‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

by the same token, I would say that there is no reason why a Tolkien fanfic should not include aspects of human nature that Tolkien does not specifically address in his works, provided that they are dealt with in the spirit of Tolkien’s writing.

And would we be required to take Tolkien's moral/religious position - ie, we could have gay characters, but we would have to present that as 'wrong'.

Its difficult to explore this aspect of canonicity without straying into an area that some posters will be uncomfortable with, but the question is about whether Tolkien's moral position, shaped by his Catholicism, is canonical, or whether canonicity only relates to the facts, geographical, historical, biological, of Tolkien's world. Can we include the moral & philosophical dimension in with other facts of Middle Earth, or are they 'optional'? I still think this is the central, unanswered question of this thread.

To expand the question, would a fanfic which presented Sauron or Saruman as heroes, & was approving of their actions be 'canonical' as long as it stuck to the historical 'facts' of LotR, or would it be 'uncanonical' because it went against the moral values which Tolkien espoused?

[Bêthberry]

To expand the question, would a fanfic which presented Sauron or Saruman as heroes, & was approving of their actions be 'canonical' as long as it stuck to the historical 'facts' of LotR, or would it be 'uncanonical' because it went against the moral values which Tolkien espoused?

To my mind, a fanfic or an RPG could very profitably and canonically explore Sauron's or Saruman's or the Nazgul's "fall" as long as it demonstrated Tolkien's abhorrence of power when used for domination. The question turns on what we would agree is the moral value Tolkien espouses in the books. It is an interpretive act.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

The question turns on what we would agree is the moral value Tolkien espouses in the books. It is an interpretive act.

So, any definition of 'canon' must include Tolkien's moral/ethical position (or our best guess at it), & conform to that, as well as to the historical, linguistic & geographical 'facts' - which means that we can also speak of moral 'facts' & ethical 'facts'.

But doesn't this lead us down the road to treating the work as (moral) 'allegory', rather than (feigned) history? If LotR is viewed as an account of a historical period, then the only 'facts' we have to take into account are the 'scientific' ones - the 'moral' ones become optional, down to the individual's judgement.

In the first instance, a fanfic which 'celebrated' either a gay relationship, or Sauron's corruption of the Numenorean's, would be 'uncanonical', because it would be against Tolkien's moral value system (I must emphasise that I'm neither condemning nor condoning homosexuality here, because I don't want to get into that issue - I am assuming that Tolkien, as a committed old school Catholic would have held to the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality). It would be 'uncanonical', even if all the historical, gegraphical & biological facts it contained were correct - it would be uncanonical purely because it did not conform to Tolkien's moral value system.

So, if this is the case with fanfic, doesn't it also apply to the way we must read & interpret the books - the reader's 'freedom' to interpret is delimited by the author's moral value system?

[Bêthberry]

You keep using "Tolkien's moral/ethical position" whereas I used "espouses in the book", davem. And I also said determining this is an interpretive act. As I have earlier stated on this thread, I think LotR is a book which invites readers to take an active role in reading and interpreting, but does not proscribe or prescribe what the reader must determine.

Since I have been down this road before, I politely withdraw from repeating myself ere I work a rut into the thread.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

To expand the question, would a fanfic which presented Sauron or Saruman as heroes, & was approving of their actions be 'canonical' as long as it stuck to the historical 'facts' of LotR, or would it be 'uncanonical' because it went against the moral values which Tolkien espoused?

Wait a minute - I think that in the strict sense, no fan fiction can be called "canonical". Tolkien left us certain texts. It is one thing to consider "canonicity" as it relates to those texts, and the relations among text, author, and reader. It is quite another to consider fan fiction. Not that I don't think both questions are valid ones - but it is important not to confound them.

As a matter of fact, I think that much of the debate comes down to a simple disagreement about how to define the word "canon", rather than to a substantive argument. We have first "canonical" = established as factual by Tolkien's texts and second "canonical" = not in conflict with facts established by Tolkien's texts. It is of course pointless to debate which of these is the "true" definition; they are simply different things.

But I suppose we come back to your question, then, which I guess we can understand as "would a story depicting Sauron or Saruman as a hero conflict with facts established by Tolkien's texts?" I would say "yes". It is a fact in Tolkien's world that Sauron is evil. It is a fact that Eru exists; it's a fact that Eru is good. It is no different to contradict these established facts than it is to contradict facts such as "Frodo was a Hobbit" or "Gandalf was imprisoned in Orthanc".

However - I would not say that this makes the author's intent the sole source of canonical validity. Bethberry said:

You keep using "Tolkien's moral/ethical position" whereas I used "espouses in the book", davem.

I think that's putting it very well. "Sauron is evil" is not a fact because Tolkien intended it to be; it is a fact because it is inherent in the text.

