‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[mark12_30]

[HerenIstarion]

Hola, Helen, how did you get round "less than ten characters long" rule?

[mark12_30]

Uh... what rule?

Maybe I transcended something.

Back on topic before an axe falls... I was thinking more about the Millegory.

On the far side of the mill, you are once again looking at "our reality", as in our physical world-- but with a changed perspective. (Through a glass, darkly?) You are seeing what is there after having seen what's inside the mill. Going by OnFaeryStories, I'm guessing Tolkien would enjoy that. You're also seeing what the other side of the mill would look like from inside the mill; as if you are looking at the real world from Faeryland... which I guess Tolkien would also appreciate.

As a small example, how many people have a deeper appreciation for trees, having read the trilogy? I do; and I know when it began. On Cerin Amroth, when Frodo touched the bark of the tree, I got a glimpse of what one of my own trees, and Trees in general, Truly is/are-- just a small glimpse, but it began something. And I've been looking at my own trees and other trees differently ever since.

[Aiwendil]

So the thread comes to the point where arguments must take the form of parables. I will not waste my time demanding better definitions for the terms being used or trying to make literal the arguments. I will simply ask two questions.

1. Is everyone sure that an end is not being confused with a means? Think about the sort of relation that obtains between applicability, eucatastrophe, etc. and a good story.

2. If "Truth" means, as I guessed before, something like "God", "heaven", "the divine plan", etc., and if a glimpse of this Truth is a critical part of your theory, where does that leave non-religious readers (like me)? Would you claim that we do not fully appreciate Tolkien? Would you claim that we are subconsciously religious? If not, then how can your theory about the critical importance of the "glimpse of Truth" be valid?

[mark12_30]

Aiwendil

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

So the thread comes to the point where arguments must take the form of parables. I will not waste my time demanding better definitions for the terms being used or trying to make literal the arguments. I will simply ask two questions.

"Must?" I am unaware that (a) I issued any orders (besides "look or don't look" ) or that (b) I would have any *authority* to hijack this thread by doing so. Per forum rules, the thread belongs to Fordim, and he may step in with the gavel (or axe) of his choice and and provide Thread Guidance at any time.

1. Is everyone sure that an end is not being confused with a means? Think about the sort of relation that obtains between applicability, eucatastrophe, etc. and a good story.

Actually, I think the whole process is rather cyclical in nature.

2. If "Truth" means, as I guessed before, something like "God", "heaven", "the divine plan"...

If we insist on strict definitions, now I have to ask you your definitions of those three concepts, as I suspect that they vary widely from mine! And won't that derail this thread!

However, I will (for the sake of peace, which I like, and argument, which I would far rather avoid) state that when I use the word Truth, with a capital T, I refer-- loosely-- to all that is true in a permanent sense. And that both encompasses those three concepts that you listed above

"God", "heaven", "the divine plan"

and extends beyond them into such simple things that include "Trees are more than a source of plywood and paper", "2+2=4", "The Sky is a big place," and "Most people prefer receiving kindness over cruelty." However, one can also argue that these simple truths (trees, sky, arithmetic, kindness) are also part of the Divine Plan and reveal something about the Heart of God. And one can also argue that discovering That is part of the journey into Truth. (So I have been steadfastly dodging this question for several pages now. And now I am going to start dodging it again, before someone down-rates me again for being Too Biblical.)

So: To simplify again, I'll go back to the spirit of "good is good" and say, "Truth is that which is always, eternally, true." And yes, you can blow philosophical holes in that with a 20-gauge. Enjoy.

and if a glimpse of this Truth is a critical part of your theory, where does that leave non-religious readers (like me)?

When pursued, Truth leads to Truth. I think the more relevant question is what are you pursuing? And that is entirely up to you. Free country.


Saucie

The real issue for me is that this simply does not happen for millions of his readers. Indeed, I am willing to bet that the majority of people who have read and enjoyed the Hobbit and LotR (certainly in the UK) have not glimpsed this “Truth” that Tolkien believed in and was trying to show them.

