‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[mark12_30]

Again we come to the "underlying reality" idea, which, I must confess, I still don't really understand.

Tolkien also asked a similar question, it seems to me:

Whence came the wish, and whence the power to dream,
or some things fair and others ugly deem?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I must say that I find it odd to maintain both the fundamental importance of the author and the objective existence of Middle-earth. It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. If Middle-earth has an objective, independent existence and Tolkien was merely "discovering" then you cannot see his work as essentially a manifestation of himself, any more than you can see the Pelopponesian war as a mere manifestation of Thucydides.

On the other hand, if art is really to be thought of in the modern way as a manifestation of the artist, then Middle-earth's origin, in fact its entire existence, is in Tolkien himself, as an artist.

Ok, lets take Niggle's tree - did Niggle 'invent' the tree, or did he merely 'communicate' the real tree's image to the world? The Tree may have a real existence but that doesn't invalidate Niggle's role in making the idea of it available to those who couldn't exprience it directly. What Niggle does is not unimportant, his role is in no way negligeable. Niggle is a vital part of the process of comunicating something REAL.

Its not a case of 'having it both ways'. Niggle's painting is of THE Tree, but at a particular moment in time, from a particular angle, but the Tree itself is a living thing. Niggle makes available an image of it. Whether we're speaking of a 'Platonic' reality here is another question, & I don't think it is that, exactly.

I think Tolkien was 'in touch' with something, but what its exact form & nature is, I can't say - its too abstract - Truth, Reality, Meaning. Tolkien gave it a particular form, in order to make it accessible & understandable. I'm not wishing to imply that Middle earth exists exactly as Tolkien described it. But there is 'something' there which is communicated to the reader by the stories. The stories open us up to something which cannot be expressed directly. Like parables they communicate in symbolic form something which can't be communicated any other way -not platitudes about self sacrifice & loss & good vs evil, but some other, underlying Truth about us & our nature.

The form Tolkien gives to those 'Truths' are his own, so he is vital to the comunication process. Those 'Truths' are to my mind essential things. I can't be clearer, but the alternative, that they are simply stories, with no inherent connection to that 'Truth' doesn't work for me, & I can't understand it, because for me, that 'Truth' is a fact. Whatever it is - if I ever experience it directly I am convinced that my response will be like Niggle's on seeing 'his' Tree - it will remind me of nothing so much as Middle earth.

[HerenIstarion]

Is it a literally real place?

Sometimes I think it is both and the third too .

Er... how do you define real?

If the real world is the one communicated to the brain by means of senses, than Tolkien's world is real, just the routes of communication are poorer - merely sight, no other senses taking part in the process. I suppose, if I were from the day of my birth, say, placed into some locked room, and my only means of getting data about outside world were books, on my own, unless told by someone that Tolkien's was a 'fiction', I would believe it to be the history, and maybe reject some genuine and verily real biography as a work entirely made up?

If real is something which conforms to standard of 'reality' inherent to human beings, than something may be more 'real', less 'real' or as 'real' etc. Like PC helmet and gauntlet and costume (I don't know the correct terms, but I believe you know what I mean). If the programme substituting the 'real' world is done prefectly, there is no way of telling you are inside it. But, there is no way of telling that what we experience now is not such a substitue, but 'real' world either. (er, Matrix, of course, may have had something to do with it, but not much - that piece of thinking was done long before Neo. Nevertheless, Matrix may be a goodly illustration to it)

Furthermore, if there were such a 'standard of reality', some built-in ability of recognition of it, than the fact that LoTR 'rings true' for such a great number of people may be an indicator of:

A. The world Tolkien described is the real place (I certainly knew it was real up to my middle teens. Than I grew up, but sometimes I still wonder - which of me - the one dozen years back or the current one, - is right?)
B. His skill of an artist was so great, and subcreation so perfect, that the likeness to real world achieved is astounding

But, even if it were B option we are in for here, the distinction somehow ceases to matter? As in both cases we react to it as to 'real place'? (Unless, of course, some Morpheus (not the old type, the other one, one of leather coat and red pill) comes to drag us out of it)

Besides, the question (with a capital T stuck into it) hovers somewhere beyond sight, yet very much present - um, where exactly the built-in standard of reality came from?

