‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

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.

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

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

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

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.

[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. 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. 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... 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

[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

[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.