If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. Their fee is free unless they win. For more information go to www.forthepeople.com/JessoftheShire?s=86%3A3523
With a carful listen to what Jess is saying you will see that just because Christopher or John Ronald wrote it doesn’t make it “cannon”. Tolkien re-imagined so much and was constantly rewriting and reworking his stories. Sure I get that ROP is certainly not “cannon” but nether are the PJ movies and agree that even the Silmarillion is open to debate on what’s supposed to be the “official” story. If you read nature of Middle earth and the rest of the history of Middle earth you’ll see that discussions about cannon are pretty irrelevant and many (mostly the insufferable ROP haters / PJ worshipers) don’t get.
@@snoopstp4189 Gosh. I must have misunderstood or misheard. I thought Jess said there is no canon in fiction because it is all fictional. That implies that for example Church Canon is real. It certainly has the authority, when applied, to decide controversy or, at least, to guide decisions as regards settling controversies
I particularly loved how Tolkien revised his own cannon in The Hobbit when he rewrote how Bilbo came by the ring initially. Fixing a plot hole by casting Bilbo as an unreliable narrator, hinting that the power of the ring was so that it could corrupt even the most honest of hobbits, was pure genius.
The one thing I wish is that he'd left _The Hobbit_ alone, perhaps no more than a small note hinting at Bilbo's unreliable status, and left it until _The Lord of the Rings_ itself to see the truth. I think that is both more fun and fits within the "lost work translated by Tolkien."
I love the idea of Tolkien in the afterlife walking through the old forest outside of the shire running into characters he thought of but never put to paper.
I’ve never considered The Silmarillion to be anything but pure canon, even knowing everything that you explained. The fact that it was a life-long work for Christopher Tolkien to honor his father’s notes with integrity is one of the reasons that make it canon for me.
I also consider it canon but I can see that technically/per definition it would not be canon. J.R.R. never officially approved of it and he didnt write it himself completely.
I would say this video makes a strong argument that the Silmarillion is not canon, and I can see the merit of that, but I think it's not the whole story. There were so many things in it that were foundation blocks of Tolkien's whole world, and even if there were some variants, and parts of it were Christopher's own work, that underlying structure remains. The point being that Christopher created a seminal work based on his father's writings, giving an insight which would probably never otherwise have existed. It has to have a special status, which many other adaptions cannot claim. A special kind of canon if you like. To call this an adaption, or Christopher's fan fiction, is not a sufficient tribute to the noble goal of bringing the essence of his father's work to the world.
@@6666Imperator All his son did was put the disjointed pieces of John's lore together. That means the Silmarillian is probably the most important source FOR THE CANON of Arda just IN GENERAL.
A - Published by J.R.R. (Absolute Canon) B - Edited by Christopher et al (as if seen through a frosted mirror) C - Middle Earth stories/films published with good intentions (as if seen in a dream) D - Created without good intentions (the hand of Saruman) E - Created for nefarious intentions (the work of Mordor) I always found it frustrating that the Tolkien Estate were so unwilling to allow others to try to portray the work of J.R.R. ... now I know, after Christopher's death, that they were completely right.
The main thing for me that distinguishes you from those other Tolkien related channels is the informal and personable presentation, and the wide range of topics you cover. From "how to dress like an Elf" to analyzing the nature of evil in Middle Earth, every week is an enjoyable visit to the part-time Shire.
For real. I find myself watching Jess more than the others. Not to knock them but they are overly dramatic in their presentation sometimes. I enjoy the sitting having a conversation astetic she has.
@@Jess_of_the_Shire it certainly looks like you have a great deal of fun! I know this is a fantasy Channel, also I have heard you speak of Shakespeare and his plays and poems, would you be open to doing a full on video or two exploring or extrapolating the works of The Bard?
In the end, canon is a human agreement of what we believe is true/official, like we currently do with historic texts. Discussing Tolkien canon suits greatly Tolkien's desire to treat his work as a narrative of historic events.
To me, there's A-canon and B-canon with Middle Earth literature. The latest edited/published versions of LotR and The Hobbit during Tolkien's lifetime are A-canon and anything Middle Earth or Arda-related published posthumously by the estate is B-canon. None of the films or shows are Tolkien canon. As for Bombadil, I think he transcends all universes and is canon everywhere an old forest exists. :)
Good discussion. The canon comes from JRR Tolkien and his established works, and one might consider things that his son Christopher arranged as "deuterocanonical" for lack of a better term (a second continued canon that is not apocryphal or dubious, but is as close to a cohesive interpretation/expansion as can exist). Everything else is a "retelling", or "inspired by", or "an interpretation of" and even "fan fiction". Tolkien placed themes he deemed essential in his work (and Christopher attempted to maintain them) either initially or through revision. The weakening of those themes, which often occurs through interpretation, via opinions and ideologies of other creatives, is not and cannot be considered canon--no matter how much it tickles the preferences of the modern audience. Tolkien was allowed to change the canon as he saw fit, as its author and creator. His son, who sought to preserve the work of his father, created something akin to a definitive continuation as can exist. Those who purchase (or have purchased) the IP, and attempt to make money off of its popularity, are by definition creating a work that is, at best, inspired by LOTR. Unfortunately, further interpretations can (and I suspect will, sadly) have very little to do with the themes of Tolkien and simply be someone else's story painted Middle-earth.
Silmarillion adds so much context to the story to not be considered Canon. Its largely consistent, the stories and their themes are Tolkien's. Theyre largely his writings, and they're beautiful!
The need of canon, as you correctly point out, is the need of consistency. That's why we need canon for within Tolkien's own contradictions, canon to separate what Tolkien wrote and didn't, canon to align all other media within the intended narrative and world building rules, and so on.
We don't need canon for Tolkien's different versions contradicting each other, in my view. Real mythology often has different versions of stories that just stand next to each other. It's not like fans can agree on one, just give your sources and you're golden.
I find it interesting that fanfic-writers and readers seem to have the clearest grasp on why and how canon is used, in my opinion. Since it is tremendusly important for both the writer and the reader to be on the same page of what is happening in the fanfic, the writer usually specifies what do they understand as "canon" - which means, which events are going to be accepted as existing and thus referred to without extra notice in the text. With the case of LOTR, everyone in fanfiction seems to see film-canon and book-canon as two separate entities, which are frequently mixed into more specific variations of "canon" accepted by a given writer. It is increadibly interesting, that people seem to understand in that way such a controversial thing as canon so universally (especially compared to the discussions of canon elsewhere even in the same fandom).
As Corey Olsen points out, The Hobbit as originally conceived and written was not compatible with the legendarium as it existed in Tolkien’s head at the time. The Hobbit takes Elrond half-elven, Gondolin, the nauglafring, and the Necromancer (Thu/Sauron) from the 1930s Silm., which are close but they are not exactly the same. Then you have Thranduil, who is Thingol rehashed, and the arkenstone is the silmaril rehashed. We have the concept that it occurs in the 3rd age, but nothing in the text suggests that and in fact when it was written there was no 2nd or 3rd age. The location of the Shire relative to Beleriand is also indeterminate. In the 1930s Silm, there are no Misty mountains, and in the Hobbit, there are no Blue Mountains. LOTR and some clever retconning make The Hobbit fit, since it was generally light on lore. In a genius move Tolkien glued the Hobbit and the Silmarillion together using LOTR, which extended the sense of depth in all three. It is not a perfect fit though, so he comes to the trick up his sleeve that he’s always had: the unreliable narrator. On the micro scale: Bilbo lied when he wrote his story. And whoever wrote about Frodo seeing the coasts of Valinor was writing fiction, since no eye-witnesses returned. On the macro scale: the “translator” of the work from Westron to English took some liberties here and there when the text was obscure, and the manuscripts may be corrupted. I think eventually he got too caught up in the idea of his legendarium as a “found story” passed down through generations. The Numenor legend tells how the world “became bent” (went from flat to spherical). Tolkien wanted to delete this and all references to a flat earth because, as a good historian, he knew that cultures have believed in a round world for a long time-they would not have passed down the flat earth version, rather they would have changed the story. To include both flat and round earth, and a transition between the two, has no analogue in authentic myths of various cultures. I think he went too far here-he was getting caught up in issues of “canon” when in fact the stories stand alone, and as parts of a whole, just fine. The frame story is the least compelling aspect.
@jess_of_the_shire It strikes me that one of the things that makes you special as a Tolkien content creator is your emotional understanding of the professor and his work. There are lots of fine folks talking about the books & films, but few that feel so personal. So glad to have you in the community, keep up the great work ❤
20:28 This reminds me of a Tolkien quote I really like. "There is a place called ‘heaven’ where the good here unfinished is completed; and where the stories unwritten, and the hopes unfulfilled, are continued. We may laugh together yet."
Tolkien wasn't merely a writer, he was more of a philosopher, and theologian, that loved to write. The released was simply what he wanted to share as is; everything else is what was to find yourself.
What about things that he wrote multiple versions of? With the History of Middle Earth, we have access to several versions of tales, some abandoned and some not necessarily so. How do you decide which version is canon?
@@BradyAmerson exactly, imagine he wrote on a napkin that it was the Ranger Glurp who would become Elessar, does the mean that the earlier name for the character we know as Aragorn takes precedent? We can only trust Tolkien's intention with ironing out inconsistencies in works published in his lifetime, and have to trust even harder that his son tried to make sense out of the scrap notes. Some of the spin-off guides like History of Middle Earth treat this subject with care and give us the different versions of the story. For example, who Celeborn was and what his life made him do before and during becoming Galadriel's partner.
One of your best videos. Please let us consider Tolkien's writings as his form of therapy for shell shock or PTSD, and like Frodo's wound never fully healed. Writing, creating this vast history he was able understand what happened to him and help others, one of his great themes. Just a thought.
I think to an extent, Tolkien fanfic'd his own writings. Every time he came back and tried to rethink or revise or extend already published material, he was creating a fanfic. So the Quest of Erebor writings we see in Unfinished Tales are to an extent a fanfic, as he was trying to embellish an existing account with information after the fact, in some ways heavily retconned. It's great stuff, he was the greatest fanfic author of them all, and I'd pay handsomely for ten times the behind-the-scene notes he dropped here and there.
