‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

Aiwendil

When you say:Quote:

'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.'

I can only repeat some of the quotes from T&TGW that I gave earlier:

When we have statements like 'the four would have to leave the world better than they had found it', ' To re-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty in everyone's breast.', 'I suddenly saw the TCBS in a blaze of Light as a great Moral reformer', ''The group was spiritual in character, 'an influence on the state of being', 'Smith had wanted them to leave the world a better place than when they found it, to 're-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty through art embodying TCBSian principles.' , ''had been granted some spark of fire ... that was destined to kindle a new light, or, what is the same thing, rekindle an old light in the world'

We can't simply reduce that to an attempt to reform literature. Its clear they were attempting a much greater kind of 'reform' - the reform of society as a whole. It is an attempt at moral reform of society. They are seeking to 'influence the state of being' of society.

Of course, Tolkien can later tell Milton Waldman that his 'crest has long since fallen' in the context of creating a 'mythology for England', & we can also take him perhaps to imply it had 'fallen' in other ways too, but we must accept that his motivations were originally greater than the mere reform of literature.

So, before we can ask 'the Book or the Reader' we must understand what Tolkien was attempting to do with the book, whether he had any message that he wanted to communicate. I think its clear that, in the beginning at least, he had a clear intention of moral reform of society, & that in Lost Tales at least he was attempting to set out his moral philosophy in mythological form. We can reject his moral philosophy & reject his values, but we can't deny their existence, & claim he wasn't doing what he has clearly stated he was doing.

As to whether we pick up on his values, or simply choose our own & take from his writings only what confirms our existing beliefs - well, clearly many do, & that doesn't make them 'wrong', but Helen has shown that many readers, who know nothing of that philosophy do pick up on it & are affected by it to the extent that they change their own moral stance as a result of reading it. Obviously, if Tolkien would not approve of the use & interpretation of his work by Stormfront, that implies he would approve of other interpretations of his work, which means he had some intention to affect his readers thinking.

He wanted to change people, to change society, because he thought it was 'wrong' & he had a sense of what was 'right' - so we come back to 'Truth'. Tolkien had a sense of what this 'Truth' was, & he was attempting to communicate that, & has succeeded with many readers. Within Middle Earth this Truth exists, God exists, so while we are wandering there, or if we are constructing fan fiction, we have to accept those things as givens. If a 'good' character in a Middle Earth fanfic was an athiest, that would simply be 'wrong', because Eru is 'real' within Middle Earth, & the 'Truth' is a fact. None of which 'proves' that God exists in this world, or that 'Truth' is a fact here in the primary world. But then we have to ask why we respond so strongly to those ideas - God, Truth - in that world, why the sense of 'rightness'? What, exactly, moves us, if not some sense, conscious or unconscious, some 'memory' or sense of 'recognition', why is Middle Earth so attractive?

I would speculate that we are responding in that way because that world feels 'right', whereas this world feels 'wrong', that world feels 'true', while there is a sense of 'falseness' about this one - but where does that sense come from? Why, as Lewis asked, would we feel such a strong need for something that doesn't exist? We only feel hungry because food exists, feel sexual desire because sex exists - if those things didn't exist we wouldn't feel desire for them, & their absence wouldn't feel like a lack, wouldn't be painful. So how can we explain the need for meaning, truth, if those things don't exist, & why do we feel that sense of contentment within Middle Earth, where those things are supplied, because they're supplied?

Yet, of course, Middle Earth mustn't be an allegory, mustn't exist simply as a means to supply what's lacking here, it mustn't exist for this world. It must exist for itself, & the characters do what they do for their own reasons, which relate solely to their own world, so we can choose to take from that world what we will. But we have to ask ourselves honestly what we are responding to in that world, what needs it is supplying, & why we respond as we do it, & why we choose to take what we do from it.

