Fandom Voices: Defining Canon and Using Canon in Fanworks by Dawn Walls-Thumma

Part One: Defining Canon

 

I write this under the shadow of Tolkien's canon, by which I mean that, if I look up, I have three shelves of books on the wall over my head stuffed with Tolkien books. These three shelves are the physical embodiment of what is obvious to any Tolkien fan: Tolkien's canon is complex. If you're reading this, I expect you know this.

But this complexity is precisely why, for the next few months, I've decided to dive into the question of canon: exactly what it is and how different Tolkien fans define it and use it for their various fannish purposes. For this article, which is part of my Fandom Voices series that seeks to document the memories and experiences of fans, I asked two questions and invited fans to respond to them: "As a Tolkien fan, what do you consider canon?" And, if you create fanworks, "How do you use Tolkien's canon (or maybe you don't!) in the fanworks you create?"

This is the fourth Fandom Voices article, and it has received the most overwhelming response so far. As of writing this, I've received forty-five forty-six responses, and many of them are lengthy. A couple of respondents apologized for writing an essay. (They didn't need to. As a researcher into Tolkien fandom, these forty-five forty-six luscious responses felt like how I imagine Scrooge McDuck feels while backstroking through his room full of gold coins.) And the level of thought and analysis that went into the average response showed that this is an issue that people have not only considered but made intentional decisions around.

Due to the wealth of responses I received for this installment of Fandom Voices, I've decided to break the article into two parts. This part will share responses about how fans define Tolkien's canon. Next month, I'll share responses around how fans use (and don't use) Tolkien's canon in their fanworks. However, the responses I've received so far are available below, if you can't wait till next month to dive into the second half.

It is important to note that almost all participants in this project identified themselves as fanworks creators. Given that Cultus Dispatches is a column on the Silmarillion Writers' Guild, a fanworks-oriented site, and that it is written by me, an independent scholar who writes mostly about Tolkien-based fanfiction, that is not a surprise, but it should be borne in mind when reading through the responses and my analysis. I have to wonder if fans who experience Tolkien mostly through gaming or online discussion groups or in-person societies would have a different perspective.

On that note, Fandom Voices projects are living projects, meaning that I leave them active and update them as new responses come in. I'd still love to hear from people on this question, and while I won't rewrite the article to accommodate new responses, I will add new responses to the collection below. If you want to contribute a response, you can find the responses form for Fandom Voices: Defining Canon here.

What Works Are Canon?

The One Thing We Can Agree On (and It Really Is Just One Thing)

So which of those dozens of books literally looming over me right now count as canon? As far as points of agreement, there was only one across all of the responses I analyzed for this article: The Lord of the Rings (LotR).

While many fans included The Hobbit, not all did, in recognition of the fact that The Hobbit was retconned into the legendarium after its publication. (This is something I noticed too: the awareness of the textual history of Tolkien's various writings was quite impressive as respondents discussed how they build a canon out of his many books. In 2017, Corey Olsen gave the keynote at the Tolkien at UVM conference, making the case that The Hobbit was not written as part of the legendarium. Six years later, this is no longer a keynote-worthy theory but, for many fans, has become … well, canon.)

"Well, the LotR and The Hobbit are definitely canon," begins one respondent begins with confidence before immediately offering a parenthetical caveat: "(with one exception—the Dwarves helping build Thranduil’s halls, because clearly, Professor Tolkien worked his ideas about Menegroth into that at a time where he thought The Silmarillion would never be published)."

Another respondent is careful to note the revised edition of The Hobbit, by which point Tolkien had brought it into the legendarium's fold: "LotR, [LotR] appendices, the revised edition of The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, and non-contradictory parts of the Histories of Middle-earth are what I consider canon in general, in that order of precedence."

And another anonymous participant explains this as:

The Lord of the Rings is the only text I consider 100% canon all the time. The Hobbit is mostly canon, except when there are worldbuilding inconsistencies that are due to its early composition and not originally being part of the legendarium, in which case I give precedence to the evidence in other texts.

As noted above, however, many respondents did consider The Hobbit to be canon. Another common designator was that, to count as canon, the text was published in Tolkien's lifetime. Daniel Stride, for example, states: "The Lord of the Rings, the revised Hobbit, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and The Road Goes Ever On. The texts published in Tolkien's own lifetime." (Note the word revised is appended to The Hobbit in his ranking too.)

But the one canon text everyone agreed on was LotR. The word cloud below shows the seventy-five most frequent words in the responses, and if you combine Lord of the Rings and LotR, they appear thirty-nine times: the sixth most-mentioned word/phrase in the results.¹ No one said that LotR wasn't canon to them, although as will be seen in the next section, many respondents did raise issues that complicates the canon from LotR.

Navigating The Silmarillion and Related Texts

Something I noticed as I read through the responses for the first time—aside from the intentionality evident in participants' thinking about canon—was the number of people who used metaphors and analogies to describe their approach to canon. This alone spoke to the need of participants to concretize what otherwise felt abstract and complex. (Even the subheading for this section is metaphorical.) As I share the many ways fans steer through the mazy waters of Tolkien's posthumous works, I will title each section with one of these analogies.

Once we move beyond the works published in Tolkien's lifetime, defining canon becomes much more complex because the history of the texts themselves becomes much more complex. The Silmarillion and subsequent works were posthumously published, made available to us through the editorial efforts of Christopher Tolkien and others. Any time an editor becomes involved, the matter of selection becomes paramount, but in the case of The Silmarillion and other coherent narratives, Christopher Tolkien made changes to achieve that coherence and, in some instances, wrote the text himself, with the assistance of Guy Kay, when his father didn't leave adequate usable material to construct a coherent story. That an entire book (Arda Reconstructed by Douglas Charles Kane) exists to document what in The Silmarillion came from where is a physical embodiment of The Silmarillion's complexity.

The History of Middle-earth (HoMe), Unfinished Tales (UT), and The Nature of Middle-earth (NoMe) in some ways show Christopher's work, but they also introduce their own complexities by giving fans much closer access to texts that were hard to date, hard to read, sometimes rejected, never intended to be read, and that can be hard to contextualize—and yet offer tantalizing details and a wealth of material that begs to be fitted into the canon.

"The Heart of Canon": The Silmarillion as a Third Canon Text

I take The Silmarillion as canon (perhaps the heart of canon) …
~ Anonymous

Many respondents shared that they consider The Silmarillion a canon text on par with LotR and The Hobbit. However, as polutropos summed up, canon is "[a]nything written by Tolkien himself, with all their contradictions. Editorial changes and additions by Christopher Tolkien for the most part, but this is a grey area."

The gray areas are what makes the predominance of the Silmarillion-is-canon camp so interesting. As noted above, The Silmarillion isn't just posthumously published and isn't just compiled by Christopher (not J.R.R.) Tolkien, but sections of it were entirely written by Christopher, with the assistance of fantasy author Guy Kay. As polutropos's response suggests, though, fans who consider The Silmarillion as canon have thought about these matters and made the intentional decision to take the published Silmarillion as canon. As one participant noted, The Silmarillion is less definitively and perfectly canonical than simply the "most canon" of the available options:

I would personally call The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion "most canon", even though they do contain contradictions. I would call the J.R.R.-written parts of the published Silmarillion the "foremost authority" on the First Age where it and the other two books conflict, but LotR the "foremost authority" on the Third Age.

Other participants saw The Silmarillion as canon as providing a useful framework through which the First Age histories are best understood. "Notwithstanding the issues associated with the 1977 Silmarillion," wrote Daniel Stride, "I find it useful as a coherent framework—Tolkien's later material (e.g., the round world) is often too undeveloped, and often not to my aesthetic tastes." Another participant found value in the Silmarillion-as-a-framework not just for making sense of the early histories but in discussing them with other fans:

I also accept The Silmarillion as canon, but more because it provides a framework with which to discuss the First Age with other fans than because I think this view is consistent with my other views—which do not accept anything published after Tolkien's death as canon.

The published Silmarillion also provides a single coherent story, which has its appeal to some fans. As one respondent writes:

I understand there is debate about whether Tolkien's unaltered notes about lore should be considered pure canon instead of the more heavily edited, polished collections. In my opinion, they can be considered separate canons without cancelling each other. Christopher edited original texts to make The Silmarillion a smoother, more coherent story, but I don't think he uncanonized the stories by doing so. To me, he just gave an extra option to fans who don't want to read a collection of inconsistent, unedited notes!

Furthermore, some fans reject the HoMe and similar texts as canon because they don't have access to these texts, which are not published worldwide, unavailable in most languages, and expensive to procure. Cuarthol raises an important point about equity in the fandom where access to books is concerned: "Not everyone has access to the various histories and books that have been released … and all the information in them is not universally known, and it is best to accept that any one of them can be taken as correct."

Another common thread throughout the responses was trust in Christopher Tolkien's judgment. "[A]fter reading the Letters …" writes Anérea, "I've come to realise that Christopher played a larger part in the formation of his father's ideas than we may realise. … So I'm content to allow his input and interpretations to be considered canon too. (Including his admitted mistakes, although those carry less weight IMO.)" Polutropos likewise identifies Christopher Tolkien's "great care" in compiling The Silmarillion as a reason why it is the predominant canon text of the early histories. When choosing between contradicting versions, she writes,

I would consider the "ripple effect" or picking one version over the other—something Christopher Tolkien had to do for the published Silmarillion, and he did it with great care—one of the primary reasons why, when in doubt, I will fall back on the published Silmarillion as The Canon.

The Silmarillion has also been published the longest of the posthumous works. Although publication of collections of drafts and notes (beginning with the Unfinished Tales in 1980 and the first History of Middle-earth volume in 1983) started not long after the publication of The Silmarillion in 1977, these books were harder to obtain in the pre-internet era, and another coherent narrative that could be read like a novel wouldn't hit the shelves until 2007 with the Children of Húrin—thirty years later. As one respondent explained,

[A]s an older reader, I became really familiar with the originally published versions of LotR, The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion, before any of the rest appeared. So these have become ingrained in a different way than versions I encountered later, and I still default to them in a way others who have encountered the material in a different order might not.

And finally, even among the fans who name The Silmarillion as capital-C Canon, they do not see that choice in straightforward terms. To give the full statement from the respondent who gave this subsection its title: "... I take The Silmarillion as canon (perhaps the heart of canon), again with a bit of caution concerning the ruin of Doriath, as Professor Tolkien never worked out a version of it he was satisfied with."

Ask not the Elves if The Silmarillion is canon, for they will answer both no and yes …

"Schrödinger's Canon": Contradictions and Consistencies

Even if contradictory, it can be Schrödinger's canon.
~ Anonymous

For other respondents, contradictions and consistency among the myriad versions of Tolkien's work were chief concerns in defining canon. Evidencing this, the word consistent appears eighteen times in the responses and the word contradict fifteen times. This comes as no surprise. Many of Tolkien's posthumous works—which, as he noodled with ideas, he never could have anticipated would have an audience in the tens of thousands—directly contradict each other and his other works. We often see him "thinking on the page," a process likely familiar to any fiction writer but disorienting when confronting those multiple versions out of their creative context. Furthermore, Christopher Tolkien's own work constructing the published Silmarillion prioritized consistency above other concerns. Even though Christopher later questioned his own choice in this matter,² the effect was still the same: the first posthumous text, The Silmarillion, was edited with consistency as its overarching concern, and discussion of drafts in subsequent publications therefore always circled back to consistency. It is no wonder, then, that fans also perceive canon through this lens, even if they ultimately reject Christopher's approach.

For many fans, contradicting details from the posthumous works are excluded from the canon. Of course, the baseline against which other texts are compared and found to be contradictory is itself an open question, given this approach. Are the texts published in Tolkien's lifetime the baseline texts? One participant explained this approach: "I do consider everything J.R.R. Tolkien wrote to be canon, for varying definitions of canon; some of what Christopher Tolkien wrote for The Silmarillion I would also consider to be canon, if nothing written by J.R.R. Tolkien contradicts it."

Gideon Cooper more narrowly defines canon as any details from the posthumous texts that validate those texts published in Tolkien's lifetime:

And then of course all of this is even more complex and less rigid when applied to the earlier era writings. And, to be honest, I only consider anything within HoMe, NoMe, The Silmarillion, The Unfinished Tales, or the essays "best to assume" canon if their absence would make an aspect of LotR or The Hobbit not make sense, or if it is actively mentioned within those books or appendices. Everything else is so contradictory and has so many possible avenues of difference that it really cannot be argued as "strict" canon at all.

The baseline against which contradiction is determined can also be Tolkien's final word or what appears to be his most reliable word, repeated over multiple drafts and necessary for other aspects of the legendarium to exist. One participant described such an approach:

Anything written by J.R.R. Tolkien himself after 1930 and either verified in more than one draft or present as the only version or explanation. This explicitly and purposefully excludes fanon, fan preferred headcanons, "this happened in one draft and no others" unless it’s the only available rendition, "this happened in an early draft but later versions contradict it" (specifically Maglor’s survival), and anything only present in the published Silmarillion (because Christopher has a tendency to invent things out of whole cloth, like with Maeglin, or exclude details that drastically change the nature of the story, like with Túrin).

Contradiction doesn't have to reside only in specifics. The canonical baseline can also exist in a more nebulous understanding of how Arda operates as a consistent Secondary World. One respondent explained this approach: "Contradictions are an important factor for me apparently, not just in the exact letter but also does it still fit with the overall state of the world and themes of the pieces I consider canon?"

But Christopher Tolkien's (and many fans') preference to strike inconsistencies from the canon is not the only approach. One of my favorite of the many analogies to emerge from respondents' explanations of how they define canon comes from an anonymous respondent and gives the title to this section: "Any version of events and characters in stories (not letters and footnotes) that are published, I'd consider canon. Even if contradictory. It can be Schrödinger's canon."

Until you open the book, Gil-galad's father is both Fingon and Orodreth.

While consistency and contradiction is a prominent theme in the responses, many fans are content to accept Schrödinger's canon: that multiple versions can be true at once, all of them equally canonical. As we will see in the The Most Glorious Kaleidoscape section below, some apply historical and mythological frameworks—themselves rooted in the canon—that allow for multiple versions, but not all fans need this framework to be comfortable with inconsistency.

Cuarthol's response embodies this comfort with Schrödinger's canon and the idea multiple conflicting facts can nonetheless all be considered true:

And that is why my … more preferred (personally) approach is, Canon for Tolkien is literally anything we have in written form that he said about his world, even the contradictions. Gil-galad is as much Fingon's son because it was what was put in the published Silmarillion as he is Orodreth's son because that's what Tolkien "wanted." Celebrimbor is the son of a Sinda and a smith out of Gondolin and the son of Curufin because these all exist.

The rigors a text undergoes in order to achieve publication, in some instances, was enough to codify a detail as canon, even if it is contradictory. Firstamazon writes that canon is

[w]hatever is officially published. I know that it's a very wide range of different information, but I consider that publishing something is also undergoing critical analysis, and whether or not someone agrees with an editorial choice, it was still a conscious choice and therefore a valid one, enough to be considered canon.

Similarly, Idrils Scribe observes that the expansion of Tolkien's canon means that the concept must make room for new ideas and details, including those that might be contradictory to what is accepted as canon: "To me, canon is all of J.R.R. Tolkien's work that is currently available to us. Canon continues to expand as more gets published. Contradicting or abandoned versions of the same event/character are both canon."

Egg's response embraced the difficulties posed by Tolkien's work as belonging just as much to the canon as his tidier texts: "I consider the 'canon' to be anything Tolkien wrote, inconsistencies, obscured plot points and plot holes, and all. Including his letters, songs, and poems."

Fuzzy Canon: Tolkien's Final Word

I've since become aware of the unique fuzziness of Tolkien's canon ….
~ Anérea

When I first started participating in the Tolkien fanfiction fandom, canon was discussed just as enthusiastically then as it is now, and I recall that "Tolkien's final word" was frequently mentioned as the determining criterion for the canonicity of the posthumous texts. I was a bit surprised that it was not mentioned more frequently in this set of results, but I wonder if this is, as Anérea's quote above suggests, because the publication of many more volumes, the increased availability of the History of Middle-earth, and fan and academic scholarship have made fans more generally aware of Tolkien's writing (and Christopher's editorial) processes. Anérea uses a gentle, almost huggable, word to describe the result of these processes: fuzziness. Because this is much nicer than the words I think in my head while trying to untangle the skeins of Tolkien's writing to find a "final word" in there, we'll go with fuzzy.

