‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

Should we judge the truth of the maxim of 'murder (not mere killing, or accident, but deliberate murder) is bad' on the ground that murderer him/herself, perhaps, has different code of conduct which carries along his/her personal truth of "murder is good"?

In many cases (although not all), I do not doubt that the murderer is acting in accordance with his or her personal values. Happily such individuals are in the minority since murder (as a general proposition) is regarded by the overwhelming majority of people as detrimental to society and therefore "wrong". Equally happily, I find myself in the majority on that one.

However, there are cases where deliberate murder is regarded as “good” by society itself. State-sanctioned murder, in the form of capital punishment, is regarded by many as morally acceptable. I cannot accept it as such. Different values. Different truths.

Now I can't help feeling that was a bit unfair, though

I wouldn’t regard it as such, given that Aiwendil and I are perfectly capable of speaking up for ourselves. I hope that I have made my position clear. If not, then I doubt that there’s much more I can say on this question of truth and belief.

Would not it be equally unfair of them to tell us that we were afraid to admit the harsh 'reality' of Godless world and were trying to find sort of a blindfold in religion to sooth our fear?

I would be more likely to point to the problems caused throughout history when one set of people claims a monopoly on the truth and asserts that there is something wrong with those who will not or cannot see it in the same way.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Greetings all. It’s been a while since I posted to the thread, but I have been watching the debate unfold with great interest. The discussion of Truth/truths is fascinating and I think central to what Tolkien was working through in his subcreation. To belabour a point I first may a while ago on this thread, I think that it is entirely appropriate to see the confrontation between the Nazgûl and the Fellowship as a confrontation between those who wish to defend the right of the Free Peoples to maintain their own sense of truth(s) against the false imposition of a totalitarian Truth by the forces of Mordor.

If that paragraph makes it look as though I am equating capital-T Truth with the project of Sauron – well, yes, I am. But please bear with me davem, Mark 12_30, Lyta, Child and H-I as I am not calling you Nazgûl (although I bet you’d all look totally cool in black)

Sauron’s project, as far as I can figure it, is to force a situation upon the world in which his own personal vision of truth (through his ego I/Eye) becomes the vision of Truth. And that’s some really dangerous territory that I think this thread is beginning to slip into. In this ‘enchanting’ or ‘joyous’ or ‘through a glass darkly’ kind of truth-apprehension that we are celebrating here (and that many of us find in Tolkien’s works) there is a real danger that we will mistake a mirror for a window, and project onto others our own personal views.

In this intuitive moment of apprehension of Truth, there are two possibilities of what’s happening. First, we are engaging with Truth (whatever that might be) but we will only ever be able to do so from our own limited and individual perspective. So while we may ‘see’ Truth we can only ever bring it into our own lives – yoke it to the horizons of our own historical experience – as an individually-understood version or truth of that Truth. The other, rather more simple and disturbing possibility that we’ve explored, is that there is no Truth, and all we see is ourselves, and we then pretend that truth of our own making is the Truth (and this is the Sauron approach).

I believe that most of us here are proceeding in the first mode – that is, we gain some apprehension of Truth through and in the very act of imaginatively engaging with Middle-Earth (which is itself the record of Tolkien’s imaginative engagement with Truth), but where we need to be very careful is in saying that “we’ve glimpse the Truth” and either leaving it there or, worse, begin to work out what that Truth might be for other people. To do this is to slip back into a more Sauron-like mode, as we take our own limited and individual perspective and try to extrapolate from that to what other people might think of it.

As I said in my last post (way back in box 201), I believe that there is a way past or through these individual experiences of truth – and I believe that Tolkien, in the Fellowship, gives us a nice model of that. Actually, where I think we see a way past the fragmentary nature of the endless plurality of truths (or, the endless plurality of individual perspectives on Truth that we experience in our historical time as our own truths) is in chapters like “The Council of Elrond” where reasoned dialogue and stories, conversation, equality of relationships, debate and argument are used to navigate and negotiate through the complicated nature of the history that they are confronting, without ever really pretending to understand the nature of that history. The task of the Council, remember, is not to decide What Does The Ring Mean? But What Must We Do With The Ring?

It’s this process of debate, confrontation, negotiation, conversation that allows us to integrate our own truths (as perspectives onto Truth) into and with one another. The goal, then, is not to achieve Truth-as-Object (to look through some window and ‘just know’ that we are beholding Truth) but to find a way in which we can proceed in our explorations in a truth-full manner. And again, Tolkien has anticipated us: the point of the Quest is not, as Auden pointed out, to achieve the Precious Object but to destroy it. The whole purpose of the Fellowship is to rid the world of the dangerous and totalitarian idea of a single overbearing Truth with which to unite and bind all ‘lesser’ truths (“One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them / One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them”).

There is a unity of Truth, but it is not the unity that comes from singularity (“we all see the same Truth, even though we have different perspectives or versions of that Truth”); instead it is the kind of unity that we find in the Council of Elrond or amongst the Fellowship (“we are on the same journey with different paths, we have the same purpose but different ends”). Capital-T Truth cannot exist as a stationary object in the historical time of human experience, it can only be captured in and through the process of truth-full speaking that we enact as we engage with each others in reasoned and equal dialogue about our own truths (be those truths self-constructed or individual versions of the Truth).

[mark12_30]

(although I bet you’d all look totally cool in black)

Thank you.

However...

Sauron’s project, as far as I can figure it, is to force a situation upon the world in which his own personal vision of truth (through his ego I/Eye) becomes the vision of Truth.

(a) Is it really that simple? Domination, subjugation and lust for power have nothing to do with it?

(b) If it is that simple, does that preclude Eru from having "his own personal vision of truth" or (alternately) does it preclude Eru's "own personal vision of truth" from being True?

and

(c) At what point have I (or davem, Lyta, Child and H-I ) stated that you must see the Truth as we see it? If the Truth is as large as I have proposed (and I have proposed that it is, indeed, infinite, since it "contains" an infinite God -- horrible choice of words, but to continue) then no human mind can possibly claim to have it all. At best, each of us gathers what glimpses we can. ("Five nearsighted hobbits approach an oliphaunt...")

I also stated that in my opinion those who claim to "have" or to have "mastered" the Truth haven't been pursuing it long enough to realize how big it is. So how do you extrapolate from that that I aim to impose my view-- Sauron-like, "own personal vision of truth (through his ego)?"

BTW, "beyond cloud nine " sounds like quite a nice place to be.

[davem]

Ok, not wanting to be misunderstood, & I was maybe writing too quickly. When I said

'I can't help feeling that you are running scared of a belief - that if you were to accept that 'Truth' is 'real' then you would have to put down your Tolkien, pick up a Bible & head off to Church.'

What I meant was, it seems to me that you feel that if you acknowledged the existence of some ultimate Truth, you feel you would have to do something - as though the very existence of Truth, would require some response, some action. The way you both seem to fight against it makes it seem that way.

As I stated in my last post, I'm not using the term Truth in the sense of a set of moral tenets, a clearly set out Dogma which you have to sign up to. I suggested the use of Tao, following Lewis' use in his book, or 'Joy', following Tolkien in the fairy Stories essay. And I'm happy to use 'Joy' (capitalised again - sorry!) if others prefer it, as long as it is understood to be an absolute - as in the Book of Job, 38,7 :'When the morning stars sang together, & all the sons of God shouted for Joy'.

I'm not talking about a moral philosophy that you have to go along with, so there will never be a situation where everyone is required to believe the same things, & see the world in the same way. Indeed, the experience of absolute 'Joy', or Truth is beyond words - eucatastrophe, like enchantment cannot be explained - only explained away, & whatever lies beyond Eucatastrophe, the full experience of what we glimpse in that moment is even farther out of reach for the rational mind. In the Cloud of Unknowing the author writes that 'God' cannot be known by the intellect, & as far as I'm concerned you can substitute 'Joy' for God in the sense in which I'm using the term.

We can say, reducing all the references, & theories, about Tolkien's motivations, all the stuff about moral regeneration, all of it, to a simple statement of what he wanted to do in his work. He wanted to bring as much Joy to as many of us as possible. He had a particular view of the way to bring that about - in literature & in life, but it was all a means to an end. What he really felt was that there was a lack of 'Joy' in the world, that the world had become dirty & shabby & miserable & sick, & needed healing. So he wrote stories to bring us Joy - to give us access, through enchantment, to something that would make us Joyous, make the world we live in more magical, by showing us a world where magic & Joy &, yes, Truth, could be seen.

So when we leave Middle Earth we feel a lack - why? Because Tolkien has opened up a space in us, waiting for something to fill it, & we go looking for it, 'round the corner', where there may wait ' new road or a secret gate'. And we're looking for Joy, because we've glimpsed it, & feel, hope, it might just be out there, somewhere. We become seekers, questers. So, on one level, the Ring is all the 'dirtiness, shabbyness, misery & sickness' of the world & in ourselves, & if we can get rid of it - however hard the struggle is - we will be able to take the Ship into the West, to Avalon, where in Tennyson's words:

Where falls not hail, or rain, or any snow,//
Nor ever wind blows loudly; but it lies//
Deep-meadow'd, happy, fair with orchard lawns//
And bowery hollows crown'd with summer sea.

And before the materialists take up their big guns, that Joy can be found here, in this world, because its a way of seeing & experiencing the world around us, as well as what may happen after - if anything does. Its the 'harmonic' thing again - this world, enchantment, eucatastrophe & Joy, they're all the same, & they're all here, now, if we can change our way of looking. The Tao Te Ching says 'without leaving his own room a man may know the whole world'. If we can have a glimpse of Joy while we're still in this world, if even materialists can glimpse it , then its here, & its our fault we don't see it, live it, all the time.

What Tolkien is saying is that Joy is true - its the Truth, because its more true than anything else.

I don't know if this is enough, & whether there will still be demands for Joy to be reduced to a set of facts & figures which we can all debate. Joy is canonical, if we can say anything is, & any interpretation of Tolkien's works, any fanfic, must capture that - or at least the hope of it, if it is to be acceptable. So, any interpretation of Tolkien's work that doesn't produce that feeling of Joy, is WRONG. Because, under all the sadness & suffering & loss in his work, there is Joy, the striving for it & the sense of overwhelming grief when it seems beyond reach. All the struggles of all the characters in the book are struggles to find Joy, & all our struggles in this world are the same.

And why struggle on like that for something so seemingly 'ephemeral' & abstract as 'Joy'? Because its not either ephemeral or abstract - its 'True'. Its the one True thing, all the other stuff that isn't Joy is transitory, & its in the way & we have to get over it, or around it, one way or another, to get to what's True.

So, no-one need feel they're missing anything if they don't understand or agree with Tolkien's 'Truth'. Its not some big secret that you have to study years to get at, or read all his books & all the books about him. If you read just LotR & The Hobbit & enjoy them, you've understood it.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

davem wrote:

So, any interpretation of Tolkien's work that doesn't produce that feeling of Joy, is WRONG. Because, under all the sadness & suffering & loss in his work, there is Joy, the striving for it & the sense of overwhelming grief when it seems beyond reach. All the struggles of all the characters in the book are struggles to find Joy, & all our struggles in this world are the same.

What kind of an interpretative regime are we establishing with this? It seems to be utterly and inescapably subjective ("Hmmm, does this 'feel' like it's joyful? OK good, it does, therefore it's right!") -- which renders such subjectivity as the arbiter for other people's truth. What's more, it seems to me at least that this way lies, unavoidably, some kind of priestly-class of reader who is more 'able' or 'attuned' to this intuitive moment of 'Joy' -- and therefore more in touch with the 'rightness' or 'Truth' or whatever occasioned by the text.

[Bêthberry]

Playing catch-up here! I would like to look back to Child's post # 268 and davem's post # 271. I think that ultimately my comments will point back to the idea Fordim has just made about the value and worth of discussion (which I think harkens back to my idea of 'interpretive community').

Child I thank you for the eloquence with which you have pointed out that there are many ways to seek this light. I would, however, like to comment on this well-taken point you made:

Yes, you are right. Something may be gained from a discussion of views like Greer and the neo-Nazis. (Poor Germain Greer! I've never liked her, but it seems cruel to put her in the same boat as those other folk.)

Yet, I am likely to learn considerably more by reading someone like Flieger or Shippey, whose perception and views on Middle-earth are far more acute.

I have no doubt that you (and I) will gain more from reading someone like Flieger or Shippey than reading the neo-Nazis. Who is to say, though, whether our experiece is greater or lesser than that of others. I can think of many readers, some beginning readers, some not so beginning, whose understanding of story and narrative might well be expanded greatly by considering how both Wagner and Tolkien were or can be appropriated by the neo-Nazis. For them, the enlightenment could well be far greater than that which you and I experience. For this reason, that there are many different kinds of reading experiences and many different ways to examine a subject, I hesitate to say that my experience reading Flieger is more successful or valuable than someone else's experience addressing the white supremacists. This, I think, relates to Sauce's point about the value of individual reading experiences.


davem,

When we read his reasons & his explanations for what he wrote, we are as likely to respond by thinking 'Of course! that explains what I felt!' as we are to respond 'Why, that's not it at all! I never felt that!' I would say that the former response is more common.

