‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Fordim does! (But not nearly so much, or so useful, as Bêthberry has already provided above.)

I am about as far as one can get from an expert on Jungian analysis (or Freudian psychology for that matter). But I do have some experience with the kind of interpretations that come about through psychological-based ‘readings’ of texts. My concern with all such attempts is that they far too often (although by all means not always) are merely a more terminology-laden way of avoiding the difficult and ethically demanding task of interpretation that I’ve been hammering away on in this thread. That is, whereas the question of “What Tolkien meant” is far too often used as a way to either,

a) avoid generating one’s own interpretation (and thus become a Nazûl) or
b) generating one’s own interpretation and then pretending that it is Tolkien’s own (and thus become a very petty version of Sauron)

the turn to Jungian archetypes is merely the same attempt in disguise. “What did Tolkien intend/mean?” becomes “What does this archetype mean?” and we’re back to options a) or b) above as we look for answers either outside the individual experience of the text, or we project our own experiences onto the text and then claim that they’re from an ‘outside’ source of truth.

The example of the spider is fortuitous, for it helps demonstrate how the spider is not an archetype at all – at least, not in the sense that we “all” react to spiders the same way. In West African cultures, Spider is a trickster figure: a spirit of creation and destruction who embodies the chaotic and random elements of the natural cycle. Not evil at all, or frightening, just a force to be reckoned with. The African who were brought to the Caribbean as slaves brought their memories of Spider with them, and in the historical struggle by the slaves for liberation, he became Anansi – a powerful spirit who embodied all the rebellious tricksterism, the survival tactics, wit and ingenuity required by the enslaved. (Anyone familiar with Native American legends might be thinking of Coyote here – and you’d be right to! ) What’s more, I know several entomologists who would be horrified by the idea that they are “supposed” to be horrified by spiders.

This is why I would resist any simplification of a figure like Shelob into something like an archetypal spider, when the ‘real’ (that is, subcreated) history of her is much more interesting and revealing. And here we go back into the author/text relationship again, for Tolkien wrote in his letters that one of his earliest memories was of running across the lawn at his home in South Africa after being bitten by a spider – he attributes his dislike of arachnids to this event. (He also wrote of a recurring dream he had throughout his life of a wave coming from the west and destroying the land – the birth of Numenor.)

Images, symbols, tropes and figures are the result of historical processes that we can watch and trace and study. And once more, I am led to the interesting case presented by Tolkien’s subcreated world in this regard. One example of what I’m talking about is the Evening Star. In ‘our’ (Western/European tradition) the Evening Star is associated with either Venus – and thus love – and/or Lucifer – and thus the glory of the fallen angels. But what about the Evening Star in Middle-Earth? Tolkien gives us a long and elaborate history for Earendil that includes not one jot (at least overtly) of the mythos of Venus or Lucifer – does this mean that the symbolic value of the Evening Star in Middle-Earth is divorced from its symbolic value in the Primary World? Or can we (should we) be able to look for concordances between the Secondary World symbol and the Primary World symbol? That is, how much – if any – Venus and/or Lucifer is there in Earendil? Is such a question even valid?

[Mister Underhill]

Another quick, woefully inadequate post:

I don’t know if I am dense or just getting tripped up on the metaphors and terminology in play here. Likely both.

I confess that I’m still puzzled at this tug of war between author and reader. Isn’t it natural for an author’s intentions – at least insofar as they are encoded (a dangerous word and probably the completely wrong one for the occasion, but I can’t think of a better one at the moment) within the text itself – to inform our interpretation of any text? Why must we be so vigilant in our resistance to the author’s intentions? What exactly is this completely independent interpretation the reader must generate in order to avoid becoming a mental slave of the author? What do we even mean by “interpretation” anyway? Are we really obligated to puzzle out what a writer’s – or a reader’s – interpretation of a text really reveals about them on some subconscious level? Isn’t our interpretation of the “true meaning” of their interpretation really revealing something about our own subconscious – and hence we soon find ourselves in a vicious, endless circle of unfathomable subtextual analysis?

