‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Mister Underhill]

No. I don’t think that the one necessarily follows from the other.

I don’t know what to say to this. If something is wrong, it must be wrong in relation to something that is right, no? Granting, once again, that there certainly will be grey areas and that one overarching, all-inclusive Interpretation is not possible or even desirable.

Does that make it “wrong” on an objective level? Possibly it does, but only if one either tries to formulate some objective moral code against which to measure it (a tricky business) or takes the position that something is “wrong” if the majority believes it to be so.

Ack! A slippery slope that we’ve already argued in detail on Esty’s old Plato thread. However, I don’t think we need to reference an outside, objective morality at all. I think every text has its own implicit morality. I would be just as wrong to try to foist a peace, love, and tolerance interpretation on Mein Kampf.

Otherwise, I think we’re homing in on a consensus.

[The Saucepan Man]

Otherwise, I think we’re homing in on a consensus.

That would never do!

[bilbo_baggins]

To disagree with your (hopefully) sarcastic statement, it would do wonders, SpM. Everyone here has lost me about a million posts ago.

But, I can try to say something.

To agree (I think) with some of you, the Bible is obviously 'canon' for several million people, whether they disagree on various and sundry details (I mean the really little ones, like real or fake wine used in Eachurist). The same can be true about Tolkien. Many people disagree on little things in Tolkien, and sometimes don't realize that they agree on the big things.

Hopefully, we all agree that LoTR was written by Tolkien. And, hopefully again, that he also wrote TH, helped to write Sil., and HoME. The Big things. To appreciate Tolkien, the reader must decide for himself whether it is right or wrong to pursue what Tolkien wanted, or to be content with his own interpretation of the text. True, there may be good things about following pure Tolkien doctrine (if I may use such a word with all its connotation's), but on the other hand, one may find that a fellow Tolkienite doesn't agree on small things. That is okay.

SpM: Well, I think that we have to recognise that some of the concepts that they use to support their dreadful views are “correctly” interpreted because they are implicit in the text (examples would be the importance of the bloodline of Numenor and the superiority in some respects (longetivity, prowess, hardiness) of the Dunedain over other types of Men).

Saucepan, if I may dare to tell you, I believe everybody sees the obviousness of the Numenoreans superiority. That's a big thing, that most people believe. If one does not believe this, they are just sidetracked. I think that I'm agreeing with you here.