‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[HerenIstarion]

With great respect of much common sense and logic displayed in the process, I rather lean to define 'personal truth' of Lalwende's post as 'opinion'.

Remember the murderer and his 'personal truth' of some pages back. I am forced to bring him/her back again, even if it is foricble dragging in of 'real life' into 'bookish' discussion.

For if we stick to the 'personal truth', we loose the right of judgement of any action not by ourselves. If 'personal truth' is what matters, than Nazis (again, mentioned in the previous) were rigth in doing what they've done - their actions were in compliance with their own 'personal truths'. Sauron was right - his 'personal truth' required an order that he only could carry out. Saruman was right, etc, etc. and the whole plot of LoTR degrades down from "Holy War of Good against Evil' down to mere strive for survival, where strongest lives on, taking not fit to the wall. Or, how you judge which 'personal truth' is better? For you will judge it, no doubt about it. Everyone does it on daily basis - Mr. X is better than Mr Y, as the latter beats his wife. But why beating of one;s wife is bad, if 'personal truth' is what matters - surely, Mr Y's 'personal truth' allows for such a behavior?

When one compares something to another thing, he/she inevitably compares both to some standard of 'eternal good', something inherent, built-in. The one which complies more is therefore counted as 'better', any action can be measured against it, and come out more true, less true or as true as some other action.

So, my opinion is as good as yours, and yours as good as mine, if it is only an opinion. Say, I like blue, and you red. Both are equal. But if in pursuit of my warm feeling, I paint your house blue, is it right? My 'personal truth' allowed me to do it. Well, convention tells me that the house belonging to someone else is not mine to pain blue, but if I proclaim that my 'personal truth' does not recognize such a 'bourgeois' and 'Philistine' conventions, and if I insist on my right to paint it blue, I'll end up in jail.

And I would not be able to appeal to justice, for the whole concept of justice is lost if all we have is 'personal truth'. I'd be merely outnumbered by similar 'personal truths' which agreed upon convention that painting other people's houses blue is to be punished by jail sentence.

[Lalwendë]

This thread is sucking me into the quicksand like so many others have been drawn in before me ...

Yes, when I say 'truths' I am talking about our opinions and beliefs (whether religious, political, philosophical) which we bring to the text. I see I should be distinguishing between our moral 'truths' and our opinion 'truths'. Words again...

I still think that as humans we must be taught our way in the world. This does not mean that if someone goes against society that they can get away with any heinous crime just by claiming that 'they did not know any better'. We must put these things into context and while the person is appropriately punished if necessary, we must also ensure that they learn.

The difficult thing is that our morals and our opinions can be very indistinct at times, and getting back on topic and tying this in with Tolkien, I can see that he recognised this. The example I often draw upon is the character of Gollum - I could discuss him for a long time and still come to no conclusion about whether he was good or bad.

[davem]

It is hard to be sure of anything among so many marvels. The world is all grown strange. elf & Dwarf in company walk in our daily fields; & folk speak with the Lady of the Wood & yet live, & th esword comes back to war that was broken in the long ages ere the father's of our fathers rode into the Mark! How shall a man judge what to do in such times?'

'As he ever has judged.' said Aragorn. 'Good & ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among elves & Dwarves & another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'

'As much in the Golden Wood as in his own house'. As much in fiction as in 'real' life. Fiction doesn't have different rules, & 'personal truth' is not different in fiction. An immoral act is an immoral act, because our standards of judgement are (or should be) constant.

If I judge the events of 9/11, or the recent horrors in the school at Beslan, to be 'Wrong' & the terrorists who commited them judge them to be 'Right', is that really just down to the way I've been brought up? And is my judgement no more 'True' than Osama bin Laden's? Both equally valid? Yet if they aren't equally valid, then on what can I base my claim that my judgement is better, if not to some objective standard?

This kind of moral equivalence of all views is what produces the Saruman's - why shouldn't one see Sauron's point, surely he is doing what he believs is 'right'? In fact, maybe he is right - its all down to point of view after all, & if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'.