PS

If it does remind you of invisible cats in chairs, please do not hesitate to inform me

[Lalwendë]

I resisted for long enough...

Everyone makes their own 'truths', this is the nature of us as individuals. Why else would there be so much debate over the meaning of things like Tolkien, the Bible, politics, etc. When I say we 'make' our own truths, these are obviously tempered by what we learn along the way, our upbringing, our life experience, what someone else on the 'Downs thinks. Eveyone brings their own truths to Tolkien as readers. For example, I have a big interest in archaeology, history, words, and as such, I pick up on these things in Tolkien. Others may have strong faiths which they bring to the books and so they pick up on these aspects. I even know someone who views the books in a marxist way. All these differing ways of reading don't mean that I can't necessarily appreciate the other person's point of view - I want to know what other people think.

I do think that the writer creates his (or her) 'world', and sets out their vision of 'truth', and that it is there for our taking, but that we also bring ourselves to the work. When a person reads, for example, a political text, they are looking for a meaning, but those parts which resonate with their own experience are the parts which they will take most away from. And, a reader will also pick up on other parts of a text and assimilate this as a new aspect of their 'truth'.

Words are a frightening thing, the writer puts them down intending one thing, but the reader can take away a whole other meaning. As an example, I have written speeches in my line of work, and these take a long time to perfect, as every word must be carefully placed, yet those who hear them do pick up on things all the time which had lain unnoticed. And this is the spoken word, which is tempered by nuance and gesture; the written word has a lot more potential to cause debate. After all, who hasn't written an e-mail that has been taken the wrong way?

We have facts about Middle Earth (or think we do, some are also debatable), but as for meanings of things in the text, we all take away differing ideas - and I'm all for it, or else there would be no 'Downs and no enjoyable debate, which in itself can help us to form new 'truths'.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

What Niggle does is not unimportant, his role is in no way negligeable. Niggle is a vital part of the process of comunicating something REAL.

I agree. And I certainly do think that Tolkien is important as the author, and would be important as a mere historian if in fact Middle-earth literally did exist and he had literally discovered it. My point was that if you see Middle-earth as a real place that exists independent of Tolkien, then you cannot see it as being ultimately subservient to and completely predicated upon Tolkien's will. To put it another way: would you say that the real Middle-earth defines canon or that Tolkien's intent defines canon?

HerenIstarion wrote:

Er... how do you define real?

You might not want to ask me that question. I'm afraid that if I begin to answer it I'll have trouble stopping. If you really wonder what I think about it (or are interested in an extremely long-winded but fascinating debate) you might want to take a look at the later pages of this thread at the Tolkien Forum.

But honestly I don't think it's necessary to get into metaphysics or empiricism. What I mean when I ask whether it's a "real" place is simply whether it is a place in the same way as Madagascar or Canada or Mars. And if not, then what is it?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Just a minor point, for I believe the status of being published is less definitive to the canonicity issue then it may seem.

My point in taking the works published by Tolkien during his lifetime as "pure canon" is that these are the texts that he actively placed in the hands of his readers (whatever he may have intended had the circumstances been different). Once published, they could not be altered, save in minor, primarily typographical and philological, respects which did not actually change the facts presented. With one very important exception, namely the change that Tolkien made to the Riddles in the Dark chapter in The Hobbit to reconcile it with the story that he was writing in LotR. This incident seems to me to be highly significant in two respects. First, it indicates that it was important to Tolkien that his published works were complimentary rather than contradictory. And secondly, it is apparent that he felt it necessary to come up with a reason as to why Bilbo would have related the first (inaccurate) account of how the Ring came into his possession, so as to explain away that account having been given in the original editions of The Hobbit. These two factors suggest to me that Tolkien attached great importance to the publishing of his works, ie the process by which they were placed in the hands of his readers.

