‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child

And Tolkien made it quite clear in his letters that this world was somewhat open-ended, since he had wanted to "leave scope for other minds and hands", inviting gifted creators to come in "wielding paint and music and drama."

This brings up the question of how narrowly or broadly Tolkien himself would have defined 'canonicity' - if he was happy (unlike Christopher) for people to expand on his creation, as long, presumably, as they stayed within the spirit of the work. Presumably he didn't think of Middle earth as his sole 'property', & was in a sense giving it to the world - as he said to Milton Waldman, he wanted to dedicate it to England.

If this is the case, then it could be argued that any fanfic which was true to the spirit of the work could be considered 'canonical' as writers would be simply expanding Tolkien's world, with his permission.

Of course, Tolkien, as Shippey among others has shown, was attempting to recreate an already existing mythology, & attempting to explain, for instance, why in Norse myth & Saxon legend there are references to Light Elves, Dark Elves, Elves of the Gloaming, Sea Elves, Wood Elves, etc. So Tolkien, in part , is not 'freely' inventing his stories, he is attempting to account for references in the old sources. So we could say that the Legendarium is an exercise in applied philology, an attempt to reconstruct a lost mythology, as much as an attempt to tell an entertaining story.

[Novnarwen]

From davem's post

If this is the case, then it could be argued that any fanfic which was true to the spirit of the work could be considered 'canonical' as writers would be simply expanding Tolkien's world, with his permission.

I was going to agree with you, and others, who say that fanfics and RPGs etc can be 'canonical'. But now, suddenly, I have changed my mind. When we write our fanfics or our RPG stories it can never be canon or 'canonical' for many reasons. (Only my opinion, of course..)

Saying that Tolkien is letting us into his world and that he is open for writers to expand his works doesn't make our new stories within Middle-earth canon or 'canonical'. They are simply stories which are based on the world Tolkien gave to us through his books. They are stories, which take place and evolve in Middle-earth, they are stories that may resemble Tolkien’s style of writing and they may even be stories that are similar in spirit. However, as I still don't get how we are to judge what is in the spirit of Tolkien or not, I will say that this too is 'evidence' that nothing we write can be canon or 'canonical'. With good conscious, I just cannot do it.. (I might change my mind, but someone needs to convince me.) I mean, we may try to decide what we think is the spirit of Tolkien by our own experiences, opinions and etc., but who's correct and who's not? Naturally, we will see Tolkien differently, as to how we approach him as a person and how we approach his works. To me, it seems impossible to actually claim that "Hello you, but THIS is not in the spirit of Tolkien, duh!" and "Hello, that's what I call the spirit of Tolkien. Your fanfic is therefore 'canonical!'"

From Saucepan Man's Post

by the same token, I would say that there is no reason why a Tolkien fanfic should not include aspects of human nature that Tolkien does not specifically address in his works, provided that they are dealt with in the spirit of Tolkien’s writing.

I agree with everything you say, I think.. A Fanfic or RPG, I think, could include some aspects of human nature that Tolkien perhaps 'forgot' to tell us about. I assume that Tolkien was inspired from his own experiences in life when writing, and different aspects of human nature is not something Tolkien wasn't aware of. I'm not saying, by this, that I believe it is in the spirit (whatever that 'spirit' is) of Tolkien to create homosexual characters, simply because I don't know what the spirit of Tolkien is/was. This is only my point of view, though. Mind you, however, I don't see what wrong it could do..

You see, every time someone writes an RPG post or a Fanfic, we do not write it under John Ronald Reul Tolkien. Next to our posts, our writings, it says for example: "Novnarwen's post." (Okay, it doesn't actually say that by ones post, I just realised, but it says your name... Anyway, it's meant to be "Novnarwen's post... ") As long as it is under our names, it is our posts, our writings and of course our responsibility. We claim that this is our writing, and we say for instance at the RPG discussion threads:" My post is up!" Okay, it's your post.. It is your writing, it is [in] your spirit, why else would you say that it is your post? If it were in the spirit of Tolkien (I don't know how we can say which spirit is Tolkien’s though.. ) it wouldn't have been your post. What I am trying to point out is that we can imitate Tolkien, claim that "This is in the spirit of Tolkien, believe me", but how do we know? No one other than Tolkien can write in his spirit, because no one else is Tolkien! And if no one can write in his spirit, is anything we write then canon or 'canonical'?

