‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Lyta_Underhill]

Child of the 7th Age:

I can never fully understand any civilization from the past. As a historian, I accept that limitation. Nor do I expect to be able to get inside Tolkien's creation completely. My own understanding is limited. Yet in trying to apply my own experiences to the text, I feel compelled to take into account what I can untangle from the author's mind: what he meant when he wrote the text and created the world that he did.

Davem:

This really is a question about the extent to which we can separate the author's voice from the world he has created. If it was a real historical period we were dealing with we would attempt to do just that, & escape from the historian's biases, concious & unconcious, & draw our own moral lines.

I suppose this is the danger of the conceit of historicity of fiction. If one posits that Middle Earth exists outside the realm of Tolkien’s mind and that he really didn’t make it all up, as quipped by one of his correspondents in Letters so long ago, then the history is open to interpretation. Middle Earth is no longer Tolkien’s, but it becomes everyone’s. But, because we understand it to be a conceit—fiction, not history, the world belongs to the author who set it down. Thus, only his words are canon.

If we treat Middle Earth as a world which transcends its creator, then there could be all sorts of “revisionist histories” written from the discoveries of other works. Just think what could be written by one who uncovered the Library at Minas Tirith or who found Saruman’s records at Orthanc, or who wrote simply from the Book of Mazarbul with no other reference. Tolkien’s conceit of “The Red Book of Westmarch” means that “The Lord of the Rings” is to be the travelogue of Frodo, with all Frodo’s idiosyncrasies, beliefs, moral values, etc. along with his extraordinary experiences. So, if one wants to take the argument to its internal point, the canon of Lord of the Rings is the Weltanschauung of one Mr. Frodo Baggins, his first person experiences and journalistic interpretations of his talks with others involved in the War of the Ring.

I think the fact that this argument exists speaks to the verisimilitude and completeness of Tolkien’s creation of the realm of Middle Earth. When a world transcends the act of its creation, it strikes me in the same way Eru calling upon the Ainur to make music upon his themes would. I can see davem’s point about not allowing the discordant notes near a ‘canonical’ text, but also, I subscribe to Aiwendil’s view that no fanfiction or secondary writing is, by definition, canon (without getting into the sticky wicket of Christopher Tolkien's compilations/amalgamations/interpretations, i.e., Silmarillion etc.)*. That is not to say that fanfiction cannot enrich an already well-conceived world. Also, as painful as it might be to see the Morgoths and Saurons of this world exercise this right to expression, I cannot say they are not entitled to practice it, as long as they do not claim canonicity for their works. No badly written Mary Sue fanfiction is going to destroy the beauty of Tolkien’s world for me. There just isn’t enough power in it to do such a thing.

That said, I often have thoughts of just how the subcreated ‘history’ would fare if documents from the other side were uncovered, if there was, say, a ‘scribe of Minas Morgul’ who kept a journal and recounted his experiences in the War of the Ring and had a very different view of what actually happened in the conflict recorded, according to Tolkien’s conceit, by Frodo Baggins in the Red Book of Westmarch. But, of course, Tolkien did not write this, so one could never call it canon.

All this said, I must close with a blessing and a curse. Curse you and bless you, Fordim, for dredging up this topic again and taking my attention away from all the other little things I should have been doing!

Cheers!
Lyta

*Note from above: I actually find sometimes that the notes of CJT enhance the 'historical' effect of JRRT's works by being speculation much on the order of what historians must do to interpret intent or objective truth from disparate sources!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

All this said, I must close with a blessing and a curse. Curse you and bless you, Fordim, for dredging up this topic again and taking my attention away from all the other little things I should have been doing!

I stand shamed and humbled within the rain of your condemnatory benediction.

Canon is a tricky thing. To this point in the thread, I'm not sure that I've even really tackled it head on in terms of addressing what is an is not 'canonical', and I don't really propose to do so now as the idea of canon – of setting aside certain texts or kinds of texts as the 'real' Tolkien – tells us nothing about the texts or the author and everything about our own expectations as readers. If one believes that the meaning of a text resides wholly or primarily in relation to the author, then only works by that author will be canon; if one believes that the meaning of a text resides wholly or primarily in relation to the reader, then works or fan fiction (or parody) will be acceptable. This homiletic truth is born out, I think, within this very thread, for those who hold to the former position do not appear in the RPG forums, while those who hold to the latter do (more or less).

