‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Lord of Angmar]

Certainly, I cannot agree with H-I's proposition... ...since that is akin to saying that, unless one happens to hold a particular belief, one cannot truly understand Tolkien's works. Instinctively, for me, that just seems wrong.The Saucepan Man

I hope I am not misrepresenting your view, HerenIstarion, when I say that what you meant by:

without such a concept [God] there is not way of understanting Tolkien. Appreciation, love, enjoyment – yes. Understanding – no.

was not that you must believe in a (Christian... Catholic) God to 'understand' Tolkien, but that you must realize that Tolkien held strong beliefs in the existence of such a God, and that an omnipotent God is present in Middle-earth, to fully understand where Tolkien is coming from in his writing. In other words, you could 'appreciate' the ending of The Lord of the Rings with Gollum 'accidentally' falling into the fires of Sammath Naur, but to fully understand the scene as it was intended by the author, you must realize the presence of a Divine Providence in Middle-earth.

This all ties back in with the question of, "Should the author's intention factor into our reading experience and individual interpretion?", but I haven't the time to give any real (or original) input on the subject.

[The Saucepan Man]

I apologise, H-I, if I mischaracterised what you were saying.

... you must realize that Tolkien held strong beliefs in the existence of such a God, and that an omnipotent God is present in his writings, to fully understand where Tolkien is coming from in his writing.

I certainly do not have any difficulty with that as a proposition, provided that the distinction is made between understanding "where Tolkien is coming from" and understanding the text itself. I was talking about the latter in putting forward my view that, subject to what is expressly or implicitly stated in the text (and I would include the concept of "providence" here) there is no one "right" way of interpreting (or understanding) his works.

[Lord of Angmar]

I was talking about the latter in putting forward my view that there is no one "right" way of interpreting (or understanding) his works.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am also skeptical that there is any wrong way to interpret a piece of fictional writing. Joyce Carol Oates said that, as a writer, she had no relationship with her writing after it had been published. Her self as an author, she said, was a person she did not know, a person who did not exist except in her writing. I believe that fictional writing, once published, should be considered the only primary source on the story told within its pages. Whatever a writer may say about his or her intentions before, during or after the writing should not sway the reader's interpretation. If the story cannot stand on its own to uphold the values that the author tried to imbue it with, then it should be open to any interpretation the reader reasonably sees in the course of his/her private reading. The reader should even, God forbid, be allowed to present his/her interpretation in a public forum without fear that anyone (besides, I suppose, the author speaking directly to the reader in a public medium) will proclaim it a blanketly "wrong" interpretation.

Sorry for the awkward wording and, perhaps, nonsensicality of this post; just my one and a half cents on the subject.

-Angmar

[davem]

Aiwendil

Perhaps I should have been more careful with my wording. When I said:

I think a very great deal 'happens' in Smith

I meant a very great deal happens to Smith, (ie a great deal happens in(side) 'Smith' the person), spiritually, internally, as a result of his experiences, but that's from his own conclusions about his experiences. Smith (ie a kind of 'everyman' figure, the 'wanderer in Faerie') is changed - the question though is whether he is changed by what he experiences, or by what he learns from his experiences - because he could have had all those experiences & been left unchanged; he could have been so caught up in himself that he didn't even realise he had passed into Faerie. So, just being in Faerie won't necessarily teach us anything. We have to take the 'ore' we find there & turn it into 'gold (or 'Iron', if we're a 'Smith' )

When you ask: 'Do you deny that it is, at least in large part, literary theory? If so, then why do you then inquire into Tolkien's role as a literary theorist? If not, then why am I missing the point?'

I only deny that it is solely, or even 'mainly' literary theory. I think we can read it on that level, & will find a good deal about literary theory. My point though, is that its a lot more than that, & the most important simension of the story is not the literary theory it expounds. It is not an allegory of a particular literary theory, becuase too much of it, especially the episodes in Faerie, cannot be 'translated into anything else. They simply 'are'. They don't 'mean' anything in relation to the human world. The battle from which the Elven mariners return has nothing to do with Smith's world. Smith is told by the Birch to leave Faery & never return. So Faery & its inhabitants clearly see themselves as part of a self contained reality, & they are not doing anything 'for' the human world.

Helen

I think you're probably closer to expressing what I meant with my analogy. I have to say it came to me as I was writing it, so I wasn't able to 'step back' from it & analyse it. Thanks.

