‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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.

[mark12_30]

Dear Doug,

You wrote:

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 have real heartache with this as some may have noticed. "Canon" is a perfectly good word as it stands, and re-defining it only makes things harder on all of us. Those who haven't read this thread willl think it means one thing, and confusion will abound (it already does, why make it worse?)

I have no problem with the heart of what Fordim is suggesting; I have a problem with calling in "canon". "Canon" isn't what I write, unless you call it "Helen's canon", in which case I doubt it would interest this board.

Certainly good fanfic/ RPGs are worth writing-- and worth enjoying, and worth exploring, and the better they are the more we enjoy them; but I think if you asked some of the most successful writers here (I hold up Mithadan as a stellar example) who have written fanfic considered very "canonically friendly" (Tales from Tol Eressea!), he would be the first to protest: "My work isn't canon." He's said so in the past. Also, Piosenniel has stated in the above-linked thread that she feels the same way. I believe Child would also (Sharon, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Tolkien, as I understand him, set the precedent of inventing new words such as "eucatastrophe" when he was forging into new territory. Can't we follow in his path? Or can we differentiate between "Tolkien's canon" and "Middle-Earth (something)canon(something)? Help, please, linguists. Let's invent a new word. We need one.

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.

This sounds all fine and good, and I'm all for it-- and intensely honored and flattered and pleased to be included in your list--- just please, please, don't call it "Canon" plain and simple. That crown belongs to Tolkien alone, and I for one would lose so much sleep.

[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.

[davem]

Bethberry I didn't mean that what you were saying was difficult to understand. I meant it was difficult to be in the position of having my ramblings follow your beautifully reasoned & argued post!

If I can put my understanding of Tolkien's stated position in the Fairy stories essay, It seems he was saying that sub creation involves the reader as well as the writer or hearer of the story. He says that when the story speaks of a hill, river or tree, then the reader will suppply the image from their own experience - the 'hill' the reader pictures will be made up from all the hills the reader has known, & specifically from the first hill the reader ever knew - the one that will always mean 'hill' to them.

So, the reader is creating the imaginary landscape, & to an extent the characters. The writer gives the story, the events, & the reader provides their imaginative form. So we have a kind of 'co-creation' going on. So, the 'primary' world (or the reader's memories & experience of it) is taken up into the 'secondary' world, giving it a sense of reality, which a movie, for instance, cannot, because the personal dimension is lacking. Then, on emerging from the 'secondary' world, we see the 'primary' world in a new light, as the 'secondary' world now 'overlays' it in our imagination. The 'primary world makes the 'secondary' world seem more 'real' & the 'secondary' world makes the 'primary' world seem more 'magical'.

So in this sense we are as much creators of Middle Earth as Tolkien, because the specific form it has for us imaginatively is our own unique creation. Hence, some things in the secondary world will have more impact on us than others. Some 'facts' will seem to be of the utmost relevance, others will barely register. So, in terms of relevance, we will all make our own decisions as regards what is valuable & what is not. This will apply also to what stories speak to us & what we have absolutely no time for. It will also, perhaps, lead us to feel that some aspects/events/stories of the secondary world are 'wrong' or out of place (as the Dome of Varda, or orcs having their origins in men rather than Elves).

We cannot separate our own feelings & responses from the facts - because as I said, many 'facts' will not even register - at least on early readings (or even on later readings).

It is the effect of the story on the individual reader which will matter to that person, & that effect cannot be affected (unless completely destroyed) by the intrusion of 'said facts'. So, all the facts will not 'move' a reader who finds no relevance in them. A tonne of facts is not worth a gramme of enchantment. And the power of a secondary world to enchant is in no way dependent on background information - though that background information may for some readers enhance the 'reality' of the world. The secondary world must be internally consistent & coherent if the 'spell' is to work.

