‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

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? (Mister Underhill)

Well, perhaps. But not in a way that gives rise to any meaningful kind of interpretation. For example, if the interpretation of LotR as supporting the white supremacists' views is a "wrong" interpretation, then the corresponding "right" interpretation is that LotR does not support their views. Which, in my book, is not really a meaningful interpretation at all, but merely a negation of someone else's interpretation.

However, I don’t think we need to reference an outside, objective morality at all. I think every text has its own implicit morality. (Mister Underhill)

But that's just the point, isn't it? Whether a text supports or expounds any particular moral tenet may in itself be a matter of interpretation.

I don't have all that much to say about this, but I will make one point. I think the assumption has been that there are more or less two possibilities: either the "canon" is what Tolkien meant or there is no canon and we are free to interpret the text in any way we like. (Aiwendil)

Like Mr U, I fall between the two (although perhaps not in the same manner). As far as my own view of Middle-earth is concerned, I accept everything that is expressly or implicitly contained within the texts published within Tolkien's lifetime as true for that world. But I consider myself free to accept or reject anything else written by Tolkien, although I will generally be inclined to accept it. Of course, in discussions with others, I recognise that I will be bound by the "rules" of that discussion. So, if the discussion is directed towards establishing what Tolkien intended by a particular text, then I must accept that I am bound by what he himself has expressed as his intentions.

I think that there is a third way. A more useful thing to ask than "what did the author mean?" is "what would a reasonable person have meant?" (Aiwendil)

In law, tests based upon "reasonableness" are directed towards establishing a boundary between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable according to the concensus of the society applying the test. And so, I do not see this approach as being much different from an analysis of whether a particular interpretation is "right" or "wrong" by reference to how the majority within society would view it. The "reasonable man" (or the man on the Clapham Omnibus as he is sometimes known) stands for the consensus within his society.

And there, I think, is the essential dividing line of this entire thread. Some do not believe in absolute Truth, and in that case, Tolkien's definition does not apply very well. Nor would Tolkien's story have a deep Truth to be revealed; everything becomes subjective and individualized. Others do believe in absolute Truth, and can accept Tolkien's definition of Faerie as a revelation of that truth, and see numerous demonstrations of Truth in each of his stories. (mark 12_30)

I do not view it as nearly so clear cut as you suggest, Helen. "Absolute Truth" is in itself subjective, based upon a person's faith. Different faiths will have different ideas (often very subtly so) as to what precisely the "absolute Truth" entails. Whatever the particular faith of an individual, I still think that everyone's response to Tolkien's works will, to an extent, be subjective and individualised. And even those with no (or little) "faith" can still be inspired by his works, can still find their own individual "truths", and can still respond to Tolkien's portrayal of "Faerie". That said, I would still maintain that there is a level upon which we will all, if we allow ourselves, respond to the works in the same way, regardless of faith, politics, societal values, upbringing etc.

Davem, I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you say in your recent post. While we are reading the story, we should be caught up in it and should not waste time consciously analysing our interpretations of it as we go. And I don't think that you and Mr U are actually that far apart here. It is indeed the story, the characters and the events that they experience, as well as the landscape within which those events occur, which create the enchantment that we feel on reading the text. But I do thing that, to some extent, we are nevertheless subconsciously responding to the text and, in that sense, interpreting what it means to us, as we read it. Otherwise, I am not at all sure that we would undergo the enchantment in the first place.

The Legendarium is a series of stories, not just a setting. (Mister Underhill again - shamelessly overposting )

Yes, and it is both the stories and their settings which prompt our enchantment.

Now, anyone fancy summarising the various ideas raised so far on this thread?

[davem]

MR U

Quote:'davem, you seem to be equating “meaning” and "interpretation" with “allegorical meaning” and "allegorical interpretation". This is certainly not what I’m driving at; I don’t think others are either.'

