‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[HerenIstarion]

Well, here is an article by Michael Martines on Suite 101 Is your canon on the loose?

And here is the profile for him on the Barrow Downs:

Michael Martinez

sincerely

edit: on close examination, article which the link is provided to is the selfsame as indicated in Lord of Angmar's post above. Sorry for repetition

Here is the weregild for the fault: Creating a new Silmarillion -- some ideas...

[drigel]

This argument really began with CT's providing us the Silm, which we all agree is not 100% JRRT. thank goodness it was produced. Looking back, I think the revision that took place was done with much regard to what JRRT originally intended - I think the thought was (at the time) to make the Silm a complete read - a book for us hungry JRRT fans. A "publishable" novel.

The argument (IMO) largely affected how the later Histories were laid out - where CT's input is clearly separate from JRRT. I would love to see a "New Silmarillion" published in the fashion of the Histories. Where JRRT's differing versions covering the same subject are presented in a manner where the reader makes his/her own "conlusion" of interpretation. CT's input would involve nothing more than background information and any other comments he likes. Just keep it separate from the work (canon?). Clearly, those of us who can read through any of the histoies (or even the Letters for that matter) dont need a "novel" format. Id buy that book!

[The Saucepan Man]

This argument really began with CT's providing us the Silm, which we all agree is not 100% JRRT. thank goodness it was produced.

I wonder if it might be considered more "authoritative" if the corresponding texts in UT and the HoME series had never been published?

And here is the profile for him on the Barrow Downs

It rather amused me that the Reputation box states "Michael Martinez has started the path to adventure". A bit like the statement that the Barrow-Wight "is getting the hang of it". He (MM that is) seems to have been a bit touchy.

[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.

I assume you are referring to this in LOTR, Mount Doom:

Suddenly Sam saw Gollum's long hands draw upwards to his mouth; his white fangs gleamed, and then snapped as they bit. Frodo gave a cry, and there he was, fallen upon his knees at the chasm's edge. But Gollum, dancing like a mad thing, held aloft the ring, a finger thrust within its circle. It shone now as if verily it was wrought of living fire.

"Precious, precious, precious!" Gollum cried. "My Precious! O my Precious!" And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail Precious, and he was gone.

Be honest, really honest. Do you see that 'something' (of Eruism) in that? I see your point about the fact that people could, and should, appreciate the Eruism in LOTR (And in the other works by Tolkien), but exactly where is the Eruism in that? I mean, if you’re not intentionally looking for it, wanting it to be Eruism, you, or at least I, can't find it! The poor fellow is toppling because he is dancing, not very well, I might add; but I honestly don't see the 'something' in there. I might be narrow-minded, but... help?

There are places in LOTR where there is indeed Eruism. But there is not place in LOTR where 'Eru' actually is mentioned, at least not, according to my little precious. Metaphorically, yes, perhaps. And for a normal reader, who is enchanted (but not overly convinced), the text in LOTR will give him/her nothing or very little of Eruism. However, I would think that Elbereth (Gilthoniel) would give every reader an implication of being a Goddess or at least someone who people look up to. Three times in LOTR Elbereth has singing Elves under her stars. This gives a certain impression, you know.

*hurries off to read the last posts of this thread*

Cheers,
Nova

[drigel]

Clearly the author intended some impressions of "providence", but likewise, any impression of ME "eruism" is intentionaly omitted. What one sees as "providence", I think others see as "plotline". The fundamental message to me is individuals making choices. The fact that there is one creator stands on its own. If there is any otherwordly influence being nuanced, i see more cases of Vala involvement in LOTR, than i do "eruism". In fact (sorry to offend), when i think of the term "eruism", then the term "rolling over in his grave" quickly thereafter comes to mind

[The Saucepan Man]

I see your point about the fact that people could, and should, appreciate the Eruism in LOTR

I am not saying that people "should" see it. But it does seem to me that the story conveys an inherent sense of providence that comes to a head during that scene.

I mean, if you’re not intentionally looking for it, wanting it to be Eruism, you, or at least I, can't find it! The poor fellow is toppling because he is dancing, not very well, I might add; but I honestly don't see the 'something' in there.

I think that the term "Eruism" may be misleading, as it implies an awareness of Eru, which was my bone of contention with Fordim in the first place. And that awareness will not come from a reading of LotR alone. I would prefer to use the term "providence", since it seems to me to be clearly implied in many parts, from the comments of Gandalf, Elrond and others, that providence of some sort is at work.

