Greetings to The One and everyone on the forum,

in light of the possible Fanzine that includes material for TOR, I wanted to pose a question for those who might possibly write for this Fanzine as well as us who might read.

The potential source material for Tolkien spans a good many books, essays, and short stories published in his life as well as post-humously. Add to that Christopher Tolkien's editing and publishing of further works and studies on his father's Middle-earth Legendarium, and the amount of source material becomes awe inspiring...and, daunting for many us.

A number of posts I've read and in which I've participated have drawn on material outside of The Hobbit and The LotR. Some have read this material such as The HoMe, and some have not. That set me pondering on my own assumptions at least for a common ground to start from with other TOR and Tolkien enthusiasts. This concerns me more when I ponder the potential Fanzine material and all that might be produced in its pages.

So, I thought to suggest and solicit perspectives on a notion of canon that engages and envelops the largest common ground as well as TOR itself. And, it seems that the most sensible is defining canon as simple and wonderfully limited to The Hobbit and The LotR. Not only is this the ground on which TOR stands, but it seems to be the common ground on which our growing community stands. Some will read The HoMe, more will not. Some might read Tolkien's letters or the immense body of scholarship on Tolkien and Middle-earth; but, again, it seems to me that more will not. Nor, I imagine, will many have interest in all this extra stuff finding perfect contentment in the pages of The Hobbit and The LotR. Rightly so I would add for they are wondrous and wholly worthwhile in their own right with nothing else necessary to them, though many might say otherwise.

What are the individual and collective thoughts of the TOR community on this notion of canon when cast under this light?

Regards,
E

Ps. To clarify, I'm not suggesting limiting fan-produced material utilizing content and inspiration solely derived from The Hobbit and The LotR. Just that when we converse as an online community, there is a common understanding that invoking something more than these two sources is outside the canon, and the author shouldn't expect his or her readers to have read or go out and read this other material to be an active part of the conversation.

The core of the canon must be the two novels. This is a legal necessity imposed by extrinsic factors. The deuterocanonical works would then include the rest of JRRT's writing about Middle Earth. The apocrypha would be Christopher's writings and editings. Further to that is the commentaries composed of everything else written by everyone about Middle Earth, Tolkien, etc.

The fact is that the canon allows for the inclusion of much more than at first appears. Consider Tolkien's comment about "hints of older matters" the Ring, the Necromancer, Gondolin, etc that peep through even in the Hobbit. Each of these hints allows the matter in question to be included.

I have read the novels often enough to almost have them memorized. The rest of Tolkien's corpus and the scholarly commentary there on am I not nearly so well versed in.

I do wonder where the film versions stand in relation to TOR. Both Peter Jackson's and Rankin Bass and Bakshi.

I certainly don't want to see the fanzine exclude erudite discussion of HoME etc, but I do not want to see readers who have not read this feel excluded either.

Hi Eluadin,
the questions you raise are among the most hotly debated (and I guess you're aware of that), which makes a "correct" answer IMO not possible. IMHO it depends primarily on the interests and preferences of the individual.
Limiting oneself to only the 'LotR' (in the close sense - without Appendices) and 'Hobbit' is - as you say - the most easy one and many will surely find enjoyment in this narrow scope ('narrow' not in the negative sense, but in context of the whole of Middle-earth/Arda).

Personally, I was bewitched from the first moment I read the 'LotR' so many years ago. But even greater enjoyment I did find in the discovery of the whole big world behind it, for which the 'Hobbit' and 'LotR' are just a small window through which a few glimpses may be snatched. The rich (pseudo-) history of this world in its whole (and not the - in comparison - miniscule period of the 'Hobbit' and 'LotR'), its legends, metaphysical framework etc. are what awes me the most. The 'bigger picture' so to say.

And this blended into my gaming interests here as well: For me personally, the two books are the inspiration I draw upon in the beginning, and its many blank spaces are filled with all the other other writings that Tolkien left.