Even granted that this is so (which I do no think has been proven here), does that negate the experience of those who say "that's not it!" ? At most it proves that the position is uncommon or unusual, but it does not make it wrong. Many ideas in human history began with one or two voices having different experience and wanting to make that experience known and understood. The next step is, as Fordim suggests, to talk, to engage in a comparative process of understanding.

The Legendarium was Tolkien's manifesto, & it means what he intended it to mean, & while we may take from it what we will, or reject it all entirely, we can't claim it means nothing at all, & was not intended to do what the writer has stated clearly it was meant to do. I just can't see how anyone can seperate the story from its meaning, or claim it means whatever they choose it to mean. Tolkien is the only one who can claim the Humpty Dumpty role here -'when I use a word it means precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less'

I find it strange that there is this tendency to equate the position of multiple interpretations with a Humpty Dumpty role or total chaos. The reader is in fact under the same kind of injunction which Tolkien made of the writer in "On Fairy Stories", that his understanding must be consistent. It must be consistent with the reader's own experience (and where this can be shown to be inconsistent, new understanding arises) and it must be consistent with the text. In Tolkien's case, that text is, as I said before, implicit rather than explict. As Child astutely observed, Tolkien was not Lewis. It seems to me, davem, that you draw conclusions from the text and then want to say this is explicit. This is, I humbly suggest, a "misreading" of the text based upon your insistence that there must be an authorising intention found in the text. Your argument, to me, does not recognise the indeterminant nature of much of Tolkien's narrative. You pull the strands together to create an overarching metatheory of meaning, but Tolkien's stories hold that only in potential and in part. He gave us the glass darkly. He didn't want it any other way. So, you see, my position does not in fact ignore what the writer meant.

EDIT: Perhaps another point is that we react to the way you phrase your points, davem. Look at this sentence:

So when we leave Middle Earth we feel a lack

That "we" certainly sounds all-encompassing and authoritative, but I am going to ask you to reconsider it. I don't think I have this experience you claim for all of us. What I feel when I finish reading Tolkien is little different than feelings of departures from other extremely well imagined worlds of fiction. It is narrative cessation--a post-reading desire comedown--not a sense that this world somehow fails. While you might well think that you are not enforcing your "Truth" on us, your style does not seem to suggest there are other possibilities out there.

And now I leave, taking my prism with me outside and dangling it in the sunshine, to watch the play of lights that dances around it.

[Lyta_Underhill]

SpM's post 273:

But no one will have precisely the same set of values. They will differ (often slightly, sometimes considerably) from person to person. And that’s why I have difficulty in accepting that there is a single, capitalised “Truth”.

Perhaps the capitalization could refer to the magnitude, rather than the universality of said truth. A Truth in one person’s life may be a truth (lowercase) or even a perceived falsehood in another’s.

By definition, Middle-earth is a fictional world, and therefore false, whereas we are confronted every day (often in unpleasant ways) with the reality of our own world.

Perhaps this is where the materialists and the spiritualists (to borrow and misuse a label) differ. Middle Earth is a created reality, a second reality or sub-creation. It is not materially existent in this world; however, the very fact that it is read by more than one person makes it a shared psychological or mental reality. A spiritually centered person will give more weight to what is in the mind and/or “soul” than one who needs a material proof to accept the “reality” of an idea. I do not mean to denigrate the materialist for needing such proof, nor should a spiritually centered person be belittled for accepting something for which there is no objective or material proof; but it seems that this very need redefines what the materialist thinks of as true and what he perceives as false, when compared to a spiritual person’s viewpoint. It appears, to me, to be a discontinuity in commonality of definition of “true” and “false.”

My own view is that everything is true, and many mischaracterize this viewpoint as being necessarily naïve or blind in its acceptance of absolutely everything. I do not, however, give everything equal weight or value when applied to my chosen worldview and goals, and I often reject that which I perceive to be wrong or evil according to my own set of tests, which probably hold a lot in common with others’ tests of same. It is my opinion that, to relegate an idea to the level of False (capital) is to fail to completely consider it from all angles, just as such is so for True (capital). This does not negate the logical true/false values, as those are defined based on the “initial conditions” of an experiment, and a definite material end point which can either meet a criterion or fail to meet it according to the test applied. (I thought I’d add that bit before Aiwendil jumps all over me for sounding like a constructivist again…I’m pretty convinced I am not, but I think I often sound like one. Perhaps it is my sloppy expression of concepts that I am always refining without fully forming to begin with…sorry if I sound flaky, but it is my nature!)

My concern, though, is that if we say that there is a “Truth” in Tolkien’s works and that if you cannot see it then you are not reading it correctly or you are not ready for the “Truth”, then we will engender just such a worry in people.

That is what I was addressing with my notes on applicability to a particular reader. If a great “Truth” has no place in that person’s life, then it ceases to be something that he or she must see, now or eventually. But often, such truths become applicable, and a reader sees things that were hidden before. This does not make the first reading naïve or the reader dense. The meaning, or truth, simply does not apply at the time of reading. No matter how much another person tries to hammer at someone to find a particular “message” in a piece of literature, art, or martial art, it will not become suddenly clear or applicable until that person needs it and recognizes the need for it.

(It may be different for martial arts, as the teachings that they involve have a very specific purpose. Literature, to me, is a very different kettle of fish.)

I don’t really see a difference in the basic aims of martial arts and literature from the “art” standpoint—simply a different medium of expression, and certainly the test of good vs. evil must be VERY well defined against strict tests if one is to practice martial philosophy in the real (material) world, because there is a great responsibility to be borne if one is to wield the power of life and death, even in one’s own defense or in the defense of another who is in need. I can’t say that the specifics are very similar, but, in that both disciplines are “arts,” both strive to a perfect state of expression.

I think I shall stop here, as there is much left to do in the material world, but I am thoroughly enjoying this thread!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Child of the 7th Age]

To belabour a point I first may a while ago on this thread, I think that it is entirely appropriate to see the confrontation between the Nazgûl and the Fellowship as a confrontation between those who wish to defend the right of the Free Peoples to maintain their own sense of truth(s) against the false imposition of a totalitarian Truth by the forces of Mordor.

If that paragraph makes it look as though I am equating capital-T Truth with the project of Sauron – well, yes, I am. But please bear with me davem, Mark 12_30, Lyta, Child and H-I as I am not calling you Nazgûl (although I bet you’d all look totally cool in black)

Fordim --

Ahem! That's the second time, you've hinted at a certain kinship I may have with the Nazgûl. As I read your posts, I feel a strong compulsion to go down to the Shire and dig up an RPG where I can fly around and instill terror in folk's heart!

I am, however, puzzled why I ended up with the MIB. Not that I can't appreciate a dark hooded cloak as well as the next fellow. I can't speak for anyone else lumped together in that group, but I thought I had clarified my position in my last two posts.

As far as "Truth" goes (with a capital 'T'), I have strong feelings that flow naturally out of my own personal experiences as well as my background as an historian. My preference is that we completely discard the term "Truth" in these discussions because I think it leads to a dead-end. I do not personally doubt that there is a core of Truth at the center of existence. But my own view would be similar to that expressed in Helen's last post. That Truth so transcends our personal experience that, whatever we may feel we think or know, can only be a partial and flawed approximation of what actually exists. We see through a glass darkly, and it would be presumptious of me to judge anyone or ask them to conform to my own opinions.

As I said before, if I want to talk about how I personally perceive that which transcends the corporeal or visible world, I would far rather employ the symbol and image that Tolkien used in his own writings -- that of Light. Light is both a reality and a perception. Unlike "Truth", there is no suggestion of a single, unvarying standard. By its very nature, light changes and shifts. There is an interplay of brightness and shadow. To me that is a closer approximation of how we individually perceive what lies beyond, and it is a response closer to Tolkien's own, at least what he has delineated for us in LotR. I am not comfortable with a monolithic "Truth" by which we judge everyone and everything a lá Sauron

In all his writings, Tolkien stresses the flawed nature of Man: the fact that the best we can hope for at this point in time is a "long defeat", with only an occasional, temporary victory. Even with his strong Catholic beliefs, I have little doubt that JRRT would say that it is simply impossible for Man, as flawed as he is, to see or understand the Truth in all its complexity. Whatever we see is a tiny piece of the whole and, since we are all looking from varying perspectives and backgrounds, it is no wonder that we all sense and describe something different.

Like Saucepan Man, I sometimes shudder at what humanity has managed to do historically all in the name of Truth: group after group coming forward and claiming to hold the ultimate solution and imposing that on others: religious, political, racial, you name it.... I think Tolkien was equally suspicious of any kind of moral, spiritual, or political coercion. The Shire, perhaps his ideal statement of community, is a laissez-faire enterprise where the mayor's most onerous duty is presiding at banquets. His Hobbit heroes, especially Bilbo and Frodo, are delightful non-conformists who would hardly fit into a regimented state. His good Kings of Gondor and Rohan did little more than act as military leaders and moral examples. Tolkien once described himself as an anarchist, albeit not the kind with a bomb. He would have objected to our faceless government bureaucracies as being another manifestation of the spirit of Sauroman, determined to bludgeon us into obedience and conformity.

Fordim - I do agree that at the heart of Sauron's evil lay his desire to compel others to accept his own personal view of things. Subjegation and domination, the extinction of the individual personality, were simply a way to implement that "Truth". Even his lust for Power presumed that there was an end goal or product that must be achieved at any cost.

Tolkien, the devout Catholic who personally paid homage to Truth, was also the great champion of diversity and the freedom of the individual to act with as few constraints as possible. Middle-earth is filled with a diversity of peoples, all with different ideas and cultures, and the author takes delight in each. There is no one universal pattern that his characters must emulate to achieve goodness. Each one in the Fellowship has a different path to follow. It is only Sauron and his ilk who insisst on an unwavering "Truth" (with a big T), a final solution that everyone is expected to bow down in front of. Sauron's insistence on "Truth" is not only an affront to all the free peoples of Middle-earth, but more critically an affront to Illuvatar who remains the final and only guardian of Truth, the only one who truly understands all the strains of the Music.

What Tolkien seems to be hinting at is that we should all be wary of anyone who proposes to understand Truth, especially all the Sarumans who are floating around in our modern world and who want to force their own Truths down our throats, since true knowledge of the Music can lie only with Eru. Gandalf alludes to a similar thing when he explains how the Ring would corrupt his own good intentions. In a desire to serve Truth, he would put his own perceptions ahead of others and even of Illuvatar's own plan, and that would lead to disaster.

So, let's be careful. "Truth" can be a dangerous, dangerous thing, a fact that JRRT recognized, since it can easily be turned into an instrument for coercion and the substitution of our own will for that of God's. In the end, we are flawed creatures who can understand only a few fleeting notes of the Music of creation.

[mark12_30]

I am more and more puzzled by the aversion to the word "truth". In his essay "On Faery Stories" Tolkien is not the least bit shy about using this word, any more than we should be shy about using the word "joy" (as davem has recommended.) Refer to the epilog of "On Faery Stories."

Or refer to Mythopoeia , the Word In Question is also used.

It has already been quoted in Letters.

C7A states:

So, let's be careful. "Truth" can be a dangerous, dangerous thing, a fact that JRRT recognized, since it can easily be turned into an instrument for coercion and the substitution of our own will for that of God's.

Then it's not Truth anymore, it's domination and subjugation. Substitution of our own will for God's is hardly what I'd call "Truth".

It seems to me that lack of humility and gentleness is a far, far greater danger than the use of the word "Truth"; let's not toss out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

In the end, we are flawed creatures who can understand only a few fleeting notes of the Music of creation.

But that doesn't mean we should call it dissonance, does it? It is what it is: music-- even if we only hear a tiny peice of it. Calling it dissonance or noise or auditory stimulation makes us no wiser than calling it music.

[drigel]

Canon is nessesary only for interesting discusssions taking place on this site, or the New Silm project

[Aiwendil]

Apologies in advance for what is bound to be a long post, considering the amount of discussion that has gone on since my last one.

Davem wrote:

I didn't intend to suggest that. I would ask what their standard is, by which they measure such things - isn't it from some innate sense of right & wrong, of false & 'True'? They hold to some 'ideal' of how things should be, & compare things as they are to that 'ideal'.

As I said before, I don't think that this is the best place to launch into a discussion of moral philosophy. If we are simply talking about distinguishing false propositions from true ones - well, we have all manner of techniques for doing this - logic, mathematics, science, analytic philosophy, etc. Yes, I understand that this is not what you mean. But I am not just being deliberately obtuse. I hold that if "false" and "true" are meaningful, then these are the things one must engage in order to learn which propositions are true and which are false. But I don't think that this is the place to discuss the foundations of epistemology either.

