‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

It seems to me that the 'Legendarium' is pretty consistent up to the post LotR period. Then for some reason Tolkien adopts a more philosophical/theological approach - Osanwe Kenta, Athrabeth, Laws & Customs, 'Myths Transformed, etc. - at this point the real contradictions start to arise, because the earlier stories of the Sil tradition still retain many of the 'fairy story' elements from the Lost Tales. They cannot incorporate the later works - which Tolkien wants to fit into them - rather like trying to hammer a very large square peg into a tiny round hole. The whole thing starts to fracture.

This situation, as Tolkien moves from storyteller to philosopher/comentator on his Secondary world, from translator to theologian, is the real reason, IMO that he could never finish the Sil.

Interpreting the stories themselves according to our current values is probably inevitable.

BTW(The quote about the Dwarves being 'clearly the Jews' for anyone who has not heard it in context & is thinking it may be anti-Semitic, was made in reference to both races being disposessed of their lands & heritage & forced to wander the world, & adopt the languages of other lands, & face hatred & contempt from other races.)

[Sharkû]

Actually, Tolkien's Dwarves-Jews analogy in that very interview is merely philological in nature: "The dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic." (See here for a transscript of the interview). In one of his letters, Tolkien already presented the comparison with precisely the arguments davem mentioned.

But that's not the topic.
The problem with 'canon' is as far as I can see not just simply to be reduced to a single one. Rather, we have different grey and black spots in regard to the Legendarium.
Fordim's initial examples show this -- the origin and nature of orcs was at times uncertain, but quite clear later in the development of Middle-earth. However, the man still changed his mind on it several times. I believe that such a case provides us with the same problem as all texts which exist in diverging versions without a definite authority or definite solution to the complexity. Older mediaevalist science, for example, tried to construct an 'author's text' from the extant material, looking for sensible compromises and judging by their own ideas of taste and style. The result was of course a stab in the dark in regard to authencity. The more modern point of view is to take the conflicting versions for what they are, and rather ask why it says so in one copy and differently in another.
It appears to me that most discussions of such matters in the Legendarium however follow the old way, for better or worse. Nevertheless, while it is assumed that differences in medieaval Minnesang for example are there for a reason and presumably often intented by an author adapting his work to his audience, Tolkien discussion has a mixed blessing of its own: we can safely assume that the Professor had quite clear ideas about the 'truth' in his stories.
When asked about a matter such as Balrog wings, it is in fact most likely that he could give a simple and precise answer. Having that in mind, discussions of such grey areas are either confined to guessing Tolkien's mind or being content with little, none, or conflicting evidence.

I would like to think that all of that doesn't really have anything to do with interpretation, which is arguably wholly inadeqaute at answering questions within the Legendarium. Condemning Gondor's autocratic ruler from a modern point of view does not yield anything useful about the facts of the monarchy in the Legendarium. Calling the oligarchic Ruffianism a worker's class revolution is a perception noone in Middle-earth would likely have had either.

That being said, I do believe that there are very definite and easily recognizable boundaries of the canon. I see no point whatsoever, in any form of literary research, to question a 'fact' Tolkien gave us, within or without the fiction, since anything relating to the Legendarium is necessarily part of the fiction. What would be the point of denying the authority of a quote such as the one from the Letters, explaining that Sauron was of human form? One might get a different idea of Sauron when reading the books, and that in itself is interesting, but the fact is part of the whole. If a reader refuses to acknowledge certain parts of a work of fiction (or actual fact, for that matter), there's nothing I can do about it, but that person's position in a discussion forum is difficult to say the least. Conversely, I doubt someone with a clear idea of his own which one is unwilling to give up would ask such a question anyway.

Sub-creation in that context is definitely in accordance with the nature of the Legendarium, as long as the differentiation remains. I can't say much about the RPGs, but the canon rule there serves a very important purpose which is not primarily that of 'staying true to Tolkien', but rather to keep the games sensibly enjoyable.

[mark12_30]

Fordgrim wrote: ... if we are really to emulate Frodo, Aragorn, Sam (etc) we must resist the temptation to look to the author for the answers and struggle to find the freedom in the text that allows us to think/create for ourselves.

Fordgrim, I'm with Sharku here: if the author hadn't intended us to know anything besides what was in the published stories only, then he didn't have to leave it around to be published later. But he *wanted* to publish the Silmarillion; he *wanted* to respond to (respectfully phrased) questions about Middle-Earth and its denizens. If he intended us not to know these extra-trilogy details, he didn't have to fuss at them to prepare them for publication, didn't have to answer the endless letters he received, didn't have to grant any interviews at all.

He didn't want to explain Tom Bombadil; so he refused to. Bombadil is a mystery; you figure it out. There, in my opinion, anyone is free to write a fanfiction and try to fill in Who Tom Really Is. And I think Tolkien would have been amused by the effort, and pleased to the degree that it was properly woven with the available information (limited as it is) that he had already provided.

There are places where Tolkien gave little-to-no-information (what happened in those Ered Luin, anyway? What was the culture like out there?...) And in those areas, we are free to let our imaginations run wild. Where he is mum, we may speak freely.

Of course, it's a free country, and if we want to re-arrange Tolkien's world, we may do so, but let's not call it Tolkien's 'canon' in the process.

Davem wrote:

This situation, as Tolkien moves from storyteller to philosopher/comentator on his Secondary world, from translator to theologian, is the real reason, IMO that he could never finish the Sil.

davem, I'm hesitant to agree on this. While he says in Letters that he spent "too" much time playing solitaire, and accused himself of laziness, he *was* getting on in age. The evident change in priorities could be due to the weariness of age and the anticipation of his afterlife, which I believe helped motivate him into the philosophy and commentary.