So, my very personal canon is in this order:

• 'LotR' and 'Hobbit'
• History of Middle-earth (includes the Sil77 on the same level due to its history). Here stories and versions of more recent origin generally take precedence over older ones. In addition, all these sources may not contradict the 'LotR' and to a lesser extent the 'Hobbit'. This I call for my own use "the extended LotR-canon".

As a conclusion, due to this broader interest in Middle-earth, I'd feel constricted if I were only confined to material from the 'Hobbit' and 'LotR' for my games or campaign/history ideas.
This is not to say that these are not a great inspiration or setting, only that I feel they alone are insufficient to fulfill my Middle-earth interests (gaming and scholarly-wise). Setting games/scenarios in this (late-TA) period is great and rewarding due to the relatively detailed information provided here (and the feel to be a contemporary of these popular and well-known events!), but it's not all for me.

Cheers
Tolwen

Generally I agree. The Hobbit and LotR has to be canon, with each category (Horsa's will do fine) of writings moving a further step outward from there.

This is not meant to limit anyone's enjoyment of their preferred campaign environment, but care should be taken in trying to account for historical facts and events along with reasonable conjecture based on them. Thereafter I would like to say that creativity should reign supreme, but wildly imaginative material becomes difficult to reconcile. Defining 'wildly imaginative' being the stumbling block.

While material outside of The Hobbit and the LotR cannot be used in official publications from SG/C7 due to licensing constraints, wherever possible I believe that content creators should give a nod to these external sources. That is, do not dispute or interfere with these events unless you can provide an alternative that retains the appearance but changes what happens behind-the-scenes in a manner that is correct in timing, placement, characterization of NPCs involved, etc.

Embroider, don't try to Unravel and then Reconstruct.

Let me state, before I continue, that I have always preferred the Silmarillion to either the Hobbit or the LoTR. When I was a little girl, and my mother would try to read me the LoTR, she never could get through it because I kept insisting that she read the Appendices. I love all that lore and world-building. That said, I would rank the "canon" as follows:

1) LoTR.
2) The Hobbit.
3) Silmarillion.
4) HoME, and the Adventures of Tom Bombadil.

I put LoTR ahead of The Hobbit because, in the years between publishing the two books, Tolkien's understanding of Middle-Earth developed significantly. As a result, and due to the need of making LoTR a sequel to The Hobbit, which was originally a self-contained, stand-alone story, Tolkien in a certain sense "re-wrote" what happened in the earlier book. LoTR takes The Hobbit and sets it in a much larger story.

The Silmarillion does the same thing with LoTR. Things that seem almost inconsequential in the earlier works now are revealed to be central to the very fabric of Middle-Earth. Properly speaking, it should be more canonical than LoTR. But it can't be, as the "official" version was not published by Tolkien but rather by his son. Now, Christopher Tolkien has done amazing work, publishing his father's notes and drafts and letters. He has fleshed out of our understanding of Tolkien and his world immensely. Yet, it means that we cannot be sure how Tolkien's "definitive" version of the Silmarillion would have looked. Frankly, though, I don't think Tolkien ever had, or could have produced, a definitive version. He was too much in love with developing the Legendarium to ever complete the Silmarillion. I think we just need to trust Christopher Tolkien when he says that the Silmarillion, as he published it in '77, reflects more or less what it looked like when his father passed away, and take that as the most "mature," and thus closest to definitive, version out there. We should not forget that, in many ways, Christopher Tolkien was his father's collaborator in life. I'm also generally inclined to place Children of Hurin on par with the Silmarillion, with much the reasons stated above, but a bit less certain about that.

As for HoME, I think that it needs to be beneath the rest, for what should be obvious reasons. I also include the Adventures of Tom Bombadil here, which could easily be justified as part of HoME. The material I'm less certain about is what we find in The Unfinished Tales. A lot of that was stuff which Tolkien wanted to put into the Appendices, so one could make a strong argument for putting that on par with LoTR itself. Yet, it isn't part of LoTR, and like the Silmarillion and the HoME, was published after Tolkien's life. I'm still undecided there.