I don't think it is possible to define 'Truth' precisely, because we haven't reached the that 'state'.

and later

I still feel that you & Aiwendil are wanting 'Truth' reduced to a set of 'facts' which you can analyse & 'see through', rather than accepting that is the 'source' of 'facts' as well as everything else.

I'm sorry; while I understand that you think that "Truth" can be a meaningful term and yet one that cannot be defined, I simply don't accept that. I don't know how to have a rational argument with someone who uses a term that (they claim) is by its very nature impossible to define. So unless there is something more that you can say about "Truth", the debate simply must stop there.

And here we come perilously close to entering into yet another big discussion for which this thread is not the place - philosophy of meaning. If anyone is actually interested in my views on that subject, and is feeling particularly adventurous, you may want to check out this monstrosity of a thread at The Tolkien Forum. It began innocently enough as a discussion of absolute vs. relative morals, but around page 4 it becomes a rather intense debate between me and someone else. Anyway, I provide the link because I don't want to simply ignore the whole matter of the philosophy of meaning that arises in relation to the term "Truth", but neither do I want to take up pages talking about it.

I don't think I am. For the enchantment to work, the secondary world must be self contained, if it is not to come across as allegory & the spell fail to be cast effectively. Only in that 'enchanted' state can we fully experience eucatastrophe, when as Helen says, our guard is down.

Forgive me; I'm merely trying to narrow in on exactly what your answer to the following question is: was the primary motivation behind Tolkien's work the communication of "Truth" to his readers?

That is a yes or no question. It sounds to me like your answer is "yes". Am I wrong?

I provided some evidence in the opposite direction earlier:

Tolkien's opinion seems likely to have changed - we have statements in the Letters to the effect that he never expected any of his Silmarillion-related work to be enjoyed by anyone but himself (and Lewis); we also have his statement that the mythology grew out of his desire to provide a historical context for the languages he was inventing. And we have his agreement with Lewis that there was not enough fiction of the sort they liked to read, hence they would have to write it.

and

I believe it's in "On Faery Stories" that Tolkien discusses the phrase "the green sun". At first glance, this appears to be nonsensical. But no, Tolkien says; the phrase is a perfectly good one - so long as its user provides a thoroughly consistent context within which the phrase is to be believed. In other words, it's not strictly the realism of a work of fiction that matters; it's the believability; the internal consistency.

If your answer is indeed "yes" as I suppose, how do you account for these things?

So as far as Tolkien is concerned: I won't rule out his opinion just because he happens to be dead, because thats undemocratic. He may not be right, but he has a right not to be ignored, & the same goes for Rob Gilson & GB Smith. Universal Sufferage, guys!

Well, I'll accept a rational argument from anyone, living or dead. But I won't just concede the point to a dead person any more than I will to a living one.

Lyta Underhill wrote:

Every time I return to it, I see beauties and truths reflected through his words, and I know there are more to be seen if I look properly. Some others on this thread have expressed the desire NOT to know everything, so I think they know what I am trying, stumblingly so, to get across in my ramblings.

I agree with you with regard to beauty. That is, each time I re-read LotR or "The Silmarillion" or The Hobbit I discover ways in which it is aesthetically pleasing that I had failed to notice before. But I don't think I agree about the truths; or perhaps I just misunderstand you. It's not that I think there are "Truths" in Davem's sense in LotR which I am for whatever reason not interested in; I think that there are no "Truths" of that sort - moreover, I think that "Truths" of that sort do not exist.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

To follow your argument to its extreme, we could not appreciate Tolkien’s works unless we recognised Eru as our own God and accepted the creation story as laid out in the Silmarillion as fact. At the very least, we would (as Child points out) have to subscribe to Tolkien’s own religious beliefs in order to enjoy his stories. Yet, there are very few who read and enjoy his works (even among Christians) who subscribe to his particular set of beliefs.

This is a very good point. I repeat an earlier, unanswered query to Davem (and to anyone that shares his opinion): if the fundamental reason that a reader likes Tolkien is that the reader, consciously or not, recognizes the "Truth" of Tolkien's work, how is that the same reader can also like other authors with quite different views? If I like Tolkien because I subconsciously recognize the glimpse of Truth that he gives me, why are my other favorite authors Asimov, Clarke, and Adams?

HerenIstarion wrote:

And though Aiwendil admitted being an atheist, but that does not lead to that he fears to believe if argued into it by means of reason

Well, I don't think I actually used the word "atheist" - only because that can imply an equally unreasoned "certainty" that there is no god. As you suggest, I will certainly believe something to be likely if presented with a convincing rational argument to that effect.

Fordim Hedgethistle wrote:

The discussion of Truth/truths is fascinating and I think central to what Tolkien was working through in his subcreation. To belabour a point I first may a while ago on this thread, I think that it is entirely appropriate to see the confrontation between the Nazgûl and the Fellowship as a confrontation between those who wish to defend the right of the Free Peoples to maintain their own sense of truth(s) against the false imposition of a totalitarian Truth by the forces of Mordor.

I'm afraid I must disagree. Within Arda, there is very clearly a single truth about God, for example. Sauron isn't bad because he wished to impose his own beliefs on everyone; he's bad because the things he claimed were wrong (though I think what makes him really evil is that the things he did were wrong). It's not that Melkorism ought not to be forced on those that don't want it. It's that Melkorism is simply false.

Of course, all of that is intra-Legendarium.

Davem wrote:

I'm not talking about a moral philosophy that you have to go along with, so there will never be a situation where everyone is required to believe the same things, & see the world in the same way.

Then what are you talking about? I don't mean to be rude. I just mean that in my usage, "truth", "Tao", and "joy" are three very different terms with very different meanings. If I understand "joy" as it is in my usage, then when you say:

We can say, reducing all the references, & theories, about Tolkien's motivations, all the stuff about moral regeneration, all of it, to a simple statement of what he wanted to do in his work. He wanted to bring as much Joy to as many of us as possible.

I agree. But when I say "joy" I just mean pleasure, enjoyment. Clearly you mean something more. And I fear that either you must spell out precisely what this "more" is or we are at an impasse.

I don't know if this is enough, & whether there will still be demands for Joy to be reduced to a set of facts & figures which we can all debate.

Well . . . as you can see . . .

I'm sorry (I honestly am, because I enjoy this debate and don't want it to end), but no number of synonyms or analogies is going to suffice. I should point out that I understand that you think it means something more than just "the set of true propositions about the world"; I think I even understand how you think it means more. I just don't agree that it can mean more.

Bethberry wrote:

I find it strange that there is this tendency to equate the position of multiple interpretations with a Humpty Dumpty role or total chaos. The reader is in fact under the same kind of injunction which Tolkien made of the writer in "On Fairy Stories", that his understanding must be consistent. It must be consistent with the reader's own experience (and where this can be shown to be inconsistent, new understanding arises) and it must be consistent with the text. In Tolkien's case, that text is, as I said before, implicit rather than explict. As Child astutely observed, Tolkien was not Lewis.

Yes! This is something like what I was trying to say quite a while ago with my talk about what a "reasonable person" would mean, but Bethberry puts it in much better words.

I don't think I have this experience you claim for all of us. What I feel when I finish reading Tolkien is little different than feelings of departures from other extremely well imagined worlds of fiction. It is narrative cessation--a post-reading desire comedown--not a sense that this world somehow fails.

This is more or less my experience as well. I am naturally always just a bit unhappy that the book is over, but no more so than when I read any good book (or when I listen to a good symphony, or watch a good movie, etc.).

Lyta Underhill wrote:

Middle Earth is a created reality, a second reality or sub-creation. It is not materially existent in this world; however, the very fact that it is read by more than one person makes it a shared psychological or mental reality.

This is certainly true. But there is a great deal of difference between ascribing to something a psychological reality and ascribing to it a transcendent Truth.

As a matter of fact, most of the aspects of "Truth" that Davem, Helen, and others put on a transcendent, metaphysical level I put on a psychological one. It is for this reason that I don't think "echantment" is meanigless, for example, and for this reason that I think the notion of Faerie has some value.

This does not negate the logical true/false values, as those are defined based on the “initial conditions” of an experiment, and a definite material end point which can either meet a criterion or fail to meet it according to the test applied. (I thought I’d add that bit before Aiwendil jumps all over me for sounding like a constructivist again…I’m pretty convinced I am not, but I think I often sound like one. Perhaps it is my sloppy expression of concepts that I am always refining without fully forming to begin with…sorry if I sound flaky, but it is my nature!)

Constructivist! Constructivist!

Well, no. And sorry about last time, by the way. At any rate, I agree with you that no truth ought to be elevated to the level of "Truth" and no falsehoold to the level of "False" - though I suspect we come to this conclusion for different reasons.

Child of the Seventh Age wrote:

I do agree that at the heart of Sauron's evil lay his desire to compel others to accept his own personal view of things. Subjegation and domination, the extinction of the individual personality, were simply a way to implement that "Truth". Even his lust for Power presumed that there was an end goal or product that must be achieved at any cost.

Really? I don't think Sauron would have been satisfied if all the free peoples simply declared that they agree with him on all issues. The impression I get from the MT text on Melkor's motivation vs. Sauron's is that Sauron's fundamental desire was to impose his own sort of Order (there! I can capitalize words too) on everyone.

Mark12_30 wrote:

I am more and more puzzled by the aversion to the word "truth". In his essay "On Faery Stories" Tolkien is not the least bit shy about using this word, any more than we should be shy about using the word "joy" (as davem has recommended.) Refer to the epilog of "On Faery Stories."

I don't have the least problem with using "Truth" to refer to the set of all true propositions. I think that "On Faery Stories" can be understood perfectly well with this definition (whether or not it was Tolkien's). Note that "Truth" in my understanding could very well include propositions like "there is a God" or "that cataract is sublime" (though of course it does not have to).

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Mark 12:30 wrote:

I also stated that in my opinion those who claim to "have" or to have "mastered" the Truth haven't been pursuing it long enough to realize how big it is. So how do you extrapolate from that that I aim to impose my view-- Sauron-like, "own personal vision of truth (through his ego)?"

And Child threatened:

Ahem! That's the second time, you've hinted at a certain kinship I may have with the Nazgûl. As I read your posts, I feel a strong compulsion to go down to the Shire and dig up an RPG where I can fly around and instill terror in folk's heart!

To save myself from misunderstanding (not to mention Child’s wrath!) allow me to clarify my point somewhat (although I was very careful there to say that I don’t think anyone here is a Nazgûl – balrogs, maybe, but never Nazgûl! (hmmm. . .but would they be winged balrogs, or unwinged. . . )

It just seems to me that the instant we begin to locate the text’s meaning or value anywhere near its association with or embodying forth of Truth (no matter how we use that term, and Child, I agree with you this is very dangerous territory – perilous even) then we run the risk of putting ourselves into the role of the Nazgûl insofar as we render ourselves willingly passive before the text. No matter how much we might say that we can apprehend that Truth as our own and make it belong to ourselves as individuals, we still are saying that the ‘point’ of reading is to lay ourselves down on the tracks of the reading experience and let the Truth roar over us like a freight train.

This is why I want to locate the ‘truth’ of the text within the process that it begins between the readers of it. This way, the truths that we develop within the truth-full relation or manner of speaking that we construct in response to the text is one in which we can maintain an active and willed freedom. The Nazgûl are the Nazgûl because they have lost the ability to ask any question other than “What does Sauron want of us?” They are utterly passive before the Truth that they have accepted (or been forced to accept, or whatever). The Fellowship remains free because they locate the truth of their quest explicitly NOT in relation to what Eru wants (there is no divine injunction to destroy the Ring) but because of the relationships that they have with and toward each other, and the other peoples of Middle-Earth. They are free in their Quest because they are free to turn aside from it at any time, but do not. The choices they make are, and must always be, over and over and over again, active re-affirmations of their commitment to the truths that impel them on their journey and bind them together. The instant we forget this and announce that the meaning of the journey is bound in any way to some singular and static Truth at the end. . .well, we cease to engage in the active pursuit of reaffirmation between and amongst our community, and subjugate ourselves to what we imagine that Truth to be.

[mark12_30]

...we render ourselves willingly passive before the text. No matter how much we might say that we can apprehend that Truth as our own and make it belong to ourselves as individuals, we still are saying that the ‘point’ of reading is to lay ourselves down on the tracks of the reading experience and let the Truth roar over us like a freight train.

Does this really sound like Tolkien's definition of eucatastrophe to you, Fordim?

If I expected to be "freight-trained" by his story, or if I had been, I wouldn't have gone back to it over and over again. And I don't see Tolkien's description of "Joy, wonder, and far-off glimpse of evangelium" as a freight train. Nor do I see eucatastrophe as the reader being passive before the text; rather, the reader has an open, receptive heart as he reads the text with his mind engaged.