Cuarthol was one of the only respondents to directly state Tolkien's final word as a factor in determining canonicity, although she immediately qualifies (and complicates) this criterion:

Tolkien's canon is whatever his final word was on a topic, as best as we can determine. So Gil-galad is Orodreth's son, and Orodreth is Angrod's son, because in the end that is how Tolkien wanted his story. And yet this is the most unrealistic view of canon due to there being no ability to know absolutely what his final thoughts were on a subject because we are, of course, limited not only to what he wrote but limited to what has been released to the public of what he wrote.

Other participants didn't speak directly to the challenge of determining Tolkien's final word but brought up the kinds of complications that tend to plague the endeavor of trying to order the texts and tease out a definitive answer as to a final, definitive word. Returning to Anérea, she raises the question of authoritativeness of the later publications compared to the much earlier Silmarillion, specifically speaking to how this new information gives authority to some versions of the canon over others:

But with each successive book published after The Silmarillion the boundaries of the canon become less and less distinct. (I was quite surprised to learn that the HoMe is not widely accepted as canon! But what of the individual books most recently published: Beren and Lúthien, The Fall of Gondolin, The Children of Húrin, The Fall of Númenor? Are they not canon because they're not the published Silmarillion, or because they contain multiple versions and internal contradictions? Oops! I'm asking questions where I'm supposed to be answering! Okay, so thinking about this now, I think I'm seeing these latter volumes as having more authority, or rather, giving authority to the tales and versions of tales they contain.)

Lyra also expresses the challenges of ferreting out Tolkien's "final" or most reliable word, noting that both the early and late extremes in his writing tend to pose problems for canonicity, though for different reasons:

It's more difficult for The Silmarillion, where Tolkien changed his mind back and forth! Generally, I tend to assume that the earliest writings (like The Book of Lost Tales) are less reliable, and elements from them are only "canon" if they don't contradict any of the later writings. The later writings aren't always reliable either, since Tolkien was prone to experiment but then return to an earlier version (which Christopher Tolkien has thankfully often documented, but sometimes the situation is less clear). Nonetheless, I tend to consider the latest finished (!) version canon, and where there is no finished version of a story, the elements that have survived (mostly) unchanged are harder canon than those that were only used once or only introduced at the last minute, so to say.

"The Most Glorious Kaleidoscope": Canon as History, Translation, and Myth

That allows for bad takes, incorrect versions, mixed histories, and straight-up unreliable narrators or "bad translations" to allow for the most glorious kaleidoscope of options.
~ Cuarthol

As I noted in Schrödinger's Canon above, many fans reconcile the myriad contradictory versions of the canon using a detail from the canon itself: that Tolkien wrote his tales as though they were historical or mythological texts. As several respondents noted, this grants a lot of leeway in allowing multiple variations to exist as equally canonical. After all, the histories (and certainly mythologies) are just as muddled. Élodie expresses this idea in their comparison of Tolkien's texts to real-world folklore and myth, where the idea of a contradictions and canonicity are less important than an understanding of historical context: 

I like to think of Tolkien's work as a mythology, and the global diegesis of his works lean into this interpretation: every text is supposed to be written by an in-universe writer, with their own interpretations, sources, bias and so on. And in the same way, mythological texts or tales vary depending on the source, the time they were written down or gathered. For example, is there a more canon version of the story of Beauty and the Beast? Regarding mythology, I majored in Egyptology in university, and ancient Egyptians did have numerous variations on the myth of the creation of the world, that coexisted and changed depending on the area (and the time period).

As several respondents observed, the idea of Tolkien's texts as historical or mythological is a sort of ur-canon that supersedes all other considerations of canonicity. "Even with the two published books," writes Marta B, "I like to remember that Tolkien himself switched his stories on how Bilbo found the Ring …." He did this by leaning on a historical device: Bilbo as an unreliable narrator who lied to preserve his own reputation.

Nathaniel Maranwe settles the question of canon and contradictions and which version is "true" with the reminder that

The only actual known "true" fact is that Tolkien found and translated some old documents! Conflicting drafts could just be because translation is hard. None of our narrators are 100% reliable. Including Tolkien himself (though I personally believe the Professor would have done his best).

Nathaniel Maranwe was not the only respondent to consider Tolkien himself in the chain of historical transmission (as Tolkien himself did) and to offer Tolkien's fallibility as another potential reason for the welter of texts published under his name.

Gideon Cooper likewise sees discrepancies in the texts not as a flaw or a problem to solve but as an important element of the canon. Speaking of LotR, they write,

… we are reading an in-universe compiled account of a historical war as authored, edited, and recompiled through many centuries and many hands. Given the nature of historical documents, all manner of discrepancies suddenly become a PART of the canon and almost everything about the events in the books are given a far shakier relationship to canon than most stories allow.

For fans, regarding the texts as in-universe histories and myths, subject to all the complexities of those genres in the Primary World, solves problems of canon. Particularly, the matter of how to handle contradictory texts can be resolved using this approach. Polutropos finds that different versions invite her, as a fanfiction writer, to consider how all versions can be reconciled within the historical record:

In blending multiple versions, I like to consider the plausibility that they would exist in the same branch of a cultural tradition. For example, I do not find it plausible to write Daeron as Thingol and Melian's son, as he is the Lost Tales, if I am otherwise remaining consistent with the published Silmarillion where, for example, he is sent as an emissary to Mereth Aderthad. Instead, I write Daeron as their minstrel but with a relationship to them that some storyteller somewhere along the line might have interpreted as filial. I could go the other way, and accept him as their son, but for me that would involve making much more drastic changes to the surrounding story that I don't want to make. …

Fortunately, puzzling out ways to make things fit is a large part of the joy of writing fanfic for me. Combining versions is great, but to me it's not simply a free-for-all "mix and match", but a complex puzzle. It's important to me that whatever amalgam I come up with fits together relatively seamlessly. I want it to have internal consistency and logic.

Another respondent finds that the contradictory versions of the texts, when viewed as myth where multiple variations are not just permitted but expected, can foreground important themes in the text ahead of specific details:

I consider the entire Mythology to be canon. When I think about manuscript tradition, I think of how, for example, there are several versions of the same poem from different codexes that must all come from a singular source, but their varying transcriptions and scribal choices create entirely new texts with the same themes running throughout. In the same vein, as Tolkien was writing a created history, I consider the various drafts to be manuscripts of a sort, that get modified and adjusted. Melko being a primitive beast that runs up a huge pine tree and hurls down stars can be the same figure as Morgoth, whose power dwells in the earth of Arda. The contradictions of facts (if we want to call them facts) are actually irrelevant to the deeper themes that run throughout the entirety of his writing.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, for participants who were fanworks creators, this approach can inspire the creation of fanworks. Cuarthol, whose quote provides the subheading for this section, sees the added possibilities of a historical approach as expanding options for fanworks creators to fit the canon together in new and vibrant ways—a kaleidoscope:

And while there may be an argument that the various versions are equally valid but perhaps should not be mixed together (that is, Amrod dies in the fire when only Curufin helps burn the ships, and Maedhros does not alone stand aside), in the end these are all put forth as histories recorded within the universe in which it takes place. That allows for bad takes, incorrect versions, mixed histories, and straight up unreliable narrators or "bad translations" to allow for the most glorious kaleidoscope of options.

Pandemonium_213 sees the historicity of Tolkien's works as expanding the canvas upon which fanworks creators work by allowing them to venture beyond the limited stories we are given:

All of his works represent so-called canon. I like to view them as a collection of myths that allows creation of fanworks in settings that are recognizable as Tolkien's Secondary World. … I like fanworks that recognizably take place in Tolkien's milieu, but strict adherence to so-called canon is unnecessary, and in fact, restrictive, which is inconsistent with a mythology.

Likewise, remembering that the in-universe authors, historians, loremasters, compilers, and translators are themselves characters can provide another layer for exploration in fanworks. As Gideon Cooper notes, "One could, for fun or other reasons, speculate on the motives in-universe editors and compilers (like Findegil) might have had for twisting events to the 'victors' benefit. And authors have!" They also observe that the status of the texts as translations, especially given the centrality of language to Tolkien's legendarium, offers fertile ground for fanworks creators to question what was lost or changed in translation:

With language being such a vital part of the books' conception as a whole, and the book we read already being canonically and irrevocably changed through translation from Westron to English, and character names even being altered, this all was already up for debate. … There are some things to be lost in treating these aspects of the text as ambiguous … but there are also things to be gained as well and new interesting meanings to be gleaned from different ideas and perspectives. What if Galadriel's golden hair was actually literally metallic gold? What if when Sam called Frodo "Master" he was actually using a different term that could be a more familiar one of endearment than the translation allows?

Marta B. sees regarding the books as historical texts as granting a lot of freedom to fanworks creators:

… since [the books are] framed as historical documents there's all the problems of bias and POV [point of view] inherent in any history at play. All of which means I think we fanfic writers have more freedom to bend and even contradict well-established, published-in-JRRT's-lifetime canon. I do think the more commonly known a canon fact is, the more we're going to have to work to make a contradicting story believable; but that's a matter of degrees, effort, and skill, not a binary thou-shalt-not.

Marta's emphasis here on skill (not convenience) is an idea that surfaces several times as authors discuss interpreting canon as history and myth. Along a similar line, polutropos notes that this approach is not carte blanche for an author to simply do what they want and call it canon:

It is also important to me not to use the narrative conceit of Tolkien's writings as an excuse to completely disregard what's written. That is just rude to Pengolodh and Rúmil and the rest as historians! I assume that they were capable chroniclers who did their best to give an accurate version of events.

Taken with polutropos's earlier remark about the "complex puzzle" that ensues from trying to reconcile multiple versions of the canon, making a workable, appealing fanwork within the historical framework given becomes part of the art and unique challenge of making stories, art, and other fanworks within Tolkien's canon.

"Interesting Blank Spots": Non-Contradictory and Not-Necessarily-Rejected Canon

"... gaps around canon where there's interesting blank spots and underwritten characters."
~ Aipilosse

Of course, not all details from The History of Middle-earth and similar texts are contradictory. Nor did all of these non-contradictory details make it into the published Silmarillion. Nor were all of these non-contradictory, non-Silmarillion details rejected by Tolkien.

That creates a collection of facts that, while they might not fall within a particular fan's definition of canon, can be tacked onto their understanding of canon without altering it: providing a canonical answer to the "interesting blank spots" that could and do exist in the texts. Several fans shared a willingness to include such details as canon.

In the Schrödinger's Canon section above, I quoted from a participant who observed that Christopher Tolkien, in the published Silmarillion, sometimes "exclude[s] details that drastically change the nature of the story, like with Túrin." She was not the only one to flag Túrin's story in the published Silmarillion as lacking. Another respondent explains it as such: "The Children of Húrin has greater canon status than the version of Túrin's story in The Silmarillion, because it's much more fleshed out."

The HoMe likewise includes details that do not contradict other parts of the canon and were not definitively rejected by Tolkien. StarSpray provides several examples that expand the presence and roles of women in The Silmarillion:

I primarily pull from the major works—LotR, The Hobbit, The Silm (I like Gil-galad son of Fingon)—but if there are details in HoMe or the Letters or something that I like, such as the existence of Lalwen and Findis, or the extra details we get of Nerdanel, I’ll take those and run with them, while feeling free to ignore the stuff I don’t like or that contradicts other canon, like some of the retconned stuff from Unfinished Tales or [Laws and Customs among the Eldar].

Independence1776 defines canon rather strictly as the three major works but likewise leaves room for these appended details:

The main three books are canon: The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and the published Silmarillion. Everything else is not. I treat HoMe (and other works such as NoMe) as strictly supplementary information, though there are a handful of things like the Round World version, more information about Nerdanel, and the existences of Findis and Lalwen that I treat as canon.

Again, the willingness even by fans with a rather strict approach to canon to include such details speaks to the importance of consistency and contradiction to many fans. If the detail does not create a contradiction, for many, it is fair game to fall within the scope of canon.

"Set Pieces": Canon as a Social Construct

Clearly "we" as a fandom, and even those outside of it completely, have come to understand Tolkien's works enough to agree on a mostly generous consensus about characters, plot points, and major events, and enjoying them as the definitive set pieces of the story (or what we all come to mean when we say "I like/don't like LotR").
~ Egg

In the The Heart of Canon section above, some participants frame The Silmarillion's value as a primary canon text not in terms of its factual superiority and more in terms of its social utility: It provides a framework for understanding the histories of the First Age and earlier and discussing them with other fans. A few respondents took this idea even further, defining canon primarily as a social construct: a shared set of understandings that allow fans to discuss, create based on, and otherwise enjoy Tolkien's works together.

Egg's quote that gives the title to this subsection gets at this with her analogy of "set pieces." Given that modern fandom mostly occurs in virtual spaces, these set pieces allow us to enter into interactions with shared expectations and navigate through social situations, much as the "set pieces" of in-person social spaces do: a living room, a pub, a concert hall.

Gideon Cooper's response used the concept of the books as historical texts to fully define their canon, conducting a deep analysis of what we can definitively accept as factual. This opens up the canon considerably, dismissing even some of the facts of LotR as canonical. They conclude that one of the primary values of canon is to provide a shared understanding in the fandom:

Which is all to say that, the first layer of rigid canon is canon because it must be true for the world to exist. The second layer of canon, which I define as the physical events that are described in LotR (and in a sub-layer The Hobbit, although Bilbo already creates ambiguity there) and that are not subject to one single character's personal recollection of it (Boromir's last words that only Aragorn heard for example) are canon because they "best be so" for the overall coherence of the fandom at large. They are also the least likely to be false, being major historical events remembered by many other characters. …

But in terms of the broad Tolkien fandom, and for purposes of collaborative character and theme analysis and just general enjoyment overall, it is best that we all hear "Gollum fell with the ring into Mt. Doom and Sauron was destroyed and the war was over" and nod our heads.

Marta B. took a similar approach but applied it specifically to fanworks, making the case that canon can be audience-dependent, with fanworks creators having more freedom to manipulate and change some canon over others, depending on whom they see as the primary audience for their work:

That means (in the context of fiction) canon is essentially whatever the author wants to make use of and can reasonably expect their audience to be familiar with. Which is obviously something that's relative to each audience and author. …

I think of canon as whatever helps me frame the story most interestingly and what I can reasonably expect my reader to know. That depends a lot on what I'm writing; a story about Ar-Zimraphel could easily pull from the UT essay on Númenórean religion, because there's so little Númenor material I'd expect any Númenor fan to have read more than just the Akallabêth. But for a story about Denethor, the essay on the palantíri is much more esoteric (though probably relevant!), so I wouldn't assume my reader knew it, nor would I think violating it would pull them out of the story. So I'd feel less bound by it, and would want to lay more of the groundwork but also feel freer to write a different version.

Canon is important here less because of a need to establish a set of true facts than because of its social function. It lays out the expectations of what a Tolkien fan should know, what we should expect others (in different fandom settings) to know, and what we assume as a baseline for discussion in social situations with each other. Above, I quoted a respondent who saw the published Silmarillion most useful as canon because it served as "a framework with which to discuss the First Age with other fans"; in other words, if you find yourself in fandom space with Silmarillion fans, you can assume they have read The Silmarillion. Discussion of canon beyond that builds from there.

"Under the Same Umbrella": Where Adaptations Fit In

... there are multiple smaller canons that all sit under the same umbrella.
~ Shadow

A final consideration in defining canon are adaptations and where those fit in. In last month's column, Who Gets to Say? Canon and Authority, I shared data from the Tolkien Fanfiction Survey showing that fanfiction authors "consider[ed] other fans' views on the canon" 61% of the time and Peter Jackson's views 28% of the time. When phrasing the question for this installment of Fandom Voices, I did make the question a bit leading, including "decades' worth of adaptations in myriad forms" as a reason why Tolkien's canon is complex, in part because I hoped respondents who did (or did not) consider adaptations as canon would discuss this.