I’ll be frank – none of it sounds like much fun.

It seems that there are at least certain broad-stroke “interpretations” of LotR which, if not universally “correct”, are at least inevitable.

P.S. -- "Ensorcelled" is indeed a most excellent word.

[The Saucepan Man]

Thank-you davem, Bêthberry and Fordim for taking up the gauntlet.

Bêthberry

In transference, the truth of the events or the unconscious is not revealed by the therapist telling the patient what the patient's dreams mean. The truth is more properly understood to arise from the performative act, from how the therapist becomes involved in the relationships which the dreams present, from how the patient displaces feelings from past events onto the therapist. That is, we can ask ourselves how a particular reading of a text or dream--our search for meaning and origins--in fact re-enacts a primordial quest, like the Oedipal drama or the myth of Narcissus. Seen in this light, our own interpretations repeat archetypal narratives and relationships.

If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I do not), this approach places the reader in the position of both the patient who experiences the dream and the analyst who interprets it. The patient is that aspect of the reader that reads the text, while the analyst is that aspect of him that seeks to interpret his reactions to it. But, by suggesting that the "truth" arises from the process of analysis, doesn't this approach suggest that the value of reading is in analysing one's reactions to it (whether consciously or subconsciously), whereas I would consider the greater value to lie in the reactions themselves (which will, almost inevitably, arise at the subconscious level)? What I am wondering is whether our instinctive reactions to the archetypal elements in Tolkien's works might be the same on some level, in consequence of our collective subconscious (thanks Bêthberry ), so that there is, in a sense, a "correct" (or perhaps a better word would be "universal") way of responding to these works.

However, I don't think that Jung's ideas about the psyche would result in one interpretation valorised over others. After all, he himself posited a psyche comprised of persona, shadow, anima (the female aspects of the male) or animus (the male aspects of the female) These interact in different ways, which for Jung became Psychological Types based on dichotomies of intuition, introversion, etc.

But, since Jung's archetypes are just that - archetypal figures - is it not axiomatic that we will all respond in the same way to them at some (perhaps very deep and primordial) level?

Fordim

The example of the spider is fortuitous, for it helps demonstrate how the spider is not an archetype at all – at least, not in the sense that we “all” react to spiders the same way.

Yes, I was aware of that when I first raised this issue. Nevertheless, it was my own reaction to the spider which prompted these thoughts. Certainly, I think that there is a "shared experience" of spiders in some (only western?) cultures (I suspect that even the most experienced western arachnologist would feel this fear and/or revulsion at some level, even though it is mastered and superseded by their interest in the creatures). And so spiders are generally portrayed within the folklore of such cultures as "evil" creatures. And this is true of the other creatures that Tolkien places on the side of evil: bats, wolves and crows. Whereas eagles and bears, for example, find themselves on the side of "good". Is this because these animals have traditionally been aligned in this way in western mythology? And does this mean that this alignment will resonate most particularly with those who come from cultures where these myths might be said to form part of (or perhaps it is better to say derive from) the collective cultural subconscious? Might this be why Tolkien's works would seem to be particularly popular amongst those cultures with a strong Anglo-Saxon heritage? (And before I get any apples or other projectiles thrown at me, I am most definately not saying that LotR can only be truly understood by people from such cultures.)

And, if one believes Jung, is it not the case that his archetypes can be identified in the myths and legends of all cultures? As I understand it, the "hero myth" is a concept which turns up time and time again across all cultures. What I am struggling to understand is whether the consequence of this is that we all respond to the archetypes in Tolkien's works in the same way on a very basic level? Of course, our different personalities and cultural traditions will still leave a lot of room for differing reactions and interpretations at higher levels. But might this shared reaction at the most basic level account for the "enchantment" which davem eloquently describes?

