The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

davem · 09-03-2004, 01:59 PM

So, do we have to accept all statements of 'fact' that Tolkien made as equally valid? Surely the facts of geography are unquestionable? But he changed certain geographical 'facts' over the course of his writings. Or 'facts' about the nature of his races - they changed. Or 'facts' about particular characters- again, same thing. Simply, he never stopped creating & changing the 'facts' about Middle earth, & if he'd lived he would have carried on doing that.

So what are we left with - talk about 'a fox that isn't there' - the more precisely you try to define 'canon' - either in terms of the facts of the world, or the writer's moral position, the more confused you become, & the less unquestionable 'facts' you find yourself with.

So, in a sense, there is no 'canon', in the sense of a coherent, self consistent sub created world. Which makes me wonder whether there ever could have been - isn't the problem the fact that sub creation is a dynamic, on-going process - Tolkien didn't 'sub create' Middle earth, he spent his life sub creating it. So Middle earth would never have been complete, set in stone, even if Tolkien had been given the Elvish gift of immortality.

Any interpretation we may put on his works, any, even the most outlandish fanfic, could have come from Tolkien himself, given the right circumstances & enough time.

In that sense, this thread can never answer the question, because the reader ultimately makes the choice whether to go with what Tolkien left us, & tries to make it as consistent within their own mind as possible, or they say, 'well, Tolkien might have ended up with 15 foot rabbits in Middle earth, so I'll put them in, or believe that they're wandering around there somewhere' (maybe fighting for survival against the Wild Were Worms in the Last Desert?) My own feeling is that if you go too far down that road you'll end up with the whole thing unravelling in your hands.

And that's the question - how precious is Middle earth to you, & how big a risk are you willing to take with it? Its very easy to only take what you want from Tolkien & ignore the rest, but surely the risk in doing that is that you don't learn anything from him. Has Tolkien got anything new to teach us?

I don't know whether I'm defending my old position here, or taking up a new one. I will admit that the Nazis & a Mythology for England thread has made me think twice about my more dogmatic statements regarding what Tolkien was trying to achieve with LotR & with the Legendarium as a whole. And this is where the author's personal life comes into the question of canon, because if his own personal experiences feed into his writings & what he wants to do with them, & wants them to do (ie the effect he wishes them to produce on his readers) then do we have to take that into account?

09-03-2004, 01:59 PM	#402
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	So, do we have to accept all statements of 'fact' that Tolkien made as equally valid? Surely the facts of geography are unquestionable? But he changed certain geographical 'facts' over the course of his writings. Or 'facts' about the nature of his races - they changed. Or 'facts' about particular characters- again, same thing. Simply, he never stopped creating & changing the 'facts' about Middle earth, & if he'd lived he would have carried on doing that. So what are we left with - talk about 'a fox that isn't there' - the more precisely you try to define 'canon' - either in terms of the facts of the world, or the writer's moral position, the more confused you become, & the less unquestionable 'facts' you find yourself with. So, in a sense, there is no 'canon', in the sense of a coherent, self consistent sub created world. Which makes me wonder whether there ever could have been - isn't the problem the fact that sub creation is a dynamic, on-going process - Tolkien didn't 'sub create' Middle earth, he spent his life sub creating it. So Middle earth would never have been complete, set in stone, even if Tolkien had been given the Elvish gift of immortality. Any interpretation we may put on his works, any, even the most outlandish fanfic, could have come from Tolkien himself, given the right circumstances & enough time. In that sense, this thread can never answer the question, because the reader ultimately makes the choice whether to go with what Tolkien left us, & tries to make it as consistent within their own mind as possible, or they say, 'well, Tolkien might have ended up with 15 foot rabbits in Middle earth, so I'll put them in, or believe that they're wandering around there somewhere' (maybe fighting for survival against the Wild Were Worms in the Last Desert?) My own feeling is that if you go too far down that road you'll end up with the whole thing unravelling in your hands. And that's the question - how precious is Middle earth to you, & how big a risk are you willing to take with it? Its very easy to only take what you want from Tolkien & ignore the rest, but surely the risk in doing that is that you don't learn anything from him. Has Tolkien got anything new to teach us? I don't know whether I'm defending my old position here, or taking up a new one. I will admit that the Nazis & a Mythology for England thread has made me think twice about my more dogmatic statements regarding what Tolkien was trying to achieve with LotR & with the Legendarium as a whole. And this is where the author's personal life comes into the question of canon, because if his own personal experiences feed into his writings & what he wants to do with them, & wants them to do (ie the effect he wishes them to produce on his readers) then do we have to take that into account? __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."