At the end of the day, though, we need to remember that Middle-Earth was never "finished." The only thing that stopped Tolkien from tinkering with his creation was, appropriately enough, given its major themes, his mortality. So, "canon" is going to always be a loose term.

As for TOR, of course, The Hobbit and LoTR must be central, and as long as we're focusing on Mirkwood, The Hobbit will loom larger than LoTR. Still, in fanzine form, we have more freedom, and I don't see why we can't, if appropriate, touch upon the fact that the Necromancer, i.e. Sauron, was the servant of Melkor, or other such matters which one learns about primarily from the Silmarillion. Middle-Earth is a big playground, and I'd really like to see people who just love the game develop some of the areas into which Cubicle 7 can't or won't go, for various legal and creative reasons.

I am currently rereading "The Hobbit", which I read for the first time at school many years ago when it was on the curriculum of my English lessons, and it is hard to get away from the fact that it is essentially a fairytale to tell to children. "The Lord of the Rings" is much more adult in tone.

For example, the dwarves in "The Hobbit" are more like those out of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" compared to Gimli in LotR. They seem to be a bunch of bumbling idiots who spend most of their time getting captured, only to be subsequently rescued by Bilbo with his ring of invisibility (for that's all "The One Ring" is in The Hobbit). I think there are 14 dwarves in Bilbo's party, yet they are easily stuffed into sacks or banged up in prison cells without being able to put up much of a struggle.

The way I prefer to view The Hobbit is as a fairytale written by Bilbo about his adventures, intended as a book for young Hobbits to read. This way, it is easier to accept the incompetence of the dwarves compared to himself, and other whimsical aspects of the story, such as EVERYTHING being able to talk (including wolves, spiders, and even a purse).

I therefore think we don't have to take The Hobbit as canon in a literal sense. If you don't want your Trolls to be like big cockney petty criminals, and prefer the way the LotR movies portray them instead, then that's fine. It will be interesting to see how Peter Jackson handles the Trolls in the movie version of the Hobbit out later this year - or the entire book for that matter. Will it be played for laughs? I think it will have to be - and hopefully portrayed as Bilbo's comic recollections of his adventures (seen through rose-coloured glasses).

Geekdad, I find it ironic that you say we needn't take the Hobbit as canonical in a literal sense. The very reason you give for this, that the Hobbit or "There and Back Again" was a fairly tale version of the Quest to the Lonely Mountain told by Bilbo is exactly the reason it is a canonical work, perhaps even the most canonical work in the entire Middle Earth corpus.

It holds this position of centrality in the canon by the most extreme of conservative approaches. It is the work hat in its published form is closest to the original. It has the least interference and interpretation by a certain Oxford scholar. The Hobbit is the closest we have to a litteral English translation of a portion of the Red Book.

Tolkien's central literary conciet for the entire Middle Earth project was hat he was "translating" manuscripts that had their origins in Middle Earth. The father from There and Back Again we stray the more editorial interpretation of the texts Tolkien performs before they are published. The Hobbit is almost our sole surviving primary source document. Even much of the material in LotR is secondary or tertiary especially as we move into the appendices.

The Hobbit is central to the canon. It is the rock upon which TOR is founded. It should be remembered however that it is Bilbo's personal account of events, not a third person omniscient account. Remember hat the earliest versions published even contained Bilbo's original account of the ending of the Riddle Game, that Gollum promised his a "present" and when he couldn't deliver agreed to show him the way out instead.

Tolken's writings on Middle Earth should in the main be considered in much the same way that scholars view the Bible. A collection of texts by various hands for various purposes, containing poetry, songs, history, myth, and all at at least one remove from he original language and usually more. Tolkien never produced an academic history of Middle Earth with cross cultural anthropological analysis and ethnography. Instead we have the work of a linguistic scholar and litterary translator. This produces quite a different animal.