As I have already said, this is not my area at all, and I am simply throwing up ideas relevant to this topic for possible discussion.

Mr Underhill

I agree with you and share your reluctance to accept that reading will inevitably involve a struggle between one's own interpretation and the author's perceived interpretation. I was thinking along the same lines when I posted:

Gosh! That makes it all sound like a terribly arduous (Arda-uous?) process. Whereas it is, in my experience, a most enjoyable one. Most readers choose the manner of interpretation that they are comfortable with, and this almost invariably occurs entirely at the subconscious level. It is not so much a "struggle" as a natural process. And when we try to analyse why we react to a text in the way that we do and, in so doing, perhaps perceive a struggle, do we not risk losing davem's "enchantment"?

I just don't see it as a struggle at all. I see it as a natural process. As you say, there will be certain broad interpretations that will be common to all, or at least the majority of, readers (does this hark back to archetypes or is it simply a matter of accepting that which is implicit in the text, such as Fordim's "Eruism"?). And there will be other interpretations which are peculiar to the reader, either because they are that those which he perceives the author as having intended, or because they are truly his own. But I don't think that there is any struggle between these differing responses. They are all present within Fordim's composite reader, and they occur naturally, without the reader having necessarily to think very much about it.

[Bêthberry]

Oh, this is fun, Mr. Underhill. Why, look at the number of views for threads on page 1 of The Books. This Canonicity thread, at the time of my writing, has 2339 views, compared to the next most viewed tread with 1247 views (Evil Things), 1099 (Those Little), 995 (Nebulous 'It'), and then 443 (Unnumbered Tears). It would appear that not only are we who are posting engaged in something of interest and pleasurable to us, but so must there be viewers who find this fun. Unless we are all masochists and madly rereading this thread over and over.

Edit: Actually, I never said the reader must engage in analysis of himself or his subconscious. What I did was offer a current model of reading in response to SpM's question about archetypes. The model of transference does not say that the reader must examine his response for the ways he battles the old archetypes: the model merely suggests that for all readers, at some level, their interpretation of the text will enact a kind of primal archetypal scene.

I would agree with SpM that this effort to decode a text is not a struggle but part of the delight of reading. Also, I don't think I have ever stated that a reader's interpretation must be completely independent.

Where the difficulties of interpreting the intentions of a writer like Tolkien come into play lies with, in part, I think, the way he chose to tell his tale and in determining just what text it is which demonstrates his intention. For instance, he did indeed choose to make the LOTR more consciously conform with his Catholicism in the revising, but--and this is a mighty big but--he also chose not to make that identification explicit. For whatever reasons, he left us with a tale that is covert rather than overt. Why would he do this? I return to his words in the forward where he himself contrasted "the freedom of the reader" with "the purposed domination of the author." I can only conclude that for some sufficient reason Tolkien valued this model of reading.
And, of course, just what text do you refer in order to determine Tolkien's intentions? As this thread has shown, his intentions changed over time and he left conflicting drafts of many stories. His own intentions are in conflict, so is it any wonder that readers cannot agree on what his intentions were? Under what conditions is it possible to apply, say, Unfinished Tales to understanding LOTR? Is Christopher Tolkien's way of handling his father's body of work the only way of discussing Tolkien?

Fordim, I would agree with you that to emphasise the archetypal quality over the exquisite details of Tolkien's individualising of the characters is reductive. That has been the problem it seems to me with the structuralist approach to narrative variants. It does not account for readers prefering one version over another. At some point we have to acknowledge and appreciate Tolkien's artistry--just what is it that has made us prefer his story over the archetypes of other fantasy writers?

SpM, my own question about this model of reading drawn from the transference of analysis has to do with its applicabilty. The analytical model is derived from a context of illness (neurosis, psychosis, some kind of unhappiness or malajustment). The end result of therapy is to make the patient more aware of what causes his unhappiness so he can free himself from it (unless it is also to make the therapist richer). As Tolkien suggests, at least about fantasy, reading operates to satisfy primordial desires rather than eliminate them.

