‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Bêthberry]

davem,

I'm a bit confused about a statement you made earlier today.

I'm simply taking Tolkien's statements at face value, because they strike me as expressing what I feel about things.

I don't wish to appear to be pouncing on something you said, but this confuses me as it appears to suggest my--perhaps Sauce's and Fordim's-- position as well (although I don't wish to speak for them and I could be wrong).

I read this as saying you give credence to Tolkien's statements because they accord with something you have felt or experienced prior to reading Tolkien: you grant his words authority because they agree with your experience. Thus, the 'test' (if I may use that word) of the validity or authenticity of Tolkien's words is your own experience.

This seems to me to describe quite well the position that it is the reader who ultimately ascribes value or meaning to Tolkien.

I wonder if we could look at the word 'magic' for a moment. My recollection (and I don't have "On Fairy Stories" at hand) is that Tolkien offerred a particular definition of his use of the word.

He rejected magic as the magician's sleight of hand in favour of something which satisfied 'primordial human desires' (relying on memory here), of 'imagined wonder'. Elsewhere, I think in the Letters (and they are not at hand now either) I recall he regretted using this word magic as it is easily misunderstood. He then elaborated upon his idea that he meant a perfect correlation between will and deed, an ideal sense of art where intention is satisfied by the --I would use execution but that word seems to me to express too cruel a summation. A vision of aesthetic perfection or ideal.


Perhaps this encompasses both your sense of mystical experience and Aiwendil's aesthetic satisfaction?

EDIT: cross-posting with SpM. I would simply like to say that I agree with Sauce that we can never finally ascertain what Tolkien meant. And, that, for me, to make any effort to determine that apart from a text like LOTR is to engage in an activity which predetermines the text. We can discuss the text in terms of our own experience.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

319 posts and 5 175+ views on this thread, and today marks exactly one month since I opened Pandora’s Box with it. As has been noted by many in the last few days we have covered a lot of territory in that time and moved around, through, over, away-and-back, past and perhaps even under my initial question (quite a humbling experience, actually).

Some quick thread facts:

25 posters have posted to the thread

SaucepanMan and Mark 12_30 are tied for the most posts at 49 each

By my rough calculation, we’ve put up somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 000 words (or about 800 typed, double-spaced pages)

But at any event, that’s not why I’m posting. I thought that now might be a good moment to bring forward my initial post and address how I think it might be regarded given the thread’s evolution:

I’ve been noticing that most of the questions and debates that take place in this forum tend to turn on the idea of what Tolkien ‘intended’ when he wrote the books. That is, when it comes to something like the origin of orcs, or whether a particular character is a Maia or not, everyone goes scrambling to the various reference works to piece together the ‘truth’. More often than not, what happens is we find that Tolkien’s own writings are far from definitive and, even worse for those who desire absolute clarity, they sometimes are even contradictory (the origin of orcs being a good example; or, my personal fave and a perennial topic for heated discussion in these parts: do/can balrogs fly?).

It seems to me that this kind of an approach, while entertaining and extremely informative, tends to miss the point somewhat. Tolkien himself wrote in the Introduction to LotR that he “much prefers history, real or imagined.” Throughout his career as a creative writer, Tolkien saw himself as a historian who was ‘recovering’ these tales from a distant past. The historian can shape the narrative of history, but he or she cannot make that history. This only makes sense, I suppose, given that Tolkien was by training and temperament a philologist. He believed that the truth of any tale lies in its historical origins – more specifically, the historical origins of the words that have given rise to the tale.

Given this idea (which, again, was Tolkien’s own) of the writer-as-historian, then does this not mean that we – the readers – are not only able, but compelled, to seek always to reinterpret the tales from our own standpoint rather than continually try to figure out what the ‘first’ historian made of them? Tolkien can give us important clues and hints into the history and – more significantly – the moral fabric of Middle-Earth, as he was the world’s greatest expert on the material. But in the end, it’s up to the reader to really figure it out for him or herself. That’s, I think, the real strength of Middle-Earth over other imagined worlds: it’s open-ended and incomplete; it’s contradictory; it doesn’t make sense – it’s just like our own (primary) world.

The question that comes up out of all this (and if you’re still reading: thanks) is – how far can we go with our own re-interpretations of the works before we’re working ‘against’ them rather than ‘within’ them. I think it’s pretty fair to say that everyone here would agree that it’s at acceptable (even desirable) to interpret the women characters from a point of view that is more contemporary than Tolkien’s own. I think it’s also safe to say that we would all want to adopt an interpretation of the Dwarves that is radically different from Tolkien’s own (in a BBC broadcast recorded in 1971 he said that the Dwarves are “clearly the Jews”). But can we do something like criticize Gondor for maintaining an autocratic form of government (the King)? Are we allowed to re-interpret the Scouring of the Shire as the re-establishment of upper-class power (Frodo) after a successful revolution by the underclasses (albeit it supported by foreign insurgents)?

In a book that doesn’t really conclude, where does its truth end and our own begin?

From my perspective, I think that at the moment we have become a bit stuck on the horns of this sticky dilemma. davem has become the voice par excellence in celebration of the intensely personal nature of the reading experience – perhaps, the uniquely personal reading experience when encountering Middle-Earth (insofar as the story exists within the ‘frames’ both of fiction itself – the ‘not true but meaningful’ – and of its status as a subcreated world – ‘not true but meaningful within itself and according to its own internal rules and laws’.

I think that we all agree that this is an entirely valid and useful response, but it is a response that is itself too internalised to the reader to be shared in any kind of critically useful way with other readers. We might each have our own visionary/intuitive/religious/psychological/etc encounters with the work, but unless we can find another person who has precisely the same kind of reaction (which will never happen, insofar as we are all different people) then that encounter will forever remain personal and unique. This is good, and right and proper and, I daresay, the final and ultimate function of fantasy.

