‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Novnarwen]

This is such an enjoyable thread! Finally, I'm being able to reply!

From Child's post:

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.

Regarding the Picture of Eru: I think that too is individual... First of all because of the reader's own belief. If he/she is a Christian, who believes in God, he/she would naturally want to know the explanation of why things happen, just like in Real Life. The point I am trying to make, (which isn't working very well, is it?) is that it's natural for a religious reader/person to think there is something 'behind' LOTR, (The Silm, The Hobbit? And 'life' if it's 'just' a 'person'..) other than Tolkien. And discovering the Eruism (and who Eru really is) wouldn't be that 'difficult' as they already by nature seek after Him.

From Fordim's post:

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.

Is the little push, which caused to the Ring's destruction and "Fall of Gollum" (the big eyed, nice little guy), automatically Eruism because it can't be explained? (I mean, he just fell, or stumbled, or tripped, or was just VERY clumsy. I think I know what you mean, but I feel 'obliged' to question it.)

From Fordim's post:

And a thanks to Child for this as it highlights a problem in my usage of Eruism – which I am delighted to see is catching on…perhaps much like a fungus. By Eruism I mean only that sense of a providential plan within which the individual becomes heroic in M-E, without any reference whatsoever to the Catholicism that, through Tolkien, informs it. (In other words, Eruism does not equal Catholicism, it is Tolkien’s subcreated and recovered version/vision of Catholicism). In this sense, I think once more that Child and I agree on this point: Eruism (but not Eru) is plainly evident to all who are enchanted by LotR insofar as we accept/enjoy/find satisfaction in moments like Gollum’s fall. Catholicism, Tolkien’s views on individual liberty and duty, and all the elements of the Primary World that inform Tolkien’s subcreated moral order of Eruism, are not.

(Marked in bold; my own.)

Eruism isn't necessarily an "evident to all who are enchanted by LotR insofar as we accept/enjoy/find satisfaction in moments like Gollum’s fall." I assume you mean that you'll find it satisfying, as it's a poof that there is a higher power (God) in LOTR? If so.. Then take for example; people who don't believe in Eru (God?), wouldn't think of Gollum's fall other than the fact that it was an accident, or that Tolkien wanted it that way. Eruism, which comes from Eru, the creator of Eä, wouldn't mean anything to a person who has no personal belief, or simply don't consider Eru as a God, a creator.

If it is not so, then ignore the paragraph above, or the post. Both would be just fine...

Cheers,
Nova

[davem]

Maedhros

My position is that you don't have to choose between the stories, & classify one as 'better' or even that one expresses Tolkien's vision better than another. If we were talking about a collection of completely unrelated tales this wouldn't arise - so, the question is - are we actually talking about completely seperate stories? If we take BoLT as a different work than the pre-LotR Sil, & both as different from the post LotR Sil, there is no need to make these choices. And I think the premise you are working from is simply wrong. Because Tolkien uses many of the same characters, settings & events acoss all three (& in the Annals, etc) it simply 'fools' us into seeing them as the 'same' story evolving over time. But each was the 'definitive' version of the work when they were composed. Lost Tales was not written as a first draft of the post LotR Sil. It was a work which expressed Tolkien's desires at the time it was written. His desires had changed when he came to write the Sil in the 30's, so it was a different work. When he returned to the legends in the post LotR period, he was again writing something entirely different.

He is attempting to tell a number of stories, construct a number of 'Legendaria'. The characters, settings & events remain (in their 'essential' form, at least in some cases), but what Tolkien has to say changes, his world view changes. His life changes, so, in many ways, he is a different person, with different things to say. Probably his understanding of his faith & his relationship to God & the world changed as he matured - so the references in the Qenya Lexicon to Germans as 'barbarians' was a reflection of his beliefs & attitudes at the time he wrote it. They are neither 'canonical' nor 'non-canonical'. They reflect his feelings at the time of WW1. Later, his attitudes towards the German people changed. They are no longer 'barbarians'. But once they were - even the 'Elves' thought so.

