‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I’ve been noticing that most of the questions and debates that take place in this forum tend to turn on the idea of what Tolkien ‘intended’ when he wrote the books. That is, when it comes to something like the origin of orcs, or whether a particular character is a Maia or not, everyone goes scrambling to the various reference works to piece together the ‘truth’. More often than not, what happens is we find that Tolkien’s own writings are far from definitive and, even worse for those who desire absolute clarity, they sometimes are even contradictory (the origin of orcs being a good example; or, my personal fave and a perennial topic for heated discussion in these parts: do/can balrogs fly?).

It seems to me that this kind of an approach, while entertaining and extremely informative, tends to miss the point somewhat. Tolkien himself wrote in the Introduction to LotR that he “much prefers history, real or imagined.” Throughout his career as a creative writer, Tolkien saw himself as a historian who was ‘recovering’ these tales from a distant past. The historian can shape the narrative of history, but he or she cannot make that history. This only makes sense, I suppose, given that Tolkien was by training and temperament a philologist. He believed that the truth of any tale lies in its historical origins – more specifically, the historical origins of the words that have given rise to the tale.

Given this idea (which, again, was Tolkien’s own) of the writer-as-historian, then does this not mean that we – the readers – are not only able, but compelled, to seek always to reinterpret the tales from our own standpoint rather than continually try to figure out what the ‘first’ historian made of them? Tolkien can give us important clues and hints into the history and – more significantly – the moral fabric of Middle-Earth, as he was the world’s greatest expert on the material. But in the end, it’s up to the reader to really figure it out for him or herself. That’s, I think, the real strength of Middle-Earth over other imagined worlds: it’s open-ended and incomplete; it’s contradictory; it doesn’t make sense – it’s just like our own (primary) world.

The question that comes up out of all this (and if you’re still reading: thanks) is – how far can we go with our own re-interpretations of the works before we’re working ‘against’ them rather than ‘within’ them. I think it’s pretty fair to say that everyone here would agree that it’s at acceptable (even desirable) to interpret the women characters from a point of view that is more contemporary than Tolkien’s own. I think it’s also safe to say that we would all want to adopt an interpretation of the Dwarves that is radically different from Tolkien’s own (in a BBC broadcast recorded in 1971 he said that the Dwarves are “clearly the Jews”). But can we do something like criticize Gondor for maintaining an autocratic form of government (the King)? Are we allowed to re-interpret the Scouring of the Shire as the re-establishment of upper-class power (Frodo) after a successful revolution by the underclasses (albeit it supported by foreign insurgents)?

In a book that doesn’t really conclude, where does its truth end and our own begin?

[Bêthberry]

Fordim Hedgethistle,

Let me side with Treebeard here and not give you a hasty reply. I would like, however, to point to Tokien's preference of applicability over allegory in the Foreward to LOTR.

I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

More later.

Fascinating and extremely valuable discussion, I think.

*curtsies*

Bêthberry

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Yes -- thanks for that quote Bethberry: it's always been one of my very favourite by Tolkien as it links the very act of reading his works to the themes they convey. I think it's pretty safe to say that the "purposed domination of the author" that he dislikes about allegory is pretty close to what Sauron practices (in particular over the Nazgul); whereas the "freedom of the reader" that he associates with applicability is what the Free Peoples fight for!

The really brilliant thing that Tolkien himself points to is that if any one person attempts to claim that he or she has the one truth to 'explain' the novel, then this reader is no better than Sauron attempting to dominate all other opinions with his One Ring and overweening eye/I. Given this, if we are really to emulate Frodo, Aragorn, Sam (etc) we must resist the temptation to look to the author for the answers and struggle to find the freedom in the text that allows us to think/create for ourselves.

But this is where it gets sticky again: is our freedom to create wholly unrestricted? Can we 'make up' whatever we want about Middle-Earth or do we have to defer in some way to its 'Creator'? This is where the RPGs get so interesting, as we're always dancing on the edge of that particular knife! We have the freedom to do and say what we want with our characters. . .but only so much freedom, before a Mod will 'correct' us and bring us back in line with the 'rules' or 'truth' of Middle-Earth.

(Quick note to any and all Mods who may read this: love you guys all and the job that you do around here -- you present an interesting theoretical question, however, and are not being slagged in any way here! )

[davem]

It seems to me that the 'Legendarium' is pretty consistent up to the post LotR period. Then for some reason Tolkien adopts a more philosophical/theological approach - Osanwe Kenta, Athrabeth, Laws & Customs, 'Myths Transformed, etc. - at this point the real contradictions start to arise, because the earlier stories of the Sil tradition still retain many of the 'fairy story' elements from the Lost Tales. They cannot incorporate the later works - which Tolkien wants to fit into them - rather like trying to hammer a very large square peg into a tiny round hole. The whole thing starts to fracture.

This situation, as Tolkien moves from storyteller to philosopher/comentator on his Secondary world, from translator to theologian, is the real reason, IMO that he could never finish the Sil.

Interpreting the stories themselves according to our current values is probably inevitable.

BTW(The quote about the Dwarves being 'clearly the Jews' for anyone who has not heard it in context & is thinking it may be anti-Semitic, was made in reference to both races being disposessed of their lands & heritage & forced to wander the world, & adopt the languages of other lands, & face hatred & contempt from other races.)

[Sharkû]

Actually, Tolkien's Dwarves-Jews analogy in that very interview is merely philological in nature: "The dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic." (See here for a transscript of the interview). In one of his letters, Tolkien already presented the comparison with precisely the arguments davem mentioned.

But that's not the topic.
The problem with 'canon' is as far as I can see not just simply to be reduced to a single one. Rather, we have different grey and black spots in regard to the Legendarium.
Fordim's initial examples show this -- the origin and nature of orcs was at times uncertain, but quite clear later in the development of Middle-earth. However, the man still changed his mind on it several times. I believe that such a case provides us with the same problem as all texts which exist in diverging versions without a definite authority or definite solution to the complexity. Older mediaevalist science, for example, tried to construct an 'author's text' from the extant material, looking for sensible compromises and judging by their own ideas of taste and style. The result was of course a stab in the dark in regard to authencity. The more modern point of view is to take the conflicting versions for what they are, and rather ask why it says so in one copy and differently in another.
It appears to me that most discussions of such matters in the Legendarium however follow the old way, for better or worse. Nevertheless, while it is assumed that differences in medieaval Minnesang for example are there for a reason and presumably often intented by an author adapting his work to his audience, Tolkien discussion has a mixed blessing of its own: we can safely assume that the Professor had quite clear ideas about the 'truth' in his stories.
When asked about a matter such as Balrog wings, it is in fact most likely that he could give a simple and precise answer. Having that in mind, discussions of such grey areas are either confined to guessing Tolkien's mind or being content with little, none, or conflicting evidence.

I would like to think that all of that doesn't really have anything to do with interpretation, which is arguably wholly inadeqaute at answering questions within the Legendarium. Condemning Gondor's autocratic ruler from a modern point of view does not yield anything useful about the facts of the monarchy in the Legendarium. Calling the oligarchic Ruffianism a worker's class revolution is a perception noone in Middle-earth would likely have had either.

That being said, I do believe that there are very definite and easily recognizable boundaries of the canon. I see no point whatsoever, in any form of literary research, to question a 'fact' Tolkien gave us, within or without the fiction, since anything relating to the Legendarium is necessarily part of the fiction. What would be the point of denying the authority of a quote such as the one from the Letters, explaining that Sauron was of human form? One might get a different idea of Sauron when reading the books, and that in itself is interesting, but the fact is part of the whole. If a reader refuses to acknowledge certain parts of a work of fiction (or actual fact, for that matter), there's nothing I can do about it, but that person's position in a discussion forum is difficult to say the least. Conversely, I doubt someone with a clear idea of his own which one is unwilling to give up would ask such a question anyway.

Sub-creation in that context is definitely in accordance with the nature of the Legendarium, as long as the differentiation remains. I can't say much about the RPGs, but the canon rule there serves a very important purpose which is not primarily that of 'staying true to Tolkien', but rather to keep the games sensibly enjoyable.

[mark12_30]

Fordgrim wrote: ... if we are really to emulate Frodo, Aragorn, Sam (etc) we must resist the temptation to look to the author for the answers and struggle to find the freedom in the text that allows us to think/create for ourselves.

Fordgrim, I'm with Sharku here: if the author hadn't intended us to know anything besides what was in the published stories only, then he didn't have to leave it around to be published later. But he *wanted* to publish the Silmarillion; he *wanted* to respond to (respectfully phrased) questions about Middle-Earth and its denizens. If he intended us not to know these extra-trilogy details, he didn't have to fuss at them to prepare them for publication, didn't have to answer the endless letters he received, didn't have to grant any interviews at all.

He didn't want to explain Tom Bombadil; so he refused to. Bombadil is a mystery; you figure it out. There, in my opinion, anyone is free to write a fanfiction and try to fill in Who Tom Really Is. And I think Tolkien would have been amused by the effort, and pleased to the degree that it was properly woven with the available information (limited as it is) that he had already provided.

