‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Heren Istarion,

Sometimes a "heavy" and well argued thread needs a lighter touch to put things in perspective. You have definitely done that!

Bethberry

Thanks so much for taking the time and energy to respond and clarify your initial meaning. My dear ancestors who lurked in the factories of Detroit and the mines of the U.K. would definitely faint if they thought I was questioning the reality of class differences in people's lives. I've always felt enormous empathy for Samwise. Tagging along with a bunch of Fallohides, he is required to stretch between two worlds, and that is not always easy.

******************************

Now on to other things....

There are so many markers of what I will obstinately now call Eruism without the “” that I cannot see how anyone could miss them.

Saucepan Man ,

I largely agree with your own view of "Eruism" that these markers were not all so clear cut when LotR first appeared. And, today, if we focus only on the text of the LotR, without knowledge of anything beyond it, these markers are still not quite so obvious.

However, I truly think it's difficult for the modern day reader to wash out of his head all the information we have gleaned from the Silmarillion, Carpenter's biography of Tolkien, and, most critically, the published Letters. At least this is true of anyone who goes beyond a casual reading of the books to participate in continuing study or discussion. Even those posters on this site who have never personally read any of the three items listed above are aware that they exist, if only by the comments of other posters.

The Eru-centered view of LotR is very prevalent today. Just look at recent works for sale on Amazon. There are a host of titles dealing with the religious themes in LotR, some scholarly, some popular, and others explicitly intended as devotional aids.

This was not the case in the period prior to 1977. As I hinted earlier, I feel that it was the publication of these three works, all within a two-year period, that irrevocably changed the way we look at Tolkien. I was in college and grad school from 1966 through 1976. (Yes, I know I was a perenniel student - ) During this period I participated in numerous discussions on Tolkien. Some were in college dorms, and others in the classroom with professors. The whole issue of Eru or "providence" was present, but was not the heart of our discussions. There were indeed clues in the text but these were not viewed in the way they are today. I saw providence as a silent spring running deep, but had no idea of Eru's role as delineated in the Silm, while others frankly thought such issues were only of peripheral importance.

The easiest way to confirm this is to take a look at the scholarly and popular writings on Tolkien that appeared before 1977. I have a bookshelf overflowing with battered paperback studies that date from the early sixties forward. Almost universally, the discussion of the divine undergirding of Middle-earth was not a prominent feature in these, the way it is today. There are a whole host of such commentators: Lin Carter; William Ready (the fellow Tolkien didn't like); editors like Isaacs, Zimbardo, and Lobdell who published dozens of essays by various authors; and my personal favorite Paul Kocher. If I sit down and scrutinize the index of these works, looking under terms like "God", "One", "religion", "providence" and such, I come away with only a handful of references.

I do not want to say there were "no" references because that isn't true. But they didn't occupy the central position we've given them today. It's interesting to note that the earliest recognition of Tolkien's views on religion and the divine came not through studying LotR, but through a close reading of "Leaf by Niggle". Kocher studied Niggle in both his books and also wrote a chapter on LotR entitled "Cosmic Order." (The very vagueness of that title says something!)

I think the first writer to have a clear view of Tolkien's ideas regarding Eru (presumably other than Christopher) was probably Clyde Kilby. He was a professor who spent one summer with Tolkien a few years before his death. He was supposed to help get the Silm ready for publication. He was also a deeply religious man. Kilby spent most of the summer talking with Tolkien about the material that would later become the Silm. Discussions about Eru and providence figured prominently in those encounters. Shortly after JRRT died, Kilby published the account of his summer in a small book that makes fascinating reading.

So looking back, I'd say the markers of Eruism were nowhere as clear as they are today. It was only with the publication of the edited Silm, Carpenter's bio, and especially the selected Letters that our whole view of Middle-earth changed and a picture of the Legendarium emerged. I feel that these three books, more than any others, changed the the way we approached interpreting Lord of the Rings, although others may certainly disagree.

[mark12_30]

Davem,

Lively ideas!

Suppose I wrote a 'fanfic' about a Hobbit called Trotter (complete with broken pipe & wooden shoes) rescuing Idis, Theoden's daughter, from the dungeon's of Giant Treebeard, encountering along the way some of 'pretty little fairies'?

Gee, sounds fun. What do you think, Child? (Who gets to visit the Cottage of Lost Play?)

How many people unfamiliar with Tolkien's early work & the first drafts of LotR would consider it totally 'wrong' & entirely unacceptable?

