|
The question of what is canon seems to have a different nuance for this discussion than generally when applied to Tolkien’s Legendarium – it is think most widely agreed that everything published by Tolkien in his lifetime is canon. What this definition is missing is a differentiation between ‘facts’ and the interpretation thereof. In this regard, I think Tolkien’s case may not be unique, but rare and special, since the professor not only added to the imagined truth of his fantasy world, but also gave his own interpretations of it. Furthermore, he always imagined the account of the Ring War only to be one part of the Legendarium as a whole, and rightly so. A structuralistic approach to Middle-earth would therefore demand that one has to take into account all relevant texts if the matter of contemplation is affected by them.
One may be able to enjoy the LR as immanent and independent in itself, maybe even more so (as has been explained above). But when it comes to discussion and interpretation, concentrating on it solely and ignoring the ‘facts’ of the other writings -- canon or not -- can, while perhaps being prefectly right, still only be incomplete. Since the Legendarium definitely has a syntagmatic structure, one should not purposefully choose to ignore it and expect comprehensive results.
The way Middle-earth appears to us is like a myriad of ‘facts’ trickling down from a vast vessel which is Fantasy (or rather ‘Fairie’?). The only nexus point from which it enters our world was, however, its author. All Middle-earth-relevant facts derive from Tolkien. Semantically, the writings of the Legendarium would be the formal side of a meaning which anyone can interpret upon reading. The referential side of it is however not affected by the individually conceived meanings.
Discussions of Tolkien naturally have different ways and directions of asking and of contemplation. When one of the ‘trickled down facts’ makes us wonder about another ‘fact’, is it not best to look among the other ‘facts’? If the answer does not satisfy the reader, he can always choose to ignore it; but that isn’t helpful to discussion.
If, however, the matter cannot be answered by the other extant writings, we have to project an image gained from clues and evidence. Whether this is boring or not may not be very important, since noone is forced to guess what lies in the vast vessel, or beyond the far, enchanting mountains which we cannot reach.
Matters become more difficult when entering the area of pure ‘interpretation’. I do not think the terms “right” or “wrong” apply at all here, because of their mutual exclusiveness. The catholic intention of the LR may or may not have been prevalent when it was written, but I’d say that the book can be enjoyed just as well, perhaps even more, if one does not know about its intentions, or has ever heard about Christianity at all. The Legendarium’s ‘impact’ is arguably not dependent on its meaning, conceived or intented.
Now, we have the Letters where Tolkien addresses the book’s catholic undertones at length. The existence of these explanations doesn’t make them binding in my view; but it does make them necessary to consider. I doubt a discussion would be comprehensive if it argued for the LR being an atheistic book if it ignored the Letters. A very ‘incomplete’ discussion or contemplation would likely be considered ‘wrong’ more often than ‘right’.
The example of Gollum being pushed by providence is well chosen; but I actually considered Tolkien’s comments on this aspect more an interpreation than a presentation of ‘fact’, which would make it important, but not necessarily ‘true’ or ‘canonical’.
The very nature of Tolkien’s methods of expanding the Legendarium, including its textual material and therewith its ‘facts’ is interesting, but might actually fall in a doubtful area: “working backwards to discover motives and ideas which were consciously part of the initial plan”, as Bęth put it; in Tolkien’s case of course rather unconsciously. Most of us, including myself, seem perfectly content and probably grateful that Tolkien did expand the Legendarium after a part of it was published as far as it concerned ‘facts’. Perhaps it is this sense of ‘taking what you can get’ which inherently makes us accept the ‘truth’ of the appendices, or the Sauron=humanoid quotes and similar ones. Other authors have always been trying to explain what they had written, but when Tolkien did so, he added to the greater whole of Middle-earth, and this might make it more acceptable than an author trying to cover a logical flaw only with a far-fetched explanation and a authorative sense of ‘that’s how it was’.
This only adds to a sense of vastness one cannot help to feel when looking at Middle-earth. It would seem only natural that one looks at its author as a guide, especially since he has already succeeded in making clear some ‘factual’ points. Those who do not need a guide are free to wander at will.
|