‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I’ve been noticing that most of the questions and debates that take place in this forum tend to turn on the idea of what Tolkien ‘intended’ when he wrote the books. That is, when it comes to something like the origin of orcs, or whether a particular character is a Maia or not, everyone goes scrambling to the various reference works to piece together the ‘truth’. More often than not, what happens is we find that Tolkien’s own writings are far from definitive and, even worse for those who desire absolute clarity, they sometimes are even contradictory (the origin of orcs being a good example; or, my personal fave and a perennial topic for heated discussion in these parts: do/can balrogs fly?).

It seems to me that this kind of an approach, while entertaining and extremely informative, tends to miss the point somewhat. Tolkien himself wrote in the Introduction to LotR that he “much prefers history, real or imagined.” Throughout his career as a creative writer, Tolkien saw himself as a historian who was ‘recovering’ these tales from a distant past. The historian can shape the narrative of history, but he or she cannot make that history. This only makes sense, I suppose, given that Tolkien was by training and temperament a philologist. He believed that the truth of any tale lies in its historical origins – more specifically, the historical origins of the words that have given rise to the tale.

Given this idea (which, again, was Tolkien’s own) of the writer-as-historian, then does this not mean that we – the readers – are not only able, but compelled, to seek always to reinterpret the tales from our own standpoint rather than continually try to figure out what the ‘first’ historian made of them? Tolkien can give us important clues and hints into the history and – more significantly – the moral fabric of Middle-Earth, as he was the world’s greatest expert on the material. But in the end, it’s up to the reader to really figure it out for him or herself. That’s, I think, the real strength of Middle-Earth over other imagined worlds: it’s open-ended and incomplete; it’s contradictory; it doesn’t make sense – it’s just like our own (primary) world.

The question that comes up out of all this (and if you’re still reading: thanks) is – how far can we go with our own re-interpretations of the works before we’re working ‘against’ them rather than ‘within’ them. I think it’s pretty fair to say that everyone here would agree that it’s at acceptable (even desirable) to interpret the women characters from a point of view that is more contemporary than Tolkien’s own. I think it’s also safe to say that we would all want to adopt an interpretation of the Dwarves that is radically different from Tolkien’s own (in a BBC broadcast recorded in 1971 he said that the Dwarves are “clearly the Jews”). But can we do something like criticize Gondor for maintaining an autocratic form of government (the King)? Are we allowed to re-interpret the Scouring of the Shire as the re-establishment of upper-class power (Frodo) after a successful revolution by the underclasses (albeit it supported by foreign insurgents)?

In a book that doesn’t really conclude, where does its truth end and our own begin?

[Bêthberry]

Fordim Hedgethistle,

Let me side with Treebeard here and not give you a hasty reply. I would like, however, to point to Tokien's preference of applicability over allegory in the Foreward to LOTR.

I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

More later.

Fascinating and extremely valuable discussion, I think.

*curtsies*

Bêthberry

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Yes -- thanks for that quote Bethberry: it's always been one of my very favourite by Tolkien as it links the very act of reading his works to the themes they convey. I think it's pretty safe to say that the "purposed domination of the author" that he dislikes about allegory is pretty close to what Sauron practices (in particular over the Nazgul); whereas the "freedom of the reader" that he associates with applicability is what the Free Peoples fight for!

The really brilliant thing that Tolkien himself points to is that if any one person attempts to claim that he or she has the one truth to 'explain' the novel, then this reader is no better than Sauron attempting to dominate all other opinions with his One Ring and overweening eye/I. Given this, if we are really to emulate Frodo, Aragorn, Sam (etc) we must resist the temptation to look to the author for the answers and struggle to find the freedom in the text that allows us to think/create for ourselves.

But this is where it gets sticky again: is our freedom to create wholly unrestricted? Can we 'make up' whatever we want about Middle-Earth or do we have to defer in some way to its 'Creator'? This is where the RPGs get so interesting, as we're always dancing on the edge of that particular knife! We have the freedom to do and say what we want with our characters. . .but only so much freedom, before a Mod will 'correct' us and bring us back in line with the 'rules' or 'truth' of Middle-Earth.

(Quick note to any and all Mods who may read this: love you guys all and the job that you do around here -- you present an interesting theoretical question, however, and are not being slagged in any way here! :) )

[davem]

It seems to me that the 'Legendarium' is pretty consistent up to the post LotR period. Then for some reason Tolkien adopts a more philosophical/theological approach - Osanwe Kenta, Athrabeth, Laws & Customs, 'Myths Transformed, etc. - at this point the real contradictions start to arise, because the earlier stories of the Sil tradition still retain many of the 'fairy story' elements from the Lost Tales. They cannot incorporate the later works - which Tolkien wants to fit into them - rather like trying to hammer a very large square peg into a tiny round hole. The whole thing starts to fracture.

This situation, as Tolkien moves from storyteller to philosopher/comentator on his Secondary world, from translator to theologian, is the real reason, IMO that he could never finish the Sil.

Interpreting the stories themselves according to our current values is probably inevitable.

BTW(The quote about the Dwarves being 'clearly the Jews' for anyone who has not heard it in context & is thinking it may be anti-Semitic, was made in reference to both races being disposessed of their lands & heritage & forced to wander the world, & adopt the languages of other lands, & face hatred & contempt from other races.)

[Sharkû]

Actually, Tolkien's Dwarves-Jews analogy in that very interview is merely philological in nature: "The dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic." (See here (http://www.geocities.com/misctolkien/TolkieninterviewBBC1971.txt) for a transscript of the interview). In one of his letters, Tolkien already presented the comparison with precisely the arguments davem mentioned.

But that's not the topic.
The problem with 'canon' is as far as I can see not just simply to be reduced to a single one. Rather, we have different grey and black spots in regard to the Legendarium.
Fordim's initial examples show this -- the origin and nature of orcs was at times uncertain, but quite clear later in the development of Middle-earth. However, the man still changed his mind on it several times. I believe that such a case provides us with the same problem as all texts which exist in diverging versions without a definite authority or definite solution to the complexity. Older mediaevalist science, for example, tried to construct an 'author's text' from the extant material, looking for sensible compromises and judging by their own ideas of taste and style. The result was of course a stab in the dark in regard to authencity. The more modern point of view is to take the conflicting versions for what they are, and rather ask why it says so in one copy and differently in another.
It appears to me that most discussions of such matters in the Legendarium however follow the old way, for better or worse. Nevertheless, while it is assumed that differences in medieaval Minnesang for example are there for a reason and presumably often intented by an author adapting his work to his audience, Tolkien discussion has a mixed blessing of its own: we can safely assume that the Professor had quite clear ideas about the 'truth' in his stories.
When asked about a matter such as Balrog wings, it is in fact most likely that he could give a simple and precise answer. Having that in mind, discussions of such grey areas are either confined to guessing Tolkien's mind or being content with little, none, or conflicting evidence.

I would like to think that all of that doesn't really have anything to do with interpretation, which is arguably wholly inadeqaute at answering questions within the Legendarium. Condemning Gondor's autocratic ruler from a modern point of view does not yield anything useful about the facts of the monarchy in the Legendarium. Calling the oligarchic Ruffianism a worker's class revolution is a perception noone in Middle-earth would likely have had either.

That being said, I do believe that there are very definite and easily recognizable boundaries of the canon. I see no point whatsoever, in any form of literary research, to question a 'fact' Tolkien gave us, within or without the fiction, since anything relating to the Legendarium is necessarily part of the fiction. What would be the point of denying the authority of a quote such as the one from the Letters, explaining that Sauron was of human form? One might get a different idea of Sauron when reading the books, and that in itself is interesting, but the fact is part of the whole. If a reader refuses to acknowledge certain parts of a work of fiction (or actual fact, for that matter), there's nothing I can do about it, but that person's position in a discussion forum is difficult to say the least. Conversely, I doubt someone with a clear idea of his own which one is unwilling to give up would ask such a question anyway.

Sub-creation in that context is definitely in accordance with the nature of the Legendarium, as long as the differentiation remains. I can't say much about the RPGs, but the canon rule there serves a very important purpose which is not primarily that of 'staying true to Tolkien', but rather to keep the games sensibly enjoyable.

[mark12_30]

Fordgrim wrote: ... if we are really to emulate Frodo, Aragorn, Sam (etc) we must resist the temptation to look to the author for the answers and struggle to find the freedom in the text that allows us to think/create for ourselves.

Fordgrim, I'm with Sharku here: if the author hadn't intended us to know anything besides what was in the published stories only, then he didn't have to leave it around to be published later. But he *wanted* to publish the Silmarillion; he *wanted* to respond to (respectfully phrased) questions about Middle-Earth and its denizens. If he intended us not to know these extra-trilogy details, he didn't have to fuss at them to prepare them for publication, didn't have to answer the endless letters he received, didn't have to grant any interviews at all.

He didn't want to explain Tom Bombadil; so he refused to. Bombadil is a mystery; you figure it out. There, in my opinion, anyone is free to write a fanfiction and try to fill in Who Tom Really Is. And I think Tolkien would have been amused by the effort, and pleased to the degree that it was properly woven with the available information (limited as it is) that he had already provided.

There are places where Tolkien gave little-to-no-information (what happened in those Ered Luin, anyway? What was the culture like out there?...) And in those areas, we are free to let our imaginations run wild. Where he is mum, we may speak freely.

Of course, it's a free country, and if we want to re-arrange Tolkien's world, we may do so, but let's not call it Tolkien's 'canon' in the process.

Davem wrote: This situation, as Tolkien moves from storyteller to philosopher/comentator on his Secondary world, from translator to theologian, is the real reason, IMO that he could never finish the Sil.

davem, I'm hesitant to agree on this. While he says in Letters that he spent "too" much time playing solitaire, and accused himself of laziness, he *was* getting on in age. The evident change in priorities could be due to the weariness of age and the anticipation of his afterlife, which I believe helped motivate him into the philosophy and commentary.

But either way, I wouldn't prefer a finished Sil over the philosophy. I think I prefer having the philosophy. In the end, once HOME was published, we got more of a Sil than we would have from the Professor anyway.

I see the deepening as a growth and strength in Tolkien, and as something to look forward to in the aging process; not as weakness or negligence or lack of focus on his part.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I would like to think that all of that doesn't really have anything to do with interpretation, which is arguably wholly inadeqaute at answering questions within the Legendarium. Condemning. Calling the oligarchic Ruffianism a worker's class revolution is a perception noone in Middle-earth would likely have had either.

This goes right to the heart of the questions I’m wrangling with Sharkû. I could not agree more that getting at the historical ‘facts’ of Middle-Earth has little to do with interpretation – for the factual evidence in the primary world you go to the source documents or the archaeological relics or whatever (although these, as any historian worth his or her salt will tell you, are never ‘purely’ objective and factual, but let’s leave that to one side as Too Much For Me To Get Into At The Moment…); for the facts of the secondary world we can and should go to what the sub-creator of that world has put down.

But where interpretation is not only adequate (I like your turn of phrase) but necessary comes to the non-factual questions that are really important – questions like our view of the governmental structure of Gondor. I concede your point that “condemning Gondor's autocratic ruler from a modern point of view does not yield anything useful about the facts of the monarchy in the Legendarium”, but this does not get us off the difficult hook raised by the fact that most of us are not big fans of autocratic forms of government, and that given our druthers we would rather not have a King thank you very much. And yet, we are induced by the magic (and I use that word carefully and in its fullest sense) of Tolkien’s story-telling art to celebrate and even long for the Return of the King. By this I mean to say that while we may not get a better understanding of the “facts” by “condemning” the text, we must still – as responsible readers – evaluate (rather than condemn) this form of government in order to better understand the applicability (Tolkien’s word, via Bêthberry) of that form of government to a world that has replaced/outgrown kings.

There are places where Tolkien gave little-to-no-information (what happened in those Ered Luin, anyway? What was the culture like out there?...) And in those areas, we are free to let our imaginations run wild. Where he is mum, we may speak freely.

I’m not so sure I can accept this without comment Mark – am I really “free to let my imagination run wild?” Can I ‘make’ the people of Ered Luin into creatures with six arms and wings, who eat nothing but the bark of oak trees and kill their enemies by bombarding them with sea-shells…just by imagining them as such? Interestingly, as soon as you say this, you seem to back away from such an absolute freedom of the reader by insisting that “if we want to re-arrange Tolkien's world, we may do so, but let's not call it Tolkien's 'canon' in the process.” So you would seem to be suggesting that the “freedom” you talk of is a lot more complicated than it would appear: I can “re-arrange” the world, but without having any kind of ‘real’ effect on it? How much freedom is that? It sounds more like the freedom of the deranged man to say what he wants about the world, since, as everybody knows, he’s mad and therefore harmless: we already know what the ‘truth’ is so let him have his little say.

Frankly, I’d like to think that there’s a bit more room for me in the sub-creation of Middle-Earth than that! :D

[davem]

Fordim,

As to the governmental structure of Gondor, Aragorn at least is a kind of elected Monarch - Faramir asks if the people will have him as King, which is not simply a rhetorical or ritual question - they could refuse. He has no legal claim to the Kingship, he comes from a royal line who messed up big time, & lost their own Kingdom. It is at least a kind of democracy. They could have chosen Faramir to continue as ruling steward, but they actually wanted a King, & felt Aragorn had proven himself.

'Mark'

I too wouldn't be without the 'philosophy'. My point was simply that those later writings don't fit into the pre LotR Sil which Tolkien had gone back to after LotR was published. They eventually necessitated the attempted re writing of the Sil ('Myths Transformed'). The pre LotR Sil was virtually complete, & the publishers wanted it. So why didn't he just devote the year or two necessary & hand it over? My own feeling is that with LotR he had grown as a writer, & as a thinker. What he found when he re-read the Sil wasn't what he wanted or needed. He needed to progress creatively. And he did. I said in another thread that i consider those later works, the Athrabeth, Laws & Customs, & Osanwe Kenta (what I've read of it - I've been waiting 5 months for the relevant issue of Vinyar Tengwar to turn up!) to contain some of his most beautiful prose & most profound thought. But the point is, they are in no way consistent with the Sil as it existed when he went back to it after LotR. Either they would have to be rejected, or the Sil would need to be re-written. He eventually chose the latter course, but found it too much, & that it would require too much to be lost from the original.

That said, i also hold to another expressed statement that ideas like the Dome of Varda are bordering on silliness, where Elbereth is transformed from creator of the stars of Heaven to a kind of lighting technician.

In this instance, we have two totally conflicting stories, from different periods. The Dome of Varda is not a 'Balrog's Wings' question. It either existed or it didn't. Personally, like Christopher Tolkien, who rejected it for the published Sil, i think it was a mistake - though i understand Tolkien's motivations & what he was attempting to do.

I just feel that when he realised the scale of rewriting required, he gave up on completing the Sil, & set to work on the philosophical pieces & longer versions of the individual stories (Narn, Tuor, Hurin). But I also feel that it was this realisation that he would never be able to produce a complete, perfect Sil, that lead to him not being able really to complete any of the later stories.

I think that his later 'philosophical/theological' works will come in time to be seen as among the greatest things he wrote. Although set in ME, I feel that they rank alongside both LotR & the Beowulf & Fairy Stories essays as the work of a writer & thinker of genius. But I also feel that they are responsible for him not finishing another work of genius -The Silmarillion.

[doug*platypus]

if the author hadn't intended us to know anything besides what was in the published stories only, then he didn't have to leave it around to be published later. But he *wanted* to publish the Silmarillion; he *wanted* to respond to (respectfully phrased) questions about Middle-Earth and its denizens. Fordim, your first post is an excellent and refreshing train of thought, not to mention very well written. On the whole, however, I agree with Mark 12:30. Tolkien's rigid insistence on continuity and almost pedantic ability to fill in minor details do not leave us a lot of elbow room. I can't help but feel that the more we carelessly speculate about Orcs and Balrogs, the more likely we are to come up with ideas that run contrary to those of the Professor, who is ultimately the author of his own works.

Does Tolkien's authorship give him absolute control over those works? No; once they were published and widely read, they began to take on a life of their own, in the minds of others, apart from Tolkien. This is an incredible thing, especially in the case of Tolkien, since his works struck a chord with so many of us. But it is not always a good thing. Without entering into a discussion about them here, I'd like to bring up the Movies. The filmmakers had the daunting task of filling in many, many gaps in detail, without the collaboration of the author. While the cast and crew did a bang-up job overall, many glaring... differences... (for the sake of this discussion I won't call them errors!) between the text and the script have been noticed. Given this idea (which, again, was Tolkien’s own) of the writer-as-historian, then does this not mean that we – the readers – are not only able, but compelled, to seek always to reinterpret the tales from our own standpoint rather than continually try to figure out what the ‘first’ historian made of them? Well, we now have a large-scale modern reinterpretation to judge by. My question is, can the original intentions of an author be subverted by those of a later interpreter? At what point do we say, "this is no longer a faithful representation of the original", or "this is only loosely based on the original", or cry "SACRILEGE!"? And if the material as reinterpreted comes up greatly different from the original, shouldn't the reinterpreter (great word) just come up with their own vessel for telling a new story?

I agree wholeheartedly that we have not only the ability, but the obligation to examine the works of Tolkien, and well, everybody to the depth that they deserve. I also feel that during the course of our reading it may be possible to discover things in Middle Earth that Tolkien himself may not have consciously put there. Fordim's description of the class struggle in the Shire is a possible example of this. However I feel that if he were able today, JRRT would like to have the last say on such reinterpretations. Judging by many of the negative comments contained in Letters, the last say would not always be pleasant.

[mark12_30]

Fordim wrote: am I really “free to let my imagination run wild?” Can I ‘make’ the people of Ered Luin into creatures with six arms and wings, who eat nothing but the bark of oak trees and kill their enemies by bombarding them with sea-shells…just by imagining them as such?

Sure. You just can't call it 'canon'. It's now your own imagination.

Once I would have been horrified by your six-armed, winged, shell-throwing bark-eaters; but then I reread the Sil, and re-discovered (to my horror) that Luthien by her arts had changed Beren into a werewolf, and herself into... a bat. Horrors! How undignified! Professor, you can't be serious.

(EDIT: I realize on rereading that was hazy... I say this because I think Tolkien had a very adventurous side. I would never turn an elf into a bat, would you? So how do you know he'd be horrified by your new creatures? He might be, but who knows? He'd be far, far more horrified if you married Frodo off or described Aragorn cheating on Arwen. ...end edit)

Once you begin creating new creatures that aren't in Tolkien's writings, you're doing your own subcreation now. If you were writing fanfiction, you'd put in the copyright part, "Tolkiens' creations belong to him, and mine belong to me" or some legalese version of that (I'm no lawyer.)

The professor's reaction might have been, put them in somebody else's mountains, not mine. But I don't think he would have told you to stop sub-creating.

Interestingly, as soon as you say this, you seem to back away from such an absolute freedom of the reader by insisting that “if we want to re-arrange Tolkien's world, we may do so, but let's not call it Tolkien's 'canon' in the process.”

And I stand by that. Perhaps it seems contradictory. But then, Tolkien both hoped/wished/expected his mythology to be added to by others, and, jealously guarded it to be his own. THere's a contradiction there too.

So you would seem to be suggesting that the “freedom” you talk of is a lot more complicated than it would appear: I can “re-arrange” the world, but without having any kind of ‘real’ effect on it?

Just like Jackson did; he rearraged many things; but the books are still there, on my shelf, unabridged, unedited and reliable.

How much freedom is that? It sounds more like the freedom of the deranged man to say what he wants about the world, since, as everybody knows, he’s mad and therefore harmless: we already know what the ‘truth’ is so let him have his little say.

Frankly, I’d like to think that there’s a bit more room for me in the sub-creation of Middle-Earth than that!

It depends on whether you are trying to write something which might make Tolkien happy (some writers do) or whether you're trying to do something original using Tolkien as a starting place. Or to put it another way, it depends on whether you want to write "Gap fillers" which should be strictly canonical by definition, or, take some liberties and go off on a tangent. What would an elf have to say about your winged-six-armed-bark-eaters, anyway? It's a free country; you can write a story about a canonical elf encountering something very, very strange and 'non-canonical'. Just don't make it a "gap filler."

Maybe we need a table of applications for the word "canonical". It's been discussed before. Pio made the point in this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1908) thread that as soon as somebody else starts writing/ inventing other than the professor, it's no longer canon. I'd agree. SO I suggested (allow me the conceit of quoting myself) the following categories for RPGs or fanfics (they'd apply to any TOlkien-related creativity) :

Canon-Consistent: no deviations allowed. Pure Tolkien. If it's not in, alluded to, or clearly allowed (erring strictly on the side of safety) by one of his (later??) books, you can't do it. Or perhaps, you would have to argue your case before the moderator.

Canon-Friendly: Not quite so strict. If it's close, with pretty much Tolkien's style and grace and flavor, we'll go with it, and hope he wouldn't frown too hard.

Alternate Universe-- the What-Ifs. What if Frodo got married, what if Boromir didn't die...

and... Other.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Just like Jackson did; he rearranged many things; but the books are still there, on my shelf, unabridged, unedited and reliable.

Ah, but this is the point I’m working through here…the text itself is unedited by anyone else’s interpretation, but how “reliable” is it, really? We’ve moved away a bit from where we started, I think, insofar as we’re talking more and more about the kinds of ‘adding’ that come about through rewriting the text in whatever way (e.g. fanfiction, rpg-ing, speculation). This is really my fault, I know, as I simply could not resist those six-armed bark eaters! But to return to the point that I really wanted to address…

Interpretation of the text in the sense that I’m working with as it pertains to the meaning and not just the factual accounts of the narrative – how much freedom do we have in this act? I accept that I cannot willy-nilly make up new elements of Middle-Earth (and that list you’ve provided Mark 12:30 from Pio is remarkably useful and concise in this), but I do enjoy a certain latitude in interpreting what is already on the page, even if that interpretation goes against Tolkien’s own, do I not?

The example I can use here is the climactic moment of LotR as Gollum goes into the fire. This moment has been clearly interpreted for us by Tolkien himself in the Letters (and elsewhere); he says that the struggle and moral choices of Frodo and the other heroes have lead to this moment, and brought about the right circumstances in which God’s finger ‘intrudes’ into the story and ‘pushes’ Gollum into the fire. (I don’t have my books with me at the moment so I can’t check his exact wording.) But there are at least two other ways I can interpret this same moment, without questioning/rewriting the ‘facts’ of it:

1. Gollum falls in by pure chance. There is no ‘push’ from outside the event by Providence, Eru or Anyone else. It’s just dumb luck that saves the day.

2. Gollum jumps in himself – the last bit of him that is Smeagol realises that he cannot hope to keep the Ring for his own, so he chooses to end his life in possession of the Ring rather than face having it taken from him again, OR perhaps he even does it with his last shred of goodness to save the world, OR perhaps he does it in response to Frodo’s earlier ‘command’ in the Emyn Muil (“If I should command you to throw yourself into the fire when I had it [the Ring] on, you would be compelled to do so” – again, I’m not sure this is exactly right).

I’m not actually trying to argue for any of these interpretations, I only give them to point out that they are all at least possible: they are all supported by the facts of the book, and each one of them makes sense. The only grounds we have to reject these interpretations in favour of Tolkien’s own is that Tolkien, as the sub-creator of this world, has more ‘right’ than the reader to declare what’s ‘true’.

And here we go back to the quote that Bêthberry has wonderfully provided us with:

I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

As soon as we declare that Tolkien’s interpretation is ‘right’ and all others ‘wrong’ we are, in effect, becoming Nazgûl to Tolkien’s Sauron! We are claiming that the only source of truth in Middle-Earth is Tolkien’s and giving way, gleefully, to the “purposed domination of the author”. We get to be ‘right’ about the work and everyone else is ‘wrong’ because we’ve read the Letters and know what’s what, while others not so enlightened are out there crazily and wrongly coming up with what they want to about the world.

But it gets even more complicated!!! To declare that my interpretation number one (above) is right, is to call into question the whole moral fabric of Middle-Earth, as it was conceived by its sub-creator. Just because a particular reader does not believe in Providence, does not mean that he can make the history of Middle-Earth non-providential, for that history is not of the primary world, but of Tolkien’s secondary world. Eru is as ‘real’ as Frodo or the Silmarils, so we can’t question Him or His plan. But then where is the “applicability” of the text for a reader who interprets Gollum’s fall in manner number one?

So we get stuck, I think, between some hard choices. On the one hand, we want to accept Tolkien’s authority on how to interpret this moment, since it is his world after all (Eru/Providence pushed Gollum) – but to do this is to give way to the “purposed domination of the author”. On the other hand, we want to interpret this moment for ourselves, since we are the ones reading it after all (it’s possible to read Gollum’s fall as blind luck) – but to do this we put in jeopardy the “applicability” of the tale by questioning, or overthrowing outright, the ‘rules’ of Tolkien’s secondary world in favour of our own understanding of the primary world.

I do hope that this overly long post makes sense – if anyone gets to the end of it, let me know and I will throw a few reputation points your way as a thank you.

[piosenniel]

Here is a former thread for perusal which might have a small bearing on this:

Canon and Fanfiction (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1908)

And one other, for those readers wondering what 'canon' might refer to, as I did when I first found the Downs:

Questions of Canon (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=2467&highlight=canon)

[Imladris]

I don't have time to read the links that Pio so kindly offered, but I would like to say something.

In a book, the writer doesn't "do" everything. The writer and reader have to meet half way. I think it's like the writer is pointing the way from point A (the beginning) to Point B (the end of the book) for the reader to follow. How the reader gets to point B depends on himself to a certain extent. Hopefully he won't come up with some wild theory that is definitely anti Tolkien.

In life, there is more than one way to do things, so there is more than one way to interpret a story. Take your example of Gollum and the Ring. I think we can all agree that because of Gollum's pride (his gleeful dancing about instead of putting the Ring on and disappearing) was his fall (Pride cometh before a fall). However, specific ideas such as Eru pushed him in, he merely fell in, or Smeagol took over for a bit and decided to save the world, etc, are merely details that fit a person's world view. That's one of the reasons why, I think, Tolkien touches so many people. He left those details (religious details if you would) out, letting the reader decide for himself.

Of course, a reader can't deny that Eru didn't exist because he obviously did. However, they don't have to accept Tolkien's definition of it.

Those are my amateur thoughts on the subject.

[The Saucepan Man]

Excellent thread, Mr Hedgethistle. :) It raises issues which lurk just under the surface of many threads (in the Books forum at least), but which are rarely discussed directly.


Interpretation of the text in the sense that I’m working with as it pertains to the meaning and not just the factual accounts of the narrative – how much freedom do we have in this act? I accept that I cannot willy-nilly make up new elements of Middle-Earth ... but I do enjoy a certain latitude in interpreting what is already on the page, even if that interpretation goes against Tolkien’s own, do I not? Of course you do. Everyone is free to interpret the meaning of the events portrayed in the book in whichever way they choose. The way that they choose will, however, depend upon the manner in which they approach the story. A reader who enjoys it as a cracking good yarn, but without any inclination to explore further the world which Tolkien created, will not be bound by (and most likely will be unaware of) the author's intentions. Those who are interested in learning more about Tolkien and his works (such as most, I should think, who post here) will be more inclined to accept such meaning as Tolkien himself attributed to his works. It is, I think, beholden upon those posting seriously here to at least acknowledge, if not accept, Tolkien's own thoughts on what he wrote.

An interesting point does arise, however, when a person crosses from one stage to another. Until I joined this site just over a year ago, the only works which I had read were the Hobbit and LotR (having made one failed attempt to read the Silmarillion aged 14). I have since read the Silm and Unfinished Tales, and I am currently working my way through Tolkien's Letters. And much of what I have learned in doing so has been a great revelation. As you would expect, it has added greatly to my knowledge and understanding of Tolkien's conception of Middle-earth and the events and characters portrayed in the first two books that I read. But I have also come across things which are at odds with the impressions which I originally formed when reading those two books. For example, when I first read LotR, I had no knowledge of the existence (within the imaginary world) of Eru, and so I had no conception of Gollum being pushed over the edge of the Crack of Doom by "God's finger" (as you so delightfully put it). I saw it as a fortuitous accident.

Now many of these "alternative views" I find relatively easy to accept, and I am able to adjust my understanding of the story without too much difficulty. The explanation of Gollum's fall is one such matter. But there are still one or two areas where I find Tolkien's own views on what he wrote difficult to reconcile with my own impressions, initially formed some 25 years ago. For example (staying on the Gollum theme), I find it difficult to accept that Gollum (in my conception of him) would, in any circumstances, voluntarily have thrown himself into the fires of Orodruin to destroy the Ring, as I think Tolkien suggests in one of his Letters that he might have done in different circumstances.

This is, I would have thought, an issue which affects most (if not all of us) since most people's first experience of Tolkien's writings will be the Hobbit and LotR, and they will inevitably form their own impressions of the characters and events portrayed. As serious Tolkien enthusiasts, are we justified in clinging to those first impressions, even when they may be at variance with Tolkien's own views, as subsequently discovered?

[Lord of Angmar]

This thread is such a marvelous read. Thanks to all parties involved, discussions such as this seem few and far between nowadays (for me, at least).As serious Tolkien enthusiasts, are we justified in clinging to those first impressions, even when they may be at variance with Tolkien's own views, as subsequently discovered?(Saucepan Man) This is certainly an interesting point; should we as readers feel compelled, or even responsible or obligated, to dispossess any "first impressions" if they are found to conflict with or vary from the views and ideals of the author put forth in the piece we are reading? I am conflicted. To an extent I would like to say that yes, we are or should be obliged to keep in mind the author's views as we read a piece of literature, since otherwise how can we possibly do said piece the justice that its creator feels it deserves? At the same time, though, I think the reader should cling to some of those initial impressions, if it enhances their reading experience. I will never forget the first time I read the Lord of the Rings, and the impressions I had of certain places, things and events in the book that stuck with me even after multiple readings and delving deeper into the Tolkien Legendarium, even though I now know many of those impressions to be incorrect or slightly "off" from what I reasonably feel the Professor would have liked. The Tolkien enthusiast as a reader, I believe, should err on the side of his/her own personal enjoyment of the experience of reading Tolkien's works. The Tolkien enthusiast as a discusser, however, should not be obliged to use his/her own theories about unresolved Middle-earth issues as anything more than theories - however well-educated on the subject the theorists might be.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

All right, I swore that I would not post to this thread above once a day, but I simply cannot help myself. :D Saucepan Man you wrote:

A reader who enjoys it as a cracking good yarn, but without any inclination to explore further the world which Tolkien created, will not be bound by (and most likely will be unaware of) the author's intentions. Those who are interested in learning more about Tolkien and his works (such as most, I should think, who post here) will be more inclined to accept such meaning as Tolkien himself attributed to his works. (emphasis added by me, F.H.)

There is a wonderfully subtle shift in your language here that proves my point (ha!). At the beginning you say that the “unaware” reader is not “bound” by the author’s intention, implying that the relationship between reader and text is one of imprisonment or possibly possession. You then state that a reader who is “interested in learning” will be “inclined to accept” the author’s interpretation of the work (“the meaning…attributed” ). Both of these relationships are wonderfully evocative of the way that the Ring works on its ‘victims’.

If I may force the metaphor a bit: a reader like Gollum, wholly unaware of the power of the Ring – or, rather, wholly unaware of the intention of the Ring’s Maker – is easily captured and subdued by the Ring: “bound” to it. A more aware reader, one who is “interested in learning”, like Frodo (whose name, as I’m sure many already know, is Old Germanic for “wise by experience” ) is not so easily ensnared, and must therefore instead be lead by the magic/illusion/enchantment/power of the Ring to become “inclined to accept” it – or, rather, to accept the intention of the Ring’s Maker for the Ring (power/domination/self/evil).

The more I think about this, the more I think that this is an extremely fruitful way to regard the Ring: as itself a mirror of the text of Middle-Earth, of the subcreation that Tolkien undertook. The reader of Tolkien’s works is, in a sense, being subjected to enormous pressure by the power of the book(s) to “accept” their reality – to turn our back on what we ‘know’ (the Primary World, or, our own individual versions of it) and to embrace instead an illusion (the Secondary World). And this is a disturbing thing to happen. First, in our turn to the Secondary World, we are forced to become complicit in things that we are not perhaps particularly fond of (autocratic kings, rigid class distinctions, a fairly clear-cut hierarchy of racial superiority, inequal social relations between men and women, etc). Second, as soon as we submit to the power of the Secondary World we, in a sense, must give way to the power of that world’s maker: like all those who give in to the Ring, we have to allow someone else to become the arbiter of our “truth” – or, the definer of our desire.

Of course, there are huge differences between the Ring and Tolkien’s texts that I need not go into here (first and foremost being that the Ring’s creator wants to supplant Eru; the maker of Middle-Earth wants only to supplement the Primary Creator) – but the similarity of the relation (individual to Ring; reader to Middle-Earth) is quite striking.

(Or have I simply stayed up too late?)

[Child of the 7th Age]

Fordim,

My post addresses an earlier question you raised. The italics are my own....

This is, I would have thought, an issue which affects most (if not all of us) since most people's first experience of Tolkien's writings will be the Hobbit and LotR, and they will inevitably form their own impressions of the characters and events portrayed. As serious Tolkien enthusiasts, are we justified in clinging to those first impressions, even when they may be at variance with Tolkien's own views, as subsequently discovered? This is, I would have thought, an issue which affects most (if not all of us) since most people's first experience of Tolkien's writings will be the Hobbit and LotR, and they will inevitably form their own impressions of the characters and events portrayed. As serious Tolkien enthusiasts, are we justified in clinging to those first impressions, even when they may be at variance with Tolkien's own views, as subsequently discovered?

Live and learn....! I have been posting at the Downs for a number of years, yet not until I saw your paragraph did I suddenly realize that my initial exposure to Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit was probably quite different from that of most people here. Most newbies introduced to the writings are at least somewhat aware that there is a host of material out there that helps us to define 'canon': biographies of Tolkien, his published Letters, other writings such as the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, and the published interpretations put forward by a whole host of scholars. Whether or not they actually read these works or can define 'canon' in a technical sense, they at least know such studies exist. Morever, they're aware some interpretations are regarded as "correct" because that's what the Professor told us. You reference to Gollum and Providence is a case in point.

My own experience was very different. I first read the Hobbit in 1963; and LotR in 1965. At that time, there was virtually no supplementary material readily available to throw any light on Tolkien or his writings. There was very little discussion of the "rights or wrongs" of various interpretations, and certainly no internet boards. I did attend an early meeting or two of either Mythopoeia or the Tolkien Society (I don't remember which), but that was it. I remember sitting in my college dorm with Barbara Remington's hallucinogenic poster plastered on the wall discussing with my roomates how Tolkien loved trees and the land, and what it meant to say "Frodo Lives."

What does this have to do with your query? Only this....I did not have the intellectual framework or tools that are now available to all of us. In many ways, I was wholly ignorant! But what I did have was complete freedom to use my imagination and interpret the book any way I chose without anyone telling me I was wrong. A year or two later, when I was in college, I spent a considerable chunk of time in England as an au pair girl and also in Wales as a university student. I tramped around the countryside imagining hobbit holes in every other hillside and even studied Welsh. Yes, I had some very sound academic reasons but deep down I probably thought the language sounded a bit Elvish to my ear.

My exposure to Tolkien came through that creative process as much as anything else. It was a process rooted in imagination rather than in knowledge of text and canon, since the latter for the most part did not even exist yet.

As years rolled by, I was busy with my life, but I also picked up a Tolkien study to read here and there. Gradually, I learned more and more about what the Professor actually intended and also read some of his own works that were first published after his death or became more widely available at that time. I discovered some of my earlier guesses and interpretations had been right; others had been way off center. The real "shocker" came in the late seventies with the publication of the Silmarillion, the Letters, and Carpenter's biography, all in the space of two years. I remember my jaw dropping open in surprise when I realized that there was a whole Legendarium, thousands of years of history to back up those tantalizing references in LotR. I grinned with delight to realize that I had "gotten" Tolkien's interpretation of Frodo pretty much as he had wanted it, just by reading the book itself.

Yet, with all this learning, there was a price. I could no longer rove quite as freely with my imagination as before. It was clear that some interpretations were right and some were wrong. At heart, I did not question that: if Professor Tolkien said the ending was Providence, then it was Providence---not chance or jumping in.

And yet.....I will admit there were impressions I gleaned from my year of tramping around Britain and imagining hobbits in holes that I will never shake off. In my head, the Elves will forever speak a strictly Welsh derivative rather than a tongue influenced by Finnish. Parts of Middle-earth leapt straight out of the Middle Ages, even though I know intellectually that it isn't so. And I am totally convinced that the thatched roofed cottage I rented in the Midlands for a month was definitely modelled on Bag-end!

Perhaps this is a cop out, but I guess I have two answers. When I discuss topics on a public board, I will honestly try to stick to canon as closely as I can. What I see in my own head when I read the books may be a little different, but that's my private prerogative as a reader!

In regard to the related question of fanfiction and RPGs.... This is near and dear to me since I spend considerable time writing on this site. I actually think it's in this realm that I can again exercise that freewheeling imagination that so attracted me to Middle-earth way back when. Only hopefully now I have a bit more knowledge to fill in the holes. It really is a trade-off. I may accept the Professor's definitive word on Gollum's fate but if you read through the Silm, the LotR appendices, and UT, there are so many huge holes just inviting the reader to step inside and imagine what might have been.....

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Welcome to the discussion Child, nice to have you around it.

But there's one thing: the question you quote above and respond to (so eloquently and touchingly) was not posed by me, but by Saucepan Man.

I don't have time to respond at length but I would like to raise one point: you write


It was clear that some interpretations were right and some were wrong.

I couldn't disagree more with the absoluteness of this statement -- at least, not in the context you give it. Sure there are wrong interpretations (LotR is not a fascist text in support of genocidal murder, for example), but that does not mean that there are a set of absolutely "right" interpretations to be gleaned from the Legendarium. For all the reasons I've already ranted about above, I don't think we can start to think this way ("Tolkien is a privileged source for the 'truth' or 'meaning' of the book") without both making Tolkien into a Sauron-like figure (the 'eye/I' is the only source of vision into the text) and, ironically, forsaking the ethical obligations that Tolkien has put on us to interpret for ourselves.

The different interpretations that are possible, the different 'ways' of taking the text are there, to allow us as readers the freedom to develop our own responses and generate our own meaning(s). It just gets tricky because that freedom is not unrestrained -- we can't just overlay whatever interpretation we want, because there are things we can get wrong (another popular wrong example: LotR is a pro-war novel).

[Bêthberry]

Man, you guys make it hard for us Shepherds of the trees, er, pourers over paper books. I will have a very long reply here ready later this morning.

In other words, my first SAVE in Books. Oh to what bad habits do RPGs lead me. ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

There is a wonderfully subtle shift in your language here that proves my point (ha!). The shift is a logical one and does not, I think, imply that I view the relartionship between the reader and the author as akin to prisoner and jailor or Ringbearer and Ring. My primary position (one which it seems that you would agree with, Fordim) is that everyone is free to interpret Tolkien's works in any way that seems appropriate to them. In that sense, no one is bound to accept Tolkien's own views and opinions on what he wrote, whether they are casual readers or serious Tolkienologists. It is up to them whether they do or not.

But those who take a deeper interest in the Professor's works will surely be more likely to accept his intended meaning than will the casual reader. I am not saying that they are obliged to do so. I am simply acknowledging that they will naturally be more inclined to do so (and possibly adjust any inconsistent preconceptions) because of their more serious interest.

And to take it one stage further, I do think that anyone participating in any serious discussion of Tolkien's works is obliged at least to acknowledge the author's views (assuming that they are aware of them). Again, there is no one forcing them to agree with those views, but they will have to acknowledge that their own views are at odds with those of the author and that they will therefore be of limited value in any serious discussion of Middle-earth.

Child, I was in much the same boat as you when I first started reading Tolkien's works (and btw, yes it was my paragraph you were commenting on ;) ). LotR and the Hobbit were the only published texts at the time. Although the Silm was published shortly after, as I said, I gave up on it. But I do not think that the position is that much different for the modern first-time reader. After all, only a proportion of those who read LotR will be aware of the wealth of background material, and even those who are aware of it will inevitably read the book itself first before going on to review it. And, as Angmar suggests, it is in that first reading that the longest-lasting and most vivid impressions are, I think, formed.

I do agree with you, however, that there is scope for the serious Tolkien enthusiast to retain initial impressions even when they are at odds with the meaning intended by the author. You put it as follows:


When I discuss topics on a public board, I will honestly try to stick to canon as closely as I can. What I see in my own head when I read the books may be a little different, but that's my private prerogative as a reader! But I think that I would put it slightly differently. I see nothing wrong with any of us setting out on a site such as this our own private impressions of the book in the full knowledge that they are inconsistent with the author's intentions, provided that we acknowledge that inconsistency. Indeed, it may be necessary to do so for illustrative purposes on a thread such as this one. Or it may simply be that we feel that they may be of interest to others. But, as I indicated above, we must also recognise that they will be of limited value in any serious discussion of the legendarium.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

My primary position (one which it seems that you would agree with, Fordim) is that everyone is free to interpret Tolkien's works in any way that seems appropriate to them. In that sense, no one is bound to accept Tolkien's own views and opinions on what he wrote, whether they are casual readers or serious Tolkienologists. It is up to them whether they do or not.

But those who take a deeper interest in the Professor's works will surely be more likely to accept his intended meaning than will the casual reader. I am not saying that they are obliged to do so. I am simply acknowledging that they will naturally be more inclined to do so (and possibly adjust any inconsistent preconceptions) because of their more serious interest.

Nicely put, Saucepan Man, and your point is well-taken (and you are right, I do agree with this). But once more, I have a question about your response. I couldn’t agree more that “anyone participating in any serious discussion of Tolkien's works is obliged at least to acknowledge the author's views” – but where I pull away from your point somewhat is at the odd claim that if my views “are at odds with those of the author…they will be of limited value in any serious discussion of Middle-earth.”

Why? What do you mean by “value” that my interpretation will have less of it than Tolkien’s interpretation? Are you suggesting that his interpretation is more true or right or useful? If so, by what basis can we make this claim?

To go back to my Gollum example: Tolkien’s interpretation of Gollum’s fall is an explicitly Catholic one (he explains in the Letters, in fact, that his ‘take’ on LotR is entirely and “consciously” Catholic throughout); my own interpretation of that moment (which I shan’t get into here) is not. If his interpretation is of greater “value” (and please do address what you mean by that loaded word) than mine – where does that leave me? It would seem to be cutting me off from the text (that is, I’m not “really getting it” because I'm not giving it a Catholic interpretation), even as I am most directly engaged with it (that is, I am developing a meaning that has resonance for me -- and probably for many others -- in my non-Catholic interpretation).

[Findegil]

Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle:Of course, there are huge differences between the Ring and Tolkien’s texts that I need not go into here (first and foremost being that the Ring’s creator wants to supplant Eru; the maker of Middle-Earth wants only to supplement the Primary Creator) – but the similarity of the relation (individual to Ring; reader to Middle-Earth) is quite striking. Have you reflected what you did write here? "Supplement the Primary Creator" is really the last think of all Tolkien would have intended. The "only" before this phrase makes it nearly a blasphemous statement for people deeply believing in a Primary Creator (as Tolkien had clearly done), even without considering the action it self.
Without a question the analogy is good, since the action of Sauron was clearly blasphemous in the same way. But it fails entirely if once the background of Author of Middle-Earth is taken into account.
And thus we come nicely bake to the subject under discussion: Your interpretation of Tolkiens writing was as freely made, as you wanted it all over this thread. But it can be proved as clearly wrong by considering the additional information available as can be the interpretation of The Lord of the Ring as pre-war-novel or as supporting fascistic ideas. If you demand freedom in one direction, you can't deny it in the other one. The book as a stand-alone allows a lot of interpretations, and since a book is meant as a stand-alone publication, we are free to read and interpret it as a single item.
What makes the book so attractive is in my view the glimpses of underlying stories, which are at once recognised as the holes left by the author to be filled with our own imagination. Thus the book does at once fire up our own imagination and waking our interest for more information on the subjects of our imagination.
By providing the information the imaginations is more and more restricted. What is the art of Tolkien, which even the extensive editing of his son could not destroy, is that with each new information given or found new holes for your imagination will be discovered. And Tolkien was really aware of this, as is shown in his story Tree and Leaf. And being less sure in his craftsmanship in writing than his son is, JRR Tolkien would have restricted the publication much more than Chritopher Tolkien did.
What is now the bearing of this to the topic? Well, even Fordim Hedgethistle in his first post had admitted that the approach of scholarly research is "entertaining and extremely informative". None of us would discuss here if it were not for this entertaining. And I think many have come here in the first place for exactly that informativeness of such approaches.
Thus it isn't suppressing at all that the scholarly approach get the majority of posts in this thread. Asking the same question in a forum, which would discuss literature and not just the story given in it, would probably turn the table.

Respectfully
Findegil

[The Saucepan Man]

Why? What do you mean by “value” that my interpretation will have less of it than Tolkien’s interpretation? Are you suggesting that his interpretation is more true or right or useful? No, not at all. Your interpretation is certainly of value to you (assuming that you do not prefer the author's interpretation when you hear of it). And it may well be of value to others in discussions of the book as a "stand-alone" publication (as Findegil put it). But it will be of little value in discussions of the "truth" of Middle-earth, as handed to us by the author (ie what the author intended). And I would concur with Findegil that most serious discussions here fall into the latter category.

You may argue that the discussions here should allow people more scope for arguing in favour of their personal interpretation, even though it may be inconsistent with that of the author. But it seems to me that the primary purpose of the serious discussion threads is to determine (where we can) what the author's intentions were. As I said, many here will be inclined to accept these and adjust their own interpretation accordingly (as I have done on a number of issues). But, having established the author's intentions, people are free to reject them and retain (on a personal level) their own interpretation, which will remain of greater value to them.

And you can always start up a new thread to discuss personal interpretations of the events and characters portrayed and how these might differ from the those of the author. ;)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

But it seems to me that the primary purpose of the serious discussion threads is to determine (where we can) what the author's intentions were.

Thank you so much for clearing this up so succinctly Saucepan Man. This is the core issue upon which we disagree, for I believe that the practice of critical interpretation is emphatically not to seek the “author’s intention” but, rather, to develop our own interpretations and to subject those interpretations to the corrective of reasoned dialogue with other people who may or may not share our interpretations (and Findegil’s corrective post about the “blasphemous” practice that I inaccurately attributed to Tolkien is an object lesson in this – indeed, “supplement” is entirely the wrong word there).

The reasons I reject this search for the author’s intent are many. First, we need look no further than the fact he wrote the book for his primary intention – he intended for the book to be read and enjoyed. Beyond that, we can read in the Letters that his intention was that the book be Catholic (but Tolkien only arrived at this intention after the first draft had been written) – are non-Catholic interpretations wrong then? Of course not. Or, at least, not necessarily. Finally, seeking the “intention” of anyone for anything is doomed to failure – if nothing else, sociology, psychology, history, molecular biology, theology all tell us (in their own ways) that human action (like writing a book) is governed by a lot of things other than the “intention” of our conscious minds/wills/selves. In other words, there is always going to be lots of stuff in a book that the author never “intended” to put there.

This next bit may sound like I’m slagging you Sauce (if I can call you Sauce), but I truly and honestly am not. To be entirely honest, I can’t think of a more boring way to approach a text than the one you’ve put forward. Tolkien’s intentions are useful to know, maybe even required, but if to know them is to know the book – well, that way lies the death of all discussion and debate. The answer to every question becomes precisely the same, “What does Tolkien say?” and if we can find the answer, then conversation is resolved with one person being right, and the other being wrong. If we can’t find the answer, then the conversation simply dies.

[The Saucepan Man]

Hmm. Perhaps "primary purpose" was the wrong word to use in describing the nature of serious discussion threads here. Determining the author's intention is rather, I think, the natural inclination of the majority of those who post in such threads (myself included). The natural response of many to most of the questions raised in the Books forum is to quote from the text itself, or from associated materials such as the Letters.


To be entirely honest, I can’t think of a more boring way to approach a text than the one you’ve put forward. Yes, I see your point. But, then again, I see the author's intention as just the starting point in any discussion. Having determined this as best we can, from both the primary source (the book itself) and the secondary source (biographical materials, unpublished and draft writings etc), I believe that there is still considerable scope for interpretation and discussion. The source material will not cover every single aspect raised on a particular issue and there will often be scope for interpretation of the author's intentions themselves, and therein lies fertile material for discussion and debate. It seems to me that there are, and always have been, in this forum fascinating discussion threads involving quite considerable differences of opinion, even though each of the participants may be approaching the issue from the perspective that the author's intentions represent the underlying "truth".

But I also agree that this is not the only way of approaching Tolkien's published material. While it happens to be (as I see it) the most prevalent approach to discussions on this forum, there is nothing to prevent you or anyone else tackling themes within Tolkien's works on the basis that you have outlined. Of course, you might get told that your thoughts are "wrong" where they conflict with those of the author, although I would have thought that this could easily be addressed by acknowledging the conflict at the outset and making clear the purpose of the discussion.

[Bêthberry]

I think SaucepanMan was right that this question of canonicity and intentionality lurks unexamined in many Books threads. If I may, let me backtrack from the many fine posts here a bit to present what the topic of canonicity suggests to me. And, since I am a literary scholar by training, I should warn you that I am going to bring some of my professional life's dealing into the mix here. So, put your feet up and set a spell. Or skip on to the next post. :)

It's probably fairly safe to say that for many if not most readers, the assumption is that an author owns a story because she created it. Kind of like an owner of the property which readers use or rent. However, this concept of the writer as the owner of meaning, controlling interpretation behind a text, is a recent one--recent meaning one derived from the last couple of centuries. It was not, of course, a concept that Tolkien worked with. As Fordim points outs, Tolkien

. . . believed that the truth of any tale lies in its historical origins -- more specifically, the historical origins of the words that have given rise to the tale.

Tolkien, of course, worked with literary texts for which authorship was unknown. It has been a conceit of scholarship to go back as Sharkey says, to attempt to retrieve an authoritative text:

Older mediaevalist science, for example, tried to construct an 'author's text' from the extant material, looking for sensible compromises and judging by their own ideas of taste and style. The result was of course a stab in the dark in regard to authencity

I think, however, it is very important to acknowledge that this is not what Tolkien did. He placed his significance necessarily in the tale itself. This is one reason why I am so tremendously impressed by his scholarly essays on Beowulf and On Fairy-Stories. They are remarkable evidences of his incredible feel for story.

If we pause, not merely to note that such old elements have been preserved, but to think how]/i] they have been preserved, we must conclude, I think, that it has happened, often if not always, precisely because of this literary effect....The ancient elements can be knocked out, or forgotten and dropped out, or replaced by other ingredients with the greatest ease: as any comparison of a story with closely related variants will show. The things that are there must often have been retained (or inserted) because the oral narrators, instinctively or consciously, felt their literary 'significance'. Even where a prohibition in a fairy-story is guessed to be derived from some taboo once practiced long ago, it has probably been preserved in the later stages of tahe tale's history because of [b]the great mythical significance of prohibition. Source: On Fairy-Stories

I will return to this point that the story's the thing wherein we catch the conscience of the creation--sorry Hamlet--but for now let me ramble on about the significance of authorial intention. Here's where I get to bore you with a bit of scholarly stuff, my own little thread in the great tapestry of literary understanding, not any complete history of literary theory,and I tell it here merely to explain how I view authorial authority more circumspectly than many.

My scholarly research dealt with how, in the nineteenth century, the questions about the authority of the Bible led to questions about the authority of any kind of exegesis. Big word--it means critical explanation or interpretation. I won't name-check any people in the controversies here; my point is simply that as the errors and inaccuracies in the transcriptions of the Bible became known and as the understanding of plenary inspiration itself came to be questioned, this scepticism spread to underlining fundamental assumptions about the traditional response to language. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the poet, is particularly important here in assigning an active participation to the reader; his thought is consistent with St. Augustine's defense of figurative language (a particular bone of contention in the rising empirical tradition) as a test of intelligence. What does this all mean? It means that, for a variety of reasons, the role of the reader was being brought to the forefront of thought about interpretation. More and more, attention was being given to something like a fiduciary approach to language, where language was seen as "a living organism whose function is to reconcile the past and present experience of a community" (John Coulson, Newman and The Common Tradition).

Still with me? Never fear; this will come back 'round to Tolkien.

Authors themselves have long played with notions about where the authority of a book lies: with the author, the book, the reader, with sources. That naughty cleric Laurence Sterne justified his scurrility by recourse to his reader's imagination on more than one occasion: "No one who knows what he is about in good company would venture to talk all ... so no author... would presume to think all: The truest respect which you can pay to the reader's understanding, is to halve this matter amicably, and leave him something to imagine, in his turn, as well as yourself." (That's from the notorious novel, Tristram Shandy.)

Sterne is having a bit of sport here because he was specifically talking about the naughty bits. But my point is that there is a tradition of interpretation which grants to readers active participation in the generation of meaning. Charlotte Bronte's "Reader, I married him" is the last in a significant number of addresses to the Reader that in fact, when attended to closely, produce a warning to readers not to take the romance of Jane Eyre at 'face' value.

Okay, let me move on. Sharkey points out that, unlike medieval scholars, we have an author identified and an author who was quite willing thank you very much to tell us what his books meant. Well, yes and no. Literary criticism is full of examples where authors proved to be unreliable narrators of their own creative lives. They never got their own stories about how they wrote and what they meant 'right.' Or they were writing their explications years after writing the story and in the process were creating intentions and meanings that had not been 'there' in the stories at the time of creation. Or they were working backwards to discover motives and ideas which were consciously part of the initial plan. Sometimes, too, authors wrote certain explanations to certain recipients, explanations which were couched for the benefit of the letter's recipient rather than as a formal bit of literary explication. Entire professional careers have been launched by demonstrating spectacularly that Author so and so was wrong in his Letters. (I exaggerate for effect, but not much.) At the very best, an author's literary remains need to be examined sceptically and evaluated for their applicability rather than being automatically accepted as authoritative evidence in a body of work. This is not to disparage Tolkien as unreliable or dishonest in any way, but to suggest a cautionary way of proceeding with any and all authors, to suggest that an author's thoughts should not automatically by fiat supercede other innterpretations.

Yet what I have to say next will most likely surprise many of you--or appall you. These currents of thought, the nature of readerly participation and the need for cautionary acceptance of authorial claims (coupled with several other currents of thought which I overlook here), took a jump to light speed in the late twentieth century. But bear with me because this, too, will lead to Tolkien. Structuralist critics such as Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault claimed not simply that authors could be wrong, and not merely that they were dead wrong. But that they were dead. Period.

And, well, after all, why should that be any great shock? Nietzche had claimed that God was dead, so why should authors escape a similar fate? (And, yes, I know that joke about the washroom graffiti: Nietzche: 'God is dead.' God: 'Nietzche is dead.') Okay, I'll get back to the topic.

No, honestly, this is not another Barrow Downs joke. The death of the author became a ringing challenge of discussion and debate. Both Barthes and Foucault sought to overcome the stranglehold of appropriation which the concept of authorship held over meaning and understanding in the empirical tradition (that same tradition which was shaking up the biblical criticism I mentioned earlier).

What Barthes sought to recover was a sense of the performative excitement of reading when the reader engages with the text. He wanted, in The Pleasure of the Text, to do away with this notion that there was somehow an active writer behind the text and a passive reader in front of the text. The text can only be reached by itself, by its own words rather than by talk about it. Foucault went farther in considering how we have created a concept of 'author-function' which allows us to assign significance.

At the same time, however, "literary" discourse was acceptable only if it carried an author's name; every text of poetry or fiction was obliged to state its author and the date, place, and circumstance of its writing. The meaning and value attributed to the text depended upon this information. If by accident or design a text was presented anonymously, every effort was made to locate its author. Literary anonymity was of interest only as a puzzle to be solved as, in our day, literary works are totally dominated by the sovereignty of the author. (Undoubtedly, these remarks are far too categorical. Criticism has been concerned for some time now with aspects of a text not fully dependent upon the notion of an individual creator; studies of genre or the analysis of recurring textual motifs and their variations from a norm ther than author. From "The Author Function" 1970.

And, again,

The third point concerning this "author-function" is that it is not formed spontaneously through the simple attribution of a discourse to an individual. It results from a complex operation whose purpose is to construct the rational entity we call an author. Undoubtedly, this construction is assigned a "realistic" dimension as we speak of an individual's "profundity" or "creative" power, his intentions or the original inspiration manifested in writing. Nevertheless, these aspect of an individual, which we designate as an author (or which comprise an individual as an author), are projections, in terms always more or less psychological, of our way of handling texts: in the comparisons we make, the traits we extract as pertinent, the continuities we assign, or the exclusions we practice. In addition, all these operations vary according to the period and the form of discourse concerned. A "philosopher" and a "poet" are not constructed in the same manner; and the author of an eighteenth-century novel was formed differently from the modern novelist.

Even if critics hate Barthes and Foucault, their work still must be acknowledged. What I find particularly fascinating about all of this is that Barthes and Foucault came from Catholic cultures. In fact, Barthes' The Pleasure of the Text is even structured after a Catholic prayer formula. And we all know that Tolkien's Catholic faith was profound (unlike that of Barthes and Foucault, but that does not concern me here.)

You see, I think, in obviously very different ways and means, these three men were responding to that old traditional assumption about language as fiduciary, a creation of meaning which pertains not in the words themselves on the page but in that special space which exists between the story and the reader's imagination, a meaning which comes about through inference and assent, "a living organism whose function is to reconcile the past and present experience of a community" (Coulson, again). Well, maybe Barthes was more into orgasm than organism, but ...

The 'truth' about understanding lies in the tale and its life beyond the author. A tale, once published, is like a child who has grown up and moved away from Mum and Dad. It is responsible for itself.

It seems to me that literary theory of the last several decades represents a serious effort to get back to that situation which Tolkien faced: how to understand how a text speaks to us without the parental voice always telling us what to think. Here I take us back to the lecture "On Fairy-Stories?"

But when we have done all that research?collection and comparison of the tales of many lands?can do? when we have explained many of the elements commonly found embedded in fairy-stories (such as step-mothers, enchanted bears and bulls, cannibal witches, taboos on names, and the like) as relics of ancient customs once practiced in daily life, or of beliefs once held as beliefs and not as 'fancies'[b] there remains still a point too often forgotten: that is the effect produced [i]now by these old things in the stories as they are. . . . Such stories have now a mythical or total (unanalysable) effect, an effect quite independent of the findings of Comparative Folk-lore; they open a door on Other Time, and if we pass through, though only for a moment, we stand outside our own time, outside Time itself, maybe..

I am making many jumps here. But let me provide one final quotation, from a critic who is closer in many ways to my own way of thinking than Foucault et al. George Steiner is no trendy post-modernist, but he, too, is working in this way I have of thinking about Tolkien and canonicity.

'Interpretation' as that whick give language life beyond the moment and place of immediate utterance or transcription is what I am concerned with. The French word interprète concentrates all the relevant values. An actor is interprète of Racine; a pianist gives une interpretation of a Beethoven sonata. Through engagement of his own identity, a critic becomes un interprète--a life-giving performer--of Montaigne or Mallarmé. As it does not include the world of the actor, and includes that of the musician only by analogy, the English term interpreter is less strong. But it is congruent withthe French when reaching out in another crucial direction. Interprète/ interpreter are commonly used to mean translator... When we read or hear any language-statement from the past, be it Leviticus or last year's best seller, we translate. Reader, actor, editor are translators of language out of time..

No, I did not include this last quotation simply so that Mallarmé reference might please a certain English interprète of French Radicalism who sometimes haunts our threads. ;)

I included it as a final statement of what I believe was important to Tolkien and what I think is vital in discussing Middle-earth, that we respect the extraordinary experience of reading his texts and engaging with his stories rather than demanding that there is any one particular way of reading him. This is my way of understanding sub-creation and it is one which will respect any fair and honest readingof Tolkien as the experience of the reader. Like Tolkien, I believe that meaning is not imposed by fiat but created by the web of words. In our acts of discussing Tolkien lie the essence of sub-creation, not in a reductive archeology.

[davem]

Difficult to follow Bethberry!

Obviously, we all enter ME in ignorance, are either enchanted or appalled. Germaine Greer has had an animus against all things Tolkien related since the sixties - but has admitted that she has only read the first chapter of LotR.

Those of us who do become 'enchanted' are not enchanted by the Legendarium as a whole. We may, if the enchantment is sufficiently powerful, go on to look into it - at which point the enchantment may become stronger or weaker. I think it was Shippey who mentioned meeting a woman on a train who claimed she loved everything Tolkien had written. On being asked what she thought of the Silmarillion she said she had no interest in it - she considered 'everything' he had written to comprise the Hobbit & LotR.

For people like that, Hobbit & LotR are sufficient to enchant, & anything more breaks the spell.

In other words, the 'spell' is cast for most of us without the background history. If we choose to move beyond the 'unexplained vistas' we have to risk the loss of enchantment. The more we discover, the more 'fixed' Middle Earth becomes, the less room for manouvre imaginatively - would Tolkien have approved? Which did he place the greater value on?

Moving into ME, is at once fascinating & restricting. One often has to suspend not only disbelief, but also disapproval, & accept what Tolkien has given, in order to understand his vision. When one comes out of ME one can then make a decision on what one likes & what one dislikes. But we then risk disenchantment - breaking a thing to find out what it is made of.

Increasingly, as anyone who has read any of my recent posts on the 'Nebulous it' thread will have come to realise, I take ideas from the books as starting points in my attempts to explore & understand my own feelings on 'life, the universe & everything'. So, in the same way as a writer of fanfiction, I am taking Tolkien's creation as raw material for my own exploration of his world - specifically the moral/philosophical dimension. The results are as 'mad' & extreme & 'uncanonical' as anything a writer of fanfic could produce. Would Tolkien approve of my use of his intellectual property? I have no idea. But as someone who didn't attend college, has never haunted the Halls of Academe, but was inspired by my discover of him to study Myth, Jungian psychology, ancient literature & then to branch out into the study of religion, I hope he would be pleased to have instilled a desire for learning in an ignorant oik such as I was.

In short, I feel that what we find in Tolkien's works, the inspiration we bring out from Middle Earth, is Tolkien's gift to us, the real enchantment that he works. I also wonder whether he would have approved of the obsessive desire to know every detail of his invented world. I doubt he would have approved of his near 'deification' by some 'fans'.

We shouldn't confuse our values with his - If he has stated a 'fact' about ME, it should be accepted as a 'fact' - but we can put that fact on one side & concentrate on other facts which appeal more. Or on enjoying being enchanted - even if a large part of that enchantment is contary to the author's own intention. If the 'facts' destroy the enchantment lets ignore them, & do it proudly. Why should the facts get in the way of a good story? And as the reporter in the movie The Man who Shot Liberty Valence said: 'When the Legend becomes a fact, print the Legend'.

If we must choose between the 'facts' of an author's creation & the 'enchantment' it provides, the facts must come a poor second. Is 'understanding' Tolkien's invented world, or 'understanding' the man himself, really of such great value?

As I stated in my earlier post here - I reject the 'Dome of Varda' & related ideas & prefer the earlier 'primitive' (in Tolkien's word) version of the story. I said it was 'silly' - what I meant was it was not 'enchanting' - not to me - & is like choosing to print the fact. It neither enchants nor inspires, so I choose the earlier account. I mean no offence to the author, but we have to choose, & judge. If one version enchants me & the other doesn't, I think I know which choice Tolkien would approve.

[mark12_30]

The discussion has moved from :

Canon -- The Original Works Themselves (does it include Author's supporting documentation? Open to debate. (EDIT: then again, see bottom of post.))

Through

Interpretation -- Reader's perspective

also through

Application -- Reader's actions/response based on interpretation

...and now to

Enchantment -- ...wild stab at definition:) Encounter with Faerie which brings sense of wonder, mystery, longing, possibly including Eucatastrophe.

~*~*~

....And just because I was wondering: from dictionary.com.... 5b, no?

canon: NOUN:
1. An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council.
2. A secular law, rule, or code of law.
3a. An established principle: the canons of polite society. b. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.
4. The books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.
5a. A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: “the durable canon of American short fiction” (William Styron).
b. The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic: the entire Shakespeare canon.
6. Canon The part of the Mass beginning after the Preface and Sanctus and ending just before the Lord's Prayer.
7. The calendar of saints accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
8. Music A composition or passage in which a melody is imitated by one or more voices at fixed intervals of pitch and time.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English canoun, from Old English canon and from Old French, both from Latin can n, rule, from Greek kan n, measuring rod, rule.

[Sharkû]

The question of what is canon seems to have a different nuance for this discussion than generally when applied to Tolkien’s Legendarium – it is think most widely agreed that everything published by Tolkien in his lifetime is canon. What this definition is missing is a differentiation between ‘facts’ and the interpretation thereof. In this regard, I think Tolkien’s case may not be unique, but rare and special, since the professor not only added to the imagined truth of his fantasy world, but also gave his own interpretations of it. Furthermore, he always imagined the account of the Ring War only to be one part of the Legendarium as a whole, and rightly so. A structuralistic approach to Middle-earth would therefore demand that one has to take into account all relevant texts if the matter of contemplation is affected by them.
One may be able to enjoy the LR as immanent and independent in itself, maybe even more so (as has been explained above). But when it comes to discussion and interpretation, concentrating on it solely and ignoring the ‘facts’ of the other writings -- canon or not -- can, while perhaps being prefectly right, still only be incomplete. Since the Legendarium definitely has a syntagmatic structure, one should not purposefully choose to ignore it and expect comprehensive results.

The way Middle-earth appears to us is like a myriad of ‘facts’ trickling down from a vast vessel which is Fantasy (or rather ‘Fairie’?). The only nexus point from which it enters our world was, however, its author. All Middle-earth-relevant facts derive from Tolkien. Semantically, the writings of the Legendarium would be the formal side of a meaning which anyone can interpret upon reading. The referential side of it is however not affected by the individually conceived meanings.

Discussions of Tolkien naturally have different ways and directions of asking and of contemplation. When one of the ‘trickled down facts’ makes us wonder about another ‘fact’, is it not best to look among the other ‘facts’? If the answer does not satisfy the reader, he can always choose to ignore it; but that isn’t helpful to discussion.
If, however, the matter cannot be answered by the other extant writings, we have to project an image gained from clues and evidence. Whether this is boring or not may not be very important, since noone is forced to guess what lies in the vast vessel, or beyond the far, enchanting mountains which we cannot reach.

Matters become more difficult when entering the area of pure ‘interpretation’. I do not think the terms “right” or “wrong” apply at all here, because of their mutual exclusiveness. The catholic intention of the LR may or may not have been prevalent when it was written, but I’d say that the book can be enjoyed just as well, perhaps even more, if one does not know about its intentions, or has ever heard about Christianity at all. The Legendarium’s ‘impact’ is arguably not dependent on its meaning, conceived or intented.
Now, we have the Letters where Tolkien addresses the book’s catholic undertones at length. The existence of these explanations doesn’t make them binding in my view; but it does make them necessary to consider. I doubt a discussion would be comprehensive if it argued for the LR being an atheistic book if it ignored the Letters. A very ‘incomplete’ discussion or contemplation would likely be considered ‘wrong’ more often than ‘right’.
The example of Gollum being pushed by providence is well chosen; but I actually considered Tolkien’s comments on this aspect more an interpreation than a presentation of ‘fact’, which would make it important, but not necessarily ‘true’ or ‘canonical’.

The very nature of Tolkien’s methods of expanding the Legendarium, including its textual material and therewith its ‘facts’ is interesting, but might actually fall in a doubtful area: “working backwards to discover motives and ideas which were consciously part of the initial plan”, as Bêth put it; in Tolkien’s case of course rather unconsciously. Most of us, including myself, seem perfectly content and probably grateful that Tolkien did expand the Legendarium after a part of it was published as far as it concerned ‘facts’. Perhaps it is this sense of ‘taking what you can get’ which inherently makes us accept the ‘truth’ of the appendices, or the Sauron=humanoid quotes and similar ones. Other authors have always been trying to explain what they had written, but when Tolkien did so, he added to the greater whole of Middle-earth, and this might make it more acceptable than an author trying to cover a logical flaw only with a far-fetched explanation and a authorative sense of ‘that’s how it was’.

This only adds to a sense of vastness one cannot help to feel when looking at Middle-earth. It would seem only natural that one looks at its author as a guide, especially since he has already succeeded in making clear some ‘factual’ points. Those who do not need a guide are free to wander at will.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

The way Middle-earth appears to us is like a myriad of ‘facts’ trickling down from a vast vessel which is Fantasy (or rather ‘Fairie’?). The only nexus point from which it enters our world was, however, its author. All Middle-earth-relevant facts derive from Tolkien.

This is an excruciatingly important point Sharkû, as it puts Bêthberry’s comments about Foucault and Barthes into a context that I doubt either of them ever really considered. For Barthes the author ‘dies’ (to the reader, at the moment the text is ‘completed’ ) and for Foucault the author ‘disappears’ (into the discursive structures that penetrate the moment of textual ‘creation’ ). In each case, the author recedes and the text is ‘absorbed’ into the world of power-relations that encompass the text’s new locus: the reader. But what of a work of fantasy like Tolkien’s? The point that has been made again and again in this thread is that for this work to survive as an interpretable object (that is, for it to survive as a text at all) we must include in the web of relations that come to replace the author the mythic/philosophical/moral world that the author has created – and thus the author, at the very moment of his death, is magically brought back to life (is this the “enchantment” of the text about which Davem writes so movingly?).