I also don't see how any of this leads us back toward an allegorical view of the text. The allegory/story dichotomy is a separate issue from that of determining which "facts" are valid.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

"Sauron is evil" is not a fact because Tolkien intended it to be; it is a fact because it is inherent in the text.

Its only a 'fact' if LotR is an 'artwork', if its a pseudo historical text, its a value judgement. What you seem to be saying is that within Middle earth 'evil' is a verifiable 'fact', which confirms my position that the moral/ethical dimension must be taken into account in any discussion about 'canonicity'(please correct me if I've misunderstood your position).

What I'm saying is that the moral dimension, if it is a 'given' as I think you're saying, must be taken into account as it actaully determines canonicity as much as any historical or 'linguistic' facts, which can be 'scientifically' verified by resort to source texts.

Bethberry's point

The question turns on what we would agree is the moral value Tolkien espouses in the books.

doesn't entirely invalidate the point, as it is still a question of whether the 'moral value' Tolkien espouses in the books (whether or not that corresponds with his own personal moral values) should be treated as a 'fact' within Middle earth, or merely the storyteller's opinion.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Ah yes Bethberry, old ruts indeed -- some of them very worn too boot!

The discussion so far is interesting (if a bit familiar) but I wonder what ever happened to my point regarding the names of characters and places? I'm still very interested in hearing what role people think these names have in our understanding of the texts.

SpM you make an interesting, if somewhat oddly ambiguous, point about the "take it or leave it" meaning of the names. If you want to piece them out to get an idea of what the author 'meant' then OK, if not, then also OK, just sit back and enjoy. I'm not entirely sure that this is quite so easy. If you are going to allow that a fuller appreciation of the names' meanings gives us 'more' or 'better' information then does that not mean necessarily that there are some readers who are better readers? That is, people who have the knowledge or wherewithal to figure out what the names mean will do a better job of understanding than those who don't?

The other point that has been passed over is what to do with the names once we've recovered them. Do we understand that meaning in terms of the ethos of the author (what Tolkien wanted them to mean to us as readers: e.g. Frodo grows into wisdom of Truth), in terms of their context in the text (what they come to mean in the narrative: e.g. Sam is and becomes half-wise), in terms of their etymological sense (e.g. smaug is a Germanic worm, wyrm) or in the sense we wish to take them (e.g. I get to decide what Frodo's wisdom might be)?

Perhaps if I throw out Frodo/froda as a specific example -- the name is OG for "wise by experience" but what does recovering that meaning add to our understanding of the text? How are we to take it? How much do we need to inqurie into Tolkien's view of what constitutes wisdom, and how much can we rely on our own view of wisdom? How much can we derive from the text itself as to what is wisdom?

What does the meaning of Frodo's name, mean?

[The Saucepan Man]

What you seem to be saying is that within Middle earth 'evil' is a verifiable 'fact', which confirms my position that the moral/ethical dimension must be taken into account in any discussion about 'canonicity'(please correct me if I've misunderstood your position).

The moral/ethical dimension must be taken into account in so far as we are able to determine it from the "facts" presented in the text, but excluding the author's own position to the extent that it differs from that stated in the text or remains unaddressed in it. So, to take the example of homosexuality, whatever Tolkien's views on this issue (about which we know little, if anything, for certain), there is (as far as I am aware) nothing within his writings which either condones or condemns it. One could say that it simply doesn't exist within Middle-earth, but that would be like saying that, just because Tolkien did not mention them, hippopotami and ostriches do not exist within his world. Homosexuality doesn't figure within the stories with which we are concerned because, like hippos and ostirches, it is not relevant to them. As to whether it is permissible within fan fiction, well that must, I suppose, be a matter for individual interpretation.

Edit (after cross-posting with Fordim):

If you are going to allow that a fuller appreciation of the names' meanings gives us 'more' or 'better' information then does that not mean necessarily that there are some readers who are better readers? That is, people who have the knowledge or wherewithal to figure out what the names mean will do a better job of understanding than those who don't?

I'm probably going back over old ground here (and making my own rut alongside Bb's), but I would not say that, just because someone has a greater understanding of what the author's intentions were or a better appreciation of his linguistic tricks, their reading experience is in any way more valuable than anyone else's. The reading experience is not one which, as far as I am concerned, can be objectively quantified and compared with that of another. So, while I accept that some readers will be more widely-read, or more knowledgeable, or more in tune with the author's own religious/moral standpoint, that does not make them "better readers" in my book (pun intended ).

[Bêthberry]

Fordim, if there is nothing else in a text to support such esoteric or recondite use of names, then I would argue that the use of such names alone reflects weak writing. There ought to be other signifiers in the text which support that reference, so that a constellation of techniques works towards our understanding of character. The philological meaning or derivation of names is thus one aspect out of many which helps reader appreciate character traits. They make our reading experience richer, but they are not, in a good writer, the sole support for characterisation.