I can't understand this approach of judging fiction (the 'Golden Wood') differently from fact ('one's own house'). This approach - our morality is simply what we've been taught is simply another form of denying the artist has anything to teach us, & that all we find in a work of art is what we bring to it, everything is subjective. But that's the way the Ring corrupts, it convinces you that everything is relative, & your own 'good' is as valid as any other, because all there is is 'survival of the fittest' - ie of the 'fittest' 'good'. But that's where the 'wraithing process' begins, because if there's no objective standard by which to judge (''As heever has judged.') then where's the hope?

Tolkien is stating his position very clearly in this scene, & saying that it is based on an 'objective' standard, & if its 'objective' then (for Tolkien at least) it applies in every 'world'.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

The example I often draw upon is the character of Gollum - I could discuss him for a long time and still come to no conclusion about whether he was good or bad.

Its not a question for me of whether Gollum was 'good' or 'bad' he did some good things & some bad things - ie he made moral choices, & immoral choices at different times, & we can all distinguish which was which, because we judge him not by his moral code, or our own, but by an objective standard, as Aragorn points out.

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem, I think you are misunderstanding what Lalwendë and I are saying. Neither of us is saying that individuals view fiction and reality from two different moral perspectives. Of course, peoples’ morals remain the same whether they are reading a novel or the newspaper.

But Lalwendë's first post on this point (#470) was not discussing morality at all. Rather, it was simply pointing out that different individuals have different perspectives, beliefs and experiences and will therefore react differently to a text and take slightly different things from it. Surely there is nothing controversial in that. I think that the use of the word “individual truth” may have led to this confusion, but Lalwendë has made it clear that, by this, she indeed meant “individual opinion”.

So, to start talking about the road that Saruman went down on top of that seems slightly odd to me. But, since you and HerenIstarian have raised the issue of morality in the context of what she said …

First, I should reiterate that I believe that there is such a thing as a moral consensus (or standard, if you prefer), or at least a consensus on what comprise basic moral values. (There are, to my mind grey, areas, such as the question of capital punishment which I raised earlier on this thread, but lets stick with the basics.) Although I believe that these basic moral values do not necessarily require a metaphysical explanation, that matters not for the purposes of what I say below.

Now, there are undeniably people who will read a piece of fiction such as LotR from a moral standpoint which differs from the consensus (we discussed some of them earlier – the white supremacists). The point that I am trying to make is that, while their moral standpoint will be “right” to them as individuals, it will be “wrong” as far as the moral consensus is concerned. So, they will have to face the consequences (social, legal etc) if they seek to interact with others in society on the basis of their individual moral standpoint.

To use an extreme example, if someone was to read LotR and decide that it justified unprovoked attacks on Arabic people simply because the human allies of Sauron came from the east of Middle-earth, that would be unacceptable from the point of view of the moral consensus.

But, although we can seek to persuade, we cannot (unless we bring in the thought police) force those whose moral outlook differs from the “standard” to conform to it. Now, if Tolkien was, through LotR, seeking to persuade people towards the moral standard, all well and good. I salute him. But there will always be those (including amongst those who enjoy the book) who can, or will, not be persuaded.

[davem]

Ok, I accept that in making my points I have presented other's points in too extreme a way, but I'm not sure I can go along with all the distinctions you make. When Tolkien has Aragorn say:

'Good & ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among elves & Dwarves & another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'

He is surely stating that in his view morality is not subjective - he says a man must discern the diference between good & ill, rather than choose for himself. The implication is that the Good exists objectively, & is not something we must decide on for ourselves. This seems to imply that we don't have freedom to decide what is good, only to discern it & live up to it. So, while we may have 'different perspectives, beliefs and experiences ' we are not free to use them as an excuse to decide what constitutes the Good.

So how much weight should we give to our own beliefs? In Tolkien's view it seems that even our personal perspectives & beliefs can be 'wrong', out of synch with the Good, & if so they have to be changed. This was my point about, as far as possible, putting aside the baggage we bring with us & listening to what the artist is saying, in order to be able to discern the Truth which is 'out there'. In other words, we may have 'different perspectives, beliefs and experiences' but as Aragorn tells Eomer, that's no excuse for not acknowleging the 'facts' & doing the right thing.

