‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Novnarwen]

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, star ships, 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.

Aha. Well, I do think, personally, that if you exclude (the) Tarzan and the Jedis, it doesn't make it necessarily canon/canonical/canon-friendly (Whatever term you choose to use..)

Anyway, why should we try to make people believe that Tolkien had a hand in it? What kind of goal is that? Tolkien is not here, so he cannot possibly have had a hand in it. Everyone knows he isn't alive today. So I don't honestly see a point in trying to pretend that he has had a hand in it, when he has certainly not.

As I said before, my previous post, I expressed some of the reasons why I don't believe in creating canon/canonical texts. (It looks kind of silly to quote your own posts (# 381), so I wont..) But I still stand by those reasons.

Anyway, as badly as my question about putting so much effort into making ones writing canonical was formulated, I must correct it: Why do you (Not all, but some) put so much effort into making your writings canonical?

I am changing this for one reason, and that is; I don't believe in making so called canonical texts, because I don't possess the spirit that Tolkien possessed. I'm happy when I write RPG posts that are based on Tolkien's works. I sit down, clear my head and I try to figure out what I'm going to write. Suddenly (often after sitting a long time staring into the air, that is) I figure it out. I plan it; what my character thinks, what my character is going to do, what feelings he/she is going to express towards the situation he/she is facing and so forth. I already know that I'm not Tolkien (Can you believe that? ), so I don't even bother to think about what Tolkien would write here. My posts are mine, but they are based on the world Tolkien gave to us, to me. I'm perfectly happy about doing this, so I do not see a reason to follow everything so slavishly. (Maybe I'm happy about this because I do it for the fun of it, and I don't care about those who are possibly reading it?) As long as I take responsibility for my posts, I don't see the point in why I should make them so that people could think that Tolkien have had a hand in it. I am, however, willing to edit my posts.

*

When reading HerenIstarion's little story, I think it reflects very well our differences, when we talk about whether this or that is in the spirit of Tolkien. We touch one aspect of his life, and are convinced that this is where his spirit came from. Then again, another may claim that another aspect is which drove him to write. We can argue and argue until we go insane, and never agree. But then again, I must ask, since I don't see it myself, why you () try to write in the spirit of Tolkien? Can't we just leave Tolkien's spirit alone? (I've also said something about this in my previous post, heh..)

I don't think we need one to tell us what is right and what is wrong when it comes to Tolkien's spirit and his perspective on things. I think we just have to be aware that we are fully responsible for the posts we make, and therefore since our RPGs (meaning among them, at this site,) are based on Tolkien's world and his works, we must follow the rules, which apply to the site. I cannot recall anything saying that we should write in the spirit of Tolkien. It should be consistent to his world, yes, but his spirit is not mentioned. If making canon/canonical/canon friendly texts (which I don't believe in the least is possible, bwahahah), of course Tolkien's spirit should be one of the writer's concerns. However, as previously stated in previous post, we can try to imitate, we can try to make a potions that will give us full insight about everything and we can even convince ourselves that we are making a canonical text, but none of us are truly following the spirit of Tolkien, because none of us have the answer, or rather; none of us can define what lays within the word spirit, and definitely not what lays within the spirit of Tolkien.

Nova

EDIT: Cross-posted with Bêthberry

[HerenIstarion]

Ahem...

I hope I won't summon the wrath of the Valar upon my head by reviving this, but upon rereading exerpts of this mightily long thread, I have found something which evaded my attention in the heat of the debate at the time of its posting:

post #309

Originally Posted by SpM

Oh, and yes, H-I, I believe that moral “truths” do “lie in numbers” in the sense that I believe that the basic framework of human morality is a consequence of the social evolution of man: the survival of the most socially effective morals.

I suppose I can relate it to the Canonicity issue - the statement imaybe right or wrong, but that may depend on redears interpretation? Not to stray off Tolkien either, let us consider Aragorn in the light of the statement above:

Aragorn:

'I am Aragorn son of Arathorn; and if by life or death I can save you, I will

This is the instant of the behavior least fitting for the social survival. If Aragorn dies, there is no talk about anything socially effective - his line will end with him, so the Rangers of the North will dwindle and perish. Is his behavior in this instant moral? It is. Socially effective? Well, one may argue that in this particular case, Frodo is the only hope, so the hope of survival for Aragorn and his socium lies in Frodo. (seems I'm talking to myself. Bad example, than)

Let us move on.
m-m-m... Legolas for one?... no... Gimli? neither... ah, I know, I know, that should be Faramir! Not that good upon second thought, it seems...

