[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 The unpublished texts comprise ideas that Tolkien himself chose to include within the "history" of Middle-earth (the Legendarium?), whereas the Letters (in so far as they deal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 The texts were unpublished in his lifetime, even though he intended and indeed desired that some of them at least should be published, but he also developed and re-worked them during his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 Do any of these factors mean that the Letters and the "unpublished" texts should be treated differently in deciding what is "canon" and what is not?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Which is true of the "unpublished" texts also.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 Does this apply to inconsistencies between the published Silm and the "unpublished" texts in the Unfinished Tales and the HoME series? At least with the "unpublished texts", Christopher leaves them intact and restricts his editorial role to identifying differences between the various texts and pointing out how they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.