‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

Doug, I would like to think that, when Tolkien has put forward conflicting theories in his writings, there remains considerable scope for debate. Indeed, the origins of Orcs has occupied considerable thread-space on this forum. It's really up there with Bombadillo and Balrog's Wings. Questions arise such as how can Orcs have been derived from men when they were around before men awoke; how can they be mere beasts and still have conversations like those we witness between Shagrat and Gorbag; if they were derived from Elves, are they immortal; if they have feä, is redemption available to them? All these discussions have taken place, with many different opinions expressed, and I am sure that there are many more potential discussions which have yet to occur.

Many who have posted here have quite rightly made the distinction between matters of fact and matters of interpretation (although the distinction is not always an easy one to make, as I consider further below). But the question of the nature and origin of Orcs is quite clearly an issue of fact. Within the Legendarium, Orcs existed and so they had to have come into existence somehow. Because we have no clear answer on this from the author, I would say that the reader is entitled to choose the theory which best suits his or her Middle-earth world-view (or perhaps even come up with a different theory), or to try to reconcile the conflicting theories, or even to reject the issue as unimportant. (It is, I suppose, a perfectly respectable argument to say that, because the only theory set down in a published and completed work is that given in the Silmarillion, namely that Orcs were derived from Elves captured by Morgoth, then that must be the "truth" of the matter. But the reader still has freedom to make his or her own choice and the scholar still has freedom to debate the point.)

Quite clearly, as a general proposition, we have to accept, if we are taking a book seriously, what is actually said in the text. We cannot very well choose to believe, for example, that Boromir never attempted to seize the Ring, or that the Hobbits met Aragorn at Rivendell rather than Bree. But even in this area, the issue is not clear-cut. For example, Tolkien himself tells us not to take everything that Treebeard says at face value, since he is "not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or understand" (Letter 153). And there are those who assert that some of the "facts" presented in the Hobbit were mere fanciful elaborations by Bilbo, the Stone Giants for example (although I do not hold with this theory myself). So it would seem that there is some (albeit limited) scope for rejecting some of what we are told in the text itself.

As for the secondary material, we all seem to agree that the reader has the freedom to accept or reject "facts" which are presented there. But is this because (at least with regard to what Tolkien says in his Letters) they are actually not matters of fact at all, but rather matters of interpretation? Sharkey, you categorise Tolkien's comment that Gollum was pushed into the fires of Orodruin as a matter of interpretation, rather than fact. But is that really the case? If Tolkien had told us in LotR itself that this was what happened, we would surely have to accept it as fact. Does it take on a different characterisation, simply because he wrote about it in a letter rather than inserting it in the primary text? And does this apply to other matters which are quite clearly more factual in nature? Should we take it as an issue of fact, for example, that the Rohirrim spoke with a slower tempo and more sonorous articulation (Letter 193), or is this a matter of interpretation because it is not said in the primary text? (I am assuming that it is not, but I have not checked and stand to be corrected.) Is it an issue of fact or interpretation that no one (Bombadil excepted) could willingly have destroyed the Ring? Perhaps it does not matter since the reader is entitled to reject anything which is not said in the primary text in any event. But, if we are to take issues of fact stated in the secondary material as being of greater weight in establishing the "truth" of the Legendarium than issues of interpretation, the point assumes greater significance. Presumably it depends upon how the point is expressed. Obviously, if the author says that his interpretation of X is Y, then that is a matter of interpretation. And the texts presented in Unfinished Tales and the HoME series are perhaps more likely to be factual than interpretational. But it will not always be clear. Which, I suppose, provides yet more scope for debate.

[davem]

Bethberry I didn't mean that what you were saying was difficult to understand. I meant it was difficult to be in the position of having my ramblings follow your beautifully reasoned & argued post!

If I can put my understanding of Tolkien's stated position in the Fairy stories essay, It seems he was saying that sub creation involves the reader as well as the writer or hearer of the story. He says that when the story speaks of a hill, river or tree, then the reader will suppply the image from their own experience - the 'hill' the reader pictures will be made up from all the hills the reader has known, & specifically from the first hill the reader ever knew - the one that will always mean 'hill' to them.