The idea that you can take bits from the Fall of Gondolin, add to them bits from 'Tuor', written half a century or so later, by a 'different' writer - because Tolkien did change as a man & as a creator - & produce an 'official' version of the story of Gondolin is, in my view, mistaken. Its almost equivalent to taking some scenes from Marlowe's Jew of Malta, & Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice & trying to produce a 'canonical' Elizabethan view of 'Jewishness'', or combining Marlowe's Faustus & Goethe's Faust to get at the 'true' version of the legend. There simply isn't a 'canonical' Silmarillion - its the fox that isn't there. What is there, is JRR Tolkien, a writer who throughout his adult life was telling stories, with many of the same characters & events in them, but with different meanings & intentions. You can no more produce a 'canonical' Silmarillion, by choosing some bits from here, there & eveywhere from his ME writings & casting aside other bits, than you can create a 'canonical' JRRT, by taking some bits from his biology, his academic career, his personal life, his fictional & non fictional writings & rejecting other bits. Tolkien, as I said, is his creative life, the Legendarium, & the Legendarium is Tolkien. There is no 'definitive' version of either.

I'm glad your forays into trying to create a 'canon' have increased you appreciation of Tolkien's work, but I can't see what you hope to end up with, or what value you think it will have - I suspect that in the end you'll find that the process of creating it will be more important than what you end up with.

Bethberry

I think there is an essential difference between fairy stories & Tolkien's creation. The very process of tales being handed down by word of mouth, possibly over centuries, means they soon cease to be the work of a single mind, or reflective of a single person's worldview, at a particular time in that person's life. They accrue & discard details & references as they are told & re-told. They become something totally different to a book written by a particular author ('living shapes that move from mind to mind' as Tolkien put it is Mythopoea). Tolkien's legendarium is Tolkien's story (or, more accurately, as I said above, Tolkien's stories ). They come out of his mind, & in effect are him, speaking to us, mind to mind. To risk falling into the trap of 'Zen & the Art of interpreting Tolkien , we can almost say that while he was in the process of telling the stories - in the various periods of his life - he 'was' the story - his mind was focussed on them, his total attention was on the tale. So, when we read the stories, we encounter Tolkien 'mind to mind'. We are reading his thoughts - even if we know nothing about him or his day to day life or his beliefs, it is still Tolkien's mind that is communing with our mind. We cannot say that Tolkien is not there, because in effect we would be saying our minds are communing with nothing, or that our minds are communing with themselves. The author introduces new ideas - 'living' shapes move from his mind to ours' - 'living' because ideas & images are mental processes - processes transmitted from one living brain to another. So, the author & the reader are both 'really' present in the experience - the author doesn't 'cease' to be while the story is being told - even if he happens to be physically dead. His mind is 'alive', because his mind is the source of the living ideas we are experiencing as we read - & how can something dead produce life? Once we put down the story and think of something else, the author - whether still physically alive or not, is 'dead' to us, because we are no longer aware of his or her existence. Tolkien 'lives' when we read his writings - 'living' mind meets & interacts with 'living' mind - and if you can only offer that 'illusion' of serial time as an argument against that theory then I will be disappointed

No, The author of a tale is always present when the tale is told- whether we realise it or not.

[Lord of Angmar]

Its almost equivalent to taking some scenes from Marlowe's Jew of Malta, & Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice & trying to produce a 'canonical' Elizabethan view of 'Jewishness'', or combining Marlowe's Faustus & Goethe's Faust to get at the 'true' version of the legend. There simply isn't a 'canonical' Silmarillion - its the fox that isn't there.(davem)

I would say that it is more akin to reading earlier drafts of The Merchant of Venice and trying to form a 'canonical' view of Shylock, rather than solely analyzing the Shylock who made it through to the final script. I can understand what you are saying about Tolkien as a writer, but what you classify as an attempt "to tell a number of stories, construct a number of 'Legendaria'" I tend to see more as a gradual revision and refinement of a single 'Legendarium'. I do agree fully that there can be no 'canonical' Silm, and that under the parameters above only LotR (and possibly the Hobbit) can truly be considered 'canonical' to the legend of Middle-earth. Thus, I also agree with you that the Revised Silmarillion can and should be no more than a hobby.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I have one question for the whole which-works-are-canonical-and-which-aren't strand of this thread:

What is the purpose of constructing your canon -- whatever it may be? Are you striving for a comprehensive version of Middle-Earth or a truthful one? That is, are you trying get it all, or are you trying to get it right?

