‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Aiwendil]

The Thread is Still Alive

The Saucepan Man wrote:

I think that, unless he found their interpretation personally repellent (per Stormfront), he would have been happy that these readers had found in it what was right for them (whether that be spiritual guidance, enchantment, applicability, or just plain old enjoyment). To do otherwise would involve undervaluing either their reading experience or his own skill as a story-teller.

Yes. This is exactly what I've been trying to get at. If the purpose of his stories was to convince his readers of what he thought was the "Truth" (even if passively, by revealing it to them rather than forcing it on them) then we must assume that he would disagree with all with all interpretations that did not conform to his views and deem all readers' experiences "wrong" save the experience of this particular "Truth" he believed in. And I do not think that that was the case.

Mark12_30 wrote:

Actually, I think the whole process is rather cyclical in nature.

This is an interesting answer - neither the story itself nor insight into Truth is either the cause or the effect; or perhaps each is both. I think I like this answer, if only because it comes very close to what I've been arguing. As a story becomes very good, it becomes more like an allegory; as an allegory becomes very good it becomes more like a story. So the story itself and insight into Truth are in fact the same thing.

But this is not the impression I got from your earlier posts. Perhaps this was just a misunderstanding on my part. It seemed to me that you (and Davem as well) were suggesting that Tolkien's goal was to expose readers to this insight, and that a requirement for achieving this is a fully self-consistent, believable story. I got this impression most of all when you compared Tolkien's works to parables (in connection with self-consistency); for clearly in the case of a parable, the insight is the end and the story is a means. Did you mean to draw a distinction here?

I ought to point out that there is a very big (though perhaps subtle) difference between intending to actually change people's attitudes and beliefs and intending to change the state of literature - which is why I still don't buy the argument that the TCBS intended to convert people to its way of thinking, and that this remained Tolkien's goal later on. I have always understood their goal as a literary one: they were unsatisfied with the state of modern literature and desired to change that. This is more or less the attitude, at any rate, that Tolkien shared some years later with Lewis, when they decided that there were not enough of the sort of book they liked to read, so they would to have to write some themselves (the agreement that resulted in Out of the Silent Planet and The Lost Road). This is not at all the same as writing with the primary purpose of changing people's views about the world, or affording them glimpses of Truth.

If we insist on strict definitions, now I have to ask you your definitions of those three concepts, as I suspect that they vary widely from mine! And won't that derail this thread!

Well, I don't have strict definitions for them - but that's okay; I was merely guessing that you might have intended those concepts, in which case I would ask for your definitions.

And that both encompasses those three concepts that you listed above
and extends beyond them into such simple things that include "Trees are more than a source of plywood and paper", "2+2=4", "The Sky is a big place," and "Most people prefer receiving kindness over cruelty."

It sounds like what you mean by "Truth" is simply "the set of all true propositions". That's certainly a definition I can live with (it's the one I intend when I say "truth"). But if this is the case, I don't see why there's any need to be at all mystical about it. Why talk gravely about Truth being out beyond the mills (if I understand your millegory correctly), or about transcendent glimpses of Truth; why the capital T? For if Truth is just the set of true propositions, then a "glimpse of Truth" must just be the knowledge of the truth or falsehood of certain propositions. In such a case, there is no reason at all that each person should have to discover Truth for himself or herself. Nor is there any such thing as "discovering Truth", since that would mean omniscience.

So either of two things is true: 1. By "Truth" you do in fact mean "the set of all true propositions", and all the earlier mysticism was unnecessary or 2. you mean something else, in which case I still would like to know what it is.

And a further dichotomy: either 1. The definition of "Truth" does not critically depend on anything like God or religion or 2. it does.

Going with option 1 on both questions agrees with my view; choosing 2 in either case means there is still some disagreement, but one that I cannot identify.

I think the more relevant question is what are you pursuing? And that is entirely up to you. Free country.

I've got to admit that I have no idea how the matter of what I am pursuing has anything whatsoever to do with the nature of Tolkien's work.

Sorry if any of that sounds abrasive - it was certainly not intended to. I'm just trying to understand what you (and others) are saying.