Shadow's response gives this section its name and analogizes what was by far the most common way respondents viewed the adaptations. They wrote:

For me, there is no one complete canon of Tolkien's work. Instead, there are multiple smaller canons that all sit under the same umbrella.

For example, I consider The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit books canon just as much as Jackson's movie adaptations, but they're not the same canon. They're two separate sets of Tolkien canon.

Thirteen respondents mentioned professional adaptations (films, TV, games, radio plays, etc.) and, of those thirteen, ten expressed some version of Shadow's umbrella idea: that adaptations and book canon are both fine, but they are separate canons. Interestingly, some participants dismissed adaptations as canon but acknowledge that they use aspects of adaptations in their fanworks. For example, one participate wrote:

Anything that Tolkien himself wrote about Middle-earth, and nothing else. Everything else is just an adaptation.

I use Tolkien's work as a basis for most of [my fanworks], and anything from the Peter Jackson movies, LOTRO, and officially produced RPG games material. I also draw on Norse mythology too, and any other literature that Tolkien studied.

Another participant likewise defined canon as book-based but admitted details from adaptations into fanworks, specifically visual details from Jackson's films. Scholars looking at the Jackson films have identified the visuals as more readily adopted by book fans,³ and this participant's response seems to support that. She writes:

I don't consider any animated or film adaptations "Tolkien canon," because they are interpretations by other writers and directors.

The only places I vary from Tolkien's canon is when I am describing characters and places; I am a visual person, so I use Jackson's film adaptations to help me describe what things look like.

What these responses seem to show is an approach where the books provide the canon but adaptations become one of many sources of additional inspiration when creating fanworks. Anérea calls this a "sub-canon": "Outside of the editorial efforts of Christopher, Hostetter, and others, I consider the rest (including movies) to be adaptations, and thus containing their own discrete canon, part overlap and part sub-canon." The response above citing Primary World mythological and literary sources as inspiration for fanworks suggests other sub-canons.

Further emphasizing the idea of separate canons, some participants specifically noted that they were clear when working with canon from adaptations rather than the books. For example, Aipilosse writes, "I consider the [Peter Jackson] films and now Rings of Power as something separate and would preface any discussion referencing them as including movie canon or TV canon." Referring to fanworks, Shadow writes, "In LotR and Hobbit, that usually means that I will tag a fic with the movie fandoms if a story is based on one of those scenes—e.g. I wrote an Éowyn fic recently that was based on Aragorn's departure to the Paths of the Dead, so it went under Movies rather than Books."

Others preferred to keep adaptations separate from the idea of canon. Among these responses, a disconnect from Tolkien—an inability to actualize what he would have wanted from a professional adaptation of his work—forms the crux of these responses. "[Peter Jackson's] films are (rightfully!) considered to be cinematic masterpieces," writes Egg,

if not the definitive version and vision of LotR/Tolkien to the average person. (How one personally feels about this obviously depends on the person.) It is still an adaptation however, and a flawed one considering its source material. It cannot adapt and depict Tolkien's vision in a way that flawlessly matches Tolkien's intentions. It's impossible. …

Anything claiming to be a formal adaptation or addition into the legacy meant for widespread appeal and consumption should do its best to recreate what was written (not accounting for creative or stylistic choices).

Idrils Scribe voices a similar view: "I don't consider adaptations (movies, TV series ...) to be canon, because JRRT wasn't involved in their creation. There's no telling whether they match his vision of his world."

Interestingly, as seen above, Christopher Tolkien—while questioned and sometimes doubted by fans—is more likely to be assumed to know how his father would have preferred to have his work presented. Proximity to Tolkien, in this case, seems to confer canonicity, even if (as Egg points out above) the Jackson films have become the "definitive version and vision of LotR/Tolkien to the average person." In past columns, I have made the case that, despite the films' undeniable influence on fans, the fandom (especially the fanworks fandom) remains primarily book-based. It can be hard to riddle out how both can be true: how seeing the films can be such a powerful, sometimes formative experience for fans, yet the films come to play little to no role in their eventual fandom experiences. Responses here would suggest that the answer to the riddle might lie in the definition of canon: in seeing adaptations as subsidiary to the books.

Of course, not all adaptations are professional—in fact the vast (vast) majority of them are not. They are fanworks, constructed as amateur, nonprofit endeavors and meant to be enjoyed not by a general audience but by other fans. A few participants commented specifically on fanworks, fanon, and fan theories as canon. Given that the Tolkien Fanfiction Survey showed that authors considered the authority of other fans second most often, only after Tolkien himself, I wondered if any participants would extend the work of fans to the level of canon.

None did. Two anonymous participants were direct in this. "There are also no fan theories I would personally consider to be canon," one wrote, while the other's understanding of canon "purposefully excludes fanon and fan-preferred headcanons."

Yet other responses indicate that fan theories are similar to professional adaptations for many fans and especially fanworks creators, acting as a sort of sub-canon (to use Anérea's term) from which fans can draw after satisfying the requirements of the canon. Élodie described "fan canons" as an offshoot from the canon itself, especially with regards to the influence of fan art on how characters are seen: "There are also fan canons that develop and coexist altogether, especially regarding the looks of the characters, and it's also very interesting to see an iconography developing. I don't consider this as canon, but it's another way [Tolkien's] works keep on living." This parallels the tendency, noted above, of fans to draw more heavily from the visual elements of adaptations.

Egg likewise describes the canon as an important but static entity and fanworks, while not canon, as what keeps the canon relevant and vibrant—alive:

I consider Tolkien's words and intentions to be canon, but that doesn't mean I shun its transformation and reinterpretation by fans and fanworks. Even if I did, the originals will always be there. …

Otherwise, canon is great, but fanworks taking that canon and making it their own is also incredible. I try to look at it as what we all as fans have taken away from the canon, and therefore have internalized within ourselves.

Conclusion

The joke used to claim that if you asked two Tolkien fans a question, you'd get three different answers. Certainly, the variety of responses to a seemingly simple question—"What is canon?"—suggests that, when discussing canon, this is true. While themes and commonalities run through the responses, there is no predominant way that fans define canon.

What does emerge from the responses is the care and thought that many fans put into the question of canon. Even acknowledging a selection bias in this regard—the people most likely to respond are those who do care about this concept of "canon"—as I worked with the responses, they continued to amaze me in their depth and thoughtfulness. There were many examples, hypotheticals, and personal canon frameworks that I could not include in the article, so while I know the article is long, I hope that readers will find the time to read through the full responses below.

Also emerging is the idea of canon not as a rigid set of rules but a living understanding of the texts that shape their fanworks, discussions, and social interactions with other fans. Canon, in many cases, didn't seem to exist to limit but was part of the art of fandom.

Notes

1. The five words mentioned more often than Lord of the Rings/LotR were: canon, Tolkien, Silmarillion, published, and consider.
2. In his commentary on The Valaquenta in Morgoth's Ring, Christopher Tolkien wrote, "A leading consideration in the preparation of the [published Silmarillion] text was the achievement of coherence and consistency …. But I now think that I attached too much importance to the aim of consistency, which may be present when not evident, and was too ready to deal with 'difficulties' simply by eliminating them." The History of Middle-earth, Volume X: Morgoth's Ring, The Later Quenta Silmarillion: The First Phase, The Valaquenta, Christopher Tolkien's end commentary.
3. See, for example, Amy Sturgis, "'Make Mine Movieverse': How the Tolkien Fan Fiction Community Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Peter Jackson” in Tolkien on Film: Essays on Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings, ed. Janet Brennan Croft (Altadena, CA: Mythopoeic Press, 2004), 283-305, and Miguel Ángel Pérez-Gómez, "Walking Between Two Lands, or How Double Canon Works in The Lord of the Rings Fan Films" in Fan Phenomena: The Lord of the Rings, ed. Lorna Piatti-Farnell (Bristol: Intellect Books, 2015), 34-42.

Part Two: Using Canon in Fanworks

Last month, I considered responses to the latest Fandom Voices survey asking Tolkien fans how they define the term "canon." Predictably, the results were complicated. In the same survey, I also asked respondents who created fanworks how they used canon in those fanworks. The "defining canon" results were so complicated that I decided to withhold the "using canon" results for a second article.

These results were also complicated. I have focused mostly on how closely respondents claim they "stick to the canon." Does following closely to the canon matter, or are fanworks creators happy to veer off and do their own thing? It is clear that Tolkien fans spend a lot of time thinking about what they consider canon and not-canon, so how does this thinking translate into transformative and derivative works set in the legendarium?

The Sandbox: The Populous Expanse Between Compliance and Liberality

… I'm here for the sandbox I was given. Whether I use the sand to build castles or start kicking it around with a vengeance is my prerogative, but I don't do as if the sand weren't there at all.
~ SkyEventide

Most participants did not self-identify as either compliant to or disregardful of canon. (Going forward, I'm going to use the term "canon-compliant" to refer to respondents who identify adherence to Tolkien's canon—however they define that—in fanworks as a priority or essential for them, and "canon-liberal" as those fans who are not bothered to disregard that canon for any number of reasons.) Most respondents fell in the middle between these two groups. "On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 = not important at all and 10 = extremely important," wrote pandemonium_213 about canon in fanworks, "I would choose 5. I like fanworks that recognizably take place in Tolkien's milieu, but strict adherence to so-called canon is unnecessary, and in fact, restrictive, which is inconsistent with a mythology."

Fanworks that are "recognizably" Tolkien are a hallmark of this group, who often expressed a preference for fanworks tethered to canonical elements while not needing strict adherence to details or any single definition of canon. StarSpray writes:

I like to remain pretty canon compliant, except when I deliberately set out to write a canon-divergent AU. Much of my fic falls into the gaps that Tolkien didn’t write about, so canon is the foundation and the frame that I’m building off of in my fics. I never want to throw it out completely, even when writing about Elves in the modern day, because that takes away what drew me into the fandom in the first place.

For many respondents, the anchoring element of the canon is not plot or even character but theme: both Tolkien's themes and the themes of the fanwork. To the latter, one participant writes: "Generally when creating fanworks, I choose from among the versions of canon that I think most closely fit the themes I want to convey. One easy example is when Amrod dies; I have used and will use both the version in the published Silmarillion and the "burned at Losgar" version, depending on what the themes of my story need."

For another participant, canon is defined, at least in part, by the coherent themes that run through the multiple and contradictory versions of the texts:

I like to think of themes and how my writing can reflect those themes. I look at various drafts and see what similarities lie between them, and what is said and unsaid, what lies in the margins of the drafts that I can coax out. It's important to me to consider how the drafts work together, even if they seem to contradict on the surface. For instance, Maglor's fate shifts a lot between drafts but there is always that strong undercurrent of lament, loss, and grief, but also hope, uncertainty, and obscurity associated with the sea, so when I write about Maglor, I think of how his character ties back to those ideas, even if his fate changes in drafts. Ultimately, I decide on what I want to do based on the themes I pick up on from comparing drafts. To me, what is canon is the consistent themes throughout the work, and I write based on those.

Rowan Henry writes of what he calls "the heart of the stories"—the themes that form the backbone of the legendarium—and a desire to remain true to those, even while defying canon in other regards:

I use the "canon" for inspiration and for framework. I attempt to adhere to things like timelines when relevant (and clear), for example. But I tend to use a fairly transformative approach to canon in general, and I like to deliberately flout my perceptions of authorial intent ("writing fics that would make JRRT roll over in his grave"), especially in areas where my views and Tolkien's likely diverge. But I remain moved by the heart of the stories, of hope and friendship and value for the natural world, and in those ways I try to remain somewhat true to the spirit of the "canon."

Along similar lines, another respondent wrote that maintaining the "emotional truth" of a fanwork can cause her to treat canon more liberally:

As someone who can get quite pernickety about what Tolkien exactly says somewhere in some draft, when that question is considered on its own, I don't take quite the same approach in writing fanworks. I suppose that compared to some other writers and artists I am still quite canon-oriented in that it does really matter to me personally at various stages of writing what "canon" says and so things like a river flowing the wrong way on the map can create real problems for me that I may well try to solve. On the other hand, at some point the story itself and its emotional truth has to win and I will write it as it needs to be, while often commenting on any liberties taken in the notes (this is partly for myself, but partly also for the more detail-oriented among my readers). I suppose some kinds of canonical facts are also less important to me, temperamentally or emotionally; sometimes I am aware of this as I write, sometimes I only notice later.

This response also includes another element that surfaced throughout responses to how participants used canon in creating fanworks: the perceived need to mark canon divergence. "Canon is the foundation for everything I create for the fandom," wrote another respondent, "but I'm not afraid to diverge from it. When at all possible, though, I keep that divergence deliberate and mark it as such." I found myself curious about this impulse. It seems to reflect the importance of canon within the Tolkien fanworks community. Even when deviating from canon, fanworks creators sometimes feel the need to document that divergence. Perhaps, too, this practice has its roots in the fandom's history, where canon "errors" were harshly treated on some sites and in some communities, leading creators to poke fun at their fanworks where the notes were longer than the work itself.

Similarly, some respondents identified canon as important so that they could know when they were choosing not to follow it. "Even when I'm writing canon divergence," wrote one respondent, "I like to have a grounding in canon so I know what I'm changing and what's staying the same. My own preferred personal canon is what I mainly use for my fanworks, but sometimes I'll deviate from that, too!" Chrissystriped expressed a similar use of canon: "I often pick and choose from different versions of canon and like to use obscure things from [the History of Middle-earth], if it fits the fic. I often write things that are consciously not-canon, but I like to know if there is canon for what I'm going to write, even if only so I can decide to ignore it."

Again reiterating the importance of canon within this community are responses from creators who defy canon as a means of engaging with it. Daniel Stride notes that he doesn't "consciously conflict with the 'facts' of canon. Representing them in a different light is much more interesting." SkyEventide's response also emphasizes the importance of canon to her, even as she uses it as a vehicle for evaluating and analyzing that same canon:

I stick to canon (or, as per previous answer, text as written) as much as possible, AND as much as I like. As possible, because if I know that something is elsewhere contradicted, or stated, then it's likely I'll bend my fanwork to that. However, it's possible that I don't like what's textual. Then I try to deconstruct it, challenge it, or work with it and interrogate it. In short, I'm here for the sandbox I was given. Whether I use the sand to build castles or start kicking it around with a vengeance is my prerogative, but I don't do as if the sand weren't there at all.

Another respondent, an artist, speaks of canon as "loose restrictions" that allow for building beyond the canon with a particular purpose in mind. In this case, their purpose is representing a more diverse cast of characters in Middle-earth:

When I was in early high school, I used to draw portraits of the characters according to popular fanart with little thought about canon. But now, my focus lies upon exploring what canon doesn’t describe; expanding upon the few things Tolkien wrote about the appearances of certain characters and peoples. I really want to go back to drawing his characters because I want to contribute illustrations that are more expansive than the typical "fantasy" look (huge thanks to the other artists who do this already). There’s so much wiggle room within canon for me to explore—and so much contempt for the Default White High Fantasy aesthetic people love to ascribe to Middle-earth.

The majority of respondents who fell somewhere between canon compliance and canon liberality expressed some degree of tension in how they used canon, often valuing canon even as they leveraged that canon to circumvent it. The use of the canon itself as a mode of questioning the canon demonstrates the centrality of the texts, what they say, and what they mean to most Tolkien fanworks creators.

Twisting the Box: Canon-Compliance

"Twisting my ideas to fit the canon is fun …"
~ Anérea

Fans who identified as canon-compliant were often similar. Rarely did they express that they valued to-the-letter adherence to what Tolkien wrote without deeper consideration of what those texts signify and how they function as a foundation for further creative, transformative works. Interestingly, not a single respondent indicated that it was important to them to follow Tolkien's canon as far as adhering to his religious values and morality, nor did any respondents equate canon compliance with respect for Tolkien. Historically, there have been fanworks communities and individual fans who do both. Part of this is selection bias—the SWG does not ascribe to either belief—but I wonder if the lack of such responses can be explained by shifting values in the fandom.

