‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Novnarwen]

I would disagree. Just because one doesn't believe in the existence of God in the real (primary) world, it does not follow that one cannot appreciate the importance of Eru within the sub-created world. And I now rather subscribe to Fordim's view that, even if someone who is not deeply religious is unaware of the role of Eru when he reads LotR, he will still receive from the text a strong sense of providence (on a subconscious level at least). The text implies that "something" made Gollum fall at that moment, just as "something" made Bilbo find the Ring, whatever that "something" may be.

I assume you are referring to this in LOTR, Mount Doom:

Suddenly Sam saw Gollum's long hands draw upwards to his mouth; his white fangs gleamed, and then snapped as they bit. Frodo gave a cry, and there he was, fallen upon his knees at the chasm's edge. But Gollum, dancing like a mad thing, held aloft the ring, a finger thrust within its circle. It shone now as if verily it was wrought of living fire.

"Precious, precious, precious!" Gollum cried. "My Precious! O my Precious!" And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail Precious, and he was gone.

Be honest, really honest. Do you see that 'something' (of Eruism) in that? I see your point about the fact that people could, and should, appreciate the Eruism in LOTR (And in the other works by Tolkien), but exactly where is the Eruism in that? I mean, if you’re not intentionally looking for it, wanting it to be Eruism, you, or at least I, can't find it! The poor fellow is toppling because he is dancing, not very well, I might add; but I honestly don't see the 'something' in there. I might be narrow-minded, but... help?

There are places in LOTR where there is indeed Eruism. But there is not place in LOTR where 'Eru' actually is mentioned, at least not, according to my little precious. Metaphorically, yes, perhaps. And for a normal reader, who is enchanted (but not overly convinced), the text in LOTR will give him/her nothing or very little of Eruism. However, I would think that Elbereth (Gilthoniel) would give every reader an implication of being a Goddess or at least someone who people look up to. Three times in LOTR Elbereth has singing Elves under her stars. This gives a certain impression, you know.

*hurries off to read the last posts of this thread*

Cheers,
Nova

[drigel]

Clearly the author intended some impressions of "providence", but likewise, any impression of ME "eruism" is intentionaly omitted. What one sees as "providence", I think others see as "plotline". The fundamental message to me is individuals making choices. The fact that there is one creator stands on its own. If there is any otherwordly influence being nuanced, i see more cases of Vala involvement in LOTR, than i do "eruism". In fact (sorry to offend), when i think of the term "eruism", then the term "rolling over in his grave" quickly thereafter comes to mind

[The Saucepan Man]

I see your point about the fact that people could, and should, appreciate the Eruism in LOTR

I am not saying that people "should" see it. But it does seem to me that the story conveys an inherent sense of providence that comes to a head during that scene.

I mean, if you’re not intentionally looking for it, wanting it to be Eruism, you, or at least I, can't find it! The poor fellow is toppling because he is dancing, not very well, I might add; but I honestly don't see the 'something' in there.

I think that the term "Eruism" may be misleading, as it implies an awareness of Eru, which was my bone of contention with Fordim in the first place. And that awareness will not come from a reading of LotR alone. I would prefer to use the term "providence", since it seems to me to be clearly implied in many parts, from the comments of Gandalf, Elrond and others, that providence of some sort is at work.

You are right. There is nothing in that passage, taken alone, to suggest anything other than that Gollum simply tripped and fell. But, taken together with the references mentioned above, it is surely implied that there is something more at work here than mere fortuity. The reader may only be aware of this on a subconscious level (as was the case, I think, with me the first few times that I read it). But, if it was not there, this scene would just not feel "right". As Fordim put it, we would feel cheated. If the Quest, which has been central to the story, was fulfilled by pure chance, it would not be at all satisfactory. However, I am sure that no one who has read and enjoyed the book would describe this resolution as unsatisfactory, even if they did not consciously analyse how and why it happened. Rather they would say that it "felt right". And how could it feel right if it was simply an accident?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I think I would like to cling to my horrific term for the time being. I consciously chose not to call the Guiding Hand in LotR Providence as that is a concept from the Primary World and I wanted something that would more correctly refer to the version of that (Christian) concept as it is subcreated in M-E. The point has been made quite rightly that Eru is not mentioned in LotR, but neither is Providence: the Guiding Hand of Eru (eruism) is most often referred to, I think, as “luck” or “chance”.

The advantage that I see with eruism over Providence is that I wish to emphasise how this providential model of history is one that Tolkien has himself subcreated and ‘inserted’ into his story in such a way that it guides our interpretation of the story (of his entire historia to cite my other dreadful terminology – rolling over in his grave indeed!). The concept of Providence is something that I need to bring from ‘outside’ the text (it’s this kind of a project that Nova is, I think, talking about), whereas I find eruism within the text.

