‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[mark12_30]

Careful, davem, you'll evaporate us all!!!!!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

A very interesting question with which to resurrect the thread, H-I – but one that may need a bit of tweaking.

The question as you phrase it would seem to be a bit of a big baggy monster about morality and society in the primary world: a worthy question, but not really in the spirit on the original thread. If I might be allowed to rephrase it, and then take a running start at an answer…

Going back to SaucepanMan’s point:

that moral “truths” do “lie in numbers”

I wonder how applicable this can be to whatever “truths” we discover in a text like LotR? That is, if a hundred people think that Aragorn’s statement that he will help the hobbits is the expression of selfless sacrifice (“I will give up my aspirations for the good of Middle-Earth”) and fifty think that it is enlightened self-interest (“I will help you because it is convenient since my own Road lies that way”) then is the first interpretation more right than the other? What if the ratio changes and there’s a thousand people who support one interpretation and ten who support another? A million against one?

Most of us, I am sure, would want to say that of course interpretation is not a matter of sheer numbers – this is not a democracy! But surely to goodness there is some truth in what SpM is saying when we look at it in terms of interpretation. I mean, there is no way to prove finally that the Ring is not an allegory for the Atomic Bomb, but few people hold to that interpretation any more because majority opinion has swung against it.

And to fully return to the topic of this thread: if there is a democratic aspect to this, does the author get just one vote or more? To adopt (rather inappropriately, I admit) a different metaphor, if the readers and the writer are shareholders in the meaning of a text, does the author have a controlling share or is he just one more shareholder among many?

[davem]

This is the central argument - can we divorce Tolkien's intent from the way we read his work - or perhaps we should start with 'Did he have any intent?' The Foreword to the second edition is self contradictory in a way - he claims there is no allegory, & the reader is free to apply the story in any way they please, then he immediately refutes what was probably the most obvious 'application' for readers at that time, that to WW2, by showing that anyone who did apply it in that way would be completely ignorant.

This seems to be drawing together a number of current threads - 'Reality', The Nazi's, Partners & The Soddit, etc. To what extent are we free to interpret & apply, if the author has refused to do that himself, & has given us express permission to do so - we may interpret & apply as we wish if the author will not do that for us. Yet we mustn't contradict explicit statements of the author -

'Marriage, save for rare ill chances or strange fates, was the natural course of life for all the Eldar', Marriage is chiefly of the body, for it is achieved by bodily union, [i]& its first operation is the begetting of the bodies of children...And the union of bodies in marriage is unique, & no other union resembles it' & 'Seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust amongst them'. (Laws & Customs Among the Eldar)

This clearly states that sex outside marriage, 'lustful' relationships, sexual relationships for any purpose other than a loving union which is intended to produce offspring, is not consistent with 'Canon', so pornographic fanfic, whether 'slash' or not, is not acceptable - less for 'moral' reasons, as because it goes expressly against Tolkien's statements on the nature of the elves - it would be as 'wrong' (ie incorrect) as 6 foot hobbits, or non imortal elves, or lazy dwarves with a fear of being underground.

So, to Aragorn; I think we have to dismiss the 'enlightened self interest' explanation for his actions, in that that goes totally against his character, as shown in numerous other examples where he goes out of his way to help others & often lays his life on the line for them when he doesn't have to. We aren't free to interpret this incident at Bree in a way that is in contradiction to his other actions later in the story. Aragorn is a particular type of person, & he behaves in a particular way.

So, for a story or interpretation to be in line with canon, it must not contradict either clear statements of the author about his world or its inhabitants, or interpret certain actions of a character in a way that isn't consistent with what we know of them. Frodo, for example, is clearly & obviously celebate - & not for reasons of 'Victorian morality' - celebacy is part of his nature, a manifestation of his spiritual nature & one of the reasons for his isolation at the end of the story - so a Frodo/Sam slash fanfic is simply incorrect, because he wouldn't respond in a sexual way to anyone, male or female - he is on a different path.

In short, whatever place 'democracy' may have in interpretations of Tolkien's writings, it cannot go against the given 'laws' of the world he created.

[HerenIstarion]

I knew two ants to come out first would be winding davem and hedged fordim...

Well, the real start of the morality issue was when we talked about Truth/truth back on page 7 and 8 of current thread.

The argument presented by SpM was that every [wo]man may have his personal moral and personal truth, which was responded by yours truly with a question should a murderer still be accused on moral grounds if the murder s/he committed have been approved of by his/her personal 'truth' and moral code. The morality in numbers issue came as the answer to that.

Back to matters at hand:

Authorship/Readership and shareholding - an analogy, a bit one-sided, but still valid, may be applied to LoTR and my statement on page 6 [without God there is no understanding of LoTR – i.e. suppose someone read only LoTR and haven’t heard of Eru]. Let me explain myself:

There may be two assumptions about moral, or Moral Law:

1. Moral Law as directly implemented by Eru
2. Moral Law as the product of social evolution.

In case one, there can be no place for calculation/weighting - if action A, than consequence B, which is good for society, therefore A is morally good. Case 2 allows such calculations. In LoTR, calculations are somehow out of place - characters merely act because 'thus shall I sleep better', (I have had my example, btw, I wanted to see your reaction first - I've quoted Theoden here, whose decision to take part in the war is mostly socially inefficient - he probably risks the very existence of the whole of the society he's in charge of).

