Talk:Middle-earth canon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

This page was moved from Template talk:Mecanon after that template was deleted.

Untitled 2

[moved from Talk:Eru Ilúvatar]

For the record, the discussions that led to the creation of the mecanon template are at Talk:Middle-earth canon and (more notably) Talk:Middle-earth. I don't believe it was really necessary for this article—it is much more useful when the body of the article needs to contradict something from the published Silmarillion or The Lord of the Rings. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see. I may comment on that later, but I have to hurry now. I understand the problem, but I think it's an unhappy choice (because there is no "canon", or then that's something fabricated by Dungeons&Dragons players and should not impact articles on Tolkien stuff at all). dab 17:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My feeling when I first heard about the "mecanon" template (as introduced by User:Ausir on the Talk:Middle-earth page) was that he chose this article as his testing ground largely because it wasn't that big of an article yet, but I don't know if that's accurate. I agree that it's not especially useful here, and since quite a few other articles now incorporate it, I won't object too much to its removal from this one. As for discussing the whole issue of "canon", whether it is worth worrying about, and how to deal with it here, I highly suggest reading Talk:Middle-earth#Canon_and_NPOV, Talk:Middle-earth/archive_2#The_question_of_canon_-_vote, and (to insert a personal plug that's not Wikipedia-specific), my essay Tolkien's Parish: The Canonical Middle-earth. : ) In brief, I believe that Wikipedia's Tolkien material will inevitably make choices about canon, but that we also have a responsibility to eventually present at least some information on earlier versions and contradictions with The Silmarillion as published. This template can provide a way to do so in a consistent fashion. --Steuard 21:08, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

right -- as I understand it, the vote you point to had only one option to "mention all version" besides several options to only mention selected aspects. to "mention all" is of course the only possible approach, and this template may be a temporary tool to arrange things. I find it very strange to have a template that (a) prescribes a section title "other versions of the legendarium" and (b) explains things that are actually explained in the article. Such 'templated' warnings are usually used in cases where the article may not be about what people expect, but in this case the template says "you see, there is a certain development behind this particular concept", and then the article goes on to say "you see, there is a certain development behind this particular concept". I just had a look at your essay, and I think your ideas may well be included in a Middle-earth canon article (which I see exists and contains contributions by you), along the lines, "some people enjoy to try to acheive consistency".

As far as Tolkien is concerned, we'll just have to tell it like it is. We may should indeed point to inconsistencies and contradictions, but we should never attempt to present the material as more consistent than it actually is. The only things JRRT seems to have considered "canonical" n any way are his published books, i.e. LotR and Hobbit. The Silmarillion *attempts* to be consistent with these, but Christopher Tolkien later said that he regrets that attempt. In his final years, Tolkien *started* to rework his *entire* legendarium for consistency and eventual publication, but he got nowhere near completion, and we have no idea where that might have taken him. Finally, I am not saying we should kill this template (there are 22 articles linked to it at present), but we should regard it as a sort of todo-list, and check those 22 articles if we can give an individual account of the development of the terms/characters in question.

I am aware that this is a stale discussion. I am not saying everything has been done the wrong way either. Certainly, ideas we know to have been abandoned by JRRT may well be mentioned less prominently than versions he actually published, or entertained at a later date. Still, I fully agree with Tony Bartel's

Our experience with NPOV is the perfect way to deal with such discrepancies! If Gil-galad were a "real" mythological figure and the sources disagreed, then we would say upfront that there are different versions of his parentage.

(evidently so!) And I beg to differ with your

What's wrong with labeling the (excellent) poems in The Lays of Beleriand as "uncanonical"? After all, "uncanonical" in no way means "not worth reading"!

— You may well label it uncanonical in the "S. Jensen canon", but not in "the" Tolkien canon. "uncanonical" is a term that clearly implies "inferior". It's NPOV to say "unpublished", but the mere labelling as "uncanonical" implies the existence of a canon, which I dispute. dab 13:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In general, the articles using this template do give an account of the development of the characters and stories in question. They just give the established "facts" first and then explain the variations and development later.

When our "sources" disagree, we are not talking about sources that are on equal standing with one another. Though earlier sources label Celeborn as a Sindarin Elf, it is quite clear from Tolkien's later writings that he was later meant to be Telerin (from Valinor). The later sources do have precedence. (Tolkien certainly had the authority to "change" his own story.) Celeborn's ancestry is not disputed. How do we present that in the body of the article, then?