But this still does not get us anywhere down the difficult road toward the matter of reinterpretation of the text. I am not saying that personal encounters with the text – personal interpretations, say – aren’t valid (quite the opposite, see paragraph above), but that interpretation of a text as a critical act takes place only within a community. Sharing our personal experiences of the text (how it made us ‘feel’, the rightness of it all, the truth/Truth we gather from it) is an important part of a reading community, but not – I hope – the sum total of such a community. Or, at least, there are other kinds of communities possible.

I do think that we have gone just about as far as we can go with the debate that is currently going back and forth between davem and SpM (I feel kind of like a spectator at a tennis match as I read through their posts above – uh oh: I mean, a non-competitive tennis match!). Where I think we can refocus our efforts here is to ask, how can we begin to move beyond our personal and individual encounters with Middle-Earth and work toward some new reinterpretations of the text? The point of this is not, I think, to reach consensus or agreement, but to work through our own interpretations in response to other peoples’.

I suppose the tweaking I would like to give my initial post is this. I began by asking what claim or authority does the author have on the interpretative act of the reader in our encounters with Middle-Earth. Now, I think I would like to find out what claim or authority does the reading community have on the interpretative act of the reader in this encounter? Or/and: what claim or authority does the interpretative act of the reader have on the reading community?

(Special Note to Mister Underhill: note my total lack of reference to Nazgûl or Fellowship-readers! )

(Second Special Note to Mister Underhill: there’s no room left for any other kind of reader insofar as I see these two ‘types’ as existing at either end of a very long spectrum upon which every reader moves as we encounter the text.)

[bilbo_baggins]

Fordim does such a better job at summarizing the thread than I do...

I suppose I might just be repeating facts, but the reader is his own authority. How he interprets the facts of Tolkien's literature is his own business, and what he makes does not necessarily become canon. Everyone can have their own view of M-E. Tolkien was a human, therefore, he was not perfect, and anything he made can not be completely exact.

To Conclude this quick reply: There is no "Tolkien Canon", some magical reference one may pull out and show to others that their beliefs may coincide. It is completely impossible.

But do not lose hope; individual interpretation is not the end of complete interpretation. Many people agree about major ideas in Tolkien, things pretty much unchangeable: ie, Frodo loses one finger in the destruction of the Ring. Some will disagree on minor things: ie, Gollum's fall was chance/purpose. We all agree that he fell, therefore we have some ground for harmony and agreement.

Perhaps we can overlook the minor differences we struggle with and create the new interpretation that Fordim suggests.

[davem]

Fordim

Quote:

'Now, I think I would like to find out what claim or authority does the reading community have on the interpretative act of the reader in this encounter? Or/and: what claim or authority does the interpretative act of the reader have on the reading community?'

This is the reason I was asking for a consensus on what the 'facts' are in regard to Tolkien's Legendarium, & what constitutes 'interpretation' - either Tolkien's own, or a reader's. The reading community cannot, imo, have any claim or authority on the interpretive act of the reader, unless it has come to a consensus as regards what 'facts' are to be interpreted. I suspect that it is the 'common ground' issue again. I consider many things to be 'facts' or 'givens', which other posters consider to be 'interpretations' or subjective experiences.

I think we would be approaching too close to 'orthodoxy' vs 'heresy' if we moved too far down this road of the 'authority' of the community over the individual, or vice versa.

I think, even after all this long discussion we still haven't achieved a consensus, or created what could be called a 'reading community', so I can't see what this 'authority' would be. Have we 'authorised' a view? If the text only means what the reader decides it means, or experiences it as meaning, then there can never be a 'community interpretation' to make a claim on the individual reader - there would only, could only, be a lot of individual readers - never a community.

[Bêthberry]

Really now Fordim, I think there likely will be as many sporting metaphors as we have readers and imaginations willing to create them.

Your question reminds me, Fordim, of Calvin's own dilemma when people began interpreting the Bible differently, after he had assumed there would be consensus of understanding.

davem,

If you will, a few points, although I am increasingly becoming convinced this is futile, particularly after your suggestion we all know what Tolkien means; it is only the 'clever' ones who create confusion. What's the point of discussion here, among a community of people who enjoy reading Tolkien, if we simply say that we would all agree if only we didn't talk about it?

Reading LotR changed me. I'd never paid any attention to the natural world before reading it, I never had much interest in 'spirituality' - up to discovering LotR at 16 my reading matter of choice had been comicbooks. I was changed by Tolkien's works, they gave me my first 'glimpse' into something beyond materialism. But everytime I go back to them I find more in them, I find confirmation for my experiences. Everything I read in Tolkien's writings - fiction & non fiction. I don't feel myself to be so 'important' in this context - Tolkien has taught me something - & from everything I've read of his, he's taught me exactly what he intended to teach me.

With all due respect, and in no way to diminish the power of your experience or epiphany (a word which I use with complete and utter respect, as, indeed was theway I regarded your story about your Guardian Angel), this seems to me still to be valorising Tolkien based on the effect reading him had on you. It is the radical change upon your understanding which the text produced in you that allows you to revere Tolkien so highly. Having then had this awakening, you return to the texts to 'repeat' it, so to speak.

"he's taught me exactly what he intended to teach me" Logically, this seems to me to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Er, no - it doesn't really, does it? Mystical experience is 'spiritual' & aesthetic satisfaction is 'sensory' (unless you believe they have their origin in the same 'state' - 'Truth' perhaps? 'Truth is beauty & beauty, Truth'etc. But I don't think Aiwendil would accept the reality of Mystical experience, unless he was allowed to translate it as meaning the same thing as 'aesthetic satisfaction', & so could say 'There, its all simply 'aesthetic sastisfaction'. I have to seperate the two & keep them seperate, otherwise the 'common ground' is false,

Sorry, I could very well be dense here, but I don't see why you have to keep them separate. Tolkien, I thought, in OFS, clearly explained fairy as the satisfaction of primordial human desires, to survey 'the depths of time and space', 'to hold communion with other liveing things', 'the realisation of '"imagined wonder"', "An essential power of Faërie is thus the power of making immediately effective by the will the visions of 'fantasy'." He was, and I speak humbly here, as humbly if not more so than Tolkien was, offering a racially new explanation of the value of Christianity.