This is not, obviously, a strictly either/or scenario, where there are only two positions available. I have argued elsewhere (quite convincingly, I might add ) that there is within every reading experience both the desire for meaning from the authorial source, and the desire for meaning in relation to the self – which would mean that there is a constant tension within every reading act and reader between these two forms of canon-formation. We are all of us, I think, simultaneously and somewhat ambivalently exclusive (the work belongs to the author) and inclusive (the work belongs to me) in our responses to all texts. But this exclusive-inclusivity, or inclusive-exclusivity is even more pronounced in relation to Tolkien, I think, insofar as the world that the text explores is not (directly) one that we share – it’s Tolkien’s world, so it’s his rules, his truth, his canon. At the same time, however, because this world is imaginary we as readers have to do a lot more work (pleasurable as it may be) to bring it to life. We are more active participants in the creation of this world than we are of, say, Dickens’ London or even Chaucer’s west country, insofar as these places have independent existence from the texts that reflect them.

So the problem of canon is even more fraught with Tolkien than is usual. But the good news is, the promise of canon is richer. This promise is the ability that it gives us to reflect upon our own expectations as readers, which is – finally – what canon is all about. The instant we decide what truly ‘belongs’ and what does not, we set up a very clear mirror into our own expectations and desires as readers. The more we want to define the canonical ‘truth’ of the text by the author, the more we want to turn to the mirage of authorial intention for meaning. The more we want to define the canonical ‘truth’ of the text by ourselves, the more we want to turn to the fantasy of individual response.

In the end, I would suggest that the quest for Tolkien’s canon is an informative process, but futile.

EDIT -- Cross-posting with Davem to whom I would like to say I agree whole-heartedly with the tripartite form of allusiveness you speak of in relation to the etymological pursuit of meaning in LotR.

[davem]

As to etymology enhancing our understanding of the books, its interesting how it can reveal earlier versions of the story - ie Farmer Maggot's original, unpleasant character is prob. revealed through the name - 'maggotty'=cantankerous or drunken. The later character doesn't reflect these attributes at all, but they're there. Same thing with Fangorn=OE-’fang’, booty, plunder; cf fon (to imprison) ‘prison-wood, as well as beard-tree, which reflects the earlier version of the story, where Gandalf is imprisoned by Giant Treebeard, etc. Athelas means both 'spirit of the king' in OE & Kings foil (or leaf) in Sindarin.

But we have two 'levels' of inner/'hidden' meaning in Tolkien's books, the OldEnglish/Old Norse/Middle English, etc level, & the Elvish one, where subtle connections are made for readers - ie Strider telling the hobbits Frodo has been stabbed by a 'morgul blade' at weathertop - when we then hear the name Minas Morgul we consciously or unconsciously relate the the two places, just as we connect Minas Morgul with Minas Tirith, & Minas Tirth itself links back (for readers of the Sil) to Finrod's tower which guarded the Pass of Sirion.

None of those connections are overtly stated, but they underlie the whole thing.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Very random thoughts off the top of my head late at night...

The more I think about it, the more I see Tolkien's efforts as directed at "world building" rather than simple "novel writing" in terms of Middle-earth and even LotR. How else can we explain the fact that the author used such a variety of forms and devices to express his creative intent for a period extending more than fifty years? A novel, a children's book, mythology and legend as expressed in the Silm, poetry and song, a myriad of invented languages and scripts, maps, colored illustrations and sketches, etymological exercises, heraldic devices, timelines: the list could go on and on. All of these were tools that he used to create the world of Middle-earth. And Tolkien made it quite clear in his letters that this world was somewhat open-ended, since he had wanted to "leave scope for other minds and hands", inviting gifted creators to come in "wielding paint and music and drama."

How many authors invite the reader to add personal touches to his work? And what does this do to our concept of canon?

Even if we confine our discussion to Tolkien himself, all of this diversity has to make the writings more difficult to assess, especially in terms of canon, whether we are talking about a single volume like LotR or the corpus as a whole. Even when we take up LotR and attempt to treat it as a novel, strange little things like languages, etymologies, poems, and such come creeping in, to say nothing of the histories set out in the Appendices.

Maybe I was overly optomistic when I charitably described issues of canon as one of those questions that are "unanswerable"; Fordim may be closer to the mark when he says identifying canon is an "informative process, but futile". "Futile" is a strong word but I think there is some justification for that term.