I do not think that Tolkien was thinking of being "freight-trained" by the Truth. I certainly don't interpret it that way. If phrases like "sudden and miraculous grace" bring images of a freight train to mind then then I suspect it will take a long, difficult time for this discussion to come to any sort of conclusion.

[HerenIstarion]

Truth/Joy:

Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth

Actually the Elves believed that the 'lightening of the heart' or the 'stirring of joy' (to which they often refer), which may accompany the hearing of a proposition or an argument, is not an indication of its falsity but of the recognition by the fea that it is on the path of truth.)

SpM Majority/Minority re:

many cases (although not all), I do not doubt that the murderer is acting in accordance with his or her personal values. Happily such individuals are in the minority since murder (as a general proposition) is regarded by the overwhelming majority of people as detrimental to society and therefore "wrong". Equally happily, I find myself in the majority on that one.

Do you imply that truth lies in numbers, than? If yes, pray tell me then, why exactly standards of the majority (even though it be overwhelming) should be preferred and overrule the standards of the minority? I believe that, whatever arguments may be presented, in the end you will end up with merely 'because good is good' maxim.

[davem]

Well, I’m stuck. It seems that whatever term I use to refer to some underlying ‘state’ of ‘reality I’ll be asked to reduce it to a set of facts & figures. If I use ‘Truth’, however much I repeat that I’m not talking about some set of rules & regulations, I just get asked what rules & regulations I mean, & told that rules & regulations are BAD. If I use the term Joy, it is immediately dismissed as meaningless, or conflated with pleasure. If I use the term God or Heaven I get accused of trying to convert people. I’d use the word Magic, but I suspect it would be interpreted to mean ‘conjuring’ & I’d be asked to explain the ‘trick’. ‘Light’ seems to be acceptable – yet this light must have a source.

Sorry, but I can’t reduce what I’m referring to to something which fits within a narrow definition, & can be argued about from a psychological perspective, or a deconstructionist one. If all anyone gets from reading Tolkien’s works is something that can be reduced to that level, then I will go all the way out on this limb & say they’re missing the ‘truth’ of the story.

When Eckhart tells us that to see a flower as it has its being in God would be a greater thing than the whole world – you either accept that or you don’t. I believe Eckhart, & all the other mystics, of all the different spiritual traditions saw something more than the rest of us. I also believe that when I read Tolkien’s stories I get a glimpse of what they’re talking about, & that at the moments of eucatastrophe I glimpse that state even more strongly, & that it points me to something more – but, sorry, no hard evidence, no statistical proof. I haven’t been wired up in a lab & the information fed into a computer available to download.

It seems to me that some posters here are coming at things from the perspective that any statement about Tolkien’s works or intentions is only valid if it corresponds with some theory about the world which they hold to reflect reality.

So, I can’t prove Truth, Joy, Love, (Spiritual) Light, Magic, enchantment, eucatastrophe, God or Heaven exist. Sorry.

But what has all this to do with Tolkien? He wrote about Truth (but we have to dismiss that, because there’s no such thing, & even if there were it would be BAD). He wrote about Joy, & said it was the purpose of Fairy stories to expose us to it, but that has nothing to do with anything. He wrote about Love, but that’s just a subjective emotional state, & all we can do is argue about the particular chemicals which cause it. He wrote about Magic, but that’s all primitive trickery. He wrote about God but lets not go there, or we could end up encouraging another Inquisition. We can’t allow these things in (or anyone, including the author, who tries to bring them in), unless they’re accompanied by a THEORY, officially stamped ‘APPROVED’. I can’t reduce to ‘facts & figures’ something which was written with the express intention of helping us break free from such things, so I can’t really argue this subject anymore. I can’t argue from the perspective of the facts & figures of this world, because that, for me, is what Tolkien was trying to liberate us from, in his own small way.

I said, a long while back in this thread, that a Tonne of Facts isn’t worth a gramme of Enchantment (or Truth, or Joy, or ‘God’ or ‘Light’ or whatever other term you want to choose). I still think that’s true, & I simply don’t find psychology or literary theory ‘enchanting’, I don’t find either of them in Tolkien’s works, & don’t think they’re at all relevant or helpful or informative, when it comes to understanding what his works mean to us, or why we respond to them as we do.

' A fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the Walls of the World, poignant as grief'....In such stories when the sudden 'turn' comes we get a piercing glimpse of joy, & heart's desire, that for a moment passes outside the frame, rends indeed the very web of story, & lets a gleam come through.'

Sorry, that's all I've got. I agree with it, I think its 'True'. I think its Joyous.

[HerenIstarion]

Sing now, ye people of the Tower of Anor,
for the Realm of Sauron is ended for ever,
and the Dark Tower is thrown down.

Sing and rejoice, ye people of the Tower of Guard,
for your watch hath not been in vain,
and the Black Gate is broken,
and your King hath passed through,
and he is victorious.

Sing and be glad, all ye children of the West,
for your King shall come again,
and he shall dwell among you
all the days of your life.

And the Tree that was withered shall be renewed,
and he shall plant it in the high places,
and the City shall be blessed.

Sing all ye people!

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem

This will be hurried as I am due at work, but I think you are selling yourself short.

In the first place, would it be such a terrible thing if we politely agreed that there were some points we could agree on, and others that we could not? This thread has reached a total of eight pages. With all those reflections and differing opinions, it's scarcely surprising that it would be difficult to reach a consensus.

Secondly, if we look at the thread as a whole, I think that there is more middle ground here than you are seeing right now. This began as a discussion of the right of the reader to grapple with the text on his own and to come up with interpretations that Tolkien had not personally discussed. It was a celebration of the individual and his or her right to bring his own personal background and experience into the literary mix. In essence, we were doing exactly what Tolkien recommends in his preface: not being locked into an allegorical meaning etched in stone, but having the freedom of applicability, looking at the story through the prism of our unique backgrounds and experiences and applying those ideas. We had individual quibbles about the place of the Letters in this process, or how to respond when confronted with interpretations that seemed contrary to what Tolkien himself said (a lá Stormfront) but for the most part we could at least define a middle ground.

Now we come to the difficult part. The thread drastically switched gears. Instead of celebrating the individual, we began searching instead for those common things that readers see in LotR and Tolkien's writings. In a sense it was like grafting a rose onto a pear tree. This had not been Fordim's initial question or intent.

Still, for the most part, we could agree that there was an element of enchantment or faerie that Tolkien drew upon, and that the majority of readers could sense that in their reading. The problem came when we tried to pin that down and put a name on it.

My personal objection to "Truth" (with a capital T) is not that it doesn't exist in the world as a whole. And I would certainly agree that Tolkien was attempting to reflect truth in LotR, and that it stands at the core of much of what he wrote. Even Aiwendil said he could accept that statement if truth was defined in its broadest sense. My objection to using "Truth" was a practical one. The minute you begin to define that term closely, you leave some people in the room and some people outside of it. This is particular true if you define truth in such a manner to touch upon the existence of God. One person's particular definition of Truth may not be the same as another's.

Tolkien was exceedingly careful not to define things in an explicit manner in LotR. He did not do what Lewis did. He uses the pregnant passive in LotR to give us vague hints of a greater force at work, but he does not spell out any of this in detail, at least not in this particular piece of writing. He tells us in the Letters that he did this intentionally. I also think it was intentional that he did not refer to "Truth" openly in the story itself.

Why did he do this? Helen has already pointed out that he did use the term "Truth" in Mythopoiea and On Faerie Stories. Perhaps because in this particular tale he didn't want to lock himself into the same problem we are having here? The minute you start defining Truth in a precise way, people's defensive walls go up as they begin to consider what side of the fence they are on, whether they fit into that particular defintion of truth or not. Tolkien did want to point out the shortcomings in our dreary old world, and to suggest that there could and should be more to life than that. The last thing he wanted to do was to get people's hackles up, so that they would build a wall and lose sight of what the author was saying.

And I am afraid that's what may be happening here. I sense an underlying exasperation in some of these posts that goes beyond a mere intellectual exchange. So my objection to 'Truth' as a term is merely a practical one. Helen may be right that I am throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But I see people becoming defensive about their particular definition of Truth and how that fits into their personal life and beliefs. I don't think that's what we're aiming for. It would be preferable to find terminology that doesn't raise this problem.

Whether we like it or not, Truth does imply a set standard. That is why I feel more comfortable with the terms "Joy" or "Light" which don't seem to carry quite the same meaning.

Fordim does have a point. If you look at "Truth" from a totally different vantage, you could argue that LotR is about rejecting anyone who comes telling you the "Truth", who claims to know the certainties of life better than you do, who in effect supplants Eru's music with his own ideas and schemes.

And I would say that Sauron does do this. Aiwendil , it's interesting that you mentioned Myths Transformed, because my own view of Sauron and Truth stem directly from that. Unlike Morgoth who was merely a nihilist (or at least had become one by the end of the First Age), Sauron did have a clear vision of "order and planning and organization". It has become the great Truth in his life, supplanting the music and plan that Eru put forward. Saruman had a similar vision. That vision of "order as Truth" is also one that we see in a certain modern political ideologies.

Can we not at least agree on a broad statement like this? That most readers see a core of 'enchantment' or 'faerie' which Tolkien depicts or draws upon in his writing. That this may go by different names -- truth, Truth, Joy, or Light-- and that we each differ somewhat in how we define or regard this concept, since we bring our own experiences and backgrounds into the process of definition. But can we not also agree that this core reflects the crucial values and themes that Tolkien delineates in his story: concepts of goodness, self sacrifice, love, and hope?

Would that ledge be broad enough to hold most of the readers here, but defined enough to have a least some meaning? If something like that still doesn't work, we may have to politely agree to disagree, which has certainly happened many times before.

Sorry if this is incoherent. I am racing off to work.

Sharon

[bilbo_baggins]

I do believe that this Thread has transcended anything Tolkien-related. How far will it go? How long will the faithful posters reply to each other before their collective creativity dies?

I do believe that question is unanswerable as the repliers on this thread have no intention of stopping. I'm reminded of some sort of endurance race for some strange reason:

"Yes, people, they're coming around the bend with davem and Heren-Istarion in the lead, followed closely by Child, Aiwendil, Mark12_30, and many more! Just look at them go! Will they ever stop? They're not slowing down, not a bit; no giving up in this race, folks! No one could even think of letting it slow down a bit, even if that means everyone would think more clearly and be able to reply to all the latest posts! How exciting this is!"

The argument of Truth (absolute or individual) is a spiritual one and a little socio-political. Do you really believe that any resolution can be acheived? Highly unlikely. Do you really believe that one will conform to your viewpoint? Unlikely in the extreme. Do you believe that we can actually reach some conclusions to this argument? Perhaps.

I hope I don't sound irritated or frustrated with the turn of events. I actually quite enjoy them.

I hope this sort of sums up the current flow.

[mark12_30]

H-I-- I needed that. Thanks.


Regressing to the previous page: Here is a long overdue response to some of Aiwendil's questions.

This is an interesting answer - neither the story itself nor insight into Truth is either the cause or the effect; or perhaps each is both. I think I like this answer, if only because it comes very close to what I've been arguing. As a story becomes very good, it becomes more like an allegory; as an allegory becomes very good it becomes more like a story. So the story itself and insight into Truth are in fact the same thing. But this is not the impression I got from your earlier posts. Perhaps this was just a misunderstanding on my part. It seemed to me that you (and Davem as well) were suggesting that Tolkien's goal was to expose readers to this insight, and that a requirement for achieving this is a fully self-consistent, believable story. I got this impression most of all when you compared Tolkien's works to parables (in connection with self-consistency); for clearly in the case of a parable, the insight is the end and the story is a means. Did you mean to draw a distinction here?

I should clarify that I think the process is cyclical with extended or repeated exposure to the stories and to the insight. Receiving insight clarifies the story internally, bringing it into sharpoer focus; internalizing the story I thnk encourages further insight.

It sounds like what you mean by "Truth" is simply "the set of all true propositions". That's certainly a definition I can live with (it's the one I intend when I say "truth"). But if this is the case, I don't see why there's any need to be at all mystical about it. Why talk gravely about Truth being out beyond the mills (if I understand your millegory correctly), or about transcendent glimpses of Truth; why the capital T? For if Truth is just the set of true propositions, then a "glimpse of Truth" must just be the knowledge of the truth or falsehood of certain propositions. In such a case, there is no reason at all that each person should have to discover Truth for himself or herself. Nor is there any such thing as "discovering Truth", since that would mean omniscience.

So either of two things is true: 1. By "Truth" you do in fact mean "the set of all true propositions", and all the earlier mysticism was unnecessary or 2. you mean something else, in which case I still would like to know what it is.