But this is rapidly becoming just the kind of argument over terminology that I fear afflicts the debate over canon and whether text A is or is not within the purview of that term (whatever it means).

The real reason I’m posting right now (other than the need for a bit of a break in a terribly tedious and laborious day) is to address the excellent question put to me by Mister Underhill:

your analogies tend to pit author against reader in a titanic struggle, with the free will of the latter at stake…where exactly are author and reader (potentially) at odds? What freedoms do you seek that Tolkien as author might restrict?

I do realise that my initial posts on this tended this way – I had not yet had the benefit of others’ response to push my thinking into a more subtle form – but my current position (and I’m comfortable with it) is that the “struggle” that takes place is entirely internal to the individual reader (or, more appropriately, lest Bêthberry should read this ) to the individual moment of readerly engagement with the text. That is, we are ourselves torn between the desire to interpret for ourselves (Gollum jumped into the fires to save the world; he fell by accident), and the demands placed upon us by elements of M-E – such as eruism – to interpret events in a particular way (Gollum got a little push from a Guiding Hand – revealed in the Sil to belong to Eru, and most closely connected in the Primary World to Christian Providence).

Note to Saucepan Man – Yes, ensorcelled is very much a word, in the OED and everything. It also happens to be one of my very favourite words, and I love getting the chance to use it:

ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled!!!

[Bêthberry]

Mr. Hedgethistle,

my current position (and I?m comfortable with it) is that the ?struggle? that takes place is entirely internal to the individual reader (or, more appropriately, lest Bêthberry should read this to the individual moment of readerly engagement with the text.

I cannot express how pleased I am that you have found a position you are comfortable with.

That is, we are ourselves torn between the desire to interpret for ourselves (Gollum jumped into the fires to save the world; he fell by accident), and the demands placed upon us by elements of M-E ? such as eruism ? to interpret events in a particular way (Gollum got a little push from a Guiding Hand ? revealed in the Sil to belong to Eru, and most closely connected in the Primary World to Christian Providence).

I think this is not quite my point, although it could be yours. The text does, I would argue, provide a comfortable setting in which to accept that moment of the fall/jump is aesthetically significant and in keeping with other elements in the text. We might have here an example of a confusion between the poet's act and Eru's act. I might think that Tolkien hoped readers to make that leap between the two, substituting Eruism for his own faith, but it seems to me that what we have here is a unified heterocosm which works against any kind of interpretation which would support randomness in Middle-earth.

I am , al always these days, rushed. Does this make sense?

[drigel]

it may have been the digging of Aule as much as the hand of Eru that caused the earth to crumble under Gollums feet
My point i was feebly trying to make was imo, the author drew upon his own creation to supply the life to his subcreation. if that makes sense... Providence is in the stories, but i feel the author is assuming that a conscious person can interpret on his or her own. Thus his dislike for analogy. One can bring anything from 'outside the text': eruism, druidism, alchoholism, any other ism for that matter. I see more proof of valaism than i do eruism. Providence that one finds in ones self is definately in there. To me that can go both ways (as in most providence arguments): was there providence only for mortals? Is there any providence in the elven desire to prolong the present to avoid any change? Where was the providence in the killing of the trees? etc etc

[Lord of Angmar]

Davem

I can see what you mean with the 'Shylock' point - but if we did construct such a Shylock, would he be recognisable as the figure we know - even to Shakespeare? I think the attempt would be futile, as what we would end up with would really tell us nothing in regard to the play.

That was more or less my point- in essence, I was agreeing with you about the futility of attempting to create a canonical Silm, but not quite understanding your analogy. Perhaps my own 'Shylock' analogy would have been more clear if I had ammended it to say that it would be similar to Tolkien's situation if Shakespeare had worked on The Merchant for several years, and had written several different drafts (which, to my knowledge, he did not). I simply did not see taking the works of two different authors and combining them to create a canon view on a subject such as Judaism as analogous to attempting to recreate a canonical Silm.

[davem]

Aiwendil

I can't see that putting together 'fragments' of LotR, if that was all that existed, would serve any purpose, beyond satisfying some disire in the person who put it together. And if those fragments were from different versions of the story, & differed in sometimes major ways in the story they told, then you could at best only end up with a general sense of the story - you wouldn't end up with a work of art - unless the person doing the constructing (could we even call it 're-constructing' if there had never been a complete version of it?) was an artist - & then it would be their work - not Tolkien's.