Why would someone who has rejected the spiritual dimension of life in this world choose to willingly frequent a world where the spiritual dimension is so much to the fore? Why would someone who is an absolute materialist, & finds spiritual, magical, supernatural beauty, goodness (&supernatural evil) to be nothing but silly superstition want to spend time in a world where those things, along with God, & Truth, are 'facts'. Surely, someone with that worldview would find Middle Earth stupid, offensive & wrong?

I'd have to ask both you & SpM why you are drawn to Middle Earth - is it for 'everything else' you find there, except those things? But you could find all that you claim to want, & nothing you find to be 'wrong' in a thousand other secondary worlds - yet, back you keep going to Middle Earth. Its almost like its supplying a need you have which you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge feeling.

I can't see how you can make this absolute break with what you find in Middle Earth & this world, to the extent that you won't even acknowledge the possibility that you are responding to something 'there' that you're missing 'here'. If you feel the poignancy of Frodo's departure, if you cry with pride & awe when Eowyn faces the Lord of the Nazgul, if you respond to the bravery of Beren & Luthien, & the Ofermod displayed by Turin, & are stunned by the Noldor drawing their swords in the light of the first dawn, what are you responding to & why are you responding at all, if not because on some level it feels 'right', & therefore 'true'? Some part of you is responding to something. The 'Book' is eliciting a response from you which as a 'materialistic athiest' you shouldn't feel.

But none of that is to try & convert you to anything. I have no interest in trying to convert anyone to anything, & I can honestly say that I've never posted anything on these boards with that intention. I wouldn't be able to - as I'm not a committed believer in any particular religion, though I admit I lean more towards some than to others, but I've studied many of them & learned from most of them.

I don't know how far this is off topic - the question, The Book or the Reader does seem to require that we at least state where we as individual readers are coming from, & in what way the book affects us, in order that we can say why we come down on one side or the other in the question.

This post is way too long, as usual.

[Bêthberry]

Hmm. I 've been out of this for some time but would like to raise just a couple of points in terms of how to advance the discussion, as Barrow Wight would say.

Helen and SpM,

Sauce suggested that most or many readers in England do not find the spiritual element which Helen and davem claim exists in the books. In response, Helen said that, on the contrary, she finds many young girls who are indeed given to think along traditional lines of moral behaviour after reading the book.

So, what happens next in this kind or form of argument?

Helen, did you mean to imply that your experience disproves or invalidates Sauce's? Does Sauce's invalidate yours? (I don't think he would say it does.) What I mean by this is, if we have two contradictory experiences, how do we validate one over the other? Or do we have to? How do we advance the discussion? Surely both responses exist as legitimate responses. The point then is not to discount either one but to recognise that both exist. What is then the next step?

davem,

In your long post, you made this statement,

So, before we can ask 'the Book or the Reader' we must understand what Tolkien was attempting to do with the book, whether he had any message that he wanted to communicate.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting something about how to go about reading here. I would question this idea of "before we can ask". Just where do we understand or apply what Tolkien was attempting to do with the book? The book surely must be self-explanatory at some level if it is to be successful as a story. If we have to go to biography, letters, etc, before we read the books themselves, that is validating non-fiction over fiction, discursive prose over story, as much as if we 'apply' it retroactively after the fact of reading. And surely the point also becomes one of whether the book in fact does what the collateral prose says it was 'intended' to do. I mean, do we have to start, as readers, saying, "I must find a message here", before we start to read? Do we really have to read with a priori notions? Or do we have to 'interpret' with a priori notions to lay back on top of our reading experience? In short, you have not convinced me we 'must understand' what Tolkien intended; you have rather demonstrated that in discussion with his school chums he thought certain things. It does not mean that the stories were consciously written with those thoughts in mind. And, especially because Tolkien clearly revised and revised--"consciously so in the revision"--we are still left with what inspired him in the first draft. What is in the texts themselves? (have we been over this before?)

The Book or the Reader does seem to require that we at least state where we as individual readers are coming from, & in what way the book affects us, in order that we can say why we come down on one side or the other in the question.

