‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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.