For many canon-compliant fans, following the canon is part of the challenge—and therefore the fun—of creating Tolkien-based fanworks. "I stick to canon as much as possible," one respondent explained, "and I work in elements of the broader body of his drafts and work where it has elements I enjoy (such as the existence of Fëanor's half-sisters). For me, part of the fun of fanworks is working within the frame of canon--it's more of a challenge than just making things up myself, but there's fun in that!"

There is a stereotype of canon compliance as a joyless, follow-the-dots approach to creating fanworks. (This is reflected in the broader fan studies scholarship as well, where fans who flout canon are often portrayed as a creative, freewheeling community that exists alongside the staid, "curative" fans who spend the time they could be writing stories to argue about population statistics and character hair colors.) Part of this is fandom history, where some sites harbored fans who would rampage through, correcting and disputing authors' interpretations of canon (often through a moral or religious lens, as noted above). However,  I would point out that the previous respondent mentions the word fun twice and challenge once: clearly not all fans who highly value canonicity do so to wield it as a bludgeon. (Canon as a gatekeeping tool is discussed below.)

Idrils Scribe describes a similar enjoyment in making the many pieces of canon fit together into a fanwork:

I try to stay as close to canon as I can in my fanfiction. In case of contradictions or inconsistencies I pick the option that appeals to me, or that fits the story most conveniently. If something is left vague I see it as an invitation to fill it in with my own take. Personally I enjoy the challenge of operating within the parameters set by Tolkien, and I almost never feel a need to create an [alternate universe] by contradicting elements [Tolkien] was clear and consistent about.

Anérea depicts canon compliance as a choice—and challenge—rather than an imperative: "Sticking to canon for me is more of an interesting creative challenge than a have-to. Twisting my ideas to fit the canon is fun, as is twisting canon to fit my ideas! I'll happily use whatever obscure tidbits suit my purposes." Her approach hearkens back to the previous section, where respondents who fell between canon compliance and canon liberality often described the canon in terms that suggested malleability and use of the canon itself as a tool to interrogate and stretch the boundaries of the canon.

Some respondents who create canon-compliant fanworks describe a creative process that includes a large amount of research. In some cases, this is to ensure canon compliance. As one respondent writes:

I only write canon-compliant fic with rigorously researched and verified canonicity. To accomplish this, I make use of a multi-tiered canon ranking system, with works finished and published by Tolkien within his lifetime at the top and early drafts, one-off details, and Myths Transformed at the bottom. I have no interest in going against canon, focusing on alternative narratives that contradict canon, or anything except "turning the world Tolkien wrote into someplace you could imagine living in".

Canon here is leveraged to create a believable world. Creators who describe research as part of the process of producing canon-compliant fanworks also identify it as an enjoyable process. One respondent depicts a "taxing but enjoyable exercise":

I very much enjoy consulting Tolkien's works while I write my fanworks. As I wrote before, I write fanworks about The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I do a lot of research when I write, which occupies me for a long time. I love pursuing accuracy (or something that comes close to accuracy as far as fiction goes), so I like to stick close to what I consider canon. I even like to mimic Tolkien's writing and dialogue style, as it feels crucial to the world and characters he created. It becomes a taxing but enjoyable exercise for me.

Polutropos describes a research process that is far more than refreshing her memory on facts (though that is a part of it too), but is itself a creative exercise. Again, the idea of using canon details as building blocks when creating a believable world arises:

When I have a particular character, relationship, period, and/or place from Tolkien's legendarium that I want to write about, I gather together and refresh myself on canon facts about them before wading too deep into writing. During writing, I often refer back to Tolkien's works to see if he ever wrote anything that would contradict a direction I intend to go. For the most part, I find all the contradictions in Tolkien's writings inspire me to think creatively about how the "culture" he created could have originated all of those different versions.

As noted above, fan studies scholarship has often positioned fanworks creation as an act that defies the authority of the original creator, i.e., the canon. In some cases, this leads to the idea that defying canon is essential to using fanworks as a mode of questioning and "repairing"¹ the canon to address harmful stereotypes and inequities. The history of the Tolkien fanworks fandom does not help dispel the equivalency between "canonicity" and "intolerance"; in the 2021 Tolkien Society seminar "Tolkien and Diversity," I made the case that canon has been weaponized in the fandom's past to prevent fans from producing fanworks and discussing topics that explored the racism, sexism, and homophobia inherent in Tolkien's world. While again acknowledging the likely selection bias in the fans who answered a call for responses here on the SWG, an organization that has worked to welcome those fanworks and discussions, it is interesting that this approach to canon in fanworks was entirely absent from the responses. No one acknowledged using canon to uphold Tolkien's morality, a common pretense for excluding fanworks about women and LGBTQIA+ characters. In fact, Independence1776 emphasizes the importance of canon to her fanworks while dismissing Tolkien's morality as any part of the canon:

I write Middle-earth fic because I care about the world as-written. I strive to stick close to the facts and details as Tolkien established them; authorial intent matters to me. That doesn't mean I think M-e fic needs to abide by Tolkien's supposed morals (I flatly do not, and also think none of us can actually know them). I'm not perfect and I know I've made mistakes because I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Legendarium. But my fics need to work within Middle-earth; if I can't do that, I may as well write the fics as original fiction instead so I can do my own thing.

Gideon Cooper likewise sees the canon as essential to maintaining a coherent world. However, they do not find that this bars exploration of the "problematic foundations" of the canon either: 

So in essence to me it IS important to hold as closely to the canon we are given as seems feasible, because it kind of gives me a framework to build off of if that makes sense. The world IS cohesive and much of the attitudes, actions, and events within it feed off each other into more and more complex ideas and narratives so I like to buy into them as much as possible, whilst acknowledging and addressing the inherent problematic foundations that all of it possesses.

Ultimately, fans who self-identified as canon-compliant differed from fans who were more permissive in allowing themselves to disregard canon only in the degree to which they adhered to canon. Philosophically, the groups were very similar. Canon imposed boundaries that were interesting and fun to work among, offered the raw materials for building a believable Secondary World, and provided the means for questioning and sometimes challenging the implications of the texts.

"Sailing Off": Canon Liberality

"I happily grab … a blended canon, which I then usually triumphantly sail off with into alternate reality/universe stories …"
~ Ithiliana/Robin Anne Reid

Far fewer fanworks creators indicated that they didn't care much for canon at all, and even in those instances, I struggled with whether those responses belonged as "canon-liberal" examples or in the earlier section on the vast expanse between this designation and "canon compliance." Many of the responses I'm including here do show an interest in "following canon." Egg's response is one example of this. She writes, "I like to have my cake and eat it, too. I use the canon as an anchoring to consistency within the rules, histories, and worlds of Arda. I then use the canon to stay as in-character as possible to keep readers in sync with what I write, but deviate as desired for the pure sake of wish fulfillment!" Here, canon provides useful consistency but is not more important than the creator's desire for how the fanwork should take shape.

Another respondent similarly cited "truth" in a creative work as more important than adhering to canon: "I don't really care about canon in my fanworks, to be honest. I have my own interpretation of the characters and if someone else finds that interpretation non-canonical, I don't care. I do tend to refer more to the characterization of the books and slightly model my writing style after Tolkien's, but it's not a priority. I just take what I like and what rings true to me and run with it."

Other participants enjoyed writing in obscure areas of the legendarium or alternate universe (AU) fanworks, which lend themselves to creating outside the bounds of canon. Shadow writes:

Within this setting, I mostly try to keep canon consistent, but I'm not too bothered if I don't.

Especially in the Second Age. Aside from Númenor, we know comparatively little, so if the things I make up aren't always consistent with what we Do know, I'm fine with that. I also write a lot of AUs, and some of them don't really lend themselves to consistency with canon either way.

My speciality (if you can call it that) in the First Age is the Lords of Gondolin, mainly Rog and Salgant. We know super little about them, most of which is found in The Fall of Gondolin, which obviously contains multiple versions of the same story. Here, I like to pick and choose parts for my story and combine across multiple versions.

Ithiliana/Robin Anne Reid similarly expresses a love for alternative universe fanworks and also addresses the use of canon by some fans to limit interpretations under the pretense of "respecting Tolkien":

I happily grab from Tolkien's published fiction (almost entirely LotR) and from Peter Jackson's films, so a blended canon, which I then usually triumphantly sail off with into alternate reality/universe stories (I LOVE AUs).  I'm all in for Emerson's "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" snark in the sense that I just don't care because just about everything I love about Tolkien's world as I see it would probably horrify the poor man. But he released his books out into the wild (and, following his death, his legally designated heirs and executors ditto), which means that within the bounds of fair use (NOT ripping off and profiting from his work), I can do anything I want. I dislike the hagiographic tone of some fans and scholars who seem to emphasize "respect" in a way that comes across as them speaking for "Tolkien" and demanding limitations that suit their ideologies and preferences, and my response to that attitude is, fuck, no.

In short, canon-liberal creators express a variety of reasons for discarding canon partly or entirely. Sometimes, personal preference and truth need to reign supreme in a creative work. In other instances, the fragmentary and contradictory nature of Tolkien's texts requires a degree of inventiveness that belies canon compliance. Then there is love for the alternate universe and other "canon deviations" that can expand the legendarium creatively.

Personal Canon: Defining and Using

The responses discussed above reflect last month's discussion of defining canon: It's complicated. Every creator has a different approach, and many creators don't always stick to just one. Terms like verse and head canon add to the complexity of which texts (and interpretations) a particular creator regards as a store of factual information for a fanwork, and which they do not.

A few respondents alluded to personal canon: Whether their definition of canon and the texts they used as canon remained consistent across multiple fanworks. I've selected three responses that, like the definition and application of canon, show that there is no universal approach among creators. Cuarthol writes that she does have a personal canon that she tends to use in her fanworks: "I do like to explore variations on Tokien's legendarium, but I do have a certain version of events I broadly prefer and stick to in most of my writing, which tends towards canon-compliance (for some version of canon) and gap-filler stories."

Lyra occupies a more middle ground where personal canon is concerned: "I generally try to keep my work consistent with some form of canon (as in, compatible with something Tolkien said somewhere) but not necessarily always the same idea of it. I may use multiple versions of canon occasionally (and I'm certainly willing to interact with multiple versions), but I tend to have a preferred version that I mostly stick to."

Marta offer yet another perspective, where a consistent "personal canon" isn't necessary at all:

I really don't feel any compulsion to make my personal canon consistent across stories. Whatever works for that particular work, and whatever I don't think I need to lay out for my reader, is what matters. But then I write short stories more so there's less assuming people are with you for more than a single story in that world. If I was building longer works or a more obviously interconnected series, I might feel differently.

Again, this specific issue of personal canon shows the myriad ways that creators engaged in making Tolkien-based fanworks interact with and use the texts to make fanworks.

"The Gatekeepers": Canon and "Canaticism"

"Too often I find canon used as a bludgeon by the gatekeepers."
~ Robinson Ensz

It's impossible to talk about canon and Tolkien fandom history without broaching the topic of canaticism (a term coined by the Tolkien fanfiction writer Rous in the 2000s). As earlier responses and discussions implied, the subject of Tolkien's canon has not always been a neutral one, particularly in the fanworks community where the desire—reflected in many of the responses above—to reveal a deeper truth or reflect the creator's experience can create a tension with the "facts" of canon. As the responses above show, not all creators prioritize "textual details" and "truth" and "wish fulfillment" in the same way.

Not surprisingly, fans with different expectations around the concept of "canon" didn't always peacefully meld when they found themselves sharing online spaces. As Robinson Ensz explains:

I do not believe in the upholding of a strict canon of anything. Were I pushed to give an answer, I would say only that which Tolkien himself was alive to publish should ever be considered anything within strict bounds—though not necessarily "THE canon." I think canon is what we want it to be; the texts that shape our Middle-earth. Too often I find canon used as a bludgeon by the gatekeepers. This is something I wish I could abolish entirely.

With a canon as complex as Tolkien's, detailed knowledge of the texts is valued. Especially in fanworks communities, where creation of a fanwork can be held up by having to dig up necessary details, fans whose knowledge offers a shortcut for creators are prized. As Egg explains, it can be easy to fall into a trap where one's knowledge becomes confused for superiority over other fans:

Going back to the "scholarly" angle, it always seems as if some Tolkien fans love to argue about canon as a nearly academic endeavor. They'll cite obscure letters, learn entire languages, and argue their point down to the nail bed with minutiae (do Balrogs have wings?) But to the end of demonstrating how much better read and scholarly they are than other fans, rather than using Tolkien's words to achieve an answer.

I can't pretend I don't do the same sometimes, and I have to catch myself from falling prey to becoming an elitist in that regard.

Cuarthol raises important issues of equitable access that further complicate the canon discussion: texts that weren't published when some fanworks were created, as well as the difficulty fans may have in accessing the text, depending on their income, geographical location, and language. (Sometimes a confluence, as Tolkien's books can become prohibitively expensive in some countries, after factoring in exchange rates.) She writes:

More important than consistency is openness—we did not have many of these accounts before, and we should be willing to accept new and updated takes on the stories rather than arguing over which is or isn't the most canon of canon takes. . . . Not everyone has access to the various histories and books that have been released (and those releases are still curated and edited to some degree) and all the information in them is not universally known, and it is best to accept that any one of them can be taken as correct.

Tolkien fanworks fandom (and maybe the larger fandom as well?) does seem to have undergone a shift in the two decades of its existence online. Gatekeeping and "canaticism" are not obsolete, but they do seem less prevalent and, even more importantly, less acceptable.

Conclusion

When I reached the end of the half of this article about defining canon, I realized that I could draw few tidy conclusions about how Tolkien fans do that. Almost every response was nuanced in a way that made it impossible to sort the responses to reveal trends, much less complete a sentence that begins with "Most Tolkien fans …" How Tolkien fans use canon to create fanworks is likewise complex, but some trends do emerge.

First is that very few Tolkien fanworks creators are purely "canon-compliant" or "canon-liberal." Even those whose responses I featured in those sections could have just as easily been located in the middle ground discussed at the beginning of the article. Most fanworks creators use—and like using—Tolkien's canon to a degree. And most fanworks creators will stray from the texts at times, for a variety of reasons.

A second trend I noticed was that "straying" was often facilitated by the canon itself. Tolkien fanworks creators are experts at using the canon itself to find ways to defy the canon. This creates the paradox where circumventing the canon becomes an act of canonicity.

Overall, therefore, Tolkien fanworks creators tend to value the canon. Most of them use it to some degree or another in a meaningful way in their fanworks. Many who prefer to defy it will say in the same breath that they nonetheless know the canon they choose to ignore, and this is an important prerequisite to that creative choice. Others find loopholes in the canon in order to defy it, an act that requires a deep knowledge of the canon, or can name the creative purpose behind sidelining a particular piece of the canon. Whether using canon or defying it—or the vast, complex space in between—Tolkien fanworks creators are thoughtful about the texts, what they mean, and the ways they give rise to further creative works within the legendarium.

Works Cited

1. The idea of fanfiction as a mode of "reparative reading" comes from Una McCormack, "FInding Ourselves in the (Un)Mapped Lands: Women's Reparative Readings of The Lord of the Rings" in Perilous and Fair: Women in the Works and Life of J. R. R. Tolkien, ed. Janet Brennan Croft and Leslie A. Donovan (Altadena, CA: Mythopoeic Press, 2015), 309-26.

Responses

1. "Canon" is difficult to define for Tolkien's works. In addition to his major works, we have posthumously published works, contradicting facts, a wealth of unpublished works, and decades' worth of adaptations in myriad forms. As a Tolkien fan, what do you consider canon?

2. How do you use Tolkien's canon (or maybe you don't!) in the fanworks you create? You might consider what is "canon" for the purpose of creating fanworks, how important it is to keep your work consistent with what you consider canon, whether you use multiple versions of canon, etc.

All responses we've received to the above questions are collected here without curation or commentary. Responses have been lightly edited.

Normally, responses are separated out by question. Because responses to the two questions were often in dialogue with each other, I'm presenting them together, with the two different questions labeled, respectively, as "Defining Canon" and "Canon and Fanworks."

If you'd like to share your views on defining and using canon in fanworks, we're still collecting responses and will update this page as new responses come in.