There is, so far as I can tell, a huge difference between the process of authorial death as described by Barthes and what we experience with Tolkien. The author dies for Barthes, because the text’s ‘real’ existence is in the world that the author and the reader ‘share’; they may have totally different interpretations of that world, and hence of the text (this is why the author dies), but the world they share is the same one (our Primary world). But with Tolkien, the text’s ‘real’ existence is in the world that the author has subcreated – the only way the reader can thus ‘share’ the same world as the text is to revive the author in some fashion by becoming “inclined to accept” (quoting Saucepan Man now) the author’s interpretation of that world (without necessarily becoming bound to or by it).

Barthes and Foucault I am sure would argue that the author is still dead and/or absent, and that the reader is merely projecting onto the text his or her own subjectivity in order to create a ghost-impression of the author to fill the void left by the subcreator’s absence – thus making the author even more dead or more absent by erasing the death with a golem of one’s own.

But I don’t think I buy that line of thought…the enchantment of the text is too real.

[Bêthberry]

My apologies, davem, for an overly long post difficult to follow.

I must say I did not write out of any desire to flaunt my particular small area of training. We all come to Tolkien from our own perspectives and values and, I think, our relationship to/with him and his work is not necessarily uniform or unchanging. I first devoured The Hobbit and then LotR as a teenage infatuation with all things fantasy and then had the great pleasure of discovering Tolkien's 'serious' side when I studied Old English. An unexpected bonus!

I really felt that there was a very strong conflict developing between the issue of the freedom of the reader and the authority of the author and what I had hoped to do was provide some clear and extensive points in favour of the reader's experience--points made not simply as personal preference and opinion but as evidenced in a critical perspective which traditionally had ignored Tolkien but in which I hoped to suggest he could be included.

I think Germaine Greer has an animus with more issues than just Tolkien. ;)
Enough for one late night!

[doug*platypus]

I'd like to expand on something I said in my first post: during the course of our reading it is possible to discover things in Middle Earth that Tolkien did not consciously put there. Bêthberry described several good reasons why an author who examines their work at a later date may not analyse it correctly, despite the fact that it was their own. Each of us is a different person now to what we were five years ago. Try looking back at your earliest posts on the Barrow Downs, and it may seem like reading the words of a very familiar stranger. You may need to read the text and try to step into the shoes of this stranger to understand what they were getting at.

Orcs as hideously altered Eldar was an idea that Tolkien did not favour later in his life. This is a strong example of the problems of canon: should the views of the older Tolkien be considered superior to those of the Tolkien who originally concocted the idea? In my opinion, not necessarily. My own view is that it is sometimes foolish to attempt to rewrite your own words many years after they have been written. The meaning or reason that was obvious when you first wrote them may not be apparent to your future self. Discussion over which Orcish Genesis should be accepted as the "objective truth" has never, to my knowledge, decided one way or the other. Even Tolkien does not have absolute veto power over Tolkien. ;)

Clearly, then, a broader definition of what is acceptable as canon is required. As Sharkû pointed out, this website has already gone past the dictionary.com definition of this term (thank goodness!!). I think that what Fordim is driving towards (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is a treatment of Middle Earth lore as real history, with Professor Tolkien as the most reliable source, but not the ultimate truth. A canon-friendly world, but not one which relies on the words of Tolkien alone. This scenario would see works of Middle Earth history by from Mark 12:30, Bêthberry, Child of the 7th Age and others considered and debated with an eye critical not only to the story, but to its historical accuracy. I don't know if so-called fanfics are regarded in this way at present, but they certainly could be.

Many threads on the Downs have ended with a crushing Deus ex Machina in the form of a quote from Tolkien. No doubt this is one of the things that raised Fordim's pugly hackles to the point where this thread was born. Perhaps it is more worthwhile to continue discussions even after this killing blow has been administered. Tolkien's commentary on his own works have varying degrees of reliability, if you believe in what I was saying earlier in this post. For example, his assertion that nobody could have resisted the One Ring in the Sammath Naur was absolute, and could justifiably be used to end a debate (unless the stubborn among us mentioned the words What, If and Ilúvatar). But Tolkien's decision that Orcs were not corrupted Elves seems less certain. So nobody should be told they are irrefutably "wrong" when they say that Orcs were created in this fashion. They should simply be advised that the evidence is heavily against them. Small distinction, but quite important.

[Bêthberry]

A very brief reply, Fordim before I dash out the door. I wonder if what you and Sharkey have hit upon could be termed a referential fallacy. Here we have the situation in which the only texts for which we could plausibly posit a Creator are those which were inextricably created solely by a Creator in a realm of fantasy, or faerie ouside our real world. Fascinating. A golem indeed.

[mark12_30]

Dear Doug,

You wrote:

Clearly, then, a broader definition of what is acceptable as canon is required. As Sharkû pointed out, this website has already gone past the dictionary.com definition of this term (thank goodness!!).

I have real heartache with this as some may have noticed. "Canon" is a perfectly good word as it stands, and re-defining it only makes things harder on all of us. Those who haven't read this thread willl think it means one thing, and confusion will abound (it already does, why make it worse?)

I have no problem with the heart of what Fordim is suggesting; I have a problem with calling in "canon". "Canon" isn't what I write, unless you call it "Helen's canon", in which case I doubt it would interest this board.

Certainly good fanfic/ RPGs are worth writing-- and worth enjoying, and worth exploring, and the better they are the more we enjoy them; but I think if you asked some of the most successful writers here (I hold up Mithadan as a stellar example) who have written fanfic considered very "canonically friendly" (Tales from Tol Eressea!), he would be the first to protest: "My work isn't canon." He's said so in the past. Also, Piosenniel has stated in the above-linked thread that she feels the same way. I believe Child would also (Sharon, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Tolkien, as I understand him, set the precedent of inventing new words such as "eucatastrophe" when he was forging into new territory. Can't we follow in his path? Or can we differentiate between "Tolkien's canon" and "Middle-Earth (something)canon(something)? Help, please, linguists. Let's invent a new word. We need one.

I think that what Fordim is driving towards (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is a treatment of Middle Earth lore as real history, with Professor Tolkien as the most reliable source, but not the ultimate truth. A canon-friendly world, but not one which relies on the words of Tolkien alone. This scenario would see works of Middle Earth history by from Mark 12:30, Bêthberry, Child of the 7th Age and others considered and debated with an eye critical not only to the story, but to its historical accuracy. I don't know if so-called fanfics are regarded in this way at present, but they certainly could be.


This sounds all fine and good, and I'm all for it-- and intensely honored and flattered and pleased to be included in your list--- just please, please, don't call it "Canon" plain and simple. That crown belongs to Tolkien alone, and I for one would lose so much sleep.

[The Saucepan Man]

Doug, I would like to think that, when Tolkien has put forward conflicting theories in his writings, there remains considerable scope for debate. Indeed, the origins of Orcs has occupied considerable thread-space on this forum. It's really up there with Bombadillo and Balrog's Wings. Questions arise such as how can Orcs have been derived from men when they were around before men awoke; how can they be mere beasts and still have conversations like those we witness between Shagrat and Gorbag; if they were derived from Elves, are they immortal; if they have feä, is redemption available to them? All these discussions have taken place, with many different opinions expressed, and I am sure that there are many more potential discussions which have yet to occur.

Many who have posted here have quite rightly made the distinction between matters of fact and matters of interpretation (although the distinction is not always an easy one to make, as I consider further below). But the question of the nature and origin of Orcs is quite clearly an issue of fact. Within the Legendarium, Orcs existed and so they had to have come into existence somehow. Because we have no clear answer on this from the author, I would say that the reader is entitled to choose the theory which best suits his or her Middle-earth world-view (or perhaps even come up with a different theory), or to try to reconcile the conflicting theories, or even to reject the issue as unimportant. (It is, I suppose, a perfectly respectable argument to say that, because the only theory set down in a published and completed work is that given in the Silmarillion, namely that Orcs were derived from Elves captured by Morgoth, then that must be the "truth" of the matter. But the reader still has freedom to make his or her own choice and the scholar still has freedom to debate the point.)

Quite clearly, as a general proposition, we have to accept, if we are taking a book seriously, what is actually said in the text. We cannot very well choose to believe, for example, that Boromir never attempted to seize the Ring, or that the Hobbits met Aragorn at Rivendell rather than Bree. But even in this area, the issue is not clear-cut. For example, Tolkien himself tells us not to take everything that Treebeard says at face value, since he is "not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or understand" (Letter 153). And there are those who assert that some of the "facts" presented in the Hobbit were mere fanciful elaborations by Bilbo, the Stone Giants for example (although I do not hold with this theory myself). So it would seem that there is some (albeit limited) scope for rejecting some of what we are told in the text itself.

As for the secondary material, we all seem to agree that the reader has the freedom to accept or reject "facts" which are presented there. But is this because (at least with regard to what Tolkien says in his Letters) they are actually not matters of fact at all, but rather matters of interpretation? Sharkey, you categorise Tolkien's comment that Gollum was pushed into the fires of Orodruin as a matter of interpretation, rather than fact. But is that really the case? If Tolkien had told us in LotR itself that this was what happened, we would surely have to accept it as fact. Does it take on a different characterisation, simply because he wrote about it in a letter rather than inserting it in the primary text? And does this apply to other matters which are quite clearly more factual in nature? Should we take it as an issue of fact, for example, that the Rohirrim spoke with a slower tempo and more sonorous articulation (Letter 193), or is this a matter of interpretation because it is not said in the primary text? (I am assuming that it is not, but I have not checked and stand to be corrected.) Is it an issue of fact or interpretation that no one (Bombadil excepted) could willingly have destroyed the Ring? Perhaps it does not matter since the reader is entitled to reject anything which is not said in the primary text in any event. But, if we are to take issues of fact stated in the secondary material as being of greater weight in establishing the "truth" of the Legendarium than issues of interpretation, the point assumes greater significance. Presumably it depends upon how the point is expressed. Obviously, if the author says that his interpretation of X is Y, then that is a matter of interpretation. And the texts presented in Unfinished Tales and the HoME series are perhaps more likely to be factual than interpretational. But it will not always be clear. Which, I suppose, provides yet more scope for debate. ;)

[davem]

Bethberry I didn't mean that what you were saying was difficult to understand. I meant it was difficult to be in the position of having my ramblings follow your beautifully reasoned & argued post!

If I can put my understanding of Tolkien's stated position in the Fairy stories essay, It seems he was saying that sub creation involves the reader as well as the writer or hearer of the story. He says that when the story speaks of a hill, river or tree, then the reader will suppply the image from their own experience - the 'hill' the reader pictures will be made up from all the hills the reader has known, & specifically from the first hill the reader ever knew - the one that will always mean 'hill' to them.

So, the reader is creating the imaginary landscape, & to an extent the characters. The writer gives the story, the events, & the reader provides their imaginative form. So we have a kind of 'co-creation' going on. So, the 'primary' world (or the reader's memories & experience of it) is taken up into the 'secondary' world, giving it a sense of reality, which a movie, for instance, cannot, because the personal dimension is lacking. Then, on emerging from the 'secondary' world, we see the 'primary' world in a new light, as the 'secondary' world now 'overlays' it in our imagination. The 'primary world makes the 'secondary' world seem more 'real' & the 'secondary' world makes the 'primary' world seem more 'magical'.

So in this sense we are as much creators of Middle Earth as Tolkien, because the specific form it has for us imaginatively is our own unique creation. Hence, some things in the secondary world will have more impact on us than others. Some 'facts' will seem to be of the utmost relevance, others will barely register. So, in terms of relevance, we will all make our own decisions as regards what is valuable & what is not. This will apply also to what stories speak to us & what we have absolutely no time for. It will also, perhaps, lead us to feel that some aspects/events/stories of the secondary world are 'wrong' or out of place (as the Dome of Varda, or orcs having their origins in men rather than Elves).

We cannot separate our own feelings & responses from the facts - because as I said, many 'facts' will not even register - at least on early readings (or even on later readings).

It is the effect of the story on the individual reader which will matter to that person, & that effect cannot be affected (unless completely destroyed) by the intrusion of 'said facts'. So, all the facts will not 'move' a reader who finds no relevance in them. A tonne of facts is not worth a gramme of enchantment. And the power of a secondary world to enchant is in no way dependent on background information - though that background information may for some readers enhance the 'reality' of the world. The secondary world must be internally consistent & coherent if the 'spell' is to work.

Enchantment is the point. If the secondary world does not enchant, it will not work, the reader will put down the book & seek enchantment elsewhere. So, the 'facts' are secondary, & their value can only be determined by whether they increase or decrease the enchantment. Some of the most powerful fairy tales are short, stark, & contain very little background information. In a way they work because the reader must supply most of that background from their own imagination.

Returning to Middle Earth. An intimate knowledge of every 'fact' Tolkien produced may not produce enchantment in a reader.But some readers who only know the Hobbit & LotR, & nothing else may be swept into Middle Earth & completely enchanted by those two works, & neither need nor desire any more. I think Tolkien would have felt they were his real audience - what author wouldn't?

[Child of the 7th Age]

From Helen.....

Certainly good fanfic/ RPGs are worth writing-- and worth enjoying, and worth exploring, and the better they are the more we enjoy them; but I think if you asked some of the most successful writers here (I hold up Mithadan as a stellar example) who have written fanfic considered very "canonically friendly" (Tales from Tol Eressea!), he would be the first to protest: "My work isn't canon." He's said so in the past. Also, Piosenniel has stated in the above-linked thread that she feels the same way. I believe Child would also (Sharon, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Definitely!

I am running out the door, but have quickly scanned over the thread and wanted to add this. I agree with Helen that the word "canon" should be limited in its application. Those things we dream up -- RPG, fanfiction, interesting theories on the origin of wyrms or Orcs -- have nothing to do with "canon", even when and if we choose to keep things as consistent as we can with Tolkien. The thread Helen made a link to was written when we were discussing setting up the current RPG structure and forums. If I had to do it over again, I would forever erase that word "canon" from the thread!

There is a body of Tolkien's writing which can be called canon (of varying degrees of authority) and I would include the Letters somewhere within that group (and hence Tolkien's views on a matter such as what happened to Gollum.) We can argue about what writings fall into that category and point out the many inconsistencies and contradictions. Canon is the starting point from which many discussions of Tolkien evolve. It is not necessarily the ending point, but I do think a public discussion is richer for at least acknowledging the existence of such. The fact that I'm an historian and archivist means that I naturally put a lot of emphasis on textual studies. And I don't find such things boring or meaningless.

However, Davem's post points to the core of the thing. Left by itself, canon has no life. It is enchantment that draws us back again and gives life to discussions, even those which supposedly focus on "canon". I find discussions of canon interesting precisely because I have read the text and responded to it on another level. If that had never occurred, I would never give the writings a second look.

In that primary confrontation that occurs with the text, canon has only tangential meaning. My primary response when I read the books in the sixties remains just as valid today as my later readings, probably more valid, because I can never recapture that freshness again, even though I may be able to see layers of meaning that I had no idea existed before.

I have long been curious about something that relates to this question at least loosely. Many have said that Tolkien could never finish the Silm not because of lack of time but because he did not want to take away the mystery of the distant vistas (as well as problems of coordinating all the different ideas in such a vast body of material). Yet, it almost sounds as if he was afraid the details of canon would obscure the enchantment.

For similar reasons, I sometimes wonder whether JRRT would ever have condoned the publication of HoMe, or at least those parts of it that deal with the actual process of writing LotR and the various drafts. Does it take away too much of the mystery by exposing the bones that lie underneath? We are obviously gaining something in knowledge, but have we lost something as well? Not that I don't like speculating about Bingo and hobbit rangers and such, or realizing the vastness of the Legendarium.

Is there a trade-off between canon and enchantment, or is "more" canon and information always a positive thing, perhaps serving as an underground spring that enriches enchantment for the reader who may return to the text years later?
Written in haste.

[mark12_30]

Attempts at new name...

"Second Generation mythology"
"mythical derivative"
"legendarium extension"

..bleah... awkward as heck.

Come on, somebody, find the right word or phrase to do justice to the concept of this thread...? Maybe something in Sindarin, or something.

[Lord of Angmar]

A valiant effort, mark12_30. :) I rather like "mythical derivative."

How about "substantiated woolgathering?" :rolleyes:

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

While I would hate to see this wonderful discussion become an endless search for a ‘good term’ (nothing kills intellectual inquiry faster than terminology) the idea of refining our language at this point might be a good one – particularly since the term “Canonicity” with which this thread (unfortunately) began, is terribly inadequate.

In deference to Tolkien, I would suggest that we could recover the meaning of a word near and dear to his heart: historia. The Latin root for “history” it comes from the Greek word istor which meant something close to “wisdom” or “knowledge”. The Latin word, however, comes closest to capturing what we are on about. Historia means more than a collection of historical events or ‘facts’ (annals or a chronicle would be the correct words for that); instead it means the rendering of historical fact into a narrative that gives those facts meaning.

I would submit, that this is what Tolkien sought to do in all of his writings on Middle-Earth. He ‘knew’ what happened in his subcreated world, and on these facts we cannot question him – but he made sense of these events, he gave them meaning, through his historia about them (that is, his meaningful stories).

This is more accurate than it might sound, insofar as for Tolkien the act of subcreating Middle-Earth began with the words and the languages he invented. He came up with the words themselves and the languages (the historical ‘facts’ ) then sought out the stories that would give these languages the context that all languages need (i.e. speakers). In effect, in order for his subcreated names and languages to come to life, he had to generate a meaningful story to explain them. I would suggest that while we cannot question, add to or alter those foundational facts (names, languages, peoples) we have the right to generate our own historia to explain those facts as well.

[Novnarwen]

Quote: From Child of 7th Age's Post:
For similar reasons, I sometimes wonder whether JRRT would ever have condoned the publication of HoMe, or at least those parts of it that deal with the actual process of writing LotR and the various drafts. Does it take away too much of the mystery by exposing the bones that lie underneath? We are obviously gaining something in knowledge, but have we lost something as well?
I do think we 'lose' something. I started the two first books in the HoMe series, but I gave up, for several reasons. Mostly because I thought it silly of me to continue reading about a world I thought perfect, which I didn't want to ruin. (Heh.) I'm not sure whether I want to seek more knowledge at this point, as I like to keep Tolkien's works mysterious, and quite frankly; I don't think I want to know everything underneath the bones, simply because I don't want everything to give meaning, because not everything does (at least I think so..), not in real life either. I do not believe Tolkien used 12 years of analyzing his own texts to the most little, but not necessarily an insignificant, detail.

Quote: From davem' post
So, the reader is creating the imaginary landscape, & to an extent the characters. The writer gives the story, the events, & the reader provides their imaginative form. So we have a kind of 'co-creation' going on. So, the 'primary' world (or the reader's memories & experience of it) is taken up into the 'secondary' world, giving it a sense of reality, which a movie, for instance, cannot, because the personal dimension is lacking.
Hmm... I can see what you mean, Davem, but let me just tell you of my own experience..:)

I was so unlucky (or lucky, I don't know that yet) to see The Fellowship of the Ring before I actually read the book. So, basically, I was not able to really create the characters from the Fellowship of The Ring (book) or interpret as, maybe, you or Tolkien had in mind first, (before Peter Jackson hired Elijah Wood & Co, maybe?) However, as I was enthralled by the first book, obviously I had to read The Two Towers, (I did that before I saw the second film..) which, on the other hand, I was able to create the imaginary landscape and to an extent the 'new' characters (those who were not in the first film). Nevertheless, I was not able to completely use my imagination as I had seen so much of it on screen in advance, but certain events and characters were fully mine.

The good thing about seeing the film before you've read the book is perhaps that you don't get disappointed, because you don't know already what details the director has left out. But I realise, that most Tolkien Fanatics would, no matter what, be disappointed about the films, (correct me if I’m wrong..) since there were so many things left out. Maybe some of you would even think there were many ‘wrong’ interpretations, as you had pictured everything yourself. For my part, the first movie was quite enjoyable, as there were no interpretations which were ‘violated’.

The good thing about reading the book first, is that you can use your imagination and you are able to see Frodo and not Elijah Wood (and that horrible grin of his) whenever it says 'Frodo' in the book. I also think that you are more focused on facts, details etc. when reading the book without seeing the films, because when there is no film there is no 'easier' way to explain what you're reading, and there are no actors/actresses to interpret the characters for you, (or the events, for that matter.)

Anyway, I realise that I’m a BIT off topic, but I just wanted to point out that interpretations are individual. And as Davem said, the films cannot give you what the book(s) can. I’m a bit insecure whether I was lucky, or whether I was not.. The question I want to raise, (this is VERY off topic.. heh) is whether the film ‘ruins’ the ‘canonicity’ for the those who haven’t read the book(s) before seeing the film(s)?

Sorry if this was too off topic.

Cheers,
Nova

[doug*platypus]

Fordim, you may be right in saying that "nothing kills intellectual inquiry faster than terminology", but it's what could done with this terminology that interests me. I would love to see a more widespread recognition of some of the RPGs, fanfics, whacky theories and discussions that have sprung to life (or undeath) from the Barrow Downs. Wow, now I know what undead really means! Not dead, but not quite alive. That's horrible! Nassty old wights. Anyway...

Cheers, Helen/Mark 12:30 for your response to my post. It was very nicely phrased, which I appreciate. I agree with the point you made: the word "canon" should not be redefined. Especially when I consider the original context of the word, used to differentiate sacred from non-sacred texts for a religion. It should of course not be used lightly. Even when we talk of Tolkien's texts as being "canon" I suppose it is always a little tongue-in-cheek (and there's nothing wrong with poking a bit of fun at our obsessions with Middle Earth).

Canon for the major religions has all (to my pitifully limited knowledge) come from various sources. This is the most frustrating aspect of a discussion of Tolkien canon... nothing will ever be universally accepted as such unless it was published by Professor Tolkien in his lifetime. As Saucepan Man pointed out, even then some things (particularly in The Hobbit) are open for debate!

Saucepan Man also touched on an issue that doesn't appear to make a lot of sense. On this website, certain passages from Letters seem to be regarded as canon. Does this apply to the entire book? Should these personal communications by Professor Tolkien, which I doubt were intended for publication, be accepted at the same level of authenticity as his published works?

The simple answer would seem to be "yes", since they do not (as far as I am aware) contradict any published material. But to accept Letters as canon seems to take away much of the freedom of interpretation that Fordim is advocating. The Sammath Naur, for example, is no longer as ambiguous as it was when Tolkien first wrote it, since it is mentioned in detail in Letters. As I have said earlier, I don't believe that an author's latest comments must necessarily be taken as the most accurate. Isn't it possible that Tolkien's later assessment of events in his books is not entirely accurate? Wouldn't we be better off studying the significance of events in The Lord of the Rings and other works in order to uncover possibilities for their true meaning?

The conscious explanation of text by the author may not be able to completely summarise the subconscious forces that were at work when it was written. It is only through detailed analysis by the author and others that these forces are exposed. I hope that I am making some sense here; I wanted to give a reason why Letters may not be eligible as canon, and therefore how the authority of Professor Tolkien to explain his own world is somewhat limited.

[Lord of Angmar]

I see what you are saying, doug. I try not to use Tolkien's letters to prove or illustrate a point about Middle-earth unless there is no text from the Legendarium itself readily available to directly support the point. However, the letters can be regarded as 'canon', I suppose, inasmuch as whatever Tolkien clearly states in his letters will generally hold true to his intent. If we should choose to disregard the assertions he makes in his letters as non-canonical to the world of Middle-earth, we would be, to an extent, voluntarily ignoring certain truths present in his writing. It would be different if the letters were not published (as perhaps they should not have been, since they do reveal a lot of the 'bones' that Tolkien meant to keep earthed), but since they have been, it is safe to say that their assertions and revelations about Middle-earth can be taken as canon.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Doug,

I am comfortable with your concluding sentences that the conscious explanation by the author may not always tell the whole story and that the reader is free to speculate on the subconscious forces that may be at work in any given literary work, including the Lord of the Rings.

However, like Lord of Angmar, I question the position you take on the Letters as a way to reach that conclusion.

On this website, certain passages from Letters seem to be regarded as canon. Does this apply to the entire book? Should these personal communications by Professor Tolkien, which I doubt were intended for publication, be accepted at the same level of authenticity as his published works?

You suggest that the Letters should be removed from the body of writings regarded as canon for several reasons: they are personal communications rather than published writings; as later assessments by the author, they may not be entirely accurate; and, they take away the freedom of the reader to interpret.

The difficult thing about Tolkien is that not all the writings regarded as canon bear equal weight or authority. This is because Tolkien himself never appears to have considered any of his major works (published or not) as definitive or final, and was constantly revising and revisiting. He seems to have viewed Middle-earth as an ongoing process rather than in terms of finished or "published" products. Accordingly, the line between published and unpublished writings is more blurred in Tolkien than in other writers. This is even more the case with the wider Legendarium than with those interpretations set out in the Letters, at least those pertaining to Lord of the Rings. Since the creation and interpretation of Middle-earth was a constantly evolving process beginning about 1917 and continuing through the remainder of the author's life, I don't think we can legitimately remove any piece of it solely for being of "late" or even "early" vintage (such as the round versus the flat earth issue). There would have to be other factors involved.

It is true that the Letters were personal comunications rather than published writings. However, at least we know they were directly from the author and represented his opinions at that particular moment in time. This is certainly not true of the Silmarillion, for example. Christopher Tolkien accepted certain manuscripts over others without really knowing what his father wanted, and even wrote chunks of certain stories himself. Including the Silmarillion in canon is far more suspect than including the Letters, at least those portions and interpretations that deal with Lord of the Rings. A large portion of HoMe and Unfinished Tales also fall in this more questionable category, since we are dealing with Christopher Tolkien's editorial hand.

As far as the Letters go, I would put more weight on those directly penned by Tolkien that deal with any of the works actually published in his life. Those letters dealing with the Silm are of less weight, since we don't know what JRRT's final preferences were in regard to publication.

By this standard, Tolkien's words on Gollum and the Ring from the Letters are indeed canon. I don't feel we can argue those words away. However many creative interpretations we may arrive at, individually or in these forums, there is only one that the author has stamped with his imprimateur. That doesn't mean we are restricted only to that in our own public discussions or private thoughts. As Bethberry suggests, the text is a living thing, capable of interpretation by the individual reader. As such, there is no need to reinterpret the term "canon" or the particular writings that make up that canon. That is a wholly separate issue.

And, in a strange way, it leads me back to the question I posed earlier on this thread. Would Tolkien even have wanted to see all the variations in HoMe actually set out in print? Should this series be considered part of canon? (I am seeing this as questionable, except perhaps for those items left out of the Appendices that Tolkien clearly wanted to publish---these do have the force of canon, I believe.)

But perhaps the question of HoMe is a separate thread....

[mark12_30]

SO... issues raised so far:

Canon:

levels of 'canonicity' for original Tolkien work:

(A) Tolkien's Original published works in his lifetime. Most agree on this.

(B) Tolkien's Original works whether published or not. Hotly debated in terms of timeline and "final word".

(C) Letters. Also hotly debated. C7A: Use to clarify author's intent when stated.

"Legendarium": Definition? and how it differs from "canon"? I'm fuzzy on this

Individual reader's interpretation upon first reading

Individual readers' application

~*~*~ enchantment ~*~*~ ... wonder, eucatastrophe, Perilous Realm.

Analysis based on research into Legendarium as a whole

Does Analysis hinder enchantment? When & why, or is degradation of enchantment by analysis also an individualised response?

Regarding historia or derived myth:
Fan fiction/ RPG which faithfully extends legendarium.
Criteria? Qualifications?
Board of judges to be appointed by... whom?
Ratified by what method?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

To clarify my positing of historia -- by that I merely meant the "meaningful stories" that each reader develops in response to the 'facts' of Middle-Earth as set down in the 'primary' texts (like the Hobbit, LotR, Silmarillion etc). These works are themselves, of course, Tolkien's own historia about those facts: the decision of whether or not to accept those 'versions' as final or absolute rests with the individual. For those who wish to "accept" Tolkien's historia I would suggest that the Letters could very well be 'canonical'; for those of us, such as myself, who prefer to develop our own historia, the Letters are extraordinarily useful.

This definition would, I realise, exclude things like fanfiction and rpgs, insofar as they 'make up' or add 'new facts' to the annals of Middle-Earth. Perhaps the best way to regard fanfic and rpgs is as 'historical fiction' -- containing historical truths about Middle-Earth (ie moral vision) without being historically accurate.

But a note on the word 'canon' now -- I think we are working through something of a shibboleth. A canon is not a group of set or finalised texts: every canon is always in motion, being changed, being reinterpreted, etc. Even the Biblical canon was arrived at in historical time (at the Council of Nicacea) and continues to be reworked to this day (some Bibles have the apocrypha in a separate section, some do not). The 'canon' of American literature didn't use to include writers like Mark Twain (too childish) or Toni Morrison (too black): but as American society changed, so did the canon, and now just try finding any course or program in American Lit anywhere in the world that doesn't include both these writers.

I think the attempt here to determine a final set of 'canonical' texts for Middle-Earth is doomed to failure (as is becoming perfectly clear). I think the list of canon provided by Mark 12:30 above is about as close as we're going to get. The real issue is, I think, what is it do we want to accmplish by the act of making some texts 'canonical' and others not. To recover the initial sense of canonisation: it means to set something aside a sacred. Two questions:

1) by what definition of "sacred" can we set aside anything Tolkien wrote? (He would have considered such an act to be blasphemy, I'm sure!)

2) What do we gain by doing this anyway?

My position, in brief: the search for the 'canon' of Middle-Earth is futile at best, misleading at worst, for it maintains the fiction of an authorially established 'truth' when what we should be doing is looking at all available texts and evaluating, thinking about and arguing about each of them on their own merits (as well as how they relate to one another) without worrying about if they do or do not 'fit' into some idealised (and wholly imaginary) Canon of Truth (which will only ever really be the truth-as-imagined-by-the-person-putting-forward-the-canon).

*Fordim ducks heavy objects slung his way*

[The Saucepan Man]

A few thoughts on some of the points raised:


Saucepan Man also touched on an issue that doesn't appear to make a lot of sense. On this website, certain passages from Letters seem to be regarded as canon. In discussing what I labelled as Tolkien's "secondary sources", I was conscious of the fact that a distinction might need to be made between the Letters on the one hand and the texts set out in Unfinished Tales and the HoME series on the other. The unpublished texts comprise ideas that Tolkien himself chose to include within the "history" of Middle-earth (the Legendarium?), whereas the Letters (in so far as they deal with his writings on Middle-earth, whether published or not) generally comprise ideas set out in response to specific questions raised in relation to those writings. The texts were unpublished in his lifetime, even though he intended and indeed desired that some of them at least should be published, but he also developed and re-worked them during his lifetime. The Letters were not intended for general public consumption, but were "published" in the sense of being communicated to each individual recipient (although many of the letters are themselves drafts). Do any of these factors mean that the Letters and the "unpublished" texts should be treated differently in deciding what is "canon" and what is not?


It is true that the Letters were personal comunications rather than published writings. However, at least we know they were directly from the author and represented his opinions at that particular moment in time. Which is true of the "unpublished" texts also. But you make an excellent point here, Sharon, in distinguishing the Letters from the Silmarillion on the basis that the Silmarillion was heavily influenced by Christopher Tolkien's editorial hand. Does this mean that Tolkien's views on the matters covered in the Silm as set out in his Letters should take precedence over those within the Silm itself where they are inconsistent, even though the Silm was published as a "complete" text (albeit subject to Christopher's caveats in the Foreword)? Does this apply to inconsistencies between the published Silm and the "unpublished" texts in the Unfinished Tales and the HoME series? At least with the "unpublished texts", Christopher leaves them intact and restricts his editorial role to identifying differences between the various texts and pointing out how they developed over time.

As regards the Letters, is there any merit in according greater value (in terms of identifying Tolkien's intentions at the time of writing) to those written during and shortly after the creative process, rather than those written later in his life? I think that there is in so far as the Hobbit and LotR are concerned, since he in effect "froze" these texts in time by assenting to their publication. The question is perhaps more difficult with regard to the Silm material, since Tolkien's ideas developed, as has been pointed out, over some 60 years and were never, at least by the author's own hand, "frozen" in the same way, even though he himself clearly intended and desired that this should occur. Indeed, had Tolkien had his own way with his publishers, the Silm would have been published before LotR, in which case it would have taken the form, by and large, that it was in at that time.

Then there is the question of the change made by Tolkien himself to Bilbo's encounter with Gollum in the Hobbit. I am aware that he was reluctant to make any changes to published texts, except where absolutely necessary. But this does nevertheless leave open the possibility that he would have felt it necessary to change aspects of LotR, had he got round to publishing the Silm. Unlikely, perhaps, but within the bounds of possibility all the same.


My position, in brief: the search for the 'canon' of Middle-Earth is futile at best, misleading at worst, for it maintains the fiction of an authorially established 'truth' when what we should be doing is looking at all available texts and evaluating, thinking about and arguing about each of them on their own merits (as well as how they relate to one another) without worrying about if they do or do not 'fit' into some idealised (and wholly imaginary) Canon of Truth (which will only ever really be the truth-as-imagined-by-the-person-putting-forward-the-canon). A very appealing approach, Fordim, not least because it would seem to "do away" with the kind of difficult questions raised above and in other posts concerning whether certain "unpublished" ideas should take precedence over others. Certainly, as I think we all agree, each individual has complete freedom to accept or reject these "unpublished" ideas (and indeed, as I have suggested, some of the events and ideas in the "published" texts) on the basis of his or her own personal preferences. But when it comes to discussion with others, even on individual issues, won't questions of this type inevitably be raised? One person may assign greater importance to the "unpublished texts" whereas another may prefer what was said by Tolkien in one of his Letters. Without "rules" as to which should assume greater importance in determining the "truth" of a particular issue, the discussion will simply reach a stalemate since neither "side" will be obliged to accept the other's viewpoint. That may not be such a bad thing where the purpose of a discussion is simply to exchange ideas and perhaps learn from the views of others. But it will not help in determining Tolkien's own "historia". I suppose it comes down to what the purpose of a particular discussion is and what each individual participant wants to get out of it.

Finally, I am very much taken by davem's idea of "enchantment", and I think that is something that we (as Tolkien enthusiasts) must have all felt when we read the Hobbit and LotR for the first time. Had we not experienced the magic of Middle-earth in this way, then I doubt that we would now be spending time on a Tolkien-based forum such as this one. For some, the enchantment of these books is sufficient and they feel no need to read more widely about Tolkien's ideas on Middle-earth. For others (and here I would include myself and, most probably, the majority if not all of those participating in this discussion), it is this very enchantment which feeds a desire to learn more about Tolkien's "historia".

I can still vividly recall the enchantment which I felt on first reading the Hobbit and LotR some 25 years ago. I was presented with a magical world in which I could immerse myself and a story which I could enjoy for its own sake. I was not interested in themes, or how it might be applicable to me (apart from providing a few hours of enchantment every night) or even why it was that Gollum fell into Mount Doom with the Ring. That enchantment has faded with subsequent readings, possibly as I have grown older, although it still remains part of my experience and perhaps it still drives the interest which I have in Tolkien's works. But, then again, I have discovered new wonders, such an appreciation of the immense world that Tolkien created, an interest in how his ideas developed and how they tie in with the "human experience", an appreciation of the themes underlying the events and characters portrayed and how these might be applicable to my own life, and, yes, a curiosity concerning Tolkien's own "historia", leading me to be genuinely interested into questions such as the nature and origins of Orcs and the forces at work underlying the events which occured at Sammath Naur.

So, to answer your questions, Helen:


Does Analysis hinder enchantment? When & why, or is degradation of enchantment by analysis also an individualised response? No, I don't think that analysis does hinder enchantment. I see it as a development of the initial enchantment we all experience when first reading the stories. A different kind of enchantment, perhaps, but enchantment all the same. And yes, analysis is an individual response to Tolkien's works. It is something that only a minority of those who read Tolkien's works will be interested in undertaking. But I do not see it as a degradation of enchantment, rather a development of it.

[davem]

If we limit ourselves only to what could be called 'canonical' as far as Middle Earth is concerned,(& take 'canonical' to mean an 'officially accepted' version of the stories - as in the biblical example) we are still on difficult ground, due to Tolkien's changing intentions. Either everything he wrote should be considered to have equal value, including his own interpretations of his writings, or we should simply take what 'speaks' to us personally. There is no way to agree upon any definitive version of many of the stories, & to include completely contradictory versions of stories as both being 'canonical' is to say that everything he wrote regarding ME is 'canonical'. But we don't have 'everything' he wrote. And if he rejected something which has been published susequently, shall we accept it as 'canonical', because he wrote it, or reject it because he had decided against it?. If a final note turned up from him saying 'I reject everything I wrote after the Lost Tales' would everything he published about ME suddenly cease to be canonical?

Letters :confused:

First, we only have the letters Christopher Tolkien permitted to be published. These apparently are the ones relating to the Legendarium, but we don't know what the other's contain (we don't have his diaries, either)

Second, we don't have the letters he was replying to, so we have no sense of 'context'. We don't even know to what extent he was making up the 'facts' about ME contained in the letters as he went. Picking & choosing which parts of the Letters to accept could be extended.

So, taking HoME as an example, & looking at the evolution of ideas, changes in characters & storyline, especially as regards the development of LotR (Trotter, Giant Treebeard, Theoden's daughter, etc), we can certainly ask whether, if he knew that the letters would be published, he wouldn't have amended them, or even not written them.

He clearly was not writing them as part of a 'canon' - which is the point. Tolkien probably wouldn't have thought of some (any?) of his writings as 'canonical' & others as not. I would say that he wouldn't consider any of the letters in that way. We can't even know if he was being serious in all of them.

Second, on some level everything he wrote can be linked into the Legendarium, so, do we, for instance, include Roverandom?

Quote: (note 73)
"The earliest text has:'It was the whale who took them to the Bay of Fairyland beyond the Magic Isles, & they saw far off in the West the Shores of Fairyland, & the Mountains of the Last Land & the light of fairyland upon the waves.' In Tolkien's mythology the Shadowy Seas & the Magic Isles hide & guard Aman (Elvenhome, & the home of the Valar or Gods) from the rest of the world. A good illustration of this geography, from the 1930's, is in Tolkien's Ambakanta."

So, is Roverandom part of the ME 'canon'? Well, it makes use of the mythology in the same way the Hobbit did - which was not ''canon' when it was first written. The Hobbit only became part of the 'canon' when Tolkien decided to tie its sequel to the Silmarillion. Are the poems 'Kortirion among the Trees' & 'Habbanan beneath the Stars' to be included? Kortirion is related to the early mythology, but not to its later form. 'Habbanan' is included in the Qenya Lexicon ('a region on the borders of Valinor'). Yet this poem 'was peopled by the figures of men' ('Tolkien & the Great War'). Incidentally, the Qenya Lexicon contains words for 'saint', 'monastery'', 'crucifixion', 'nun', 'gospel' & 'Christian Mmsssionary'. It also gives the qenya words for many of the things tolkien would have experienced in the trenches - 'londa - to boom, bang, 'qonda' - choking smoke, 'pusulpe' - gas bag, balloon. the quenya name for Germany is Kalimbarie, or 'barbarity' & Kalimbardi is glossed 'the Germans'. Hence, the Gnomes thought the Germans of WW1 were barbarians. They also knew enough about Catholicism to have translated not only some Catholic terms into their own language, but even produced the aphorism:perilme metto aimaktur perperienta (or 'We indeed endure things but the Martyrs endured & to the End'). (All examples from T&TGW by John Garth)

So, is the Qenya Lexicon 'canon' or not, or are only parts of it 'canonical'? What about 'You & Me & the Cottage of Lost Play' - must be 'canonical' if the Lost Tales are. Or how about 'Goblin Feet', which Tolkien came to loathe - yet are the fairies depicted in it so different from the Elves we first meet at Rivendell in Hobbit ('How delicious, my dear!'). Are those Elves 'canonical', or shall we exclude them? Which of the versions of Riddles in the Dark shall we keep?

Obviously, we have to make a clear distinction between what Tolkien himself produced (to the extent that we can separate it from Christopher's contributions), but once we start trying to pigeonhole certain of Tolkien's writings as 'canonical' & other writings as not, we will not find any clear demarcation lines to help us, because Tolkien didn't think about his writings in that way. He was writing at different times, in different circumstances, with different aims. He began wanting to give England its own Mythology, he ended having created a 'secondary' world, which no-one, including Tolkien himself thought of as being anything of the sort. If anything, it became in the end, as Christopher Tolkien said, a depository for some of his profoundest thoughts (sorry, don't have the exact wording of that quote to hand). But it was an evolving thing, a process, in which he was attempting to actualise, give form to, something like his own equivalent of 'Music of the Ainur'.

So, I side with those who feel 'uncomfortable' with the whole idea of a Tolkien 'canon'. As CS Lewis said, its like 'chasing a fox that isn't there'.

Unless that particular 'fox' is Tolkien himself ;)

[Child of the 7th Age]

Fordim, Davem and others,

Unlike several of you, I do indeed think it is worthwhile to "chase the Tolkien fox", as Davem so cleverly put it....

I agree that this thread should focus on something other than a definition of canon. I also concur we should be "looking at all available texts and evaluating, thinking about and arguing about each of them on their own merits (as well as how they relate to one another).." Just as Fordim and Bethberry have suggested, the whole exercise becomes dead and pedantic unless we grapple with the living text.

What I find harder to accept is Fordim's suggestion that, under any circumstances, discussing canon -- the attempt to define the body of writings that most closely represent Tolkien's vision of Middle-earth -- is "futile at best, misleading at worst". Those are strong words! We're not talking about relative merit which I will freely concede, but essentially saying the task is without any merit.

This represents a more extreme position than I'm willing to adopt. Before we charge forward with our individual interpretations, don't we need to try and puzzle out what Tolkien regarded as the heart of Middle-earth? If parts of the Silmarillion are more representative of Christopher than his father, I would like to be aware of that.

Discussions of canon are admittedly just one tiny piece of a much larger picture. And I don't believe the end product of such discussions should be a single list set in granite or a series of will-of-the wisps based on nothing more than "truth-as-imagined-by-the-person-putting-forward-the-canon".

Frankly, I'm not interested in anyone's final list. I'm more interested in the process which they went through to create that list: what criteria were used, whether they measured entire texts or particular tales, what goals they had in mind, how they dealt with thorny issues like chronology. A recent essay by Steuard Jenson makes an attempt to do this by defining at least some common assumptions and goals from which we may proceed, while still allowing for personal variations. See here (http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TolkParish.html).

The minute you go beyond The Hobbit and LotR (even sometimes when going back and forth between the two!), you are struck by the many ambiguities and seeming contradictions that exist in such works at HoMe, UT, Tom Bombadil, and the Road Goes Ever On. Many readers feel no need to sort out the relationship of these different variants. They simply want to enjoy and understand Tolkien's process of creation in and of itself, and that is a totally legitimate stance.

Yet others are curious about the relationship and nature of these texts, especially since we often have an editorial hand involved. Since Middle-earth feels "real", at least in the sense of sub-creation, it seems natural to want to sort out some of the ambiguities as best we can. I agree that what we can do is limited. Since JRRT's world was never "completed", any discussions of canon or the weight assigned to different texts or stories can only be partially realized. But I think it's a worthwhile effort, at least on the part of those who are interested.

Canon can only be a beginning or springboard for any discussions. And I will readily admit there are many situations where we're better off disregarding it entirely. Yet I can not agree that considerations of canon are always futile or misleading. I would similarly maintain that searching for the author's intent in a given passage or work is not inherently "boring" as Fordim suggested earlier in the thread.

It is certainly a productive thing to search inside our own heads and come up with interesting interpretations that ring "true" to Middle-earth. But is it not also worthwhile to try to get a glimpse of what was in the author's mind, perhaps not so much in terms of some fixed end product but in understanding an evolving process, especially since Tollkien had such a wonderfully creative soul?

Sharon, the curmudgeon

P.S. Has anyone here ever been to Marquette and seen Tolkien's papers, or at least a catalog of what is supposed to be there? Are these strictly drafts of already published writings, or are any of the things that Davem obliquely referred to included in this collection?

[eLRic]

as is often the case (in my opinion) of deep thinking authors...
they write in such a way so as to provide many ways of interpretation,
while simaltaneously keeping a particular interpretation dear (because
it relates to a part of their own life) but with no prejudice against
the other interpretations (unless those interpretations go strongly against
the moral values the author puts into his writing [such interpretations
would go against the author's integrity]).

This interpretation which is held dear would be the one the author would
provide if asked (he might not know all or any of the others, only allowed
for them in the style of writing) and thus no interpretation is more
incorrect than another (even of the authors). However if the interpretation
is given in a publication by the author the author's intentions might
be that that interpretation be taken rather than the others (but only
as a suggestion to build the legend the author has in mind)

fact must be taken as fact (where there are 2 contradictory facts, we can
choose based on our feelings or other suggestions in the authors writings)

um, if that makes sense then i'm not too tired to be attempting this
(as i might possibly be) (just spen about 2 hours reading this post)

ps. i see that my veiws are not unique, i just thought i'd state them in
a sumarized form of that which appears in the posts above

[The Saucepan Man]

Welcome to the Downs, eLRic. :) Great first post, particularly given that this is (in my opinion) turning out to be one of the most complex (and engrossing) discussions on the forum in recent times.

I largely agree with what you say, although I would come back to the question that I raised a post or two ago: what is fact and what is interpretation when we are talking about Tolkien's Letters and the texts which were not published in his lifetime?

And I don't think that we are bound to accept as the "truth" those premises which can correctly be categorised as "fact" within those materials. They will be greatly influential, and often decisive, when deciding what is "canon" or "Tolkien's historia" (as Fordim puts it). But the reader is free to accept or reject them when he or she is interpreting the primary texts from an individual persepctive. And of course, as I have said previously, most readers will be unaware of such "facts" when they first encounter the primary texts.

As for the contrasting views presented by Fordim and Sharon:


the search for the 'canon' of Middle-Earth is futile at best, misleading at worst and


Before we charge forward with our individual interpretations, don't we need to try and puzzle out what Tolkien regarded as the heart of Middle-earth? I would (in typical fashion ;) ) say both yes and no to each proposition. There is, from an individual perspective, surely no "right" or "wrong" way of approaching Tolkien's works. It will depend upon what the individual wants to get out of them. Some may be content with the primary texts and look no further. Others may wish to bring their own interpretations to bear and may therefore regard any attempt to establish Tolkien's "canon" as futile (for them). Yet others may see great value in trying to assess what the author's intentions were, either as a finsihing point or (as Sharon put it) as a springboard for further contemplation (internal) and/or discussion (external).

But, when it comes to interacting with others, then we must bear in mind that each person will have their own perspective. We all bring our individual perspectives to the discussions in which we participate, and we will clearly choose to participate in those discussions which best accord with our perspectives. For example, since I am (professionally) most comfortable with assessing facts and applying "rules" to those facts, I tend to participate most frequently in discussions which seek establish the "facts" of Middle-earth from the writings of Tolkien to which we have access. I am less comfortable participating in those discussions concerning the application of the ideas and themes prevalent in Tolkien's works to the individual, since I find it more difficult to articulate my views in this regard (although I still read such discussions and find them of great interest). Others, such as davem, Helen, Sharon and Lyta Underhill are much more adept in this regard, and are able to offer extremely valuable insights as a result. Similarly, someone like Bêthberry is able to bring her impressive literary knowledge to bear, which is incredibly useful in discussions such as this, or discussions of the literary and mythological bases for Tolkien's works.

Which is not to say that people should avoid any particular discussion. Different perspectives and experiences will be of great value in many discussions, provided that we recognise that others will be looking at matters from a different angle to us and that they may be seeking to get something different out of a discussion. And it is important too to acknowledge that, in consequence, there are certain discussions in which our own perspective may be (at best) irrelevant or (at worst) counter-productive. So, for example, where someone has started a thread asking a particular "factual" question about the Legendarium, it is of little value expounding one's personal interpretation where this runs counter to what Tolkien has said in his writings. If, on the other hand, the thread seeks personal views on an aspect of Tolkien's writings (the circumstances underlying Frodo's "choice" at Sammath Naur, for example), then individual perspectives may be of great value, even if they contrast with Tolkien's own views.

So, in many discussions there will be room both for an analysis of what is "canon" and for individual interpretations. In others, only one of these approaches may be called for, or perhaps a different approach altogether will be required (there is little call for either, for example, in many Middle-earth Mirth threads :D ).

In summary, the freedom of the reader is boundless, but, on an external level, it may on occasion be circumscribed by the circumstances in which he or she is interacting with others.

[THE Ka]

ver, very good point! i can actually understand your point . you have made it perfect, clear-cut and too the point. good job. but, when you talk about tolkien it is a paradox. because you can say two things, such as Tolkien himself, " Tolkien was different from other writers because of his tremendous steps in the process of writing a good fantacy novel that seem to have paved the path for all of us." compared to the other side of the paradox, " Why did Frodo sail to the undying lands? was is in relation to the same situation of the world war I veterians?"

As you can see, it is quiet confusing. The topic of tolkien or his works is a paradox or topic that cannot be defined by fixed ideas. you can get many different answers. i take Frodo's advice, " Never ask the council of elves, for they will tell you both yes and no." if you understand what i have talked about above, you can idetify "elves" and "yes and no". The quote relates tremediously with the whole tolkien paradox entirely. :)

[Lord of Angmar]

In summary, the freedom of the reader is boundless, but, on an external level, it may on occasion be circumscribed by the circumstances in which he or she is interacting with others.As has so often been the case, Saucepan Man, you have described more eloquently and accurately what I have tried to say. Earlier in the post, I wrote:The Tolkien enthusiast as a reader, I believe, should err on the side of his/her own personal enjoyment of the experience of reading Tolkien's works. The Tolkien enthusiast as a discusser, however, should not be obliged to use his/her own theories about unresolved Middle-earth issues as anything more than theories - however well-educated on the subject the theorists might be.The Ka, I am not following you." Tolkien was different from other writers because of his tremendous steps in the process of writing a good fantacy novel that seem to have paved the path for all of us." compared to the other side of the paradox, " Why did Frodo sail to the undying lands? was is in relation to the same situation of the world war I veterians?"I do not see any paradox in these two statements, as they seem to be somewhat unrelated to each other; one deals with Tolkien's contributions as an author and the other deals with the applicability of a situation within his writing. Could you explain?

[The Saucepan Man]

you have made it perfect, clear-cut and too the point I did? How very out of character. :rolleyes: ;)


Saucepan Man, you have described more eloquently and accurately what I have tried to say What a polite way of describing plagiarism (unconscious, I might add). :D

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

In summary, the freedom of the reader is boundless, but, on an external level, it may on occasion be circumscribed by the circumstances in which he or she is interacting with others.

Hmmmm. . .this raises an interesting question, Saucepan Man. If the "freedom of the reader is boundless" then does this mean that there is no such thing as a wrong or incorrect interpretation? I'm not talking about the questions of 'fact' (whether those facts are resolvable -- when did Gollum find the Ring? -- or not -- did balrogs have wings?); I'm talking about questions of meaning.

For example: what about the people out there who interpret LotR as a fascist novel? Or, what about people -- who do exist, sadly -- who interpret the novel as supporting white supremacy? What if I want to interpret the novel as an allegory about the rise of Communism (Sauron) in the early 20th century and the reprisal against that by bourgeouis, middle-class humanism (hobbits) and the remnants of a European aristrocratic society (Gondor)?

The only recourse that you seem to be leaving open to combat these interpretations Saucepan Man is that they may be "circumscribed by the circumstances in which he or she is interacting with others." I'm not entirely clear on where you are going with this, but it would seem to suggest that if we are to combat the above examples (and we should -- they are wrong) we can do so only by attacking the interpretative positions that generate them (fascism, racism, simple-mindedness). Is there no way we can go to the text, to point to Tolkien's writings and use those as actual proof that such interpretations are incorrect, insofar as they contradict what is found on the page?

And so, does this not mean that we must maintain some sense of the texts (and the authorial reflections upon the text) as authoritative?

And just for those who might have missed it, I am now taking a position to the contrary of what I've been taking all along -- this is not, however, a flip-flop: I just feel that the answer to approaching any text -- but raised to a problematic level of almost cosmit proportions in Tolkien -- is a constant process of movement and negotiation between the freedom of the reader (which must be maintained if we are to make the text our own and not be slaves to, "What does Tolkien says it meant?") and the authority of the text/author (which must be acknowledged if we are to prevent the slide into the absolute relativism "It can mean whatever you want").

[Findegil]

The question is, if we are talking about the intentions of Tolkien (which would mean allegory) or of the applicability of the text itself.
Tolkien himself stated that he did not put any allegorical meaning into his writings. So if anybody say, that he has written the text to support white supremacy (only as an example of many), we can and must clearly argue against that with what we know about Tolkien and his own interpretations of the text as given in the Letters.
But if it is argued that the text can be used interpreted in a way that it does support white supremacy, the only way to argue against that is to analyse the text itself and the way it is interpreted.
By the way: I don't think that "attacking the interpretative positions" will work at all. People how interpret texts like you listed in your post Fordim, do normally not like arguing at all. And they will clearly not allow you to attack their general believe. If arguments against those interpretations cannot be found in the published believes of the author, (as could be case if they deny he was faithful to the believes showing truth in his writings we asked openly) they must be searched in the failures of the argumentation of the text. That process might not ever be successful, but it will often falsify the "wrong" interpretations by statements in text under discussion.

Respectfully
Findegil

[mark12_30]

Sharon: I love the 'sliding scale ' idea. Anyone else interested in returning to one of the old canon threads to discuss that?

More on the Wild Theories Theme. Negative/ dissenting forms of "Reader's Interpretation" do seem to keep popping up: Everything from "Tolkien was a White Supremacist" to "Frodo degraded Sam by calling him a servant" to "Tolkien looked down on women." Often these threads fizzle with some form of, "Tolkien's letters say (Letters, number xyz...) So while you have a right to your opinion/ interpretation, don't label it Tolkien's original stance without doing your research...."

While the 'dissident' can rarely be persuaded, the grief for me is that other readers are often disheartened by these statements about an author they have come to trust and now feel that they must doubt. Did Tolkien *really* hate women? Did he *really* believe in White Supremacy? In those cases the Letters can be very reassuring indeed.

[The Saucepan Man]

If the "freedom of the reader is boundless" then does this mean that there is no such thing as a wrong or incorrect interpretation? Of course there isn't, as far as an individual's personal thoughts are concerned. The reader is free to think what he or she chooses. Any other analysis would come close to conjuring up the "thought police" of 1984.

But, as I said, where the individual interacts with others (for example by entering a discussion or publishing his or her views), then that individual's freedom may be circumscribed by the circumstances of the interaction. Such circumscription might be legal, by application of laws such as those relating to defamation or race relations (for example, it recently became a criminal offence in the UK to incite others to racial hatred). Or it might be by means of censorship, editorial discretion, self-selection or even simply social pressure.


what about people -- who do exist, sadly -- who interpret the novel as supporting white supremacy? I am unfortunately aware of the "white supremacy" issue (there is a thread concerning a site devoted to this view somewhere around here). To answer you, these people are free to think what they want and, subject to the legal issues that I mention above, they are free to disseminate their views to others. Indeed, it appears that they set the agenda on their own site and censor any posts which do not accord with their views (as Findegil said, they don't want to have to deal with dissenting opinions). Thus, the freedom of those who seek to point out the fallacies in the white supremacists' interpretation is, in these circumstances, circumscribed by censorship/editorial discretion.

If, on the other hand, these people were to try to make the "white supremacist" argument on this forum, I would expect a flurry of well-argued points refuting their position by reference to Tolkien's writings (both published and unpublished). They choose not to do so because they don't want to hold themselves up to ridicule in this way (self-selection/social pressure). In other situations, the dissemination of their views may well be restricted by means of censorship or editorial discretion. So, in effect their freedom to argue for their interpretation will also be circumscribed in certain circumstances.


What if I want to interpret the novel as an allegory about the rise of Communism (Sauron) in the early 20th century and the reprisal against that by bourgeouis, middle-class humanism (hobbits) and the remnants of a European aristrocratic society (Gondor)? Again, you are free to think this. And you are free to make your interpretation known to others. You would have to accept that Tolkien did not intend this allegory, since he made clear that his novels were not intentionally allegorical. But, as a personal interpretation, it may still be of interest and/or value to others.

[Bêthberry]

This is, indeed, a quintessential dilemma, of how to account for mistaken or misguided readings which seem so 'wrong' to us and yet how not to fall into the "deus ex machina" as doug platypus so humorously phrased it, of quoting chapter and verse of the Letters, unexamined for any of the issues of reliability which hamper letters of all writers. And I particularly like the way Mr. Hedgethistle has droitly picked up the distaff side in order to help us consider all the angles. Do you do this for a living, sir? A lawyer or some such shark? ;) (Looks over shoulder worrying about Mith.)

One answer, of course, is to ask readers to be self-aware, reflective readers, conscious of their own desires, willful expectations, and particular points of view which they bring to bear, consciously and unconsciously, upon the text, and of the cultural, social and polical matrix which informs them as readers. This, to me, is part of the process of learning to read, not simply the letters on the page, but becoming aware of how we conspire to create the text and what we learn about ourselves in the process. Inexperienced or naive readings will always give way, in a discussion forum as in a classroom or a reading club, to greater understanding and appreciation. And sometimes, too, "wrong" readings will, willynilly, end up becoming the ocassion for much greater understanding.

The point remains, I suppose, on whether one wants to give up the idea of an absolute, unchanging meaning for a text or whether one wants to understand literatue as an activity. It's how you make the journey that matters as much as the getting there, isn't it? (And while I make that claim, perhaps I should ask Mr. Hedgethistle why he has conjoined author and text in his dichotomy. To me, the text is separate from the author--and, indeed it is the text which "holds supremacy", for both author and reader, although that text is an ephemeral thing.)

Take, for example, a discussion some of us had back a year or so ago, on the question of the English mythology impetus behind LOTR. This discussion was brought back to mind now by Helen's most recent post. Helen characterised as a "Wild Theme" the statement, "Frodo degraded Sam by calling him a servant." The discussion was mainly between Child and Rimbaud, with Rimbaud suggesting that the relationship between Sam and Frodo was slightly or barely above the level of parody of the master servant relationship. Rimbaud is far more acutely aware of the English social class structure--which still to this day informs English society--than any of we North Americans, even those who have visited England for some time. To think of how that historical situation is mediated in the text of LOTR is, to me, fascinating, particularly as Sam is the one who is left Mayor of The Shire. That a reader could so little understand English class structure as to ask that kind of question seems to me to provide a perfect example of the benefit of asking such "wild themes."

To those readers who are made uncomfortable by such questions as Rimbaud's point or that concerning Tolkien's depiction of women or even Tolkien's depiction of evil and Saruman, I would echo Sharkey's point early on in this thread:

If a reader refuses to acknowledge certain parts of a work of fiction (or actual fact, for that matter), there's nothing I can do about it, but that person's position in a discussion forum is difficult to say the least. Conversely, I doubt someone with a clear idea of his own which one is unwilling to give up would ask such a question anyway.

Hmm. And I haven't got around to Child's post yesterday.

[mark12_30]

Helen's most recent post. Helen characterised as a "Wild Theme" the statement, "Frodo degraded Sam by calling him a servant." The discussion was mainly between Child and Rimbaud, with Rimbaud suggesting that the relationship between Sam and Frodo was slightly or barely above the level of parody of the master servant relationship.

Rimbaud's and Child's discussion had not entered my mind. I was referring to numerous discussions by those quite new to the books, who thought that it was shocking how condescendingly Sam was treated by Frodo.

I do not view Child's or Rimbaud's discussions or viewpoints as Wild Themes.

(That is, outside of Master Rimbaud's work in Entish Bow.)

[Bêthberry]

Ah, but Helen, I do not in fact say you were referring to Child's and Rimbaud's discussion. I said "it brings to mind". Let me clarify my purpose, for I certainly was not trying to mischaracterise your position and if I have given that impression, I am sorry.

I was using your statement as an example of how something triggers an idea, an idea which can then go on to find some elaboration or relevance. It was my way of demonstrating that even misreadings can be fruitful. I meant that the statement "Frodo degraded Sam by calling him a servant" could in fact represent a way in which the very 'error' of the statement leads to a greater understanding of ideas in the text. Even a naive or newbie statement can open up discussion.

That's why, to me, there are no "Wild Themes" or points which should not be discussed. Some, like Balrog Drool Threads, can be dispatched with wit and humour ;) but they need not be censored.

[mark12_30]

Even a naive or newbie statement can open up discussion.

Certainly. And I'm not trying to hinder discussion. The point I'm trying to make is that when Tolkien's intent is called into question, the letters are a handy thing to have. Even if you consider his opinions and admissions about his own works unreliable, his letters are still a window into his heart, as are his published works.

[Maédhros]

The question of Canon is a common concern that we have to deal with in the Revised Silmarillion Project.
I have seen many good ideas in this thread but unfortunately, it really doesn't help a casual reader to regard the validity of each text, typescprit, manuscript, published text, letters, etc.

We have developed some practical rules that guide us in our work. I thought that I would post some of them in here:

1. The first priority is always given to the latest editions of works published during Tolkien's lifetime.

2. Secondary priority is given to the latest ideas found among Tolkien's unpublished texts and letters, except where they:
a. violate the published canon without specifically correcting an error or
b. are proposed changes that do not clearly indicate the exact details that must be changed and how they are to be changed.

5. Information in sources of lower level priority is to be preferred over information in sources of higher level priority where the item of information in source of higher level priority can be reasonably demonstrated to be an error, whether a "slip of the pen" or from inadequate checking of previous writing.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

(And while I make that claim, perhaps I should ask Mr. Hedgethistle why he has conjoined author and text in his dichotomy. To me, the text is separate from the author--and, indeed it is the text which "holds supremacy", for both author and reader, although that text is an ephemeral thing.)

Bless you Bêthberry! You have asked the magic question that has finally unlocked for me the nagging thoughts that led to my initiating this thread in the first place. Yes, 999 times out of a thousand I would agree (and defend with great vitriol and vigour) the absolute ‘divorce’ of author from text necessitated by the centrality of the text (you note, I do not go so far as do Foucault and Barthes – and, I rather suspect, yourself?). But Tolkien is that one in a thousand insofar as his texts exist in a context that is of the author’s (sub)creation, thus forcing me ‘back’ to the author, even as I wish to retain my absolute freedom as a reader.

For example: when I’m reading a novel by Evelyn Waugh, I do not have to make any reference to Waugh “directly” to be aware of the context in which he wrote the novel (that is, to be aware of his intent) – it’s Catholic, middle-class and conservative. The referential context is one that exists outside the text and surrounds me, the author and it. When I’m reading a work by Tolkien, however, I do have to make a “direct” reference to Tolkien to be aware of the context in which he wrote the work, insofar as he (sub)created that context (Middle-Earth: and not the ‘facts’ of that realm, but the moral truths and vision).

The reference to Catholicism occasioned by a Waugh novel is not like the reference to Middle-Earth, insofar as I can accept/reject/question the Catholic context of Waugh’s novel any way I want (that is, accept/reject/question Catholicism). I am not bound to understand Waugh’s novels as a Catholic if I do not hold Catholic beliefs – I only have to be able to understand the novels like a Catholic (should I choose to). But with Tolkien, I don’t think I have that freedom, insofar as his vision of Middle-Earth includes, let’s call it “Eruism” (a terrible word, but please nobody take me to task for it too much). I cannot accept/reject/question this context without accepting/rejecting/questioning the whole fabric of the subcreated world. I can accept/reject/question the Catholicism that lies ‘behind’ the “Eruism” with the same freedom as in the Waugh novel, but that interpretive ‘layer’ of “Eruism” is always there and unquestionable. Middle-Earth has certain moral and interpretive rules, established by the author and embedded in the text, that I must accept – and these rules are of a kind and nature that simply do not exist outside subcreated worlds of fantasy. The “context” of LotR is not one that envelopes me, the text and the author equally.

And thus it is that one case in a thousand, where I am forced to resist the divorce of author and text – even as I want and need to.

Darn you Tolkien!

[The Saucepan Man]

I can accept/reject/question the Catholicism that lies ‘behind’ the “Eruism” with the same freedom as in the Waugh novel, but that interpretive ‘layer’ of “Eruism” is always there and unquestionable. But only to the extent that you are aware of it. And most people's first experience of LotR, say, will be without knowledge of the existence of Eru or even that it is set in a monotheistic world. Eru only becomes "part of the story" as one reads further into Tolkien's works (unless one starts with the Silm). If a person's direct experience of Tolkien extends no further than the Hobbit and LotR, then surely they are entitled to exclude "Eruism" from their interpretation, even if they are subsequently told of its existence.

[davem]

(Risks the wrath of 'Bethberry uncloaked' :eek: )

I don't see how we can completely divorce the teller from the tale. The tale (even if we believe in such outlandish things as 'mediumship' & the phenomenon of 'recieved texts') is told by someone for some reason. Garth in T&TGW suggests that, in the early tales (Fall of Gondolin, Beren & Luthien, etc) Tolkien is 'mytholgising' his own life experiences - 'Gondolin' with its 'mechanical dragons' destroying the ancient Elven city, Beren & Luthien's mythologised 'retelling' of his & Edith's own love story.

Of course, these tales, & the Legendarium as a whole, take on their own 'life', but the seed from which they grew was Tolkien's own life experience. The Legendarium originated in his desire to give England back its lost mythological heritage. To seperate Tolkien from the Legendarium is to treat it as having arisen out of nowhere, or as a 'recieved text', dictated from 'on high'. Middle Earth didn't arise from a vacuum, it arose from the mind of a man, & took root in the 'leaf mould' of that man's imagination.

The Legendarium is Tolkien, Tolkien is the Legendarium. For this reason, I cannot agree with Maedhros approach. Why should the latest versions of any of Tolkien's stories have priority? The pre-LotR Silmarillion is all but complete, & is self contained, & works in its own right. In fact, one could argue that it is a more finished work than the post LotR Sil, which for me starts to come apart quite seriously, & is in some parts a mess. Maedhros' approach seems to be 'evolutionary' in its approach, in that it sees the later work as 'superior' simply because it came later. When the Hobbit was written, Gollum would have willingly handed over the Ring to Bilbo. It was only changed because LotR required it to be, not because the original was in any way 'bad'. For this reason, we can question Tolkien's motivation in changing the Sil stories from their pre- to post LotR forms. Were the changes made because Tolkien came up with what he thought were better, or 'truer' versions in every case, or were some (at least) of them changed in order to make them fit with other stories which he had changed. This is the problem with a collection of interlinked stories - if you change one story you may simply be forced to accomodate those changes in other stories, whether you want to or not. How many of the later changes would Tolkien have made if the stories were seperate enitities?

This is the problem with trying to construct a definitve Silmarillion by simply accepting the latest version of every story as Tolkien's 'best' version. There is no evidence to support this approach. Perhaps the reason he never re-wrote the Fall of Gondolin was because, however full of anachronisms the original may have been, however out of 'synch' it was with the later form of the mythology, it expressed something of his own personal experience in the best way, & he needed it to be left as it was, saying what it said. When we seperate the teller from the tale, & see the legendarium as a kind of 'real world' history, we inevitably run into this problem. We will, consciously or unconsciously, start to remove any difficult aspects (ie 'personal' to the author aspects) in order to create an (illusory) 'perfect' version. Perhaps the Fall of Gondolin with its tanks & troop carriers & Flamethrowers is the 'perfect' version - divorce it from the 'Legendarium' & look at it as a stand alone work - as some do with LotR & Hobbit - & ask yourself whether it needs a final 'perfect' form ('perfect' in this context seemingly only meaning a form which doesn't contradict the other stories Tolkien wrote).

This search for 'perfection' which is persued solely to produce a Legendarium which doesn't contradict itself, doesn't seem to me likely to produce anything other than an idiosyncratic version, which we have no reason to believe Tolkien would have had any time for. If Tolkien had lived another 20 years, & devoted every moment to working on the Legendarium we have no idea what he would have come up with - if we look at 'Myths Transformed' then we could speculate that one by one most, if not all, the 'primitive' or mythological aspects would have been whittled away & we would have ended up with a factual history of this world.

What most of us do is take as much as we like from the Legendarium, & leave the rest, because it doesn't speak to us. Most of us don't take such an analytical approach to an author's work, classifying some as 'canonical' & some as 'uncanonical'. The Storyteller tells us his story & we listen to it, & respond in our own way.

Some lines from David Jones' Anathemata spring to mind: 'It was a dark & stormy night, we sat by the calcined wall. It was said to the Tale Teller, 'Tell us a Tale'. And the Tale ran thus: 'It was a dark & stormy night....'

Tales grow out of the storyteller's own experience, & we respond out of our own. And in the end questions of 'canonicty' don't arise, because when we're 'enchanted' by the tale, those kind of questions are irrelevant. We can be moved by LotR even if we know nothing of the rest of the Legendarium. We can also be moved by the Fall of Gondolin in the Book of Lost Tales without having any context. If the spell is cast sufficiently well the tale will work on its own. If we change it simply to make it fit with other tales the same author wrote, we may only succeed in breaking the spell altogether - & for what result? To say we have a definitive version, we have produced the 'canon' & consigned the 'uncanonical' versions to the flames with the Heretics?

So, Maedhros, I can't accept your approach. I can't even accept the idea of 'casual readers' needing to be helped. There are readers who are 'enchanted' & readers who aren't. No-one who is 'enchanted' into Middle Earth feels 'casual' about it in any way. And pointing a 'canon' (am I the first one to make that joke? sorry if not :D) at a new reader won't enchant them. It may drive them away, though, through feelings of inadequacy. That said, I wish you luck with your endevour, because you may well prove me wrong!

[mark12_30]

Maedhros, many thanks for those guidelines; I'm sure they'll travel back to the 'canon' thread in a little while.

davem, canon vs enchantment I think has a lot of answers.

It's true that 'canon' means little or nothing to the new or casual reader.