My sense is that canon is vital to a story extended over multiple series. As others have noted below, the wretched "Rings of Power" is wretched in large part because of the abysmal writing of the show-runners, who fancied themselves the equals of Tolkien as storytellers. For example, as far as I'm aware, Galadriel never set foot upon Numenor. That the RoP had her go there is not a problem vis-a-vis canon ; there is much of her life we don't know. But to have her behave on Numenor like an imperious, stroppy teenager is contrary to all that's been written about her, and is, in my opinion a violation of canon. (It also makes her seem a detestable person.) Another example is having a wizard appear on Middle Earth thousands of years before they actually arrived. In the 1990s and 2000s, there were many books written using the main Star Wars characters. I don't know whether it was official LucasFilm policy, but those books all adhered to basic lore, so that there would be no contradiction of, say, the Emperor still being alive after Return of the Jedi. In short, "canon" is what gives an extended story structure and consistency. Without it, we'd have glaring inconsistencies, such as Aragorn being killed by the Black Riders in Bree. It's been many years since I read the 12-volume History of Middle Earth, but it seemed to me that Christopher Tolkien used discussions with his father and correspondence to decide what would go in The Silmarillion, so it wasn't entirely random.
So not to restart the rather unpleasant debates that have gone on about ROP for quite a while now, but I think this is a straw man argument. ROP is NOT claiming to be canon, and, as Jess says, it falls into the adaptions bracket which shouldn't be considered so. Saying then that it has no merit because some parts of it may not be canon is a bit beside the point. Its an adaption, like many others. Judging it on artistic merit is fine, but worrying about every last detail according with some idea of canon isn't necessary. Of course there comes a point where an adaption may stray so far that it doesn't seem to be in the same world at all. This may still have some merit, but for some it will be going too far. I don't personally believe ROP has done this; much of it accords with the spirit and events of the second age as described by Tolkien. But, for sure, some things are different. Not enough to spoil my enjoyment personally, but your mileage may vary.
@@cally77777 . I beg to differ. First, the showrunners were always going on about how "Tolkienesque" their show would be, and how Tolkien's writing guided them; this is a flat-out lie. The ROP is just stupid; Galadriel really just jumps off a ship 2000 miles from any land because she doesn't want to return to Valinor? And that's just one example. Another is Numenor sending 300 (!) troops to conquer the Southlands, or that gob-smacking moment when those Numenoreans chant "The sea is always right". And it doesn't accord with the spirit and events as Tolkien wrote them; for one, the wizards don't appear until the Third Age, so what's probably-Gandalf doing there? What's even the point of the Harfoots? If you think all of that is grand, it's your opinion, and that's all that matters. But no objective evaluation of the ROP would call it good, let alone being close to what Tolkien actually wrote, except in the broadest of terms, such as yes, Numenor existed, and Celebrimbor forged the elven rings, although in the book, Sauron had no hand in creating the elven rings. Last, the proof is in the pudding. Less than half the people who started watching it watched all 8 episodes, and the reviews have been dismal; even the showrunners made some comment about hewing closer to the books in Season 2.
What a fascinating video. I love the fact Tolkien constantly tinkered with his creation. As for canon, though I find your thoughts on The Silmarillion really compelling, I have always considered anything Christopher touched to be canon. He was steeped in his father's work and made it his own life's work. The effort he put into this task has to be respected, and we would be the poorer without it. Well done for mentioning 'Leaf by Niggle' - it's one of Tolkien's finest works.
There was a time when the publishers wanted to publish a sequel trilogy. Its Called the Iron Tower trilogy by Dennis L. McKiernan. It was written in the style of Tolkien and everything, but then last minute they decided to have it be unrelated. I wonder if those stories, had publishers had called them sequels, would be considered canon despite not being written by Tolkien. Great video as always Jess!
I'm grateful they didn't go that route. I forced myself through the first half of part one of McKiernan's trilogy and abandoned it as derivative, unwieldy, and unreadable. Terry Brooks would have been a better choice to write a Tolkien "sequel." The first half of his Sword of Shannara is a blatant ripoff of LOTR, but his style was engaging enough to keep the reader interested until he took the story into new territory. Check out Brooks if you haven't already. I may take another stab at the Iron Tower. Sometimes, a story has to find the right to be read. If that makes sense?😊
Never forget that the appendices of LOTR reveal that the Red Book of Westmarch (the ancient historical text Tolkien is supposedly translating) was edited, annotated, and rewritten many times between when Frodo "finished" it and when Tolkien found it. It was even "corrected" by historians in Gondor, who would have had a political incentive to omit/change certain parts of the story. TLDR: Tolkien did not even intend the "canon" of lotr to be taken as the absolute truth of what happened.
Thanks, Will. You saved me the trouble of expressing the same thoughts with different words of my own crafting. I also like Tolkien's sentiment that visiting a far-off island or city, that knowing too much about it, destroys the magic.
I still like to imagine that Tom Bombadil and Goldberry had summoned any remaining Entwives to The Old Forest and protected them there. It's not canon (of course) but it fills in some of the blanks regarding Tom and Ents.
Cannons are also know as the King of the battlefield ;) seeing plenty of use in the current European conflict. Love your video btw, you do an excellent job; and articulate the lore very well. 10/10
Watched the "Who is Tom Bombadil" video first, and now this one, and I found them both quite interesting. Some of the things were my thoughts finally put into words, others were insights that I am glad I heard for the first time (Tom Bombadil being the third option, in a world between a good vs evil power struggle). I am glad I found the channel, even though I clicked cynically because the thumbnail on the Bombadil video suggested everyone got it wrong (or something like that). I was like, oh really, let me see what is she going to tell me that I did not know. Turns out, quite a bit actually :D Hope this channel grows, needs to be more present in discussions of Tolkien works.
You and Robert (InDeepGeek) are my favourite channels on Tolkien. Having two different creators giving their viewpoints provides a well rounded discussion insight into Tolkien’s legendarium ( although hats off to Nerd of the Ring and The Broken Sword channels too).
As an artist and writer plagued by the fear of my works being 'not good enough' or 'not finished', and even 'not impactful', this actually gives me a lot of hope! Maybe what I put out there won't be considered a great masterpiece, maybe I'll look back on it and think 'I could have done more', and maybe it won't go down in history alongside Tolkien or Suzanne Collins or any of the other great artists, but it will still be a part of the world and I'll still have finished it. Because, as good as it is to learn how to push yourself and work for quality and perfection, another great skill to hone is learning when to take your hands away from a project, to let it exist as it is. I absolutely love your videos, they're so thought provoking, insightful, and welcoming - it's so amazing to see someone who loves Tolkien like I do and wants to explore all of the aspects of his life and works!
Wonderful, nuanced video! I’ve never been the kind of fan who clutches their pearls over adaptations “breaking canon.” The original version of the story is always there for me if I don’t like what an adaptation is doing with it. I’ve also shared your opinion for many years that only The Hobbit & LOTR really count as “canon.” As much as I enjoy The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, etc., it’s always been clear that Tolkien was a habitual retconner, and that much in those works had been invented by Christopher & Guy. The Hobbit & LOTR are the only Middle Earth books I continuously return to. And honestly, I think it’s cool to see this world being taken up by “other minds & hands,” because it shows that Tolkien’s dream has been achieved. His story is becoming actual myth, which is always updated by successive generations to be relevant to their concerns, and not just a pair of novels. Ppl centuries from now will be telling new tales of Middle Earth, the way we still tell new stories about Heracles or Thor. That is a great honor to Tolkien IMO.
@@Jess_of_the_Shire His mythology does *feel* English, but it belongs to the whole world now. So many ppl from all over the world love it. A real testament to Tolkien’s genius.
I agree with your take - although I do also come back to the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, Children of Hurin, etc. - they may not be definitive, but they’re still fascinating! Too many people in the comments here don’t seem to appreciate the complexity with understanding contradictions and evolution within Tolkien’s conception of his stories!
@@BradyAmerson I do also return to Beren And Luthien from time to time! But that’s probably because of the werewolf. I love werewolves. I think it’s always best to approach adaptations of a work on their own terms, rather than as being in competition with the original work. It’s a sometimes fascinating window for me into the minds of other people, showing me what they took from the original work. Often, they will have insights I hadn’t thought of, or pulled out themes I hadn’t noticed. It’s fun! If I end up not liking the adaptation, I take the attitude of, “well, it’s not for me, but I’m happy it brings new fans to the original.” Which adaptations always do.
Hi Jess, thanks for this interesting video. I agree with you that a canon is most important for franchises that publish stories in different media and by different authors. When this happens with the Lord of the Rings - as in the new TV series - a canon is needed. If you define the LOTR canon as you propose, the events in the Silmarillion can be ignored and alternative storylines can be invented. I think it would improve the quality of future stories based on the Silmarillion if authors would treat it as canon and change it only, if it is really necessary - just as Peter Jackson did with the LOTR movies.
Which is why, I believe, the canon needs to have tiers. Yes, the Silmarillion had great input from Chris and Guy G. Kay, but it's "more" canon than fan fic by any other author.
Hi Jess, usually when someone starts talking about canon, my eyes glaze over and my attention span starts to wane. Usually. You did a great job of presenting your ideas of what is and isn't canon and then in the end showed us that it's not really that important, especially to those of us who enjoy Tolkien's work. Thanks for another great video and keep up the excellent work.
OK. First. Good job the person who came up with the subject. Cracking idea. Good job. Jess unless they also gave you the Script, which I don't think they did then your just going have to accept that you just NAILED that essay. It's brilliant that you are fulfilling all the potential you felt you had when you started. Your starting to really tackle some interesting and in some ways (especially with Tolkin and how he and his work are perceived) difficult subjects with some really thoughtful and smart conclusions. 🧡
My favorite conception of canon (which harks back to Tolkiens response to the problem of the ring) comes from Shoji Kowamori talking about Macross. His stance is that every piece of media we see about Macross is canon....but rather than a 100% accurate account, it's always someone's version of events in-story and should be assumed to have varying levels of inaccuracy, deliberate or otherwise. The entire franchise is a game of Rashomon.
Thank you, Jess, for some marvelous thoughts on what is "canon." I didn't know that Tolkien ever wanted to publish the Silmarillion. I always thought it was his source book that he used to provide context and background for the characters and events in the Hobbit and the LOTR. Although Tolkien called them "fairy tales," what I believe he was engaged in was writing mythology. In mythology, there are multiple versions of myths, not only different plots but different aspects of characters that are emphasized. Thus, mythology is fluid and can be told and retold, with some elements added or removed as dictated by the teller and the times in which the myth is told. Consider the multiple versions of King Arthur, Robin Hood, the Three Musketeers, Zorro, Tarzan, and others, which I regard as "modern" mythology. Likewise, comic books are engaging in creating mythology with multiple iterations of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and on and on. If regarded as mythology, what is "canon"?
Great video and I 100% agree with your conclusion. I like that you used Niggle's Leaf to illuminate your point. It's funny that I just watched this video while drawing my own picture inspired by that story, so it was delightful to unexpectedly hear you talk about it. It is Niggle's wet bicycle-ride, which is very much the moment when he starts to realize that he would never finish his picture, like Tolkien in his last years, as you quoted.
BTW I DEFINITELY enjoy your insights! Since I am way too busy to delve as you do into the “CANNON “ (watching the episode) I definitely appreciate your efforts!!!:)
I first read LOTR before The Silmarillion was published. Once I scoured the maps in it trying to find Gondolin and Nargothrond, which were mentioned in LOTR without further explanation, and weren't even in the appendices.
The Tolkien reference book not produced by the Tolkien family that I find most useful is "The Atlas of Middle-Earth" by Karen Wynn Fonstad. She's a cartographer. Published in 1981, a few years after The Silmarillion, it has numerous maps covering The Hobbit, LOTR, and The Silmarillion. I'd say it's a good preview of the latter if you're on the fence about reading it. Some of the maps show the progress, day by day if it can be determined, of the major characters on long journeys, such as Bilbo from Hobbiton to Erebor. Others show the approximate locations of places that are only hinted at in the books.
For me, The Hobbit will always be a cartoon. That's just how I imagined the world when I first read it and nothing I've seen has ever really dislodged that aesthetic from my brain. The execrable Jackson Hobbit certainly couldn't make a dent. In my head canon, if your Hobbit isn't animated, it's not The Hobbit. Annoyingly, a lot of the visual design of the movies has superseded my LotR imaginings. I can't really recall what I used to think places like Imladris or Minas Tirith looked like. I've never been big on imagining people so I doubt I ever had a concrete idea of what Aragorn looked like but now it's definitely something closer to Vigo Mortensen than it ever would have been in the past. I imagine the same is true for a lot of people and in this way, the movie has become book canon. At least it has for some segment of the audience.
I'd say that Adventures of Tom Bombadil are canonical texts, meaning these songs and poem existed in Middle-Earth. And just like in real life, it doesn't mean events described in these poems ever actually happened. Silmarillion is really complicated, but I like looking for what could be the final version of it in Tolkien mind, as having some kind of headcanon helps me analyze and enjoy his writings. And while it's often relatively easy to find, it can never be fully definitive, certain or complete. It may be more fun to seek than it would be to simply receive from publisher
I know this has certainly been commented on to death before now, but as a very recent devotee of Jess and her essay channel Shire, I simply want to thank Jess for not only convincing me to finally read Dune (along with both phenomenal Dune films)... but also for searing into my brain that amazing Rodent Gentleman image behind her. Thank you for these wonderful essays!
@@sebastianevangelista4921 Quinn's ideas stands out as one of the channels that loves both Frank Herbert's work itself and all of the adaptations and extensions, no matter what their quality. There are so many haters these days. It's refreshing to see someone who just enjoys whatever he can get in the universe.
As I've written elsewhere, canonicity in Tolkien's Legendarium is a bit complicated, as much of it never published in his life time. The (revised) Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, including all its Appendices, are of primary canonicity - they are published works and you can't get more canonical than that. It's true that The Hobbit underwent a serious revision, but that was to bring it into line with Tolkien's legendarium (canon) of The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien briefly worked on a further revision of The Hobbit, which didn't get very far, but that was more to do with tweaking the tone of the story, rather than altering any of the internal history and story. These primary canon have things like the timeline, with for example the order the Great Rings were created in. Then there is the secondary canonicity of things published by Christopher Tolkien after his father's death, in The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales. Things like the reasons for the fall of Numenor (nothing to do with elves taking their jobs), and the fleshed-out characters of Elendil, Isildur, Gil Galad, Elrond, Celebrimbor or Galadriel and Celeborn. These things were pretty much unchanged from the late 1950s onwards. Christopher Tolkien was able to pull these unpublished works into publishable forms in The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and the later Beren and Luthien, The Children of Hurin, and The Fall of Gondolin. Finally, there is a tertiary canon, things Tolkien was still evolving, like the Blue Wizards, and when they arrived, or the early history of the elves in Middle Earth before they went to Valinor before the First Age. For example, the most common idea is that Tolkien said all the Istari arrived in the Third Age, but as I said, that was an evolving idea. Tolkien changed this later such that the two Blue Wizards arrived in the Second Age, long before Gandalf, Saruman, and Radagast still arrived in the Third. And in his writing, he even says that wasn't the first time they had come there. Long before even the First Age, Maiar spirits had come to the elves at Lake Cuiviénen when the elves had first awoken. These "Five Guardians" didn't come in the guise of old men, as they did as the Istari. The only wriggle room around canonicity is around that tertiary level, and even that should be respected. As for the films, TV shows, and games, well I like them, but I consider them inspired by Tolkien. Jackson's films (Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit films are another story), did an excellent job; sure he made some changes and left bits out, but he told a good story that was pretty faithful to Tolkien's tale. And the more I read about the history of the production of those films the more extraordinary it seems that we got such good films in the end, (seriously, Weinstein pushed hard for _a single film_ ). But there's a spectrum of 'goodness' here, snaking down to the dregs that is that Amazon show.
This was a wonderful video Jess, thank you for your thorough explanation and your opinion - it's really refreshing amidst all the discussions about what is canon and what isn't, to hear about it being okay that some things are and aren't canon. I still have gripes with the Rings of Power series (I was mainly thinking of that during your video), but it makes it feel more okay, because it gives room for speculation, it indeed is beautifully unfinished still.
I agree with you 100% about canon, especially about the Silmarillion. But I have to say, in the context that the stories of the first age, told in the Silmarillion were supposed to be written by Bilbo from different sources in Rivendel, which in turn might draw from Lindon, Numenor and the elves visiting Numenor. That's how I imagine stories like Tuor and Idril sailing to Aman and Tuor being accepted as an elf, it must have come from stories told in Numenor by elves of Tol Eressea, so there is some true to it but we don't know the whole of it. And there is when people that truly carefully read all Tolkien's work related to Middle Earth and Aman can find discrepancies and ways to explain them and maybe choose the one that most fits the general story, like the case of Galadriel, where in my opinion, the latest version of her story is the one that suits the general narrative the best.
God, what a great video, that Leaf by Niggle part had me in crumbles. I knew this story existed, but not what it was about, and now I find myself desperate to read it, it made me so emotional to hear about it and how it can be seen as Tolkien's struggle with his own perfectionism in a way. I'm halfway through the Dune books now (just started God Emperor actually) and today my grandma gifted me Beren and Lúthien, but I really want to get a hold on Leaf by Niggle and read that before anything else. Fantastic video, and a fantastic discussion on canon in general! That part about the need to identify canon for the protection of intellectual property was also really cool, had never thought about it that way, as a Star Wars fan I've grown used to talk about what is canon and what isn't but had never seen it in that lens, I guess because some parts of what is not officially canon I just consider "real" in my head because I like them and there's no official story that contradicts it. Anyway, I mumbled a lot, but still really happy and emotional because of this video and its discussions, gonna go buy Leaf by Niggle online somewhere now, thank you!
Excellent thoughts, per usual. The idea of "canon" was far less important when stories had one author. Even today, fans readily accept changes made by the artist who created a story. The problems start when 1. Giant worlds full of hundreds of stories written by dozens of authors all needed to coexist...like in comic books...and movies and TV. And 2. When modern technology made discussing the stories so common and so PUBLIC, that a conversation would rarely be between two people and left to sleep when they moved on. It was everlasting. And 3. When classic stories by a single author became property of 3rd parties who had little interest in the story itself...only its ability to create wealth. Its here that canon was killed in favor of the 5th sequel...and fans with little knowledge of the original narrative, themselves, fragmented into tribes & became more interested in the argument than the story. Its a fascinating topic. Thanks for taking it on.
I recently re-wrote some fan fiction (not Tolkien) that I had written years before in order to appease an online friend who objected to some of my changes concerning the background of the characters. I'm only saying this in order to say that I do, in a tiny sliver of a way, appreciate how difficult it was for Tolkien to change Bilbo's meeting with Gollum because one thing changes another which changes another, etc. It's amazing how much material you have to re-think. OK, that's all.
I am so happy I found your channel. One topic I would love to see an Irish person discuss is his appropriation of Irish culture and his actual actions towards the Irish. 23:22 This quote about fairy lore is an example imo. Im not suggesting you do this topic cause you are american but I wonder if you’ve come across any Irish perspectives on this!
I generally find arguments over "canon" in art to be a variation on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It is a way of dismissing certain interpretations others may have that one may not personally believe or like by defining the "True Middle Earth" to exclude something necessary to the offending interpretation. Happily, I don't see it come up as much for Tolkien as I do for properties like Star Wars (though the "no True Middle Earth" argument was often appealed to when the Rings of Power popped up). Some scholars have suggested that it may be a symptom of the modern love of systematizing everything...as it seems like, when you read medieval literature (or, say, Norse mythology) you get all sorts of internally inconsistent tellings and retellings that (near as I can tell) didn't bother people much before the modern age. As an example, it would be almost impossible to talk about a "canon" for King Arthur, because even if you include the seminal works like the references to Arthur by Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth, those do not agree with some of what have become key parts of the narrative. There, for example, Mordred either fought alongside King Arthur at the end, or fought against and mortally wounded Arthur, depending on which version you read. Mordred was the son of King Lot or the son of Arthur himself, depending on which version you read. And Mordred was possibly also the son of King Arthur's half-sister...who was the queen of Lothian...or Orkney, depending on the version, and she was named Morgause...or Anna....or Orcades, depending on the version. None of these or countless other variations was a problem to those stories being hugely popular for many centuries.
The cauldron of living mythology and process of constant retelling is easily visible among the Lord of the Rings Online community with people creating their own characters for role play and trying to somehow mingle their headcanons with each other, game canon and their interpretation of the books. And it's beautiful
Jess : "There have been people left wondering by the sheer amount of material released in the Lord of the rings universe about what is actually canon in a world that just can't seem to stop expanding" Me, a warhammer 40k fan : "oh my sweet summer child..." Aside from that, I love your reflection on the very nature of canon, especially in reation to the original conceptor of the imaginary universe. Simply because a single human mind can't design a perfect universe all by itself, and that the areas left unexplored are the places where the reader's imagination is allowed to flourish and wander.
Had it not been for you, I would have never even heard of Leaf by Niggle. I feel that story in my soul, being a perfectionist ain't fun. I really appreciate your readings!! Thank you.😊
I've liked some/most of your other videos but I think this is your best. The Canon can only be anything written by JRR Tolkein himself because it was his world. When someone anyone else 'edits' it you get that degree of separation that you talked about including TH-camrs- yourself. I'm like you, I do like the Silmarillion but i don't consider it canon, because edits... Just like you said. The Niggle story is brilliant really - I'll have to have a look at that one - because what is a niggle? He's written a story to tell you what's niggling him. Genius. Some people - literary people - might say he's not the best writer but he was very clever. I've read both versions of the Hobbit and I've thought of a few other ways he could have kept the original story and explained it. The Ring wanted to get back to Sauron. The Ring could have used the influence it had on Gollum to have made him give it to Bilbo because the Ring saw Gollum as a dead end. only when the ring was gone and it power broken by distance did its loss break Gollum. That still makes the Ring very malign. Also the Ring is weak because Sauron is weak so with a bit of trickery perhaps Gollum could give it up only to regret it. Then you can add the other bit, it was the Ring that made him give it up. Then... When you get to Mount Doom the treachery comes full circle because Gollum and the Ring destroy each other. Just a thought. Anyway enjoyed your thoughts and thank you. 🙂
Leaf by Niggle is such a beautiful tale. I remember a letter in which Tolkien says he had an idea for a story that never got written. About a garden that existed through centuries and the memories and events it had seen. Always wished he’d written a few more original tales not set in Arda/middle earth
I always interpreted The Silmarillion as a collection of myths and legends from the first age, mainly from the perspective of the elves. So it's hard to say if every story in it 100% played out in the lore or that parts got embellished over time through oral traditions. As someone who loves mythology and history The Silmarillion is my favourite of Tolkien's works.
The thing I find most remarkable is that Tolkien even worked on a revision that dropped the most striking fact about his legendarium, that the shape of the Earth and by extension the universe changes partway through history, with a flat-Earth cosmology out of ancient myth physically transforming into something like the Solar System as understood by science. I wouldn't want to get rid of that since it's so mind-bogglingly weird with various metaphoric resonances, but Tolkien seems to have not been satisfied with it--maybe reconsidered it as just too much to swallow. He also sometimes spoke of the Silmarillion stories as in-universe myths, so, themselves not necessarily literally true in the world of LOTR, though how much of them are true could be up to the reader. (One of my favorite extracanonical uses of Middle-Earth is its appearance in Steven Weinberg's graduate textbook "Gravitation and Cosmology" in a discussion of how one might determine whether Middle-Earth is curved or not through distance measurements. I just looked it up and that actually predated the publication of the Silmarillion.)
'Canon only becomes important within ownership.' I think that's the capitalist view of canon. I would look more to source as an expression of canon not who bought and now 'owns' intellectual property.
The canon has always been an important aspect of storytelling but fair enough etymologically.I'm Prematurely user engagementing, it's been awhile...worth it
I think canon should be stories that share the spirit and quality of the beloved originals at least to a reasonable degree. Creations that take a franchise into a completely different concept or are too careless and shallow may have whatever merit it may be but shouldn't be considered canon in the sense of an extension of the original. Your reflection about the subject is very cool!
I do think that having innumerable versions of each strory is the must realistic way of telling either history or myth, there is a reason why historians can never agree on anything and why literary interpretations are also endless. Also in how Tolkien presented his work as if it were translations y specially enjoy how there are numerous versions of some of his writings and very few of others, it adds to the way he set it because thats how historical sources work, you might find thousands of tellings of a specific age, life, dynasty, event, and only questions in other moments so I think it is rather perfect to end up with so many writtings that often contradict each other if we choose to see this as ancient texts being studied and translated.
Since 1983 I've not been able to read through The Silmarillion! I've tried over and over again yearly... I'm 60. Mayhaps before I die I will get it done.
In both versions Bilbo found the ring. The difference was that in the original version Goollum didn't know this, and showed him the way out as a replacement prize.
I ascribe to "death of the author", the final edition of books written exclusively by J.R.R. are "canon" to me. P.S. Where can I get a top hat mouse facade like the one behind you? Cracked me up. P.P.S. The adventures of Tom Bombadil is a glorious tome.
When it is done well each medium complement each other creating an even more interesting story. In Star wars in the movie the order 66 was very important but we did not know the jedi that were killed and why the clone obeyed so the scene was not as much impactful. During the animated series, novels and video games we learned to know them, how the clones body obeyed the order and how difficult it was to escape for those that survived and seeing the movie is now even more interesting. Having a central authority that make those different addition to the universe being compatible with each other add a lot for the consumers, Role playing games add detail of the different places and lives of peoples and are a good basis to have a common knowledge to spawn new stories that expand the universe.
Jess shouted out Deep Geek! I declare as canon the prophesy that she and Robert will do a collaboration. And it's a literal prediction of future events, not esoteric preterism like Revelation.
I'll admit that I've never been able to finish the Silmarilion, so I guess I'm not qualified to make this statement, but it seems like Tolkien didn't have a coherent story he was trying to tell with it. When he started the sequel to The Hobbit, he intended to write another children's story but a darker more adult story grew out of it and he went with that. I just don't think the quest to recover the Silmarils was enough to base a story on. As I understand it, the main story seemed to be about the battles that one family who felt entitled to own them had with others when they recovered a Silmaril from Morgoth. And then in the end, the Silmarils were lost anyway. So, perhaps if there was a central character with a single heroic quest, something could have come out his efforts.
Tolkien: "I hate allegory" Also Tolkien: Writes Leaf by Niggle That was truly powerful insight into Tolkien's mind and process. Thank you for sharing. But it does make his comments about allegory that much more baffling.
I quite like this quote with regard to subject of canon. Though perhaps it not apply toward works that scorn and disavow the original artist’s creation. “The story is not all mine, nor told by me alone. Indeed I am not sure whose story it is; you can judge better. But it is all one, and if at moments the facts seem to alter with an altered voice, why then you can choose the fact you like best; yet none of them are false, and it is all one story.” -Ursula K. Le Guin (The Left Hand of Darkness)
I tried to look up your “(les’t?) have a conversation” post,but couldn’t find it 😢, in my defense, I’m pretty’ ‘BUTLAIRIAN’ in philosophy, and my only computer is my phone:) I do definitely enjoy your relatable posts ( dummed down for the common orc, like myself!)
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. Their fee is free unless they win. For more information go to www.forthepeople.com/JessoftheShire?s=86%3A3523
WorldAnvil should have been the perfect sponsor for this video.
With a carful listen to what Jess is saying you will see that just because Christopher or John Ronald wrote it doesn’t make it “cannon”. Tolkien re-imagined so much and was constantly rewriting and reworking his stories. Sure I get that ROP is certainly not “cannon” but nether are the PJ movies and agree that even the Silmarillion is open to debate on what’s supposed to be the “official” story. If you read nature of Middle earth and the rest of the history of Middle earth you’ll see that discussions about cannon are pretty irrelevant and many (mostly the insufferable ROP haters / PJ worshipers) don’t get.
I like how badass this channel is, inasmuch as to being sponsored by Saul Goodman.
"there is no canon to real life" you say,, do you live in some metaphysical alternate reality?
@@snoopstp4189 Gosh. I must have misunderstood or misheard. I thought Jess said there is no canon in fiction because it is all fictional. That implies that for example Church Canon is real. It certainly has the authority, when applied, to decide controversy or, at least, to guide decisions as regards settling controversies
Christopher tidying up and reorganizing his father's work into the Silmarillion is a pretty appropriate echo of Frodo writing after Bilbo's stories 🤌
Whoa! Very insightful!
I particularly loved how Tolkien revised his own cannon in The Hobbit when he rewrote how Bilbo came by the ring initially. Fixing a plot hole by casting Bilbo as an unreliable narrator, hinting that the power of the ring was so that it could corrupt even the most honest of hobbits, was pure genius.
@@OntarioBearHunterare you ok
It's so clever, and such a Tolkien-ish move!
@@OntarioBearHunterWhy is it ALWAYS blue hair? I've never seen comments like this mentioning any other colour other than blue.
The one thing I wish is that he'd left _The Hobbit_ alone, perhaps no more than a small note hinting at Bilbo's unreliable status, and left it until _The Lord of the Rings_ itself to see the truth. I think that is both more fun and fits within the "lost work translated by Tolkien."
@@johnlastname8752 Wow. What did they say?!
I love the idea of Tolkien in the afterlife walking through the old forest outside of the shire running into characters he thought of but never put to paper.
Sounds kind of like Leaf by Niggle.
As do I!
That's beautiful. 🥹
@@Jess_of_the_Shirehave u watched the hunt for gollum short film on youtube ?pretty good ..esp now with a new movie being made on same story
This makes me tear up honestly. I hope that’s where he is, with his Luthien.
I’ve never considered The Silmarillion to be anything but pure canon, even knowing everything that you explained. The fact that it was a life-long work for Christopher Tolkien to honor his father’s notes with integrity is one of the reasons that make it canon for me.
I also consider it canon but I can see that technically/per definition it would not be canon. J.R.R. never officially approved of it and he didnt write it himself completely.
You're absolutely right, sir.
I would say this video makes a strong argument that the Silmarillion is not canon, and I can see the merit of that, but I think it's not the whole story. There were so many things in it that were foundation blocks of Tolkien's whole world, and even if there were some variants, and parts of it were Christopher's own work, that underlying structure remains. The point being that Christopher created a seminal work based on his father's writings, giving an insight which would probably never otherwise have existed. It has to have a special status, which many other adaptions cannot claim. A special kind of canon if you like. To call this an adaption, or Christopher's fan fiction, is not a sufficient tribute to the noble goal of bringing the essence of his father's work to the world.
@@6666Imperator All his son did was put the disjointed pieces of John's lore together. That means the Silmarillian is probably the most important source FOR THE CANON of Arda just IN GENERAL.
A - Published by J.R.R. (Absolute Canon)
B - Edited by Christopher et al (as if seen through a frosted mirror)
C - Middle Earth stories/films published with good intentions (as if seen in a dream)
D - Created without good intentions (the hand of Saruman)
E - Created for nefarious intentions (the work of Mordor)
I always found it frustrating that the Tolkien Estate were so unwilling to allow others to try to portray the work of J.R.R. ... now I know, after Christopher's death, that they were completely right.
Where does Letters fall?
Where does Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs fall on your LOTR cannon list?
@@ObiwanNekody Snow White isn't based on LOTR so it doesn't fall on this list
@@sourisvoleur4854 B -Edited by Christopher et al.
You're just right.
The main thing for me that distinguishes you from those other Tolkien related channels is the informal and personable presentation, and the wide range of topics you cover. From "how to dress like an Elf" to analyzing the nature of evil in Middle Earth, every week is an enjoyable visit to the part-time Shire.
You're so kind! I have a ton of fun covering lots of different topics. I'm so glad you enjoy my videos!
For real. I find myself watching Jess more than the others. Not to knock them but they are overly dramatic in their presentation sometimes. I enjoy the sitting having a conversation astetic she has.
@@Jess_of_the_Shire it certainly looks like you have a great deal of fun! I know this is a fantasy Channel, also I have heard you speak of Shakespeare and his plays and poems, would you be open to doing a full on video or two exploring or extrapolating the works of The Bard?
I’m a great lover of Greek Myth. There are countless retellings and contradictions, but this only makes the experience richer.
Does shilling for ROP also count? I guess it is not that different from other LOTR channels
In the end, canon is a human agreement of what we believe is true/official, like we currently do with historic texts. Discussing Tolkien canon suits greatly Tolkien's desire to treat his work as a narrative of historic events.
I agree, it fits no work better than his when you treat it as real
To me, there's A-canon and B-canon with Middle Earth literature. The latest edited/published versions of LotR and The Hobbit during Tolkien's lifetime are A-canon and anything Middle Earth or Arda-related published posthumously by the estate is B-canon. None of the films or shows are Tolkien canon. As for Bombadil, I think he transcends all universes and is canon everywhere an old forest exists. :)
Thank you for having the same view of the film's as I do. What a travesty. Actually, let's say an abomination.
@@LKMNOP He didnt call it a travesty just not cannon. Films are good adaptation but not canon. They dont create the world.
For me, the canon closed with Christopher Tolkien. Anytime Chris contradicts John, we should refer back to the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.
" [a]n unhealthy obsession with the Ring ", that's an understatement. Smeagol was IMHO, enslaved by the Ring
It overtook his mind.
First he coveted it. He murdered for it. I would say that is what helped him become enslaved with it.
Good discussion. The canon comes from JRR Tolkien and his established works, and one might consider things that his son Christopher arranged as "deuterocanonical" for lack of a better term (a second continued canon that is not apocryphal or dubious, but is as close to a cohesive interpretation/expansion as can exist). Everything else is a "retelling", or "inspired by", or "an interpretation of" and even "fan fiction". Tolkien placed themes he deemed essential in his work (and Christopher attempted to maintain them) either initially or through revision. The weakening of those themes, which often occurs through interpretation, via opinions and ideologies of other creatives, is not and cannot be considered canon--no matter how much it tickles the preferences of the modern audience. Tolkien was allowed to change the canon as he saw fit, as its author and creator. His son, who sought to preserve the work of his father, created something akin to a definitive continuation as can exist. Those who purchase (or have purchased) the IP, and attempt to make money off of its popularity, are by definition creating a work that is, at best, inspired by LOTR. Unfortunately, further interpretations can (and I suspect will, sadly) have very little to do with the themes of Tolkien and simply be someone else's story painted Middle-earth.
Good word. "Second canon." That makes so much sense.
Silmarillion adds so much context to the story to not be considered Canon.
Its largely consistent, the stories and their themes are Tolkien's. Theyre largely his writings, and they're beautiful!
I think the real question is, is The Lord of the Rings canon in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil?
The need of canon, as you correctly point out, is the need of consistency. That's why we need canon for within Tolkien's own contradictions, canon to separate what Tolkien wrote and didn't, canon to align all other media within the intended narrative and world building rules, and so on.
We don't need canon for Tolkien's different versions contradicting each other, in my view. Real mythology often has different versions of stories that just stand next to each other.
It's not like fans can agree on one, just give your sources and you're golden.
I'm totally agreed. Canon is quite important in modern media business.
I find it interesting that fanfic-writers and readers seem to have the clearest grasp on why and how canon is used, in my opinion. Since it is tremendusly important for both the writer and the reader to be on the same page of what is happening in the fanfic, the writer usually specifies what do they understand as "canon" - which means, which events are going to be accepted as existing and thus referred to without extra notice in the text.
With the case of LOTR, everyone in fanfiction seems to see film-canon and book-canon as two separate entities, which are frequently mixed into more specific variations of "canon" accepted by a given writer. It is increadibly interesting, that people seem to understand in that way such a controversial thing as canon so universally (especially compared to the discussions of canon elsewhere even in the same fandom).
As Corey Olsen points out, The Hobbit as originally conceived and written was not compatible with the legendarium as it existed in Tolkien’s head at the time. The Hobbit takes Elrond half-elven, Gondolin, the nauglafring, and the Necromancer (Thu/Sauron) from the 1930s Silm., which are close but they are not exactly the same. Then you have Thranduil, who is Thingol rehashed, and the arkenstone is the silmaril rehashed. We have the concept that it occurs in the 3rd age, but nothing in the text suggests that and in fact when it was written there was no 2nd or 3rd age. The location of the Shire relative to Beleriand is also indeterminate. In the 1930s Silm, there are no Misty mountains, and in the Hobbit, there are no Blue Mountains. LOTR and some clever retconning make The Hobbit fit, since it was generally light on lore. In a genius move Tolkien glued the Hobbit and the Silmarillion together using LOTR, which extended the sense of depth in all three. It is not a perfect fit though, so he comes to the trick up his sleeve that he’s always had: the unreliable narrator. On the micro scale: Bilbo lied when he wrote his story. And whoever wrote about Frodo seeing the coasts of Valinor was writing fiction, since no eye-witnesses returned. On the macro scale: the “translator” of the work from Westron to English took some liberties here and there when the text was obscure, and the manuscripts may be corrupted. I think eventually he got too caught up in the idea of his legendarium as a “found story” passed down through generations. The Numenor legend tells how the world “became bent” (went from flat to spherical). Tolkien wanted to delete this and all references to a flat earth because, as a good historian, he knew that cultures have believed in a round world for a long time-they would not have passed down the flat earth version, rather they would have changed the story. To include both flat and round earth, and a transition between the two, has no analogue in authentic myths of various cultures. I think he went too far here-he was getting caught up in issues of “canon” when in fact the stories stand alone, and as parts of a whole, just fine. The frame story is the least compelling aspect.
@jess_of_the_shire It strikes me that one of the things that makes you special as a Tolkien content creator is your emotional understanding of the professor and his work. There are lots of fine folks talking about the books & films, but few that feel so personal. So glad to have you in the community, keep up the great work ❤
20:28 This reminds me of a Tolkien quote I really like.
"There is a place called ‘heaven’ where the good here unfinished is completed; and where the stories unwritten, and the hopes unfulfilled, are continued. We may laugh together yet."
Tolkien wasn't merely a writer, he was more of a philosopher, and theologian, that loved to write. The released was simply what he wanted to share as is; everything else is what was to find yourself.
What Tolkien wrote is Canon, that which he didn't, isn't. It is simply fan fiction. Good or bad, it isn't Tolkiens words.
What about things that he wrote multiple versions of? With the History of Middle Earth, we have access to several versions of tales, some abandoned and some not necessarily so. How do you decide which version is canon?
@@BradyAmerson exactly, imagine he wrote on a napkin that it was the Ranger Glurp who would become Elessar, does the mean that the earlier name for the character we know as Aragorn takes precedent?
We can only trust Tolkien's intention with ironing out inconsistencies in works published in his lifetime, and have to trust even harder that his son tried to make sense out of the scrap notes. Some of the spin-off guides like History of Middle Earth treat this subject with care and give us the different versions of the story. For example, who Celeborn was and what his life made him do before and during becoming Galadriel's partner.
Do you count Cristopher Tolkien as “Tolkien”?
I enjoy your application of your educational background to this topic.
Thanks so much!
One of your best videos. Please let us consider Tolkien's writings as his form of therapy for shell shock or PTSD, and like Frodo's wound never fully healed. Writing, creating this vast history he was able understand what happened to him and help others, one of his great themes. Just a thought.
I think to an extent, Tolkien fanfic'd his own writings. Every time he came back and tried to rethink or revise or extend already published material, he was creating a fanfic. So the Quest of Erebor writings we see in Unfinished Tales are to an extent a fanfic, as he was trying to embellish an existing account with information after the fact, in some ways heavily retconned. It's great stuff, he was the greatest fanfic author of them all, and I'd pay handsomely for ten times the behind-the-scene notes he dropped here and there.
It is his own work, so it isn't fanfic.
My sense is that canon is vital to a story extended over multiple series. As others have noted below, the wretched "Rings of Power" is wretched in large part because of the abysmal writing of the show-runners, who fancied themselves the equals of Tolkien as storytellers. For example, as far as I'm aware, Galadriel never set foot upon Numenor. That the RoP had her go there is not a problem vis-a-vis canon ; there is much of her life we don't know. But to have her behave on Numenor like an imperious, stroppy teenager is contrary to all that's been written about her, and is, in my opinion a violation of canon. (It also makes her seem a detestable person.) Another example is having a wizard appear on Middle Earth thousands of years before they actually arrived.
In the 1990s and 2000s, there were many books written using the main Star Wars characters. I don't know whether it was official LucasFilm policy, but those books all adhered to basic lore, so that there would be no contradiction of, say, the Emperor still being alive after Return of the Jedi.
In short, "canon" is what gives an extended story structure and consistency. Without it, we'd have glaring inconsistencies, such as Aragorn being killed by the Black Riders in Bree.
It's been many years since I read the 12-volume History of Middle Earth, but it seemed to me that Christopher Tolkien used discussions with his father and correspondence to decide what would go in The Silmarillion, so it wasn't entirely random.
So not to restart the rather unpleasant debates that have gone on about ROP for quite a while now, but I think this is a straw man argument. ROP is NOT claiming to be canon, and, as Jess says, it falls into the adaptions bracket which shouldn't be considered so. Saying then that it has no merit because some parts of it may not be canon is a bit beside the point. Its an adaption, like many others. Judging it on artistic merit is fine, but worrying about every last detail according with some idea of canon isn't necessary.
Of course there comes a point where an adaption may stray so far that it doesn't seem to be in the same world at all. This may still have some merit, but for some it will be going too far. I don't personally believe ROP has done this; much of it accords with the spirit and events of the second age as described by Tolkien. But, for sure, some things are different. Not enough to spoil my enjoyment personally, but your mileage may vary.
@@cally77777 . I beg to differ. First, the showrunners were always going on about how "Tolkienesque" their show would be, and how Tolkien's writing guided them; this is a flat-out lie. The ROP is just stupid; Galadriel really just jumps off a ship 2000 miles from any land because she doesn't want to return to Valinor? And that's just one example. Another is Numenor sending 300 (!) troops to conquer the Southlands, or that gob-smacking moment when those Numenoreans chant "The sea is always right".
And it doesn't accord with the spirit and events as Tolkien wrote them; for one, the wizards don't appear until the Third Age, so what's probably-Gandalf doing there? What's even the point of the Harfoots?
If you think all of that is grand, it's your opinion, and that's all that matters. But no objective evaluation of the ROP would call it good, let alone being close to what Tolkien actually wrote, except in the broadest of terms, such as yes, Numenor existed, and Celebrimbor forged the elven rings, although in the book, Sauron had no hand in creating the elven rings.
Last, the proof is in the pudding. Less than half the people who started watching it watched all 8 episodes, and the reviews have been dismal; even the showrunners made some comment about hewing closer to the books in Season 2.
Canon is everything that came out of Tolkien's mind before he passed away
Mind.
Exactly only what Tolkien wrote is valid history and is " the bible" .
@@AdDewaard-hu3xk correction made
Tolkien changed his mind repeatedly and often flat out contradicted himself.
@@tmage23 no
Are not all stories told and retold changed by time? A living story. I love the Silmarillian.
What a fascinating video. I love the fact Tolkien constantly tinkered with his creation. As for canon, though I find your thoughts on The Silmarillion really compelling, I have always considered anything Christopher touched to be canon. He was steeped in his father's work and made it his own life's work. The effort he put into this task has to be respected, and we would be the poorer without it. Well done for mentioning 'Leaf by Niggle' - it's one of Tolkien's finest works.
There was a time when the publishers wanted to publish a sequel trilogy. Its Called the Iron Tower trilogy by Dennis L. McKiernan. It was written in the style of Tolkien and everything, but then last minute they decided to have it be unrelated. I wonder if those stories, had publishers had called them sequels, would be considered canon despite not being written by Tolkien.
Great video as always Jess!
I'm grateful they didn't go that route. I forced myself through the first half of part one of McKiernan's trilogy and abandoned it as derivative, unwieldy, and unreadable.
Terry Brooks would have been a better choice to write a Tolkien "sequel." The first half of his Sword of Shannara is a blatant ripoff of LOTR, but his style was engaging enough to keep the reader interested until he took the story into new territory. Check out Brooks if you haven't already. I may take another stab at the Iron Tower. Sometimes, a story has to find the right to be read. If that makes sense?😊
Never forget that the appendices of LOTR reveal that the Red Book of Westmarch (the ancient historical text Tolkien is supposedly translating) was edited, annotated, and rewritten many times between when Frodo "finished" it and when Tolkien found it. It was even "corrected" by historians in Gondor, who would have had a political incentive to omit/change certain parts of the story.
TLDR: Tolkien did not even intend the "canon" of lotr to be taken as the absolute truth of what happened.
Thanks, Will. You saved me the trouble of expressing the same thoughts with different words of my own crafting. I also like Tolkien's sentiment that visiting a far-off island or city, that knowing too much about it, destroys the magic.
I still like to imagine that Tom Bombadil and Goldberry had summoned any remaining Entwives to The Old Forest and protected them there. It's not canon (of course) but it fills in some of the blanks regarding Tom and Ents.
If he had, wouldn't Tom have sent word to Treebeard and the other Ents that that's where their wives were?
As Baum said, he doesn't mind any interpretation of OZ as long as it is quality
And Baum himself was responsible for some of the wildest and most extracanonical adaptations.
@@MattMcIrvin great point, i saw parts of his film
Cannons are also know as the King of the battlefield ;) seeing plenty of use in the current European conflict. Love your video btw, you do an excellent job; and articulate the lore very well. 10/10
Watched the "Who is Tom Bombadil" video first, and now this one, and I found them both quite interesting. Some of the things were my thoughts finally put into words, others were insights that I am glad I heard for the first time (Tom Bombadil being the third option, in a world between a good vs evil power struggle).
I am glad I found the channel, even though I clicked cynically because the thumbnail on the Bombadil video suggested everyone got it wrong (or something like that). I was like, oh really, let me see what is she going to tell me that I did not know. Turns out, quite a bit actually :D Hope this channel grows, needs to be more present in discussions of Tolkien works.
You and Robert (InDeepGeek) are my favourite channels on Tolkien. Having two different creators giving their viewpoints provides a well rounded discussion insight into Tolkien’s legendarium ( although hats off to Nerd of the Ring and The Broken Sword channels too).
As an artist and writer plagued by the fear of my works being 'not good enough' or 'not finished', and even 'not impactful', this actually gives me a lot of hope! Maybe what I put out there won't be considered a great masterpiece, maybe I'll look back on it and think 'I could have done more', and maybe it won't go down in history alongside Tolkien or Suzanne Collins or any of the other great artists, but it will still be a part of the world and I'll still have finished it.
Because, as good as it is to learn how to push yourself and work for quality and perfection, another great skill to hone is learning when to take your hands away from a project, to let it exist as it is.
I absolutely love your videos, they're so thought provoking, insightful, and welcoming - it's so amazing to see someone who loves Tolkien like I do and wants to explore all of the aspects of his life and works!
Wonderful, nuanced video!
I’ve never been the kind of fan who clutches their pearls over adaptations “breaking canon.” The original version of the story is always there for me if I don’t like what an adaptation is doing with it.
I’ve also shared your opinion for many years that only The Hobbit & LOTR really count as “canon.” As much as I enjoy The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, etc., it’s always been clear that Tolkien was a habitual retconner, and that much in those works had been invented by Christopher & Guy.
The Hobbit & LOTR are the only Middle Earth books I continuously return to.
And honestly, I think it’s cool to see this world being taken up by “other minds & hands,” because it shows that Tolkien’s dream has been achieved. His story is becoming actual myth, which is always updated by successive generations to be relevant to their concerns, and not just a pair of novels.
Ppl centuries from now will be telling new tales of Middle Earth, the way we still tell new stories about Heracles or Thor. That is a great honor to Tolkien IMO.
I love this idea. Tolkien wanted to create a mythology for England, and I think he succeeded.
@@Jess_of_the_Shire His mythology does *feel* English, but it belongs to the whole world now. So many ppl from all over the world love it. A real testament to Tolkien’s genius.
I agree with your take - although I do also come back to the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, Children of Hurin, etc. - they may not be definitive, but they’re still fascinating! Too many people in the comments here don’t seem to appreciate the complexity with understanding contradictions and evolution within Tolkien’s conception of his stories!
@@BradyAmerson I do also return to Beren And Luthien from time to time! But that’s probably because of the werewolf. I love werewolves.
I think it’s always best to approach adaptations of a work on their own terms, rather than as being in competition with the original work. It’s a sometimes fascinating window for me into the minds of other people, showing me what they took from the original work. Often, they will have insights I hadn’t thought of, or pulled out themes I hadn’t noticed. It’s fun! If I end up not liking the adaptation, I take the attitude of, “well, it’s not for me, but I’m happy it brings new fans to the original.” Which adaptations always do.
Hi Jess, thanks for this interesting video.
I agree with you that a canon is most important for franchises that publish stories in different media and by different authors.
When this happens with the Lord of the Rings - as in the new TV series - a canon is needed. If you define the LOTR canon as you propose, the events in the Silmarillion can be ignored and alternative storylines can be invented.
I think it would improve the quality of future stories based on the Silmarillion if authors would treat it as canon and change it only, if it is really necessary - just as Peter Jackson did with the LOTR movies.
Which is why, I believe, the canon needs to have tiers. Yes, the Silmarillion had great input from Chris and Guy G. Kay, but it's "more" canon than fan fic by any other author.
Sorry Jess, cannons have never stopped being important battlefield weapons (depending of course on what is canonically a cannon).
Welp, I guess there's a reason they don't send me off to battlefields haha
I love your channel. I do door dash as my main source of income and listening to you like a podcast is so relaxing and entertaining and educational.
Hi Jess, usually when someone starts talking about canon, my eyes glaze over and my attention span starts to wane. Usually. You did a great job of presenting your ideas of what is and isn't canon and then in the end showed us that it's not really that important, especially to those of us who enjoy Tolkien's work. Thanks for another great video and keep up the excellent work.
OK. First. Good job the person who came up with the subject. Cracking idea. Good job.
Jess unless they also gave you the Script, which I don't think they did then your just going have to accept that you just NAILED that essay. It's brilliant that you are fulfilling all the potential you felt you had when you started. Your starting to really tackle some interesting and in some ways (especially with Tolkin and how he and his work are perceived) difficult subjects with some really thoughtful and smart conclusions. 🧡
'Leaf by Niggle' always give me tears, especially the way you tell it. Sad story, happy story, and then poof, gone.
My favorite conception of canon (which harks back to Tolkiens response to the problem of the ring) comes from Shoji Kowamori talking about Macross. His stance is that every piece of media we see about Macross is canon....but rather than a 100% accurate account, it's always someone's version of events in-story and should be assumed to have varying levels of inaccuracy, deliberate or otherwise. The entire franchise is a game of Rashomon.
What is canon? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.
Thank you, Jess, for some marvelous thoughts on what is "canon." I didn't know that Tolkien ever wanted to publish the Silmarillion. I always thought it was his source book that he used to provide context and background for the characters and events in the Hobbit and the LOTR. Although Tolkien called them "fairy tales," what I believe he was engaged in was writing mythology. In mythology, there are multiple versions of myths, not only different plots but different aspects of characters that are emphasized. Thus, mythology is fluid and can be told and retold, with some elements added or removed as dictated by the teller and the times in which the myth is told. Consider the multiple versions of King Arthur, Robin Hood, the Three Musketeers, Zorro, Tarzan, and others, which I regard as "modern" mythology. Likewise, comic books are engaging in creating mythology with multiple iterations of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and on and on. If regarded as mythology, what is "canon"?
The Tree By Niggle portion of your video was fantastic.
Great video and I 100% agree with your conclusion. I like that you used Niggle's Leaf to illuminate your point. It's funny that I just watched this video while drawing my own picture inspired by that story, so it was delightful to unexpectedly hear you talk about it. It is Niggle's wet bicycle-ride, which is very much the moment when he starts to realize that he would never finish his picture, like Tolkien in his last years, as you quoted.
BTW I DEFINITELY enjoy your insights! Since I am way too busy to delve as you do into the “CANNON “ (watching the episode) I definitely appreciate your efforts!!!:)
I had already watched the canon video by In Deep Geek and definitely liked it, and I appreciated that you went deeper.
I first read LOTR before The Silmarillion was published. Once I scoured the maps in it trying to find Gondolin and Nargothrond, which were mentioned in LOTR without further explanation, and weren't even in the appendices.
The Tolkien reference book not produced by the Tolkien family that I find most useful is "The Atlas of Middle-Earth" by Karen Wynn Fonstad. She's a cartographer. Published in 1981, a few years after The Silmarillion, it has numerous maps covering The Hobbit, LOTR, and The Silmarillion. I'd say it's a good preview of the latter if you're on the fence about reading it. Some of the maps show the progress, day by day if it can be determined, of the major characters on long journeys, such as Bilbo from Hobbiton to Erebor. Others show the approximate locations of places that are only hinted at in the books.
For me, The Hobbit will always be a cartoon. That's just how I imagined the world when I first read it and nothing I've seen has ever really dislodged that aesthetic from my brain. The execrable Jackson Hobbit certainly couldn't make a dent. In my head canon, if your Hobbit isn't animated, it's not The Hobbit.
Annoyingly, a lot of the visual design of the movies has superseded my LotR imaginings. I can't really recall what I used to think places like Imladris or Minas Tirith looked like. I've never been big on imagining people so I doubt I ever had a concrete idea of what Aragorn looked like but now it's definitely something closer to Vigo Mortensen than it ever would have been in the past. I imagine the same is true for a lot of people and in this way, the movie has become book canon. At least it has for some segment of the audience.
I'd say that Adventures of Tom Bombadil are canonical texts, meaning these songs and poem existed in Middle-Earth. And just like in real life, it doesn't mean events described in these poems ever actually happened. Silmarillion is really complicated, but I like looking for what could be the final version of it in Tolkien mind, as having some kind of headcanon helps me analyze and enjoy his writings. And while it's often relatively easy to find, it can never be fully definitive, certain or complete. It may be more fun to seek than it would be to simply receive from publisher
I know this has certainly been commented on to death before now, but as a very recent devotee of Jess and her essay channel Shire, I simply want to thank Jess for not only convincing me to finally read Dune (along with both phenomenal Dune films)... but also for searing into my brain that amazing Rodent Gentleman image behind her. Thank you for these wonderful essays!
It's a pleasure to have you on my channel! I hope you enjoy Dune, and I'm so very glad my Dapper Rodent has seared itself into your subconscious
Quinn's Ideas has done numerous videos analyzing Dune and its lore if you're at all interested.
@@sebastianevangelista4921 Quinn's ideas stands out as one of the channels that loves both Frank Herbert's work itself and all of the adaptations and extensions, no matter what their quality.
There are so many haters these days. It's refreshing to see someone who just enjoys whatever he can get in the universe.
@@Falcrist Indeed.
As I've written elsewhere, canonicity in Tolkien's Legendarium is a bit complicated, as much of it never published in his life time.
The (revised) Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, including all its Appendices, are of primary canonicity - they are published works and you can't get more canonical than that. It's true that The Hobbit underwent a serious revision, but that was to bring it into line with Tolkien's legendarium (canon) of The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien briefly worked on a further revision of The Hobbit, which didn't get very far, but that was more to do with tweaking the tone of the story, rather than altering any of the internal history and story. These primary canon have things like the timeline, with for example the order the Great Rings were created in.
Then there is the secondary canonicity of things published by Christopher Tolkien after his father's death, in The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales. Things like the reasons for the fall of Numenor (nothing to do with elves taking their jobs), and the fleshed-out characters of Elendil, Isildur, Gil Galad, Elrond, Celebrimbor or Galadriel and Celeborn. These things were pretty much unchanged from the late 1950s onwards. Christopher Tolkien was able to pull these unpublished works into publishable forms in The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and the later Beren and Luthien, The Children of Hurin, and The Fall of Gondolin.
Finally, there is a tertiary canon, things Tolkien was still evolving, like the Blue Wizards, and when they arrived, or the early history of the elves in Middle Earth before they went to Valinor before the First Age. For example, the most common idea is that Tolkien said all the Istari arrived in the Third Age, but as I said, that was an evolving idea. Tolkien changed this later such that the two Blue Wizards arrived in the Second Age, long before Gandalf, Saruman, and Radagast still arrived in the Third. And in his writing, he even says that wasn't the first time they had come there. Long before even the First Age, Maiar spirits had come to the elves at Lake Cuiviénen when the elves had first awoken. These "Five Guardians" didn't come in the guise of old men, as they did as the Istari.
The only wriggle room around canonicity is around that tertiary level, and even that should be respected. As for the films, TV shows, and games, well I like them, but I consider them inspired by Tolkien. Jackson's films (Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit films are another story), did an excellent job; sure he made some changes and left bits out, but he told a good story that was pretty faithful to Tolkien's tale. And the more I read about the history of the production of those films the more extraordinary it seems that we got such good films in the end, (seriously, Weinstein pushed hard for _a single film_ ). But there's a spectrum of 'goodness' here, snaking down to the dregs that is that Amazon show.
This was a wonderful video Jess, thank you for your thorough explanation and your opinion - it's really refreshing amidst all the discussions about what is canon and what isn't, to hear about it being okay that some things are and aren't canon. I still have gripes with the Rings of Power series (I was mainly thinking of that during your video), but it makes it feel more okay, because it gives room for speculation, it indeed is beautifully unfinished still.
I grew up in a comic shop. Cannon was, The thing to argue about. I wonder if that seeped into other fandoms.
Kudos for mentioning IDG, and then making a great video in a whole different direction, under a different spectrum. Loved it!
Great how thoroughly you research even the history of words.
I agree with you 100% about canon, especially about the Silmarillion. But I have to say, in the context that the stories of the first age, told in the Silmarillion were supposed to be written by Bilbo from different sources in Rivendel, which in turn might draw from Lindon, Numenor and the elves visiting Numenor. That's how I imagine stories like Tuor and Idril sailing to Aman and Tuor being accepted as an elf, it must have come from stories told in Numenor by elves of Tol Eressea, so there is some true to it but we don't know the whole of it.
And there is when people that truly carefully read all Tolkien's work related to Middle Earth and Aman can find discrepancies and ways to explain them and maybe choose the one that most fits the general story, like the case of Galadriel, where in my opinion, the latest version of her story is the one that suits the general narrative the best.
God, what a great video, that Leaf by Niggle part had me in crumbles. I knew this story existed, but not what it was about, and now I find myself desperate to read it, it made me so emotional to hear about it and how it can be seen as Tolkien's struggle with his own perfectionism in a way. I'm halfway through the Dune books now (just started God Emperor actually) and today my grandma gifted me Beren and Lúthien, but I really want to get a hold on Leaf by Niggle and read that before anything else. Fantastic video, and a fantastic discussion on canon in general! That part about the need to identify canon for the protection of intellectual property was also really cool, had never thought about it that way, as a Star Wars fan I've grown used to talk about what is canon and what isn't but had never seen it in that lens, I guess because some parts of what is not officially canon I just consider "real" in my head because I like them and there's no official story that contradicts it. Anyway, I mumbled a lot, but still really happy and emotional because of this video and its discussions, gonna go buy Leaf by Niggle online somewhere now, thank you!
Excellent thoughts, per usual. The idea of "canon" was far less important when stories had one author. Even today, fans readily accept changes made by the artist who created a story. The problems start when 1. Giant worlds full of hundreds of stories written by dozens of authors all needed to coexist...like in comic books...and movies and TV.
And 2. When modern technology made discussing the stories so common and so PUBLIC, that a conversation would rarely be between two people and left to sleep when they moved on. It was everlasting.
And 3. When classic stories by a single author became property of 3rd parties who had little interest in the story itself...only its ability to create wealth. Its here that canon was killed in favor of the 5th sequel...and fans with little knowledge of the original narrative, themselves, fragmented into tribes & became more interested in the argument than the story.
Its a fascinating topic. Thanks for taking it on.
I recently re-wrote some fan fiction (not Tolkien) that I had written years before in order to appease an online friend who objected to some of my changes concerning the background of the characters. I'm only saying this in order to say that I do, in a tiny sliver of a way, appreciate how difficult it was for Tolkien to change Bilbo's meeting with Gollum because one thing changes another which changes another, etc. It's amazing how much material you have to re-think. OK, that's all.
I am so happy I found your channel.
One topic I would love to see an Irish person discuss is his appropriation of Irish culture and his actual actions towards the Irish.
23:22 This quote about fairy lore is an example imo.
Im not suggesting you do this topic cause you are american but I wonder if you’ve come across any Irish perspectives on this!