So from Tolkien's perspective its not correct to say:

if someone was to read LotR and decide that it justified unprovoked attacks on Arabic people simply because the human allies of Sauron came from the east of Middle-earth, that would be unacceptable from the point of view of the moral consensus.

because it wouldn't simply be unacceptable from the point of view of the moral consensus, it would be wrong from the point of view of the Good, whatever the moral consensus happened to be, because the 'moral consensus' only has value to the extent to which it corresponds to the Good.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Fordim is playing cat and mouse now

meow

davem has already introduced into this discussion a moment from LotR that I think is useful in thinking through the issues currently at play. When Aragorn says to Éomer:

'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'

He does not just leave it there for Éomer to work through on his own; instead, Aragorn makes it quite clear that to “discern them” is, in this world, very easy:

Aragorn threw back his cloak. The elven-sheath glittered as he grasped it, and the bright blade of Andúril shone like a sudden flame and he swept it out. ‘Elendil!’ he cried. ‘I am Aragorn son of Arathorn, and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil’s son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!’

In this moment we and Éomer are not being presented with a moral quandary in which he or we must or can decide how to determine moral parameters (i.e. how to differentiate between right and wrong): what Éomer is to choose between, quite explicitly, is Aragorn or not-Aragorn: “Will you aid me or thwart me?”

In this way, the question of morality is, in the context of Middle-Earth, not really a question at all – or, rather, it is a question to which the reader can respond in one of two ways: do we go along with the author in his creation of a moral system in this subcreated world, or do we not go along with him. At risk of looking like an absolutist I genuinely believe that these are really the only two options. The choice that Aragorn presents to Éomer is a stark and obvious one: me or Sauron; right or wrong; good or evil. The story presents up with the same stark choice: accept M-E morality or don’t. In this case, I do not see much room for negotiation or give and take between text and reader.

At the same time, I am placed in a quandary insofar as I do not adhere to the moral vision of LotR – I am not, quite simply, a believer. I think the disturbing power that LotR has is that it makes me so want to be a believer by embodying the moral choice in the form of Aragorn. I want very badly to follow a man like him; were he to appear before me in reality I would follow him to the ends of the Earth – but he never will, so I am left in the primary world of greys and shadows, trying to make my way for myself. LotR simplifies morality in a way that’s nice to imagine, but that in no way reflects how things really are.

[davem]

Forced to be quicker than I'd like (waits for cheers & sighs of relief to die away.......)

Originally Posted by Fordim

I am left in the primary world of greys and shadows, trying to make my way for myself. LotR simplifies morality in a way that’s nice to imagine, but that in no way reflects how things really are.

But does it not indicate how things could be? Or at the very least how, deep down we wish they were & specifically how they ought to be? But where does this desire originate? Why do we feel that way when we read LotR, & encounter Aragorn? Does it come from our past experiences? Well, not in my case.

Some 'voice' is speaking to us, & telling us things we need to hear, telling us what's wrong with ourselves & our world, & giving us a glimpse of 'Arda Unmarred'.

And I don't think that voice is Tolkien's, I think he's just passing on the words.

[HerenIstarion]

Um, moral consensus... let us count - Sauron and his allies outnumbered people of the West at least ten to one. So, the moral consensus was against Aragorn & Co. and Gandalf must have been morally pervert...

But that is just a prank of mine. I understand your position SpM, when overheated on the issue I was correctly checked back by Aiwendil (the Cold Shower ) - up there, on page 11.

It seems to bounce back on Canonicity issue with regards to the quote provided by davem (I remember using it in similar situation back on page 6 or 7, i.e. - we are discussing in circles, it seems) - i.e. the author believed in the standard which was set, no deviations. Following Aiwendil the reader should believe the standard too only whilst suspending his disbelief - reading the book - as it is a given fact for ME only - the Good is one for everyone and everywhere. There is no given 'fact' of similar nature for our world (unless the circumstantial evidence of existence of such concepts as Good and Evil does not convince you). I wish we could extrapolate it outta da text, but, - this is 'real' world, where sheer number defines the truth. Can't beat them, but won't join them either.

