The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

doug*platypus · 04-18-2004, 05:19 AM

Fordim, you may be right in saying that "nothing kills intellectual inquiry faster than terminology", but it's what could done with this terminology that interests me. I would love to see a more widespread recognition of some of the RPGs, fanfics, whacky theories and discussions that have sprung to life (or undeath) from the Barrow Downs. Wow, now I know what undead really means! Not dead, but not quite alive. That's horrible! Nassty old wights. Anyway...

Cheers, Helen/Mark 12:30 for your response to my post. It was very nicely phrased, which I appreciate. I agree with the point you made: the word "canon" should not be redefined. Especially when I consider the original context of the word, used to differentiate sacred from non-sacred texts for a religion. It should of course not be used lightly. Even when we talk of Tolkien's texts as being "canon" I suppose it is always a little tongue-in-cheek (and there's nothing wrong with poking a bit of fun at our obsessions with Middle Earth).

Canon for the major religions has all (to my pitifully limited knowledge) come from various sources. This is the most frustrating aspect of a discussion of Tolkien canon... nothing will ever be universally accepted as such unless it was published by Professor Tolkien in his lifetime. As Saucepan Man pointed out, even then some things (particularly in The Hobbit) are open for debate!

Saucepan Man also touched on an issue that doesn't appear to make a lot of sense. On this website, certain passages from Letters seem to be regarded as canon. Does this apply to the entire book? Should these personal communications by Professor Tolkien, which I doubt were intended for publication, be accepted at the same level of authenticity as his published works?

The simple answer would seem to be "yes", since they do not (as far as I am aware) contradict any published material. But to accept Letters as canon seems to take away much of the freedom of interpretation that Fordim is advocating. The Sammath Naur, for example, is no longer as ambiguous as it was when Tolkien first wrote it, since it is mentioned in detail in Letters. As I have said earlier, I don't believe that an author's latest comments must necessarily be taken as the most accurate. Isn't it possible that Tolkien's later assessment of events in his books is not entirely accurate? Wouldn't we be better off studying the significance of events in The Lord of the Rings and other works in order to uncover possibilities for their true meaning?

The conscious explanation of text by the author may not be able to completely summarise the subconscious forces that were at work when it was written. It is only through detailed analysis by the author and others that these forces are exposed. I hope that I am making some sense here; I wanted to give a reason why Letters may not be eligible as canon, and therefore how the authority of Professor Tolkien to explain his own world is somewhat limited.

04-18-2004, 05:19 AM	#42
doug*platypus Delver in the Deep Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 960	More Canon Fodder Fordim, you may be right in saying that "nothing kills intellectual inquiry faster than terminology", but it's what could done with this terminology that interests me. I would love to see a more widespread recognition of some of the RPGs, fanfics, whacky theories and discussions that have sprung to life (or undeath) from the Barrow Downs. Wow, now I know what undead really means! Not dead, but not quite alive. That's horrible! Nassty old wights. Anyway... Cheers, Helen/Mark 12:30 for your response to my post. It was very nicely phrased, which I appreciate. I agree with the point you made: the word "canon" should not be redefined. Especially when I consider the original context of the word, used to differentiate sacred from non-sacred texts for a religion. It should of course not be used lightly. Even when we talk of Tolkien's texts as being "canon" I suppose it is always a little tongue-in-cheek (and there's nothing wrong with poking a bit of fun at our obsessions with Middle Earth). Canon for the major religions has all (to my pitifully limited knowledge) come from various sources. This is the most frustrating aspect of a discussion of Tolkien canon... nothing will ever be universally accepted as such unless it was published by Professor Tolkien in his lifetime. As Saucepan Man pointed out, even then some things (particularly in The Hobbit) are open for debate! Saucepan Man also touched on an issue that doesn't appear to make a lot of sense. On this website, certain passages from Letters seem to be regarded as canon. Does this apply to the entire book? Should these personal communications by Professor Tolkien, which I doubt were intended for publication, be accepted at the same level of authenticity as his published works? The simple answer would seem to be "yes", since they do not (as far as I am aware) contradict any published material. But to accept Letters as canon seems to take away much of the freedom of interpretation that Fordim is advocating. The Sammath Naur, for example, is no longer as ambiguous as it was when Tolkien first wrote it, since it is mentioned in detail in Letters. As I have said earlier, I don't believe that an author's latest comments must necessarily be taken as the most accurate. Isn't it possible that Tolkien's later assessment of events in his books is not entirely accurate? Wouldn't we be better off studying the significance of events in The Lord of the Rings and other works in order to uncover possibilities for their true meaning? The conscious explanation of text by the author may not be able to completely summarise the subconscious forces that were at work when it was written. It is only through detailed analysis by the author and others that these forces are exposed. I hope that I am making some sense here; I wanted to give a reason why Letters may not be eligible as canon, and therefore how the authority of Professor Tolkien to explain his own world is somewhat limited.