‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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 Anything else within the author's "unpublished texts" is surely up for grabs, since (as you put it) we will never know exactly how it would have appeared in its final form had he got round to publishing it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.

[davem]

Helen , I'm not writing the Trotter story. I did play around with the idea for a while - it would be told by Trotter in the first person, to a visitor to the Prancing Pony. If anyone wants to write it I don't have a problem. I've only ever written one piece of fanfic - 'Orophin dreams of the Waters of Awakening' -which is on my computer, but I can't post it anywhere, as every time i try & copy it across from word I get a 'bad gateway 502' message! (I have a mac using OsX if anyone can advise).

Maedhros I agree with you about the Cottage of Lost Play. And I take on board what Saucepanman has said. But I think the idea of a 'revised Sil' is mistaken if its meant to be taken as anything more than an interesting way for you guys to pass the time. My reason: You 're trying to produce a work of art by committee - what's that joke about a camel being a horse designed by a committee? You're not trying to create your own secondary world, you're trying to second guess Tolkien. Its simply impossible to know what the Legendarium would have ended up like, or what decisions Tolkien would have made in coming to a final version.

As to the Tale of Turambar vs the Narn - this only becomes an issue if you start thinking in terms of a canon which must choose one over the other, not for reasons of personal taste (as in my case I reject the 'Dome of Varda' because I find it too outlandish - even in a world of 'Elves & Dragons') but out of a desire to make a 'final' version & 'embalm' it.

I simply cannot see why you would feel a need to produce such a thing. As soon as you choose between two versions of a story, & accept one & reject the other based on personal taste - 'we like this one better than that one, so we'll keep this one'. But taste can't be used as a criterion - or all those with a Christian, or at least monotheistic, religious bent would produce an 'Eruist' version, & claim that they were putting together the version Tolkien would have really wanted, & all those with a more materialistic worldview would excise the Eruist references.

(Quote from Dunsany's 'The King of Elfland's Daughter 'springs to mind- 'For it is ever the way of witches with any two things, to choose the more mysterious of the two' - in other words, we are all biased & our choices, whether individual or a result of a committee's discussion, will inevitably reflect our own idiosyncracies).

Bethberry sorry no time- I'll respond later.

[Maédhros]

Maedhros I agree with you about the Cottage of Lost Play. And I take on board what Saucepanman has said. But I think the idea of a 'revised Sil' is mistaken if its meant to be taken as anything more than an interesting way for you guys to pass the time. My reason: You 're trying to produce a work of art by committee - what's that joke about a camel being a horse designed by a committee? You're not trying to create your own secondary world, you're trying to second guess Tolkien. Its simply impossible to know what the Legendarium would have ended up like, or what decisions Tolkien would have made in coming to a final version.

It is just what CT did in writting his "Silmarillion". Aye it is indeed impossible to know what would have JRRT have done in the end but I assure you that I have learned more of the legendarium and the evolution of it by just being in the project.

As to the Tale of Turambar vs the Narn - this only becomes an issue if you start thinking in terms of a canon which must choose one over the other, not for reasons of personal taste (as in my case I reject the 'Dome of Varda' because I find it too outlandish - even in a world of 'Elves & Dragons') but out of a desire to make a 'final' version & 'embalm' it.

I see it in terms of the evolution of the legendarium. The Narn to me is the product of a more mature Tolkien in reference to the Tale of Turambar. If JRRT was satisfied with the Tale, then why did he write the Narn? Even though I think that the Narn is superior to the Tale, my reason for thinking that it is more "canonical" has to do more with my common sense and logic.

simply cannot see why you would feel a need to produce such a thing. As soon as you choose between two versions of a story, & accept one & reject the other based on personal taste - 'we like this one better than that one, so we'll keep this one'. But taste can't be used as a criterion - or all those with a Christian, or at least monotheistic, religious bent would produce an 'Eruist' version, & claim that they were putting together the version Tolkien would have really wanted, & all those with a more materialistic worldview would excise the Eruist references.

I don't think that this is accurate. We have tried to minimize in our work or personal preferences. There have been times that our ideas has been rejected by the other memembers, and it is nearly impossible sometimes to come to an agreement. That is why we try to apply our principles in making a more complete "Silmarillion".
If there were not people who would feel a need to produce such a thing, then CT probably wouldn't have compiled his "Silmarillion", I wouldn't be here because I was truly enchanted by the work that CT did in his father's manuscripts. I think that there is a point that people are just content to read the stories and see how the evolved, but there are some of us out there which find that not nearly enough. I want to read a more "complete Silmarillion". In a way it would be a "Revision" of CT's previous work. Does it has it's limitations of course it does, do we think it will be finished? Not really but it is a work of love. I wish that some of you might read our finished chapter to know what you think about it.

[mark12_30]

*Gladly*, Maedhros, where do I find it?