There are places where Tolkien gave little-to-no-information (what happened in those Ered Luin, anyway? What was the culture like out there?...) And in those areas, we are free to let our imaginations run wild. Where he is mum, we may speak freely.

Of course, it's a free country, and if we want to re-arrange Tolkien's world, we may do so, but let's not call it Tolkien's 'canon' in the process.

Davem wrote:

This situation, as Tolkien moves from storyteller to philosopher/comentator on his Secondary world, from translator to theologian, is the real reason, IMO that he could never finish the Sil.

davem, I'm hesitant to agree on this. While he says in Letters that he spent "too" much time playing solitaire, and accused himself of laziness, he *was* getting on in age. The evident change in priorities could be due to the weariness of age and the anticipation of his afterlife, which I believe helped motivate him into the philosophy and commentary.

But either way, I wouldn't prefer a finished Sil over the philosophy. I think I prefer having the philosophy. In the end, once HOME was published, we got more of a Sil than we would have from the Professor anyway.

I see the deepening as a growth and strength in Tolkien, and as something to look forward to in the aging process; not as weakness or negligence or lack of focus on his part.

[doug*platypus]

if the author hadn't intended us to know anything besides what was in the published stories only, then he didn't have to leave it around to be published later. But he *wanted* to publish the Silmarillion; he *wanted* to respond to (respectfully phrased) questions about Middle-Earth and its denizens.

Fordim, your first post is an excellent and refreshing train of thought, not to mention very well written. On the whole, however, I agree with Mark 12:30. Tolkien's rigid insistence on continuity and almost pedantic ability to fill in minor details do not leave us a lot of elbow room. I can't help but feel that the more we carelessly speculate about Orcs and Balrogs, the more likely we are to come up with ideas that run contrary to those of the Professor, who is ultimately the author of his own works.

Does Tolkien's authorship give him absolute control over those works? No; once they were published and widely read, they began to take on a life of their own, in the minds of others, apart from Tolkien. This is an incredible thing, especially in the case of Tolkien, since his works struck a chord with so many of us. But it is not always a good thing. Without entering into a discussion about them here, I'd like to bring up the Movies. The filmmakers had the daunting task of filling in many, many gaps in detail, without the collaboration of the author. While the cast and crew did a bang-up job overall, many glaring... differences... (for the sake of this discussion I won't call them errors!) between the text and the script have been noticed.

Given this idea (which, again, was Tolkien’s own) of the writer-as-historian, then does this not mean that we – the readers – are not only able, but compelled, to seek always to reinterpret the tales from our own standpoint rather than continually try to figure out what the ‘first’ historian made of them?

Well, we now have a large-scale modern reinterpretation to judge by. My question is, can the original intentions of an author be subverted by those of a later interpreter? At what point do we say, "this is no longer a faithful representation of the original", or "this is only loosely based on the original", or cry "SACRILEGE!"? And if the material as reinterpreted comes up greatly different from the original, shouldn't the reinterpreter (great word) just come up with their own vessel for telling a new story?

I agree wholeheartedly that we have not only the ability, but the obligation to examine the works of Tolkien, and well, everybody to the depth that they deserve. I also feel that during the course of our reading it may be possible to discover things in Middle Earth that Tolkien himself may not have consciously put there. Fordim's description of the class struggle in the Shire is a possible example of this. However I feel that if he were able today, JRRT would like to have the last say on such reinterpretations. Judging by many of the negative comments contained in Letters, the last say would not always be pleasant.

[mark12_30]

Fordim wrote:

am I really “free to let my imagination run wild?” Can I ‘make’ the people of Ered Luin into creatures with six arms and wings, who eat nothing but the bark of oak trees and kill their enemies by bombarding them with sea-shells…just by imagining them as such?

Sure. You just can't call it 'canon'. It's now your own imagination.

Once I would have been horrified by your six-armed, winged, shell-throwing bark-eaters; but then I reread the Sil, and re-discovered (to my horror) that Luthien by her arts had changed Beren into a werewolf, and herself into... a bat. Horrors! How undignified! Professor, you can't be serious.

(EDIT: I realize on rereading that was hazy... I say this because I think Tolkien had a very adventurous side. I would never turn an elf into a bat, would you? So how do you know he'd be horrified by your new creatures? He might be, but who knows? He'd be far, far more horrified if you married Frodo off or described Aragorn cheating on Arwen. ...end edit)

Once you begin creating new creatures that aren't in Tolkien's writings, you're doing your own subcreation now. If you were writing fanfiction, you'd put in the copyright part, "Tolkiens' creations belong to him, and mine belong to me" or some legalese version of that (I'm no lawyer.)

The professor's reaction might have been, put them in somebody else's mountains, not mine. But I don't think he would have told you to stop sub-creating.

Interestingly, as soon as you say this, you seem to back away from such an absolute freedom of the reader by insisting that “if we want to re-arrange Tolkien's world, we may do so, but let's not call it Tolkien's 'canon' in the process.”

And I stand by that. Perhaps it seems contradictory. But then, Tolkien both hoped/wished/expected his mythology to be added to by others, and, jealously guarded it to be his own. THere's a contradiction there too.

So you would seem to be suggesting that the “freedom” you talk of is a lot more complicated than it would appear: I can “re-arrange” the world, but without having any kind of ‘real’ effect on it?

Just like Jackson did; he rearraged many things; but the books are still there, on my shelf, unabridged, unedited and reliable.

How much freedom is that? It sounds more like the freedom of the deranged man to say what he wants about the world, since, as everybody knows, he’s mad and therefore harmless: we already know what the ‘truth’ is so let him have his little say.

Frankly, I’d like to think that there’s a bit more room for me in the sub-creation of Middle-Earth than that!

It depends on whether you are trying to write something which might make Tolkien happy (some writers do) or whether you're trying to do something original using Tolkien as a starting place. Or to put it another way, it depends on whether you want to write "Gap fillers" which should be strictly canonical by definition, or, take some liberties and go off on a tangent. What would an elf have to say about your winged-six-armed-bark-eaters, anyway? It's a free country; you can write a story about a canonical elf encountering something very, very strange and 'non-canonical'. Just don't make it a "gap filler."

Maybe we need a table of applications for the word "canonical". It's been discussed before. Pio made the point in this thread that as soon as somebody else starts writing/ inventing other than the professor, it's no longer canon. I'd agree. SO I suggested (allow me the conceit of quoting myself) the following categories for RPGs or fanfics (they'd apply to any TOlkien-related creativity) :

Canon-Consistent: no deviations allowed. Pure Tolkien. If it's not in, alluded to, or clearly allowed (erring strictly on the side of safety) by one of his (later??) books, you can't do it. Or perhaps, you would have to argue your case before the moderator.

Canon-Friendly: Not quite so strict. If it's close, with pretty much Tolkien's style and grace and flavor, we'll go with it, and hope he wouldn't frown too hard.

Alternate Universe-- the What-Ifs. What if Frodo got married, what if Boromir didn't die...

and... Other.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Just like Jackson did; he rearranged many things; but the books are still there, on my shelf, unabridged, unedited and reliable.

Ah, but this is the point I’m working through here…the text itself is unedited by anyone else’s interpretation, but how “reliable” is it, really? We’ve moved away a bit from where we started, I think, insofar as we’re talking more and more about the kinds of ‘adding’ that come about through rewriting the text in whatever way (e.g. fanfiction, rpg-ing, speculation). This is really my fault, I know, as I simply could not resist those six-armed bark eaters! But to return to the point that I really wanted to address…

Interpretation of the text in the sense that I’m working with as it pertains to the meaning and not just the factual accounts of the narrative – how much freedom do we have in this act? I accept that I cannot willy-nilly make up new elements of Middle-Earth (and that list you’ve provided Mark 12:30 from Pio is remarkably useful and concise in this), but I do enjoy a certain latitude in interpreting what is already on the page, even if that interpretation goes against Tolkien’s own, do I not?

The example I can use here is the climactic moment of LotR as Gollum goes into the fire. This moment has been clearly interpreted for us by Tolkien himself in the Letters (and elsewhere); he says that the struggle and moral choices of Frodo and the other heroes have lead to this moment, and brought about the right circumstances in which God’s finger ‘intrudes’ into the story and ‘pushes’ Gollum into the fire. (I don’t have my books with me at the moment so I can’t check his exact wording.) But there are at least two other ways I can interpret this same moment, without questioning/rewriting the ‘facts’ of it:

1. Gollum falls in by pure chance. There is no ‘push’ from outside the event by Providence, Eru or Anyone else. It’s just dumb luck that saves the day.

2. Gollum jumps in himself – the last bit of him that is Smeagol realises that he cannot hope to keep the Ring for his own, so he chooses to end his life in possession of the Ring rather than face having it taken from him again, OR perhaps he even does it with his last shred of goodness to save the world, OR perhaps he does it in response to Frodo’s earlier ‘command’ in the Emyn Muil (“If I should command you to throw yourself into the fire when I had it [the Ring] on, you would be compelled to do so” – again, I’m not sure this is exactly right).

I’m not actually trying to argue for any of these interpretations, I only give them to point out that they are all at least possible: they are all supported by the facts of the book, and each one of them makes sense. The only grounds we have to reject these interpretations in favour of Tolkien’s own is that Tolkien, as the sub-creator of this world, has more ‘right’ than the reader to declare what’s ‘true’.