The post wasn't directed at others her, but at those like Stormfront, ot Terry Donaldson, who do go beyond even applicability into allegory. Analysis of the 'Meaning' of a story is only possible when we have stepped back from the direct experience of the secondary world, & are attempting to account for our reactions to the story. At that point we are 'observers' rather than 'experiencers' of the secondary world. We are critics, classifyers, trying to work out which 'box' to put our experience in, which label to stick on it. Or worse, we're like Stormfront, asking 'What's in it for me? What can I get out of this that will be of use in the Primary world? It equivalent to strip mining, or mass deforestation for a quick buck. Like Frodo in Lorien we should simply experience the living tree, not see it as a source of timber to do something with.

Quote:' You also seem to be expressing the idea that enchantment and meaning are mutually exclusive. Here I disagree strongly. I am with Aiwendil: without plot and characters, where is enchantment? If LotR were a thousand pages of standing around at an Elvish picnic admiring all the otherworldly aspects of Faerie while pixie-dust sprinkled gently down on our heads, we’d be using words like “intensely boring” and “pointless” instead of “enchanting”. The much-referenced “On Fairy Stories”:Quote:
Stories that are actually concerned primarily with “fairies,” that is with creatures that might also in modern English be called “elves,” are relatively rare, and as a rule not very interesting. Most good “fairy-stories” are about the adventures of men in the Perilous Realm or upon its shadowy marches. (emphasis Tolkien’s)
The Legendarium is a series of stories, not just a setting.'

Yet this is exactly what we have in Smith, & Smith is far from boring or pointless. For me it is one of the most powerful & moving works Tolkien ever wrote. We are simply seeing a series of unconected scenes, & visions, with no connecting narrative - at least while we follow Smith through Faerie. Smith has very few 'adventures' in the sense the term is usually understood. He simply walks in Faerie, & things happen, in which he plays little or no active part. The point of the story - if there is one, is that merely wandering in Faerie is of value, & enchanting enough. I have to say that for me, Smith is more 'Tolkienesque' than anything else he wrote (does that make sense?). It is 'pure' Faerie, with no narrative drive as such, no 'quest'. All the rules are put aside & we are taken into Faerie more totally than anywhere else since the Lost Tales.

Aiwendil

I have to wonder about this 'denial' of an 'objectively existing faerie' realm. Especially from someone involved in a project to produce a 'coherent' Silmarillion - what are you doing if not trying to put together a vision of Middle Earth from lots of scattered & contradictory sources - so you must have some sense of what Middle Earth 'should' be like. You must have some sense of there being a coherent story, a coherent world - as if all the existing stories are 'windows' onto this 'Archetypal' secondary world.

Secondly, Tolkien believed in 'faerie', & spent his life trying to present it to us, so even if you don't like or agree with the idea you have to accept that that is the position Tolkien was coming from,& what motivated him. His original reason for beginning to write was not to 'invent' a new mythology, but to rediscover one that was lost. So He clearly believed that this mythological secondary world had once existed, & was still accessible, indeed that it was still around in some form - in traditional beliefs, stories, place names & partiularly in language.

There simply is, for many of us, a sense of familiarty with Middle Earth, a sense of 'recognition', of 'remembering' when we read the stories. What amazed me for a while was that non English people could even make sense of Tolkien's writings - Middle Earth seemed so purely 'English', reflecting the landscapes I grew up in & the people I knew. Yet that's not the case & people from all over the world respond to it. So what explanation can there be - what was I relating to & feeling at home with, if it wasn't my own background? It must have been something more 'universal', something which people from all over the world also felt a connection with. I won't get into the 'Monomyth' debate, as I've only read Masks of God once, a long time ago & my memories of it are vague, but I must side with Tolkien as regards the existence of Faerie, whatever that is.

[Mister Underhill]

SPM: For example, if the interpretation of LotR as supporting the white supremacists' views is a "wrong" interpretation, then the corresponding "right" interpretation is that LotR does not support their views.