But I have stumbled upon an idea here - the fancy is upon me that I finally know why LoTR is so popular. Of course, there is a spell, there is a plot, and there is a language, but the moral Fact is what draws many of us in - it is the world where Good is, where Truth is, and the task is only to discern them, not to find them in the first place, as is the case in ours. That is, for most of us. For, unfortunately or fortunately, I maintain that every man, in his heart of hearts, knows what is Good, with or without upbringing. We just have wagonload of good excuses not to see it. It does not help our yearning for standard Truth, though, so we find our solace in ME, where it is at the same time harder and yet easier to be a 'good guy'.

Opinions re: of course, we have different opinions - um, I reckon this thread would not reach its length without such a multitude of opinion

cheers

[HerenIstarion]

davem 103
The Saucepan Man 70
mark12_30 54
Bêthberry 48
Fordim Hedgethistle 43
Aiwendil 38
HerenIstarion 38
Child of the 7th Age 18
Mister Underhill 14
Lord of Angmar 11
bilbo_baggins 10
Lyta_Underhill 8
Maédhros 6
drigel 6
Novnarwen 6
Lalwendë 6
Findegil 4
doug*platypus 3
THE Ka 3
eLRic 3
Sharkû 2
Son of Númenor 2
The Squatter of Amon Rûdh 1
Estelyn Telcontar 1
piosenniel 1
Evisse the Blue 1
InklingElf 1
Snowdog 1
Imladris 1
Saraphim 1
symestreem 1
tar-ancalime 1

These are statistics

And here is the summation:

Originally Posted by Squatter

Perhaps what is required in the issue of 'canonicity' is the exercise of our own judgement and common sense. No quotation from Tolkien will ever supply that, and nor will our freedom of interpretation. Somewhere between the two is a medium in which both are important, which is pleasingly similar to the position of the text. It stands poised between the author and the reader, so clearly something is required from both in order for the circuit to be completed. I simply do not understand why one should have to be the master, as though one were to ask whether the ability to speak or the ability to understand were more important in conversation

Should we allow more changes in the statistics as given above (with regards to the titular 'Book or the Reader' issue?

[mark12_30]

Before the thread is closed and ensconced in Rath Dinen, I shall slip in (at least) one more post. Squatter and Mister Underhill have clarified a few things for me, and here be the results.

On the writer of the story:

Tolkien Letter 192
"The writer of the story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said). See Vol. I p. 65.

(The debate whether that particular 'Writer' is 'dead' is an entirely different one, but one can easily surmise Tolkien's position in said debate.)

I believe the first quote above sheds light on the following statements:

Tolkien Letter 92
What happens to the Ents I don’t yet know. It will probably work out very differently from this plan when it really gets written, as the thing seems to write itself once I get going, as if the truth comes out then, only imperfectly glimpsed in the preliminary sketch…

What is this truth that Tolkien is expecting? Is it simply the story line, or does it have other aspects?

Tolkien Letter 208
As for 'message': I have none really, if by that is meant the conscious purpose in writing The Lord Of The Rings, of preaching, or of delivering myself of a vision of truth specially revealed to me! I was primarily writing an exciting story in an atmosphere and background such as I find personally attractive. But in such a process inevitably one's own taste, ideas, and beliefs get taken up.

TO me, this letter smacks of excess modesty-- or perhaps it is better described as humility, intentionally stepping back and releasing control in order to allow for something else:

Tolkien Letter 89
…’eucatastrophe’: the sudden happy turn in a story which pierces you with a joy that brings tears (which I argued it is the hightest function of fairy-stories to produce.) And I was there let to the view that it produces its peculiar effect because it is a sudden glimpse of Truth*…

*(Tolkien’s capitalization, not mine.)

Tolkien describes this process as a triple interaction: the human writer writes the story; the reader reads the story, and perceives through the story a glimpse of the Truth (of which Truth Tolkien does not claim himself to be the author.) Therefore in this process there are three parties involved, not two.