And here we go back to the quote that Bêthberry has wonderfully provided us with:

I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

As soon as we declare that Tolkien’s interpretation is ‘right’ and all others ‘wrong’ we are, in effect, becoming Nazgûl to Tolkien’s Sauron! We are claiming that the only source of truth in Middle-Earth is Tolkien’s and giving way, gleefully, to the “purposed domination of the author”. We get to be ‘right’ about the work and everyone else is ‘wrong’ because we’ve read the Letters and know what’s what, while others not so enlightened are out there crazily and wrongly coming up with what they want to about the world.

But it gets even more complicated!!! To declare that my interpretation number one (above) is right, is to call into question the whole moral fabric of Middle-Earth, as it was conceived by its sub-creator. Just because a particular reader does not believe in Providence, does not mean that he can make the history of Middle-Earth non-providential, for that history is not of the primary world, but of Tolkien’s secondary world. Eru is as ‘real’ as Frodo or the Silmarils, so we can’t question Him or His plan. But then where is the “applicability” of the text for a reader who interprets Gollum’s fall in manner number one?

So we get stuck, I think, between some hard choices. On the one hand, we want to accept Tolkien’s authority on how to interpret this moment, since it is his world after all (Eru/Providence pushed Gollum) – but to do this is to give way to the “purposed domination of the author”. On the other hand, we want to interpret this moment for ourselves, since we are the ones reading it after all (it’s possible to read Gollum’s fall as blind luck) – but to do this we put in jeopardy the “applicability” of the tale by questioning, or overthrowing outright, the ‘rules’ of Tolkien’s secondary world in favour of our own understanding of the primary world.

I do hope that this overly long post makes sense – if anyone gets to the end of it, let me know and I will throw a few reputation points your way as a thank you.

[piosenniel]

Here is a former thread for perusal which might have a small bearing on this:

Canon and Fanfiction

And one other, for those readers wondering what 'canon' might refer to, as I did when I first found the Downs:

Questions of Canon

[Imladris]

I don't have time to read the links that Pio so kindly offered, but I would like to say something.

In a book, the writer doesn't "do" everything. The writer and reader have to meet half way. I think it's like the writer is pointing the way from point A (the beginning) to Point B (the end of the book) for the reader to follow. How the reader gets to point B depends on himself to a certain extent. Hopefully he won't come up with some wild theory that is definitely anti Tolkien.

In life, there is more than one way to do things, so there is more than one way to interpret a story. Take your example of Gollum and the Ring. I think we can all agree that because of Gollum's pride (his gleeful dancing about instead of putting the Ring on and disappearing) was his fall (Pride cometh before a fall). However, specific ideas such as Eru pushed him in, he merely fell in, or Smeagol took over for a bit and decided to save the world, etc, are merely details that fit a person's world view. That's one of the reasons why, I think, Tolkien touches so many people. He left those details (religious details if you would) out, letting the reader decide for himself.

Of course, a reader can't deny that Eru didn't exist because he obviously did. However, they don't have to accept Tolkien's definition of it.

Those are my amateur thoughts on the subject.

[Sharkû]

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 Bêth 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.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

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.

This is an excruciatingly important point Sharkû, as it puts Bêthberry’s comments about Foucault and Barthes into a context that I doubt either of them ever really considered. For Barthes the author ‘dies’ (to the reader, at the moment the text is ‘completed’ ) and for Foucault the author ‘disappears’ (into the discursive structures that penetrate the moment of textual ‘creation’ ). In each case, the author recedes and the text is ‘absorbed’ into the world of power-relations that encompass the text’s new locus: the reader. But what of a work of fantasy like Tolkien’s? The point that has been made again and again in this thread is that for this work to survive as an interpretable object (that is, for it to survive as a text at all) we must include in the web of relations that come to replace the author the mythic/philosophical/moral world that the author has created – and thus the author, at the very moment of his death, is magically brought back to life (is this the “enchantment” of the text about which Davem writes so movingly?).

There is, so far as I can tell, a huge difference between the process of authorial death as described by Barthes and what we experience with Tolkien. The author dies for Barthes, because the text’s ‘real’ existence is in the world that the author and the reader ‘share’; they may have totally different interpretations of that world, and hence of the text (this is why the author dies), but the world they share is the same one (our Primary world). But with Tolkien, the text’s ‘real’ existence is in the world that the author has subcreated – the only way the reader can thus ‘share’ the same world as the text is to revive the author in some fashion by becoming “inclined to accept” (quoting Saucepan Man now) the author’s interpretation of that world (without necessarily becoming bound to or by it).

Barthes and Foucault I am sure would argue that the author is still dead and/or absent, and that the reader is merely projecting onto the text his or her own subjectivity in order to create a ghost-impression of the author to fill the void left by the subcreator’s absence – thus making the author even more dead or more absent by erasing the death with a golem of one’s own.

But I don’t think I buy that line of thought…the enchantment of the text is too real.

[Bêthberry]

My apologies, davem, for an overly long post difficult to follow.

I must say I did not write out of any desire to flaunt my particular small area of training. We all come to Tolkien from our own perspectives and values and, I think, our relationship to/with him and his work is not necessarily uniform or unchanging. I first devoured The Hobbit and then LotR as a teenage infatuation with all things fantasy and then had the great pleasure of discovering Tolkien's 'serious' side when I studied Old English. An unexpected bonus!

I really felt that there was a very strong conflict developing between the issue of the freedom of the reader and the authority of the author and what I had hoped to do was provide some clear and extensive points in favour of the reader's experience--points made not simply as personal preference and opinion but as evidenced in a critical perspective which traditionally had ignored Tolkien but in which I hoped to suggest he could be included.

I think Germaine Greer has an animus with more issues than just Tolkien.
Enough for one late night!

[doug*platypus]

I'd like to expand on something I said in my first post: during the course of our reading it is possible to discover things in Middle Earth that Tolkien did not consciously put there. Bêthberry described several good reasons why an author who examines their work at a later date may not analyse it correctly, despite the fact that it was their own. Each of us is a different person now to what we were five years ago. Try looking back at your earliest posts on the Barrow Downs, and it may seem like reading the words of a very familiar stranger. You may need to read the text and try to step into the shoes of this stranger to understand what they were getting at.

Orcs as hideously altered Eldar was an idea that Tolkien did not favour later in his life. This is a strong example of the problems of canon: should the views of the older Tolkien be considered superior to those of the Tolkien who originally concocted the idea? In my opinion, not necessarily. My own view is that it is sometimes foolish to attempt to rewrite your own words many years after they have been written. The meaning or reason that was obvious when you first wrote them may not be apparent to your future self. Discussion over which Orcish Genesis should be accepted as the "objective truth" has never, to my knowledge, decided one way or the other. Even Tolkien does not have absolute veto power over Tolkien.

Clearly, then, a broader definition of what is acceptable as canon is required. As Sharkû pointed out, this website has already gone past the dictionary.com definition of this term (thank goodness!!). I think that what Fordim is driving towards (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is a treatment of Middle Earth lore as real history, with Professor Tolkien as the most reliable source, but not the ultimate truth. A canon-friendly world, but not one which relies on the words of Tolkien alone. This scenario would see works of Middle Earth history by from Mark 12:30, Bêthberry, Child of the 7th Age and others considered and debated with an eye critical not only to the story, but to its historical accuracy. I don't know if so-called fanfics are regarded in this way at present, but they certainly could be.

Many threads on the Downs have ended with a crushing Deus ex Machina in the form of a quote from Tolkien. No doubt this is one of the things that raised Fordim's pugly hackles to the point where this thread was born. Perhaps it is more worthwhile to continue discussions even after this killing blow has been administered. Tolkien's commentary on his own works have varying degrees of reliability, if you believe in what I was saying earlier in this post. For example, his assertion that nobody could have resisted the One Ring in the Sammath Naur was absolute, and could justifiably be used to end a debate (unless the stubborn among us mentioned the words What, If and Ilúvatar). But Tolkien's decision that Orcs were not corrupted Elves seems less certain. So nobody should be told they are irrefutably "wrong" when they say that Orcs were created in this fashion. They should simply be advised that the evidence is heavily against them. Small distinction, but quite important.

[Bêthberry]

A very brief reply, Fordim before I dash out the door. I wonder if what you and Sharkey have hit upon could be termed a referential fallacy. Here we have the situation in which the only texts for which we could plausibly posit a Creator are those which were inextricably created solely by a Creator in a realm of fantasy, or faerie ouside our real world. Fascinating. A golem indeed.

[The Saucepan Man]

Doug, I would like to think that, when Tolkien has put forward conflicting theories in his writings, there remains considerable scope for debate. Indeed, the origins of Orcs has occupied considerable thread-space on this forum. It's really up there with Bombadillo and Balrog's Wings. Questions arise such as how can Orcs have been derived from men when they were around before men awoke; how can they be mere beasts and still have conversations like those we witness between Shagrat and Gorbag; if they were derived from Elves, are they immortal; if they have feä, is redemption available to them? All these discussions have taken place, with many different opinions expressed, and I am sure that there are many more potential discussions which have yet to occur.