The point you raise about the experience or the analysis of experience is a classic conundrum. It was Aristotle I think who made some comment about the 'unexamined life' but I would rather say that reading provides any number and kind of pleasures and I would not want to impose any one pleasure by saying that kind is more valuable than any other. Had Tolkien, for instance, not examined his own responses to faërie (however he did it, subconsciously or consciously) we might not have had the pleasure of Middle-earth. Yet I will also agree with you that the prime value of art is its experience. That is, in fact, why I have been arguing against the necessary primacy of any one interpretation

As to "our instinctive reactions to the archetypal elements .. in consequence of our collective subconscious", as you put it, that would depend upon demonstrating that 'instinctive reactions" are all the same for all readers and, in fact, proving that we do have a collective subconscious. Current psychology (if not parental experience) tells us that teenage girls have very different responses to their mothers than teenage boys. (True variation also for different responses to fathers.) How does this historical/personal experience impinge upon any archetypal response? In short, the 'universal' application of archetypes falters on gender issues. But then, I'm no expert on Jung and I offerred the transference model as merely one way archetypes are now being discussed, since you had appealed for my help.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I confess that I’m still puzzled at this tug of war between author and reader. Isn’t it natural for an author’s intentions – at least insofar as they are encoded (a dangerous word and probably the completely wrong one for the occasion, but I can’t think of a better one at the moment) within the text itself – to inform our interpretation of any text?

Mister Underhill, I for one would heartily agree. I seldom enjoy the works of a writer who hails from a world-view primarily hostile to that which I hold dear; why would I *immerse* myself in the works of a writer if I didn't trust him/ her in the first place?

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Why must we be so vigilant in our resistance to the author’s intentions? What exactly is this completely independent interpretation the reader must generate in order to avoid becoming a mental slave of the author? What do we even mean by “interpretation” anyway? Are we really obligated to puzzle out what a writer’s – or a reader’s – interpretation of a text really reveals about them on some subconscious level?

And if one is leery of the author's intentions in the first place, why read the book looking for deep meaning? If we trust our own interpretation so much more than the author's, why read his book instead of writing our own?

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Isn’t our interpretation of the “true meaning” of their interpretation really revealing something about our own subconscious – and hence we soon find ourselves in a vicious, endless circle of unfathomable subtextual analysis?

Cheers and applause...

[davem]

SPM

On the spider 'archetype'. Actually Spiders are not seen in an entirely negative way in the west. The goddess Ariadne has spider associations, as do all goddesses associated with weaving. Her Welsh equivalent, Arianrhod, or 'silver wheel' is suppposed have come by that name either due to a conection with a 'whirling palace' (Caer Arianrhod), or with a spider's web. In the myth Theseus deserts her & Bacchus transforms her crown into a constelation. We also have Arachne the wever turned into a spider. Also in one of the 'gnostic' gospels there is a story of a spider weaving a web to hide the Holy family from Herod's persuing troops. So we're possibly dealing with an ancient Spider Goddess figure, whose legends have survived in these various legends - many ancient Mother Goddesses are depicted as weavers of fate - particularly in relation to Tolkien we have the Norns, three goddesses who spin & weave the individual's wyrd or destiny, in Norse myth, obviously connected with the Greek Fates.

In other words, spiders, even in the west, don't have an entirely bad press

Tolkien does make spiders particularly monstrous & threatening, so its probably this that we respond to, rather than some kind of 'archetypal arachnophobia', as our ancestors didn't think of spiders as entirely bad - on a mundane level, spider webs have long been used to help wounds heal, by speeding up the healing process. And whether their makers are entirely pleasant to look at, a spider web covered in dew is a particularly magical sight.