Well, I can't move on. All of the characters which with Tolkien act upon their moral, do so for their own good and the good of society

But, in this, it seems to me that ME is a bit of an ideal world.

In general, down here our road, self-sacrifice, which is usually considered as a moral act, is not socially effective. Reason: self-sacrifice is allegedly the feat the best [wo]men are capable of - the most brave, loving, wise etc. Logic: if the best act morally, they, eventually, die out. The rest is less good. So, the society which one is left with consists of worse members than original one. Logic: such a society is less, not more good than the original one. Question: where is social efficiency of moral?

Or, now we know where ancestor worship comes from

[davem]

H-I
A big question, which I will have to consider - though I suspect the reason you've brought it up here rather than start a new thread is that you refuse to let this one die! I know this is the Barrow Downs, but not everything is meant to live forever!

I begin to feel it necessary to take action re this thread!


'Ho! Tom bombadil, Tom Bombadillo!
By water.......

[mark12_30]

Careful, davem, you'll evaporate us all!!!!!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

A very interesting question with which to resurrect the thread, H-I – but one that may need a bit of tweaking.

The question as you phrase it would seem to be a bit of a big baggy monster about morality and society in the primary world: a worthy question, but not really in the spirit on the original thread. If I might be allowed to rephrase it, and then take a running start at an answer…

Going back to SaucepanMan’s point:

that moral “truths” do “lie in numbers”

I wonder how applicable this can be to whatever “truths” we discover in a text like LotR? That is, if a hundred people think that Aragorn’s statement that he will help the hobbits is the expression of selfless sacrifice (“I will give up my aspirations for the good of Middle-Earth”) and fifty think that it is enlightened self-interest (“I will help you because it is convenient since my own Road lies that way”) then is the first interpretation more right than the other? What if the ratio changes and there’s a thousand people who support one interpretation and ten who support another? A million against one?

Most of us, I am sure, would want to say that of course interpretation is not a matter of sheer numbers – this is not a democracy! But surely to goodness there is some truth in what SpM is saying when we look at it in terms of interpretation. I mean, there is no way to prove finally that the Ring is not an allegory for the Atomic Bomb, but few people hold to that interpretation any more because majority opinion has swung against it.

And to fully return to the topic of this thread: if there is a democratic aspect to this, does the author get just one vote or more? To adopt (rather inappropriately, I admit) a different metaphor, if the readers and the writer are shareholders in the meaning of a text, does the author have a controlling share or is he just one more shareholder among many?

[davem]

This is the central argument - can we divorce Tolkien's intent from the way we read his work - or perhaps we should start with 'Did he have any intent?' The Foreword to the second edition is self contradictory in a way - he claims there is no allegory, & the reader is free to apply the story in any way they please, then he immediately refutes what was probably the most obvious 'application' for readers at that time, that to WW2, by showing that anyone who did apply it in that way would be completely ignorant.

This seems to be drawing together a number of current threads - 'Reality', The Nazi's, Partners & The Soddit, etc. To what extent are we free to interpret & apply, if the author has refused to do that himself, & has given us express permission to do so - we may interpret & apply as we wish if the author will not do that for us. Yet we mustn't contradict explicit statements of the author -

'Marriage, save for rare ill chances or strange fates, was the natural course of life for all the Eldar', Marriage is chiefly of the body, for it is achieved by bodily union, [i]& its first operation is the begetting of the bodies of children...And the union of bodies in marriage is unique, & no other union resembles it' & 'Seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust amongst them'. (Laws & Customs Among the Eldar)

This clearly states that sex outside marriage, 'lustful' relationships, sexual relationships for any purpose other than a loving union which is intended to produce offspring, is not consistent with 'Canon', so pornographic fanfic, whether 'slash' or not, is not acceptable - less for 'moral' reasons, as because it goes expressly against Tolkien's statements on the nature of the elves - it would be as 'wrong' (ie incorrect) as 6 foot hobbits, or non imortal elves, or lazy dwarves with a fear of being underground.

