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:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
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!
Quote:
|
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."
Quote:
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