I am going to go back to my second post here to suggest that there was a tradition regarding literature which Tolkien could have been aware of, a tradition where the writer consciously aimed to make his work one where meaning is held in the eye of the beholder--and this tradition was one which developed within the context of Christian exegesis. Tolkien, after all, did not write political tracts in his zeal to reform society morally. He did not join political organisations and marches. He wrote stories, believing in the value and worth of story telling and story reading. And stories are never definitive. Middle earth does not end. Tolkien says this in On Fairy Stories. The stories never end, but lead out. This is why I object to those who say, this spiritual truth is in the book and this is what the book is about. If he had wanted to make this truth explicit, he would have. He choose not to, but to use veiled allusions. Why did he do this?

This takes me back to Child's post, written before the May 1 party, where she argues that what we do is go beyond this magical first reading to consider its validity and in doing so reject such interpretations as that of the White Supremacists or Germaine Greer. I am going, for the sake of discussion, to go out on a limb here and say that both of those positions actually help enlarge an appreciation of Tolkien.

Clearly, Greer writes as she has always written, to be flamboyant. But what she responds to so strongly is the idea of an 'other' who is solely evil It is very easy to attack 'enemies' when, particularly under the duress of war and attack, we ascribe to them an incarnate evil. Stormfront equally wants to read within its own validating priorities. What the existence of these two positions does, I would suggest, is help us discuss--reaffirm--the moral vision in LOTR. I read a review recently of Wagner (Atom Egoyen's production here in Toronto) which suggested that Tolkien wanted to recover the glorious tradition of heroic, northern narrative from the stains of the Nazi tradition. (I am well aware of how Tolkien denied any conscious, deliberate debt to Wagner.) I would suggest that the very existence of interpretations which we feel are 'wrong' in fact work to help us clarify points about the texts which we might not really react to, given the very different perspectives which we bring to the table. This is why, I would argue, the terms 'right' and 'wrong' are beside the point. Even out of error, greater understanding can arise. It is like Frodo learning from Gandalf not to kill Gollem. Something good still might come out of all this.

I am writing in a hurry, for which many apologies, but I did want to add one final point. davem, you seem to suggest--and I have seen it stated elsewhere here in discussion on the Barrow Downs--that materialists have no moral or ethical basis, cannot differentiate good and evil, cannot ascribe to the belief in beauty and spirituality. I don't want to answer here for either SaucepanMan or Aiwendil, but I do want to suggest, humbly, that this is an unproven assumption. Speaking as someone who has lived lo these many years with an athiest, let me say that he makes manhood an honourable estate, as honourable as anything Aragorn is said to represent. There! I think I 've just made the same kind of argument which I was questioning Helen for making. My point, davem, is that materialism does not, by its very nature, automatically mean people cannot appreciate the concepts of heroic ideal or endeavour, sacrifice, self-discipline, pity, beauty, or fail to recognise good and evil.

[Saraphim]

First off I just want to give props to mark12_30 for an excellent mill-metaphor.

Anyway.

Yet, of course, Middle Earth mustn't be an allegory, mustn't exist simply as a means to supply what's lacking here, it mustn't exist for this world. It must exist for itself, & the characters do what they do for their own reasons, which relate solely to their own world, so we can choose to take from that world what we will. But we have to ask ourselves honestly what we are responding to in that world, what needs it is supplying, & why we respond as we do it, & why we choose to take what we do from it.

In response to what I have read here and elsewhere on this thread, my opinion is that Tolkien's works have Truth in them. This elusive, mysteriously capitalized noun is different for everyone, and no one person will find or see it in the same way, for the obvious reason that everyone is different themselves.

If one has a depressing outlook on life, one will see sadness and destruction in The Lord of the Rings. It becomes something of a tragedy, when you look at the disparity of the elves to leave Middle-Earth, Arwen's immortal choice, the deaths of so many characters who may have lived in peace, and Sam's torn heart.

But if one reads it in a more chipper attidude, one sees growth, new replacing old, rest for those who have long since grown weary, and sacrifice for others.

