‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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'.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I’m glad to see that Child and I fairly close together on most of the points that we raise. The only real differences between our positions are, so far as I can see, the result of my sloppy phraseology above, and in our choice of metaphors in describing the relationship between reader and (subcreated) text.

I believe none of us fall solely into one category or the other: slavishly following in Tolkien's footsteps, or going off on our own with creative interpretations that may or may not relate to the Professor's expressed views. To suggest such an extreme picture is misleading. In approaching Tolkien's writings, we are all on a sliding scale, some nearer one end, and some closer to the other. We all have moments when we think in terms of what JRRT meant by "X" or "Y", and others when we confront the text as individuals and come away with thoughts and insights that are uniquely our own.

I hope that I did not really give the impression that I think all readers are divided into two camps: the Nazgûl-readers combatively versus the Fellowship-readers (although going back to my post I can see that perhaps I did. . .confound me for posting late at night!). I did, however, state that “our reading experience is some mixture of this – more importantly, that our sense of the truths and/or Truth of Middle-Earth is an (unhappy?) mixture or composite of these positions.” What I meant to suggest is that within each individual reader (or act/moment of engaging with M-E) there exists simultaneously the potential for a Nazgûl-response and a Fellowship response. That is, we are subjected at once to the promise of the enchantment (the release and freedom from the Primary world through the magic of the story) as well as to the great danger of enchantment (of being ensorcelled and made subject to or of the magic). Again, this split response is, I think, anticipated in LotR by Gandalf and Saruman: the former enchants beings with the voice of counsel that provides hope; the latter enchants beings with the commanding power of his Voice.

Where Child and I do differ, and I think significantly, is in our revealing choice of metaphors about this mixed response. Child refers to a “sliding scale” and I to a “composite”. For Child, then, the act of engaging with the subcreation of Tolkien is one in which the reader can move back and forth between these responses, achieving some kind of balance? (Child wrote: “We all have moments when we think in terms of what JRRT meant by "X" or "Y", and others when we confront the text as individuals and come away with thoughts and insights that are uniquely our own.”). I suppose that what I mean by a “composite,” however, is that the reader is not moving from one position to the other in a happy and “balanced”(? – is this the right world Child?) manner, but that we are caught or suspended between positions that are in many ways irreconcilable (the subcreator or the reader – you can have it both ways, but not at the same time).

This is one way of portraying these particular viewpoints but it is possible to suggest another, which is equally plausible and also has roots in Tolkien's writing. We are all subcreators. But perhaps those who are cognizant of the Original Music and try to incorporate its themes in their own creations are in effect following in the footsteps of the Great Creator (in this case, Tolkien himself). By contrast those who create melodies of their own which have no bearing to the original Music are merely pumping out discordant and jarring notes that are highly reminiscent of Melkor.

I’m really not happy with the idea of elevating Tolkien to the status of “Great Creator,” for two reasons. First, M-E is clearly not a created realm on par with the Primary World. Second, Tolkien himself would resist this characterisation of his world. He is a subcreator and we are the readers. We do – I cannot agree more heartily, Child – participate in the act of subcreation through the act of reading, but the instant we do so in an unequal relationship, I believe that we begin to move (perhaps too far) down the road to Minas Morgul (“following in the footsteps of the Great Creator (in this case, Tolkien himself)”) and become Nazûl readers, by taking Tolkien as the Creator (as the Nazgûl take or have forced upon them Sauron in place of Eru).

It would be very hard to piece together the full picture of who Eru is, all the various Catholic interpretations that can be applied to things like lembas and Galadriel, and a host of other related things.

And a thanks to Child for this as it highlights a problem in my usage of Eruism – which I am delighted to see is catching on…perhaps much like a fungus. By Eruism I mean only that sense of a providential plan within which the individual becomes heroic in M-E, without any reference whatsoever to the Catholicism that, through Tolkien, informs it. (In other words, Eruism does not equal Catholicism, it is Tolkien’s subcreated and recovered version/vision of Catholicism). In this sense, I think once more that Child and I agree on this point: Eruism (but not Eru) is plainly evident to all who are enchanted by LotR insofar as we accept/enjoy/find satisfaction in moments like Gollum’s fall. Catholicism, Tolkien’s views on individual liberty and duty, and all the elements of the Primary World that inform Tolkien’s subcreated moral order of Eruism, are not.

[Novnarwen]

This is such an enjoyable thread! Finally, I'm being able to reply!