Interesting, Saucie; I have the exact opposite impression. I see fangirls sucked into fandom because Orlie is cute, and then before they know it, choosing to resist peer pressure because "I didn't think Aragorn would do drugs." In fact, I knew a sixteen-year-old girl whose firm decision to remain chaste til marriage (which came twelve years later!) was based on the sudden realization that "That's what Strider and Arwen would do." People look at Sam and Frodo, Gimli and Legolas, Eomer and Aragorn, and see the vaue of True Friendship. People look at Legolas and see the value of Loyalty. Etcetera, etcetera. Even Dominic Moynahan has started a "Save the Trees" program and is raising funds for it. Everywhere I look (well, almost) among LOTR fans, I see people who have been called higher. Some climb a little. Some climb a lot. Most do feel that tug.

So-- in answer to your question, "What would Tolkien say today?" I think he would look at the worldwide phenomenon that his books have started, and see the resultant changes-- large and small-- in people's lives, and turn to his TCBS fellows and say, "By golly, lads, it's happening. The love of real & true beauty, sanity, and cleanliness is being re-established. Appreciation for the glory of beauty & order & joyful contentment is growing. People want these things again. THey get onto their computers and talk about them at all hours, and then they try it later. THeir hearts are changing. They redecorate their silly rooms with elvish motifs, and in doing so, resolve to be kinder, and more gracious, and appreciate the stars more. They learn elvish, and in doing so learn the value of the spoken word. They flag at work, and think, 'Be like Frodo and just keep going.' They grow flowers, and wonder at their beauty, all because of elanor and niphredil. They learn to play instruments because they want to make elvish music.

"It's happening. Let's go have a beer and a pipe; we did it, lads."

At least, I think so.

[Aiwendil]

The Thread is Still Alive

The Saucepan Man wrote:

I think that, unless he found their interpretation personally repellent (per Stormfront), he would have been happy that these readers had found in it what was right for them (whether that be spiritual guidance, enchantment, applicability, or just plain old enjoyment). To do otherwise would involve undervaluing either their reading experience or his own skill as a story-teller.

Yes. This is exactly what I've been trying to get at. If the purpose of his stories was to convince his readers of what he thought was the "Truth" (even if passively, by revealing it to them rather than forcing it on them) then we must assume that he would disagree with all with all interpretations that did not conform to his views and deem all readers' experiences "wrong" save the experience of this particular "Truth" he believed in. And I do not think that that was the case.

Mark12_30 wrote:

Actually, I think the whole process is rather cyclical in nature.

This is an interesting answer - neither the story itself nor insight into Truth is either the cause or the effect; or perhaps each is both. I think I like this answer, if only because it comes very close to what I've been arguing. As a story becomes very good, it becomes more like an allegory; as an allegory becomes very good it becomes more like a story. So the story itself and insight into Truth are in fact the same thing.

But this is not the impression I got from your earlier posts. Perhaps this was just a misunderstanding on my part. It seemed to me that you (and Davem as well) were suggesting that Tolkien's goal was to expose readers to this insight, and that a requirement for achieving this is a fully self-consistent, believable story. I got this impression most of all when you compared Tolkien's works to parables (in connection with self-consistency); for clearly in the case of a parable, the insight is the end and the story is a means. Did you mean to draw a distinction here?

I ought to point out that there is a very big (though perhaps subtle) difference between intending to actually change people's attitudes and beliefs and intending to change the state of literature - which is why I still don't buy the argument that the TCBS intended to convert people to its way of thinking, and that this remained Tolkien's goal later on. I have always understood their goal as a literary one: they were unsatisfied with the state of modern literature and desired to change that. This is more or less the attitude, at any rate, that Tolkien shared some years later with Lewis, when they decided that there were not enough of the sort of book they liked to read, so they would to have to write some themselves (the agreement that resulted in Out of the Silent Planet and The Lost Road). This is not at all the same as writing with the primary purpose of changing people's views about the world, or affording them glimpses of Truth.

If we insist on strict definitions, now I have to ask you your definitions of those three concepts, as I suspect that they vary widely from mine! And won't that derail this thread!

Well, I don't have strict definitions for them - but that's okay; I was merely guessing that you might have intended those concepts, in which case I would ask for your definitions.

