‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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

[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.

[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

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 - ) 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.

[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.