And a further dichotomy: either 1. The definition of "Truth" does not critically depend on anything like God or religion or 2. it does.

Going with option 1 on both questions agrees with my view; choosing 2 in either case means there is still some disagreement, but one that I cannot identify.

Aiwendil, the beginning of the statement "those three concepts" referred to your provided list of three supernatural things: " God, heaven, and the Divine Plan" . Those things (each of which I consider heavily related, interrelated, and infinite) are included in Truth. So it follows that I hold to #2 in each of the multiple-choice questions above. However in the first question,

So either of two things is true: 1. By "Truth" you do in fact mean "the set of all true propositions", and all the earlier mysticism was unnecessary or 2. you mean something else, in which case I still would like to know what it is.

my answer is this: if I must write down a definition, I will point to the above that I already gave you: Truth includes your three concepts (God, heaven, and the Divine Plan) plus the set of all true propositions.

I've got to admit that I have no idea how the matter of what I am pursuing has anything whatsoever to do with the nature of Tolkien's work.

Perhaps it's a mystical phrase, although I associate it with the Declaration of Independance: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: we all pursue something in the attempt to be happy. For some, it's Entertainment. For some, it's Truth. For some it's Style. For some, it's something else.

If I'm not looking for something particular, then the odds of me finding that particular thing are the odds of either stumbling over it or of being led to it by someone else. So if I'm reading Tolkien looking for A Good Story, that's one pursuit. If I'm looking for Truth, that's another pursuit. And if I'm looking for justification for my own agenda, that's another pursuit. (The first two, I think Tolkien would not mind, and would indeed be pleased by. The third, he clearly had a problem with.)

The first time I read Tolkien (at age 12) I thought it was a rocking-good story. The second, third, fourth times I read it, it got even better. At what point did I try to be more elvish because I thought elves and elf-friends were beautiful... pure... shining... transcendant... angelic? I'm not sure when that started. But if I hadn't thought it was a good story, I wouldn't have enjoyed it or reread it, and I'd have missed the shining beauty that beckoned me then and beckons me still. The more I go back to it, the more it shines. Hence, circular; actually the mystics refer to a "spiral"-- ostensibly covering the same topics in the X. Y plane but going deeper (or higher) every time.

(I read the Narnia series over and over and over again as a teenager-- and it wasn't til years later I realized what it was "about". By the time the allegory "clicked" it was a whole cascade of "clicks"; the lights went on all over the house, so to speak.)

Well, the ramble is long enough at this point. Aiwendil, it's been a pleasure discussion these things; thanks; although (like davem) I fear that my definitions will be too vague to satisfy, at the same time, I find infinite things very difficult to contain in definitions. Let me know...

~*~*~

EDIT:

Hi, Bilbo. Glad you're enjoying it.

Hi, Child.

The Peacemaker wrote:

Can we not at least agree on a broad statement like this? That most readers see a core of 'enchantment' or 'faerie' which Tolkien depicts or draws upon in his writing. That this may go by different names -- truth, Truth, Joy, or Light-- and that we each differ somewhat in how we define or regard this concept, since we bring our own experiences and backgrounds into the process of definition. But can we not also agree that this core reflects the crucial values and themes that Tolkien delineates in his story: concepts of goodness, self sacrifice, love, and hope?

It's a good starting place, Cami.

(Like neice, like uncle-- wanna bet she's hiding an arkenstone in her pocket?)

[Son of Númenor]

I would say, Bilbo_Baggins, with no disrespect intended, that your post does a most inadequate job of summing 'up the current flow'. I personally am fascinated by the discussion, & encouraged by the multitude of allusions, analogies & philosophical insights being made, all of which add to my own rather delicate understanding of these concepts of canon, Truth vs. truth, eucatastrophe, & that most elusive of feelings - 'enchantment' - as they pertain to Professor Tolkien's writing.

The range & depth of this discussion stray far beyond my own credentials as a Tolkien enthusiast & literary analyst, but I would like to say that I sympathize with Davem when he says:

If I use ‘Truth’, however much I repeat that I’m not talking about some set of rules & regulations, I just get asked what rules & regulations I mean, & told that rules & regulations are BAD. If I use the term Joy, it is immediately dismissed as meaningless, or conflated with pleasure. If I use the term God or Heaven I get accused of trying to convert people. I’d use the word Magic, but I suspect it would be interpreted to mean ‘conjuring’ & I’d be asked to explain the ‘trick’. ‘Light’ seems to be acceptable – yet this light must have a source.

Sorry, but I can’t reduce what I’m referring to to something which fits within a narrow definition, & can be argued about from a psychological perspective, or a deconstructionist one. If all anyone gets from reading Tolkien’s works is something that can be reduced to that level, then I will go all the way out on this limb & say they’re missing the ‘truth’ of the story.

Trying to quantify & simplify the 'truth' that we obtain from Tolkien's works is bound to be a fruitless endeavour. While I do not feel that there is any ultimate Truth readily available for us as readers to extract from Tolkien's work, I do feel Tolkien imbued his works with a plethara of ideals & virtues - a wide spectrum of things that Tolkien wished to convey to the reader as 'truths' - 'rights' & 'wrongs' that he felt are inherent both in his world & our own.

I agree with Child of the Seventh Age that Tolkien's writing does not have to be relegated to the role of upholding & advancing any singular religious Truth. There may, however, be a Theme inherent in Tolkien's works consisting of many smaller ideals & author-perceived 'truths' which Tolkien hoped would be applicable to everyday life in the Primary World.

[davem]

Sharon

I still think you're understanding Truth as implying a set of dogmatic 'Laws', dictated by force, on others who are made to believe them- whether they agree with them or not. I was using it in the sense of what is true about 'reality', or 'the ground of Being'. So, in this sense, the statement 'killing is wrong' is not part of that Truth, neither is 'Water is wet', or 2+2=4.

'Truth' is the origin of those & similar ideas, or call it 'God' or Light or Joy, in the sense in which Tolkien used it in Fairy Stories. It is the 'Source' from which all 'True' things arise, & the source of the 'Joy' which we glimpse at the moment of Eucatastrophe. And whatever others may say, it is 'real' to the extent that any profoundly moving experience is 'real'. No 'theory', literary or pyschological can account for it, or reduce it to its own terms.

And now, at the risk of being accused of 'crossing a line' in my 'psychoanalysis' of other posters once more, I can only say in response to Bethberry's:

"I don't think I have this experience you claim for all of us. What I feel when I finish reading Tolkien is little different than feelings of departures from other extremely well imagined worlds of fiction. It is narrative cessation--a post-reading desire comedown--not a sense that this world somehow fails. "

And Aiwendil's:

"This is more or less my experience as well. I am naturally always just a bit unhappy that the book is over, but no more so than when I read any good book (or when I listen to a good symphony, or watch a good movie, etc.). "

I'm surprised. Nothing more than with any other fictional world? Just another escape into a Never-Never Land? Maybe I am unusual, then. Middle Earth changed me. I'll never be the same person again. I suppose I may be in the wrong, perhaps overvaluing the stories & the writer, & in not subscribing to the 'right' theories, in pyschology, or literature, but if I am wrong I'm glad, because I like the fact that Middle Earth is a window on Truth & Joy to me, And that when I put down the book my feelings are closer to grief at the loss of something beloved than to 'narrative cessation'. From her previous posts, I 'd kind of assumed that it was so for Bethberry too. I don't know if its down to whether you experience that Truth or Joy, whether its that that determines whether its just another escapist fantasy to you or much more than that.

Again, I may be wrong in believing in the existence of Truth & Joy, but if that's the reason I experience Tolkien's stories in the way I do, & am affected by them in the way I am, then I'll choose being wrong.

[mark12_30]

Son of Numenor wrote:

While I do not feel that there is any ultimate Truth readily available for us as readers to extract from Tolkien's work

SoN, that would be why the concepts of "glimpse" and "window" (and the resulting mysticism) is important-- not just to me, but apparently to Tolkien as well (See On Faery Stories.) Tolkien spoke of opening the reader to a far-off glimpse. Tolkien himelf rarely lectures. This is why Child's definition is incomplete for me, and based on his essay I would say it is imcomplete for TOlkien as well; but this thread is supposed to be geared towards the reader...

davem wrote:

Again, I may be wrong in believing in the existence of Truth & Joy, but if that's the reason I experience Tolkien's stories in the way I do, & am affected by them in the way I am, then I'll choose being wrong.

The other day I went hunting for the Puddleglum quote from the Silver Chair and found it here. In the meantime, reread the Epilogue of On Faery Stories, davem. Have a look at "Sing Now Ye People" that H-I quoted above. And relax.

[Aiwendil]

I think that, perhaps as a result of my incessant pressure for definitions and specificity, my essential argument has been to some extent misconstrued.

Davem wrote:

Well, I’m stuck. It seems that whatever term I use to refer to some underlying ‘state’ of ‘reality I’ll be asked to reduce it to a set of facts & figures.

I don't want "facts and figures". What I was interested in is whether this "Truth" is someting that I think is meaningful or not. I kept asking for a definition because I wondered whether there was in fact a definition that would satisfy me. And the point I've tried to make a few times now is that, as it turns out, there seems not to be.

The point is resolved, as far as I'm concerned; the resolution is that we disagree about the philosophy of meaning. That's all.

I was perhaps a bit insistent only because I thought (and I was wrong) that perhaps there would in fact turn out to be a general definition of "Truth" that we could all accept. Had there been, I think we might have continued our inquiry into the nature of Faerie and of "eucatastrophe". Unfortunately, as things are, we can go no further.

But I would still like to clarify some things.

If I use ‘Truth’, however much I repeat that I’m not talking about some set of rules & regulations, I just get asked what rules & regulations I mean, & told that rules & regulations are BAD.

I should point out that I do not share Fordim's opinion in this regard.

If I use the term Joy, it is immediately dismissed as meaningless, or conflated with pleasure.

I realized (and said so) that you would not equate Joy with pleasure. I was only pointing out that it is no use with me to define "Truth" by switching to "Joy".

If I use the term God or Heaven I get accused of trying to convert people.

On the contrary; as I said earlier, if God or Heaven is what you mean, please say so.

Sorry, but I can’t reduce what I’m referring to to something which fits within a narrow definition, & can be argued about from a psychological perspective, or a deconstructionist one. If all anyone gets from reading Tolkien’s works is something that can be reduced to that level, then I will go all the way out on this limb & say they’re missing the ‘truth’ of the story.

This is what, paradoxically, both takes us back to the beginning of the thread and brings us to the impasse I talked about. You say that I am missing the "truth" of the story. I say I am not. What more can be said?

It seems to me that some posters here are coming at things from the perspective that any statement about Tolkien’s works or intentions is only valid if it corresponds with some theory about the world which they hold to reflect reality.

Forgive me if this sounds rude - but you seem to be claiming just that; you have a theory about the world (that this Truth exists) and moreover about Tolkien's work (that its purpose is to give us a glimpse of Truth) and you claim that those who don't see this in Tolkien's work are "missing the truth of the story".

And I don't say that with any pejorative intent. Of course if you have a theory about literature you will disagree with statements about Tolkien's work that disagree with your theory. There's nothing at all wrong with that. I don't dispute your right to hold your opinion, or even your right to claim that I am wrong because I hold a different one.

But what has all this to do with Tolkien? He wrote about Truth (but we have to dismiss that, because there’s no such thing

As I said before, I think that "On Faery Stories" and the rest of his literary theory can be understood quite well with "truth" meaning simply "the set of true propositions".

He wrote about Joy, & said it was the purpose of Fairy stories to expose us to it, but that has nothing to do with anything.

I think this can be understood as a kind of aesthetic pleasure.

He wrote about Love, but that’s just a subjective emotional state, & all we can do is argue about the particular chemicals which cause it

Has anyone said that? As a matter of fact, I think it is a subjective emotional state, but what does that matter?

He wrote about Magic, but that’s all primitive trickery.

Again, I don't think anyone said that. In fact I specifically denied that I think magic and the like are "silly superstitions". I don't believe that magic actually exists, if that's what you mean; but I don't believe Hobbits or Balrogs exist either.

So, in this sense, the statement 'killing is wrong' is not part of that Truth, neither is 'Water is wet', or 2+2=4.

That's helpful, especially since it apparently means that you and Helen mean different things by "Truth" (she explicitly said that "2+2=4" and "The Sky is a big place" are included in Truth).

I'm surprised. Nothing more than with any other fictional world?

Of course I like some fictional worlds better than others.

Just another escape into a Never-Never Land?

That's putting it cynically. I think that The Lord of the Rings is an immensely powerful and deeply satisfying work of art; I think it's one of the greatest achievements of the human mind.

Son of Numenor wrote:

Trying to quantify & simplify the 'truth' that we obtain from Tolkien's works is bound to be a fruitless endeavour.