Lots of 'em. So it would be preferable to give the storya thorough introduction: a preface explaining what Tolkienish era the story is based in. One either explains who Trotter was, or, one refers the reader to the section of HoME the story is based from.

Would that story be classed as 'uncanonical'?

No. It would be classed as pre-LOTR, HoME fanfic. Admittedly you would have a much narrower audience than for a Legolas story.

It would certainly be AU.

For Strider, yes it would; but **not for Trotter.** And you're writing Trotter's story, not Strider's. Aren't you? (Or are you?)

What 'period' of Tolkien's creative work does a piece of fan fiction have to correspond to in order to be acceptable?

The period that you say you're working with. That's why I was excited about the "Sliding Scale" idea. Some of us have played/ are playing with The Lost Road. And there have been games involving Gondolin, Numenor... which used extra-Sil, HoME writings. We debated as we went.

A work of fan fiction may not correspond to the later vision, but it may capture the mood & spirit of the early work. Or it may get many 'facts' wrong & still be a good story. On the other hand, I've come across a lot of fan fiction, replete with 'facts', even large chunks of perfect Elvish, which bored me senseless.

I would certainly agree that fanfiction-- indeed, any good story-- requires more than just correct language and facts.

Of course, knowing Tolkien's creation as well as I do (though I'm certainly no 'expert'),I do find many things in otherwise good fan fiction which annoy & break the spell, but I suspect that that is because the inner consistency of reallity has not been achieved, the spell of the story not sufficiently well cast - because if it was I would have been too enchanted to notice the odd slip.

I agree that it must be part of the whole.

If I combed through Mithadan's Tales, I might be able to find a slip. But: I wasn't accosted, mugged or ambushed by any! Not one! And as a result, when I got to ... oh, I won't ruin it for you, but the part where -- yeah, that part -- I cried.

You are right. It's a question of not breaking the enchantment. So-- there has to be an enchantment there to start with . And that takes good writing, and inspiration, and a host of other things.

Character abuse is the worst form of non-canoni..ci..ty. In fact Tolkien Himself said so in Letters.



It is a pleasure discussing this with you, davem.

Grace and peace, --mark12_30

(EDIT: Child--

Tagging along with a bunch of Fallohides, he is required to stretch between two worlds, and that is not always easy.

I never saw it like that before. Now there's an eye-opener and no mistake.

[Lord of Angmar]

Would that story be classed as 'uncanonical'?(davem)

I would say that, to an extent, yes, this can be classed as 'uncanonical', in the sense that we can reasonably believe that J.R.R. Tolkien did not want Trotter, the Cottage of Lost Play, etc. to contribute to the make-up of a reader's view of Middle-earth. The fan fiction you speak of may be 'founded' in Professor Tolkien's writing, but I think the idea of having a 'foundation' in (some of) Tolkien's (posthumously published) writings should be separate from the notion of what is 'canon' in Tolkien's works.

So it would be preferable to give the storya thorough introduction: a preface explaining what Tolkienish era the story is based in.(mark12_30)

Here is another distinction we as Tolkienites might want to consider making: era vs. revision. The character Trotter may represent an 'era' of Tolkien's career, but he does not represent an era in the canonical history of Middle-earth; Tolkein revised The Lord of the Rings and edited out Trotter, likely because Tolkien did not want him to be considered a canonical figure in his works (which is why no stories containing Trotter, to my knowledge, were ever published by the Professor himself).

[Bêthberry]

Risks the wrath of 'Bethberry uncloaked' )

And so it's a dressing-down you wish to deliver, davem?

I have time now for but a very quick reply. I don't wish by any means to deny that an author and her personal experience forges the stories, davem, but rather to consider the entire process of language creation in larger framework, not as originating solely in the mind of one person but as the unique confluence of many events, social, cultural, political, as well as biographical. Perhaps I can make that more clear if I consider your hypothetical fanfic about Trotter, within the context of some of the responses here. (Forgive me for leaving someout. I write in haste.)

Helen says yes within a very proscribed regime of explanation and elaboration which would precede the story itself.

Child addresses, in an absolutely fabulous post about the history of critical reception, the perceived importance of Eru in Tolkien's writing. It would seem that the current preference in interpretation is dependant upon certain pivotal events in the publishing history.

