What Is The Place For Peripheral Sources?

[Mrs. Maggott]

In a slight debate on I believe a film thread (naturally!), I made a point about a particular part of FOTR using the book as the source for my point and the bringing in some other points (also from the book) to buttress my argument. My point was responded to by another member who went to one of the HOME books to note that originally, Tolkien had created that particular scenario slightly differently (although I do believe that even there, the poster was mistaken about a particular conclusion).

As I thought about the matter, I realized that there are quite a number of debates that may arise not only in LOTR but in other "Middle-earthean" works of Tolkien if these "drafts" and other letters, notes etc. which indicate earlier perspectives of the author on his work can be "introduced into evidence" regarding a scenario in the completed work. Yes, I know that once upon a time Tolkien thought to call "Strider", "Trotter" (and thank God he didn't!). But should that original concept by the author be able to "trump" something that is buttressed by the final version of the work.

I know it is interesting to see Tolkien develop the story from its earliest points on and, of course, frequently such information may help to reach a conclusion about something in the finished work for which the author has been particularly unhelpful in his expositions. But can an earlier version of a work be used to discount conclusions made which are clearly and cogently based upon the finished version of the tale? Now, of course, there are works that Tolkien did not exactly "finish". Some were published after his death and required the efforts of others to "whip them into shape" to be published. But certainly in both The Hobbit and LOTR, we may assume that they are as they presently exist, the Master's final version of the tales.

Therefore, I would very much like to get the viewpoint of my fellow "Tolkienologists" regarding these "peripheral sources" and how much we should be able to utilize them in the presentation of arguments and debates, especially if the focus of said arguments and debates involve those books we know Tolkien finished to his own satisfaction and the peripheral sources contradict same.

Thank you.

[FoolOfATook]

I certainly agree with you that, in debates such as the ones you brought up, we must never lose sight of the issue of "canon"- LOTR is certainly cannonical in a way that the History of the Lord Of The Rings is not.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by FoolOfATook
I certainly agree with you that, in debates such as the ones you brought up, we must never lose sight of the issue of "canon"- LOTR is certainly cannonical in a way that the History of the Lord Of The Rings is not.

Thank you for that cogent reply. However, I am also interested in knowing just how my fellow Guild members use these peripheral sources or are they just a matter of interest and an opportunity for a deeper look into Tolkien's mind?

In short, can they be used to buttress arguments if they are not diametric to the "canons"?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Walter
No argument - IMO - should be used to "buttress" anotherone (assuming Tolkien has written both). If several statements are not in agreement or even contradictory (which is said to happen occasionally in Tolkien's writings ;)) it just represents the enormous complexity and the various aspects of the tasks Tolkien commited himself to, when he was creating "Arda" and his "Mythology". Also, it shows how people - even brilliant minds - can change their mind about certain issues over time.

Personally, I cordially dislike the whole "What can be considered Canon and what not..." debates, IMO they don't help at all. This would make only sense if it were about "winning arguments" rather than "increasing insight and knowledge" or - eventually - if we were to build a "replica of Arda"...

I was not so much considering the matter in terms of "debate" as I was which source would be considered "the final word" when contradictor statements are discovered. After all, the author has the right to have his last draft considered his "final words" on the matter and not be subjected to charged of being "contradictory" simply because he made excusions into other avenues of plot and character in earlier versions.

[Hirila]

And in this case (where Christopher has published the "final words" of Tolkien) we could either start a discussion if Chistopher was right in finishing parts of his father's stories or if he should have left them unfinished. Else we could take his words for final. And just imagine it really were Tolkien's final words.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Which is the very reason why using these as source material to bolster positions on various points is so dangerous. Two people may be arguing a diametric position and using "Tolkien" sources to "prove their point".

[gate7ole]

The whole discussion about the canon and non-canon sources of Tolkien’s mythology has puzzled me many times in the past. I recently found contradictory evidence found in the Appentices of LOTR and UT concerning the origins of the Silvan Elves. And it is always challenging to distinguish the “final word” of the author on a subject from a “temporary” idea that became written words in a draft.
Not discussing the subject of “What can be considered Canon” as Walter suggests, is not what I have in mind though. This discussion is essential in order to obtain some knowledge of the constant development of the stories.
On the other hand, who can decide which “version” of the story is the “more correct”? Accepting the Silmarillion as the most precise source, we accept Christopher Tolkien as the best person to judge this. This was the best that someone could do until the publishing of the HOME series. Now, everyone has the tools to decide for himself.
I don’t mind if people argue against me providing quotes from later writings of the Professor, since I too sometimes do it. The best way for someone to approach the peripheral sources is to accept them as an alternative source of information, and accept or not their contradictory elements according to one’s judgment. Of course there must always be some respect to the older published books. E.g. I could accept the thoroughly different course of thought about the creation of the World described in “Myths Transformed”, with the consequence to make the Silmarillion erroneous. The peripheral sources should not destroy the already obtained knowledge, but enhance it with the Professor’s later views.