I don’t agree here. The thinking isn’t complete. The right interpretation is not simply a negation: “does not support their views”. To refute a wrong interpretation, we should be able to show why it is wrong. It’s not x because it is y. I don’t want to delve too far into the particulars of Stormfront’s interpretation and refuting it. Perhaps you see what I mean.

Whether a text supports or expounds any particular moral tenet may in itself be a matter of interpretation.

Indeed. Though I think there are themes that, in broad stroke at least, will not be debatable. Also, I did not say that these themes will always be obvious or clear-cut, only that they would be there.

But I do thing that, to some extent, we are nevertheless subconsciously responding to the text and, in that sense, interpreting what it means to us, as we read it. Otherwise, I am not at all sure that we would undergo the enchantment in the first place.

When we read SoWM, for example, we begin to form interpretations about the characters, the events that happen to them, and their reactions to those events. Nokes’s reaction to the Fairy Star, to Alf, and so on, lead us to an interpretation of Nokes. We wonder, what is the meaning of the mysterious message give to Smith by the Fairy Queen? And the revelation that [SPOILER ALERT -- skip to the next paragraph if you've not read Smith...] Smith himself apparently is the Fairy King must also be interpreted. What does it mean?

In davem’s excellent post about 'A Shop on the Edge of the Hills of Fairyland' (#154), he describes quite eloquently a key quality of the appeal of the picture: the questions about story elements and characters that it evokes: “...why would a shop be there, what does it sell, who to, & who would run such a place? There's a whole story there in the title, & its almost like, on some level, we feel we 'know' that story, but just can't quite remember it, & desperately want someone to remind us how it goes.”

davem: Yet this is exactly what we have in Smith... We are simply seeing a series of unconected scenes, & visions, with no connecting narrative... The point of the story - if there is one, is that merely wandering in Faerie is of value, & enchanting enough.

Hmm... ‘the point of the story’? Do I detect meaning? Interpretation? But you save yourself with the escape hatch of “-if there is one”.

I agree in a sense that SoWM is more dreamlike, more like a poem, though I think the story does indeed transmit meaning. Tolkien’s own words betray him. In letter 299, he applauds the sentiment that “To seek for the meaning [of the story] is to cut open the ball in search of its bounce.” Yet in the same letter, only moments later, he says: “But the little tale was (of course) not intended for children! An old man's book, already weighted with the presage of bereavement.” Here we already have hints of meaning and intention.

I personally feel that SoWM is, at least in part, a dramatization of the ideas, sentiments, and philosophy found in On Fairy Stories, and is one of the more autobiographical – dare I say allegorical? – pieces that Tolkien ever wrote.

Nevertheless, I do sympathize with your sentiment that a story is meant to be experienced rather than dissected, at least while you’re reading it. And I get that reading a story versus talking about a story is a little bit like the difference between dancing and talking about dancing. One is the experience, one is talking about the experience. But I think the thing that distinguishes a good story from a purely sensual – but meaningless – experience, like an amusement park ride, is that stories do have meaning. They say something, even if it’s something that affects us on such a primal level that no words can ever express it adequately. A story is its own expression.

This post is already too long, so here I’ll just tip my hat to Fordim for building a very thought-provoking bridge between Truth and truth.

[The Saucepan Man]

Just a quick one to respond to Mister U.

I don’t agree here. The thinking isn’t complete. The right interpretation is not simply a negation: “does not support their views”. To refute a wrong interpretation, we should be able to show why it is wrong. It’s not x because it is y.

Yes, I agree that when we seek to refute a "wrong" interpretation, we do get into meaningful interpretation. But there will be any number ways of interpreting the text to do this, and so we get into territory where there is no one interpretation which can be objectively shown to be "right". Which is what I meant when I said that it does not follow from the fact that an interpretation is "wrong" that there will be one corresponding "right" interpretation, save for the meaningless negation.