‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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

[The Saucepan Man]

Welcome to the Downs, eLRic. Great first post, particularly given that this is (in my opinion) turning out to be one of the most complex (and engrossing) discussions on the forum in recent times.

I largely agree with what you say, although I would come back to the question that I raised a post or two ago: what is fact and what is interpretation when we are talking about Tolkien's Letters and the texts which were not published in his lifetime?

And I don't think that we are bound to accept as the "truth" those premises which can correctly be categorised as "fact" within those materials. They will be greatly influential, and often decisive, when deciding what is "canon" or "Tolkien's historia" (as Fordim puts it). But the reader is free to accept or reject them when he or she is interpreting the primary texts from an individual persepctive. And of course, as I have said previously, most readers will be unaware of such "facts" when they first encounter the primary texts.

As for the contrasting views presented by Fordim and Sharon:

the search for the 'canon' of Middle-Earth is futile at best, misleading at worst

and

Before we charge forward with our individual interpretations, don't we need to try and puzzle out what Tolkien regarded as the heart of Middle-earth?

I would (in typical fashion ) say both yes and no to each proposition. There is, from an individual perspective, surely no "right" or "wrong" way of approaching Tolkien's works. It will depend upon what the individual wants to get out of them. Some may be content with the primary texts and look no further. Others may wish to bring their own interpretations to bear and may therefore regard any attempt to establish Tolkien's "canon" as futile (for them). Yet others may see great value in trying to assess what the author's intentions were, either as a finsihing point or (as Sharon put it) as a springboard for further contemplation (internal) and/or discussion (external).

But, when it comes to interacting with others, then we must bear in mind that each person will have their own perspective. We all bring our individual perspectives to the discussions in which we participate, and we will clearly choose to participate in those discussions which best accord with our perspectives. For example, since I am (professionally) most comfortable with assessing facts and applying "rules" to those facts, I tend to participate most frequently in discussions which seek establish the "facts" of Middle-earth from the writings of Tolkien to which we have access. I am less comfortable participating in those discussions concerning the application of the ideas and themes prevalent in Tolkien's works to the individual, since I find it more difficult to articulate my views in this regard (although I still read such discussions and find them of great interest). Others, such as davem, Helen, Sharon and Lyta Underhill are much more adept in this regard, and are able to offer extremely valuable insights as a result. Similarly, someone like Bêthberry is able to bring her impressive literary knowledge to bear, which is incredibly useful in discussions such as this, or discussions of the literary and mythological bases for Tolkien's works.

Which is not to say that people should avoid any particular discussion. Different perspectives and experiences will be of great value in many discussions, provided that we recognise that others will be looking at matters from a different angle to us and that they may be seeking to get something different out of a discussion. And it is important too to acknowledge that, in consequence, there are certain discussions in which our own perspective may be (at best) irrelevant or (at worst) counter-productive. So, for example, where someone has started a thread asking a particular "factual" question about the Legendarium, it is of little value expounding one's personal interpretation where this runs counter to what Tolkien has said in his writings. If, on the other hand, the thread seeks personal views on an aspect of Tolkien's writings (the circumstances underlying Frodo's "choice" at Sammath Naur, for example), then individual perspectives may be of great value, even if they contrast with Tolkien's own views.

So, in many discussions there will be room both for an analysis of what is "canon" and for individual interpretations. In others, only one of these approaches may be called for, or perhaps a different approach altogether will be required (there is little call for either, for example, in many Middle-earth Mirth threads ).

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.

[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?

[The Saucepan Man]

you have made it perfect, clear-cut and too the point

I did? How very out of character.

Saucepan Man, you have described more eloquently and accurately what I have tried to say

What a polite way of describing plagiarism (unconscious, I might add).

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

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.

Hmmmm. . .this raises an interesting question, Saucepan Man. If the "freedom of the reader is boundless" then does this mean that there is no such thing as a wrong or incorrect interpretation? I'm not talking about the questions of 'fact' (whether those facts are resolvable -- when did Gollum find the Ring? -- or not -- did balrogs have wings?); I'm talking about questions of meaning.

For example: what about the people out there who interpret LotR as a fascist novel? Or, what about people -- who do exist, sadly -- who interpret the novel as supporting white supremacy? What if I want to interpret the novel as an allegory about the rise of Communism (Sauron) in the early 20th century and the reprisal against that by bourgeouis, middle-class humanism (hobbits) and the remnants of a European aristrocratic society (Gondor)?