---

Defining Canon:

I consider The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion to be canon, and other works essentially deuterocanonical—can be worked into canon, but do not constitute core canon, and not valid where it conflicts with core canon.

Canon and Fanworks:

I stick to canon as much as possible and I work in elements of the broader body of his drafts and work where it has elements I enjoy (such as the existence of Fëanor's half-sisters). For me, part of the fun of fanworks is working within the frame of canon—it's more of a challenge than just making things up myself, but there's fun in that!

~ Anonymous, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

I have two approaches to Tolkien canon, generally (though on any given day I'd probably contradict myself on it but in that sense I'm actually being rather consistent lol).

Tolkien canon is whatever his final word was on a topic, as best as we can determine. So Gil-galad is Orodreth's son, and Orodreth is Angrod's son, because in the end that is how Tolkien wanted his story. And yet this is the most unrealistic view of canon due to there being no ability to know absolutely what his final thoughts were on a subject because we are, of course, limited not only to what he wrote but limited to what has been released to the public of what he wrote. 

And that is why my second and more preferred (personally) approach is Canon for Tolkien is literally anything we have in written form that he said about his world, even the contradictions. Gil-galad is as much Fingon's son because it was what was put in the published Silmarillion as he is Orodreth's son because that's what Tolkien "wanted." Celebrimbor is the son of a Sinda and a smith out of Gondolin and the son of Curufin because these all exist.

More important than consistency is openness—we did not have many of these accounts before, and we should be willing to accept new and updated takes on the stories rather than arguing over which is or isn't the most canon of canon takes.

Gil-galad is Fingon's son not because that's what Tolkien wanted, not because that's what The Silmarillion says, but because there was nothing saying he wasn't. Until there was. And it is easier, IMO, to incorporate new ideas and find the one that resonates most for you (as a reader or an artist) than to worry about which one should be considered the most "right" take.

Not everyone has access to the various histories and books that have been released (and those releases are still curated and edited to some degree) and all the information in them is not universally known, and it is best to accept that any one of them can be taken as correct. And while there may be an argument that the various versions are equally valid but perhaps should not be mixed together (that is, Amrod dies in the fire when only Curufin helps burn the ships, and Maedhros does not alone stand aside) but in the end these are all put forth as histories recorded within the universe in which it takes place. That allows for bad takes, incorrect versions, mixed histories, and straight up unreliable narrators or "bad translations" to allow for the most glorious kaleidoscope of options.

That is not to say there is no such thing *as* canon, only that I am willing to accept anything with any support from Tolkien himself as being just as valid as any other, no matter if he himself later rejected it. It allows for the most enjoyment (IMO) of his works for the most people.

Canon and Fanworks:

I do like to explore variations on Tokien's legendarium, but I do have a certain version of events I broadly prefer and stick to in most of my writing, which tends towards canon compliance (for some version of canon) and gap-filler stories.

Though I broadly follow the published Silmarillion in most instances, I do adopt Gil-galad as Orodreth's son (even when I play with the concept as being only "ostensibly" his son) because that version most appeals to me and I enjoy the dynamic more. But I have also enjoyed trying to blend the two versions together and attributed to "scribal error" that Gil-galad was Fingon's grandson rather than his son, and so marry the two versions of canon together. 

The more versions I can pretend to sync together the more fun it is for me, but I am also just as happy throwing canon away entirely for a really juicy take that just needs to happen, canon be damned!

So to more directly answer the question, I consider canon compliance quite important for the majority of my fanworks, but enjoy the occasional slip into crack or AU [alternative universe] territory.

~ cuarthol, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Anything Tolkien wrote himself, regardless of when or who edited it. Published additions by editors or other fantasy writers count when we don't know exactly the difference between what they wrote and what Tolkien intended.

Canon and Fanworks:

I use it when I like it, and disregard it when I don't! But my fanworks are always in a conversation with it (like, if I disregard it because I don't like it, that's often the entire point of the work).

~ Anonymous, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Everything written, at some point, by Tolkien.

Canon and Fanworks:

I often pick and choose from different versions of canon and like to use obscure things from HoMe, if it fits the fic. I often write things that are consciously not-canon, but I like to know if there is canon for what I'm going to write, even if only so I can decide to ignore it.

~ chrissystriped, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Well, the LotR and The Hobbit are definitely canon (with one exception—the Dwarves helping build Thranduil’s halls, because clearly, Professor Tolkien worked his ideas about Menegroth into that at a time where he thought The Silmarillion would never be published). Then I take The Silmarillion as canon (perhaps the heart of canon), again with a bit of caution concerning the ruin of Doriath, as Professor Tolkien never worked out a version of it he was satisfied with. 

As for the HoMe, I do a bit of raisin-picking there. I’m not so very interested in the details, as much of the published snippets are just notes (every writer knows them- one tries something and then regards it unfitting/out of character etc). But I am very interested in character-developement there!

Canon and Fanworks:

I generally try to stick to canon/build my headcanon so that it is compliant with canon. I have written canon-divergent stories, but I try to make my works still fit into canon, at least as much as possible. I sometimes use other versions of canon as prompts, though.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

For me, there is no one complete canon of Tolkien's work. Instead, there are multiple smaller canons that all sit under the same umbrella.

For example, I consider The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit books canon just as much as Jackson's movie adaptations, but they're not the same canon. They're two separate sets of Tolkien canon.

Canon and Fanworks:

When writing, I use whatever version of canon currently suits my purposes the best.

In LotR and Hobbit, that usually means that I will tag a fic with the movie fandoms if a story is based on one of those scenes—e.g., I wrote an Éowyn fic recently that was based on Aragorn's departure to the Paths of the Dead, so it went under Movies rather than Books.

If the scene is not set during the actual events of Tolkien's story, but instead is set before or after, I usually tag the book canon, because it likely means I am basing the idea on some throwaway line/concept/character mentioned somewhere in the book.

Within this setting, I mostly try to keep canon consistent, but I'm not too bothered if I don't.

Especially in the Second Age. Aside from Númenor, we know comparatively little, so if the things I make up aren't always consistent with what we do know, I'm fine with that.

I also write a lot of AUs [alternate universes], and some of them don't really lend themselves to consistency with canon either way.

My speciality (if you can call it that) in the First Age is the Lords of Gondolin, mainly Rog and Salgant. We know super little about them, most of which is found in The Fall of Gondolin, which obviously contains multiple versions of the same story.

Here, I like to pick and choose parts for my story and combine across multiple versions.

In the end, I think my attitude to canon is best described by: 

Canon is like a buffet. You take the parts you like, and leave the ones you don't. The story is the meal you put together from those parts.

And as long as it tastes nice, who cares whether it came from The Silmarillion, one of Tolkien's letters, or a barely legible napkin scribble.

~ Shadow, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

I do consider everything J.R.R. Tolkien wrote to be canon, for varying definitions of canon; some of what Christopher Tolkien wrote for The Silmarillion I would also consider to be canon, if nothing written by J.R.R. Tolkien contradicts it.

I would personally call The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion "most canon", even though they do contain contradictions. I would call the J.R.R.-written parts of the published Silmarillion the "foremost authority" on the First Age where it and the other two books conflict, but LotR the "foremost authority" on the Third Age.

As far as the First and Second Age drafts that were not included in the published Silmarillion go, I would personally consider them more or less canon depending on how easily reconciled with the three texts mentioned above.

I don't personally consider anything from the various film adaptations, TV adaptations, or game adaptations to be "canon" to the universe in the Tolkien-written books. In my opinion they are entirely different continuities. There are also no fan theories I would personally consider to be canon.

Canon and Fanworks:

By my personal definition of what it means to create a fanwork for something, all my Tolkien fanworks definitionally contain at least some canon, or else I would call them something else. I generally prefer to write in the original setting—usually the vague genre of "What if everything about the story was the same up to this point, after which something changed? Here's how I think that would go." To write within Arda I definitely refer frequently to canon to make sure the stuff I'm writing about the various material cultures of different people groups makes sense within the climate where they live.

Generally when creating fanworks I choose from among the versions of canon that I think most closely fit the themes I want to convey. One easy example is when Amrod dies; I have used and will use both the version in the published Silmarillion and the "burned at Losgar" version, depending on what the themes of my story need. My fanworks almost always diverge somewhat from Tolkien's story—I don't think I've ever written a "pure" gapfiller—so although I do have a set of what I consider "most canon," I'm not concerned with exclusively using those texts for inspiration. 

(However, if I were to take on something like a graphic novelization or other adaptation of the full Silmarillion, my goals for that project would be different from my goals for a divergent fanwork, so I would be more likely to ensure my adaptation lined up with the texts I consider to be most canon.)

When making fanworks that combine Arda with other worlds and canons, my process does change a little; in such cases I'm not concerned as much with preserving material aspects of recognizable canon (like maps) as I am with setting up the character relationships so they remain analogous to the relationships in canon. After I'm happy with the character relationships, I can start with the actual story.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Anything written by J.R.R. Tolkien himself after 1930 and either verified in more than one draft or present as the only version or explanation. This explicitly and purposefully excludes fanon, fan-preferred headcanons, "this happened in one draft and no others" unless it’s the only available rendition, "this happened in an early draft but later versions contradict it" (specifically Maglor’s survival), and anything only present in the published Silmarillion (because Christopher has a tendency to invent things out of whole cloth, like with Maeglin, or exclude details that drastically change the nature of the story, like with Túrin).

Canon and Fanworks:

I only write canon-compliant fic with rigorously researched and verified canonicity. To accomplish this I make use of a multi-tiered canon ranking system, with works finished and published by Tolkien within his lifetime at the top and early drafts, one-off details, and Myths Transformed at the bottom. I have no interest in going against canon, focusing on alternative narratives that contradict canon, or anything except "turning the world Tolkien wrote into someplace you could imagine living in".

~ Anonymous, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

LotR, appendices, revised edition of The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, and non-contradictory parts of the Histories of Middle-earth are what I consider canon in general, in that order of precedence. However, my own personal canon may prioritize a contradictory detail over something "canon", such as Gil-galad being Orodreth's son, or include details I like from the movies, which I see as having their own canon separate from the books.

Canon and Fanworks:

Even when I'm writing canon divergence, I like to have a grounding in canon so I know what I'm changing and what's staying the same. My own preferred personal canon is what I mainly use for my fanworks, but sometimes I'll deviate from that, too!

~ Anonymous, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Anything that Tolkien himself wrote about Middle-earth, and nothing else. Everything else is just an adaptation.

Fanworks and Canon:

I use Tolkien's work as a basis for most of it, and anything from the Peter Jackson movies, LOTRO, and officially produced RPG games material. I also draw on Norse Mythology too, and any other literature that Tolkien studied.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

I primarily pull from the major works—LotR, The Hobbit, The Silm (I like Gil-galad son of Fingon)—but if there are details in HoMe or the Letters or something that I like, such as the existence of Lalwen and Findis, or the extra details we get of Nerdanel, I’ll take those and run with them, while feeling free to ignore the stuff I don’t like or that contradicts other canon, like some of the retconned stuff from Unfinished Tales or LaCE [Laws and Customs among the Eldar]. I feel like Tolkien canon is really fluid because there’s so much stuff that contradicts other stuff, and different bits can be fun to play with at different times and in different contexts.

Canon and Fanworks:

I like to remain pretty canon-compliant, except when I deliberately set out to write a canon-divergent AU [alternate universe]. Much of my fic falls into the gaps that Tolkien didn’t write about, so canon is the foundation and the frame that I’m building off of in my fics. I never want to throw it out completely, even when writing about Elves in the modern day, because that takes away what drew me into the fandom in the first place.

~ StarSpray, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

The texts of LotR, The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion. Everything else is arguable and depends on context, e.g., if I were talking specifically about the Peter Jackson films, I would specify that, or if I was talking about conflicting information from Tolkien himself, I would clarify what I was referring to. But at the end of the day, if I was referring to "Tolkien canon" I would be talking about the books of LotR, The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion only.

Canon and Fanworks:

I don't really care about canon in my fanworks, to be honest. I have my own interpretation of the characters and if someone else finds that interpretation noncanonical, I don't care. I do tend to refer more to the characterization of the books and slightly model my writing style after Tolkien's, but it's not a priority. I just take what I like and what rings true to me and run with it.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Anything published in his lifetime is definitively canon to me; adaptations may be considered a separate canon (movie 'verse, RoP 'verse, etc.) I also accept The Silmarillion as canon, but more because it provides a framework with which to discuss the First Age with other fans than because I think this view is consistent with my other views—which do not accept anything published after Tolkien's death as canon.

Canon and Fanworks:

Canon is the foundation for everything I create for the fandom, but I'm not afraid to diverge from it. When at all possible, though, I keep that divergence deliberate and mark it as such. When it comes to the First Age, I normally stick to the events of The Silmarillion as my benchmark for canon (no dead twin at Losgar, for instance), but I have diverged from that when asked to in a prompt for events.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Sorry I have an essay about this. Personally I have a kind of Russian-nesting-doll approach to what is and isn't canon within Tolkien's universe. I mean the first overarching issue to contend with, before even applying to the extended works beyond the main texts, is that the main texts themselves apply their own in-universe authors and compilers. So in a sense there is a separate higher universe of canon that applies only to the ever-present narrating voice of whomsoever compiled The Lord of the Rings and wrote "Concerning Hobbits", which I think is the only aspect of the book The Compiler verifiably authored themselves.

So in fact the only rigid canon of Tolkien's work would be the fact that there was a world called Middle-earth with Hobbits and Humans and Dwarves and Elves, that some form of kingdom in that world existed and persisted for some thousands of years that the Narrator lived in, and that they had historical in-person accounts in their archives that told of historical events involving Bilbo (Bilba) Frodo (Maura) and the Ring of Power.

These pieces of canon are rigid because we would not have The Lord of the Rings without them (unless of course we assume this compiler is yet another layer removed and also making the whole thing up, but then they just become Tolkien himself essentially and we are outside of the fictional universe). Once we leave that area, suddenly we are reading an in-universe compiled account of a historical war as authored, edited and recompiled through many centuries and many hands. Given the nature of historical documents, all manner of discrepancies suddenly become a PART of the canon, and almost everything about the events in the books are given a far shakier relationship to canon than most stories allow.

This is further supported as an attitude by the existence of extraneous documents that can both enhance or contradict aspects of the main books, especially dialogue from characters about other characters and histories. For example, you have Faramir talking about Gondor's kingship failing because of some rampant social contagion of kings who had no children and thought only of stars or elixirs for eternal youth. Then you turn to the Appendix or The Unfinished Tales and find out that (apparently) only three of Gondor's kings have ever remained childless and the last king was only "the last" due to catastrophic war that saw any other legitimate heirs of Anárion dead.

So the extended works take on the position of other in-universe documents that are not a part of The Compiler's work, documents from other libraries and other editors perhaps (whose area of expertise was not Hobbits, unlike our Compiler, but Elves or Men or Dwarves and the histories thereof.)

Which is all to say that, the first layer of rigid canon is canon because it must be true for the world to exist. The second layer of canon, which I define as the physical events that are described in LotR (and in a sublayer The Hobbit, although Bilbo already creates ambiguity there) and that are not subject to one single character's personal recollection of it (Boromir's last words that only Aragorn heard for example) are canon because they "best be so" for the overall coherence of the fandom at large. They are also the least likely to be false, being major historical events remembered by many other characters.

One could, for fun or other reasons, speculate on the motives in-universe editors and compilers (like Findegil) might have had for twisting events to the "victors'" benefit. And authors have! There was a Russian book called The Last Ringbearer written by Kirill Eskov which fully leaned into the idea of "LotR is written by the victors" and portrayed Mordor as the victim of Elven imperialism. But in terms of the broad Tolkien fandom, and for purposes of collaborative character and theme analysis and just general enjoyment overall, it is best that we all hear "Gollum fell with the Ring into Mt. Doom and Sauron was destroyed and the war was over" and nod our heads.