When you say you have 'put together a version of 'Gondolin' which you find 'interesting' you make my point for me - a serious scholarly endevour that only produces a result which is 'interesting' to those involved seems to me to be of little academic value. Your 'rules' for what you will & will not allow into a 'revised' Sil seem simply arbitrary.

When you speak of taking Galadriel (1) & Galadriel (2) & producing 'something new' I can only see this as an admission that what you're doing is not revising but re-writing (if not reinventing entirely) 'The Silmarillion'.

If we take the example of Gollum (1) & Gollum (2). What we have is not so much a 'development' of the character - G(1) evolving into G(2), as a substitution of one character by another. In effect Tolkien has removed G(1) from Hobbit & replaced him with G(2). This was done not for aesthtic reasons, but for practical ones - he wanted Hobbit to correspond more closely to the evolving LotR. in so doing he changes the Hobbit from a self contained story, into a prequel to LotR. And he didn't even do it deliberately - he sent the new version of Riddles in the Dark To A&U as an example of the 'kind' of thing that would necessary if the Hobbit was to be brought into line with LotR. The publishers used the replacement text without confirming with Tolkien that he wanted them to do so, & in the end accepted the change as a fait a compli.

So, does this supply sufficient justification for choosing the revised version over the 1st ed version, for preffering G(2) over G(1)? The only reason for chosing G(2) is that it was later, & that it removes certain problems in reconciling the characters of Gollum in Hobbit & Gollum in LotR. If you make that choice, for that reason, then you would have to choose all the versions of the stories where changes have been made simply in order to remove conflicts with other stories. You choices would be made on grounds of practicality, not aesthetics - or you'd have to 'invent' your own 'new' versions to accomodate the contradictions- which takes you further down the road of producing your own Sil, rather than a version of Tolkien's Sil

Saucepan Man

Its not that I regard the '77 Sil as unecessary - in fact I think its incredibly important - my argument is with the idea of a 'series' of Sil's - which I think will only confuse readers & create uneccessary arguments.

Oh, re the 'two way comunication' with Tolkien - think of it as a mix of philosophical game & a 'fan fic' within the Tolkien 'canon' - its pretty much what Tolkien is saying is possible in Lost Road & Notion Club Papers, as well as in the Fairy Tales essay. - You have to 'disprove' it, not just reject it (that's cheating!), or prove it to be 'uncanonical'

[HerenIstarion]

davem, you seem strongly talented in luring me into long speeches

So, to post number 126 re:

A bit of a side walk first

Have you seen the movie "Joan of Arc"? One starring Mila Jovovich (sp?). It is a nice movie, quite coherent, appealing, moving and dramatic. Allegedly, it is the work of art, and not history. But as their source, the authors were using existing source material. That the story as it is told in the movie is different from what really happened, is beyond any qustioning. But does it make the movie as the movie of less value? I don't think so, otherwise I would not have been wasting my time on it, I'd rather dig some documents and read those. And, voila, in doing so, I would have found that, though all of my sources were contemporary, all of them were different and contradicted each other.

Another example – what I was studying at University as history, for the first two years was not source material, but compilation – retelling of events rolled into one continiuos text. There were entries like: year so and so, this and this happened. Now, when I went on to my third year, such a subject as historiography was intorudced. And all of what was clear and continuous history back in year one, was, somehow, countless smithereens of "according to this source, this and this happened in year X, and according to that source, it happened in year Y, and according to third source, it haven't happened at all"

What we were tought, is was that work of historian was to, so to say, collect every pebble of evidence there was to be found, and 'squeeze' the thing mostly approximating the truth out of it where possible. The thing was done not only for the sake of truth (as each individual historian saw it), but for the sake of people who were lazy, unable or too busy to dig among sources themselves

Going back to Joan of Arc than – some of the temporary sources picture her as a witch, some praise her as saint. Movie shows her as neither, but as patriot. But was that really the case? When the concept of France was not very much emerged? And the concept of King was more prominent somehow? I believe that neither is quite accurate, but the truth is not to be digged out unless we start practice necromancy and question Joan herself. And even than such an account would be inaccurate, for language is indeed opaque, as stated above, and what we would require is Osanwe-Kenta.

Going back to historians – given precisely the same number of same sources, no two historians will produce exactly matching results.

now:

then it would be their work - not Tolkien's.

Exactly. Given the mode in which Tolkien was writing, and having in mind that he haven't produced final published product, the material we have for our pleasure is to be treated as source material. And any material which is the source is canon. But no work produced on the basis is canon (yes, neither S77), simply because it is derived from and the consequent to the source material, and is, to some extent, work of art of its compilator, scholar, annalist, whoever.