And that both encompasses those three concepts that you listed above
and extends beyond them into such simple things that include "Trees are more than a source of plywood and paper", "2+2=4", "The Sky is a big place," and "Most people prefer receiving kindness over cruelty."

It sounds like what you mean by "Truth" is simply "the set of all true propositions". That's certainly a definition I can live with (it's the one I intend when I say "truth"). But if this is the case, I don't see why there's any need to be at all mystical about it. Why talk gravely about Truth being out beyond the mills (if I understand your millegory correctly), or about transcendent glimpses of Truth; why the capital T? For if Truth is just the set of true propositions, then a "glimpse of Truth" must just be the knowledge of the truth or falsehood of certain propositions. In such a case, there is no reason at all that each person should have to discover Truth for himself or herself. Nor is there any such thing as "discovering Truth", since that would mean omniscience.

So either of two things is true: 1. By "Truth" you do in fact mean "the set of all true propositions", and all the earlier mysticism was unnecessary or 2. you mean something else, in which case I still would like to know what it is.

And a further dichotomy: either 1. The definition of "Truth" does not critically depend on anything like God or religion or 2. it does.

Going with option 1 on both questions agrees with my view; choosing 2 in either case means there is still some disagreement, but one that I cannot identify.

I think the more relevant question is what are you pursuing? And that is entirely up to you. Free country.

I've got to admit that I have no idea how the matter of what I am pursuing has anything whatsoever to do with the nature of Tolkien's work.

Sorry if any of that sounds abrasive - it was certainly not intended to. I'm just trying to understand what you (and others) are saying.

[The Saucepan Man]

OK. In light of all that I have seen from Tolkien’s Letters, the extracts from his essay ‘On Faerie Tales’, davem’s quotes above etc, I am happy to accept that, in his writings, Tolkien intended to expose his readers to his own (“TCBSian”) values and beliefs in the hope that they might find them applicable to their own lives. And I can accept that he sought to do this by offering his readers enchantment, the possibility of what he called “Eucatastrophe” and thereby a glimpse of what he saw as the “Truth”.

The real issue for me is that this simply does not happen for millions of his readers. Indeed, I am willing to bet that the majority of people who have read and enjoyed the Hobbit and LotR (certainly in the UK) have not glimpsed this “Truth” that Tolkien believed in and was trying to show them. They may well have felt the enchantment. They may well also have experienced intense joy and sadness. Yet they have not found this elusive “Truth”. If Tolkien were to address them via one of davem’s “conversations across time”, what would he say to them? Would he tell them that they hadn’t followed his instructions properly? Would he dismiss them as being unready to accept the “Truth” or disinclined to do so? Or would he blame himself for not having given proper instructions?

If his response was that they hadn’t followed the guidance which he had included for them in his text, does that not denigrate their reading experience? It implies that the reader has failed if they do not see in the text exactly what the author intended them to see. It suggests that they have read the book “wrongly” in some way, even though they may have enjoyed it immensely, been incredibly moved by it and perhaps even found it applicable to them in a way that the author did not intend (interpretations such as those by Stormfront and their like aside).

Similarly, if he dismissed them as not being ready, or inclined, to accept the “Truth” that he intended for them to see, does that not also denigrate their reading experience? Perhaps they don’t need to find it. Perhaps they have found their own truth within the text, which is sufficient for them.

And if he blamed himself for not giving adequate guidance, then I think that he would be being unduly harsh on himself. Whatever their faith, beliefs or values, many millions of people derive immense enjoyment from LotR. In their eyes, it is a wonderful book, and they do not need to find this encoded “Truth” to feel this way about it.

No. I do not think that Tolkien would have responded in any of the ways that I have outlined above. I think that, unless he found their interpretation personally repellent (per Stormfront), he would have been happy that these readers had found in it what was right for them (whether that be spiritual guidance, enchantment, applicability, or just plain old enjoyment). To do otherwise would involve undervaluing either their reading experience or his own skill as a story-teller.

Edit: Cross-posted again with Aiwendil who raises the same valid issues that I have sought to raise.