The next layer is where the controversy and speculation can really get a foothold: LotR characters' opinions, dialogue, and descriptions. With language being such a vital part of the books' conception as a whole, and the book we read already being canonically irrevocably changed through translation from Westron to English and character names even being altered, this all was already up for debate. We are all free to speculate what "fair" might have meant in its original Westron, or if nuances in dialogue have been lost through translation. Nevermind the clear evidence in the text of "moral aesthetics" where the tall are proud, divine, and noble, and the short are provincial, simple, and often "barbaric". It would take no effort at all to imagine Middle-earth historians deciding that Aragorn was taller than Boromir, or that Frodo was taller than Sam either against or in the absence of accounts saying otherwise.

There are some things to be lost in treating these aspects of the text as ambiguous, (the original problematic narratives within the book of "appearance being tied to your moral status" being forgotten by the fandom at large, for example) but there are also things to be gained as well and new interesting meanings to be gleaned from different ideas and perspectives. What if Galadriel's "Golden hair" was actually literally metallic gold? What if when Sam called Frodo "Master" he was actually using a different term that could be a more familiar one of endearment than the translation allows? How different would LotR be if it had been translated into Spanish or Arabic, and what names would the canon characters have been given? It is ambiguity that creates opportunities for endless applicability and enjoyment from a far broader swath of fans. But! There is still a general fan interpretation and the base text is less ambiguous to more casual readers, so it is still canon that is rightly generally accepted.

And then of course all of this is even more complex and less rigid when applied to the earlier era writings. And, to be honest, I only consider anything within HoMe, NoMe, The Silmarillion, The Unfinished Tales, or the essays "best to assume" canon if their absence would make an aspect of LotR or The Hobbit not make sense, or if it is actively mentioned within those books or appendices. Everything else is so contradictory and has so many possible avenues of difference that it really cannot be argued as "strict" canon at all.

For instance, I would not say that a fanfic with Gil-galad as Fingon's son should be tagged as AU [alternate universe], but neither should one with him being the son of Orodreth be tagged as AU either. HC's [Headcanons] of him being a trans Finduilas Faelivrin even, I would not call an AU! If it does not contradict anything within the more reliable canon books, it can't be considered anything more rigid than Tolkien's personal suggestion. Many of these recollections come in-universe from Bilbo's compiling of all the scant information he could find in Rivendell (given the apparent canon that Elves just don't write things down) or come from Númenóreans trying to explain Elven history to themselves. None of these are fully reliable avenues of historical writing!

In essence, if I had to make a diagram, the descending order of canon-ness would be:

#1 The Compiler's lived reality. (canon)

#2 The physical events as told in The Lord of the Rings. (canon for the sake of fandom)

 - #2a The physical events as told in The Hobbit. (canon for the sake of fandom, on thin ice)

 - #2b The physical events as told in extraneous literature that either are mentioned in LotR or TH or are required to be true in some respect in order for the events of LotR or TH to make sense. (canon for the sake of TH or LotR which is canon for the sake of fandom, but details are debatable)

#3 The descriptions, dialogue, and events as related through dialogue of characters in LotR/TH. (canon to casual audiences but more debatable amongst hardcore fans)

#4 Anything that comes from extraneous media that compliments or enhances aspects of the original books, such as Celeborn refusing to follow Galadriel and Celebrian through Khazad-dûm before Eregion's fall. (canon for the sake of narrative but entirely up for debate or discarding depending on the reader)

#5 Anything else that is within The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales, specifically that which is not contradicted by any things in the main books or in each other, unless that contradiction comes from individual character dialogue alone. (semi-canon for the sake of being within the most widely read expanded universe books in the deeper lore fandom, but dying on a hill saying it's the only acceptable read is silly)

#6 All other aspects of the world given to us by expanded universe books. (canon only if you desire it to be, building blocks to be played with essentially)

Canon and Fanworks:

For me personally, I try to apply to what is canon as much as logically possible in an effort to then craft a world from that canon that makes sense. But this inevitably drives me down a path of, whilst still applying to the physical canon events and the offered canon societies and cultural norms, contradicting the offered morality of the world.

So for example, I apply to LaCE [Laws and Customs among the Eldar] (and now also the new NoMe canon) in the sense that I take it as a set of cultural norms and laws that the Calaquendi and their descendants hold to, opinions Elves often express, etc. But necessarily then that applies a deeply homophobic culture to the Elves, and all things point to it coming from the Valar themselves, since Finwë's need to request permission from Manwë to marry again seems to suggest that the Valar levied some kind of control over Elven sexual and marital habits. Which then leads me to the conclusion that the very divine guardians of Middle-earth themselves are homophobic.

But then this works for me, because I have also crafted a kind of canon-non-canon idea for the spiritual core of Middle-earth, where the Secret Fire is not OF Eru but the true "fathomless and unknowable" deity of Eä and is actually the true source of divinity, bestowing upon all those with souls a kind of individual rightness that allows them to defy even God/Eru and still be potentially "in the right" in a cosmic way. Which actually feels very thematically correct, given how much "wrestling with God" there is in LotR.

So in essence, to me it IS important to hold as closely to the canon we are given as seems feasible, because it kind of gives me a framework to build off of if that makes sense. The world IS cohesive and much of the attitudes, actions, and events within it feed off each other into more and more complex ideas and narratives, so I like to buy into them as much as possible, whilst acknowledging and addressing the inherent problematic foundations that all of it possesses.

~ Gideon Cooper, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

I don't know what you mean, these books are all history. There is a true answer to any question about what did or didn't happen; we just probably don't know it.

The only actual known "true" fact is that Tolkien found and translated some old documents! Conflicting drafts could just be because translation is hard. None of our narrators are 100% reliable. Including Tolkien himself (though I personally believe the Professor would have done his best).

Canon is whatever you want it to be. All it takes is some kind of connection to the words on a page, yes any page, even one of the ones contradicted by most of the rest. The connection can even be "this is probably wrong because."

FOR EXAMPLE—the excellent arguments that Caranthir or Maeglin couldn't possibly have been as all bad as they appear in the Silm, that the things they achieve only make sense if they have otherwise-unmentioned positive qualities. Or my own claim that Gollum surviving his loss of the Ring probably means that, despite what Frodo thought he saw, the Nazgûl didn't die on the spot at Mount Doom. As long as it comes with an acknowledgment of the story/stories we do have, your guess about what's true is as good as mine.

Canon and Fanworks:

I try to be consistent with what I consider canon, which means whatever story consistent with what's written I happen to like at the moment. "Consistent" of course means "not contradicted by, or in case of a canon contradiction consistent with at least one option."

~ Nathaniel Maranwe, response collected on 25 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

What I consider canon is of course the books that Tolkien published himself, and the information that align with the way I understand the characters. 

Mainly I’ll take The Silmarillion as canon, mostly, and according to the way I read and understand the characters and various situations described in the various books, I’ll pick or dismiss them as canon. 

Even if it’s something written once by J.R.R. Tolkien, I can’t consider canon something that I read as opposite to the way I understand a character, in good or bad (it doesn't mean I see the character as a one-dimensional thing—I don't—but if something makes sense to me, I can't dismiss what makes sense to replace it by something else that he wrote but makes less sense to me). 

That’s why I think it’s pretty hard to define canon and why there’s so many different versions for different fans; it depends on the way people understand the characters, and everyone has different sensibilities. I don’t think one is more valid than another, to be fair.

I'd like to say it also doesn't stop me from appreciating all versions, even if some make less sense to me when put in the continuity of the whole work, and some of the information I read as not canon can still give me a new understanding of the characters and situation. I won't necessarily call it canon, but it does help me to build upon it anyway. It's ... Hard to explain I guess.

Canon and Fanworks:

I like to think I'm rather consistent in my fanworks. I tend to use what I understand as canon when I write fanfiction. 

I tend to consider it pretty important to me, as it's the way I understand the characters, their histories, abilities, mindsets, etc. 

I don't tend to use multiple versions of canon, even if I can play with the what-ifs when the characters themselves examine their decisions or need to choose a path to tread or are hallucinating or something of the sort. 

I don't use it as canon but I do use those other versions as a hint of "what if", "what would have happened if ..."

~ Anonymous, response collected on 26 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Those works written by J.R.R. Tolkien himself, including those collated and polished by his son Christopher that were printed after J.R.R.’s death. Nothing else.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 26 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Published LotR - Hobbit - Silm - CoH (in that order).

Canon and Fanworks:

I use the bits I like/want from everything—HoMe/Silm/NoMe/various notes and letters—and ignore what I don't. I like using multiple versions of canons to explore different ideas.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 26 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Whatever is officially published. I know that it's a very wide range of different information, but I consider that publishing something is also undergoing critical analysis, and whether someone agrees with an editorial choice, it was still a conscious choice, therefore a valid one enough to be considered canon.

Canon and Fanworks:

I generally write diversions of canon given the OTP [one true pairing] of choice, but when writing canon, I like "filling the gaps", with a little disregard for some canonical stuff (like LaCE [Laws and Customs among the Eldar]).

~ firstamazon, response collected on 26 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

My short answer is that I think there are multiple canons within Tolkien's writing. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is the only text I write fanworks about, so I don't have much experience making stories based on The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, or The History of Middle-earth. But I understand there is debate about whether Tolkien's unaltered notes about lore should be considered pure canon instead of the more heavily edited, polished collections. In my opinion, they can be considered separate canons without cancelling each other. Christopher edited original texts to make The Silmarillion a smoother, more coherent story, but I don't think he uncanonized the stories by doing so. To me, he just gave an extra option to fans who don't want to read a collection of inconsistent, unedited notes! Some people like the raw notes for their authenticity (in relation to Tolkien), while others like a consistent, clear story. They both seem authentic to me because they both extend from the mastermind of Middle-earth. I don't consider any animated or film adaptations "Tolkien canon," because they are interpretations by other writers and directors.

Canon and Fanworks:

I very much enjoy consulting Tolkien's works while I write my fanworks. As I wrote before, I write fanworks about The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I do a lot of research when I write, which occupies me for a long time. I love pursuing accuracy (or something that comes close to accuracy as far as fiction goes), so I like to stick close to what I consider canon. I even like to mimic Tolkien's writing and dialogue style, as it feels crucial to the world and characters he created. It becomes a taxing but enjoyable exercise for me. I do this process for fanfiction that I write about anything, not just Tolkien. The only places I vary from Tolkien's canon is when I am describing characters and places; I am a visual person, so I use Jackson's film adaptations to help me describe what things look like. But when it comes to character traits or plot, I defer to the original texts.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 26 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

All of his works represent so-called canon. I like to view them as a collection of myths that allows creation of fan works in settings that are recognizable as Tolkien's Secondary World.

Canon and Fanworks:

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 = not important at all and 10 = extremely important, I would choose 5. I like fanworks that recognizably take place in Tolkien's milieu, but strict adherence to so-called canon is unnecessary, and in fact, restrictive, which is inconsistent with a mythology.

~ pandemonium_213, response collected on 31 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Anything written by Tolkien himself, with all their contradictions. Editorial changes and additions by Christopher Tolkien for the most part, but this is a grey area.

Canon and Fanworks:

When I have a particular character, relationship, period, and/or place from Tolkien's legendarium that I want to write about, I gather together and refresh myself on canon facts about them before wading too deep into writing. During writing, I often refer back to Tolkien's works to see if he ever wrote anything that would contradict a direction I intend to go. For the most part, I find all the contradictions in Tolkien's writings inspire me to think creatively about how the "culture" he created could have originated all of those different versions.

In blending multiple versions, I like to consider the plausibility that they would exist in the same branch of a cultural tradition. For example, I do not find it plausible to write Daeron as Thingol and Melian's son, as he is the Lost Tales, if I am otherwise remaining consistent with the published Silmarillion where, for example, he is sent as an emissary to Mereth Aderthad. Instead, I write Daeron as their minstrel but with a relationship to them that some storyteller somewhere along the line might have interpreted as filial. I could go the other way, and accept him as their son, but for me that would involve making much more drastic changes to the surrounding story that I don't want to make.

As another example, I do not think it's plausible to have Amrod die at Losgar and have all the events before, during (such as keeping all the other sons of Fëanor besides Maedhros participating, instead of just Curufin), and afterward unfold exactly as they do in the published Silmarillion. Instead, I imagine a situation where Amrod has a close call with death as Losgar (thus sprouting a branch in the mythology where he did die), which gives me excellent fodder for characterisation (where there is otherwise virtually none) without having to imagine a subsequent history of the First Age involving only six sons of Fëanor (one or five of whom are directly culpable for the death of one of their siblings!).

Fortunately, puzzling out ways to make things fit is a large part of the joy of writing fanfic for me. Combining versions is great, but to me it's not a simply a free-for-all "mix and match", but a complex puzzle. It's important to me that whatever amalgam I come up with fits together relatively seamlessly. I want it to have internal consistency and logic.

It is also important to me not to use the narrative conceit of Tolkien's writings as an excuse to completely disregard what's written. That is just rude to Pengolodh and Rúmil and the rest as historians! I assume that they were capable chroniclers who did their best to give an accurate version of events.

So if the text say Maeglin betrayed Gondolin, I would not write a fic where Maeglin is simply blamed for betraying Gondolin when he had nothing to do with it (at least not without calling it AU [alternate universe]!). Since the text says Fëanor loved his father, I would not write something where he unequivocally despises Finwë. Of course, if there are two or more versions that *do* present complete contradictions—such as the reversal of Maglor and Maedhros' lines in their last debate—then either is fair game. However, as I mentioned above, I would consider the "ripple effect" or picking one version over the other—something Christopher Tolkien had to do for the published Silmarillion, and he did it with great care—one of the primary reasons why, when in doubt, I will fall back on the published Silmarillion as The Canon.

~ polutropos, response collected on 31 March 2023

---

Defining Canon:

To me, canon is all of J.R.R. Tolkien's work that is currently available to us. Canon continues to expand as more gets published. Contradicting or abandoned versions of the same event/character are both canon. 

I don't consider adaptations (movies, TV series ...) to be canon, because JRRT wasn't involved in their creation. There's no telling whether they match his vision of his world.

Canon and Fanworks:

I try to stay as close to canon as I can in my fanfiction. In case of contradictions or inconsistencies, I pick the option that appeals to me, or that fits the story most conveniently. If something is left vague I see it as an invitation to fill it in with my own take. 

Personally I enjoy the challenge of operating within the parameters set by Tolkien, and I almost never feel a need to create an AU [alternate universe] by contradicting elements JRRT was clear and consistent about.

~ Idrils Scribe, response collected on 1 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Potentially, everything and any version or additional information available, very much depending on the context in which the question arises. But as an older reader, I became really familiar with the originally published versions of LotR, The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion, before any of the rest appeared. So these have become ingrained in a different way than versions I encountered later, and I still default to them in a way others who have encountered the material in a different order might not. Also, I usually want to know when something is not by Tolkien himself to be able to make informed decisions. So authorship does affect my assessment, even if I do not for that reason automatically reject anything that is not by the man himself.

Canon and Fanworks:

As someone who can get quite pernickety about what Tolkien exactly says somewhere in some draft, when that question is considered on its own, I don't take quite the same approach in writing fanworks. I suppose that compared to some other writers and artists I am still quite canon-oriented in that it does really matter to me personally at various stages of writing what "canon" says and so things like a river flowing the wrong way on the map can create real problems for me that I may well try to solve. On the other hand, at some point the story itself and its emotional truth has to win and I will write it as it needs to be, while often commenting on any liberties taken in the notes (this is partly for myself, but partly also for the more detail-oriented among my readers). I suppose some kinds of canonical facts are also less important to me, temperamentally or emotionally; sometimes I am aware of this as I write, sometimes I only notice later. I also find that the more I write, the more I have my own canon to reckon with, as well as pre-existing canon or canons. I mostly tend to write a single version of events, but sometimes like incorporating other versions in more allusive ways.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 4 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

The main three books are canon: The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and the published Silmarillion. Everything else is not. I treat HoMe (and other works such as NoMe) as strictly supplementary information, though there are a handful of things like the Round World version, more information about Nerdanel, and the existences of Findis and Lalwen that I treat as canon. If something in HoMe contradicts the Silm, the Silm text takes priority.