That in the end morally good actions bring about good of society, is expression of Tolkien's sense of justice, or so it seems

Or, back to shareholders analogy – if the Moral Law is a company created by Eru, than He has the casting vote of what is moral and what is not, no democracy. If, on the other hand, Moral Law is the product of social development, than my previous post shows that the actions evaluated as most moral are least socially efficient. But moral democracy is dangerous – yes, question of ‘why should I do this’ can be answered with ‘because this is good for society’, but following question of ‘why should I prefer good of society over my personal good’ can not be answered by means of moral democracy. The logical chain may be than extended to state that any moral is good in itself – brings us to ‘bag-end’ (i.e. cul-de-sac) – murderer may be in his/her right, as his actions were in accordance with his/her personal moral.

If the option two – moral democracy - be right, than Aragorn, Theoden etc act senseless in the book, and Jackson’s Aragorn is more true than one of the book – his choice is determined by ‘democracy’ – he’s nagged by Arwen, Elrond brings him his sword, he’s constantly pushed on by ‘public opinion’, ‘moral of numbers’. If not that stimuli, he may have even fallen for Eowyn, one can’t help wondering. Jackson’s Theoden is even better expression of democracy moral – ‘Where have been Gondor when Rohan needed help’, instead of book’s ‘we will fulfill our oath of allegeance, whatever befell us’

But why opinion of two should be preferred over opinion of one? Can someone convince me that taller people are better than shorter ones, or vice versa?

Back to Canonicity: My intended answer was posted for me by davem already :

So, for a story or interpretation to be in line with canon, it must not contradict either clear statements of the author about his world or its inhabitants, or interpret certain actions of a character in a way that isn't consistent with what we know of them

End of democracy, long live the King (m-m, constitutional monarchy?)

[Aiwendil]

Fordim wrote:

I mean, there is no way to prove finally that the Ring is not an allegory for the Atomic Bomb, but few people hold to that interpretation any more because majority opinion has swung against it.

We must be very careful with definitions. What does it mean to say that "the Ring is an allegory for the atomic bomb?" If "allegory" means what it usually means, then the claim is equivalent to "when Tolkien wrote 'Ring' he meant, instead of or in addition to the fictional Ring, the atomic bomb." And we know that this claim is false for the simple reason that Tolkien said it was false. Short of claiming that he was lying, we cannot entertain the possibility that "the Ring is an allegory for the atomic bomb" is true. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a majority of people disagreeing with the claim.

But you see, that particular point depends upon the specific meaning of the word "allegory" - a word that by definition has to do with the author's intent. We ought not to be surprised that when we ask a question about the author's intent, our answer will depend critically upon the author's intent! Nor can we then infer that all matters of interpretation and "canon" depend critically on the author's intent. The inference is invalid because the case from which we would infer is peculiar.

davem wrote:

The Foreword to the second edition is self contradictory in a way - he claims there is no allegory, & the reader is free to apply the story in any way they please, then he immediately refutes what was probably the most obvious 'application' for readers at that time, that to WW2, by showing that anyone who did apply it in that way would be completely ignorant.

I don't see a contradiction here. He does not say that the reader is free to interpret the story in any way he or she chooses. He does say that there is no allegory. But "no allegory" does not mean that all interpretations by all readers are valid. Again, allegory has a very specific meaning. When he says that there is no allegory, he means that this is not the kind of book that is merely code for a message; it's not the kind of book where when he writes X,Y,Z he means A,B,C; it's not the kind of book that is, primarily or exclusively, about World War II or about atomic power or about anything other than the story itself.

That certainly does not leave us with the total freedom of the reader. The reader can indeed "apply" the story to real life, but there is no assurance that every application will be valid. And of course a reader still cannot "interpret" the book in a way that is directly contradicted by the text itself.

As you say, "lustful" relationships cannot be "canon"; they contradict a statement in one of the texts. Nor can Aragorn be considered to act in self-interest, because that contradicts a whole complex system of statements in the texts.

What I think is all too often forgotten in this debate, which has in large part come down to Author vs. Reader, is the Text itself. There are severe problems with saying either that the author is the final arbiter of interpretation, or that the reader is. I say that it is in the text that whatever truths there are about interpretation must lie. This view does everything it ought to do - it eliminates the problem that we can never really know the precise contents of the author's mind, but it does not make "interpretations" that are simply incorrect valid.

HerenIstarion:

You describe well the two opposing assumptions concerning morality. But, as Fordim points out, we must either talk about the real world or about Middle-earth; we cannot mix and match freely.

In Middle-earth there is no question. Option 1 is simply right and option 2 is simply wrong. This is because the texts can only be read consistently with option 1 as an assumption, not with option 2. That has nothing to do with the validity of either assumption in the real world - as I recall (and I may be wrong; it was a while ago) The Saucepan Man's original point related to the real world.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

as I recall (and I may be wrong; it was a while ago) The Saucepan Man's original point related to the real world.