From Child's post:

But I would still maintain that it's possible to read Tolkien without knowing all the ins and outs of the author's religious stance, to appreciate it simply as a good yarn. (The same holds true for someone who knew nothing about the northern myths.) But without the three published works I mentioned (Silm, bio, and Letters), it would be very hard to piece together the full picture of who Eru is, all the various Catholic interpretations that can be applied to things like lembas and Galadriel, and a host of other related things.

Regarding the Picture of Eru: I think that too is individual... First of all because of the reader's own belief. If he/she is a Christian, who believes in God, he/she would naturally want to know the explanation of why things happen, just like in Real Life. The point I am trying to make, (which isn't working very well, is it?) is that it's natural for a religious reader/person to think there is something 'behind' LOTR, (The Silm, The Hobbit? And 'life' if it's 'just' a 'person'..) other than Tolkien. And discovering the Eruism (and who Eru really is) wouldn't be that 'difficult' as they already by nature seek after Him.

From Fordim's post:

Allow me to return to my favourite example for this thread: Gollum’s little ‘tumble’ at the Cracks of Doom. You say that when you read the text, you did not consciously formulate any thought that there was a Force or Guide, beyond the characters, giving Gollum a little push there: you were unaware of the Eruism.

Is the little push, which caused to the Ring's destruction and "Fall of Gollum" (the big eyed, nice little guy), automatically Eruism because it can't be explained? (I mean, he just fell, or stumbled, or tripped, or was just VERY clumsy. I think I know what you mean, but I feel 'obliged' to question it.)

From Fordim's post:

And a thanks to Child for this as it highlights a problem in my usage of Eruism – which I am delighted to see is catching on…perhaps much like a fungus. By Eruism I mean only that sense of a providential plan within which the individual becomes heroic in M-E, without any reference whatsoever to the Catholicism that, through Tolkien, informs it. (In other words, Eruism does not equal Catholicism, it is Tolkien’s subcreated and recovered version/vision of Catholicism). In this sense, I think once more that Child and I agree on this point: Eruism (but not Eru) is plainly evident to all who are enchanted by LotR insofar as we accept/enjoy/find satisfaction in moments like Gollum’s fall. Catholicism, Tolkien’s views on individual liberty and duty, and all the elements of the Primary World that inform Tolkien’s subcreated moral order of Eruism, are not.

(Marked in bold; my own.)

Eruism isn't necessarily an "evident to all who are enchanted by LotR insofar as we accept/enjoy/find satisfaction in moments like Gollum’s fall." I assume you mean that you'll find it satisfying, as it's a poof that there is a higher power (God) in LOTR? If so.. Then take for example; people who don't believe in Eru (God?), wouldn't think of Gollum's fall other than the fact that it was an accident, or that Tolkien wanted it that way. Eruism, which comes from Eru, the creator of Eä, wouldn't mean anything to a person who has no personal belief, or simply don't consider Eru as a God, a creator.

If it is not so, then ignore the paragraph above, or the post. Both would be just fine...

Cheers,
Nova

[drigel]

This thread is interesting and its why i come back to this site again and again. Its wonderfull thoughtfull contributors like u guys that make it so.

Nothing i can add at this point. We all love and re read the stuff over and over and over and..... at a certain point we feel like we know the author and what his intentions were.

Here are my two cents anyways hehe:

Cannon: What would be the authors desire? Published work. period. If it was fit to be published according to his standards - its cannon. Since all other writings IMO would not be considered "finished" by the author, they should be considered as fluid and "undefined" as any peice of artwork at "conception".

While I am as guilty as everyone else at trying to gleem insights into the unfinished work or the early ideas, its subjective - its my interpretation ... After all, (toungue in cheek - i guess i am in the second group) he was laying down a history of what his mind/imagination saw. IMO, his interpretation was just a fragment of that mosaic. But it was HIS vision - this was his work after all. The pieces were all laid down, its the details that we are arguing. He would be shocked at all this analysis - dismayed. He was never "inside" the work as we are - or would like to be. All the time spent analysing this point or that point could be cleared up in (if it were possible) a 5 minute conversation with the man.