It seems to mean a great deal to some scholars-- I don't count myself as one (on this board anyway) so I'll leave that where it is.

It can mean a great deal to the writer, and reader, of fan-fiction. After I had read and re-read LOTR, I began began looking for "more". What I wanted was more enchantment. "The Sword of Shanarra" didn't exactly give me what I was looking for. Precious little did.

But there are some fanfics that do. By and large, they are the canonically-friendly ones. These are the works that I read with delight, imagining that perhaps a long-lost manuscript of Tolkien's (and hence, Bilbo's, or even Ælfwine's) has been found in some dusty corner. Mithadan's Tales of Tol Eressea, chapter one, had that effect on me. So did "The Grey Ship" from TORn's greenbooks. Why? Because they were "gap fillers". They attempted to answer, in a canonically-friendly way, the heartfelt cry "but what happened afterwards?"

The sense of enchantment is lost quickly when -- 'scuse me, folks-- canon is violated. When the punchline is, "And then Frodo got married, moved back to the Shire and lived happily ever after", the enchantment is gone. So's the real Frodo.

How many promising writers wrote fanfics after having seen the first movie or read only the first book, that began well and ended "Alternate Universe"? If you wanted AU, that's OK; if you don't-- bleah.


As a fanfic writer, canon becomes a basic threshold for not disappointing the reader. If one is going to attempt to write gap-fillers, then they have to be woven in as seamlessly as possible. And to do that, you've got to define *some* sort of arena for playing in, for weaving into. LotR? Hobbit? Sil? Lost Tales? And it should be clear to the reader too, if you can do it. Otherwise the reader is susprised by that distressing "AU" aftertaste.

Case in point: Mith *never* gave me an AU with his "Tales." His Frodo was entirely plausible from start to finish.

So... canon may not be a big issue for Hobbit/LotR readers. And ask the scholars whether it is for them. But for a writer, it's critical. And once a reader ventures into fanfic, they might want to know, too.

edit: ps-- davem, I can't separate Tolkien from his writings either. Nor do I want to. And if I trust him enough to let him 'enchant' me, I'm not worried about whether his letters are trustworthy.

[eLRic]

For example: what about the people out there who interpret LotR as a fascist novel? Or, what about people -- who do exist, sadly -- who interpret the novel as supporting white supremacy? What if I want to interpret the novel as an allegory about the rise of Communism (Sauron) in the early 20th century and the reprisal against that by bourgeouis, middle-class humanism (hobbits) and the remnants of a European aristrocratic society (Gondor)?

That is exactly where i apply a condition to interpretations for this reason:
Tolkien was not rasist or white supremisist and i think it would
make him sad if his writing (which he worked on his whole life) were
interpretted as being something bad like that.
For example, if you were compasionate for orphans and decided to write
a book in which you would encourage them and intended to give all the
profit to orphanages... Now if people started interpretting your book
as being prejudiced towards orphans it would in a sense feel like you have
been wrongfully accused of something using evidence against you that
you wrote with the hopes of achieving the opposite of what you are now
being accused of.

(that is not a flawless analogy, just the first one that came to mind)

Of course we are free to interpret in any way we want, but if you truly
apreciate the work you would not want to disrespect the author like that.
And if you did not like the work, you should not critisize it or disrespect
the author in the first place (kind of like saying christmas is pointless becuase you dont like cristmas trees). So although all veiws are equal,
some of them should not be taken in respect to the author.

[again i mention that Tolkiens interpretations of his works are only
suggestions one should accept if one wanted to understand his idea of ME,
they are as equal as ours]

when determining fact...
i would say that what Tolkien has published about ME is fact about ME
anyone else writing on ME (with possible exception of Christopher Tolkien)
is meerly speculation.

(Middle-Earth: and not the ‘facts’ of that realm, but the moral truths and vision).


Middle-Earth has certain moral and interpretive rules, established by the author and embedded in the text, that I must accept

These last two quotes are exactly what i am referring to, and mr hedgethistle,
with that post i do agree one million percent

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Eru only becomes "part of the story" as one reads further into Tolkien's works (unless one starts with the Silm). If a person's direct experience of Tolkien extends no further than the Hobbit and LotR, then surely they are entitled to exclude "Eruism" from their interpretation, even if they are subsequently told of its existence.

Good Gracious Saucepan Man, but you do want to make me work my brain don’t you – ack! ;)

At any rate, I have to say that on this point I utterly disagree with you. There are so many markers of what I will obstinately now call Eruism without the “” that I cannot see how anyone could miss them. Please note, that my horrific new word is Eruism and not Eru – so, sure, while there may not be any direct reference to Eru in The Hobbit or LotR, there are more than enough examples of Eru’s effect on Middle-Earth (His presence in the unravelling of the story) that the following is fairly palpable to even the most casual reader (dreadful phrase – who amongst us ever felt ‘casual’ when reading Tolkien’s utterly engrossing stories?):

1) Somebody ‘up there’ is very much in charge of events – c.f. Gandalf’s comments in “Shadows of the Past” regarding the finding of the Ring (“there was another power at work in that, beyond the will of the Ring’s Maker. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring”; once more, I am distant from my books so all quotes will be approximate). (Oh, and please nobody interpret this as the beginning of the free-will/fate/providence debate – I’m having a tough enough time processing the current thread.)

2) Gandalf is a ‘divine’ or even ‘angelic’ minister (he’s been around a very long time; he takes on a balrog then comes back from the dead; he performs magic; he says to the balrog “I am the servant of the secret fire”; he utters the above sentiment, number 1 – and many like them – indicating that he’s got some really good inside information; he’s able to ‘save’ Frodo from the Eye – at Amon Hen – from a psychic distance).

3) Aragorn is a ‘divinely sanctioned’ king (the light that shines around his head like a flame when he ‘reveals’ himself; the hands of the healer that show him to be the true king to the people of Minas Tirith).

4) There are ‘gods’ or ‘angelic’ ministers in Middle-Earth or who can affect it (at the council of Elrond, one of the suggestions is to send the Ring “over the sea” to those who dwell in the West).

5) The ancient stories of that constitute the closest thing M-E has to ‘sacred texts’ are presented as verifiable historical facts (i.e. Luthien is somebody whom at least one of the characters we meet in the tale knew personally!)

6) Tom Bombadil and Treebeard both make references to the ‘creation’ of Middle-Earth in such a way as to demonstrate that it came into being not through the slow accretion of dust about a central ball of highly-condensed gas in which nuclear fusion began.

And I could go on, but I haven’t the time or energy. I shall leave off this post by arguing simply that in Middle-Earth there is palpable and demonstrable sense of the sacred and the divine in all aspects of its subcreation. This is, perhaps, why there is no need for formal religion or religious practices in Middle-Earth (at least in the Hobbit and LotR) – the presence of Eru (if not the name, nature or mind) is so apparent that religious practice is irrelevant. It just occurs to me that this is more than likely the source of that lovely sense of enchantment about which davem has been so consistently and eloquently writing.

To return to my thought above: it is possible to develop a non-Catholic interpretation of an Evelyn Waugh novel because Catholicism is as open to question both in the text as it is out of the text. It is impossible to develop a non-Eruistic (yuck yuck yuck) interpretation of Tolkien’s texts (any part of the historia?) without ignoring the abovementioned examples and many many more.

[Bêthberry]

Oh no you don't, Mr. Hedgethistle ;)

Bless you Bêthberry! You have asked the magic question that has finally unlocked for me the nagging thoughts that led to my initiating this thread in the first place. Yes, 999 times out of a thousand I would agree (and defend with great vitriol and vigour) the absolute ?divorce? of author from text necessitated by the centrality of the text (you note, I do not go so far as do Foucault and Barthes ? and, I rather suspect, yourself?). But Tolkien is that one in a thousand insofar as his texts exist in a context that is of the author?s (sub)creation, thus forcing me ?back? to the author, even as I wish to retain my absolute freedom as a reader.

Think you can integrate yourself into the mainstream of referentiality and leave me to be done in by the laundry truck, eh? (Everyone, sorry, that's an inside joke about the critics mentioned.)

Let me characterise my position, and not you, my good sir. For the time being, let me make two observations about your thoughts here.

First, it seems to me that you are suggesting a poetics for fantasy that differentiates it from realistic (for want of a better word) fiction. Do you intend this?

Second, are you making this claim for all writers of fantasy, or just Tolkien? On what basis do you or would you eliminate other writers?

Third, you will have to run by me again your point that since our reading of Middle-earth has no reference to our 'real' world, we are totally dependent upon the author for giving it credibility. This seems to me to overlook many other forms of narrative which aren't 'based' on our real world. How do we read ancient texts of early mythology? Or even translations from other cultures which would not, at least on first read, have this already-known distinction between Primary and Secondary worlds.

I tend to agree with Mr. SaucepanMan that there is no distinction between "Eruism" and Waugh's Catholicism in terms of reading experience. In fact, I recall a very similar discussion years ago in class, on Graham Greens' Brighton Rock, on where lay the "ideology" of Catholicism. Green's method--particularly in the use of colour symbolism among other aspects of the stories--is very close to Tolkien's method. Students who had no knowledge of Catholicism (whether by faith or by scholarly learning) could not 'see' the meaning until, in the process of discussion, they understood what others saw. This did not invalidate their reading per se; it was simply an aspect of the text which gave fuller meaning to some than to others. And, very interestingly, I remember one student pointing out that, even in the absence of this extra-textual knowledge of Catholicism, a reader could begin to see the various patterns shaping the novel.

Now, of course, we don't have this "extra-textual" (hee hee, not extraterrestial) referentiality for Middle-earth. We do have the books themselves. To me, Tolkien's Letters are merely glosses on what the stories provide. There cannot ever be, for me, a "definitive" Galadriel, because any authorising of one version of the character would cancel out the earlier (or later) versions of her character. The "truth" of Galadriel exists in this unfolding and extrapolating of ideas and to limit her to any one of the versions would, to me, violate (ironically here you might add), the story process.

Just as I have to wonder if the formal 'text' of LOTR or of TH supports the interpetation of dwarves which Tolkien puts forth in The Appendix, of their imperviousness to the desire for domination which the ring produces.

davem, I should clarify some points for you but must run. Later.

[Maédhros]

This is the problem with trying to construct a definitve Silmarillion by simply accepting the latest version of every story as Tolkien's 'best' version. There is no evidence to support this approach. Perhaps the reason he never re-wrote the Fall of Gondolin was because, however full of anachronisms the original may have been, however out of 'synch' it was with the later form of the mythology, it expressed something of his own personal experience in the best way, & he needed it to be left as it was, saying what it said. When we seperate the teller from the tale, & see the legendarium as a kind of 'real world' history, we inevitably run into this problem. We will, consciously or unconsciously, start to remove any difficult aspects (ie 'personal' to the author aspects) in order to create an (illusory) 'perfect' version. Perhaps the Fall of Gondolin with its tanks & troop carriers & Flamethrowers is the 'perfect' version - divorce it from the 'Legendarium' & look at it as a stand alone work - as some do with LotR & Hobbit - & ask yourself whether it needs a final 'perfect' form ('perfect' in this context seemingly only meaning a form which doesn't contradict the other stories Tolkien wrote).

I don't think that you truly get the point. It is false that we always use the latest version or idea of Tolkien in constructing a more complete Silmarillion if you will. Take the case of the Parentage of Gil Galad, there is a note in the end, which states that Gil-Galad resided in the Mouths of Sirion and that he had escaped the Fall of Nargothrond. If you take that to mean literarilly that, then there would be a huge gap in the Narn i Chîn Húrin, because there is no mention of Gil-Galad in there. This is one case in which, because that note could affect dramatically that structure, we left it alone.
The case of the Fall of Gondolin is interesting. First, it is untrue to say that he never worked on it. Of Tuor and his coming to Gondolin is the beginning of the rewriting of that Tale, and the quality and detail which JRRT added makes that version IMO superior to the first part of the Tale.
If you look into detail the typescripts that are pertinent to the Fall of Gondolin, you would notice that indeed there was never a clear rejection of the Mechanical Monsters used in the original Tale. Thanks to Findegil, we ended up using them in our version.

Tales grow out of the storyteller's own experience, & we respond out of our own. And in the end questions of 'canonicty' don't arise, because when we're 'enchanted' by the tale, those kind of questions are irrelevant. We can be moved by LotR even if we know nothing of the rest of the Legendarium. We can also be moved by the Fall of Gondolin in the Book of Lost Tales without having any context. If the spell is cast sufficiently well the tale will work on its own. If we change it simply to make it fit with other tales the same author wrote, we may only succeed in breaking the spell altogether - & for what result? To say we have a definitive version, we have produced the 'canon' & consigned the 'uncanonical' versions to the flames with the Heretics?

That is your opinion and that is ok, but I don't think that you can truly see the beauty of our Revised Fall of Gondolin. To have a description of the city of Gondolin, with all of the notes of Tolkien in there, the banners of Fingolfin, the house of the King, and the poem of the Horns of Ylmir to me is awesome.
I think that the text by themselves enchant you nonetheless, and definitely can stand on their own. A normal fan of JRRT is certainly welcome to enjoy those tales, but I believe that if you want more, a more scholarly approach to the works and evolution of the legendarium of JRRT, one cannot be content with that. I think that one has to look for more.

So, Maedhros, I can't accept your approach. I can't even accept the idea of 'casual readers' needing to be helped. There are readers who are 'enchanted' & readers who aren't. No-one who is 'enchanted' into Middle Earth feels 'casual' about it in any way. And pointing a 'canon' (am I the first one to make that joke? sorry if not ) at a new reader won't enchant them. It may drive them away, though, through feelings of inadequacy. That said, I wish you luck with your endevour, because you may well prove me wrong!
It is interesting your input and appreciated. The casual reader doesn't need to be helped because to me the casual reader won't truly submerge himself into the legendarium of JRRT. But what happens when someone reads the Published Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales , The Road Goes ever On and some of the Letters of JRRT and see the different status of Galadriel. Is there is a canonical version, is there a true version, is there a more likely version?

[Findegil]

Maybe I should add a bit to Maédhros explaination of our approch for cannon. He had given rules that we created in long and very hard process of group-discussion (much thanks to Lindil and Aiwendil how had done the most work in it). And Maédhros does also defend the rules well my oppion. What he did not do and what I think is essential for any approch for "cannon" is giving the goal we are working for.
The goal is a as fully told legendarium of Eá as possible which is self consistent and which is true to the ideas of JRR Tolkien as fare as possible.
The benefit of such a text would be an easier approch to the spell casting texts like The Fall of Gondolin. How many readers have rebuke The Silmarillion as being boring an styled like an historical compendium? Didn't you enjoy The Narn because it was much fuller in styl then the short chapter in The Silmarillion? How many readers have ever enjoyed The Wanderings of Húrin?

Sorry, I have to run out of the door know. I hope to continue later.

Respectfully
Findegil

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, this discussion is splitting out into various threads, most of which I feel woefully unqualified to contribute to (although I still find them fascinating to read). So I will limit myself to responding on the issue of whether Fordim's "Eruism" (and I still feel it neccessary to use the quote marks ;) ) is apparent from a reading of LotR alone.


There are so many markers of what I will obstinately now call Eruism without the “” that I cannot see how anyone could miss them. I can only speak from experience but, as an 11 year old first time reader of LotR, I certainly missed them. In fact, despite having re-read the book on a number of occasions since, I never really considered the relevance of this issue until I joined this forum just over a year ago and began to read Tolkien's other works more widely.

Yes, the markers are there, as you say. It is difficult now to reconstruct how I reacted to them when I first read the book. Perhaps I was too busy enjoying the story itself to pay them any heed. Or perhaps I had some vague idea of divine powers at work in Middle-earth. I suspect the latter, although I certainly felt no need to know more about them at the time than the story itself told me. The references that you give, Fordim, do not, taken alone, provide concrete evidence of the existence of divine powers. They could simply represent the beliefs of the characters involved. And they do not necessarily point to the existence of a single supreme being. Of course, I am not, and have never been, an overtly religious person, and so that would undoubtedly have coloured my response to the book.

As I have said, I did try reading the (then recently published) Silmarillion shortly after reading LotR for the first or second time, but never got any further than the Ainulindale. So, on subsequent readings, I was tentatively aware of the existence of Eru and Middle-earth's creation story. But I don't think that it really impacted upon those subsequent readings.

So I would say no, reading the story itself does not necessarily give rise to an awareness of this concept of "Eruism". And I do not believe that such an awareness is a necessary prerequisite to an enjoyment of the story.


casual reader (dreadful phrase – who amongst us ever felt ‘casual’ when reading Tolkien’s utterly engrossing stories? Ulp! I feel that I may have been responsible for coining that phrase. :rolleyes: But I think that there are casual readers of Tolkien's works, at least of The Hobbit and LotR. There are those who read the story, think it a cracking good yarn, and then move on.

As I have said, I will refrain from dipping my toe in the many other issues that have been raised. Although I will reiterate one point, which, although it may be trite to say it, I feel is still important to bear in mind, as I believe that it underlies everything being discussed. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to approach Tolkien's works. Each individual is free to take from them what they will. If you want to accept some of his writings and reject others, then that is up to you. If you want to construct a "as fully told legendarium of Eá as possible which is self consistent and which is true to the ideas of JRR Tolkien as far as possible", then that is fine. If you want to write fan-fictions, whether "canonical" or not, then it is your right to do so. My only caveat is that the kinds of restrictions which I mentioned earlier may arise when you start to discuss your views, interpretations, opinions etc with, or to disseminate them to, others.

That, however, is not in any way intended to denigrate the value of this discussion which, as I have said, I am finding utterly engrossing. :)

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry -

Your earlier post suggested Rimbaud and I took starkly different positions on the issue of class, particularly as it relates to Sam and Frodo. (The italics below are mine.)

Take, for example, a discussion some of us had back a year or so ago, on the question of the English mythology impetus behind LOTR. This discussion was brought back to mind now by Helen's most recent post. Helen characterised as a "Wild Theme" the statement, "Frodo degraded Sam by calling him a servant." The discussion was mainly between Child and Rimbaud, with Rimbaud suggesting that the relationship between Sam and Frodo was slightly or barely above the level of parody of the master servant relationship.

Rimbaud is far more acutely aware of the English social class structure--which still to this day informs English society--than any of we North Americans, even those who have visited England for some time.

This is a characterization of my stance that I would like to correct. There are two threads pertaining to this. The first was Concerning the Gaffer. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1317&highlight=class) where Bird, Child, and Rimbaud--posting in that order-- made strong arguments that the relationship between Frodo and Samwise was heavily influenced by class considerations. There were no differences between us.

The second was Losing Sight of the Basics... (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=187&page=1&pp=40&highlight=class ) I believe this is the one you were thinking of. The discussion in this thread went all over creation, touching on many subjects. Somewhere in there, Rimbaud and I agreed that class was critical in British history from the early modern period forward. There was only one point of difference in our view. Rimbaud argued that class distinctions operated during the medieval period (prior to 1300), while I (and Littlemanpoet ) contended this was not so. Disparities of wealth obviously existed, but "class" implies a certain degree of consciousness on the part of the members of that group. Most medieval historians do not feel that medieval man ever reached such a consciousness. The earliest hints we have are in the 14th and 15th century when certain small uprisings occur among the peasants. But many would deny that class feeling even played a part in this.

In that same thread, I agreed with Rimbaud that the issue of class was clearly present in Tolkien's Shire because of its Victorian/Edwardian calque, and was a significant factor in Sam and Frodo's relationship. So I am truly not aware of any discussion where we stood on opposite sides concerning Samwise in the manner you describe. Rimbaud did have a one-sentence reference to the "perceived Englishness of the books" as being " only slightly removed from parody", but this was never explcitly tied to Sam or our discussion on class as a factor in history.

I think we also have to guard against another danger: the assumption that if you belong to a particular group, you have an inherent advantage in posting on questions of a certain type. I know you did not mean that when you spoke of Rimbaud's innate advantage in being born in England and having a close look at the class system there. But I have seen this stretched and misused elsewhere: for example, someone arguing that a woman's opinion is inherently more valuable on a question such as whether Tolkien was "prejudiced" against women, since the woman would have the advantage of studying such problems more closely. I am uncomfortable with that.

This post is definitely a side road, but I knew of no other way to distinguish my views from what was said earlier in the thread. For both family and academic reasons, I have strong feelings about class and the role it still plays in shaping how we treat and view each other. I can rightfully be accused of too much nostalgia in viewing certain aspects of life. But when it comes to a serious historical assessment, or considering Sam and Frodo's early relationship, issues of class seem paramount to me.

Sharon

[THE Ka]

As has so often been the case, Saucepan Man, you have described more eloquently and accurately what I have tried to say. Earlier in the post, I wrote:The Ka, I am not following you.I do not see any paradox in these two statements, as they seem to be somewhat unrelated to each other; one deals with Tolkien's contributions as an author and the other deals with the applicability of a situation within his writing. Could you explain?


It's okay. Sometimes, excuse me! i mean to say, most of the time especially with topics such as this i tend to become too philisophical and " airy". As we all know ( so i do hope), when this happens our thoughts tend to take too much of an airy flight so, that none but ourselves can comprehend their possible inscription. Let's just say, i got "too" into it. As for your explanation, i can put it into more understandable terms of notification. Notice when i wrote " fixed ideas". When we learn something or we read something, we begin to remember what we have read, and how we might interperate it. Everyone judges things differently than his other fellow. That's why their unrelated. I was trying to show some of the many examples the Tolkien himself was asked and what i have gathered from the discussions on this wonderful but, sometimes untranslatable forum. This topic i can guess will take many an interperatation to finally become aware to everyone and understood. I love challenges like this... maybe too much. oh, well. we are all different minds trying to think alike in the same room. :p

[THE Ka]

Well, well! look at this wonderful thread of complaints, points of view, side views, compliments, and "fixed ideas"... who would of ever thought this would develop into such a wonderful disscusion! who knows when it will quiet end! and a good thing it hasn't ! This in my opinion, ( which you may or may not, if you chose, take in for consideration.) is the best disscusion this forum's had yet! first of all, i would like to give a enormous compliments to the original author, for i have been informed that this is their first post! bravo, bravo! (if i am wrong, that means that at least two other members are wrong as well.) if not their first post, well i still say this is the best disscusion yet! And just look at the momentum and body of the replies of this thread! wonderful! Well, i am going to take a break and let someone other than me take a turn at this many diamond-faced disscusion. :D

goodbye for now. Blessed Be all, The Ka. :cool:

[Bêthberry]

Child,

I regret that my words clearly have struck a strong chord with you, someone whose work and posts I admire, and one which chimes off time with this thread. Please let me clarify, for in all honestly I did not intend the mischaracterisation which you feel and, also in all honestly, I do believe there was a "starkly different position on class."

First, I was by no means attributing Helen's statement ("Frodo degraded Sam by calling him a servant") to either you or Rimbaud; I used it as an example of how a naive statement by an undeveloped or immature reader can spark ideas and, in fact, hit upon an important issue in a book without really understanding it. The ideas sparked in my mind was my memory of the discussion on the thread, Losing Sight of the Basics, which you have very kindly found and linked.

I meant that naive North American readers, of the kind who would make the claim suggested by Helen, would perhaps naturally not understand a class based society such as that suggested by Sam and Frodo in The Shire. It also recalled something to my mind that I did not state here, nor back on the original thread, yet perhaps it is not inappropriate to explain it now. I had a colleague, a Canadian married to an Englishman, who recounted to me her first experience of visiting England with her husband in the late 1980's. She could not understand how often he was riled by mild comments from others. And she could not understand how he would receive certain kind of comments where she would not. Finally she asked her husband about it. He claimed that his accent (not to me a working class accent at all) still drew snide remarks from those who spoke middle or higher class accents. When she asked why she was immune to this, he explained it was because she was not English and missed the subtle nuances of social play that still existed. Here were two academics, Child, whose differing social contexts in fact created very different experiences even now, of the English class system. It was this kind of intimate experience I was thinking of when I tried to understand how Helen's "imaginary" reader could misunderstand the role of servant, someone with much less experience than my two friends.

Rimbaud's initial comment contained the reference to parody. Parody, however, was not an issue you raised with him. Where you did agree with him was, as you have stated here, that class issues clearly were a significant factor in Sam's and Frodo's relationship.

Child's last comment on this point:

I do agree with your assessment of Frodo and Sam. Class is a definite factor. Indeed, at the beginning of the story, it is the single most important element in their relationship. In my mind, this is because the Shire is a definite "calque" on Victorian/Edwardian society which was running over with class consciousness.

My reservations about "class" do not apply to the Shire, but only those elements of Middle-earth which look back to an older model.


There was an amicable decision to disagree about a particular aspect--at least that was and remains my interpretation of the thread.

Rimbaud's posts:
Child, greatly though I admire your erudition and knowledge on the subject, I disagree with you on this point. In a most amicable way, of course. The medieval period in England (and, as I argued previously, all prior recorded periods) are dominated by race and class. There were gradations of Jutes and Angles and Saxons and there were distinct hierachies between and within them...

[He provides several other paragraphs of examples in this post and then this in a following one.}

I am not willing to enter into heated debate on the origins of class - the nomenclature itself has now been questioned, which gives rise to a host of definition-based arguments - but it is important to contextualise; Tolkien was writing in the mid and post War periods of class dissolution and the issue would have been at the forefront of educated thinking.




Child's reply:

Rimbaud: I always like your posts. They make me think and this time is no exception. But I fear we'll have to agree to disagree. The critical point for me is not the disparity in wealth, which certainly existed. I feel that class implies a certain consciousness on the part of the members of that group. And I do not believe medieval man ever reached such a consciousness. He simply did not picture himself in this way. The earliest hints of this are in the 14th and 15th century when certain small uprisings occur among the peasants. But many medievalists would dispute even this.
This is, to me, a matter of professional difference among academics, issues of definitions, procedures and applications. It is similar to the differences you and I have about literature. Philosophical differences, to my mind, do cause us to read things differently.

But in all reality my main purpose in recalling the thread was to demonstrate just how siginficant that poor old newbie's honest ignorance could be. That you found occasion to feel I misrepresented you I thoroughly regret.


Respectfully,
Bethberry

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Oh how wonderful, Bêthberry – an itemised list of questions for me to answer! [*Fordim drools on his keyboard*]

I shall tackle them (best I may) one by one:

First, it seems to me that you are suggesting a poetics for fantasy that differentiates it from realistic (for want of a better word) fiction. Do you intend this?

Yes, I rather I suppose that I am; but in this I am merely following in the (much larger) footsteps of Professor Tolkien, and the theories that he laid out in “On Fairy-Stories”. The reasons for this are best to be found in his writings, but I shall attempt to delineate my own below.

Second, are you making this claim for all writers of fantasy, or just Tolkien? On what basis do you or would you eliminate other writers?

For the moment I am merely theorising about what I’ve found in Tolkien’s Middle-Earth without having given any thought to other fantasy writers – so I shan’t attempt to address the issue of “eliminating” them quite yet.

However…

It does strike me that of all the fantasy novels I’ve read, Tolkien has been the most (but not the only) successful subcreator. This is due, I think, to two things. First, by the time he came to write TH and LotR, he already had a vast storehouse of works to draw on. The ‘reality’ of Middle-Earth pre-existed the historia he generated in response to that reality. This gives M-E an authenticity that other subcreated worlds lack. In essence, he created a narrative to suit a world that already existed; in all the other fantasy novels I’ve read, the world was created to serve the purpose of the narrative. Second, Tolkien began his subcreation from the point at which all reality (or realities) are created – with language. Everything in M-E is the result of his experiments in language creation. One of my favourite quotes from Letters (and I can hear Saucepan Man falling out of his chair with undignified mirth at my expense as I cite this!) is in a letter to Christopher from 1958:

“Nobody believes me when I say that my long book is an attempt to create a world in which a form of language agreeable to my personal aesthetic might seem real. But it is true. An enquirer (among many) asked what the L.R. was all about, and whether it was an ‘allegory.’ And I said that it was an effort to create a situation in which a common greeting would be elen sila lúmenn’ omentielmo.”

To quote a text that is probably quite familiar to many of the people participating in this thread: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Third, you will have to run by me again your point that since our reading of Middle-earth has no reference to our 'real' world, we are totally dependent upon the author for giving it credibility. This seems to me to overlook many other forms of narrative which aren't 'based' on our real world. How do we read ancient texts of early mythology? Or even translations from other cultures which would not, at least on first read, have this already-known distinction between Primary and Secondary worlds.

I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I feel as though we are, “totally dependent upon the author for giving it credibility.” As I stated in an earlier post, the way I see my relation with LotR is a kind of process as I strive for my “absolute freedom” while simultaneously acknowledging the “presence” of Tolkien. I’ll use your Brighton Rock example to try and explain better:

Catholicism, for the sake of my analogy, is a big blanket that surrounds and wraps up in it Graham Greene, myself and Brighton Rock. This blanket has existed for a very long time and is the product of many weavers. Mr. Greene and I both are equally able to pick threads out of it, add to it, or attempt to tear it. We are both equally able to pull the blanket about the novel as we read it, or, alternately, to lift the novel out of the blanket and read it in another light.

Now, with LotR, things get more complicated. Tolkien, LotR and myself are still surrounded by the blanket of Catholicism…as we are by the other forms of ‘external’ codings/beliefs/genres (discourses?) that you ask about above. But there’s another blanket as well to contend with: the blanket of “Eruism” (Saucepan Man has shamed me into putting the “” back on that). This blanket was made by the author of the text, and as such, it does not surround me, but the text and Tolkien. In order to ‘get at’ LotR I have to accept that blanket as-is, for the reasons I’ve already gone into above. And this blanket has interpretative implications (Providence is a ‘real’ and historical force; Good and Evil are discreet forces in a bipolar relation; divinity is immanent, not transcendent).

It’s not that M-E has no reference to the ‘real world’, it’s just that its primary moral/interpretative referent is also subcreated: Eruism. And Eruism is as real as Frodo, the White Mountains, Trolls and Treebeard.

In essence: I can lift LotR ‘out’ of the blanket of Catholicism, but the blanket of Eruism is another matter – it’s a cloth-binding stitched onto the very boards of its covers

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

An aside: I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has been posting to this thread. It has been one of the most singularly rewarding experiences of my intellectual career, and I sincerely hope that this is only the beginning!

Quick Note to THE Ka: this thread was indeed my first post to the discussion forums (although I have been rpg-ing for a while), but the credit for the quality of the conversation must go entirely to the posters. Let me just say it loud and proud:

I love the Barrow Downs!

(Is there a special room reserved for people like me at Betty Ford?)

[HerenIstarion]

Well, I have been unlucky to miss this thread from its beginning, so I now would rather abstain from rushing in head on. My compliments to Fordim Hedgethistle for starting it up, and all participants for, well, participating. I would add a bit, though, which is, in fact, practical joke, but it seems rather relevant to what is so hotly discussed here. The source of it is located at http://www.mark-shea.com/, and I would like to give credit to lindil who have provided me with this piece for my amusement some months before. I hope you'll enjoy it:

************************************

The Lord of the Rings: A Source-Criticism Analysis

Experts in source-criticism now know that The Lord of the Rings is a
redaction of sources ranging from the Red Book of Westmarch (W) to Elvish
Chronicles (E) to Gondorian records (G) to orally transmitted tales of the
Rohirrim (R). The conflicting ethnic, social and religious groups which
preserved these stories all had their own agendas, as did the "Tolkien"
(T) and "Peter Jackson" (PJ) redactors, who are often in conflict with each
other as well but whose conflicting accounts of the same events reveals a
great deal about the political and religious situations which helped to
form our popular notions about Middle Earth and the so-called "War of the
Ring.".

Into this mix are also thrown a great deal of folk materials about a
supposed magic "ring" and some obscure figures named "Frodo" and "Sam". In
all likelihood, these latter figures are totems meant to personify the
popularity of Aragorn with the rural classes.

Because The Lord of the Rings is a composite of sources, we may be quite
certain that "Tolkien" (if he ever existed) did not "write" this work in
the conventional sense, but that it was assembled over a long period of time
by someone else of the same name. We know this because a work of the range,
depth, and detail of The Lord of the Rings is far beyond the capacity of
any modern expert in source-criticism to ever imagine creating themselves.

The tension between source materials and the various redactors is evident
in several cases. T is heavily dependent upon Gondorian records and clearly
elevates the claims of the Aragorn monarchy over the House of Denethor.
From this it is obvious that the real "War of the Ring" was a dynastic struggle
between these two clans for supremacy in Gondor. The G source, which plays
such a prominent role in the T-redacted account of Aragorn, is
significantly downplayed by the PJ redactor in favor of E versions. In the T account,
Aragorn is portrayed as a stainless saint, utterly sure of his claims to
the throne and so self-possessed that he never doubts for a moment his right
to seize power. Likewise, in the T account, the Rohirrim are conveniently
portrayed as willing allies and vassals to the Aragorn monarchy, living in
perfect harmony with the Master Race of Numenoreans who rule Gondor.

Yet even the T redactor cannot eliminate from the R source the towering
Amazon figure of Eowyn, who is recorded as taking up arms the moment the
previous king of Rohan, Theoden, is dead. Clearly we are looking at
heavily reworked coup d'etat attempt by the princess of the Rohirrim against
Aragorn's supremacy. Yet this hard kernel of historical fact is cleverly
sublimated under folk materials (apparently legends of the obscure figure
of "Meriadoc"). Instead of the historical account of her attempt on Aragorn's
throne as it originally stood in R, she is instead depicted as engaging in
battle with a mythical "Lord of the Nazgul" (apparently a figure from W
sources) and shown fighting on Aragorn's side. This attempt to sublimate
Eowyn does not convince the trained eye of the source-criticism expert,
who astutely notes that Eowyn is wounded in battle at the same moment Denethor dies. Obviously, Eowyn and Denethor were in league against Aragorn but were defeated by the latter's partisans simultaneously.

This tendency to distort the historical record recurs many times in T.
Indeed, many scholars now believe the so-called "Madness of Denethor" in T
(which depicts Denethor as a suicide) is, in fact, a sanitized version of
the murder of Denethor by Aragorn through the administration of poison
(possibly distilled from a plant called athelas).

In contrast to T, the PJ redaction of Aragorn is filled with self-doubts
and frequently rebuked by PJ-redacted Elrond. Probably this is due to PJ's own
political and religious affiliations which seek, in particular, to exalt
the Elvish claims to supremacy against Numenorean claims.

T suggests some skill on Aragorn's part in the use of pharmaceutical (and
hallucinogenic?) plants which may account for some of the more "visionary"
moments of mysterious beings like "Black Riders" who appear to have been
tribal chieftains hostile to the Aragorn dynasty. PJ, however, exalts
Elrond's healing powers over Aragorn's. This is probably rooted in some
incident of psychosomatic healing repeatedly chronicled in different
sources. Thus, the G source also has an account of Frodo's "healing by
Aragorn" on the Field of Cormallen but E places it at Rivendell and
attributes the healing to Elrond. Since we know that "Frodo" is likely
just a figure representing the rural population and not an historical
personage, most scholars therefore conclude that "Frodo's" healing is just T's
symbolic representation of Aragorn's program of socio-economic appeasement of the agrarian class, while his healing by Elrond is a nature myth representing
the renewal of the annual crops.

Of course, the "Ring" motif appears in countless folk tales and is to be
discounted altogether. Equally dubious are the "Gandalf" narratives, which
appear to be legends of a shamanistic figure, introduced to the narrative
by W out of deference to local Shire cultic practice.

Finally, we can only guess at what the Sauron sources might have revealed,
since they must have been destroyed by victors who give a wholly negative
view of this doubtlessly complex, warm, human, and many-sided figure.
Scholars now know, of course, that the identification of Sauron with "pure
evil" is simply absurd. Indeed, many scholars have undertaken a "Quest for
the Historical Sauron" and are searching the records with growing passion
and urgency for any lore connected with the making of the One Ring. "It's
all legendary, of course," says Dr. S. Aruman, "Especially the absurd tale
of Frodo the Nine-Fingered. After all, the idea of anyone deliberately
giving up Power is simply impossible and would call into question the most
precious thesis of postmodern ideology: that everything is a power
struggle on the basis of race, class and gender. Still... I... should... very much
like to have a look at it. Just for scholarly purposes, of course."


***************************************

But I can't stand the temptation of giving you my opinion (in brief) too. Though I liked the initial post very much, I'd rather not indulge in things like to one I provided you with. And it seems to me ideas expressed in the initial post may lead to the like of the joke I hope you've found funny (or six legged bark eaters at that :)).

On the whole, I seem to agree up to a point to both sides here. I tend to view the whole bulk of Tolkien's works as bundle of accounts by different authors, collected and summarized by Tolkien. But, whilst I retain my freedom to be picky among those accounts (so, I tend to view account of round sun more accurate than of two trees), I do not hold with adding up new theories from outside the boundaries defined by this collective authorship (which condensed on the end of Tolkien's pen, so to say. All else from outside is not canonical :)

[mark12_30]

six legged bark eaters at that
Arms, HI m'love, they had six *arms*--no distorting of "Fordim's Canon", HI m'love ! I refer to post # 7 in which this historia fact is clearly stated, that is *if* we can trust a mere unpublished post.
;) :p :D

[davem]

Helen

Suppose I wrote a 'fanfic' about a Hobbit called Trotter (complete with broken pipe & wooden shoes) rescuing Idis, Theoden's daughter, from the dungeon's of Giant Treebeard, encountering along the way some of 'pretty little fairies'? How many people unfamiliar with Tolkien's early work & the first drafts of LotR would consider it totally 'wrong' & entirely unacceptable?

Would that story be classed as 'uncanonical'?It would certainly be AU. It would have been entirely possible for Tolkien to have written a story like that, if he had taken a different road imaginatively. So, to what extent can a fanfic be said not to be 'canonical'? What 'period' of Tolkien's creative work does a piece of fan fiction have to correspond to in order to be acceptable?

A work of fan fiction may not correspond to the later vision, but it may capture the mood & spirit of the early work. Or it may get many 'facts' wrong & still be a good story. On the other hand, I've come across a lot of fan fiction, replete with 'facts', even large chunks of perfect Elvish, which bored me senseless. Of course, knowing Tolkien's creation as well as I do (though I'm certainly no 'expert'),I do find many things in otherwise good fan fiction which annoy & break the spell, but I suspect that that is because the inner consistency of reallity has not been achieved, the spell of the story not sufficiently well cast - because if it was I would have been too enchanted to notice the odd slip.

Maedhros

I don't know that I would agree that the first part of Tuor & his coming to Gondolin is 'better' or more effective than the Fall of Gondolin. They are simply different - in the same way that the revised Hobbit is not 'better' than the first edition, just different. There is more detail in Tuor, but it is unfinished, & for all we know the finished story might have been very poor, & not compared at all with FoG in terms of narrative effect.
When you say that T&HCTG is superior 'in your opinion' you point up the problem with your approach. You decided to leave out a note in the Parentage of Gil Galad because you consider it would adversely affect the Narn. For me this approach is only going to produce, as I said, an entirely idiosyncratic version - another group of scholars could decide to include the residence of Gil Galad at the Havens & let the Narn go hang. You cannot approach Tolkien's work in this way, in my opinion, because there is no way to prove that Tolkien, if he'd had the time, or inclination, wouldn't have rewritten the Narn to accomodate the Gil Galad idea. Leaving in the mechanical monsters from FoG creates even bigger problems for a 'consistent' version, in that it changes our whole understanding of Morgoth & what capacity he had for technological development. If he could produce tanks & flame throwers, why didn't he use them against the Valar in the War of Wrath, & decide instead on using living creatures (Balrogs & Dragons) which could be killed.

FoG is his attempt to mythologise the horrors of mechanised warfare, which his was the first generation to witness. It's the horror of the Somme battlefield seen (as Garth puts it) through 'enchanted eyes. It is far more that than part of a 'revised' Silmarillion. If you revise it to fit into a 'canon', an 'official' version (though I have to ask who the 'officials' are who will give final approval - is there an officiating body to whom you will offer up your completed version, who will stamp it 'officially approved', & declare all the other versions (including some of Tolkien's own) 'unofficial') you make it into something it was never intended to be.

In the same way, I don't think there is a 'canonical' Galadriel. The Galadriel of LotR is an exiled Noldor, who has been forbidden to return into the West, & only recieves forgiveness & permission to return through her rejection of the Ring, & her aid in the War of the Ring. The later Galadriel is not an exile, & could return at any time, but stays in order to fight Sauron. 'What Ship could bear this later Galadriel ever back across so wide a sea'? Well, presumably the first one she came across heading in the right direction.

Quote:'The casual reader doesn't need to be helped because to me the casual reader won't truly submerge himself into the legendarium of JRRT.'

I disagree with this profoundly - the reader, 'casual' or otherwise, does not 'submerge' himself - he is either 'submerged' or 'enchanted', or he is not. And if he is 'submerged' he will be 'truly' submerged.

When you refer in such a negative way to 'normal fans' -

(Quote: A normal fan of JRRT is certainly welcome to enjoy those tales, but I believe that if you want more, a more scholarly approach to the works and evolution of the legendarium of JRRT, one cannot be content with that. I think that one has to look for more.)

- as opposed to 'abnormal' ones (& I suppose I must feel grateful for my 'normality' here!) My blood begins to boil :mad:

Sorry, but there are simply 'fans' - albeit some who simply love the tales & some who seem to want to dictate which tales shall be loved & which shall not.

Findegil

Quote:'The goal is a as fully told legendarium of Eá as possible which is self consistent and which is true to the ideas of JRR Tolkien as fare as possible'.

One: it is simply not possible to make the Legendarium 'self consistent' without throwing away some of the most interesting bits & pieces - you make me think of a 'tree-surgeon' going in with a chain saw to 'tidy up' Niggle's Tree, & make it 'nice & symetrical'.

Quote:'The benefit of such a text would be an easier approch to the spell casting texts like The Fall of Gondolin.'

Two: No it wouldn't. It would more likely break the spell - its simply an attempt to break a thing to find out what it is made of, & then put it back together in what you consider to be a 'better' form, with all the bits that you consider 'don't belong' left out'.

Quote:'How many readers have rebuke The Silmarillion as being boring an styled like an historical compendium?'

Three: I neither know nor care.

Quote:'Didn't you enjoy The Narn because it was much fuller in styl then the short chapter in The Silmarillion?'

Four: No, I enjoyed both because they both work perfectly in their own way. Why should anyone have the right or the authority to choose one over the other & declare one 'canonical' & the other not?

Quote:'How many readers have ever enjoyed The Wanderings of Húrin?'

Five: As many, I'm sure, as wanted to, & I can't see that your 'official stamp of approval' will increase the number of future readers of that particular work.

(Erm...

Think I may have gone a bit far there. Please don't take it as a personal attack. Its just that I feel very strongly about this issue. I sincerely feel that your approach is mistaken. I hope you enjoy the process, but for me it is simply a form of 'fanfic' - you're taking what you enjoy from Tolkien's work, & creating something new. Good luck to you, but as with all fan fic, you shouldn't expect all the rest of us 'fans' to dub you, as the oft repeated blurbs on numerous forgettable fantasy novels will have it 'worthy successors of Tolkien', let alone my own personal favourite 'Comparable to Tolkien at his best'.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Heren Istarion,

Sometimes a "heavy" and well argued thread needs a lighter touch to put things in perspective. You have definitely done that!

Bethberry

Thanks so much for taking the time and energy to respond and clarify your initial meaning. My dear ancestors who lurked in the factories of Detroit and the mines of the U.K. would definitely faint if they thought I was questioning the reality of class differences in people's lives. I've always felt enormous empathy for Samwise. Tagging along with a bunch of Fallohides, he is required to stretch between two worlds, and that is not always easy.

******************************

Now on to other things....

There are so many markers of what I will obstinately now call Eruism without the “” that I cannot see how anyone could miss them.

Saucepan Man ,

I largely agree with your own view of "Eruism" that these markers were not all so clear cut when LotR first appeared. And, today, if we focus only on the text of the LotR, without knowledge of anything beyond it, these markers are still not quite so obvious.

However, I truly think it's difficult for the modern day reader to wash out of his head all the information we have gleaned from the Silmarillion, Carpenter's biography of Tolkien, and, most critically, the published Letters. At least this is true of anyone who goes beyond a casual reading of the books to participate in continuing study or discussion. Even those posters on this site who have never personally read any of the three items listed above are aware that they exist, if only by the comments of other posters.

The Eru-centered view of LotR is very prevalent today. Just look at recent works for sale on Amazon. There are a host of titles dealing with the religious themes in LotR, some scholarly, some popular, and others explicitly intended as devotional aids.

This was not the case in the period prior to 1977. As I hinted earlier, I feel that it was the publication of these three works, all within a two-year period, that irrevocably changed the way we look at Tolkien. I was in college and grad school from 1966 through 1976. (Yes, I know I was a perenniel student - :D ) During this period I participated in numerous discussions on Tolkien. Some were in college dorms, and others in the classroom with professors. The whole issue of Eru or "providence" was present, but was not the heart of our discussions. There were indeed clues in the text but these were not viewed in the way they are today. I saw providence as a silent spring running deep, but had no idea of Eru's role as delineated in the Silm, while others frankly thought such issues were only of peripheral importance.

The easiest way to confirm this is to take a look at the scholarly and popular writings on Tolkien that appeared before 1977. I have a bookshelf overflowing with battered paperback studies that date from the early sixties forward. Almost universally, the discussion of the divine undergirding of Middle-earth was not a prominent feature in these, the way it is today. There are a whole host of such commentators: Lin Carter; William Ready (the fellow Tolkien didn't like); editors like Isaacs, Zimbardo, and Lobdell who published dozens of essays by various authors; and my personal favorite Paul Kocher. If I sit down and scrutinize the index of these works, looking under terms like "God", "One", "religion", "providence" and such, I come away with only a handful of references.

I do not want to say there were "no" references because that isn't true. But they didn't occupy the central position we've given them today. It's interesting to note that the earliest recognition of Tolkien's views on religion and the divine came not through studying LotR, but through a close reading of "Leaf by Niggle". Kocher studied Niggle in both his books and also wrote a chapter on LotR entitled "Cosmic Order." (The very vagueness of that title says something!)

I think the first writer to have a clear view of Tolkien's ideas regarding Eru (presumably other than Christopher) was probably Clyde Kilby. He was a professor who spent one summer with Tolkien a few years before his death. He was supposed to help get the Silm ready for publication. He was also a deeply religious man. Kilby spent most of the summer talking with Tolkien about the material that would later become the Silm. Discussions about Eru and providence figured prominently in those encounters. Shortly after JRRT died, Kilby published the account of his summer in a small book that makes fascinating reading.

So looking back, I'd say the markers of Eruism were nowhere as clear as they are today. It was only with the publication of the edited Silm, Carpenter's bio, and especially the selected Letters that our whole view of Middle-earth changed and a picture of the Legendarium emerged. I feel that these three books, more than any others, changed the the way we approached interpreting Lord of the Rings, although others may certainly disagree.

[mark12_30]

Davem,

Lively ideas!


Suppose I wrote a 'fanfic' about a Hobbit called Trotter (complete with broken pipe & wooden shoes) rescuing Idis, Theoden's daughter, from the dungeon's of Giant Treebeard, encountering along the way some of 'pretty little fairies'?

Gee, sounds fun. :p What do you think, Child? (Who gets to visit the Cottage of Lost Play?)

How many people unfamiliar with Tolkien's early work & the first drafts of LotR would consider it totally 'wrong' & entirely unacceptable?


Lots of 'em. So it would be preferable to give the storya thorough introduction: a preface explaining what Tolkienish era the story is based in. One either explains who Trotter was, or, one refers the reader to the section of HoME the story is based from.


Would that story be classed as 'uncanonical'?


No. It would be classed as pre-LOTR, HoME fanfic. Admittedly you would have a much narrower audience than for a Legolas story.

It would certainly be AU.


For Strider, yes it would; but **not for Trotter.** And you're writing Trotter's story, not Strider's. Aren't you? (Or are you?)

What 'period' of Tolkien's creative work does a piece of fan fiction have to correspond to in order to be acceptable?

The period that you say you're working with. That's why I was excited about the "Sliding Scale" idea. Some of us have played/ are playing with The Lost Road. And there have been games involving Gondolin, Numenor... which used extra-Sil, HoME writings. We debated as we went.


A work of fan fiction may not correspond to the later vision, but it may capture the mood & spirit of the early work. Or it may get many 'facts' wrong & still be a good story. On the other hand, I've come across a lot of fan fiction, replete with 'facts', even large chunks of perfect Elvish, which bored me senseless.


I would certainly agree that fanfiction-- indeed, any good story-- requires more than just correct language and facts.


Of course, knowing Tolkien's creation as well as I do (though I'm certainly no 'expert'),I do find many things in otherwise good fan fiction which annoy & break the spell, but I suspect that that is because the inner consistency of reallity has not been achieved, the spell of the story not sufficiently well cast - because if it was I would have been too enchanted to notice the odd slip.


I agree that it must be part of the whole.

If I combed through Mithadan's Tales, I might be able to find a slip. But: I wasn't accosted, mugged or ambushed by any! Not one! And as a result, when I got to ... oh, I won't ruin it for you, but the part where -- yeah, that part -- I cried.

You are right. It's a question of not breaking the enchantment. So-- there has to be an enchantment there to start with . And that takes good writing, and inspiration, and a host of other things.

Character abuse is the worst form of non-canoni..ci..ty. In fact Tolkien Himself said so :p in Letters.

;)

It is a pleasure discussing this with you, davem.

Grace and peace, --mark12_30

(EDIT: Child--Tagging along with a bunch of Fallohides, he is required to stretch between two worlds, and that is not always easy.

I never saw it like that before. Now there's an eye-opener and no mistake.

[Lord of Angmar]

Would that story be classed as 'uncanonical'?(davem) I would say that, to an extent, yes, this can be classed as 'uncanonical', in the sense that we can reasonably believe that J.R.R. Tolkien did not want Trotter, the Cottage of Lost Play, etc. to contribute to the make-up of a reader's view of Middle-earth. The fan fiction you speak of may be 'founded' in Professor Tolkien's writing, but I think the idea of having a 'foundation' in (some of) Tolkien's (posthumously published) writings should be separate from the notion of what is 'canon' in Tolkien's works.So it would be preferable to give the storya thorough introduction: a preface explaining what Tolkienish era the story is based in.(mark12_30)Here is another distinction we as Tolkienites might want to consider making: era vs. revision. The character Trotter may represent an 'era' of Tolkien's career, but he does not represent an era in the canonical history of Middle-earth; Tolkein revised The Lord of the Rings and edited out Trotter, likely because Tolkien did not want him to be considered a canonical figure in his works (which is why no stories containing Trotter, to my knowledge, were ever published by the Professor himself).

[Bêthberry]

Risks the wrath of 'Bethberry uncloaked' )

And so it's a dressing-down you wish to deliver, davem? ;)

I have time now for but a very quick reply. I don't wish by any means to deny that an author and her personal experience forges the stories, davem, but rather to consider the entire process of language creation in larger framework, not as originating solely in the mind of one person but as the unique confluence of many events, social, cultural, political, as well as biographical. Perhaps I can make that more clear if I consider your hypothetical fanfic about Trotter, within the context of some of the responses here. (Forgive me for leaving someout. I write in haste.)

Helen says yes within a very proscribed regime of explanation and elaboration which would precede the story itself.

Child addresses, in an absolutely fabulous post about the history of critical reception, the perceived importance of Eru in Tolkien's writing. It would seem that the current preference in interpretation is dependant upon certain pivotal events in the publishing history.

Both of these situations point to the centrality of the interpretive community in understanding any text and in making any particular approach or interpretation "authoritative". This in fact is what is meant by the"death of the author." Not that we cruelly and , to my mind, erroneously ignore various aspects of the writing, primary or secondary materials, but that events in the wider cultural experience help determine what the stories mean to the community which values them.

Given that the Letters and The Silm were so closely 'controlled' by Christopher , given that there are diaries unpublished and other letters, it is a safe assumption (I think) to say that we don't have a 'complete' foundation upon which to build our interpretations. Who knows if other works exist which will, as with the publication of those three eventful books of which Child has spoken, propel the community of readers into a new paradigm which takes over centre stage from Eru.

The process of reading, of making-meaning, is like this. There is no finality to it, for aside from events such as the publication of new works by the author, there will always be cultural events which will shape how the interpretive community views the works themselves. I'm will to bet that an article can be written which would put the newly seen importance of Eru on not only those publications but also 9/11 and the Millenium itself.

We can work this back, also, davem, so that we see not only the mind of a single author mythologising his war experience, but the confluence of specific cultural events which in hindsight help explain why and how JRR Tolkien was so placed to create Middle earth.

Some members of BD want to proscribe a clearly delineated operation whereby they understand their work as continuing in some definition the intentions of Tolkien. This is one interpretive community.

Other members here are more suspect of that endeavour and in fact mightrepresent an-other interpretive community. I think it is safe to say that davem, myself, Mr. SaucepanMan and Mr. Hedgethistle, among others (and I don't wish to ignore others, I am merely writing in haste from memory) could belong to this group, if group it is... There will be as many interpretive communities as there are one or two gathered together in Tolkien's name.

I would say more here on Tolkien's idea in "Of Fairy-Stories" of how things get into the soup not because of some cultural reason or event in an author's life but because the inclusion represent "literary significance" (Tolkien's term). That significance depends upon, using Tolkien's idea (yes, yes, here I will now rise to champion the author), the satisfaction of certain desires. To me, in the long run, it is this aesthetic criterion which will "win out in the end". It the story or the interpretation (I'm extrapolating here of course beyond fantasy) satisfies this desire or consolation in the community, it will be accepted and pass on through the annals of history. If not, it will be forgotten, perhaps to be uncovered in some future archeology by a different interpretive community.

must dash. apologies for not writing better or more inclusively.

[Maédhros]

I don't know that I would agree that the first part of Tuor & his coming to Gondolin is 'better' or more effective than the Fall of Gondolin. They are simply different - in the same way that the revised Hobbit is not 'better' than the first edition, just different. There is more detail in Tuor, but it is unfinished, & for all we know the finished story might have been very poor, & not compared at all with FoG in terms of narrative effect.
When you say that T&HCTG is superior 'in your opinion' you point up the problem with your approach. You decided to leave out a note in the Parentage of Gil Galad because you consider it would adversely affect the Narn. For me this approach is only going to produce, as I said, an entirely idiosyncratic version - another group of scholars could decide to include the residence of Gil Galad at the Havens & let the Narn go hang. You cannot approach Tolkien's work in this way, in my opinion, because there is no way to prove that Tolkien, if he'd had the time, or inclination, wouldn't have rewritten the Narn to accomodate the Gil Galad idea. Leaving in the mechanical monsters from FoG creates even bigger problems for a 'consistent' version, in that it changes our whole understanding of Morgoth & what capacity he had for technological development. If he could produce tanks & flame throwers, why didn't he use them against the Valar in the War of Wrath, & decide instead on using living creatures (Balrogs & Dragons) which could be killed.
There will always be a problem of interpretation and personal taste with this. That is why we in the Project have tried to come up with reasonable and logical rules. I disagree about your comment regarding Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin in that I believe that if Tolkien would have finished that account, it would never have been as you said been very poor because it was Tolkien who wrote it.
What is to be included and not included is not a matter of whim but a matter of great debate. Again I disagree with your assertion that the addition of the Mechanical Monsters in the FoG creates a problem. That is indeed a common notion that many people have but if you truly look at it in detail (as Findegil did) one would realize that they are not incompatible, and that is why we came to the conclusion to use it.

FoG is his attempt to mythologise the horrors of mechanised warfare, which his was the first generation to witness. It's the horror of the Somme battlefield seen (as Garth puts it) through 'enchanted eyes. It is far more that than part of a 'revised' Silmarillion. If you revise it to fit into a 'canon', an 'official' version (though I have to ask who the 'officials' are who will give final approval - is there an officiating body to whom you will offer up your completed version, who will stamp it 'officially approved', & declare all the other versions (including some of Tolkien's own) 'unofficial') you make it into something it was never intended to be.
CT had always thought of the idea to make a "Silmarillion". He doubted if that would be the right thing to do, or to just publish the typescripts, manuscripts
of his father as he did in HoME. Is CT Published Silmarillion the official version? No. Is the work that he did on it amazing? Yes, it was, and it was probably his work in editing it that allowed the publication of HoME. Of course now, CT had certain regrets in his "Silmarillion" which is a natural thing. We in the project are doing that just for the pleasure of having a more complete "Silmarillion". There can never be a truly canonical "Silmarillion" because the author is dead.

I disagree with this profoundly - the reader, 'casual' or otherwise, does not 'submerge' himself - he is either 'submerged' or 'enchanted', or he is not. And if he is 'submerged' he will be 'truly' submerged.

When you refer in such a negative way to 'normal fans' -

(Quote: A normal fan of JRRT is certainly welcome to enjoy those tales, but I believe that if you want more, a more scholarly approach to the works and evolution of the legendarium of JRRT, one cannot be content with that. I think that one has to look for more.)

- as opposed to 'abnormal' ones (& I suppose I must feel grateful for my 'normality' here!) My blood begins to boil

Sorry, but there are simply 'fans' - albeit some who simply love the tales & some who seem to want to dictate which tales shall be loved & which shall not.

It is a matter of opinion. I don't see anything wrong with my description of a normal fan of JRRT. I believe that if you are truly in love with the works, one would not stop with reading the manuscript, but would want to see all of the alterations and developments of the story.
Can all of JRRT's typescripts and manuscripts be taken at the same value? I don't think so. Take for example the Tale of Turambar and compare it with the later Narn i Chîn Húrin. It is my personal opinion that when Tolkien wrote the Narn he was a better writer than when we wrote the Tale of Turambar. How could both of these works have the same "canonical" value if the later one is an expanded revision with a great many additions of the story. When comparing these two tales, would the 1917 Tale have the same weight as the 1951 Narn? To me the answer would be of course not.
There is a difference between canonicity and love of the works. For me, the most beautiful story that JRRT wrote is the Cottage of Lost Play and it is the one that I like the most, even though I consider that JRRT abandoned that concept early on and I do not consider it canon.
We can guide people by stating that we consider certain texts to be more "canonical" than others with some rules, but we can't tell each reader what to like and what not to.

[The Saucepan Man]

(The title above relates to only the final part of this post (and then only tenuously), but I couldn't resist the pun. :D )

H-I, my favourite section of that "article" that you posted is the final paragraph:


Finally, we can only guess at what the Sauron sources might have revealed ... After all, Dark Lords have feelings too (and any reader of ROEBII will know that I have reason to feel strongly about this ;) ). I would love to see a "fan-fic" written from, and sympathetic to, Sauron's perspective. As they say, history is always written by the victors. Of course, it would not be at all "canonical" since it would turn one of the themes central to Tolkien's works on its head. But it would be fun.


So, to what extent can a fanfic be said not to be 'canonical'? What 'period' of Tolkien's creative work does a piece of fan fiction have to correspond to in order to be acceptable? By "canonical", I assume that you mean consistent with canon, davem, since a fan-fic, not having been penned by the author himself, can never form part of the canon. Using this definition, I would go along with Lord of Angmar and say that, to be "canonical" a fan-fic must be consistent with the works which Tolkien himself published during his lifetime (and there are only two set in Middle-earth) and arguably the Silmarillion (I remain "fuzzy" on that one). Anything else within the author's "unpublished texts" is surely up for grabs, since (as you put it) we will never know exactly how it would have appeared in its final form had he got round to publishing it (and that does, I suppose, include the Silm, since it would most likely have been quite different in many respects had he published it himself).

Which brings me neatly to your comments on the revised Silmarillion project:


If you revise it to fit into a 'canon', an 'official' version (though I have to ask who the 'officials' are who will give final approval - is there an officiating body to whom you will offer up your completed version, who will stamp it 'officially approved', & declare all the other versions (including some of Tolkien's own) 'unofficial') you make it into something it was never intended to be. I think you are (intentionally?) missing the point here. As I understand it, those involved in the project do not intend forcing the fruits of their (rather exceptional) labours on anyone. As Bêthberry said, they simply form one of many "interpetive communities" within the "Tolkien fan umbrella" (do I use quote marks too much?). Even if the finished product were to be published, individual fans would be free to accept it, reject it or just simply ignore it (which goes back to this concept of the boundless freedom of the reader).

But I think that you recognise that, for you go on to say:


I hope you enjoy the process, but for me it is simply a form of 'fanfic' - you're taking what you enjoy from Tolkien's work, & creating something new. I agree with you on this, although I would qualify your point by recognising that it would (for me at least) represent a much more authoritative body of work than the more traditional type of fan-fic (with the exception perhaps of Mith's works, although I have not read them and am going on what Helen and others have said). The reason being that the work is being undertaken with the genuine intent of remaining as true to Tolkien's ideas as possible by a group of people who are intimately familiar with the entirety of his works. I would be interested to read it, although I might well choose to exclude some, or even all, of it from my own personal view of the history of Middle-earth. I would be fully entitled to do so, and I don't imagine that Maedhros, Findegil or anyone else working on it would seek to deny this. Of course, if I was to join their "interpretive community" and enter into the process, or even just enter into a discussion on the substance of what they are producing (as opposed to the process by which they are producing it), I would have to accept the "rules of canon" by which they work (one of those restrictions which I mentioned earlier).

And so to "Eruism". Sharon, you beautifully encapsulated the reasons for my not having picked up on this theme throughout most of my "Tolkien-reading life" (those quote marks again). Indeed, when I first joined this forum, I was utterly astonished at how dominant this theme was among the discussions, and also at the clear link between an interest in Tolkien and deep (and primarily Christian) religious beliefs. (Although that is clearly not to say that all Tolkien fans are Christians or even deeply religious. Many are neither. I am nominally the former, but not the latter). I do of course recognise the importance of "Eruism" within Tolkien's works now and, indeed, have accepted it into my own little "Tolkien world". But it certainly had no role to play in my intitial "enchantment" (drat those quote marks - too many nebulous concepts ;) ).

I think that the following point in your post is key:


However, I truly think it's difficult for the modern day reader to wash out of his head all the information we have gleaned from the Silmarillion, Carpenter's biography of Tolkien, and, most critically, the published Letters. At least this is true of anyone who goes beyond a casual reading of the books to participate in continuing study or discussion. That is certainly true today, assuming that the reader is aware of the ideas contained in the works that you mention. But, unless they read Tolkien in a very odd order or read widely on this forum (or others like it) before first reading LotR, they will not necessarily pick up on these ideas on first reading the book (just as I didn't). And there will be many who (whether "casual" (doh!) or more serious readers) will never get around to reading the Silmarillion, the Letters or the "unpublished texts" (just as I might never have done). And there will also be many to whom the theme is simply not that important. In any of these circumstances, their experience cannot be said to be less valid than those who are aware of and/or who hold as important the "Eruism" theme (or any of the other ideas contained within the secondary materials). For them, the heroism will suffice. (That last sentence is in there simply to make my title pun more relevant.)

Yes, Bêthberry, social, cultural, political and biographical events will inevitably have an impact upon the manner in which an author is interpreted, in addition to the "secondary materials" which he himself has produced. But, as I am sure you would accept, not all of them will affect every individual reader, some may be not be affected by them at all, and those individuals who are affected by them will be affected in different ways. And, of course, one's own personal experiences and perspectives (one's religious beliefs, for example) will have a significant effect on one's own personal interpretation. Which, I suppose, accounts for the range of opinion here and elsewhere in this forum.

And, on that note, I shall take my leave (although no doubt only temporarily so).

~Saucepan~
A recovering quote mark addict

Edit:


We can guide people by stating that we consider certain texts to be more "canonical" than others with some rules, but we can't tell each reader what to like and what not to. Thanks for that clarification Madhros, which I think confirms my understanding of what you are seeking to acheive.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Some members of BD want to proscribe a clearly delineated operation whereby they understand their work as continuing in some definition the intentions of Tolkien. This is one interpretative community.

Other members here are more suspect of that endeavour and in fact might represent an-other interpretative community. I think it is safe to say that davem, myself, Mr. SaucepanMan and Mr. Hedgethistle, among others (and I don't wish to ignore others, I am merely writing in haste from memory) could belong to this group, if group it is... There will be as many interpretive communities as there are one or two gathered together in Tolkien's name.

Once again, Bêthberry, thanks for putting this so concisely. This little schema you offer of different interpretative communities (I hereby forswear all “” in this post!) hearkens back to the question with which I began: “In a book that doesn’t really conclude, where does its truth end and our own begin?”

I am about to float something that will at first appear outrageous and will raise many hackles – please bear with the post however, as I hope that the hackles will droop as you proceed:

In LotR there are two rival groups set against one another. First, the Fellowship, brought together by Eru (as Elrond points out at the beginning of the Council: “Called, I say, though I have not called you to me, strangers from distant lands. You have come and are here met, in this very nick of time, by chance as it may seem. Yet it is not so. Believe rather that it is so ordered that we, who sit here, and none others, must now find counsel for the peril of the world” ). Second, the Nazgûl, under the domination of Saruon. I would suggest that the interpretative community you identify as trying to “understand their work as continuing in some definition the intentions of Tolkien” is reflected by the Nazgûl, while the interpretative community you say “suspect[s]…that endeavour” is reflected by the Fellowship.

Please, remember, keep all hackles down! I am NOT NOT NOT claiming that one group is one the side of good and the other one the side of evil; nor am I suggesting that one group has free will while the other are slaves. I am merely trying to work through how Tolkien himself provides us with a way of thinking about this in his own novel. The comparison/relation between the Fellowship and the Nazgûl – among other things – works through the relationship between those who seek truth by submitting themselves to an-other’s particular version of that truth (the Nazgûl look to the Eye/I of Sauron), and those who cling to their own particular versions of truth (hobbits, Men, Elves, Dwarves) while hoping against all hope that somehow these truths are part of an overarching Truth that they can never really know. Now, obviously, Tolkien is dramatising this relationship in a fiction – in our primary world, we are all (as readers) a mixture of Fellowship (seeking to maintain our own versions of truth, and hoping for Truth unknowable) and Nazgûl (seeking the truth from an authoritative, authorial other).

Any hackles? If so, please read the above paragraph again. :)

I think that we are all in agreement that our reading experience is some mixture of this – more importantly, that our sense of the truths and/or Truth of Middle-Earth is an (unhappy?) mixture or composite of these positions. I have seen some extraordinarily eloquent and intelligent attempts to work through this dilemma, but a dilemma it remains (for me at least). The questions that I have from this are:

1) Is it possible to turn to the author for the truth of the text and not become as the Nazûl? That is, can we place our faith in the authorial interpretation and not lose some of our own free will?

2) If we are to adopt the contrary position, is it possible for us in the Primary World to maintain the same faith and hope that Elrond expresses in the Secondary World of M-E that our truths are part of one Truth, without having to make recourse to number one?

In any of these circumstances, their experience cannot be said to be less valid than those who are aware of and/or who hold as important the "Eruism" theme (or any of the other ideas contained within the secondary materials). For them, the heroism will suffice. (That last sentence is in there simply to make my title pun more relevant.)

I think Saucepan Man and Child that you are both selling yourselves short. You both seem to be saying that in your first readings of LotR you had no conscious or overt sense of the Eruism that informs the text. Well, OK, but it’s quite a logical leap to go from that to the claim that you did not notice the effect of Eruism. If we had to be consciously aware of gravity for it to effect us, then everyone before Newton would have been in a lot of trouble! Perhaps a more appropriate analogy can come from music: one need not know a thing about scales and chords to feel their effect in a symphony by Mozart.

Allow me to return to my favourite example for this thread: Gollum’s little ‘tumble’ at the Cracks of Doom. You say that when you read the text, you did not consciously formulate any thought that there was a Force or Guide, beyond the characters, giving Gollum a little push there: you were unaware of the Eruism. OK, but I’m welling to bet dollars to donuts that you also did not through the book across the room in disgust and cry out. “What a cheat! Frodo totally caves in and the Gollum just trips and falls? It’s all a bloody accident, man! What a rip-off!” It should be amazing that this moment works at all – after all that has gone on, a lucky slip is what saves the day?!?!? In just about any other work, such an ending would be a cheat (imagine, for example, if at the end of Return of the Jedi the Emperor tripped on his robe and fell off the catwalk without any help from Darth Vader? Or if at the end of Moby Dick the whale happened to beach himself and the Pequod sprung a leak?)

But it does work, and not just dramatically, but thematically and meaning-fully – it feels and is precisely the right way for that moment to come off. It is, I would argue, the only way that it could come off. And we’re made to feel that way, to accept that moment not as a cheat but as the logical and satisfying conclusion (the eucatastrophe) because throughout the novel the Eruism that is immanent in the action has been there, quietly working away on our unconscious minds, prodding us, and insinuating itself into our reading experience, until we accept it like a second skin (or an interpretative layer). We’ve already said in this thread that the text is as much a product of the author’s unconscious mind as it is of his conscious will – why should our reading experience be any different?

You did not see the Eruism in LotR, or hear the progressive minor chord shifts in Mozart’s Requiem? Fine – good – who cares? They were there all the same, and your reaction to both works of art was effected by them without your conscious mind ever really being aware of it. This is one of the hallmarks of great art.

(And, incidentally, of effective propaganda… )

[Child of the 7th Age]

In LotR there are two rival groups set against one another. First, the Fellowship, brought together by Eru (as Elrond points out at the beginning of the Council: “Called, I say, though I have not called you to me, strangers from distant lands. You have come and are here met, in this very nick of time, by chance as it may seem. Yet it is not so. Believe rather that it is so ordered that we, who sit here, and none others, must now find counsel for the peril of the world” ). Second, the Nazgûl, under the domination of Saruon. I would suggest that the interpretative community you identify as trying to “understand their work as continuing in some definition the intentions of Tolkien” is reflected by the Nazgûl, while the interpretative community you say “suspect[s]…that endeavour” is reflected by the Fellowship.

