Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aiwendil
The problem is resolved by looking at things from my perspective. There is no single truth about Middle-earth because there is no single, original Middle-earth.
|
Hmmm. . . I wonder if we're not all barking up the wrong tree at the moment. It seems to me that rather than considering whether or not there is a single 'authorised' or 'true' or 'real' or 'canonical' version of Middle-Earth, we might not get further by examining how these questions pertain to the primary world. There really is "no single truth about [the primary world] because there is no single, original [primary world]." We all know that while we all share the same reality we do not live in or percieve that reality in the same way, with the effect that we all have our own versions of reality that occaisionally meet up with or overlap other persons' versions (I am very fond of
Child's criss-crossing railroad tracks image here -- although there is a terrible risk of crashing into one another from time to time, isn't there!).
In this respect, I think that
LotR accomplishes an almost perfect act of mimesis in its reflection of our world. Just as we have conflicting versions of the world, which we attempt to render into one meaning-full version that we can call our own, so too is Middle-Earth wonderfully incomplete and multiple. We are forced to address it as such and come up with our own versions of it.
The big difference in this thread seems to be a very simple one:
Some of us tend to refer to the author's version of the world that he created as but one among many. It may be a priviledged version with much to offer, but it is by no means definitive or final. Let us call these members of the thread the agnostics (they know there is meaning, they know what their relation is to meaning, but they aren't going to pin it down on any one specific entity or utterance).
On the other hand, some of us tend to look to the author's version of the world that he created as the best or, even, the only valid one. It is definitive and final. These people are not arguing that it makes perfect sense all the time, or that it is plainly or clearly written, but they do maintain that the truth is out there (
) and that it can be found with enough work and time (and faith?). Let us call these members of the thread the believers (they know there is meaning, they know what their relation is to meaning, and they know that this meaning -- however fuzzy -- can be pinned directly to Tolkien).
I rathar think that -- true to form -- Tolkien either wanted or had it both ways. On the one hand, he created a variegated world that reflects in its complexity the complexity and incomplete nature of the primary world. He wanted readers to apply it to their own experience and draw what meaning they could or would from it. Total freedom. Agnostics rejoice.
On the other hand, he saw himself as a reader of the text -- particularly given his stance that he is merely an editor/translator working from source materials. As such he could not resist putting his own
imprimanatur upon the text in the form of his own privileged interpretation. Believers rejoice.
These two stances are not entirely compatible, nor are they -- I think -- entirely contradictory. Who among us doesn't want to simultaneously create meaning for our own lives, and seek meaning in some other source or authority (God, any -ism, a loved one, etc).
It's not that Tolkien was being truthful or realistic -- I just think that he was being excruciatingly honest.
NOTE: I do not include in this the category of "atheists" -- those who believe the text has no meaning -- for the simple reason that the mere act of reading implies a faith that contradicts this idea: if reading were truly meaningless, why would anyone do it?