Since I've already explained that I do not think other writings and other writers than Tolkien and his writing can be canon or 'canonical', I don't see the reason not to create the characters you like, (as long as it is within the Forum's guidelines,) because it will never be canon or 'canonical' anyway. It is simply your writing, and you have based it on Tolkien's world. Since you are a part of a Tolkien community, which states that there are Tolkien RPGs here, you have already acknowledged that you give full credit to Tolkien for creating Middle-earth. Other than that the credit goes to you..

Anyway, now as that has been said, (If you haven't fallen off your chair already because of my ignorance or whatever, you will certainly now..) I am wondering about something..

Why are we putting so much effort into worrying about whether our writings are 'canonical' or not? I know it’s easy for me to say, who is just overly convinced that no one can possibly write a Tolkien fanfic or an RPG and make it canon or 'canonical', but what about you? I mean, as long as we respect the characters Tolkein indeed gave life, such as Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin (in fact every character he mentioned by name, which would take ages and ages to put on paper.), and don't put Meduseld on fire and make Theóden die of poisonous smoke and such, there is nothing 'wrong' we can do. I mean, have we really claimed from the start that we are making canon or that we are writing in the spirit of Tolkien?

Okay, I'm wrapping this up since it's only ramblings now.
Cheers,
Nova

[The Saucepan Man]

When we write our fanfics or our RPG stories it can never be canon or 'canonical' for many reasons.

I agree. The problem with describing fanfics and RPGs as "canon" is that, as I understand it, this word generally refers to the body of an author's work which has been published (ie is accessible to all who wish to read it). Fanfics and RPGs fail on both counts because they have not been written by the author and because they are not generally available. So, if you were to turn round and tell me that Legolas owned a hare (to use a random example ) because you read it in a fanfic, I would be fully justified in disregarding your information completely. It is simply not canon, and that is that.

Having said that, I do agree to some extent with whoever (Aiwendil?) said that a fanfic can be "canon-ish" in the sense that it adheres to the "spirit of Tolkien". But you have amply illustrated the problem with this concept, Novnarwen. Who is to say what is in the spirit of Tolkien and what is not? There are obvious areas where we can agree, but there will also be many areas where we will not.

Which takes me back to my (hackneyed) mantra concerning the freedom of the reader. If I read a piece of fanfic, like it and see it as being within the spirit of Tolkien (and provided that it does not conflict with anything Tolkien wrote), I can choose to believe that in my Middle-earth, the events described in it did happen. But for another person who reads the same fanfic, such events may well be events that they cannot accept as having occurred in their Middle-earth because they do not accord with their conception of Tolkien's vision.

Of course, I agree with Child that there are some things that we would all agree do not, and could never be, within the spirit of Tolkien's Middle-earth writings. But she and I clearly differ when it comes to fifteen foot high rabbits and homosexuality (although I would hasten to add that there are in fact no fifteen foot rodents (whether owned by Legolas or not) in my Middle-earth).

So, to a greater or lesser degree, we will all have different conceptions of Middle-earth. Which means that, when we come together to discuss Tolkien's works, the only things that we can all agree on are those facts which are expressly stated in the text. And even then there is room for interpretation, which brings us back to ...

*Saucepan is overcome with deja vu and falls to the floor noisily in a heap of pots and pans*

I'll give up before I start repeating myself any further ...

Why are we putting so much effort into worrying about whether our writings are 'canonical' or not?

Because ... er ... um ... anyone?

[Aiwendil]

Novnarwen wrote:

I was going to agree with you, and others, who say that fanfics and RPGs etc can be 'canonical'. But now, suddenly, I have changed my mind. When we write our fanfics or our RPG stories it can never be canon or 'canonical' for many reasons.