And yet I am unwilling to go as far as SpM in championing the freedom of the reader: accepting anything that's not specifically excluded by Tolkien, which I believe is the standard he laid out. (If I am mistaken in this, I apologize.) Like Davem, I am uncomfortable with fifteen foot rabbits or slash relationships (although my reasoning vis-a-vis history is totally different than his). I might let an ostrich or two slip in, but that's as far as I go. All kidding aside, there is a difference between ostriches, fifteen foot rabbits, and slash relationships. Each of these raises a different question.

Ostriches are part of the natural world, so they may be lurking about in Middle-earth somewhere, most likely in Harad. Fifteen foot rabbits, in contrast, imply a revision of the rules of nature, in fact almost stepping beyond nature into the realm of outright magic. And there is surprisingly little "magic" in Tolkien, for reasons we've already discussed. If such large rabbits were a legitimate part of faerie or of myth, I might be willing to let them in the back door, but I'm not aware of any that are. The author has the prerogative to bring in Oliphaunts (which do seem to bear some resemblance to actual mastadons and mammoths), but that is his prerogative not mine.

And when we come to "moral" questions and values, it gets even tougher. Everything I've read about Tolkien tells me that he was a Roman Catholic, and that his personal beliefs were shaped by that religious faith. I can find nothing to indicate his views on slash or pornography, for example, were divergent in this regard. Here, I am talking in terms of an "ideal" rather than getting into any questions about civil liberties and such, since this is a totally different issue. Again and again, Tolkien hammered away in LotR at the need for individuals to take a moral stand. SpM is certainly correct that Tolkien did not explicitly address such issues in LotR, but if I go by what I know about the author (not my own standards and beliefs which may be very different), then I find it hard to include either slash or explicit portrayals of sex between men and women. Allusions to sex and rape are a different thing: these certainly exist in Silm. There is a wonderfully tender kiss between Faramir and Eowyn in LotR that hints at the passion that lies underneath. But I would find it difficult to step beyond this in the context of Tolkien.

To some degree, I do feel bound by what I know about the author. When he speaks of creating a world that is 'high', purged of the gross, and fit for the more adult mind of a land long now steeped in poetry", I find myself treading very gently. Perhaps this is an emotional reaction rather than an intellectual one, but surely that has validity as well.

Finally, Bb, Thank you for your post, which was very thought provoking. I agreed with much of what you said. You are correct in saying that we can never know the exact intention of the author (or the creator or the historian -- whatever term we care to use), which is not too different from saying that I can never wholly understand the past. But I think that the effort has to be made and that there are some things that lie in the dominion of the creator/author rather than the freedom of the reader. It's clear that all of us would draw the line at a different point.

If sixties readers best appreciate trees, and modern scholars have discovered Eru, while young people enjoy the sword play, that is all to the good in my opinion. All of these things are implicit in Tolkien's writings. History feeds on variant interpretations: in the clash of ideas, new truths emerge. In fact, without changing ideas and interpretations, you'd end up with a very boring textbook that puts everyone to sleep -- the type that are used in many history classes! My problem in terms of Middle-earth comes only when something "foreign" is introduced, something for which I see little or no basis in the text itself, especially in the context of what I know about the author.

One clarification:

You suggest that the preferable way to define a response to Tolkien is through history rather than the kind of literary criticism which Fordim and I tend to use...

My apologies. I did not mean to say that historiography was more helpful than literary scholarship. I was probably a little overzealous in my argument. In fact I was trying to argue that what we need are more approaches, not fewer ones.

Historiography is indeed a preferable way for me to understand the works, since I have more background and understanding in this regard than I would in terms of literary theories (or of psychological theories, for that matter). But it is a preference only for myself and not to be thrust upon anyone else who will want to forge their own path. Fordim is quite right in saying that diversity is the key here, with each reader applying what he or she knows best.

In any case, it's quite clear that agreement on these issues is impossible to reach. Yet, despite the headaches, I think the effort is worth making. What the Silm project is doing is a case in point. It is not canon in any sense, but by the very act of selecting and making judgments, we are given a new perspective on certain aspects of the writings. Well written fanfiction and RPGs perform a similar function.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child

And Tolkien made it quite clear in his letters that this world was somewhat open-ended, since he had wanted to "leave scope for other minds and hands", inviting gifted creators to come in "wielding paint and music and drama."