It is easier to switch to the attitude I describe if you go to suspending primary disbelief as described in Tolkien's On Fairy Story and view the source material as really written by Pengolodh, Aelfwine and number of other elves and men from different ages. Than there no objection arises at some modern scholar trying to produce something continuous out of his sources. His judgement as to what is to be taken into the 'soup' and what is to be rejected, is indeed arbitrary, but nevertheless very natural. Do you condemn researcher of the ancient history of Sumer on the basis he produced the book of his own writing, instead of combining the photoes of the bas-reliefs inscriptions he have interpreted according to whis own arbitrary judgement?

Same is applicable to Tolkien (I believe), for he is too complex to be judged as mere writer. What follows is, that we, readers, compilators, scholars of Tolkien, are free to use any of the texts (starting with the very first up to the very last) which we know to be canonical – i.e. by Tolkien himself, and apply to them our own judgement. We are free to be content with the sources in themselves, but we are also free to compile them into coherent and continuous [one] piece of text. Any course of action is lawfull.

But what we will produce will be not canonical in itself (and that was stated by Aiwendil up there). Still more no one will be forced to read it (as no one is forced to watch the movie and believe it as only true account of the story, or count historian's conclusions as to what was going on in Sumer as one and only true.)

I know, you granted the Rev Sil project people the right to do it. What you seem to reject, is the value of it. But if you follow your reasoning, you may well end up rejecting value of say, your friends account of what he was doing another day in a bar, but ask for filmed and recorded evidence, not trusting his recollections as those may be mere compilation of sources, and requesting minute to minute collation with sight and sound recorder. And you may further argue that, as this videorecorder was recording from north-east corner of the room, and another one from south one, there were in fact, two stories, and not one, for one set of pictures shows your friend with a fork, and another omits such a scene, since where fork should be the tankard obscures the way. But you will dare not assume that the fork is nevertheless there, and say: so, we have two stories about the two different men of the same name, and they differ considerably and could not be merged, since in one of them one man has the fork, and in another one another man does not!

For if you listen to the man himself, he may blunder a bit an mix things up a bit (Somewhere around five, I've drunk fourth beer. But the north–east recorder evidence shows it was 4:56 exactly, and south recorded, catching another watch into shot, will convince you that it was 5:02. Does it eliminate the value of story the man himlself told you? Is it less interesting?).

When you speak of taking Galadriel (1) & Galadriel (2) & producing 'something new' I can only see this as an admission that what you're doing is not revising but re-writing (if not reinventing entirely) 'The Silmarillion'

Yes, yes, yes. Any academic, if we talk about one to tread the boards of history, is doing exactly the thing: re-writing, reinventing. He has his limits – he must not contradict his sources, or, if those contradict themselves, choose greater number against smaller number, or, if he does the opposite, to prove first of all to himsefl, that what he does is logically justified by so and so reasons. He can't create green sun out of his head, but he must make green sun found in his sources plausible. In doing so, he inevitably will add up something of his own [sub]creation into the thing.

I hope you are still here with me , for I'm gently spilling over into conclusions:

A) What Tolkien was creating is nearly as complex as the history of the world itself
B) What he did create, must be viewed (as he himelf was evaluating it as such, 'finding out' rather than 'inventing') as history derived from and depending on different and quite a number of sources as well
C) Following A and B, different sources need not be in agreement between themselves
D) Following C, there is no restriction prohibiting compilations and prescribing to leave the sources be.
E) Following D, there is no law forcing anyone to count compilation produced as the true account of events
F) Nevertheless, piece of work produced has the value in itself, and may be quite plausible and approaching the truth as near as it may be

So, does this supply sufficient justification for choosing the revised version over the 1st ed version, for preffering G(2) over G(1)?

So it does. What it does not, is establishing supremacy of one account over the other, but giving the possible reader the pleasure of having both, and not as twelve volume collection of sources. One is free to prefer sources, but than it is merely matter of taste, than

[davem]

SmP

I suppose it depends what we understand 'Faerie' to be. Our ancstors really believed in the 'other world'. To them, fairies were real beings, as were dwarves, goblins, giants, dragons, etc. Even into the 20th century people in rural areas believed in the existence of fairies. There are numerous accounts from Ireland, by Yeats & Lady Gregory, from Scotland, Wales & Brittany (for example in WY Evans-Wentz's book 'The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries). There is also a very interesting book by a seventeenth century Scottish clergyman, Robert Kirk, called 'The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns & Fairies' which deals with the Highland Seers he dealt encountered & their ability, through the 'second sight' to see fairies (inhabitants of this 'other world', & interact with them. I've also come across accounts from Iceland of people seeing Elves. These are very much the kind of beings Tolkien describes - in appearance at least.