If I may break kafabe for a moment:
A large part of the problem is that the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings were not originally conceived of as tales of Middle Earth at all. A simple reading of the prefactory material in LotR will establish that. "This tale grew in the telling", "hints of older matters were peeping through", and most telling of all readers and publishers wanted to know more of Hobbits, not the histories of the earlier ages that Tolkien wanted to write. There is also a clear shift in tone over the course of the second novel. It begins with much the same fairy tale voice as its predecessor did, but as the tale leaves the Shire the tone becomes more serious and mature. The encounter with the fox is perhaps the last true bit of Hobbit style whimsy in the later novel.

Apologies for quoting myself but I have just watched the official movie trailer again for Peter Jackson's The Hobbit. and have noticed some interesting things.

1) At one point it looks like the dwarves are charging into battle with the Stone Trolls. This did not happen in the book. As I recall, all the dwarves were trussed up in sacks when the Trolls died (at the hands of Gandalf, who tricked them into being caught in the first rays of the morning sun). It looks like some of the more whimsical encounters in the book have been adapted to be more adult in nature, like those in the earlier movies.

2) Many of the dwarves do seem like comic characters (the "dish washing" scene is hinted at in the trailer) but Thorin Oakenshield is played seriously. At one point he grimly tells Gandalf that he cannot guarantee Bilbo's safety if he is to join the party (at Gandalf's insistence). This film is not going to be played for laughs but is going to be more like LotR in tone, with a few comic interludes much like those of Merry and Pippin in the earlier movies but overall a serious, epic tone.

I had my doubts about how doable this movie (or rather pair of movies) was going to be but from looking at the trailer again I have every faith in Jackson getting the mix of whimsy and seriousness just right for an adult audience.

Canon, what a fascinating concept and used differently, or so it seems to me throughout this discussion. When I first used the word "canon" here's what I had in mind. Though, I would not say this definitive in any sense. But, more provide a little illumination into the muddled starting point for my reflections.

Canon serves less to limit, and more to establish common ground. Canon provides the lens through which all else is interpreted, the "glasses" we wear and see through to bring the topic at hand into focus.

When a canon is established, it does not then limit (sub-)creativity. Fan-produced work need never limit itself to canon. If it did, then suffer it would for the absence of the Artists imagination at the least. So having defined canon to be "this" or "that" doesn't establish a finite source of material for inspiration and citation. But it does define the heart and root of inspiration such that something fan-produced without use of canon or a healthy consideration of canon should raise questions if not eyebrows. More importantly, though, when disagreement and contention arises, then canon provides that common ground to return to and re-forge ties and bonds of mutual accord. Though, I imagine this is not necessary for the expression "let's agree to disagree" is quite in vogue these days. At least in the world I inhabit. All of this to say that in the first instance, I was not suggesting establishing a limiting boundary around what could be used for fan-produced work.

In the second instance, the topic of Middle-earth can be viewed from innumerable vantage points and perspectives. Someone might interpret The LotR through the wealth of information contained in The HoMe, or they might interpret the vast canvas of material bound in the Histories through The LotR. Can we invalidate something written in The LotR based upon something we find The HoMe? Of course we can, but that does not mean its canonical. Nor does that mean its any less inspiring or moving in its value to the game or our enjoyment of Middle-earth. Having a common understanding of canon, though, allows us to be honest about our business, a self-disclosure of sorts around our work and our roleplaying. Or, so it seems by the fireside.

That's what I had in mind when I posed the question. Though, I dare say this conversation need not follow my definition of canon or should it.

Regards,
E

The question of canon is always an interesting one for shared world endeavors. What happens if events in one or more of our games threaten the established "facts" of the novels?

What if players dissuade Balin from attempting to recolonized Moria? Or get there before him?

What if players take advantage of their knowledge of the contents of Mr. Baggins' pockets?

What if Shelob is wounded before Frodo and Sam encounter her?

What becomes of the canon then?

This leaves aside the question of introducing unicorns, Klingons, and lights abets to Middle Earth.