Letters as Cannon: good to get general insight but leave it at that! These were personal letters to people. Every thought or word uttered by the man is not cannon. You cannot dissect the creative process as you can a crime scene or a frog. I love the letters but they were not intended by JRRT to be published

Carry on

[The Saucepan Man]

Fordim

I'm sorry, but I don't get this Fellowship: Nazgul analogy. Why are those who are creating a text of the Silmarillion which they feel sticks as closely as possible to Tolkien's ideas and intentions analagous to the Nazgul? Yes, they are binding themselves to a particular manner of interpretation (with, in this case, a closely drawn set of interpretative "rules"), but they are doing so of their own free will and they could withdraw at any time if they felt that it wasn't right for them. In addition, a cursorary glance at the Revised Silm threads will show that there is still ample scope for discussion and interpretation, even within the confines of the interpretive rules which they have set themselves. The Nazgul had none of these luxuries. As soon as they accepted the Rings of Power, their fate was sealed and there was nothing that they could do about it. They were irreversibly bound by Sauron's "interpretation".

I have to say that I prefer Sharon's analogy:

We are all subcreators. But perhaps those who are cognizant of the Original Music and try to incorporate its themes in their own creations are in effect following in the footsteps of the Great Creator (in this case, Tolkien himself). By contrast those who create melodies of their own which have no bearing to the original Music are merely pumping out discordant and jarring notes that are highly reminiscent of Melkor.

I don't see any problem with representing Tolkien as the Great Creator since we are talking about Eru who is himself a sub-creation.

Indeed, I would suggest a development of Sharon's analogy. Suppose we take Tolkien as Eru, the reader as the Ainur, the text of LotR as the Theme of the Music, and our interpretation of the text as Arda. Tolkien the Creator knows from the outset what will happen but the (first time) reader does not. The reader interprets the text as he reads it (sings the Music) and by the time he comes to the end, he has a complete interpretation (the creation of Arda). Most readers are bound by what is stated in the text (the Theme of the Music), but their own beliefs and experiences will shape their interpretation, just as the Ainur shaped Arda based upon the Theme of the Music. Take five different sets of Ainur and you will have five different Ardas, although each will follow the same basic pattern based upon the Theme, just as five different readers will have five different interpretations of LotR, but based upon the same pattern, namely the text. The reader who rejects what is said in the text and seeks to rewrite it as he would prefer to see it is in the position of Melkor rejecting the Theme laid out by Eru and seeking to reshape it according to his own wishes. He is free to do this, in the sense that he has free will, but it is wrong because it runs counter to the text (Eru's theme). (Hmm. Implications for Jackson's screen interpretation? Er - let's leave that aside for now.)

With me so far?

Now, let's take the materials in the Letters and the "unpublished texts", add in Bêthberry's social and political developments, and equate all of these with the Children of Eru. The Children, acting with free will, have a limited ability to change the Ainur's interpretation of Arda (the reader's interpretation of LotR), but they cannot alter the underlying Theme (the text of LotR). The Ainur's interpretation of Arda therefore changes as they encounter the Children and witness their freely willed behaviour, just as the reader's interpretation of LotR may change as he encounters and considers these secondary materials and experiences these external events.

So where does this analogy get us? Well it says to me that the reader has free will at every stage to interpret the text in the whatever manner seems most appropriate. Although that interpretation will be affected by the secondary materials and external influences, the reader is still free to accept or reject such influences if they do not resonate with him. But at all times, the reader is bound by what is said in the text itself unless he chooses (exercising free will) to act like Melkor and reject it.

OK, it's not a perfect analogy, and it will probably get shot down in flames. But it works for me, even in its imperfect state. What I would maintain, however, is that the only readers who have no free will, who truly are in the position of the Nazgul, are those who are prevented form reading the book in the first place, or who are told in no uncertain terms how they should interpret it (whether by their governemnt, their parents, their teacher, their preacher or whatever).

And just a quick word on this concept of "Eruism". I am glad, Fordim, that you got round to defining what you mean by this in your last post:

By Eruism I mean only that sense of a providential plan within which the individual becomes heroic in M-E, without any reference whatsoever to the Catholicism that, through Tolkien, informs it.

I most certainly agree that this sense of providence is an inherent part of the tale told in LotR. It should be, as it is, as you have said, imbued within the text itself. Yes, when I first read of the events at Sammath Naur, it seemed "right" to me that Gollum should fall into the fires of Orodruin with the Ring. I am not sure that I consciously thought about it, but the sense of providence must have been there on an unconscious level at least. Otherwise, as you say, I would have felt cheated by it. My concern was that you were suggesting that the text provided clear evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being and was necessarily open to interpretation only by reference to the values of a montheistic religion. Gollum's fall could be explained in any number of ways which does not require the existence of a single Supreme Being, and still fall within the ambit of providence. But you have explained yourself now, and I think that we agree.

[HerenIstarion]

Well, here is an article by Michael Martines on Suite 101 Is your canon on the loose?