If we take the folklore accounts, then there was a strong belief in the existence of this other level of reality. Certain places, like crossroads, or special trees (notably Oak or Thorn) which were believed to be 'crossing places' into the other world. In Ireland there was a belief that when Men arrived the fair folk retreated inside the earth, where they continued their old life uninterupted. There are accounts in the legends of people entering into fairy hills & finding themselves in 'Faerie', with an open sky above them, & landscapes of hills, forests & mountains. A common tradition is that time itself moves at a different rate, or that it ceases to exist while in faerie.

Clearly we can find 'echoes' of these traditional beliefs in Tolkien's works - many of his Elves live in underground realms, & in Lorien there is an implication that time moves at a different pace.

Tolkien seems to make use of these traditions. In fact, the more you know about these traditions the clearer it becomes that Tolkien hasn't just taken creatures from tradition, like Elves & Dwarves, but many of the beliefs of our ancestors & woven them into Middle Earth. But this has been pointed out by people like Shippey. Tolkien was, at least at first, attempting to recreate a lost world, trying to link together scattered beliefs & traditions so as to get closer to the world our ancestors inhabited imaginatvely.

So, does this mean that we have in some way 'inherited', in our 'genes' (or whatever the psychological equivalent of genes are) some awareness of this 'other world', & that Middle Earth in someway opens a kind of 'window', as you put it, onto this other reality? That's difficult to say, & many Christian Tolkien fans of a more 'fundamentalist' persuasion would be decidedly uncomfortable with this whole idea, believing that 'pagan' gods & such like were all tricks of the Devil intended to 'lure' our ancestors to damnation, or at the very least the result of their being in a state of 'ignorant savagery' from which they needed the teachings of the church to save them.

But what relevance all these traditions have to our understanding of Tolkien's work is questionable. Tolkien makes the point in the Fairy Stories essay that when we read fairy stories we aren't reading them, or more importantly understanding them in the way our ancestors did. For instance, how many people put up a Chrismas tree in full knowledge of its origins in tree worship, which can be traced back to Yggdrasil, the world Tree, whose branches linked together the Nine Worlds of Norse cosmology (Yggdrasil meaning Ygg's, or Odin's, 'horse' - a 'kenning' or poetic image - Odin hung on the Tree for nine nights in order to gain knowledge of the Runes, & therefore of the magical power they conferred), or even further back, to the tree climbed by the ancient shamans in order to gain access to the other world? The fact is, most people don't know that tradition, & wouldn't care about it if they did. They put up their Christmas tree because its 'traditional', & the meaning it has for them comes from their memories of family Christmasses spent decorating it & seeing it in a corner of the room during the festivities.

In other words, we can read too much 'meaning' into these 'mythical' histories, & give too much weight to them. There is a real danger of breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, of breaking the enchantment by attenmpting to find out too much about the spell & the one who cast it. Your 'vision' of the moonlit landscape stretching away to distant mountains may well be archtypal, it may have been a 'glimpse' into the otherworld, which our ancestors would have told you was always 'hiding' just out of sight. Maybe you had a 'falsh' of second sight (are you the seventh son of a seventh son - I think we should be told -it is the kind of thing those seers would have taken quite seriously).

But none of that is really relevant. What matters is the effect that 'vision' had on you. Whether it was inspired by your reading of Tolkien or not, you 'saw' something (some 'place'?) that was not of this world. You saw into a 'secondary world' - your 'own' Middle Earth if not Tolkien's. Maybe you should see where that vision takes you - perhaps you could be another Tolkien. What kind of world was it, who lives there, what's on the other side of those mountains, who is wandering those woods besides you. That's the real question, not where the 'vision' came from, but where it enables you to go imaginatively. Possibly Tolkien's original inspiration came from just such a 'vision', & look what a merry dance he's lead all of us since seeing it

[HerenIstarion]

Well said, davem . It all reminded me of Niggle somehow:

...Even little Niggle in his old home could glimpse the Mountains far away, and they got into the borders of his picture; but what they are really like, and what lies beyond them, only those can say who have climbed them...

[davem]

This mention of prophecy ties in with what I was saying yesterday. Both Robert Kirk & Thomas the Rhymer, who was given the gift of 'the tongue that cannot lie' (or prophecy) by the Queen of Elfland, are traditionally believed to have been taken into Elfland rather than dying. It was believed that those who spent time visiting fairyland during life would pass into that realm, & carry on living there, outside time. Tolkien seems to have been taken with this idea of a mortal who stumbles into Faery, & then passes into that realm, leaving the mortal world forever. Frodo is an example, I suppose. There seems to be a sense of unfullfillable restlessness which comes to those who enter faerie, a need to go back there, which can never be sated.

