Hot take: Only the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings should be viewed as canonical Middle-Earth books

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I have not read The Silmarillion, but I have seen it, and I would not describe it as slim. Is this an anti-Freudian slip?

It's a "Whizbang needs more sleep" slip.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

But seriously, while I would disagree that the movies are better, I will say that they are more accessible. And I'm not using that as a pejorative, either. I think we owe the geek culture's current reign in pop culture, the surge in D&D's popularity, to the LOTR trilogy of movies, amongst other things. My wife has no interest in reading the books, yet we can freely talk about those stories thanks to the movies.

My hot take has been that LotR movies are actually an improvement on the books

As made clear by the History of Middle-Earth series, Tolkien wrote an enormous amount of material that would become the Silmarillion. Looking at the draft, incomplete, and alternate texts in those, the vast majority of the Silmarillion, is absolutely JRRT's writing.

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.

But going back to the original post, if one wanted to disregard the Silmarillion and Tolkien's other works, including his letters, one could. The Hobbit and LOTR would remain wonderful stories and classics. But in doing so, I think you'd lose the depth that you get. Whether it's the resonances of Beren and Luthien with Aragorn and Arwen, or the unimaginable ages and sorrows Galadriel has been through, the stories of the Silmarillion make the other works that much richer.

 

[Umbran]

But seriously, while I would disagree that the movies are better, I will say that they are more accessible.

I'd agree with that.

My wife has no interest in reading the books, yet we can freely talk about those stories thanks to the movies.

My wife tried to read them, and bounced off them. Then, when we learned that the movies were coming out, we came upon the idea of my reading them aloud to her, so she'd have context before seeing the movies. And that worked.

LotR is in this way similar to Shakespeare - it can be difficult to read, but much easier to listen to.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

LotR is in this way similar to Shakespeare - it can be difficult to read, but much easier to listen to.

Since Umbran is unlikely to come to everyone's house who asks, it's also worth noting there are a ton of audiobooks and radio plays of the books out there, some of them astonishingly good. (I believe the BBC has a 21st century radio play of each that are well-regarded, although I might have the years wrong.)

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Since Umbran is unlikely to come to everyone's house who asks, it's also worth noting there are a ton of audiobooks and radio plays of the books out there, some of them astonishingly good. (I believe the BBC has a 21st century radio play of each that are well-regarded, although I might have the years wrong.)

Yeah, the BBC radio plays are great.

The Andy Serkis audiobook reading is also exceptional (how can that man do so many voices and accents, and keep them consistent?). It has one downside to me. He sings ever one of Tom Bombadil's lines of dialog. Sings. Tom Bombadil is a prat at the best of times -- I usually skip those two chapters when re-reading -- and this just makes him worse (IMO, of course. Judge for yourself).

But if you're thinking about an audio version I'd definitely take the Serkis version.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Yeah, the language of both Tolkien and Shakespeare can come to life beautifully when spoken aloud.

My wife tried to read them, and bounced off them. Then, when we learned that the movies were coming out, we came upon the idea of my reading them aloud to her, so she'd have context before seeing the movies. And that worked.

LotR is in this way similar to Shakespeare - it can be difficult to read, but much easier to listen to.

I'm sure it's not like it at all, but all I can hear his him singing Tom Bombadil's lines using that same bawling singing style he did as Ulysses Klaue in Black Panther.

The Andy Serkis audiobook reading is also exceptional (how can that man do so many voices and accents, and keep them consistent?). It has one downside to me. He sings ever one of Tom Bombadil's lines of dialog. Sings. Tom Bombadil is a prat at the best of times -- I usually skip those two chapters when re-reading -- and this just makes him worse (IMO, of course. Judge for yourself).

But if you're thinking about an audio version I'd definitely take the Serkis version.

 

[delericho]

I take the opposite view. Everything Tolkien ever wrote for Middle Earth should be considered canon. Especially the contradictory bits.

 

[Mercurius]

Tolkien wrote the LotR in a somewhat archaic style, deliberately I think. Thus, "said Aragorn" rather than "Aragorn said." I think this was due to his love of Medieval epic romances and poetry. He wanted it to feel archaic.

As for whether the books or movies are "better," it is a somewhat absurd comparison. They're different media formats, created 50 years apart, for very different audiences. One was written with Oxford professors as his primary listening audience, most of whom were born in the 19th century, the other as big blockbuster films for mass consumption.

Most importantly, though, they are "spoken" in different modes. The book is a literary work meant to invoke myth and a fantasy secondary world; the films are Hollywood films meant to immerse people in a cinematic experience. I mean, it is sort of like asking, which is better, John Coltrane's Love Supreme or Stevie Wonder's Innervisions? Both are deserving classics in their respective genres, but emerge from different genres (and even less so than book vs. film, as both are albums).

 

[GreyLord]

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.

This, I can agree with.

If you talk about it strictly canon, you could say that yes...only the Works published by J.R.R. Tolkien are the Middle Earth Canon.