And here is the profile for him on the Barrow Downs:

Michael Martinez

sincerely

edit: on close examination, article which the link is provided to is the selfsame as indicated in Lord of Angmar's post above. Sorry for repetition

Here is the weregild for the fault: Creating a new Silmarillion -- some ideas...

[drigel]

This argument really began with CT's providing us the Silm, which we all agree is not 100% JRRT. thank goodness it was produced. Looking back, I think the revision that took place was done with much regard to what JRRT originally intended - I think the thought was (at the time) to make the Silm a complete read - a book for us hungry JRRT fans. A "publishable" novel.

The argument (IMO) largely affected how the later Histories were laid out - where CT's input is clearly separate from JRRT. I would love to see a "New Silmarillion" published in the fashion of the Histories. Where JRRT's differing versions covering the same subject are presented in a manner where the reader makes his/her own "conlusion" of interpretation. CT's input would involve nothing more than background information and any other comments he likes. Just keep it separate from the work (canon?). Clearly, those of us who can read through any of the histoies (or even the Letters for that matter) dont need a "novel" format. Id buy that book!

[Bêthberry]

This is a reply to davem, post #98, wherein he states the argument, if I may paraphrase it, 'You are what you write.'

They [Tolkien's stories] come out of his mind, & in effect are him, speaking to us, mind to mind. To risk falling into the trap of 'Zen & the Art of interpreting Tolkien , we can almost say that while he was in the process of telling the stories - in the various periods of his life - he 'was' the story - his mind was focussed on them, his total attention was on the tale. So, when we read the stories, we encounter Tolkien 'mind to mind'. We are reading his thoughts - even if we know nothing about him or his day to day life or his beliefs, it is still Tolkien's mind that is communing with our mind. We cannot say that Tolkien is not there, because in effect we would be saying our minds are communing with nothing, or that our minds are communing with themselves.

Well now, let's see. What is the nature of this living life form's reproductive capabilites? Clone or new life form? If you ask a question of this textual mind, can it answer back, creating new expressions of communication itself, or are we limited to receiving repetition in the original language/mind only? I would tend to think it can only clone or echo and so your organic model of Tolkien as text strikes me, if I may be allowed such an outrageous analogy, as a kind of resurrection fallacy.

Furthermore, if you state that his textual mind continues in our new creations, then you are, in effect, denying both our presence in our own thoughts and subjugating them (oh, that Nazgû allegory again!) to Tolkien's mind, or crowning this thorny issue with questions of virginal gestation: where did his mind/text originate-- in previous mind/texts? Who indeed is the Word with. Or where.

This organic/ textual mind model also assumes that language is a transparent window between minds. Yet, if I may use an analogy from St. Paul, "we see through a glass darkly" (Corinthians 13). (Some have even called it a mire or swamp rather than glass. Nods to Sam Coleridge and Jonathan Culler.) Language is opaque; it follows its own predetermined code of paradigmatic and syntactic structures, already in place before our minds form the expressions. Tolkien may have created many languages, and he may have invented Middle-earth to give expression to them, but he wrote The Hobbit and LotR in English, using the fiction of translation between the 'original' and his text.

and if you can only offer that 'illusion' of serial time as an argument against that theory then I will be disappointed.

I hope, then, I have not only not disappointed you, but entertained you as well.

[davem]

LoA

I can see what you mean with the 'Shylock' point - but if we did construct such a Shylock, would he be recognisable as the figure we know - even to Shakespeare? I think the attempt would be futile, as what we would end up with would really tell us nothing in regard to the play. We may find out a bit more about Shakespeare's thought processes & how he created his characters, but we wouldn't gain any more insight into the play itself - which is the thing we would be after. A 'canonical' Sil might reveal something about Tolkien, but it would seem a very roundabout way of doing so.

Saucepanman

I take the point that CT constructed the '77 Sil in the same way as our colleagues are doing with their attempt at a revised Sil - but the question occurs, If CT was to throw himself under a bus, would they follow his example in that? More seriously, CT has expressed deep regret at his attempt to produce a coherent Sil. In his case, I can sympathise, because there was no way the publishers would have leapt straight into the publicaction of HoME, & he felt an obligation to make his father's Sil writings available to the public. With the publication of HoME this is no longer necessary. I still can't see the value of it, especially not if it is simply to be one among many - this would put off potential readers - which one would they choose?