A hidden or secret meaning whick is not supported by other aspects of the text would be rather gnostic, don't you think?

Aiwendil, you are quite right to point out that fanfics cannot be part of Tolkien's 'canon.' They can, however, be 'canonical' or not depending on how they reflect his sensibility and sympathies. I was thinking as someone here who helps young writers learn how to distinguish between "Tolkien elves" and the garden variety type.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Oh, Fordim ....what have you done? I have been in and out of town for several weeks and am just now trying to get resettled and catch up on projects that are seriously overdue. I have studiously avoided all threads in books for that reason, but this one I couldn't resist.

Please bear with me. These ideas have been brewing in my head a while.

First, Aiwendil, I could not agree more: there is no such thing as canonical RPGs or fanfiction. To have true canonical fanfiction or interpretations, the writer would not only have to duplicate Tolkien's philological knowledge but his mastery of history, his staunch Christian faith, his particular views on social issues, and a thousand other things. Tolkien was an individual with unique beliefs, particular academic and personal experiences, and, perhaps most importantly, something less often discussed, someone who writes from a particular vantage point in history. We can and should not pretend that we can insert ourselves, either as reader or writer, and fully recreate that particular mix. Any interpretation we bring will be less rich and nuanced than that originally developed in the author's head.

Just think for a minute....what if I claimed to be writing "canonical" Shakespearean plays? You would have good reason for getting a guffaw out of that. Tolkien is really no different in that regard.

So what is left to us? A great deal, I think. Let me begin with something that may seem like a digression, but actually is not. Fordim, you are extraordinarily good at sparking debate and discussion about Tolkien and his writing. (The classes you teach must be very interesting!) Since your arrival here, our discussions of the text have become decidedly more animated: you have posed basic questions that no one has posited before. In so doing, you have inspired others --people like Bb, and Heren, and Aiwendil, and too many for me to list--to put forward posts that are rich and provoking. As a result, we have lively discussions that leave no stone unturned: posts raising questions that are truly unanswerable.

One of the things that struck me about our recent discussions is how many posters (including yourself) have a wonderful literary background and approach Tolkien's writings in that manner, either because of academic training or simple personal preference. Many of our recent discussions have been framed in literary terms. This is no bad thing -- the present discussion on canonicity even inspired a laggard like me to read a book on literary criticism that dealt with such questions as authorial intent versus the reader's freedom, something I would not normally have done.

Yet I think we have to be careful to acknowledge that there is more than one perspective we can use in trying to make sense of what Tolkien meant, or in attempting to bring our own experiences to the text. Like I've said before, Tolkien is an unending onion: you strip off one layer and another appears. You never quite make it to the core. So you can get one viewpoint from someone who is looking for psychological insight, another from someone who approaches things from a religious viewpoint, and still another from a literary critic or a philosopher. Which of these interpretations is correct or "canonical"? None of them individually. but collectively we may get a little closer to what Tolkien had in his head when he wrote the stories and what meaning we may derive from them by bringing to bear our own knowledge and experience.

Because of my own background and natural inclinations, I tend to approach Tolkien's writings on Middle-earth more like a work of history than literature. (When I say 'work of history', I am really talking about "historiography" rather than a chronicle of facts or even individual interpretation.) As I read through our recent posts, I keep mumbling to myself: What's going on here? Posters are raising questions and points that historians deal with all the time....

I think there is justification for approaching the writings historically, and I think it can help us to deal with issues of canon, or what I would term "historical truth". We know we're never really going to get there, but you just can't stop trying! Plus, from some things the author has said as well as the narrative "fiction" of translating historical documents, it is clear that some level of Tolkien's mind viewed his writing as an historical or mythological creation rather than purely an artistic one. It was the process of constructing a world--its people, its languages, its landscape--that was even more central to him than writing a novel per se.

In fact, I see the problem of understanding Tolkien as very similar to that of creating and interpreting history. I am at least as interested in the world that Tolkien created as in the fact that he happened to use the format of a novel (Lotr), a children's story (Hobbit) and a reinvented myth (Silm) to set it down on paper. It is, overall, a history. Within that context, I'd like to focus on two quotes from Davem.

...are we obliged to interpret the stories in the light of Tolkien's intentions and values (my view) because Middle earth is an artistic creation? Or can we treat it as "history", in which case we have total freedom of interpretation, & nothing, particularly in human nature could be considered "uncanonical".....

If LotR is viewed as an account of a historical period, then the only "facts" we have to take into account are the 'scientific' ones - the 'moral' ones become optional, down to the individual's judgement.