Yet the case is different with Smith. As Flieger puts it, comparing Smith & the Sea Bell, (quoted from A Question of Time)

'The visions in each work are equally beautiful & terrible, but in Smith, as in The Hobbit, the torment is stilled, & the traveller returns to peace with himself & with his world. Like Frodo, Smith must finally leave Faery & not return, but unlike Frodo, he finds consolation in family & friends, in the things of this world. Like the voyager in the Sea Bell, the traveller in Smith of Wooton Major is given to know that this Otherworld is not for him; but unlike the voyager he, he is not summarily & arbitrarily banished from the enchantment (though it must be acknowledged that on one occaision he is sternly warned away). Rather, he comes finally to give it up of free will - albeit reluctantly - & returns to ordinary life & love, not isolated but enriched by where he has been & what he has seen....It was in the writing of Smith that Tolkien came to confront & accept the limits of his own ventures into Faerie, his own travel through time, & it was in that story that he came finally to acknowledge in the way he knew best his growing sense that his time was running out.'

She goes on with reference to an essay Tolkien wrote about the story:

'Where the Elven dwellers in the Faerie world of 'The Sea Bell' ignored the overtures of the solitary voyager & were indifferent to his desires, the Elven folk of this latest Faerie are actively concerned with & perhaps even dependent on the spiritual life of Wooton Major & therefore (it would seem) are careful for the welfare of its inhabitants. It is their unsolicited effort to bring Wooton back from its increasing vulgar materiality that forms the deeper background to the 'external' history that lies behind the story....Both these writings (the story & the essay about it) are deply involved in Tolkien's effort to attain the ....unstated goals in the writing of Smith, the reconciliation of Faerie time & human time & the independent yet interdependent nature of the two worlds'

Tolkien continues in the essay:

'Faery represents at its weakest a breaking out (at least in mind) from the iron ring of the familiar, still more from the adamantine ring of belief that is known, possessed, controlled, & so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered - a constant awareness of the world beyond these rings......Faery might be said indeed to represent 'imagination'; esthetic, exploratory & receptive. & artistic; inventive, dynamic, (sub)creative......the begining & ending of a story is to it like the edges of a canvas or an added frame to a picture, say a landscape. it concestrates the tellers (sic) attention, & yours on one mall part of the country. But there are of course no real limits: under the earth, & in the sky above, & in the remote & faintly glimpsed distances, & in the unrevealed regions on either side, there are things that influence the very shape & colour of the part that is pictured. Without them it would be quite different, & they are really necessary to understanding what is seen'

Final quote from the essay: (Tolkien is speaking about the relationship of Faerie & the human realm)

'this relationship is 'one of love: the elven folk, the chief & ruling inhabitants of faery, have an ultimate kinship with Men & have a permanent love for them in general. Though they are not bound by any moral obligation to assist Men, & do not need their help (except in human affairs), they do from time to time try to assist them, avert evil from them & have relations with them, especially through certain men & women whom they find suitable.''

So we have a vision of two worlds, the inhabitants of each interacting, & forming relationships, based on the love of the one for the other, but all we have is 'glimpses' of that world, limited by the 'frame' of the story. So Middle Earth is Faerie, the same Faerie that Smith enters through the power of the Star, & the same Faerie that we glimpse in dreams & visions, both beautiful & perilous, with 'dungeons for the overbold'.

So, what, from this perspective, would constitute 'canon'? If both Smith & Roverandom are windows onto Faerie (& the 'Little Kingdom' of Giles, we must also suppose), & if the inhabitants of Faerie even speak to us, & show us visions of their world, then the precise limits & definitions fade & vanish, & we are left with enchantment. Would Tolkien have thought 'canon' more important than this enchantment - probably not by the time he came to write Smith.

Smith is an odd story to end up writing. He spent so long defining with incredible precision the 'rules' of his 'secondary world', setting its limits, historical, linguistic, social, religious. But then, in his final stab at a fairy story, he introduces us to a world without those rules & limits. A fanfic set in Middle Earth, in order to convince, has to obey all the rules. A fanfic set in Smith's Faery would, it seems have to obey almost none, as long as it captures the spirit, casts the spell. Yet Tolkien seems to imply that the two worlds are the same, & its only a different focus, a different 'frame' around the two stories, that gives the illusion that they are different worlds. Galadriel & the Queen of Smith's Faery are not so very different creatures. Perhaps in Smith Tolkien was dismantling his 'canon' & throwing open a 'window' to let in the air of another world, having realised that his 'Tree', the Legendarium which he had worked on all his life was just one tree in the forest of Faerie that Smith wandered in.