He was valorizing it upon his understanding of the importance and significance of story and story-making to mankind. Fantasy is not important, he was saying, because it reproduces the experience of Christian story. Rather, that for him God redeems "the corrupt-making creatures, men" in "a way fitting to ... their strange nature." "For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation."

This seems to me to place aesthetics upon a far more important level than you would wish to acknowledge. It is, I would humbly suggest, a psychological reality of our species. It accounts, I think for the fact that even those who do not "believe in" or accept your Truth can still experience satisfaction upon reading Tolkien's work. It seems to me that Tolkien in effect explains the significance of Christianity through the esthetic experience.

*takes a deep breath in hopes this does not offend as such is not my purpose*

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I'm not sure why it would be necessary for there to be consensus to have a community. . . in fact, that sounds rather like a dull community to me (or a cult!). We all live in communities that share the same basic values but with radically different opinions, beliefs and interpretations of those values. In my local community, we hold theft to be wrong: some of us for religious reasons, some for legalistic, some for civil, etc etc etc. We don't agree, but we are a community.

Like it or not, we are all members of a community in this thread too (now there is magic at work for you! ). We all share the same sense of enchantment at Tolkien's work, but we experience it in different ways. We can either all lay back and say "Wow, what an enchanting work! This is how it enchants me, how does it echant you? Oooooh interesting") or we can simply acknowledge our existence as an enchanted community and attempt to move beyond that to a greater understanding of the text that we share, of our own community, etc etc etc.

I fear davem, that for whatever reason, you seem unwilling or unable to move beyond this initial sense of wonder and engagement. This may very well be a better or more true response to the text. But, well, being a 'clever' person I don't find it very productive.

[mark12_30]

Fordim, I think it can be related back to the Pursuit of Happiness question... Yes, we are all members of the comunity of this thread. But what are we pursuing that keeps bringing us back to this thread? I won't speak for too many people here... Some of us return to the thread over and over again, because (I think) the question of canon arose and we debate often, so we were drawn in in case the debate rules changed. (raises hand) Maybe lots of us were drawn in for that reason.

But why did we stay?

I stayed, because I wanted to explore the enchantment/ eucatastrophe connection to the Story, and the connection of that to the writer. Why? I write. I desire to see my readers enchanted and experiencing eucatastrophe. So the relationship of enchantment to author's intent matters to me as an author. (I don't think I'm alone among those who have traversed this thread.)

Others here may read more than they write. Perhaps they seek the enchantment itself in what they read.

Perhaps others (and here I am guessing wildly) have other curiosities, analytical, theoretical, psychological, academic.

If some traversing this thread are simply seeking the enchantment, that may be (excuse me) the reason why they are here (I know, I know!! This is how I think, bear with me.) It may be what they are called to do at the moment. If that is the case, then the enchantment is enough. It is the perfection of the moment, with no analysis needed.

Vive le enchantment.

[HerenIstarion]

One day off, and a wagon-load of posts for me to catch up. But there was a good read on them, and I feel the urge to type I haven't experienced for months before Evil Things thread came to the surface, and which has become even more intense with this particular one, reaching the state of some kind of itch in my fingertips

First of all, my apologies if I sounded like a cheerleader with my post #296. It had indeed the cheering up of certain people in mind, who started to sound a bit bitter to me, so I wanted a bit of Joy around for their enjoyment. I'm sorry if it looked as deliberate 'side-taking', but, well, being of certain views and beliefs, I naturally tend to support people of similar mindset. That does not, definitely, imply my disrespect of any kind or form with regards to opinions of those of the different mindset (even if I fail to make it seen clearly), and the form of cheering up I chose seemed appropriate at the time of choosing. My apologies to those who found it appalling.

Now to essentials - I should say we are already past Tolkien in our discussion and touching here and there on the basic facts about the reality. The whole issue of Truth/truth is grounded not on difference of appreciation of the text, but difference of entire outlook, be it materialistic or religious. Being of the latter, I have a logical (yes, justified and made logical by the fact of my belief) ground to conclude that some statements about the world are more true than others. (and the truth does not lie in numbers, but in relation of each statement to the ultimate Truth), Said Truth with capital T, at Aiwendil's bidding, and not only, I am willing indeed to name as God)

Before I proceed to what I'm going to say, I would be allowed to made a disclaimer: what follows is not posted with the intention to force my views (or such a 'horrible' thing as religion is) on anyone, Eru forbid ). I just hold that I owe you all one, for what forms the ground of Tolkien understanding for me, is rooted, as I've said, in the basic Fact about the world I hold to be true. And, as I believe it to be true, I would be glad if I succed in convincing some in its truth.

So, I hold that the world we live in is created by omnipotent and benevolent Being. I also hold that Evil found in the world is not due to some flaw in said omnipotency or benevolence of the Creator, but because of Freedom given creatures to do as they will, for without such a Freedom they can not be loved in a 'proper way', or indeed would be not worth loving, but mere 'things', or 'items'. I hold also that the creatures, given the ability to do so, indeed have 'gone wrong', abused their freedom and are now ina state which is technically defined, (or merely known, choose whichever you like) as Fallen. but measures to correct such a situation are already taken (Eucatastophe). Despite the fact of being fallen, creatures retain the built-in standard of Good and Evil against which their actions are measured and which is the basic ground for all moralities of all societies throughout history we have a notion of. Furthermore, I hold that, though some of our actions may be well the subsequent to us being half animals, and having instincts, or developments of such instincts, the act of choice we make when acting, and preferring one over the other is not instinct in itself, but the application of combined Freedom/Built in Standard of Good and Wrong. So, much asked for definitions would be (clumsily, no doubt, but I try my best to be honest) as follows:

1. Truth – recognition of createdness of our world by God, as well as built-in moral low, standard of Good and Evil, which enables us to distinguish those and bring ouserves in conformity with Good and unity with God
2. Joy – natural state of unfallen, and state to which redeemed will be returned of unity and harmony with God. The enjoyment and aestetical pleausure associated are natural parts of it, but not the end of it. The end is Truth, i.e., said unity and harmony with God. The feeling of Joy usually convoys the recognition of Truth
3. Light – traditionally vaguely defined substance what corresponds with two previous terms. May be used separately to mark or even replace each.
4. Eucatastrophe – the correcting push, bringing stray humanity back to confomity with the Truth. Accompinied by feeling of Joy, as of enjoyment and recognition, which is indicator of the turnover in the direction of Truth.

