Sourcing Taxonomy?

[bropous]

I've been evolving in my opinions lately as to the various levels of "authority" our various sources for backing up our arguments possess. To go past simple opinion into true analysis, one must support hypotheses on aspects of Tolkien's works with citeable observations.

However, which writings are of more "reliable" authority than others? Are all of Tolkien's writings on an equal "authoritative" basis?

I propose a "taxonomic" ranking of Tolkien's works on Middle-Earth, as a common yardstick from which we can draw observations whether a point has actually been proven, or remains unsupported hypothetical assertion.

PRIMARY: The only primary sources on Middle-Earth, in my opinion, are The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Why? Because these are the only works which Professor Tolkien completely edited and re-edited himself, are the only "finished" products we possess by the Master, and are the most complete products of his long literary career which are available. One might also include in this category "the Adventures of Tom Bombadil" and "The Road Goes Ever On."

SECONDARY: "Letters of JRR Tolkien." In these, the words have been edited and re-edited by JRR, however, they have not been polished off as a completed "book" by him. The Letters give valuable insight into how the books on Middle-Earth were written, as well as further cogitation and exposition on this point or that point by the Master himself. However, I feel these do not hold the same "authority" that JRR's Hobbit or LotR do, as finished and completed works.

TERTIARY: "The Silmarillion" and the twelve-volume "History of Middle-Earth." I relegate these to the third category simply because they are not completed works by JRR, but instead were edited by his son Christopher from incomplete writings. Christopher is the most learned expert on his father's writings, but he is not his father, as I am sure he would himself readily admit. These works either received the editing and re-editing process by JRR only in part, or are compliations of fragmentary writings, some of which JRR may very well have ended up discarding altogether, and I am not so convinced we can use them chapter-and-verse to argue [politely] issues raised in the Primary sources. Using these as more authoritative sources may very well give rise to additional inconsistent views of what JRR's final vision of them might have been.

QUATERNARY: Commentaries by any other authors on the subject of Middle-Earth besides Christpher Tolkien.

I know there will be disagreements with [a few, if not a majority] of my fellow Mooters on this issue, and I am eager to hear your thoughts as to which of JRR's writings we should hold as more "reliable" when used as citations or sources to back up our various stances. All discussion in the Moot does NOT have to be on the level of term papers, I absolutely agree. However, when we are attempting to make a serious point, and attempting to move past just opinion and convince others of our intellectual stance, I think it may be helpful to have a common standard by which we may judge, for ourselves, the assertions of our fellows.

Humbly submitted by this EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMEDDCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO, and by no means do I lay this down as an unbreakable "Golden Rule", just as a friendly suggestion to avoid disagreements like "my sources are better than your sources."

What would be YOUR alternative rankings? I eagerly await you folks' insights and comments, in agreement or to the contrary.