Take this for example:

Yet the lies that Melkor, the mighty and accursed, Morgoth Bauglir, the Power of Terror and of Hate, sowed in the Hearts of Elves and Men are a seed that does not die and cannot be destroyed; and ever and anon it sprouts anew, and will bear dark fruit even unto the latest days.

That's from the Silmarillion, the Voyage of Earendil. The truth I see in it is that every person has a seed inside that spreads hate and fear through our minds. We cannot get rid of it, and we must struggle with it in order to quell it. The 'dark fruit' it refers to is what happens when that seed grows and multiplies, infecting those around it with fear, hate, ect.

Perhaps no one else sees this the way I do. Or perhaps you all do. Or perhaps I'm grossly misinformed and I've wasted my time.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

We are using terms like "spiritual" and "materialist" without real discussion of what these mean. I must agree with Bethberry. You seem to equate "belief in God" with spiritual, and lack of belief with "materialist". You imply these are two sharply defined, discreet camps, and that the former must necessarily be indifferent or hostile to the words, characters, and images that Tolkien evokes.

First, I feel this is a narrow view of 'spiritual'. There are spiritual paths that do not emphasize the role of the deity. How does one classify a Buddhist, for example, who devotes his life to following the Eightfold Path to enlightenment, which surely is a spiritual journey? Although the Buddha himself was a theist, his teachings are essentially non-theistic. The existence or non-existence of God is not a central issue here, but is left up to the individual.

Similarly, where does this definition leave those who seek to follow goodness because they regard it as the basis of natural law? Emphasis on deity is not central to their lives in the same way as it would be for a Christian. But are they not concerned with many of the same moral issues that Tolkien raises?

It would be possible to dredge up definitions of 'spiritual' that would get us around this impasse. Here, for example, is one:

The spiritual is a perception of the commonality of mindfulness in the world that shifts the boundaries between self and other, producing a sense of the union of purposes of self and other in confronting the existential questions of life, and providing a mediation of the challenge-response interaction between self and other, one and many, that underlies existential questions.

But there is another valid question: exactly where do we draw the line in saying a person can or cannot appreciate LotR, depending on the particular state of his or her belief. Perhaps belief in a deity is not enough. Would we need to say that it is necessary to be a Christian, or perhaps a Catholic to appreciate the themes of the book?

This can not be. People from many different backgrounds obviously have a love and appreciation of the writings. Conversely, I can point to friends who are devout Christians, and yet do not feel the magic in the book. Given this, perhaps it would be wiser to leave terms like "spiritual" and "materialist" completely out of the mix. They are imprecise, and have a different meaning for each of us.

It seems to me that the bottom line lies here. Tolkien's writings are filled with themes of goodness, self-sacrifice, and the need to stand up against evil. If a person respects those moral qualities and feels they should stand at the core of life, they are more likely to respond to the characters and story that Tolkien has sketched out. (Please note that I say "more likely" and not that they will respond.) If they do not cherish such themes, they will likely walk away from the book, because it would make no sense for a small Hobbit to give up everything and take on the chore of Ringbearer. Isn't this moral sense more important in determining our response to Tolkien's writings, rather than belief or disbelief in God per se? And I say this as someone for whom belief is personally important.

Davem - I have no doubt that part of Tolkien's desire to write was to bring about improvement, and not just in a literary sense. But I do not think that this was the only motive he had. The thing that strikes me about the man was how very complex his motivations were. In writing Hobbit and LotR, desire to improve the world was there, but so were a host of other influences: love of philology and ancient myths, the father who told bedtime stories to his children, the man who invented languages. The list could go on and on. And Tolkien's views of myth and its relation to theology changed drastically throughout his own life. (That, I think, would make an interesting thread.)

Moreover, a middle-age man does not look at things exactly the same way as he did when he was a young soldier returning from war. The influence and desire to reform the world is still there, but it would most likely be tempered by the more sober realization that change is hard to come by. My guess is that Tolkien was writing for himself rather than for his publishers, or even with the goal of reforming anyone. He was writing because he felt impelled to write, and his values and beliefs do shine through his words, not with the intentional design to convert anyone to a particular religious belief, but because those were the things that he himself held dear. And though he certainly desired a Christian or Catholic revival within Britain, he would have been too humble to claim such a goal openly for himself, at least by the time when he came to write LotR.