Furthermore, I hold that all of the above is arguble logically, even if by means of a 'mere' syllogism. Try that one out:

If the world is a result of random development, the conscious mind of a man, is, likewise, result of enourmously long chain of over-numerous accidents, and thinking process which takes place in said mind is equally accidental and random. Therefore, any conclusions that mind comes to, are all based on billion years worth of fortuity, and chances of it reflecting the affairs 'as they are' are ridiculously small. Indeed, if my mind is random, why conclusion I make with it should be true? (The whole modern cosmogonic theory, coming down to 'in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded' sounds like quite a funny joke to my ear)

Now invert that last paragraph. What is the result? It comes that, only when one admits that universe, and, therefore, one's mind is created by already consicous Being, one's minds claim to possesion of an ability of digging the truth out is based on anything more than a whiff of a wind.

Following all of the above, I hold that some interpretations of anything (including Tolkien) are more right than others, being in closer proximity to Truth in both senses (recognition and built-in standard) (With that admitting that some maybe 'righter' than mine, of course)

Therefore, I can argue that truth lies not in number of people holding this or that statement to be true, but in conformity of the statements itself to the one Big T, if I am allowed to joke about it in such a crude way. And, though I hold that 'sky is blue' and 'water is wet' type of 'truths' also form a part of the Truth, it is essentially about what is Right and what is Wrong. And if to murder is wrong, it is not because certain number of people believe it to be so, but because it is simply so. If 95 out of 100 held murded to be good, it nevertheless would have been bad, because it is simply bad.

As I have fleetingly mentioned above, the rightenss/wrongness of interpratation does not stand in the way of enjoyment. So, there is no claim of mine to state that any feelings, thoughts, inspirations any of you experienced while reading Tolkien are of less value than the next man's, that is, mine.

Furthermore I hold that Tolkien deliberately constructed his stories as to reflect, retell the Truth (again, in both senses), but, instead of using mere statemens just as I did, used a more subtle way of Joy. Inherent standard of Good and Evil enables us to glimpse those, even if uncounsiously so.

But, and very grave 'but' at that, as sub-creation is yet another expression of Man's likeness ot God, Tolkien's [sub]creation may be enjoyed without such a directed revelation, without statement of belief, as things in themselves, artworks. But, another grave 'but', to evaluate those as merely artworks is wrong, but, third grave 'but', only if one making evaluation aknowledges the truth of the Truth, Joy, Light and Eucatastrophe. If he/she denies such a Truth, than he/she may be content to consider LoTR as mere artwork, and is right in doing so..

But, as I've said, I do believe my approach to be more right than some, yet, I would repeat – it does not imply disrespect, or animosity, or any other hard feeling towards those holding different opinion, though, I'm sorrowed to admit, I hold it to be superior approach, as I believe it to be more correct, or more true one.

Confession's over, shoot who will..

[Child of the 7th Age]

Heren Istarion,

I think it is logical and admirable for you to set down the personal beliefs and standards that guide your reading of Tolkien and your personal life.

If we're honest with each other, we would probably all admit that we consider our own particular religious and/or philosophical beliefs, whatever those may be, to be the very "best" possible, at least in the sense that they most perfectly explain what we see and experience in life. If we did not regard them as the "best", then why would we ever adopt them? Like you, Heren, God stands at the center of my existence, and I personally see those same ideas reflected in Tolkien's writings. Yet, if we were to discuss the specifics of that belief, my personal perspective would probably not be identical to yours. And the same is true for everyone else posting on this thread. Even if a number of us could agree on the centrality of God in our view of the world and in Tolkien's own writings, our personal conceptions of who that God is and how best to honor him would vastly differ.

Your post hints that the great dividing line on this thread should be seen in those terms: who does or does not view the Truth (and Tolkien's writings by implication) as reflective of the glory and wonder of God. As central as God is to my being, I do not see it that way. This is a community of readers. We may discuss many things and there are times when a poster may dramatically change his or her mind, based on the words that are put forward on this site. But the one thing that is a given, that is unlikely to change because of such a discussion, is our personal outlook and perspective, how we see ourselves and how we regard the Truth, what place we feel God does or does not occupy in the universe. Those feelings and perspectives are a given, and they are unlikely to alter because of anything that is said here.

So where does that leave us? Basically, we have two options. We can each go forward and stress the uniqueness of our personal beliefs, setting down the reasons why those are the "best" set of beliefs to help us understand Tolkien's writings, and why other perspectives are inaccurate or faulty. One danger with this is that we can can end up splitting hairs.

Is it, for example, enough to be a theist, or even a Christian to understand what the author is saying? Someone who is a devout Catholic could argue that you or I can not truly understand what Tolkien means because we do not share this particular subset of his beliefs, and this subset was obviously very important to him. (Please excuse me Heren if indeed you are Catholic! Someone else who is Catholic could come along and maintain that it isn't enough to be Catholic per se. To understand Tolkien, one must share his particular mindset in regard to the Catholic Church, i.e., the precise feelings he had concerning church reform, women showing up in church wearing slacks and sporting curlers in their hair, or the role of the Church in the world. We can split hairs further and further, until we end up in separate trees throwing coconuts at each other.

The second option is to acknowledge that folk on the Downs do not see the world in exactly the same way, to honestly admit that each of us considers our unique perspective to be the "best one" (because truthfully who doesn't?), but, at the same time, to agree that there is a common ground where we can share and discuss and respect each other's ideas. And this means that personal belief in God, or even seeing the aspect of the numinous in Tolkien's writings, is not a critical prerequisite for a fruitful discussion of the author and his works.