Canon and Fanworks:

I write Middle-earth fic because I care about the world as-written. I strive to stick close to the facts and details as Tolkien established them; authorial intent matters to me. That doesn't mean I think M-e fic needs to abide by Tolkien's supposed morals (I flatly do not, and also think none of us can actually know them). I'm not perfect and I know I've made mistakes because I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Legendarium. But my fics need to work within Middle-earth; if I can't do that, I may as well write the fics as original fiction instead so I can do my own thing.

~ Independence1776, response collected on 7 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

I don't have a very black-white split on what is canon and what isn't. The Lord of the Rings is the only text I consider 100% canon all the time. The Hobbit is mostly canon, except when there are worldbuilding inconsistencies that are due to its early composition and not originally being part of the legendarium, in which case I give precedence to the evidence in other texts. The Silmarillion is approximately 80% canon to me. It's "the" published version of the First Age stories, but I've heard some choices were made simply to create a coherent work rather than working with the latest version of a story. I also feel like The Children of Húrin has greater canon status than the version of Túrin's story in The Silmarillion, because it's much more fleshed out. So there's some flexibility there —neither do I consider only the latest version of something to be canon, mostly because I sometimes like the earlier version that was included in The Silmarillion better. Sometimes this is also the other way around: later work that Tolkien did on the Dwarves in the First Age to give them a more positive depiction is something I'm really happy to absorb into my definition of canon, for example. HoMe stuff is kind of a per-case basis, and I haven't read that much of it yet; how old is the piece, does it contradict later work, does it contradict earlier work but that was published in one the big three, etc? Contradictions are an important factor for me apparently, not just in the exact letter but also does it still fit with the overall state of the world and themes of the pieces I consider canon? I don't consider anything purely from adaptations to be canon, outside of its own sphere/work.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 10 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

The situation is reasonably easy for The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, where we can assume that the last authorised version is fixed canon. It's more difficult for The Silmarillion, where Tolkien changed his mind back and forth! Generally, I tend to assume that the earliest writings (like The Book of Lost Tales) are less reliable, and elements from them are only "canon" if they don't contradict any of the later writings. The later writings aren't always reliable either, since Tolkien was prone to experiment but then return to an earlier version (which Christopher Tolkien has thankfully often documented, but sometimes the situation is less clear). Nonetheless, I tend to consider the latest finished (!) version canon, and where there is no finished version of a story, the elements that have survived (mostly) unchanged are harder canon than those that were only used once or only introduced at the last minute, so to say.

Ultimately, however, the question only matters from an academic (or, on a fannish level, meta) point of view, as when discussing motifs, sources of inspiration, intentions, etc., where it's awkward when someone presents an early idea as Tolkien's Final Word On The Matter without mentioning that there's later material directly contradicting that idea. For the purpose of interpretation (for fanworks etc), however, canon is ultimately the idea from Tolkien's many writings that works best for the fanwork in question, as long as the creator is willing to accept that other fans may view that idea differently and/or prefer a different version. We all have storylines and elements that we personally consider the "correct version", and we often have strong feelings about them— I know I do—but it's important to keep in mind that there actually is no hard and fast canon when it comes to The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales. We are lucky in that we have access to a lot of drafts and experiments, and the joy of fandom is that we don't have to put together one final version, but can continue to play with the different ideas and just see where they lead and how they fit—or don't fit—together.

Canon and Fanworks:

For the purpose of fanwork, I tend to follow the published Silmarillion ("Silm canon"), but heavily supplemented with information from The History of Middle-earth ("HoMe canon") and other later publications (to the point that sometimes, re-reading The Silmarillion, I'm genuinely surprised that these things aren't actually in The Silmarillion!). Very rarely, I prefer "HoMeE canon" even where it not just supplements but contradicts The Silmarillion, as for instance concerning the fate of Amrod or the parentage of Gil-galad. I generally try to keep my work consistent with some form of canon (as in, compatible with something Tolkien said somewhere) but not necessarily always the same idea of it. I may use multiple versions of canon occasionally (and I'm certainly willing to interact with multiple versions), but I tend to have a preferred version that I mostly stick to.

~ Lyra, response collected on 10 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Great question! Usually, that question is posed with regard to the works connected to legendarium—for the sake of being tongue-in-cheek I’ll include "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" in my response, because it has a kind-of-related-to-the-legendarium frame. 

I’ll add that I’m going purely by my own personal "feeling"—I am not systematising.

To me, the starting point is Tolkien’s written works (although it is a bit more complicated than that). Adaptations in other media are not canon. So, the animated films, New Line Cinema trilogies, Amazon show, radio plays, etc. are not canon.

Tolkien’s pictures are not canon, I consider them adaptation, or independent works. The same goes for poems that are not included in the "unquestionably canon" works.

Tolkien’s maps are an interesting conundrum. To me, all maps that are included in the books cited below as canon, are canon as well, whether drawn by J.R.R. or Christopher Tolkien.

I love the early Silmarillion maps, but I don’t know enough about the maps in general to have an opinion about whether or not l consider any maps (outside of the published books cited as canon below) to belong to the canon.

Unquestionably canon:

The Hobbit (first edition and revised second edition texts both)

The Lord of the Rings (including appendices)

The Silmarillion (as published by C.T.)

Also probably canon:

Anything in the following works that does not directly contradict the content of the "unquestionably canon" works:

Unfinished Tales

The History of Middle-earth 

The Adventures of Tom Bombadil

The poem "The Last Ship"

Thanks for making me think about this!

Canon and Fanworks:

I use a "mix-and-match" approach. If it appeals to me personally, I include it in my fanwork, even if it contradicts canon. E.g. I made a diptych of the rescue of Maedhros by Fingon on the left side and Maedhros cradling Fingon’s corpse on the right side. The latter is not expressly contradicted by canon, but is veeeeery unlikely to the point that I consider it as-good-as-contrary-to-canon. Nevertheless, the idea appealed to me for this picture. Otherwise, I love "not-directly-contradicted-by-canon" content of other creators if it explores interesting facets of Tolkien’s works/themes/philosophy.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 10 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

I like to view canon more as a springboard than a straight-jacket, so for me the question is more (as a writer) what I want a reader to know going into a story without me the author having to lay it out explicitly; or as a reader what I should be familiar with beforehand to fully enjoy the story. Basically, "canon" for me just means whatever makes for a better story, which is a highly contextual issue.

That means (in the context of fiction) canon is essentially whatever the author wants to make use of and can reasonably expect their audience to be familiar with. Which is obviously something that's relative to each audience and author. The question of whether they were finalized or intended as in-universe details isn't really that important to me; the history of Galadriel and Celeborn in UT is probably our best source of canon for stories set in Ost-in-Edhil, for all it's a set of drafts that probably contradict each other on some points, and the details about Hobbit life from the Letters definitely are good source material for stories there.

Even with the two published books, I like to remember that Tolkien himself switched his stories on how Bilbo found the Ring, and since they're framed as historical documents there's all the problems of bias and POV [point of view] inherent in any history at play. All of which means I think we fanfic writers have more freedom to bend and even contradict well-established, published-in-JRRT's-lifetime canon. I do think the more commonly known a canon fact is, the more we're going to have to work to make a contradicting story believable; but that's a matter of degrees, effort, and skill, not a binary thou-shalt-not.

This is definitely turning into a "Go not to the elves" response, isn't it? But for me, it's all canon; but only to the extent we want it to be.

Canon and Fanworks:

My answer is pretty well implied from what I said on the last screen, but to be explicit: I think of canon as whatever helps me frame the story most interestingly and what I can reasonably expect my reader to know. That depends a lot on what I'm writing; a story about Ar-Zimraphel could easily pull from the UT essay on Númenórean religion, because there's so little Númenor material I'd expect any Númenor fan to have read more than just the Akallabêth. But for a story about Denethor, the essay on the palantiri is much more esoteric (though probably relevant!), so I wouldn't assume my reader knew it, nor would I think violating it would pull them out of the story. So I'd feel less bound by it, and would want to lay more of the groundwork but also feel freer to write a different version.

I really don't feel any compulsion to make my personal canon consistent across stories. Whatever works for that particular work, and whatever I don't think I need to lay out for my reader, is what matters. But then I write short stories more so there's less assuming people are with you for more than a single story in that world. If I was building longer works or a more obviously interconnected series, I might feel differently.

~ Marta B., response collected on 10 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

I consider the entire Mythology to be canon. When I think about manuscript tradition, I think of how, for example, there are several versions of the same poem from different codexes that must all come from a singular source, but their varying transcriptions and scribal choices create entirely new texts with the same themes running throughout. In the same vein, as Tolkien was writing a created history, I consider the various drafts to be manuscripts of a sort, that get modified and adjusted. Melko being a primitive beast that runs up a huge pine tree and hurls down stars can be the same figure as Morgoth, whose power dwells in the earth of Arda. The contradictions of facts (if we want to call them facts) are actually irrelevant to the deeper themes that run throughout the entirety of his writing. The Kortirion poems from 1916, some of Tolkien's earliest writing related to the Mythology, still contain those themes. Considering the various manuscripts of the mythology and their contradictions makes for a richer reading of the text if you envelop it into the idea that all of it can be canon with no actual problems. It is far more interesting to see ideas evolve as Tolkien decides he doesn't like the date of Míriel's death, and so makes minor adjustments that allow for different readings that don't negate the earlier text. There are still important ideas to be gleaned from discarded drafts and they can easily be enveloped into what we call canon.

Canon and Fanworks:

I like to think of themes and how my writing can reflect those themes. I look at various drafts and see what similarities lie between them, and what is said and unsaid, what lies in the margins of the drafts that I can coax out. It's important to me to consider how the drafts work together, even if they seem to contradict on the surface. For instance, Maglor's fate shifts a lot between drafts but there is always that strong undercurrent of lament, loss, and grief, but also hope, uncertainty, and obscurity associated with the sea, so when I write about Maglor, I think of how his character ties back to those ideas, even if his fate changes in drafts. Ultimately, I decide on what I want to do based on the themes I pick up on from comparing drafts. To me, what is canon is the consistent themes throughout the work, and I write based on those.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 11 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

All content by J.R.R. Tolkien or Christopher Tolkien.

Canon and Fanworks:

I like filling gaps and constructing narratives where contradictions arise from conflicting historical traditions.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 11 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

For stories he [Tolkien] published, I consider the latest published adaptation of it the canon. For posthumously published works, I think any form of a story can be considered canon as long as they don't contradict works he published during his life, even though they contradict other posthumous works.

Canon and Fanworks:

I usually consider what is canon fairly important when I create fanworks. For the posthumously published stories I may shift between the various versions and pick the one which I think will be more effective based on what I wish to communicate with my fanwork.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 11 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Any version of events and characters in a story from Tolkien (not letters and footnotes) that are published, I'd consider canon. Even if contradictory. It can be Schrödinger's canon.

Canon and Fanworks:

I enjoy setting the stories within Middle-earth and generally like to be compliant with canon or diverge from canon. I have no consistent version of canon in my head, but rather pick and choose based on what my current whims are and also based on the convenience of any given story. But within each story I write, the version of canon is strictly consistent. I will also happily disregard canon as necessary if/when it will improve my fic.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 11 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

I think of canon as only the works published during the author's life and The Silmarillion as published by Christopher Tolkien.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 11 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Before I discovered fandom I simply assumed everything published under JRRT's name was canon, which included HoMe.

I've since become aware of the unique fuzziness of Tolkien's canon, and although my personal view hasn't changed, I accept that others' definitions differ widely and understand why. (Mostly.) At best, I would say there are differing versions of canon according to varying criteria and application.

But with each successive book published after The Silmarillion the boundaries of the canon become less and less distinct. (I was quite surprised to learn that HoMe is not widely accepted as canon! But what of the individual books most recently published: Beren and Lúthien, The Fall of Gondolin, The Children of Húrin, The Fall of Númenor? Are they not canon because they're not the published Silmarillion, or because they contain multiple versions and internal contradictions? Oops! I'm asking questions where I'm supposed to be answering! Okay, so thinking about this now, I think I'm seeing these latter volumes as having more authority, or rather, giving authority to the tales and versions of tales they contain.)

As for Christopher, I also was very surprised to learn that many people disregard Christopher's interpretations. Which seems a bit ludicrous to me, because the borders are possibly even fuzzier there! He may have made some errors in the published Silmarillion, and HoMe may also serve as an acknowledgement of these as well as a defence—a kind of "well, *you* try to make a coherent story out of all this then and see if you can do better". But after reading Letters (which I also consider canon, btw) I've come to realise that Christopher played a larger part in the formation of his father's ideas than we may realise. (For instance, I was born delighted and relieved to learn that Sam would be a Goodchild rather than Gamgee without Christopher!) So I'm content to allow his input and interpretations to be considered canon too. (Including his admitted mistakes, although those carry less weight IMO.)

Outside of the editorial efforts of Christopher, Hostetter, and others, I consider the rest (including movies) to be adaptations, and thus containing their own discrete canon, part overlap and part sub-canon.

Canon and Fanworks:

Sticking to canon for me is more of an interesting creative challenge than a have-to. Twisting my ideas to fit the canon is fun, as is twisting canon to fit my ideas! I'll happily use whatever obscure tidbits suit my purposes.

~ Anérea, response collected on 15 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

The Lord of the Rings, the revised Hobbit, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and The Road Goes Ever On. The texts published in Tolkien's own lifetime. I happen to think "canon" is a terrible term, and much prefer "authoritativeness". Notwithstanding the issues associated with the 1977 Silmarillion, I find it useful as a coherent framework—Tolkien's later material (e.g. the round world) is often too undeveloped, and often not to my aesthetic tastes.

Canon and Fanworks:

I don't consciously conflict with the "facts" of canon. Representing them in a different light is much more interesting.

~ Daniel Stride, response collected on 15 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Anything Tolkien wrote is canon to me. Not adaptations by others.

Canon and Fanworks:

Tolkien’s canon is the starting point, either in suggesting characters or a setting. Sometimes I want to be consistent to a degree with his canon but expanding it in different ways. Other times, anything goes.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 16 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Tolkien’s works published while he was alive—with contradicting facts then the latest one. Posthumously published work, yes, on a case-by-case basis but obviously Christopher was very diligent.

Canon and Fanworks:

Depends on the fanwork, but most of the time I treat canon as a suggestion. ✨ 

~ Anonymous, response collected on 16 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

LotR and The Hobbit.

Canon and Fanworks:

I think of "canon" as clay that I can mold and shape ideas from into whatever I want. I enjoy filling in the blank spaces in canon; strict adherence to Tolkein's intent isn't my priority.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 16 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

It's strange. Clearly "we" as a fandom, and even those outside of it completely, have come to understand Tolkien's works enough to agree on a mostly generous consensus about characters, plot points, and major events, and enjoying them as the definitive set pieces of the story (or what we all come to mean when we say "I like/don't like LotR").

Where things seem to get muddied is when it comes to motifs, intent, and inspiration of Tolkien himself. Coupled with the more "scholarly" image of his mythos and what it even means to embark to enjoy it (all the Silmarillion jokes about its density are true, and it's my favorite book of all time), it makes sense.

However, as stated above, the mythos is filled with inconsistencies, plot holes, etc. So clearly Tolkien's work is fallible. Going back to the "scholarly" angle, it always seems as if some Tolkien fans love to argue about canon as a nearly academic endeavor. They'll cite obscure letters, learn entire languages, and argue their point down to the nail bed with minutiae (do Balrogs have wings?) But to the end of demonstrating how much better read and scholarly they are than other fans, rather than using Tolkien's words to achieve an answer. 

I can't pretend I don't do the same sometimes, and I have to catch myself from falling prey to becoming an elitist in that regard.

To actually answer the question, lol, I consider the "canon" to be anything Tolkien wrote, inconsistencies, obscured plot points and plot holes, and all. Including his letters, songs, and poems.

But because these things are present, I then have to ask myself why I'm so hard-pressed to uphold something so fragile and inconsistent. 

PJ'S films are (rightfully!) considered to be cinematic masterpieces. If not the definitive version and vision of LotR/Tolkien to the average person (how one personally feels about this obviously depends on the person). It is still an adaptation, however, and a flawed one, considering its source material. It cannot adapt and depict Tolkien's vision in a way that flawlessly matches Tolkien's intentions. It's impossible.