Many who have posted here have quite rightly made the distinction between matters of fact and matters of interpretation (although the distinction is not always an easy one to make, as I consider further below). But the question of the nature and origin of Orcs is quite clearly an issue of fact. Within the Legendarium, Orcs existed and so they had to have come into existence somehow. Because we have no clear answer on this from the author, I would say that the reader is entitled to choose the theory which best suits his or her Middle-earth world-view (or perhaps even come up with a different theory), or to try to reconcile the conflicting theories, or even to reject the issue as unimportant. (It is, I suppose, a perfectly respectable argument to say that, because the only theory set down in a published and completed work is that given in the Silmarillion, namely that Orcs were derived from Elves captured by Morgoth, then that must be the "truth" of the matter. But the reader still has freedom to make his or her own choice and the scholar still has freedom to debate the point.)

Quite clearly, as a general proposition, we have to accept, if we are taking a book seriously, what is actually said in the text. We cannot very well choose to believe, for example, that Boromir never attempted to seize the Ring, or that the Hobbits met Aragorn at Rivendell rather than Bree. But even in this area, the issue is not clear-cut. For example, Tolkien himself tells us not to take everything that Treebeard says at face value, since he is "not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or understand" (Letter 153). And there are those who assert that some of the "facts" presented in the Hobbit were mere fanciful elaborations by Bilbo, the Stone Giants for example (although I do not hold with this theory myself). So it would seem that there is some (albeit limited) scope for rejecting some of what we are told in the text itself.

As for the secondary material, we all seem to agree that the reader has the freedom to accept or reject "facts" which are presented there. But is this because (at least with regard to what Tolkien says in his Letters) they are actually not matters of fact at all, but rather matters of interpretation? Sharkey, you categorise Tolkien's comment that Gollum was pushed into the fires of Orodruin as a matter of interpretation, rather than fact. But is that really the case? If Tolkien had told us in LotR itself that this was what happened, we would surely have to accept it as fact. Does it take on a different characterisation, simply because he wrote about it in a letter rather than inserting it in the primary text? And does this apply to other matters which are quite clearly more factual in nature? Should we take it as an issue of fact, for example, that the Rohirrim spoke with a slower tempo and more sonorous articulation (Letter 193), or is this a matter of interpretation because it is not said in the primary text? (I am assuming that it is not, but I have not checked and stand to be corrected.) Is it an issue of fact or interpretation that no one (Bombadil excepted) could willingly have destroyed the Ring? Perhaps it does not matter since the reader is entitled to reject anything which is not said in the primary text in any event. But, if we are to take issues of fact stated in the secondary material as being of greater weight in establishing the "truth" of the Legendarium than issues of interpretation, the point assumes greater significance. Presumably it depends upon how the point is expressed. Obviously, if the author says that his interpretation of X is Y, then that is a matter of interpretation. And the texts presented in Unfinished Tales and the HoME series are perhaps more likely to be factual than interpretational. But it will not always be clear. Which, I suppose, provides yet more scope for debate.

[doug*platypus]

Fordim, you may be right in saying that "nothing kills intellectual inquiry faster than terminology", but it's what could done with this terminology that interests me. I would love to see a more widespread recognition of some of the RPGs, fanfics, whacky theories and discussions that have sprung to life (or undeath) from the Barrow Downs. Wow, now I know what undead really means! Not dead, but not quite alive. That's horrible! Nassty old wights. Anyway...

Cheers, Helen/Mark 12:30 for your response to my post. It was very nicely phrased, which I appreciate. I agree with the point you made: the word "canon" should not be redefined. Especially when I consider the original context of the word, used to differentiate sacred from non-sacred texts for a religion. It should of course not be used lightly. Even when we talk of Tolkien's texts as being "canon" I suppose it is always a little tongue-in-cheek (and there's nothing wrong with poking a bit of fun at our obsessions with Middle Earth).

Canon for the major religions has all (to my pitifully limited knowledge) come from various sources. This is the most frustrating aspect of a discussion of Tolkien canon... nothing will ever be universally accepted as such unless it was published by Professor Tolkien in his lifetime. As Saucepan Man pointed out, even then some things (particularly in The Hobbit) are open for debate!

Saucepan Man also touched on an issue that doesn't appear to make a lot of sense. On this website, certain passages from Letters seem to be regarded as canon. Does this apply to the entire book? Should these personal communications by Professor Tolkien, which I doubt were intended for publication, be accepted at the same level of authenticity as his published works?

The simple answer would seem to be "yes", since they do not (as far as I am aware) contradict any published material. But to accept Letters as canon seems to take away much of the freedom of interpretation that Fordim is advocating. The Sammath Naur, for example, is no longer as ambiguous as it was when Tolkien first wrote it, since it is mentioned in detail in Letters. As I have said earlier, I don't believe that an author's latest comments must necessarily be taken as the most accurate. Isn't it possible that Tolkien's later assessment of events in his books is not entirely accurate? Wouldn't we be better off studying the significance of events in The Lord of the Rings and other works in order to uncover possibilities for their true meaning?

The conscious explanation of text by the author may not be able to completely summarise the subconscious forces that were at work when it was written. It is only through detailed analysis by the author and others that these forces are exposed. I hope that I am making some sense here; I wanted to give a reason why Letters may not be eligible as canon, and therefore how the authority of Professor Tolkien to explain his own world is somewhat limited.

[Lord of Angmar]

I see what you are saying, doug. I try not to use Tolkien's letters to prove or illustrate a point about Middle-earth unless there is no text from the Legendarium itself readily available to directly support the point. However, the letters can be regarded as 'canon', I suppose, inasmuch as whatever Tolkien clearly states in his letters will generally hold true to his intent. If we should choose to disregard the assertions he makes in his letters as non-canonical to the world of Middle-earth, we would be, to an extent, voluntarily ignoring certain truths present in his writing. It would be different if the letters were not published (as perhaps they should not have been, since they do reveal a lot of the 'bones' that Tolkien meant to keep earthed), but since they have been, it is safe to say that their assertions and revelations about Middle-earth can be taken as canon.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Doug,

I am comfortable with your concluding sentences that the conscious explanation by the author may not always tell the whole story and that the reader is free to speculate on the subconscious forces that may be at work in any given literary work, including the Lord of the Rings.

However, like Lord of Angmar, I question the position you take on the Letters as a way to reach that conclusion.

On this website, certain passages from Letters seem to be regarded as canon. Does this apply to the entire book? Should these personal communications by Professor Tolkien, which I doubt were intended for publication, be accepted at the same level of authenticity as his published works?

You suggest that the Letters should be removed from the body of writings regarded as canon for several reasons: they are personal communications rather than published writings; as later assessments by the author, they may not be entirely accurate; and, they take away the freedom of the reader to interpret.

The difficult thing about Tolkien is that not all the writings regarded as canon bear equal weight or authority. This is because Tolkien himself never appears to have considered any of his major works (published or not) as definitive or final, and was constantly revising and revisiting. He seems to have viewed Middle-earth as an ongoing process rather than in terms of finished or "published" products. Accordingly, the line between published and unpublished writings is more blurred in Tolkien than in other writers. This is even more the case with the wider Legendarium than with those interpretations set out in the Letters, at least those pertaining to Lord of the Rings. Since the creation and interpretation of Middle-earth was a constantly evolving process beginning about 1917 and continuing through the remainder of the author's life, I don't think we can legitimately remove any piece of it solely for being of "late" or even "early" vintage (such as the round versus the flat earth issue). There would have to be other factors involved.

It is true that the Letters were personal comunications rather than published writings. However, at least we know they were directly from the author and represented his opinions at that particular moment in time. This is certainly not true of the Silmarillion, for example. Christopher Tolkien accepted certain manuscripts over others without really knowing what his father wanted, and even wrote chunks of certain stories himself. Including the Silmarillion in canon is far more suspect than including the Letters, at least those portions and interpretations that deal with Lord of the Rings. A large portion of HoMe and Unfinished Tales also fall in this more questionable category, since we are dealing with Christopher Tolkien's editorial hand.

As far as the Letters go, I would put more weight on those directly penned by Tolkien that deal with any of the works actually published in his life. Those letters dealing with the Silm are of less weight, since we don't know what JRRT's final preferences were in regard to publication.

By this standard, Tolkien's words on Gollum and the Ring from the Letters are indeed canon. I don't feel we can argue those words away. However many creative interpretations we may arrive at, individually or in these forums, there is only one that the author has stamped with his imprimateur. That doesn't mean we are restricted only to that in our own public discussions or private thoughts. As Bethberry suggests, the text is a living thing, capable of interpretation by the individual reader. As such, there is no need to reinterpret the term "canon" or the particular writings that make up that canon. That is a wholly separate issue.

And, in a strange way, it leads me back to the question I posed earlier on this thread. Would Tolkien even have wanted to see all the variations in HoMe actually set out in print? Should this series be considered part of canon? (I am seeing this as questionable, except perhaps for those items left out of the Appendices that Tolkien clearly wanted to publish---these do have the force of canon, I believe.)

But perhaps the question of HoMe is a separate thread....