This brings up the question of how narrowly or broadly Tolkien himself would have defined 'canonicity' - if he was happy (unlike Christopher) for people to expand on his creation, as long, presumably, as they stayed within the spirit of the work. Presumably he didn't think of Middle earth as his sole 'property', & was in a sense giving it to the world - as he said to Milton Waldman, he wanted to dedicate it to England.

If this is the case, then it could be argued that any fanfic which was true to the spirit of the work could be considered 'canonical' as writers would be simply expanding Tolkien's world, with his permission.

Of course, Tolkien, as Shippey among others has shown, was attempting to recreate an already existing mythology, & attempting to explain, for instance, why in Norse myth & Saxon legend there are references to Light Elves, Dark Elves, Elves of the Gloaming, Sea Elves, Wood Elves, etc. So Tolkien, in part , is not 'freely' inventing his stories, he is attempting to account for references in the old sources. So we could say that the Legendarium is an exercise in applied philology, an attempt to reconstruct a lost mythology, as much as an attempt to tell an entertaining story.

[Novnarwen]

From davem's post

If this is the case, then it could be argued that any fanfic which was true to the spirit of the work could be considered 'canonical' as writers would be simply expanding Tolkien's world, with his permission.

I was going to agree with you, and others, who say that fanfics and RPGs etc can be 'canonical'. But now, suddenly, I have changed my mind. When we write our fanfics or our RPG stories it can never be canon or 'canonical' for many reasons. (Only my opinion, of course..)

Saying that Tolkien is letting us into his world and that he is open for writers to expand his works doesn't make our new stories within Middle-earth canon or 'canonical'. They are simply stories which are based on the world Tolkien gave to us through his books. They are stories, which take place and evolve in Middle-earth, they are stories that may resemble Tolkien’s style of writing and they may even be stories that are similar in spirit. However, as I still don't get how we are to judge what is in the spirit of Tolkien or not, I will say that this too is 'evidence' that nothing we write can be canon or 'canonical'. With good conscious, I just cannot do it.. (I might change my mind, but someone needs to convince me.) I mean, we may try to decide what we think is the spirit of Tolkien by our own experiences, opinions and etc., but who's correct and who's not? Naturally, we will see Tolkien differently, as to how we approach him as a person and how we approach his works. To me, it seems impossible to actually claim that "Hello you, but THIS is not in the spirit of Tolkien, duh!" and "Hello, that's what I call the spirit of Tolkien. Your fanfic is therefore 'canonical!'"

From Saucepan Man's Post

by the same token, I would say that there is no reason why a Tolkien fanfic should not include aspects of human nature that Tolkien does not specifically address in his works, provided that they are dealt with in the spirit of Tolkien’s writing.

I agree with everything you say, I think.. A Fanfic or RPG, I think, could include some aspects of human nature that Tolkien perhaps 'forgot' to tell us about. I assume that Tolkien was inspired from his own experiences in life when writing, and different aspects of human nature is not something Tolkien wasn't aware of. I'm not saying, by this, that I believe it is in the spirit (whatever that 'spirit' is) of Tolkien to create homosexual characters, simply because I don't know what the spirit of Tolkien is/was. This is only my point of view, though. Mind you, however, I don't see what wrong it could do..

You see, every time someone writes an RPG post or a Fanfic, we do not write it under John Ronald Reul Tolkien. Next to our posts, our writings, it says for example: "Novnarwen's post." (Okay, it doesn't actually say that by ones post, I just realised, but it says your name... Anyway, it's meant to be "Novnarwen's post... ") As long as it is under our names, it is our posts, our writings and of course our responsibility. We claim that this is our writing, and we say for instance at the RPG discussion threads:" My post is up!" Okay, it's your post.. It is your writing, it is [in] your spirit, why else would you say that it is your post? If it were in the spirit of Tolkien (I don't know how we can say which spirit is Tolkien’s though.. ) it wouldn't have been your post. What I am trying to point out is that we can imitate Tolkien, claim that "This is in the spirit of Tolkien, believe me", but how do we know? No one other than Tolkien can write in his spirit, because no one else is Tolkien! And if no one can write in his spirit, is anything we write then canon or 'canonical'?

Since I've already explained that I do not think other writings and other writers than Tolkien and his writing can be canon or 'canonical', I don't see the reason not to create the characters you like, (as long as it is within the Forum's guidelines,) because it will never be canon or 'canonical' anyway. It is simply your writing, and you have based it on Tolkien's world. Since you are a part of a Tolkien community, which states that there are Tolkien RPGs here, you have already acknowledged that you give full credit to Tolkien for creating Middle-earth. Other than that the credit goes to you..