He gives further clarification here in letter 328. The reader, the writer, and the source of illumination are related thus:

Tolkien Letter 328
You speak of ‘a sanity and sanctity’ in The L.R. ‘which is a power in itself’. I was deeply moved. Nothing of the kind has been said to me before. But by a strange chance, just as I was beginning this letter, I had one from a man, who classified himself as ‘an unbeliever, or at best a man of belatedly and dimly dawning religious feeling… but you, ‘ he said, ‘create a world in which some sort of faith seems to be everywhere without a visible source, like light from an invisible lamp.’ I can only answer: ‘Of his own sanity no man can securely judge. If sanctity inhabits his work or as a pervading light illumines it then it does not come from him but through him. And neither of you would perceive it in these terms unless it was with you also. Otherwise you would see and feel nothing, or (if some other spirit was present) you would be filled with contempt, nausea, hatred. “Leaves out of the elf-country, gah!” “Lembas—dust and ashes, we don’t eat that.”

Of course the L.R. does not belong to me. It has been brought forth and now must go its appointed way in the world, though naturally I take a deep interest in its fortunes, as a parent would of a child.

[Lalwendë]

This approach - our morality is simply what we've been taught is simply another form of denying the artist has anything to teach us, & that all we find in a work of art is what we bring to it, everything is subjective.

davem - I do not say that all we take from a text is that which we (consciously or not) seek to find within it:

When a person reads, for example, a political text, they are looking for a meaning, but those parts which resonate with their own experience are the parts which they will take most away from. And, a reader will also pick up on other parts of a text and assimilate this as a new aspect of their 'truth'.

This I view as part of the process of reading and engaging in culture in general. We view the text with our own, individual eyes and minds, and we recognise aspects which do resonate within our own experience. But we also learn new things, new 'truths'. I wouldn't try to deny this! But exactly what these truths are that we are learning from any one text, they could well be different from what the next person is picking up on.

I for one, should hate to think that there is a right and a wrong way to understand a text, as this would reduce the pleasure in reading and re-reading, throughout the many and various stages in my life; each time I go back to reading LOTR I have been through new experiences and the text resonates in many different ways each time. Perhaps I respond to my reading on a deep emotional level to some degree, but to do otherwise would seem clinical to me.

I have one example here of how my own 'truth' changed and how it affected my reading of LOTR. Before I suffered a massive accident I had always read Frodo's behaviour as being entirely attributable to the power of the ring and thought at no deeper level about this matter; now with my new experience, I can see Frodo's actions and reactions in the light of my own experience, and I see my suffering reflected in his. Others would not accept this at all, but this is not wrong of them.

And another thing. This is a good discussion, and I am learning a lot from it, but there are people who would think it was morally wrong to discuss the nature of morality at all.

[HerenIstarion]

Lalwendë, you are stuck now just like to us, your doom hence will be to come back to this thread and haunt it, forewer!

PS

mwa-ha-ha-ha!!!!!

PPS

We need some discussion of definitions again, I believe. Aiwendil, I haven't read the whole 9 pages of the link you provided me with yet (lack of time), but the 'meaning of meaning' discussion on the last page was enlightening, thank you

[Aiwendil]

HerenIstarion wrote:

We need some discussion of definitions again, I believe.

Ah! There's my signal (just as Tom Bombadil can be summoned by song, I will inevitably appear in the rare case that someone actually asks for a discussion of definitions).

I must say that I'm somewhat confused by the turn the thread has taken. One moment the discussion concerns "canonicity", the question of the author's importance, and the nature of imaginary worlds. Then suddenly I find myself reading a tirade against moral relativism and even a passing discussion of metaphysics.

I think that the biggest mistake that people tend to make in philosophical-type discussions is the transmutation of an argument on one level into an argument on another. You see this kind of thing all of the time in discussions of free-will, for example - someone will make a psychological or sociological argument as if it can prove a metaphysical point.