[HerenIstarion]

Absolute Truth re:

Mere logic. Suppose I present you with two statements:

1. To rob is good
2. To rob is bad

How do you judge the truth of each statement? You may say you measure it against the public consensus on the subject. But that is halfway only – where did such a consensus came from? It may be argued that it originated back in prehistorical time as thing good for society and coming from herd instinct. But why each individual robber should prefer good of society over his personal good he may obtain by robbing some other member of said society? In case the latter originates from instinct of self-preservation? When judging to rob or not to rob, even if both originate from instincts, the person making the choice is appying some standard, against which he measures the 'rightness', or 'truthfulness' of his immediate action. But the thing against which some other thing is measured, is bound to be something else. Further it may be argued, since the differences of such a standard are very minor from society to society, it is universal. I profess I hold it comes from God, and is Absolute Truth but I do not object to it being called Primeval Archetype too. But now I seemingly start to pass beyond Tolkien discussion.

Now, being non-religious, I obviously disagree with both of these claims.

My apologies for sounding like forcing religion on you. I did not intend to preach. And thanks Lord of Angmar for washing me clean of inquisitor's name . This being Tolkien discussion thread, I'd rather come back and stay inside boundaries of Eruism indeed, whatever my personal views on the subject.

1. the "Faerie" element that we detect in fantasy is in fact a reflection or image of God/heaven/"Truth" or 2. the first claim is true and, additionally, to achieve such an image is the primary purpose of fantasy.

Clause 1 re: Both yes and no, it depends (I will explain myself below)
Clause 2 re: Both yes and no - the primary purpose is the imitation of the Creator and application of one's inherent, innate subcreative ability, i.e. applying one's likeness as well. Reflecting of an Image may be the purpose only conciously - i.e. when the author intends to do so. Otherwise glimpses are accidental.

But, unless I sound preaching on you again, I would make a reservation pointing out that here (I believe) I'm more or less recounting Tolkien's beliefs and intentions (thus bringing us back to canonicity of the intentions vs published text issue). So:

On Fairy Stories

Probably every writer making a secondary world, a fantasy, every sub-creator, wishes in some measure to be a real maker, or hopes that he is drawing on reality: hopes that the peculiar quality of this secondary world (if not all the details) are derived from Reality, or are flowing into it. If he indeed achieves a quality that can fairly be described by the dictionary definition: “inner consistency of reality,” it is difficult to conceive how this can be, if the work does not in some way partake of reality. The peculiar quality of the ”joy” in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a “consolation” for the sorrow of this world, but a satisfaction, and an answer to that question, “Is it true?” The answer to this question that I gave at first was (quite rightly): “If you have built your little world well, yes: it is true in that world.” That is enough for the artist (or the artist part of the artist). But in the “eucatastrophe” we see in a brief vision that the answer may be greater—it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world The use of this word gives a hint of my epilogue. It is a serious and dangerous matter. It is presumptuous of me to touch upon such a theme; but if by grace what I say has in any respect any validity, it is, of course, only one facet of a truth incalculably rich: finite only because the capacity of Man for whom this was done is finite.
I would venture to say that approaching the Christian Story from this direction, it has long been my feeling (a joyous feeling) that God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels—peculiarly artistic, beautiful, and moving: “mythical” in their perfect, self-contained significance; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe. But this story has entered History and the primary world; the desire and aspiration of sub-creation has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation. The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man's history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the “inner consistency of reality.” There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true, and none which so many sceptical men have accepted as true on its own merits. For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation. To reject it leads either to sadness or to wrath.

[italic emphasis Tolkien's, bold emphasis mine]

and

Mythopoeia


The heart of man is not compound of lies,
but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,
and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,
man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned,
and keeps the rags of lordship one he owned,
his world-dominion by creative act:
not his to worship the great Artefact.
man, sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with elves and goblins, though we dared to build
gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sow the seed of dragons, 'twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which were made

* * *

In Paradise perchance the eye may stray
from gazing upon everlasting Day
to see the day-illumined, and renew
from mirrored truth the likeness of the True
Then looking on the Blessed Land 'twill see
that all is as it is, and yet made free:
Salvation changes not, nor yet destroys,
garden nor gardener, children nor their toys.
Evil it will not see, for evil lies
not in God's picture but in crooked eyes,
not in the source but in malicious choice,
and not in sound but in the tuneless voice.
In Paradise they look no more awry;
and though they make anew, they make no lie.
Be sure they still will make, not being dead,
and poets shall have flames upon their head,
and harps whereon their faultless fingers fall:
there each shall choose for ever from the All.

emphases mine

So, the fairy element may be well reflection, and may be not, it depends on authors intentions. But even if authors intentions were far from reflecting anything, it may nevertheless reflect something accidentaly. That's were interpretations come in. But, though I agree with:

If the story cannot stand on its own to uphold the values that the author tried to imbue it with, then it should be open to any interpretation the reader reasonably sees in the course of his/her private reading

I'm inclined to hold that, once author's intentions are known, it is not good to stick to differing interpretation. If Gandalf said he has forgot, and Tolkien explicitly backed him up in his letters, why do not believe him, indeed?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

It is not an allegory of a particular literary theory, becuase too much of it, especially the episodes in Faerie, cannot be 'translated into anything else. They simply 'are'. They don't 'mean' anything in relation to the human world. The battle from which the Elven mariners return has nothing to do with Smith's world. Smith is told by the Birch to leave Faery & never return. So Faery & its inhabitants clearly see themselves as part of a self contained reality, & they are not doing anything 'for' the human world.