Enchantment is the point. If the secondary world does not enchant, it will not work, the reader will put down the book & seek enchantment elsewhere. So, the 'facts' are secondary, & their value can only be determined by whether they increase or decrease the enchantment. Some of the most powerful fairy tales are short, stark, & contain very little background information. In a way they work because the reader must supply most of that background from their own imagination.

Returning to Middle Earth. An intimate knowledge of every 'fact' Tolkien produced may not produce enchantment in a reader.But some readers who only know the Hobbit & LotR, & nothing else may be swept into Middle Earth & completely enchanted by those two works, & neither need nor desire any more. I think Tolkien would have felt they were his real audience - what author wouldn't?

[Child of the 7th Age]

From Helen.....

Certainly good fanfic/ RPGs are worth writing-- and worth enjoying, and worth exploring, and the better they are the more we enjoy them; but I think if you asked some of the most successful writers here (I hold up Mithadan as a stellar example) who have written fanfic considered very "canonically friendly" (Tales from Tol Eressea!), he would be the first to protest: "My work isn't canon." He's said so in the past. Also, Piosenniel has stated in the above-linked thread that she feels the same way. I believe Child would also (Sharon, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Definitely!

I am running out the door, but have quickly scanned over the thread and wanted to add this. I agree with Helen that the word "canon" should be limited in its application. Those things we dream up -- RPG, fanfiction, interesting theories on the origin of wyrms or Orcs -- have nothing to do with "canon", even when and if we choose to keep things as consistent as we can with Tolkien. The thread Helen made a link to was written when we were discussing setting up the current RPG structure and forums. If I had to do it over again, I would forever erase that word "canon" from the thread!

There is a body of Tolkien's writing which can be called canon (of varying degrees of authority) and I would include the Letters somewhere within that group (and hence Tolkien's views on a matter such as what happened to Gollum.) We can argue about what writings fall into that category and point out the many inconsistencies and contradictions. Canon is the starting point from which many discussions of Tolkien evolve. It is not necessarily the ending point, but I do think a public discussion is richer for at least acknowledging the existence of such. The fact that I'm an historian and archivist means that I naturally put a lot of emphasis on textual studies. And I don't find such things boring or meaningless.

However, Davem's post points to the core of the thing. Left by itself, canon has no life. It is enchantment that draws us back again and gives life to discussions, even those which supposedly focus on "canon". I find discussions of canon interesting precisely because I have read the text and responded to it on another level. If that had never occurred, I would never give the writings a second look.

In that primary confrontation that occurs with the text, canon has only tangential meaning. My primary response when I read the books in the sixties remains just as valid today as my later readings, probably more valid, because I can never recapture that freshness again, even though I may be able to see layers of meaning that I had no idea existed before.

I have long been curious about something that relates to this question at least loosely. Many have said that Tolkien could never finish the Silm not because of lack of time but because he did not want to take away the mystery of the distant vistas (as well as problems of coordinating all the different ideas in such a vast body of material). Yet, it almost sounds as if he was afraid the details of canon would obscure the enchantment.

For similar reasons, I sometimes wonder whether JRRT would ever have condoned the publication of HoMe, or at least those parts of it that deal with the actual process of writing LotR and the various drafts. Does it take away too much of the mystery by exposing the bones that lie underneath? We are obviously gaining something in knowledge, but have we lost something as well? Not that I don't like speculating about Bingo and hobbit rangers and such, or realizing the vastness of the Legendarium.

Is there a trade-off between canon and enchantment, or is "more" canon and information always a positive thing, perhaps serving as an underground spring that enriches enchantment for the reader who may return to the text years later?
Written in haste.

[mark12_30]

Attempts at new name...

"Second Generation mythology"
"mythical derivative"
"legendarium extension"

..bleah... awkward as heck.

Come on, somebody, find the right word or phrase to do justice to the concept of this thread...? Maybe something in Sindarin, or something.

[Lord of Angmar]

A valiant effort, mark12_30. I rather like "mythical derivative."

How about "substantiated woolgathering?"