[mark12_30]

SO... issues raised so far:

Canon:

levels of 'canonicity' for original Tolkien work:

(A) Tolkien's Original published works in his lifetime. Most agree on this.

(B) Tolkien's Original works whether published or not. Hotly debated in terms of timeline and "final word".

(C) Letters. Also hotly debated. C7A: Use to clarify author's intent when stated.

"Legendarium": Definition? and how it differs from "canon"? I'm fuzzy on this

Individual reader's interpretation upon first reading

Individual readers' application

~*~*~ enchantment ~*~*~ ... wonder, eucatastrophe, Perilous Realm.

Analysis based on research into Legendarium as a whole

Does Analysis hinder enchantment? When & why, or is degradation of enchantment by analysis also an individualised response?

Regarding historia or derived myth:
Fan fiction/ RPG which faithfully extends legendarium.
Criteria? Qualifications?
Board of judges to be appointed by... whom?
Ratified by what method?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

To clarify my positing of historia -- by that I merely meant the "meaningful stories" that each reader develops in response to the 'facts' of Middle-Earth as set down in the 'primary' texts (like the Hobbit, LotR, Silmarillion etc). These works are themselves, of course, Tolkien's own historia about those facts: the decision of whether or not to accept those 'versions' as final or absolute rests with the individual. For those who wish to "accept" Tolkien's historia I would suggest that the Letters could very well be 'canonical'; for those of us, such as myself, who prefer to develop our own historia, the Letters are extraordinarily useful.

This definition would, I realise, exclude things like fanfiction and rpgs, insofar as they 'make up' or add 'new facts' to the annals of Middle-Earth. Perhaps the best way to regard fanfic and rpgs is as 'historical fiction' -- containing historical truths about Middle-Earth (ie moral vision) without being historically accurate.

But a note on the word 'canon' now -- I think we are working through something of a shibboleth. A canon is not a group of set or finalised texts: every canon is always in motion, being changed, being reinterpreted, etc. Even the Biblical canon was arrived at in historical time (at the Council of Nicacea) and continues to be reworked to this day (some Bibles have the apocrypha in a separate section, some do not). The 'canon' of American literature didn't use to include writers like Mark Twain (too childish) or Toni Morrison (too black): but as American society changed, so did the canon, and now just try finding any course or program in American Lit anywhere in the world that doesn't include both these writers.

I think the attempt here to determine a final set of 'canonical' texts for Middle-Earth is doomed to failure (as is becoming perfectly clear). I think the list of canon provided by Mark 12:30 above is about as close as we're going to get. The real issue is, I think, what is it do we want to accmplish by the act of making some texts 'canonical' and others not. To recover the initial sense of canonisation: it means to set something aside a sacred. Two questions:

1) by what definition of "sacred" can we set aside anything Tolkien wrote? (He would have considered such an act to be blasphemy, I'm sure!)

2) What do we gain by doing this anyway?

My position, in brief: the search for the 'canon' of Middle-Earth is futile at best, misleading at worst, for it maintains the fiction of an authorially established 'truth' when what we should be doing is looking at all available texts and evaluating, thinking about and arguing about each of them on their own merits (as well as how they relate to one another) without worrying about if they do or do not 'fit' into some idealised (and wholly imaginary) Canon of Truth (which will only ever really be the truth-as-imagined-by-the-person-putting-forward-the-canon).

*Fordim ducks heavy objects slung his way*

[The Saucepan Man]

A few thoughts on some of the points raised:

Saucepan Man also touched on an issue that doesn't appear to make a lot of sense. On this website, certain passages from Letters seem to be regarded as canon.

In discussing what I labelled as Tolkien's "secondary sources", I was conscious of the fact that a distinction might need to be made between the Letters on the one hand and the texts set out in Unfinished Tales and the HoME series on the other. The unpublished texts comprise ideas that Tolkien himself chose to include within the "history" of Middle-earth (the Legendarium?), whereas the Letters (in so far as they deal with his writings on Middle-earth, whether published or not) generally comprise ideas set out in response to specific questions raised in relation to those writings. The texts were unpublished in his lifetime, even though he intended and indeed desired that some of them at least should be published, but he also developed and re-worked them during his lifetime. The Letters were not intended for general public consumption, but were "published" in the sense of being communicated to each individual recipient (although many of the letters are themselves drafts). Do any of these factors mean that the Letters and the "unpublished" texts should be treated differently in deciding what is "canon" and what is not?

It is true that the Letters were personal comunications rather than published writings. However, at least we know they were directly from the author and represented his opinions at that particular moment in time.

Which is true of the "unpublished" texts also. But you make an excellent point here, Sharon, in distinguishing the Letters from the Silmarillion on the basis that the Silmarillion was heavily influenced by Christopher Tolkien's editorial hand. Does this mean that Tolkien's views on the matters covered in the Silm as set out in his Letters should take precedence over those within the Silm itself where they are inconsistent, even though the Silm was published as a "complete" text (albeit subject to Christopher's caveats in the Foreword)? Does this apply to inconsistencies between the published Silm and the "unpublished" texts in the Unfinished Tales and the HoME series? At least with the "unpublished texts", Christopher leaves them intact and restricts his editorial role to identifying differences between the various texts and pointing out how they developed over time.

As regards the Letters, is there any merit in according greater value (in terms of identifying Tolkien's intentions at the time of writing) to those written during and shortly after the creative process, rather than those written later in his life? I think that there is in so far as the Hobbit and LotR are concerned, since he in effect "froze" these texts in time by assenting to their publication. The question is perhaps more difficult with regard to the Silm material, since Tolkien's ideas developed, as has been pointed out, over some 60 years and were never, at least by the author's own hand, "frozen" in the same way, even though he himself clearly intended and desired that this should occur. Indeed, had Tolkien had his own way with his publishers, the Silm would have been published before LotR, in which case it would have taken the form, by and large, that it was in at that time.

Then there is the question of the change made by Tolkien himself to Bilbo's encounter with Gollum in the Hobbit. I am aware that he was reluctant to make any changes to published texts, except where absolutely necessary. But this does nevertheless leave open the possibility that he would have felt it necessary to change aspects of LotR, had he got round to publishing the Silm. Unlikely, perhaps, but within the bounds of possibility all the same.

My position, in brief: the search for the 'canon' of Middle-Earth is futile at best, misleading at worst, for it maintains the fiction of an authorially established 'truth' when what we should be doing is looking at all available texts and evaluating, thinking about and arguing about each of them on their own merits (as well as how they relate to one another) without worrying about if they do or do not 'fit' into some idealised (and wholly imaginary) Canon of Truth (which will only ever really be the truth-as-imagined-by-the-person-putting-forward-the-canon).

A very appealing approach, Fordim, not least because it would seem to "do away" with the kind of difficult questions raised above and in other posts concerning whether certain "unpublished" ideas should take precedence over others. Certainly, as I think we all agree, each individual has complete freedom to accept or reject these "unpublished" ideas (and indeed, as I have suggested, some of the events and ideas in the "published" texts) on the basis of his or her own personal preferences. But when it comes to discussion with others, even on individual issues, won't questions of this type inevitably be raised? One person may assign greater importance to the "unpublished texts" whereas another may prefer what was said by Tolkien in one of his Letters. Without "rules" as to which should assume greater importance in determining the "truth" of a particular issue, the discussion will simply reach a stalemate since neither "side" will be obliged to accept the other's viewpoint. That may not be such a bad thing where the purpose of a discussion is simply to exchange ideas and perhaps learn from the views of others. But it will not help in determining Tolkien's own "historia". I suppose it comes down to what the purpose of a particular discussion is and what each individual participant wants to get out of it.

Finally, I am very much taken by davem's idea of "enchantment", and I think that is something that we (as Tolkien enthusiasts) must have all felt when we read the Hobbit and LotR for the first time. Had we not experienced the magic of Middle-earth in this way, then I doubt that we would now be spending time on a Tolkien-based forum such as this one. For some, the enchantment of these books is sufficient and they feel no need to read more widely about Tolkien's ideas on Middle-earth. For others (and here I would include myself and, most probably, the majority if not all of those participating in this discussion), it is this very enchantment which feeds a desire to learn more about Tolkien's "historia".

I can still vividly recall the enchantment which I felt on first reading the Hobbit and LotR some 25 years ago. I was presented with a magical world in which I could immerse myself and a story which I could enjoy for its own sake. I was not interested in themes, or how it might be applicable to me (apart from providing a few hours of enchantment every night) or even why it was that Gollum fell into Mount Doom with the Ring. That enchantment has faded with subsequent readings, possibly as I have grown older, although it still remains part of my experience and perhaps it still drives the interest which I have in Tolkien's works. But, then again, I have discovered new wonders, such an appreciation of the immense world that Tolkien created, an interest in how his ideas developed and how they tie in with the "human experience", an appreciation of the themes underlying the events and characters portrayed and how these might be applicable to my own life, and, yes, a curiosity concerning Tolkien's own "historia", leading me to be genuinely interested into questions such as the nature and origins of Orcs and the forces at work underlying the events which occured at Sammath Naur.

So, to answer your questions, Helen:

Does Analysis hinder enchantment? When & why, or is degradation of enchantment by analysis also an individualised response?