This is really picking at minor details now, but I disagree. For here the literary theory is about Faerie. If one felt a need to write in the allegorical equal signs, "Faerie" (the place in Smith) would be equated with "Faerie" (the real Faerie, whether a place or not). It is essential to the literary point that Faerie be self-consistent and not an allegory for the primary world.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Certainly, I cannot agree with H-I's proposition . . .
since that is akin to saying that, unless one happens to hold a particular belief, one cannot truly understand Tolkien's works. Instinctively, for me, that just seems wrong.

Exactly. However, if we interpret it as Lord Angmar suggests:

[it] was not that you must believe in a (Christian... Catholic) God to 'understand' Tolkien, but that you must realize that Tolkien held strong beliefs in the existence of such a God, and that an omnipotent God is present in Middle-earth, to fully understand where Tolkien is coming from in his writing.

then it is quite a different matter, and I suppose I agree with it.

HerenIstarion wrote:

Absolute Truth re:

Mere logic.

Sorry, but I don't think that it's mere logic, if I am correct in understanding the argument as:

1. There are certain propositions the truth-values of which do not logically follow from facts about the world.
2. Nonetheless, we know the truth-values of those propositions.
3. Therefore, there must be a transcendental source for our knowledge of the truth-values.

You ask:

Suppose I present you with two statements:

1. To rob is good
2. To rob is bad

How do you judge the truth of each statement?

I would not judge the truth-values until I was told the precise meaning of the terms being employed.

The trouble with your syllogism is 2. The correct deduction from 1 is that in fact we cannot know the truth-values of those statements. Moreover, you cannot prove 2 since, by your assumption, the truth-values you claim to know do not follow from facts about the world.

I fear that we are beginning to veer into philosophy of meaning here, a subject with which, if not restrained, I am liable to add several pages to the thread. So I will cut myself off at this point.

I'm inclined to hold that, once author's intentions are known, it is not good to stick to differing interpretation.

There are two quite different matters here. First, there is the author's intention with regard to the content of the primary text, with which subject much of this thread has been concerned. Second, there is the author's beliefs about literary theory; this is what we are dealing with in "On Faery Stories". I certainly don't think that we are obbliged to agree with the author about literary theory (indeed, if it were so, we could never enjoy the works of two different authors with different views on the subject).

As it happens, though, I agree with most of what Tolkien says about fantasy, as far as I understand it. I don't think that the truth of theological claims is at all essential to his point. He seems to understand the "eucatastrophe" as an actual glimpse of the "truth" about God, etc. I think it can be understood just as well as a fictional glimpse of a fictional truth - a fiction that nonetheless is extremely appealing and has a great deal of psychological impact.

[mark12_30]

You ask:

I would not judge the truth-values until I was told the precise meaning of the terms being employed.

Aiwendil, here you lose me.

Words mean what they mean.

I suppose one could postulate as many exceptions to the rule "to rob is bad" as one could "to kill is bad." And yes, I will argue *for* the concept of a Just War even though I think Killing is bad. (I bring this up **only** for an example , not to start another entire side-debate... egads. ) So, okay, I'll argue for Just War even while I state that Killing is bad. Call me conflicted. But I still don't want anybody to rob me and I don't want anybody to kill me either.

Killing is bad; having to do it for an overwhelming Reason doesn't make it Good. Same with robbing.

Nor do I see that Aragorn (returning to Tolkien for just a moment) would agree with you. How does it go? "Good and evil have not changed, nor are they one thing among men and another among elves and dwarves."

Good is good.

[Aiwendil]

Aiwendil, here you lose me.

Words mean what they mean.

Yes, words mean what they mean, but saying that neither defines the word in question nor gives an account of what "meaning" actually is. But I really don't think that this is the place to get into the philosophy of meaning.

That whole matter is only tangentially related to the subjects at hand, anyway (or so I think). The point is that I don't accept HerenIstarion's syllogism as logically valid, and I don't think that such a refusal makes me any less qualified to appreciate Tolkien's work.