[Child of the 7th Age]

In LotR there are two rival groups set against one another. First, the Fellowship, brought together by Eru (as Elrond points out at the beginning of the Council: “Called, I say, though I have not called you to me, strangers from distant lands. You have come and are here met, in this very nick of time, by chance as it may seem. Yet it is not so. Believe rather that it is so ordered that we, who sit here, and none others, must now find counsel for the peril of the world” ). Second, the Nazgûl, under the domination of Saruon. I would suggest that the interpretative community you identify as trying to “understand their work as continuing in some definition the intentions of Tolkien” is reflected by the Nazgûl, while the interpretative community you say “suspect[s]…that endeavour” is reflected by the Fellowship.

Fordim

Ahem.... Well, this is an interesting dilemma. I've posted on the Downs a number of years and this is the first time I've been associated with a group of posters whose interpretive stance has been described as "reflected by the Nazgûl".

Whether constructing an RPG, or trying to interpret the ideas in the books, I do have an interest in "continuing in some definition the intentions of Tolkien". I am not saying I always succeed in this endeavor, but I feel it has merit. Hence, I would value a discussion about canon in relation to the books as long as things don't get set in stone. And I have a small monitor bell that goes off when fanfiction goes so far astray that I can no longer recognize even the tiniest hint of Tolkien. That's not to say I believe that fanfiction can be canon: it can't. And I'm not even comfortable with the term "canon-friendly" because I think that can mean so many different things. But somehow I prefer to see at least a healthy whiff of Tolkien's ideas, settings, or characters whether these come from BoLT, the Hobbit, or LotR. So I guess that puts me with the Nazgûl under the criteria you're using.

I would like to raise two objections to the paradigm of Fellowship versus Nazgûl that is put forward here. You describe these interpretive groups in terms of a conflict.....

between those who seek truth by submitting themselves to an-other’s particular version of that truth (the Nazgûl look to the Eye/I of Sauron), and those who cling to their own particular versions of truth (hobbits, Men, Elves, Dwarves) while hoping against all hope that somehow these truths are part of an overarching Truth that they can never really know.

This is one way of portraying these particular viewpoints but it is possible to suggest another, which is equally plausible and also has roots in Tolkien's writing. We are all subcreators. But perhaps those who are cognizant of the Original Music and try to incorporate its themes in their own creations are in effect following in the footsteps of the Great Creator (in this case, Tolkien himself). By contrast those who create melodies of their own which have no bearing to the original Music are merely pumping out discordant and jarring notes that are highly reminiscent of Melkor.

If you read the last paragraph and fell off your chair laughing, I don't blame you, because, frankly, such a comparison sheds more heat than light. And I think the same holds true for any artificial analogy of this type.

I believe none of us fall solely into one category or the other: slavishly following in Tolkien's footsteps, or going off on our own with creative interpretations that may or may not relate to the Professor's expressed views. To suggest such an extreme picture is misleading. In approaching Tolkien's writings, we are all on a sliding scale, some nearer one end, and some closer to the other. We all have moments when we think in terms of what JRRT meant by "X" or "Y", and others when we confront the text as individuals and come away with thoughts and insights that are uniquely our own.

In response to your comments about my post on Eruisms, I would voice a similar reservation. You are suggesting a dichotomy I do not see. I never stated that I was unable to perceive any evidence of Eru in my pre-1977 readings of LotR. I mentioned the quiet hand of providence at work and, in my first post, expressed delight that my early perceptions of Frodo and what happened at the end of the book were quite similar to those ideas that Tolkien presented in his published Letters. But I would still maintain that it's possible to read Tolkien without knowing all the ins and outs of the author's religious stance, to appreciate it simply as a good yarn. (The same holds true for someone who knew nothing about the northern myths.) But without the three published works I mentioned (Silm, bio, and Letters), it would be very hard to piece together the full picture of who Eru is, all the various Catholic interpretations that can be applied to things like lembas and Galadriel, and a host of other related things.

There is one thing you said with which I can heartily concur: that we can respond emotionally to themes in music or literature without our conscious mind being fully aware of all the details. And I think we can all agree that Tolkien is an absolute master in eliciting such a response!

P.S. A thanks to mark 12_30 for the new tree icon.