But either way, I wouldn't prefer a finished Sil over the philosophy. I think I prefer having the philosophy. In the end, once HOME was published, we got more of a Sil than we would have from the Professor anyway.

I see the deepening as a growth and strength in Tolkien, and as something to look forward to in the aging process; not as weakness or negligence or lack of focus on his part.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I would like to think that all of that doesn't really have anything to do with interpretation, which is arguably wholly inadeqaute at answering questions within the Legendarium. Condemning. Calling the oligarchic Ruffianism a worker's class revolution is a perception noone in Middle-earth would likely have had either.

This goes right to the heart of the questions I’m wrangling with Sharkû. I could not agree more that getting at the historical ‘facts’ of Middle-Earth has little to do with interpretation – for the factual evidence in the primary world you go to the source documents or the archaeological relics or whatever (although these, as any historian worth his or her salt will tell you, are never ‘purely’ objective and factual, but let’s leave that to one side as Too Much For Me To Get Into At The Moment…); for the facts of the secondary world we can and should go to what the sub-creator of that world has put down.

But where interpretation is not only adequate (I like your turn of phrase) but necessary comes to the non-factual questions that are really important – questions like our view of the governmental structure of Gondor. I concede your point that “condemning Gondor's autocratic ruler from a modern point of view does not yield anything useful about the facts of the monarchy in the Legendarium”, but this does not get us off the difficult hook raised by the fact that most of us are not big fans of autocratic forms of government, and that given our druthers we would rather not have a King thank you very much. And yet, we are induced by the magic (and I use that word carefully and in its fullest sense) of Tolkien’s story-telling art to celebrate and even long for the Return of the King. By this I mean to say that while we may not get a better understanding of the “facts” by “condemning” the text, we must still – as responsible readers – evaluate (rather than condemn) this form of government in order to better understand the applicability (Tolkien’s word, via Bêthberry) of that form of government to a world that has replaced/outgrown kings.

There are places where Tolkien gave little-to-no-information (what happened in those Ered Luin, anyway? What was the culture like out there?...) And in those areas, we are free to let our imaginations run wild. Where he is mum, we may speak freely.

I’m not so sure I can accept this without comment Mark – am I really “free to let my imagination run wild?” Can I ‘make’ the people of Ered Luin into creatures with six arms and wings, who eat nothing but the bark of oak trees and kill their enemies by bombarding them with sea-shells…just by imagining them as such? Interestingly, as soon as you say this, you seem to back away from such an absolute freedom of the reader by insisting that “if we want to re-arrange Tolkien's world, we may do so, but let's not call it Tolkien's 'canon' in the process.” So you would seem to be suggesting that the “freedom” you talk of is a lot more complicated than it would appear: I can “re-arrange” the world, but without having any kind of ‘real’ effect on it? How much freedom is that? It sounds more like the freedom of the deranged man to say what he wants about the world, since, as everybody knows, he’s mad and therefore harmless: we already know what the ‘truth’ is so let him have his little say.

Frankly, I’d like to think that there’s a bit more room for me in the sub-creation of Middle-Earth than that!

[davem]

Fordim,

As to the governmental structure of Gondor, Aragorn at least is a kind of elected Monarch - Faramir asks if the people will have him as King, which is not simply a rhetorical or ritual question - they could refuse. He has no legal claim to the Kingship, he comes from a royal line who messed up big time, & lost their own Kingdom. It is at least a kind of democracy. They could have chosen Faramir to continue as ruling steward, but they actually wanted a King, & felt Aragorn had proven himself.

'Mark'

I too wouldn't be without the 'philosophy'. My point was simply that those later writings don't fit into the pre LotR Sil which Tolkien had gone back to after LotR was published. They eventually necessitated the attempted re writing of the Sil ('Myths Transformed'). The pre LotR Sil was virtually complete, & the publishers wanted it. So why didn't he just devote the year or two necessary & hand it over? My own feeling is that with LotR he had grown as a writer, & as a thinker. What he found when he re-read the Sil wasn't what he wanted or needed. He needed to progress creatively. And he did. I said in another thread that i consider those later works, the Athrabeth, Laws & Customs, & Osanwe Kenta (what I've read of it - I've been waiting 5 months for the relevant issue of Vinyar Tengwar to turn up!) to contain some of his most beautiful prose & most profound thought. But the point is, they are in no way consistent with the Sil as it existed when he went back to it after LotR. Either they would have to be rejected, or the Sil would need to be re-written. He eventually chose the latter course, but found it too much, & that it would require too much to be lost from the original.

That said, i also hold to another expressed statement that ideas like the Dome of Varda are bordering on silliness, where Elbereth is transformed from creator of the stars of Heaven to a kind of lighting technician.

In this instance, we have two totally conflicting stories, from different periods. The Dome of Varda is not a 'Balrog's Wings' question. It either existed or it didn't. Personally, like Christopher Tolkien, who rejected it for the published Sil, i think it was a mistake - though i understand Tolkien's motivations & what he was attempting to do.

I just feel that when he realised the scale of rewriting required, he gave up on completing the Sil, & set to work on the philosophical pieces & longer versions of the individual stories (Narn, Tuor, Hurin). But I also feel that it was this realisation that he would never be able to produce a complete, perfect Sil, that lead to him not being able really to complete any of the later stories.

I think that his later 'philosophical/theological' works will come in time to be seen as among the greatest things he wrote. Although set in ME, I feel that they rank alongside both LotR & the Beowulf & Fairy Stories essays as the work of a writer & thinker of genius. But I also feel that they are responsible for him not finishing another work of genius -The Silmarillion.