‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Aiwendil]

Well, my computer just ate the post I had spent long minutes crafting, just as I was about to hit "submit reply". So, as it's getting late now, I'll reconstruct only a few brief replies to some of Davem's points.

Davem wrote:

But then why would you not accept it outside Middle earth? What I mean is, why would you consider it invalid in the context of this world?

I hold certain opinions about the world, because having weighed the evidence I think that those opinions are the most rationally justified. If Tolkien were to present me with a convincing argument, I would alter my views accordingly. But the mere fact that he held certain opinions does not mean that I should hold the same.

Is it that while 'in' Middle earth you 'force' yourself to think in a way that is naturally alien to you, or that is in conflict with the way you normally see things?

This exaggerates the matter. It is no more difficult to "suspend moral disbelief" than it is to suspend literal disbelief. I don't have to pause before I read Tolkien and say to myself, "Okay, now in this world Elves and dragons are real". And my view of things is not really so radically different from Tolkien's. It's not as though in real life I would consider someone like Saruman good and someone like Aragorn evil.

Tolkien's position is that that approach is invalid

I don't think that Tolkien thought that all readers must agree exactly with his moral code, or else their reading is "invalid". If he did in fact believe this, then I disagree with him.

I think if we are to engage with an artist [...]

This makes me think that perhaps we're just going in circles around the impasse I identified a short while back. I don't know exactly what it might mean "to engage with an artist" but I have the feeling that it isn't what I intend to do when I read a piece of literature.

Now, I say that not as a Christian, because I don't think its necessary to be a Christian to orientate oneself into Middle earth. I don't think the moral value system is specifically Christian

Maybe it's not specifically Christian, but it is fundamentally and undeniably theistic. And I am not a theist. To a very large extent, my disagreement with Tolkien does come down to a matter of religion.

By the way, H-I, I almost missed it when you said:

but the 'meaning of meaning' discussion on the last page was enlightening, thank you

I'm shocked and delighted that you actually sat through a page or so of that debate! The metaphysics of meaning is probably my favorite subject in philosophy - in fact it may be my favorite subject of all. I hesitate to get into it on this thread for that very reason - and because I think that in the end it doesn't have much to do with canonicity.