[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

...davem is yet unbeaten in debate. Even if opponents would not agree and would not be persuaded, they flee his persistence in defence of his position in most prolix discourses the Internet Era may yet boast of...

Hmm, surely the defining feature of this thread is that the main protagonists have resolutely refused (or found themselves unable) to flee it.

No 'tis like the Ring, drawing us ever deeper into the discussion, revealing yet more layers of complexity and hinting at hidden depths of discourse yet to be discovered and charted.

Originally Posted by davem

though I can see how you, Bethberry & SpM would feel you were 'fighting the long defeat'

Alas, unlike Galadriel, I have failed to pass the test and will not fade and pass West to the Unchattering Lands. I will remain within the realm of Canonicity to carry on the fight.

Davem, I presume that you seek to argue that, since Tolkien included himself as a character in his own tale, this strengthens the argument for the importance of taking account of his views and intentions when we seek to understand the "meaning" of the story. But I would say that, if anything, it does the opposite. Since he includes himself as a fictional character (to carry the fiction that the events described date from a real period in our pre-history), then surely all that we need know of this fictional character should be present in the text. He plays a very small role in the tale and acts purely as its archaeologist and translator. Within this fiction, the account was written by various Hobbit hands and unearthed and translated by the fictional Tolkien. He plays only a very limited editorial role in providing notes on translation and, on rare occasions (restricted almost entirely to The Hobbit and the Shire-based beginning of LotR), including the odd "story-teller's comment". Isn't that all we need to know about him (the fictional Tolkien, as opposed to the factual author) to understand his role in the story?

But, as Aiwendil said, where does this discussion really get us? I recognise that there is a certain value in taking account of the author's thoughts, views and intentions in seeking to understand what he was trying to tell us in LotR and his other works, just as I recognise the value in Bêthberry's literary approach and Child's historical approach. Equally, I can see the value in considering the spiritual and metaphysical aspects of Tolkien's works. Contrary to the impression that I may have given, I am not entirely averse to the idea that his stories can put us in touch with some greater truth (or even Truth ). Indeed, earlier in this thread, I recall being rather attracted by davem‘s concept of “enchantment” and I related how this resonated with the vision of sorts that I experienced when first reading LotR and which I can still vaguely recall when I read it now.

But, like Aiwendil, I believe that the differences arise when we try to ascribe degrees of value to these various approaches. We are all coming at it from different angles and bringing with us our own experiences, disciplines and beliefs. So we are each bound to ascribe greater (personal) value to some approaches than to others. Which is why I would maintain that (within certain boundaries that are morally, socially or legally imposed), no one approach is objectively more valuable than any other. It depends upon personal standpoint. I see nothing wrong if an individual’s purpose in reading the book is pure enjoyment. That’s how I have approached it on the majority of occasions that I have read it. Yet, my perspectives have changed. I am now more interested in looking for meaning within the book, in its historical, mythological and literary foundations and, yes, in what Tolkien himself was trying to get across to us. That change has come about since I joined the Downs, as a direct result of discussions such as this and others like it.

And therein lies the value of this discussion. Thanks to the contributions from all concerned in this thread, I have been compelled to think, to reassess and to look at things from an alternative perspective. As a result, my own perspectives have changed and that, I think, has great value in itself. (Although that is not to lessen the enjoyment value of this thread and I would add my voice to those who have expressed how much they have enjoyed participating in it.)

Personally, I do not feel that the discussion need be over, although I do feel that, for me at least, it does perhaps need to “move on”. (I would add that I am not seeking in any way to curtail the ongoing discussion in the posts that precede this one. It is simply that, from a personal standpoint and for the reasons stated above, I feel unable to add much more to it.) So, in an effort to explore other avenues of Canonicity (although possibly at the risk of killing the thread completely), I will pose a further question.

It seems to me (although I may be wrong on this) that there is general agreement that what I would describe as “pure canon” in the context of Tolkien’s works can only include the events, locations, creatures and characters described in the texts which he published during his lifetime. This, of course, will include the thoughts, feelings and motivations of the characters where they are sufficiently and unambiguously described. Basically, I am talking about those issues of “fact” about which we can all agree because they are there in the text in black and white. Of course, there may still be grey areas, even within this category. For example, some may question the existence of Stone Giants within Middle-earth and ascribe the references to them in The Hobbit to exaggeration on Bilbo’s part when he came to set down his adventure. Nevertheless, I think that we could all reach consensus on a whole range of issues concerning Middle-earth, namely the overwhelming majority of those "facts" set out in the published texts (The Hobbit and LotR).

Now, as I have touched on previously (many many pages back), I would not include The Silmarillion within this category, as it was not finalised and published by Tolkien within his lifetime. Had he done so, it almost undoubtedly would have been different (although most probably not profoundly so). Also included within this category are the other “unfinished” materials that were published following Tolkien’s death, most particularly Unfinished Tales, the HoME series and (to the extent that they bear upon issues of “Middle-earth fact”) the Letters.

So, my question is this: Why is it that Tolkien enthusiasts invariably take as “canon” anything specifically stated in these “unpublished” materials which does not contradict (or which can be reconciled with) anything stated in the “published” texts? Time and time again in discussions on this board (and no doubt in discussions on other boards like it and in “real life” discussions between committed fans of Tolkien’s works), someone will come up with a fact stated in Unfinished Tales or one of the HoME series or the Letters and the stated fact is generally accepted as “true“. The same thing occurs in games in the Quiz Room. Facts sourced from these materials are accepted as the correct answer to a question concerning them. Similarly, sites such as The Encyclopedia of Arda and books such as Tyler’s The Complete Tolkien Companion recite such facts as, well, facts. But why is this, given that they were not included as facts within the texts published during Tolkien’s lifetime (and were therefore subject to change should he have sought to include them within a published work)?

It seems to me that there are some “unpublished facts” which are supported by the published texts and make perfect sense in light of them. An example would be the statement made by Tolkien in (I think) a number of his Letters to the effect that (leaving Bombadil aside) no one could willingly have destroyed the Ring. Although I cannot recall this being clearly stated in LotR, it is (to my mind) implicit in Frodo’s inability to destroy it. If someone else could have carried out the deed, then it devalues Frodo’s character. Another example would be the existence of Eru. As far as I can recall, he is not specifically referred to in LotR. He only features in the “unpublished materials” (in which I include, as I have said, The Silmarillion). But his existence makes sense in the context of LotR, given the strong sense of providence implicit within the story.

Perhaps that’s the answer. We accept the “unpublished facts” because they derive from Tolkien and they make perfect sense within the context of the texts that were published within Tolkien’s lifetime. Of course there will, for some of us, be “unpublished facts” which do not ring true. A personal example which I relayed earlier (again a long way back on this thread) is Tolkien’s account in one of his Letters as to what would have happened had Gollum seized the Ring but not stumbled into the Fire of Orodruin. Tolkien suggests that he would have sought to resolve his desire for possession of the Ring with his feelings towards Frodo by throwing himself into the Fire. That just does not ring true to my conception of Gollum’s character (although it will no doubt make sense to others). But such examples are rare, and will almost always fall within the realm of speculation. So what is within us Tolkien aficionados that makes us all respond to the vast majority of “unpublished facts” with the same degree of acceptance? What is it that makes these matters “ring true” to us? And if there are matters which do not ring true to us on a personal level (such as my reaction to the Gollum example cited above), are we, as Tolkien enthusiasts entitled to reject them?

Well, my intention was to open up a new channel for discussion, but I suspect that I have merely provided the means of re-opening issues that have already been debated at length here. Nevertheless, I have sought to focus the issue as best I can so, if you will, have at it.