I think I ought to emphasize again, for Davem and for everyone, that I am not interested in quantifying anything. I am perfectly happy to carry on a discussion of these things on an abstract level.

I had thought this might be possible by defining "Truth" as the set of true propositions. For I thought that what was chiefly intended by it was some truth about God. If God exists, it is a fact that God exists, and the set of true propositions includes it. Obviously, we wouldn't agree on what those true propositions are, but structurally, "Truth" would be (in my view) a viable term. I understand now that such a definition is not deemed acceptable. Wherefore the impasse.

Mark12_30 wrote:

Aiwendil, the beginning of the statement "those three concepts" referred to your provided list of three supernatural things: " God, heaven, and the Divine Plan" . Those things (each of which I consider heavily related, interrelated, and infinite) are included in Truth.

A misunderstanding perhaps. As I've just said in response to Davem (and perhaps should have pointed out a page ago), "God exists" would be a true proposition (if God exists, of course). So I don't see how your inclusion of those three concepts necessitates your choice of option 2, that "Truth" is more than the set of true propositions.

Aiwendil, it's been a pleasure discussion these things; thanks

I've quite enjoyed it as well. As I've said, I fear that this is as far as the debate can go. Thanks to both you and Davem for a very enjoyable discussion (and for providing me with something to do while procrastinating about studying for finals).

[Bêthberry]

A rather rushed response here, on several levels.

Helen and H-I,

I am very glad that you both found enjoyment in the verse H-I posted. It is a very interesting verse. However, to my mind, that post did not advance the discussion. That is, it did not suggest a new way of looking at the issue or a way to resolve a dilemma or impasse in the discussion. It, and this is simply my humble opinion, was rather more akin to cheerleading and that always makes me rather uncomfortable on a discussion forum, as if the spectators on the 'sides' of the discussion are calling out for their favourite team to win. A discussion is not, to my mind, a sporting event where we must draw sides and where one side must lose, winner take all. It is all of us engaged in a discussion of what our words meanand what are the consequences of our positions and what are our experiences and where do they meet and where converge. I regret if this statement offends, but I feel I must express this disappointment that the discussion apparently is about sides. I am, by the way, viewing this in rhetorical terms of how we handle discussion and not in terms of the content was intriguing.

And let me say here that Child's post provides an example of what I mean by 'advancing the discussion.' I will return to her post later today. For now, however, I think I need to address a crucial point.

davem,

Some of your wording here I think suggests where our impasse lies.

I suppose I may be in the wrong, ... but if I am wrong I'm glad, because I like the fact that Middle Earth is a window on Truth & Joy to me, And that when I put down the book my feelings are closer to grief at the loss of something beloved than to 'narrative cessation'. ... whether its just another escapist fantasy to you or much more than that.

Again, I may be wrong in believing in the existence of Truth & Joy, but if that's the reason I experience Tolkien's stories in the way I do, & am affected by them in the way I am, then I'll choose being wrong.

I cannot see where anyone has called you wrong for your experience of Tolkien, davem, not Fordim, nor Aiwendil nor SaucepanMan and certainly not myself nor Child. In fact, it seems to me that a great deal of effort has been expended towards defending the validity of any one's interpretation.

If you read Tolkien as a kind of religious text, then that is your experience and it is legitimate as your experience. I do not wish to denigrate it nor devalue it. However, reading Tolkien for me is not a religious experience--and I hope that some of my posts here have suggested just how much time I have spent reading texts in religious traditions. (In fact, you have never really acknowledged that I offered a Christian, spiritual tradition--different from that of your mystics--where meaning is held in potential.) I have felt great, overwhelming grief at parts of his work, grief that brought me to my knees (metaphorically speaking), but I will not say this is a religious experience. And I will say that I have found other writers whose reading is similarly affecting for me.

I will also say that you mischaracterise my postion when you suggest that reading Tolkien is either an all or nothing proposition. I have never said that reading him is merely escape or Never-never Land. That is your characterisation, not mine. The reason I think so highly of Tolkien's "On Fairy Stories" is that in fact it liberates fantasy from this niggardly attitude of 'mere escape.' But if you choose to see my reading in this light, then there is little I can do to help you see understand my reading. Will I say you are wrong? No, I will rather say that your own experience seems to leave you with little room for understanding the experience of others except as in complete opposition. The only words that are left, it seems to me, belong to Nienna and we are left with 'a long defeat.'

EDIT. I had meant to include this in the post. It refers again to something davem posted:

If all anyone gets from reading Tolkien?s works is something that can be reduced to that level, then I will go all the way out on this limb & say they?re missing the ?truth? of the story.

.

The great irony here to me is that you are calling your reading the Truth of the Book where to my mind it is rather the freedom of the Reader, you as Reader, to to expound his reading. That you wish to suggest yours is the only correct understanding is, to my mind, unfortunate, because it devalues the experience of others, but , as I said, there clearly is a long defeat and no longer any purpose to continue this discussion. It has been ... enlightening. Thanks to all.

EDIT Wonders never cease! I was cross posting with bilbo_baggins and never saw his post until after I made this one. Horse racing! I was thinking of wrestling or some such sport.

[mark12_30]

I am very glad that you both found enjoyment in the verse H-I posted. It is a very interesting verse. However, to my mind, that post did not advance the discussion. That is, it did not suggest a new way of looking at the issue or a way to resolve a dilemma or impasse in the discussion.

I disagree, Bethberry. It was a reminder that this is a discussion-- and not a war; that the things Tolkien wrote about of lasting value will be there for each of us after the discussion just as they were before; and that there is time to sing and something to sing about. That reminder was a breath of fresh air in a room which had gotten very tense. And without it I would not have continued the discussion today. Hence, it did indeed advance the discussion-- by lightening it up.

It, and this is simply my humble opinion, was rather more akin to cheerleading and that always makes me rather uncomfortable on a discussion forum, as if the spectators on the 'sides' of the discussion are calling out for their favourite team to win.

Why would an unedited, un-commented quote of pure, published, indisputably canonical Tolkien presented in order to lighten things up be upsetting on a Tolkien forum?

[Lyta_Underhill]

Gee, Helen! You ought to start a mailing list and send inspirational tidbits to everyone to start out their day right! And many thanks to HI for the lift!

From the Epilogue of "On Fairy Stories," so helpfully pointed to by Helen:

The Christian still has to work, with mind as well as body, to suffer, hope and die; but he may now perceive that all his bents and faculties have a purpose, which can be redeemed.

he may actually assist in effoliation and multiple enrichment of creation.

I think the perception here can be applied to more than just the Christian, as Tolkien enumerates here, at least in my experience. The "consolation" factor of the self-consistent second world with a coherent story to be told is of great value. For there is purpose and a clear path, clearer than that which is laid before most of us in the real world. One comes away from the story with the idea that there is applicability of the second world to the first, that some of Middle Earth is in your backyard. I do not, like some others on this thread, feel let down when I finish the story, but rather, I see aspects of the story in the primary world, so that the story seems never to end. The story is so well told that its images and concepts resonate within the primary world and seem to jump out into reality, and at times seem MORE real than the world I can see and touch.

This process of assimiliation or amalgamation of the reader and the book is complex, and rather than separating the two worlds, I think it draws them closer, to the 'edge of Faerie' if you will, so that one can walk in the two worlds simultaneously. Of course, there is the "head in the clouds" syndrome that one must avoid while driving at high speeds on the Interstate highways, etc., but while I walk in the forests, I absolutely believe in Ents. ( I still believe in them on the highway, but hardly expect to see them there!)

So, as to the question of the Book or the Reader? I think the answer is whereever the Book meets the Reader or the Reader meets the Book. It is a process, and I think Helen's idea of the cyclical process upon re-reading jibes with my experience of seeing new things and finding new applicability as years pass and re-readings mount. (See! I don't think I used the T word even once!)

Cheers,
Lyta

[davem]

Bethberry

I may have gone too far in my interpretation of your position, but

Quote: "I don't think I have this experience you claim for all of us. What I feel when I finish reading Tolkien is little different than feelings of departures from other extremely well imagined worlds of fiction. It is narrative cessation--a post-reading desire comedown--not a sense that this world somehow fails. "

And

Quote:I have felt great, overwhelming grief at parts of his work, grief that brought me to my knees (metaphorically speaking),

seem to me a bit contradictory. I wouldn't say I treat LotR as a 'religious' text, though, I would say that through it I am able to glimpse something else, something that moves me - & I mean that - something moves me. It is something external to me, that affects me deeply, & all the psychological theories don't mean anything, or explain anything in regard to it. I know its real. Just as I know that an experience I had a few months back was 'real' & True. I was walking along a farm track, between hedges, with big old trees along the way. The sky was clear & the stars were shining through the branches. I was feeling a little down, & though, as I said, I'm not a 'Christian', I began reciting 'Hail Mary's. After a few repetitions, the air seemed to become hazy, & I felt my Guardian Angel standing behind me, enfolding me with It's wings. It was absolutely 'real', & True. And before anyone decides to psychologise that, I don't care, & you'd be wrong, because I'm old enough to know what's real & what's not.

Tolkien's stories put me in touch with the same 'True', Joyous dimension of Reality
that I experienced then.

Also, when you state 'Quote':

I cannot see where anyone has called you wrong for your experience of Tolkien, [davem[/b], not Fordim, nor Aiwendil nor SaucepanMan and certainly not myself nor Child. In fact, it seems to me that a great deal of effort has been expended towards defending the validity of any one's interpretation.

I didn't intend to imply anyone had called my experience wrong - I was simply saying if my experience is 'wrong', 'incorrect', not in accord with 'Truth', as judged by some kind of 'objective standard' then I don't care & am happy for it to be 'wrong'.

Aiwendil

Sorry, I don't think there is any contradiction between what Helen & I are saying about Truth - I suspect you are being deliberately literalist.

[Bêthberry]

I must say thank you to Helen--and to Lyta also--for making my point about encouragement much better than I could.

[The Saucepan Man]

Although I have been able to follow this thread over the last day or so, I have not had an opportunity to post. And since there is no conceivable way that I can respond to everything that has been said in the interim as fully as I would like to, I will simply attempt to summarise my position, briefly explore whether there might be any common ground between us and leave it at that for now.

I hope that it is abundantly clear from what I have been saying that I am not seeking to deny anyone’s experience of Tolkien’s works. Davem, I accept, of course, that you genuinely react to them in the way that you have described. I believe you when you say that you have found glimpses of “Truth” and “Joy” in Tolkien’s works. I believe Helen too when she says the same and I do not doubt that H-I and Sharon and many others besides have had very similar experiences. As far as I am concerned, all of your reactions are entirely valid, and I find each one of them fascinating. This is precisely why I keep coming back to this thread time and time again (and will continue to do as long as it lasts, even if just in the role of observer). However, I will not and cannot agree that your experience, or anyone else’s for that matter, is somehow more valid or right or truthful than mine, and that I am either somehow wrong for not experiencing the books in the same way or in some way afraid of opening myself up to that experience. Surely you must accept that others will experience the books differently, albeit no less validly, to you?

If we are going to use capitalised terms such as “Truth” or “Joy” or “Light”, which clearly (in light of their capitalisation) have some meaning to the people using them beyond their common usage, then I think it is necessary for those using them to provide some sort of definition. Otherwise, how are those of us who see no such meaning supposed to be able to compare what it is that they are being used to describe with our own experiences and determine whether there is any common ground and, if so, where it might lie? And I most certainly do not require a definition by reference to “facts and figures” but rather by reference to emotions, feelings and concepts (as commonly understood).

Having said that, I think that I do now have a reasonable understanding of what people mean when they use these terms. And, like Aiwendil, I do feel that everyone means something slightly different by them, although that does not surprise me since everyone is different and will react differently based upon their own beliefs and experiences. Of course, I am aware that Helen, for example, would say that the “Truth” is the same for everybody and that it is just the “glimpses” of that “Truth” which vary. And that’s fine by me. I'm content to agree to disagree on that one because it is the “glimpses” that I would prefer to concentrate on. That, I think, is where we will find the common ground.

And, like Sharon, it seems to me that there is a lot of common ground if we only take the time to look for it. It is clear to me from reading the posts here (and elsewhere on this forum) that I am not alone in experiencing intense joy and deep sadness in Tolkien’s works. And the feeling of enchantment that those works engender is a common experience too. Tolkien champions the virtues of friendship, courage, humility, goodness and love, to name but a few. These surely are values which we can all appreciate and respond to positively in the characters who display them. Just as we can all appreciate the dangers of pride and lust for power and domination from those characters that display these characteristics. And I think that we can recognise the dilemmas that we are presented with in our own lives in the situations faced by characters such as Boromir, Denethor, Eowyn and even Saruman. And yes, we can be inspired to try and live our lives in a better way as a result of reading about these characters and the experiences which they undergo (although we shouldn't need Tolkien’s tales to prompt us to do so).