Horsa,

Generally, I prefer to see games such as TOR set up in such a way that they explore and celebrate the shared world, but without necessarily interacting that much with the canonical stories. That is, The Hobbit and LoTR show us only very small pieces of Middle-earth. We know so little about the Woodmen or Beorn's people, why not explore those in greater depth, with stories that remain, at most, parallel to the canonical stories.

That said, let's say you want to run a campaign in which Frodo failed and Sauron got the ring. Nazguls rule over Gondor and Dale, and orcs and Easterlings are terrorizing the world in full-force. You're playing free peoples of Middle-earth who are fighting a losing battle against a fully ascendant Sauron. It'd be a really dark campaign, and maybe everyone's first characters either die or succumb to shadow. But then a second generation arises, and out of the East comes one of the Blue Wizards, with a way to defeat Sauron, but he needs your help. In the end Sauron is defeated, but there's no return of the king, the Shire has been laid waste, the Rohirrim are but a distant memory, and the Woodmen are all but extinct. Frodo is remembered the same as Isildur: as the hobbit who could have destroyed the ring, but had not the strength. Gandalf is remembered as the old fool who sent the ring right into Sauron's hands. Boromir is remembered as the visionary who understood that the ring should have been used against Sauron, but whom that shifty ranger, Strider, betrayed. Etc.

Would it be canon? Nope. Could it be damn fun RPing? Sure. With shared worlds like this, RPGs are a great venue to think about "What if?"

And you thought it'd be tough defeating Sauron the canon way, huh? I'd play in this campaign!

Yeah, note that in my quickly sketched out "alternate universe" campaign, I didn't specify how the Blue Wizard would have the characters defeat Sauron. That's because, frankly, I haven't a clue, although I suspect it might have to do with proton torpedoes and a thermal exhaust port. The point I was trying to make was that, if you're going to break canon, then break canon. Go big, or go home.

That's the beauty of the official setting for TOR - it's after the hobbit, and well before LOTR...

... it's between the canonical coverage of the sources.

@Eluadin
Primary for a TOR fanzine should be, IMO, in order:

1. Published Game canon
2. officially listed canonical sources for the game (TOR=LOTR and The Hobbit)
3. Other widely accepted canon (Simarillion)
4. Lesser Accepted sources ( HoME, AoTB, CoH, Tolkien's letters)
5. Other widely accepted outside sources (KWF's Atlas)

When an author writes a story, he controls every character and the plot unfolds how he wants it to!

If you want your TOR campaign to follow the plot of Lord of the Rings, best bet is skip role-playing and just have your players read the story aloud!

That may sound cynical, but players like to mess with the plot. Sometime to mess with the GM, sometimes for the hell of it, sometimes because it makes the story more interesting.

Whatever the reason... the story changes from canon.

My TOR campaign was canon until the player characters stepped into the story. The Hobbit is history, but Lord of the Rings is in the future and changeable.

If through their actions, major characters in the story fall in battle, so be it.

It could be that in 70 years time, Frodo departs on his quest with different companions, some or all of which may be player characters.

I have no way of knowing what will happen, which makes it interesting.

I think Aramis just stated perfectly the ranking of sources for TOR material. The published game must come first, after all we are creating for the game, not for Tolkien scholarship in general.

Garbar laid out the approach I take with campaigns like this as well. The past is fixed. The future canon is what will happen if actions by the players do not cause major changes. I tend to see the "future canon" as a self-healing pattern of Fate. It is the pattern the world will try to shape itself to. If Frodo is not the Ringbearer a different hobbit will be. The Fellowship of the Ring will still set out on quest of Doom even if it has a different composition. Sauron will flee Mirkwood to later declare himself openly in Mordor.

If events unfold in such a way that the players are among the companions in the Fellowship then the quest may have a very different outcome. They may be able to persuade the Council of Elrond to follow Boromir's suggestion.

Agreed, absolutely.