I have problems with this choice of words, as I think it sets up a dichotomy that doesn't exist. When someone recreates history, at least 'good' history, they do not have total freedom of interpretation, nor can they ignore the 'moral' issues in favor of 'scientific' ones. Whether one deals with a primary source document or with another historical interpretation, the perspective of the person who created that document is at least as important (often more so) than the so-called 'scientific' facts under discussion. This is as true of a manorial court roll as it is of a modern historical monograph. In that sense, it is absolutely vital that we understand Tolkien's moral and personal positions to the best of our ability. We are free to interpret, but that interpretation must at least acknowledge what the author was trying to do. You can recreate the physical trappings of Middle-earth and string out a long list of names and word etymologies but without the inner core -- the understanding of what the historian or chronicler considered important (in effect the structure of morals or values), you will have nothing more than hollow words on paper.


For while we can never have true "canonical" fanfiction or interpretations, we can have pieces of writing or insights on the text that are more or less in line with the world that Tolkien has created. There will be argument and dispute about what constitutes the world created by Tolkien -- the moral fabric as well as more prosaic things--and these will lead to differences of opinion, but we should at least be aware that general guidelines exists--ones that Tolkien has set down--even though we cannot fully comprehend or duplicate this creative effort. Yes, we have freedom to try, but that freedom is not unlimited. In this sense, I am thinking Bb and I may be at two ends of a continuum: not on two different sides but emphasizing different things. To my mind, depicting Sauron or Saruman as heroes or even slash relationships among the characters clearly step outside Tolkien's moral construct that he has postulated for his world. This is not a question of canon but simple respect for the vantage from which the author writes. (In regard to SpM's recent comments on homosexuality or the lack of it in the text, I would say that sometimes what an historian omits is even more important than what he includes.)

I can never fully understand any civilization from the past. As a historian, I accept that limitation. Nor do I expect to be able to get inside Tolkien's creation completely. My own understanding is limited. Yet in trying to apply my own experiences to the text, I feel compelled to take into account what I can untangle from the author's mind: what he meant when he wrote the text and created the world that he did. With all our current emphasis on individual freedom in many different shapes and forms, there is such a thing as respect to the author or historian. If you play in his ballpark, you respect his general rules.

Yet, with both history and Tolkien, it is precisely those grey areas that I find most intriguing: those parts and ideas that are just beyond my grasp. Yes, I believe the reader does have a role in the creation of meaning, but that exercise takes place within certain broad guidelines -- both moral and physical -- that the author has laid down. There are questions that are unanswerable, but it is precisely those questions that make the discussion worth having.

************

P.S. It has taken me such a while to write this that I have cross posted with several people!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Yet I think we have to be careful to acknowledge that there is more than one perspective

Child, I couldn't have put it better myself, and I stand convicted of approaching Tolkien far too much and far too often through the lens of literary critical practice (and possibly even theory). And this is ironic, for I have written elsewhere of how much I think there is to gain from a more 'historical' approach like the one you speak of so well and so convincingly. This really does buttress the philological analyses I'm wanting to move into as well, as I want to inquire into the historical origins of the names and then seek to find their applicability to us in the here and now.

Bethberry you wrote:

if there is nothing else in a text to support such esoteric or recondite use of names, then I would argue that the use of such names alone reflects weak writing. There ought to be other signifiers in the text which support that reference

I would argue that there are any number of such signifiers that not only invite but demand us to recover the etymology of the names. Off the top of my head I think of Tom Bombadil's explanation of who he is to the hobbits, Treebeard's wonderful delineation of the importance of names and words (doesn't he say that a proper name is the story of the thing?) and the constant renaming of Aragorn (Strider the Ranger, Aragorn the heir, Elessar the King). When I am next near to my books I shall dig up some relevant quotes, but I think everyone knows the moments I am referring to.

Time and again in the books it crops up that to know the name of a thing -- more significantly, to know the meaning of the name of a thing -- is to know the thing (Middle-Earth is clearly pre-post-structuralist in that regard! No split between the signifier and the signified there!). Given this insistence, I think that it's fair to argue that recovering a character's name is probably the clearest and best way to uncover authorial intent.

Your point, Bb, that this should not and cannot be taken as the only or sole mode of characterization is very well taken, though.

[davem]

First of all,Fordim, n his essay, Tolkien as Phiologist, David Lyle Jeffrey gives a number of ‘speculative notes’ on ‘name meanings’ among them are:

Athelas=Old English-spirit of the King
Balrog= Old english- bealu,evil & wreagan,to arouse
Bilbo=Old English-Bil, a sword & -bo, (diminutive): short sword
Elendil=OE-Ellende, adj (foreign, exiled
Elessar=Old Norse-’one who appears in another manner.
Fangorn=OE-’fang’, booty, plunder; cf fon (to imprison) ‘prison-wood, as well as beard-tree*
Hobbit=OE-hob (generic name for clown, rustic), -bit, a diminutive suffix
Saruman=OE saru (pain, sickness), or searu (contrivance, stratagem)
* In an early version of the story Gandalf was to have been held prisoner by ‘Giant Treebeard.