So, the reader is creating the imaginary landscape, & to an extent the characters. The writer gives the story, the events, & the reader provides their imaginative form. So we have a kind of 'co-creation' going on. So, the 'primary' world (or the reader's memories & experience of it) is taken up into the 'secondary' world, giving it a sense of reality, which a movie, for instance, cannot, because the personal dimension is lacking. Then, on emerging from the 'secondary' world, we see the 'primary' world in a new light, as the 'secondary' world now 'overlays' it in our imagination. The 'primary world makes the 'secondary' world seem more 'real' & the 'secondary' world makes the 'primary' world seem more 'magical'.

So in this sense we are as much creators of Middle Earth as Tolkien, because the specific form it has for us imaginatively is our own unique creation. Hence, some things in the secondary world will have more impact on us than others. Some 'facts' will seem to be of the utmost relevance, others will barely register. So, in terms of relevance, we will all make our own decisions as regards what is valuable & what is not. This will apply also to what stories speak to us & what we have absolutely no time for. It will also, perhaps, lead us to feel that some aspects/events/stories of the secondary world are 'wrong' or out of place (as the Dome of Varda, or orcs having their origins in men rather than Elves).

We cannot separate our own feelings & responses from the facts - because as I said, many 'facts' will not even register - at least on early readings (or even on later readings).

It is the effect of the story on the individual reader which will matter to that person, & that effect cannot be affected (unless completely destroyed) by the intrusion of 'said facts'. So, all the facts will not 'move' a reader who finds no relevance in them. A tonne of facts is not worth a gramme of enchantment. And the power of a secondary world to enchant is in no way dependent on background information - though that background information may for some readers enhance the 'reality' of the world. The secondary world must be internally consistent & coherent if the 'spell' is to work.

Enchantment is the point. If the secondary world does not enchant, it will not work, the reader will put down the book & seek enchantment elsewhere. So, the 'facts' are secondary, & their value can only be determined by whether they increase or decrease the enchantment. Some of the most powerful fairy tales are short, stark, & contain very little background information. In a way they work because the reader must supply most of that background from their own imagination.

Returning to Middle Earth. An intimate knowledge of every 'fact' Tolkien produced may not produce enchantment in a reader.But some readers who only know the Hobbit & LotR, & nothing else may be swept into Middle Earth & completely enchanted by those two works, & neither need nor desire any more. I think Tolkien would have felt they were his real audience - what author wouldn't?

[Child of the 7th Age]

From Helen.....

Certainly good fanfic/ RPGs are worth writing-- and worth enjoying, and worth exploring, and the better they are the more we enjoy them; but I think if you asked some of the most successful writers here (I hold up Mithadan as a stellar example) who have written fanfic considered very "canonically friendly" (Tales from Tol Eressea!), he would be the first to protest: "My work isn't canon." He's said so in the past. Also, Piosenniel has stated in the above-linked thread that she feels the same way. I believe Child would also (Sharon, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Definitely!

I am running out the door, but have quickly scanned over the thread and wanted to add this. I agree with Helen that the word "canon" should be limited in its application. Those things we dream up -- RPG, fanfiction, interesting theories on the origin of wyrms or Orcs -- have nothing to do with "canon", even when and if we choose to keep things as consistent as we can with Tolkien. The thread Helen made a link to was written when we were discussing setting up the current RPG structure and forums. If I had to do it over again, I would forever erase that word "canon" from the thread!

There is a body of Tolkien's writing which can be called canon (of varying degrees of authority) and I would include the Letters somewhere within that group (and hence Tolkien's views on a matter such as what happened to Gollum.) We can argue about what writings fall into that category and point out the many inconsistencies and contradictions. Canon is the starting point from which many discussions of Tolkien evolve. It is not necessarily the ending point, but I do think a public discussion is richer for at least acknowledging the existence of such. The fact that I'm an historian and archivist means that I naturally put a lot of emphasis on textual studies. And I don't find such things boring or meaningless.

However, Davem's post points to the core of the thing. Left by itself, canon has no life. It is enchantment that draws us back again and gives life to discussions, even those which supposedly focus on "canon". I find discussions of canon interesting precisely because I have read the text and responded to it on another level. If that had never occurred, I would never give the writings a second look.