[mark12_30]

Fordim wrote:

....then to pretend that we can somehow make the leap from our own individual responses to some sort of universal application to all people (“I am enchanted by the text’s access to Faerie, so that’s what enchants everyone else”; “I am enchanted by the beautiful story, so that’s what enchants everyone else”; “I enchant myself by accepting the text, so that’s what everyone else must do to be enchanted as well”).

There is a fourth option, and that is to take the eucatastrophe and run. Perhaps in some cases that is the wisest choice.

So, what, from this perspective, would constitute 'canon'? If both Smith & Roverandom are windows onto Faerie (& the 'Little Kingdom' of Giles, we must also suppose), & if the inhabitants of Faerie even speak to us, & show us visions of their world, then the precise limits & definitions fade & vanish, & we are left with enchantment.

Sounds good to me.

Would Tolkien have thought 'canon' more important than this enchantment - probably not by the time he came to write Smith.

I doubt he would have abandoned the cohesiveness that he was seeking for Middle-Earth (a magnificent road into Faerie) just because he had found and described two other roads (Roverandom, Smith.) I think he still pressed towards Eucatastrophe, that moment of truth shining through his myth(s) to the one true myth.

Note that this application of myth presupposes the truth of the One True Myth. If one cannot assume that truth, then what point does eucatastrophe have according to Tolkien?

Perhaps in Smith Tolkien was dismantling his 'canon' & throwing open a 'window' to let in the air of another world, having realised that his 'Tree', the Legendarium which he had worked on all his life was just one tree in the forest of Faerie that Smith wandered in.

To extend your metaphor, I don't think he had to destroy or even neglect his Legendarium-Tree before he could point to the next tree and describe that too. He simply had to shift his focus.

I don't see that he dismantled his M-E Legendarium (or canon) at all.

[Aiwendil]

Your examples of Beethoven's Ninth & LotR don't work for me - if we only had those works in the forms you describe (which i can't think we would have, as there would be no interest in having them, so no publisher would make them available) & all we got was a slew of different versions, no one would no which one to take seriously.

You don't think that if The Lord of the Rings existed only as fragments, it would be of any value for someone to connect and edit those fragments to create a fully realized narrative? Would this thing not have value in itself, even though it was not "canonical" Tolkien?

Perhaps you do in fact think that it would be worthless. Fine. But obviously, a lot of people would disagree with you.

If FoG is the young Tolkien's mythologisation of his experience of the Somme, which I feel it is, to a great extent, & Tuor is the Older Tolkien's attempt to write a legend based in ME, detached by time & his own lifetime of other experiences, the two stories will not fit together in the way you assume.

Who said that we assumed they would fit together in some particular way?

I could argue that, in fact, the old FoG is not really as different from the later Tuor as you claim. But that is beside the point. They are both part of that complex body of source material called the Silmarillion. There are innumerable ways in which they could be put together. We have put them together in one particular way, because that is a way that we find interesting.

Yes, we have characters with the same name recurring throughout the Legendarium, but are they the same characters.

I think that's a meaningless question. They are not real; they are defined only as logical objects within the network of source material. In one sense, they are the same characters. In another they're not. That's purely a matter of definition.

which part of her story do you throw out - The beautiful scene of her rejection of the Ring, & repentance for her 'sins' in LotR (G1) or her role as leader of the forces of the West against Sauron, a role which Tolkien says is equivalent to the role of Manwe in the battle against Morgoth (G2)?

You don't throw anything out.

Instead, you create a new thing out of the old contradictory elements. If you like, you create two new things - each one reconciling the contradiction in its own way.

To take bits from both versions of these characters & try to create a 'canonical' Gollum (1+2 = ?) or a 'canonical' Galadriel seems doomed to failure

I think that perhaps you misunderstood some of my post. I didn't use the word "canonical" at all except when I said something about the ambiguity inherent in the word and when I said that "canonical Silmarillion" is a misnomer. As I said, there is an infinite number of possible Silmarillions. None of them is "official" or "canonical". But I think that a great many of them have value.

[The Saucepan Man]

Fordim

I consciously chose not to call the Guiding Hand in LotR Providence as that is a concept from the Primary World ...

We are sitting in the primary world looking into the fictional world, so I see nothing wrong with using primary world terms to describe concepts in the fictional world. After all, we talk of the concept of evil in Tolkien's works without having to refer to it as Morgothism or Sauronism.

... and I wanted something that would more correctly refer to the version of that (Christian) concept as it is subcreated in M-E.

Careful. You'll set me off again. Darn, too late! My problem with the term "Erusim" is that it implies an awareness of Eru, which many readers simply don't have when they approach LotR. It also implies (to me at least) that it is a concept which can only truly be appreciated by one with Christian beliefs, which I would reject entirely. The concept may be rooted in Tolkien's Christian beliefs, but it is one which a reader can understand and accept as exisiting in the fictional world regardless of his or her own beliefs. After all, we don't have to believe in Hobbits and Elves in the real world to accept their existence in Middle-earth.