All of which, I think, are quite significant.

As to the 'canonicity' thing. It seems to me we have the following alternatives:

1) Middle earth is Tolkien's own creation. He has decided that homosexuality simply doesn't exist - anymore than 15ft high rabbits or floating rocks.

2) Middle earth is a period of this world's history, some thousands of years ago.

My original point was that if 1) is true, then Middle earth is not a period of this world's history, & any fiction, or adaptation, which attempts to be true to the canon, must take into account every 'fact' about Middle Earth, & the moral stance of the creator (as manifest in the work - whether it reflects exactly the author's 'true' morality is another question) is a 'fact' of that world , as much as 'immortal' elves, magic swords, & 'crystal balls'. We cannot introduce anything into the world, or any attitude, either, unless support for it can be found in the author's works.

If, however, 2) is true, then while accepting all statements about the nature of that world - existence of Elves, dragons, mountains, etc, all the value judgements are up for grabs. Homosexuality would have existed then, as it has existed in all historical periods for which we have any evidence. So, we could introduce gay characters into Middle earth, with the justification that they must have existed - or at least we would be justified in asking anyone who denied that there were gay humans on earth x thousands of years ago to cite their evidence.

So, we either take the whole package as an artistic creation, including the moral value system the author has introduced into it, or we take the bare 'facts' of dates, geography, physics & biology, & feel free to impose our own value system & interpret the events of the story as we like. First alternative means 'slash' is not only incorrect, but 'wrong', & also impossible, as impossible as the fifteen foot rabbits. Second alternative means 'slash' is entirely acceptable, as it is not logically impossible, much though some people (whether they could count Tolkien himself among their number is unknowable, as SpM has pointed out) might wish it to be.

This really is a question about the extent to which we can separate the author's voice from the world he has created. If it was a real historical period we were dealing with we would attempt to do just that, & escape from the historian's biases, concious & unconcious, & draw our own moral lines.

My feeling is that we simply can't do that, & that the moral values & judgements which run through the world are an essential part of it, & therefore cannot be removed from it, & have simply to be accepted.

This means that someone who reads the books from this point of view, who enters into its moral vision fully, belives in the supernatural dimension, the miraculous intervention of Eru, etc, will get more out of it than someone who doesn't, & simply reads it as a story set in a fabulous world where wierd stuff just 'happens'. In other words, there is a 'right' way to read the books, & a 'wrong' way.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

First of all, Fordim, in his essay, Tolkien as Phiologist, David Lyle Jeffrey gives a number of ‘speculative notes’ on ‘name meanings’

Couldn't let this one pass without a quick admission, as DLJ is not only a personal friend, but -- I am proud and pleased to say -- one of my mentors.

Most of what I say about the importance of recovering the full meaning and connotations of names in LotR stems from several long conversations that I had with David many (many) years ago about that very subject. Whereas I speak but a little French and even less Spanish, David is fluent in (at last count) about a dozen languages living and dead, and the kinds of information he could bring to bear on the character- and place-names in LotR was bestaggering and awe-inspiring.

Where he and I parted ways on Tolkien is pretty much where (I suspect) davem and I do as well: DLJ always insists that one must 'recover' not just the meaning of the names, but do so from within the specifically Christian ethos that Tolkien was working from. I didn't really agree with it then, and I'm not sure that I do so know -- but as DLJ explained to me then, the act of recovering this sort of meaning is a method of study that owes much to biblical exegesis, so it's only natural (he even argued "responsible") to proceed in that manner.

Who am I to disagree with my mentor! Answer: a good student!

PS Sorry if this looks like name-dropping; it truly is not meant as such. I'm just so tickled to see someone quoted herein whom I know. Now if someone ever quotes the one paper I wrote on Tolkien I will die of happiness (not that this is very likely to happen).

[The Saucepan Man]

Sorry if this looks like name-dropping; it truly is not meant as such. (Fordim)

It not only looks like outrageous name-dropping, it feels very much like it too. Scandalous!

And now onto business.

Yet in trying to apply my own experiences to the text, I feel compelled to take into account what I can untangle from the author's mind: what he meant when he wrote the text and created the world that he did. With all our current emphasis on individual freedom in many different shapes and forms, there is such a thing as respect to the author or historian. If you play in his ballpark, you respect his general rules. (Child)

I would say that, while one is free to investigate the author's intentions and values, an understanding of these is not necessary fully to appreciate the text. The text should be self-contained. Everything that we need to know about the protagonists, the events portrayed and the world in which it takes place should be in there. In other words, the reader should not be obliged to investigate authorial intention and standpoint in order to appreciate the text. After all, how many readers of the book do in fact do that? It follows that, while one might be aware of the author's own views and intentions, one is free to reject them if they are not implicit within the text.