Again, I will reiterate: Tolkien was not Lewis. His primary purpose in writing was not to convert anyone to Christianity or Catholicism. In the course of writing, he did reflect the personal truths that he saw in both Christianity and Catholicism, because that was central to his soul. And he was certainly trying to open us up to the value of goodness, self sacrifice, and fellowship. For those who do believe in God, or at least something beyond, there are obvious hints of light and the numinous. (Personally, these are some of my favorite parts. I have been chasing after Frodo the Elf-friend for over thirty-five years!)

I guess that is one reason this thread is "getting" to me, despite my persistent efforts of late to ignore it. For me, one of the prime messages that comes through in Tolkien is this: people of differing backgrounds, whose culture and beliefs vary widely can come together to fight evil and form close personal bonds. Most of the free folk of Middle-earth did not even know who Eru was, but Tolkien still expected them to stand up and be counted. Whether you were an Elf who understood all the tales of Eru and Valinor, or you were a Hobbit who lived a moral life without any wider grounding of intellect or belief, you still had a part to do, and that part was valuable.

Everything I know about Tolkien's personal life suggests that, despite his strong religious convictions and his desire to pass on the truth of Catholicism to friends, he could also be accepting of differences and was not judgmental in this one sense. His comments about his Jewish friends at the University, his response to the publisher who questioned his Aryan background, and his closeness to Lewis prior to the latter's conversion all reinforce this impression. Tolkien openly vented against stupidity and a blind adherence to the dictates of modern culture. Yet, even in his Letters, he did not denigrate anyone for a lack of belief or claim that such people would have trouble understanding LotR.

If Tolkien can depict the Fellowship and the alliance against Sauron in this positive manner, given all their diverse cultures, beliefs and levels of awareness, why can we not engage in a discussion of the books, without saying that others who don't share our particular beliefs are somehow deficient in how they interpret things or interact with the text?

Heren, I don't mean that you said or implied this in your last post, but there are places on this thread where I do get a sense folk are saying we can't have a fruitful sharing of ideas unless we all approach the text as believers in God. This is frankly not the mindset that I get when I read the messge of LotR.

[davem]

Bethberry Quote:

'I would simply like to say that I agree with Sauce that we can never finally ascertain what Tolkien meant. And, that, for me, to make any effort to determine that apart from a text like LOTR is to engage in an activity which predetermines the text. We can discuss the text in terms of our own experience.'

Well, to that extent we can never finally ascertain what anyone ever means about anything.

We can take the letters, essays, the morality & worldview that comes through in the books, etc. We can take some statements at face value & accept that they express Tolkien's own values. Of course, we're then still having to assume things, but we won't be inventing our 'own' Tolkien from scratch. I don't see that involving 'predetermining the text' - if I understand you're meaning. I don't see this 'discussing the text in terms of our own experience' thing either - we can be changed by the text & emerge a different person. The text may change our 'meaning', rather than us imposing a meaning on it.

So actually, its not true to say :

Quote:I read this as saying you give credence to Tolkien's statements because they accord with something you have felt or experienced prior to reading Tolkien: you grant his words authority because they agree with your experience. Thus, the 'test' (if I may use that word) of the validity or authenticity of Tolkien's words is your own experience.

Reading LotR changed me. I'd never paid any attention to the natural world before reading it, I never had much interest in 'spirituality' - up to discovering LotR at 16 my reading matter of choice had been comicbooks. I was changed by Tolkien's works, they gave me my first 'glimpse' into something beyond materialism. But everytime I go back to them I find more in them, I find confirmation for my experiences. Everything I read in Tolkien's writings - fiction & non fiction. I don't feel myself to be so 'important' in this context - Tolkien has taught me something - & from everything I've read of his, he's taught me exactly what he intended to teach me. I don't believe I've imposed my own meaning on his stories, & that my own meaninbg has just happened to coincide with what he intended by pure fluke.

If I misinterpret something you or another poster here writes you, rightly, take me to task - I'm not free to decide that what you post only means whatever I take it to mean - & I don't distinguish between 'fact' & 'fiction' when it comes to meaning. I think Tolkien's meaning is pretty obvious to everyone who reads his works - until they start 'analysing' it, & trying to work out what it means. I suspect only really 'clever' people struggle over what it all means, & what Truth is, & Joy.

Quote:Perhaps this encompasses both your sense of mystical experience and Aiwendil's aesthetic satisfaction?

Er, no - it doesn't really, does it? Mystical experience is 'spiritual' & aesthetic satisfaction is 'sensory' (unless you believe they have their origin in the same 'state' - 'Truth' perhaps? 'Truth is beauty & beauty, Truth'etc. But I don't think Aiwendil would accept the reality of Mystical experience, unless he was allowed to translate it as meaning the same thing as 'aesthetic satisfaction', & so could say 'There, its all simply 'aesthetic sastisfaction'. I have to seperate the two & keep them seperate, otherwise the 'common ground' is false, & we're simply agreeing for the sake of not arguing, & I don't see where that gets us. Mystical experience is experience 'of' something. At least Tolkien believed that to be the case, & I think its a central question as to whether thats a 'fact' that we're dealing with, as Tolkien believed, or an interpretation. The two are simply of a different order to each other. Don't we need to know whether we are interpreting a 'fact' or interpreting an interpretation. Aren't Facts 'canon' ? If so, then Truth & Joy are canonical, aren't they?

[davem]

Bethberry

Quote:'This seems to me to place aesthetics upon a far more important level than you would wish to acknowledge. It is, I would humbly suggest, a psychological reality of our species.'

Yes, I accept it is, but I think 'mystical experience' is more than a 'psychological reality' - which is all Aiwendil's worldview would allow it to be. I would have to conflate the two for them to fit into any 'common ground', so there would bve no point in distinguishing them, the terms would become interchangeable, & the 'dimension' I'm speaking of would cease to exist. In short, I simply don't believe that while my 'epiphany' (though strangely enough, at the time it felt perfectly 'normal') was 'psychological' in nature, it wasn't simply psychological in origin.