In that primary confrontation that occurs with the text, canon has only tangential meaning. My primary response when I read the books in the sixties remains just as valid today as my later readings, probably more valid, because I can never recapture that freshness again, even though I may be able to see layers of meaning that I had no idea existed before.

I have long been curious about something that relates to this question at least loosely. Many have said that Tolkien could never finish the Silm not because of lack of time but because he did not want to take away the mystery of the distant vistas (as well as problems of coordinating all the different ideas in such a vast body of material). Yet, it almost sounds as if he was afraid the details of canon would obscure the enchantment.

For similar reasons, I sometimes wonder whether JRRT would ever have condoned the publication of HoMe, or at least those parts of it that deal with the actual process of writing LotR and the various drafts. Does it take away too much of the mystery by exposing the bones that lie underneath? We are obviously gaining something in knowledge, but have we lost something as well? Not that I don't like speculating about Bingo and hobbit rangers and such, or realizing the vastness of the Legendarium.

Is there a trade-off between canon and enchantment, or is "more" canon and information always a positive thing, perhaps serving as an underground spring that enriches enchantment for the reader who may return to the text years later?
Written in haste.

[mark12_30]

Attempts at new name...

"Second Generation mythology"
"mythical derivative"
"legendarium extension"

..bleah... awkward as heck.

Come on, somebody, find the right word or phrase to do justice to the concept of this thread...? Maybe something in Sindarin, or something.

[Lord of Angmar]

A valiant effort, mark12_30. I rather like "mythical derivative."

How about "substantiated woolgathering?"

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

While I would hate to see this wonderful discussion become an endless search for a ‘good term’ (nothing kills intellectual inquiry faster than terminology) the idea of refining our language at this point might be a good one – particularly since the term “Canonicity” with which this thread (unfortunately) began, is terribly inadequate.

In deference to Tolkien, I would suggest that we could recover the meaning of a word near and dear to his heart: historia. The Latin root for “history” it comes from the Greek word istor which meant something close to “wisdom” or “knowledge”. The Latin word, however, comes closest to capturing what we are on about. Historia means more than a collection of historical events or ‘facts’ (annals or a chronicle would be the correct words for that); instead it means the rendering of historical fact into a narrative that gives those facts meaning.

I would submit, that this is what Tolkien sought to do in all of his writings on Middle-Earth. He ‘knew’ what happened in his subcreated world, and on these facts we cannot question him – but he made sense of these events, he gave them meaning, through his historia about them (that is, his meaningful stories).

This is more accurate than it might sound, insofar as for Tolkien the act of subcreating Middle-Earth began with the words and the languages he invented. He came up with the words themselves and the languages (the historical ‘facts’ ) then sought out the stories that would give these languages the context that all languages need (i.e. speakers). In effect, in order for his subcreated names and languages to come to life, he had to generate a meaningful story to explain them. I would suggest that while we cannot question, add to or alter those foundational facts (names, languages, peoples) we have the right to generate our own historia to explain those facts as well.

as is often the case (in my opinion) of deep thinking authors...
they write in such a way so as to provide many ways of interpretation,
while simaltaneously keeping a particular interpretation dear (because
it relates to a part of their own life) but with no prejudice against
the other interpretations (unless those interpretations go strongly against
the moral values the author puts into his writing [such interpretations
would go against the author's integrity]).

This interpretation which is held dear would be the one the author would
provide if asked (he might not know all or any of the others, only allowed
for them in the style of writing) and thus no interpretation is more
incorrect than another (even of the authors). However if the interpretation
is given in a publication by the author the author's intentions might
be that that interpretation be taken rather than the others (but only
as a suggestion to build the legend the author has in mind)

fact must be taken as fact (where there are 2 contradictory facts, we can
choose based on our feelings or other suggestions in the authors writings)

um, if that makes sense then i'm not too tired to be attempting this
(as i might possibly be) (just spen about 2 hours reading this post)

ps. i see that my veiws are not unique, i just thought i'd state them in
a sumarized form of that which appears in the posts above

[Lord of Angmar]

In summary, the freedom of the reader is boundless, but, on an external level, it may on occasion be circumscribed by the circumstances in which he or she is interacting with others.