In regard to SpM's recent comments on homosexuality or the lack of it in the text, I would say that sometimes what an historian omits is even more important than what he includes.

There is much that Tolkien omits from the text (just as there is much that a historian omits from a historical account) simpy because it is not relevant to the subject matter at hand. Apologies in advance if this gets distasteful, but Tolkien never (as far as I am aware) mentions his characters' toliet habits. Nor does he (save in very oblique references with regard to Aragorn and Arwen and (I think) Beren and Luthien) mention any sexual activity. We assume that these activities occur, because the world would not be credible if they did not. But, because they are not relevant to the story that he is telling, they do not need to be addressed. For me, homosexuality falls within the same category. It is a fact of life and therefore existed within Middle-earth. The world would not be credible to me if it did not. Others may (and no doubt will) take a different view. I am simply giving my take on it.

So, we either take the whole package as an artistic creation, including the moral value system the author has introduced into it, or we take the bare 'facts' of dates, geography, physics & biology, & feel free to impose our own value system & interpret the events of the story as we like. First alternative means 'slash' is not only incorrect, but 'wrong', & also impossible, as impossible as the fifteen foot rabbits. Second alternative means 'slash' is entirely acceptable, as it is not logically impossible, much though some people (whether they could count Tolkien himself among their number is unknowable, as SpM has pointed out) might wish it to be. (davem)

I do not see why the first alternative has to have the consequences that you have stated. The moral system which Tolkien has introduced into Middle-earth is not a complete recreation of his moral standpoint. It reflects only those aspects that he has chosen to include within it. As far as I can see, it does not preclude homosexuality. Nor do the facts that he has given us about the world necessarily preclude the existence of fifteen foot high rabbits (or hippos or ostriches). Why should they not exist? They are no less ludicrous in some respects than walking, talking trees. They do not feature in his tales because they are not relevant to them, but I would say that the reader is free to believe that they exist in Middle-earth if he or she so wishes.

On the other hand, we are not free to see Sauron and (LotR) Saruman as the good guys because we are clearly told that they are not. Nor are we free to interpret their evil acts as noble or heroic or attractive because it is clear from the text itself that this is incompatible with the moral value system that Tolkien has incorporated into his world. So, if we are to accept the story, we have to accept it as a "given" that Sauron is evil and that his behaviour is (within the story) morally incorrect.

This means that someone who reads the books from this point of view, who enters into its moral vision fully, belives in the supernatural dimension, the miraculous intervention of Eru, etc, will get more out of it than someone who doesn't, & simply reads it as a story set in a fabulous world where wierd stuff just 'happens'. In other words, there is a 'right' way to read the books, & a 'wrong' way. (davem)

While it will not surprise you to hear that I do not agree with your final sentence (since, as I have said, I do not believe in making subjective assessments of an individual's reading experience), I do actually agree with the rest of what you have said here. But just because an individual does not subscribe personally to the author's moral vision (whether that be the limited one presented within the text or the broader perspective as ascertained from external investigation), it does not follow that he or she is "wrong", at least as far as he or she (as an individual) is concerned.

[Bêthberry]

You have written a long and gracious and eloquent post, Child and say much with which I would agree--and, in fact, Fordim has already acknowledged a point I would respect, the need to be inclusive of several different perspectives. You are right--We cannot enter completely and wholly and naively into the mind and sensibility of a previous age!

I remember being told that the right way to go about literary scholarship was to read everything the author read and immerse oneself in the author's age so as to come to terms with what the author meant. How to ignore or overlook the intervening years between any author's and my own I was never told. How those intervening years might impinge upon an understanding of the author and/or text in question was a moot point from this perspective. Such a concern would be dismissed as irrelevant. And we could only study dead authors because they were the only ones who could be relied upon not to publish works which subsequently "proved" us wrong. It was an archeologoy all right. Take a look to see what constituted the study of "English literature" at the time Tolkien taught at Oxford to see this perspective in operation. (I do not ascribe this situation to Tolkien at all. In fact, I think he was ruefully disappointed in it, as his comments and shudders over academic syllabus show.)

You have so graciously acknowledged many of the points here that I almost feel it is rude of me to disagree. Almost. But please bear with me.

It is not any act of disrespect which causes me to question whether we can with absolute certainty say we know an author's intention. It is the experience of seeing that authors often write from depths of inspiration and thought which they themselves do not wholly or completely understand at the time of writing. Or seeing authors wish to withhold their true sense of intention from deliberate statement, wanting the work of art to speak for them. And even seeing authors deliberately engage in disguise and subterfuge as a way to challenge readers.