Both of these situations point to the centrality of the interpretive community in understanding any text and in making any particular approach or interpretation "authoritative". This in fact is what is meant by the"death of the author." Not that we cruelly and , to my mind, erroneously ignore various aspects of the writing, primary or secondary materials, but that events in the wider cultural experience help determine what the stories mean to the community which values them.

Given that the Letters and The Silm were so closely 'controlled' by Christopher , given that there are diaries unpublished and other letters, it is a safe assumption (I think) to say that we don't have a 'complete' foundation upon which to build our interpretations. Who knows if other works exist which will, as with the publication of those three eventful books of which Child has spoken, propel the community of readers into a new paradigm which takes over centre stage from Eru.

The process of reading, of making-meaning, is like this. There is no finality to it, for aside from events such as the publication of new works by the author, there will always be cultural events which will shape how the interpretive community views the works themselves. I'm will to bet that an article can be written which would put the newly seen importance of Eru on not only those publications but also 9/11 and the Millenium itself.

We can work this back, also, davem, so that we see not only the mind of a single author mythologising his war experience, but the confluence of specific cultural events which in hindsight help explain why and how JRR Tolkien was so placed to create Middle earth.

Some members of BD want to proscribe a clearly delineated operation whereby they understand their work as continuing in some definition the intentions of Tolkien. This is one interpretive community.

Other members here are more suspect of that endeavour and in fact mightrepresent an-other interpretive community. I think it is safe to say that davem, myself, Mr. SaucepanMan and Mr. Hedgethistle, among others (and I don't wish to ignore others, I am merely writing in haste from memory) could belong to this group, if group it is... There will be as many interpretive communities as there are one or two gathered together in Tolkien's name.

I would say more here on Tolkien's idea in "Of Fairy-Stories" of how things get into the soup not because of some cultural reason or event in an author's life but because the inclusion represent "literary significance" (Tolkien's term). That significance depends upon, using Tolkien's idea (yes, yes, here I will now rise to champion the author), the satisfaction of certain desires. To me, in the long run, it is this aesthetic criterion which will "win out in the end". It the story or the interpretation (I'm extrapolating here of course beyond fantasy) satisfies this desire or consolation in the community, it will be accepted and pass on through the annals of history. If not, it will be forgotten, perhaps to be uncovered in some future archeology by a different interpretive community.

must dash. apologies for not writing better or more inclusively.

[The Saucepan Man]

(The title above relates to only the final part of this post (and then only tenuously), but I couldn't resist the pun. )

H-I, my favourite section of that "article" that you posted is the final paragraph:

Finally, we can only guess at what the Sauron sources might have revealed ...

After all, Dark Lords have feelings too (and any reader of ROEBII will know that I have reason to feel strongly about this ). I would love to see a "fan-fic" written from, and sympathetic to, Sauron's perspective. As they say, history is always written by the victors. Of course, it would not be at all "canonical" since it would turn one of the themes central to Tolkien's works on its head. But it would be fun.

So, to what extent can a fanfic be said not to be 'canonical'? What 'period' of Tolkien's creative work does a piece of fan fiction have to correspond to in order to be acceptable?

By "canonical", I assume that you mean consistent with canon, davem, since a fan-fic, not having been penned by the author himself, can never form part of the canon. Using this definition, I would go along with Lord of Angmar and say that, to be "canonical" a fan-fic must be consistent with the works which Tolkien himself published during his lifetime (and there are only two set in Middle-earth) and arguably the Silmarillion (I remain "fuzzy" on that one). Anything else within the author's "unpublished texts" is surely up for grabs, since (as you put it) we will never know exactly how it would have appeared in its final form had he got round to publishing it (and that does, I suppose, include the Silm, since it would most likely have been quite different in many respects had he published it himself).

Which brings me neatly to your comments on the revised Silmarillion project:

If you revise it to fit into a 'canon', an 'official' version (though I have to ask who the 'officials' are who will give final approval - is there an officiating body to whom you will offer up your completed version, who will stamp it 'officially approved', & declare all the other versions (including some of Tolkien's own) 'unofficial') you make it into something it was never intended to be.

I think you are (intentionally?) missing the point here. As I understand it, those involved in the project do not intend forcing the fruits of their (rather exceptional) labours on anyone. As Bêthberry said, they simply form one of many "interpetive communities" within the "Tolkien fan umbrella" (do I use quote marks too much?). Even if the finished product were to be published, individual fans would be free to accept it, reject it or just simply ignore it (which goes back to this concept of the boundless freedom of the reader).