Fordim

Ahem.... Well, this is an interesting dilemma. I've posted on the Downs a number of years and this is the first time I've been associated with a group of posters whose interpretive stance has been described as "reflected by the Nazgûl".

Whether constructing an RPG, or trying to interpret the ideas in the books, I do have an interest in "continuing in some definition the intentions of Tolkien". I am not saying I always succeed in this endeavor, but I feel it has merit. Hence, I would value a discussion about canon in relation to the books as long as things don't get set in stone. And I have a small monitor bell that goes off when fanfiction goes so far astray that I can no longer recognize even the tiniest hint of Tolkien. That's not to say I believe that fanfiction can be canon: it can't. And I'm not even comfortable with the term "canon-friendly" because I think that can mean so many different things. But somehow I prefer to see at least a healthy whiff of Tolkien's ideas, settings, or characters whether these come from BoLT, the Hobbit, or LotR. So I guess that puts me with the Nazgûl under the criteria you're using.

I would like to raise two objections to the paradigm of Fellowship versus Nazgûl that is put forward here. You describe these interpretive groups in terms of a conflict.....

between those who seek truth by submitting themselves to an-other’s particular version of that truth (the Nazgûl look to the Eye/I of Sauron), and those who cling to their own particular versions of truth (hobbits, Men, Elves, Dwarves) while hoping against all hope that somehow these truths are part of an overarching Truth that they can never really know.

This is one way of portraying these particular viewpoints but it is possible to suggest another, which is equally plausible and also has roots in Tolkien's writing. We are all subcreators. But perhaps those who are cognizant of the Original Music and try to incorporate its themes in their own creations are in effect following in the footsteps of the Great Creator (in this case, Tolkien himself). By contrast those who create melodies of their own which have no bearing to the original Music are merely pumping out discordant and jarring notes that are highly reminiscent of Melkor.

If you read the last paragraph and fell off your chair laughing, I don't blame you, because, frankly, such a comparison sheds more heat than light. And I think the same holds true for any artificial analogy of this type.

I believe none of us fall solely into one category or the other: slavishly following in Tolkien's footsteps, or going off on our own with creative interpretations that may or may not relate to the Professor's expressed views. To suggest such an extreme picture is misleading. In approaching Tolkien's writings, we are all on a sliding scale, some nearer one end, and some closer to the other. We all have moments when we think in terms of what JRRT meant by "X" or "Y", and others when we confront the text as individuals and come away with thoughts and insights that are uniquely our own.

In response to your comments about my post on Eruisms, I would voice a similar reservation. You are suggesting a dichotomy I do not see. I never stated that I was unable to perceive any evidence of Eru in my pre-1977 readings of LotR. I mentioned the quiet hand of providence at work and, in my first post, expressed delight that my early perceptions of Frodo and what happened at the end of the book were quite similar to those ideas that Tolkien presented in his published Letters. But I would still maintain that it's possible to read Tolkien without knowing all the ins and outs of the author's religious stance, to appreciate it simply as a good yarn. (The same holds true for someone who knew nothing about the northern myths.) But without the three published works I mentioned (Silm, bio, and Letters), it would be very hard to piece together the full picture of who Eru is, all the various Catholic interpretations that can be applied to things like lembas and Galadriel, and a host of other related things.

There is one thing you said with which I can heartily concur: that we can respond emotionally to themes in music or literature without our conscious mind being fully aware of all the details. And I think we can all agree that Tolkien is an absolute master in eliciting such a response!

P.S. A thanks to mark 12_30 for the new tree icon.

[davem]

Helen , I'm not writing the Trotter story. I did play around with the idea for a while - it would be told by Trotter in the first person, to a visitor to the Prancing Pony. If anyone wants to write it I don't have a problem. I've only ever written one piece of fanfic - 'Orophin dreams of the Waters of Awakening' -which is on my computer, but I can't post it anywhere, as every time i try & copy it across from word I get a 'bad gateway 502' message! (I have a mac using OsX if anyone can advise).

Maedhros I agree with you about the Cottage of Lost Play. And I take on board what Saucepanman has said. But I think the idea of a 'revised Sil' is mistaken if its meant to be taken as anything more than an interesting way for you guys to pass the time. My reason: You 're trying to produce a work of art by committee - what's that joke about a camel being a horse designed by a committee? You're not trying to create your own secondary world, you're trying to second guess Tolkien. Its simply impossible to know what the Legendarium would have ended up like, or what decisions Tolkien would have made in coming to a final version.

As to the Tale of Turambar vs the Narn - this only becomes an issue if you start thinking in terms of a canon which must choose one over the other, not for reasons of personal taste (as in my case I reject the 'Dome of Varda' because I find it too outlandish - even in a world of 'Elves & Dragons') but out of a desire to make a 'final' version & 'embalm' it.

I simply cannot see why you would feel a need to produce such a thing. As soon as you choose between two versions of a story, & accept one & reject the other based on personal taste - 'we like this one better than that one, so we'll keep this one'. But taste can't be used as a criterion - or all those with a Christian, or at least monotheistic, religious bent would produce an 'Eruist' version, & claim that they were putting together the version Tolkien would have really wanted, & all those with a more materialistic worldview would excise the Eruist references.

(Quote from Dunsany's 'The King of Elfland's Daughter 'springs to mind- 'For it is ever the way of witches with any two things, to choose the more mysterious of the two' - in other words, we are all biased & our choices, whether individual or a result of a committee's discussion, will inevitably reflect our own idiosyncracies).

Bethberry sorry no time- I'll respond later.

[Maédhros]

Maedhros I agree with you about the Cottage of Lost Play. And I take on board what Saucepanman has said. But I think the idea of a 'revised Sil' is mistaken if its meant to be taken as anything more than an interesting way for you guys to pass the time. My reason: You 're trying to produce a work of art by committee - what's that joke about a camel being a horse designed by a committee? You're not trying to create your own secondary world, you're trying to second guess Tolkien. Its simply impossible to know what the Legendarium would have ended up like, or what decisions Tolkien would have made in coming to a final version.
It is just what CT did in writting his "Silmarillion". Aye it is indeed impossible to know what would have JRRT have done in the end but I assure you that I have learned more of the legendarium and the evolution of it by just being in the project.

As to the Tale of Turambar vs the Narn - this only becomes an issue if you start thinking in terms of a canon which must choose one over the other, not for reasons of personal taste (as in my case I reject the 'Dome of Varda' because I find it too outlandish - even in a world of 'Elves & Dragons') but out of a desire to make a 'final' version & 'embalm' it.
I see it in terms of the evolution of the legendarium. The Narn to me is the product of a more mature Tolkien in reference to the Tale of Turambar. If JRRT was satisfied with the Tale, then why did he write the Narn? Even though I think that the Narn is superior to the Tale, my reason for thinking that it is more "canonical" has to do more with my common sense and logic.

simply cannot see why you would feel a need to produce such a thing. As soon as you choose between two versions of a story, & accept one & reject the other based on personal taste - 'we like this one better than that one, so we'll keep this one'. But taste can't be used as a criterion - or all those with a Christian, or at least monotheistic, religious bent would produce an 'Eruist' version, & claim that they were putting together the version Tolkien would have really wanted, & all those with a more materialistic worldview would excise the Eruist references.
I don't think that this is accurate. We have tried to minimize in our work or personal preferences. There have been times that our ideas has been rejected by the other memembers, and it is nearly impossible sometimes to come to an agreement. That is why we try to apply our principles in making a more complete "Silmarillion".
If there were not people who would feel a need to produce such a thing, then CT probably wouldn't have compiled his "Silmarillion", I wouldn't be here because I was truly enchanted by the work that CT did in his father's manuscripts. I think that there is a point that people are just content to read the stories and see how the evolved, but there are some of us out there which find that not nearly enough. I want to read a more "complete Silmarillion". In a way it would be a "Revision" of CT's previous work. Does it has it's limitations of course it does, do we think it will be finished? Not really but it is a work of love. I wish that some of you might read our finished chapter to know what you think about it.

[mark12_30]

*Gladly*, Maedhros, where do I find it?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I’m glad to see that Child and I fairly close together on most of the points that we raise. The only real differences between our positions are, so far as I can see, the result of my sloppy phraseology above, and in our choice of metaphors in describing the relationship between reader and (subcreated) text.


I believe none of us fall solely into one category or the other: slavishly following in Tolkien's footsteps, or going off on our own with creative interpretations that may or may not relate to the Professor's expressed views. To suggest such an extreme picture is misleading. In approaching Tolkien's writings, we are all on a sliding scale, some nearer one end, and some closer to the other. We all have moments when we think in terms of what JRRT meant by "X" or "Y", and others when we confront the text as individuals and come away with thoughts and insights that are uniquely our own.

I hope that I did not really give the impression that I think all readers are divided into two camps: the Nazgûl-readers combatively versus the Fellowship-readers (although going back to my post I can see that perhaps I did. . .confound me for posting late at night!). I did, however, state that “our reading experience is some mixture of this – more importantly, that our sense of the truths and/or Truth of Middle-Earth is an (unhappy?) mixture or composite of these positions.” What I meant to suggest is that within each individual reader (or act/moment of engaging with M-E) there exists simultaneously the potential for a Nazgûl-response and a Fellowship response. That is, we are subjected at once to the promise of the enchantment (the release and freedom from the Primary world through the magic of the story) as well as to the great danger of enchantment (of being ensorcelled and made subject to or of the magic). Again, this split response is, I think, anticipated in LotR by Gandalf and Saruman: the former enchants beings with the voice of counsel that provides hope; the latter enchants beings with the commanding power of his Voice.

Where Child and I do differ, and I think significantly, is in our revealing choice of metaphors about this mixed response. Child refers to a “sliding scale” and I to a “composite”. For Child, then, the act of engaging with the subcreation of Tolkien is one in which the reader can move back and forth between these responses, achieving some kind of balance? (Child wrote: “We all have moments when we think in terms of what JRRT meant by "X" or "Y", and others when we confront the text as individuals and come away with thoughts and insights that are uniquely our own.”). I suppose that what I mean by a “composite,” however, is that the reader is not moving from one position to the other in a happy and “balanced”(? – is this the right world Child?) manner, but that we are caught or suspended between positions that are in many ways irreconcilable (the subcreator or the reader – you can have it both ways, but not at the same time).

This is one way of portraying these particular viewpoints but it is possible to suggest another, which is equally plausible and also has roots in Tolkien's writing. We are all subcreators. But perhaps those who are cognizant of the Original Music and try to incorporate its themes in their own creations are in effect following in the footsteps of the Great Creator (in this case, Tolkien himself). By contrast those who create melodies of their own which have no bearing to the original Music are merely pumping out discordant and jarring notes that are highly reminiscent of Melkor.

I’m really not happy with the idea of elevating Tolkien to the status of “Great Creator,” for two reasons. First, M-E is clearly not a created realm on par with the Primary World. Second, Tolkien himself would resist this characterisation of his world. He is a subcreator and we are the readers. We do – I cannot agree more heartily, Child – participate in the act of subcreation through the act of reading, but the instant we do so in an unequal relationship, I believe that we begin to move (perhaps too far) down the road to Minas Morgul (“following in the footsteps of the Great Creator (in this case, Tolkien himself)”) and become Nazûl readers, by taking Tolkien as the Creator (as the Nazgûl take or have forced upon them Sauron in place of Eru).

It would be very hard to piece together the full picture of who Eru is, all the various Catholic interpretations that can be applied to things like lembas and Galadriel, and a host of other related things.

And a thanks to Child for this as it highlights a problem in my usage of Eruism – which I am delighted to see is catching on…perhaps much like a fungus. By Eruism I mean only that sense of a providential plan within which the individual becomes heroic in M-E, without any reference whatsoever to the Catholicism that, through Tolkien, informs it. (In other words, Eruism does not equal Catholicism, it is Tolkien’s subcreated and recovered version/vision of Catholicism). In this sense, I think once more that Child and I agree on this point: Eruism (but not Eru) is plainly evident to all who are enchanted by LotR insofar as we accept/enjoy/find satisfaction in moments like Gollum’s fall. Catholicism, Tolkien’s views on individual liberty and duty, and all the elements of the Primary World that inform Tolkien’s subcreated moral order of Eruism, are not.

[Novnarwen]

This is such an enjoyable thread! Finally, I'm being able to reply! :)

From Child's post:

But I would still maintain that it's possible to read Tolkien without knowing all the ins and outs of the author's religious stance, to appreciate it simply as a good yarn. (The same holds true for someone who knew nothing about the northern myths.) But without the three published works I mentioned (Silm, bio, and Letters), it would be very hard to piece together the full picture of who Eru is, all the various Catholic interpretations that can be applied to things like lembas and Galadriel, and a host of other related things. Regarding the Picture of Eru: I think that too is individual... First of all because of the reader's own belief. If he/she is a Christian, who believes in God, he/she would naturally want to know the explanation of why things happen, just like in Real Life. The point I am trying to make, (which isn't working very well, is it?) is that it's natural for a religious reader/person to think there is something 'behind' LOTR, (The Silm, The Hobbit? And 'life' if it's 'just' a 'person'..) other than Tolkien. And discovering the Eruism (and who Eru really is) wouldn't be that 'difficult' as they already by nature seek after Him.

From Fordim's post:
Allow me to return to my favourite example for this thread: Gollum’s little ‘tumble’ at the Cracks of Doom. You say that when you read the text, you did not consciously formulate any thought that there was a Force or Guide, beyond the characters, giving Gollum a little push there: you were unaware of the Eruism. Is the little push, which caused to the Ring's destruction and "Fall of Gollum" (the big eyed, nice little guy), automatically Eruism because it can't be explained? (I mean, he just fell, or stumbled, or tripped, or was just VERY clumsy. I think I know what you mean, but I feel 'obliged' to question it.)

From Fordim's post:
And a thanks to Child for this as it highlights a problem in my usage of Eruism – which I am delighted to see is catching on…perhaps much like a fungus. By Eruism I mean only that sense of a providential plan within which the individual becomes heroic in M-E, without any reference whatsoever to the Catholicism that, through Tolkien, informs it. (In other words, Eruism does not equal Catholicism, it is Tolkien’s subcreated and recovered version/vision of Catholicism). In this sense, I think once more that Child and I agree on this point: Eruism (but not Eru) is plainly evident to all who are enchanted by LotR insofar as we accept/enjoy/find satisfaction in moments like Gollum’s fall. Catholicism, Tolkien’s views on individual liberty and duty, and all the elements of the Primary World that inform Tolkien’s subcreated moral order of Eruism, are not. (Marked in bold; my own.)

Eruism isn't necessarily an "evident to all who are enchanted by LotR insofar as we accept/enjoy/find satisfaction in moments like Gollum’s fall." I assume you mean that you'll find it satisfying, as it's a poof that there is a higher power (God) in LOTR? If so.. Then take for example; people who don't believe in Eru (God?), wouldn't think of Gollum's fall other than the fact that it was an accident, or that Tolkien wanted it that way. Eruism, which comes from Eru, the creator of Eä, wouldn't mean anything to a person who has no personal belief, or simply don't consider Eru as a God, a creator.

If it is not so, then ignore the paragraph above, or the post. Both would be just fine...:D

Cheers,
Nova

[drigel]

This thread is interesting and its why i come back to this site again and again. Its wonderfull thoughtfull contributors like u guys that make it so.

Nothing i can add at this point. We all love and re read the stuff over and over and over and..... at a certain point we feel like we know the author and what his intentions were.

Here are my two cents anyways hehe:

Cannon: What would be the authors desire? Published work. period. If it was fit to be published according to his standards - its cannon. Since all other writings IMO would not be considered "finished" by the author, they should be considered as fluid and "undefined" as any peice of artwork at "conception".

While I am as guilty as everyone else at trying to gleem insights into the unfinished work or the early ideas, its subjective - its my interpretation ... After all, (toungue in cheek - i guess i am in the second group) he was laying down a history of what his mind/imagination saw. IMO, his interpretation was just a fragment of that mosaic. But it was HIS vision - this was his work after all. The pieces were all laid down, its the details that we are arguing. He would be shocked at all this analysis - dismayed. He was never "inside" the work as we are - or would like to be. All the time spent analysing this point or that point could be cleared up in (if it were possible) a 5 minute conversation with the man.

Letters as Cannon: good to get general insight but leave it at that! These were personal letters to people. Every thought or word uttered by the man is not cannon. You cannot dissect the creative process as you can a crime scene or a frog. I love the letters but they were not intended by JRRT to be published

Carry on :)

[The Saucepan Man]

Fordim

I'm sorry, but I don't get this Fellowship: Nazgul analogy. Why are those who are creating a text of the Silmarillion which they feel sticks as closely as possible to Tolkien's ideas and intentions analagous to the Nazgul? Yes, they are binding themselves to a particular manner of interpretation (with, in this case, a closely drawn set of interpretative "rules"), but they are doing so of their own free will and they could withdraw at any time if they felt that it wasn't right for them. In addition, a cursorary glance at the Revised Silm threads will show that there is still ample scope for discussion and interpretation, even within the confines of the interpretive rules which they have set themselves. The Nazgul had none of these luxuries. As soon as they accepted the Rings of Power, their fate was sealed and there was nothing that they could do about it. They were irreversibly bound by Sauron's "interpretation".

I have to say that I prefer Sharon's analogy:


We are all subcreators. But perhaps those who are cognizant of the Original Music and try to incorporate its themes in their own creations are in effect following in the footsteps of the Great Creator (in this case, Tolkien himself). By contrast those who create melodies of their own which have no bearing to the original Music are merely pumping out discordant and jarring notes that are highly reminiscent of Melkor. I don't see any problem with representing Tolkien as the Great Creator since we are talking about Eru who is himself a sub-creation.

Indeed, I would suggest a development of Sharon's analogy. Suppose we take Tolkien as Eru, the reader as the Ainur, the text of LotR as the Theme of the Music, and our interpretation of the text as Arda. Tolkien the Creator knows from the outset what will happen but the (first time) reader does not. The reader interprets the text as he reads it (sings the Music) and by the time he comes to the end, he has a complete interpretation (the creation of Arda). Most readers are bound by what is stated in the text (the Theme of the Music), but their own beliefs and experiences will shape their interpretation, just as the Ainur shaped Arda based upon the Theme of the Music. Take five different sets of Ainur and you will have five different Ardas, although each will follow the same basic pattern based upon the Theme, just as five different readers will have five different interpretations of LotR, but based upon the same pattern, namely the text. The reader who rejects what is said in the text and seeks to rewrite it as he would prefer to see it is in the position of Melkor rejecting the Theme laid out by Eru and seeking to reshape it according to his own wishes. He is free to do this, in the sense that he has free will, but it is wrong because it runs counter to the text (Eru's theme). (Hmm. Implications for Jackson's screen interpretation? Er - let's leave that aside for now.)

With me so far?

Now, let's take the materials in the Letters and the "unpublished texts", add in Bêthberry's social and political developments, and equate all of these with the Children of Eru. The Children, acting with free will, have a limited ability to change the Ainur's interpretation of Arda (the reader's interpretation of LotR), but they cannot alter the underlying Theme (the text of LotR). The Ainur's interpretation of Arda therefore changes as they encounter the Children and witness their freely willed behaviour, just as the reader's interpretation of LotR may change as he encounters and considers these secondary materials and experiences these external events.

So where does this analogy get us? Well it says to me that the reader has free will at every stage to interpret the text in the whatever manner seems most appropriate. Although that interpretation will be affected by the secondary materials and external influences, the reader is still free to accept or reject such influences if they do not resonate with him. But at all times, the reader is bound by what is said in the text itself unless he chooses (exercising free will) to act like Melkor and reject it.

OK, it's not a perfect analogy, and it will probably get shot down in flames. But it works for me, even in its imperfect state. What I would maintain, however, is that the only readers who have no free will, who truly are in the position of the Nazgul, are those who are prevented form reading the book in the first place, or who are told in no uncertain terms how they should interpret it (whether by their governemnt, their parents, their teacher, their preacher or whatever).

And just a quick word on this concept of "Eruism". I am glad, Fordim, that you got round to defining what you mean by this in your last post:


By Eruism I mean only that sense of a providential plan within which the individual becomes heroic in M-E, without any reference whatsoever to the Catholicism that, through Tolkien, informs it. I most certainly agree that this sense of providence is an inherent part of the tale told in LotR. It should be, as it is, as you have said, imbued within the text itself. Yes, when I first read of the events at Sammath Naur, it seemed "right" to me that Gollum should fall into the fires of Orodruin with the Ring. I am not sure that I consciously thought about it, but the sense of providence must have been there on an unconscious level at least. Otherwise, as you say, I would have felt cheated by it. My concern was that you were suggesting that the text provided clear evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being and was necessarily open to interpretation only by reference to the values of a montheistic religion. Gollum's fall could be explained in any number of ways which does not require the existence of a single Supreme Being, and still fall within the ambit of providence. But you have explained yourself now, and I think that we agree. :)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I very much like your (sub)creation analogy Saucepan Man: I think it makes sense to me…

You say, however, that my Nazgûl-Fellowship analogy doesn’t resonate with you. Fair enough. But allow me to take one more run at it, using a paragraph from your own post as demonstration:

So where does this analogy get us? Well it says to me that the reader has free will at every stage to interpret the text in whatever manner seems most appropriate. Although that interpretation will be affected by the secondary materials and external influences, the reader is still free to accept or reject such influences if they do not resonate with him. But at all times, the reader is bound by what is said in the text itself unless he chooses (exercising free will) to act like Melkor and reject it.

Right here I think I can see the very relation that you and Child (I don’t know why I resist proper names so much) refer to as a “sliding scale” and that I call a “composite” – your own formulation of the reader’s response enacts both a Nazgûl and a Fellowship approach:

“Well it says to me that the reader has free will at every stage to interpret the text in whatever manner seems most appropriate” – the freedom of the Fellowship to be take up the Quest or lay it aside at will (“On those who go, no oath or bond is laid”).

“Although that interpretation will be affected by the secondary materials and external influences, the reader is still free to accept or reject such influences if they do not resonate with him.” – Still, the freedom of the Fellowship, but now a somewhat constrained freedom, or a mitigated one. The choice to continue on the Quest is couched by the advice of Elrond, the Counsel of Gandalf, the injunctions/testing of Galadriel, the role and effect of Eruism (“And then, as though some other will were using his voice, Frodo spoke. ‘I will go to Mordor. Although I do not know the way’.”)

“But at all times, the reader is bound by what is said in the text itself unless he chooses (exercising free will) to act like Melkor and reject it” – An extremely ironic sentence insofar as you seem to be linking the exercise of free will to Melkor; I understand perfectly what you are suggesting (Melkor chose to rebel against Eru), but it does re-emphasize my point: that in the same manner, the Nazgûl willingly gave themselves over to Sauron. They chose to accept the Rings of Power and to keep them. Insofar as you talk about the reader being “bound by what is said in the text unless he himself chooses” to exercise his or her free will – you are describing not just Melkor in response to Eru, but the Nazgûl to Sauron and, I would suggest, that instinct in us as readers to say “my individual truths are not equal to the intended Truth of the Creator of Middle-Earth, so He must tell me what the Truth is.”

Again I must say that I am not suggesting that any one group of readers, or even that any individual reader is either a Nazgûl-reader or a Fellowship-reader. Both stances are impossible in any kind of total form: we never can become wholly ensorcelled by the text to the point where we lose the ability to think for ourselves, nor can we willy-nilly generate whatever we want in response to the text without doing violence to it. We are all of us both Nazgûl and Fellowship at one and the same time. All I am trying to suggest through this analogy is that in our encounters with the subcreated world of M-E we are being put into a very difficult and fascination position as readers – we are being presented with a text that pits the Fellowship against the Nazgûl as bitter and opposed enemies, even as we are having a reading-experience in which we are at one and the same time both Nazgûl and Fellowship.

In effect, the text presents us with a vision of Nazgûl versus Fellowship, and then puts us into the position where we can see that we are both!

Again, great art does this…(but not effective propaganda)

[davem]

Maedhros

My position is that you don't have to choose between the stories, & classify one as 'better' or even that one expresses Tolkien's vision better than another. If we were talking about a collection of completely unrelated tales this wouldn't arise - so, the question is - are we actually talking about completely seperate stories? If we take BoLT as a different work than the pre-LotR Sil, & both as different from the post LotR Sil, there is no need to make these choices. And I think the premise you are working from is simply wrong. Because Tolkien uses many of the same characters, settings & events acoss all three (& in the Annals, etc) it simply 'fools' us into seeing them as the 'same' story evolving over time. But each was the 'definitive' version of the work when they were composed. Lost Tales was not written as a first draft of the post LotR Sil. It was a work which expressed Tolkien's desires at the time it was written. His desires had changed when he came to write the Sil in the 30's, so it was a different work. When he returned to the legends in the post LotR period, he was again writing something entirely different.

He is attempting to tell a number of stories, construct a number of 'Legendaria'. The characters, settings & events remain (in their 'essential' form, at least in some cases), but what Tolkien has to say changes, his world view changes. His life changes, so, in many ways, he is a different person, with different things to say. Probably his understanding of his faith & his relationship to God & the world changed as he matured - so the references in the Qenya Lexicon to Germans as 'barbarians' was a reflection of his beliefs & attitudes at the time he wrote it. They are neither 'canonical' nor 'non-canonical'. They reflect his feelings at the time of WW1. Later, his attitudes towards the German people changed. They are no longer 'barbarians'. But once they were - even the 'Elves' thought so.

The idea that you can take bits from the Fall of Gondolin, add to them bits from 'Tuor', written half a century or so later, by a 'different' writer - because Tolkien did change as a man & as a creator - & produce an 'official' version of the story of Gondolin is, in my view, mistaken. Its almost equivalent to taking some scenes from Marlowe's Jew of Malta, & Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice & trying to produce a 'canonical' Elizabethan view of 'Jewishness'', or combining Marlowe's Faustus & Goethe's Faust to get at the 'true' version of the legend. There simply isn't a 'canonical' Silmarillion - its the fox that isn't there. What is there, is JRR Tolkien, a writer who throughout his adult life was telling stories, with many of the same characters & events in them, but with different meanings & intentions. You can no more produce a 'canonical' Silmarillion, by choosing some bits from here, there & eveywhere from his ME writings & casting aside other bits, than you can create a 'canonical' JRRT, by taking some bits from his biology, his academic career, his personal life, his fictional & non fictional writings & rejecting other bits. Tolkien, as I said, is his creative life, the Legendarium, & the Legendarium is Tolkien. There is no 'definitive' version of either.

I'm glad your forays into trying to create a 'canon' have increased you appreciation of Tolkien's work, but I can't see what you hope to end up with, or what value you think it will have - I suspect that in the end you'll find that the process of creating it will be more important than what you end up with.

Bethberry

I think there is an essential difference between fairy stories & Tolkien's creation. The very process of tales being handed down by word of mouth, possibly over centuries, means they soon cease to be the work of a single mind, or reflective of a single person's worldview, at a particular time in that person's life. They accrue & discard details & references as they are told & re-told. They become something totally different to a book written by a particular author ('living shapes that move from mind to mind' as Tolkien put it is Mythopoea). Tolkien's legendarium is Tolkien's story (or, more accurately, as I said above, Tolkien's stories ). They come out of his mind, & in effect are him, speaking to us, mind to mind. To risk falling into the trap of 'Zen & the Art of interpreting Tolkien :), we can almost say that while he was in the process of telling the stories - in the various periods of his life - he 'was' the story - his mind was focussed on them, his total attention was on the tale. So, when we read the stories, we encounter Tolkien 'mind to mind'. We are reading his thoughts - even if we know nothing about him or his day to day life or his beliefs, it is still Tolkien's mind that is communing with our mind. We cannot say that Tolkien is not there, because in effect we would be saying our minds are communing with nothing, or that our minds are communing with themselves. The author introduces new ideas - 'living' shapes move from his mind to ours' - 'living' because ideas & images are mental processes - processes transmitted from one living brain to another. So, the author & the reader are both 'really' present in the experience - the author doesn't 'cease' to be while the story is being told - even if he happens to be physically dead. His mind is 'alive', because his mind is the source of the living ideas we are experiencing as we read - & how can something dead produce life? Once we put down the story and think of something else, the author - whether still physically alive or not, is 'dead' to us, because we are no longer aware of his or her existence. Tolkien 'lives' when we read his writings - 'living' mind meets & interacts with 'living' mind - and if you can only offer that 'illusion' of serial time as an argument against that theory then I will be disappointed :)

No, The author of a tale is always present when the tale is told- whether we realise it or not.

[Bêthberry]

Oh thank heavens, SaucepanMan. For a bit there I was indeed thinking that Child's analogy--

By contrast those who create melodies of their own which have no bearing to the original Music are merely pumping out discordant and jarring notes that are highly reminiscent of Melkor. --

was going a bit far. I mean, I can''t carry a note myself, but I think the point has always been to keep an ear tuned towards the original Music. Think of what Glenn Gould did with Bach's Goldberg Variations, after all. ;)

My meagre contributions here have been dedicated towards examining what happens when we read (and, by extension, write), more towards a psychology of reading I suppose than an exploration of what is the right way to respond to Tolkien, although what I have hoped to do is show how important On Fairy Stories is to giving us a glimpse into how Tolkien regarded narrative.

That said, I wonder where, in any of the "allegories or applicabilites" any of us have put forth here, we could actually place Tolkien.

How did he regard his responsibility towards the texts he read as he came to create first the languages and then the characters who could go forth and speak the words?

We all know what he thought of Shakespeare's elves. He felt no compunction in "correcting" what he regarded as a species of error. Burnam Wood and the Ents, of course, we can also acknowledge.

We know what his essay on Beowulf did for the manner in which that poem had been used and interpreted.

On the other hand, how did Tolkien determine what he should take and use from Norse mythology for his mythology? or from Celtic legend?

I guess what I am wondering about is what Tolkien thought he was free to do as a reader and then as a writer. And, of course, what applicability that has to what we do.

[Lord of Angmar]

Its almost equivalent to taking some scenes from Marlowe's Jew of Malta, & Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice & trying to produce a 'canonical' Elizabethan view of 'Jewishness'', or combining Marlowe's Faustus & Goethe's Faust to get at the 'true' version of the legend. There simply isn't a 'canonical' Silmarillion - its the fox that isn't there.(davem) I would say that it is more akin to reading earlier drafts of The Merchant of Venice and trying to form a 'canonical' view of Shylock, rather than solely analyzing the Shylock who made it through to the final script. I can understand what you are saying about Tolkien as a writer, but what you classify as an attempt "to tell a number of stories, construct a number of 'Legendaria'" I tend to see more as a gradual revision and refinement of a single 'Legendarium'. I do agree fully that there can be no 'canonical' Silm, and that under the parameters above only LotR (and possibly the Hobbit) can truly be considered 'canonical' to the legend of Middle-earth. Thus, I also agree with you that the Revised Silmarillion can and should be no more than a hobby.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I have one question for the whole which-works-are-canonical-and-which-aren't strand of this thread:

What is the purpose of constructing your canon -- whatever it may be? Are you striving for a comprehensive version of Middle-Earth or a truthful one? That is, are you trying get it all, or are you trying to get it right?

[Lord of Angmar]

What is the purpose of constructing your canon -- whatever it may be? Are you striving for a comprehensive version of Middle-Earth or a truthful one? That is, are you trying get it all, or are you trying to get it right? That is a very pertinent question, since I think the word canon has been thrown around far too much. For myself, I love the Silmarillion, the BoLT, HoME, etc. I am a little "iffy" on the authenticity of each or all as a comprehensive history, since while I do tend to use them as a historian might use his history books when making an argument, at the same time I recognize that they may not entirely (or even remotely, who knows?) resemble what Tolkien intended to be a part of the history of Middle-earth. As far as 'canon' goes, I do believe that only LotR is a 100% 'canonical' part of Middle-earth. The rest of the 'Legendarium' as we know it, with the possible exception of The Hobbit, is a cluster of branches on a tree which, beautiful and enthralling as it may be, will never bear any verifiably canonical fruits.

[mark12_30]

That is, are you trying get it all, or are you trying to get it right?

I would say, trying to write eucatastrophe.

With the reader in mind, if one begins in a Tolkien environment with Tolkien characters (who are so well known), it is jarring to proceed inconsistently or treat the characters inconsistently and the spell is broken. If one can maintain 'it'-- the characters especially-- then one is less likely to lose the reader.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Oh, Bethberry , I'm sorry but I couldn't resist. It was late at night and all I could see was an image of myself as a Nazgûl. I just didn't want to go to bed with that embedded on my brain. It seemed nicer to consider the Music of Creation and my own small niche as a subcreator trying to weave a tune that would blend in with the main themes!

But, all kidding aside, I think your suggestion is an excellent one to look at how Tolkien himself worked with text and consider how freely he utilized ideas from Beowulf, the works of Shakespeare, and similar sources.

I guess what I am wondering about is what Tolkien thought he was free to do as a reader and then as a writer. And, of course, what applicability that has to what we do.

Would it also be useful to look at Tolkien's personal response when others took his own texts and ideas and drew meaning from these, whether a meaning that was consonent with his own or one that was different? Obviously, this process is laden with emotion. It is easier to make a calm decision when drawing ideas from another author's text than when confronted with someone doing the same to your own. The fact that so many of the early reviews of Tolkien refected such extreme views would also make this task more difficult.

Still, to understand the process fully, you'd ideally examine things from both sides: what Tolkien thought he was free to do as a reader and writer; and how he responded when others exercised their freedom to do the same.

The first thing that comes to mind is the well-known passage from the Letters that someone quoted earlier on this thread (or at least I think so). The italics are my own.

I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yest leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd.

In theory at least, this suggests JRRT did not object to others coming into his own subcreation of Middle-earth, and further developing his legendarium using the same peoples and places that he wrote about. His list of artists does not explicitly include other writers, but, in order to produce a drama, someone must set pen to paper. Moreover, if he purposely intended to leave some tales only roughly sketched, it sounds as if he was inviting people to do more than simply repeat existing plots and ideas but rather to create something, almost in the manner of a fanfiction. How much freedom he would allot such artists in deviating from his own vision is, of course, another matter, but he did not slam the door in their faces.

Does anyone know of another artist who expressed a similar view: suggesting that others come in and create within his world, helping to develop the legends even further? And not just one subcreator, but potentially a whole host of them... Such an attitude is extraordinarily generous. The only one who comes to mind is the late Marian Zimmer Bradley who encouraged young writers to dabble in Darkover. There were a number of such "fanfiction" essays published during her life, and some of these folk went on to become fantasy writers with worlds of their own. But although she was a good writer and an early fan of Lord of the Rings, she was nowhere near the artist that Tolkien was.

***********
Fordim

Thanks for clarifying the part about Eruisms. I do see our positions as not that different.

Child

[The Saucepan Man]

Heavens but it's a job participating on this thread. Just as I've absorbed one set of views and forumulated (I rather like that typo ;) ) my responses, a whole new set of them comes along.


Then take for example; people who don't believe in Eru (God?), wouldn't think of Gollum's fall other than the fact that it was an accident, or that Tolkien wanted it that way. Eruism, which comes from Eru, the creator of Eä, wouldn't mean anything to a person who has no personal belief, or simply don't consider Eru as a God, a creator. (Novnarwen) I would disagree. Just because one doesn't believe in the existence of God in the real (primary) world, it does not follow that one cannot appreciate the importance of Eru within the sub-created world. And I now rather subscribe to Fordim's view that, even if someone who is not deeply religious is unaware of the role of Eru when he reads LotR, he will still receive from the text a strong sense of providence (on a subconscious level at least). The text implies that "something" made Gollum fall at that moment, just as "something" made Bilbo find the Ring, whatever that "something" may be.


They chose to accept the Rings of Power and to keep them. Insofar as you talk about the reader being “bound by what is said in the text unless he himself chooses” to exercise his or her free will – you are describing not just Melkor in response to Eru, but the Nazgûl to Sauron and, I would suggest, that instinct in us as readers to say “my individual truths are not equal to the intended Truth of the Creator of Middle-Earth, so He must tell me what the Truth is.”(Fordim Hedgethistle) Point of order M'lud! Melkor had numerous opportunities to repent (and indeed pretended to do so on at least one occasion), as did Sauron. Yes, the Nazgul chose to take the Rings but, from the moment that they did, there was no going back. I see what you are saying: The "Nazgul-reader" is "ensorceled" (is that a word?) into the view that he must abide by the author's "truth" and is then effectively bound by that view. But surely he's not really bound. Surely he does still have the choice to break the spell and adopt a different approach to his interpretation of the author's works.

Your Nazgul-reader might just as well be labelled a Frodo/Gandalf-reader. His initial reaction is to follow his own interpretation, just as Frodo's initial reaction was that Bilbo should have killed Gollum when he had the chance. But Gandalf (the reader's wiser side) counsel's him in the "Eruistic" ("Eruian"?) way of mercy (acceptance of the author's own interpretation). :p :D


And I think the premise you are working from is simply wrong. (davem) In whose eyes is it wrong? Yours maybe. But presumably you would not regard the efforts of Christopher Tolkien, who was seeking to acheive much the same thing when he compiled the Silmarillion, in the same way, or would you dismiss the published Silmarillion as ultimately valueless?

And it is certainly not wrong in the eyes of those undertaking the project, who clearly regard it as a worthwhile endeavour. And not necessarily in the eyes of others, some of whom will be interested to read it.


Lost Tales was not written as a first draft of the post LotR Sil. It was a work which expressed Tolkien's desires at the time it was written. His desires had changed when he came to write the Sil in the 30's, so it was a different work. When he returned to the legends in the post LotR period, he was again writing something entirely different. (davem) That is a very good point, though. Does it perhaps point to a fundamental flaw in Tolkien's approach that he was unable to finalise one text written at one point in time reflecting his world-view at that time and then move onto another text (and perhaps another sub-created world) in order to express his changing views. Why did he feel the need to continue to express his developing perpsective on the primary world in the same sub-created world using (broadly) the same characters, and generally by re-working the same tales? He was able to conjure up other sub-created worlds (witness the tales of Farmer Giles, Smith and Niggle). If he had adopted this approach to all his works, he may well have published a lot more within his lifetime. But where would that leave Middle-earth? Would it still hold the same "enchantment"?


There simply isn't a 'canonical' Silmarillion - its the fox that isn't there. Assuming that one excludes the published Silmarillion from Tolkien's "canon" (and, like Lord of Angmar, I can see the force in this argument), then the closest that one can get to a "canonical" Silmarillion, I suppose, is the form which it was in when LotR was published. The reason being that it is this form of the text which will represent the history on which LotR, which is part of the "canon", was based.

That's all for now folks. More later, undoubtedly ...

[Maédhros]

My position is that you don't have to choose between the stories, & classify one as 'better' or even that one expresses Tolkien's vision better than another. If we were talking about a collection of completely unrelated tales this wouldn't arise - so, the question is - are we actually talking about completely seperate stories? If we take BoLT as a different work than the pre-LotR Sil, & both as different from the post LotR Sil, there is no need to make these choices. And I think the premise you are working from is simply wrong. Because Tolkien uses many of the same characters, settings & events acoss all three (& in the Annals, etc) it simply 'fools' us into seeing them as the 'same' story evolving over time. But each was the 'definitive' version of the work when they were composed. Lost Tales was not written as a first draft of the post LotR Sil. It was a work which expressed Tolkien's desires at the time it was written. His desires had changed when he came to write the Sil in the 30's, so it was a different work. When he returned to the legends in the post LotR period, he was again writing something entirely different.
This is a valid opinion but an opinion nonetheless. I'm really not sure if we have read the same stories though. I think that this approach regarding the manuscripts and typescripts of JRRT is wrong. Take for example the Quenta Noldorinwa. If that version of the "Silmarillion", (the only complete Silmarillion) that JRRT wrote btw, is a complete separate "definite" work apart from the Tales, why would JRRT make a mention of those same Tales in the Quenta Noldorinwa?

From the Shaping of Middle-earth: Quenta Noldorinwa
On a time Ulmo contrived, as is told in the Tale of the Fall of Gondolin, that he should be led to a river-course that flowed underground from Lake Mithrim in the midst of Hithlum into a great chasm, Cris-Ilfing,4 the Rainbow-cleft, through which a turbulent water ran at last into the western sea. And the name of this chasm was so devised by reason of the rainbow that shimmered ever in the sun in that place, because of the abundance of the spray of the rapids and the waterfalls.
Of the deeds of desperate valour there done, by the chieftains of the noble houses and their warriors, and not least by Tuor, is much told in The Fall of Gondolin; of the death of Rog without the walls; and of the battle of Ecthelion of the Fountain with Gothmog lord of Balrogs in the very square of the king, where each slew the other; and of the defence of the tower of Turgon by the men of his household, until the tower was overthrown; and mighty was its fall and the fall of Turgon in its ruin.
If the Quenta Noldorinwa version used part of the Tales in its narrative, does that makes the Tales obsolete? If the definitive version uses the Tales does that means that the Tales are not discared then?

The idea that you can take bits from the Fall of Gondolin, add to them bits from 'Tuor', written half a century or so later, by a 'different' writer - because Tolkien did change as a man & as a creator - & produce an 'official' version of the story of Gondolin is, in my view, mistaken. Its almost equivalent to taking some scenes from Marlowe's Jew of Malta, & Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice & trying to produce a 'canonical' Elizabethan view of 'Jewishness'', or combining Marlowe's Faustus & Goethe's Faust to get at the 'true' version of the legend. There simply isn't a 'canonical' Silmarillion - its the fox that isn't there. What is there, is JRR Tolkien, a writer who throughout his adult life was telling stories, with many of the same characters & events in them, but with different meanings & intentions. You can no more produce a 'canonical' Silmarillion, by choosing some bits from here, there & eveywhere from his ME writings & casting aside other bits, than you can create a 'canonical' JRRT, by taking some bits from his biology, his academic career, his personal life, his fictional & non fictional writings & rejecting other bits. Tolkien, as I said, is his creative life, the Legendarium, & the Legendarium is Tolkien. There is no 'definitive' version of either.

Actually it is the other way around regarding our work in the Fall of Gondolin. I never used the word "official" in any of my posts nor do we claim that our Revised Silmarillion is "canonical". We have certain standards in which we weight the typescripts and manuscripts of JRRT.
As I have said before, there are some people who are happy with just reading the text, while there are others who want more. It is a good thing that CT didn't share your opinion of trying to make a "Silmarillion", because I would never have know any of it.

What is the purpose of constructing your canon -- whatever it may be? Are you striving for a comprehensive version of Middle-Earth or a truthful one? That is, are you trying get it all, or are you trying to get it right?
A truthful version of ME. What is that? How would I know if I get it right? We just have a set of principles and we strive to make a "more complete" Silmarillion that takes into account some of the latter ideas of JRRT.

[Lord of Angmar]

I don't mean to be rude to Maédhros, Child of the 7th Age, mark12_30 and The Saucepan Man by posting without looking over or addressing their most recent additions to the conversation, but I found an article (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/45552) that may be of some interest to all those involved in this thread. I don't know if the author, Mr. Martinez, is or has ever been a member of the Barrow-Downs, but he certainly sounds like one.

Edit: Having read just a little farther down (I was interrupted from reading the entire essay in one sitting), I have found that Mr. Martinez is (or appears to be in some capacity) a member or frequent viewer of the Barrow-downs:Some folks at the Barrowdowns are asking whether the "Myths Transformed" section of Morgoth's Ring could or should be used in establishing a canon. Quite interesting.

[Mister Underhill]

This is a fascinating discussion and I regret that I don't have more time to post my reactions to its finer points in more detail (hey!-- I heard those sighs of relief!).

Here's what compelled me to post: Fordim (greetings, welcome to the Downs, and all that good stuff), your analogies tend to pit author against reader in a titanic struggle, with the free will of the latter at stake. As the conversation has gotten a bit abstract for a pragmatist like myself, I wonder if you might be so good as to provide examples of the chief battlegrounds on which this war is fought. Or more plainly, where exactly are author and reader (potentially) at odds? What freedoms do you seek that Tolkien as author might restrict? Does the subtext of this concern have mainly to do with RPGs, or does it have broader application?

Kudos to all for a very thoughtful and thought-provoking thread.

[Aiwendil]

Is A New Silmarillion Justified?

It is necessary first to inquire into what exactly a "New Silmarillion" is, then into what it might mean for such an object to be "justified" or "unjustified".

The phrase "New Silmarillion" or "Revised Silmarillion" implicitly assumes that there is some "Old Silmarillion" or "Unrevised Silmarillion" with which it can be compared (indeed, in reference to which it is defined). What is this "Old Silmarillion"? It can only be the published Silmarillion, the ‘77, if you like.

But what is the published Silmarillion? It is not a text written by J.R.R. Tolkien. It is rather a continuous narrative constructed by Christopher Tolkien (and Guy Kay) out of the various texts written by his father. The objective of a "New Silmarillion" is the same: to present a continuous narrative constructed out of the various texts. It is thus not really a "revision". It bears no direct relation at all to the published Silmarillion. It is "new" only in the sense that, as it happens, the published Silmarillion was created first, chronologically.

The question, then, must become whether a continuous Silmarillion is justified. If yes, then, at least in principle, the New Silmarillion project is justified. If no, then the published Silmarillion is unjustified.

What can "justified" mean in this context? Obviously, it cannot have the kind of strong moral meaning it does when we ask, for example, whether a war is justified. I suppose we might break it down into two questions: is there any value in a continuous Silmarillion? Is there any harm in a continuous Silmarillion?

To the second question, I would answer "no" without hesitation. No one is being forced to read such a thing; no one is being forced (or even urged) to consider it "official" in any way. The existence of such a thing cannot be harmful.

The real question, then, is whether there is value in it. This is perhaps a bit more difficult to answer, but I think that the eventual answer must be "yes". I am a great fan of the scholarly approach to Tolkien's writings exemplified by HoMe. But the Silmarillion is above all else a work of literature - and a great work of literature. It deserves to exist in a coherent form. Would Beethoven's ninth symphony be great if it were never played, but merely studied in score? Would The Lord of the Rings be great if it existed only as scattered pieces of narrative with complex and oft conflicting indications for how these were to be fitted together? Would Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band be great if it were merely a long string of studio outtakes?

Maybe these things would still be in some sense "great". But when I consider such possibilities, the value of having these things whole, as fully realized works of art, becomes immediately apparent.

Silmarillions Plural

References to "The New Silmarillion", "The Revised Silmarillion", or (worst yet) "The Canonical Silmarillion" undoubtedly sound a bit monolithic. That is because each of these is to some degree a misnomer.

Even if the value of a continuous Silmarillion is admitted, the objection may be raised that the published Silmarillion already exists, so the desire for a continuous Silmarillion is fulfilled. Why is a new one needed? Add to this the misperception that the new one is intended to supercede the ‘77, to be THE Silmarillion for all time, and we have a very reasonable question.

But there is not a single "New Silmarillion"; there is an infinite number of them.

With the publication of HoMe we have essentially all of the Silmarillion texts. This is the primary source material, and nothing can ever alter that. Now it is clear that these texts can be arranged in many ways, can be added to or subtracted from, combined or dissected. It is clear also that the texts bear certain empirical relations with each other, and form something of a complex network. There is an astronomically high number of ways of manipulating these texts to form a new text (when we add the possibility of adding text, it becomes infinite). These ways can be evaluated in terms of the logical structure of the relations among the texts. In other words, there are an infinite number of Silmarillions that could theoretically be constructed out of the source material, and in theory there must be principles that can be invented that will guide the construction of such a text.

All this may seem a bit pedantic, since it is quite obvious that we can invent principles and then apply them to the source material and create a new text. But the chief point to be taken from it is that these are all operations in a purely logical space defined by the source texts - in other words, there are all sorts of continuous Silmarillions more or less inherent in the source material.

Obviously, some of these will be a lot more interesting than others. We could construct a Silmarillion by taking the QS found in HoMe V and replacing every fifth paragraph with the corresponding paragraph from Q in HoMe IV. This would be a very silly thing to do. There would seem to be no point in such a Silmarillion. But it is still a possible Silmarillion, inherent in the source material. We could take all the latest narratives written by Tolkien and put them together in chronological order. This would be a good deal more interesting, if only because we humans tend to think that the author's final thoughts on each particular subject are more interesting than his thoughts from various random intervals in the middle of his life. But such a Silmarillion would also have features that we would call disadvantages; the content of certain sections, for example, would conflict with the content of other sections.

So we can narrow our attention down to those Silmarillions in which there is a kind of consistency from beginning to end (and we need not worry that "consistency" is a vague term, for the set of Silmarillions we are interested in is arbitrary). Even here there are very many options. We could construct a perfectly consistent Lost Tales mythology. We could construct a Silmarillion using the QS as a base text and supplementing it only with earlier texts, altering inconsistencies in favor of QS. We could do the same but supplement it only with later texts. We could make a Myths Transformed Silmarillion. We could make a Silmarillioin in which no words not found in the base texts could be added. We could make one in which we are free to write fan fiction wherever it suits our fancy.

Again, some of these will have advantages and some will have disadvantages. I think that very many of them would be extremely interesting, and would have value in existing. The published Silmarillion is one of this sort. The "Revised Silmarillion" we are working on here is another of this sort. They are two among hypothetical hundreds; theoretical thousands.

When you look at things in this light, it seems almost irrelevant to argue about the principles on which any particular one of these is based - for obviously these are not the only principles upon which a Silmarillion could be based. It is just that this particular Silmarillion has these particular principles behind it, and it happens to be the Silmarillion we are talking about at the moment. We could just as easily speak of that Silmarillion with those principles. "Such and such a Silmarillion," you may say, "was constructed by a committee; I see that as a disadvantage." Fine. Construct one yourself. Seriously - it's quite fun. Better yet, construct two yourself. Choose different principles from which to start and see what results you get in each case. And when you're done, I'll be eager to read them both.

So you see I think that it's no use to argue whether THE Revised Silmarillion ought to be made. There are thousands of possible Silmarillions and there is no harm in any of them being made, and value in many. But you've got to start somewhere, and, since there were several more or less like-minded people on the forum, we chose certain guiding principles and embarked on constructing one as a committee. I happen to think that those principles will make for a Silmarillion of particular value; but then, I helped write the principles, so maybe it's just my personal opinion. In any case, I don't think that any such set of principles is somehow on a different plane from the others, nor that any continuous Silmarillion could ever be called "official" unless JRRT were to return from the grave and write it himself.

Canon and Canon

I think that a lot of confusion in discussions like that in this thread stems from an ambiguity in the meaning of the word "canon" as applied to Tolkien's works. This, I think, is because the word actually has two meanings that are, in the cases of most authors, identical.

On the one hand (and, I think, in its primary meaning), "the canon" can mean the set of works that we can safely say are "by author X". The James Joyce canon is the set of works that we can say are "by James Joyce", etc. It is an important term in literary criticism for it more or less identifies the works that are fair play in the critic's consideration of the author's writings. For Tolkien, this set would include The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, the writings found in HoMe, "Farmer Giles of Ham", etc. There may sometimes be ambiguity concerning certain works, and whether they are to be admitted in to the canon of a particular author. But in the case of Tolkien, I don't think there are really any such works.

If "the canon" for a particular author includes only finished works, then these works will generally be self-consistent. If they are supposed to take place in the same world, they will agree with each other regarding the facts about that world. Other authors may come along later and add their own stories about that world - but of course these are not part of the "canon" of the first author; hence, "canon" can in this case come to be thought of as referring to the facts about the imaginary world. In other words, "canon" can come to be equated with the "true history" of the imaginary world, as opposed to any false or unauthorized stories about it.

Obviously, this meaning of "canon" diverges from the first in the case of Tolkien. For Tolkien left us various writings that are part of the Tolkien canon (first meaning) but that disagree with each other. So the canon (second meaning) comes to refer to the "true history" of Arda. Obviously, such a concept is something of a fabrication (since this is all fiction), and we ought not be surprised when we discover that there is no single, authoritative canon (second meaning).

[HerenIstarion]

Again nothing important to add (I'm just too awed and fascinated to interfere, really) just one minor answer to one minor question:

Mr. Martinez have been visiting the Downs at one time (2000, I believe)

and, yes, well said, Aiwendil :)

[HerenIstarion]

Well, here is an article by Michael Martines on Suite 101 Is your canon on the loose? (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/45552)

And here is the profile for him on the Barrow Downs:

Michael Martinez (http://69.51.5.41/member.php?u=63)

sincerely

edit: on close examination, article which the link is provided to is the selfsame as indicated in Lord of Angmar's post above. Sorry for repetition :)

Here is the weregild for the fault: Creating a new Silmarillion -- some ideas... (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=4435)

[drigel]

This argument really began with CT's providing us the Silm, which we all agree is not 100% JRRT. thank goodness it was produced. Looking back, I think the revision that took place was done with much regard to what JRRT originally intended - I think the thought was (at the time) to make the Silm a complete read - a book for us hungry JRRT fans. A "publishable" novel.

The argument (IMO) largely affected how the later Histories were laid out - where CT's input is clearly separate from JRRT. I would love to see a "New Silmarillion" published in the fashion of the Histories. Where JRRT's differing versions covering the same subject are presented in a manner where the reader makes his/her own "conlusion" of interpretation. CT's input would involve nothing more than background information and any other comments he likes. Just keep it separate from the work (canon?). Clearly, those of us who can read through any of the histoies (or even the Letters for that matter) dont need a "novel" format. Id buy that book!

[Bêthberry]

This is a reply to davem, post #98, wherein he states the argument, if I may paraphrase it, 'You are what you write.' ;)

They [Tolkien's stories] come out of his mind, & in effect are him, speaking to us, mind to mind. To risk falling into the trap of 'Zen & the Art of interpreting Tolkien , we can almost say that while he was in the process of telling the stories - in the various periods of his life - he 'was' the story - his mind was focussed on them, his total attention was on the tale. So, when we read the stories, we encounter Tolkien 'mind to mind'. We are reading his thoughts - even if we know nothing about him or his day to day life or his beliefs, it is still Tolkien's mind that is communing with our mind. We cannot say that Tolkien is not there, because in effect we would be saying our minds are communing with nothing, or that our minds are communing with themselves.

Well now, let's see. What is the nature of this living life form's reproductive capabilites? Clone or new life form? If you ask a question of this textual mind, can it answer back, creating new expressions of communication itself, or are we limited to receiving repetition in the original language/mind only? I would tend to think it can only clone or echo and so your organic model of Tolkien as text strikes me, if I may be allowed such an outrageous analogy, as a kind of resurrection fallacy.

Furthermore, if you state that his textual mind continues in our new creations, then you are, in effect, denying both our presence in our own thoughts and subjugating them (oh, that Nazgû allegory again!) to Tolkien's mind, or crowning this thorny issue with questions of virginal gestation: where did his mind/text originate-- in previous mind/texts? Who indeed is the Word with. Or where.

This organic/ textual mind model also assumes that language is a transparent window between minds. Yet, if I may use an analogy from St. Paul, "we see through a glass darkly" (Corinthians 13). (Some have even called it a mire or swamp rather than glass. Nods to Sam Coleridge and Jonathan Culler.) Language is opaque; it follows its own predetermined code of paradigmatic and syntactic structures, already in place before our minds form the expressions. Tolkien may have created many languages, and he may have invented Middle-earth to give expression to them, but he wrote The Hobbit and LotR in English, using the fiction of translation between the 'original' and his text.

and if you can only offer that 'illusion' of serial time as an argument against that theory then I will be disappointed.

I hope, then, I have not only not disappointed you, but entertained you as well. :)

[The Saucepan Man]

This argument really began with CT's providing us the Silm, which we all agree is not 100% JRRT. thank goodness it was produced. I wonder if it might be considered more "authoritative" if the corresponding texts in UT and the HoME series had never been published?


And here is the profile for him on the Barrow Downs It rather amused me that the Reputation box states "Michael Martinez has started the path to adventure". A bit like the statement that the Barrow-Wight "is getting the hang of it". :D He (MM that is) seems to have been a bit touchy.

[Novnarwen]

I would disagree. Just because one doesn't believe in the existence of God in the real (primary) world, it does not follow that one cannot appreciate the importance of Eru within the sub-created world. And I now rather subscribe to Fordim's view that, even if someone who is not deeply religious is unaware of the role of Eru when he reads LotR, he will still receive from the text a strong sense of providence (on a subconscious level at least). The text implies that "something" made Gollum fall at that moment, just as "something" made Bilbo find the Ring, whatever that "something" may be.

I assume you are referring to this in LOTR, Mount Doom:

Suddenly Sam saw Gollum's long hands draw upwards to his mouth; his white fangs gleamed, and then snapped as they bit. Frodo gave a cry, and there he was, fallen upon his knees at the chasm's edge. But Gollum, dancing like a mad thing, held aloft the ring, a finger thrust within its circle. It shone now as if verily it was wrought of living fire.

"Precious, precious, precious!" Gollum cried. "My Precious! O my Precious!" And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail Precious, and he was gone.
Be honest, really honest. Do you see that 'something' (of Eruism) in that? I see your point about the fact that people could, and should, appreciate the Eruism in LOTR (And in the other works by Tolkien), but exactly where is the Eruism in that? I mean, if you’re not intentionally looking for it, wanting it to be Eruism, you, or at least I, can't find it! The poor fellow is toppling because he is dancing, not very well, I might add; but I honestly don't see the 'something' in there. I might be narrow-minded, but... help?

There are places in LOTR where there is indeed Eruism. But there is not place in LOTR where 'Eru' actually is mentioned, at least not, according to my little precious. Metaphorically, yes, perhaps. And for a normal reader, who is enchanted (but not overly convinced), the text in LOTR will give him/her nothing or very little of Eruism. However, I would think that Elbereth (Gilthoniel) would give every reader an implication of being a Goddess or at least someone who people look up to. Three times in LOTR Elbereth has singing Elves under her stars. This gives a certain impression, you know. :)

*hurries off to read the last posts of this thread*

Cheers,
Nova

[drigel]

Clearly the author intended some impressions of "providence", but likewise, any impression of ME "eruism" is intentionaly omitted. What one sees as "providence", I think others see as "plotline". The fundamental message to me is individuals making choices. The fact that there is one creator stands on its own. If there is any otherwordly influence being nuanced, i see more cases of Vala involvement in LOTR, than i do "eruism". In fact (sorry to offend), when i think of the term "eruism", then the term "rolling over in his grave" quickly thereafter comes to mind :)

[The Saucepan Man]

I see your point about the fact that people could, and should, appreciate the Eruism in LOTR I am not saying that people "should" see it. But it does seem to me that the story conveys an inherent sense of providence that comes to a head during that scene.


I mean, if you’re not intentionally looking for it, wanting it to be Eruism, you, or at least I, can't find it! The poor fellow is toppling because he is dancing, not very well, I might add; but I honestly don't see the 'something' in there. I think that the term "Eruism" may be misleading, as it implies an awareness of Eru, which was my bone of contention with Fordim in the first place. And that awareness will not come from a reading of LotR alone. I would prefer to use the term "providence", since it seems to me to be clearly implied in many parts, from the comments of Gandalf, Elrond and others, that providence of some sort is at work.

You are right. There is nothing in that passage, taken alone, to suggest anything other than that Gollum simply tripped and fell. But, taken together with the references mentioned above, it is surely implied that there is something more at work here than mere fortuity. The reader may only be aware of this on a subconscious level (as was the case, I think, with me the first few times that I read it). But, if it was not there, this scene would just not feel "right". As Fordim put it, we would feel cheated. If the Quest, which has been central to the story, was fulfilled by pure chance, it would not be at all satisfactory. However, I am sure that no one who has read and enjoyed the book would describe this resolution as unsatisfactory, even if they did not consciously analyse how and why it happened. Rather they would say that it "felt right". And how could it feel right if it was simply an accident?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I think I would like to cling to my horrific term for the time being. I consciously chose not to call the Guiding Hand in LotR Providence as that is a concept from the Primary World and I wanted something that would more correctly refer to the version of that (Christian) concept as it is subcreated in M-E. The point has been made quite rightly that Eru is not mentioned in LotR, but neither is Providence: the Guiding Hand of Eru (eruism) is most often referred to, I think, as “luck” or “chance”.

The advantage that I see with eruism over Providence is that I wish to emphasise how this providential model of history is one that Tolkien has himself subcreated and ‘inserted’ into his story in such a way that it guides our interpretation of the story (of his entire historia to cite my other dreadful terminology – rolling over in his grave indeed!). The concept of Providence is something that I need to bring from ‘outside’ the text (it’s this kind of a project that Nova is, I think, talking about), whereas I find eruism within the text.

But this is rapidly becoming just the kind of argument over terminology that I fear afflicts the debate over canon and whether text A is or is not within the purview of that term (whatever it means).

The real reason I’m posting right now (other than the need for a bit of a break in a terribly tedious and laborious day) is to address the excellent question put to me by Mister Underhill:


your analogies tend to pit author against reader in a titanic struggle, with the free will of the latter at stake…where exactly are author and reader (potentially) at odds? What freedoms do you seek that Tolkien as author might restrict?

I do realise that my initial posts on this tended this way – I had not yet had the benefit of others’ response to push my thinking into a more subtle form – but my current position (and I’m comfortable with it) is that the “struggle” that takes place is entirely internal to the individual reader (or, more appropriately, lest Bêthberry should read this ;) ) to the individual moment of readerly engagement with the text. That is, we are ourselves torn between the desire to interpret for ourselves (Gollum jumped into the fires to save the world; he fell by accident), and the demands placed upon us by elements of M-E – such as eruism – to interpret events in a particular way (Gollum got a little push from a Guiding Hand – revealed in the Sil to belong to Eru, and most closely connected in the Primary World to Christian Providence).

Note to Saucepan Man – Yes, ensorcelled is very much a word, in the OED and everything. It also happens to be one of my very favourite words, and I love getting the chance to use it:

ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled!!!

[davem]

LoA

I can see what you mean with the 'Shylock' point - but if we did construct such a Shylock, would he be recognisable as the figure we know - even to Shakespeare? I think the attempt would be futile, as what we would end up with would really tell us nothing in regard to the play. We may find out a bit more about Shakespeare's thought processes & how he created his characters, but we wouldn't gain any more insight into the play itself - which is the thing we would be after. A 'canonical' Sil might reveal something about Tolkien, but it would seem a very roundabout way of doing so.

Saucepanman

I take the point that CT constructed the '77 Sil in the same way as our colleagues are doing with their attempt at a revised Sil - but the question occurs, If CT was to throw himself under a bus, would they follow his example in that? More seriously, CT has expressed deep regret at his attempt to produce a coherent Sil. In his case, I can sympathise, because there was no way the publishers would have leapt straight into the publicaction of HoME, & he felt an obligation to make his father's Sil writings available to the public. With the publication of HoME this is no longer necessary. I still can't see the value of it, especially not if it is simply to be one among many - this would put off potential readers - which one would they choose?

Aiwendil

Your examples of Beethoven's Ninth & LotR don't work for me - if we only had those works in the forms you describe (which i can't think we would have, as there would be no interest in having them, so no publisher would make them available) & all we got was a slew of different versions, no one would no which one to take seriously. I'm reminded of Eric Morecambe's line, that he was 'playing all the right notes, but not necessarilly in the right order'.

I still think that FoG & Tuor are so different in form & intention that to try taking something from one, & something from the other, suplimented by bits from other references to the story, will not produce anything of real value. If FoG is the young Tolkien's mythologisation of his experience of the Somme, which I feel it is, to a great extent, & Tuor is the Older Tolkien's attempt to write a legend based in ME, detached by time & his own lifetime of other experiences, the two stories will not fit together in the way you assume. Yes, we have characters with the same name recurring throughout the Legendarium, but are they the same characters. I can't see that Gollum (1) (from the 1st ed Hobbit) is the same character as Gollum (2) (from the revised Hobbit), or that Galadriel (1) (from LotR) is the same character as Galadriel (2) (from the later writings - History of Galadriel & Celeborn, etc). To take bits from both versions of these characters & try to create a 'canonical' Gollum (1+2 = ?) or a 'canonical' Galadriel seems doomed to failure - Gollum (2) would never have given up the ring to Bilbo as Gollum (1) would have willingly done, Galadriel (2) would have no need to be forgiven & allowed to return into the West as Galadriel (1) did - which part of her story do you throw out - The beautiful scene of her rejection of the Ring, & repentance for her 'sins' in LotR (G1) or her role as leader of the forces of the West against Sauron, a role which Tolkien says is equivalent to the role of Manwe in the battle against Morgoth (G2)? Sauron is simply not Thu, let alone Tevildo.

Maedhros

We can't know whether the 'Fall of Gondolin' referred to in QN is to be the same FoG as the one in BoLT, or whether Tolkien had in mind a new version - which I suspect is the case , as QN is such a radically different work from BoLT- if he'd rewritten the other stories in line with what is a different intention for the work, why would he leave such a major story untouched? If he had wanted to retain the stories of BoLT as they were, why not just finish it - or simply remove the 'Cottage of Lost Play' elements?

Bethberry

I don't see this 'clone' analogy working - the creative mind was not a clone whenn it created the stories (produced the ideas). We are simply exposed to the living idea, 'across time' as it were. It was 'alive' (ie, a product of a living conscious entity). It enters our currently 'living' consciousness, so it is the interaction of a living thing with another living thing. This is very much like the ideas Tolkien was exploring in the Lost Road & the Notion Club Papers. Living minds from Numenor - their present - our past interact mentally with living minds in the 20th Century - our present - their future. Time, as Tolkien is saying in these stories, is not a fixed thing, moving constantly forward. The 'past', the 'present' & the 'future can interact with each other - not physically, but living mind to living mind. Ideas, experiences, can be transmitted is what Tolkien is saying here (is that idea 'canonical' or not?) It does not involve 'resurrection' at all, as none of the parties involved is 'dead', just living in different places in space-time. We are currently communicating across thousands of miles of space-time & neither of us had to be brought back from the dead to do it (well, obviously I can only make that statement in full confidence as regards myself :) )

I don't think this does require 'the purposed domination of the author' either - we 'co-create' - neither mind is dominant (as in this discussion - though we mayeach try & achieve such dominance :) ). Neither is there any requirement for an 'original' thought - a point which Tolkien makes in Fairy Stories - it would not be possible to discover one even if it existed. The issue is not 'language' - unless we mean a 'symbolic' form of such, & spoken/written language surely originated in the need/desire to communicate, & in the connection between living minds which creates that need, driven by that desire. I'm sure both Jung & Chomsky are hovering around this discussion somewhere, but I haven't quite worked out what they're saying - its probably that 'language' thing you mentioned.

(This is starting to remind me of my discussion on 'Evil Things' with HerenIstarion - I don't think there's enough of this kind of thing on these boards !)

[Bêthberry]

Mr. Hedgethistle,

my current position (and I?m comfortable with it) is that the ?struggle? that takes place is entirely internal to the individual reader (or, more appropriately, lest Bêthberry should read this ;) to the individual moment of readerly engagement with the text.

I cannot express how pleased I am that you have found a position you are comfortable with.

That is, we are ourselves torn between the desire to interpret for ourselves (Gollum jumped into the fires to save the world; he fell by accident), and the demands placed upon us by elements of M-E ? such as eruism ? to interpret events in a particular way (Gollum got a little push from a Guiding Hand ? revealed in the Sil to belong to Eru, and most closely connected in the Primary World to Christian Providence).


I think this is not quite my point, although it could be yours. The text does, I would argue, provide a comfortable setting in which to accept that moment of the fall/jump is aesthetically significant and in keeping with other elements in the text. We might have here an example of a confusion between the poet's act and Eru's act. I might think that Tolkien hoped readers to make that leap between the two, substituting Eruism for his own faith, but it seems to me that what we have here is a unified heterocosm which works against any kind of interpretation which would support randomness in Middle-earth.

I am , al always these days, rushed. Does this make sense?

[drigel]

it may have been the digging of Aule as much as the hand of Eru that caused the earth to crumble under Gollums feet
My point i was feebly trying to make was imo, the author drew upon his own creation to supply the life to his subcreation. if that makes sense... Providence is in the stories, but i feel the author is assuming that a conscious person can interpret on his or her own. Thus his dislike for analogy. One can bring anything from 'outside the text': eruism, druidism, alchoholism, any other ism for that matter. I see more proof of valaism than i do eruism. Providence that one finds in ones self is definately in there. To me that can go both ways (as in most providence arguments): was there providence only for mortals? Is there any providence in the elven desire to prolong the present to avoid any change? Where was the providence in the killing of the trees? etc etc

[Lord of Angmar]

Davem
I can see what you mean with the 'Shylock' point - but if we did construct such a Shylock, would he be recognisable as the figure we know - even to Shakespeare? I think the attempt would be futile, as what we would end up with would really tell us nothing in regard to the play. That was more or less my point- in essence, I was agreeing with you about the futility of attempting to create a canonical Silm, but not quite understanding your analogy. Perhaps my own 'Shylock' analogy would have been more clear if I had ammended it to say that it would be similar to Tolkien's situation if Shakespeare had worked on The Merchant for several years, and had written several different drafts (which, to my knowledge, he did not). I simply did not see taking the works of two different authors and combining them to create a canon view on a subject such as Judaism as analogous to attempting to recreate a canonical Silm.

[Aiwendil]

Your examples of Beethoven's Ninth & LotR don't work for me - if we only had those works in the forms you describe (which i can't think we would have, as there would be no interest in having them, so no publisher would make them available) & all we got was a slew of different versions, no one would no which one to take seriously.

You don't think that if The Lord of the Rings existed only as fragments, it would be of any value for someone to connect and edit those fragments to create a fully realized narrative? Would this thing not have value in itself, even though it was not "canonical" Tolkien?

Perhaps you do in fact think that it would be worthless. Fine. But obviously, a lot of people would disagree with you.