So, while the "published" works are, in effect, cast in stone, it is quite possible (and indeed quite likely) that the "facts" which were published following his death (in The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, the HoME series and the Letters) would have taken on a different shape had he published them himself. They therefore potentially, but by no means certainly, incorporate the facts about Middle-earth that he would actively have placed in his readers hands, had he had the opportunity and/or inclination to do so. That is why I do not class these materials as "pure canon" along with the texts published in his lifetime.

But it is not a definition that I would go to the wall for. I am quite content to class the "unpublished" materials as part of the "canon" of Middle-earth. Doing so, however, only makes the answer to the question that I posed clearer. We accept the materials in these "unpublished" texts, to the extent that they are unambiguous and do not conflict with, or can be reconciled with, the "published" texts because they do in fact form part of the fictional account of Middle-earth. It makes it more difficult to reject them if they do not "feel right" to us, but I think that we can still do so where they are the product of speculation on Tolkien's part (such as my Gollum example) or where it is apparent that Tolkien had not reached any final conclusion on them (as I suspect is the case with the cosmology of Middle-earth, although I have not read the relevant texts myself).

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Furthermore, if there were such a 'standard of reality', some built-in ability of recognition of it, than the fact that LoTR 'rings true' for such a great number of people may be an indicator of:

A. The world Tolkien described is the real place (I certainly knew it was real up to my middle teens. Than I grew up, but sometimes I still wonder - which of me - the one dozen years back or the current one, - is right?)
B. His skill of an artist was so great, and subcreation so perfect, that the likeness to real world achieved is astounding

I would, of course, unhesitatingly go for B (with the caveat that I do not see it as astoundingly alike to the real world, but rather astoundingly internally consistent and credible as an alternative world). That, no doubt, is where I was going with my "fictional reality" idea. He was not, of course, such a skilful artist as to be able to produce a world which does not jar in some (and different) respects with some people. Then again, what artist, having produced such a wealth of material, would be? (Don't answer that, Helen .)

We know that (infinate parallel universe theories aside) Middle-earth does not exist because we know that it is a work of fiction. And if we get into questioning whether Middle-earth might exist because we cannot definitively prove that it does not exist, then we start questioning the very basis of reality itself. Who is to say that the world around me is not simply a figment of my imagination, or a dream from which I shall shortly wake up? Well, who indeed. But where does that kind of analysis get us on a practical level? We have to have a basis for determining reality, and the starting point is the evidence provided to us by our senses and by those that we trust. And that evidence tells me in no uncertain terms that LotR et al are works of fiction.

Originally Posted by davem

I think Tolkien was 'in touch' with something, but what its exact form & nature is, I can't say - its too abstract - Truth, Reality, Meaning. Tolkien gave it a particular form, in order to make it accessible & understandable.

This is, of course an entirely different proposition to saying either, on the one hand, that Tolkien's world rings true to us solely because it is incredibly well crafted or, on the other, that it does so because it actually physically exists. I don't doubt that there is something within Tolkien's works that can put some of those who read them in touch with some very basic and fundamental aspects of human nature, but I have probably already made my thoughts on this issue quite clear at various stages during this discussion. So I will take it no further, save to reiterate that, like Aiwendil, I do not believe that a spiritual or metaphysical explanation is necessarily required.

Finally, massive kudos to Lalwendë, who manged to say in one single post precisely what I have been trying to say throughout much of this thread.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Everyone makes their own 'truths', this is the nature of us as individuals.

Does this work? What exactly does 'truth' mean in this context? Opinion? can something be considered 'true' simply because an individual believes it? Doesn't it have to be related to 'Facts', to a concept of what is TRUE. Mathematics doesn't work in that way, why should metaphysics? If we're all simply to pick what we like, believe it, & have it generally accepted as 'true' because of that, where do we end up? Its equivalent to people rejecting the established moral code (Ten commandments, whatever) because they refuse to be bound by traditional morality & feel they should be free to determine what is moral & immoral. What we usually end up with in most cases is people constructing a 'moral' code for themselves which permits them the freedom to do whatever they wish & only forbids them to do things that they wouldn't want to do anyway. A Nazi or a paedophile could construct a 'moral' code of their own which declared that death camps or child abuse is 'good', & if we all construct our own moral codes without reference to anything 'objective' or 'transcendent', & determine our own 'truth' how can we argue with them? If we set out to stop them doing what they have determined is 'good' then our only justification would be that our 'truth' (though no more 'valid' than theirs) is backed by our superior strength - they become in their own minds 'martyrs', being persecuted for their beliefs.