The difficulty is always what to do with the passage of time. As you yourself pointed out, in the sixties, it was Tolkien's environmental focus which was the topic of interest. Now, with publication of The Silm, HoME and UT, the moral or religious focus is what draws many to Tolkien. Yet this focus--even, both of them I would say--was largely absent from the movies. which has brought the thrill of the ancient epics and sword play to the forefront of some people's interest. Are we to say that those who read Tolkien in the sixties were wrong because they didn't know of Eru? Are we to say that those who relish the warrior aspects are limited in their appreciation because they might denigrate the environmental issues?

This issue of how time changes our perspective, even our definitions, pertains as much to historiography as it does to literary questions. Here in Canada, for both World War I and World War II, our participation was argued over, depending upon whether one felt we must rise to the call of the Empire and help defend England (English Canada) or stay out of the English dog's war (French Canada). In the United States, which entered World War II much later than Canada, there was a certain degree of sympathy for the Nazi Government. Only later in the war, when the extent of the genocide became apparent, did opinion coalesce. The same can be said for other wars. The American Civil War began over the question of the right of the southern states to secede. Only as the war progressed did the issue of slavery rise to the fore. (At least, this is the viewpoint I brought away with me after I visited Gettysburg.) Is there a lesson here in how cultures use moral issues to define historical moments? Maybe.

While bowing to your expertise in historical matters, I would politely suggest that the issues which bedevil our attempts to find a definitive, absolute interpretation of literary works based on an ability to know truly a writer's intention also impede historical research. I think back to the difference perspective which you and Rimbaud had over the question of whether a "middle class" existed in the middle ages. How historiographers define issues can influence their findings and their histories as much as definitions thwart literary scholars.

You suggest that the preferable way to define a response to Tolkien is through history rather than the kind of literary criticism which Fordim and I tend to use, maybe even davem, perhaps even Saucepan. And your justification for suggesting such an approach is Tolkien's own interest in history, which you say was more important than his interest in story.

Yet I think back to 'On Fairy Stories' and his deliberations over the bishop and the banana peel. Things get into the cauldron of story to flavour the story, not because they have any historical objectivity.

Which I suppose is my way of saying that there is indeed a continuum of interpretation and understanding as you suggest rather than davem's either or dichotomy. I don't see why a fanfic which explores an area Tolkien alluded to but left undeveloped, like Sauron's or Saruman's fall, is not possible within his moral universe. But perhaps that hinges on how we each define "hero". At the very least, I don't think 'historiography' is much more helpful to us than literary scholarship. When all is said and done, what we have are our words together, even when we disagree.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Child of the 7th Age:

I can never fully understand any civilization from the past. As a historian, I accept that limitation. Nor do I expect to be able to get inside Tolkien's creation completely. My own understanding is limited. Yet in trying to apply my own experiences to the text, I feel compelled to take into account what I can untangle from the author's mind: what he meant when he wrote the text and created the world that he did.

Davem:

This really is a question about the extent to which we can separate the author's voice from the world he has created. If it was a real historical period we were dealing with we would attempt to do just that, & escape from the historian's biases, concious & unconcious, & draw our own moral lines.

I suppose this is the danger of the conceit of historicity of fiction. If one posits that Middle Earth exists outside the realm of Tolkien’s mind and that he really didn’t make it all up, as quipped by one of his correspondents in Letters so long ago, then the history is open to interpretation. Middle Earth is no longer Tolkien’s, but it becomes everyone’s. But, because we understand it to be a conceit—fiction, not history, the world belongs to the author who set it down. Thus, only his words are canon.

If we treat Middle Earth as a world which transcends its creator, then there could be all sorts of “revisionist histories” written from the discoveries of other works. Just think what could be written by one who uncovered the Library at Minas Tirith or who found Saruman’s records at Orthanc, or who wrote simply from the Book of Mazarbul with no other reference. Tolkien’s conceit of “The Red Book of Westmarch” means that “The Lord of the Rings” is to be the travelogue of Frodo, with all Frodo’s idiosyncrasies, beliefs, moral values, etc. along with his extraordinary experiences. So, if one wants to take the argument to its internal point, the canon of Lord of the Rings is the Weltanschauung of one Mr. Frodo Baggins, his first person experiences and journalistic interpretations of his talks with others involved in the War of the Ring.

I think the fact that this argument exists speaks to the verisimilitude and completeness of Tolkien’s creation of the realm of Middle Earth. When a world transcends the act of its creation, it strikes me in the same way Eru calling upon the Ainur to make music upon his themes would. I can see davem’s point about not allowing the discordant notes near a ‘canonical’ text, but also, I subscribe to Aiwendil’s view that no fanfiction or secondary writing is, by definition, canon (without getting into the sticky wicket of Christopher Tolkien's compilations/amalgamations/interpretations, i.e., Silmarillion etc.)*. That is not to say that fanfiction cannot enrich an already well-conceived world. Also, as painful as it might be to see the Morgoths and Saurons of this world exercise this right to expression, I cannot say they are not entitled to practice it, as long as they do not claim canonicity for their works. No badly written Mary Sue fanfiction is going to destroy the beauty of Tolkien’s world for me. There just isn’t enough power in it to do such a thing.