If FoG is the young Tolkien's mythologisation of his experience of the Somme, which I feel it is, to a great extent, & Tuor is the Older Tolkien's attempt to write a legend based in ME, detached by time & his own lifetime of other experiences, the two stories will not fit together in the way you assume.

Who said that we assumed they would fit together in some particular way?

I could argue that, in fact, the old FoG is not really as different from the later Tuor as you claim. But that is beside the point. They are both part of that complex body of source material called the Silmarillion. There are innumerable ways in which they could be put together. We have put them together in one particular way, because that is a way that we find interesting.

Yes, we have characters with the same name recurring throughout the Legendarium, but are they the same characters.

I think that's a meaningless question. They are not real; they are defined only as logical objects within the network of source material. In one sense, they are the same characters. In another they're not. That's purely a matter of definition.

which part of her story do you throw out - The beautiful scene of her rejection of the Ring, & repentance for her 'sins' in LotR (G1) or her role as leader of the forces of the West against Sauron, a role which Tolkien says is equivalent to the role of Manwe in the battle against Morgoth (G2)?

You don't throw anything out.

Instead, you create a new thing out of the old contradictory elements. If you like, you create two new things - each one reconciling the contradiction in its own way.

To take bits from both versions of these characters & try to create a 'canonical' Gollum (1+2 = ?) or a 'canonical' Galadriel seems doomed to failure

I think that perhaps you misunderstood some of my post. I didn't use the word "canonical" at all except when I said something about the ambiguity inherent in the word and when I said that "canonical Silmarillion" is a misnomer. As I said, there is an infinite number of possible Silmarillions. None of them is "official" or "canonical". But I think that a great many of them have value.

[The Saucepan Man]

Fordim

I consciously chose not to call the Guiding Hand in LotR Providence as that is a concept from the Primary World ... We are sitting in the primary world looking into the fictional world, so I see nothing wrong with using primary world terms to describe concepts in the fictional world. After all, we talk of the concept of evil in Tolkien's works without having to refer to it as Morgothism or Sauronism.


... and I wanted something that would more correctly refer to the version of that (Christian) concept as it is subcreated in M-E. Careful. You'll set me off again. Darn, too late! :eek: My problem with the term "Erusim" is that it implies an awareness of Eru, which many readers simply don't have when they approach LotR. It also implies (to me at least) that it is a concept which can only truly be appreciated by one with Christian beliefs, which I would reject entirely. The concept may be rooted in Tolkien's Christian beliefs, but it is one which a reader can understand and accept as exisiting in the fictional world regardless of his or her own beliefs. After all, we don't have to believe in Hobbits and Elves in the real world to accept their existence in Middle-earth.

So I prefer a more neutral term. And it may be that "providence" is not appropriate in this regard, since it too has strong Christian connotations (although my Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as "the protective care of God or nature"). What I am looking for is a term which admits all possible ways of regarding this "force", whether it be Eru, the Authority, one's own God or Gods, the Valar (as drigel suggests), the spirit of nature, the personification of Arda, the embodiment of fate, or even Tom Bombadil (who, as we know, is not Eru ;) ). Any suggestions?

And I am not so sure that it is just a discussion over terminology, since the terms that we use have their own substantive implications. That is the reason that I am not comfortable with "Eruism".


my current position (and I’m comfortable with it) is that the “struggle” that takes place is entirely internal to the individual reader (or, more appropriately, lest Bêthberry should read this ) to the individual moment of readerly engagement with the text. Gosh! That makes it all sound like a terribly arduous (Arda-uous?) process. Whereas it is, in my experience, a most enjoyable one. Most readers choose the manner of interpretation that they are comfortable with, and this almost invariably occurs entirely at the subconscious level. It is not so much a "struggle" as a natural process. And when we try to analyse why we react to a text in the way that we do and, in so doing, perhaps perceive a struggle, do we not risk losing davem's "enchantment"?


Yes, ensorcelled is very much a word, in the OED and everything. It is? It's not in my Concise OD. But I shall take your word for it and use it henceforth at every available opportunity. :D

Davem


In his case, I can sympathise, because there was no way the publishers would have leapt straight into the publicaction of HoME, & he felt an obligation to make his father's Sil writings available to the public. With the publication of HoME this is no longer necessary. So, with the publication of UT and HoME, you no longer regard the Silmarillion as having any value? If I am not misunderstanding you, I regard that as a very curious position to take. It may not be "canon" in the strict sense of the word, but it is nevertheless greatly valued by most Tolkien afficionados that I have encountered. And, although it may not have the same gravitas, the "one of many possible Silmarillions" which Maedhros, Findegil and Aiwendil are working on will undoubtedly be regarded as having value by many of those same Tolkien afficionados when it is complete. Does that not make it a worthwhile endeavour in itself, even though you personally may regard it of little value?

And I am with Bêthberry in finding your idea of a living Tolkien speaking to us through the pages of his works as difficult to accept. What Tolkien is saying to us is cast in stone (or paper). We may learn more about him as we read more widely, but what he says to us in any particular passage cannot change. Nor can it react to our responses and interpretations. It is a one way conversation. In that sense, it is not vibrant, which is surely the very essence of life. No, Tolkien is no more alive in his text than a departed loved one is alive in our vivd memory of them.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I’ve debated whether or not to post this, as it might reveal some of the real life me that I like to hide here – but it’s just so darn pertinent to the discussion that I have to contribute.

The other day I was delivering a public lecture on Tolkien to a group of about 200 non-Tolkien experts. (Yes, I actually get asked to talk to groups about Tolkien – and what the heck, just to make sure that you all hate me – I sometimes even get paid to do it.) When I say non-Tolkien experts I mean really non-experts: most of them had never read LotR or TH, and only a few of them had seen the movies: many had seen only one or two. They were just interested in hearing more about Tolkien and M-E, I guess…

Given my audience I kept it pretty general and talked about the subcreation of M-E in light of Tolkien’s life and Catholicism; I got into the creation of the languages and worked through the implications of the names of Aragorn, Arwen and Frodo. I just wanted to give them a sense of how Tolkien subcreated his world from and for the sake of his invented languages. Most of the comments afterward were extremely positive and many people left saying that they were going to read the books now (huzzah!). But I did get one very interesting response that has been nagging at me since.

An elderly woman (with a walker no less!) cornered me and thanked me for the talk, but she said that I had rather put her off the idea of reading the books. Frantic to find out why, I asked her what I had said or done. She simply said that she felt there was “too much she had to know about the book before she could understand it.” I desperately tried to fight a rearguard action, disavowing all that I had said in the previous hour and swearing to her up down and sideways that the books are more than capable of being enjoyed without any kind of the knowledge that I had been discussing. But she was immovable. “It’s too late, you see,” she explained to me. “Now that I know how much more there is to the book, I don’t think I’ll be able to appreciate it without knowing about all the rest.”

To be utterly frank, I’m not really sure what to make of this. An example of the enchantment being broken before the spell is even cast…? Or a potent reminder of what Gandalf says to Saruman: “He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.”

[davem]

Aiwendil

I can't see that putting together 'fragments' of LotR, if that was all that existed, would serve any purpose, beyond satisfying some disire in the person who put it together. And if those fragments were from different versions of the story, & differed in sometimes major ways in the story they told, then you could at best only end up with a general sense of the story - you wouldn't end up with a work of art - unless the person doing the constructing (could we even call it 're-constructing' if there had never been a complete version of it?) was an artist - & then it would be their work - not Tolkien's.

When you say you have 'put together a version of 'Gondolin' which you find 'interesting' you make my point for me - a serious scholarly endevour that only produces a result which is 'interesting' to those involved seems to me to be of little academic value. Your 'rules' for what you will & will not allow into a 'revised' Sil seem simply arbitrary.

When you speak of taking Galadriel (1) & Galadriel (2) & producing 'something new' I can only see this as an admission that what you're doing is not revising but re-writing (if not reinventing entirely) 'The Silmarillion'.

If we take the example of Gollum (1) & Gollum (2). What we have is not so much a 'development' of the character - G(1) evolving into G(2), as a substitution of one character by another. In effect Tolkien has removed G(1) from Hobbit & replaced him with G(2). This was done not for aesthtic reasons, but for practical ones - he wanted Hobbit to correspond more closely to the evolving LotR. in so doing he changes the Hobbit from a self contained story, into a prequel to LotR. And he didn't even do it deliberately - he sent the new version of Riddles in the Dark To A&U as an example of the 'kind' of thing that would necessary if the Hobbit was to be brought into line with LotR. The publishers used the replacement text without confirming with Tolkien that he wanted them to do so, & in the end accepted the change as a fait a compli.

So, does this supply sufficient justification for choosing the revised version over the 1st ed version, for preffering G(2) over G(1)? The only reason for chosing G(2) is that it was later, & that it removes certain problems in reconciling the characters of Gollum in Hobbit & Gollum in LotR. If you make that choice, for that reason, then you would have to choose all the versions of the stories where changes have been made simply in order to remove conflicts with other stories. You choices would be made on grounds of practicality, not aesthetics - or you'd have to 'invent' your own 'new' versions to accomodate the contradictions- which takes you further down the road of producing your own Sil, rather than a version of Tolkien's Sil

Saucepan Man

Its not that I regard the '77 Sil as unecessary - in fact I think its incredibly important - my argument is with the idea of a 'series' of Sil's - which I think will only confuse readers & create uneccessary arguments.

Oh, re the 'two way comunication' with Tolkien - think of it as a mix of philosophical game & a 'fan fic' within the Tolkien 'canon' - its pretty much what Tolkien is saying is possible in Lost Road & Notion Club Papers, as well as in the Fairy Tales essay. - You have to 'disprove' it, not just reject it (that's cheating!), or prove it to be 'uncanonical' :)

[HerenIstarion]

davem, you seem strongly talented in luring me into long speeches :)

So, to post number 126 re:

A bit of a side walk first

Have you seen the movie "Joan of Arc"? One starring Mila Jovovich (sp?). It is a nice movie, quite coherent, appealing, moving and dramatic. Allegedly, it is the work of art, and not history. But as their source, the authors were using existing source material. That the story as it is told in the movie is different from what really happened, is beyond any qustioning. But does it make the movie as the movie of less value? I don't think so, otherwise I would not have been wasting my time on it, I'd rather dig some documents and read those. And, voila, in doing so, I would have found that, though all of my sources were contemporary, all of them were different and contradicted each other.

Another example – what I was studying at University as history, for the first two years was not source material, but compilation – retelling of events rolled into one continiuos text. There were entries like: year so and so, this and this happened. Now, when I went on to my third year, such a subject as historiography was intorudced. And all of what was clear and continuous history back in year one, was, somehow, countless smithereens of "according to this source, this and this happened in year X, and according to that source, it happened in year Y, and according to third source, it haven't happened at all"

What we were tought, is was that work of historian was to, so to say, collect every pebble of evidence there was to be found, and 'squeeze' the thing mostly approximating the truth out of it where possible. The thing was done not only for the sake of truth (as each individual historian saw it), but for the sake of people who were lazy, unable or too busy to dig among sources themselves

Going back to Joan of Arc than – some of the temporary sources picture her as a witch, some praise her as saint. Movie shows her as neither, but as patriot. But was that really the case? When the concept of France was not very much emerged? And the concept of King was more prominent somehow? I believe that neither is quite accurate, but the truth is not to be digged out unless we start practice necromancy and question Joan herself. And even than such an account would be inaccurate, for language is indeed opaque, as stated above, and what we would require is Osanwe-Kenta.

Going back to historians – given precisely the same number of same sources, no two historians will produce exactly matching results.

now:

then it would be their work - not Tolkien's.

Exactly. Given the mode in which Tolkien was writing, and having in mind that he haven't produced final published product, the material we have for our pleasure is to be treated as source material. And any material which is the source is canon. But no work produced on the basis is canon (yes, neither S77), simply because it is derived from and the consequent to the source material, and is, to some extent, work of art of its compilator, scholar, annalist, whoever.

It is easier to switch to the attitude I describe if you go to suspending primary disbelief as described in Tolkien's On Fairy Story and view the source material as really written by Pengolodh, Aelfwine and number of other elves and men from different ages. Than there no objection arises at some modern scholar trying to produce something continuous out of his sources. His judgement as to what is to be taken into the 'soup' and what is to be rejected, is indeed arbitrary, but nevertheless very natural. Do you condemn researcher of the ancient history of Sumer on the basis he produced the book of his own writing, instead of combining the photoes of the bas-reliefs inscriptions he have interpreted according to whis own arbitrary judgement?

Same is applicable to Tolkien (I believe), for he is too complex to be judged as mere writer. What follows is, that we, readers, compilators, scholars of Tolkien, are free to use any of the texts (starting with the very first up to the very last) which we know to be canonical – i.e. by Tolkien himself, and apply to them our own judgement. We are free to be content with the sources in themselves, but we are also free to compile them into coherent and continuous [one] piece of text. Any course of action is lawfull.

But what we will produce will be not canonical in itself (and that was stated by Aiwendil up there). Still more no one will be forced to read it (as no one is forced to watch the movie and believe it as only true account of the story, or count historian's conclusions as to what was going on in Sumer as one and only true.)

I know, you granted the Rev Sil project people the right to do it. What you seem to reject, is the value of it. But if you follow your reasoning, you may well end up rejecting value of say, your friends account of what he was doing another day in a bar, but ask for filmed and recorded evidence, not trusting his recollections as those may be mere compilation of sources, and requesting minute to minute collation with sight and sound recorder. And you may further argue that, as this videorecorder was recording from north-east corner of the room, and another one from south one, there were in fact, two stories, and not one, for one set of pictures shows your friend with a fork, and another omits such a scene, since where fork should be the tankard obscures the way. But you will dare not assume that the fork is nevertheless there, and say: so, we have two stories about the two different men of the same name, and they differ considerably and could not be merged, since in one of them one man has the fork, and in another one another man does not!

For if you listen to the man himself, he may blunder a bit an mix things up a bit (Somewhere around five, I've drunk fourth beer. But the north–east recorder evidence shows it was 4:56 exactly, and south recorded, catching another watch into shot, will convince you that it was 5:02. Does it eliminate the value of story the man himlself told you? Is it less interesting?).

When you speak of taking Galadriel (1) & Galadriel (2) & producing 'something new' I can only see this as an admission that what you're doing is not revising but re-writing (if not reinventing entirely) 'The Silmarillion'

Yes, yes, yes. Any academic, if we talk about one to tread the boards of history, is doing exactly the thing: re-writing, reinventing. He has his limits – he must not contradict his sources, or, if those contradict themselves, choose greater number against smaller number, or, if he does the opposite, to prove first of all to himsefl, that what he does is logically justified by so and so reasons. He can't create green sun out of his head, but he must make green sun found in his sources plausible. In doing so, he inevitably will add up something of his own [sub]creation into the thing.

I hope you are still here with me :), for I'm gently spilling over into conclusions:

A) What Tolkien was creating is nearly as complex as the history of the world itself
B) What he did create, must be viewed (as he himelf was evaluating it as such, 'finding out' rather than 'inventing') as history derived from and depending on different and quite a number of sources as well
C) Following A and B, different sources need not be in agreement between themselves
D) Following C, there is no restriction prohibiting compilations and prescribing to leave the sources be.
E) Following D, there is no law forcing anyone to count compilation produced as the true account of events
F) Nevertheless, piece of work produced has the value in itself, and may be quite plausible and approaching the truth as near as it may be

So, does this supply sufficient justification for choosing the revised version over the 1st ed version, for preffering G(2) over G(1)?

So it does. What it does not, is establishing supremacy of one account over the other, but giving the possible reader the pleasure of having both, and not as twelve volume collection of sources. One is free to prefer sources, but than it is merely matter of taste, than

[davem]

H-I

Not enough time at the moment for a long response. I can see what you're saying, & agree with a lot of it. But I still can't see why all this effort is being put into producing something which will have no 'special' value (& my own understanding is that the intention of those involved is (whether they admit it or not) to produce if not the 'definitive' Sil', then at least a superior one to S77.

If the purpose is not to try & construct a 'canonical' or 'definitive', or 'best of a bad job' Sil, then what is the point? What I see is libraries full of 'versions' of the Sil - & I can only see that making more & more people feel like the lady Fordim has just described to us.

We have the source texts. We have a scholarly & entertaining version of a 'Silmarillion' for those who don't want to wade through them. If a group fo fans want to get together & slave over hot computers to churn out another version, or versions, fine, but I can't see that it has any value to anyone but themselves. Personally, I find the whole idea of it quite pointless, as its based on so many different versions, written over such a long period of time, each version written with a different intent, peopled by different characters (albeit with the same names), that it will only serve to completely mislead any one unfamiliar with the source texts, & have no value to anyone who is familiar with them.

[Bêthberry]

Am I the only one who is becoming a bit uncomfortable with the tenor of this discusssion? We all get heated about our own particular way of reading texts and events, but I would hope we continue to recognise that other interpretations and processes are possible.

I have been someone who has in the past not been interested in the kind of project which those in the "Revised Simillarion Project" have been pursuing because, to me their intention and criteria do not reflect what I understand narrative to be about. That is, I would side with Tolkien--and here I refer back to my post about On Fairy Stories--that things get into the stew of story based upon their narrative significance and how much they satisfy the desires of readers for the consolation of story. When I say this, I mean no discourtesy to Aiwendil and Maedhros and Findegal and the others on the project; their thought and effort is to my mind keen and admirable. However--and this is a very big however even as I disagree with some of their basic premises, I would insist upon their 'right' as readers to be able to recreate any kind of text they wish--I just wouldn't accept it as 'authentic' "authoritative'" or representing Tolkien's intention . The simple fact that as readers they wish to engage in this interpretive activity is enough. In fact, it represents, to me, the entire "purpose" of literature, to engage our minds. To suggest that they cannot do so because what will be produced will not have any "special purpose" or is "pointless" is, in my humble opinion, too restrictive and untenable even, for a discussion board.

To take this discussion forward, however, rather than to become bogged down in refuting posts, I would like to return to On Fairy Stories. Tolkien argues,

we make in our measure and in our derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker.

. . . [and of this faculty. . . ]

Uncorrupted it does not seek delusion or bewitchment and domination; it seeks shared enrichment, partners in making and delight, not slaves

Obvisously here Tolkien's Christian belief is what supports his idea that men are "corrupt making-creatures". But there are other ways to reach this conclusion as well. It remains, for me, the reason why the Silmarillion project has worth and value even as I do not wish to pursue such a study.


What Tolkien is saying to us is cast in stone (or paper). We may learn more about him as we read more widely, but what he says to us in any particular passage cannot change. Nor can it react to our responses and interpretations. It is a one way conversation. In that sense, it is not vibrant, which is surely the very essence of life.

Thank-you, SaucepanMan, for reiterating with greater clarity my point about whether the text can create new forms of communication. Of course it cannot. I feel a bit quilty here as I believe it was me who first raised the metaphor of a living text, but I used that in the context of reading activity, not to suggest a gnostic arguement about the text itself as a living mind of the writer. I would in fact return yet again to On Fairy Stories for consideration of this activity. It is possible to take this concept of "enchantment" too far. Tolkien says that this natural human activity

certainly does not destroy or even insult Reason; and it does not either blunt the appetite for, nor obscure the perception of, scientific verity. On the contrary. The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better fantasy will it make.


Or, as Tolkien again put it, "a prophylactic against loss." A Recovery.

Oh, and, Mr. Hedgethistle, about the terminology of Guilding Hand or Providence. I am glad you chose not to use "Guiding Light". ;) However, as to your disheartened elderly reader, perhaps you can tell her it is like climbing Mount Everest.

:D

[davem]

Bethberry



I'm sorry if anything I've posted has come across as a personal attack on those involved in the project. My 'attack' has always been on the 'aim'. I've said a number of times that I have no problem with the project itself - I simply question the value of it to anyone beyond those involved. I simply can't see that it will add anything, & will probably confuse readers new to Tolkien who will find themselves confronted with two, three, four or more 'Silmarillion's. The situation we have at present - source texts plus a 'Silmarillion' for the general reader is the best situation we can get. I'm sorry if my saying the project is pointless has upset anyone - no-one has to take a blind bit of notice of me - I don't have, or make, any claims of superior right or knowledge in regard to Tolkien. Aiwendil & Maedros have put forward their reasons for what they're doing. I've simply attempted to give my reasons as to why I feel the whole thing is a dead end. Its like fanfiction, painting or music inspired by the Legendarium - it may be good, or bad or indifferent, but it won't be of any real value in the field of Tolkien studies as far as I can see - beyond simply proving that such a thing is possible - which has been proven already by the '77 Sil.

[The Saucepan Man]

(The relevance of the title will not be apparent until the end of this post.)

Fordim

Your story is fascinating, although I would question the merit of providing such an analysis, even one pitched at a general level, at a bunch of people who have not yet read the primary text. Even though it might inspire them to go and read the book, it is difficult to see how being told about the themes and sources underlying Tolkien's works can be of any benefit to them when they have no (or limited) knowledge of the works themselves. On the other hand, if they were interested enough to choose to attend, then I suppose (on the basis of my own reasoning with davem) there must be some value in it to them.

But I think that your old lady does highlight a risk inherent in the exercise. It seems to me that you pretty much hit the nail on the head when you described it as breaking the enchantment (ensorcelment?) before the spell has even been cast. For many, perhaps even for everybody, the enchantment arises when they first read the text themselves, free from any externally derived influences concerning it. It seems to me that this lady was wise enough to recognise this herself. But we will never know whether (and if so how) the other attendees might react differently to the book when they read it than they would have done if they had not been privy to this background information in advance.

For someone who has already read LotR and then chooses to go on to read more widely concerning Tolkien and his works, I think that the position is different. As I said in response to a point raised by Helen (somewhere back on the first page, I think), that initial enchantment will still be part of their experience, even though it may develop into something slightly different as they work through the secondary materials.

Davem

Thank you for clarifying your position on the published Silmarillion. Nevertheless, had you had access to the UT and HoME papers and been acquainted with Christopher Tolkien prior to its publication, wouldn't you be saying precisely the same thing to him as you are saying to Maedhros and co now? Prior to its compilation and publication, it too was one of a potential "series of Silms". And yet, from your current perspective, ie here and now, you regard it as incredibly important.

It seems to me that everyone here who has sought to defend the "Revised Silmarillion" project (whether they are involved in the project themselves or not) has said much the same thing, namely that it is a worthwhile exercise because it has value to those involved in its creation and it will no doubt be of interest, and therefore of value, to others when complete. You recognise the former (its value to its creators), but appear not to accept the latter (its potential value to others).

I suspect that you are trying to work through your own feelings about it. You may be persuaded by some of the arguments being put forward, but then again you may not. You may ultimately decide that it really does have no subjective value to you. But you surely cannot deny its value (or potential value at least) on an objective level.

As for your "two way communication with Tolkien" idea, I am not familiar with the Lost Road and Notion Club papers, so I cannot comment on them. But I would disagree that I am under any obligation to "disprove" it. As the proposer of the theory, the burden of proof is upon you to establish it. :p ;) And as yet I remain far from convinced. Perhaps it would help if you clarified exactly how you regard it as a two way conversation given that conversation is an active process whereby each participant reacts to the views put forward by the other paticipant(s). I can see how Tolkien might be talking to me from the grave when I read his works, but how is he reacting to my own views and interpretations? And, if he is not reacting to them, how can he truly be described as playing an active (and therefore living) role?

Finally, at the risk of inducing further complexity into this discussion, may I take the liberty of introducing an additional theme? It was one which occured to me late last night after I had logged off, when I caught sight of a spider in the bath. I have never been fond of spiders and, as I gazed at it, I experienced a feeling of primordial fear (no doubt intensified by my drowsiness). It got me to thinking about archetypes and shared experience. I think it was davem who mentioned that Jung was no doubt lurking around the edges of this discussion somewhere. And Jung's ideas concerning archetypes have been applied to Tolkien's works, LotR in particular, which is hardly surprising given how heavily he drew on ancient mythology. LotR is itself a kind of "Hero Myth" replete with Jungian archetypes.

Now I am certain that these ideas have been raised and discussed elsewhere on this forum, but I was wondering how they might impact upon one of the central themes in this thread, namely our approach towards the interpretation of Tolkien's works. Does the presence of these archetypes from our shared experience (collective consciousness?) mean that there will be a level upon which we will all react to these materials in the same way, just as spiders evoke in all of us at some level a feeling of revulsion, if not fear? Does this mean that there may in fact be a "right" approach towards interpreting Tolkien at some level?

As will be clear from the clumsy way in which I have raised this idea, it is not something upon which I have a great breadth of knowledge. I was once very interested in Jung's ideas but it is a long time since I last studied them, so I am simply raising the point for possible further discussion. And I am sure that there are others out there who are far better qualified than me to expand on this theme and consider whether (and if so how) it might be relevant to the topic at hand (*looks appealingly at Bêthberry* ;) ).

[Maédhros]

Myself being involved in the Revised Silmarillion Project do not feel at all attacked by any post in this thread. There are persons who feel that what we do have a purpose, and there are those who doesn't. I'm ok with that. Both opinions are valid of course.
For me personally, I have learned a lot that normally I wouldn't if I had not being involved in this project and that is a plus for me. (I think that this may apply to all of the members) Most of the discussions that occur in that place of the forum are really interesting, in a more scholarly way than those of the normal book section.
I don't think that it is precisely truth that only the people involved directly in the project would get a benefit.
I have given copies of a chapter that I'm working on to other people outside the project, and some have come up with a greater appreciation of that particular story, some have not even bother to read them. There are persons that because of that chapter have begun to wonder more about the story than if they wouldn't have read the copy.
Our purpose has never been a Publication of it, I just do it for fun. We thought that we could post it in the open forum here, unfortunately that won't be possible, the Tolkien estate will not allow that.
Would we ever finish such a project? I don't know.

[davem]

Saucepan man

I think the '77 Sil is important, because I think its useful to have that kind of 'synopsis' for those who want it. But I think it could also be seen as a kind of 'primer'. Beyond those things a 'Silmarillion' of any academic value cannot be put together, IMO, because there never was a completed Sil & there never would have been, because what Tolkien wanted a Sil to do changed too often & too quickly for him ever to bring one to completion before he found himself wanting another kind of Sil. I can't see any evidence that Tolkien had a clear sense at any point in his creative career of exactly what the Silmarillion was supposed to be. He began with an idea of the kind of thing he wanted, but, as i said, before it could be completed his idea had changed. As for any academic value it may have - I can see it having some curiosity value, but there is a danger of it creating the false impression among new readers that this 'perfect' Sil would one day have existed - if only Tolkien had had the time to write it. Tolkien's creative life was a process, but it wasn't a process of evolving a single vision & setting it down - though it may look like that to us, looking back on his life's work. The vision changed, though the settings & characters were kept - at least their surface appearance was. As i said, there wasn't one Galadriel - there were at least two, very different characters. Same with Gollum. Same with Sauron.

And Gandalf - Gandalf (1) (from the Hobbit) is by no means the same character as Gandalf(2) (from LotR) & both are different from Gandalf(3) (the figure from the later writings - ie 'Of the Rings of Power & the Third Age'). but if you put together a 'revised Sil' which presents Gandalf (1)(2)&(3) as a single character by removing all the contradictions between accounts, then what you end up with is Gandalf(4) who is not a character created by Tolkien, but by the revisers.

Oh, the 'conversation' is not between you & a Tolkien beyond the grave, but between a living you & a living Tolkien both existing at different places in space-time. The point is that the Tolkien telling the stories is alive when he tells them (or writes them down) & you are alive when you read them, so the communication takes place living mind to living mind, over a distance in space-time. The text is not 'alive', it is the means of communication. Interestingly this is one of the means of communication between 'past-present-future' which is used in Notion Club Papers, along with dream & language. And as for two way communication - maybe some of the fanfics & ideas which spring to mind when we discuss or think about Tolkien's works - are not our own :eek:

(And for anyone who hasn't got this yet - this is a bit like the 'Trotter' story - a 'fanfic' using ideas from Tolkien's writings in order to explore the idea of 'canonicity' from a slightly different angle')

I think you may have a point re 'archetypal' ideas & images in Tolkien's work which spark a response in us as we read - though I wouldn't think it was as straightforward as I've just expressed. Tolkien did say that he felt he hadn't 'made it all up' - so he felt he was tapping into something (across space-time :eek: ). If that something :eek: has some kind of 'objective' (psychological)existence - ie relating to the Collective rather than personal unconscious, then its possible that our feelings of what's 'right' & waht's 'wrong' in Tolkien's works come from there.

Maedhros I

'm relieved that you haven't taken any offence from my posts - absolutely none was intended. My quarrel is with the idea, not with you guys. As I've said, if being involved has deepened your appreciation & understanding of Tolkien, that's great.

[The Saucepan Man]

And Gandalf - Gandalf (1) (from the Hobbit) is by no means the same character as Gandalf(2) (from LotR) Oh but they are the same to me. I am able to reconcile them in my mind. Am I "re-inventing" Gandalf? Yes, I suppose I am to a degree. But isn't that what the reader is supposed to do: interpret the character from the words provided in the text?


And for anyone who hasn't got this yet - this is a bit like the 'Trotter' story - a 'fanfic' using ideas from Tolkien's writings in order to explore the idea of 'canonicity' from a slightly different angle' Well then, since they are your ideas based upon what Tolkien wrote, they surely have no academic value. :p ;)

[Bêthberry]

Just to make something perfectly clear, ;) davem I was not suggesting that you were flaming anyone or engaging in personal attacks. My great hesitation was with the way you reiterated that your definition of worth was the only one tenable and that the entire project could only be made legitimate by recourse to a final, ultimately 'authentic' 'authoritative' source, even after, it seemed to me, there were compelling arguments not only as to the value of the project for many and also about the legitimacy of literary activity as process regardless of 'end result.' I was in fact questioning your aim as much as you questioned that of the project. ;)

As for any academic value it may have - I can see it having some curiosity value, but there is a danger of it creating the false impression among new readers that this 'perfect' Sil would one day have existed - if only Tolkien had had the time to write it.


I would question the kind of thinking which is predicated upon fears of perceived misreading. How can we reject ideas and projects on the basis of perceived or alleged or anticipated effects in future readers? Surely, if the point is to engage in literary discussion to develop our minds rather than to find our own personal point of view established over that of others, then the answer to your concerns is to engage in the kind of discussion which would teach readers how to guard against this when reading. New readers think this is what Tolkien would have produced? An opportunity to explore his process further. This is the value of misreadings; they engender further discussion. Surely the only false or wrong interpretation is that which denies the possibility of further discussion.

This being the case (and I can see some might want to refute this kind of argument), why discredit a project simply because it might be poorly understood?

[Aiwendil]

davem wrote:
I can't see that putting together 'fragments' of LotR, if that was all that existed, would serve any purpose, beyond satisfying some disire in the person who put it together. And if those fragments were from different versions of the story, & differed in sometimes major ways in the story they told, then you could at best only end up with a general sense of the story - you wouldn't end up with a work of art - unless the person doing the constructing (could we even call it 're-constructing' if there had never been a complete version of it?) was an artist - & then it would be their work - not Tolkien's.


There are, I think, two things to say to this.

First, I don't see any fundamental reason that the published The Lord of the Rings might not, in some alternate history, have been compiled by someone out of diverse texts. Indeed, it has been noted that the early parts of the book differ considerably in tone from the later; this makes such an alternate history all the more plausible. Would The Lord of the Rings be worthless if this were its origin? I don't think so. The value of the book has nothing to do with whence it came; it lies in the book itself. You may object that a work like LotR could never have been compiled out of miscellaneous texts and notes. I don't think that's correct; but we could take the thought experiment further and imagine that the book is altered in certain ways to make the alternate history more plausible. Suppose that Tolkien had given up before his final revisions, and had left the original drafts of most of the book V and book VI chapters as the latest extant. Now our hypothetical scholar puts together a continuous narrative out of these texts. It is different from the real-world LotR. Is it worthless? Sure, as compared to the real-world version it may have weak writing in some passages and in certain details it won't be refined. But would a few changes for the worse to The Lord of the Rings really make it utterly worthless? I think not. Perhaps you think so, and thence stems our disagreement, but I would guess that most people would count the thing as having at least some value.

My second point: you say that the construction would not be a "work of art", or if it were, it would not be Tolkien's. As for the first bit, I fail to see how it could be anything other than a work of art. Any continuous narrative is a work of literature. It may be a very bad work of literature, but that doesn't disqualify it from the medium. As for the second: well, yes, it would not exactly be Tolkien's work of art. Nor would it quite be the constructor's. I see no problem with that. The premise is that the work of art will have value in itself, not value derived from its authorship.

I fear that you will disagree with this premise, in which case we're back into an old argument I've had with others in this very forum regarding the nature of art, and I think that there would be little more we could say to each other on the matter without it devolving into a contest of axioms.

Your 'rules' for what you will & will not allow into a 'revised' Sil seem simply arbitrary.

They are! That was part of what I meant to get across with all my ranting about possible Silmarillions. With respect to the whole network of texts that constitute the source material, they are completely arbitrary.

Of course, we did not choose them arbitrarily - but that is a completely different question. We chose them so that they conformed more or less to the logic of the published Silmarillion, the logic of what is often naively called "canon". So, for example, we prefer later texts to earlier ones. Is there any reason that this principle is superior to any other? No. None at all.

When you speak of taking Galadriel (1) & Galadriel (2) & producing 'something new' I can only see this as an admission that what you're doing is not revising but re-writing (if not reinventing entirely) 'The Silmarillion'.


I don't see the utility of making delicate distinctions between revising, rewriting, reinventing, and whatever else we may come up with. I don't care, quite frankly, which one of those three we are doing. Nor do I care about the semantics of "the same character" and "different characters with the same name" and "the same character with different names", etc., etc.

If the purpose is not to try & construct a 'canonical' or 'definitive', or 'best of a bad job' Sil, then what is the point?

An important distinction needs to be made. We do not claim to be constructing a "canonical" or "definitive" Silmarillion. We do, however, aim to produce as "good" a final product as we can. "Good" is here, necessarily, both vague and subjective. Maybe (well, certainly) you won't think that the final product is "better" than the published Silmarillion. Maybe I will. To be quite honest, all that I really care about is how good I think it is in the end.

What I see is libraries full of 'versions' of the Sil - & I can only see that making more & more people feel like the lady Fordim has just described to us.


Insofar as your objection to a New Silmarillion is really a practical objection, I think I ought to be able to put your mind at ease. Our version will never be found in a library. It will never be sold. It will never be published. It will hardly ever be read, save by those who are working on it.

I'm sorry if my saying the project is pointless has upset anyone

It certainly hasn't upset me.

Beyond those things a 'Silmarillion' of any academic value cannot be put together

Again, this makes me think that our disagreement really comes down to an underlying one regarding the nature of art. I do not claim that a new Silmarillion will have any academic value. Only UT and HoMe have academic value. But I do not think that literary value is the same thing. I think that literary value has solely to do with the aesthetic pleasure one has on experiencing (in this case, reading from beginning to end) a coherent work of art.

Incidentally, in case anyone's interested, the threads I alluded to wherein can be found some rather long-winded debates concerning the nature of literature and of art in general are Book of the Century? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=171&page=1),The Tolkien Template (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1362&page=1), and Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=2085&page=1)

[Novnarwen]

Okay, I had every intention of replying to your question yesterday, Saucepan Man, but 'providence' wanted it otherwise.

Anyway, here it goes:
In your post, post 117, you say:

Quote: from Saucepan Man's post:

I think that the term "Eruism" may be misleading, as it implies an awareness of Eru, which was my bone of contention with Fordim in the first place. And that awareness will not come from a reading of LotR alone. I would prefer to use the term "providence", since it seems to me to be clearly implied in many parts, from the comments of Gandalf, Elrond and others, that providence of some sort is at work. So, basically what you're saying is that Providence and Eruism are the same thing? But you only choose to refer to Erusim as Providence since 'Eru' isn't mentioned in LOTR and therefore Eruism would be misleading?

Okay, that's just fine, I think.. I must ask you, though, to tell me if you think Providence is controlled by a higher Power, in this case Eru; as we are talking about the sub-created world..?

Quote: From Saucepan Man's post
:
But, taken together with the references mentioned above, it is surely implied that there is something more at work here than mere fortuity. The reader may only be aware of this on a subconscious level (as was the case, I think, with me the first few times that I read it). But, if it was not there, this scene would just not feel "right". As Fordim put it, we would feel cheated. If the Quest, which has been central to the story, was fulfilled by pure chance, it would not be at all satisfactory. However, I am sure that no one who has read and enjoyed the book would describe this resolution as unsatisfactory, even if they did not consciously analyse how and why it happened. Rather they would say that it "felt right". And how could it feel right if it was simply an accident? That last sentence is, well, confusing. I disagree with you here, because I get the impression that you feel that the whole point in the book would be lost if the Fall of Gollum indeed was an accident.

So, an accident wouldn't according to you be 'right', but Providence would?

Providence as all other things is controlled, or at least that is my opinion. God in our world, (for those who believe in God) and Eru in M-E, (for those who accept him as the Creator of Middle-Earth.) But the thing I don't get, is how you can say that the fall wouldn't be satisfying if it was an accident. Why not? According to my online dictionary, Thesaurus, 'providence' and 'accident' can be the same thing:
From Online Thesaurus:

Function:noun
Definition: fate
Synonyms: accident, advantage, adventure, bad luck, break, cast, casualty, coincidence, contingency, destination, destiny, doom, even chance, fluke, fortuity, fortune, future, gamble, good luck, hap, haphazard, happening, hazard, hit, kismet, lot, lottery, luck out, lucky break, misfortune, occurrence, odds, outcome, peradventure, peril, providence, risk, toss-up
Concept: fate

Function:noun
Definition:fate
Synonyms: accident, break, certainty, chance, circumstances, contingency, destiny, doom, expectation, experience, fifty-fifty, fighting chance, fluke, fortuity, fortunateness, good break, hazard, history, karma, kismet, life, luck, lucked into, lucked out, luckiness, lucky break, lucky hit, portion, providence, scratch, shot, stab, star, success, toss up, whack
Concept:fate

So, let's say it was an accident. Would it really make it less satisfactionary? I mean, the word 'accident' (correct me if I'm wrong) is often used as a negative term. For example: "I'm really sorry, but I broke your vase. It was an accident, sorry!" (Bad example, but it should have to do, I think). Anyway, it's a negative term, used when you've done something 'wrong' or unintentionally, but that doesn't mean it wasn't controlled by a Higher Power. It may still be destiny, a coincidence (maybe), but also providence. So that 'something' at the end, which you referred to earlier was providence, which you insist wasn't an accident (or rather as you out it: And how could it feel right if it was simply an accident?) you're kind of (to me) contradicting yourself. Are you?

I must admit, when first readig the book, I didn't really think of 'Gollum's Fall' other than an accident; a bitter end for a terrible dancer. But still, I thought the book and the end very satisfying. Little things, such as 'Gollum's fall', doesn't mean that it isn't 'good enough'. Little things, may be the only things which really matter in the end. Personally, I have no problems with the 'Gollum-falls-into-the-fire-of-Orodruin-by-accident', because even though it was an accident (or not), it was supposed to happen, it was as you put it: providence, and I have to accept that.

Anyway, to do a short summery of what I have been trying to say in this post: An accident, (I think) is also providence as both are controlled by some Higher Power, in this case Eru. So, if an accident is Providence, how would not an accident seem like a satisfying end of the one Ruling Ring? How can we say that accidents are not as much forsighted as any other event?

(I realise that there have been some posting during my time here, writing (and eating..:D ), so, I know that there is something else going on as well. I just had to reply to Saucepan Man's question. )

Cheers,
Nova

[Findegil]

Since others have explained the reasons, which we had to undertake the project of the "Revised Silmarillion" better than I could have done, I only will add some info on the project that might still be missing:
One part of the project will be a large appendix. In addition to the rules, which would be laid bar, it, will contain the full source information for each chapter in particular and the complete project as a whole. Beside that it will give a short summary of the arguments we made in the discussions over the more arcane points in the texts and the conclusions we made in the end.
The reason for us to provide that appendix (which to produce will be a work of nearly as great effort than the text of the "Revised Silmarillion" is in it self) was exactly what davem put forward as his concerns about the effect of our work on "new readers". This concerns I can fully understand and I do share them. But they do apply even more to The Silmarillion published in 1977 by Christopher Tolkien. So I can't see how our work (even if it would be published, which is every think between more than completely unlikely and impossible) would enhance this "danger of it creating the false impression".
It might be (and I think that will happen in the end) that this appendix would be for many (imagined) readers of our work of greater value than the text it self. But to produce that appendix the text is clearly needed. Thus it is right that the project might be of much more value than the product it is aiming at, and I think most of the members do recognise that fact. But without the goal we are aiming at the project would not be in existents at all, and that alone would give the goal a value even if only for members of the project.

About the value to no members: I am very happy that even davem "can see it having some curiosity value". Isn't it that "curiosity value" that will in the first place make as read any book of fiction?
That the result of our project will not have any "academic value" beyond the point of being a collection of selected and arranged source material is absolutely clear to me and hopefully to any other member of the project.

Respectfully
Findegil

[davem]

Saucepan Man

Well, if the Gandalf of the Hobbit & the Gandalf of LotR are the 'same', just try swapping them over. I don't think you can change a character in a story wthout changing the story itself - the character is not seperate from the tale he or she inhabits - hence the 1st ed Hobbit is a different story from the revised Hobbit, because the encounter with Gollum is changed by the substitution of Gollum (2) for Gollum (1). The Hobbit instantly becomes the prequel to LotR. They are different stories, with different aims & a different momentum by the change in Gollum's character.

I never said that my 'fanfic' had any academic value. I was playing a game - taking an idea from the Tolkien 'canon' - the stories in which it appeared are set in 'this' world, & Tolkien uses it himself in Mythopoea - transmission of ideas/experiences across time, but from one living mind to another living mind, & expanding it to encompass the idea of the transmission of 'canonical' ideas within Tolkien's 'mythos'. It is a kind of 'Lost Road' fanfic in that sense. So, the premise of the' story' is that a writer, alive & well at one point in time, can communicate, mentally, with a reader at another point in time, by means of a printed text, as we communicate across space via the web. This is a 'fanfic' within the limits of the Legendarium - it is not an 'alternate universe' idea - even if the stories that inspired it are less well known to readers. We have a case of 'living shapes that move from mind to mind'. At the same time, it steps 'outside' the invented world of the Legendarium, by making the author of the Legendarium, & we as readers, into 'characters' in the fiction. Yet at the same time, it is within the Legendarium, as it makes use of the ideas on which the legendarium is based, & uses the rules by which the Legendarium operates. In other words, it amalgamates (in a stumbling way) the two alternatives set up in this thread - the book or the reader, in order to explore with the whole idea of 'canonicity' , what it means & what its effects are on our freedom as co-creators, & what limits, if any, it imposes.

Bethberry

Quote:'My great hesitation was with the way you reiterated that your definition of worth was the only one tenable and that the entire project could only be made legitimate by recourse to a final, ultimately 'authentic' 'authoritative' source, even after, it seemed to me, there were compelling arguments not only as to the value of the project for many and also about the legitimacy of literary activity as process regardless of 'end result.' I was in fact questioning your aim as much as you questioned that of the project.'

I wasn't saying that my definition was the only one tenable. - though I accept it may have come across that way. Of course, if there is no final, 'authentic' authoritative source, then any value a 'revised' Silmarillion has will be a matter of personal opinion, rather than it having any objective or even academic worth. And if, in order to create it (as opposed to re-creating it - it cannot be recreated because it never existed) one has to cut sizeable chunks from the original sources then it seems to me that it cannot tell us anything -one could construct an 'archetypal' greek vase from sherds from hundreds of different vases, but would the resulting object be anything more than a curiosity - & couldn't it be argued that by breaking bits off the individual sherds to make them fit together, one had done more harm than good, simply in order to create an object that had never actually existed? I'd say that was a pointless exercise, even if I knew that the person who did it was a decent guy, with his heart in the right place, & wouldn't mean it as a personal attack ;) In fact, I'd question the danger of that vase misleading the public into thinking Greek vases were like that. The idea behind the project, as I understand it, is to somehow produce a 'better' Silmarillion than the one CT has given us. But I can't see how it can be better - unless one knoked together 'Greek' vase can be said to be 'better' than another knocked together 'Greek' vase. The only way to judge which was better would be to judge on aesthetic grounds - but you woouldn't be judging which was the 'better' vase, only which was a more pleasant object to look at, & the 'Greekness' of the objects would play no part in that decision - unless you also judged on how intact the pieces were which had been used to construct the relative vases - & if that was your criteria for judgement, then the original sherds would be best of all, in the shape you found them, & they would certainly tell you more about the Ancient Greek individuals & society that produced the originals from which you'd cobbled your 'ideal' versions together.

Its the inevitable 'falseness' of the result of trying to construct a 'single' Galadriel, or Gandalf in this way, let alone a 'single' version of the fall of Gondolin which grates with me. I think its a serious mistake, & will inevitably create a false impression in readers, which will, as you imply, need to be countered - & would not need to be countered if this revised Sil didn't exist. As far as I'm concerned its a dead end, & a much more fruitful field of research would be found in attempting to understand the individual stories, & what the author was attempting to say. It seems to me he is saying very different things to us in FoG & in Tuor, & taking some bits from one & some bits from others - as you might with historical accounts of an event, in order to try & discover what 'really' happened - in order to produce a 'truer' or more 'accurate' account of the History of Gondolin will lead you to miss what Tolkien is saying in those two very different stories. Gondolin is not Troy. The real danger is that we do throw out the author, by pretending there wasn't one. One of the most significant statements in this regard in the whole of HoME is in the introduction to vol 12:

'Since the ceaseless 'making' of his world extended from my father's youth into his old age, The History of Middle Earth is in some sense also a record of his life,a form of biography (my italics), if of a very unusual kind. He had travelled a long road.'

Which is the point - the whole Legendarium is a 'biography' of his inner life. A story such as FoG in BoLT cannot be seen as simply an early version of Tuor - or vice versa, so, they cannot be run together with any real hope of producing anything of more than curiosity value - & while I accept that others find it worthwhile, I still, after all the opposing arguments, cannot see anything of value (& I speak here only for myself) in doing it. CT realised the mistake of making a 'Silmarillion' only after he'd completed & published it. My own feeling is that those involved in the revised Sil project will realise he was right when they've finished what they're doing.

Of course, as I have said before, I may be wrong!

Findegil

Sorry, but it seems to me that your 'revised Sil' with the massive appendix will be very large & confusing, & that it will only appeal to those who have read HoME, & will have formed their own opinions about what should & shouldn't be there anyway. I honestly don't get the point of it, & I'm afraid all the explanations of yourself, Awendil & Maedhros have not made the idea behind it any clearer for me. I just can't see this 'fox' you're all chasing. What will this 'Silmarillion' be for, what will you, or anyone else, actually do with it when its finished, that they couldn't do without it? Is it, as Aiwendil seems to think, a literary work, or as you seem to think, an academic work? Is it designed to enchant readers or to inform students? Are you Schliemanns or Homers? or is it to be Homer annotated by Schliemann?

Aiwendil

I hope I've covered most of your points in the foregoing - we seem to have posted at the same time. One thing though, I don't think the 'multiple Galadriel's (& Gandalfs & Gollums) is merely 'semantics'. They are different characters - as I've pointed out Galadriel (2) is not an exile in ME, Galadriel (1) is, & their stories, & more importantly, their motivations are different. It seems to me that this points up the problem I find with your whole approach - this idea that there is a 'coherent' Sil to be dug out from among all these different texts from different periods in Tolkien's life. Of course, you could construct one - maybe an interesting one - maybe even produce a masterpiece - but it would be your 'masterpiece', not Tolkien's. And that would be of relevance to your fans, not Tolkien's.

Your example of fragments of LotR being put together doesn't work for me - it wasn't a bunch of fragments - it was the work of a man with something specific he wished to communicate. And that's the point - however faithful you try to be, you can't know his mind, or his intent, you can only guess at it, & your guess is as likely to be wrong as right (unless he can communicate with you across space time :eek: )

[HerenIstarion]

davem:

Its the inevitable 'falseness' of the result of trying to construct a 'single' Galadriel, or Gandalf

Same advise as before: try to place yourself inside, stop judging from outside: Gandalf of the Hobbit is seen through Bilbo's eyes, Gandalf of LoTR is retold by Frodo, and Gandalf of later accoutns probably by Pengolodh

When I grow older, loosing my hair, forty (I hope more, but who can tell?) years from now... and clutching my inevitable Nobel Prize will pass away, some dude, likewise inevitably, will want to write my biography. The best way would be to question people who knew me whilst I still walked this side of turnpike. But he will hardly find two people who will recall me exactly alike. Some think I'm decent chap with the heart in the right place, some think I'm a prick, some I'm smart, and some I'm dumb. And poor dude will be forced to roll down all of their accounts into some 'historical H-I' in case he still wishes to go on with teh biography by the time, for I may be all of the four indeed - I react to different people differently, and even if I were to react in precisely the same way, their preception differs too. That's why I do not find several allegedly different Gandalfs and Galadriels such a complication.

[HerenIstarion]

Another thing - it would be good to take a look at The Tolkien Template - Carrying on the torch of mythology and folklore (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=1362&page=1&pp=40), Canon and Fanfiction - imagination vs respect (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=1908) and The Canon (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=2467) too :)

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

One thing though, I don't think the 'multiple Galadriel's (& Gandalfs & Gollums) is merely 'semantics'. They are different characters - as I've pointed out Galadriel (2) is not an exile in ME, Galadriel (1) is, & their stories, & more importantly, their motivations are different.

It is semantics because it depends entirely upon your definition of "characters". Your Galadriel (1) and your Galadriel (2) differ in certain ways and are similar in others. On the most basic level, that's all there is to be said. There's no need to argue about how to translate those differences into a proposition using the word "character".

The rest of what you said has convinced me that our disagreement really is fundamentally a disagreement about what art is. You say:

Of course, you could construct one - maybe an interesting one - maybe even produce a masterpiece - but it would be your 'masterpiece', not Tolkien's. And that would be of relevance to your fans, not Tolkien's.

Well, it would not exactly be "my masterpiece" simpliciter. Nor, of course, would it be "Tolkien's masterpiece" simpliciter. Most likely, all its virtues would be Tolkien's and all its deficiencies mine. But the real point is that where I would talk of a "work of art", you would talk of "X's work of art". As I said before, our objective is not to create a canonical Tolkien text. It does not matter to me whether you call the thing "Tolkien's work" or "Aiwendil's work" or anything else. The idea is that the thing has value in itself, without reference to its authorship.

I would guess (and I must confess that I have not kept up with the various other sub-threads going on here) that you consider a work of literature to be fundamentally an expression of its author, a sort of message or communication from author to reader. This is the prevalent view in modern literary criticism.

I, on the other hand, consider the chief importance of a work of art to be that work of art itself.

Again, I talked about this view in some depth in those other threads I mentioned. To return to that argument here would veer significantly off-topic.

I have, by the way, rather enjoyed my (limited) participation in this thread.

[The Saucepan Man]

Novnarwen

My starting position on this particular aspect of this thread was that the reader was free to interpret Gollum’s fall as an accident if he was unaware of the existence of Eru when he read LotR. My reasoning was based upon my own perception of it as an accident when I first read the book. But, on considering the points made by Fordim Hedgethistle, it occurred to me that I had subconsciously accepted that Gollum’s fall was “meant to be”, even though I hadn’t analysed it in that way on a conscious level.

And you seem to come to the same conclusion as me, when you say:


Personally, I have no problems with the 'Gollum-falls-into-the-fire-of-Orodruin-by-accident', because even though it was an accident (or not), it was supposed to happen, it was as you put it: providence, and I have to accept that. Your confusion over my post appears to arise from our differing definition of the terms “accident” and “providence”. You regard them as basically describing the same concept, whereas I am using them (rightly or wrongly) to convey two entirely different concepts. In using the term “accident”, I am talking about an event that occurs purely by chance and chance alone. And by “providence” I mean an event that occurs as a result of the intervention of some “Higher power” (as you put it), an event that is “meant to be” by that “Higher Power”.

For me, if something is “meant to be”, it cannot be accidental. It must be “providential” (in the sense that I am, for current purposes, using it). If I really had considered Gollum’s fall to be “accidental” (ie something which occurred purely by chance), I wouldn’t have found the resolution of the Quest to be at all satisfying. But, because I subconsciously accepted that it was “meant to be”, I didn’t have that problem.


Providence as all other things is controlled, or at least that is my opinion. God in our world, (for those who believe in God) and Eru in M-E, (for those who accept him as the Creator of Middle-Earth.) I agree, save that this thing that we are calling “providence” should, for me, be wide enough to admit any number of possible ways of imagining what the “Higher Power” that is behind the providential event actually is. That is why I am not entirely comfortable with the word “providence” to describe this concept, although I have not come up with a better term.


So, an accident wouldn't according to you be 'right', but Providence would? Yes, in the sense that providence (or whatever we call it) is sufficiently inherent in the text to become a part of it. The reader is free to deny it, but to do so would be “wrong” in the same way that it would be “wrong” to deny that Boromir attempted to seize the Ring from Frodo.

Davem


Well, if the Gandalf of the Hobbit & the Gandalf of LotR are the 'same', just try swapping them over. When I said that they are the same, I meant that Gandalf is the same person in both the Hobbit and LotR. I am aware that his character is portrayed slightly different in each book. Aiwendil has explained how this might be reconciled by reference to the fiction that the two stories were authored by different sub-created authors. There are other ways of achieving this reconciliation. For example, we might say that Gandalf acted differently in the two stories because he was faced with different circumstances and/or because he was not yet ready to reveal the full extent of his nature and powers to any but the wise. But, for me, it is sufficient that Tolkien intended LotR as a sequel to the Hobbit and so clearly intended that your “G1” and “G2” be one and the same person.


I never said that my 'fanfic' had any academic value. I was being flippant. But I think that you are selling yourself short. Your “game” might well have some academic value if, as you say it, you are using it:


... to explore with the whole idea of 'canonicity' , what it means & what its effects are on our freedom as co-creators, & what limits, if any, it imposes.

It seems to me that the debate over the “Revised Silmarillion” project has been taken about as far as it can go, since the same arguments are now starting to feature, albeit in different form and by reference to different examples. I am not sure that either “side” is going to convince the other of the merits of their position.

Now, anyone care to take up by “Jungian gauntlet”? :)

[davem]

Aiwendil

I think Saucepan Man is probably right in that the 'revised' Sil discussion has gone as far as it can - We do disagree on our ideas of 'Art' because for me a work of art is the expression of certain ideas by a particular artist. Our understandings of what, exactly, Tolkien's 'art' was 'for' or what it 'means' also seems to differ. I can't for the life of me see a 'coherent' Sil, constructed from bits & pieces of different stories written over a period of 50 odd years, giving any insight into the artist himself or the creative process involved.

And in a way this brings us to Saucepan Man's 'Jungian Gauntlet'.

Aiwendil & the others involved in the RS project seem to be thinking in terms of an 'Archetypal' Middle Earth, which has some kind of 'objective' existence in some other kind of 'reality', which Tolkien himself was attempting to set out in as perfect a form as he could - he got 'flashes' of the truth here & there, but not in every story he wrote, so its simply a matter of studying the texts, finding the 'true' parts, whether they are in Bolt, QN, QS, LotR, Hobbit, or 'Myths Transformed, & putting those 'true' parts together & constructing the truth about this alternate world. If we could do that, they seem to think (unless I'm completely misunderstanding them - as I've admitted I probably am, because their reasons for doing what they're doing still don't make sense to me) we will end up with a 'truer' vision of Middle Earth than we have so far.

The question is, are we dealing with such a case - does ME have an 'objective' existence of that kind, or are the writings the product of Tolkien's 'personal' unconscious, using Archetypal images & themes? Probably the Legendarium is a combination of the two - at least Tolkien himself believed he was not 'inventing'. But he is not simply 'channeling' tales from an alternate/objective (psychological) 'reality' unquestioningly, as he also states that the in the revision of LotR he deliberately worked to make the story conform to Catholicism. Of course, we don't know how hard he worked to make it conform.

If it is the case that Tolkien was in touch with some archetypal 'other world' then to the extent that we ourselves are able to tap into that archetypal (& if that 'reality' is truly Archetypal, we should be able to) then we would have a sense of what was 'true' & what was not, & so we could produce a 'true' account of the History of that World. But... We are then throwing out Tolkien the artist. He becomes simply a pioneer, the 'first' explorer of that world. We would then be in the position of following him & 'colonising' this 'New World', confirming some of his 'discoveries' & rejecting others as false or mistaken. Yet H-I would have us think in terms of all the different versions/accounts of that world as being in some sense equally valid, coming from different people at different times, each with their own value system & agenda.

So far so good. But if this is the approach we are to take, then it is entirely possible that another 'explorer' of Middle Earth, you, I, or those involved in the RS project, could disprove one of the 'pioneer' Tolkien's discoveries, show one of his accounts to be wrong, & we would have to accept this explorer's account over Tolkien's, as being a 'truer' account. So 'canonicity' goes out the window, as we replace that idea with one of 'true' or 'false'. In that case, a work of Fanfic which contradicted Tolkien's writings would not, should not , be automatically rejected, as the writer may be right & Tolkien wrong. And then we will get factions arising, denominations forming, heresy trials & possibly writers as well as texts being consigned to the flames ;)

Or we can see the Legendarium, unfinished & incomplete as it is (much though we might wish it wasn't - & personally, I like the fact that it isn't complete, or set in stone ;) ) as the work of one individual artist, attempting to share his unique vision with us, & simply accept the vision itself, without concerning ourselves overmuch with what inspired the vision. Whether the 'world' Tolkien saw & presented to us as Middle Earth is 'another reality' (whther an 'inner' or an 'outer' reality is not really the issue) & is as he has depicted it (when he was 'successful') or whether it is merely this 'reality', our own, mundane world, seen 'through enchanted eyes', is in the end beside the point. The vision itself is what enchants, not the world it is a vision of.

So 'canon' comes second to enchantment, & the vision is more important than what is 'actually' seen. But that 'vision' is the vision of a single artist, & it encompasses what that artist has been able to include, at different times, from different 'angles' with many differing reasons over his long life, for what he chose to look at, & how he was able to see it.

As to my fanfic 'game', its difficult to play alone, but the more I think about the implications of it, the more intriguing it seems, I must admit.

[HerenIstarion]

davem, you are very inspiring poster :)

Saucepen, depsite what you've posted about canon, and though I may be repeating myself a bit, I would be glad to have an opportunity to clarify my position some more

I probably failed to communicate this, and maybe it is the try to eat the cake and have it (or may be you are exaggerating a bit too), but was I driving at was more or less what follows:

A) Tolkien's world is Tolkien's entirely
B) Any writing of Tolkien's is canon
C) No other writing is canon

But, having in mind those three maxims, the accounts inside the scope of those may contradict each other, and yet all be valid. All one needs to do is place oneself inside the story.

So I was in no way implying that other 'explorers' can disprove what 'first pioneer' have said about the world. But if one is to suspend his disbelief (which is an easy task with Tolkien), and place oneself inside the secondary world as 'found out" by Tolkien, than all rules that work in our primary world are perfectly intact inside the secondary one. We may argue that Gandalf of the Hobbit is truer than one of the LoTR, or vice versa, but it would be similar to, say, our choice between intepretations of some event as broadcast by different news stations, and matter of taste and reasoning grounded on it, like in our primary world I tend to prefer BBC broadcast over CNN, but I realise that neither of those gives really true account of what happened, for there may be countless other accounts catching some other angles of it. But, I do not go to the opposite and and do not say by it that any of those accounts is entirely untrue. With Tolkien, the whole evaluation process is inside the secondary world, otherwise processes are similar.

And, as I've said already, the secondary world is defined by what Tolkien have wrought. Inside this, we are free to work out truer versions of anything for ourselves, but are not allowed to add something from outside. So, the bark eaters, which do not originate from what Tolkien himslef wrote, can not be credible but in fanfiction, but, given source material we have, what can be 'revised' and 'combined' out of it can be.

What would be the value of such a 'revised' thing? The same as any broadcast has. Or any history primer has. For it is understood that no primer reflects history as it really happened. And it can be argued that one primer is therefore enough, but primers are written and published dozens by year.

Take the much discussed providence for instance – our research of the case is limited by what is given inside the texts by Tolkien. Some interpret it this way, and some other, but in any argument they are forced to lean on their sources – i.e., by what Tolkien said about the subject. I can not have a valid argument if I say it is drawn directly from the ME as I have had a vision of it in a dream last night (however archetypal my vision may have been, or even if I try to convince you that it was like to experience of Notion Club Papers, and I have been in communion with Elendil himself who have told me so and so), but have to give you an excerpt from the text which is known to be written by Tolkien himself. Those are my limitation, but we all are free to interpret our sources in different way. This is our freedom.

Or, to give another analogy, let us say that genuinely Tolkien texts are stones, and our interpretation is house we build out of those. There are no more stones around than what Tolkien left us, and no one can create another stone. But what house each of us will built out of given number of stones, is entirely up to ourselves.

[eLRic]

A) Tolkien's world is Tolkien's entirely
B) Any writing of Tolkien's is canon
C) No other writing is canon


About half a year ago i read 'War and Peace' by Leo Tolstoy
It is a book about Russia in the time of Alexander the Great and Napolean Bonaparte (sp?). Reading this book (comprised of 15 books) gave me the distinct impretion that most of what we learn about the french revolution is taken from french sources and that when looking at russian sources and french sources a more accurate account could be established.

At times in the book Tolstoy seems only to be stating historical events and not telling a story, and in these times (usually a chapter or 2 long) the facts are stated with such a "this is fact" tone that i got the feeling that Tolstoy had studied almost all of the sources relating to this event and come to a conclusion based on the consistancy and reliability of sources. (and all of the "facts" have footnotes referring to which source has been used). Although i do not know the history of Tolstoy's life, near the end of the book he writes on the nature of historians and the study of history that i can only assume that he himself was a learned historian.

Now the point of saying that is this... There never will be and never was a completely true account of all the events in the French Revolution but Tolstoy undertook indepth studies to establish an account that is IMO almost as close to the truth as we might ever get. And yet even after the book is written (in the books epilogue) Tolstoy does not claim that he knows the truth).

Now if we consider Tolkien's writings as sources, and apply Tolstoy's attitude, we will be able to, with indepth studies, establish an account that is almost as close to the truth about ME as we will ever get. But we will never have a completely true account and can never claim to have established one.


A) Tolkien's world is Tolkien's entirely
B) Any writing of Tolkien's is canon
C) No other writing is canon


In response:
A: This statement can not be falsified, Tolkien wrote the books didn't he
B: Tolkien was the only true witness of ME, and his writings on it are the only sources of ME we have. Nobody else could see into Tolkien's mind and witness ME.
C: No other writings are sources, they are deductions of sources.

therefore if "canon" is considered to be "a reliable source of ME" then i agree with HerenIstarion completely in these 3 maxims.

hope that helps

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:
I think Saucepan Man is probably right in that the 'revised' Sil discussion has gone as far as it can

I concur. I would just like to emphasize, though, that when you say:

I can't for the life of me see a 'coherent' Sil, constructed from bits & pieces of different stories written over a period of 50 odd years, giving any insight into the artist himself or the creative process involved.


. . . I completely agree. It will give no such insight whatsoever.

[Bêthberry]

First, an apology to anyone reading this. I attempted early this morning (before I had my coffee) to revise my post from yesterday ('sleeping on the post' did wonders for my thinking--not that I fell asleep here at the keyboard ;) ) and in the process somehow lost much of what I rewritten. And so in a fit of typerly pique, I nuked the whole thing. Let me reconstruct again.

SaucepanMan, your story about the spider brought a gleam to my eye as I remembered Jung's own dream where scarabs and flying beetles led him to develope his idea of synchroncity. However, the question you post to me and others is this:

Does the presence of these archetypes from our shared experience (collective consciousness?) mean that there will be a level upon which we will all react to these materials in the same way, just as spiders evoke in all of us at some level a feeling of revulsion, if not fear? Does this mean that there may in fact be a "right" approach towards interpreting Tolkien at some level?

I don't think the collective unconscious--which is what I think you meant here--even if there is one, would operate this way. Let me turn to some thoughts about interpretation in contemporary critical theory. I will be taking a different tact from that suggested by davem, so for now I won't comment on his observations about archetypes.

To the best of my knowledge (which is faulty on Jung I must acknowledge) there is no current critical theory on literature which uses Jungian archetypes as a metalanguage (paradigm or model) which will produce an interpretation of the material, "the text.' This was what critics such as Joseph Campbell did with Jungian archetypes in his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces. (That book remains, to me, fascinating to read in context with Tolkien's "On Fairy-Stories.") What I mean here is interpreting a text by equating Tolkien's characters with Jung's archetypes, such as Galadriel with the all-powerful Mother archetype, or even seeing how Jung's own dream of the wise old man accompanied by a young girl (who represents Jung's female aspects, we are told authoritatively) or the rough dwarf who helped him slay the beautiful young Siegfried relate to Tolkien's narrative.

For those who might not know Campbell, I have a rather reductive explanation of his work on narrative plots, the monomyth, but the link is not working now. Perhaps I will return to insert it.

However, there is another way to regard the relationship between psychoanalysis and literature and this is currently an interest in critical theory, to examine how the process of interaction between the therapist/analyst and the patient can stand for what happens when we read texts. This act is called in psychoanalysis transference and it is most commonly used in conjunction with Freudian analysis. I'm no authority on it but I can provide a small explanation of it and then consider whether Jung's idea of the psyche would lead to a monolithic interpretation of "one right way", as SpM has wondered.

In transference, the truth of the events or the unconscious is not revealed by the therapist telling the patient what the patient's dreams mean. The truth is more properly understood to arise from the performative act, from how the therapist becomes involved in the relationships which the dreams present, from how the patient displaces feelings from past events onto the therapist. That is, we can ask ourselves how a particular reading of a text or dream--our search for meaning and origins--in fact re-enacts a primordial quest, like the Oedipal drama or the myth of Narcissus. Seen in this light, our own interpretations repeat archetypal narratives and relationships. As Jonathan Culler explains it:

Awareness of the centrality of transference, recognition that the truth of a text may lie not in what an authoritative interpreter says about it but in the interpreter's unexpected relationship to it, makes possible a subtle and fruitful investigation of the problems of interpretation. The Pursuit of Signs

Using this idea of transference, we could ask what particular archetype comes most into play in our own, individual interpretations. (There are critics who say that Freud, in attempting to interpret the Oedipal story, himself repeats that myth, or acts it out, in The Interpretation of Dreams.)

However, I don't think that Jung's ideas about the psyche would result in one interpretation valorised over others. After all, he himself posited a psyche comprised of persona, shadow, anima (the female aspects of the male) or animus (the male aspects of the female) These interact in different ways, which for Jung became Psychological Types based on dichotomies of intuition, introversion, etc. So it would seem to me that we would have not one way to interpret the text (again, the master interpreter telling us what the text means) but a variety of ways in which our own psychological makeup infact has us repeat the archtypes in our own interpetations.

I'm sure that Fordim would have more to say about this.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Fordim does! (But not nearly so much, or so useful, as Bêthberry has already provided above.)

I am about as far as one can get from an expert on Jungian analysis (or Freudian psychology for that matter). But I do have some experience with the kind of interpretations that come about through psychological-based ‘readings’ of texts. My concern with all such attempts is that they far too often (although by all means not always) are merely a more terminology-laden way of avoiding the difficult and ethically demanding task of interpretation that I’ve been hammering away on in this thread. That is, whereas the question of “What Tolkien meant” is far too often used as a way to either,

a) avoid generating one’s own interpretation (and thus become a Nazûl) or
b) generating one’s own interpretation and then pretending that it is Tolkien’s own (and thus become a very petty version of Sauron)

the turn to Jungian archetypes is merely the same attempt in disguise. “What did Tolkien intend/mean?” becomes “What does this archetype mean?” and we’re back to options a) or b) above as we look for answers either outside the individual experience of the text, or we project our own experiences onto the text and then claim that they’re from an ‘outside’ source of truth.

The example of the spider is fortuitous, for it helps demonstrate how the spider is not an archetype at all – at least, not in the sense that we “all” react to spiders the same way. In West African cultures, Spider is a trickster figure: a spirit of creation and destruction who embodies the chaotic and random elements of the natural cycle. Not evil at all, or frightening, just a force to be reckoned with. The African who were brought to the Caribbean as slaves brought their memories of Spider with them, and in the historical struggle by the slaves for liberation, he became Anansi – a powerful spirit who embodied all the rebellious tricksterism, the survival tactics, wit and ingenuity required by the enslaved. (Anyone familiar with Native American legends might be thinking of Coyote here – and you’d be right to! ;) ) What’s more, I know several entomologists who would be horrified by the idea that they are “supposed” to be horrified by spiders.

This is why I would resist any simplification of a figure like Shelob into something like an archetypal spider, when the ‘real’ (that is, subcreated) history of her is much more interesting and revealing. And here we go back into the author/text relationship again, for Tolkien wrote in his letters that one of his earliest memories was of running across the lawn at his home in South Africa after being bitten by a spider – he attributes his dislike of arachnids to this event. (He also wrote of a recurring dream he had throughout his life of a wave coming from the west and destroying the land – the birth of Numenor.)

Images, symbols, tropes and figures are the result of historical processes that we can watch and trace and study. And once more, I am led to the interesting case presented by Tolkien’s subcreated world in this regard. One example of what I’m talking about is the Evening Star. In ‘our’ (Western/European tradition) the Evening Star is associated with either Venus – and thus love – and/or Lucifer – and thus the glory of the fallen angels. But what about the Evening Star in Middle-Earth? Tolkien gives us a long and elaborate history for Earendil that includes not one jot (at least overtly) of the mythos of Venus or Lucifer – does this mean that the symbolic value of the Evening Star in Middle-Earth is divorced from its symbolic value in the Primary World? Or can we (should we) be able to look for concordances between the Secondary World symbol and the Primary World symbol? That is, how much – if any – Venus and/or Lucifer is there in Earendil? Is such a question even valid?

