‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Fordim Hedgethistle · 01-23-2008, 09:36 AM

2 & 1/2 years since this darkened my inbox. Just felt it might be time to give it a bump:

Seems to me there's three questions:

1) What did Tolkien intend: what was it that he wanted to do with this book when he started it and as he wrote it?

2) What did Tolkien come to think it was about: what were his views of LotR in the months, years and decades after it was published? He added to it substantially in interesting ways (clarifying and explaining it in letters, completing and fleshing out the moral framework provided by the extensive backstory in the Sil)

3) What does the book mean: what do we as readers take from it?

And most importantly, how are these three things directly related to one another? Does number three owe anything to number one? Does number two in any way effect number one?

Let's perhaps begin with a nasty example; Gollum's little tumble into the Crack of Doom

1) the INTENT: to end the story in some way that made sense and was satisfying. Having Frodo or anyone else toss in the Ring would not be believable given the amount of time spent talking about how no-one could destroy it or give it away; having it not go in the fire would have been terrible, cause, well, Sauron would have won!

2) For Tolkien this moment came to be ABOUT the moral demonstration of Eru's (Providence's?) guiding hand over events. We don't actually see Eru 'taking charge' of the novel at this point, we only find that out by reading Tolkien's Letters and the Sil.

3) For me it MEANS a lot of things: that Gollum is in a way some kind of hero; that free will in Middle-earth does exist in a Boethian sort of way; that the design of Middle-earth history is essentially Providential in a Catholic manner; and that Frodo is being rewarded and saved by that Providential power.

To my mind, my number three owes nothing to number two, and is the dynamic result of my own readerly response to number one.

So there we are. Shall we begin this again, or leave it to moulder forever in the archives? Either is acceptable to me.

01-23-2008, 09:36 AM	#17
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,844	2 & 1/2 years since this darkened my inbox. Just felt it might be time to give it a bump: Seems to me there's three questions: 1) What did Tolkien intend: what was it that he wanted to do with this book when he started it and as he wrote it? 2) What did Tolkien come to think it was about: what were his views of LotR in the months, years and decades after it was published? He added to it substantially in interesting ways (clarifying and explaining it in letters, completing and fleshing out the moral framework provided by the extensive backstory in the Sil) 3) What does the book mean: what do we as readers take from it? And most importantly, how are these three things directly related to one another? Does number three owe anything to number one? Does number two in any way effect number one? Let's perhaps begin with a nasty example; Gollum's little tumble into the Crack of Doom 1) the INTENT: to end the story in some way that made sense and was satisfying. Having Frodo or anyone else toss in the Ring would not be believable given the amount of time spent talking about how no-one could destroy it or give it away; having it not go in the fire would have been terrible, cause, well, Sauron would have won! 2) For Tolkien this moment came to be ABOUT the moral demonstration of Eru's (Providence's?) guiding hand over events. We don't actually see Eru 'taking charge' of the novel at this point, we only find that out by reading Tolkien's Letters and the Sil. 3) For me it MEANS a lot of things: that Gollum is in a way some kind of hero; that free will in Middle-earth does exist in a Boethian sort of way; that the design of Middle-earth history is essentially Providential in a Catholic manner; and that Frodo is being rewarded and saved by that Providential power. To my mind, my number three owes nothing to number two, and is the dynamic result of my own readerly response to number one. So there we are. Shall we begin this again, or leave it to moulder forever in the archives? Either is acceptable to me. __________________ Scribbling scrabbling.