[Child of the 7th Age]

Very random thoughts off the top of my head late at night...

The more I think about it, the more I see Tolkien's efforts as directed at "world building" rather than simple "novel writing" in terms of Middle-earth and even LotR. How else can we explain the fact that the author used such a variety of forms and devices to express his creative intent for a period extending more than fifty years? A novel, a children's book, mythology and legend as expressed in the Silm, poetry and song, a myriad of invented languages and scripts, maps, colored illustrations and sketches, etymological exercises, heraldic devices, timelines: the list could go on and on. All of these were tools that he used to create the world of Middle-earth. And Tolkien made it quite clear in his letters that this world was somewhat open-ended, since he had wanted to "leave scope for other minds and hands", inviting gifted creators to come in "wielding paint and music and drama."

How many authors invite the reader to add personal touches to his work? And what does this do to our concept of canon?

Even if we confine our discussion to Tolkien himself, all of this diversity has to make the writings more difficult to assess, especially in terms of canon, whether we are talking about a single volume like LotR or the corpus as a whole. Even when we take up LotR and attempt to treat it as a novel, strange little things like languages, etymologies, poems, and such come creeping in, to say nothing of the histories set out in the Appendices.

Maybe I was overly optomistic when I charitably described issues of canon as one of those questions that are "unanswerable"; Fordim may be closer to the mark when he says identifying canon is an "informative process, but futile". "Futile" is a strong word but I think there is some justification for that term.

And yet I am unwilling to go as far as SpM in championing the freedom of the reader: accepting anything that's not specifically excluded by Tolkien, which I believe is the standard he laid out. (If I am mistaken in this, I apologize.) Like Davem, I am uncomfortable with fifteen foot rabbits or slash relationships (although my reasoning vis-a-vis history is totally different than his). I might let an ostrich or two slip in, but that's as far as I go. All kidding aside, there is a difference between ostriches, fifteen foot rabbits, and slash relationships. Each of these raises a different question.

Ostriches are part of the natural world, so they may be lurking about in Middle-earth somewhere, most likely in Harad. Fifteen foot rabbits, in contrast, imply a revision of the rules of nature, in fact almost stepping beyond nature into the realm of outright magic. And there is surprisingly little "magic" in Tolkien, for reasons we've already discussed. If such large rabbits were a legitimate part of faerie or of myth, I might be willing to let them in the back door, but I'm not aware of any that are. The author has the prerogative to bring in Oliphaunts (which do seem to bear some resemblance to actual mastadons and mammoths), but that is his prerogative not mine.

And when we come to "moral" questions and values, it gets even tougher. Everything I've read about Tolkien tells me that he was a Roman Catholic, and that his personal beliefs were shaped by that religious faith. I can find nothing to indicate his views on slash or pornography, for example, were divergent in this regard. Here, I am talking in terms of an "ideal" rather than getting into any questions about civil liberties and such, since this is a totally different issue. Again and again, Tolkien hammered away in LotR at the need for individuals to take a moral stand. SpM is certainly correct that Tolkien did not explicitly address such issues in LotR, but if I go by what I know about the author (not my own standards and beliefs which may be very different), then I find it hard to include either slash or explicit portrayals of sex between men and women. Allusions to sex and rape are a different thing: these certainly exist in Silm. There is a wonderfully tender kiss between Faramir and Eowyn in LotR that hints at the passion that lies underneath. But I would find it difficult to step beyond this in the context of Tolkien.

To some degree, I do feel bound by what I know about the author. When he speaks of creating a world that is 'high', purged of the gross, and fit for the more adult mind of a land long now steeped in poetry", I find myself treading very gently. Perhaps this is an emotional reaction rather than an intellectual one, but surely that has validity as well.

Finally, Bb, Thank you for your post, which was very thought provoking. I agreed with much of what you said. You are correct in saying that we can never know the exact intention of the author (or the creator or the historian -- whatever term we care to use), which is not too different from saying that I can never wholly understand the past. But I think that the effort has to be made and that there are some things that lie in the dominion of the creator/author rather than the freedom of the reader. It's clear that all of us would draw the line at a different point.

If sixties readers best appreciate trees, and modern scholars have discovered Eru, while young people enjoy the sword play, that is all to the good in my opinion. All of these things are implicit in Tolkien's writings. History feeds on variant interpretations: in the clash of ideas, new truths emerge. In fact, without changing ideas and interpretations, you'd end up with a very boring textbook that puts everyone to sleep -- the type that are used in many history classes! My problem in terms of Middle-earth comes only when something "foreign" is introduced, something for which I see little or no basis in the text itself, especially in the context of what I know about the author.

One clarification:

You suggest that the preferable way to define a response to Tolkien is through history rather than the kind of literary criticism which Fordim and I tend to use...

My apologies. I did not mean to say that historiography was more helpful than literary scholarship. I was probably a little overzealous in my argument. In fact I was trying to argue that what we need are more approaches, not fewer ones.

Historiography is indeed a preferable way for me to understand the works, since I have more background and understanding in this regard than I would in terms of literary theories (or of psychological theories, for that matter). But it is a preference only for myself and not to be thrust upon anyone else who will want to forge their own path. Fordim is quite right in saying that diversity is the key here, with each reader applying what he or she knows best.

In any case, it's quite clear that agreement on these issues is impossible to reach. Yet, despite the headaches, I think the effort is worth making. What the Silm project is doing is a case in point. It is not canon in any sense, but by the very act of selecting and making judgments, we are given a new perspective on certain aspects of the writings. Well written fanfiction and RPGs perform a similar function.