As has so often been the case, Saucepan Man, you have described more eloquently and accurately what I have tried to say. Earlier in the post, I wrote:

The Tolkien enthusiast as a reader, I believe, should err on the side of his/her own personal enjoyment of the experience of reading Tolkien's works. The Tolkien enthusiast as a discusser, however, should not be obliged to use his/her own theories about unresolved Middle-earth issues as anything more than theories - however well-educated on the subject the theorists might be.

The Ka, I am not following you.

" Tolkien was different from other writers because of his tremendous steps in the process of writing a good fantacy novel that seem to have paved the path for all of us." compared to the other side of the paradox, " Why did Frodo sail to the undying lands? was is in relation to the same situation of the world war I veterians?"

I do not see any paradox in these two statements, as they seem to be somewhat unrelated to each other; one deals with Tolkien's contributions as an author and the other deals with the applicability of a situation within his writing. Could you explain?

[Novnarwen]

Quote: From Child of 7th Age's Post:

For similar reasons, I sometimes wonder whether JRRT would ever have condoned the publication of HoMe, or at least those parts of it that deal with the actual process of writing LotR and the various drafts. Does it take away too much of the mystery by exposing the bones that lie underneath? We are obviously gaining something in knowledge, but have we lost something as well?

I do think we 'lose' something. I started the two first books in the HoMe series, but I gave up, for several reasons. Mostly because I thought it silly of me to continue reading about a world I thought perfect, which I didn't want to ruin. (Heh.) I'm not sure whether I want to seek more knowledge at this point, as I like to keep Tolkien's works mysterious, and quite frankly; I don't think I want to know everything underneath the bones, simply because I don't want everything to give meaning, because not everything does (at least I think so..), not in real life either. I do not believe Tolkien used 12 years of analyzing his own texts to the most little, but not necessarily an insignificant, detail.

Quote: From davem' post

So, the reader is creating the imaginary landscape, & to an extent the characters. The writer gives the story, the events, & the reader provides their imaginative form. So we have a kind of 'co-creation' going on. So, the 'primary' world (or the reader's memories & experience of it) is taken up into the 'secondary' world, giving it a sense of reality, which a movie, for instance, cannot, because the personal dimension is lacking.

Hmm... I can see what you mean, Davem, but let me just tell you of my own experience..

I was so unlucky (or lucky, I don't know that yet) to see The Fellowship of the Ring before I actually read the book. So, basically, I was not able to really create the characters from the Fellowship of The Ring (book) or interpret as, maybe, you or Tolkien had in mind first, (before Peter Jackson hired Elijah Wood & Co, maybe?) However, as I was enthralled by the first book, obviously I had to read The Two Towers, (I did that before I saw the second film..) which, on the other hand, I was able to create the imaginary landscape and to an extent the 'new' characters (those who were not in the first film). Nevertheless, I was not able to completely use my imagination as I had seen so much of it on screen in advance, but certain events and characters were fully mine.

The good thing about seeing the film before you've read the book is perhaps that you don't get disappointed, because you don't know already what details the director has left out. But I realise, that most Tolkien Fanatics would, no matter what, be disappointed about the films, (correct me if I’m wrong..) since there were so many things left out. Maybe some of you would even think there were many ‘wrong’ interpretations, as you had pictured everything yourself. For my part, the first movie was quite enjoyable, as there were no interpretations which were ‘violated’.

The good thing about reading the book first, is that you can use your imagination and you are able to see Frodo and not Elijah Wood (and that horrible grin of his) whenever it says 'Frodo' in the book. I also think that you are more focused on facts, details etc. when reading the book without seeing the films, because when there is no film there is no 'easier' way to explain what you're reading, and there are no actors/actresses to interpret the characters for you, (or the events, for that matter.)

Anyway, I realise that I’m a BIT off topic, but I just wanted to point out that interpretations are individual. And as Davem said, the films cannot give you what the book(s) can. I’m a bit insecure whether I was lucky, or whether I was not.. The question I want to raise, (this is VERY off topic.. heh) is whether the film ‘ruins’ the ‘canonicity’ for the those who haven’t read the book(s) before seeing the film(s)?

Sorry if this was too off topic.

Cheers,
Nova