Fordim

Quote:'I fear davem, that for whatever reason, you seem unwilling or unable to move beyond this initial sense of wonder and engagemen't.

Why would I want to move beyond it? Tell me what I'll find if I leave it behind, & if you can convince me its 'better' I'll try & move 'forward'.

Quote:'This may very well be a better or more true response to the text.
But, well, being a 'clever' person I don't find it very productive.'

But what do you want to 'produce'? What are you looking to end up with? Is it something other than, or better than, 'wonder & engagement'?

Do you see ther Legendarium as having to be 'for' something, or like a puzzle to be solved, rather than as a thing to be experienced for itself, & perhaps to open us up to the possibility of wonder, enchantment, eucatastrophe?

[davem]

The Pullman interview was on Radio, so I can't give a refference - It was conducted by Germaine Greer, so maybe Pullman was intimidated! He has repeated the statement about wanting to write 'serious' novels in other places though - in an interview for another radio programme by Brian Sibley - 'Fired by the Ring'. He does seem to see fantasy as 'escapist', but not in the positive sense used by Tolkien. He seems to think of fantasy as running away from 'reality', or at least as at best a way to focus people back on the 'real' world.

Quote:'We can listen to statements of an author's intention but when all is said and done a book, like a child, must make sense and meaning without parental control. As, in fact, your gloss on Pullman reflects your feeling that he betrays fantasy. That is an interpretation, your interpretation, but it is not the only interpretation.'

This is the core of this thread, I think - has Pullman any intention in his writing - is he trying to 'teach' us anything? I think he would say he is, & I don't think he would have written what he has if he didn't feel that he had something to say that we needed to hear. The difference between him & Tolkien is simply that he is around to argue his case.

Quote: 'The Amber Spyglass ends with Lyra telling her daemon they must build "The Reublic of Heaven." This is not a denial of fantasy, but a suggestion that the responsibility for continuing the vision it offers us lies with us, a challenge to see this world newly under what we have learnt from faerie. Pullman's trilogy goes on as much as Tolkien's does.'

'The Republic of Heaven' is ultimately a meaningless concept. The whole work is about an attempt at liberation from the 'supernatural' dimension, about cutting us off from it, & from metaphysical 'fantasies', yet 'Heaven' is a metaphysical concept - how can one 'build' a metaphysical 'reality'? A 'Republic of Heaven' sounds clever, but means nothing. Pullman simply replaces God with humanity - & as Chesterton said - 'When people cease believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. Pullman's republic of Heaven is bound to descend into some form of fundamentalism, as everyone will be out to construct, to impose, their own concept of 'Heaven' - Paradise as a product of democracy - satisfying no-one, because designed by the whim of the electorate. How could it be anything else - there is no metaphysical dimension, no chance for 'Light' to break in, because the rules of Pullman's world demand that all new roads & secret gates are irretrievably shut, on pain of Death.

Quote: ' As for your statement of alleged cruelty thatf the lovers are separated, I think not. I would point to Eowyn's first love for Aragorn and Tolkien's recognition that not all first loves are like the mythic love of Aragorn and Arwen. In this "shipwreck of life"--to use Tolkien's phrase--there are many different kinds of love and not all need lead to domesticity and plighting of eternal troth. There is narrative wholeness and profound respect for the characters, for fantasy and for human existence. It is, for me, hopeful.

I think the point as far as Eowyn's love for Aragorn goes, is that, as Tolkien shows, it is not 'true' love - Eowyn loves 'a shadow & a thought'. Will & Lyra are suppposed to be the new Adam & Eve, symbolic as much as real, & Pullman even denies the possibility of their being together after death - eternal seperation of the lovers - except in the form of their physical atoms coming together after their bodies have broken down. What 'respect' does this show - for the characters themselves, or for love itself. The whole message, especially compared to Tolkien's story of Aragorn & Arwen, where even death itself is a price worth paying for love, is pathetic & nasty & incredibly cruel. How much hope (estel) is inspired by Pullman's ending - love is hopeless, & death ends it all. But how can there be any hope beyond the circles of the World in Pullman's vision? He has spent 1300 pages telling us that going beyond this world is dangerous, ultimately fatal, for all of us, even the universe itself, so, we must stay here till we die, & that's it - & if we read anything else into his story, hope that in some way Will & Lyra will find each other again someday, that's 'uncanonical'. And these are 'children's ' books - (which despite Pullman's claims after the event, they were written to be) - so what message is Pullman sending out. Actually, I'd say they are childish books - they revel in the childish notion that all authority is bad, & has to be gotten rid of, & that really children know best.

Quote: Writers are a bothersome lot oftentimes. Give them a genre or form and they will immediately begin to see ways to expand upon it, redefine it, to extend it, to reimagine it. That's what Tolkien did with the old northern narratives, to give them form and meaning for the Seventh Age. And that is what Pullman is doing. Faerie, the perilous realm, is endless. Some of us take strength from it, are invigorated by it, and, like Sam and Rosie, use that strength to rebuild this world. Others, like Frodo, find it leads elsewhere. No path is necessarily better or worse and no one path suffices for us all.

But some paths are better - the road to Heaven is better than the road to Hell - Pullman simply denies the metaphysical existence of either, in order to make it seem like niether road exists, & that whatever road we take will lead us to whatever place we want to be - we can build a Republic of Hell more easily (& we're more likely to, given our history & natural proclivities) than a Republic of Heaven. Of course, we all take different paths, but the question is where the paths lead, & they don't all automatically lead to the same place - much though Pullman might wish it.

Tolkien offers us destinations, & says that while we may follow different paths to get to them, there are choices to be made, because Heaven is in a specific place & Hell is too, & those places exist - we don't have to build them when we get there.