But I think that you recognise that, for you go on to say:

I hope you enjoy the process, but for me it is simply a form of 'fanfic' - you're taking what you enjoy from Tolkien's work, & creating something new.

I agree with you on this, although I would qualify your point by recognising that it would (for me at least) represent a much more authoritative body of work than the more traditional type of fan-fic (with the exception perhaps of Mith's works, although I have not read them and am going on what Helen and others have said). The reason being that the work is being undertaken with the genuine intent of remaining as true to Tolkien's ideas as possible by a group of people who are intimately familiar with the entirety of his works. I would be interested to read it, although I might well choose to exclude some, or even all, of it from my own personal view of the history of Middle-earth. I would be fully entitled to do so, and I don't imagine that Maedhros, Findegil or anyone else working on it would seek to deny this. Of course, if I was to join their "interpretive community" and enter into the process, or even just enter into a discussion on the substance of what they are producing (as opposed to the process by which they are producing it), I would have to accept the "rules of canon" by which they work (one of those restrictions which I mentioned earlier).

And so to "Eruism". Sharon, you beautifully encapsulated the reasons for my not having picked up on this theme throughout most of my "Tolkien-reading life" (those quote marks again). Indeed, when I first joined this forum, I was utterly astonished at how dominant this theme was among the discussions, and also at the clear link between an interest in Tolkien and deep (and primarily Christian) religious beliefs. (Although that is clearly not to say that all Tolkien fans are Christians or even deeply religious. Many are neither. I am nominally the former, but not the latter). I do of course recognise the importance of "Eruism" within Tolkien's works now and, indeed, have accepted it into my own little "Tolkien world". But it certainly had no role to play in my intitial "enchantment" (drat those quote marks - too many nebulous concepts ).

I think that the following point in your post is key:

However, I truly think it's difficult for the modern day reader to wash out of his head all the information we have gleaned from the Silmarillion, Carpenter's biography of Tolkien, and, most critically, the published Letters. At least this is true of anyone who goes beyond a casual reading of the books to participate in continuing study or discussion.

That is certainly true today, assuming that the reader is aware of the ideas contained in the works that you mention. But, unless they read Tolkien in a very odd order or read widely on this forum (or others like it) before first reading LotR, they will not necessarily pick up on these ideas on first reading the book (just as I didn't). And there will be many who (whether "casual" (doh!) or more serious readers) will never get around to reading the Silmarillion, the Letters or the "unpublished texts" (just as I might never have done). And there will also be many to whom the theme is simply not that important. In any of these circumstances, their experience cannot be said to be less valid than those who are aware of and/or who hold as important the "Eruism" theme (or any of the other ideas contained within the secondary materials). For them, the heroism will suffice. (That last sentence is in there simply to make my title pun more relevant.)

Yes, Bêthberry, social, cultural, political and biographical events will inevitably have an impact upon the manner in which an author is interpreted, in addition to the "secondary materials" which he himself has produced. But, as I am sure you would accept, not all of them will affect every individual reader, some may be not be affected by them at all, and those individuals who are affected by them will be affected in different ways. And, of course, one's own personal experiences and perspectives (one's religious beliefs, for example) will have a significant effect on one's own personal interpretation. Which, I suppose, accounts for the range of opinion here and elsewhere in this forum.

And, on that note, I shall take my leave (although no doubt only temporarily so).

~Saucepan~
A recovering quote mark addict

Edit:

We can guide people by stating that we consider certain texts to be more "canonical" than others with some rules, but we can't tell each reader what to like and what not to.

Thanks for that clarification Madhros, which I think confirms my understanding of what you are seeking to acheive.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Some members of BD want to proscribe a clearly delineated operation whereby they understand their work as continuing in some definition the intentions of Tolkien. This is one interpretative community.

Other members here are more suspect of that endeavour and in fact might represent an-other interpretative community. I think it is safe to say that davem, myself, Mr. SaucepanMan and Mr. Hedgethistle, among others (and I don't wish to ignore others, I am merely writing in haste from memory) could belong to this group, if group it is... There will be as many interpretive communities as there are one or two gathered together in Tolkien's name.

Once again, Bêthberry, thanks for putting this so concisely. This little schema you offer of different interpretative communities (I hereby forswear all “” in this post!) hearkens back to the question with which I began: “In a book that doesn’t really conclude, where does its truth end and our own begin?”