It seems to me we are all capable of experiencing these things when we read LotR and the other tales, whether we believe them to be glimpses of some over-arching “Truth” or “Joy” or not, and whether or not we believe in the existence of God. Of course, not everyone will respond to them (at least not in the way Tolkien presents them, even though they may share the same values). And we will all respond to them differently, based upon our own personal values and experiences. But I would hazard a guess that they are important features of Tolkien’s works to most, if not all, of those posting here. And I am sure that there is much more common ground between us too.

So, when I say that my experience of Tolkien’s works is different from davem’s, or Helen’s or Aiwendil’s or Bêthberry’s, I am not saying that it is entirely different. In very many ways, there are a great deal of similarities between each of our individual experiences, I am sure. All I am saying is that we should acknowledge the differences, accept that we cannot force the entirety of our own experiences on others and move on to find the common ground.

Now, where does that gets us in terms of “Canonicity v the reader”? As should be clear from what I have been saying throughout this thread, I am in favour of the reader (subject to the restrictions placed upon him or her by the text itself). But I am also in favour of groups of readers sharing (not imposing) experience and attempting to find common ground within the “interpretive communities” that Bêthberry talked of. Indeed, why would I be on this forum if I wasn’t?

(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. But I doubt that is common ground. )

[davem]

Having been justly taken to task by Legolas in a PM for my aside to Aiwendil, I suppose I must explain my accustaion of 'literalism'.

When I said that 'facts' like 'killing is wrong' or 'water is wet', etc are nothing to do with 'Truth' I meant simply that they are facts, which are 'products' of our response to Truth - ie, 'Truth', in the sense in which I am using it, refers not to moral codes or precepts, but to the source of those codes, the thing which inspires them in us. I just considered Aiwendil was conflating the two things. Helen was speaking of the 'consequence' of our experience of 'Truth', the moral values it inspires in us, I was referring to what inspires those values. Hence, in my mind at least, no contradiction.

Aiwendil

My problem in so far as coming to an agreement as to what Truth is, in an attempt to reach some kind of common ground, is that I cannot 'translate' my conceptions of Truth, Joy, etc into terms which would fit your world view, at least not without sacrificing what I mean by them, in order to make them 'fit' - & if I could, we wouldn't really be debating on common ground, we'd be debating on grounds that you had set out, & we would have to remain on that sharply defined ground, if we wanted the debate to continue, & wherever the debate went, it could only go where you allowed it to go. My world view includes the metaphysical as well as the physical, but yours seems limited only to the physical, so I would not be allowed to offer metaphysical 'proofs' - which by their nature can only be expressed through feelings & experiences.

But the point is, Tolkien accepted metaphisics, spirituality, Truth & Joy as 'givens', if you will not allow the term 'facts'. So, how can we discuss the meaning & purpose of Tolkien's writing if the ground of our discussion doesn't include those things as 'realities', given that Tolkien himself saw them so. If we limit ourselves to the physical, material world, that can be encompassed by current psychological & literary theories, whatever conclusions we may come to would not really be relevant, as central issues would have been rejected. We would be limiting the result to what you will accept before we even begin.

Look, Jung had as a patient a woman who believed she had really visited the Moon. Jung took the idea absolutley seriously, & was questioned about it. He responded that if that was what she believed, then the only way to understand her was to accept it as true.

What I'm saying is, whether you believe in such things or not, if you wish to understand Tolkien's works, you have to behave as if they're real. You have to accept the existence of Truth & Joy as facts. Just as you have to accept the Elves & Hobbits of Middle Earth as 'facts' if you are to fully imerse yourself in Middle Earth & be affected by it. For myself, I go further than simply accepting them as facts temporarily, based on my own experiences. Enchantment is a 'real' experience for me - I am in 'different' mental or 'spiritual' state. It is 'real', as all perception is 'real' - subjectively at least. I also experience Eucatastrophe as equally 'real' but more intense. & what I 'glimpse' while in that state seems more 'real', Truer, still. I call it Truth, because its the 'Truest' thing I know, & its that simple. So, how else can I define it, how can I fit it into your worldview? What terms or definitions can I use to make it fit, that you would find acceptable enough for us to have found 'common ground'?

I actually take statements like :

' A fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the Walls of the World, poignant as grief'....In such stories when the sudden 'turn' comes we get a piercing glimpse of joy, & heart's desire, that for a moment passes outside the frame, rends indeed the very web of story, & lets a gleam come through.'

as being literally True, that there is a such a 'real' True thing as 'Joy beyond the Walls of the World .. that for a moment passes outside the frame, rends indeed the very web of story & lets a gleam through.' And I accept it because I've experienced it, & it won't fit into your theory, so your request for a definition so we can meet on common ground can't be answered, because it won't fit into the ground you're allowing me.

None of that 'invalidates' your own, or anyone else's experience - I even tried to make my position clear yesterday when I said that if you experience 'Joy', are uplifted, moved, inspired, consoled, opened up, whatever, then you've got it, & there's nothing more to look for, no 'secrets' to uncover. Where I have difficulty with your position is your consistent atttempts to reduce all those things to brain function - but I accept it is my difficulty & not yours.

I have to say that you & SpM seem to get het up at claims that you are missing something, almost as if you're 'demanding' that I, or Helen, or H-I should 'reaveal' the 'secret' to you, or stop implying that there is such a 'secret'. Yet you claim to be so confident that you have understood it all in the way that you want, & that anything we could 'reveal' - if we deigned to let you in on the hidden meaning - would not interest you because it can't be True anyway, because there's no such thing as Truth.

So, here we are, us saying Truth exists, you denying it exists, but demanding that we tell you what it is anyway. If you don't feel you're missing out on anything why do you keep asking us to tell you what you're missing out on?

I can't tell you, because you're asking me to tell you in a language which doesn't have the words for me to describe it, & if I use the words that are there, what i tell you will be so limited the description won't describe it. But how can I not speak about things Tolkien accepted as facts, & wrote about, & are at the heart of his stories, & yet expect to get anywhere in understanding the man or his work.

You are demanding too much of me, I'm afraid, & I'm stuck. I can't give up on Truth & expect to get anywhere, because that's where Tolkien, imo, is trying to take me.

[Mister Underhill]

I’ve been following this conversation with interest and rejoin it now, as always, with too little time and too little art.

Be that as it may, I’ll try to limit my focus to this, which jumped at me:

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

As I said before, I think that "On Faery Stories" and the rest of his literary theory can be understood quite well with "truth" meaning simply "the set of true propositions"

I – with respect – quite disagree with this.

Throughout “On Fairy-Stories”, Tolkien refers to “profound truths”, to “permanent and fundamental things”, to “underlying reality or truth”, to “Joy beyond the walls of the world” (capitalization Tolkien’s), to the “notes of the horns of Elfland”, which loudly proclaim certain moral truths. He likens “this fallen world” to a prison, and glorifies “escape” (via Fairy-Story) as a going home. To where? He says that “the maddest castle that ever came out of a giant's bag in a wild Gaelic story is not only much less ugly than a robot-factory, it is also (to use a very modern phrase) ‘in a very real sense’ a great deal more real.”

What does he mean by these things? A castle from a giant’s bag in a story more “real” than a factory?

Surely he means more than “the set of true propositions” about the world: 2+2=4, the earth is round, and so forth. Unless I mistake what you mean by “set of true propositions” – which I take to be limited solely to rational, provable, indisputable, factual propositions – Tolkien is talking about something far more abstract, something which is, indeed, transcendental. Truth beyond mere factual truth.

This sort of truth – Truth – resists pat definitions or pithy catchphrases. Whole lifetimes may be spent in search of its many facets, or in an effort to live in accord with it. It is, to steal Tolkien’s words, “incalculably rich”. There’s a reason for talk of “glimpses” and “windows” and “through a glass darkly”. To trace it back to God and Heaven doesn’t help much, since I think most would agree that these are only other names for great and incomprehensible mysteries which are never to be fully apprehended in this world, even if you believe in such things. Unless I am much mistaken, I think that Helen, davem, H-I, and others on the “spiritual” side of the debate would agree that Truth is something to be sought after with humility, not imposed on others through tyranny.

Yet both science and psychology allow room for the mysterious, and here we, perhaps, may find some common ground, for surely none of us are so naïve as to think that the workings of nature have been plumbed by science, nor all the motives of the human mind and heart charted and explained by psychologists. As Shakespeare put it, “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”

Aiwendil:
I think that The Lord of the Rings is an immensely powerful and deeply satisfying work of art; I think it's one of the greatest achievements of the human mind.

Bethberry:
I have felt great, overwhelming grief at parts of his work, grief that brought me to my knees (metaphorically speaking)

Whence comes this power? It is there, I think, where we may find the most meaningful common ground.

BTW, davem, I think it was Blaise Pascal who apologized for the long letter, because he had “not had time to make it shorter.” In defiance of Pascal, one last point:

Fordim, I think your Nazgûl/Fellowship analogy has finally worn out its welcome once and for all, because it leaves no middle-ground: neither reader nor author ascendant, but reader and author as accomplices, co-conspirators as it were. I cannot say it better than Tolkien, from “On Fairy-Stories” which I reread this morning for the sake of this thread: “Uncorrupted, it [Fantasy] does not seek delusion nor bewitchment and domination; it seeks shared enrichment, partners in making and delight, not slaves.”

NOTE: Cross-posting with davem has resulted in a bit of redundancy. For that I apologize.

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem

My problem in so far as coming to an agreement as to what Truth is, in an attempt to reach some kind of common ground, is that I cannot 'translate' my conceptions of Truth, Joy, etc into terms which would fit your world view, at least not without sacrificing what I mean by them, in order to make them 'fit' - & if I could, we wouldn't really be debating on common ground

What I was trying to say in my last post was that I do not see it as necessary to reach agreement on whether Truth exists and, if so, what it is, to meaningfully discuss our reactions as readers to Tolkien’s works.

OK, let me adopt H-I’s approach and try out an analogy here. It may not work, but let me try it anyway. Davem, say that you and I are looking at a sheet of opaque glass set in a wall. On the glass there are beautiful, beguiling patterns that shift and change in the light reflected on them from our side of the wall. You believe that the patterns are created by some sort of projector on the other side of the wall. I, on the other hand, believe that there is nothing beyond the wall and that the patterns naturally occur in the sheet of glass. We both accept that we cannot meaningfully discuss the source of the patterns, since we will never agree on the issue. Can we not still discuss the patterns themselves and our personal reactions to them, and perhaps even how they are affected by the light from our side of the wall?

In other words, can we not agree to disagree on the nature and existence of Truth and discuss what you would call glimpses of the Truth and I would call the themes, concepts and values that I derive from Tolkien’s works? It is here that I think that we would find a good deal of common ground.

So, how can we discuss the meaning & purpose of Tolkien's writing if the ground of our discussion doesn't include those things as 'realities', given that Tolkien himself saw them so.

I think that we can discuss the meaning that we each see as readers in Tolkien’s writing without reaching agreement on Truth. I agree that in order to discuss its purpose (ie Tolkien’s intentions), I would have to accept his belief in Truth, even though I may not believe it for myself. But isn’t that what you are saying with your example of Jung’s patient who believed that she had been to the moon? Clearly he could not have believed that she had actually made such a journey, but he accepted her belief that she had for the purposes of the analysis.

What I'm saying is, whether you believe in such things or not, if you wish to understand Tolkien's works, you have to behave as if they're real.

I’m not so sure that me behaving as if Truth is real is much different from my accepting Tolkien’s belief that it is real. Or, indeed, my accepting your belief that it is real. But then again, even if Truth were to exist and we are, as you say, all looking at it “as if through a glass darkly”, then won’t we all see slightly different things? Can any of us ever really fully understand what it was that Tolkien was trying to achieve, regardless of whether we actually believe in the Truth or are simply accepting his belief in it?

I have to say that you & SpM seem to get het up at claims that you are missing something, almost as if you're 'demanding' that I, or Helen, or H-I should 'reveal' the 'secret' to you, or stop implying that there is such a 'secret' … So, here we are, us saying Truth exists, you denying it exists, but demanding that we tell you what it is anyway. If you don't feel you're missing out on anything why do you keep asking us to tell you what you're missing out on?

The only reason that I object to claims that I am missing something is that it suggests that you are without question right and that I am without question wrong. I don’t believe that I am wrong. Nor do I believe that you are wrong. I simply believe that we are both looking at matters differently, and that the way we each approach the issue is right for us. I have explained in my last post why I felt it necessary to try to understand what you meant by Truth. But I think that I have sufficient understanding of what you mean now to be able discuss it (without the need for quote marks ), even though I may not believe it myself.

You are demanding too much of me, I'm afraid, & I'm stuck. I can't give up on Truth & expect to get anywhere, because that's where Tolkien, imo, is trying to take me.