Aiwendil

Your examples of Beethoven's Ninth & LotR don't work for me - if we only had those works in the forms you describe (which i can't think we would have, as there would be no interest in having them, so no publisher would make them available) & all we got was a slew of different versions, no one would no which one to take seriously. I'm reminded of Eric Morecambe's line, that he was 'playing all the right notes, but not necessarilly in the right order'.

I still think that FoG & Tuor are so different in form & intention that to try taking something from one, & something from the other, suplimented by bits from other references to the story, will not produce anything of real value. If FoG is the young Tolkien's mythologisation of his experience of the Somme, which I feel it is, to a great extent, & Tuor is the Older Tolkien's attempt to write a legend based in ME, detached by time & his own lifetime of other experiences, the two stories will not fit together in the way you assume. Yes, we have characters with the same name recurring throughout the Legendarium, but are they the same characters. I can't see that Gollum (1) (from the 1st ed Hobbit) is the same character as Gollum (2) (from the revised Hobbit), or that Galadriel (1) (from LotR) is the same character as Galadriel (2) (from the later writings - History of Galadriel & Celeborn, etc). To take bits from both versions of these characters & try to create a 'canonical' Gollum (1+2 = ?) or a 'canonical' Galadriel seems doomed to failure - Gollum (2) would never have given up the ring to Bilbo as Gollum (1) would have willingly done, Galadriel (2) would have no need to be forgiven & allowed to return into the West as Galadriel (1) did - which part of her story do you throw out - The beautiful scene of her rejection of the Ring, & repentance for her 'sins' in LotR (G1) or her role as leader of the forces of the West against Sauron, a role which Tolkien says is equivalent to the role of Manwe in the battle against Morgoth (G2)? Sauron is simply not Thu, let alone Tevildo.

Maedhros

We can't know whether the 'Fall of Gondolin' referred to in QN is to be the same FoG as the one in BoLT, or whether Tolkien had in mind a new version - which I suspect is the case , as QN is such a radically different work from BoLT- if he'd rewritten the other stories in line with what is a different intention for the work, why would he leave such a major story untouched? If he had wanted to retain the stories of BoLT as they were, why not just finish it - or simply remove the 'Cottage of Lost Play' elements?

Bethberry

I don't see this 'clone' analogy working - the creative mind was not a clone whenn it created the stories (produced the ideas). We are simply exposed to the living idea, 'across time' as it were. It was 'alive' (ie, a product of a living conscious entity). It enters our currently 'living' consciousness, so it is the interaction of a living thing with another living thing. This is very much like the ideas Tolkien was exploring in the Lost Road & the Notion Club Papers. Living minds from Numenor - their present - our past interact mentally with living minds in the 20th Century - our present - their future. Time, as Tolkien is saying in these stories, is not a fixed thing, moving constantly forward. The 'past', the 'present' & the 'future can interact with each other - not physically, but living mind to living mind. Ideas, experiences, can be transmitted is what Tolkien is saying here (is that idea 'canonical' or not?) It does not involve 'resurrection' at all, as none of the parties involved is 'dead', just living in different places in space-time. We are currently communicating across thousands of miles of space-time & neither of us had to be brought back from the dead to do it (well, obviously I can only make that statement in full confidence as regards myself )

I don't think this does require 'the purposed domination of the author' either - we 'co-create' - neither mind is dominant (as in this discussion - though we mayeach try & achieve such dominance ). Neither is there any requirement for an 'original' thought - a point which Tolkien makes in Fairy Stories - it would not be possible to discover one even if it existed. The issue is not 'language' - unless we mean a 'symbolic' form of such, & spoken/written language surely originated in the need/desire to communicate, & in the connection between living minds which creates that need, driven by that desire. I'm sure both Jung & Chomsky are hovering around this discussion somewhere, but I haven't quite worked out what they're saying - its probably that 'language' thing you mentioned.

(This is starting to remind me of my discussion on 'Evil Things' with HerenIstarion - I don't think there's enough of this kind of thing on these boards !)

[davem]

Aiwendil

I think Saucepan Man is probably right in that the 'revised' Sil discussion has gone as far as it can - We do disagree on our ideas of 'Art' because for me a work of art is the expression of certain ideas by a particular artist. Our understandings of what, exactly, Tolkien's 'art' was 'for' or what it 'means' also seems to differ. I can't for the life of me see a 'coherent' Sil, constructed from bits & pieces of different stories written over a period of 50 odd years, giving any insight into the artist himself or the creative process involved.

And in a way this brings us to Saucepan Man's 'Jungian Gauntlet'.