[Mister Underhill]

Another quick, woefully inadequate post:

I don’t know if I am dense or just getting tripped up on the metaphors and terminology in play here. Likely both.

I confess that I’m still puzzled at this tug of war between author and reader. Isn’t it natural for an author’s intentions – at least insofar as they are encoded (a dangerous word and probably the completely wrong one for the occasion, but I can’t think of a better one at the moment) within the text itself – to inform our interpretation of any text? Why must we be so vigilant in our resistance to the author’s intentions? What exactly is this completely independent interpretation the reader must generate in order to avoid becoming a mental slave of the author? What do we even mean by “interpretation” anyway? Are we really obligated to puzzle out what a writer’s – or a reader’s – interpretation of a text really reveals about them on some subconscious level? Isn’t our interpretation of the “true meaning” of their interpretation really revealing something about our own subconscious – and hence we soon find ourselves in a vicious, endless circle of unfathomable subtextual analysis?

I’ll be frank – none of it sounds like much fun.

It seems that there are at least certain broad-stroke “interpretations” of LotR which, if not universally “correct”, are at least inevitable.

P.S. -- "Ensorcelled" is indeed a most excellent word.

[The Saucepan Man]

Thank-you davem, Bêthberry and Fordim for taking up the gauntlet. :)

Bêthberry


In transference, the truth of the events or the unconscious is not revealed by the therapist telling the patient what the patient's dreams mean. The truth is more properly understood to arise from the performative act, from how the therapist becomes involved in the relationships which the dreams present, from how the patient displaces feelings from past events onto the therapist. That is, we can ask ourselves how a particular reading of a text or dream--our search for meaning and origins--in fact re-enacts a primordial quest, like the Oedipal drama or the myth of Narcissus. Seen in this light, our own interpretations repeat archetypal narratives and relationships. If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I do not), this approach places the reader in the position of both the patient who experiences the dream and the analyst who interprets it. The patient is that aspect of the reader that reads the text, while the analyst is that aspect of him that seeks to interpret his reactions to it. But, by suggesting that the "truth" arises from the process of analysis, doesn't this approach suggest that the value of reading is in analysing one's reactions to it (whether consciously or subconsciously), whereas I would consider the greater value to lie in the reactions themselves (which will, almost inevitably, arise at the subconscious level)? What I am wondering is whether our instinctive reactions to the archetypal elements in Tolkien's works might be the same on some level, in consequence of our collective subconscious (thanks Bêthberry ;) ), so that there is, in a sense, a "correct" (or perhaps a better word would be "universal") way of responding to these works.


However, I don't think that Jung's ideas about the psyche would result in one interpretation valorised over others. After all, he himself posited a psyche comprised of persona, shadow, anima (the female aspects of the male) or animus (the male aspects of the female) These interact in different ways, which for Jung became Psychological Types based on dichotomies of intuition, introversion, etc. But, since Jung's archetypes are just that - archetypal figures - is it not axiomatic that we will all respond in the same way to them at some (perhaps very deep and primordial) level?

Fordim


The example of the spider is fortuitous, for it helps demonstrate how the spider is not an archetype at all – at least, not in the sense that we “all” react to spiders the same way. Yes, I was aware of that when I first raised this issue. Nevertheless, it was my own reaction to the spider which prompted these thoughts. Certainly, I think that there is a "shared experience" of spiders in some (only western?) cultures (I suspect that even the most experienced western arachnologist would feel this fear and/or revulsion at some level, even though it is mastered and superseded by their interest in the creatures). And so spiders are generally portrayed within the folklore of such cultures as "evil" creatures. And this is true of the other creatures that Tolkien places on the side of evil: bats, wolves and crows. Whereas eagles and bears, for example, find themselves on the side of "good". Is this because these animals have traditionally been aligned in this way in western mythology? And does this mean that this alignment will resonate most particularly with those who come from cultures where these myths might be said to form part of (or perhaps it is better to say derive from) the collective cultural subconscious? Might this be why Tolkien's works would seem to be particularly popular amongst those cultures with a strong Anglo-Saxon heritage? (And before I get any apples or other projectiles thrown at me, I am most definately not saying that LotR can only be truly understood by people from such cultures.)

And, if one believes Jung, is it not the case that his archetypes can be identified in the myths and legends of all cultures? As I understand it, the "hero myth" is a concept which turns up time and time again across all cultures. What I am struggling to understand is whether the consequence of this is that we all respond to the archetypes in Tolkien's works in the same way on a very basic level? Of course, our different personalities and cultural traditions will still leave a lot of room for differing reactions and interpretations at higher levels. But might this shared reaction at the most basic level account for the "enchantment" which davem eloquently describes?

As I have already said, this is not my area at all, and I am simply throwing up ideas relevant to this topic for possible discussion.

Mr Underhill

I agree with you and share your reluctance to accept that reading will inevitably involve a struggle between one's own interpretation and the author's perceived interpretation. I was thinking along the same lines when I posted:


Gosh! That makes it all sound like a terribly arduous (Arda-uous?) process. Whereas it is, in my experience, a most enjoyable one. Most readers choose the manner of interpretation that they are comfortable with, and this almost invariably occurs entirely at the subconscious level. It is not so much a "struggle" as a natural process. And when we try to analyse why we react to a text in the way that we do and, in so doing, perhaps perceive a struggle, do we not risk losing davem's "enchantment"? I just don't see it as a struggle at all. I see it as a natural process. As you say, there will be certain broad interpretations that will be common to all, or at least the majority of, readers (does this hark back to archetypes or is it simply a matter of accepting that which is implicit in the text, such as Fordim's "Eruism"?). And there will be other interpretations which are peculiar to the reader, either because they are that those which he perceives the author as having intended, or because they are truly his own. But I don't think that there is any struggle between these differing responses. They are all present within Fordim's composite reader, and they occur naturally, without the reader having necessarily to think very much about it.

[Bêthberry]

Oh, this is fun, Mr. Underhill. Why, look at the number of views for threads on page 1 of The Books. This Canonicity thread, at the time of my writing, has 2339 views, compared to the next most viewed tread with 1247 views (Evil Things), 1099 (Those Little), 995 (Nebulous 'It'), and then 443 (Unnumbered Tears). It would appear that not only are we who are posting engaged in something of interest and pleasurable to us, but so must there be viewers who find this fun. Unless we are all masochists and madly rereading this thread over and over. ;)

Edit: Actually, I never said the reader must engage in analysis of himself or his subconscious. What I did was offer a current model of reading in response to SpM's question about archetypes. The model of transference does not say that the reader must examine his response for the ways he battles the old archetypes: the model merely suggests that for all readers, at some level, their interpretation of the text will enact a kind of primal archetypal scene.

I would agree with SpM that this effort to decode a text is not a struggle but part of the delight of reading. Also, I don't think I have ever stated that a reader's interpretation must be completely independent.

Where the difficulties of interpreting the intentions of a writer like Tolkien come into play lies with, in part, I think, the way he chose to tell his tale and in determining just what text it is which demonstrates his intention. For instance, he did indeed choose to make the LOTR more consciously conform with his Catholicism in the revising, but--and this is a mighty big but--he also chose not to make that identification explicit. For whatever reasons, he left us with a tale that is covert rather than overt. Why would he do this? I return to his words in the forward where he himself contrasted "the freedom of the reader" with "the purposed domination of the author." I can only conclude that for some sufficient reason Tolkien valued this model of reading.
And, of course, just what text do you refer in order to determine Tolkien's intentions? As this thread has shown, his intentions changed over time and he left conflicting drafts of many stories. His own intentions are in conflict, so is it any wonder that readers cannot agree on what his intentions were? Under what conditions is it possible to apply, say, Unfinished Tales to understanding LOTR? Is Christopher Tolkien's way of handling his father's body of work the only way of discussing Tolkien?

Fordim, I would agree with you that to emphasise the archetypal quality over the exquisite details of Tolkien's individualising of the characters is reductive. That has been the problem it seems to me with the structuralist approach to narrative variants. It does not account for readers prefering one version over another. At some point we have to acknowledge and appreciate Tolkien's artistry--just what is it that has made us prefer his story over the archetypes of other fantasy writers?

SpM, my own question about this model of reading drawn from the transference of analysis has to do with its applicabilty. ;) The analytical model is derived from a context of illness (neurosis, psychosis, some kind of unhappiness or malajustment). The end result of therapy is to make the patient more aware of what causes his unhappiness so he can free himself from it (unless it is also to make the therapist richer). As Tolkien suggests, at least about fantasy, reading operates to satisfy primordial desires rather than eliminate them.

The point you raise about the experience or the analysis of experience is a classic conundrum. It was Aristotle I think who made some comment about the 'unexamined life' but I would rather say that reading provides any number and kind of pleasures and I would not want to impose any one pleasure by saying that kind is more valuable than any other. Had Tolkien, for instance, not examined his own responses to faërie (however he did it, subconsciously or consciously) we might not have had the pleasure of Middle-earth. Yet I will also agree with you that the prime value of art is its experience. That is, in fact, why I have been arguing against the necessary primacy of any one interpretation

As to "our instinctive reactions to the archetypal elements .. in consequence of our collective subconscious", as you put it, that would depend upon demonstrating that 'instinctive reactions" are all the same for all readers and, in fact, proving that we do have a collective subconscious. Current psychology (if not parental experience) tells us that teenage girls have very different responses to their mothers than teenage boys. (True variation also for different responses to fathers.) How does this historical/personal experience impinge upon any archetypal response? In short, the 'universal' application of archetypes falters on gender issues. But then, I'm no expert on Jung and I offerred the transference model as merely one way archetypes are now being discussed, since you had appealed for my help. ;)

[mark12_30]

I confess that I’m still puzzled at this tug of war between author and reader. Isn’t it natural for an author’s intentions – at least insofar as they are encoded (a dangerous word and probably the completely wrong one for the occasion, but I can’t think of a better one at the moment) within the text itself – to inform our interpretation of any text?


Mister Underhill, I for one would heartily agree. I seldom enjoy the works of a writer who hails from a world-view primarily hostile to that which I hold dear; why would I *immerse* myself in the works of a writer if I didn't trust him/ her in the first place?

Why must we be so vigilant in our resistance to the author’s intentions? What exactly is this completely independent interpretation the reader must generate in order to avoid becoming a mental slave of the author? What do we even mean by “interpretation” anyway? Are we really obligated to puzzle out what a writer’s – or a reader’s – interpretation of a text really reveals about them on some subconscious level?

And if one is leery of the author's intentions in the first place, why read the book looking for deep meaning? If we trust our own interpretation so much more than the author's, why read his book instead of writing our own?

Isn’t our interpretation of the “true meaning” of their interpretation really revealing something about our own subconscious – and hence we soon find ourselves in a vicious, endless circle of unfathomable subtextual analysis?

Cheers and applause...

[davem]

SPM

On the spider 'archetype'. Actually Spiders are not seen in an entirely negative way in the west. The goddess Ariadne has spider associations, as do all goddesses associated with weaving. Her Welsh equivalent, Arianrhod, or 'silver wheel' is suppposed have come by that name either due to a conection with a 'whirling palace' (Caer Arianrhod), or with a spider's web. In the myth Theseus deserts her & Bacchus transforms her crown into a constelation. We also have Arachne the wever turned into a spider. Also in one of the 'gnostic' gospels there is a story of a spider weaving a web to hide the Holy family from Herod's persuing troops. So we're possibly dealing with an ancient Spider Goddess figure, whose legends have survived in these various legends - many ancient Mother Goddesses are depicted as weavers of fate - particularly in relation to Tolkien we have the Norns, three goddesses who spin & weave the individual's wyrd or destiny, in Norse myth, obviously connected with the Greek Fates.

In other words, spiders, even in the west, don't have an entirely bad press :)

Tolkien does make spiders particularly monstrous & threatening, so its probably this that we respond to, rather than some kind of 'archetypal arachnophobia', as our ancestors didn't think of spiders as entirely bad - on a mundane level, spider webs have long been used to help wounds heal, by speeding up the healing process. And whether their makers are entirely pleasant to look at, a spider web covered in dew is a particularly magical sight.

Also, Fordim's point about Lucifer - 'Lucifer ' translates as the 'Light Bringer' which Earendel himself is - though not in the Biblical sense, of course ;). There is a very tenuous link to be made from this to Tolkkien & the Grail - in one version of the story, the Grail is a stone which fell from the crown of Lucifer when he was cast out of Heaven, & which embedded itself deep in the earth - so we have the image of an object of Heavenly beauty, buried in the depths of the earth, which must be won by the Grail knight - shades of Beren & Luthien entering Angband to win the Silmaril from Morgoth's crown - was this episode deliberatley adapted by Tolkien, or was it an 'archtypal' image which arose in his conscious mind?

Yet all this, as Fordim has said, is a dead end, & doesn't explain why we respond to Tolkien's stories - how many of us would respond in the same way to the myths & legends I've just recounted? Its not what Tolkien 'looked at' in mythic or archetypal terms, its what he saw. As I said in another post, its his 'vision' we respond to, not the physical (horrors of the Somme, or Edith dancing through the hemlocks at Roos) or mythological things that inspired that vision. The vision enchants us, the way he saw what he was looking at. If we had witnessed the horrors of the Somme, we would not have seen Gondolin, & I suspect that if we had come upon Edith Tolkien dancing amid the flowers at Roos we wouldn't have seen Luthien Tinuviel dancing & singing among the Hemlocks in the woods of Neldoreth. Jung once stated, in response to Freud's obsession with complexes, that he found the whole idea of them dull & uninteresting - everyone has complexes - what Jung found interesting was the effect of our complexes on us, what we with them do - or what they do with us.

I think those of us who do respond to Tolkien's writings 'positively' - many don't - are probably responding to the same things, if not in exactly identical ways (but probably more or less so). Whether this is due to 'the Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious' we all supposedly carry around in our brain structure, or whether its something deeper & more 'spiritual' in us is another question. We seem, for whatever reason, to respond to Tolkien's vision, I don't think sticking a label on our responses & putting them down to 'Archetypal' resonances, or whatever, will explain that response satisfactorily. His 'secondary world' seems real - even some of his 'lesser' works elicit the same response - in fact, there's a painting of his,from 1924, included in 'Artist & Illustrator' showing a store with a garden in front & behind, with the sun setting to the left behind a hill, & mountains rising to the right, titled 'A Shop on the Edge of the Hills of Fairyland' which evokes an incredible sense of 'enchantment' - & even if you haven't seen it, probably just reading the title now, has sparked some response - why would a shop be there, what does it sell, who to, & who would run such a place? There's a whole story there in the title, & its almost like, on some level, we feel we 'know' that story, but just can't quite remember it, & desperately want someone to remind us how it goes. And that feeling runs through so much of Tolkien's work - glimpses of 'far off mountains' which seem at once strange, yet familiar - if only we could remember!

So, 'Archetypes' or something more like Niggle's experience - was the Tree created as a 'gift' for Niggle, or was it there all along, & the 'gift' he speaks of simply the 'unconscious' knowledge he had all along of that 'real' (truly real) tree?

And does it really matter? Will knowing the 'explanation' (ie knowing which 'label' to stick on our experience) get us to Niggle's parish any faster?

[The Saucepan Man]

In other words, spiders, even in the west, don't have an entirely bad press Fair enough. I'll lighten up on the spiders. But don't expect me to like them! :D


And does it really matter? Will knowing the 'explanation' (ie knowing which 'label' to stick on our experience) get us to Niggle's parish any faster? Absolutely not. But it makes an interesting subject for discussion. ;)

[HerenIstarion]

There's a whole story there in the title, & its almost like, on some level, we feel we 'know' that story, but just can't quite remember it, & desperately want someone to remind us how it goes. And that feeling runs through so much of Tolkien's work - glimpses of 'far off mountains' which seem at once strange, yet familiar - if only we could remember!

Excellent, davem! :)

But I can't leave it as mere approval without adding up a bit, even if it were a tiny bit (two coins worth (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=5155), heh)

The feeling you describe strikes me as similar to what I for myself got intensively when reading LoTR for the first time, (and which haven't disappeared since, though is somewhat less intense for I know what to expect), selfsame feeling C.S.Lewis describes as joy, and which is than defined as glimpses of basic and eternal Truth seen in created artwork (but not only, it may be experienced in many modes and as a response to manifold irritants). And with Tolkien it is best defined in the poem he dedicated to said C.S.Lewis, Mythopoeia (I can't give it in full, I suppose, for the copyright's sake, but I can scrap essential bit):



Blessed are the legend-makers with their rhyme
of things not found within recorded time.
It is not they that have forgot the Night,
or bid us flee to organized delight,
in lotus-isles of economic bliss
forswearing souls to gain a Circe-kiss
(and counterfeit at that, machine-produced,
bogus seduction of the twice-seduced).

Such isles they saw afar, and ones more fair,
and those that hear them yet may yet beware.
They have seen Death and ultimate defeat,
and yet they would not in despair retreat,
but oft to victory have turned the lyre
and kindled hearts with legendary fire,
illuminating Now and dark Hath-been
with light of suns as yet by no man seen.

I would that I might with the minstrels sing
and stir the unseen with a throbbing string.
I would be with the mariners of the deep
that cut their slender planks on mountains steep
and voyage upon a vague and wandering quest,
for some have passed beyond the fabled West.
I would with the beleaguered fools be told,
that keep an inner fastness where their gold,
impure and scanty, yet they loyally bring
to mint in image blurred of distant king,
or in fantastic banners weave the sheen
heraldic emblems of a lord unseen.

***

In Paradise perchance the eye may stray
from gazing upon everlasting Day
to see the day-illumined, and renew
from mirrored truth the likeness of the True




This blurred (and it can't be precise, for men as the race are fallen) image of the ultimate truth, I believe, what Tolkien is after, and we his readers (whatever the issue with slavery/mastery ;)) feel as, what was the word? Ensorcellment. But that is the French word, and with the full respect to French, I have a suspicion Professor himself (dangerous ground again - much accused tendency of finding out what Tolkien's intentions would have been) would have preferred some genuinely English word, like, let me see - spellbound. Such a term is justified on other grounds too - spell=word, and texts consist of words. And bound - for selfwilled submitting to said mastery of the author + voluntary suspension of disbelief, are both, more or less, required from the reader to enjoy his/her reading

As for

was the Tree created as a 'gift' for Niggle, or was it there all along, & the 'gift' he speaks of simply the 'unconscious' knowledge he had all along of that 'real' (truly real) tree?

I have given it a long thought at my time indeed, and came out with the usage of the word 'niWi' for the word 'gift' in Georgian translation (the meditation on the subject has arisen as a result of my working on translation of Niggle story). Said word means in Georgian 'gift', 'present' (in an archaic sense), and 'talent' (in modern sense). My reasoning being that gift in English likewise may refer to man's abilities (as in 'he's gifted poet') So my interpretaion is that tree is A) gift for Niggle - his reward, whilst B) his ability to have glimpses of it is likewise a gift and C) third thing there is to be added - Niggle's 'talent' - i.e. sub-creative ability. Or, he may have been painting real 'true' tree of which he has had glimpses, but maybe he have been creating 'true' tree by painting glimpses of it before he went on his journey. And I rather lean to the latter option.

My wording have been clumsy in this last paragraph, I know, so I hope you followed my meaning :)

[bilbo_baggins]

Highly confusing, only slightly enlightening topic! Too scholarly for words. I have my two cents worth, too Heren. I may not be an insight for anything that is truly being discussed here, but I can give a shot, can't I?

I think any 'canon' we might find would not be entirely un-touchable by the readers. Tolkien even created LoTR just because of the enormous Hobbit-fanfare.

Tolkien (in foreword of LoTR): encouraged by requests from readers for more information concerning hobbits and their adventures.

So, technically, the book was created for us, so we have a little liberty, right? And all (well, most) books are created for the enjoyment of readers. (Probably not some textbooks, unless you're really strange) So books are created for you personally and communally. Books belong, at least in heart, to the reader. The reader may interpret any statements or action on the part of the author any way s/he likes. It is for the reader to decide how much of the story they like/dislike, and how much they might change if they were the author. Any revision or rewriting on the part of readers would be a compliment to the author, as the reader would take time to think of how to make the story (in the reader's opinion) better.

And whenever a reader undertakes to read (wouldn't be a reader if they didn't) a story, it is their time and enjoyment they are creating. Each unto his own, as they say.

Well, that's my thought. I am no Tolkien lore-master, so take a grain of salt with every paragraph I type! :D

[davem]

H-I

I think so much of Tolkien's capacity for creating the sense of 'enchantment' in his readers comes down to this - we don't feel he is 'revealing' new things to us so much as 'reminding' us of things we have forgotten. So rather than being amazed by our encounter with a completely unknown 'new' world, we feel at once 'at home' in Middle Earth. What this has to do with 'canonicity', I'm not quite sure, but certainly there is a sense of 'rightness' in much of Tolkien's world, & the sense Helen has described as regards some 'fanfic', that it is 'wrong', & breaks the spell Tolkien has cast may be down to this.

Of course, we are then back to the idea of some kind of 'pre-existing' 'Other world', which we all 'once' knew. But then, how close are we to saying that some other 'explorer' may get things right about that world, which Tolkien may have got 'wrong'?

Its this sense of 'familiarity' we feel about Middle Earth that is difficult to explain. Can we go so far as to say that we are 'remembering' something, some 'real' (in 'inner' or 'outer' terms. This would be ridiculous, if not insane, yet the feeling is there. Why do so many of us feel 'at home' in Middle Earth, even before we've got far into a first reading? Is it because Tolkien has used so many elements from folklore & fairtales? But how many of us are all that familiar with the sources Tolkien used? Not that many, I'd guess. In my case it was only after discovering Middle Earth that I sought out the sources Tolkien used, & I didn't feel 'at home' in the worlds of the Mabinogion or the Eddas or the kalevala. They reminded me of Middle Earth, where I really did feel 'at home'. It was almost as if Middle Earth was the real place & the myths & legends were corrupt, half remembered versions of it, rather than it being an amalgam of them. Of course, that could simply be because I discovered Middle Earth first - but I can't help feeling that it was something more.

Going back to the painting I mentioned - why a shop on the edge of the Hills of Fairyland? We'd expect a castle, or even a cottage, but a shop? Yet, on some level, we know a shop is 'right', that it should be a shop. We are filled with curiosity about what is sold there, & who frequents the place. Logically we know a shop is the last place that should be standing at the place where this world meets the otherworld. Yet, where else would we get the particular kind of supplies we will need for our journey 'over the hills & far away'? A shop, with all the associations of 'commercialism' would seem too mundane & out of place, yet to see the picture is to 'know' it belongs right where it is. We can almost 'remember' having visited the place, because we can almost (but not quite) remember what is in there.

So much of Tolkien's writings inspire this sense, of almost, but not quite remembering. Tolkien wrote of fairy stories satisfying his desire for magic, while whetting that desire immeasurably. Its that feeling that 'still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate' that I think most of us have felt now & then, that just round the next corner we may find what we've been looking for all along, for those sudden pangs we all feel when something or someone almost 'breaks our lifelong dream' & we nearly 'wake up' & remember who we are & what we're really doing, that we find in Tolkien's work. He almost 'wakes us up', but not quite, & we quickly, like Frodo, 'fall asleep again', & only remember that we nearly woke up. Which is odd in writer of 'fantasy'. Can it really be that we wander in Middle Earth in search of the 'real' world? That the 'escape' we seek there is really the escape from our 'dream'? That we don't go to Middle Earth to escape 'reality', but to find it? And is this what SMP is really talking about when he casts down the 'Jungian Gauntlet'?

[drigel]

davem
perfect synopsis of why i love JRRT! You even throw in a Zep reference! I bow to your greatness.

In regards to your post - I understand why people are drawn to expand on the canon: * artistic greatness inspires* - period. I simply like to research the canon and further my appreciation of the work. Whos to say that JRRT had the only insight? Whatever our shared "mythology" is, the fact is that its shared, its in all of us. I am just glad he had the vision to "see" it, and the skill to expertly put it down to prose.

[HerenIstarion]

davem:

I think so much of Tolkien's capacity for creating the sense of 'enchantment' in his readers comes down to this - we don't feel he is 'revealing' new things to us so much as 'reminding' us of things we have forgotten. So rather than being amazed by our encounter with a completely unknown 'new' world, we feel at once 'at home' in Middle Earth

Agreed and shared

Of course, we are then back to the idea of some kind of 'pre-existing' 'Other world', which we all 'once' knew. But then, how close are we to saying that some other 'explorer' may get things right about that world, which Tolkien may have got 'wrong'?

Quite close, I daresay. (Platonism again, eh?) [b]But[/i] that does not eliminate the 'canonicity' of what Tolkien wrote a tiniest bit. Analogy (or a short story, may I say so?) is as follows:

Let us suppose that there was a person all of the mankind remembered to an extent, or in some subconscious way. Let us further suppose that some genius of a painter produced a portrait of the person, and quite a good one, so all the onlookers agreed that the likeness was very great indeed. But, as each one of the onlookers had their own, however dim, memory of the person, their agreement was ill-matched. Some said that nose was reproduced all right, but ears were slightly differed from the real thing, others said eyes should have been blue instead of green and so forth. Otherwise, they said, the portrait was very good and as near a real thing as it may be.

(What I'm driving at, that portrait as a portrait, fait accompli was no more than the portrait but no less than it. So, as far as being a portrait, it was a 'canon'.

As far as likeness to the real person is concerned, the portrait produced by any one painter, is not a canon. It is just particular way of communicating)

So, in a story I have been telling you, another painter has risen with the times and has produced another portrait of the person, which, as selfsame onlookers agreed, was even closer to the original than the first portrait. But noone came up with a rubber, razor and brush to defile the first artwork and bring it 'closer to real likeness', for, as an artwork, it was 'canon'.

Yet many were drawing caricatures, scatches, drafts, reproductions, copies and so forth of an artwork as an artwork

[The Saucepan Man]

Excellent posts, davem and H-I. :) What you both seem to be saying is that there is some shared but forgotten "truth" (for want of a better word) which Tolkien's works are not describing, but which they allow us to tap into or "almost remember" as davem puts it.

Davem, you provide a wonderful illustration of this concept of "enchantment". When I try to analyse the enchantment which I experienced when I first read LotR, the best that I can come up with is an image of a dark, moonlit landscape with a road winding through forested hills towards mountains in the distance, a landscape which has a "magical" feel to it. But is this landscape that of Middle-earth or is it something more fundamental? Is it in fact a vision of this half-remembered "truth"? I have always thought the former (since the image is clearly inspired by descriptions given in the Hobbit and LotR), but this discussion makes me question whether it may be the latter.

So what is this "truth" that Tolkien's works put us in touch with? It would not seem to be the "truth" of Middle-earth, whether as perceived by the individual, as intended by Tolkien, or a combination of the two (which this thread started out trying to understand). Middle-earth, it seems, is the medium by which we are put in touch with it (like H-I's painting puts us in touch with the truth of the actual person depicted in it). Is it "Faerie", whatever that may be? Or is it some collective "state of awareness" which manifests itself in myths, folklore and the tales told by those such as Tolkien, and perhaps in our dreams also? This latter concept would indeed seem to be related to Jungian concepts of archetypes and collective subconscious. Then again, should we even be trying to "fully remember" this "truth" by trying to define it, or does that in itself risk destroying the enchantment?

Finally, if Tolkien's works provide us with a window (albeit perhaps an imperfect one) on this "other world", why is it that these works simply do not resonate with some people? Is it because Tolkien's works only provide this medium for certain people (which would seem to weigh against their analysis by reference to Jung's ideas)? And, if so, are there perhaps alternative means by which such people might better be connected with this "perilous realm"?

[davem]

SmP

I suppose it depends what we understand 'Faerie' to be. Our ancstors really believed in the 'other world'. To them, fairies were real beings, as were dwarves, goblins, giants, dragons, etc. Even into the 20th century people in rural areas believed in the existence of fairies. There are numerous accounts from Ireland, by Yeats & Lady Gregory, from Scotland, Wales & Brittany (for example in WY Evans-Wentz's book 'The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries). There is also a very interesting book by a seventeenth century Scottish clergyman, Robert Kirk, called 'The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns & Fairies' which deals with the Highland Seers he dealt encountered & their ability, through the 'second sight' to see fairies (inhabitants of this 'other world', & interact with them. I've also come across accounts from Iceland of people seeing Elves. These are very much the kind of beings Tolkien describes - in appearance at least.

If we take the folklore accounts, then there was a strong belief in the existence of this other level of reality. Certain places, like crossroads, or special trees (notably Oak or Thorn) which were believed to be 'crossing places' into the other world. In Ireland there was a belief that when Men arrived the fair folk retreated inside the earth, where they continued their old life uninterupted. There are accounts in the legends of people entering into fairy hills & finding themselves in 'Faerie', with an open sky above them, & landscapes of hills, forests & mountains. A common tradition is that time itself moves at a different rate, or that it ceases to exist while in faerie.

Clearly we can find 'echoes' of these traditional beliefs in Tolkien's works - many of his Elves live in underground realms, & in Lorien there is an implication that time moves at a different pace.

Tolkien seems to make use of these traditions. In fact, the more you know about these traditions the clearer it becomes that Tolkien hasn't just taken creatures from tradition, like Elves & Dwarves, but many of the beliefs of our ancestors & woven them into Middle Earth. But this has been pointed out by people like Shippey. Tolkien was, at least at first, attempting to recreate a lost world, trying to link together scattered beliefs & traditions so as to get closer to the world our ancestors inhabited imaginatvely.

So, does this mean that we have in some way 'inherited', in our 'genes' (or whatever the psychological equivalent of genes are) some awareness of this 'other world', & that Middle Earth in someway opens a kind of 'window', as you put it, onto this other reality? That's difficult to say, & many Christian Tolkien fans of a more 'fundamentalist' persuasion would be decidedly uncomfortable with this whole idea, believing that 'pagan' gods & such like were all tricks of the Devil intended to 'lure' our ancestors to damnation, or at the very least the result of their being in a state of 'ignorant savagery' from which they needed the teachings of the church to save them.

But what relevance all these traditions have to our understanding of Tolkien's work is questionable. Tolkien makes the point in the Fairy Stories essay that when we read fairy stories we aren't reading them, or more importantly understanding them in the way our ancestors did. For instance, how many people put up a Chrismas tree in full knowledge of its origins in tree worship, which can be traced back to Yggdrasil, the world Tree, whose branches linked together the Nine Worlds of Norse cosmology (Yggdrasil meaning Ygg's, or Odin's, 'horse' - a 'kenning' or poetic image - Odin hung on the Tree for nine nights in order to gain knowledge of the Runes, & therefore of the magical power they conferred), or even further back, to the tree climbed by the ancient shamans in order to gain access to the other world? The fact is, most people don't know that tradition, & wouldn't care about it if they did. They put up their Christmas tree because its 'traditional', & the meaning it has for them comes from their memories of family Christmasses spent decorating it & seeing it in a corner of the room during the festivities.

In other words, we can read too much 'meaning' into these 'mythical' histories, & give too much weight to them. There is a real danger of breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, of breaking the enchantment by attenmpting to find out too much about the spell & the one who cast it. Your 'vision' of the moonlit landscape stretching away to distant mountains may well be archtypal, it may have been a 'glimpse' into the otherworld, which our ancestors would have told you was always 'hiding' just out of sight. Maybe you had a 'falsh' of second sight (are you the seventh son of a seventh son - I think we should be told ;) -it is the kind of thing those seers would have taken quite seriously).

But none of that is really relevant. What matters is the effect that 'vision' had on you. Whether it was inspired by your reading of Tolkien or not, you 'saw' something (some 'place'?) that was not of this world. You saw into a 'secondary world' - your 'own' Middle Earth if not Tolkien's. Maybe you should see where that vision takes you - perhaps you could be another Tolkien. What kind of world was it, who lives there, what's on the other side of those mountains, who is wandering those woods besides you. That's the real question, not where the 'vision' came from, but where it enables you to go imaginatively. Possibly Tolkien's original inspiration came from just such a 'vision', & look what a merry dance he's lead all of us since seeing it :)

[HerenIstarion]

Well said, davem :). It all reminded me of Niggle somehow:

...Even little Niggle in his old home could glimpse the Mountains far away, and they got into the borders of his picture; but what they are really like, and what lies beyond them, only those can say who have climbed them...

[mark12_30]

davem wrote:

There is a real danger of breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, of breaking the enchantment by attempting to find out too much about the spell & the one who cast it.

Perhaps this is why I so vehemently resist attempts to dissect the Letters; they cast a spell all their own for me, a deeper and more mystical and sacred spell than anything in the Sil-- verging on Smith of Wooton Major, or deeper still; and I will not have that spell shattered. I far prefer the standing tower, from whence I can catch a glimpse of the sea.

[The Saucepan Man]

Perhaps this is why I so vehemently resist attempts to dissect the Letters But don't the Letters themselves dissect the text to some extent by spelling out the author's own intentions and interpretations, thereby risking the reader losing the enchantment gained from the text?

[mark12_30]

Not for me. Half of the enchantment I get from LOTR is that Tolkien *believed* in his characters, knew them, loved them. And this is seen more clearly still in his letters. He talks about Frodo and Gandalf and Faramir as if they lived down the street. He knows what they would and wouldn't do, what they would and wouldn't say. And he demands the same faith from his correspondents, and rails if they fail to give it (see the Movie-review-letter.)

The letters show me how real M-E and its characters were-- are!-- to Tolkien. They make me realize he wasn't lying to me, or laughing up his sleeve at me; that he was, is, and will remain every bit as enchanted as I am. And I like it that way.

But they go deeper still than that. They show me what kind of man he is; they show me where his sub-creation comes from. I cherish that as much, if not more, than the sub-creation itself.

Do not laugh... seeing how his sub-creation was birthed despite (or because of) his eccentricities and foibles, I am emboldened to dream that despite having eccentricities and foibles of my own, I might likewise birth something worthwhile.

[bilbo_baggins]

But don't the Letters themselves dissect the text to some extent by spelling out the author's own intentions and interpretations, thereby risking the reader losing the enchantment gained from the text?


True, Saucepan Man, but the exegesis of the Letters, though they themselves dissect (or exegite) the text of Tolkien, do not completely lay bare everything, and this is where davem and Mark12_30 have their bit. As far as I could tell, they wish not to delve too deeply into the meaning behind the exegesis.

As always, I could be wrong about their beliefs or opinions on the matter, but that is what I think they mean from reading their posts.

And, what I said above applies not only to them, but to me. As I do not want to read the exegesis of a manual too heavily, I do not crossreference said manual either, as it would have the same effect.

If I can quote myself again, for the person on the one side, with a text, it is theirs to do with as they will, as they obtained it in some manner (legal of course). And for the second person, they can do with it as they will, as they have obtained it also. But for either the one person or the second person to try to impress their beliefs on how to exegite the text of the manual, is wrong. Plain and simply wrong.

That's all.

[The Saucepan Man]

But for either the one person or the second person to try to impress their beliefs on how to exegite the text of the manual, is wrong. But isn't that what Tolkien is doing when he seeks to impress his interpretations of his text on those with whom he is corresponding, bilbo?


He talks about Frodo and Gandalf and Faramir as if they lived down the street. He knows what they would and wouldn't do, what they would and wouldn't say. And he demands the same faith from his correspondents, and rails if they fail to give it I understand what you are saying, Helen, and, believe me, I am finding the insights which I am gaining from reading his Letters fascinating. But, in telling us how we should view this character or that event, isn't Tolkien restricting our "readerly freedom" to make up our own minds? I suppose not, since we are free to accept or reject his interpretations. But, all the same, do we not risk losing out from "delving too deeply", as bilbo puts it? Does not our very awareness of the author's own (firmly expressed) views on his text risk obscuring our personal vision of the perilous realm, as inspired from our own interpretation of the text?

(This line of thought runs contrary to the reasoning adopted in an earlier post which I made on this topic, but I am pursuing it nevertheless as I think that it is perhaps an issue worth exploring.)

[bilbo_baggins]

Does not our very awareness of the author's own (firmly expressed) views on his text risk obscuring our personal vision of the perilous realm, as inspired from our own interpretation of the text

Wow. You got me convinced in some places, SpM. But one thing remains.

Do we really want to go with the author's set point of view? It may not fit what I had in mind, true. So if that happens to be true, should we not think o'er the fact that if we read the Letters too well, we will be impressed with the ideas and views of ME that the author had? There may be some who wish not to have such ideas about that wonderful place that Tolkien made.

But even if they don't read the Letters, or have exactly the viewpoint about ME that Tolkien had, does this inherently discredit the author's worth or merit for creating the book and story? No, of course not. "Tolkien" is now a word in mouth for most. Even if we have slightly different viewpoints, the author does not lose anything, as the Book and World he created are just that, his creations. Nothing we could ever do, would discredit him from his fashionings.

[mark12_30]

But, in telling us how we should view this character or that event, isn't Tolkien restricting our "readerly freedom" to make up our own minds?


The example that springs to mind is the reader who asked why Gandalf messed up at the gates of Moria, and offered several explainations. Tolkien's response: He said that he forgot. Why didn't you believe him?

Why, indeed. Do I trust the narrator? If not, then why am I reading the book?

But, all the same, do we not risk losing out from "delving too deeply", as bilbo puts it? Does not our very awareness of the author's own (firmly expressed) views on his text risk obscuring our personal vision of the perilous realm, as inspired from our own interpretation of the text?

I suppose that could happen. It didn't happen to me. When I read the Letters, it separated the Perilous Realm from Tolkien. He became a narrator, like many other narrators out there, who saw into the perilous realm, or was shown it, and given the gift of reporting what he saw. The letters show his looking, his pursuit, as surely as is described in Smith. Why would that obscure my vision? Temporarily, it may; but in the long run, it inspires me to pick up my walking stick, head into the woods, and see what I may for myself.

I suupose when one man prophesies, a response might be, don't get to know that man, because knowing his weakness might make you doubt the prophesy. But another response might be, "Prophet! Apprentice me, and teach me to see!"

I choose the latter.

[Bêthberry]

Well, I am going to stick my foot in the swiftly running discussion here and hope I won't be swept away!

I too would say with SpM to Helen that I understand this love of the writer for his characters. However, as I was rereading Carpenter yesterday, I found this passage (going to use it to reply to bilbo's thread later this morning).

'Stories tend to get out of hand.' Tolkien wrote to his publisher a few weeks later, and 'this has taken an unpremeditated turn.' He was referring to the appearance, unplanned by him, of a sinister 'Black Rider' who is clearly searching for the hobbits. It was indeed the first of several unpremeditated turns that the story was to take. Unconsciously, and unsually without forethought, Tolkien was bending his tale away from the jolly style of The Hobbit towards something darker and grander, and closer in concept to The Silmarillion.... What indeed? [to a question about what the book would be called]. And, much more important, Tolkien still did not have a clear idea what it was all about.

An absolutely fascinating passage, this. It suggests two things to me. First, the Tolkien's habits of composition were intuitive and unconscious to a good degree. Secondly, the passage also suggests that 'the meaning' was something read back into the story once Tolkien had reached a particular stage in the early writing. According to Carpent, it was at this point, shortly after receiving news of the death of E.V.Gordon, that Tolkien "began to organise his thoughts on the central matter of the Ring."

So, we are left with the fact that Tolkien was like any reader, looking around for threads of ideas and then picking up strands to be developed. (Of course, he wasn't just like any reader in that his creative sense of fairey was so great and grand and fine.) It was in retrospective that Tolkien amassed all his storey elements into the grand vision of the Legendarium. For that reason alone I think it valuable to put aside or hold in abeyance if you will his rather insistent claims in later years about what the text means. I am far more interested in what might have brought those Black Riders riding, riding, riding in the first place. My bet is on an entire panoply of possibilities.

Here's to holding tight to my life perserver! ;)

[bilbo_baggins]

I suppose when one man prophesies, a response might be, don't get to know that man, because knowing his weakness might make you doubt the prophesy. But another response might be, "Prophet! Apprentice me, and teach me to see!"

Amazing, Mark12_30.

So, the Letters could be viewed as more of a relay from the Perilous Realm to us, through Tolkien. Hmmm, interesting. Could you not also say, though, that there are those (I'm not one of them) who believe that they themselves can view the Perilous Realm? That they themselves could be Prophets in their own right?

Just something to ponder....

[mark12_30]

An afterthought:

I have come to love the histories-- Trotter, Tinfang Warble, and all-- precisely because they show me *Tolkien's road to Faerie*-- the road that he himself trod over the course of his lifetime. It's the man's own enchantment-- the enchantment that he himself is UNDER-- that I value the most, because that enchantment was what fueled his sub-creation and enchanted so many others. In reading his letters, I see clearly why he is enchanted, and I understand that the enchantment is open to me as well.

And Bilbo, are there other prophets-- in this case, mythmakers? Of course.


It was in retrospective that Tolkien amassed all his storey elements into the grand vision of the Legendarium. For that reason alone I think it valuable to put aside or hold in abeyance if you will his rather insistent claims in later years about what the text means. I am far more interested in what might have brought those Black Riders riding, riding, riding in the first place. My bet is on an entire panoply of possibilities.

But Bethberry, that is his whole theory of sub-creating, myth-making, being a recorder, searching for eucatastrophe. To understand the fruits, check the leaves, trunk, roots and the soil. Look at his life. Look at what he insisted was important for *him*, what he was grounded in.

To put it another way, a man is what he eats, body, soul, and spirit.

[The Saucepan Man]

Why, indeed. Do I trust the narrator? If not, then why am I reading the book? A good question, Helen, and one, I think, that goes to the very heart of this thread. Since we draw such immense enjoyment (yes and enchantment too) from Tolkien's works, shouldn't we also accept his own subsequent musings on, and interpretations of, what he wrote? The answer, I think, is no, not without question. But we are free to accept them and agree with him if the ideas which he expresses in his Letters "feel right" to us. I am inclined to agree with Bêthberry when she says:


So, we are left with the fact that Tolkien was like any reader, looking around for threads of ideas and then picking up strands to be developed. We do not have to accept the interpretations of another reader if they do not sit well with us. And, as Bb says, Tolkien, in discussing his stories in his Letters, is not much different from any other reader.

For example, Tolkien made it clear in his Letters that no one (Bombadil excepted) could have destroyed the Ring voluntarily. I fully accept that since any other analysis would belittle Frodo's efforts and render his "failure" real, rather than something which he just perceives in himself. So that idea accords with my understanding of the story. But, having accepted that, I cannot accept Tolkien's speculation (also in his Letters) that, had Gollum's moment of possible redemption on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol not been lost, his growing love for Frodo might have led him to throw himself into the fires of Orodruin with the Ring. That analysis seems to me to be incompatible with the idea that no one could willingly have destroyed the Ring, since Gollum would have been destroying it by "sacrificing" himself. My interpretation tells me that the Ring would not have allowed that to happen.

Nevertheless, I do think that because we all here have an appreciation of Tolkien's ideas, as expressed in his published works, we will be more inclined to accept the ideas which he expressed in his Letters when commenting on those works. And I suspect that this is why, whenever questions are raised here about Middle-earth which cannot be answered from the published texts, the majority of us (myself included) will go running to his Letters and "unpublished" texts to find the "answer" in one quote or another, and also why we are prepared to accept such "answers" as definitive. There is, I think, nothing wrong in that, as long as we do not do so unquestioningly.

As for the risk of destroying the enchantment, I do, on reflection, think my concerns are largely ungrounded. Going back to the point which I made earlier in this thread, almost everyone will have read the stories themselves before they are exposed to any detailed analysis of them (whether by Tolkien himself or others). So their intial enchantment, "unsullied" by analysis, will remain within their experience. For example, my description of that moonlit landscape was my attempt to describe in words my memory of the enchantment which I felt on first reading LotR. That enchantment has since faded (and alas, davem, I am now a very long way away from those wooded hills ;) ), but it remains part of my experience and it allows me to appreciate the "magical" (dare I say ensorcelling) effect of Tolkien's tales. And who knows? If I allow myself, I might even be able to get back to that long winding road one day (cue Beatles song :D ).

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I must say that I am rather overawed by the eloquence and (yes, let me say it) beauty of the recent posts’ descriptions of the enchantment that we all feel in the encounter with Middle-Earth. While I share this sense of enchantment at a deeply visceral level, I have been feeling, at the same time, a slight nagging doubt nibbling at the edge of my mind as I read through this discussion (surprise surprise).

My doubts stem from a problem about this very idea of enchantment that I don’t think we’ve really confronted yet (although SpM did, I think, allude to it in his reference to the “perilous” realm of Faerie). The problem stems from the ‘source’ of the enchantment – what is it, precisely, that is enchanting us as we read LotR (if, indeed, the enchantment happens, which it does not for many). There have been so far in this discussion at least three possibilities floated in response to this:

1) The enchantment is the result of the text’s “access” to some “other realm” of experience (be it called Faerie or God or Jungian archetypes or whatever). In this case, it would seem that the reader is enchanted through the text by that other realm.

2) The enchantment is the result of the immense craft and skill of Tolkien as an artist. He has told such an enchanting story that we cannot help but get caught up in it.

3) We are enchanting ourselves, insofar as we choose to immerse ourselves within that world and “make” (accepting and co-creating) it our own.

With each of these three possibilities, however, I think there is a slightly different danger to the enchantment.

1) If we regard the source of the enchantment as something external to the text – another ‘real’ realm of Faerie or God or archetypes or whatever – then we are saying that as we become enchanted by the text we are doing so only because or insofar as we accept the reality of that other world. To be enchanted by the novel (to take pleasure in reading it, to accept it) is not just to accept the reality of the other world that it accesses, but to acknowledge it. This is a problem, I think, insofar as there are plenty of people who are enchanted by the text (myself among them) who are committed materialists and thus reject utterly the ‘reality’ of an-other realm (be it Faerie or God or archetypes or whatever). Is my enchantment in the text “wrong”? Am I some big dupe who is not really “getting it”? Am I not “really” enchanted by it, unlike those lucky and more refined spirits who do believe in the “reality” or “truth” of that other realm?

2) If we regard the source of the enchantment as something internal to the text – as something that has been created by Tolkien’s ability to put words on a page in an enchanting, or aesthetically pleasing manner – then we are saying that as we become enchanted by the text we are being enchanted by an illusion: that is, by something that is not “real” at all, but simply by the beauty of the art work before us. The problem with this approach, is, I think, self-evident, as it empties the work of the kind of reality that would make the subcreated secondary world applicable to the primary world we live in (to borrow davem’s “A Shop on the Edge of the Hills of Fairyland” it would be to say that the painting is only a painting and that we find it a pleasing picture of a place that doesn’t and cannot exist).

3) If we regard the source of the enchantment as something individual – as the result of our willed immersion in the text – then we end up in an endless round of navel-gazing as we affirm our own personal views (“this is what I think the text is about”) as false universals (“this is what the text is about”).

I have already seen in the discussion that none of us really want to adopt any one of these three extreme measures all on its own. In fact, I’m sure that you will all want to argue that the source of the enchantment is some kind of amalgam or relation of all three. But this presents us with a whole new set of problems, I think, insofar as the three “types” of enchantment we’ve looked at so far are not really compatible:

1) The reality of the enchantment cannot simultaneously be both external (from an-other realm) and individual (from us). Either the external reality exists (and thus ‘lives’ in us) or it does not – you have to choose one or the other (as we all do, every moment of our lives: and, of course, there’s no right or wrong answer to this question).

2) The reality of the enchantment cannot simultaneously be both internal (from the text) and external (from an-other realm), or internal (from the text) and individual (from us), since if the enchantment is the result of Tolkien’s craft, then it is not related to reality at all.

The core problem with whole idea of enchantment seems to me to be that it leads somewhat too easily (necessarily?) toward a rather dictatorial approach to the text: the only way to answer the question “what is enchanting about the text” is to say “what is enchanting about it to me” and then to pretend that we can somehow make the leap from our own individual responses to some sort of universal application to all people (“I am enchanted by the text’s access to Faerie, so that’s what enchants everyone else”; “I am enchanted by the beautiful story, so that’s what enchants everyone else”; “I enchant myself by accepting the text, so that’s what everyone else must do to be enchanted as well”).

[davem]

This mention of prophecy ties in with what I was saying yesterday. Both Robert Kirk & Thomas the Rhymer, who was given the gift of 'the tongue that cannot lie' (or prophecy) by the Queen of Elfland, are traditionally believed to have been taken into Elfland rather than dying. It was believed that those who spent time visiting fairyland during life would pass into that realm, & carry on living there, outside time. Tolkien seems to have been taken with this idea of a mortal who stumbles into Faery, & then passes into that realm, leaving the mortal world forever. Frodo is an example, I suppose. There seems to be a sense of unfullfillable restlessness which comes to those who enter faerie, a need to go back there, which can never be sated.

Yet the case is different with Smith. As Flieger puts it, comparing Smith & the Sea Bell, (quoted from A Question of Time)

'The visions in each work are equally beautiful & terrible, but in Smith, as in The Hobbit, the torment is stilled, & the traveller returns to peace with himself & with his world. Like Frodo, Smith must finally leave Faery & not return, but unlike Frodo, he finds consolation in family & friends, in the things of this world. Like the voyager in the Sea Bell, the traveller in Smith of Wooton Major is given to know that this Otherworld is not for him; but unlike the voyager he, he is not summarily & arbitrarily banished from the enchantment (though it must be acknowledged that on one occaision he is sternly warned away). Rather, he comes finally to give it up of free will - albeit reluctantly - & returns to ordinary life & love, not isolated but enriched by where he has been & what he has seen....It was in the writing of Smith that Tolkien came to confront & accept the limits of his own ventures into Faerie, his own travel through time, & it was in that story that he came finally to acknowledge in the way he knew best his growing sense that his time was running out.'

She goes on with reference to an essay Tolkien wrote about the story:

'Where the Elven dwellers in the Faerie world of 'The Sea Bell' ignored the overtures of the solitary voyager & were indifferent to his desires, the Elven folk of this latest Faerie are actively concerned with & perhaps even dependent on the spiritual life of Wooton Major & therefore (it would seem) are careful for the welfare of its inhabitants. It is their unsolicited effort to bring Wooton back from its increasing vulgar materiality that forms the deeper background to the 'external' history that lies behind the story....Both these writings (the story & the essay about it) are deply involved in Tolkien's effort to attain the ....unstated goals in the writing of Smith, the reconciliation of Faerie time & human time & the independent yet interdependent nature of the two worlds'

Tolkien continues in the essay:

'Faery represents at its weakest a breaking out (at least in mind) from the iron ring of the familiar, still more from the adamantine ring of belief that is known, possessed, controlled, & so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered - a constant awareness of the world beyond these rings......Faery might be said indeed to represent 'imagination'; esthetic, exploratory & receptive. & artistic; inventive, dynamic, (sub)creative......the begining & ending of a story is to it like the edges of a canvas or an added frame to a picture, say a landscape. it concestrates the tellers (sic) attention, & yours on one mall part of the country. But there are of course no real limits: under the earth, & in the sky above, & in the remote & faintly glimpsed distances, & in the unrevealed regions on either side, there are things that influence the very shape & colour of the part that is pictured. Without them it would be quite different, & they are really necessary to understanding what is seen'

Final quote from the essay: (Tolkien is speaking about the relationship of Faerie & the human realm)

'this relationship is 'one of love: the elven folk, the chief & ruling inhabitants of faery, have an ultimate kinship with Men & have a permanent love for them in general. Though they are not bound by any moral obligation to assist Men, & do not need their help (except in human affairs), they do from time to time try to assist them, avert evil from them & have relations with them, especially through certain men & women whom they find suitable.''

So we have a vision of two worlds, the inhabitants of each interacting, & forming relationships, based on the love of the one for the other, but all we have is 'glimpses' of that world, limited by the 'frame' of the story. So Middle Earth is Faerie, the same Faerie that Smith enters through the power of the Star, & the same Faerie that we glimpse in dreams & visions, both beautiful & perilous, with 'dungeons for the overbold'.

So, what, from this perspective, would constitute 'canon'? If both Smith & Roverandom are windows onto Faerie (& the 'Little Kingdom' of Giles, we must also suppose), & if the inhabitants of Faerie even speak to us, & show us visions of their world, then the precise limits & definitions fade & vanish, & we are left with enchantment. Would Tolkien have thought 'canon' more important than this enchantment - probably not by the time he came to write Smith.

Smith is an odd story to end up writing. He spent so long defining with incredible precision the 'rules' of his 'secondary world', setting its limits, historical, linguistic, social, religious. But then, in his final stab at a fairy story, he introduces us to a world without those rules & limits. A fanfic set in Middle Earth, in order to convince, has to obey all the rules. A fanfic set in Smith's Faery would, it seems have to obey almost none, as long as it captures the spirit, casts the spell. Yet Tolkien seems to imply that the two worlds are the same, & its only a different focus, a different 'frame' around the two stories, that gives the illusion that they are different worlds. Galadriel & the Queen of Smith's Faery are not so very different creatures. Perhaps in Smith Tolkien was dismantling his 'canon' & throwing open a 'window' to let in the air of another world, having realised that his 'Tree', the Legendarium which he had worked on all his life was just one tree in the forest of Faerie that Smith wandered in.

[mark12_30]

Fordim wrote: ....then to pretend that we can somehow make the leap from our own individual responses to some sort of universal application to all people (“I am enchanted by the text’s access to Faerie, so that’s what enchants everyone else”; “I am enchanted by the beautiful story, so that’s what enchants everyone else”; “I enchant myself by accepting the text, so that’s what everyone else must do to be enchanted as well”).

There is a fourth option, and that is to take the eucatastrophe and run. Perhaps in some cases that is the wisest choice.

So, what, from this perspective, would constitute 'canon'? If both Smith & Roverandom are windows onto Faerie (& the 'Little Kingdom' of Giles, we must also suppose), & if the inhabitants of Faerie even speak to us, & show us visions of their world, then the precise limits & definitions fade & vanish, & we are left with enchantment.

Sounds good to me.

Would Tolkien have thought 'canon' more important than this enchantment - probably not by the time he came to write Smith.

I doubt he would have abandoned the cohesiveness that he was seeking for Middle-Earth (a magnificent road into Faerie) just because he had found and described two other roads (Roverandom, Smith.) I think he still pressed towards Eucatastrophe, that moment of truth shining through his myth(s) to the one true myth.

Note that this application of myth presupposes the truth of the One True Myth. If one cannot assume that truth, then what point does eucatastrophe have according to Tolkien?

Perhaps in Smith Tolkien was dismantling his 'canon' & throwing open a 'window' to let in the air of another world, having realised that his 'Tree', the Legendarium which he had worked on all his life was just one tree in the forest of Faerie that Smith wandered in.

To extend your metaphor, I don't think he had to destroy or even neglect his Legendarium-Tree before he could point to the next tree and describe that too. He simply had to shift his focus.

I don't see that he dismantled his M-E Legendarium (or canon) at all.

[Mister Underhill]

You know the funny thing about “enchantment”? The more you bandy the word about, the more you try to study it and categorize it and analyze it and break it down, the more it fades into mist and, like the Faërie folk themselves, disappears. The more I read about “enchantment” in this thread, the less I feel it. I don’t mean this as a slight towards anyone by any means, and I’m not sure how it relates to the current discussion; just throwing it out there as what’s present for me.

Fordim, that’s an impressive stab at logically snaring this mysterious “enchantment” creature so that we can get a decent look at it. I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion that the three types of ensorcellment (just mixing it up a little) are mutually exclusive.

To illustrate, consider the stories of Empire written by Rudyard Kipling. Now I know that old Rud is unfashionable these days and dreadfully politically incorrect, but I am not alone in finding a sense of enchantment in many of his tales.

Kipling’s stories do have access to an “other realm” which is at once external (it did exist) and internal (I, in some sense, collaborate in the creation of this lost world internally when I read, since I have not, and indeed cannot, visit it). His craft contributes to the enchantment and serves as a medium by which the enchantment is transmitted, but I would not say that the enchantment springs from his craft. There are more forces, and more mysterious forces, at work in the process than logic can ensnare.

I’m reading a book right now which has an interesting definition of story. Words, the author contends, are not the stuff of a story. They are merely a means, a medium for transmitting – well, for transmitting something much less tangible. Energy, emotion, ideas. I’m having a hard time articulating this concisely, and I don’t have the time to bore you with a more detailed attempt. But I think the idea has the ring of truth. Tolkien’s stories – and Middle-earth – are more than just the words they are made of. It may be debatable as to whether the “Perilous Realm” is real or imagined, but the effects that the stories of the Perilous Realm produce are demonstrably real. Though as you point out, not all fall under the spell, so whatever that means. I think it’s a sure sign that there must be some degree of collaboration on the part of the prospective ensorcellee.

Lastly, and I hesitate to drag back some aspects of the discussion which perhaps are already spent, but I have this nagging sense that there are certain “right” interpretations of any text, and I instinctively rebel against critical theories which suggest that all interpretations of a text have equal merit. As readers delve into detail and subtlety and nuance, wide-ranging differences of interpretation will arise, but this does not contradict the idea that broader, more primary interpretations are indisputably correct.

I don’t have time to try to back this up at length, and truth be told, I haven’t really thought it through much. It’s my gut reaction to some aspects of this discussion, so I thought I’d toss it out there.

[mark12_30]

Mister Underhill wrote:
Though as you point out, not all fall under the spell...

Those who do, fall at different times and places. In the old eucatastrophe thread, once people began comparing individual Moments we discovered they varied widely.

If it was predictable, it would be something else.

I instinctively rebel against critical theories which suggest that all interpretations of a text have equal merit. As readers delve into detail and subtlety and nuance, wide-ranging differences of interpretation will arise, but this does not contradict the idea that broader, more primary interpretations are indisputably correct.

You are not alone, and thank you for giving this clear voice.

[Bêthberry]

Ah, Mr. Underhill

I have this nagging sense that there are certain ?right? interpretations of any text, and I instinctively rebel against critical theories which suggest that all interpretations of a text have equal merit. As readers delve into detail and subtlety and nuance, wide-ranging differences of interpretation will arise, but this does not contradict the idea that broader, more primary interpretations are indisputably correct.

I don?t have time to try to back this up at length, and truth be told, I haven?t really thought it through much. It?s my gut reaction to some aspects of this discussion, so I thought I?d toss it out there.

We have all known, I think, that feeling of delight mixed with frustration that we've got the real goods on a book which others just can't seem to sus out. But does feeling one is right mean one is right? How can we demonstrate this?

For example, just which "right" interpretation of the Bible do you think is "indisputably correct'? Or the Koran?

The history of reading as well as literary studies is littered with ships of correct interpretation which have foundered on the shifting shoals of historical perspective, cultural change, personal point of view.

The point more properly is, I would think, not that all interpretations have equal merit but that merit can surprisingly derive even from misunderstanding.

But really, Undey you are sounding rather too much like a fresh young newbie who claims he hasn't thought much about the topic. If you want to stir the pot, give it a bit more thought. ;)

[Mister Underhill]

Ouch.

But really, Bb -- bringing the Bible into it is a bit unfair and likely to pull this thread irretrievably off course.

Maybe you're right that I should have kept my mouth shut in the first place, but now that I have it open, I may as well insert my foot. I can think of a few LotR "interpretations" that seem fairly pat to me:

It's a tale of Good vs. Evil.

There is an organizing providential force at work in Middle-earth.

Gandalf is wise.

Sam is loyal.

These may seem so simple and obvious as to be essentially worthless, but I think we could carry on like this until we have a base of interpretations about the text which are "true" for all but the most misguided and terminally contentious. If you can't do that, then nothing means anything. I can take any text and literally make it mean anything that I like.

I am "free" to interpret Sam as faithless and Gandalf as a fool, just as I am "free" to think that up is down or that the earth is flat. But in this case, freedom is just another word for nothing left to talk about (apologies to Kris Kristofferson).

Stories mean something.

[davem]

Helen

Quote:'I don't see that he dismantled his M-E Legendarium (or canon) at all.'

Well, yes, he changes his focus in Smith, but he seems to be saying Middle Earth is not a different 'secondary world' from Smith's 'Faery'. They are not so much different roads to the same destination, its more like they're the same world seen in different ways. Its like the difference between Archetypes & Archetypal images. We can never experience Archetypes directly. What we experience are Archetypal Images. So, in this sense both the Faery Queen in Smith & Galadriel are Archetypal Images, but the Archetype is always hidden & unreachable until it is given an image we can relate to. In the same way we could say that Gandalf, Merlin, Vainamoinen & even Obi Wan Kenobi & Dumbledore are all images deriving from the same archetype. So, Middle Earth & Smith's Faery are ' Images' of the same underlying Archetype.

So while Middle Earth is fantastically detailed & rule bound, & any fiction set in that world must obey those rules & not contradict those details, any fiction set in Smith's Faery will not have to be so rule bound. But if both 'worlds' are the same place, then the 'rules' of Middle Earth are imposed only by that particular 'window' on Faerie. If we look at the same 'world' through a different 'window' we see Smith's Faery, & all the rules of Middle Earth have vanished. Sowhat of Tolkien's own earlier belief, the one that drove so much of his work on Middle Earth, that those details & rules are necessary if a secondary world is to be convincing? He certainly seems to have put that idea aside in presenting Smith's Faery to us. Its not 'realistic' in any way. Its simply a sequence of 'magical' images & scenes. It rejects all the rules for creating secondary worlds which Tolkien had put together & believed to be essential, yet it works, & is in many ways far more powerful in its enchantment than most of his Middle Earth writings.

[The Saucepan Man]

Fordim:


To be enchanted by the novel (to take pleasure in reading it, to accept it) is not just to accept the reality of the other world that it accesses, but to acknowledge it. This is a problem, I think, insofar as there are plenty of people who are enchanted by the text (myself among them) who are committed materialists and thus reject utterly the ‘reality’ of an-other realm (be it Faerie or God or archetypes or whatever). Being equally of materialist persuasion, I would contend your proposition that this “other world” need necessarily be “real”, in the sense of having a physical existence. I would certainly not regard it as such. I see it more as a world which people can experience in their imagination and in their dreams. A thing need not be tangible in order to inspire.


But this presents us with a whole new set of problems, I think, insofar as the three “types” of enchantment we’ve looked at so far are not really compatible Like Mister Underhill, I am not sure that I agree with this. The way I see it, the enchantment is triggered by the text (which acts as a kind of road map) and personally experienced by the reader in his or her imagination. To the extent that the experience is a shared one, then perhaps this might be attributed to the collective subconscious described by Jung (or perhaps it might be something entirely different, albeit similarly shared at a primordial level).

But, as Mister U and davem before him have said, why try to define and categorise a concept such as enchantment? Is it not better simply to enjoy the experience?

And to disagree with you too Mr U:


Lastly, and I hesitate to drag back some aspects of the discussion which perhaps are already spent, but I have this nagging sense that there are certain “right” interpretations of any text, and I instinctively rebel against critical theories which suggest that all interpretations of a text have equal merit. My difficulty with this concept is that the logical conclusion is that those who do not interpret the text in the “right” way cannot fully appreciate it. And I am very uncomfortable with any suggestion that one reader’s appreciation of the text might be accorded greater weight than that of another. Who is to say which way is “right” and which way is “wrong”? Every reader will naturally believe their interpretations to be the “right” ones. But unless they all share the same interpretations (which could never be the case), they can’t all be right.


It's a tale of Good vs. Evil … There is an organizing providential force at work in Middle-earth … Gandalf is wise … Sam is loyal. But I don’t see these as interpretations. I see them as propositions which are implicit in the text. If you are simply saying that there are certain concepts which are “right” because they are stated in the text, and that we must accept them if we are to accept the text, then I agree with you. But if you are suggesting that there are further levels of interpretation not stated in the text which are equally “right” (for example, because there is a struggle of good v evil and a providential force at work, Middle-earth must be presided over by a monotheistic God), then I would disagree.

Stories mean something. Indeed. But they can mean different things to different people.

[mark12_30]

The three last paragraphs in the essay below are an illustartion of Fruit being the result of leaf, trunk, root, and soil. Some wisdom from TORn's Tehanu (http://www.theonering.net/features/notes/note22.html)

[Mister Underhill]

My difficulty with this concept is that the logical conclusion is that those who do not interpret the text in the “right” way cannot fully appreciate it. And I am very uncomfortable with any suggestion that one reader’s appreciation of the text might be accorded greater weight than that of another. Who is to say which way is “right” and which way is “wrong”? Every reader will naturally believe their interpretations to be the “right” ones. But unless they all share the same interpretations (which could never be the case), they can’t all be right. I understand your hesitation and sympathize with it up to a point. I’m not sure how or if “appreciation” comes into it, so I’ll leave that alone. But—

Take an extreme example. I, for one, am not uncomfortable in condemning interpretations like those made by Stormfront (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=535) (link is to a recent BD discussion, not a white supremacist site). And if there are patently wrong interpretations, doesn’t that imply that there are, indeed, right interpretations?

I certainly agree that differences of interpretation will occur the more we get into details, and those are great and good. Vive le difference. I think we could get beyond simple propositions – indeed, the whole providence issue already might – and still agree before we cross over the border where anything goes.

[davem]

Does this 'widen' the concept of 'canonicity' to include not only what Tolkien wrote, but also what he 'meant'?

[Bêthberry]

Ouch, smouch, Mr. Underhill . "Critical theory' is such an easy target simply because it suggests something new or different to some readers. but I think you protest too much. I might rethink your claim that you are not thin-skinned when you invited me to discuss a Chandler essay. Perhaps I had better not reply about that. ;)

With all due respect, my suggestion that there is no definitive interpretation of the Bible is not unfair; I was simply pointing to the best known and most read book in the history of the Western world to suggest something about how communities of readers combine to produce a sense of 'right' meaning. If this is true for a work which many believe to be the word of God, then how much more true must it be for the faulty 'making-creatures', as Tolkien described us, who struggle with their own creations.

This point about communities does not exclude individual interpretations, but rather suggests that how we each read a text has something to do with the presuppositions, conscious and unconscious, which inspires or motivates us as readers.

I think, in fact, that Helen has herself described this very point far better than I can when she wrote in post #153 in this thread:

. I seldom enjoy the works of a writer who hails from a world-view primarily hostile to that which I hold dear; why would I *immerse* myself in the works of a writer if I didn't trust him/ her in the first place? ....
And if one is leery of the author's intentions in the first place, why read the book looking for deep meaning? If we trust our own interpretation so much more than the author's, why read his book instead of writing our own?

Sauce suggests that there is a psychological component in our reading which might account for some responses. To this (which I think we have not yet fully explored) I would again add the importance of the 'interpretive community' to which we belong.

We can, of course, question the world-views, as Helen expresses it, which seem to inspire different interpretations and we can ask just what the role is of this world view in helping to inspire the interpretation, most particularly when we turn to the text and examine other 'propositions' in it which contradict or limit or compromise the interpretion.

The point is not that 'anything goes' but rather that what matters is the engagement of the reader with the text rather than the mining of the text for an all-encompassing, totalising understanding. Just because 'meaning' is subject to parodoxes and indeterminacies doesn't mean ;) that we refuse to examine or compare interpretations. So, White Supremacists want to grab Tolkien for their own? An opportunity to engage them in discussion about their ideas through the text. And maybe, just maybe, the possibility also exists that we might learn something about Tolkien's text---not, I hasten to say that he was in any way part and parcel of their despicable world view but that we might come to understand more fully how LOTR works its magic and how we respond to it.

Edit: This, by the way, actually represents a current of thought in biblical studies today: the very confusions and inaccuracies and variations in how the ancient texts have survived for us to read represents the historical actuality which faith must grapple with. Seen in this light, the Bible (and by extension any other text, I would suggest) becomes an opportunity for each reader to contemplate how he or she comes to understand faith/the text. We read to learn more about who we are as readers, and as human beings. [end edit]

My apologies, also, if others have replied while I have taken so long to post this. I am under constant interruption here today but did not wish to leave Underhill's comments to me rudely unanswered.

[Mister Underhill]

Don’t worry, Bb. That “fresh young newbie” line did sting a bit, as true statements sometimes do, but I’m all better now. I can’t guarantee I won’t cry and pitch a tantrum if you disagree with me about Chandler, though. :p

Here’s something that may shock you (or maybe not): I think there are certain broad-stroke “right” interpretations of the Bible. It’s in the details where differences – sometimes vast differences, to be sure – arise. For instance, I think any Bible reader could agree on this interpretation: to get to Heaven, you must have a right relationship with God. Obviously, it’s that grey borderland between what is obviously right and what is obviously wrong (interpretively speaking) that makes life interesting. But, I think there are a baseline set of right interpretations for any text, including the Bible.So, White Supremacists want to grab Tolkien for their own? An opportunity to engage them in discussion about their ideas through the text. Okay, but this sidesteps the question – who has rightly interpreted the text? Does the white supremacist interpretation have the same merit as a – for lack of a better word – traditional interpretation? Certain schools of relativistic lit-crit theory may think so, but I don’t.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Mr. Underhill, Bethberry

I was writing this while you were posting. So I haven't really taken your last posts into consideration.

You two seem to be inching closer together in agreement, but I still can't shake the feeling that there are some real differences here in how each of us approaches the text....

*****************************

Stories mean something.

Mr. Underhill,

I concur. I am uncomfortable with the idea that all interpretations of text have equal validity, and that assumption still seems to underline much of the discussion on the thread, from the first post onward.

************************

Recently, I have been a lurker on the edge of this thread, one of those contributing to the 2,000+ views, but I feel compelled to throw my generic opinions in the pot .

First, I would heartily agree with the idea that there is no one right reading of the text, and that the individual confrontation with the work is far more important than mining the text for an all-encompassing single meaning, which frankly does not exist. JRRT has given us one way of looking at Gollum and the Ring, but there can be other valid interpretations that we as readers bring to the work.

