‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

It's almost a moot point, except that I think your way of thinking about it gives rise to a pseudo-problem about canon. That is, if you say, as you do, that Middle-earth is a place and that the texts were written about it, then it makes sense to ask the question "what is the truth about Middle-earth?" Which facts really correspond with Middle-earth and which do not? Was Gil-Galad the son of Fingon or the son of Orodreth? If we apply a correspondence theory of truth to the texts then these questions make sense, and it is troubling when there seems (as often happens) no good way to answer them.

Yet Tolkien clearly believed that he was 'discovering' rather than inventing, so he clearly felt that there were such 'facts' & that was the reason he continued working on the stories & making changes till they felt 'right'. Middle earth had an 'objective' existence for him. He may not have 'discovered' who Gil-Galad's father was, but he knew it was one or the other, & he couldn't bring himself to simply toss a coin, because he 'knew' that one of them was the father of Gil-Galad & the other was not, & his role was to discover his parentage, not dictate it.

This is as much a matter of understanding & acknowledging how Tolkien thought about & approached his work. Middle earth was an 'objectively existing place as far as he was concerned, & we can't actually prove him wrong.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

This is as much a matter of understanding & acknowledging how Tolkien thought about & approached his work.

But there's a difference between understanding how he worked and understanding how we ought to think of the texts.

If I understand you then the "objectively real Middle-earth" you speak of is the imaginary place inside Tolkien's head - specifically, the imaginary place inside his head where every aspect of the history "feels right" to him. I of course have no problem with this as a definition. But you cannot so define it and then use the fact of the definition to show that the author's intent is the ultimate aribiter of canon - unless you so define "canon" as to make that statement trivial.

The trouble with this claim is, again, that Tolkien is dead - and even if he weren't, he's a distinct person whose mind cannot ever be fully read. How, then, are we to know which Middle-earth is the right one? Of course, we can always try to choose a set of statements from the text that we think correspond with his wishes - taking the latest statements where we can and so forth. This is what we are doing in the Silmarillion project. But this ultimately comes down to choosing a set of rules and then applying them to the texts.

[davem]

Well, all we can say is that Tolkien accessed Middle earth through his imagination, not that it is all only imagination. I can't see that its a more 'rational' or logical approach to state that there are millions of different Middle earths out there, each existing in the mind of one of Tolkien's readers.

How, then, are we to know which Middle-earth is the right one?

How can we know which Atlantis is the right one?

Those 'searching' for Atlantis - whether its physical remains in this world or as some kind of 'imaginative' place/state - don't believe they're all searching for a different place - as far as they're concerned there's only one Atlantis which they are using the text/s to find. So, did Plato invent Atlantis, or did he merely use the already existing idea of Atlantis as a useful metaphor?

Your approach fails to answer what for me is the central question - why do we respond as we do to Middle earth, why do some of us feel it to be 'real', where does that sense of longing for it arise? Your position would seem to be that if we do respond to it in that we we're over-reacting (at the very least), or even that we're not responding in a sufficiently 'sane' & detatched way, that' there's something 'wrong' with us that we take a collection of texts so seriously.

Perhaps.

But for me that explanation doesn't work, because in my experience the more intensely people experience Middle earth, the more 'real' it is to them, the nicer people they are, & I can't explain how something that isn't 'real' can have a REAL, practical, & most importantly beneficial effect on people.

[Aiwendil]

Well now we're getting back into territory covered rather exhaustively earlier in the thread. It seems to me that you're saying that there is an objectively correct, internally consistent, Middle-earth that exists independent of anyone's thinking about it. If this is not what you're saying, then I don't see where we actually disagree. If it is, then I've got to wonder which Middle-earth it is. Is it, for example, the one where Turin returns to slay Ancalagon or the one where he returns to slay Morgoth? If you hold the view I formulated above, then there must be an objective fact about it. Either one is true or the other is. Is this the view that you hold? If so, then which one is the "real" story?

Your approach fails to answer what for me is the central question - why do we respond as we do to Middle earth, why do some of us feel it to be 'real', where does that sense of longing for it arise? Your position would seem to be that if we do respond to it in that we we're over-reacting (at the very least), or even that we're not responding in a sufficiently 'sane' & detatched way, that' there's something 'wrong' with us that we take a collection of texts so seriously.

Again, we are getting into stuff that was already debated extensively. I tried to make it clear then that I don't think it's at all silly or wrong to take Middle-earth, or any other literary world, seriously. We respond to it for profound psychological reasons. You may not like this explanation, but it is an explanation. There is no inexplicable mystery in my view.

[davem]

We respond to it for profound psychological reasons.

Its not about 'why' we respond, but what, if anything, we respond to.

Is it, for example, the one where Turin returns to slay Ancalagon or the one where he returns to slay Morgoth?

We can't know, because Tolkien didn't discover in time, but we can know that one of them is correct & the other isn't, because, given time, Tolkien would have discovered which one was 'correct'. If an explorer seeking the source of a particular river has two alternative possibilities but dies before he can determine which is correct, that wouldn't mean each of them was 'equally correct', or that people were free to choose which of the alternatives they preferred. And that would still be the case even if no-one else was able to go find out which is the case. We have to accept that some facts about Middle earth will remain unknowable to us, but that in itself doesn't mean the place itself has no 'objective existence' or that the response the texts evoke in us isn't to something 'real'.

Perhaps the problem is that you're arguing for the sole 'reality' or the texts (if I understand you right), while I'm arguing for the reality of what the texts refer to. So for me, 'contradictions' in the texts are not relevant.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

We can't know, because Tolkien didn't discover in time, but we can know that one of them is correct & the other isn't, because, given time, Tolkien would have discovered which one was 'correct'.

But, as Aiwendil points out, Tolkien's own thoughts and intentions changed over time. What he may have thought was "correct" at one point in time may well have seemed "incorrect" to him later in his life. Would you argue that Tolkien's latest thoughts on a particular issue should always take precedence on the basis that he was moving ever closer to the "truth" as he grew older? Even where those thoughts might conflict with his published works (for example, his ideas on the origins of Orcs, arguably)? Maybe his earlier ideas were the more "correct", but how would we ever know?

Originally Posted by Fordim Hegethistle

NOTE: I do not include in this the category of "atheists" -- those who believe the text has no meaning -- for the simple reason that the mere act of reading implies a faith that contradicts this idea: if reading were truly meaningless, why would anyone do it?

I think that there's a case to be made for the atheist reader. Someone who reads the book simply for pleasure and gives no thought to what it might mean to them or the world around them. Of course, it's unlikely that such a reader would hang around here on the Downs for very long, but it is (to my mind) a valid response nevertheless. Indeed, I could probably class myself as having been such a reader when I first read LotR.

Originally Posted by davem

My own feeling is that we cannot ignore the artists intention

I go back to what I said earlier in this thread. How many people read LotR with any idea of, or inclination to understand, Tolkien's intentions? 1%? Less? Tolkien "enthusiasts" are in a massive minority when it comes to those who have read LotR. Are 99%+ of people who read the book are misguided or simply wasting their time?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I think that there's a case to be made for the atheist reader. Someone who reads the book simply for pleasure and gives no thought to what it might mean to them or the world around them.

Ah, but then the meaning of the reading act would be to generate pleasure for the reader. The reader would still be 'using' the text to realise some 'purpose'. Such a limited and shallow purpose is sad and boring, but it still proceeds toward and through the meaning of the reading act for the reader.