Bethberry makes some interesting points regarding authorial intention. We are veering toward the old canonicity argument here; I think it may be worthwhile then to consider things from the perspective of the author vs. text vs. reader distinction that emerged there. Apologies if some of this is less coherent than usual; I've been up since very early and am really only less than half awake. Bethberry wrote:
Quote:
|
Without meaning in any way to deny Christopher's great knowledge and expertise, I would like to suggest that what he has done instead is to create a situation where multiple versions of texts abound, as exists with earlier literature.
|
This is surely the case. And this, I think, points to a flaw in the author-centric view of "canonicity" which is solved by a text-centric view. The co-existence of different versions presents a real problem if one views a work of art as a manifestation of the intention of the author. The question "which version is valid?" becomes overwhelmingly important; and the author-centric view seems to demand that there be a single, definitive answer to the question. A text-centric view does not have this problem: it simply is the case that there are a number of different texts. Some may be "better" or more enjoyable than others; some may be the product of the author at a later stage of life than others; but ultimately they are all simply texts and there is no need to determine which is singularly authoritative. It still makes sense in this view to ask which word ("need" or "do") Tolkien may have intended at various points in time, but if a clear answer is not forthcoming, this presents no serious problem to the text-centric view (nor, if it comes to it, to the reader-centric view).
I have seen Christopher criticized for publishing HoMe and thus establishing a state of affairs in which there is no single authoritative version of the Silmarillion. I think this criticism arises from the needless desire for a single version that can be taken as a manifestation of the author. The case of the Silmarillion points out just how absurd that desire can be - for the published Silmarillion (or
any Silmarillion) certainly does not represent some kind of ideal authorial intention. HoMe, on the other hand, lays out the texts as they are, the goal being not to present a single Canonical Text but rather simply to tell the truth about what words various pieces of paper have written or printed on them. To prefer a single version that claims authority over a scholarly presentation of all the texts is to prefer ignorance.
Now, insofar as Christopher claims that the new edition of LotR is uniquely authoritative, I think he is mistaken - not because there is anything wrong with this edition, but simply because the whole concept of a single authoritative version is in this case not applicable. There are cases in LotR (rather few in comparison with something like the Silmarillion) where multiple versions of the text exist and none is clearly authoritative (in the sense of "most highly approved by the author"). Is this itself a problem? I don't think so. Nor is it a problem, I think, that we now know of the existence of the two versions and of the circumstances surrounding them. It could not possibly be a problem that we have more information; on the contrary, if we were to simply take the "do" as authoritative and pretend that "need" was never written, we would be
falsely ascribing a certainty of authorial intention to the word. I would go as far as to say that our knowledge of the facts surrounding the two words provides evidence that neither "do" nor "need" is to be construed in such a way as to contradict the other version; for clearly Tolkien was at one point quite happy with the one and a short time later equally happy with the other.