As someone who is neither a Catholic or Christian, I feel very comfortable in the pages of Tolkien. And I do see points where a Light shines through. I would perhaps regard that lLght one way, Mark 12_30 another, LMP or Aiwendil still another, and a committed Catholic like Joseph Pearce would see something else. We each bring our own background and experiences to the book, just as Tolkien indicated in his own preface where he discusses applicability. But those differences in perspective do not make any of us 'wrong'.

Tolkien had this amazing gift to go beyond our differences in culture and belief and show us things of goodness that all humans share. He depicted goodness and light in such a way that ,whatever our personal philosophies, each of us can sense the decency and goodness that should stand at the core of our world, and how very difficult it is to achieve that goal. In a world where we spend most of our time agruing over differences (which is surely not what any religion or philosophy asks us to do) , that gift is no small thing.

**************************

Bethberry,

Yes, you are right. Something may be gained from a discussion of views like Greer and the neo-Nazis. (Poor Germain Greer! I've never liked her, but it seems cruel to put her in the same boat as those other folk.)

Yet, I am likely to learn considerably more by reading someone like Flieger or Shippey, whose perception and views on Middle-earth are far more acute.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Addendum to my last post...

I would prefer the term "Light" rather than "Truth" when discussing LotR.

As far as I know, Tolkien never discusses "Truth" in regard to Middle-earth (with a big or little "T"). But there are many allusions to "Light" in the text. I think this term would be far more in keeping with the Middle-earth that JRRT presented to us. "Truth" implies a single correct body of knowledge, while "Light" does not carry that same meaning. It may also involve the reader's perception, an illumination or way of looking at everyday things that makes us see them in a new way.

[Aiwendil]

I'll venture a quick response now, though I'm still interested to see Helen's answers to the questions I raised in my previous post.

We can't simply reduce that to an attempt to reform literature. Its clear they were attempting a much greater kind of 'reform' - the reform of society as a whole. It is an attempt at moral reform of society. They are seeking to 'influence the state of being' of society.

Okay; I suppose I'll concede that this may have been a goal. However:

1. Among the quotes you provided (and in other instances elsewhere) a desire is expressed to effect what is clearly a literary change rather than a social one. E.g., "Tolkien once compared the TCBS to the pre-Raphaelites, probably in response to the Brotherhood's preoccupation with restoring Medieval values in Art" (my emphasis). It is sometimes hard to tell whether in a given instance it is a real societal change that is sought or merely an artistic one. It is also sometimes difficult to distinguish Gilson's, Smith's, and Wiseman's views from Tolkien's.

2. Tolkien's opinion seems likely to have changed - we have statements in the Letters to the effect that he never expected any of his Silmarillion-related work to be enjoyed by anyone but himself (and Lewis); we also have his statement that the mythology grew out of his desire to provide a historical context for the languages he was inventing. And we have his agreement with Lewis that there was not enough fiction of the sort they liked to read, hence they would have to write it.

3. Even supposing something as extreme as that Tolkien thought that the value of literature consisted in its moral effect on the reader, Tolkien need not necessarily have been correct.

I believe it's in "On Faery Stories" that Tolkien discusses the phrase "the green sun". At first glance, this appears to be nonsensical. But no, Tolkien says; the phrase is a perfectly good one - so long as its user provides a thoroughly consistent context within which the phrase is to be believed. In other words, it's not strictly the realism of a work of fiction that matters; it's the believability; the internal consistency.

Tolkien had a sense of what this 'Truth' was, & he was attempting to communicate that, & has succeeded with many readers. Within Middle Earth this Truth exists, God exists,

It sounds, then, like you would, in answer to one of the two questions I posed in my previous post, say that "Truth" does depend critically on the concept of God. I just think we should be clear about this.

