‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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.