‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[mark12_30]

Indeed. Smith, LOTR, Beowulf, etc.

Just as each of the participants in the (old) eucatastrophe thread had experienced unique, individual eucatastrophes at varying points of the story-- which, IMO, would have been a *very* tall order for Tolkien to have pre-planned each of those one by one.

Which is why rather than constructing an allegory with preplanned (hopefully revelatory and not constricting) constructions, Tolkien wanted to "just tell a story", and let the reader break through where he was Supposed To.

Another way to say it might be, so that the reader is pulled through when he is ready.

[The Saucepan Man]

Tolkien wanted to "just tell a story", and let the reader break through where he was Supposed To.

Precisely. Each reader finds something different in the story (just like there are different things behind each of the mills). And they are "supposed to", because what they find is right for them.

Another way to say it might be, so that the reader is pulled through when he is ready.

So I would put it slightly differently. The reader is "pulled through" to what seems right for him.

[mark12_30]

A small subset of Letter 89 (davem, note the planes) :

(describing, to his son Christopher, his reaction to a real-life event)

And all of a sudden I realized what it was: the very thing that I have been trying to write about and explain -- in that fairy-story essay that I so much wish you had read that I think I shall send it to you. For it I coined the word 'eucatastrophe': the sudden happy turn in a story which pierces you with a joy that brings tears (which I argued it is the highest function of fairy-stories to produce). And I was there led to the view that it produces its peculiar effect because it is a sudden glimpse of Truth, your whole nature chained in material cause and effect, the chain of death, feels a sudden relief was if a major limb out of joint has suddenly snapped back. It percieves-- if the story has literary 'truth' on the second plane (for which see the essay) - that this is indeed how things really do work in the Great World for which our nature is made.

Note that he didn't say producing eucatastrophe is the *only* function of fairy stories. If the story didn't entertain, as has been noted already, you wouldnt' stick with it long enough to receive the eucatastrophe.

Note also that he calls the eucatastrophe a sudden *glimpse* of Truth.

Glimpses are:
--easily missed
--easily doubted
--easily dismissed
--and five people catching a small glimpse of the same large thing would probably give differing reports.

(Five nearsighted hobbits approach an oliphaunt...)

[davem]

Helen

I don't think Gilson published anything - my main source of info is the T&TGW volume which I don't have here. He did write somethings though. I'll post what I find later.

As to 'Truth', I suppose whatever it is, its on the other side of those 'Mountains' that Niggle set off towards, so we on this side can't really know what it is - yet. But unless we believe that, whatever it is, its really there, we won't even set off to find it. I suppose someone could come from over the mountains to tell us about it, & show us the way to get there (or perhaps someone already has ).

Perhaps 'enchantment' is the first step towards this Truth, the thing that lures us in - like Niggle's vision of the Tree which he attempts to set down on canvas, & then his finding of the real Tree is the eucatastrophe of his story, & the eucatastrophic experience, the flash of 'truth' which it reveals, inspires him to go on over the mountains to find the truth itself. So the sequence would be enchantment - eucatastrophe - 'Truth'. Idea just occurs - could it be a kind of 'harmonic' sequence - so 'Truth' reflects 'downwards' into eucatastrophe, which in turn reflects downwards again as enchantment, like 'pure' light shining through lenses (or 'planes'). Enchantment makes opens us up to the possibility of Eucatastrophe, & Eucatastrophe is a sudden flash of 'Truth', of 'joy beyond the walls of the world'.

Which would mean that Tolkien's intention with his Legendarium was to enchant us, & make us at least susceptible to the Eucatastrophic experience, & so inspire us to seek the Truth.

(Sorry, that's all just popped into my head & I don't know if it works - I'm sure someone will let me know if it doesn't )

[mark12_30]

[HerenIstarion]

Hola, Helen, how did you get round "less than ten characters long" rule?

[mark12_30]

Uh... what rule?

Maybe I transcended something.

Back on topic before an axe falls... I was thinking more about the Millegory.

On the far side of the mill, you are once again looking at "our reality", as in our physical world-- but with a changed perspective. (Through a glass, darkly?) You are seeing what is there after having seen what's inside the mill. Going by OnFaeryStories, I'm guessing Tolkien would enjoy that. You're also seeing what the other side of the mill would look like from inside the mill; as if you are looking at the real world from Faeryland... which I guess Tolkien would also appreciate.

As a small example, how many people have a deeper appreciation for trees, having read the trilogy? I do; and I know when it began. On Cerin Amroth, when Frodo touched the bark of the tree, I got a glimpse of what one of my own trees, and Trees in general, Truly is/are-- just a small glimpse, but it began something. And I've been looking at my own trees and other trees differently ever since.