[HerenIstarion]

Well, well, well

I must confess I haven't read the story so heatedly debated. After reading the Touchstone article, I thought 14.95$ I intended for purchase of the trilogy from Amazon were saved from spending, but now, as I look at your bone - picking, I'm in two minds - should I read it and add some bones to the boiling soup here, or rather wait until you retell the whole plot of the story for me and save me money

But, to be serious, what I have read and heard up to now makes me feel that, if push comes to show, I'll be in league with davem here:

But some paths are better - the road to Heaven is better than the road to Hell - Pullman simply denies the metaphysical existence of either, in order to make it seem like niether road exists, & that whatever road we take will lead us to whatever place we want to be - we can build a Republic of Hell more easily (& we're more likely to, given our history & natural proclivities) than a Republic of Heaven. Of course, we all take different paths, but the question is where the paths lead, & they don't all automatically lead to the same place - much though Pullman might wish it.

Hits the ten mark in the T - embossed truth categories for yours truly

Can not be more prolix till the drift goes over to something I've actually read

So cheers until than

[davem]

H-I I wouldn't want to put you off reading HDM - its incredibly exciting & entertaining in parts - it only really starts to collapse with the third volume, but even that will sweep you along.

My problem is with the 'philosophy' that underlies it. Pullman is someone who has lived a nice, safe, middle class existence, & read a lot of 'clever' books, & so can play with ideas of 'good' & 'evil', as though they are intellectual toys. Tolkien, on the other hand, had seen true evil, knew true Good, & knew mankind for what we are, so he couldn't, honestly, play the game Pullman plays & reduce the human condition to a childish adventure story of 'youngsters' vs. Blake's 'Old Nobodaddy'.

Pullman does present some very complex, visionary ideas, from Milton & Blake especially, but he seems simply to have taken their philosophies at face value & 'dramatised' them without analysing the implications.

I know the ending of the story 'moves' many to tears, but I can't help feeling that too many who are moved in that way are moved for purely sentimental reasons, when the two young lovers are seperated forever - a kind of Romeo & Juliet ending - taken at face value. Problem is, Pullman's ending is much darker & more hopeless, & he offers only the meaningless platitude of creating a 'Republic of Heaven', which, as I said, means absolutely nothing if one thinks about it.

However, if you can leave on one side both the pretentiousness & the nihilism & just read it as a childrens adventure story, you may well be swept away by it. There are some very beautiful moments in it as well, I have to admit.

[davem]

Just a couple of responses from Philip Pullman in an interview with Brian Sibley in the BBC Radio 4 documentary 'Fired by the Ring':

Sibley asked Pullman whether fantasy stories are needed.

Pullman: We need all sorts of stories. I think we don't need that sort of story as much as we need realistic stories. My view of fantasy is that its inherantly a trivial form, a form of less importance than realism & speaking for myself if I could write interesting stories of everyday people I'd gladly do that. I can't do that & make it interesting, so I have to write fantasy.

(Sibley then asks about the idea that the stories of Middle Earth are set in a period of our own ancient history) .

Pullman: Yes, well if he said that its the purest bunkum. I will believe that if they find a fossil Hobbit. Its not the real world, but there are large numbers of fantasy fans who hold conventions & who know a great deal about the Saga of the doomsword or frithlefroth or whatever it is, but who don't know what day it is& haven't changed their t-shirt for a month & clearly they're getting something out of it. What they get out of that sort of genre & this sort of thing is a mystery to me because I don't get it.

I think that kind of sums up Pullman's whole attitude to Fantasy & the 'value' he feels it has. (Its not very complementary about fantasy fans, either!)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Not having read the novels currently being worked over. . uh, through. . .I don't have much to back this up other than the brief snippets davem gives above, but it would seem to me that this Pullman fellow is writing fantasy, and has had the wherewithal to realise that one of the best ways to sell his books is by generating a bit of controversy around them. If Madonna wrote a fantasy novel, you can bet she'd be saying pretty much the same sort of thing. . .

The question of money and marketability just pops something else into my head. Tolkien did very well (financially) from LotR, and somewhere in his Letters he says that in making the decision of whether to sell the rights of the book to a movie maker he would do so either for "art" -- if the script were good -- or "cash" if it were not.

Now, I do NOT want to kick of yet another round of the movie debate here -- so please nobody reply to that particular strand of my ramblings (ample room for that in the Movies forum). All I am working toward is the question of profitability and marketability for Tolkien.

It strikes me, that at least part of his 'intent' in writing a rip-roaringly good and entertaining book would be to make it have as wide an appeal as possible, that is, to find as large a potential market as possible. Without suggesting that Tolkien was in it "for the money" -- which is patently untrue (he was stunned by his financial successes) -- this has led me to wonder to what extent did questions of the marketplace influence the nature of his story? If he went "all out" with the religious views that underly the text, then it would have turned people off. By focusing so much more on the more ambiguous (I can practically hear Mark 12_30 and davem yelling "Universal") appeal of a "successful" eucatastrophe, was he not also writing a more appealling/saleable book? You know: happy ending -- unlike Pullman -- and not all "preachy" -- like Lewis?

[The Saucepan Man]

Just a few thoughts on Pullman's Trilogy. I read the books recently and thoroughly enjoyed them. Funnily enough, whatever Pullman may think of Tolkien's works (and regardless of his intentions), it seems to me that there are a lot of common themes. Friendship, loyalty and trust can be seen in Lyra's determination to rescue Roger, as well as in the relationships that she forms with many of the other characters. Her bond with Iorek Byrnison being one of the most poignant for me. Her relationship with Will also shows the value of trust and loyalty. Misuse of power, and its consequences and pitfalls, is also evident in the characters of Lord Asriel and Mrs Coulter (both of whom are given, and take, the opportunity of redeeming their past sins), and also Metatron and the agents of the Church. And there are for me environmental overtones in the concept of a series of parallel worlds which are at harmony with each other until humans start messing about with the bonds between them. Witness the effects on Lyra's world when Lord Asriel opens the gate into the world of Cittàgazze.