Also, Fordim's point about Lucifer - 'Lucifer ' translates as the 'Light Bringer' which Earendel himself is - though not in the Biblical sense, of course . There is a very tenuous link to be made from this to Tolkkien & the Grail - in one version of the story, the Grail is a stone which fell from the crown of Lucifer when he was cast out of Heaven, & which embedded itself deep in the earth - so we have the image of an object of Heavenly beauty, buried in the depths of the earth, which must be won by the Grail knight - shades of Beren & Luthien entering Angband to win the Silmaril from Morgoth's crown - was this episode deliberatley adapted by Tolkien, or was it an 'archtypal' image which arose in his conscious mind?

Yet all this, as Fordim has said, is a dead end, & doesn't explain why we respond to Tolkien's stories - how many of us would respond in the same way to the myths & legends I've just recounted? Its not what Tolkien 'looked at' in mythic or archetypal terms, its what he saw. As I said in another post, its his 'vision' we respond to, not the physical (horrors of the Somme, or Edith dancing through the hemlocks at Roos) or mythological things that inspired that vision. The vision enchants us, the way he saw what he was looking at. If we had witnessed the horrors of the Somme, we would not have seen Gondolin, & I suspect that if we had come upon Edith Tolkien dancing amid the flowers at Roos we wouldn't have seen Luthien Tinuviel dancing & singing among the Hemlocks in the woods of Neldoreth. Jung once stated, in response to Freud's obsession with complexes, that he found the whole idea of them dull & uninteresting - everyone has complexes - what Jung found interesting was the effect of our complexes on us, what we with them do - or what they do with us.

I think those of us who do respond to Tolkien's writings 'positively' - many don't - are probably responding to the same things, if not in exactly identical ways (but probably more or less so). Whether this is due to 'the Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious' we all supposedly carry around in our brain structure, or whether its something deeper & more 'spiritual' in us is another question. We seem, for whatever reason, to respond to Tolkien's vision, I don't think sticking a label on our responses & putting them down to 'Archetypal' resonances, or whatever, will explain that response satisfactorily. His 'secondary world' seems real - even some of his 'lesser' works elicit the same response - in fact, there's a painting of his,from 1924, included in 'Artist & Illustrator' showing a store with a garden in front & behind, with the sun setting to the left behind a hill, & mountains rising to the right, titled 'A Shop on the Edge of the Hills of Fairyland' which evokes an incredible sense of 'enchantment' - & even if you haven't seen it, probably just reading the title now, has sparked some response - why would a shop be there, what does it sell, who to, & who would run such a place? There's a whole story there in the title, & its almost like, on some level, we feel we 'know' that story, but just can't quite remember it, & desperately want someone to remind us how it goes. And that feeling runs through so much of Tolkien's work - glimpses of 'far off mountains' which seem at once strange, yet familiar - if only we could remember!

So, 'Archetypes' or something more like Niggle's experience - was the Tree created as a 'gift' for Niggle, or was it there all along, & the 'gift' he speaks of simply the 'unconscious' knowledge he had all along of that 'real' (truly real) tree?

And does it really matter? Will knowing the 'explanation' (ie knowing which 'label' to stick on our experience) get us to Niggle's parish any faster?

[The Saucepan Man]

In other words, spiders, even in the west, don't have an entirely bad press

Fair enough. I'll lighten up on the spiders. But don't expect me to like them!

And does it really matter? Will knowing the 'explanation' (ie knowing which 'label' to stick on our experience) get us to Niggle's parish any faster?

Absolutely not. But it makes an interesting subject for discussion.

[HerenIstarion]

There's a whole story there in the title, & its almost like, on some level, we feel we 'know' that story, but just can't quite remember it, & desperately want someone to remind us how it goes. And that feeling runs through so much of Tolkien's work - glimpses of 'far off mountains' which seem at once strange, yet familiar - if only we could remember!

Excellent, davem!