Aiwendil & the others involved in the RS project seem to be thinking in terms of an 'Archetypal' Middle Earth, which has some kind of 'objective' existence in some other kind of 'reality', which Tolkien himself was attempting to set out in as perfect a form as he could - he got 'flashes' of the truth here & there, but not in every story he wrote, so its simply a matter of studying the texts, finding the 'true' parts, whether they are in Bolt, QN, QS, LotR, Hobbit, or 'Myths Transformed, & putting those 'true' parts together & constructing the truth about this alternate world. If we could do that, they seem to think (unless I'm completely misunderstanding them - as I've admitted I probably am, because their reasons for doing what they're doing still don't make sense to me) we will end up with a 'truer' vision of Middle Earth than we have so far.

The question is, are we dealing with such a case - does ME have an 'objective' existence of that kind, or are the writings the product of Tolkien's 'personal' unconscious, using Archetypal images & themes? Probably the Legendarium is a combination of the two - at least Tolkien himself believed he was not 'inventing'. But he is not simply 'channeling' tales from an alternate/objective (psychological) 'reality' unquestioningly, as he also states that the in the revision of LotR he deliberately worked to make the story conform to Catholicism. Of course, we don't know how hard he worked to make it conform.

If it is the case that Tolkien was in touch with some archetypal 'other world' then to the extent that we ourselves are able to tap into that archetypal (& if that 'reality' is truly Archetypal, we should be able to) then we would have a sense of what was 'true' & what was not, & so we could produce a 'true' account of the History of that World. But... We are then throwing out Tolkien the artist. He becomes simply a pioneer, the 'first' explorer of that world. We would then be in the position of following him & 'colonising' this 'New World', confirming some of his 'discoveries' & rejecting others as false or mistaken. Yet H-I would have us think in terms of all the different versions/accounts of that world as being in some sense equally valid, coming from different people at different times, each with their own value system & agenda.

So far so good. But if this is the approach we are to take, then it is entirely possible that another 'explorer' of Middle Earth, you, I, or those involved in the RS project, could disprove one of the 'pioneer' Tolkien's discoveries, show one of his accounts to be wrong, & we would have to accept this explorer's account over Tolkien's, as being a 'truer' account. So 'canonicity' goes out the window, as we replace that idea with one of 'true' or 'false'. In that case, a work of Fanfic which contradicted Tolkien's writings would not, should not , be automatically rejected, as the writer may be right & Tolkien wrong. And then we will get factions arising, denominations forming, heresy trials & possibly writers as well as texts being consigned to the flames

Or we can see the Legendarium, unfinished & incomplete as it is (much though we might wish it wasn't - & personally, I like the fact that it isn't complete, or set in stone ) as the work of one individual artist, attempting to share his unique vision with us, & simply accept the vision itself, without concerning ourselves overmuch with what inspired the vision. Whether the 'world' Tolkien saw & presented to us as Middle Earth is 'another reality' (whther an 'inner' or an 'outer' reality is not really the issue) & is as he has depicted it (when he was 'successful') or whether it is merely this 'reality', our own, mundane world, seen 'through enchanted eyes', is in the end beside the point. The vision itself is what enchants, not the world it is a vision of.

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.

As to my fanfic 'game', its difficult to play alone, but the more I think about the implications of it, the more intriguing it seems, I must admit.

[HerenIstarion]

davem, you are very inspiring poster

Saucepen, depsite what you've posted about canon, and though I may be repeating myself a bit, I would be glad to have an opportunity to clarify my position some more

I probably failed to communicate this, and maybe it is the try to eat the cake and have it (or may be you are exaggerating a bit too), but was I driving at was more or less what follows:

A) Tolkien's world is Tolkien's entirely
B) Any writing of Tolkien's is canon
C) No other writing is canon

But, having in mind those three maxims, the accounts inside the scope of those may contradict each other, and yet all be valid. All one needs to do is place oneself inside the story.

So I was in no way implying that other 'explorers' can disprove what 'first pioneer' have said about the world. But if one is to suspend his disbelief (which is an easy task with Tolkien), and place oneself inside the secondary world as 'found out" by Tolkien, than all rules that work in our primary world are perfectly intact inside the secondary one. We may argue that Gandalf of the Hobbit is truer than one of the LoTR, or vice versa, but it would be similar to, say, our choice between intepretations of some event as broadcast by different news stations, and matter of taste and reasoning grounded on it, like in our primary world I tend to prefer BBC broadcast over CNN, but I realise that neither of those gives really true account of what happened, for there may be countless other accounts catching some other angles of it. But, I do not go to the opposite and and do not say by it that any of those accounts is entirely untrue. With Tolkien, the whole evaluation process is inside the secondary world, otherwise processes are similar.

