Well, I am something of a canon purist (until it gets into the way of my storytelling, that is), but there are a few things in Tolkien's universe that I simply refuse to accept because they're too tightly bound to the Victorian thinking.
Besides, canon is a matter of interpretation. Especially by Tolkien who cheerfully contradicted himself several times. Take just the three different origins of Celeborn. For my part, I only consider binding canon what's written down in "The Hobbit" and LOTR. Those were the things Tolkien himself considered ready for publication. Period. Everything else is a matter of consensus - even the Silmarillion. Well, especially the Silmarillion, as Christopher Tolkien and his co-author (whose name I've conveniently forgotten) made drastic editing when they put the book together.
So, IMO, we're free to chose any of the different versions from any of the other books - or combine them to make our own. There's always a piece of "canon" we can refer to, aren't there? *g*
Similarly, I feel free to ignore the ideas in "Laws and Customs of Elves", because frankly, I find them ridiculous. Some canon purists are so terribly concerned about Tolkien's world being soiled by Teh Ebol Sexxxors that they'd rather sanftify all three kinslayings than admit that some Elves might not be all that monogamous. *snort*
>>I'm very hard to please.
Well, in that case I feel doubly honoured that you seem to like my stuff. Oh, and thanks for the review. It made my day.
>>Sod the odd run-on sentence or wrongly placed word, there has to be a fire in the writing, and in this world of ennui, it's actually enormously hard to find.
Agreed. I don't understand all that fuss about run-on sentences anyway. What would those "critics" do if they had to read German literature? German literary language is nothing else but run-on sentences; some of them fill a page and a half, and that's considered high art!
no subject
Besides, canon is a matter of interpretation. Especially by Tolkien who cheerfully contradicted himself several times. Take just the three different origins of Celeborn. For my part, I only consider binding canon what's written down in "The Hobbit" and LOTR. Those were the things Tolkien himself considered ready for publication. Period. Everything else is a matter of consensus - even the Silmarillion. Well, especially the Silmarillion, as Christopher Tolkien and his co-author (whose name I've conveniently forgotten) made drastic editing when they put the book together.
So, IMO, we're free to chose any of the different versions from any of the other books - or combine them to make our own. There's always a piece of "canon" we can refer to, aren't there? *g*
Similarly, I feel free to ignore the ideas in "Laws and Customs of Elves", because frankly, I find them ridiculous. Some canon purists are so terribly concerned about Tolkien's world being soiled by Teh Ebol Sexxxors that they'd rather sanftify all three kinslayings than admit that some Elves might not be all that monogamous. *snort*
>>I'm very hard to please.
Well, in that case I feel doubly honoured that you seem to like my stuff. Oh, and thanks for the review. It made my day.
>>Sod the odd run-on sentence or wrongly placed word, there has to be a fire in the writing, and in this world of ennui, it's actually enormously hard to find.
Agreed. I don't understand all that fuss about run-on sentences anyway. What would those "critics" do if they had to read German literature? German literary language is nothing else but run-on sentences; some of them fill a page and a half, and that's considered high art!