[Lord of Angmar]

What is the purpose of constructing your canon -- whatever it may be? Are you striving for a comprehensive version of Middle-Earth or a truthful one? That is, are you trying get it all, or are you trying to get it right?

That is a very pertinent question, since I think the word canon has been thrown around far too much. For myself, I love the Silmarillion, the BoLT, HoME, etc. I am a little "iffy" on the authenticity of each or all as a comprehensive history, since while I do tend to use them as a historian might use his history books when making an argument, at the same time I recognize that they may not entirely (or even remotely, who knows?) resemble what Tolkien intended to be a part of the history of Middle-earth. As far as 'canon' goes, I do believe that only LotR is a 100% 'canonical' part of Middle-earth. The rest of the 'Legendarium' as we know it, with the possible exception of The Hobbit, is a cluster of branches on a tree which, beautiful and enthralling as it may be, will never bear any verifiably canonical fruits.

[mark12_30]

That is, are you trying get it all, or are you trying to get it right?

I would say, trying to write eucatastrophe.

With the reader in mind, if one begins in a Tolkien environment with Tolkien characters (who are so well known), it is jarring to proceed inconsistently or treat the characters inconsistently and the spell is broken. If one can maintain 'it'-- the characters especially-- then one is less likely to lose the reader.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Oh, Bethberry , I'm sorry but I couldn't resist. It was late at night and all I could see was an image of myself as a Nazgûl. I just didn't want to go to bed with that embedded on my brain. It seemed nicer to consider the Music of Creation and my own small niche as a subcreator trying to weave a tune that would blend in with the main themes!

But, all kidding aside, I think your suggestion is an excellent one to look at how Tolkien himself worked with text and consider how freely he utilized ideas from Beowulf, the works of Shakespeare, and similar sources.

I guess what I am wondering about is what Tolkien thought he was free to do as a reader and then as a writer. And, of course, what applicability that has to what we do.

Would it also be useful to look at Tolkien's personal response when others took his own texts and ideas and drew meaning from these, whether a meaning that was consonent with his own or one that was different? Obviously, this process is laden with emotion. It is easier to make a calm decision when drawing ideas from another author's text than when confronted with someone doing the same to your own. The fact that so many of the early reviews of Tolkien refected such extreme views would also make this task more difficult.

Still, to understand the process fully, you'd ideally examine things from both sides: what Tolkien thought he was free to do as a reader and writer; and how he responded when others exercised their freedom to do the same.

The first thing that comes to mind is the well-known passage from the Letters that someone quoted earlier on this thread (or at least I think so). The italics are my own.

I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yest leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd.

In theory at least, this suggests JRRT did not object to others coming into his own subcreation of Middle-earth, and further developing his legendarium using the same peoples and places that he wrote about. His list of artists does not explicitly include other writers, but, in order to produce a drama, someone must set pen to paper. Moreover, if he purposely intended to leave some tales only roughly sketched, it sounds as if he was inviting people to do more than simply repeat existing plots and ideas but rather to create something, almost in the manner of a fanfiction. How much freedom he would allot such artists in deviating from his own vision is, of course, another matter, but he did not slam the door in their faces.

Does anyone know of another artist who expressed a similar view: suggesting that others come in and create within his world, helping to develop the legends even further? And not just one subcreator, but potentially a whole host of them... Such an attitude is extraordinarily generous. The only one who comes to mind is the late Marian Zimmer Bradley who encouraged young writers to dabble in Darkover. There were a number of such "fanfiction" essays published during her life, and some of these folk went on to become fantasy writers with worlds of their own. But although she was a good writer and an early fan of Lord of the Rings, she was nowhere near the artist that Tolkien was.

***********
Fordim

Thanks for clarifying the part about Eruisms. I do see our positions as not that different.

Child

[The Saucepan Man]

Heavens but it's a job participating on this thread. Just as I've absorbed one set of views and forumulated (I rather like that typo ) my responses, a whole new set of them comes along.