I have to say, again, that I don't think that this question is as meaningful as it sounds. It seems to me that the disagreement here is not about what Tolkien's texts are, or what fan fiction is, or anything like that - it's simply about what we want to use the term "canonical" to signify. "Canonical" is just a word, just a term. I would say that the conventional usage of the word is more in line with the restricted meaning "Tolkien's texts". But one ought to be able to alter one's definitions and use "canonical" to mean "not contradicting Tolkien's texts" without this necessitating any other changes in one's view.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Who is to say what is in the spirit of Tolkien and what is not? There are obvious areas where we can agree, but there will also be many areas where we will not.

You're right - and this doesn't just apply to the more abstract aspects of Tolkien's work, either. It's often very difficult to say whether a specific, concrete fact in a piece of fan fiction violates another specific, concrete fact from Tolkien's work. I still say there are three fundamental categories: strict canon (Tolkien), possible canon (some fan fiction), and non-canon (other fan fiction). But there are shades of grey in between them, particularly in between the latter two.

[InklingElf]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Who is to say what is in the spirit of Tolkien and what is not? There are obvious areas where we can agree, but there will also be many areas where we will not.

Duly noted.

Don't kill me for this but... because I am a simpleton I think you guys are stressing over this matter too much.While I cannot be more profound and deep in my response the explications that have circulated through this thread I'll get whatever it is out-of-my-system-right-away:

ca•non•i•cal \ke-"na-ni-kel\ adj 1 : of, relating to, or forming a canon 2 : conforming to a general rule or acceptable procedure : orthodox 3 : of or relating to a clergyman who is a canon — ca•non•i•cal•ly \-k(e-)le\ adv
(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

To conform or not to conform? But:

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

"Canonical" is just a word, just a term. I would say that the conventional usage of the word is more in line with the restricted meaning "Tolkien's texts". But one ought to be able to alter one's definitions and use "canonical" to mean "not contradicting Tolkien's texts" without this necessitating any other changes in one's view.

So whatever we are conforming into is not always explicity justified correct? Hence, we are to "alter one's definitions". And that is the acceptable procedure?

...I know I know I'm shooting in the dark -- but the canonicity in this case applies solely to the reader at hand.

That's another thing to observe about the discussion taking place as well.Thank you for bearing this incoherant post.

[mark12_30]

Why are we putting so much effort into worrying about whether our writings are 'canonical' or not?

Because, except for some present, there is a vague, general understanding that when you say you are writing something canonical (I heartily prefer the term "canon-friendly", myself) that you have loosely translated the longer phrase, "No jedis, starships, Tarzan or Kings Kong; I'm gonna try my best to make it really blend in. Maybe you'll even wonder if the Professor had a hand in it." And most folk have a vague understanding that that's what you kinda sorta mean, and those who are interested in reading 'Something That Might Remind The Reader Of Tolkien' will decide whether or not to check your stuff out.

Then in the review column, the reader can say "Yeah, it's not bad, in some ways it's pretty close, but well-- this thing about Legolas and the fifteen foot rabbit..."

[HerenIstarion]

Why are we putting so much effort into worrying about whether our writings are 'canonical' or not?

I think I know the answer to that question:

Because you (and you, yes, you too!) all are in league plotting my ruin. For surely I'll be fired if I spend an instant more of my office time reading this unending thread, instead of actually doing some work I'm paid for!

As a bonus, be enlightened by the following:

Three blind men were shown into a stall were elephant (oliophaunt?) was kept. None of them has seen one before, so they were asked to touch it and then give their opinion about such a wondrous animal. But as they approached it from different sides, so the body parts they felt were different. So one said: 'elephant is like to a rope' (as he touched the tail), ‘nay’, said another, 'it is like a tree-trunk' (leg was the part of his choice), 'what are you two talking about?', came in the third, 'it's like a snake!' (for it was proboscis in his hand). So they quarreled, and could not agree upon which was right

Now, I hold they all were right

But, free-reader people, do not rejoice, for I’m not joining your ranks

Though I hold that all three blind men were right, I hold such a belief with a proviso there were no one with clear sight to tell them about elephant.

Tolkien is such a sighted one.

cheers