But just as an individual is free to grapple with the text on his own terms, the author, or any other reader, is free to look at that understanding and question its validity. The initial struggle with the text is only the first step in the critical process; the assessment of that struggle is a vital second step. And part of that second step involves making a judgment on what's been said. That judgment, to me, is not unimportant.

To put it bluntly, there is a point in reading when we are alone. As individuals, we bring our background and understanding forward and apply these to the story. Because our backgrounds and understanding are different, our interpretations and perceptions will inevitably vary. But the process does not stop there. There is a point where the individual reader becomes part of a community of readers, a place where discussion and assessment takes place. And that process is important. I can indicate whether or not their perceptions and interpretation resonate with me. And there are even times when I may tell a reader he is flat wrong. Stormfront comes to mind. One criteria I will use is whether or not the reader acknowledges the basic guidelines that the author has woven into his tale.

I do not insist that everyone who reads Lord of the Rings emerge with the interpretation that there is one God in charge of things, but I do believe there are certain boundaries the author has laid down with his own pen. These themes, whether you call them 'interpretations' or 'propositions' are inherent in the text: the theme of good and evil; the fact that Gandalf is wise, or Sam loyal; even concepts such as self-sacrifice, the exaltation of the humble, or the power of humility versus the destructive and self-negating futility of pride. You can come up with an interpretation of LotR that ignores these themes, but not one that directly says these themes don't exist, at least within the world that the author has created. (Whether they are true within my personal world is a wholly separate question, which is one reason why a 'materialist' modern reader can still appreciate Tolkien's works.)

In effect the author hands us the notes we can use. We are free to arrange these notes in any melodic pattern we would like. But we do not have the right to introduce totally foreign notes, just because we think it might produce a "nicer" song.

Let me cite one other extreme example of a critic who has chosen to ignore the author's boundaries: that of Germaine Greer. Germaine Greer detests the views put forward by Tolkien and has been hacking away at his work for many years, initially the book and more recently the movies. Greer once suggested:
"The Lord of the Rings represents a rejection of otherness and a craving for people like oneself.

I can understand how she might reach such a conclusion, and that such an idea is worthy of discussion. However, when queried about the movie, she went beyond this to state that the plight of the Orks -- the poor, oppressed workers whom the 'so-called' heroes unjustly harass -- stands at the core of LotR.

Germaine Greer has the absolute right as an individual to put forward this view. But those who belong to the Tolkien community (fans, academics, whatever), who read and discuss the works, also have the right to reject that view. Her interpretation is not of 'equal value' because, frankly, she has ignored many of the guideposts that the author laid down in the actual text.

In the case of both the individual Greer and the group Stormfront, these two have chosen to insert their own ideology into Tolkien's stories, coming up with ideas that simply aren't there. (Please, I am not equating Greer with the folk in Stormfront, but I am saying they are similar in this one small respect.) As Bethberry suggests, there may be some glint of understanding I will gain because of their flawed contribution, some interesting ideas that come forward in the discussion. But, in the long run, their ideas can and should be rejected.

We are more than individual readers. There is a point where we interact as a community and reach some consensus, even if that consensus is to disagree. That consensus, by its very definition, is self limiting and flawed. Views change from one generation to the next as we bring new insights to the table, and minority viewpoints sometimes come to the fore. But, as flawed as that community discussion may be, it is better than saying that each of us sits alone in a closet of our own making, spinning out different ideas, all of equal merit.

This may be a dangerous question, but.... I am wondering if this wish to make the individual reader virtually self sufficient (dare I say sovereign?), to limit the influcence of the author's voice through something like the Letters, and to remove the idea of having any set of shared standards by which we may judge an interpretation, doesn't reflect the culture and values underlining our own society?

****************

Davem, Helen,

The funny thing is that I can see how Davem can say that JRRT was beginning to dismantle his Legendarium in his final years. But my stance would be the exact opposite of Davem's....not seeing the greater freedom as reflected in Smith, but rather the more defined lines of science and theology that begin to surface in later writings like Morgoth's Ring. JRRT had always said that truth shone through myth, but now he was abandoning it (perhaps others would say enhancing it) for other things. There are writings that suggest he would have changed the Elf-centric viewpoint of the Silm, and instead substituted Man at the core.

But this, I think, would really belong in another discussion.

***************************

For the next few days, I will be off doing my "duty" at the birthday party thread, so will resume the post of a lurker.

[The Saucepan Man]

Mister U:


I’m not sure how or if “appreciation” comes into it, so I’ll leave that alone. Bah! I always try to choose my words so carefully, and yet I always get picked up on them. ;) By “appreciation”, I mean the experience that each person draws from reading the text, whether it be understanding, insight, inspiration, enchantment or whatever. I would be extremely hesitant about saying that one person’s experience of the text is necessarily more valid or valuable, from an objective point of view, than that of another.


I, for one, am not uncomfortable in condemning interpretations like those made by Stormfront. Well, I think that we have to recognise that some of the concepts that they use to support their dreadful views are “correctly” interpreted because they are implicit in the text (examples would be the importance of the bloodline of Numenor and the superiority in some respects (longetivity, prowess, hardiness) of the Dunedain over other types of Men). But, to the extent that they seek to use those concepts to interpret LotR in a way which supports their view that one race can be inherently superior in all respects to another, I would condemn them too because I utterly reject that way of thinking. For me, therefore, their interpretation is “wrong”. And for the majority of people too, I suspect. Does that make it “wrong” on an objective level? Possibly it does, but only if one either tries to formulate some objective moral code against which to measure it (a tricky business) or takes the position that something is “wrong” if the majority believes it to be so. One thing is for certain though: Tolkien never intended his story to lend support to the views of those such as Stormfront since he too rejected such views (unless his private thoughts differed significantly to those which he committed to paper, which I somehow doubt).


And if there are patently wrong interpretations, doesn’t that imply that there are, indeed, right interpretations? No. I don’t think that the one necessarily follows from the other. Even if there are “patently wrong” interpretations, we can still be left with a plethora of conflicting interpretations, no one of which is necessarily superior to the others (and all of which might therefore be said to be "right").

I do, however, agree with Sharon, when she says:


I do not insist that everyone who reads Lord of the Rings emerge with the interpretation that there is one God in charge of things, but I do believe there are certain boundaries the author has laid down with his own pen. These themes, whether you call them 'interpretations' or 'propositions' are inherent in the text … This is what I was trying to get across when I said:


If you are simply saying that there are certain concepts which are “right” because they are stated in the text, and that we must accept them if we are to accept the text, then I agree with you. To the extent that anything put forward by Stormfront, or Germaine Greer, or anyone else, clearly contradicts that which is expressly or implicitly stated in the text, then it cannot (in my view) be considered a valid interpretation of that text.

[Mister Underhill]

No. I don’t think that the one necessarily follows from the other. I don’t know what to say to this. If something is wrong, it must be wrong in relation to something that is right, no? Granting, once again, that there certainly will be grey areas and that one overarching, all-inclusive Interpretation is not possible or even desirable.
Does that make it “wrong” on an objective level? Possibly it does, but only if one either tries to formulate some objective moral code against which to measure it (a tricky business) or takes the position that something is “wrong” if the majority believes it to be so. Ack! A slippery slope that we’ve already argued in detail on Esty’s old Plato thread. However, I don’t think we need to reference an outside, objective morality at all. I think every text has its own implicit morality. I would be just as wrong to try to foist a peace, love, and tolerance interpretation on Mein Kampf.

Otherwise, I think we’re homing in on a consensus.

[The Saucepan Man]

Otherwise, I think we’re homing in on a consensus. That would never do! ;)

[bilbo_baggins]

To disagree with your (hopefully) sarcastic statement, it would do wonders, SpM. Everyone here has lost me about a million posts ago.

But, I can try to say something.

To agree (I think) with some of you, the Bible is obviously 'canon' for several million people, whether they disagree on various and sundry details (I mean the really little ones, like real or fake wine used in Eachurist). The same can be true about Tolkien. Many people disagree on little things in Tolkien, and sometimes don't realize that they agree on the big things.

Hopefully, we all agree that LoTR was written by Tolkien. And, hopefully again, that he also wrote TH, helped to write Sil., and HoME. The Big things. To appreciate Tolkien, the reader must decide for himself whether it is right or wrong to pursue what Tolkien wanted, or to be content with his own interpretation of the text. True, there may be good things about following pure Tolkien doctrine (if I may use such a word with all its connotation's), but on the other hand, one may find that a fellow Tolkienite doesn't agree on small things. That is okay.

SpM: Well, I think that we have to recognise that some of the concepts that they use to support their dreadful views are “correctly” interpreted because they are implicit in the text (examples would be the importance of the bloodline of Numenor and the superiority in some respects (longetivity, prowess, hardiness) of the Dunedain over other types of Men).

Saucepan, if I may dare to tell you, I believe everybody sees the obviousness of the Numenoreans superiority. That's a big thing, that most people believe. If one does not believe this, they are just sidetracked. I think that I'm agreeing with you here.

[Aiwendil]

Enchantment and Faerie

Note: This is a very long post, for which I apologize, and while I was writing it several other people posted.

I wonder if I am the only one that is a little bewildered by all this talk of "Faerie", and "windows to Faerie". I think it may be a good idea to pause and consider what is really meant by these things, and whether they have the kind of broad application that is being ascribed to them.

davem wrote (some time ago):
I think so much of Tolkien's capacity for creating the sense of 'enchantment' in his readers comes down to this - we don't feel he is 'revealing' new things to us so much as 'reminding' us of things we have forgotten. So rather than being amazed by our encounter with a completely unknown 'new' world, we feel at once 'at home' in Middle Earth.

I suppose this may be called the "enchantment thesis": what is so enchanting about Tolkien's works is that they remind us of, or give us access to, a "place" with which we all have some sort of subconscious connection.

As something of a logical extension of this idea, we come to the "Faerie" or "Perilous Realm" bit. The idea here seems to be that, once again, there is a "place" to which we have some kind of subconscious access, and that the primary function of fantasy is to "open a window" or "provide a road" to that place for the conscious mind.

Thus, the Legendarium, Smith, Roverandom, etc. become various alternative routes to this place called Faerie. Davem puts it like this:
If both Smith & Roverandom are windows onto Faerie (& the 'Little Kingdom' of Giles, we must also suppose), & if the inhabitants of Faerie even speak to us, & show us visions of their world, then the precise limits & definitions fade & vanish, & we are left with enchantment.

From this vantage point, it is easy to see the concept of "canon" (in its more restrictive meaning) becoming weakened. Again, Davem phrases it nicely:
Would Tolkien have thought 'canon' more important than this enchantment - probably not by the time he came to write Smith.

Perhaps in Smith Tolkien was dismantling his 'canon' & throwing open a 'window' to let in the air of another world, having realised that his 'Tree', the Legendarium which he had worked on all his life was just one tree in the forest of Faerie that Smith wandered in.

Mark12_30 appears to reject the anti-canon argument but to accept the Faerie argument:
I doubt he would have abandoned the cohesiveness that he was seeking for Middle-Earth (a magnificent road into Faerie) just because he had found and described two other roads (Roverandom, Smith.) I think he still pressed towards Eucatastrophe, that moment of truth shining through his myth(s) to the one true myth.


The first question I find myself asking is what exactly this "Faerie" realm is supposed to be. Are we to take all this literally and suppose that there is a real place called Faerie, of which we all have (for whatever reason) some kind of knowledge? Obviously, that would be quite absurd. We cannot really think that Tolkien had visions of some parallel universe; he was not really discovering already existing facts about his characters - he was, when we come down to it, inventing them.

It must, then, not be a real place but rather an imaginary one - one, perhaps, that is subconsciously imaginary. But if this is the case, the very notion of Faerie appears to be in danger - for why should different people all happen to have subconsciously imagine the same thing?

The only possible answer to that question is that various influences, both genetic and cultural, cause us each to formulate the same (or very similar) subconscious concepts.

And I can more or less accept that explanation. The trouble with this is twofold, however. First, it depends on a conjecture about the very complicated relationship between societal dynamics and neurology/psychology. Second (even supposing that conjecture is true), it inevitably deals with the concept of Faerie on an individual basis, as something that exists in this individual's mind, and in that individual's mind, etc. - rather than simply as a single entity, distinct from the individuals. To speak of Faerie simpliciter, rather than "this person's Faerie" and "that person's Faerie" becomes rather a dubious thing.

But supposing that this account is nonetheless valid, we still ought to ask to what extent this window to Faerie contributes to the value of a work of fantasy, and to what extent the value of fantasy depends on it.

This is where all the talk about Smith of Wooton Major and Roverandom and Farmer Giles of Ham makes me a little uneasy. Are these really just alternative roads to Faerie? Is the primary fucntion of fantasy just to act as a portal to this pre-existing imaginary realm?

We'd probably all agree that The Lord of the Rings is a greater work than any of the three I just mentioned. But why? If these are all just windows into Faerie, why should any window be better than any other? I suppose one could answer that The Lord of the Rings provides us with greater access than the others; the others are perhaps like little peepholes and arrowslits while LotR is a wide window. But again, I'd ask: why? What makes LotR a wider window than the others? Is it its length? Surely not; if Roverandom had happened to be 1,000 pages, that would not make it LotR's equal. Is it that Faerie is depicted more accurately, more vividly, in LotR? This sounds a bit more plausible, but I still don't like it. Roverandom paints a very vivid portrait of its own mythical world, within the limited space it has.

I think the real answer is that the greatness of a work of fantasy is not simply related to the degree to which it gives us access to Faerie. If The Lord of the Rings were just about Hobbits having tea, and Elves singing songs, and Dwarves gathering gold, and Dunedain patrolling the countryside, it would not be particularly good.

It is not enough simply to provide a window to Faerie.

Of course, I can't deny that milieu is a significant factor in the attraction of works like The Lord of the Rings. Nor can I deny that this notion of a place called Faerie has some validity. I am as enthralled by images of eagles circling overhead, of columns of horse-riders disappearing into the distance, of long and winding roads (though not Phil Spector's orchestration . . .), or of dark sylvan glades, as the next person. But when I think of The Lord of the Rings, it is not these generic images that first come to mind. It is, rather, the Balrog stepping forward onto the Bridge of Khazad-dum, the Nazgul being swept away in the flood at the ford, Eowyn plunging her blade into the Witch-king. I think first of images specific to Middle-earth.

This brings to mind a related point. Suppose we are indeed to think of Faerie as a place, albeit an imaginary one lurking somewhere in the subconscious. The images brought to mind by one of these "windows to Faerie" must then be supposed to be actual images of this imaginary place. But the place called Middle-earth is simply incompatible with the village of Wooton Major; they cannot simply be superimposed without contradictions arising between them. So if Faerie really is a single imaginary place, then neither Middle-earth nor Wooton Major can be it (or at least, they cannot both be).

I think it would therefore be advisable to drop the "place" analogy. Faerie is not a place, real or imaginary; it is rather a complex of ideas and associations. There are no facts about events in Faerie, or people in Faerie. There are only various ideas and images, many of them contradictory, that may collectively be called Faerie.

I think it is a mistake to overemphasize the function of fantasy as providing a window or portal to Faerie. This tends to treat a given work only as a means to gain access to that realm, rather than as something worthwhile in itself; it undervalues the individual work. Fordim and Bethberry touched upon this point a while back. Fordim wrote:
This is why I would resist any simplification of a figure like Shelob into something like an archetypal spider, when the ‘real’ (that is, subcreated) history of her is much more interesting and revealing.

And Bethberry:
Fordim, I would agree with you that to emphasise the archetypal quality over the exquisite details of Tolkien's individualising of the characters is reductive. That has been the problem it seems to me with the structuralist approach to narrative variants. It does not account for readers prefering one version over another. At some point we have to acknowledge and appreciate Tolkien's artistry--just what is it that has made us prefer his story over the archetypes of other fantasy writers?

While I think that the Faerie associations have a lot to do with LotR's appeal to me, I find I am chiefly interested in - dare I say it - the plot and (as a close second) the characters. I am chiefly interested in those things that Tolkien invented.

All of this reminds me of my reservations about the monomyth business of Joseph Campbell, which largely arises from Jung's archetypes. It's not that I don't think that the archetypes have value. Certainly, there are themes that appear again and again in the myths of very different cultures. The monomyth is a useful tool for analyzing these similarities. Where people go astray, I think, is when they assume that the monomyth is the whole story; that all myths are essentially the same, just variations on a single plot.

This kind of thing happens a lot with regard to Star Wars (probably because Lucas acknowledges that he was heavily influenced by Campbell). Someone will equate Anakin/Vader with, say, Satan, or Oedipus, or MacBeth, as if all these characters were fundamentally the same. In such discussions, I always point out that the fundamental progression of the Anakin/Vader character - miraculous birth; becomes champion of good; falls; becomes champion of evil; is redeemed - is something that exists in no other stories that I'm aware of.

It is the same with The Lord of the Rings (and the Silmarillion, for that matter). Take the Ring. I cannot think of another myth with a symbol quite like it - an artifact of immense power that is absolutely evil and will corrupt all that use it; a thing, moreover, that encapsulates the tension between two very different views of evil. This is not just a piece of Faerie; it is something peculiar to Tolkien.

I suppose that what I'm getting at is this. If we accept the semi-cliche that works of fantasy are windows into Faerie, we ought to combine it with another cliche: that the journey is more important than the destination. I would say that, rather than the value of LotR lying in its revelation of Faerie to us, the value of Faerie lies in its contribution to the greatness of such things as LotR.

A few other miscellaneous points:
Davem wrote:
Would Tolkien have thought 'canon' more important than this enchantment - probably not by the time he came to write Smith.


I think that, partially as a consequence of what I said above, this cannot be the case - for the value of the work lies in itself, not in providing a road to Faerie. In any case, Smith was published in 1967, and Tolkien continued to work on the Silmarillion material (with all appearances of intending to finish it) until shortly before his death.

Davem wrote:
There is a real danger of breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, of breaking the enchantment by attempting to find out too much about the spell & the one who cast it.

Mark12_30, The Saucepan Man, and Mr. Underhill have all expressed similar concerns (about analyzing the Letters, about the Letters analyzing the text, and about analyzing "enchantment", respectively).

I must say that while I think I understand the fear, I don't share it. First of all, we are breaking nothing. Whatever we may say or think, the texts will still exist as they always have. This may seem an obvious and insignificant point, but I think it is important. There is a very real difference between actually breaking something and merely analyzing it.

I have always felt that if the work in question is truly a good one, analysis can never do any harm to it. The enchantment, the spell of Faerie, or whatever you want to call it, is stronger than that. It is not something that scurries away as soon as you say its name. If a work is in fact great, then analyzing it can only deepen one's appreciation for it. And I think that Tolkien's work is great.

Nearly all of us here have engaged in a good bit of analysis of Tolkien's work over the years. Has anyone ever actually found that on re-reading LotR (or anything else), one's enjoyment of the work had been tarnished by over-analysis?

To return to the original topic of the thread: there has been some recent discussion of the validity of interpreting the text. Davem nicely encapsulated the question:
Does this 'widen' the concept of 'canonicity' to include not only what Tolkien wrote, but also what he 'meant'?

I don't have all that much to say about this, but I will make one point. I think the assumption has been that there are more or less two possibilities: either the "canon" is what Tolkien meant or there is no canon and we are free to interpret the text in any way we like. Each view has its difficulties. If it is Tolkien's intentions that matter - well, we can never really know what those intentions were. Moreover, this would mean that no work is self-sufficient; it can only be understood at all in the context of the author's letters, etc. On the other hand, the second view seems to give absurd interpretations the same validity as any others. The white supremacist "interpretations" of LotR are indeed an unpleasant example.

I think that there is a third way. A more useful thing to ask than "what did the author mean?" is "what would a reasonable person have meant?" That saves us from trying to divine Tolkien's state of mind but also allows us to say of certain views "that just doesn't make sense". It allows us to look at the text in itself without clearing the way for bizarre interpretations.

Of course, "reasonable person" is the difficult point, and I don't pretend that this is a simple prescription. But I think it works in principle, and allows us at the very least to dismiss the white supremacists.

What value do the Letters have in such a case? First of all, they obviously have intrinsic value in telling us about Tolkien as a person and an author, regardless of whether we equate Tolkien's meaning with the meaning of the text. But they also have value with regard to the text. For despite the fact that in this view, the meaning of the text is not defined as the intention of the author, we cannot escape the fact that it was Tolkien that wrote those words. If we presume that he was something like a reasonable person, then clearly he will, simply as a practical matter, have very great insight into the texts. His letters then have the same sort of value as anyone else's writings on the Legendarium, but they probably have a greater degree of value as a result of the circumstances of the writing of the texts.

Sorry if this post comes across as long and rambling; it was written with a multitude of interruptions.

[mark12_30]

Aiwendil,

There is a fundamental difference, I think, in the way that Faerie is viewed on which hinges all these discussions. I have shied away from it, but I think it is time to quote Tolkien. These quotes are both from On Fairy Stories; I had to scrounge for them online. Here goes.


“The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more correctly
of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous ‘turn’ (for there is no true end to any
fairy-tale): this joy, which is one of the things which fairy-stories can
produce supremely well, is not essentially ‘escapist’, or ‘fugitive’. In it’s
fairy-tale - or otherworld - setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace:
never to be counted on to recur. "


“.. the ‘joy’ in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse
of the underlying reality of truth. It is not only a ‘consolation’ for the sorrow
of this world, but a satisfaction, and an answer to that question, ‘Is it true?’
…But in the ‘eucatastrophe’ we see in a brief vision that the answer may be
greater – it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world.”

If one does not believe in absolute Truth, then the phrase " a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality of truth " is of little value, and hence the concept of "windows into Faerie" turns into something other than what Tolkien intended it to be and becomes amorphous indeed. in that case his definition is of little use.

If one believes in absolute Truth, one can accept Tolkien's definition as useful.

And there, I think, is the essential dividing line of this entire thread. Some do not believe in absolute Truth, and in that case, Tolkien's definition does not apply very well. Nor would Tolkien's story have a deep Truth to be revealed; everything becomes subjective and individualized. Others do believe in absolute Truth, and can accept Tolkien's definition of Faerie as a revelation of that truth, and see numerous demonstrations of Truth in each of his stories.

I doubt the two opposing views will come to agreement on that topic any time soon.

[bilbo_baggins]

And there, I think, is the essential dividing line of this entire thread. Some do not believe in absolute Truth, and in that case, Tolkien's definition does not apply very well. Nor would Tolkien's story have a deep Truth to be revealed; everything becomes subjective and individualized. Others do believe in absolute Truth, and can accept Tolkien's definition of Faerie as a revelation of that truth, and see numerous demonstrations of Truth in each of his stories.

Good one, Mark12_30, and I believe, those who take the side of non_absolutism for theory's sake.

I do believe that what you touched upon has a slight tinge of apprehension in it, at least for me. Let me quote again to clarify:

To understand the fruits, check the leaves, trunk, roots and the soil. Look at his life. Look at what he insisted was important for *him*, what he was grounded in.

Again, that was from another of Mark12_30's posts. I do believe that what you are touching, Mark, could be traced to Tolkien's Christianity. This could turn the thread to matters gone over time and time again. The thread really has been estranged.

[mark12_30]

That's why I stopped where I did. Peace.

[Mister Underhill]

Not at all, Aiwendil – it’s a typically lucid and reasoned post.

To clarify my own feeling slightly, I’m not really “concerned” about analyzing “enchantment”. If I were, I probably would have quit the Downs years ago. I merely observed that the analysis, for me, doesn’t get me any closer to understanding why or how it works.

I’m somewhere between the two poles you mentioned at the end of your post – author’s intentions at one end, anything goes at the other. I see where you’re headed with the “reasonable person” idea and it might make a good practical solution in many cases, but something tells me that there are many blind alleys and pitfalls down that road. For instance, we can hardly read Mein Kampf while giving Hitler the benefit of the doubt of being a reasonable person. Maybe that’s slightly off point since it’s not a work of fiction. Think of someone like the Marquis de Sade, then.

The book I mentioned earlier is called Story, by a fellow named Robert McKee. It’s nominally about screenwriting, but I think his theories on story can be discussed with regard to any medium intended to transmit story, including prose. He articulates a view which I have long held: Master storytellers never explain. They do the hard, painfully creative thing – they dramatize. Audiences are rarely interested, and certainly never convinced, when forced to listen to the discussion of ideas. [...] A great story authenticates its ideas solely within the dynamics of its events; failure to express a view of life through the pure, honest consequences of human choice and action is a creative defeat no amount of clever language can salvage. [...] A story cannot be reduced to a rubric. Far more is captured within the web of a story than can ever be stated in words – subtleties, subtexts, conceits, double meanings, richness of all kinds. A story becomes a kind of living philosophy.I think we can derive a certain amount of right meaning from a story without outside reference to the author’s intent or a hypothetical reasonable person. I think this might be the sort of idea that I, SPM, and Child were all nibbling around the edges of up above. If not, I’m sure they’ll let me know.
I doubt the two opposing views will come to agreement on that topic any time soon. A most reliable prophecy, I think.

[davem]

Child

I think you make an interesting point re Tolkien's latest intentions about the Legendarium. Its something I've expressed before. The later works you mention are clearly 'theological' in intention, exploring the meaning of the Legendarium as much if not more than developing the story. I don't think they necessarily contradict the idea that he was moving away from the idea that such definite 'rules' & limits are important in sub creating a secondary world. I think the lack of set bounds & limits in Smith gave him a sense of freedom to create, & explore, Faerie. All the background he had created for Middle Earth would necessarily restrict his imagination, his sesne of artistic freedom. Perhaps part of his motivation in introducing (or attempting to) a new story, a new account, of the early period was simply that he felt too bound by what he already had. Whether you like or dislike the contents of 'Myths Transformed', what you see is a sudden burst of creativity. Smith is part of that to my mind. He was trying to break free from the restrictive rules he had imposed on himself.

As to interpretation, there is some freedom, but that freedom is limited, because, as has been pointed out, we can't make the text mean whatever we want it to mean. Of course, if we remove the author from the work, & treat it as a 'historical' account of an objectively existing 'world', then interpretation is not only valid, but necessary. So the question then becomes, is the Legendarium such an account, or is it a work of Art? Or a collection of Artworks.

If it is Art, then it is to be 'experienced' as much as (or more than) interpreted, & the effect it has on us will be the issue. So, whatever effect it has on us as individuals will be valid.

There was recently an bit of a spat in the Tolkien Society over whether a book by Terry Donaldson should be sold by the Society. The author is Irish, & in the book he stated that when he first read it he identified the people of the West as the Irish, & the Orcs, Nazgul, Balrogs, & ultimately Sauron, as representing the British 'invaders'. So we have an example of 'alplicabilty' here, whether its his interpretation, Stormfront's, or that of some Christians who see it as a Christian work. Art 'enchants' in a good or bad way, it casts a spell, changes us & the way we see the world. If we are enchanted we will experience the art, rather than interpret it or seek to discover 'meaning' or 'relevance'. If we are interpreting it we are not experiencing it. Interpretation is only possible once the spell is lifted (or if it was never truly cast).

In other words, like the wanderers in Faery, experiencing a 'fairy drama', who Tolkien speaks about in the Fairy Stories essay, while the spell is working we will simply believe that what we are seeing is 'real'. It will move us, to ecstacy, fear, horror, awe, & it will have no 'applicabilty' to anything beyond itself. This is the power of LotR or Smith. While we read (especially for the first time) these stories we are caught up in the enchantment, & the events & characters are simply what they are. Only when we step out of that world & attempt to interpret the events will we impose 'relevance' on those events & characters, & try & work out what they 'mean'. But while we were 'ensorcelled' they meant nothing beyond themselves. Aragorn (or Gandalf, or Frodo) was not an allegory of Christ while we were travelling with him on his journey through Middle Earth with the Fellowship. He was simply Aragorn. The Numenoreans were not Aryan 'supermen' while we were watching their history unfold within Middle Earth - or if they were then we were not enchanted, & were simply trying to understand an 'allegory'. It would then have been an intellectual game, played to gain ammunition for a 'battle' to be fought in the 'real' world.

So the issue of 'enchantment' is the central one here, not a side issue. Enchantment cannot be explained, only explained away. There is no 'meaning', no explanation, while we are wandering the paths of Faerie. It is what it is. When 'meaning' is sought, & certainly when we believe we have 'found' it, we are really admitting the spell has been lifted. Our attempts at 'interpretation' are really attempts to enchant ourselves - we are trying to work out how the trick was done, so we can do it to ourselves. But magic doesn't work that way. The teller of the tale is not enchanted by the telling, though he may have (must have?) been enchanted once. So all interpretations of Art are 'wrong', because they are unecessary. I don't think Tolkien drew much distinction between 'Monsters' & 'Critics' in this sense. A critic who attempts to 'explain' what a work of Art means has simply broken the thing to find out what it is made of, in order to put it back together, 'remake it in his own image', in order to claim it for his own. So Stormfront, or Mr Donaldson, or the Christian fundamentalists, or whoever are trying to claim the power of enchantment from Tolkien, to dictate the form of the enchantment that we will experience. But not being Artists themselves, but 'allegorists' they not only fail to enchant us, but risk breaking the power of the Art to enchant anyone again.

Where Tolkien the Artist succeeds, there is no 'meaning' to his stories, not 'intellectually' analisable 'meaning' - anymore than you or I or the guy across the street has any 'meaning', in the sense of our 'meaning' something else; we are what we are. Where Tolkien fails as an artist, we may find lots of 'meanings', but they won't matter to us in the least, if we have any sense, because then he would be attempting to make us think like him. He would be trying to 'allegorise' the world for us, rather than enchanting us.

The search for 'Meaning' in the 'secondary' world is one of the vices of we inhabitants of the 'primary' world. While we truly inhabit the secondary world it should seem as real as this world, because we should be totally 'in' that world, not looking on it, in a detatched way, from this world, & analyzing its 'meaning'. This world is this world, Middle Earth is Middle Earth, & I think Tolkien went to such pains to deny any allegorical meaning to his stories not because he wanted to avoid a lot of hassle from readers asking him how, exactly, LotR was 'allegorizing' WW2, (or the Christian life, or any other damn thing they could come up with) but because he knew that looking for allegory, interpreting the secondary world in terms of the primary, breaks the spell better than anything else.

The Legendarium doesn't 'mean' anything. That's why its so enchanting. There's no 'meaning' to argue about, no correct or incorrect 'interpretation' of anyone or anything in it, because when you're able to argue about such things you're no longer in that world, you're back in this one, & that's a bit like Aragorn or Gandalf trying to understand the meaning of this world, & interpret the 'allegory' of this particular world. This world is not an allegory, neither is Middle Earth, so neither of them can be interpreted, & nothing of relevance to this world can be found in Middle Earth while you're there. And you should be very careful in trying to bring anything back when you leave. In the old stories people who tried to bring back gold from Faerie found themselves with merely a handful of dead leaves (or something even less savoury ;) )

[Mister Underhill]

At the risk of over-posting today:

davem, you seem to be equating “meaning” and "interpretation" with “allegorical meaning” and "allegorical interpretation". This is certainly not what I’m driving at; I don’t think others are either. You also seem to be expressing the idea that enchantment and meaning are mutually exclusive. Here I disagree strongly. I am with Aiwendil: without plot and characters, where is enchantment? If LotR were a thousand pages of standing around at an Elvish picnic admiring all the otherworldly aspects of Faerie while pixie-dust sprinkled gently down on our heads, we’d be using words like “intensely boring” and “pointless” instead of “enchanting”. The much-referenced “On Fairy Stories”: Stories that are actually concerned primarily with “fairies,” that is with creatures that might also in modern English be called “elves,” are relatively rare, and as a rule not very interesting. Most good “fairy-stories” are about the adventures of men in the Perilous Realm or upon its shadowy marches. (emphasis Tolkien’s)The Legendarium is a series of stories, not just a setting.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

And there, I think, is the essential dividing line of this entire thread. Some do not believe in absolute Truth, and in that case, Tolkien's definition does not apply very well. Nor would Tolkien's story have a deep Truth to be revealed; everything becomes subjective and individualized. Others do believe in absolute Truth, and can accept Tolkien's definition of Faerie as a revelation of that truth, and see numerous demonstrations of Truth in each of his stories.

I doubt the two opposing views will come to agreement on that topic any time soon.

Uh oh…the nature of Truth and/or truth…I didn’t quite see this coming (but now that it’s here… )

Mark 12:30, you have raised what is probably the most central point to this whole discussion, for which I thank you mightily (*Fordim bows*): the conflict does seem to be between the idea of Truth in the singular versus a plurality of truths. I think, however, that there is a way for us to reconcile what you have characterised here as “two opposing views.” Rather than focusing on the relationship between “absolute Truth” versus an absolute plurality of truths we need to recognise that truth is, itself, a difficult and complex amalgam of the two. Perhaps better put, a truthful (truth-full) statement (or interpretation of a text) engages both the idea of absolute Truth in the singular and a plurality of truths.

My reasoning for this is based on the simple fact that to adopt either ‘position’ on its own without referencing the other is, in the end, impossible.

1) To claim that there is no Truth, only an unending and infinite series of entirely particularised and individual truths is to undo the concept of truth entirely. Falsehood is legion, whereas truth is always undergirded in some manner by singularity (we all speak of “the” truth). The very idea of truth necessitates that there be some point at which the journey toward truth stops at a single point.

2) To claim that there is only one absolute Truth is to deny the fact that we all of us use a wide variety of truths to explore and explain our everyday lives. The fact of birth is something that we can only explain through a variety of different, and entirely truthful ways: theological, biological, sociological, familial, personal, societal, moral, imaginatively, emotionally, etc. Which one of these truth-full descriptions of birth is The Truth? The really dangerous aspect of this approach is that once somebody begins to reduce the overwhelming complexity of human experience to a single absolute Truth…well, that’s where people like Hitler come from.

So where does this leave us? Faith in (or hope of) “the” Truth, in the singular, is necessary if we are to keep hold to the idea of truth at all (that is, to distinguish it from falsehood). But we cannot ever claim to have found or achieved any singular Truth without doing violence to all the other orders or kinds of truth in the world. The best we can do – and this is hard enough and wondrous enough to justify the attempt – is to speak or think or act truth-fully, which is to say that we do so in a manner that maintains our hope in Truth, without denying the plurality of individual truths.

So what has this to do with Tolkien? I’m not entirely sure, but I think it’s a way to work through this enchantment quandry. As we interpret LotR we should not do so either to proclaim the singular Truth that it embodies (for that is to deny the other truths of other individuals, or, perhaps even worse, to deny ourselves the plurality of truths we all live with). Nor should we proclaim our own individual truth without any reference whatsoever to the idea or hope of a singular Truth embodied by the text that, in some manner, unifies our experience of the text with the experiences of other people.

Tolkien said that fairy-stories never end – “don’t the great tales never end?” Sam asks with great native wisdom. And that, I think, is the whole point. What Tolkien’s writings constantly remind us is that the absolute Truth of Middle-Earth must remain forever just beyond our grasp – but not beyond the limits of our imagination.

[The Saucepan Man]

I don’t know what to say to this. If something is wrong, it must be wrong in relation to something that is right, no? (Mister Underhill) Well, perhaps. But not in a way that gives rise to any meaningful kind of interpretation. For example, if the interpretation of LotR as supporting the white supremacists' views is a "wrong" interpretation, then the corresponding "right" interpretation is that LotR does not support their views. Which, in my book, is not really a meaningful interpretation at all, but merely a negation of someone else's interpretation.


However, I don’t think we need to reference an outside, objective morality at all. I think every text has its own implicit morality. (Mister Underhill) But that's just the point, isn't it? Whether a text supports or expounds any particular moral tenet may in itself be a matter of interpretation.

I don't have all that much to say about this, but I will make one point. I think the assumption has been that there are more or less two possibilities: either the "canon" is what Tolkien meant or there is no canon and we are free to interpret the text in any way we like. (Aiwendil) Like Mr U, I fall between the two (although perhaps not in the same manner). As far as my own view of Middle-earth is concerned, I accept everything that is expressly or implicitly contained within the texts published within Tolkien's lifetime as true for that world. But I consider myself free to accept or reject anything else written by Tolkien, although I will generally be inclined to accept it. Of course, in discussions with others, I recognise that I will be bound by the "rules" of that discussion. So, if the discussion is directed towards establishing what Tolkien intended by a particular text, then I must accept that I am bound by what he himself has expressed as his intentions.


I think that there is a third way. A more useful thing to ask than "what did the author mean?" is "what would a reasonable person have meant?" (Aiwendil) In law, tests based upon "reasonableness" are directed towards establishing a boundary between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable according to the concensus of the society applying the test. And so, I do not see this approach as being much different from an analysis of whether a particular interpretation is "right" or "wrong" by reference to how the majority within society would view it. The "reasonable man" (or the man on the Clapham Omnibus as he is sometimes known) stands for the consensus within his society.


And there, I think, is the essential dividing line of this entire thread. Some do not believe in absolute Truth, and in that case, Tolkien's definition does not apply very well. Nor would Tolkien's story have a deep Truth to be revealed; everything becomes subjective and individualized. Others do believe in absolute Truth, and can accept Tolkien's definition of Faerie as a revelation of that truth, and see numerous demonstrations of Truth in each of his stories. (mark 12_30) I do not view it as nearly so clear cut as you suggest, Helen. "Absolute Truth" is in itself subjective, based upon a person's faith. Different faiths will have different ideas (often very subtly so) as to what precisely the "absolute Truth" entails. Whatever the particular faith of an individual, I still think that everyone's response to Tolkien's works will, to an extent, be subjective and individualised. And even those with no (or little) "faith" can still be inspired by his works, can still find their own individual "truths", and can still respond to Tolkien's portrayal of "Faerie". That said, I would still maintain that there is a level upon which we will all, if we allow ourselves, respond to the works in the same way, regardless of faith, politics, societal values, upbringing etc.

Davem, I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you say in your recent post. While we are reading the story, we should be caught up in it and should not waste time consciously analysing our interpretations of it as we go. And I don't think that you and Mr U are actually that far apart here. It is indeed the story, the characters and the events that they experience, as well as the landscape within which those events occur, which create the enchantment that we feel on reading the text. But I do thing that, to some extent, we are nevertheless subconsciously responding to the text and, in that sense, interpreting what it means to us, as we read it. Otherwise, I am not at all sure that we would undergo the enchantment in the first place.


The Legendarium is a series of stories, not just a setting. (Mister Underhill again - shamelessly overposting ;) ) Yes, and it is both the stories and their settings which prompt our enchantment.

Now, anyone fancy summarising the various ideas raised so far on this thread? :D

[davem]

MR U

Quote:'davem, you seem to be equating “meaning” and "interpretation" with “allegorical meaning” and "allegorical interpretation". This is certainly not what I’m driving at; I don’t think others are either.'

The post wasn't directed at others her, but at those like Stormfront, ot Terry Donaldson, who do go beyond even applicability into allegory. Analysis of the 'Meaning' of a story is only possible when we have stepped back from the direct experience of the secondary world, & are attempting to account for our reactions to the story. At that point we are 'observers' rather than 'experiencers' of the secondary world. We are critics, classifyers, trying to work out which 'box' to put our experience in, which label to stick on it. Or worse, we're like Stormfront, asking 'What's in it for me? What can I get out of this that will be of use in the Primary world? It equivalent to strip mining, or mass deforestation for a quick buck. Like Frodo in Lorien we should simply experience the living tree, not see it as a source of timber to do something with.

Quote:' You also seem to be expressing the idea that enchantment and meaning are mutually exclusive. Here I disagree strongly. I am with Aiwendil: without plot and characters, where is enchantment? If LotR were a thousand pages of standing around at an Elvish picnic admiring all the otherworldly aspects of Faerie while pixie-dust sprinkled gently down on our heads, we’d be using words like “intensely boring” and “pointless” instead of “enchanting”. The much-referenced “On Fairy Stories”:Quote:
Stories that are actually concerned primarily with “fairies,” that is with creatures that might also in modern English be called “elves,” are relatively rare, and as a rule not very interesting. Most good “fairy-stories” are about the adventures of men in the Perilous Realm or upon its shadowy marches. (emphasis Tolkien’s)
The Legendarium is a series of stories, not just a setting.'

Yet this is exactly what we have in Smith, & Smith is far from boring or pointless. For me it is one of the most powerful & moving works Tolkien ever wrote. We are simply seeing a series of unconected scenes, & visions, with no connecting narrative - at least while we follow Smith through Faerie. Smith has very few 'adventures' in the sense the term is usually understood. He simply walks in Faerie, & things happen, in which he plays little or no active part. The point of the story - if there is one, is that merely wandering in Faerie is of value, & enchanting enough. I have to say that for me, Smith is more 'Tolkienesque' than anything else he wrote (does that make sense?). It is 'pure' Faerie, with no narrative drive as such, no 'quest'. All the rules are put aside & we are taken into Faerie more totally than anywhere else since the Lost Tales.

Aiwendil

I have to wonder about this 'denial' of an 'objectively existing faerie' realm. Especially from someone involved in a project to produce a 'coherent' Silmarillion - what are you doing if not trying to put together a vision of Middle Earth from lots of scattered & contradictory sources - so you must have some sense of what Middle Earth 'should' be like. You must have some sense of there being a coherent story, a coherent world - as if all the existing stories are 'windows' onto this 'Archetypal' secondary world.

Secondly, Tolkien believed in 'faerie', & spent his life trying to present it to us, so even if you don't like or agree with the idea you have to accept that that is the position Tolkien was coming from,& what motivated him. His original reason for beginning to write was not to 'invent' a new mythology, but to rediscover one that was lost. So He clearly believed that this mythological secondary world had once existed, & was still accessible, indeed that it was still around in some form - in traditional beliefs, stories, place names & partiularly in language.

There simply is, for many of us, a sense of familiarty with Middle Earth, a sense of 'recognition', of 'remembering' when we read the stories. What amazed me for a while was that non English people could even make sense of Tolkien's writings - Middle Earth seemed so purely 'English', reflecting the landscapes I grew up in & the people I knew. Yet that's not the case & people from all over the world respond to it. So what explanation can there be - what was I relating to & feeling at home with, if it wasn't my own background? It must have been something more 'universal', something which people from all over the world also felt a connection with. I won't get into the 'Monomyth' debate, as I've only read Masks of God once, a long time ago & my memories of it are vague, but I must side with Tolkien as regards the existence of Faerie, whatever that is.

[Mister Underhill]

SPM: For example, if the interpretation of LotR as supporting the white supremacists' views is a "wrong" interpretation, then the corresponding "right" interpretation is that LotR does not support their views. I don’t agree here. The thinking isn’t complete. The right interpretation is not simply a negation: “does not support their views”. To refute a wrong interpretation, we should be able to show why it is wrong. It’s not x because it is y. I don’t want to delve too far into the particulars of Stormfront’s interpretation and refuting it. Perhaps you see what I mean. Whether a text supports or expounds any particular moral tenet may in itself be a matter of interpretation. Indeed. Though I think there are themes that, in broad stroke at least, will not be debatable. Also, I did not say that these themes will always be obvious or clear-cut, only that they would be there. But I do thing that, to some extent, we are nevertheless subconsciously responding to the text and, in that sense, interpreting what it means to us, as we read it. Otherwise, I am not at all sure that we would undergo the enchantment in the first place. When we read SoWM, for example, we begin to form interpretations about the characters, the events that happen to them, and their reactions to those events. Nokes’s reaction to the Fairy Star, to Alf, and so on, lead us to an interpretation of Nokes. We wonder, what is the meaning of the mysterious message give to Smith by the Fairy Queen? And the revelation that [SPOILER ALERT -- skip to the next paragraph if you've not read Smith...] Smith himself apparently is the Fairy King must also be interpreted. What does it mean?

In davem’s excellent post about 'A Shop on the Edge of the Hills of Fairyland' (#154), he describes quite eloquently a key quality of the appeal of the picture: the questions about story elements and characters that it evokes: “...why would a shop be there, what does it sell, who to, & who would run such a place? There's a whole story there in the title, & its almost like, on some level, we feel we 'know' that story, but just can't quite remember it, & desperately want someone to remind us how it goes.” davem: Yet this is exactly what we have in Smith... We are simply seeing a series of unconected scenes, & visions, with no connecting narrative... The point of the story - if there is one, is that merely wandering in Faerie is of value, & enchanting enough. Hmm... ‘the point of the story’? Do I detect meaning? Interpretation? But you save yourself with the escape hatch of “-if there is one”. ;)

I agree in a sense that SoWM is more dreamlike, more like a poem, though I think the story does indeed transmit meaning. Tolkien’s own words betray him. In letter 299, he applauds the sentiment that “To seek for the meaning [of the story] is to cut open the ball in search of its bounce.” Yet in the same letter, only moments later, he says: “But the little tale was (of course) not intended for children! An old man's book, already weighted with the presage of bereavement.” Here we already have hints of meaning and intention.

I personally feel that SoWM is, at least in part, a dramatization of the ideas, sentiments, and philosophy found in On Fairy Stories, and is one of the more autobiographical – dare I say allegorical? – pieces that Tolkien ever wrote.

Nevertheless, I do sympathize with your sentiment that a story is meant to be experienced rather than dissected, at least while you’re reading it. And I get that reading a story versus talking about a story is a little bit like the difference between dancing and talking about dancing. One is the experience, one is talking about the experience. But I think the thing that distinguishes a good story from a purely sensual – but meaningless – experience, like an amusement park ride, is that stories do have meaning. They say something, even if it’s something that affects us on such a primal level that no words can ever express it adequately. A story is its own expression.

This post is already too long, so here I’ll just tip my hat to Fordim for building a very thought-provoking bridge between Truth and truth.

[The Saucepan Man]

Just a quick one to respond to Mister U.


I don’t agree here. The thinking isn’t complete. The right interpretation is not simply a negation: “does not support their views”. To refute a wrong interpretation, we should be able to show why it is wrong. It’s not x because it is y.

Yes, I agree that when we seek to refute a "wrong" interpretation, we do get into meaningful interpretation. But there will be any number ways of interpreting the text to do this, and so we get into territory where there is no one interpretation which can be objectively shown to be "right". Which is what I meant when I said that it does not follow from the fact that an interpretation is "wrong" that there will be one corresponding "right" interpretation, save for the meaningless negation.

[davem]

MrU

Clearly there is an allegorical dimension to SoWM - Tolkien even makes a stab at interpreting the allegory of the Human world - though not of Faery (at least not in any passage quoted by Fleiger. He writes:

'The Great Hall is evidently in a way an 'allegory' of the village Church; the Master Cook with his house adjacent, & his office that is not hereditary, provides for its own instruction & succession but is not one of the 'secular' or profitable crafts, & yet is supported by the village, is plainly the Parson & the Priesthood. 'Cooking' is a domestic affair practised by men & women: personal religion & prayer. the Master Cook presides over & provides for all the religious festivals of the year, & also for all the religious occaisions that are not universal: births, marriages, & deaths'

But is this interpretation 'canonical', or an attempt to impose a primary world relevance on the secondary world - my point (probably badly expressed) was not that secondary worlds like Middle Earth have no meaning - of course they do - but that whatever meaning they have is, or should be, limited to that world, & that we shouldn't take that meaning 'out' of that world & attempt to impose it on this world, which is what Stormfront & others are trying to do. There is a 'meaning' to Frodo's Quest, the story of the Numenoreans obsession with racial purity has a relevance, & can teach us something - but only/I] about Middle Earth, not about this world. (Though having said that, what Tolkien shows in this instance is that an obsession with such ideas of racial purity & bloodlines brings disaster, & if anyone was looking for it, they could find a very insightful analysis of Fascism & its disastrous effects in the Akallabeth - but that is to miss the whole point, & make the story into something it wasn't meant to be - so, MrU, though even with this point I may be seeming to contradict my own argument, I will 'save' myself again ;). The point I'm making is that Stormfront don't even seem to understand what Tolkien has written, & they are not making a 'one to one' connection between the Numenoreans & their own 'philosophy', because they are interpreting the Numenorean thing as 'pro' racial purity, when it is actually 'anti' that position).

If we take another piece from the essay, Tolkien describes the geography of SoWM -

'The Forest lies on the western edge of Wooton Major, whose one Inn bears over its door a stone with a worn & faded carving of three trees & the inscription [I]'Welco to the Wode.'....The western villages of the country, among them the Wooton's & Walton, were originally main points of contact between Faery & this country of Men; they had been at an earlier period actually within the forest borders, as their names signify.' (Wooton comes from Old English wudu-tun- 'town in or by a wood', & Walton, a village even samller than Wooton Minor, from weald-tun,' town in a wood or on a wold' ).....Walton, even deeper in the forest than Wooton Minor, is evidently still the point of entry into Faery for those humans who venture there.'

I would say that this description of the geography of SoWM should be treated as 'canonical', even though it is not included in the story, because it limits itself to the secondary world, & is not aimed at making the story 'relevant' to this world. It is not 'meaningless', but any meaning it has is limited to the world of story(='Faerie' - hope everyone has realised I'm not using the spellings Faery & Faerie interchangeably - Faery is the world Smith travels in in SoWM, Faerie is the 'world' Tolkien is exploring, the world of 'fairy story' as such).

There may, as you say be an allegorical dimension to the story. Tolkien gave two possible ones - an old man's story about 'letting go', & one about the relationship of the Church to the community. But it works without those interpretations, & works better in my opinion without them, because they blur the lines between the worlds. SoWM is very definite in its seperation of the Faery & the world of Men. Allegory attempts to make the two worlds one, to make the secondary world into nothing more than a 'clever' description of this world (awkward phrase, but its early, & I hope you get what I mean), & denies its autonomy. Sadly, this is a trap the older Tolkien fell into more & more often. It is based on a mistaken belief that stories must be 'relevant', must have a meaning in & for the primary world, to have any worth. But secondary worlds should be self contained. There should be 'crossing points', places where access is possible, but there should also be limits, boundaries, which some things don't, cannot, cross. The Monsters should stay there, & not come here - I've never come across a believeable story of Dragons or Elves existing in this world, for instance, it always feels 'wrong' when a writer says they have. Its a bit like historians 'discovering' the real King Arthur, then go on to present us with a fifth century warlord - no Guinevere, no Lancelot, no Grail - so, we can have a 'real' Arthur, but the price is the loss of all the magic, of everything that made us want him in the first place.

In the same way, the 'meaning' of the stories set in the secondary world should stay there, because it can only come through stripped of its secondary world magic.

That's not to say the magic of itself can't remain with us when we return to this world - it can & should. As I said before, the beauty & the magic of the secondary world can make this world seem more beautiful & magical, even if that is simply the effect of memory of the secondary world overlaying the primary world, but the two worlds are just that - two seperate, bounded worlds.

And that's more than enough for now ;)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

davem, you wrote:

but that is to miss the whole point, & make the story into something it wasn't meant to be

I think the question I would like to have answered (and, I hope I'm not off-base when I say that this is the same issue that has bedeviled your conversations with Saucepan Man on this topic) is just how do you/we know what the story was "meant to be"? If, as you are arguing, the meaning of the text is entirely internal to M-E, then how can we access that and bring it 'out' into our Primary World? Are we in some kind of direct communion with the author? Or are we back to the claim that 'we' all 'just know' what it's 'about'?

[Mister Underhill]

...there is no one interpretation which can be objectively shown to be "right".I think even at this generalized level (“Stormfront’s interpretation” can be broken down into a set of more specific interpretations, presumably), we can formulate a positive refutation, even if it’s hard to articulate. LotR is not about racial purity and white superiority because a central theme of the book is the cooperation of a group of racially diverse people, who, in the course of their adventures, break down walls of bigotry and prejudice that divide them.

We might be able to refine that through conversation, but I think you’ll probably agree that my interpretation is headed in the right direction.

davem, an interesting post. I’ve never read Fleiger, so that’s the first I’ve seen of that explanation. I’ll leave SoWM alone for now except to say that I’m a bit surprised that you would cite a story clearly intended to have allegorical meaning – deliberately meant to relate to “our world” – as an example of “pure Faerie”.

In the same way, the 'meaning' of the stories set in the secondary world should stay there, because it can only come through stripped of its secondary world magic. Are you still talking about allegorical type meanings? If there’s no meaning that we can relate to our own lives and situations, what Tolkien called applicability, then a tale may serve to give us a few hours’ reading enjoyment, but won’t have much more impact. I would argue that a large part of LotR’s enduring appeal lies in its profound depth of meaning.

[davem]

Fordim\

I don't mean that we can't try & relate what we experience in Faerie to our lives in the primary world, what I mean is any 'meaning' or 'relevance' we may find is entirely subjective, & events & characters in the secondary world have no direct intentional relationship to the primary world - because that would be to treat the secondary world merely as an allegory of the primary world. Applicability is subjective. What I find applicable will not necessarily be what you find applicable. Applicability is subjective, Allegory is 'objective' - in the sense that the 'meaning' is imposed by the author of the story, & that 'meaning' is always the author's intended meaning. So, while Stormfront may find support for their racial ideology in LotR, it was clearly not the intent of the author to put it there. LotR was not written as a Nazi allegory, so Stormfront cannot claim to be such. So there is no intentional meaning written into LotR. The 'meaning' of the story lies in the story, not outside it, in the primary world. Stormfront are effectively claiming to find a primary world relevance in Middle Earth, which was not put there by the author. Middle Earth in that sense has no relevance to this world, & from the point of view of this world, the story is 'meaningless'.

(note, it is not without internal meaning, & when we enter into Middle Earth we will find it meaningful - there are reasons why the characters do what they do - they don't behave randomly - but the reasons they do what they do are inspired by events & circumstances to be found within the secondary world, not in the primary world. So whatever the Numenoreans' reasons/motivations for their claims to superiority within Middle Earth, those reasons have nothing to do with the reasons/motivations put forward by Stormfront for their claims to superiority, because that world is that world & this world is this world. If any member of that organisation could prove scientifically that they are decended from Elros then their claims would have to be considered - though we could point out to them that the Numenorean's sense of superiority lead repeatedly to disaster, from the fall of Numenor down to the loss of Arnor & the Kin Strife & beyond, so the ideal of 'racial superiorty' is something they should consider forgetting. We could also declare them undesirable aliens, & tell them to get back to their own world & stop making nuisances of themselves in our world).

As to what we can bring back from Faery, well, we can only bring back memories, which may inspire us to make ourselves & our world a 'better' place. But applicability is not about 'bringing something back' as such, because that's about doing something with what we bring back. I can say 'well, seeing Aragorn's struggle has inspired me to do such & such' but all I have brought back with me fro Middle Earth is the memory of Aragorn. How I apply it is down to me, & any meaning I have found in it, any rfelevance for my life here, is all down to me. The 'experience' was given to me, the meaning I find in it is all my own. Tolkien is telling me a story, not what it means - or if he does try & tell me what it means he is changing his role, from storyteller to teacher, & making his tales into allegory - which he has said they are not. So, again, any 'meaning' we think we have found in Tolkien's stories is our own - as Aragorn tells Boromir that if a man finds peril in Lorien its because he brought it there himself. If we find meaning or relevance for the primary world in Middle Earth then we are the ones who imposed it. We may learn something there which we didn't know before, which may change the way we think about ourselves & our world, but that discovery would be our own, & whatever it means the meaning is our own - applicability, not allegory. I've come to lots of realisations about myself & the world through 'applying' examples form Tolkien's stories to my own life, but that's 'me', not Tolkien.

So, MrU quote:

' If there’s no meaning that we can relate to our own lives and situations, what Tolkien called applicability, then a tale may serve to give us a few hours’ reading enjoyment, but won’t have much more impact. I would argue that a large part of LotR’s enduring appeal lies in its profound depth of meaning.'

Where does that depth of meaning lie - in the secondary world or in ourselves? LotR will mean nothing to some, less than nothing to others, be nonsense to others still. And to some of us it will contain profound truth. But all that meaning & profundity (& beauty & sorrow & longing) are all contained in Middle Earth, & only exist for us in this world if we bring back our memories & experiences of that place, and then apply them to ourselves & our world. And the way in which we apply them will determine whether we end up with 'profundity' or nonsense, or something deeply wrong & dangerous. We may learn from our time in Middle Earth, but Middle Earth is not there to intentionally teach us anything - certainly not about this world - it may teach us about itself, & we may find a way to apply what we learn there to this world, but that wasn't the' intention of the place & people' we encountered there.

Who says SoWM was intended to have an allegorical meaning - & even if it did, can we say that's all it is - that its just an allegory & nothing more. In fact, as I said, Tolkien only offers an allegorical explanation for the 'human world' of Wooton Major. If he had intended the story simply as an allegory & nothing more, why not just tell the story of that place & leave out what happens to Smith in Faery? Faery in the story is not an allegory. What allegorical meaning could the episode with the Elven Mariners have, or the Birch tree (yes, I know Shippey attempted to 'decode' that particular episode, but without any success IMO), or Smith's dancing with the Faery Queen? What allegorical meaning is there to our sense of wonder, yearning & loss of something we can't even remember, which comes through when reading the story? If SoWM was written as an allegory its a very bad one, because no-one so far has been able to come up with a one-to-one correspondence between it & the primary world. It may have allegorical parts, scattered here & there throughout it, but the problem with allegorical fairy stories is that the 'magic' they appear to contain, or give access to, is not true enchantment, because when you translate the allegory the magic disappears. Smith moves us precisely because it is not allegorical as a whole. As a whole it is something else, & whatever that 'something else' is, it will never be translated into the language of this primary world, because it is what it is & can't be translated into something else, because it wasn't written to disguise the 'truth' but to reveal it.

[Aiwendil]

Mister Underhill wrote:
To clarify my own feeling slightly, I’m not really “concerned” about analyzing “enchantment”. If I were, I probably would have quit the Downs years ago. I merely observed that the analysis, for me, doesn’t get me any closer to understanding why or how it works.


Ah. I'm sorry for mischaracterizing your view.

Davem wrote:
I have to wonder about this 'denial' of an 'objectively existing faerie' realm. Especially from someone involved in a project to produce a 'coherent' Silmarillion - what are you doing if not trying to put together a vision of Middle Earth from lots of scattered & contradictory sources - so you must have some sense of what Middle Earth 'should' be like. You must have some sense of there being a coherent story, a coherent world - as if all the existing stories are 'windows' onto this 'Archetypal' secondary world.


I think that there is a coherent story to tell about Middle-earth. Actually, I think that there are many mutually contradictory coherent stories to tell about Middle-earth. Middle-earth surely is an imaginary place. But "Faerie" cannot simply be Middle-earth. If Faerie were literally equal to Middle-earth, it could not also be the Faery of SoWM or the Little Kingdom of Farmer Giles or any other such place. My point was that "Faerie", if it is a meaningful term at all, does not refer to some self-consistent place, real or imaginary.

Secondly, Tolkien believed in 'faerie', & spent his life trying to present it to us, so even if you don't like or agree with the idea you have to accept that that is the position Tolkien was coming from,& what motivated him. His original reason for beginning to write was not to 'invent' a new mythology, but to rediscover one that was lost. So He clearly believed that this mythological secondary world had once existed, & was still accessible, indeed that it was still around in some form - in traditional beliefs, stories, place names & partiularly in language.

First of all, I must point out that while Tolkien was an extremely intelligent and talented person, he was not infallible. That he held some opinion does not mean that that opinion is necessarily correct.

However, I do not think that my views on this matter contradict Tolkien's.

Let's try to be clear about one thing: Tolkien did not literally think that he was rediscovering a lost mythology in the Silmarillion. He did not expect ancient records to turn up containing the original version of the Turin legend any more than he expected the shards of Gurthang to be unearthed by archaeologists. What he did perhaps think was that he was reconstructing certain ideas that had existed in ancient mythologies, or inventing ones that could very plausibly have existed.

Let me point out that I never denied that "Faerie" is a meaningful, or even important, concept. What I argued was that:

1. Faerie is not literally a real place.
2. Faerie is actually not so much a place, real or imaginary, as it is a set of images, moods, ideas, and associations.
3. The primary purpose of fantasy is not to provide a window to Faerie; rather, the purpose of Faerie is to provide a kind of power to fantasy.

Yet this is exactly what we have in Smith, & Smith is far from boring or pointless. For me it is one of the most powerful & moving works Tolkien ever wrote. We are simply seeing a series of unconected scenes, & visions, with no connecting narrative - at least while we follow Smith through Faerie. Smith has very few 'adventures' in the sense the term is usually understood. He simply walks in Faerie, & things happen, in which he plays little or no active part. The point of the story - if there is one, is that merely wandering in Faerie is of value, & enchanting enough. I have to say that for me, Smith is more 'Tolkienesque' than anything else he wrote (does that make sense?). It is 'pure' Faerie, with no narrative drive as such, no 'quest'. All the rules are put aside & we are taken into Faerie more totally than anywhere else since the Lost Tales.

I will not touch the issue of allegory in Smith - save to mention that I see it as at least quasi-allegorical in intention.

But as for "pure Faerie without adventure" being sufficient - it works well enough within the context of this work, but how much longer could Smith be before it became dreadfully boring? And how many works like Smith could one tolerate before one hungered for a book in which something actually happens?

To be honest, while I did enjoy Smith, it is far from my favorite work by Tolkien. I much prefer Giles. To me, the chief value of Smith seemed to lie in its consideration of Faerie as such, sort of as a meta-fantasy or disguised piece of literary theory more than as a work of fiction in its own right.

[davem]

Aiwendil

I don't think we can ask 'how much longer could Smith be before it became dreadfully boring?'

Because SoWM is complete as it is. It isn't an edited down version of a longer story. Its rather like asking how much bigger a canvas could Leonardo have used for the Mona Lisa, how much more of the landscape could he have painted before the central figure lost its impact?

The objective existence in some form of Faerie is the issue at the heart of this discussion in some ways. What do we mean by 'objective' in this sense. Faerie is not a 'place' with a geographical location, or even a definite psychological one.

In the Beowulf essay Tolkien gives his reason for Beowulf's last fight being with a Dragon, not a human foe. The Dragon in the story is both a 'real' physical threat, & a 'symbol' of something else - of 'Death'. Its supernatural or mythical nature means it is more than a physical enemy. So, it represents the threat of death & the idea, the 'archetype' of Death. So the poet is presenting us with an old man going to face his own death in battle with a physical threat, & at the same time, with 'Man' facing the inevitability of 'Death'. One overlays or underlies the other. But they are two things - subjective, Beowulf confronts the Dragon, & objective, 'Man' confronts 'Death'.

In The Fall of Gondolin Tolkien is doing the same thing. Subjectively it is the Somme, Objectively it is 'War'. The battle of Beowulf with the Dragon allows the poet to explore the 'Archetypal' confrontation with Death. FoG allows Tolkien to explore the Archetype of War. Yet once he begins this 'exploration' he crosses over into 'Faerie' & possibly finds more than he was looking for. Through the horrors of the Somme he finds a way into Faerie, & he provides a way for us to follow.

So these 'Archetypal' (not used in the strictly Jungian sense) realities are 'facts' of human experience - as are birth, love, sacrifice, etc. Tolkien sees the Somme through 'enchanted eyes', & is able to see into the underlying reality of Human existence. We could argue that the 'general' in this sense is 'truer' than the specific - because the fight with the Dragon is only one way to present the confrontation with Death, but we will all face Death. And we will have to face it in our own way.

The secondary world, of story, myth - Faerie - goes on forever, & obeys its own laws, has its own meaning, which affects us, but is not 'for' us. We experience these underlying facts through 'story', by entering into the secondary world, but the story, the underlying facts of human life carries on, whether we know the story or not. So Faerie is 'objectively' real. The individual stories are not literally true - Middle Earth exists only in our imaginations, but what it refers to, wat it points us towards, is an objective 'reality', which was around before we appeared on this planet, & will be around long after we 'pass beyond the circles of the world'.

This in no way requires us to believe in God, an afterlife, or anything at all 'supernatural'. We will die in the end, whether we go on to anything else or not. But Faerie is more 'real' than we are, because it is the Human story, which will go on as long as there are humans, while we are only around temporarily - in this world at least.

When you say 'The primary purpose of fantasy is not to provide a window to Faerie; rather, the purpose of Faerie is to provide a kind of power to fantasy.'

I'm not sure. Faerie has no 'purpose' at all - if by that you mean that its simply 'for' us, to provide raw material for the primary world enterprise of making up stories. We can, of course, tell stories about Faerie, but to say that's all its for is like saying that Death only exists to provide us with dramatic incidents for our fictional dramas. For me it would seem to be the other way around. Death is an inescapable 'fact', & that's why we include it in our stories.

So, (quote) 'And how many works like Smith could one tolerate before one hungered for a book in which something actually happens?

To be honest, while I did enjoy Smith, it is far from my favorite work by Tolkien. I much prefer Giles. To me, the chief value of Smith seemed to lie in its consideration of Faerie as such, sort of as a meta-fantasy or disguised piece of literary theory more than as a work of fiction in its own right.'

I think a very great deal 'happens' in Smith - which is not to say those happenings are 'for' anything - not in the primary world, but they don't have to be - why should they be. Faery doesn't exist only for Smith, or the inhabitants of Wooton Major, or even for ourselves reading the story. They simply 'happen', & we are told about them, & we can apply what we learn from thinking about them, if we choose to thiink about them, or desire to 'learn' anything - which is far from the point of Faerie, which doesn't exist to 'teach' us anything.

To call it 'a disguised piece of literary theory more than as a work of fiction in its own right.' is to miss the point - what is Tolkien the 'literary theorist' telling us through the events Smith witnesses - The Birch, the arrival of the Elven Mariners, the Faery Queen dancing with her maidens? I'm the exact opposite as regards Smith - from the first time I read it I was deeply moved - especially as I read an edition which included Pauline Baynes's illustrations. I've only been as powerfully struck by the evocation of Faerie twice - when I first read The Hobbit, & when I read the Cottage of Lost Play.

[HerenIstarion]

davem

Sadly, this is a trap the older Tolkien fell into more & more often

Well, I'll risk being called visionist (which I am not), but I'd say (in this lining up with mark:12-30, if I were to understand her post as she meant it), that in his late years (as in his young years, I'd say, but more obvioulsy so in later writings) Tolkien was not so much trying to conform his secondary world to the primary world, but to the Absolute Truth (call it Primary World with capitalization if you will). I may also risk being a bit platonic, but I assume that it may be said that both secondary world [sub]created by the writer, and the primary world we live in are images of some other more 'real' word, and there is such a thing as Absolute Truth (to use Mr. U (even if unconscious) support: If something is wrong, it must be wrong in relation to something that is right, no?. Yes. And for something to be true or untrue, or proved to be true or untrue, it must be measered against something which is True. And the thing we measure something against is not, by definition of the process itself, equal to things measured. To add up to the soup, I will draw Kant to my support too, with his 'moral law inside me' maxim

I do not intend to present you with the idea that Tolkien was some kind of a medium 'recording' things he have seen in a vision. I know he has been inventing his places and characters. In this I line up with Aiwendil, I believe. What I'm driving at may be listed as follows:

1. Talking about 'moral tenets' - all human race has moral code which is basically the same (whatever minor differences amounting to different cultures, major evaluation is the same - kindness and bravery are valued everywhere, and cowardice and treachery are vices everywhere likewise etc.)

2. The existence of such uniformity is not explainable without drawing on Absolute Truth resources.

3. The primary world itself is less true in relation to Absolute Truth, for every event in it has to be measured against it and the level of its conformity to be found out (the whole Freedom of Will/Choice issue hangs on these hinges).

Now, having the general postulates, I will move on to more concrete maxims:

4. Tolkien was trying to bring his secondary world in conformity not with the primary world, but with the Absolute Truth, which took considerable effort, and brought an end to it being self contained.

5. What has been called Faerie throughout this thread, to me seems like just another mirror (as our world is mirror too) of the same Absolute Truth. Again, I do not intend to indicate that Faerie as Faerie is real place, with that particular mountain and this particular river placed indeed as drawn by JRR Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien on their home made map, but as the reflection of concepts. So again I'm with Aiwendil here up to a point, but another point may be added – the whole aim of fantasy (as of other arts too), is not to open a window, but to reflect the Truth, to be a mirror. As cherubs are calling to eaceh other, so, as no creature can contain the greatness of the Creator all in itself, we have to tell each other about Him.We should be grateful to Tolkien for telling us such a strong word of it.

6. In this context, the unifromity, or self contained substance of any [sub]created secondary world is of less value that its relation to the Absolute Truth. And that is why Tolkien was leaning so heavily on the concept of Eucatastrophe

Hence it is to be concluded, that:

A) Some interpetations may be indeed more right, and others more wrong
B) The way of judging the rightness/wrongness of the intepratation lies indeed with the consensus of the society, general 'reasonable man' (what was the name of the chap on a bus?)

I would briefly add that enchantment much discussed here may be subsequent to all three given reasons indeed, but it all comes down to the Absolute Truth in the end. (And well, call it universal archetypes who will, I will stick to Absolute Truth rather) Going back to clause 5 of my statements above, it may be said that some that do not fall in for fantasy, have some other ways to the Truth, as good and as justified as fantasy/Faerie may be.

PS. Well, I'm afraid I've just pushed this thread in "Finding God in JRRT" direction, but I do believe that without such a concept there is not way of understanting Tolkien. Appreciation, love, enjoyment – yes. Understanding – no.

Disclaimer – the Post Scriptum does not state my claim of having absolute understanding myself, I just have a feeling that my efforts are in the right direction, in a sense as in clause A of a conclusion

[Mister Underhill]

Excellent post, HI. I think you're on to something with your thoughts about absolute truth. This is an intuitive thing and I'm just thinking my way through this, but I think that absolute truth can form a dividing line between an author and his work. That sounds kind of weird and no doubt will provide good fodder for satire at a certain party, but, at the risk of being skewered, let me try to explain through example:

In Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, Lucas introduced the idea of "midi-chlorians", microscopic lifeforms that communicate with the Force. The degree to which any individual will be "strong in the Force" has to do with his midi-chlorian count -- the more of these microscopic symbionts he has in him, the more in touch with the Force he will be.