I think that something like that is happening here, or trying to happen. It's tempting to resort to real-world moral philosophy in arguing a point about a fictional world. But if you want to have a meaningful discussion regarding that fictional world, you have to suspend your moral disbelief, as it were, and accept that world's morality. I, for example, don't subscribe to the notion in real life that an objective moral code has its source in God. However, in a discussion of Tolkien's work I will unhesitatingly argue that Eru is the ultimate source of good.

So with respect to the validity of different interpretations of morality in Middle-earth, real moral philosphy ought to be completely superceded by Middle-earth's own moral philsophy. Of course it's still quite possible for there to be disagreements about what that moral philosophy is, exactly - but the presumption must always be that, to the extent to which there is a clear moral philosophy outlined in the texts, it must be taken as correct.

Davem is right - there is no question that in Tolkien's universe, morality is objective. But I don't see that anyone has argued otherwise.

I feel like I still haven't grasped how exactly the discussion made this, I would say, false turn. But we ought to be careful to have at least some idea what we are arguing about and then to rely on arguments that do in fact have point with respect the topic.

I understand even less how metaphysics comes into it.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Um, moral consensus... let us count - Sauron and his allies outnumbered people of the West at least ten to one. So, the moral consensus was against Aragorn & Co. and Gandalf must have been morally pervert...

Originally Posted by davem

He is surely stating that in his view morality is not subjective

I am most definately not saying that morality is subjective or that it is dependent upon weight of numbers (although there are those who would make such arguments). There are many examples, past and present, that convince me that this cannot be the case. Perhaps the word "consensus" is wrong, so let's go for "objective moral standards".

Originally Posted by davem

... the 'moral consensus' only has value to the extent to which it corresponds to the Good.

Again, a misunderstanding arising from my use of "consensus". My point is that "objective moral standards" do correspond to the concept of "good", whether you believe their source to be some higher Authority or you believe that they developed that way because what's "good" is good for the continuation of society and therefore the human race as a whole. In telling a tale of good and evil, Tolkien was reflecting these objective moral standards. I don't think we disagree on this, although we might disagree on the origins of morality.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

... the moral Fact is what draws many of us in - it is the world where Good is, where Truth is, and the task is only to discern them, not to find them in the first place, as is the case in ours. That is, for most of us. For, unfortunately or fortunately, I maintain that every man, in his heart of hearts, knows what is Good, with or without upbringing. We just have wagonload of good excuses not to see it.

Well, to an extent (and disregarding those bothersome capitals ), I agree with you. But I don't think it's that simple. As I have said, there are, in real life, massive grey areas on the borders of "morality". Whereas, its Boromirs and Gollum/Smeagols notwithstanding, LotR is essentially a very "black and white" tale. Subject to limited exceptions, it is easy to tell who is good and who is evil, and easy to see why they are so. It's not quite so easy in real life.

Is the terrorist who wins independence for his country and becomes a great statesman good or evil? There are, in our recent history, examples of such people who are hailed as great heroes. Were the sailors, adrift at sea in a lifeboat, who drew straws and murdered and ate their comrade so that not all of them would die, good or evil? Moral conundrums abound in real life, but are rare, it seems to me, in LotR. What does it, or any of Tolkien's other works, have to tell us in this regard?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I for one, should hate to think that there is a right and a wrong way to understand a text

Well, courtesy of those repugnant white supremacists, I have to acknowledge that there are "wrong" ways to read LotR. But I agree that there is no one "right" way. (I seem to recall having a conversation with Mister Underhill on this many pages ago ...).

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

we are discussing in circles, it seems

Undoubtedly, but not ever-decreasing ones, it would appear.

Edit after cross-posting with Aiwendil:

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I must say that I'm somewhat confused by the turn the thread has taken. One moment the discussion concerns "canonicity", the question of the author's importance, and the nature of imaginary worlds. Then suddenly I find myself reading a tirade against moral relativism and even a passing discussion of metaphysics.

As I understand it, this conversation arose around the proposition that Tolkien's works in general, and LotR in particular, reflect moral standards in our world and that we can learn from it in this regard. I don't necessarily disagree with that as a general proposition, although I see the sources of morality in Middle-earth and our world as different (as, like you, I accept that concepts of good and morality in Middle-earth derive from Eru).