[Grond]

I thought I'd jump in here simply because Walter and I share diametric views on this issue (in some ways). I find that the published Silmarillion should bear no more consideration that any of the other works of Tolkien that were never published.

CT waded through the voluminous material that his father had put together and it was CT who decided what would be the "final" word on matters in the Sil... yet we now know that there was both "earlier" and "later" material that may or may not have been the "themes" the author would have developed had his life been less taxing and his time been more fruitful.

Tolkien's greatest wish was to publish the Sil. The Hobbit and LotR were mere sidelines. HoMe brings numerous versions of the same stories into view. Are they the right view? Who the heck knows? Apparently CT doesn't and I certainly don't. I do believe that the author was hurriedly and somewhat errantly trying to bring the cosmology and physical world of Middle-earth into an earlier Earth. That would be a reason why he started on a "Round-world" version of Middle-earth where the Sun and Moon were in place from the creation of Ea. This makes for a much "truer" story scientifically and (to a degree) spiritually, to our world... but it hasn't a smidgin of the romance and beauty.

What does all this mean. To me... it means we cannot really trust anything as truly canon. JRRT was constantly working and rewriting his ideas up to the early 60's. He then was just plain old and tired (with a sick wife) and was finally receiving some decent royalties off of his works. Who can blame him for leaving his work unfinished? Certainly, not I. I love what he has given and what he has left behind. It makes for a much richer story and a much better forum as it gives us so much more to argue about... Eh Walter???

BTW Walter, I still think Gandalf was resurrected by a divine act of Eru.... so there!! :D:);)

[Mrs. Maggott]

If in fact there was much even in his finished works that Tolkien might have changed if the opportunity had been afforded him (such as those "hive orcs" in LOTR?), perhaps we as a Guild should then permit positions to be developed using these "peripheral" sources providing that the individual developing them can show a continuity and cohesive connection with the so-called "canonical" works even if it can be shown that somewhere within those "canonical" works, it appears that some other opinion prevails.

As for Gandalf's "death", well certainly his human form perished on the mountaintop, but as a Maia, could his "spirit" also perish? Would it not simply have returned to Valinor (as Saruman's tried to do) if its human housing had not been "resurrected"? I find the conversation with the eagle to be interesting in that he weighed nothing, but yet his substance was present or the eagle could not have carried him at all. He says that he feels his "life returning" and perhaps by the time the two reached Galadriel, his corporal form had returned to its original existence at least physically. Of course, his powers were greatly enhanced as we know.

Sometimes Tolkien's metaphysics is a trifle confusing!

[Grond]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
...As for Gandalf's "death", well certainly his human form perished on the mountaintop, but as a Maia, could his "spirit" also perish? Would it not simply have returned to Valinor (as Saruman's tried to do) if its human housing had not been "resurrected"? I find the conversation with the eagle to be interesting in that he weighed nothing, but yet his substance was present or the eagle could not have carried him at all. He says that he feels his "life returning" and perhaps by the time the two reached Galadriel, his corporal form had returned to its original existence at least physically. Of course, his powers were greatly enhanced as we know.

Sometimes Tolkien's metaphysics is a trifle confusing! Mrs. Maggott, Walter and I have argued this point (ad nauseum) and to neither of our own satisfactions (or to both of our own satisfactions but not to the others ;)).

Here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?postid=187063#post187063) is a link to the quotes that I've thrown out that unequivocably (to me) prove that the author intended that it be interpreted that Gandalf left the bounds of Ea when he died and did not return directly to the Halls of Mandos as one would think should happen.

It has to do with the descriptors "out of thought and time". Tolkien very carefully describes in all of his Silmarillion writings that thought and time (as we understand it) began with Eru's creation of Ea. My interpretation is that for Gandalf to pass out of it, he had to have left the confines and communed again with Eru. (That is the only "logical" explanation to me. I say this, even though Tolkien clearly didn't have this exact thought in mind when he wrote the passages. One of the benefits of being the author is the ability to explain what happened... even though one didn't know that was what happened when one wrote the text.

There is also a link in Walter's post (below mine) where he directs to another thread where this matter is discussed in greater detail. Hope you enjoy the posts even if you don't end up agreeing with me. :);) As for Walter and me, we have decided to simply agree to disagree on this issue and I do concede that I am interpreting the author's words... but I feel that interpretation is consistent with intent.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I didn't get "into" the book until the 1960s, so although the first book(s) I bought were hard cover, I do not know if they are '50s vintage or not. They were new when I bought them, so I will have to locate one of them and see if their publication date is still in the 50s or if they have been "updated". I will let you know when I locate one of my old books.