No, I don't think that analysis does hinder enchantment. I see it as a development of the initial enchantment we all experience when first reading the stories. A different kind of enchantment, perhaps, but enchantment all the same. And yes, analysis is an individual response to Tolkien's works. It is something that only a minority of those who read Tolkien's works will be interested in undertaking. But I do not see it as a degradation of enchantment, rather a development of it.

[THE Ka]

ver, very good point! i can actually understand your point . you have made it perfect, clear-cut and too the point. good job. but, when you talk about tolkien it is a paradox. because you can say two things, such as Tolkien himself, " Tolkien was different from other writers because of his tremendous steps in the process of writing a good fantacy novel that seem to have paved the path for all of us." compared to the other side of the paradox, " Why did Frodo sail to the undying lands? was is in relation to the same situation of the world war I veterians?"

As you can see, it is quiet confusing. The topic of tolkien or his works is a paradox or topic that cannot be defined by fixed ideas. you can get many different answers. i take Frodo's advice, " Never ask the council of elves, for they will tell you both yes and no." if you understand what i have talked about above, you can idetify "elves" and "yes and no". The quote relates tremediously with the whole tolkien paradox entirely.

[Snowdog]

Fordim Hedgethistle, I read with interest your opening post, and I have to say that I have always taken it as such:

Given this idea (which, again, was Tolkien’s own) of the writer-as-historian, then does this not mean that we – the readers – are not only able, but compelled, to seek always to reinterpret the tales from our own standpoint rather than continually try to figure out what the ‘first’ historian made of them? Tolkien can give us important clues and hints into the history and – more significantly – the moral fabric of Middle-Earth, as he was the world’s greatest expert on the material. But in the end, it’s up to the reader to really figure it out for him or herself. That’s, I think, the real strength of Middle-Earth over other imagined worlds: it’s open-ended and incomplete; it’s contradictory; it doesn’t make sense – it’s just like our own (primary) world.

Henceforth, I write bits and pieces of the 'missing' record, and have fun doing it. The limiting factor is to stay within the bounds of the defined world (no balrog/elf breeds, etc.). The world has should be taken on its own, without theological interference from our individual worlds.

Good thread! More later.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote (back in post 310):

When I said that 'facts' like 'killing is wrong' or 'water is wet', etc are nothing to do with 'Truth' I meant simply that they are facts, which are 'products' of our response to Truth - ie, 'Truth', in the sense in which I am using it, refers not to moral codes or precepts, but to the source of those codes, the thing which inspires them in us.

Ah! I'm glad you said that. That is I think something like the definition I was asking for. "Truth" means "the source of truth" where the uncapitalized is understood in the conventional sense - is that it? That's certainly a definition I can live with - of course in another context I would still dispute whether "the source of truth" makes any sense. But I can certainly suspend that doubt and accept the term as a well-defined one.

My problem in so far as coming to an agreement as to what Truth is, in an attempt to reach some kind of common ground, is that I cannot 'translate' my conceptions of Truth, Joy, etc into terms which would fit your world view, at least not without sacrificing what I mean by them, in order to make them 'fit' - & if I could, we wouldn't really be debating on common ground, we'd be debating on grounds that you had set out, & we would have to remain on that sharply defined ground, if we wanted the debate to continue, & wherever the debate went, it could only go where you allowed it to go.

I understand that, and that's why I said earlier that we had come to an impasse. For if I were to simply accept your Truth/Joy/Tao, we would be debating on grounds that you had set.

The reason I was so interested in hearing your definition of "Truth" is that I wanted to know whether it was a term we could both accept and simply use even if we thought it meant different things.

Since metaphors are so fashionable in this thread: imagine a Jewish theologian and a Christian theologian discussing some subject. They may very well have occasion to refer to "God" in this discussion. Now, each one means a different thing by "God". The Jew means a singular omnipotent being; the Christian means the Trinity (forgive me if I'm oversimplifying this, but you get the point). But, unless they are debating these specific differences, they can quite comfortably use the word "God" with each other and as if they were referring to exactly the same thing. Their ideas about the meaning of the term "God" are different, but they are similar enough to allow discussion involving "God".

But now take a Christian and an ancient Greek "pagan". The Greek also has a word "god". But he or she means something quite different. There will be few topics that the two could discuss in which they can use the word "god" simpliciter.

I was hoping that our disagreement about Truth was like the Christian and the Jew rather than the Christian and the mythologist. That is, I was hoping that we could accept some broad definition for Truth and leave the exact contents of the definition unspecified. It appeared earlier that we cannot in fact do this. So, to be honest, I am a bit confused about why you continued (back in post 310, again) to argue in favor of your concept of Truth. As I see it, you indeed belive that:

If we limit ourselves to the physical, material world, that can be encompassed by current psychological & literary theories, whatever conclusions we may come to would not really be relevant, as central issues would have been rejected.

. . . then I'm afraid there is simply no more to be discussed, for in such a case your definition of "Truth" differs in a way crucial to the subject at hand from any definition I can accept.

You wrote:

My world view includes the metaphysical as well as the physical, but yours seems limited only to the physical, so I would not be allowed to offer metaphysical 'proofs' - which by their nature can only be expressed through feelings & experiences.

If by "metaphysical" you mean something like "supernatural" or "not reducible to logic and physics" then you're right. I don't want a proof of anything; but again, if Truth is in your view necessarily not reducible to logic and physics, then we have no common term.

I have to say that you & SpM seem to get het up at claims that you are missing something, almost as if you're 'demanding' that I, or Helen, or H-I should 'reaveal' the 'secret' to you, or stop implying that there is such a 'secret'. Yet you claim to be so confident that you have understood it all in the way that you want, & that anything we could 'reveal' - if we deigned to let you in on the hidden meaning - would not interest you because it can't be True anyway, because there's no such thing as Truth.

So, here we are, us saying Truth exists, you denying it exists, but demanding that we tell you what it is anyway. If you don't feel you're missing out on anything why do you keep asking us to tell you what you're missing out on?

Well, I hope I've at last made my position clear (as I've been trying and failing to do in the past two or three posts). I am not demanding that you "reveal" anything to me; I simply wanted to know what you mean when you say Truth - just as, if I started using some term like "goomak" in the discussion, you'd want to know what I meant by it. That's a completely separate issue from that of the viability of reading Tolkien's literary theory with Faerie and Truth as psychological objects rather than metaphysical ones.

In connection with this last point, Mister Underhill wrote:

Surely he means more than “the set of true propositions” about the world: 2+2=4, the earth is round, and so forth. Unless I mistake what you mean by “set of true propositions” – which I take to be limited solely to rational, provable, indisputable, factual propositions

I'm afraid you do misunderstand me. The set of true propositions could (a priori) be as abstract as one likes. It could include truths that cannot, even in principle, ever be tested. It could include transcedent truths, if such things exist. And so on.

Now, as for my claim that "On Faery Stories" and the rest can be read with purely psychological definitions for "Truth" and so on - certainly this is not what Tolkien intended, or what he believed. My point is that nonetheless I think his theory is a perfectly coherent and sound one even if one replaced his transcendental truths with psychological ones.

[HerenIstarion]

To post #329 by Child of Seventh Age re:

You are probably right.

And, to lift the heavy lid covering the pan of bubbling and boiling emotions, I would present (again, for your enjoyment ) the following:

Question: Why did the chicken cross the street?
Answers:

DESCARTES: to go to the other side.

PLATO: For his own sake. On the other side of the street there is the truth

ARISTOTELES: It's part of the chicken's nature to cross streets

KARL MARX: It was historically inevitable

CAPTAIN KIRK: To get where no other chicken had ever got before

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR: I had a dream where all chicken were free to cross streets without having to justify their decisions.

RICHARD M. NIXON: The chicken did not cross the street - I repeat - the chicken never crossed the street.

SIGMUND FREUD: The fact that you worry about why the chicken crossed the street reveals your strong inner feeling of sexual insecurity

BILL GATES: We precisely have just finish to elaborate the new program "Office Chicken 2004" that, on top of crossing streets, will also be able to incubate eggs, archive important documents, etc.

BUDDHA: asking such a thing is to reject your own inner chicken nature

TONY BLAIR: the chicken was going on a humanitarian mission

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY: The reason is in yourself, but you don’t know it yet. Through a small contribution of 1500 Euros, plus the rent of a lie detector, we will run a psychological test that will help us discover the reason

BILL CLINTON: I swear on the Constitution that nothing sexual ever happened between me and that chicken

EINSTEIN: The fact that it is the chicken who crosses the street or the street which moves beneath the chicken is relative.

