Talk:Middle-earth canon/Archive 1

message: Maybe we should list all the writings from HoMe and state if they are canon , final intent etc. for each of them? Ausir 20:53, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Let’s first establish there is a consensus! I belief that we can safely state that the Annals of Aman and the Grey Annals (as far as they go) are author’s final intent, as well as the complete The Peoples of Middle-earth — i.e. HoMe X, XI, XII. Anything earlier would have to be quantified: The Book of Lost Tales certainly cannot be taken as canon even where it does not disagree with later writings, but on the other hand the later Lay of Leithian is author’s final intent again.  20:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should first list the exceptions - stuff from HoMe that does contradict The Silmarillion, but is considered canon? The most important ones that I remember are Gil-galad, Amras, Argon and Orodreth. Ausir 21:05, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to the list, I suggest the Nauglamír (and thus the actual fate of Thingol), as well as the rest of the Wanderings of Húrin. I suggest leaving out the "round world" stuff  — it is incompatible with all else.  21:17, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I would love to see a list like this, but it will certainly take a while to create (and to agree on!). I've got the beginnings of one as part of my "Custom Tolkien Book List": make sure to tell it to give information on canon and to "list all parts in database", and each book and section will have a "canonicity" note in italics. I classify each book (and each section, if they differ) as "True canon", "Adopted canon", "Final intent", "Ambiguous final intent", "Reconstructed", or "Developmental", as explained on the list. I'd like to hear any comments on that classification scheme, and on my chosen labels. (For the record, my database of book sections isn't comprehensive, as it's intended mainly to facilitate reading order recommendations.) --Steuard 16:34, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, Round World should not be included in the canon (even though I liked the changes, but it was never finished). I also think Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth should definitely be considered canon. Ausir 21:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What to list

message: "Furthermore, the chapters in the published Silmarillion about ruin of Doriath and the fall of Gondolin, especially the former, were largely written by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Gavriel Kay, and do not represent Tolkien's conceptions at all. "
Surely this is too strong a statement...isn't it? --Aranel ("Sarah") 02:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is basically the exact wording CRRT used. The latter part of the Turinssaga as published in the Silmarillion is not according to author's intent at all. Similarily Gondolin was not rewritten since the 1920s… Ана́рыён 10:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's mostly because they failed to find the Wanderings of Hurin when they were editing Silmarillion. Ausir 11:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that "do not represent Tolkien's conceptions at all" is a bit strong. If it's based on material that Tolkien did write in the 1920s, then it's not fair to say that it did not at all represent Tolkien's conceptions. (Perhaps someone who has the volume that references than this could add a quotation, or at least a reference?) --Aranel ("Sarah") 16:37, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gondolin, possibly yes. Doriath? No. The published Silmarillion version deviates immensely from Tolkien's intent, and is almost completely new writing by CRRT and Kay, and not based on JRRT's work.  (Anárion) 16:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Instead of trying to further express my reservations I just made a slight edit. I think it still carries the meaning of the original. I just didn't like the tone—it was factually accurate, but it made me think immediately of additions that were malicious, careless, or presumptuous, which of course was not the intent at all. (And I'm sorry to keep going on about citing our references, but of all the articles that require back-up documentation, this is the most significant. I'm not trying to avoid doing the work myself, but I don't own all of the relevant books here.) --Aranel ("Sarah") 01:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just added... 

message: Work on the Eru Ilúvatar page recently led to some discussion of the "canon/versions" template at Template:mecanon.  Because that discussion (now found at Template talk:mecanon - later archived to Talk:Middle-earth canon/archive2 Carcharoth 01:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of "mecanon" template 

message: Isn't Gil-galad being son of Fingon important to the storyline, because if he was the son of Orodreth wouldn't the Kingship of Noldor have been passed down from Turgon to his great-grandchild Elrond instead? Is that explained anywhere? --GingerM 17:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gil-galad as son of Fingon was a mistake. He was the son of Orodreth. This is actually the only way it makes sense Gil-galad became king: take a look at the High Kings section of Ñoldor. If Gil-galad were Fingon's son, Turgon would not have become king in his stead. Jordi·✆ 22:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that bit about Fingon to Turgon but wasn't Elrond Turgon's great grand child so wouldn't Elrond become King and Gil-galad his heir? --GingerM 13:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Elros and Elrond were not yet born when Turgon was killed. They in fact never claimed the title even after Gil-galad's death, possibly because they was not fully Elven. Elrond /was/ for all intents and purposes the highest leader of the remaining Eldar in Eriador. Jordi·✆ 14:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I understand now. --GingerM 16:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gil-galad 

message: I'm actually quite happy with how this article is shaping up, despite some of my earlier concerns.  It seems like a balanced treatment of the subject, and considerably more encyclopedic than the previous version.  (Should it link prominently to a "Wikipedia conventions on canon" page on the Middle-earth project, though?)  I have a few quibbles here and there, but nothing too major.  (The implication that Tolkien's push for consistency was due to pressure from "editors and readers of traditional fantasy fiction" seems off base, for example: On Fairy Stories seems to make it clear that "the inner consistency of reality" was one of Tolkien's own top priorities in fiction.)
The only point that I find a bit odd while reading it is the frequent use of the term "Middle-earth cycle", or "cycle" generally.  I certainly understand that the term "cycle" is frequently used when discussing real-life mythic cycles, but I had never heard it applied to Middle-earth before our discussion here.  In my experience, Middle-earth folks tend to use the term "legendarium" (or even just "mythology") to mean much the same thing.  That seems to be supported by Google statistics: a search for "Middle-earth cycle" turns up "about 230" hits, a fair number of which seem to be derived from these recent Wikipedia entries/modifications.  On the other hand, "Middle-earth legendarium" gives "about 18,400" hits.
So is there any compelling reason to use the apparently less standard term "cycle" in this article?  (That's not a rhetorical question!  I might well just be ignorant of an important subtlety of usage, or of important precedent.  But to my current ear, all this talk about the "cycle" just feels a bit off, or at least like a substantial split from existing scholarship on the subject.)--Steuard 20:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle-earth "cycle"? 

message: I'm removing the "Debate" section, per 'Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought' which includes debate such as that. Userpie 00:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate section removal