There’s no true Scotsman, it’s true.
Hot take: Only the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings should be viewed as canonical Middle-Earth books
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Greenwood's Forgotten Realms became TSR's Forgotten Realms when he sold it to them and it began mutating almost immediately. Even Greenwood doesn't write for the pre-TSR version of the setting any more, an implicit admission that it's a collaborative setting, much like Marvel and DC Comics' multiverses are.
In contrast, in his lifetime, JRRT retained and exercised editorial control, vetoing the Beatles' Lord of the Rings movie, for instance.
Last edited:
Benjamin Olson
Hero
I think "canon" is a silly concept that quickly breaks down for almost anything, and comes from an odd confluence of religious and legalistic thinking that weirdly was appropriated to discussing fictional continuities. In its application to fictional continuities it tends to involve wielding an appeal to authorial intention in a battle between the preferences of rightsholders to "legitimize" further derivitive works and what story aspects and entries in a franchise fans prefer. The appeals to authorial intention are rarely grounded in a consistent view of it, and generally more rhetorical moves than anything else. This last point is not to accuse OP of engaging in sophistry, but rather of trying to engage honestly in a discourse defined by sophistries. It is a hopeless endeavor.
Setting aside "canon" for a moment though, I agree that at the end of the day the Lord of the Rings really only has consistent continuity with itself and to a lesser degree the Hobbit and that these are the only Tolkien works which we have a published version approved by an author who was very particular about every detail and who vacillated wildly in his decisions on those details. As I'm very fond of mentioning, Sauron started his literary existence as a talking cat. While I'm confident we don't have the "talking cat" version of the Silmarillion vs. what an immortal Tolkien would have ultimately produced given an infinite amount of time, it is not a finished work which can be considered his definitive vision. And in the particular case of epic fantasy fiction on the Tolkien model there is particular reason to care about authorial vision, because there is just such a vast panoply of moving parts that only the author might possibly understand the full significance of.
Setting aside "canon" for a moment though, I agree that at the end of the day the Lord of the Rings really only has consistent continuity with itself and to a lesser degree the Hobbit and that these are the only Tolkien works which we have a published version approved by an author who was very particular about every detail and who vacillated wildly in his decisions on those details. As I'm very fond of mentioning, Sauron started his literary existence as a talking cat. While I'm confident we don't have the "talking cat" version of the Silmarillion vs. what an immortal Tolkien would have ultimately produced given an infinite amount of time, it is not a finished work which can be considered his definitive vision. And in the particular case of epic fantasy fiction on the Tolkien model there is particular reason to care about authorial vision, because there is just such a vast panoply of moving parts that only the author might possibly understand the full significance of.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Well, great. Now I'm mad at Rings of Power for not going with this version.
"Who's a cute wittle fwuffy wuffy ..."
"PUT ON THIS RING, YOU SIMP!"
Ryujin
Legend
I now have the "Carroll did it!" version of this meme fighting up from the void of my lower self.
Attachments
I have no problem with either of those propositions.
That only the Hobbit and LotR should be considered canon is not a hot take. Lukewarm take, at best.
However, the idea that The Silmarillion is a work by Christopher is... not really supported by the history, imho. It is a work finished by Christopher. So maybe it is by JRR and C. But it isn't like Christopher Tolkien was working from bare notes or outlines - his father had worked on The Silmarillion longer than LotR. He'd submitted prior versions for publishing. He left copious materials, and Chistopher was specifically trying to fill out his father's vision, not using it as a vehicle for his own creativity and expression.
Did JRR have issues with the work up to the 1950s? Yes. Did Christopher have to fill in chunks? Yes. But that doesn't mean Christopher should be given primary credit on the work.
Hell yeah.
I wouldn't go that far... but in specific cases I agree. Boromir in particular is handled so much better in the movies -- he's far more sympathetic and well fleshed out, so that his death scene is a gut punch. In the book he's just an irritating blowhard and his death scene is more or less foreordained.
I also appreciate Aragorn being more human and wrestling more with self-doubt. Giving some screen time to Aragorn and Arwen's romance is absolutely an improvement (even if I'm not a hundred percent down with the details). And while Bombadil is entertaining, he really doesn't belong in LotR. He'd fit much better in the Hobbit, where "spend a chapter interacting with random wacky forest dude who has no connection to anything" is par for the course.
The book has far more depth and internal consistency, and not all the character changes turned out as well as Boromir. And Theoden's goatee hurts my soul. But the movies were still splendidly done.
Similar Threads
