‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

Difficult to follow Bethberry!

Obviously, we all enter ME in ignorance, are either enchanted or appalled. Germaine Greer has had an animus against all things Tolkien related since the sixties - but has admitted that she has only read the first chapter of LotR.

Those of us who do become 'enchanted' are not enchanted by the Legendarium as a whole. We may, if the enchantment is sufficiently powerful, go on to look into it - at which point the enchantment may become stronger or weaker. I think it was Shippey who mentioned meeting a woman on a train who claimed she loved everything Tolkien had written. On being asked what she thought of the Silmarillion she said she had no interest in it - she considered 'everything' he had written to comprise the Hobbit & LotR.

For people like that, Hobbit & LotR are sufficient to enchant, & anything more breaks the spell.

In other words, the 'spell' is cast for most of us without the background history. If we choose to move beyond the 'unexplained vistas' we have to risk the loss of enchantment. The more we discover, the more 'fixed' Middle Earth becomes, the less room for manouvre imaginatively - would Tolkien have approved? Which did he place the greater value on?

Moving into ME, is at once fascinating & restricting. One often has to suspend not only disbelief, but also disapproval, & accept what Tolkien has given, in order to understand his vision. When one comes out of ME one can then make a decision on what one likes & what one dislikes. But we then risk disenchantment - breaking a thing to find out what it is made of.

Increasingly, as anyone who has read any of my recent posts on the 'Nebulous it' thread will have come to realise, I take ideas from the books as starting points in my attempts to explore & understand my own feelings on 'life, the universe & everything'. So, in the same way as a writer of fanfiction, I am taking Tolkien's creation as raw material for my own exploration of his world - specifically the moral/philosophical dimension. The results are as 'mad' & extreme & 'uncanonical' as anything a writer of fanfic could produce. Would Tolkien approve of my use of his intellectual property? I have no idea. But as someone who didn't attend college, has never haunted the Halls of Academe, but was inspired by my discover of him to study Myth, Jungian psychology, ancient literature & then to branch out into the study of religion, I hope he would be pleased to have instilled a desire for learning in an ignorant oik such as I was.

In short, I feel that what we find in Tolkien's works, the inspiration we bring out from Middle Earth, is Tolkien's gift to us, the real enchantment that he works. I also wonder whether he would have approved of the obsessive desire to know every detail of his invented world. I doubt he would have approved of his near 'deification' by some 'fans'.

We shouldn't confuse our values with his - If he has stated a 'fact' about ME, it should be accepted as a 'fact' - but we can put that fact on one side & concentrate on other facts which appeal more. Or on enjoying being enchanted - even if a large part of that enchantment is contary to the author's own intention. If the 'facts' destroy the enchantment lets ignore them, & do it proudly. Why should the facts get in the way of a good story? And as the reporter in the movie The Man who Shot Liberty Valence said: 'When the Legend becomes a fact, print the Legend'.

If we must choose between the 'facts' of an author's creation & the 'enchantment' it provides, the facts must come a poor second. Is 'understanding' Tolkien's invented world, or 'understanding' the man himself, really of such great value?

As I stated in my earlier post here - I reject the 'Dome of Varda' & related ideas & prefer the earlier 'primitive' (in Tolkien's word) version of the story. I said it was 'silly' - what I meant was it was not 'enchanting' - not to me - & is like choosing to print the fact. It neither enchants nor inspires, so I choose the earlier account. I mean no offence to the author, but we have to choose, & judge. If one version enchants me & the other doesn't, I think I know which choice Tolkien would approve.

[mark12_30]

The discussion has moved from :

Canon -- The Original Works Themselves (does it include Author's supporting documentation? Open to debate. (EDIT: then again, see bottom of post.))

Through

Interpretation -- Reader's perspective

also through

Application -- Reader's actions/response based on interpretation

...and now to

Enchantment -- ...wild stab at definition Encounter with Faerie which brings sense of wonder, mystery, longing, possibly including Eucatastrophe.

~*~*~

....And just because I was wondering: from dictionary.com.... 5b, no?

canon: NOUN:
1. An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council.
2. A secular law, rule, or code of law.
3a. An established principle: the canons of polite society. b. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.
4. The books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.
5a. A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: “the durable canon of American short fiction” (William Styron).
b. The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic: the entire Shakespeare canon.
6. Canon The part of the Mass beginning after the Preface and Sanctus and ending just before the Lord's Prayer.
7. The calendar of saints accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
8. Music A composition or passage in which a melody is imitated by one or more voices at fixed intervals of pitch and time.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English canoun, from Old English canon and from Old French, both from Latin can n, rule, from Greek kan n, measuring rod, rule.