You are right. There is nothing in that passage, taken alone, to suggest anything other than that Gollum simply tripped and fell. But, taken together with the references mentioned above, it is surely implied that there is something more at work here than mere fortuity. The reader may only be aware of this on a subconscious level (as was the case, I think, with me the first few times that I read it). But, if it was not there, this scene would just not feel "right". As Fordim put it, we would feel cheated. If the Quest, which has been central to the story, was fulfilled by pure chance, it would not be at all satisfactory. However, I am sure that no one who has read and enjoyed the book would describe this resolution as unsatisfactory, even if they did not consciously analyse how and why it happened. Rather they would say that it "felt right". And how could it feel right if it was simply an accident?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I think I would like to cling to my horrific term for the time being. I consciously chose not to call the Guiding Hand in LotR Providence as that is a concept from the Primary World and I wanted something that would more correctly refer to the version of that (Christian) concept as it is subcreated in M-E. The point has been made quite rightly that Eru is not mentioned in LotR, but neither is Providence: the Guiding Hand of Eru (eruism) is most often referred to, I think, as “luck” or “chance”.

The advantage that I see with eruism over Providence is that I wish to emphasise how this providential model of history is one that Tolkien has himself subcreated and ‘inserted’ into his story in such a way that it guides our interpretation of the story (of his entire historia to cite my other dreadful terminology – rolling over in his grave indeed!). The concept of Providence is something that I need to bring from ‘outside’ the text (it’s this kind of a project that Nova is, I think, talking about), whereas I find eruism within the text.

But this is rapidly becoming just the kind of argument over terminology that I fear afflicts the debate over canon and whether text A is or is not within the purview of that term (whatever it means).

The real reason I’m posting right now (other than the need for a bit of a break in a terribly tedious and laborious day) is to address the excellent question put to me by Mister Underhill:

your analogies tend to pit author against reader in a titanic struggle, with the free will of the latter at stake…where exactly are author and reader (potentially) at odds? What freedoms do you seek that Tolkien as author might restrict?

I do realise that my initial posts on this tended this way – I had not yet had the benefit of others’ response to push my thinking into a more subtle form – but my current position (and I’m comfortable with it) is that the “struggle” that takes place is entirely internal to the individual reader (or, more appropriately, lest Bêthberry should read this ) to the individual moment of readerly engagement with the text. That is, we are ourselves torn between the desire to interpret for ourselves (Gollum jumped into the fires to save the world; he fell by accident), and the demands placed upon us by elements of M-E – such as eruism – to interpret events in a particular way (Gollum got a little push from a Guiding Hand – revealed in the Sil to belong to Eru, and most closely connected in the Primary World to Christian Providence).

Note to Saucepan Man – Yes, ensorcelled is very much a word, in the OED and everything. It also happens to be one of my very favourite words, and I love getting the chance to use it:

ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled ensorcelled!!!

[Bêthberry]

Mr. Hedgethistle,

my current position (and I?m comfortable with it) is that the ?struggle? that takes place is entirely internal to the individual reader (or, more appropriately, lest Bêthberry should read this to the individual moment of readerly engagement with the text.

I cannot express how pleased I am that you have found a position you are comfortable with.

That is, we are ourselves torn between the desire to interpret for ourselves (Gollum jumped into the fires to save the world; he fell by accident), and the demands placed upon us by elements of M-E ? such as eruism ? to interpret events in a particular way (Gollum got a little push from a Guiding Hand ? revealed in the Sil to belong to Eru, and most closely connected in the Primary World to Christian Providence).

I think this is not quite my point, although it could be yours. The text does, I would argue, provide a comfortable setting in which to accept that moment of the fall/jump is aesthetically significant and in keeping with other elements in the text. We might have here an example of a confusion between the poet's act and Eru's act. I might think that Tolkien hoped readers to make that leap between the two, substituting Eruism for his own faith, but it seems to me that what we have here is a unified heterocosm which works against any kind of interpretation which would support randomness in Middle-earth.

I am , al always these days, rushed. Does this make sense?