So I prefer a more neutral term. And it may be that "providence" is not appropriate in this regard, since it too has strong Christian connotations (although my Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as "the protective care of God or nature"). What I am looking for is a term which admits all possible ways of regarding this "force", whether it be Eru, the Authority, one's own God or Gods, the Valar (as drigel suggests), the spirit of nature, the personification of Arda, the embodiment of fate, or even Tom Bombadil (who, as we know, is not Eru ). Any suggestions?

And I am not so sure that it is just a discussion over terminology, since the terms that we use have their own substantive implications. That is the reason that I am not comfortable with "Eruism".

my current position (and I’m comfortable with it) is that the “struggle” that takes place is entirely internal to the individual reader (or, more appropriately, lest Bêthberry should read this ) to the individual moment of readerly engagement with the text.

Gosh! That makes it all sound like a terribly arduous (Arda-uous?) process. Whereas it is, in my experience, a most enjoyable one. Most readers choose the manner of interpretation that they are comfortable with, and this almost invariably occurs entirely at the subconscious level. It is not so much a "struggle" as a natural process. And when we try to analyse why we react to a text in the way that we do and, in so doing, perhaps perceive a struggle, do we not risk losing davem's "enchantment"?

Yes, ensorcelled is very much a word, in the OED and everything.

It is? It's not in my Concise OD. But I shall take your word for it and use it henceforth at every available opportunity.

Davem

In his case, I can sympathise, because there was no way the publishers would have leapt straight into the publicaction of HoME, & he felt an obligation to make his father's Sil writings available to the public. With the publication of HoME this is no longer necessary.

So, with the publication of UT and HoME, you no longer regard the Silmarillion as having any value? If I am not misunderstanding you, I regard that as a very curious position to take. It may not be "canon" in the strict sense of the word, but it is nevertheless greatly valued by most Tolkien afficionados that I have encountered. And, although it may not have the same gravitas, the "one of many possible Silmarillions" which Maedhros, Findegil and Aiwendil are working on will undoubtedly be regarded as having value by many of those same Tolkien afficionados when it is complete. Does that not make it a worthwhile endeavour in itself, even though you personally may regard it of little value?

And I am with Bêthberry in finding your idea of a living Tolkien speaking to us through the pages of his works as difficult to accept. What Tolkien is saying to us is cast in stone (or paper). We may learn more about him as we read more widely, but what he says to us in any particular passage cannot change. Nor can it react to our responses and interpretations. It is a one way conversation. In that sense, it is not vibrant, which is surely the very essence of life. No, Tolkien is no more alive in his text than a departed loved one is alive in our vivd memory of them.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I’ve debated whether or not to post this, as it might reveal some of the real life me that I like to hide here – but it’s just so darn pertinent to the discussion that I have to contribute.

The other day I was delivering a public lecture on Tolkien to a group of about 200 non-Tolkien experts. (Yes, I actually get asked to talk to groups about Tolkien – and what the heck, just to make sure that you all hate me – I sometimes even get paid to do it.) When I say non-Tolkien experts I mean really non-experts: most of them had never read LotR or TH, and only a few of them had seen the movies: many had seen only one or two. They were just interested in hearing more about Tolkien and M-E, I guess…

Given my audience I kept it pretty general and talked about the subcreation of M-E in light of Tolkien’s life and Catholicism; I got into the creation of the languages and worked through the implications of the names of Aragorn, Arwen and Frodo. I just wanted to give them a sense of how Tolkien subcreated his world from and for the sake of his invented languages. Most of the comments afterward were extremely positive and many people left saying that they were going to read the books now (huzzah!). But I did get one very interesting response that has been nagging at me since.

An elderly woman (with a walker no less!) cornered me and thanked me for the talk, but she said that I had rather put her off the idea of reading the books. Frantic to find out why, I asked her what I had said or done. She simply said that she felt there was “too much she had to know about the book before she could understand it.” I desperately tried to fight a rearguard action, disavowing all that I had said in the previous hour and swearing to her up down and sideways that the books are more than capable of being enjoyed without any kind of the knowledge that I had been discussing. But she was immovable. “It’s too late, you see,” she explained to me. “Now that I know how much more there is to the book, I don’t think I’ll be able to appreciate it without knowing about all the rest.”

To be utterly frank, I’m not really sure what to make of this. An example of the enchantment being broken before the spell is even cast…? Or a potent reminder of what Gandalf says to Saruman: “He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.”