So, to Aragorn; I think we have to dismiss the 'enlightened self interest' explanation for his actions, in that that goes totally against his character, as shown in numerous other examples where he goes out of his way to help others & often lays his life on the line for them when he doesn't have to. We aren't free to interpret this incident at Bree in a way that is in contradiction to his other actions later in the story. Aragorn is a particular type of person, & he behaves in a particular way.

So, for a story or interpretation to be in line with canon, it must not contradict either clear statements of the author about his world or its inhabitants, or interpret certain actions of a character in a way that isn't consistent with what we know of them. Frodo, for example, is clearly & obviously celebate - & not for reasons of 'Victorian morality' - celebacy is part of his nature, a manifestation of his spiritual nature & one of the reasons for his isolation at the end of the story - so a Frodo/Sam slash fanfic is simply incorrect, because he wouldn't respond in a sexual way to anyone, male or female - he is on a different path.

In short, whatever place 'democracy' may have in interpretations of Tolkien's writings, it cannot go against the given 'laws' of the world he created.

[HerenIstarion]

I knew two ants to come out first would be winding davem and hedged fordim...

Well, the real start of the morality issue was when we talked about Truth/truth back on page 7 and 8 of current thread.

The argument presented by SpM was that every [wo]man may have his personal moral and personal truth, which was responded by yours truly with a question should a murderer still be accused on moral grounds if the murder s/he committed have been approved of by his/her personal 'truth' and moral code. The morality in numbers issue came as the answer to that.

Back to matters at hand:

Authorship/Readership and shareholding - an analogy, a bit one-sided, but still valid, may be applied to LoTR and my statement on page 6 [without God there is no understanding of LoTR – i.e. suppose someone read only LoTR and haven’t heard of Eru]. Let me explain myself:

There may be two assumptions about moral, or Moral Law:

1. Moral Law as directly implemented by Eru
2. Moral Law as the product of social evolution.

In case one, there can be no place for calculation/weighting - if action A, than consequence B, which is good for society, therefore A is morally good. Case 2 allows such calculations. In LoTR, calculations are somehow out of place - characters merely act because 'thus shall I sleep better', (I have had my example, btw, I wanted to see your reaction first - I've quoted Theoden here, whose decision to take part in the war is mostly socially inefficient - he probably risks the very existence of the whole of the society he's in charge of).

That in the end morally good actions bring about good of society, is expression of Tolkien's sense of justice, or so it seems

Or, back to shareholders analogy – if the Moral Law is a company created by Eru, than He has the casting vote of what is moral and what is not, no democracy. If, on the other hand, Moral Law is the product of social development, than my previous post shows that the actions evaluated as most moral are least socially efficient. But moral democracy is dangerous – yes, question of ‘why should I do this’ can be answered with ‘because this is good for society’, but following question of ‘why should I prefer good of society over my personal good’ can not be answered by means of moral democracy. The logical chain may be than extended to state that any moral is good in itself – brings us to ‘bag-end’ (i.e. cul-de-sac) – murderer may be in his/her right, as his actions were in accordance with his/her personal moral.

If the option two – moral democracy - be right, than Aragorn, Theoden etc act senseless in the book, and Jackson’s Aragorn is more true than one of the book – his choice is determined by ‘democracy’ – he’s nagged by Arwen, Elrond brings him his sword, he’s constantly pushed on by ‘public opinion’, ‘moral of numbers’. If not that stimuli, he may have even fallen for Eowyn, one can’t help wondering. Jackson’s Theoden is even better expression of democracy moral – ‘Where have been Gondor when Rohan needed help’, instead of book’s ‘we will fulfill our oath of allegeance, whatever befell us’

But why opinion of two should be preferred over opinion of one? Can someone convince me that taller people are better than shorter ones, or vice versa?

Back to Canonicity: My intended answer was posted for me by davem already :

So, for a story or interpretation to be in line with canon, it must not contradict either clear statements of the author about his world or its inhabitants, or interpret certain actions of a character in a way that isn't consistent with what we know of them

End of democracy, long live the King (m-m, constitutional monarchy?)