Then take for example; people who don't believe in Eru (God?), wouldn't think of Gollum's fall other than the fact that it was an accident, or that Tolkien wanted it that way. Eruism, which comes from Eru, the creator of Eä, wouldn't mean anything to a person who has no personal belief, or simply don't consider Eru as a God, a creator. (Novnarwen)

I would disagree. Just because one doesn't believe in the existence of God in the real (primary) world, it does not follow that one cannot appreciate the importance of Eru within the sub-created world. And I now rather subscribe to Fordim's view that, even if someone who is not deeply religious is unaware of the role of Eru when he reads LotR, he will still receive from the text a strong sense of providence (on a subconscious level at least). The text implies that "something" made Gollum fall at that moment, just as "something" made Bilbo find the Ring, whatever that "something" may be.

They chose to accept the Rings of Power and to keep them. Insofar as you talk about the reader being “bound by what is said in the text unless he himself chooses” to exercise his or her free will – you are describing not just Melkor in response to Eru, but the Nazgûl to Sauron and, I would suggest, that instinct in us as readers to say “my individual truths are not equal to the intended Truth of the Creator of Middle-Earth, so He must tell me what the Truth is.”(Fordim Hedgethistle)

Point of order M'lud! Melkor had numerous opportunities to repent (and indeed pretended to do so on at least one occasion), as did Sauron. Yes, the Nazgul chose to take the Rings but, from the moment that they did, there was no going back. I see what you are saying: The "Nazgul-reader" is "ensorceled" (is that a word?) into the view that he must abide by the author's "truth" and is then effectively bound by that view. But surely he's not really bound. Surely he does still have the choice to break the spell and adopt a different approach to his interpretation of the author's works.

Your Nazgul-reader might just as well be labelled a Frodo/Gandalf-reader. His initial reaction is to follow his own interpretation, just as Frodo's initial reaction was that Bilbo should have killed Gollum when he had the chance. But Gandalf (the reader's wiser side) counsel's him in the "Eruistic" ("Eruian"?) way of mercy (acceptance of the author's own interpretation).

And I think the premise you are working from is simply wrong. (davem)

In whose eyes is it wrong? Yours maybe. But presumably you would not regard the efforts of Christopher Tolkien, who was seeking to acheive much the same thing when he compiled the Silmarillion, in the same way, or would you dismiss the published Silmarillion as ultimately valueless?

And it is certainly not wrong in the eyes of those undertaking the project, who clearly regard it as a worthwhile endeavour. And not necessarily in the eyes of others, some of whom will be interested to read it.

Lost Tales was not written as a first draft of the post LotR Sil. It was a work which expressed Tolkien's desires at the time it was written. His desires had changed when he came to write the Sil in the 30's, so it was a different work. When he returned to the legends in the post LotR period, he was again writing something entirely different. (davem)

That is a very good point, though. Does it perhaps point to a fundamental flaw in Tolkien's approach that he was unable to finalise one text written at one point in time reflecting his world-view at that time and then move onto another text (and perhaps another sub-created world) in order to express his changing views. Why did he feel the need to continue to express his developing perpsective on the primary world in the same sub-created world using (broadly) the same characters, and generally by re-working the same tales? He was able to conjure up other sub-created worlds (witness the tales of Farmer Giles, Smith and Niggle). If he had adopted this approach to all his works, he may well have published a lot more within his lifetime. But where would that leave Middle-earth? Would it still hold the same "enchantment"?

There simply isn't a 'canonical' Silmarillion - its the fox that isn't there.

Assuming that one excludes the published Silmarillion from Tolkien's "canon" (and, like Lord of Angmar, I can see the force in this argument), then the closest that one can get to a "canonical" Silmarillion, I suppose, is the form which it was in when LotR was published. The reason being that it is this form of the text which will represent the history on which LotR, which is part of the "canon", was based.

That's all for now folks. More later, undoubtedly ...

[Maédhros]

My position is that you don't have to choose between the stories, & classify one as 'better' or even that one expresses Tolkien's vision better than another. If we were talking about a collection of completely unrelated tales this wouldn't arise - so, the question is - are we actually talking about completely seperate stories? If we take BoLT as a different work than the pre-LotR Sil, & both as different from the post LotR Sil, there is no need to make these choices. And I think the premise you are working from is simply wrong. Because Tolkien uses many of the same characters, settings & events acoss all three (& in the Annals, etc) it simply 'fools' us into seeing them as the 'same' story evolving over time. But each was the 'definitive' version of the work when they were composed. Lost Tales was not written as a first draft of the post LotR Sil. It was a work which expressed Tolkien's desires at the time it was written. His desires had changed when he came to write the Sil in the 30's, so it was a different work. When he returned to the legends in the post LotR period, he was again writing something entirely different.