Anyway, now as that has been said, (If you haven't fallen off your chair already because of my ignorance or whatever, you will certainly now..) I am wondering about something..

Why are we putting so much effort into worrying about whether our writings are 'canonical' or not? I know it’s easy for me to say, who is just overly convinced that no one can possibly write a Tolkien fanfic or an RPG and make it canon or 'canonical', but what about you? I mean, as long as we respect the characters Tolkein indeed gave life, such as Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin (in fact every character he mentioned by name, which would take ages and ages to put on paper.), and don't put Meduseld on fire and make Theóden die of poisonous smoke and such, there is nothing 'wrong' we can do. I mean, have we really claimed from the start that we are making canon or that we are writing in the spirit of Tolkien?

Okay, I'm wrapping this up since it's only ramblings now.
Cheers,
Nova

[The Saucepan Man]

When we write our fanfics or our RPG stories it can never be canon or 'canonical' for many reasons.

I agree. The problem with describing fanfics and RPGs as "canon" is that, as I understand it, this word generally refers to the body of an author's work which has been published (ie is accessible to all who wish to read it). Fanfics and RPGs fail on both counts because they have not been written by the author and because they are not generally available. So, if you were to turn round and tell me that Legolas owned a hare (to use a random example ) because you read it in a fanfic, I would be fully justified in disregarding your information completely. It is simply not canon, and that is that.

Having said that, I do agree to some extent with whoever (Aiwendil?) said that a fanfic can be "canon-ish" in the sense that it adheres to the "spirit of Tolkien". But you have amply illustrated the problem with this concept, Novnarwen. Who is to say what is in the spirit of Tolkien and what is not? There are obvious areas where we can agree, but there will also be many areas where we will not.

Which takes me back to my (hackneyed) mantra concerning the freedom of the reader. If I read a piece of fanfic, like it and see it as being within the spirit of Tolkien (and provided that it does not conflict with anything Tolkien wrote), I can choose to believe that in my Middle-earth, the events described in it did happen. But for another person who reads the same fanfic, such events may well be events that they cannot accept as having occurred in their Middle-earth because they do not accord with their conception of Tolkien's vision.

Of course, I agree with Child that there are some things that we would all agree do not, and could never be, within the spirit of Tolkien's Middle-earth writings. But she and I clearly differ when it comes to fifteen foot high rabbits and homosexuality (although I would hasten to add that there are in fact no fifteen foot rodents (whether owned by Legolas or not) in my Middle-earth).

So, to a greater or lesser degree, we will all have different conceptions of Middle-earth. Which means that, when we come together to discuss Tolkien's works, the only things that we can all agree on are those facts which are expressly stated in the text. And even then there is room for interpretation, which brings us back to ...

*Saucepan is overcome with deja vu and falls to the floor noisily in a heap of pots and pans*

I'll give up before I start repeating myself any further ...

Why are we putting so much effort into worrying about whether our writings are 'canonical' or not?

Because ... er ... um ... anyone?

[Aiwendil]

Novnarwen wrote:

I was going to agree with you, and others, who say that fanfics and RPGs etc can be 'canonical'. But now, suddenly, I have changed my mind. When we write our fanfics or our RPG stories it can never be canon or 'canonical' for many reasons.

I have to say, again, that I don't think that this question is as meaningful as it sounds. It seems to me that the disagreement here is not about what Tolkien's texts are, or what fan fiction is, or anything like that - it's simply about what we want to use the term "canonical" to signify. "Canonical" is just a word, just a term. I would say that the conventional usage of the word is more in line with the restricted meaning "Tolkien's texts". But one ought to be able to alter one's definitions and use "canonical" to mean "not contradicting Tolkien's texts" without this necessitating any other changes in one's view.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Who is to say what is in the spirit of Tolkien and what is not? There are obvious areas where we can agree, but there will also be many areas where we will not.

You're right - and this doesn't just apply to the more abstract aspects of Tolkien's work, either. It's often very difficult to say whether a specific, concrete fact in a piece of fan fiction violates another specific, concrete fact from Tolkien's work. I still say there are three fundamental categories: strict canon (Tolkien), possible canon (some fan fiction), and non-canon (other fan fiction). But there are shades of grey in between them, particularly in between the latter two.