I am about to float something that will at first appear outrageous and will raise many hackles – please bear with the post however, as I hope that the hackles will droop as you proceed:

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

Please, remember, keep all hackles down! I am NOT NOT NOT claiming that one group is one the side of good and the other one the side of evil; nor am I suggesting that one group has free will while the other are slaves. I am merely trying to work through how Tolkien himself provides us with a way of thinking about this in his own novel. The comparison/relation between the Fellowship and the Nazgûl – among other things – works through the relationship between those who seek truth by submitting themselves to an-other’s particular version of that truth (the Nazgûl look to the Eye/I of Sauron), and those who cling to their own particular versions of truth (hobbits, Men, Elves, Dwarves) while hoping against all hope that somehow these truths are part of an overarching Truth that they can never really know. Now, obviously, Tolkien is dramatising this relationship in a fiction – in our primary world, we are all (as readers) a mixture of Fellowship (seeking to maintain our own versions of truth, and hoping for Truth unknowable) and Nazgûl (seeking the truth from an authoritative, authorial other).

Any hackles? If so, please read the above paragraph again.

I think that we are all in agreement that our reading experience is some mixture of this – more importantly, that our sense of the truths and/or Truth of Middle-Earth is an (unhappy?) mixture or composite of these positions. I have seen some extraordinarily eloquent and intelligent attempts to work through this dilemma, but a dilemma it remains (for me at least). The questions that I have from this are:

1) Is it possible to turn to the author for the truth of the text and not become as the Nazûl? That is, can we place our faith in the authorial interpretation and not lose some of our own free will?

2) If we are to adopt the contrary position, is it possible for us in the Primary World to maintain the same faith and hope that Elrond expresses in the Secondary World of M-E that our truths are part of one Truth, without having to make recourse to number one?

In any of these circumstances, their experience cannot be said to be less valid than those who are aware of and/or who hold as important the "Eruism" theme (or any of the other ideas contained within the secondary materials). For them, the heroism will suffice. (That last sentence is in there simply to make my title pun more relevant.)

I think Saucepan Man and Child that you are both selling yourselves short. You both seem to be saying that in your first readings of LotR you had no conscious or overt sense of the Eruism that informs the text. Well, OK, but it’s quite a logical leap to go from that to the claim that you did not notice the effect of Eruism. If we had to be consciously aware of gravity for it to effect us, then everyone before Newton would have been in a lot of trouble! Perhaps a more appropriate analogy can come from music: one need not know a thing about scales and chords to feel their effect in a symphony by Mozart.

Allow me to return to my favourite example for this thread: Gollum’s little ‘tumble’ at the Cracks of Doom. You say that when you read the text, you did not consciously formulate any thought that there was a Force or Guide, beyond the characters, giving Gollum a little push there: you were unaware of the Eruism. OK, but I’m welling to bet dollars to donuts that you also did not through the book across the room in disgust and cry out. “What a cheat! Frodo totally caves in and the Gollum just trips and falls? It’s all a bloody accident, man! What a rip-off!” It should be amazing that this moment works at all – after all that has gone on, a lucky slip is what saves the day?!?!? In just about any other work, such an ending would be a cheat (imagine, for example, if at the end of Return of the Jedi the Emperor tripped on his robe and fell off the catwalk without any help from Darth Vader? Or if at the end of Moby Dick the whale happened to beach himself and the Pequod sprung a leak?)

But it does work, and not just dramatically, but thematically and meaning-fully – it feels and is precisely the right way for that moment to come off. It is, I would argue, the only way that it could come off. And we’re made to feel that way, to accept that moment not as a cheat but as the logical and satisfying conclusion (the eucatastrophe) because throughout the novel the Eruism that is immanent in the action has been there, quietly working away on our unconscious minds, prodding us, and insinuating itself into our reading experience, until we accept it like a second skin (or an interpretative layer). We’ve already said in this thread that the text is as much a product of the author’s unconscious mind as it is of his conscious will – why should our reading experience be any different?

You did not see the Eruism in LotR, or hear the progressive minor chord shifts in Mozart’s Requiem? Fine – good – who cares? They were there all the same, and your reaction to both works of art was effected by them without your conscious mind ever really being aware of it. This is one of the hallmarks of great art.