I'm not saying that we have to do it the way we have been doing it, but there definitely needs to be some special treatment, as the situation is not equivalent to other mythological topics. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and I think things were done well in such cases. I was mainly objecting to the term "canon". Later sources (and books published by JRRT) do have precedence, no doubt. I'm just uncomfortable with the template "earlier versions of the legendarium" vs. "canon" imposed by the Template, so to speak, but this is a technicality and not an objection to the way in general how you have handled these things. Altogether, there are more pressing defects on WP, and I think I rest my case... dab 11:05, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think a big step forward would be to make it clearer from the very beginning of the Middle-earth canon article that quite a few fans don't like the idea at all. (Maybe rewording the template a bit could help in that regard, too, though brevity is crucial here.) Also, do note that the template says "earlier or alternate"; I think that was one of my changes, since most fans who approve of the "canon" concept don't go strictly by chronology. --Steuard 05:24, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

To illustrate the myriad approaches to "canon", I figure I'll mention that I am a bit more hesitant than Aranel to assign higher precedence to Tolkien's late writings than to ideas that were published in LotR. Tolkien had to some degree lost track of what he had already published as "fact", and HoMe shows several cases in which he largely abandoned late writings when he recognized those conflicts (e.g. "The Problem of Ros") or in which he was very concerned about avoiding them (I recall that he once mis-remembered that The Hobbit said the Dwarves invented runes, and tried hard to work around that mistaken "fact"). So in my mind, Tolkien's eventually decision on Celeborn's ancestry is very much up in the air (even beyond the usual "he might have chosen anything" disclaimers for all unpublished work).--Steuard 05:24, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

That's a lot to respond to! Let's see... one comment to make is that some of this discussion is probably more appropriate at Talk:Middle-earth canon, since it deals with that idea in general than with this template in particular. But it fits here reasonably well, too, and there are certainly issues relating to the template to consider.

• First, regarding the structure of the template itself: specifying a section title is a little odd, I agree. The idea, as I understand it, was to encourage a "standard form" for such discussions of "textual history" (whatever we do, we should do it consistently). Maybe requiring a specific section title isn't the best way to do it, but at least this way people know were to look. As for your concern that the template "explains things that are actually explained in the article", I would say rather that it alerts readers both to the fact that textual history is an issue and to the structure of the article. And I would claim that in some cases, many readers do need a warning that the article isn't about what they expect: many people visiting the Gil-galad page will be surprised to see that his parentage does not match that given in Silm. (I think that some people have even "corrected" it in an attempt to be helpful). So the template can serve a real "warning" function.
• Second, you say that "we should never attempt to present the material as more consistent than it actually is". I very much agree! But we should certainly not use "N"POV to make it appear less consistent than it actually is, either, and that is the problem with Tony Bartel's argument that you quoted above. I maintain that Wikipedia should absolutely not give "equal time" to the thoroughly abandoned versions of the story where Beren was an Elf, which (as I understand it) would be required if we took an NPOV approach to variant texts. We should certainly mention that stage in the story's development, but only in a section dealing specifically with textual history.
• Finally, I guess I can see your point that the term "uncanonical" implies "inferior" to some degree. I hope that the Middle-earth canon article will eventually make it clear that such implications aren't intended here! When I use the term "canon" with respect to Tolkien's writings, the roughest approximation to my meaning is "consistent with The Lord of the Rings" (and I think most Tolkien fans who use the "canon" concept would generally agree). Parts of The Lays of Beleriand clearly disagree with LotR on key points (the "Beren is an Elf" bits, for example), and I think it's worth making that clear for the sake of those who aren't interested in the fine points. Perhaps this template ought to be worded so as to make that less-negative meaning clear.

You see the general point, I hope: we will have to make some decisions about what version of the story is "canonical" (or at least, which versions are not). To do otherwise would greatly reduce the utility of Wikipedia's Tolkien content: it would be hopelessly confusing for anyone who wasn't already an expert interested in the minutia of textual history. I very much want Wikipedia to be useful in that way too, but the "primary" content of each article should be aimed at a broader audience. As I see it, that means writing our articles so they "fit" with LotR, The Hobbit, and Silm. as well as possible, while still honoring Tolkien's intent by including the corrections and extensions to Silm. published in HoMe. That is the main reason that I have advocated some sort of standard "canon" here, and my intent when I split Middle-earth canon off from the main Middle-earth article was to provide a place where that standard can be refined as the community sees fit. That article needs a lot of work (and probably a lot more discussion), but I think it's necessary. Again, I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this. --Steuard 05:24, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I think I entirely agree with you. Certainly we shouldn't give "equal time" to abandoned versions. There is a clear difference to "real" myths, where every source has an equal standing, in that JRRT was certainly authorized to decide which version he wanted. I think it is very probable that "whatever he might have chosen", he would have striven to keep it consistent with LotR as far as possible, and in this sense, it is certainly good practice to treat "LotR+Hobbit" as "canon". As I said, I was not obejecting to your general plan of presentning all this, only to technicalities. Concerning Lays of Beleriand, I may be mistaken here, but didn't Beren 'become' human even before these?

But still there lived in hiding cold
undaunted, Barahir the bold,
of land bereaved, of lordship shorn,
who once a prince of Men was born
and now an outlaw lurked and lay
in the hard heath and woodland grey,
and with him clung of faithful men
but Beren his son and other ten.