With me so far? Now, the introduction of this story element didn't wreck the internal consistency of the Star Wars "secondary world" -- strictly speaking there's no reason why it shouldn't work as a story element -- but many fans rebelled against it (myself included). Why? Well, speaking only for myself, some connection to truth that I sensed in the original conception of the Force seemed to be reduced to an accident of biology. Now, any person could only be in touch with the great spiritual energy of the universe to the extent that he is infected with these little parasitic germs. Lucas had undermined the Truth of his own legendarium.

So, tying this back to the question of "canonicity", this may be an example of how a story is a separate thing from its author, and how his authority even in a world of his own creation is incomplete and subject to truth.

Or it may only be an example of how I am a dork who thinks too much about stories.

[mark12_30]

Are the midichlorians more spiritually attuned than the Jedi? And how long are the midichlorians in training before they're knighted?

Yeah, I hated midichlorians too.

As far as my experience goes, the only people who seriously lay claim to *possessing* absolute Truth are those who haven't been pursuing it for very long or very seriously. Those who have spent a significant amount of time pursuing it, realize that (a) the more they obtain, the more they learn is out there that they don't even know how to pursue; and (b) what they do think they know, they see only "through a glass darkly" and not in its fullness. So believing *in* absolute Truth and choosing to pursue it is quite different than claiming to *have* it.

Given the through-a-glass-darkly vantage, hence the worth in holding up several different mirrors to try and catch those through-a-glass-darkly glimpses from different perspectives. Hence, LotR and SoWM, and even (in that Book you're not supposed to name on this board) different parables on similar topics that hilight different points.

[davem]

H-I

If we take this underlying 'true' level of reality to exist we can say it is the 'Archetype' from which this reality takes its form. Or that this reality is an imperfect image of that reality. So we can bring in Christianity - 'Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in Heaven' - so we pray that this reality will be brought in to line with the divine, perfect reality. Or we could bring in the Hermeticists, with their dictum of 'As Above, So Below'. There is a theory that the positioning of the three pyramids at Gizeh was intened to 'reflect' the stars in the belt of Orion. So there is a sense that this world is not 'perfect' yet & has to be brought into line with some 'ideal'.

The question then arises as to whether Faerie could be said to be some kind of underlying 'blueprint', between the Archetype itself, & this world. So, when we enter Faerie we move a step closer to the 'primary' world - which in this case would not be this world. The 'divine' world would be the 'primary' world, Faerie the 'secondary' world, & this world, the physical, would be the third in the sequence. Which would make the 'secondary' world 'truer' than this one, being 'closer' to the 'primary', Archtypal reality. So the sequence could be expressed theologically as this world = the body, Faerie = the Soul, & the Archetypal world = the Spirit.

Of course, we could put a different case - this world is closest to the Archetypal, ideal, world, & Faerie is a distortion of this world, in which case it would have to be brought into being as close a 'reflection' of this world as possible.

The problem with this alternative is that Faerie deals in absolutes, or 'archetypes' - Death, Love, Beauty, Ugliness, etc, which in this world are never experienced in their 'pure' forms. So, Faerie must be closer to Ideal reality, than this world. And we're back 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ;) to Plato.

So, when Aiwendil states that a fantasy which showed us only a sequence of images of Faerie would be boring, he is saying that that 'closer' we approach this Ideal, the more bored we will become :) And that if we ever got to Heaven we'd be bored rigid.

[mark12_30]

davem wrote: The question then arises as to whether Faerie could be said to be some kind of underlying 'blueprint', between the Archetype itself, & this world. So, when we enter Faerie we move a step closer to the 'primary' world - which in this case would not be this world. The 'divine' world would be the 'primary' world, Faerie the 'secondary' world, & this world, the physical, would be the third in the sequence. Which would make the 'secondary' world 'truer' than this one, being 'closer' to the 'primary', Archtypal reality. So the sequence could be expressed theologically as this world = the body, Faerie = the Soul, & the Archetypal world = the Spirit.

davem, that's a fascinating opening.

Considering your list, I'd suggest an alternative view:
body is analogous to the physical realm
the spirit is analagous to the Truth
and the soul is analogous to our concepts-- which include archetypes, Faerie stories and Myth, and parables, and every other way in which we imperfect beings try to grasp (or grasp at?) the Spirit, the Truth.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:
I don't think we can ask 'how much longer could Smith be before it became dreadfully boring?'

Because SoWM is complete as it is. It isn't an edited down version of a longer story.

I agree that it's complete as it is. The logic of the argument up to this point is as follows: Mr. Underhill and I argued that pure Faerie is not enough; there must be plot as well. You argued that Smith demonstrates that pure Faerie, without adventure, is in fact enough.

The claim I was trying to make by asking how much longer Smith could be without becoming boring was that Smith is a special case. Yes, pure Faerie without adventure is enough to sustain a short work like Smith that is, as much as anything else, a meditation upon fantasy and Faerie. But in general, for longer works or for works that are not primarily concerned with the art of fantasy, plot and adventure are needed (I would say, in fact, that they are the most important aspect).

Faerie is not a 'place' with a geographical location, or even a definite psychological one.

Agreed - this is more or less what I was arguing.

So Faerie is 'objectively' real.

I agree. I did not argue that it is not real. I only argued that it is not a place.

I'm not sure. Faerie has no 'purpose' at all - if by that you mean that its simply 'for' us, to provide raw material for the primary world enterprise of making up stories.

You're right; I was careless with my wording. But I stand by the sentiment, which is that in the context of fantasy literature, Faerie is used as a means (a very powerful one) to an end; it is not the end itself.

I think a very great deal 'happens' in Smith

Did I misunderstand you earlier, then? I thought that as an argument against the claim that "pure Faerie is not enough; things must actually happen" you pointed to Smith as an example of pure Faerie sufficing without plot.

I agree that Smith is not plotless. But it is a kind of minimalist plot, so I was willing to accept it as, approximately, an example of pure Faerie without incident.

To call it 'a disguised piece of literary theory more than as a work of fiction in its own right.' is to miss the point - what is Tolkien the 'literary theorist' telling us through the events Smith witnesses

Do you deny that it is, at least in large part, literary theory? If so, then why do you then inquire into Tolkien's role as a literary theorist? If not, then why am I missing the point?

I happen to think it's rather good literary theory, if it comes to that. My point was that it is not very typical of fantasy literature, nor even of Tolkien's work. I'll grant that Smith may be more or less a "window to Faerie" - but I think that it is the exception.

HerenIstarion wrote:
Well, I'll risk being called visionist (which I am not), but I'd say (in this lining up with mark:12-30, if I were to understand her post as she meant it), that in his late years (as in his young years, I'd say, but more obvioulsy so in later writings) Tolkien was not so much trying to conform his secondary world to the primary world, but to the Absolute Truth (call it Primary World with capitalization if you will).

I must say that all this discussion of "Truth" with a capital T makes me a bit uneasy. What is meant by it? Perhaps this is obvious to others, but I am perplexed. "Truth" as I understand it is a property of certain propositions (those propositions that are not false). It is a logical term.

Obviously, this is not the way in which it is being employed here. What, then, is it supposed to mean?

I suppose it may mean God, or heaven, or something like that. If that is indeed the case, I think it would be much more clear simply to say so.

If, then, I understand this correctly, the claim at hand is either that 1. the "Faerie" element that we detect in fantasy is in fact a reflection or image of God/heaven/"Truth" or 2. the first claim is true and, additionally, to achieve such an image is the primary purpose of fantasy.

Now, being non-religious, I obviously disagree with both of these claims.

The trouble is that there's not much more to say than that. I do not think that I fail to fully appreciate Tolkien's work because I don't subscribe to this notion of "Truth". Nor do I think that my appreciation of it is due, unbeknownst to me, to some subconscious acceptance of this "Truth".

And I think that the whole conjecture of "Truth" as the real identity of "Faerie" must be left at that, unless one whishes to enter into a debate on theological claims (which presumably one does not).

[The Saucepan Man]

I must say that all this discussion of "Truth" with a capital T makes me a bit uneasy. You and me both, Aiwendil.

It was precisely this concern which led me to question Helen's division of the thread between those who believe in "absolute Truth" and those who do not. Because every person is the product of different upbringings, social and cultural influences, experiences etc, every person's beliefs will vary to one degree or other. Certainly amongst those of different faiths and those who have little or no religious beliefs, but also the values of those who share a faith can vary quite considerably from one person to another. So I cannot accept that any one person is able to say that their a belief in an "absolute Truth" is any more "right" than another person's belief in the same concept, or indeed than the values of someone who does not strive for this "absolute Truth".

And so, while I would agree that there are "wrong" interpretations of Tolkien's works (judged by societal norms, although those will vary from one society to another), I would maintain that (apart from the negative counterparts of such "wrong" interpretations), there is no obectively measurable "right" way of interpreting them.

Certainly, I cannot agree with H-I's proposition that:


without such a concept [God] there is not way of understanting Tolkien. Appreciation, love, enjoyment – yes. Understanding – no. since that is akin to saying that, unless one happens to hold a particular belief, one cannot truly understand Tolkien's works. Instinctively, for me, that just seems wrong.

[Lord of Angmar]

Certainly, I cannot agree with H-I's proposition... ...since that is akin to saying that, unless one happens to hold a particular belief, one cannot truly understand Tolkien's works. Instinctively, for me, that just seems wrong.The Saucepan Man

I hope I am not misrepresenting your view, HerenIstarion, when I say that what you meant by:

without such a concept [God] there is not way of understanting Tolkien. Appreciation, love, enjoyment – yes. Understanding – no.

was not that you must believe in a (Christian... Catholic) God to 'understand' Tolkien, but that you must realize that Tolkien held strong beliefs in the existence of such a God, and that an omnipotent God is present in Middle-earth, to fully understand where Tolkien is coming from in his writing. In other words, you could 'appreciate' the ending of The Lord of the Rings with Gollum 'accidentally' falling into the fires of Sammath Naur, but to fully understand the scene as it was intended by the author, you must realize the presence of a Divine Providence in Middle-earth.

This all ties back in with the question of, "Should the author's intention factor into our reading experience and individual interpretion?", but I haven't the time to give any real (or original) input on the subject.

[The Saucepan Man]

I apologise, H-I, if I mischaracterised what you were saying.

... you must realize that Tolkien held strong beliefs in the existence of such a God, and that an omnipotent God is present in his writings, to fully understand where Tolkien is coming from in his writing. I certainly do not have any difficulty with that as a proposition, provided that the distinction is made between understanding "where Tolkien is coming from" and understanding the text itself. I was talking about the latter in putting forward my view that, subject to what is expressly or implicitly stated in the text (and I would include the concept of "providence" here) there is no one "right" way of interpreting (or understanding) his works.

[Lord of Angmar]

I was talking about the latter in putting forward my view that there is no one "right" way of interpreting (or understanding) his works.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am also skeptical that there is any wrong way to interpret a piece of fictional writing. Joyce Carol Oates said that, as a writer, she had no relationship with her writing after it had been published. Her self as an author, she said, was a person she did not know, a person who did not exist except in her writing. I believe that fictional writing, once published, should be considered the only primary source on the story told within its pages. Whatever a writer may say about his or her intentions before, during or after the writing should not sway the reader's interpretation. If the story cannot stand on its own to uphold the values that the author tried to imbue it with, then it should be open to any interpretation the reader reasonably sees in the course of his/her private reading. The reader should even, God forbid, be allowed to present his/her interpretation in a public forum without fear that anyone (besides, I suppose, the author speaking directly to the reader in a public medium) will proclaim it a blanketly "wrong" interpretation.

Sorry for the awkward wording and, perhaps, nonsensicality of this post; just my one and a half cents on the subject.

-Angmar

[davem]

Aiwendil

Perhaps I should have been more careful with my wording. When I said:

I think a very great deal 'happens' in Smith

I meant a very great deal happens to Smith, (ie a great deal happens in(side) 'Smith' the person), spiritually, internally, as a result of his experiences, but that's from his own conclusions about his experiences. Smith (ie a kind of 'everyman' figure, the 'wanderer in Faerie') is changed - the question though is whether he is changed by what he experiences, or by what he learns from his experiences - because he could have had all those experiences & been left unchanged; he could have been so caught up in himself that he didn't even realise he had passed into Faerie. So, just being in Faerie won't necessarily teach us anything. We have to take the 'ore' we find there & turn it into 'gold (or 'Iron', if we're a 'Smith' ;) )

When you ask: 'Do you deny that it is, at least in large part, literary theory? If so, then why do you then inquire into Tolkien's role as a literary theorist? If not, then why am I missing the point?'

I only deny that it is solely, or even 'mainly' literary theory. I think we can read it on that level, & will find a good deal about literary theory. My point though, is that its a lot more than that, & the most important simension of the story is not the literary theory it expounds. It is not an allegory of a particular literary theory, becuase too much of it, especially the episodes in Faerie, cannot be 'translated into anything else. They simply 'are'. They don't 'mean' anything in relation to the human world. The battle from which the Elven mariners return has nothing to do with Smith's world. Smith is told by the Birch to leave Faery & never return. So Faery & its inhabitants clearly see themselves as part of a self contained reality, & they are not doing anything 'for' the human world.

Helen

I think you're probably closer to expressing what I meant with my analogy. I have to say it came to me as I was writing it, so I wasn't able to 'step back' from it & analyse it. Thanks.

[HerenIstarion]

Absolute Truth re:

Mere logic. Suppose I present you with two statements:

1. To rob is good
2. To rob is bad

How do you judge the truth of each statement? You may say you measure it against the public consensus on the subject. But that is halfway only – where did such a consensus came from? It may be argued that it originated back in prehistorical time as thing good for society and coming from herd instinct. But why each individual robber should prefer good of society over his personal good he may obtain by robbing some other member of said society? In case the latter originates from instinct of self-preservation? When judging to rob or not to rob, even if both originate from instincts, the person making the choice is appying some standard, against which he measures the 'rightness', or 'truthfulness' of his immediate action. But the thing against which some other thing is measured, is bound to be something else. Further it may be argued, since the differences of such a standard are very minor from society to society, it is universal. I profess I hold it comes from God, and is Absolute Truth but I do not object to it being called Primeval Archetype too. But now I seemingly start to pass beyond Tolkien discussion.

Now, being non-religious, I obviously disagree with both of these claims.

My apologies for sounding like forcing religion on you. I did not intend to preach. And thanks Lord of Angmar for washing me clean of inquisitor's name ;). This being Tolkien discussion thread, I'd rather come back and stay inside boundaries of Eruism indeed, whatever my personal views on the subject.

1. the "Faerie" element that we detect in fantasy is in fact a reflection or image of God/heaven/"Truth" or 2. the first claim is true and, additionally, to achieve such an image is the primary purpose of fantasy.

Clause 1 re: Both yes and no, it depends (I will explain myself below)
Clause 2 re: Both yes and no - the primary purpose is the imitation of the Creator and application of one's inherent, innate subcreative ability, i.e. applying one's likeness as well. Reflecting of an Image may be the purpose only conciously - i.e. when the author intends to do so. Otherwise glimpses are accidental.

But, unless I sound preaching on you again, I would make a reservation pointing out that here (I believe) I'm more or less recounting Tolkien's beliefs and intentions (thus bringing us back to canonicity of the intentions vs published text issue). So:

On Fairy Stories

Probably every writer making a secondary world, a fantasy, every sub-creator, wishes in some measure to be a real maker, or hopes that he is drawing on reality: hopes that the peculiar quality of this secondary world (if not all the details) are derived from Reality, or are flowing into it. If he indeed achieves a quality that can fairly be described by the dictionary definition: “inner consistency of reality,” it is difficult to conceive how this can be, if the work does not in some way partake of reality. The peculiar quality of the ”joy” in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a “consolation” for the sorrow of this world, but a satisfaction, and an answer to that question, “Is it true?” The answer to this question that I gave at first was (quite rightly): “If you have built your little world well, yes: it is true in that world.” That is enough for the artist (or the artist part of the artist). But in the “eucatastrophe” we see in a brief vision that the answer may be greater—it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world The use of this word gives a hint of my epilogue. It is a serious and dangerous matter. It is presumptuous of me to touch upon such a theme; but if by grace what I say has in any respect any validity, it is, of course, only one facet of a truth incalculably rich: finite only because the capacity of Man for whom this was done is finite.
I would venture to say that approaching the Christian Story from this direction, it has long been my feeling (a joyous feeling) that God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels—peculiarly artistic, beautiful, and moving: “mythical” in their perfect, self-contained significance; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe. But this story has entered History and the primary world; the desire and aspiration of sub-creation has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation. The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man's history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the “inner consistency of reality.” There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true, and none which so many sceptical men have accepted as true on its own merits. For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation. To reject it leads either to sadness or to wrath.

[italic emphasis Tolkien's, bold emphasis mine]

and

Mythopoeia


The heart of man is not compound of lies,
but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,
and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,
man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned,
and keeps the rags of lordship one he owned,
his world-dominion by creative act:
not his to worship the great Artefact.
man, sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with elves and goblins, though we dared to build
gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sow the seed of dragons, 'twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which were made

* * *

In Paradise perchance the eye may stray
from gazing upon everlasting Day
to see the day-illumined, and renew
from mirrored truth the likeness of the True
Then looking on the Blessed Land 'twill see
that all is as it is, and yet made free:
Salvation changes not, nor yet destroys,
garden nor gardener, children nor their toys.
Evil it will not see, for evil lies
not in God's picture but in crooked eyes,
not in the source but in malicious choice,
and not in sound but in the tuneless voice.
In Paradise they look no more awry;
and though they make anew, they make no lie.
Be sure they still will make, not being dead,
and poets shall have flames upon their head,
and harps whereon their faultless fingers fall:
there each shall choose for ever from the All.

emphases mine


So, the fairy element may be well reflection, and may be not, it depends on authors intentions. But even if authors intentions were far from reflecting anything, it may nevertheless reflect something accidentaly. That's were interpretations come in. But, though I agree with:

If the story cannot stand on its own to uphold the values that the author tried to imbue it with, then it should be open to any interpretation the reader reasonably sees in the course of his/her private reading

I'm inclined to hold that, once author's intentions are known, it is not good to stick to differing interpretation. If Gandalf said he has forgot, and Tolkien explicitly backed him up in his letters, why do not believe him, indeed?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:
It is not an allegory of a particular literary theory, becuase too much of it, especially the episodes in Faerie, cannot be 'translated into anything else. They simply 'are'. They don't 'mean' anything in relation to the human world. The battle from which the Elven mariners return has nothing to do with Smith's world. Smith is told by the Birch to leave Faery & never return. So Faery & its inhabitants clearly see themselves as part of a self contained reality, & they are not doing anything 'for' the human world.


This is really picking at minor details now, but I disagree. For here the literary theory is about Faerie. If one felt a need to write in the allegorical equal signs, "Faerie" (the place in Smith) would be equated with "Faerie" (the real Faerie, whether a place or not). It is essential to the literary point that Faerie be self-consistent and not an allegory for the primary world.

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Certainly, I cannot agree with H-I's proposition . . .
since that is akin to saying that, unless one happens to hold a particular belief, one cannot truly understand Tolkien's works. Instinctively, for me, that just seems wrong.

Exactly. However, if we interpret it as Lord Angmar suggests:
[it] was not that you must believe in a (Christian... Catholic) God to 'understand' Tolkien, but that you must realize that Tolkien held strong beliefs in the existence of such a God, and that an omnipotent God is present in Middle-earth, to fully understand where Tolkien is coming from in his writing.

then it is quite a different matter, and I suppose I agree with it.

HerenIstarion wrote:
Absolute Truth re:

Mere logic.

Sorry, but I don't think that it's mere logic, if I am correct in understanding the argument as:

1. There are certain propositions the truth-values of which do not logically follow from facts about the world.
2. Nonetheless, we know the truth-values of those propositions.
3. Therefore, there must be a transcendental source for our knowledge of the truth-values.

You ask:
Suppose I present you with two statements:

1. To rob is good
2. To rob is bad

How do you judge the truth of each statement?

I would not judge the truth-values until I was told the precise meaning of the terms being employed.

The trouble with your syllogism is 2. The correct deduction from 1 is that in fact we cannot know the truth-values of those statements. Moreover, you cannot prove 2 since, by your assumption, the truth-values you claim to know do not follow from facts about the world.

I fear that we are beginning to veer into philosophy of meaning here, a subject with which, if not restrained, I am liable to add several pages to the thread. So I will cut myself off at this point.

I'm inclined to hold that, once author's intentions are known, it is not good to stick to differing interpretation.

There are two quite different matters here. First, there is the author's intention with regard to the content of the primary text, with which subject much of this thread has been concerned. Second, there is the author's beliefs about literary theory; this is what we are dealing with in "On Faery Stories". I certainly don't think that we are obbliged to agree with the author about literary theory (indeed, if it were so, we could never enjoy the works of two different authors with different views on the subject).

As it happens, though, I agree with most of what Tolkien says about fantasy, as far as I understand it. I don't think that the truth of theological claims is at all essential to his point. He seems to understand the "eucatastrophe" as an actual glimpse of the "truth" about God, etc. I think it can be understood just as well as a fictional glimpse of a fictional truth - a fiction that nonetheless is extremely appealing and has a great deal of psychological impact.

[mark12_30]

You ask:

Suppose I present you with two statements:

1. To rob is good
2. To rob is bad

How do you judge the truth of each statement?

I would not judge the truth-values until I was told the precise meaning of the terms being employed.

Aiwendil, here you lose me.

Words mean what they mean.

I suppose one could postulate as many exceptions to the rule "to rob is bad" as one could "to kill is bad." And yes, I will argue *for* the concept of a Just War even though I think Killing is bad. (I bring this up **only** for an example , not to start another entire side-debate... egads. :eek: ) So, okay, I'll argue for Just War even while I state that Killing is bad. Call me conflicted. But I still don't want anybody to rob me and I don't want anybody to kill me either.

Killing is bad; having to do it for an overwhelming Reason doesn't make it Good. Same with robbing.

Nor do I see that Aragorn (returning to Tolkien for just a moment) would agree with you. How does it go? "Good and evil have not changed, nor are they one thing among men and another among elves and dwarves."

Good is good.

[Aiwendil]

Aiwendil, here you lose me.

Words mean what they mean.

Yes, words mean what they mean, but saying that neither defines the word in question nor gives an account of what "meaning" actually is. But I really don't think that this is the place to get into the philosophy of meaning.

That whole matter is only tangentially related to the subjects at hand, anyway (or so I think). The point is that I don't accept HerenIstarion's syllogism as logically valid, and I don't think that such a refusal makes me any less qualified to appreciate Tolkien's work.

[HerenIstarion]

The point is that I don't accept HerenIstarion's syllogism as logically valid, and I don't think that such a refusal makes me any less qualified to appreciate Tolkien's work.

Yes, of course, I never intended to imply such a thing, Eru forbid!

As for my syllogism, not going too far or too deep, I was implying that all human beings (as well as in Tolkien's world all Free People do - the pin-point quote provided by Helen up there) have built-in standard of Good and Evil (different codes of conduct of different cultures being consequent to one and the same standard), which can not be explained away without drawing in outside nature Consciousnes/Power/God to have such a standard be derived from. All actions/choices humans do are measured against such a built-in scale (And usually with mere statement, as Helen put it, of good is good). If that statement of mine is true, than to rob/not to rob syllogism is easily solved by comparing both to that inherent standard.

[davem]

Though I may be contradicting earlier statements of mine, something occurs:

Accepting 'Faerie' to be a different 'state' of perception, if it is a state that we can all access, it has 'objective' existence. This leads to the question of what, exactly, it is - but we can only theorise about that, & those with a religious bent will offer religious speculations.

A more interesting question in the context of this thread is how we judge the 'canonicity' of Tolkien's Faerie. Do we base our judgements about what is 'correct' in Tolkien's vision, ie, which versions of the stories & which of Tolkien's interpretations of them we include as 'authoritative' & which we reject, on what Tolkien does with what he finds & Faerie & brings back to us & presents as Middle Earth (or Faery), or do we base our judgement on how accurately he reports Faerie to us?

We could decide that everything in LotR is 'canonical' & cannot be questioned, because it is the account Tolkien gave us - but statements about Faerie made in it may conflict with the 'truth' of Faerie - maybe he chose not to accept something he found there because it conflicted with some tenet of Catholicism - was there any self imposed restriction on what he reported to us? And if there was, which side do we come down on.

In other words, are we looking to Tolkien to provide us access to Faerie, & perhaps through Faerie, access to something beyond that - as Niggle's painting could provide a viewer with a glimpse of the 'real' place it depicted, yet that place was seen in the end to be merely 'the best introduction to the 'Mountains', & its over those Mountains, in the end, that we must go. Or is Tolkien's Middle Earth to be taken as Art, a thing in itself, which has a value solely in & of itself? Or, to boil it down, should we see the Legendarium as being 'for' something - either for something in this world (to teach us about this world, our place in it & how we should live) or as a pointer to the Road' out of this world (the way over the Mountains), or should we simply 'experience' it as having no meaning beyond itself?

If the first, then Tolkien could be way wrong, even in LotR, in his statements about Middle Earth - which is not to say he is wrong, merely that we would be reading the story as a kind of 'guide book', or a map which we consult before undertaking a journey somewhere other than Middle Earth, & we could consult other maps & guide books at the same time & try to find where all the different versions agree, & where, if at all, they disagree. So, Faerie is an objective place or state we are seeking to enter into, & possibly pass beyond the writer of the guidebook(s), the drawer of the map(s).

If the second, then the Journey is not to somewhere 'beyond' Middle Earth, but into & through Middle Earth itself - so that the book 'Lord of the Rings' is 'Niggle's painting', & the Mountains & beyond is our experience of Middle Earth as we read it, & it points the way to nothing beyond itself. But then we get stuck, because Tolkien is using ancient symbols, myths, traditions. He is dealing with 'eternal' themes - death, love, sacrifice, beauty & those things are what strike the deepest chord in most of his readers, so we are forced to ask whether what we are responding to is simply Middle Earth itself, or what it points us towards, & requires us to confront - or at least offers us the opportunity to confront.

It leaves us with the question, 'Is Tolkien's Legendarium 'canonical' in terms of Faerie, or isn't it? Should we require it to be? Well, if Faerie is objectively 'real' & a 'state' closer to ultimate 'Truth' than the 'reality', physical & psychological, which we currently inhabit, & if we see Tolkien's work as if not the 'best' then at least a good 'introduction to the Mountains', then it should be as 'canonical', as 'true' a depiction of Faerie as possible, & we should reject anything in it which doesn't correspond to the 'known' of Faerie (known through the original legends, symbols & stories), & hold up to strict scrutiny any 'new' things which Tolkien has introduced. If it is a tower built to enable us to look out on the Sea, then we will require that it has been built within sight of the Sea, not a thousand miles inland, & that it is tall enough, & has windows facing in the right direction. Of course, maybe the Sea doesn't exist, or maybe what we will find when we reach the top of the tower stairs is a painting of the Sea, inspired by the idea of the Sea, not meant to show us the way to the Sea, but simply there to be experienced as a work of art in its own right.

Tolkien can't have it both ways - he can't claim on the one hand that fantasy (including his own creation, presumably) is about seeing 'in a brief vision that the answer may be greater—it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world' - ie, claiming that it points us towards something greater, more 'real', 'truer', & at the same time denounce the 'purposed domination of the Author', & leave it all up to individual interpreatation, or 'applicability', because if the first claim is true, & it is to show 'a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world' then the author is required to do that as accurately as possible, may be wrong, can & should be contradicted, & so Tolkien himself, even in his 'canonical' writings may be completely wrong, & other's may be right. If the second statement is correct - that it is not about the purposed domination of the author, but rather about 'applicability' then whatever the writer of the story says is 'true' for the world he has created, & the story reveals nothing - least of all the 'far off gleam or echo of evangelium' - unless the reader chooses to interpret it in that way - & any reader's interpretation is as valid as any other, & none of them, including the author's, has any more weight, or claim to the 'truth' than any of the others.

As I said, I may have contradicted earlier statements of mine here, but these are my current thoughts, as they've come to me as I've written them.

[The Saucepan Man]

I was implying that all human beings (as well as in Tolkien's world all Free People do - the pin-point quote provided by Helen up there) have built-in standard of Good and Evil (different codes of conduct of different cultures being consequent to one and the same standard), which can not be explained away without drawing in outside nature Consciousnes/Power/God to have such a standard be derived from. (HerenIstarion) My personal opinion is that this in-built moral code (which itself varies from society to society and within societies over time) can be explained by reference to the evolution of human society (an argument which you anticipated but dismissed, H-I), but I won’t go into that here since it is an issue which I debated at length with Mister Underhill (among others) in the http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=508&page=1&pp=40&highlight=philosophy ((Lord of the Rings and Philosophy thread.

However, I am not sure it matters that much which rationale one adopts as the basis for morality, since I think that we can all accept that are basic moral values which (exceptions and caveats aside) we can all subscribe to. And, while Tolkien’s tales do affirm and exemplify these values, we do not need to read the texts to be aware of them. For example, I think that we can all agree that killing is wrong, without needing to read LotR to tell us that. So I do not think that it is this moral code that “Faerie” puts us in touch with. Rather, in my view, it is something much deeper and more primordial. That said, I still I haven’t really got a handle on exactly what it is or why it should enchant us so. And perhaps, for reasons already stated, I shouldn’t try.


Tolkien can't have it both ways - he can't claim on the one hand that fantasy (including his own creation, presumably) is about seeing 'in a brief vision that the answer may be greater—it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world' - ie, claiming that it points us towards something greater, more 'real', 'truer', & at the same time denounce the 'purposed domination of the Author', & leave it all up to individual interpreatation, or 'applicability' … (davem) That seems to me to be a very pertinent point to raise, davem, since Tolkien does, as you suggest, appear to make both claims in his writings. I haven’t got the Letters to hand, but I was reading them last night and came across two extracts that very much supported the latter view. One was a quick comment to the effect that LotR is about nothing except for itself. The other, in a letter to his Aunt I think, concerned Leaf by Niggle. He set out the ideas that he had in mind when writing it and then went on to comment that (while they might be of interest to his Aunt) they should have no bearing on the reader’s appreciation of the story itself.

If I was to try to reconcile the conflicting views that you have highlighted, davem, then I would speculate that, while he had a settled view (based upon his beliefs) of what it was that he experienced in “Faerie” and hoped that readers of his tales would experience the same, Tolkien nevertheless recognised that he could not impose that experience on his readers, since they will be free to interpret it in whatever manner seems appropriate to them.

[mark12_30]

Meaty stuff, davem.

I think it's both more complex and more simple than that.

Faerie tales (of any kind) transport the reader out of *this* world into a secondary world, with its own rules, so that when the Truth permeates the fabric and the reader tastes it, it is acceptable and has appeal. The reader embraces it and likes it. As, when Tolkien made Good Beautiful. In this world, despite our skepticism, good is beautiful, if you have the heart to see that; and spending time in his world has enabled lots of young teen fans to set aside skepticism and choose good where they otherwise would not. (See the many and varied posts in Novices and Newcomers to this effect.) Having encountered Truth in a faerie story, the hope is that when the reader returns to *this* world, he will recognize that truth, in our example that goodness as desirable (and good) when he sees it here, and it will appeal to him as it did in the other world. And in the lives of many teen fans (and elders) this is beautifully effective.

In order for that to succeed, Tolkien does not have to create The World Of Faerie. He has to create a world into which faerie can permeate. But that world has to be consistent-- or we lose trust. Aragorn has to be Aragorn; Gollum has to be Gollum; and Elves have to be Elves-- or *we* lose trust in the storyteller, and our skepticism kicks in. We might as well have stayed in *this* world.

One major point of parables, myths, faerie stories, is that in entering into them, we set aside our skepticism.

Old Testament: look at Nathan describing the Old Man’s one precious lamb, and the rich man who took it from him instead of taking a lamb from his own plentiful herd. David's guard was down, and he was furious at the rich man on behalf of the Old Man who only had one precious lamb. David condemns the Rich Man as heartless and cruel. When Nathan says, "That's what you did to Uriah when you took Bathsheba, " David is pierced to the heart. Why? Because his guard was down, his skepticism was inactive.

There were dozens of ways to tell that parable. It didn't have to be an old man; it didn't have to be a lamb. It could have been a little boy with a pet bird, or whatever. But the point was, David's guard was down, and he was vulnerable and open when the truth finally struck.

Now-- if the parable had been inconsistent *within itself*, or had given itself away as overtly moralizing: "Listen, David, and I'll tell you how you really sinned with Bathsheba--” David’s guard would have been up and the truth wouldn't have gotten through to his heart.

This is why I look at consistency for each story. Smith has to be consistent within itself, cover to cover. Roverandom has to be consistent within itself, cover to cover. Or our skepticism rears up, and we harden our hearts before the Truth can penetrate. Lord of the Rings has to be consistent within itself, or the spell is broken. Generally speaking, when the spell breaks, our heart closes.

That's why I think you COULD write a good (great!) Trotter story. Make it consistent from cover to cover; make me believe in Trotter, that he is who he is (not a surrogate Aragorn!), he lives where he lives, he does what he does. And then if Faerie invades, if Truth shines through, I might be open to that glimpse beyond-- beyond Trotter, beyond where he lives, into Truth.

Going back to your post:

In other words, are we looking to Tolkien to provide us access to Faerie, & perhaps through Faerie, access to something beyond that - as Niggle's painting could provide a viewer with a glimpse of the 'real' place it depicted, yet that place was seen in the end to be merely 'the best introduction to the 'Mountains', & its over those Mountains, in the end, that we must go.

I think we should look for that in any good faerie story.

Or is Tolkien's Middle Earth to be taken as Art, a thing in itself, which has a value solely in & of itself?

While it's true that a work of art has a value in and of itself, it's not true that therefore it has no transcendent value.

The painting of St. Catherine in The Boston Museum of Fine Arts is a beautiful work of art, a magnificent example of The Painter's Craft in and of its own right. The lighting is superb; the colors are effective; the woman's clothing folds realistically; her facial expression is realistic. The building is realistic. The storm outside is realistic. The crucifix looks like a real crucifix. Yes, it has value as a Painting, as Oil On Canvas; it is a painter's example of How To Do It Right.

But-- it also pierces my heart, with desire, with hope, with longing, with passionate faith. Very few works of art in this world have affected me the way that painting has.

So-- Tolkien's statements (that seem to conflict):
Tolkien can't have it both ways - he can't claim on the one hand that fantasy (including his own creation, presumably) is about seeing 'in a brief vision that the answer may be greater—it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world' - ie, claiming that it points us towards something greater, more 'real', 'truer', & at the same time denounce the 'purposed domination of the Author'

Yes he can-- because he is not after the author's domination. He is after the interaction between the heart of the reader and that encounter with Truth. And the Truth is beyond the author's control; the Truth transcends the author.

The author can drive the bus, he can know the road, he can stay on schedule; but it is the passenger who must have open eyes to see, and be receptive and open to the sights he sees. If his eyes are closed because of horrible driving, that's the driver's fault. If his eyes are open and he sees a glimpse of Truth-- the driver can only take credit for helping the passenger feel secure enough during the bus ride that he doesn't have to close his eyes.

(Saucie, we cross-posted...)

[mark12_30]

A scattered afterthought:


The domination of the author in allegory is due to the one-on-one correspondence, indicating that the author chooses where the reader is allowed to look. That tends to actually limit the truth that can be revealed. A faerie story like LOTR, or Sil, or Beowulf or Sir Gawain, in removing this one-to-one, opens up the view. (struggling...)

Allegory is as if the bus driver curtained all the windows but one, or (even) mounted a periscope on the bus, and offered the passenger the opportunity to look out of it in a certain direction. It forces the passenger to trust the bus driver much, much more. Or, it opens the heart less.

[davem]

(Bear with me, I'm trying to clarify things for myself as much as add to the debate ;) )
And yet we are still left with the question, is Tolkien 'using' Faerie for 'ulterior motives'? Or to put it another way, is he using Faerie to 'evangelise'? Is his purpose to get us to see that far off gleam of evangelium. Jung has been accused of putting his own spin on the Alchemical texts he used, in order to confirm his own theories - which was valid, because he was a physician, & was concerned with curing his patients, not an investigator of the history of science.

But was Tolkien an 'evangelist' (or at least an 'apologist' like Lewis), making use of Faery to convert us to his beliefs - he almost goes as far as to say this in regard to LotR, when he said it was 'consciously' revised to make it conform to Catholic teaching - or was he attempting to offer us a glimpse into Faerie?

We have a 'canon' of Faerie literature, myths, legends, fairy stories, folklore. I could cite the Eddas, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala, the Irish legends of Cuchulain & Finn MaCool, the Arthurian cycles, on through Kirk's Secret Commonwealth, & down to collections like Campbell's Popular Tales of the West Highlands & Carmichael's Carmina Gadelica, just to name a few that spring to mind. What they give us is a 'traditional' account of Faerie, which in many ways doesn't correspond to Tolkien's vision. We are left asking what Tolkien's motivation was - to add to that 'canon' or to use it to achieve his own ends :eek: (cue sinister organ music).

My own feeling is that Tolkien is attempting to 'Christianise' the traditions he found, so that his stories would 'reveal' what he felt to be the 'truth'. He is not giving us pure, unalloyed, traditional Faerie, but a version of it, for a specific purpose, for all his protestations of opposition to 'the purposed domination of the author'. One example would be his Elves. In traditional accounts Elves, or Fairies (the Irish Sidhe) do not have 'souls'. Many of the Irish saints who appear in the stories state this clearly. But this is not simply an expression of the Orthodox position. They aren't depicted as having what we could call 'moral' souls. They are fickle, cruel, callous, highly dangerous, & will steal human babies from their cradles. They have to be kept on side by gifts of food, & pacified by being praised - they are called 'Fair Folk' less for their beauty & more to keep in with them. They can, for all Tolkien disliked the idea, appear very small, hiding among flowers, & singing silly songs. They don't have immortal souls, & there are numerous accounts of Fairy funerals. In other accounts they are the souls of the dead, & their land is the land of the Dead. Of course, they could also be incredibly beautifulNone of this is in Tolkien's writings. His Elves are his own creation, not traditional at all. They are a kind of (at least in origin) 'perfect' humanity, what Humanity could, or should be.

So Tolkien is using some aspects of the Tradition, & changing others, & introducing brand new creatures & ideas as well. The question is, what is his motivation? To give us a believable, convincing secondary world, or to present us with a 'parable' aimed at converting 'those with ears to hear'? One thing often lacking in traditional tales of fairies is any moral sense, of good & evil. Yet Tolkien's Faerie is a moral world, & in this he is 'dominating' us, he is telling us that good & evil have always existed among Elves & Dwarves, - maybe among the ones inhisFaerie, yet in Faerie as we have recieved it through traditional accounts, they haven't. These traditional Elves & Dwarves are not 'human', & we can see that through their lack of morality.

So we come back to the question of what Faerie is - some underlying 'state or reality' between this world & ultimate 'truth'? But which Faerie fulfils that role - Tolkien's or Tradition's? If it is Tolkien's then the Legendarium is simply a 'parable', & Tolkien is attempting to dominate us; if Tradition's, then 'truth', of which this Faerie is a 'reflection', is not exactly what a Christian would consider to be 'Heavenly', as there is a definite lack of morality involved!

I suppose this brings earlier statements of mine about the nature of Faerie into question, & I may have to change my spots! Faerie becomes not a coherent 'state' or reality underlying this one, but a source of images, stories, concepts, which an author is free to make use of for whatever purpose he chooses - but if he makes such choices, he is choosing for a reason, & has something to say, a position he wants to put forward, & whether he intends it or not, he is to some extent 'dominating' the reader.

Yet, this doesn't explain the sense of 'recognition' which inspires us - not just in the things of Faerie, but in the sense of 'rightness' & 'wrongness' which permeates Middle Earth, so it seems there is something of an objective nature there which his stories put us in touch with, which makes us feel 'Yes, I knew it was like that!'. So we can say that what Tolkien is giving us is not Traditional Faerie, but it is something like 'Truth' which has not changed.

[The Saucepan Man]

... as I have to dash.


But was Tolkien an 'evangelist' (or at least an 'apologist' like Lewis), making use of Faery to convert us to his beliefs - he almost goes as far as to say this in regard to LotR, when he said it was 'consciously' revised to make it conform to Catholic teaching - or was he attempting to offer us a glimpse into Faerie? Clearly, at least by the time that he came to revise LotR, he was concerned to ensure that his work were consistent, as far as possible, with his beliefs (and, in that sense, his vision of "Faerie" was no doubt different to that presented in much mythology and folklore). But I don't get the impression that he wrote them with the conscious intention of converting his readers to his beliefs. He recognised (as I think he was bound to do) the reader's absolute freedom to interpret them as he or she sees fit.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:
A more interesting question in the context of this thread is how we judge the 'canonicity' of Tolkien's Faerie. Do we base our judgements about what is 'correct' in Tolkien's vision, ie, which versions of the stories & which of Tolkien's interpretations of them we include as 'authoritative' & which we reject, on what Tolkien does with what he finds & Faerie & brings back to us & presents as Middle Earth (or Faery), or do we base our judgement on how accurately he reports Faerie to us?
but statements about Faerie made in it may conflict with the 'truth' of Faerie - maybe he chose not to accept something he found there because it conflicted with some tenet of Catholicism - was there any self imposed restriction on what he reported to us?

Again, Middle-earth is not Faerie. Looking for a coherent story of Middle-earth (the sort of thing that the Revised Silmarillion project is doing) is quite a different thing from looking for a coherent picture of Faerie (whatever that may mean). I think there is no such thing as "accurately reporting Faerie" since Faerie is not a self-consistent place. Nor is it quite right to imagine Tolkien peering into Faerie and writing down what he saw.

Or is Tolkien's Middle Earth to be taken as Art, a thing in itself, which has a value solely in & of itself? Or, to boil it down, should we see the Legendarium as being 'for' something - either for something in this world (to teach us about this world, our place in it & how we should live) or as a pointer to the Road' out of this world (the way over the Mountains), or should we simply 'experience' it as having no meaning beyond itself?


This is part of what I was getting at earlier. I would choose your last option - Middle-earth has no meaning beyond itself, if by "beyond itself" we mean "other than itself". It is simply art, with value in itself. Its value derives neither from "meaning" within our world nor from its access to Faerie.

But then we get stuck, because Tolkien is using ancient symbols, myths, traditions. He is dealing with 'eternal' themes - death, love, sacrifice, beauty & those things are what strike the deepest chord in most of his readers, so we are forced to ask whether what we are responding to is simply Middle Earth itself, or what it points us towards, & requires us to confront - or at least offers us the opportunity to confront.

I don't think that this is a problem. Tolkien said that Allegory and Story converge in Truth, so that the better an allegory is, the more easily it can be understood merely as a story in its own right, and the better a story is, the more "applicability" it will have to the real world. Now by "Truth", Tolkien may have meant "religious truth". But I don't think that religion is necessary to the idea; "Truth" can merely mean the observed facts about our world.

If Middle-earth - or any fictional place - is to function as the setting for a story, it must be believable. And naturally, believability or self-consistency is tied in a way to realism, since the real world is by default the most self-consistent, the most believable world. Good story -> self-consistent setting -> believable setting -> realistic setting -> applicability to the real world.

I think this is the solution also to your dilemma:
Tolkien can't have it both ways - he can't claim on the one hand that fantasy (including his own creation, presumably) is about seeing 'in a brief vision that the answer may be greater—it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world' - ie, claiming that it points us towards something greater, more 'real', 'truer', & at the same time denounce the 'purposed domination of the Author', & leave it all up to individual interpreatation, or 'applicability'

First, I think we ought to replace Tolkien's talk of "evangelium" here with a more general "truth" (and, again, it does not matter to the structure of the argument whether this is religious or scientific).

If indeed the claim, then, is that good fantasy shows us truth, then it is not at odds with his denunciation of the "purposed domination of the Author". For if good stories must be, to a certain degree, like the real world, then good stories will naturally reflect truth, even without the purposed domination of the author. This is what I think he means by "applicability" - that characteristic of good stories whereby, despite being written without any intention of allegory, they contain themes and similarities to the real world that we can pick out.

I think Mark12_30 is saying something similar:
The domination of the author in allegory is due to the one-on-one correspondence, indicating that the author chooses where the reader is allowed to look. That tends to actually limit the truth that can be revealed. A faerie story like LOTR, or Sil, or Beowulf or Sir Gawain, in removing this one-to-one, opens up the view. (struggling...)


In other words, in a simple allegory, the author puts the themes and parallels in first, and constructs the story to fit them. The result is that the parallels are always straightforward and always simple. X in the story means A in reality, Y means B, etc. But in works written primarily as stories in themselves, the themes arise haphazardly and less straightfowardly - and, if the story is good, more realistically. I do think that pure allegory has certain advantages, but obviously this natural characteristic of the themes in a pure story is a point in its favor.

Where I think I may disagree with Mark12_30 (though I'm not sure whether I interpret her post correctly) is that I do not think that this applicability is the purpose of fantasy. I don't think that fantasy exists in order to expose us to certain truths; I don't think that the reason for the self-consistency of a story is that it allows us to swallow the truths it reveals to us. I think that the value of a story is the story itself, as a work of art to be experienced and enjoyed; the self-consistency, the applicability - all are tributary to this.

Davem wrote:
The question is, what is his motivation? To give us a believable, convincing secondary world, or to present us with a 'parable' aimed at converting 'those with ears to hear'?

This is a nice way of putting the question I was attempting to answer in the previous paragraph (and before) - I would choose your first option. But - and I suppose this is an important reservation - I would alter "a believable, convincing secondary world" to "a good story". As I said before, I don't think that LotR would have been great art if it had just been about Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, etc. going about their daily lives. The setting of the story if of great - even critical - importance, but it is nothing without plot.

Of course, this may be mere semantics. For I suppose that by "secondary world" one could mean not just the place but the history - the sequence of events, in which case the term has plot built into it.

I suppose this brings earlier statements of mine about the nature of Faerie into question, & I may have to change my spots! Faerie becomes not a coherent 'state' or reality underlying this one, but a source of images, stories, concepts, which an author is free to make use of for whatever purpose he chooses

Agreement! This is what I was getting at with my "not a place" arguments.

but if he makes such choices, he is choosing for a reason, & has something to say, a position he wants to put forward, & whether he intends it or not, he is to some extent 'dominating' the reader.

Well. In a sense, every author must "dominate" the reader - for the author chooses exactly what words the reader will read. But when Tolkien speaks of "purposed domination" I think he means something much stricter - the author's domination of the "applicability". I suppose that allegory is just applicability that is utterly dominated by the author. An author can choose which images, which concepts to put into a book without dominating the applicability. You do have a point though - every author, in choosing which words to use, which images to present, etc., must to some extent dominate the reader. But, like many things, I think this is a matter of degree.

[Son of Númenor]

I have a quick question about a topic that is not currently at the forefront in the discussion on this (wonderful) thread, but it does pertain to it:

What does everyone define 'interpretation' as? It seems to me that interpretation can only be applicability or allegory - what Primary World ideas we ourselves get from reading about things from Faery & Middle-earth, or what ideas Tolkien intended for us to get out of it. I could apply things from Professor Tolkien's work to my own life which he did not 'intend' for me to apply, & someone could say, "But Tolkien didn't mean for you to interpret it like that!" Well, unless I the reader am given the responsibility of deciding what to take out of the work & what not to take out of it, I am essentially making my mind subordinate to the mind of the author, and in doing so submitting myself to the "domination" of the author, whether purposed or circumstantial. The only way to be free as a reader is to interpret the book any durn way you want. Just make sure you don't get your interpretation mixed up with what the author intended.

[Lyta_Underhill]

OK, I'm going to do something I almost never do, and I'm only doing it because it is 2:30 a.m. and I will stay up all night if I don't finally set down some backed up thoughts from page 4 and back (yes, I've only made it that far--please forgive me if I'm running over old ground!). Anyway, a few points to address (perhaps simply rhapsodize upon:
The penultimate straw, as it were, was probably the dogged efforts of Heren Istarion to advise us readers to step inside the story, and then to lay down three rules of 'canon' as such. The final straw came from eLRic's reply:
ElRic post 146: In response (to H-I’s post 145):
A: This statement can not be falsified, Tolkien wrote the books didn't he
B: Tolkien was the only true witness of ME, and his writings on it are the only sources of ME we have. Nobody else could see into Tolkien's mind and witness ME.
C: No other writings are sources, they are deductions of sources.

My own response flowering from this post: (Re: Pt. B. The ‘true’ witness) it seems inevitable that a reader is tempted to look into the accounts of the witness and try to see beyond his eyes, into the ‘eyes of the world,’ the flow of this subconscious shared reality, or archetype, if you please. I also get the feeling that Tolkien consciously understood this tendency, not only in his habit of writing, as Saucepan and Aiwendil note: as ‘reference to the fiction that the two stories were authored by different sub-created authors,’ but also as a thematic tone in “Leaf by Niggle,” in which the necessities and slings of practical living destroy all but a sliver of the larger vision, and all the outsiders can see of the great vision of Niggle’s Tree is the one Leaf, and it is enshrined as a work of incomparable art. The expressed Tree in progress, however, is lost in the splintering effects of life and death and those left behind grope to regain the splendid vision that they glimpsed once without comprehension and now hunger to find again. I think of the episodes of the histories of Middle Earth as individual leaves in Tolkien’s Great Tree vision, and, I suppose, like davem said earlier, I could not conceive of melding them all together into a single giant leaf that would encompass the whole tree at the same time. But, like Maedhros has said before, there is great enlightenment and value to the one making the effort to give a personal order to many disparate elements and create one ‘version’ of the Silmarillion that is pleasing to oneself. I think of it sort of as raking up Tolkien’s ‘leaves’ and placing them in one’s own personal bag.

Davem post 154: So, 'Archetypes' or something more like Niggle's experience - was the Tree created as a 'gift' for Niggle, or was it there all along, & the 'gift' he speaks of simply the 'unconscious' knowledge he had all along of that 'real' (truly real) tree?

This speaks to another remove of my comments above: Niggle’s expressed Tree is his rendition of the ‘real’ tree, and “Leaf by Niggle” is the viewer/reader’s interaction with Niggle’s vision. In a sense, it puts the ‘true’ vision at second remove, but tantalizes us with the suggestion that there is a nearly realized vision inside Niggle and the only remaining fragment is seen in his one extant “Leaf.” Perhaps, by studying every vein and hue of the leaf, one could glimpse the greater vision through Niggle’s own vision (which is only a fragment or 'gift' of something even greater)? In this sense, I perceive Tolkien as a ‘clear light’ that shines for those to see who can. Thus, I suppose, at this moment, I would come down on the side of “what Tolkien wrote is canon; all else is interpretation.” But I would not say the interpretation has less value, for it reflects his vision through the eyes of another, eventually giving one a ‘holographic’ view if enough eyes are queried, albeit of one man’s vision, a sub-created reality, but a profound and worthy vision to gather ones thoughts about.

Davem post 144: So 'canon' comes second to enchantment, & the vision is more important than what is 'actually' seen. But that 'vision' is the vision of a single artist, & it encompasses what that artist has been able to include, at different times, from different 'angles' with many differing reasons over his long life, for what he chose to look at, & how he was able to see it.

I think davem beat me to it fair and square!
Heren Istarion post 156: C) third thing there is to be added - Niggle's 'talent' - i.e. sub-creative ability. Or, he may have been painting real 'true' tree of which he has had glimpses, but maybe he have been creating 'true' tree by painting glimpses of it before he went on his journey. And I rather lean to the latter option. It is always interesting to speculate, isn’t it? Obviously, the extant ‘leaf’ resonated in this way with others, thus passing on, in a small and suggestive way, the greater vision. In another feat of illustrative explanation, I might liken it to arriving at the great destination through one particular vortex opening out onto a vast landscape beyond imagining that could not, IMO, be encompassed in anyone's "one true vision."

Bethberry:
Oh, this is fun, Mr. Underhill. Why, look at the number of views for threads on page 1 of The Books. This Canonicity thread, at the time of my writing, has 2339 views

Probably most of them are me trying to catch up! ;) I must sleep now, but I will continue to attempt to catch up with this fascinating and fast moving thread!

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Aiwendil

Just a short note on the idea of Faerie.
The problem I still have is that while this 'state' may not be logically 'coherent, he ideas & symbols which we find there are consistent. Faeries/Elves throughout all the stories show consistent & recognisable behaviour, Archetypal images are consistent, so I'm still stuck with the idea of it bering simply a source of random images - though of course they could be used that way, but if an author does use them in that way, he is writing outside the 'tradtion'. But Tolkien set out to 're-create' a 'lost tradition', to reconstruct what our ancestors had lost. So was there a point at which he deliberately rejected that idea & decided he would use the traditional images for his own purposes - ie in order to 'reveal to us a far off gleam of the gospel'? Or did he ever really intend to simply 're-create' the ancient mythology of England, was his intention always to write with another purpose in mind?

We know that the TCBS was inspired by what they thought of as 'Medieval' values in art. poetry, music, that they were inspired by Christianity, by patriotism, the idealisation of woman, etc. What drew them together was this 'medieval' Christian ideal. So could this be what Tolkien is being an 'apologist' for, even an 'evangelist' for in his writings, that particular worldview? If so, then maybe all that 'mythology for England' stuff was not about a scholarly attempt to give us back exactly what we had lost, but actually to present us with a TCBS-ite 'mythology' for the England of Tolkien's own day, with the intention of combatting what they considered the 'vices' of the modern world.

But if that was the case Tolkien is on pretty shakey ground in claiming his there is no 'meaning' in his stories, or at least no intentional 'meaning' for us in the 'primary' world, because what he is doing is attempting to change the way we think & behave, to change our philosophy & worldview, our whole value system, make us all into his 'ideal' medievals, his fellow TCBS-ites. Yet clearly, he was intelligent enough to know that the 'real' medieval world wasn't like this 'ideal' he, Wiseman, Gilson & Smith held to - so he was actually trying to invent, create from scratch, an ideal medieval world, using whatever he found lying around.

All of which makes him an Artist, rather than an archaeologist, a creator rather than a discoverer, & on with a very specific agenda, which he had stuck with from his schooldays. So everything he wrote, was written for a purpose, with a goal in mind - changing the way we think about the world. But then how come we can read the stories & experience them as having an internal 'reality', & don't feel we're being 'preached at'? Does it mean that Tolkien failed in what he was attempting, but succeeded in doing something he hadn't set out to do at all?

(long 'note' ;) - who was it who put at the end of a letter that 'this letter is long, because I didn't have time to make it short'?)

[mark12_30]

Tenacious davem. :) :cool: "If you seek for her as hidden treasures..."

But if that was the case Tolkien is on pretty shakey ground in claiming his there is no 'meaning' in his stories, or at least no intentional 'meaning' for us in the 'primary' world,

Wasn't that statement of his (oft repeated) more in response to "Is the Ring the A-bomb? Is Sauron, Hitler?" I don't interprest that statement to mean "My stories will never transcend." Totally different statements. IF you read "On Faery Stories", he *expected* a good tale to transcend. But that is totally different than preaching or allegorizing. When a story transcends, the reader is brought to a place where Truth is revealed. But in a faerie story, (vs allegory) the author releases control of Which Truth to the combination of Reader and Truth.

I don't think Tolkien would have denied (at all!) that he was reaching for transcendance in his stories. What is eucatastrophe if not that?

because what he is doing is attempting to change the way we think & behave, to change our philosophy & worldview, our whole value system, make us all into his 'ideal' medievals, his fellow TCBS-ites.

THis is different, by the way, than saying he wanted to convert us all to catholicism.

So everything he wrote, was written for a purpose, with a goal in mind - changing the way we think about the world.

Yes. He says that is what Faery stories are good at.

But then how come we can read the stories & experience them as having an internal 'reality', & don't feel we're being 'preached at'? Does it mean that Tolkien failed in what he was attempting, but succeeded in doing something he hadn't set out to do at all?

If you read On Faery Stories, what you describe is exactly what he says a faerie story should be As quoted by H-I:

If he indeed achieves a quality that can fairly be described by the dictionary definition: “inner consistency of reality,” it is difficult to conceive how this can be, if the work does not in some way partake of reality. The peculiar quality of the ”joy” in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth.

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem, I may not be following you entirely, but I simply cannot see the logical basis underlying your assumption that Tolkien was intentionally preaching at his readers in a conscious attempt to convert them to his beliefs. Just because he had certain beliefs and made his writings consistent with those beliefs, it does not follow that he was intentionally trying to sell those beliefs to his readers. Indeed, when he started out, he never even imagined that he would have any readers, other than friends and family.

Edit: And can someone please explain to me what this "Truth" is that we are supposed to transcendentally be brought to when reading Tolkien's works? It appears to have been eluding me entirely all these years. :rolleyes: ;)

[davem]

SmP

This is what happens when you post in your lunch hour, with no access to the books you need! I must stop doing it. Basically, as Garth shows with numerous quotes in the Great War volume, the TCBS did feel they had something equivalent to a 'divine' mission to bring the world (or at least the English ;) ) back to what they believed we had been. They would do this through Art. literature, poetry, music, & if necessary, through their example of self sacrifice in the war.

I will dig out relevant quotes when I get home - they may surprise some people.

[mark12_30]

Saucie wrote:
And can someone please explain to me what this "Truth" is that we are supposed to transcendentally be brought to when reading Tolkien's works?

No. Look, or don't look.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:
The problem I still have is that while this 'state' may not be logically 'coherent, he ideas & symbols which we find there are consistent. Faeries/Elves throughout all the stories show consistent & recognisable behaviour, Archetypal images are consistent, so I'm still stuck with the idea of it bering simply a source of random images

True - I certainly don't think that they're random images. But that doesn't mean that they have some mystical origin, nor even that they originate in some "pure Faerie", (meta)-physical or psychological. I think that in large part they are the result of mythology. They have been building up, and changing, ever since the first time a human tried to explain a feature of the world with a piece of imaginative fiction. All sorts of things have gone into Faerie - Greek myths, Norse myths, the Bible, the Crusades, etc., etc.

These elements are not logically consistent with one another. But certainly (and I think this may be what is bothering you) there are consistencies of a sort to be found among them. This is where Jung and Campbell become helpful. Of course there are consistencies if you look for them, for we are all humans, and we all live on Earth, and all those things that go into Faerie originate either in true events or in fictions designed by us (and often designed to conform to or even explain real things). There are consistencies in the stories because there are consistencies in their origins. "Archetypes" are a convenient way of naming and categorizing those consistencies. And so it is natural that we find "truth" in these stories - truths about human psychology and human perception.

But Tolkien set out to 're-create' a 'lost tradition', to reconstruct what our ancestors had lost. So was there a point at which he deliberately rejected that idea & decided he would use the traditional images for his own purposes - ie in order to 'reveal to us a far off gleam of the gospel'? Or did he ever really intend to simply 're-create' the ancient mythology of England, was his intention always to write with another purpose in mind?


I think we ought to be careful about metaphors here. Tolkien certainly never really thought that he was re-creating an ancient mythology. He did not expect archaeologists to one day recover the original "Quenta Silmarillion". At most, he was only "re-creating" an ancient mythology in that he was reconstructing (as he thought) certain elements from it, and inventing others that could plausibly fit with it.

But - you seem to allow only two possibilities: 1. Tolkien was re-creating an ancient mythology; 2. Tolkien was preaching to us, trying to convince us of something or change us in some way.

I don't see why these should be the only two options. I'll take a third - Tolkien was simply writing a story.

Why, then, did he draw on ancient legends and mythology? Because that was the sort of story that he liked, and the sort that he wanted to write. Why did he think the story could offer us glimpses of "truth"? Because he thought that all really good stories must approximate "truth".

It's a simple answer, but I think it's the right one. Again, I don't see why he must either be engaged in "a scholarly attempt to give us back exactly what we had lost" or "combatting what they considered the 'vices' of the modern world." Why cannot the intention just be to write a very good story?

The Saucepan Man wrote:
And can someone please explain to me what this "Truth" is that we are supposed to transcendentally be brought to when reading Tolkien's works? It appears to have been eluding me entirely all these years.

Me too! Note that when, in my past two posts or so, I talk about "truth" in stories, I only mean literally "facts about the real world" - so that a story "has truth in it" if it is realistic. But I suspect that something quite different is meant by those who speak of transcendental truth in Tolkien's works - and I'd like to know what it's supposed to be.

Edit: Cross-posting with Mark12_30, who wrote:
No. Look, or don't look.

Well, sorry for asking. But if there's to be a discussion revolving around a certain term, I'd like that term defined. Look where, by the way?

[mark12_30]

'Let you? Make you?’ said the wizard. ‘Haven’t you been listening to all that I have said? You are not thinking of what you are saying.'

[The Saucepan Man]

No. Look, or don't look.OK, so maybe that was a slightly facetious comment that I made. :rolleyes: ;)

But I am genuinely interested in trying to understand what it is that others (and a lot of others judging by this forum and other websites that I have visited) see in Tolkien's works, perhaps what he intended me to see and was even (as davem is suggesting) trying to persuade me to accept, that I am simply not seeing. Until I started posting on this board, I had no inkling (pun intended) of the religious themes within his works, despite having read the Hobbit and LotR on numerous occasions. Having since read numerous threads on the issue here, and having read (most of) the Letters, I can now recognise these themes and have some sort of understanding of Tolkien's beliefs and how they are incorporated within his works. But I am still rather at a loss to understand what this concept of "Truth" is, as it seems to be something that is just not within my experience. Is it the existence of God? The existence of an absolute moral code? A design for the way that we should live our lives? All of these things? Or something completely different?

I hesitate to take this thread any further into the realms of religious debate (in which I am probably wholly unequipped to engage), but I do feel that I need to understand what the concept is that we are talking about here before I can usefully contribute any further. I thought that I understood the concept of "enchantment" (at least intuitively, if not rationally) as it was being discussed. But now I am beginning to wonder if I was talking about something entirely different.

~Confused of London~ :confused:

Edit: Cross-posting with Aiwendil, whose understanding of "Faerie" or "enchantment" or "shared subconscious", call it what you will, is spot on for me.

[mark12_30]

Saucie, reread your post (#244.)

[The Saucepan Man]

Now just you stop going all cryptic on us, Helen. ;)

This is beginning to feel like an episode of the X-files. The Truth is out there? The Truth is in my post? Dang that elusive Truth. :D

[mark12_30]

:cool: C'mon, SQUINT!! Look harder. :smokin:

On second thought, don't squint. It's too much like binoculars.

Just keep looking.

[davem]

'Truth' is a difficult concept - is there a difference between Tolkien's 'truth' & Truth' qua Truth, as there is between Tolkien's faerie & the Faerie of Tradition?

On to the TCBS:(from Tolkien & the Great War)

(p14)Tolkien once compared the TCBS to the pre-Raphaelites, probably in response to the Brotherhood's preoccupation with restoring Medieval values in Art.

(p56) Tolkien maintained that the society was 'a great idea which has never become quite articulate'. Its two poles, the moral & the aesthetic, could be complemantary if kept in balance...While the Great Twin Brethren (Tolkien & Wiseman) had discussed the fundamentals of existence, neither of them had done so with Gilson or Smith. As a result, Tolkien declared, the potential these four 'amazing' individuals contained in combination remained unbroached.'

(p105) Gilson proposed that feminism would help by banishing the view that 'woman was just an apparatus for man's pleasure'

Smith declared that, through Art, the four would have to leave the world better than they had found it. Their role would be ' to drive from life, letters, the satge & society that dabbling in & hankering after the unpleasant sides & incidents in life & nature which have captured the larger & worser tastes in Oxford, London & the world ... To re-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty in everyone's breast.

Gilson told Tolkien that, sitting in Routh Road... 'I suddenly saw the TCBS in a blaze of Light as a great Moral reformer ...Engalnd purified of its loathsome moral disease by the TCBS spirit. It is an enormous task & we shall not see it accomplished in our lifetime.

(p 122) Rob Gilson: I like to say & to hear it said & to feel boldly that the glory of beauty & order & joyful contentment in the universe is the presence of God....GB Smith was closely attentive to Tolkien's vision & in some measure shared it....Smith saw no demarcation between holiness & Faerie.

(p136) TCBSianism had come to mean fortitude & courage & alliance. ...But the TCBS had absorbed patriotic duty into its constitution not simply because its members were all patriots. the war mattered because it was being fought 'so England's self draw breath'; so that the inspirations of 'the real days' of peace might survive'...

Gilson: 'I have faith taht the TCBS may for itself - never for the world - than God for this war some day.

Tolkien already believed that the terrros to come might serve him in the visionary work of his life - if he survived.

(p174) Tolkien: 'Regarding, presumably, those same 'idle chatterers', the journalists& their readers whom Smith execrated, he wrote that 'No filter of true sentiment, no ray of feeling for beauty, women, history or their country shall reach them again.'

(p180) Smith (after Rob Gilson's death in battle) 'The group was spiritual in character, 'an influence on the state of being', & as such it transcended mortality; it was 'as permanently inseperable as Thor & his hammer'. the influence, he said, was, 'a tradition, which forty years from now will still be as strong to us (if we are alive, & if we are not) as it is today.

(Tolkien) 'the TCBS may have been all we dreamt - & its work in the end be done by three or two or one survivor ... To this I now pin my hopes..'

(p253) Smith had wanted them to leave the world a better place than when they found it, to 're-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty' through art embodying TCBSian principles.

(p308) 'The 24 year old Tolkien had believed just as strongly in the dream shared by the TCBS, & felt that they 'had been granted some spark of fire ... that was destined to kindle a new light, or, what is the same thing, rekindle an old light in the world

(p309) But The Lord of the Rings, the masterpiece that was published a decade & a half later, stands as the fruition of the TCBSian dream, a light drawn from ancient sources to illumnate a darkening world'.

So right from the start of the Lost Tales, Tolkien is attempting to cast the TCBSian philosophy into artistic form. It culminates in the publication of LotR - at least during his lifetime. So, its not, or was never intended to be, simply a story. Its not an allegory in the strict sense, but the Legendarium could be seen as a mythologisation of TCBSianism vs the 'world'.

If there is an underlying 'truth' it is perhaps the 'truth' that the TCBS believed in - & so we're back to the question of what 'truth' Tolkien is revealing to us in his works - some kind of 'absolute', archetypal TRUTH, or simply what he felt to be true about the world, & we have to ask ourselves how close the two are.

Wherever we come down, its clear that whatever he was doing, he was attempting to do more than simply 'entertain' readers, because the TCBS was born in the hearts & minds of idealistic young men in peacetime & blasted apart on the Somme. Tolkien's mythology came into being during the horrors of mechanised warfare. But we enter it (or most of us do) as the TCBS would have originally, & it represents for us, as it would have for them, before the war, as a place of escape, of beauty, excitement, sadness, so we simply cannot read it as Tolkien would have read it himself when he came back to it to comment on its meaning for him. For us, it will have no 'meaning' beyond itself, & wahtever meaning we find in it for ourselves & our lives in this world, they will not, cannot, be the same as they were for Tolkien, so, our interpretations of it are as valid as his.

Which is not to say that he didn't intend us to find TCBSian values in it, & to find them more attractive than what was on offer in the 'primary world'. So, I'd say the book certainly contains deliberate 'meaning', that there is an intention on Tolkien's part that we should find in it waht he wants us to find, & also that he wants us to agree with him - but we never really could, because we're our own people, living our own lives, with our own experiences which we take to Middle Earth with us, & bring back out transformed.

As to Aiwendil's points on the similarity of all myths & legends, well, yes, but that doesn't explain the accounts of the folk of Ireland & Scotland & elsewhere, who calimed to have encountered Fairies, & the figures of Celtic myth, or the fact that people down through the centuries who have believed in those beings & in the 'reality' of the otherworld. To them, it was a 'real' place, independently existing alongside this world. And Tolkien was taking those beliefs & using them to promote his 'truth', so I think it is relevant to ask what his motivation was in his use, & mis-use' (from a 'canonical' perspective) of them. He isn't giving us unalloyed Faerie tradition, but he isn't writing strict (till the end of his life, & in a Middle Earth setting) theology. He's in a sense trying to do both, so we have a sense of 'recognition' - Niggle's feeling when he saw 'his' tree alive, & also a glimpse of the 'Mountains' & a way beyond them, to ...

The Truth?

[mark12_30]

To re-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty in everyone's breast. ... Rob Gilson: I like to say & to hear it said & to feel boldly that the glory of beauty & order & joyful contentment in the universe is the presence of God.

davem, do we have anything written by Gilson that you are aware of?

& so we're back to the question of what 'truth' Tolkien is revealing to us in his works - some kind of 'absolute', archetypal TRUTH, or simply what he felt to be true about the world, & we have to ask ourselves how close the two are.

Where I live in New England, we have "mill-towns." I grew up near one. There are enormous old textile mills made of brick, in which each floor is one gigantic room, and the windows all around are tall and wide, because it was the only light they had.

You can stand oustside in the parking lot and look at the big windows.

You can look through the window to the inside of the Mill.

You can see thorough your window that on the other side of the Mill, there are more windows.

You may even press your face against the near window, and try to see through the far window.

Someday, you may walk all the way around the mill.

[bilbo_baggins]

Somehow this is sounding less and less like Tolkien. Seriously. Where is this discussion headed? To find the Truth, one must look hard, true.

Now, all this talk of whether or not Tolkien was giving us some archetypal truth; that's for the reader of Tolkien's works to decide, not for some community such as we to decide is 'canon'. It just isn't right, to force your ideas of Tolkien's archetypal Truths on others. Let others figure out what Tolkien (or his works) means to them. It can mean different things to different people.