every one of them) modified the "canon" in various ways. Some of them in horrific ways (IMHO).
    Just because they paid for the right to adapt (important word there, adapt) the story for film does not give those projects the status of canon.
    "Just like Mary Shelly, Just like Frankenstein, Break your chains, And count your change, And try to walk the line"

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by DwarfFriend View Post
    A Lord of the Rings example: The 1977 animated film "The Hobbit", the 1978 animated film "The Lord of the Rings" and the 1980 animated film "The Return of the King" are all part of the canon, because Christopher Tolkien had decided that these filmmakers could get the rights to make an "official" film. The Peter Jackson trilogy from 2001-2003 is also part of the canon for the same reason. However, the (in my opinion great) independent, fan-made films "The Hunt for Gollum" and "Born of Hope" from 2009 do NOT belong to the canon, for they have not the official rights to make these movies and sell them.

    I too disagree with this example. The examples offered, including this game, are derivative.

    In the specific case of Tolkien's legendarium, a reasonable definition can be anything directly authored, books to letters, and compilations of authored works in progress to annotations; with published to most recent notation being the baseline.

    So the published works, such as The Hobbit and 2nd edition LOTR. Compilations such as The Silmarillion and HoME can inform but require context.

    Five istari are mentioned. Three named in LOTR and two noted in authored documents. The two named can be reasonably considered canon. The case of Glorfindel being another.
    Last edited by hallasan; Jan 11 2013 at 10:39 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Land of Entrapment (come on vacation, leave on probation)
    Posts
    347
    Quote Originally Posted by Boraxxe View Post
    The Silmarillion was finished by Christopher Tolkien and we are not sure exactly what portions he authored. The notes left to him were apparently in quite a mess and he had to "adjust" some things in order to make the narrative consistent.
    See, now this confuses me. For about 40 years I have been laboring under the belief that Chris Tolkien merely edited his father's working notes into The Silmarillion w/ some help from Guy Gavriel Kay. Until I'd read it on this site I had never heard it even hinted at that Chris might have actually authored any part of the narrative, but editorial notes only. Can anyone tell me where I might find the evidence that Christopher Tolkien actually wrote parts of The Silmarillion.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by BIGeyedBUG View Post
    Oh, that's a sticky, tricky term here. Much as in the Irish craic, it's not 100% translatable into real language. So perhaps I can only clearly illustrate much of canon's local flavor by using it in a sentence:

    "If you refuse to acquiesce unquestioningly to my static, immutable vision of every esoteric detail within an unfinished history created and re-created and re-re-created by a long-dead professor of Anglo-Saxon whom I never had the pleasure of meeting, I will have to blow your irredeemably ignorant head clean off with this canon."

    In other words, if an angry-sounding forum poster mentions the word, duck! :P

    LOL - nice definition,
    But I think Boraxxe nailed it.

    I'm not sure CT made anything up, only made choices that his father left unanswered and perhaps changed a few names or places. From what I understand the source is CT's own admission in recent (last 10/20 years?) interviews that he did make some choices and alterations that he is unsure of or regrets - but really I don't know. Perhaps some of the Angry-sounding forum posters can clear it up? I'd like to know.
    Last edited by Dwarendele; Jan 12 2013 at 02:57 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Angmar
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by DwarfFriend View Post
    Christopher Tolkien, J.R.R. Tolkien's son and heir to the books, notes, writing, world and legacy of his father, hates the Peter Jackson films and regrets ever having sold the rights to New Line Cinema.
    Its because PJ killed Haldir in The Two Towers isn't it...only problem i have with PJ.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    96
    You guys were right, I was wrong. I thought too much of the films and too little of the books (maybe because the whole Star Wars-Disney controversy is still fresh in my mind). If you only consider the books, everything that Tolkien has written is Canon and most people consider Christopher Tolkien's writings canon as well. However, there are some things that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote that his son later altered to have them coincide with the lore better, because J.R.R. Tolkien apparently wrote some things that contradicted eachother. What, then. is to be considered canon? :O
    The Road goes ever on and on, down from the door where it began.
    Now far ahead the Road has gone, and I must follow, if I can.
    ~Bilbo Baggins~

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,714
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozzarellala View Post
    I have been browsing these forums recently, and have seen the terms Canon alot. I know that all the books were all not written by Tolkien, some were finished by his son if i remember correctly. I am wondering what the term Canon means, and which books were unfinished by Tolkien, and later finished by his son, or if any of the books concerning ME were written solely by his son, but perhaps with his fathers notes, etc. Also concerning HOME books, I have heard mention that they were not all written by Tolkien, and I wonder which ones were not. Thanks
    This is a subjective question. The Histories, for instance, are and are not canon. We treat them as canon, but pick the answers that Tolkien seemed to have resolved upon before his death. As for the works finished by Christopher Tolkien, I personally consider them canon, as the Professor himself stated many a time that Christopher was of the same mind as him in nearly everything and understood his intent better than anyone.

    The content of the HOME books is written by Tolkien, with commentary by Christopher, by the way. But the meat is all the Professor's.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload