Silmarillion - To be taken as authority?

[Thorin]

In the movie forum, there was a huge discussion concerning taking only LoTr and The Hobbit as standard. Some felt that only these writings could be trusted and that all post-Tolkien works were interesting at best....

I did read somewhere that before Tolkien did LoTR he tried to get Silmarillion published, but to no avail, so he set it aside and started LoTR. After LoTR was published he turned his eyes to the Elder days of ME.

My point is, is that I think (though edited by Christopher Tolkien) the Silmarillion was pretty definitive on what Tolkien felt and agreed on concerning other matters. I think that Sil can be trusted as a definitive source along side Hobbit and LoTR.

Any comments?

[Grond]

The Silmarillion is a complete work. There is virtually no Christopher Tolkien narrative in it. It is almost totally the 1st and 2nd age as portrayed by the author. I'm not sure if it is exactly as JRRT would have presented it (we'll never know for sure) but I feel assured that he would approve of its content.

For that reason I think is a definitive reference and can in many instances supercede inferences in the Hobbit and TLotR simply because he did amplify his thoughts that were only referenced in the other books. (ie. Luthien is only mentioned casually in the other two books. I would hold the Silmarillion as more sacrosanct concerning her. The Rings of Power is another segment that if in conflict with the other two works would hold precedent.) Of course, these are just my humble opinions. Take 'em or leave 'em.

I will say that I have less faith in UT and HoMe, simply because CT does interject an enormous amount of interpretation or which example would have been his father's definitive word on a subject aka origins of Elves. I think that only the author could have unconditionally told us what his final thoughts are.... and, alas, he never will now.:(

[Curufinwe]

I'm not quite catching you here, are you saying that the hobbit and lotr are the only real pieces of writing done by Tolkien and the rest are just pieces of writing that you can't trust?

[aragil]

Curufinwe:
I think that this thread is meant to be a debate on whether post-humously published material should be regarded as having equal (or greater or lesser) authority in terms of what they say about Middle-Earth. I don't want to put words into the mouths of Grond and Thorin, but I wouldn't characterize their opinions on the post-humous material as "pieces of writing that you can't trust".
As for my opinion, I'm mostly in agreement with Greenwood on this one. I do think that we can look to UT and HoME when we need clarification- there is a much greater level of detail here for certain aspects of Middle-Earth that Tolkien didn't address in the earlier publications. It's where there is conflicts that I have problems. First off, I can't really think of any points in Silmarillion that conflict with LotR- there's a remarkable level of consistency between the two, especially considering the scope of both writings. But, as Grond has stated, Tolkien was a lot closer to being finished with the material in the Silmarillion than he was for the bulk of HoME and UT. These works just never had the chance for Tolkien to give them that last look through to make sure that everything was exactly as he wanted it. LotR did have that opportunity, plus several extra editions in publication for Tolkien to bring it to perfection.

ps. Thorin- the arm of the movie forum has grown long.

[Thorin]

:( Leave me alone! 'sob' Why can't you just leave me alone???

;) That's okay, aragil. You can come and debate with me anytime....just leave a few certain friends at the movie forum...:D Though I'm sure there will be much less that we disagree on or need to insult each other about on these forums....And on here you all can't call me a NPW fundmentalist, because now we are on Tolkien's turf.

[ReadWryt]

The important thing to remember about the Silmarillion is that, the Appendicies at the end of LotR were a concession on the part of Tolkien, he originally wanted to publish all of the Silmarillion WITH LotR, but when Unwin balked at the idea Tolkien went with the Appendicies instead. Ergo the Silmarillion was in what Tolkien considered a publishable state since the original publication of LotR.

Any work that Christopher did was not to add to it, but rather to insert text from notation made by the professor changing text in his original final version. Unlike certain Movie Directors, Christopher did not Invent anything to stick into his father's work...

[¤-Elessar-¤]

plus, wasnt the Sil actually pre-LoTR? I thought that it was what he orriginally started with, and then put it on afterburners for a while. I really think I remember hearing that somewhere...any comments?

[Curufinwe]

here here.

[Greenwood]

In the movie forum, there was a huge discussion concerning taking only LoTr and The Hobbit as standard. Some felt that only these writings could be trusted and that all post-Tolkien works were interesting at best....

Hi Thorin! :)

I am afraid you have misunderstood the "huge discussion". The question was in the case of a conflict between LOTR and Tolkien's posthumously published work which should be given more weight concerning the conflict as regards LOTR. The answer based on standard principles of research is LOTR. It is the primary source, all other sources are secondary. As Aragil has said Tolkien had the opportunity to review and approve The Hobbit and LOTR in final form before publication and even to make changes in later editions, a chance he never had for The Silmarillion and all works published later. Remember, we are dealing with works of fiction, not actual history. Things mean only what Tolkien wanted them to mean.

The debate, in fact, was started because someone who claimed to be a purist insisted on accepting a definition found in a reference book by another author over Tolkien's own clear meaning in LOTR.

Good to see you again. :)

[Bucky]

The basis for all the information in the Silmarillion is pretty clearly laid out in Christopher Tolkien's forward:

1. 'A complete consistency (either within the Silmarillion or between it & my father's other published works) is not to be looked for'.

2. 'My father came to conceive of The Silmarillion as a compillation,.... made long after by sources of great diversity (poems & annals, & oral tales). These, in Tolkien's 'explanation' of this being a real world, were finally put to writing by Bilbo & Frodo & included in The Red Book.....


Some other points:

3. This was not a finished work when Tolkien died. This can clearly be seen in Unfinished Tales, where 2 stories, 'Of Tour & His Coming To Gondolin' & 'Narn I Hin Hurin' are partially expanded on to a level similar to The Hobbit & TLOR.
Myself, when I read the book, I switch to the longer tales in UT at the parts where they appear in The Silmarillion.

4. I don't know where he says it, but Christopher Tolkien comments somewhere (UT I think) about 'The end of the world, when Melkor is unchained & returns for the final battle' (paraphrase), that this has to do with the 3rd (or is it 2nd?) prophecy of Mandos, & 'it would need some explanation & development in regards to the published form'.

5. I personally also find no major historical inconsistencies with The Silmarillion & The Hobbit & TLOR.

6. I also take it as 'fact' as it pertains to the history of Middle Earth.....

[lilhobo]

i dont think its the historical/chronological facts we are worried about......

it the more fundamental issues like immortality, what form can sauron take etc,

[Eonwe]

Bucky said:

"I personally also find no major historical inconsistencies with The Silmarillion & The Hobbit & TLOR"

I never have seen anything either, right down to the song Aragorn sings about Luthien. Anybody else know of anything in the Sil that is inconsistent with TLOR?

[Bucky]

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that in Appendix B, prior to 'The Tale of the Years', a different name or 2 is used for Elves. Finarfin & Finrod seem to come to mind.
It could be a typo though.

[Greenwood]

Bucky and Eonwe

The dispute that Thorin refers to on the movie forum in the opening of this thread was over the meaning of the words uruk vs. Uruk-hai. Several people said that the two words were interchangeable. I and others pointed out that in LOTR they are not used interchangeably and that Tolkien seemed to consistently use Uruk-hai to refer to Saurman's elite troops who were apparently a blending of humans and orcs and who could tolerate daylight. In contrast uruks seemed to be a perhaps more general term for the large soldier orcs in Sauron's employ who gave little evidence of light tolerence. Those of us holding this view gave a number of direct quotations from LOTR demonstrating the use of the words in LOTR. Other people claimed that the two terms were interchangeable and gave as their evidence the fact that a number of Tolkien scholars and compendiums, as well as the appendix in Unfinished Tales, claimed the terms were interchangeable. It was at that point that I pointed out, with backing from Aragil and others, that as a general rule of research when discussing the meaning of things in The Hobbit and LOTR, or conflicts between The Hobbit and LOTR and posthumously published Tolkien works, the latter works are secondary sources and cannot refute the clear meaning in The Hobbit or LOTR. This of course applies even more strongly for the works and opinions of other authors, including Tolkien's son Christopher.

This is just a matter of basic principles of research applicable to many fields beyond Tolkien. To further elaborate on the question, it has been pointed out many times that Tolkien was an author who nearly constantly rethought and rewrote his work. Obviously one result of this is that the meaning of words that Tolkien invented might change over time in the reworking. The Hobbit and LOTR are the only major Middle Earth works to be published during Tolkien's lifetime with his approval. He even changed things between editions, which is certainly his right as an author. Having died before The Silmarillion and all later books were published, these books clearly do not have the same kind of "seal of approval" from Tolkien. As Bucky has quoted, Christopher Tolkien says in his foreward to The Slmarillion "A complete consistency (either within the Silmarillion or between it & my father's other published works) is not to be looked for."

The question was never one of "trust" as Thorin phrased it, but of which works were published in a final form by Tolkien himself and which were in essence still drafts.

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by Bucky
The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that in Appendix B, prior to 'The Tale of the Years', a different name or 2 is used for Elves. Finarfin & Finrod seem to come to mind.
It could be a typo though.

I think there's a note on this in UT (the chapter on Galadriel, maybe?) where CT states that in the first edition of LOTR, Finrod was named as the person who eventually became Finarfin and the son was named Felagund. JRRT amended this in all subsequent versions of LOTR.

[Grond]

LOL Tar-Elenion, after a year at the back of the pack, I'm glad you brought this thread to forward again. After doing another year's worth of reading and research, I'm not sure I'm willing to call anything in Tolkien's writings canon anymore. You find things in so many of the HoMe that are seeking to bring his First and Second Age writings in line with his published works. His attempts were great but I don't think I give the Silmarillion canon status. There are two many alternative writings that have been revealed in UT and HoMe for us to know which were his "final" views.

[GuardianRanger]

I'm looking into getting HoME....I'd really like to get a box set where I can get all the books at once.

I know there has been some talk as whether or not these books can be referred to as canon. My question is, were these books actually written by JRRT, or are they mostly extrapolation by his son. I always see his son's name on the covers of the books. How much of the writing is JRRT's and how much belongs to his son?

As for the Silmarillion, I think I fall into the camp of those who believe that book to be part of the canon.


Thanks.

[Grond]

Originally posted by GuardianRanger
I'm looking into getting HoME....I'd really like to get a box set where I can get all the books at once.

I know there has been some talk as whether or not these books can be referred to as canon. My question is, were these books actually written by JRRT, or are they mostly extrapolation by his son. I always see his son's name on the covers of the books. How much of the writing is JRRT's and how much belongs to his son?

As for the Silmarillion, I think I fall into the camp of those who believe that book to be part of the canon.


Thanks. The Silmarillion was never a finished work. Christopher Tolkien actually edited the Silmarillion and it was he, who decided which versions of the histories to put forward. Knowing that, we can hardly assign any more credence to the Silmarilliion as a work of J. R. R. T. than we can the HoMe.

GuardianRanger, the HoMe is completely filled with writings of J. R. R. T. These represent many of the alternative versions/history that Christopher culled through and "rejected" for the published Simlarillion. These texts do have significant additional narrative from Christopher (who should know his father's mind better than anyone currently living, although he is surely not infallible.) I find many of the alternative stories in the HoMe series to have just as much merit as the published Silmarillion. For that reason, I give the Silmarillion no more authority than U. T. or HoMe. The only authoritative works we know for sure are the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings with the Appendices which were written and edited by the writer himself.

[Maedhros]

The Silmarillion was never a finished work. Christopher Tolkien actually edited the Silmarillion and it was he, who decided which versions of the histories to put forward. Knowing that, we can hardly assign any more credence to the Silmarilliion as a work of J. R. R. T. than we can the HoMe.
I think that Christopher decided to put the stories that were completed and not necessarily his father's latest ideas. And Christopher has stated that if he would do the Sil again, he would change certain things. Ex. the parentage of Gil-Galad. I agree with Grond that the Published Silmarillion cannot be considered canon.

[GuardianRanger]

I went to Miriam-Webster to look up canon:

[Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard] a : an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b : the authentic works of a writer c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature>

(There were other definitions, but this was the best, I think, for this thread.)

Going by what's been discussed so far, we could say that:

canon = The Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

non-canon = The Silmarillion, the History of Middle Earth, and anything else I have unintentionally ommitted.

It seems there is no denying that the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are universally accepted as definitive.

However, to a varying degree, The Silmarillion and the History of Middle Earth have a high degree of validity. It's just that JRRT passed before they could be published. His passing is where we draw the line on canon. Would they have been published had he lived longer? Did he even want them published? Maybe that's where the differing of opinions comes into play.

According to the definition, we could surmise that all of the works (where they have not been added to by Tolkien's son) are canon because they were at one time written by him.

I hope this isn't off topic.....I'm just trying to explore the realm of Middle Earth and see it from the big picture of JRRT's mind. Personally, I accept his son's editing and writing; as if it were not for him, I never would have read any of the other books.

My initial querey was because I saw the HoME boxed set listed as JRRT and Christopher Tolkien. I didn't know how much of the writing was JRRT and how much was Christopher Tolkien.

[Grond]

Originally posted by GuardianRanger
I went to Miriam-Webster to look up canon:

(There were other definitions, but this was the best, I think, for this thread.)

Going by what's been discussed so far, we could say that:

canon = The Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

non-canon = The Silmarillion, the History of Middle Earth, and anything else I have unintentionally ommitted.

It seems there is no denying that the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are universally accepted as definitive.

However, to a varying degree, The Silmarillion and the History of Middle Earth have a high degree of validity. It's just that JRRT passed before they could be published. His passing is where we draw the line on canon. Would they have been published had he lived longer? Did he even want them published? Maybe that's where the differing of opinions comes into play.

According to the definition, we could surmise that all of the works (where they have not been added to by Tolkien's son) are canon because they were at one time written by him.

I hope this isn't off topic.....I'm just trying to explore the realm of Middle Earth and see it from the big picture of JRRT's mind. Personally, I accept his son's editing and writing; as if it were not for him, I never would have read any of the other books.

My initial querey was because I saw the HoME boxed set listed as JRRT and Christopher Tolkien. I didn't know how much of the writing was JRRT and how much was Christopher Tolkien. Welcome GuardianRanger!! I haven't run into you here before but welcome your insightful input. One large problem with the published works (all of them) is the conflicting accounts of many different events of which the author wrote. We cannot consider all of them canon because there are so many different versions and we (and Christopher Tolkien) cannot be absolutely certain as to which idea (writing) was the final one.

A perfect example of this it he story of the Sun and the Moon. The Silmarillion account is described as the "Flat World Version". It describes the original Ea, as flat and that it was first illuminated by the Lamps and then the Two Trees. After the Darkening of Valinor, the two fruits of the Two Trees become the Sun and the Moon. Ea is not converted into a "round world" until the Drowning of the Adunie (Numenor).

In Morgoth's Ring, Tolkien completely rewrites the Ainulindale to incorporate a Round World Ea "from its inception". CT explains that this is done in an attempt to bring the world of Middle-earth out of a "mystical realm" and to try and place it in our own world aka real world Physics. (Last sentence is my words and not CT). Who knows what J. R. R. T. would have finally decided had he lived to publish the text. I would hope, he would have left the "Flat World version" because it is so much more beautiful to me.

I encourage you to get the last 3 books of HoMe first. They are the one's that give you the most radical changes (IMHO) from the published Sil. There are instances of three and at times even four different versions of the Ainulindale. All three are well worth the read.

[Walter]

Originally posted by Grond
After doing another year's worth of reading and research, I'm not sure I'm willing to call anything in Tolkien's writings canon anymore. You find things in so many of the HoMe that are seeking to bring his First and Second Age writings in line with his published works. His attempts were great but I don't think I give the Silmarillion canon status. There are two many alternative writings that have been revealed in UT and HoMe for us to know which were his "final" views. I could not agree more...Originally posted by GuardianRanger
My initial querey was because I saw the HoME boxed set listed as JRRT and Christopher Tolkien. I didn't know how much of the writing was JRRT and how much was Christopher Tolkien. Christopher only comments his father's writings and in the text different font-sizes are used for J.R.R.'s and Christopher's parts.

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by Thorin
. I think that Sil can be trusted as a definitive source along side Hobbit and LoTR.

Any comments?
I doubt about that.There are some things which Tolkien changed later and the question of my parentega is one of them.
I think it can't be the best source because it wasn't published while Tolkien was alive.If he had been alive,he would have changed lots of facts,things etc. and that would have been made in the process of the development of the book.

[Tar-Elenion]

Canon:
The Lord of the Rings, The Road Goes Ever On, A Guide to the Names in LotR, along with The Hobbit and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (both of which need to be looked at in the context of how they were written).

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Grond
A perfect example of this it he story of the Sun and the Moon. The Silmarillion account is described as the "Flat World Version". It describes the original Ea, as flat and that it was first illuminated by the Lamps and then the Two Trees. After the Darkening of Valinor, the two fruits of the Two Trees become the Sun and the Moon. Ea is not converted into a "round world" until the Drowning of the Adunie (Numenor).

It is interesting that a pre-existing Sun and Moon are 'presumed' by LotR and The Hobbit.

[Walter]

Declaring - ex cathedra - which ones of the published works are "Canon" and which not, is one thing. Comprehending the enormous complexity and the various aspects of the tasks Tolkien commited himself to, when he was creating his "Mythology" another.

IMHO the whole "Canon" - issue makes not much sense. To me it seems much more important and interesting, to gain some more insight from the various different approaches Tolkien took on a certain issue, than to learn - from a third party - which statements, out of several, represent "the final word" or "the ultimative truth" on that matter and which ones not...

[Lhunithiliel]

Hmmm. canon, you say is / is not the Silmarillion!:rolleyes:

I am not even 1/3 -rd as close to Tolkien as you are, for Tolkien is new to me.
Yet, I don't think that a mind like his should be chained in terms as canon! And neither of his books, too!

If he wanted to write a canon, I am sure he could do it perfectly well!
BUT! I doubt whether .... NO! I'm sure that it wouldn't have been "Tolkien-style" any more!

All that I have been able to read so far from the HoME-series and the UT, has proved to me that yes, the Silmarillion could have been much more complete and could have had much more information included... But I can't say that it isn't a book one should not take into consideration JUST and ONLY for the fact that it had not been published when J.R.R.T died!

It happened to me that I first read LOTR and after I had read it three times in three successive months, I knew I loved the story, but I could feel some information missing or/and unclear, information that was in another book.... So I found the Silmarillion... and there I found those pieces I needed to get the "picture" of the LOTR-events.

Even the LOTR Appendices cannot give all the necessary information about things hinted at or said about - things dating back to the First and Second Age and much more before... things that had influence on some events, described in the LOTR....
So, if one is to understand better the events in the Hobbit and the LOTR, s/he must have even before that read the Simarillion!

BUT!!!! IF one wants to better understand the Simarillion, s/he MUST read the HoME series. The more I go deeper into them, the more I'm convinced in this.
For me, personally, the HoME is the source where one can discover the magic, called Tolkien!

And what if there are diferences! The important thing is to understand this imaginary world better.
Can the Silmarillion be considered a "canon" without the Athrabeth then?
Or, how could one understand Elrond-Arwen conflict and grief without the Silmarillion...?

So, IMHO, every work by J.R.R.Tolkien should be taken in all its importance and all the works - as one whole large story,
WHICH, perhaps could be called a "canon" (although I hate thinking of Tolkien as a canon-writer!).

P.S. I understand that the people who started this thread as a continuation from another discussion will say that when one needs to be sure about the reference needed in a discussion, debate, in an essay etc... one needs to accept this or another book as canon, as the ultimate source...
In occasions like those, I'd just take any of his works as equally valid.

[Nóm]

Any new opinions here?

Do you always go with Tolkien's latest word, or only do so when it seems to fit in best with earlier stuff? Or do you pick whichever you like best in your imagination?

Do you take it as fact that the Sun was in the sky when the elves woke up?

Did Ambarto burn on the ship?

Is Orodreth Finarfin's son? ;)

Did Avari creep into Beleriand in the First age, and merge with Nandor in Eriador?

Does everything published after Tolkien's death have equal validity?

This is all still overwhelming sometimes. Right now I am starting to give more thought to the information in Myth's Transformed. My first inclination is to go with the making of the sun and the moon as presented in the published Silmarillion, but is this because it makes most sense to do so or because it is what I knew for several months before reading otherwise?

I view the published Silmarillion as a incentive to get people to read HoME. I know it does not have this fuction for everyone. But for me it is a starting point, and a thing that may be of little use once someone has read HoME for a few years and formed their own version as they see fit.

All of this can be so complicated I sometimes wonder if I'll ever have a good enough understanding of it all to have a Silmarillion in my mind that seems to be the most authoritive version to me. I've met people here at TTF who have been reading this stuff for years (and the HoME as it was published) and still don't seem to know much of the history of the writings of the First Age or if they do they never speak of it, and maybe some even less so than new readers like myself or Inderjit. I wonder, for those who are long time readers... what stopped you? Is it just too much for most people to take in and process? If so, does that leave you just going with the Silmarillion that CT put together for lack of being able to do otherwise?

I guess everyone has to find their own way with something like this. I find it frustrating at times, and am interesting in how others view HoME and The Silmarillion.

[Inderjit S]

Nom, The funny thing with two of the things you mentioned (The Burnings of Losgar and Orodreth's parentage) two were mentioned in the writing of the Annals of Aman/Beleriand or Quenta Silmarillion of HoME 10 and or 11, though of course Orodreth’s parentage didn't reach it's final form for until 1965. There is a reference to the burning of one of the twin brothers in the Annals of Aman. (HoME 10). Why didn't C.T makes these changes? Well because Tolkien never tells us for certain which son of Feanor's sons is burnt, though he says it is one of the twins, and more probable that C.T didn't want to introduce such a radical story change when in all previous Quenta's none died. (An interesting point in 'Of Maeglin', (HoME 11) a 'late' essay is that only five sons of Feanor are mentioned, maybe he later conceived that both were killed, but I really doubt this). Why not include the story of Galadriel and Celeborn coming from Aman? He alludes to it in several letters, several essays (Of Dwarves and Men, Shibboleth of Feanor, Of Galadriel and Celeborn, which is a series of essays put together, like Myths Transformed) though all are later ideas. But this contradicts with the principal story of Maeglin that Elves didn't marry with such close kin and the info give in Laws and Customs (HoME 10) but more importantly information given in the Appendix about Celeborn being a Sindarin Elf, or one native to M-E. LoTR, is canon, and even though Tolkien was certain on a change in their story, he never gets the chance to alter it. Which you wish to believe is, of course, entirely up to you. What about the inclusion (or non-inclusion) of several Finweans, such as Argon, Findis and Lalwende? Including them would not contradict the text (except to alter things like 'Fingolfin had three sons' etc) but I think that C.T didn't include them because of the lateness with which they entered the text (Finwe's daughters didn't enter until the Annals of Aman) and they appear to be more fully treated until the Shibboleth of Feanor, and here Argon first appears to. (Though his existence somewhat contradicts the statement that Fingolfin and Finarfin's host met no Ork's here they were attacked by Lammoth and Argon played a heroic part in repelling them and that Turgon was the tallest of the Noldor, since Argon is named as being the tallest of his brothers, but both of these esp. the later could be easily altered)

But for me, such discrepancies as mentioned above can be considered as 'true' and can be included in a revision of the Silmarillion (And also other things like the Gil Galad being son of Orodreth.) Plus other info. can be gleamed such as more info on the house of Beor (Grey Annals (HoME 11) and Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth (HoME 10) Hador and many other things in other essays. Of course the only idea I have mentioned that is exempt from this is the one of Galadriel and Celeborn.

We then get to the ultimate problem, the whole problem with the Sun and Moon. Well, as Tar-Elenion hints in a post down the page, there are references to a 'pre-existing' Sun and Moon in canonical works. (i.e. in Gimli's song about Durin 'No stain yet on the moon was seen') and though the changes in terms of Sun+Moon's pre-existence were not yet of 'Myths Transformed' Level, it still shows the existence of a pre-existing Sun+Moon in canonical works, plus the fact that Tolkien attributed the 'Sun+Moon coming from the Two Trees as being Numenorean myths. Men are said to awoke much further back in most of Tolkien's later works. But i think clinging to such a idea would be suitable since if the Quenta Silmarillion was a Numenorean work it would have to include the Mannish mistakes, though maybe it could be mentioned somewhere that this was a mistake on the part of the Numenoreans.

So to conclude, the 'Published Silmarillion' IMO doesn't take precedence over U.T/HoME, the Silmarillion is a jotting of C.T's take on what was sensible to include or not include everyone has different verdicts, on what they choose to take, personally I'm for Tolkien's last word on matters, and though others aren't for this, I wish TO GOD that they don't use the weak argument that 'Tolkien could have changed it again' WELL HE DIDN'T! (not that this a snipe aimed at anyone in particular) but IMO, there is lots of info. in the latter three HoME volumes that can give new, non-contradictory info. and also several mistakes made by C.T that need to be altered.

Thank you. :)

and still don't seem to know much of the history of the writings of the First Age or if they do they never speak of it, and maybe some even less so than new readers like myself or Inderjit
Not to be arrogant, Nom but I think me and you are two of the most knowledgeable (Not 'best' there is a difference between being a good scholar and knowledgeable one and even if we may be, or may be considered by some as the former I really don't want to discuss that) people on matters of Tolkien in this forum, in that we know more then a lot of people. As I said I'm not showing off or whatever (But how you choose to interpret this is up to you, of course) I'm just stating what I believe in what many may attest to be as being the 'truth' we DO know a lot. If anyone wants to contest that or state that I am coming off here as a arrogant fool then do so, I don't mind your opinion is your own) and I think as 'new' readers we do know a lot and we can be on par, maybe with some more experience readers, I don't know, but remember our opinions count as much as theirs or anyone’s who has enough knowledge on Tolkien to comment (Not that I'm trying to put anyone down, or say people who don't know intricate facts about Tolkien aren't real fans etc or opinions are futile just that you should get hold of all or a lot of the facts before commenting, because then your opinion will be more of worth in terms of forwarding the discussion. No disrespect to anyone, I am just stating what I view would constitute what I think would be a good discussion. Thank you.

[Nóm]

I agree The Silmarillion is not authoritve, but until someone knows better, what are they to do?

And Inderjit, I'm not saying we don't know anything, but we have much yet to learn, and it looks to me like you have a pretty good idea of what you think The Silmarillion could be instead of what CT published. Maybe I should go visit the project over at BD... surely I'll learn from it as you have. But what I find odd is that people who've read all the stuff in HoME still take The Silmarillion. I am not sure why they do it.

But who can blame people for taking The Silmarillion as authoritive in their mind? It is all fiction afterall (or is it? ;)), and it was mostly what JRRT did write. It is also much easier thing to do than figure it out yourself. For example I probably do not have the intelligence or memory to form my own idea of a Silmarillion based on Tolkiens last words about tings. That and it was published way before the later writings and people already loved the tales before they read differently.

But there will never be an authoritive Silmarillion :( because what Tolkien wrote was always changing and he did not leave us a final form. No one else can make an authoritve Silmarillion, only one that is deemed closer to what authoritive might have been. But The Silmarillion must be more authoritive on some points than others. How could not be authoritive that Beren and Luthien rescued a silmaril? That Gondolin fell? That the Noldor rebelled and fought against Morgoth? Earendil reached Valinor with a silmaril? All the things mentioned in LotR and The Hobbit about the first age are authoritive, and we can trust that in the published Silmarillion is a very good general idea of what did happen in the First Age because it shares so much in common with all other versions. It is a matter of us not knowing the smaller details I think.

[Inderjit S]

The Silmarillion. I am not sure why they do it.

Becasue the Silmarillion is the book they grew up with? Personal opinion? Or obeying the much more widespread view that the Published Silmarillion took precdence over HoME. Maybe a little bit of all three.

It is all fiction afterall (or is it?

That is a opinion and therfore problematic and questionable.
;) :D

Here are a few good essays or discussions on canon you may like:

These are articles by Micheal Martinez.

Is Your Canon on the Loose? (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/4786/45552)

A Funny Thing That Happened on The Way to the Canon (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/4786/63343)

In Feanor's Footsteps (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/4786/74847)

And these discussions from the B-D:

A Funny Thing That Happened on The Way to the Canon: B-D Discussion (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000125)

And;

What Should Be Changed in a New silmarillion? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000077)

[Melko Belcha]

In the Forward to the Second Edition of The Lord of the Rings Tolkien says that there are mistakes in the book. In Letters Tolkien talks about things he wish he could have changed in The Hobbit if it had been planned to be a part of his larger mythology.

So if the author himself says that there are errors then can you take The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings as being completely correct? I say no because Tolkien never says what the mistakes in LotR are. Are they in the story itself? Is it in the history that is put into the story? Is it in the Appendixes? Just as with The Silmarillion we never fully know what Tolkien would have abandoned, reworked, or completely re-written.

I don't think anyone could say what is canon and what is not, not even Tolkien himself.