So the question is still whether the Good, the True, the Real exist metaphysically, & provide an objective standard by which to judge the individual's own concepts of good, true, real.

In other words, I don't think we can simply dismiss the question by saying that we all determine 'truth' for ourselves (well, not unless we live in [b]H-I[/i]'s cell, or alone on some island.

If there is some metaphysical Reality, Good, Truth on which we can base our judgements, measure them against, then my feeling is that it cannot be experienced directly, in terms of what we call 'facts ' in this world. It could only be communicated through symbolism, parable, metaphor. Now all those things can be perverted to a greater or lesser degree, but that's not inevitable. My feeling is that we have an innate sense of 'Right', 'Real', 'Good', 'True', & that when we encounter it we respond to it. We know that herding people into gas ovens or abusing children is WRONG, not because we have happened to construct our own 'truth' which confirms that, but because, even though we might not be able to cite a long list of 'logical' facts against it (its not like either of those practices is likely to lead to a threat to the existence of the human race - overpopulation is a major problem & any practices which 'thinned out' our numbers may even benefit our survival - let the weakest go to the wall - if the strong go to the wall in defense of the weak, who'd be left to defend the weak: they wouldn't survive long anyway). But we don't think that way, & not for 'logical' reasons.

So, my position is that the Good, True, Real are 'facts', but not 'facts' that can be tested in a lab. They exist & it is possible to know them & to communicate them to others, to speak of them. Clearly this was Tolkien's original intent, at least, & though he seemed to shy away from saying it in his later life, I don't think he ever lost or rejected that desire. Even in his depiction of orc speech he shied away from putting really foul language into their mouths. He wished to communicate his love of the natural world, his values, to us through his 'fiction' but I don't for a minute believe that he felt he had 'invented' those values, any more than CS Lewis did.

His fiction was an attempt not simply to pass on those values, but to 'awaken' his readers to the direct experience of them. Obviously he struggled over the best way to do that, to give a form to those 'Truths' which would make them as accessible as possible. Mythology for him, a self consistent, 'believable' mythology was the most effective way.

The question is not simply how we read the books, what we bring to them, how we interpret them. Its also whether Tolkien was right, & whether that 'metaphysical' reality is true. Has Tolkien anything to teach us that we don't know, or more importantly, anything that we've forgotten?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Does this work? What exactly does 'truth' mean in this context? Opinion? can something be considered 'true' simply because an individual believes it? .. Its equivalent to people rejecting the established moral code (Ten commandments, whatever) because they refuse to be bound by traditional morality & feel they should be free to determine what is moral & immoral. What we usually end up with in most cases is people constructing a 'moral' code for themselves which permits them the freedom to do whatever they wish & only forbids them to do things that they wouldn't want to do anyway.

But when Lalwendë talks of "personal truth", she is referring to the individual reader's personal interpretation of a fictional text. That is a world away from actions that impacts upon others or upon society as a whole. I see no contradiction between individuals choosing to interpret a fictional text as they see fit while at the same time considering themselves bound by society's moral and legal values in their interactions with that society and others within it. It is only when they come to share their interpretation with others, either through discussion or publication, that such social values will have any bearing upon that interpretation.

So the question is still whether the Good, the True, the Real exist metaphysically, & provide an objective standard by which to judge the individual's own concepts of good, true, real.

I believe that the concepts you identify can be scientifically explained, while acknowledging that their basis in science cannot be definitively proved. I am not definitively rejecting a metaphysical origin, but rather simply making the point that it is not the only possible explanation.

His fiction was an attempt not simply to pass on those values, but to 'awaken' his readers to the direct experience of them.

I do not disagree with that statement. But, as I have said, a metaphysical explanation is not necessarily required for the values which he was seeking to pass on.