Of course there are a lot of differences too and you are right, davem, to point out the differing approaches to the spiritual side of things in the two trilogies. Child and Bêthberry have pointed out some favourable reactions amongst the Christian community, but I think that we neverthless have to acknowledge that, in Pullman's world, there is no Truth in the metaphysical sense. The Authority did not even create the Universe. He just made out that he did. Where I differ from you is in viewing his message as one which brings no joy or hope. The passage where the dead are released to become particles of Dust seems to me to be one of great joy. They are finding peace in becoming at one with the Universe. And it seems to me that this in itself provides a message of hope. The Dust is in effect a "living" entity and suffuses the entirety of the Universe and those who die become part of that. Indeed, if there is any representation of Truth in Pullman's works, it is in the Dust, which the agents of the "fake" Authority regard as evil. They are in some ways similar to Morgoth's forces, setting themselves against the Truth of the Dust and seeking to overturn the natural order of things.

Yes, there is no Heaven. But there is an Afterlife: a permament existence within the Universe within the matter which suffuses and succours it. Is that so different from the Men of Middle-earth passing beyond the Circles of the World and being at one with Eru? Yes, I suppose it is in the sense that the Dust remains a part, indeed an essential part, of the Universe. But, for me, it is no less a path which can inspire hope. The hope of being at one with the Universe (which was denied to those trapped in the awful dreary Land of the Dead).

As for the Republic of Heaven, this to me represents an opportunity to build "Heaven on Earth". In other words, for the denizens of each of the parallel worlds to live their lives for the good of the Universe on the basis of the qualities which we can admire in the protagonists, rather than being subjugated by the agents of a remote (and false) Authority. An ideal perhaps but, again it is, for me, a message of hope. In the same way, for example, that the Hobbits in LotR are able to develop throughout the story in such a way as to be capable of driving out Saruman's "Authority" from the Shire. The Shire, free from such influence, might be equated to the ideal of the Republic of Heaven.

I suppose it depends how you look at it, but I for one certainly don't see Pullman's novels as propagating a message of hopelessness and despair.

Incidentally, I would agree that Pullman overreached himself during the second book and certainly in the third one. For me, they are just not convincing enough. I do not find it believable that Lord Asriel was able to set up his fortress and rally the forces opposed to the Authority across an infinate number of parallel worlds within the timescale of the books. Nor do I find the depiction of an army made up of such forces and the final battle in which they become embroiled convincing. Perhaps Pullman set himself too difficult a task in trying credibly to portray such epic events. But, in any event, this is where Tolkien wins out for me and why, much as I enjoyed His Dark Materials, the trilogy comes nowhere close to LotR. Tolkien's world, although a fantasy world, is utterly believable. Pullman's worlds, for me, fall short on that count.

Finally, a brief response to the question raised by Fordim:

this has led me to wonder to what extent did questions of the marketplace influence the nature of his story?

I think that I touched on this in an earler post, but Tolkien clearly did have an eye to the "marketplace" when writing LotR, since it was written in response to calls from the public (and therefore his publishers) for a sequel to the Hobbit. Although it turned out to be much more than that, he was conscious of the "requirement" that it should appeal to those who had read and enjoyed the Hobbit. I get the feeling that, but for that, it might (like the Silmarillion) not have included Hobbits at all. And, from my perspective at least, it would have been the poorer for their absence.

In fact, thinking about it, but for the clamour for a sequel to the Hobbit, LotR would probably never have been written at all. And that would have been a great shame.

Oops! So much for "just a few thoughts".

[davem]

I suppose in a way both Tolkien & Pullman are writing about the end of 'magic', & having to build a world without it. But Tolkien views the loss with regret, & still hopes for its return, that it will break through sometime, somewhere. The 'Republic of Heaven' that the Hobbits build in the Shire is one built out of loss, & is an attempt to get back what they once had. Pullman' RoH is one that is built out of a hatred of the past & a sense of relief that its all been left behind.

At least the Hobbits, & the other races of ME are working to a 'template' - they have a real Heaven, which they are attempting to imitate - Truth exists in ME, & all the 'good' races are attempting to manifest that Truth. Their truths are reflections of, attempts to imitate, Truth. Their Republics of Heaven are reflections of, attempts to imitate, Heaven.

Pullman has destroyed 'Heaven' - & made us feel good about it being destroyed, by making it seem like the worst vision of Hell imaginable. I can't see that he leaves the reader, especially the child reader, with any real hope at all. A child swept away by the wonders of the early parts of the story, is, at the end, left bereft of them, having them replaced with the idea of a 'Republic of Heaven' - & if you can get any child to explain what that is, or any adult to define it without falling back onto platitudes about a place/time where everybody is just really, really *N*I*C*E* to each other, I'd love to hear it. What template do we use to build the RoH?

I think Pullman's attempt at fantasy fails not because he doesn't understand Tolkien's view of Fantasy, or enchantment or eucatastrophe, but because he see it as wrong, as immoral - he views it as the flight of the deserter, not the escape of the prisoner. Would 'fantasy' itself be allowed in Pullman's RoH? or would only 'serious' stories - about cars & guns & drugs be allowed? Pullman's idea of humanity 'overeaching itself' by 'crossing' into other worlds, & his presentation of that as being dangerous is a denial of the human imagination - are we worse for having crossed into Middle Earth? Is this world more endangered because of it? Pullman, I think, would say we are & it is - because we've run away from 'reality'.

As to Tolkien's 'comercialism', i don't see it - i think he wrote the only kind of story he could write - & even at the time it was published it was dismissed by the 'inteligensia' as simplistic, old fashioned & reactionary. Most of the critics said nobody would want to read it. If tolkien had been aiming at capturing what the Public was supposed to want, he wouldn't have written what he did. On the other hand, i think Pullman has gone for the cynical, athiestic, 'real-worlders' in an incredibly cynical way, & I'm struck by the number of (a certain 'educated' class of) people who are much happier seeing their children reading Pullman than Tolkien, or even Harry Potter.

I don't think anyone's surprised Pullman is such a success in these times, HDM is a novel for the Damien Hirst/Tracy Emin generation. The thing that gives me some sense of hope is that tolkien is still going strong, & is more popular than its ever been.