‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Novnarwen]

Okay, I had every intention of replying to your question yesterday, Saucepan Man, but 'providence' wanted it otherwise.

Anyway, here it goes:
In your post, post 117, you say:

Quote: from Saucepan Man's post:

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.

So, basically what you're saying is that Providence and Eruism are the same thing? But you only choose to refer to Erusim as Providence since 'Eru' isn't mentioned in LOTR and therefore Eruism would be misleading?

Okay, that's just fine, I think.. I must ask you, though, to tell me if you think Providence is controlled by a higher Power, in this case Eru; as we are talking about the sub-created world..?

Quote: From Saucepan Man's post

:
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?

That last sentence is, well, confusing. I disagree with you here, because I get the impression that you feel that the whole point in the book would be lost if the Fall of Gollum indeed was an accident.

So, an accident wouldn't according to you be 'right', but Providence would?

Providence as all other things is controlled, or at least that is my opinion. God in our world, (for those who believe in God) and Eru in M-E, (for those who accept him as the Creator of Middle-Earth.) But the thing I don't get, is how you can say that the fall wouldn't be satisfying if it was an accident. Why not? According to my online dictionary, Thesaurus, 'providence' and 'accident' can be the same thing:

From Online Thesaurus:

Function:noun
Definition: fate
Synonyms: accident, advantage, adventure, bad luck, break, cast, casualty, coincidence, contingency, destination, destiny, doom, even chance, fluke, fortuity, fortune, future, gamble, good luck, hap, haphazard, happening, hazard, hit, kismet, lot, lottery, luck out, lucky break, misfortune, occurrence, odds, outcome, peradventure, peril, providence, risk, toss-up
Concept: fate

Function:noun
Definition:fate

Synonyms: accident, break, certainty, chance, circumstances, contingency, destiny, doom, expectation, experience, fifty-fifty, fighting chance, fluke, fortuity, fortunateness, good break, hazard, history, karma, kismet, life, luck, lucked into, lucked out, luckiness, lucky break, lucky hit, portion, providence, scratch, shot, stab, star, success, toss up, whack
Concept:fate

So, let's say it was an accident. Would it really make it less satisfactionary? I mean, the word 'accident' (correct me if I'm wrong) is often used as a negative term. For example: "I'm really sorry, but I broke your vase. It was an accident, sorry!" (Bad example, but it should have to do, I think). Anyway, it's a negative term, used when you've done something 'wrong' or unintentionally, but that doesn't mean it wasn't controlled by a Higher Power. It may still be destiny, a coincidence (maybe), but also providence. So that 'something' at the end, which you referred to earlier was providence, which you insist wasn't an accident (or rather as you out it: And how could it feel right if it was simply an accident?) you're kind of (to me) contradicting yourself. Are you?

I must admit, when first readig the book, I didn't really think of 'Gollum's Fall' other than an accident; a bitter end for a terrible dancer. But still, I thought the book and the end very satisfying. Little things, such as 'Gollum's fall', doesn't mean that it isn't 'good enough'. Little things, may be the only things which really matter in the end. Personally, I have no problems with the 'Gollum-falls-into-the-fire-of-Orodruin-by-accident', because even though it was an accident (or not), it was supposed to happen, it was as you put it: providence, and I have to accept that.

Anyway, to do a short summery of what I have been trying to say in this post: An accident, (I think) is also providence as both are controlled by some Higher Power, in this case Eru. So, if an accident is Providence, how would not an accident seem like a satisfying end of the one Ruling Ring? How can we say that accidents are not as much forsighted as any other event?

(I realise that there have been some posting during my time here, writing (and eating.. ), so, I know that there is something else going on as well. I just had to reply to Saucepan Man's question. )

Cheers,
Nova