ZEN: the chicken might be crossing the street in vain, only the Teacher knows the noise of its shadow against the wall

STALIN: the chicken must be shot immediately, as well as all witnesses of the scene plus 10 people chose by hazard as they did not try to prevent this subversive act

GEORGE W. BUSH: the fact that the chicken crossed the street in all impunity despite the UN resolutions, represents a serious attack to democracy, justice and freedom. This proves beyond all doubt that we should have bombed this street a long time ago. With the objective to guarantee peace in the region and to avoid that the values we treasure are once again attacked by such terrorist actions, the government of the US has decided to send 17 warships, 46 destroyers and 154 frigates, with the land support of 243,000 soldiers and 843 bombers, which will have the mission, in the name of freedom and democracy, to destroy all sign of life in poultry in the 5000 KM around the area, and ensure, with some targeted missiles, that anything vaguely resembling poultry will be turned to ashes and will never again be able to defy our nation with his arrogance. We have also decided that afterwards this country will be ruled by our government, which will create new poultry according to safety standards, handing all powers over to a cock democratically elected by the US ambassador. In order to finance such operation, we will take total control of the entire cereal production of the region for the coming 30 years, with local citizens benefiting from a favorable tariff over part of the production, in exchange of their complete cooperation. In this new land of justice, peace and freedom, we can assure you that never again will a chicken attempt to cross a street, for the simple reason that there will be no streets and that chicken will not have paws. God bless America.


Probably, it would be good for myself to remember chicken in question, each time I put my hand on the branch of a tree with the intention of picking up a coconut

cheers

[davem]

Aiwendil

I'm not sure there would be such a difference between the Christian, the Jew & the Pagan in their concept of the ultimate nature of Deity. I think there is a consensus of a kind to be found between Christian, Jewish & Pagan Mystics. My 'singature' is a quote from a Pagan Neo-Platonist Philosopher, & I don't think many Christians or Jews would find a lot to argue with in it. A Christian mystical text like The Cloud of Unknowing could be accepted by Pagans, Christians, Jews & Moslems quite easily.

If we take a Pagan idea - a 'saviour' figure appears in the world, one of his parents is human (usually the mother) his father is divine. He lives a short life, performs great feats or miracles, is killed, often sacrificed for others, & is brought back to life & goes to spend eternity with his divine parent. Often his death involves some kind of piercing - with a spear or an arrow. He is symbolically a 'child' of both worlds - uniting both in himself, & becoming a symbolic 'bridge' between the worlds, enabling his followers to enter into paradise through him. We can find variations of this idea across the world - though not in a 'pure' & perfect' a form as in Christianity. Certainly Achilles is a demiGod who is killed by being pierced with an arrow, so is Krishna. Lugh, in Celtic myth is killed by a spear, & resurrected by his uncle Gwydion.

To relate this back to Christianity, I came across an interpretation - can't remember where - of the Crucifixion. Christ is 'transfixed' on the cross, & pierced by the spear. Symbolically, He hangs between & so unites, earth & sky, he unites in himself God & Man, creator & creation, life & death. There is an eclipse, so even day & night are symbolically one at that point. We have an 'image' - all the 'opposites', the 'fragments' into which creation was broken with the Fall, constellate around the Crucified Christ, who becomes a new 'centre of gravity' for the broken Creation - so the nails are shown going through his palms, & he 'actively' grasps them, rather than through his wrists. He pulls the universe back together.

Ok, sermon over! but the point is, seen in that light, with so many 'Pagan' images & symbols being contained in the Christian story, a Pagan philosopher would have had a great deal of common ground with a Christian, not just in the idea of a Deity (most Pagan Philosophers understood the gods to be 'aspects' of a single Deity, who was beyond human comprehension), but even in details of their beliefs. The similarities between Christianity & Judaism are obvious.

In other words, I'm not sure that your analogy works. Then again, not being a Christian myself (though having sympathy with it) the interpretation of the crucifixion I've just given may be totally heretical, & I expect Helen & H-I to put me right on it if it is wrong!

But we still haven't solved the problem of interpretation of Tolkien. I would say that a proper interpretation of Tolkien's work, a proper understanding of what he was attempting to achieve, requires us to take into account the metaphysical dimension as a fact. If we don't, then the interpretation we end up with will be missing something that I, H-I, Helen, Child & others feel is of central importance, so it won't work for us. I suspect, though, if it did contain the metaphysical dimension we require for it to work, you would find it unsatisfactory. So, as you say, impasse.

Of course, I'm still waiting for Fordim's answer as to what he wants to 'produce' by this process of interpretation & what he wants any consensus of meaning to do - maybe its just for its own sake - like the revised Sil which you're invovled in.

Its funny to have come so far with this if that's all we're looking to end up with.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

My point is that nonetheless I think his theory is a perfectly coherent and sound one even if one replaced his transcendental truths with psychological ones.

Hmm. Is the sum of this and your Christian/Jew analogy all to say that you believe in God (in the broadest possible sense of that word) -- but only as a set of psychological principles? I admit that I am still confused.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

It is with no little sense of foreboding that I resurrect this thread! This is not something I do lightly, but the discussion in the latest Chapter by Chapter posts has been leading me to think that it might be time to revisit some of the issues that were raised so intelligently (and passionately) in this thread last spring.

In particular, one of the trickiest bones of contention was centred upon the idea of authorial intention. Specifically, we were asking if the meaning of the text was to be ‘found’ in reference to the writer (what Tolkien ‘wanted’ us to get out of the text; what he put in it) or the reader (what we get ‘out’ of the text). There has been quite a bit of fascinating discussion in the CbC that centres upon the connotations and possibilities of the names that Tolkien created and from which his story flowed. Now, this raises an interesting issue for those of us (like myself) who lean toward the reader as the source of meaning, since we are not the ones who gave the characters and places their names – Tolkien was. It was the author who named Frodo (OG frodá ‘wise by experience’ ), Sam (OE hamfast ‘half-wise’ ) and – my current favourite – the Brandywine River. My ‘job’ as a reader is to come along afterward and piece together the wonderful etymological clues that Tolkien has left in these names; I follow the trace of his meaning. But, again, am I bound by that meaning? Just because Frodo’s name means “wise by experience” in Old German, do I have to interpret his journey as a growth into wisdom? And what model of wisdom is entailed by this? Do I also have to make reference to the ‘wisdom’ of the ancient Germanic peoples, or is there some other model of wisdom I can turn to? Perhaps a kind or mode of wisdom that is contained only or entirely within the bounds of Middle-Earth, with not much reference at all to Primary World formulations of wisdom.

There’s another implication to the complex and rich names that Tolkien gives us. In reference to Smaug, Tolkien wrote that it was “a low philological joke” (OG smugan ‘to squeeze through a small hole’, past tense smaug). Are all the names then merely language games that he played for his own amusement that we can safely pass over without our full attention? I don’t think so, but then doesn’t that imply that one has to be a philologist of Tolkien’s own stature (and that’s a tall order!) to fully understand or appreciate the text?

And on the other hand, I do have a role in the creation of meaning still, don’t I? Insofar as I have to do a lot of work and meaning-creation in first working out what the names mean and then working out their application (dare I say “applicability” ) to the book? This begins to look like what Tolkien described as “recovery” however, insofar as I am making reference to a meaning that is pre-given and not one that I get to have any part in.

And finally (I promise) this casts an interesting light on the idea of magic and enchantment that was so much a part of this thread. The names that Tolkien created are literally ‘spells’ – they are actually little stories that tell us everything we need to know about the places and people they denote (aren’t they?). They are a kind of language that exists ‘beyond’ the ordinary insofar as they are truly and magically creative: Frodo is not just a name to identify one hobbit from another, but an incantation that brings a character’s very nature into being. (“And then Tolkien said, ‘Let there be frodá,’ and he saw that it was good.” )

Trapped between hope that this does not fall flat on its face, and trepidation of what happened the last time…

[davem]

This is interesting; I agree there is almost a whole other story, or set of stories, going on, just under the surface. It sort of reminds me of those 'Magic Eye' pictures, which seem to be a jumble of shapes & images on the surface, but if you view them in the right way, they form a 3d image. of course, with LotR its different, in that the 'surface' image also has meaning. I can't help wondering whether, if we could 'read' the underlying story we'd like it as much, or more, or whether we'd feel disappointed - sometimes the mystery is more attractive & exciting than the solution.

Now, Mods, PLEASE bear with me here:

One other thing regarding 'canonicity, which I'm a bit dubious about bringing up here, was inspired by the little debate last week on 'Why doesn't the Downs allow 'Slash'. The reason given was that it is 'uncanonical'. But what struck me at the time was, there are two ways of looking at that:

One - Tolkien created a world, over which he has absolute creative control - as an artist he can create a world in which Homosexuality, like cars or spaceships or t-rex's, don't exist. So, Slash is uncanonical, & has no place in Middle earth fiction.

Two - Tolkien claimed that Middle earth is this world at an earlier period in our history. If this is the case then we are dealing with a world in which nothing of human nature can be excluded as 'uncanonical'. In this case, a fanfic with gay characters, or a fanfic where characters find a frozen t-rex.

My question WITHOUT, PLEASE, getting into the slash debate, is to what extent we are restricted to Tolkien's 'rules' for Middle earth - are we obliged to interpret the stories in the light of Tolkien's intentions & values (my view), because Middle earth is an artistic creation? Or can we treat it as 'history', in which case we have total freesom of interpretation, & nothing, particularly in human nature could be considered 'uncanonical'.

[The Saucepan Man]

... and like a moth to a candle, I find myself irresistibly drawn to it once again.