I generally find arguments over "canon" in art to be a variation on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It is a way of dismissing certain interpretations others may have that one may not personally believe or like by defining the "True Middle Earth" to exclude something necessary to the offending interpretation. Happily, I don't see it come up as much for Tolkien as I do for properties like Star Wars (though the "no True Middle Earth" argument was often appealed to when the Rings of Power popped up). Some scholars have suggested that it may be a symptom of the modern love of systematizing everything...as it seems like, when you read medieval literature (or, say, Norse mythology) you get all sorts of internally inconsistent tellings and retellings that (near as I can tell) didn't bother people much before the modern age.
As an example, it would be almost impossible to talk about a "canon" for King Arthur, because even if you include the seminal works like the references to Arthur by Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth, those do not agree with some of what have become key parts of the narrative. There, for example, Mordred either fought alongside King Arthur at the end, or fought against and mortally wounded Arthur, depending on which version you read. Mordred was the son of King Lot or the son of Arthur himself, depending on which version you read. And Mordred was possibly also the son of King Arthur's half-sister...who was the queen of Lothian...or Orkney, depending on the version, and she was named Morgause...or Anna....or Orcades, depending on the version.
None of these or countless other variations was a problem to those stories being hugely popular for many centuries.
It's strongly tied to copyright, and to the original versions of the stories still being videly avaliable.
A fantastic video that gives many Tolkien lovers new and better - perhaps wider and more flexible - perspectives on Tolkien's work.
I really love your conclusions. I always get the warm and fuzzies as you wrap up the video 😊
I like the mouse with a hat painting, he looks very dapper.
Anything Tolkien or Christopher wrote is canonical. Anything funded by Bezos is not. In my opinion.
Yes. The Rings Of Prime is absolutely rancid.
Agreed. One is written by a man who had faith and experienced loss, the other is soulless corporate greed written by corporatism.
This is truth.
According to Christopher Tolkien, the Silmarion and all subsequent books, that were edited by Christopher Tolkien, is NOT to be considered CANON.
@@josephperry1168 I doubt that. Most of them were started by Tolkien himself.
The cauldron of living mythology and process of constant retelling is easily visible among the Lord of the Rings Online community with people creating their own characters for role play and trying to somehow mingle their headcanons with each other, game canon and their interpretation of the books. And it's beautiful
Jess : "There have been people left wondering by the sheer amount of material released in the Lord of the rings universe about what is actually canon in a world that just can't seem to stop expanding"
Me, a warhammer 40k fan : "oh my sweet summer child..."
Aside from that, I love your reflection on the very nature of canon, especially in reation to the original conceptor of the imaginary universe. Simply because a single human mind can't design a perfect universe all by itself, and that the areas left unexplored are the places where the reader's imagination is allowed to flourish and wander.
Had it not been for you, I would have never even heard of Leaf by Niggle. I feel that story in my soul, being a perfectionist ain't fun. I really appreciate your readings!! Thank you.😊
I've liked some/most of your other videos but I think this is your best. The Canon can only be anything written by JRR Tolkein himself because it was his world. When someone anyone else 'edits' it you get that degree of separation that you talked about including TH-camrs- yourself. I'm like you, I do like the Silmarillion but i don't consider it canon, because edits... Just like you said.
The Niggle story is brilliant really - I'll have to have a look at that one - because what is a niggle? He's written a story to tell you what's niggling him. Genius. Some people - literary people - might say he's not the best writer but he was very clever.
I've read both versions of the Hobbit and I've thought of a few other ways he could have kept the original story and explained it. The Ring wanted to get back to Sauron. The Ring could have used the influence it had on Gollum to have made him give it to Bilbo because the Ring saw Gollum as a dead end. only when the ring was gone and it power broken by distance did its loss break Gollum. That still makes the Ring very malign. Also the Ring is weak because Sauron is weak so with a bit of trickery perhaps Gollum could give it up only to regret it. Then you can add the other bit, it was the Ring that made him give it up. Then... When you get to Mount Doom the treachery comes full circle because Gollum and the Ring destroy each other. Just a thought.
Anyway enjoyed your thoughts and thank you. 🙂
I won't lie: when you mentioned In Deep Geek's video, I had to pause this and go watch that immediately 😅 But I'm back!
Leaf by Niggle is such a beautiful tale. I remember a letter in which Tolkien says he had an idea for a story that never got written. About a garden that existed through centuries and the memories and events it had seen. Always wished he’d written a few more original tales not set in Arda/middle earth
I always interpreted The Silmarillion as a collection of myths and legends from the first age, mainly from the perspective of the elves.
So it's hard to say if every story in it 100% played out in the lore or that parts got embellished over time through oral traditions.
As someone who loves mythology and history The Silmarillion is my favourite of Tolkien's works.
That was Christopher Tolkien's approach and intent. He stated it clearly in his foreword to the Silmarillion.😊
The thing I find most remarkable is that Tolkien even worked on a revision that dropped the most striking fact about his legendarium, that the shape of the Earth and by extension the universe changes partway through history, with a flat-Earth cosmology out of ancient myth physically transforming into something like the Solar System as understood by science. I wouldn't want to get rid of that since it's so mind-bogglingly weird with various metaphoric resonances, but Tolkien seems to have not been satisfied with it--maybe reconsidered it as just too much to swallow.
He also sometimes spoke of the Silmarillion stories as in-universe myths, so, themselves not necessarily literally true in the world of LOTR, though how much of them are true could be up to the reader.
(One of my favorite extracanonical uses of Middle-Earth is its appearance in Steven Weinberg's graduate textbook "Gravitation and Cosmology" in a discussion of how one might determine whether Middle-Earth is curved or not through distance measurements. I just looked it up and that actually predated the publication of the Silmarillion.)
Just found your channel. Really enjoying your content
'Canon only becomes important within ownership.' I think that's the capitalist view of canon. I would look more to source as an expression of canon not who bought and now 'owns' intellectual property.
I enjoy your videos, hope your channel keeps growing!!❤
The Unfinished Tales and Lost Tales are fascinating and enlightening in the forming of The Simarillion that we have.
The canon has always been an important aspect of storytelling but fair enough etymologically.I'm Prematurely user engagementing, it's been awhile...worth it
Leaf by Niggle gave me the cold feeling in your chest only mended by watching the rain for a while.
I love it when people explicitly use the term "head canon" because it shows a certain humility that recognises all of the complexities.
Wonderful discussion, loved the end especially!
I think canon should be stories that share the spirit and quality of the beloved originals at least to a reasonable degree. Creations that take a franchise into a completely different concept or are too careless and shallow may have whatever merit it may be but shouldn't be considered canon in the sense of an extension of the original. Your reflection about the subject is very cool!
The Silmarillion is definitely Legendarium canon, just with a couple glitches, like Gil-Galad’s parentage
Yes, canon matters. Canon for fiction is like physics in reality. You need it for things to work.
I do think that having innumerable versions of each strory is the must realistic way of telling either history or myth, there is a reason why historians can never agree on anything and why literary interpretations are also endless. Also in how Tolkien presented his work as if it were translations y specially enjoy how there are numerous versions of some of his writings and very few of others, it adds to the way he set it because thats how historical sources work, you might find thousands of tellings of a specific age, life, dynasty, event, and only questions in other moments so I think it is rather perfect to end up with so many writtings that often contradict each other if we choose to see this as ancient texts being studied and translated.
Since 1983 I've not been able to read through The Silmarillion! I've tried over and over again yearly... I'm 60. Mayhaps before I die I will get it done.
Video idea - Gollum as Rodion Raskolnikov; Tolkien's hat-tip to Dostoevsky's Diabolus.
In both versions Bilbo found the ring. The difference was that in the original version Goollum didn't know this, and showed him the way out as a replacement prize.
I ascribe to "death of the author", the final edition of books written exclusively by J.R.R. are "canon" to me.
P.S. Where can I get a top hat mouse facade like the one behind you? Cracked me up.
P.P.S. The adventures of Tom Bombadil is a glorious tome.
The Dapper Rat is a gift from my sister! I believe it came from ThrowbackStore on Etsy. And I agree, the Adventures of Tom Bombadil is a delight :)
When it is done well each medium complement each other creating an even more interesting story. In Star wars in the movie the order 66 was very important but we did not know the jedi that were killed and why the clone obeyed so the scene was not as much impactful. During the animated series, novels and video games we learned to know them, how the clones body obeyed the order and how difficult it was to escape for those that survived and seeing the movie is now even more interesting.
Having a central authority that make those different addition to the universe being compatible with each other add a lot for the consumers, Role playing games add detail of the different places and lives of peoples and are a good basis to have a common knowledge to spawn new stories that expand the universe.
Jess shouted out Deep Geek! I declare as canon the prophesy that she and Robert will do a collaboration.
And it's a literal prediction of future events, not esoteric preterism like Revelation.
I'll admit that I've never been able to finish the Silmarilion, so I guess I'm not qualified to make this statement, but it seems like Tolkien didn't have a coherent story he was trying to tell with it. When he started the sequel to The Hobbit, he intended to write another children's story but a darker more adult story grew out of it and he went with that. I just don't think the quest to recover the Silmarils was enough to base a story on. As I understand it, the main story seemed to be about the battles that one family who felt entitled to own them had with others when they recovered a Silmaril from Morgoth. And then in the end, the Silmarils were lost anyway. So, perhaps if there was a central character with a single heroic quest, something could have come out his efforts.
Tolkien: "I hate allegory"
Also Tolkien: Writes Leaf by Niggle
That was truly powerful insight into Tolkien's mind and process. Thank you for sharing. But it does make his comments about allegory that much more baffling.
I quite like this quote with regard to subject of canon. Though perhaps it not apply toward works that scorn and disavow the original artist’s creation. “The story is not all mine, nor told by me alone. Indeed I am not sure whose story it is; you can judge better. But it is all one, and if at moments the facts seem to alter with an altered voice, why then you can choose the fact you like best; yet none of them are false, and it is all one story.” -Ursula K. Le Guin (The Left Hand of Darkness)
I tried to look up your “(les’t?) have a conversation” post,but couldn’t find it 😢, in my defense, I’m pretty’ ‘BUTLAIRIAN’ in philosophy, and my only computer is my phone:) I do definitely enjoy your relatable posts ( dummed down for the common orc, like myself!)