And, as I've said already, the secondary world is defined by what Tolkien have wrought. Inside this, we are free to work out truer versions of anything for ourselves, but are not allowed to add something from outside. So, the bark eaters, which do not originate from what Tolkien himslef wrote, can not be credible but in fanfiction, but, given source material we have, what can be 'revised' and 'combined' out of it can be.

What would be the value of such a 'revised' thing? The same as any broadcast has. Or any history primer has. For it is understood that no primer reflects history as it really happened. And it can be argued that one primer is therefore enough, but primers are written and published dozens by year.

Take the much discussed providence for instance – our research of the case is limited by what is given inside the texts by Tolkien. Some interpret it this way, and some other, but in any argument they are forced to lean on their sources – i.e., by what Tolkien said about the subject. I can not have a valid argument if I say it is drawn directly from the ME as I have had a vision of it in a dream last night (however archetypal my vision may have been, or even if I try to convince you that it was like to experience of Notion Club Papers, and I have been in communion with Elendil himself who have told me so and so), but have to give you an excerpt from the text which is known to be written by Tolkien himself. Those are my limitation, but we all are free to interpret our sources in different way. This is our freedom.

Or, to give another analogy, let us say that genuinely Tolkien texts are stones, and our interpretation is house we build out of those. There are no more stones around than what Tolkien left us, and no one can create another stone. But what house each of us will built out of given number of stones, is entirely up to ourselves.

[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.

[mark12_30]

Davem,

Lively ideas!

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'?

Gee, sounds fun. What do you think, Child? (Who gets to visit the Cottage of Lost Play?)

How many people unfamiliar with Tolkien's early work & the first drafts of LotR would consider it totally 'wrong' & entirely unacceptable?

Lots of 'em. So it would be preferable to give the storya thorough introduction: a preface explaining what Tolkienish era the story is based in. One either explains who Trotter was, or, one refers the reader to the section of HoME the story is based from.

Would that story be classed as 'uncanonical'?

No. It would be classed as pre-LOTR, HoME fanfic. Admittedly you would have a much narrower audience than for a Legolas story.

It would certainly be AU.

For Strider, yes it would; but **not for Trotter.** And you're writing Trotter's story, not Strider's. Aren't you? (Or are you?)

What 'period' of Tolkien's creative work does a piece of fan fiction have to correspond to in order to be acceptable?

The period that you say you're working with. That's why I was excited about the "Sliding Scale" idea. Some of us have played/ are playing with The Lost Road. And there have been games involving Gondolin, Numenor... which used extra-Sil, HoME writings. We debated as we went.

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.

I would certainly agree that fanfiction-- indeed, any good story-- requires more than just correct language and facts.

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.

I agree that it must be part of the whole.

If I combed through Mithadan's Tales, I might be able to find a slip. But: I wasn't accosted, mugged or ambushed by any! Not one! And as a result, when I got to ... oh, I won't ruin it for you, but the part where -- yeah, that part -- I cried.

You are right. It's a question of not breaking the enchantment. So-- there has to be an enchantment there to start with . And that takes good writing, and inspiration, and a host of other things.

Character abuse is the worst form of non-canoni..ci..ty. In fact Tolkien Himself said so in Letters.



It is a pleasure discussing this with you, davem.

Grace and peace, --mark12_30

(EDIT: Child--

Tagging along with a bunch of Fallohides, he is required to stretch between two worlds, and that is not always easy.

I never saw it like that before. Now there's an eye-opener and no mistake.

[Lord of Angmar]

Would that story be classed as 'uncanonical'?(davem)

I would say that, to an extent, yes, this can be classed as 'uncanonical', in the sense that we can reasonably believe that J.R.R. Tolkien did not want Trotter, the Cottage of Lost Play, etc. to contribute to the make-up of a reader's view of Middle-earth. The fan fiction you speak of may be 'founded' in Professor Tolkien's writing, but I think the idea of having a 'foundation' in (some of) Tolkien's (posthumously published) writings should be separate from the notion of what is 'canon' in Tolkien's works.