My ‘job’ as a reader is to come along afterward and piece together the wonderful etymological clues that Tolkien has left in these names; I follow the trace of his meaning. But, again, am I bound by that meaning? (Fordim Hedgethistle)

It will come as no surprise to regular subscribers to this thread that I am going to adopt the “freedom of the reader” approach here. Like the events described in the story, the characters’ names are a given. We can no more deny that Frodo is called Frodo than we can deny that Gandalf was imprisoned at Orthanc. But, that does not mean that we have to be aware of the (real world) etymological derivation of Frodo’s name in order to enjoy the story, any more than we have to know that Lembas was (intentionally) a representation of the bread of communion. I have been wholly unaware of each of these underlying “meanings” on every previous occasion that I have read the book, but I don’t feel that this has impaired my enjoyment of the book in any way. I might not have fully understood Tolkien’s intentions, but does that really matter? Well, no, not as far as I (as a reader) am concerned.

So I would say that the reader’s “job” is not to piece together Tolkien’s etymological clues, but rather simply to enjoy the material and to draw from it whatever seems appropriate to him/her. If readers want to piece together these clues, then they are free to do so, but there is no obligation on them to do so (that’s becoming somewhat of a mantra for me, isn’t it? ).

Are all the names then merely language games that he played for his own amusement that we can safely pass over without our full attention? I don’t think so, but then doesn’t that imply that one has to be a philologist of Tolkien’s own stature (and that’s a tall order!) to fully understand or appreciate the text? (Fordim Hedgethistle)

I don’t think that he played these “language games” solely for his own amusement. The clues are there for readers who are interested in finding them. But, equally, readers are free safely to pass over them (and most will) while still appreciating the story and finding in it what is applicable to them. Yes, I suppose one does have to have a good knowledge of philology in order fully to appreciate the text and Tolkien’s skills as a writer (if one can ever acheive such a thing), but then (save as an academic pursuit) reading is not an occupation that one has to be qualified for and work at. It is a pastime that one can put as much into, and get as much out of, as one wishes. I am sure that Tolkien never intended his works to be enjoyed only by fully-fledged philologists, just as he didn’t expect them to appeal to devout Christians alone (although I am equally sure that he would be delighted that those with the inclination and knowledge to do so do pick up on these clues).

That said, Tolkein does use some names which will almost inevitably conjure up images in the reader's mind and which reinforce the characterisation of the characters that bear them. Wormtongue is a classic example and it requires no grounding in philology to latch on to the message that his name conveys. Goldberry is another example as, I think, are names such as Barliman Butterbur, Bilbo, Merry and Pippin. The name Bilbo, for example, suggests to me a "cuddly" (for want of a better word) character that I can immediately warm to, although it may of course bring up a different image others. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that, with many of the names used by Tolkien, one does not have to delve deeply into Anglo-Saxon linguitics or the like in order for them to enhance one's understanding of the characters that bear them. In many cases, the effect is instantaneous and almost instinctive (at least for those with a reasonable understanding of the English language).

My question WITHOUT, PLEASE, getting into the slash debate, is to what extent we are restricted to Tolkien's 'rules' for Middle earth - are we obliged to interpret the stories in the light of Tolkien's intentions & values (my view), because Middle earth is an artistic creation? Or can we treat it as 'history', in which case we have total freesom of interpretation, & nothing, particularly in human nature could be considered 'uncanonical'. (davem)

Interesting that you should raise this, davem, since that debate caused me to think along very similar lines. In interpreting Tolkien’s text, we are restricted (unless we are to reject the entire story) to the “facts” contained within it. So, just like we cannot deny that Gandalf was imprisoned at Orthanc, we cannot deny that Saruman was corrupted by the desire for power or that Hobbits were (as a race) somewhat parochial in nature. Those “facts” are there for us to see. Similarly, we cannot intrude “facts” that are not there, such as a homosexual relationship between Frodo and Sam (or indeed any other two characters of the same gender). That is simply not the nature of their relationship, and that is that. Unless there is a textual basis for seeing a particular aspect of human nature in a character, then we cannot do so (without, as I said, rejecting the entire text).

But, when it comes to fanfics, the inclusion of a character, location or aspect of human nature does not make the story “uncanonical” simply because that character, location or aspect of human nature was not specifically included by Tolkien in any of his Middle-earth works. For example, I see no reason why a character adventuring in Far Harad should not encounter an ostrich or a hippopotamus, or some fantastical creature of the author’s own devising, simply because Tolkien makes no reference to them himself. So, by the same token, I would say that there is no reason why a Tolkien fanfic should not include aspects of human nature that Tolkien does not specifically address in his works, provided that they are dealt with in the spirit of Tolkien’s writing.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

by the same token, I would say that there is no reason why a Tolkien fanfic should not include aspects of human nature that Tolkien does not specifically address in his works, provided that they are dealt with in the spirit of Tolkien’s writing.

And would we be required to take Tolkien's moral/religious position - ie, we could have gay characters, but we would have to present that as 'wrong'.

Its difficult to explore this aspect of canonicity without straying into an area that some posters will be uncomfortable with, but the question is about whether Tolkien's moral position, shaped by his Catholicism, is canonical, or whether canonicity only relates to the facts, geographical, historical, biological, of Tolkien's world. Can we include the moral & philosophical dimension in with other facts of Middle Earth, or are they 'optional'? I still think this is the central, unanswered question of this thread.

To expand the question, would a fanfic which presented Sauron or Saruman as heroes, & was approving of their actions be 'canonical' as long as it stuck to the historical 'facts' of LotR, or would it be 'uncanonical' because it went against the moral values which Tolkien espoused?

[Bêthberry]

To expand the question, would a fanfic which presented Sauron or Saruman as heroes, & was approving of their actions be 'canonical' as long as it stuck to the historical 'facts' of LotR, or would it be 'uncanonical' because it went against the moral values which Tolkien espoused?

To my mind, a fanfic or an RPG could very profitably and canonically explore Sauron's or Saruman's or the Nazgul's "fall" as long as it demonstrated Tolkien's abhorrence of power when used for domination. The question turns on what we would agree is the moral value Tolkien espouses in the books. It is an interpretive act.

[davem]

First of all,Fordim, n his essay, Tolkien as Phiologist, David Lyle Jeffrey gives a number of ‘speculative notes’ on ‘name meanings’ among them are:

Athelas=Old English-spirit of the King
Balrog= Old english- bealu,evil & wreagan,to arouse
Bilbo=Old English-Bil, a sword & -bo, (diminutive): short sword
Elendil=OE-Ellende, adj (foreign, exiled
Elessar=Old Norse-’one who appears in another manner.
Fangorn=OE-’fang’, booty, plunder; cf fon (to imprison) ‘prison-wood, as well as beard-tree*
Hobbit=OE-hob (generic name for clown, rustic), -bit, a diminutive suffix
Saruman=OE saru (pain, sickness), or searu (contrivance, stratagem)
* In an early version of the story Gandalf was to have been held prisoner by ‘Giant Treebeard.

All of which, I think, are quite significant.

As to the 'canonicity' thing. It seems to me we have the following alternatives:

1) Middle earth is Tolkien's own creation. He has decided that homosexuality simply doesn't exist - anymore than 15ft high rabbits or floating rocks.

2) Middle earth is a period of this world's history, some thousands of years ago.

My original point was that if 1) is true, then Middle earth is not a period of this world's history, & any fiction, or adaptation, which attempts to be true to the canon, must take into account every 'fact' about Middle Earth, & the moral stance of the creator (as manifest in the work - whether it reflects exactly the author's 'true' morality is another question) is a 'fact' of that world , as much as 'immortal' elves, magic swords, & 'crystal balls'. We cannot introduce anything into the world, or any attitude, either, unless support for it can be found in the author's works.

If, however, 2) is true, then while accepting all statements about the nature of that world - existence of Elves, dragons, mountains, etc, all the value judgements are up for grabs. Homosexuality would have existed then, as it has existed in all historical periods for which we have any evidence. So, we could introduce gay characters into Middle earth, with the justification that they must have existed - or at least we would be justified in asking anyone who denied that there were gay humans on earth x thousands of years ago to cite their evidence.

So, we either take the whole package as an artistic creation, including the moral value system the author has introduced into it, or we take the bare 'facts' of dates, geography, physics & biology, & feel free to impose our own value system & interpret the events of the story as we like. First alternative means 'slash' is not only incorrect, but 'wrong', & also impossible, as impossible as the fifteen foot rabbits. Second alternative means 'slash' is entirely acceptable, as it is not logically impossible, much though some people (whether they could count Tolkien himself among their number is unknowable, as SpM has pointed out) might wish it to be.

This really is a question about the extent to which we can separate the author's voice from the world he has created. If it was a real historical period we were dealing with we would attempt to do just that, & escape from the historian's biases, concious & unconcious, & draw our own moral lines.

My feeling is that we simply can't do that, & that the moral values & judgements which run through the world are an essential part of it, & therefore cannot be removed from it, & have simply to be accepted.

This means that someone who reads the books from this point of view, who enters into its moral vision fully, belives in the supernatural dimension, the miraculous intervention of Eru, etc, will get more out of it than someone who doesn't, & simply reads it as a story set in a fabulous world where wierd stuff just 'happens'. In other words, there is a 'right' way to read the books, & a 'wrong' way.