Internal Harmony, External Clarity: How IV and WAL Approach Tolkien’s Work Without Public Debate

In the world of Tolkien scholarship and fandom, there are many spirited debates about his work. A discussion in the LotR Fanatics Plaza forum, centered around a user's critique of the notion of a rigid “fan canon” (source: Canonical Fallacy Discussion), exemplifies this ongoing challenge. Participants wrestled with the idea of defining Tolkien’s work in fixed terms, treating it as a set of canonical “truths” rather than a fluid, evolving sub-creation.

This very conversation sheds some light on what Way of Arda’s Lore (WAL) and Ilsaluntë Valion (IV) seek to avoid in their practices. For us, engaging in public debates over topics like “canon,” "intent," or specific interpretations of Middle-earth does not align with our goals. Both WAL and IV operate with a structured, inward-facing approach that fosters an internal dialogue focused on reflective study, respect for the integrity of Tolkien’s mythos, and spiritual engagement with his works.

Why WAL and IV Avoid Public Debates

There are several key reasons why we avoid public debates, which are notably connected to the question of “canon” or the “intentions” behind Tolkien’s works:

Disruptive to the Internal Structure
- Our methods are based on preserving a space of internal harmony within our organizations. Similar in some degree to the way religious orders focus on introspective prayer, study, and spiritual reflection without engaging in public squabbles, WAL and IV hold that the deep, evolving understanding of Tolkien’s work that we strive for, requires a different approach.
- Public debates—such as those about the validity of fan-created canons or textual consistency—can derail our focus. Our goal isn’t to publicly argue our interpretations but to hone them through internal dialogue, allowing each of us to contribute to a collectively refined view.
Appreciation of Tolkien’s Work as a Spiritually Layered Text
- For us, Tolkien’s legendarium is not just another successful fantasy franchise, but a unique wellspring of spiritual inspiration. Consequently, his work is for us not a mere puzzle to be solved or a point of contention. It is an ever-evolving body of text that invites spiritual reflection, deeper understanding, and active engagement. By reducing Tolkien’s creation to arguments over canonical facts, we lose the richness and the spiritual layers of his work.
- For WAL and IV, engaging with Tolkien's sub-creation is therefore not about asserting a single “correct” interpretation, but about learning to appreciate the complex, living nature of his mythology. This is our chief orientation towards Tolkien’s mythos.
The Importance of Contextualization
- User Troelsfo’s argument in the Canonical Fallacy discussion at the LotR Fanatics Plaza forum, makes clear that imposing a fixed canon on Tolkien’s writings ignores the inherent fluidity of Tolkien’s texts. Inconsistencies and contradictions are part of their beauty—these are texts that were never fully finished, with Tolkien himself always revising and experimenting.
- For WAL and IV, maintaining an openness to these contradictions allows us to work within and beyond the boundaries of “canon.” Instead of striving to impose rigid definitions of what Tolkien “meant,” we engage with what he created in the many forms he left us.

Key Principles That Guide Our Methods

There are specific principles that motivate our reluctance to enter public debates. These, too, are meaningfully connected to the kinds of questions that were raised in the Canonical Fallacy discussion:

Understanding Tolkien’s Ongoing Process of Creation
- Tolkien never finalized his creation, and for us, this is a key reason why “canon” as commonly defined is just not applicable to his mythos. A far more accurate term we've developed for our internal use is Legendarium Mythological Lattice. His texts were meant to evolve. Even works as central to the legendarium as The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion show signs of internal revision, contradiction, and fluidity. These are not mistakes, but signal Tolkien’s ongoing reflections on the the mythos during his own lifetime.
- Tolkien’s methodology mirrors our own: we strive for a balance between attempting to bring form to something expansive and open-ended, and accepting that the myth cannot be locked into a singular, fixed version.
A Focus on Internal Growth Over External Validation
- Unlike fan communities that often participate in debates to assert their vision of canon, our goal at WAL and IV is not to prove a point or win an argument. Instead, we focus on internal growth, wherein ideas are discussed and refined within a safe and nurturing space that fosters deeper understanding.
- Public disputes often have the goal of “being right,” while within our organizations we prioritize personal reflection, collective insights, and internal harmony. We value the contributions of all our members, whose individual readings deepen the work, rather than breaking up into competing “right answers.”
Encouraging Personal Interpretation and Reflection
- Many discussions about “canon” focus on finding and imposing the “correct” version of events in Tolkien’s works. In contrast, we emphasize personal interpretations—allowing for creative expressions that honor Tolkien’s legacy—without rigidly adhering to a narrow definition.
- By embracing flexibility—whether it involves imagining different adventures, exploring alternate character motivations, or considering various cultural influences—we foster a rich and diverse engagement with the legendarium. This approach not only keeps the stories vibrant but also ensures they remain accessible and inspiring to future generations of fans, scholars, and artists.

The Canonical Fallacy and Our Approach

As illustrated in the Canonical Fallacy discussion, proponents of a fixed fan canon argue that Tolkien’s intent can and should be distilled into one coherent vision. This approach overlooks the inherent contradictions and shifting elements in Tolkien’s writing. Troelsfo correctly points out the evolution of ideas within Tolkien’s work, such as the unresolved questions about Orcs or the portrayal of cosmology across the stories. The claim that one could pinpoint a definitive "truth" demonstrates the fallacy of treating Tolkien’s work as static.

For us, the prevalence of such misconceptions only reinforces why we must avoid such debates. By chasing the idea of a canonical finality, we potentially limit the scope of Tolkien’s legacy. His works were always meant to engage with multiple readings, from the small contradictions of his cosmology to the diverse retellings of character backstories. Rather than feeling the need to solve these inconsistencies, we embrace them as part of Tolkien's own ongoing creation process.

Creating Space for Real Engagement

At WAL and IV, we believe the true value of Tolkien’s mythos lies not in determining which interpretation is “right” but in the process of engagement itself. In this open-ended process, we are specifically interested in the richness and spiritual layers of the texts. Tolkien’s texts give us permission to question, to reinterpret, and even to innovate upon what he wrote. Public debates over “canon” and rigid definitions miss the mark, distorting the works into something they were never meant to be. For us, the true magic of Tolkien’s work exists in its capacity to inspire, grow, and evolve—not in the resolution of its complexities.

Conclusion

In essence, WAL and IV adhere to methods of interpretation and reflection that do not fit neatly into classic Tolkien scholarship and fandom debates. For us, what is key is that Tolkien’s works are fluid and multifaceted. Treating them as such allows for personal and collective insights—a free and open-ended approach that external pressures often undermine. By focusing on internal harmony, mutual respect, and the free engagement with Tolkien’s sub-creation, we preserve both the spirit and the legacy of his work.