Now, about those patterns …

[davem]

SpM

I can see where you're going with the sheet of glass analogy, but the problem with it is summed up by Tolkien's statement:

'In such stories when the sudden 'turn' comes we get a piercing glimpse of joy, & heart's desire, that for a moment passes outside the frame, rends indeed the very web of story, & lets a gleam come through.'

Its the 'rending the web of story' thing - or breaking the glass - the light comes through. We can't then argue any longer about the cause of the patterns. The light from behind is seen to be the cause.

Its fine just discussing the patterns on the surface, but if they are only the 'effect' of the light behind them, then by limiting ourselves only to what appears on the surface, & in effect denying the existence of the Light that causes them, we will fail to ever truly understand what is happening. This is what I meant by having to 'compress' my conceptions & understandings in order to make them fit into some 'common ground' - we'll never get beyond that common ground. Effectively, we're boxing ourselves in. If we limit everything to what can be explained by brain function, then we'll end up only with an 'explanation' that tells us how our own brains work. We're 'assuming that which is to be proved'.

The patterns on your glass may be beautiful, but the real question is what they mean - is there a reason for them being there, or are they just 'there'. Tolkien is saying that there is a definite reason for them being there, & that that reason is more important, more 'True', more real, & most importantly, more beautiful, than the patterns on the glass, because it is the light behind it, shining through it, that makes it beautiful & meaningful.

[The Saucepan Man]

You seem to be saying that you cannot discuss the themes and values within Tolkien's works in any way that is meaningful to you with anyone who does not accept the existence of Truth (or at least accept its existence for the purposes of the conversation). If so, then that's fine. That's your choice. But it does seem to me to be unduly restrictive.

[davem]

I didn't mean to imply that. I'm simply taking Tolkien's statements at face value, because they strike me as expressing what I feel about things.

The problem I have is with restricting what we can discuss to the 'lowest common denominator' - ie, what we can all agree on, & excluding everything which challenges our own belief system. If we exclude anything which will not fit with your & Aiwendil's worldview, then that would exclude a large part of what I consider to be important, & the discussion would become too restrictive for me - I would have to censor everything I wanted to say to fit it in.

Believe it or not ( & while it may have made some embarrassed or uncomfortable) my recounting of my 'encounter' with my Guradian Angel was to make a point. Was it 'True'? Well, I could explain it in terms of psychology & chemical reactions in the brain, & thereby find 'common ground' with you & Aiwendil. But if I did I would be denying the essential part of the experience - the emotional, the Numinous. Also, by reducing the experience to something that could be encompassed by psychology, I enable you to respond - 'There, I told you it was 'nothing but' psychology'. Any attempt to fully understand what I experienced, to my satisfaction at least, requires that any 'common ground' is wide enough to include the fact of Guardian Angels - though I have no 'logical' explanation of where they come from, other than to srart talking about 'Truth' again, or assign any logical 'meaning' to the experience beyond the simple fact of its intense 'reality' to myself.

The question, as far as discussing Tolkien goes, is: is our 'common ground wide enough to include 'Truth', Joy, Light from beyond the story, which can break through it, or not? If not, isnt it a bit like trying to discull Middle Earth, but refusing to mention the Elves?

That's not to say we can't discuss specific events or characters within the Legendarium, but this thread, intentionally or not, has come to be about 'meaning' - what Tolkien meant, what his intentions were, what, exactly, his philosophical position was.

[The Saucepan Man]

You seem to be saying that you cannot discuss the themes and values within Tolkien's works in any way that is meaningful to you with anyone who does not accept the existence of Truth (or at least accept its existence for the purposes of the conversation).

I didn't mean to imply that … If we exclude anything which will not fit with your & Aiwendil's worldview, then that would exclude a large part of what I consider to be important, & the discussion would become too restrictive for me - I would have to censor everything I wanted to say to fit it in.

But isn’t that really just saying the same thing?

If not, isn’t it a bit like trying to discuss Middle Earth, but refusing to mention the Elves?

Well, I can happily discuss my views on Elves and how their nature and experience within Middle-earth might be applicable to my life, my beliefs and values and my understanding of my world, without actually believing that they exist in my world.

… this thread, intentionally or not, has come to be about 'meaning' - what Tolkien meant, what his intentions were, what, exactly, his philosophical position was.

Has it? It started out as an exploration of whether we necessarily have to accept Tolkien’s meaning if we accept his text, or whether we are free to impose our own meaning on it. Although it has clearly moved on and covered a wide variety of related issues, I still see that issue as being central to the discussion.

[davem]

Well, If we're to debate whether or not the reader must accept Tolkien's meaning, or is frre to interpret the text in their own way, we have to have a clear understanding of what Tolkien did mean, before we can debate anything.

The next question, for me, is 'was Tolkien right'?. To the extent that he was 'right'/correct in his statements, including his statements about Truth & Joy, then that would not be an area for argument - we can only validly argue about interpretations, not about facts. We can't argue about 2+2=4, & say its all down to interpretation whether the answer is 3, 4,5,6 or 78,9374.

So, we have to seperate the 'facts' from the interpretations - ours, Tolkiens or anyone else's. If we can't agree what constitutes facts & what constitutes opinions, its difficult to debate what role/responsibility the reader has in relation to the text.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, If we're to debate whether or not the reader must accept Tolkien's meaning, or is free to interpret the text in their own way, we have to have a clear understanding of what Tolkien did mean, before we can debate anything.

For me, that does not logically follow.

As I stated earlier, I am not at all sure that any of us can ever gain a complete understanding of what meaning Tolkien' attributed to his works, regardless of our beliefs. But, even though we can gain an approximate understanding, I see such authorial meaning as irrelevant to the reader's appreciation of the text unless the reader wants it to be relevant.

[Bêthberry]

davem,

I'm a bit confused about a statement you made earlier today.

I'm simply taking Tolkien's statements at face value, because they strike me as expressing what I feel about things.

I don't wish to appear to be pouncing on something you said, but this confuses me as it appears to suggest my--perhaps Sauce's and Fordim's-- position as well (although I don't wish to speak for them and I could be wrong).

I read this as saying you give credence to Tolkien's statements because they accord with something you have felt or experienced prior to reading Tolkien: you grant his words authority because they agree with your experience. Thus, the 'test' (if I may use that word) of the validity or authenticity of Tolkien's words is your own experience.

This seems to me to describe quite well the position that it is the reader who ultimately ascribes value or meaning to Tolkien.

I wonder if we could look at the word 'magic' for a moment. My recollection (and I don't have "On Fairy Stories" at hand) is that Tolkien offerred a particular definition of his use of the word.

He rejected magic as the magician's sleight of hand in favour of something which satisfied 'primordial human desires' (relying on memory here), of 'imagined wonder'. Elsewhere, I think in the Letters (and they are not at hand now either) I recall he regretted using this word magic as it is easily misunderstood. He then elaborated upon his idea that he meant a perfect correlation between will and deed, an ideal sense of art where intention is satisfied by the --I would use execution but that word seems to me to express too cruel a summation. A vision of aesthetic perfection or ideal.


Perhaps this encompasses both your sense of mystical experience and Aiwendil's aesthetic satisfaction?

EDIT: cross-posting with SpM. I would simply like to say that I agree with Sauce that we can never finally ascertain what Tolkien meant. And, that, for me, to make any effort to determine that apart from a text like LOTR is to engage in an activity which predetermines the text. We can discuss the text in terms of our own experience.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

319 posts and 5 175+ views on this thread, and today marks exactly one month since I opened Pandora’s Box with it. As has been noted by many in the last few days we have covered a lot of territory in that time and moved around, through, over, away-and-back, past and perhaps even under my initial question (quite a humbling experience, actually).

Some quick thread facts:

25 posters have posted to the thread

SaucepanMan and Mark 12_30 are tied for the most posts at 49 each

By my rough calculation, we’ve put up somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 000 words (or about 800 typed, double-spaced pages)

But at any event, that’s not why I’m posting. I thought that now might be a good moment to bring forward my initial post and address how I think it might be regarded given the thread’s evolution:

I’ve been noticing that most of the questions and debates that take place in this forum tend to turn on the idea of what Tolkien ‘intended’ when he wrote the books. That is, when it comes to something like the origin of orcs, or whether a particular character is a Maia or not, everyone goes scrambling to the various reference works to piece together the ‘truth’. More often than not, what happens is we find that Tolkien’s own writings are far from definitive and, even worse for those who desire absolute clarity, they sometimes are even contradictory (the origin of orcs being a good example; or, my personal fave and a perennial topic for heated discussion in these parts: do/can balrogs fly?).

It seems to me that this kind of an approach, while entertaining and extremely informative, tends to miss the point somewhat. Tolkien himself wrote in the Introduction to LotR that he “much prefers history, real or imagined.” Throughout his career as a creative writer, Tolkien saw himself as a historian who was ‘recovering’ these tales from a distant past. The historian can shape the narrative of history, but he or she cannot make that history. This only makes sense, I suppose, given that Tolkien was by training and temperament a philologist. He believed that the truth of any tale lies in its historical origins – more specifically, the historical origins of the words that have given rise to the tale.

Given this idea (which, again, was Tolkien’s own) of the writer-as-historian, then does this not mean that we – the readers – are not only able, but compelled, to seek always to reinterpret the tales from our own standpoint rather than continually try to figure out what the ‘first’ historian made of them? Tolkien can give us important clues and hints into the history and – more significantly – the moral fabric of Middle-Earth, as he was the world’s greatest expert on the material. But in the end, it’s up to the reader to really figure it out for him or herself. That’s, I think, the real strength of Middle-Earth over other imagined worlds: it’s open-ended and incomplete; it’s contradictory; it doesn’t make sense – it’s just like our own (primary) world.

The question that comes up out of all this (and if you’re still reading: thanks) is – how far can we go with our own re-interpretations of the works before we’re working ‘against’ them rather than ‘within’ them. I think it’s pretty fair to say that everyone here would agree that it’s at acceptable (even desirable) to interpret the women characters from a point of view that is more contemporary than Tolkien’s own. I think it’s also safe to say that we would all want to adopt an interpretation of the Dwarves that is radically different from Tolkien’s own (in a BBC broadcast recorded in 1971 he said that the Dwarves are “clearly the Jews”). But can we do something like criticize Gondor for maintaining an autocratic form of government (the King)? Are we allowed to re-interpret the Scouring of the Shire as the re-establishment of upper-class power (Frodo) after a successful revolution by the underclasses (albeit it supported by foreign insurgents)?

In a book that doesn’t really conclude, where does its truth end and our own begin?

From my perspective, I think that at the moment we have become a bit stuck on the horns of this sticky dilemma. davem has become the voice par excellence in celebration of the intensely personal nature of the reading experience – perhaps, the uniquely personal reading experience when encountering Middle-Earth (insofar as the story exists within the ‘frames’ both of fiction itself – the ‘not true but meaningful’ – and of its status as a subcreated world – ‘not true but meaningful within itself and according to its own internal rules and laws’.

I think that we all agree that this is an entirely valid and useful response, but it is a response that is itself too internalised to the reader to be shared in any kind of critically useful way with other readers. We might each have our own visionary/intuitive/religious/psychological/etc encounters with the work, but unless we can find another person who has precisely the same kind of reaction (which will never happen, insofar as we are all different people) then that encounter will forever remain personal and unique. This is good, and right and proper and, I daresay, the final and ultimate function of fantasy.

But this still does not get us anywhere down the difficult road toward the matter of reinterpretation of the text. I am not saying that personal encounters with the text – personal interpretations, say – aren’t valid (quite the opposite, see paragraph above), but that interpretation of a text as a critical act takes place only within a community. Sharing our personal experiences of the text (how it made us ‘feel’, the rightness of it all, the truth/Truth we gather from it) is an important part of a reading community, but not – I hope – the sum total of such a community. Or, at least, there are other kinds of communities possible.

I do think that we have gone just about as far as we can go with the debate that is currently going back and forth between davem and SpM (I feel kind of like a spectator at a tennis match as I read through their posts above – uh oh: I mean, a non-competitive tennis match!). Where I think we can refocus our efforts here is to ask, how can we begin to move beyond our personal and individual encounters with Middle-Earth and work toward some new reinterpretations of the text? The point of this is not, I think, to reach consensus or agreement, but to work through our own interpretations in response to other peoples’.

I suppose the tweaking I would like to give my initial post is this. I began by asking what claim or authority does the author have on the interpretative act of the reader in our encounters with Middle-Earth. Now, I think I would like to find out what claim or authority does the reading community have on the interpretative act of the reader in this encounter? Or/and: what claim or authority does the interpretative act of the reader have on the reading community?

(Special Note to Mister Underhill: note my total lack of reference to Nazgûl or Fellowship-readers! )

(Second Special Note to Mister Underhill: there’s no room left for any other kind of reader insofar as I see these two ‘types’ as existing at either end of a very long spectrum upon which every reader moves as we encounter the text.)