@Horsa: I can definitely see the benefits in the idea that "future" (from the character's perspectives) events can diverge from canon, based upon character's actions. That's generally just not the way I prefer my games to operate. But if you and your fellow players are cool with it, then, hey, go to town. At the end of the day, "canon" is whatever the LM and the players agree upon.

It's a fine line to walk between putting. The players in straightjackets and not allowing them to touch anything that has a bearing on the future plot, and giving them total free reign to tear up the world as they see fit.

I would not allow a group of players to make straight for Bag-end, grab the Ring, and set off to dominate Middle Earth. If that's the sort of game they want to play, TOR is probably not for them.

Part of the fun in playing in an established world is getting to rub shoulders with familiar characters and events. Typist has the chance that things may take a different course than they did in the book. I very much hold to the idea that the "future history" is self-correcting. If the players steal the Ring, it will slip from their fingers and betray them as it did Isuldur (and Gollum). They can't kill Gandalf, the Nine, the Balrog etc. If they dissuade Balin from going to Moria another Dwarf will go instead.

Thankfully Middle Earth is a big place, and the seventy odd years between the Hobbit and the War of the Ring is a long time. Keeping the players from mucking things up shouldn't be too much of a problem. After all until well into LotR even Sauron and Gandalf do not know that the One is in the Shire. It is a few years after the Farewell Birthday Party that Frodo is finally forced to leave the Shire.

If Sauron and Gandalf don't know for certain about the Ring, then there is no way the player characters would. The Ring is probably the chief way in which players could really screw up the canonical events. Just keep it secret, keep it safe.

Here is an example of my approach to canon as far as TOR is concerned. For the purposes of gaming, I consider canon to be The Hobbit and The LotR. I draw heavily from Tolkien's other sources; but, as I write my campaign and my player-heroes revise my campaign through their actions, I look to maintain the integrity of canon as I defined above.

One of the major themes of my campaign is the fate of the Woodmen and Radagast. In The Hobbit we hear directly of them. But, by The LotR they fall into obscurity more or less. (In another post, I detailed all of the extant citations for Woodmen and Radagast so I will leave them out of this reply.) Neither the Woodmen nor Radagast play an explicit part in the War of the Ring according to the account preserved in The LotR.

I place this on a continuum of possible outcomes. On one side of this continuum, the Woodmen become extinct and Radagast falls. On the other side, the Woodmen survive in strength the Darkening of Mirkwood and Radagast does not lose his way. Together, they play a significant role in the War of the Ring. The campaign I've written will determine the outcome. And, the actions of my player-heroes will be the primary catalyst for that outcome.

If the Woodmen survive and play a significant role in the War as it unfolds in the North, does this change canon? Not in my estimation. If Radagast stays true to the Istari-calling, does this alter canon. No, the only place where Tolkien discusses Radast's abandonment of his calling is The Unfinished Tales. And, for my vision of TOR this is outside canon. If Radagast does stay true and live to play a significant role in the War of the Ring as it ravages the North, will he return to Aman with Gandalf on the last ship? Not in my campaign, becasue canonically he isn't listed among those sailing into the Uttmost West on Cirdan's last ship. But, that does not mean he did not take leave earlier before Gandalf and Galadriel. My player-heroes have the opportunity to affect mighty changes in the world of Middle-earth and influence the events of The LotR without altering canon.

If, in the process, we re-write material found in The Unfinished Tales or The HoMe, then truly we are abiding in Tolkien's Legendarim as truly as he himself did!

Regards,
E

@Horsa, I like your last post. It reflects something of my won thoughts.

Regards,
E

@Eluadin: Your campaign outline concerning Radagast and the woodmen captures perfectly what I mean. The players have a chance to be involved in significant events, rub shoulders with some of the Big Names, but are unlikely to disrupt the overall course of events as laid out by Tolkien. Sauruman can still think Radagast a fool, the Fellowship can undertake their quest, the War of the Ring will bring great changes, and the players will justly feel that they are heroes in the legendarium of Middle Earth. Perfect.