HOWEVER...if we go with author's intent it can open up a bigger can of worms...

Inclusive of Author's Intent...

What others miss as well is that Christopher was ALSO the one of the first to read and APPROVE of what was written about Middle Earth that was published. He was also the primary approval factor in regards to what eventually was written and came out.

He was ALSO one of the PRIMARY AUDIENCES that it was actually written for PRIOR AND BEFORE anyone else.

If anyone would know the mind of his father, it was probably Christopher.

There is no real analogy regarding this in regards to Star Wars or many other worlds, though with Lucas I would hazard that Lucas had several different types of Canon, with HIS being the PRIMARY Canon which....yes...would ONLY include the movies and the other item he stated were HIS canon (which, ironically puts the Radio Dramas ABOVE anything Disney or others have called Canon). He ALSO approved other types of Canon, with the Novels being secondary, but NOT HIS canon...but canon regarding approval from him and HAVING HIS INPUT and DIRECTION at some points.

Lucas and Star Wars is a BAD comparison to LotR as far as Canon is concerned...or so I would feel. Better something similar where supposedly canon works were written after the author's death but had items inclusive of the authors writing or intentions. It's hard to find an exact match, but there may be some works which have similarities in their composition.

In that way, the closest we could say to Canon would be The Wheel of Time series. The last three books were NOT written by Jordan.

Just as Christopher is somewhat the holder of the works of his father (or was before he died) and the designated heir of it to determine what or what was or was not part of the Canon...you could say Jordan did something very close to that.

He did not write the series initially primarily for Brandon Sanderson, nor did he have Sanderson proof everything and anything he would publish first...BUT...he did have extensive notes he gave to family and gave them the collective okay to continue the world with those notes. IN that light, Sanderson would be the collective HEIR as you would say to continue the series of the Wheel of Time (which he did).

I would probably consider the Silmarillion and some of the later works (of which Christopher Tolkien normally made abundantly clear in the Middle Earth series of his which was an extensive book series that there were many versions, sometimes which he wrote and compared, even when they conflicted) as well as the trilogy of other books (Children of Hurin..etc) as much Canon as the last three books in the Wheel of Time series.

Is it by the same author.

No.

Thus, it cannot be as specifically Canon as anything written by the author. If we want to stick with PURE author's writing and intent, it can ONLY be what the author or creator themselves created.

If we go by what the author or creator INTENDED...then it is possible both what Christopher Tolkien put out as well as what Brandon Sanderson put out to be seen as an extended Canon written under the auspices of the original Author's intent.

In either case, Disney Star Wars would still not qualify under Canon in that light.




Does Canon Matter?

For some...yes.

Why?

Because they respect the author and the author's intent.

The REAL controversial thing I have is...

For those who don't respect authors and like and/or like to pirate things then obviously no, it doesn't matter. They can call it whatever they want...their head canon, their personal canon...etc....but as the author's intent and writing (and why the author's universe even matters that much to them to spend money and time on it in that case...who knows) it doesn't matter...only the big corporations and Billionaires making money off of the author's works later matter.

So, they make excuses on why the author is worthless, the author's ideas and thoughts on the matter are worthless, and why the corporations should get thousands if not millions of dollars to rip off the ideas of the author. If things go the exact or say the exact opposite of what the author wanted...these types of people don't care. They would hate the author if they could because the author isn't the billion dollar corporation...and in these types of people's minds the only thing that really matters is the RICH getting richer by using others ideas and tossing the authors wishes by the wayside.

People who actually RESPECT the author and the author's intent are getting few and far between these days. They'd rather spend money to a rich corp than to the author any day of the week.

NOW THAT is an unpopular opinion in many places these days...or so I find.

However, as an author who has had material stolen by others and the BIG corporate machine...that's MY hot take on the entire 'Canon' idea.

 

[GreyLord]

Yeah, I 100% agree. Tolkien was picky, and if he never thought his work was worthy of publication, just because his son slapped some drafts together into a "book" doesn't mean that's what the Professor would have wanted.

So I look at the Silmarillion and other later collected material as what is in one draft that could have been part of the larger story, but since it wasn't finished we don't know how happy Tolkien was with that vision.



Oh yeah, absolutely. I don't know what JRRT was thinking with that Bombadil character, but I think someone must have adulterated his tobacco ...

Though I think PJ did a couple of characters dirty (Aragorn, Faramir -- and poor, poor Glorfindel, even if Arwen is the better choice).



I go further and only the original trilogy is canon Star Wars, and there is no canon Realms. Quality gets a vote.

Interestingly enough, HE DID try to get the Silmarillion published at one point, and BEFORE the Lord of the Rings was published.

It was rejected and the publishers said they did not want that type of stuff nor want it. They wanted something more like the Hobbit.

Tolkien was constantly tinkering with his HIstory after that, but never got it to the point where he felt the PUBLISHERS would accept it, even if he did.

Ironically, even if it HAD been published it is quite possible he would have STILL tinkered with it to the point that when he died it would have had some very drastic differences than what he had initially gotten published.