But I can't leave it as mere approval without adding up a bit, even if it were a tiny bit (two coins worth, heh)

The feeling you describe strikes me as similar to what I for myself got intensively when reading LoTR for the first time, (and which haven't disappeared since, though is somewhat less intense for I know what to expect), selfsame feeling C.S.Lewis describes as joy, and which is than defined as glimpses of basic and eternal Truth seen in created artwork (but not only, it may be experienced in many modes and as a response to manifold irritants). And with Tolkien it is best defined in the poem he dedicated to said C.S.Lewis, Mythopoeia (I can't give it in full, I suppose, for the copyright's sake, but I can scrap essential bit):

Blessed are the legend-makers with their rhyme
of things not found within recorded time.
It is not they that have forgot the Night,
or bid us flee to organized delight,
in lotus-isles of economic bliss
forswearing souls to gain a Circe-kiss
(and counterfeit at that, machine-produced,
bogus seduction of the twice-seduced).

Such isles they saw afar, and ones more fair,
and those that hear them yet may yet beware.
They have seen Death and ultimate defeat,
and yet they would not in despair retreat,
but oft to victory have turned the lyre
and kindled hearts with legendary fire,
illuminating Now and dark Hath-been
with light of suns as yet by no man seen.

I would that I might with the minstrels sing
and stir the unseen with a throbbing string.
I would be with the mariners of the deep
that cut their slender planks on mountains steep
and voyage upon a vague and wandering quest,
for some have passed beyond the fabled West.
I would with the beleaguered fools be told,
that keep an inner fastness where their gold,
impure and scanty, yet they loyally bring
to mint in image blurred of distant king,
or in fantastic banners weave the sheen
heraldic emblems of a lord unseen.

***

In Paradise perchance the eye may stray
from gazing upon everlasting Day
to see the day-illumined, and renew
from mirrored truth the likeness of the True

This blurred (and it can't be precise, for men as the race are fallen) image of the ultimate truth, I believe, what Tolkien is after, and we his readers (whatever the issue with slavery/mastery ) feel as, what was the word? Ensorcellment. But that is the French word, and with the full respect to French, I have a suspicion Professor himself (dangerous ground again - much accused tendency of finding out what Tolkien's intentions would have been) would have preferred some genuinely English word, like, let me see - spellbound. Such a term is justified on other grounds too - spell=word, and texts consist of words. And bound - for selfwilled submitting to said mastery of the author + voluntary suspension of disbelief, are both, more or less, required from the reader to enjoy his/her reading

As for

was the Tree created as a 'gift' for Niggle, or was it there all along, & the 'gift' he speaks of simply the 'unconscious' knowledge he had all along of that 'real' (truly real) tree?

I have given it a long thought at my time indeed, and came out with the usage of the word 'niWi' for the word 'gift' in Georgian translation (the meditation on the subject has arisen as a result of my working on translation of Niggle story). Said word means in Georgian 'gift', 'present' (in an archaic sense), and 'talent' (in modern sense). My reasoning being that gift in English likewise may refer to man's abilities (as in 'he's gifted poet') So my interpretaion is that tree is A) gift for Niggle - his reward, whilst B) his ability to have glimpses of it is likewise a gift and C) third thing there is to be added - Niggle's 'talent' - i.e. sub-creative ability. Or, he may have been painting real 'true' tree of which he has had glimpses, but maybe he have been creating 'true' tree by painting glimpses of it before he went on his journey. And I rather lean to the latter option.

My wording have been clumsy in this last paragraph, I know, so I hope you followed my meaning

[bilbo_baggins]

Highly confusing, only slightly enlightening topic! Too scholarly for words. I have my two cents worth, too Heren. I may not be an insight for anything that is truly being discussed here, but I can give a shot, can't I?

I think any 'canon' we might find would not be entirely un-touchable by the readers. Tolkien even created LoTR just because of the enormous Hobbit-fanfare.

Tolkien (in foreword of LoTR): encouraged by requests from readers for more information concerning hobbits and their adventures.

