‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

One thing though, I don't think the 'multiple Galadriel's (& Gandalfs & Gollums) is merely 'semantics'. They are different characters - as I've pointed out Galadriel (2) is not an exile in ME, Galadriel (1) is, & their stories, & more importantly, their motivations are different.

It is semantics because it depends entirely upon your definition of "characters". Your Galadriel (1) and your Galadriel (2) differ in certain ways and are similar in others. On the most basic level, that's all there is to be said. There's no need to argue about how to translate those differences into a proposition using the word "character".

The rest of what you said has convinced me that our disagreement really is fundamentally a disagreement about what art is. You say:

Of course, you could construct one - maybe an interesting one - maybe even produce a masterpiece - but it would be your 'masterpiece', not Tolkien's. And that would be of relevance to your fans, not Tolkien's.

Well, it would not exactly be "my masterpiece" simpliciter. Nor, of course, would it be "Tolkien's masterpiece" simpliciter. Most likely, all its virtues would be Tolkien's and all its deficiencies mine. But the real point is that where I would talk of a "work of art", you would talk of "X's work of art". As I said before, our objective is not to create a canonical Tolkien text. It does not matter to me whether you call the thing "Tolkien's work" or "Aiwendil's work" or anything else. The idea is that the thing has value in itself, without reference to its authorship.

I would guess (and I must confess that I have not kept up with the various other sub-threads going on here) that you consider a work of literature to be fundamentally an expression of its author, a sort of message or communication from author to reader. This is the prevalent view in modern literary criticism.

I, on the other hand, consider the chief importance of a work of art to be that work of art itself.

Again, I talked about this view in some depth in those other threads I mentioned. To return to that argument here would veer significantly off-topic.

I have, by the way, rather enjoyed my (limited) participation in this thread.

[The Saucepan Man]

Novnarwen

My starting position on this particular aspect of this thread was that the reader was free to interpret Gollum’s fall as an accident if he was unaware of the existence of Eru when he read LotR. My reasoning was based upon my own perception of it as an accident when I first read the book. But, on considering the points made by Fordim Hedgethistle, it occurred to me that I had subconsciously accepted that Gollum’s fall was “meant to be”, even though I hadn’t analysed it in that way on a conscious level.

And you seem to come to the same conclusion as me, when you say:

Personally, I have no problems with the 'Gollum-falls-into-the-fire-of-Orodruin-by-accident', because even though it was an accident (or not), it was supposed to happen, it was as you put it: providence, and I have to accept that.

Your confusion over my post appears to arise from our differing definition of the terms “accident” and “providence”. You regard them as basically describing the same concept, whereas I am using them (rightly or wrongly) to convey two entirely different concepts. In using the term “accident”, I am talking about an event that occurs purely by chance and chance alone. And by “providence” I mean an event that occurs as a result of the intervention of some “Higher power” (as you put it), an event that is “meant to be” by that “Higher Power”.

For me, if something is “meant to be”, it cannot be accidental. It must be “providential” (in the sense that I am, for current purposes, using it). If I really had considered Gollum’s fall to be “accidental” (ie something which occurred purely by chance), I wouldn’t have found the resolution of the Quest to be at all satisfying. But, because I subconsciously accepted that it was “meant to be”, I didn’t have that problem.

Providence as all other things is controlled, or at least that is my opinion. God in our world, (for those who believe in God) and Eru in M-E, (for those who accept him as the Creator of Middle-Earth.)

I agree, save that this thing that we are calling “providence” should, for me, be wide enough to admit any number of possible ways of imagining what the “Higher Power” that is behind the providential event actually is. That is why I am not entirely comfortable with the word “providence” to describe this concept, although I have not come up with a better term.

So, an accident wouldn't according to you be 'right', but Providence would?

Yes, in the sense that providence (or whatever we call it) is sufficiently inherent in the text to become a part of it. The reader is free to deny it, but to do so would be “wrong” in the same way that it would be “wrong” to deny that Boromir attempted to seize the Ring from Frodo.

Davem

Well, if the Gandalf of the Hobbit & the Gandalf of LotR are the 'same', just try swapping them over.

When I said that they are the same, I meant that Gandalf is the same person in both the Hobbit and LotR. I am aware that his character is portrayed slightly different in each book. Aiwendil has explained how this might be reconciled by reference to the fiction that the two stories were authored by different sub-created authors. There are other ways of achieving this reconciliation. For example, we might say that Gandalf acted differently in the two stories because he was faced with different circumstances and/or because he was not yet ready to reveal the full extent of his nature and powers to any but the wise. But, for me, it is sufficient that Tolkien intended LotR as a sequel to the Hobbit and so clearly intended that your “G1” and “G2” be one and the same person.

I never said that my 'fanfic' had any academic value.

I was being flippant. But I think that you are selling yourself short. Your “game” might well have some academic value if, as you say it, you are using it:

... to explore with the whole idea of 'canonicity' , what it means & what its effects are on our freedom as co-creators, & what limits, if any, it imposes.

It seems to me that the debate over the “Revised Silmarillion” project has been taken about as far as it can go, since the same arguments are now starting to feature, albeit in different form and by reference to different examples. I am not sure that either “side” is going to convince the other of the merits of their position.

Now, anyone care to take up by “Jungian gauntlet”?