Touché

I'm an intriguer, which I admit freely ,

Being an intriquer, I can not help twisting and slithering a bit before ackowledging defeat - pages 4 and 5, or maybe 5 and 6, those even more lost in the famous Mists of Time, deal with some 'Shop on the borders of Fairyland'. If there be such a shop, and it be seen by Tolkien who told us about it, than moral issue would be applicable to it as well?

Besides, relating it to Canonicity issue, if such an assumption (option 1 in origin of Moral Law) were imperative for the Author, and he made it explicit in his letters...

Ok, ok, don't pay heed...

PS 'Morals and real life' moves on to PM, or so I assume. My inbox is open

[Bêthberry]

Well, HeronIstarion, here is another ent lumbering up the long and winding davem to the forded hedge, to get A-windil of the discussion. Just think--or not--of the lines possible with my nick.

Actually, I would refute davem's claim that 'lustful' relationships are non-canonical. Let's look again at what he posted:

'Marriage, save for rare ill chances or strange fates, was the natural course of life for all the Eldar', Marriage is chiefly of the body, for it is achieved by bodily union, & its first operation is the begetting of the bodies of children...And the union of bodies in marriage is unique, & no other union resembles it' & 'Seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust amongst them'. (Laws & Customs Among the Eldar)

This reads Seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust amongst them. 'Seldom' does not mean 'never' and the restriction refers to tales, not the behaviour itself. The gist of the sentence is that tales are not told about it, not that it never occurs. Silence on a subject does not mean the subject ceases to exist or never exists. As we all know from the revelations of the twentieth century, child abuse exists even when codes of silence surround it. Rape exists even when shame forces victims and families to maintain a code of silence which amounts to denial--a hypocrisy some might say.

How and why did this change of perception, this sudden 'seeing', happen in real life in the Twentieth Century? And the seeing involves much more than just child abuse or rape or genocide (The Jews in WWII, the Blacks in the Congo, the Amerinds in North America, the witches in late medieval Europe, the gypsies in Europe also, to name just a few). The 'seeing' is a recognition that outside the histories we receive are the lives of "others" who have been pushed to the peripheries. How and why does this new vision come about? What is the creative process whereby people can look at history (and texts) and see for the first time?

I would agree with Aiwendil that the text's the thing wherein we may catch the conscious of interpreting. But rather than focus exclusively on a static text, I would prefer to think of reading as a process or interplay, an active act of the mind in communication with words on the page. Interpretation engages the imagination and there, through some strange alchemy, new vision appears. This was, for me, the great tragedy of the elves. They looked back stagnantly and nostalgically rather than imaginatively.

Let me turn this away from referring to the historical world, our world, in order to forestall any of this strain which says that Middle-earth is entirely self-referential. (I don't buy that argument--since Fordim has suggested we bring in the vocabulary of the marketplace--but for now I will simply sidestep it for my main interest here.)

When Tolkien read texts, what was it that simmered in that cauldron of his mind, to create his inspired readings? What was it that enabled him to see the literary and narrative value of dragons and story in Beowulf when others around him saw in the text only an ancient language to be retrived labouriously by conning grammars and lexicons? What was it that gave him his insight in The Battle of Maldon which led to his essay on chivalry and The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son? We can see now in these early texts what others could not because of Tolkien's vision. How does this happen?

And if Tolkien could do it, why must we deny the possibility that others may do it for his texts?

(Note, I am not saying that we must allow slash fanfics in our RPGs here, for I accept the right of interpretive communities to set their own guidelines. Well, here they were first carved in internet stone by the Barrow Wight, but they have since been discussed, debated, explored and largely reaffirmed more fully by the community. This is what, after all, a discussion board is for.)

What I am asking here, in this dancing on the head of the pin called the Canonicity rag, is how to account for new interpretations. And how to 'authorise' them.

How and where and when do we see newly and how do we determine which new visions to accept? Unless our discussion can account for Tolkien finding new visions in his reading--I will go even further--unless we can account for how Child produced that brilliant reading of history in "A Knife in the Dark" and how we have come to acknowledge her vision--we limit, proscribe, restrict our minds. Somewhere in this author--text--reader triad we have to account for imagination.

Yours not-Lothlorienly,
Bethberry

[mark12_30]

Bb wrote:

This reads Seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust amongst them. 'Seldom' does not mean 'never' and the restriction refers to tales, not the behaviour itself. The gist of the sentence is that tales are not told about it, not that it never occurs.

Logical as it stands; however, davem's quote is also limited. Naturally, I am away from my books (see corresponding thread) but Tolkien states that elves are different than men in this manner before he states that 'seldom is any tale told.'

Here's a snippet:

but the right of revoking (a betrothal) was seldom used, for the Eldar do not err lightly in such choice. They are not easily deceived by their own kind; and their spirits being masters of their bodies, they are seldom swayed by the desires of the body only, but are by nature continent and steadfast.

(Aside, IMO: Generally speaking, the shorter a species' lifespan, the higher the reproductive drive; it stands to reason therefore that elves would not have a major issue with it.)

Edit: Michael maritinez includes the full quote here , page 85.