So it would be preferable to give the storya thorough introduction: a preface explaining what Tolkienish era the story is based in.(mark12_30)

Here is another distinction we as Tolkienites might want to consider making: era vs. revision. The character Trotter may represent an 'era' of Tolkien's career, but he does not represent an era in the canonical history of Middle-earth; Tolkein revised The Lord of the Rings and edited out Trotter, likely because Tolkien did not want him to be considered a canonical figure in his works (which is why no stories containing Trotter, to my knowledge, were ever published by the Professor himself).

[Maédhros]

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.

There will always be a problem of interpretation and personal taste with this. That is why we in the Project have tried to come up with reasonable and logical rules. I disagree about your comment regarding Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin in that I believe that if Tolkien would have finished that account, it would never have been as you said been very poor because it was Tolkien who wrote it.
What is to be included and not included is not a matter of whim but a matter of great debate. Again I disagree with your assertion that the addition of the Mechanical Monsters in the FoG creates a problem. That is indeed a common notion that many people have but if you truly look at it in detail (as Findegil did) one would realize that they are not incompatible, and that is why we came to the conclusion to use it.

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.

CT had always thought of the idea to make a "Silmarillion". He doubted if that would be the right thing to do, or to just publish the typescripts, manuscripts
of his father as he did in HoME. Is CT Published Silmarillion the official version? No. Is the work that he did on it amazing? Yes, it was, and it was probably his work in editing it that allowed the publication of HoME. Of course now, CT had certain regrets in his "Silmarillion" which is a natural thing. We in the project are doing that just for the pleasure of having a more complete "Silmarillion". There can never be a truly canonical "Silmarillion" because the author is dead.

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.

It is a matter of opinion. I don't see anything wrong with my description of a normal fan of JRRT. I believe that if you are truly in love with the works, one would not stop with reading the manuscript, but would want to see all of the alterations and developments of the story.
Can all of JRRT's typescripts and manuscripts be taken at the same value? I don't think so. Take for example the Tale of Turambar and compare it with the later Narn i Chîn Húrin. It is my personal opinion that when Tolkien wrote the Narn he was a better writer than when we wrote the Tale of Turambar. How could both of these works have the same "canonical" value if the later one is an expanded revision with a great many additions of the story. When comparing these two tales, would the 1917 Tale have the same weight as the 1951 Narn? To me the answer would be of course not.
There is a difference between canonicity and love of the works. For me, the most beautiful story that JRRT wrote is the Cottage of Lost Play and it is the one that I like the most, even though I consider that JRRT abandoned that concept early on and I do not consider it canon.
We can guide people by stating that we consider certain texts to be more "canonical" than others with some rules, but we can't tell each reader what to like and what not to.

[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.

[davem]

Bethberry



I'm sorry if anything I've posted has come across as a personal attack on those involved in the project. My 'attack' has always been on the 'aim'. I've said a number of times that I have no problem with the project itself - I simply question the value of it to anyone beyond those involved. I simply can't see that it will add anything, & will probably confuse readers new to Tolkien who will find themselves confronted with two, three, four or more 'Silmarillion's. The situation we have at present - source texts plus a 'Silmarillion' for the general reader is the best situation we can get. I'm sorry if my saying the project is pointless has upset anyone - no-one has to take a blind bit of notice of me - I don't have, or make, any claims of superior right or knowledge in regard to Tolkien. Aiwendil & Maedros have put forward their reasons for what they're doing. I've simply attempted to give my reasons as to why I feel the whole thing is a dead end. Its like fanfiction, painting or music inspired by the Legendarium - it may be good, or bad or indifferent, but it won't be of any real value in the field of Tolkien studies as far as I can see - beyond simply proving that such a thing is possible - which has been proven already by the '77 Sil.

[Maédhros]

Myself being involved in the Revised Silmarillion Project do not feel at all attacked by any post in this thread. There are persons who feel that what we do have a purpose, and there are those who doesn't. I'm ok with that. Both opinions are valid of course.
For me personally, I have learned a lot that normally I wouldn't if I had not being involved in this project and that is a plus for me. (I think that this may apply to all of the members) Most of the discussions that occur in that place of the forum are really interesting, in a more scholarly way than those of the normal book section.
I don't think that it is precisely truth that only the people involved directly in the project would get a benefit.
I have given copies of a chapter that I'm working on to other people outside the project, and some have come up with a greater appreciation of that particular story, some have not even bother to read them. There are persons that because of that chapter have begun to wonder more about the story than if they wouldn't have read the copy.
Our purpose has never been a Publication of it, I just do it for fun. We thought that we could post it in the open forum here, unfortunately that won't be possible, the Tolkien estate will not allow that.
Would we ever finish such a project? I don't know.