I seem to remember that there was some explanation of Beren's "elvish past" in the notes there, but not in the poem itself (?) Anyway, thanks for explaining your thoughts on all this. I think we are definitely headed in the right direction. dab 08:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Depends on the version of the poem, and for that matter, which poem. : ) If you look in the index under "Beren", there are a few references labeled "as an Elf" (or something like that). In particular, there is a reference to Beren as an Elf in the "Narn" (or whatever it was called at the time), and I believe that there was at least one in the Lay of Leithian. Tolkien seems to have gone back and forth on the issue during this period, so I figured it would be a good example. In any case, I'm glad that we seem to agree on the overall plan, and I think ongoing discussion of the details will be valuable. --Steuard 16:19, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Beren was an Elf in the first ('Lost Tales') stories, but he became a Man during the writing of the (first version of) Lay of Leithian. In the first cantos he was clearly an Elf, but while still composing it, Tolkien went back and changed him into a Man. The later (Silmarillion) narrative versions of the tale of Beren and Lúthien were then based on the Lay as it was rewritten. Jordi·✆ 23:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent rephrasing

I'm a little concerned about Anárion's recent rewrite of the template. This may be too fine of a point, but I had hoped to avoid equating "canonical" with "latest version(s)" here. Yes, "latest" is one of the primary criteria that most of us canon-philes use in evaluating conflicting texts, but the concepts really are very distinct. Personally, I generally translate "most canonical" as "most reliable", but I think that would be at least as confusing in this context. Maybe "most fully developed"? I'm open to suggestions, but I do feel like the current phrasing should probably be changed.--Steuard 23:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies if I inadvertently equated canonical with latest: that was certainly not my intent. In fact I was trying to remove a reference to "canonical" and "most fans" from the template: what we really want to say with the template is "this article relates to a version of Middle-earths history which differs from the Silmarillion, and this is why". Of course this 'correct info' is from later published sources, but all these sources predate the actual Silmarillion publishing.

Idea for rewrite:

The main part of this article may contradict parts of The Silmarillion. See Middle-earth canon for explanation and a discussion. This subject's portrayal in other versions is discussed in the other versions of the legendarium section.

I think that either version of the template is more clear than the old one. The Silmarillion is listed precisely because that is the only book which causes confusion: it is presented as the version of the histories, and most fans who have read some of the First Age material will only know the Silmarillion versions. See also Talk:Gil-galad for a recent discussion which I believe could have been avoided if the template had been more clear. Jordi·✆ 23:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that some clarification was needed, and I think you're right to make differences from The Silmarillion the focus of the warning: as you say, that's where this template is most important (even if it might be relevant elsewhere). And I think that it's worth saying at least a word about "why" we're contradicting Silm. in the template itself (which also makes the "other versions" comment at the end make more sense). How about:

The main part of this article reflects our best understanding of Middle-earth's history (as explained at Middle-earth canon), and may contradict The Silmarillion or other texts. These ambiguities are discussed in the other versions of the legendarium section.

I'd like to find a way to eliminate the mention of "us" from the first sentence, but I think this general approach is promising. (I've tried to keep it concise, too.)--Steuard 17:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Rephrasing Again

After the discussion above the wording was again changed to use 'last version'. I have changed this to a very generic explanation of differing versions with no specific endorsement of what is and is not canon. I think this is necessary because there is no simple guide to what we use in all articles... for instance most articles refer to the 'flat world' version while Tolkien's later concept was that Arda had been a globe with the Sun/Moon present from the start. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 23:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought that the idea was to use the Middle-earth canon article to state (and determine!) a specific Wikipedia policy for "canon", whatever that might be, and to stick with that for the main article text. Such a policy wouldn't have to extend to every little detail, but I'd think that at least a flat world/round world decision would be part of it. (I vote for flat, personally.) But that may be a debate for a different day.

On the other hand, I think it's unwise to remove the "may contradict the published Silmarillion" warning from this template: that's a very important aspect of the message to get across to moderately knowledgeable readers, right from the start. If there's a way to combine that with the current phrasing (something that doesn't talk about "latest" versions), that would be great. Unfortunately, I don't have time to come up with one just now.--Steuard 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't saying that we shouldn't try to have some sort of 'canon' on Wikipedia... just that we shouldn't try to state what it is in this template. That's what Middle-earth canon is for. If anything we might want to link to that article in the template, but there simply isn't any way to briefly state what 'canon' is for inclusion here. As to 'the published Silmarillion'... what if the article agrees with the published Silmarillion, but NOT with what some people might consider 'canon'. The flat/round earth situation is a good example... Silm states flat, but Tolkien's later view (which some people therefor hold as 'canon') was round. In a 'flat earth' based article the template would be talking about the section which agrees with Silm disagreeing and the alternate (presumably Silm) info in the section which then contradicts Silm. I 'vagued it up' to avoid contradictions like that. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 21:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)