(And, incidentally, of effective propaganda… )

[Child of the 7th Age]

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

Fordim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Maédhros]

I don't know that I would agree that the first part of Tuor & his coming to Gondolin is 'better' or more effective than the Fall of Gondolin. They are simply different - in the same way that the revised Hobbit is not 'better' than the first edition, just different. There is more detail in Tuor, but it is unfinished, & for all we know the finished story might have been very poor, & not compared at all with FoG in terms of narrative effect.
When you say that T&HCTG is superior 'in your opinion' you point up the problem with your approach. You decided to leave out a note in the Parentage of Gil Galad because you consider it would adversely affect the Narn. For me this approach is only going to produce, as I said, an entirely idiosyncratic version - another group of scholars could decide to include the residence of Gil Galad at the Havens & let the Narn go hang. You cannot approach Tolkien's work in this way, in my opinion, because there is no way to prove that Tolkien, if he'd had the time, or inclination, wouldn't have rewritten the Narn to accomodate the Gil Galad idea. Leaving in the mechanical monsters from FoG creates even bigger problems for a 'consistent' version, in that it changes our whole understanding of Morgoth & what capacity he had for technological development. If he could produce tanks & flame throwers, why didn't he use them against the Valar in the War of Wrath, & decide instead on using living creatures (Balrogs & Dragons) which could be killed.

There will always be a problem of interpretation and personal taste with this. That is why we in the Project have tried to come up with reasonable and logical rules. I disagree about your comment regarding Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin in that I believe that if Tolkien would have finished that account, it would never have been as you said been very poor because it was Tolkien who wrote it.
What is to be included and not included is not a matter of whim but a matter of great debate. Again I disagree with your assertion that the addition of the Mechanical Monsters in the FoG creates a problem. That is indeed a common notion that many people have but if you truly look at it in detail (as Findegil did) one would realize that they are not incompatible, and that is why we came to the conclusion to use it.

FoG is his attempt to mythologise the horrors of mechanised warfare, which his was the first generation to witness. It's the horror of the Somme battlefield seen (as Garth puts it) through 'enchanted eyes. It is far more that than part of a 'revised' Silmarillion. If you revise it to fit into a 'canon', an 'official' version (though I have to ask who the 'officials' are who will give final approval - is there an officiating body to whom you will offer up your completed version, who will stamp it 'officially approved', & declare all the other versions (including some of Tolkien's own) 'unofficial') you make it into something it was never intended to be.

CT had always thought of the idea to make a "Silmarillion". He doubted if that would be the right thing to do, or to just publish the typescripts, manuscripts
of his father as he did in HoME. Is CT Published Silmarillion the official version? No. Is the work that he did on it amazing? Yes, it was, and it was probably his work in editing it that allowed the publication of HoME. Of course now, CT had certain regrets in his "Silmarillion" which is a natural thing. We in the project are doing that just for the pleasure of having a more complete "Silmarillion". There can never be a truly canonical "Silmarillion" because the author is dead.

I disagree with this profoundly - the reader, 'casual' or otherwise, does not 'submerge' himself - he is either 'submerged' or 'enchanted', or he is not. And if he is 'submerged' he will be 'truly' submerged.

When you refer in such a negative way to 'normal fans' -

(Quote: A normal fan of JRRT is certainly welcome to enjoy those tales, but I believe that if you want more, a more scholarly approach to the works and evolution of the legendarium of JRRT, one cannot be content with that. I think that one has to look for more.)

- as opposed to 'abnormal' ones (& I suppose I must feel grateful for my 'normality' here!) My blood begins to boil

Sorry, but there are simply 'fans' - albeit some who simply love the tales & some who seem to want to dictate which tales shall be loved & which shall not.

It is a matter of opinion. I don't see anything wrong with my description of a normal fan of JRRT. I believe that if you are truly in love with the works, one would not stop with reading the manuscript, but would want to see all of the alterations and developments of the story.
Can all of JRRT's typescripts and manuscripts be taken at the same value? I don't think so. Take for example the Tale of Turambar and compare it with the later Narn i Chîn Húrin. It is my personal opinion that when Tolkien wrote the Narn he was a better writer than when we wrote the Tale of Turambar. How could both of these works have the same "canonical" value if the later one is an expanded revision with a great many additions of the story. When comparing these two tales, would the 1917 Tale have the same weight as the 1951 Narn? To me the answer would be of course not.
There is a difference between canonicity and love of the works. For me, the most beautiful story that JRRT wrote is the Cottage of Lost Play and it is the one that I like the most, even though I consider that JRRT abandoned that concept early on and I do not consider it canon.
We can guide people by stating that we consider certain texts to be more "canonical" than others with some rules, but we can't tell each reader what to like and what not to.