The only recourse that you seem to be leaving open to combat these interpretations Saucepan Man is that they may be "circumscribed by the circumstances in which he or she is interacting with others." I'm not entirely clear on where you are going with this, but it would seem to suggest that if we are to combat the above examples (and we should -- they are wrong) we can do so only by attacking the interpretative positions that generate them (fascism, racism, simple-mindedness). Is there no way we can go to the text, to point to Tolkien's writings and use those as actual proof that such interpretations are incorrect, insofar as they contradict what is found on the page?

And so, does this not mean that we must maintain some sense of the texts (and the authorial reflections upon the text) as authoritative?

And just for those who might have missed it, I am now taking a position to the contrary of what I've been taking all along -- this is not, however, a flip-flop: I just feel that the answer to approaching any text -- but raised to a problematic level of almost cosmit proportions in Tolkien -- is a constant process of movement and negotiation between the freedom of the reader (which must be maintained if we are to make the text our own and not be slaves to, "What does Tolkien says it meant?") and the authority of the text/author (which must be acknowledged if we are to prevent the slide into the absolute relativism "It can mean whatever you want").

[Findegil]

The question is, if we are talking about the intentions of Tolkien (which would mean allegory) or of the applicability of the text itself.
Tolkien himself stated that he did not put any allegorical meaning into his writings. So if anybody say, that he has written the text to support white supremacy (only as an example of many), we can and must clearly argue against that with what we know about Tolkien and his own interpretations of the text as given in the Letters.
But if it is argued that the text can be used interpreted in a way that it does support white supremacy, the only way to argue against that is to analyse the text itself and the way it is interpreted.
By the way: I don't think that "attacking the interpretative positions" will work at all. People how interpret texts like you listed in your post Fordim, do normally not like arguing at all. And they will clearly not allow you to attack their general believe. If arguments against those interpretations cannot be found in the published believes of the author, (as could be case if they deny he was faithful to the believes showing truth in his writings we asked openly) they must be searched in the failures of the argumentation of the text. That process might not ever be successful, but it will often falsify the "wrong" interpretations by statements in text under discussion.

Respectfully
Findegil

[mark12_30]

Sharon: I love the 'sliding scale ' idea. Anyone else interested in returning to one of the old canon threads to discuss that?

More on the Wild Theories Theme. Negative/ dissenting forms of "Reader's Interpretation" do seem to keep popping up: Everything from "Tolkien was a White Supremacist" to "Frodo degraded Sam by calling him a servant" to "Tolkien looked down on women." Often these threads fizzle with some form of, "Tolkien's letters say (Letters, number xyz...) So while you have a right to your opinion/ interpretation, don't label it Tolkien's original stance without doing your research...."

While the 'dissident' can rarely be persuaded, the grief for me is that other readers are often disheartened by these statements about an author they have come to trust and now feel that they must doubt. Did Tolkien *really* hate women? Did he *really* believe in White Supremacy? In those cases the Letters can be very reassuring indeed.

[THE Ka]

Originally Posted by Lord of Angmar

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 Ka, I am not following you.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?

It's okay. Sometimes, excuse me! i mean to say, most of the time especially with topics such as this i tend to become too philisophical and " airy". As we all know ( so i do hope), when this happens our thoughts tend to take too much of an airy flight so, that none but ourselves can comprehend their possible inscription. Let's just say, i got "too" into it. As for your explanation, i can put it into more understandable terms of notification. Notice when i wrote " fixed ideas". When we learn something or we read something, we begin to remember what we have read, and how we might interperate it. Everyone judges things differently than his other fellow. That's why their unrelated. I was trying to show some of the many examples the Tolkien himself was asked and what i have gathered from the discussions on this wonderful but, sometimes untranslatable forum. This topic i can guess will take many an interperatation to finally become aware to everyone and understood. I love challenges like this... maybe too much. oh, well. we are all different minds trying to think alike in the same room.

[THE Ka]

Well, well! look at this wonderful thread of complaints, points of view, side views, compliments, and "fixed ideas"... who would of ever thought this would develop into such a wonderful disscusion! who knows when it will quiet end! and a good thing it hasn't ! This in my opinion, ( which you may or may not, if you chose, take in for consideration.) is the best disscusion this forum's had yet! first of all, i would like to give a enormous compliments to the original author, for i have been informed that this is their first post! bravo, bravo! (if i am wrong, that means that at least two other members are wrong as well.) if not their first post, well i still say this is the best disscusion yet! And just look at the momentum and body of the replies of this thread! wonderful! Well, i am going to take a break and let someone other than me take a turn at this many diamond-faced disscusion.

goodbye for now. Blessed Be all, The Ka.

[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