This is a valid opinion but an opinion nonetheless. I'm really not sure if we have read the same stories though. I think that this approach regarding the manuscripts and typescripts of JRRT is wrong. Take for example the Quenta Noldorinwa. If that version of the "Silmarillion", (the only complete Silmarillion) that JRRT wrote btw, is a complete separate "definite" work apart from the Tales, why would JRRT make a mention of those same Tales in the Quenta Noldorinwa?

From the Shaping of Middle-earth: Quenta Noldorinwa

On a time Ulmo contrived, as is told in the Tale of the Fall of Gondolin, that he should be led to a river-course that flowed underground from Lake Mithrim in the midst of Hithlum into a great chasm, Cris-Ilfing,4 the Rainbow-cleft, through which a turbulent water ran at last into the western sea. And the name of this chasm was so devised by reason of the rainbow that shimmered ever in the sun in that place, because of the abundance of the spray of the rapids and the waterfalls.
Of the deeds of desperate valour there done, by the chieftains of the noble houses and their warriors, and not least by Tuor, is much told in The Fall of Gondolin; of the death of Rog without the walls; and of the battle of Ecthelion of the Fountain with Gothmog lord of Balrogs in the very square of the king, where each slew the other; and of the defence of the tower of Turgon by the men of his household, until the tower was overthrown; and mighty was its fall and the fall of Turgon in its ruin.

If the Quenta Noldorinwa version used part of the Tales in its narrative, does that makes the Tales obsolete? If the definitive version uses the Tales does that means that the Tales are not discared then?

The idea that you can take bits from the Fall of Gondolin, add to them bits from 'Tuor', written half a century or so later, by a 'different' writer - because Tolkien did change as a man & as a creator - & produce an 'official' version of the story of Gondolin is, in my view, mistaken. Its almost equivalent to taking some scenes from Marlowe's Jew of Malta, & Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice & trying to produce a 'canonical' Elizabethan view of 'Jewishness'', or combining Marlowe's Faustus & Goethe's Faust to get at the 'true' version of the legend. There simply isn't a 'canonical' Silmarillion - its the fox that isn't there. What is there, is JRR Tolkien, a writer who throughout his adult life was telling stories, with many of the same characters & events in them, but with different meanings & intentions. You can no more produce a 'canonical' Silmarillion, by choosing some bits from here, there & eveywhere from his ME writings & casting aside other bits, than you can create a 'canonical' JRRT, by taking some bits from his biology, his academic career, his personal life, his fictional & non fictional writings & rejecting other bits. Tolkien, as I said, is his creative life, the Legendarium, & the Legendarium is Tolkien. There is no 'definitive' version of either.

Actually it is the other way around regarding our work in the Fall of Gondolin. I never used the word "official" in any of my posts nor do we claim that our Revised Silmarillion is "canonical". We have certain standards in which we weight the typescripts and manuscripts of JRRT.
As I have said before, there are some people who are happy with just reading the text, while there are others who want more. It is a good thing that CT didn't share your opinion of trying to make a "Silmarillion", because I would never have know any of it.

What is the purpose of constructing your canon -- whatever it may be? Are you striving for a comprehensive version of Middle-Earth or a truthful one? That is, are you trying get it all, or are you trying to get it right?

A truthful version of ME. What is that? How would I know if I get it right? We just have a set of principles and we strive to make a "more complete" Silmarillion that takes into account some of the latter ideas of JRRT.

[Lord of Angmar]

I don't mean to be rude to Maédhros, Child of the 7th Age, mark12_30 and The Saucepan Man by posting without looking over or addressing their most recent additions to the conversation, but I found an article that may be of some interest to all those involved in this thread. I don't know if the author, Mr. Martinez, is or has ever been a member of the Barrow-Downs, but he certainly sounds like one.

Edit: Having read just a little farther down (I was interrupted from reading the entire essay in one sitting), I have found that Mr. Martinez is (or appears to be in some capacity) a member or frequent viewer of the Barrow-downs:

Some folks at the Barrowdowns are asking whether the "Myths Transformed" section of Morgoth's Ring could or should be used in establishing a canon.

Quite interesting.