So, technically, the book was created for us, so we have a little liberty, right? And all (well, most) books are created for the enjoyment of readers. (Probably not some textbooks, unless you're really strange) So books are created for you personally and communally. Books belong, at least in heart, to the reader. The reader may interpret any statements or action on the part of the author any way s/he likes. It is for the reader to decide how much of the story they like/dislike, and how much they might change if they were the author. Any revision or rewriting on the part of readers would be a compliment to the author, as the reader would take time to think of how to make the story (in the reader's opinion) better.

And whenever a reader undertakes to read (wouldn't be a reader if they didn't) a story, it is their time and enjoyment they are creating. Each unto his own, as they say.

Well, that's my thought. I am no Tolkien lore-master, so take a grain of salt with every paragraph I type!

[davem]

H-I

I think so much of Tolkien's capacity for creating the sense of 'enchantment' in his readers comes down to this - we don't feel he is 'revealing' new things to us so much as 'reminding' us of things we have forgotten. So rather than being amazed by our encounter with a completely unknown 'new' world, we feel at once 'at home' in Middle Earth. What this has to do with 'canonicity', I'm not quite sure, but certainly there is a sense of 'rightness' in much of Tolkien's world, & the sense Helen has described as regards some 'fanfic', that it is 'wrong', & breaks the spell Tolkien has cast may be down to this.

Of course, we are then back to the idea of some kind of 'pre-existing' 'Other world', which we all 'once' knew. But then, how close are we to saying that some other 'explorer' may get things right about that world, which Tolkien may have got 'wrong'?

Its this sense of 'familiarity' we feel about Middle Earth that is difficult to explain. Can we go so far as to say that we are 'remembering' something, some 'real' (in 'inner' or 'outer' terms. This would be ridiculous, if not insane, yet the feeling is there. Why do so many of us feel 'at home' in Middle Earth, even before we've got far into a first reading? Is it because Tolkien has used so many elements from folklore & fairtales? But how many of us are all that familiar with the sources Tolkien used? Not that many, I'd guess. In my case it was only after discovering Middle Earth that I sought out the sources Tolkien used, & I didn't feel 'at home' in the worlds of the Mabinogion or the Eddas or the kalevala. They reminded me of Middle Earth, where I really did feel 'at home'. It was almost as if Middle Earth was the real place & the myths & legends were corrupt, half remembered versions of it, rather than it being an amalgam of them. Of course, that could simply be because I discovered Middle Earth first - but I can't help feeling that it was something more.

Going back to the painting I mentioned - why a shop on the edge of the Hills of Fairyland? We'd expect a castle, or even a cottage, but a shop? Yet, on some level, we know a shop is 'right', that it should be a shop. We are filled with curiosity about what is sold there, & who frequents the place. Logically we know a shop is the last place that should be standing at the place where this world meets the otherworld. Yet, where else would we get the particular kind of supplies we will need for our journey 'over the hills & far away'? A shop, with all the associations of 'commercialism' would seem too mundane & out of place, yet to see the picture is to 'know' it belongs right where it is. We can almost 'remember' having visited the place, because we can almost (but not quite) remember what is in there.

So much of Tolkien's writings inspire this sense, of almost, but not quite remembering. Tolkien wrote of fairy stories satisfying his desire for magic, while whetting that desire immeasurably. Its that feeling that 'still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate' that I think most of us have felt now & then, that just round the next corner we may find what we've been looking for all along, for those sudden pangs we all feel when something or someone almost 'breaks our lifelong dream' & we nearly 'wake up' & remember who we are & what we're really doing, that we find in Tolkien's work. He almost 'wakes us up', but not quite, & we quickly, like Frodo, 'fall asleep again', & only remember that we nearly woke up. Which is odd in writer of 'fantasy'. Can it really be that we wander in Middle Earth in search of the 'real' world? That the 'escape' we seek there is really the escape from our 'dream'? That we don't go to Middle Earth to escape 'reality', but to find it? And is this what SMP is really talking about when he casts down the 'Jungian Gauntlet'?