One thing I typically see fans lament is the films' portrayal of Faramir and the simplification of Denethor. In my particular case, it's upsetting the way the more casual/common takeaway from the average person is that Frodo sucks and Sam is the real hero. This is commonly held, propagated, despite Tolkien himself having spoken very clearly on where he stands there.

Yet as someone who claims his word to be canon, my defense of Frodo comes from how much I personally love him as a character. Not because Tolkien praised him and his sacrifices in his letters.

Right away the question becomes, "Is this about canon? Or my automatic desire to get defensive about my interpretation of it?"

I cannot see what Tolkien envisioned the exact way he did, the exact way he wanted. What comes to mind when I read the "canon works" will never be a 100/100 mirroring of Tolkien's vision and therefore already becomes "non-canon" in that way. I am fighting for the validity of my experience and as a fan, and grasp onto canon in the effort to defend the validity of that experience with Tolkien, and how my love for it has been a persistent and formative presence in my life since I was in elementary school. To argue against it is, in some weird way, to argue against a near and dear part of my identity.

Naturally humans are adverse to this. But as an avid reader and fic writer, I love this inevitability. Plus, it gives the mythos a sense of being a "living" entity, much the same way language is. I consider Tolkien's words and intentions to be canon, but that doesn't mean I shun its transformation and reinterpretation by fans and fanworks. Even if I did, the originals will always be there.

Anything claiming to be a formal adaptation or addition into the legacy meant for widespread appeal and consumption should do its best to recreate what was written (not accounting for creative or stylistic choices).

Otherwise, canon is great, but fanworks taking that canon and making it their own is also incredible. I try to look at it as what we all as fans have taken away from the canon, and therefore have internalized within ourselves.

Canon and Fanworks:

I like to have my cake and eat it, too. I use the canon as an anchoring to consistency within the rules, histories, and worlds of Arda. I then use the canon to stay as in-character as possible to keep readers in-sync with what I write but deviate as desired for the pure sake of wish fulfillment!

~ Egg, response collected on 16 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion are what I consider canon. I also explore the drafts published in UT, HoMe, Beren and Lúthien, The Fall of Gondolin, Narn i Hîn Húrin, NoMe, the journals, etc and think of them as a sort of second-tier canon: always interesting to explore and a great supplement to what's in TH, LotR, and Silm, but not necessary to read completely to say you know canon. I consider the PJ [Peter Jackson] films and now Rings of Power as something separate and would preface any discussion referencing them as including movie canon or TV canon.

Canon and Fanworks:

The fanworks I create mostly build on canon or fill in gaps around canon where there's interesting blank spots and underwritten characters. I love to use multiple versions of canon as inspiration and find it fun to make alternate versions fit together into a cohesive whole. I generally like to keep my work consistent with canon, though I will discard minor details or pick and choose from the drafts for the sake of the story.

~ Aipilosse, response collected on 16 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

As the title of one article in the Journal of Tolkien Research states, it’s as difficult to define as nailing Jello to a wall. I rank the canonical-ness of his texts by Christopher and other editors’ certainty in their correctness. For example, LotR is in the top "tier" of canon, save for a couple details in the appendices that were found to be inconsistent with and less reliable than other manuscripts.

Canon and Fanworks:

When I was in early high school, I used to draw portraits of the characters according to popular fanart with little thought about canon. But now, my focus lies upon exploring what canon doesn’t describe; expanding upon the few things Tolkien wrote about the appearances of certain characters and peoples. I really want to go back to drawing his characters because I want to contribute illustrations that are more expansive than the typical "fantasy" look (huge thanks to the other artists who do this already). There’s so much wiggle room within canon for me to explore—and so much contempt for the Default White High Fantasy aesthetic people love to ascribe to Middle-earth.

As for what little canon description we have on his characters, I tend to have multiple designs for each based on variances and different ideas I have. Gil-galad is a primary example, where I have separate designs for him as son of Fingon and son of Orodreth, as well as the headcanon-based idea that he could simply be claiming to be Finwëan. 

Overall I like to work within canon, but those restrictions are so loose that I’m practically doing whatever I want anyway.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 16 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

If something contrasts with The Silmarillion, I take what was written in The Silmarillion.

Canon and Fanworks:

I take all aspects of canon that I agree with and I invent happy endings for the characters I like that don't get them in canon. I also tend to take the interpretation of canon that is most friendly towards the characters I care about (e.g., the interpretation of mortals not being subject to decay in Aman but being able to choose to die of their own free will).

~ Anonymous, response collected on 17 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

All the published books. Including HoMe.

Canon and Fanworks:

It varies. If I’m writing an AU [alternate universe], I pretty much keep names and physical attributes and personality but am very fluid with everything else.

If I’m writing in-world, I tend to check the resources and am more aware and try to incorporate the canon except for relationships between characters, which I do at my will.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 17 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Only published work qualifies as canon, including LotR, The Hobbit, and The Silm; others are just for reference. But nothing in canon can't be changed and they are all references in a way. (For example, I won't change major plots in the Silm but will simply ignore the setting that Maglor's married.)

Canon and Fanworks:

Yes, some other versions of HoMe provide interesting ramifications; it seems to me others are just out-of-character tropes. As long as it is the characters that attract me, I won't change their fundamental features, but other features, as married or not (especially when their wives never have names) isn't so important for me. Even if I depict my favorite character as married, it doesn't bother me to write a slash fanfic about him/her/them. Sometimes I deliberately defy the canon, or how it reflects Tolkien's opinions, by only writing slash porn. I have to admit I don't use the Silm as canon much, as my favorite character doesn't have much plot in it, and together with the reasons for defying the author himself, Silm is the fandom that I write most modern AU [alternate universe] fanfics.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 17 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Anything that was published under his name, even if events have changed over time (I think of Galadriel's history, or Celebrimbor's background).

I like to think of Tolkien's work as a mythology, and the global diegesis of his works lean into this interpretation: every text is supposed to be written by an in-universe writer, with their own interpretations, sources, bias, and so on. And in the same way, mythological texts or tales vary depending on the source, the time they were written down or gathered. For example, is there a more canon version of the story of Beauty and the Beast? Regarding mythology, I majored in Egyptology in university, and ancient Egyptians did have numerous variations on the myth of the creation of the world, that coexisted and changed depending on the area (and the time period). One can have their preferred version of one Tolkien's story, maybe they will lean to the more widespread, and I really like that variety of interpretations and focus.

I wouldn't say that interpretations are canon (I do interpret Melkor and Sauron as lovers, and I know it's not written down and probably not Tolkien's intent) but the way that everyone will read something different within the lines is adding another depth: Tolkien's works are living with us and that's pretty exciting. It's also exciting to discuss his intent, especially with older works and ideas that were abandoned.

There are also fan canons that develop and coexist altogether, especially regarding the looks of the characters, and it's also very interesting to see an iconography developing. I don't consider this as canon, but it's another way his works keep on living.

So to sum up: I consider that everything that Tolkien has written/was published under his name is canon and that everything else is interpretation (especially the adaptations, that also have their own canon). It does not mean that the interpretation and speculative works are not interesting, on the contrary! Tolkien left enough blank canvas for us to pick up and fill with our own imaginations.

~ Élodie, response collected on 17 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

My favorite answer from some survey work I've done is: "it depends/it's complicated." First, I tend toward a radical anti-canon stance (because of the religious connotations of the word and how it's been weaponized in literary studies over the years). Even today while everybody moans about postmodernism destroying literary studies, "canon" has not gone away. There's been a proliferation of canons (I used to say explosion but I no longer like the violent imagery), so think of it as more like mitosis. So for Tolkien: the works published during his lifetime/that he oversaw are the primary sources/canon. The works published by Christopher during his lifetime are epitextual and edited "canon" (a valuable resource but not equivalent to what Tolkien might have chosen). What to do about the works coming out after Christopher's death (what two or three now?), overseen presumably by Simon Tolkien or some other rep of the Tolkien Estate?—perhaps a step further back from Christopher's work.  Films, other adaptations, and transformative works (meaning, commercial engagements with Tolkien's work and NONcommercial engagements, ditto) are part of the expanded "canon" of the global Tolkien phenomenon (interesting to speculate where translated works fit …). Not published as such but somewhat available to some are the archives/repositories (Bodleian, Marquette, and presumably other materials held by the "Estate/family"). The one thing I exclude from "canon" at all is any biographical work (that's a piece of secondary scholarship and I do get irked at how many fans and even academics some of whom should know better will cite it as some sort of objective/canonical fact).

Canon and Fanworks:

I happily grab from Tolkien's published fiction (almost entirely LotR) and from Peter Jackson's films, so a blended canon, which I then usually triumphantly sail off with into alternate reality/universe stories (I LOVE AUs). I'm all in for Emerson's "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" snark in the sense that I just don't care because just about everything I love about Tolkien's world *as I see it* would probably horrify the poor man. But he released his books out into the wild (and, following his death, his legally designated heirs and executors, ditto), which means that within the bounds of fair use (NOT ripping off and profiting from his work), I can do anything I want. I dislike the hagiographic tone of some fans and scholars who seem to emphasize "respect" in a way that comes across as them speaking for "Tolkien" and demanding limitations that suit their ideologies and preferences, and my response to that attitude is, fuck, no.

~ Ithiliana/Robin Anne Reid, response collected on 22 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Anything Tolkien came up with himself is fair game.

Canon and Fanworks:

I use whatever version of the Legendarium works best for the story I want to tell.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 23 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

I've recently found that I prefer the term "textual". Canon in my mind tends to mean "what actually happens/is written". There are however situations where an inference on the text appears so obvious that I still end up considering it canon, or so canon-adjacent that there's virtually no difference. For example: "All the sons of Fëanor are, at one time when they still entertain friendly relationships with adult Aredhel, all themselves adults". Is this canon as in "as written"? No, but we know that Aredhel goes hunting with the sons of Fëanor in Valinor. The most logical inference is that, when that happens, all of them are old enough to hunt. In my mind, this is as canon-adjacent as it can get, but it's in fact inferred, and anyone could challenge it, with other texts, with technicalities, with subtleties. However, it's most definitely textual that the group hunting happens, and it's not textual that they're all adults and/or capable of hunting, but it's the most reasonable inference/interpretation. So that's where I'm at. Saves me a lot of trouble and removes a lot of perceived authority that's inherent to the word "canon".

Canon and Fanworks:

I stick to canon (or, as per previous answer, text as written) as much as possible, AND as much as I like. As possible, because if I know that something is elsewhere contradicted, or stated, then it's likely I'll bend my fanwork to that. However, it's possible that I don't like what's textual. Then I try to deconstruct it, challenge it, or work with it and interrogate it. In short, I'm here for the sandbox I was given. Whether I use the sand to build castles or start kicking it around with a vengeance is my prerogative, but I don't do as if the sand weren't there at all.

~ SkyEventide, response collected on 23 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

In terms of Middle-earth books, canon "proper" is Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit in book format, plus their appendices. If you are writing about the films, it is whichever film series you are writing about and that alone. However, any adaptation or posthumously published work or unpublished work we nonetheless have access to can be canon. If you're writing or drawing The Silmarillion, it can be assumed by the reader that The Silmarillion, as published, is canon, except if you have specified you are using details from elsewhere or are working from a different version. Beyond the two books he published in his lifetime it becomes, well, a pick-and-mix grab-bag. Everything is canon, but not all of it is ever canon at the same time. It's like it's all sweets, but The Silmarillion is the fudge blocks and The Children of Húrin is chocolate raisins and Beren and Lúthien is foamy strawberries and The Fall of Gondolin is a couple of flavours of Smarties (pick out which colours you like), while Unfinished Tales are gummy bears and the Histories of Middle-earth are all the rest of it. You just take whichever sweets you like, add them to a bag called canon, and go for it.

I'd say you can't really ignore LotR and The Hobbit and call it canon (even if set before them you can't change things such that they can't happen), but anything else? Just take what you want.

Canon and Fanworks:

I don't tend to worry too much about keeping things strictly canon, with the exception of one series I've mostly abandoned. For that series I tend to read all the versions of the period I can find, pick my favourite, and regardless of where it came from, call that canon for purposes of the fanwork.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 28 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

I do not believe in the upholding of a strict canon of anything. Were I pushed to give an answer, I would say only that which Tolkien himself was alive to publish should ever be considered anything within strict bounds—though not necessarily "THE canon." I think canon is what we want it to be; the texts that shape our Middle-earth. Too often I find canon used as a bludgeon by the gatekeepers. This is something I wished I could abolish entirely.

~ Robinson Ensz, response collected on 29 April 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Works published within his lifetime are what I consider the "most canon," but there is a wider circle outside of that including posthumously published works, which I consider canonical when I feel like it. I consider adaptations to be a separate, but adjacent, canon.

Canon and Fanworks:

I use the "canon" for inspiration and for framework. I attempt to adhere to things like timelines when relevant (and clear), for example. But I tend to use a fairly transformative approach to canon in general, and I like to deliberately flout my perceptions of authorial intent ("writing fics that would make JRRT roll over in his grave"), especially in areas where my views and Tolkien's likely diverge. But I remain moved by the heart of the stories, of hope and friendship and value for the natural world, and in those ways I try to remain somewhat true to the spirit of the "canon."

~ Rowan Henry, response collected on 8 May 2023

---

Defining Canon:

For The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, the most recent published versions. For everything else, I define "canon" as everything that Tolkien penned himself, regardless of whether one version of the legendarium contradicts another.

Canon and Fanworks:

I try to keep things mostly "canon-compliant" in regards to what I see as the overarching narrative laid out in the published Silmarillion. When there are different versions of the Legendarium that suit the kind of story I want to tell, I draw from those, even if it means blending together separate versions in one story. Sometimes material from these different versions can be combined together in a way that keeps the overall story intact. However, if I were to use material that contradicts the overarching narrative, I would make that clear to the reader and possibly mark it as "canon-divergent," at the least, or "Alternate Universe," depending on how far I decide to take it.

~ Soleil, response collected on 11 May 2023

---

Defining Canon:

Canon = Tolkien's stories. All of them, including Farmer Giles of Ham.

~ Simon Cook, response collected on 2 June 2023

---

Defining Canon:

It depends on what I'm focusing on for developing headcanons and writing fandom analyses, but I tend to focus on the main books (i.e. Hobbit fandom, The Hobbit is the main canon). Because of that, I only focus on The Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and The Silmarillion.

Canon and Fanworks:

It depends on whether I think something abides by the internal consistency of canon, and whether I'm writing canon-compliant fic or modifications to canon, the latter of which can develop multiple versions of canon depending on how much I'm worldbuilding for my fic plots.

~ Anonymous, response collected on 3 June 2023

---

Defining Canon:

I have two levels of what I consider "canon." The first, most definitive level is works published during Tolkien's lifetime—i.e., The Hobbit and the LotR trilogy. The second level is everything else Tolkien ever wrote about his universe—Unfinished Tales, drafts of what was adapted into The Silmarillion, etc. I do not consider commentary, including that of Christopher Tolkien, to be canonical; it may be informative, but I don't personally view it as canon. In my view, all texts on this second level of canon may be considered equally canonical. I don't see a need for this body of text as an aggregate whole to be internally consistent or form a coherent whole independent of audience engagement; I think the task of forming that coherent whole lies in the creative, transformative, and interpretive act of reading, and does not need to lie with the text.

Canon and Fanworks:

I don't view canon as being prescriptive in my fanworks. I use it as an avenue to explore things which are meaningful or interesting to me. When my desire to explore clashes with something I consider canon, I will typically change the canon elements before I amend my desire for exploration. That said, I do not consider interpretive elements to be changes to canon. E.g., I do not view myself as departing from canon if I take the interpretive stance that the Valar are imperfect and may not always do the "right" thing; I consider that interpretation to be textually supported and to be as canonically valid as interpretations which treat the Valar as being an ideal source of moral guidance. So if I write a story in which the War of the Jewels never occurs, I would consider that to be a change to canon; if I write a story which characterizes the Valar as questionable authority figures, I would not consider that noncompliant with canon unless that characterization were based on elements which are, at a minimum, wholly out of line with anything that occurs within canon.

~ Mariko, response collected on 14 June 2023

---