[drigel]

it may have been the digging of Aule as much as the hand of Eru that caused the earth to crumble under Gollums feet
My point i was feebly trying to make was imo, the author drew upon his own creation to supply the life to his subcreation. if that makes sense... Providence is in the stories, but i feel the author is assuming that a conscious person can interpret on his or her own. Thus his dislike for analogy. One can bring anything from 'outside the text': eruism, druidism, alchoholism, any other ism for that matter. I see more proof of valaism than i do eruism. Providence that one finds in ones self is definately in there. To me that can go both ways (as in most providence arguments): was there providence only for mortals? Is there any providence in the elven desire to prolong the present to avoid any change? Where was the providence in the killing of the trees? etc etc

[Aiwendil]

Your examples of Beethoven's Ninth & LotR don't work for me - if we only had those works in the forms you describe (which i can't think we would have, as there would be no interest in having them, so no publisher would make them available) & all we got was a slew of different versions, no one would no which one to take seriously.

You don't think that if The Lord of the Rings existed only as fragments, it would be of any value for someone to connect and edit those fragments to create a fully realized narrative? Would this thing not have value in itself, even though it was not "canonical" Tolkien?

Perhaps you do in fact think that it would be worthless. Fine. But obviously, a lot of people would disagree with you.

If FoG is the young Tolkien's mythologisation of his experience of the Somme, which I feel it is, to a great extent, & Tuor is the Older Tolkien's attempt to write a legend based in ME, detached by time & his own lifetime of other experiences, the two stories will not fit together in the way you assume.

Who said that we assumed they would fit together in some particular way?

I could argue that, in fact, the old FoG is not really as different from the later Tuor as you claim. But that is beside the point. They are both part of that complex body of source material called the Silmarillion. There are innumerable ways in which they could be put together. We have put them together in one particular way, because that is a way that we find interesting.

Yes, we have characters with the same name recurring throughout the Legendarium, but are they the same characters.

I think that's a meaningless question. They are not real; they are defined only as logical objects within the network of source material. In one sense, they are the same characters. In another they're not. That's purely a matter of definition.

which part of her story do you throw out - The beautiful scene of her rejection of the Ring, & repentance for her 'sins' in LotR (G1) or her role as leader of the forces of the West against Sauron, a role which Tolkien says is equivalent to the role of Manwe in the battle against Morgoth (G2)?

You don't throw anything out.

Instead, you create a new thing out of the old contradictory elements. If you like, you create two new things - each one reconciling the contradiction in its own way.

To take bits from both versions of these characters & try to create a 'canonical' Gollum (1+2 = ?) or a 'canonical' Galadriel seems doomed to failure

I think that perhaps you misunderstood some of my post. I didn't use the word "canonical" at all except when I said something about the ambiguity inherent in the word and when I said that "canonical Silmarillion" is a misnomer. As I said, there is an infinite number of possible Silmarillions. None of them is "official" or "canonical". But I think that a great many of them have value.

[Bêthberry]

This is a reply to davem, post #98, wherein he states the argument, if I may paraphrase it, 'You are what you write.'

They [Tolkien's stories] 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.

Well now, let's see. What is the nature of this living life form's reproductive capabilites? Clone or new life form? If you ask a question of this textual mind, can it answer back, creating new expressions of communication itself, or are we limited to receiving repetition in the original language/mind only? I would tend to think it can only clone or echo and so your organic model of Tolkien as text strikes me, if I may be allowed such an outrageous analogy, as a kind of resurrection fallacy.

Furthermore, if you state that his textual mind continues in our new creations, then you are, in effect, denying both our presence in our own thoughts and subjugating them (oh, that Nazgû allegory again!) to Tolkien's mind, or crowning this thorny issue with questions of virginal gestation: where did his mind/text originate-- in previous mind/texts? Who indeed is the Word with. Or where.

This organic/ textual mind model also assumes that language is a transparent window between minds. Yet, if I may use an analogy from St. Paul, "we see through a glass darkly" (Corinthians 13). (Some have even called it a mire or swamp rather than glass. Nods to Sam Coleridge and Jonathan Culler.) Language is opaque; it follows its own predetermined code of paradigmatic and syntactic structures, already in place before our minds form the expressions. Tolkien may have created many languages, and he may have invented Middle-earth to give expression to them, but he wrote The Hobbit and LotR in English, using the fiction of translation between the 'original' and his text.

and if you can only offer that 'illusion' of serial time as an argument against that theory then I will be disappointed.

I hope, then, I have not only not disappointed you, but entertained you as well.