It also sounds like you firmly hold that the purpose of Tolkien's work was to communicate this "Truth" to his readers. Is this what you mean? If so, it really begins to sound as if (in your opinion) Tolkien intended to convert people with his work. If not - then what do you suppose the purpose was?

I would speculate that we are responding in that way because that world feels 'right', whereas this world feels 'wrong', that world feels 'true', while there is a sense of 'falseness' about this one - but where does that sense come from? Why, as Lewis asked, would we feel such a strong need for something that doesn't exist? We only feel hungry because food exists, feel sexual desire because sex exists - if those things didn't exist we wouldn't feel desire for them, & their absence wouldn't feel like a lack, wouldn't be painful. So how can we explain the need for meaning, truth, if those things don't exist, & why do we feel that sense of contentment within Middle Earth, where those things are supplied, because they're supplied?

I'll try to respond to this without letting this turn into a theological debate.

Basically, there are two flaws in that reasoning. First, it's a case of reasoning by analogy, which is at best a sort of induction (rather than deduction), which cannot prove anything. Second, it transmutes psychological evidence into a metaphysical conclusion (this is an error that comes up all the time - on both sides - in debates about free will, for example). Psychological evidence alone can never prove a metaphysical point.

But I really want to avoid a theological debate in this thread, so maybe we should cut this off there.

It must exist for itself, & the characters do what they do for their own reasons, which relate solely to their own world, so we can choose to take from that world what we will. But we have to ask ourselves honestly what we are responding to in that world, what needs it is supplying, & why we respond as we do it, & why we choose to take what we do from it.

Here it sounds like you hold that to communicate Truth was not the purpose of Tolkien's work. Does this not contradict your thesis about TCBS's goals?

Why would someone who is an absolute materialist, & finds spiritual, magical, supernatural beauty, goodness (&supernatural evil) to be nothing but silly superstition want to spend time in a world where those things, along with God, & Truth, are 'facts'.

I do not consider spiritualism, magic, supernatural beauty, goodness, or evil to be "silly superstitions".

I consider good and evil to be either absolute rational concepts or human inventions of great societal importance (for my views on moral philosophy see 'The Lord of the Rings' and Philosophy).

I consider beauty (not the supernatural bit) to be a real thing and a concept of great relevance for human psychology and sociology, as well as for art.

I consider magic, spirits, and the supernatural to be non-existent - but not "silly".

I'd have to ask both you & SpM why you are drawn to Middle Earth - is it for 'everything else' you find there, except those things?

You mean for everything but Eru, magic, spirits, etc.? Certainly not (though of course I cannot speak for SpM).

If you feel the poignancy of Frodo's departure, if you cry with pride & awe when Eowyn faces the Lord of the Nazgul, if you respond to the bravery of Beren & Luthien, & the Ofermod displayed by Turin, & are stunned by the Noldor drawing their swords in the light of the first dawn, what are you responding to & why are you responding at all, if not because on some level it feels 'right', & therefore 'true'?

I don't see any reason that those things ought not to affect a person just because that person thinks that they are not "true". I'm sure there are complex psychological (which is to say neurological) reasons that those things are appealing. I do not see why a belief that certain things are "true" (though I must say that I am particularly hard pressed to guess what "true" actually means in this instance) should be a prerequisite for enjoying literature concerning those things. If it were, then wouldn't all those people that like Tolkien dislike the work of any author with a different idea about what "Truth" is. What I mean is that - if the reason I like Tolkien is that I am subconsciously aware that Tolkien's work is "true", why do I also like Isaac Asimov? Or Arthur C. Clarke? Or Douglas Adams? They each had a very different understanding of the "truth".

But I suppose you will still say that my enjoyment or appreciation of Tolkien's work is a result of some subliminal understanding of its transendent Truth; in which case we have come to an impasse. For when you assert something about my subconscious mind, how am I to argue save by denying it? Bethberry makes a good point about the personal evidence provided by Mark12_30 and The Saucepan Man:

So, what happens next in this kind or form of argument?

And I think more or less the same thing can be asked here.

Sorry that this became another longish one.