That said, I often have thoughts of just how the subcreated ‘history’ would fare if documents from the other side were uncovered, if there was, say, a ‘scribe of Minas Morgul’ who kept a journal and recounted his experiences in the War of the Ring and had a very different view of what actually happened in the conflict recorded, according to Tolkien’s conceit, by Frodo Baggins in the Red Book of Westmarch. But, of course, Tolkien did not write this, so one could never call it canon.

All this said, I must close with a blessing and a curse. Curse you and bless you, Fordim, for dredging up this topic again and taking my attention away from all the other little things I should have been doing!

Cheers!
Lyta

*Note from above: I actually find sometimes that the notes of CJT enhance the 'historical' effect of JRRT's works by being speculation much on the order of what historians must do to interpret intent or objective truth from disparate sources!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

All this said, I must close with a blessing and a curse. Curse you and bless you, Fordim, for dredging up this topic again and taking my attention away from all the other little things I should have been doing!

I stand shamed and humbled within the rain of your condemnatory benediction.

Canon is a tricky thing. To this point in the thread, I'm not sure that I've even really tackled it head on in terms of addressing what is an is not 'canonical', and I don't really propose to do so now as the idea of canon – of setting aside certain texts or kinds of texts as the 'real' Tolkien – tells us nothing about the texts or the author and everything about our own expectations as readers. If one believes that the meaning of a text resides wholly or primarily in relation to the author, then only works by that author will be canon; if one believes that the meaning of a text resides wholly or primarily in relation to the reader, then works or fan fiction (or parody) will be acceptable. This homiletic truth is born out, I think, within this very thread, for those who hold to the former position do not appear in the RPG forums, while those who hold to the latter do (more or less).

This is not, obviously, a strictly either/or scenario, where there are only two positions available. I have argued elsewhere (quite convincingly, I might add ) that there is within every reading experience both the desire for meaning from the authorial source, and the desire for meaning in relation to the self – which would mean that there is a constant tension within every reading act and reader between these two forms of canon-formation. We are all of us, I think, simultaneously and somewhat ambivalently exclusive (the work belongs to the author) and inclusive (the work belongs to me) in our responses to all texts. But this exclusive-inclusivity, or inclusive-exclusivity is even more pronounced in relation to Tolkien, I think, insofar as the world that the text explores is not (directly) one that we share – it’s Tolkien’s world, so it’s his rules, his truth, his canon. At the same time, however, because this world is imaginary we as readers have to do a lot more work (pleasurable as it may be) to bring it to life. We are more active participants in the creation of this world than we are of, say, Dickens’ London or even Chaucer’s west country, insofar as these places have independent existence from the texts that reflect them.

So the problem of canon is even more fraught with Tolkien than is usual. But the good news is, the promise of canon is richer. This promise is the ability that it gives us to reflect upon our own expectations as readers, which is – finally – what canon is all about. The instant we decide what truly ‘belongs’ and what does not, we set up a very clear mirror into our own expectations and desires as readers. The more we want to define the canonical ‘truth’ of the text by the author, the more we want to turn to the mirage of authorial intention for meaning. The more we want to define the canonical ‘truth’ of the text by ourselves, the more we want to turn to the fantasy of individual response.

In the end, I would suggest that the quest for Tolkien’s canon is an informative process, but futile.

EDIT -- Cross-posting with Davem to whom I would like to say I agree whole-heartedly with the tripartite form of allusiveness you speak of in relation to the etymological pursuit of meaning in LotR.

[davem]

As to etymology enhancing our understanding of the books, its interesting how it can reveal earlier versions of the story - ie Farmer Maggot's original, unpleasant character is prob. revealed through the name - 'maggotty'=cantankerous or drunken. The later character doesn't reflect these attributes at all, but they're there. Same thing with Fangorn=OE-’fang’, booty, plunder; cf fon (to imprison) ‘prison-wood, as well as beard-tree, which reflects the earlier version of the story, where Gandalf is imprisoned by Giant Treebeard, etc. Athelas means both 'spirit of the king' in OE & Kings foil (or leaf) in Sindarin.

But we have two 'levels' of inner/'hidden' meaning in Tolkien's books, the OldEnglish/Old Norse/Middle English, etc level, & the Elvish one, where subtle connections are made for readers - ie Strider telling the hobbits Frodo has been stabbed by a 'morgul blade' at weathertop - when we then hear the name Minas Morgul we consciously or unconsciously relate the the two places, just as we connect Minas Morgul with Minas Tirith, & Minas Tirth itself links back (for readers of the Sil) to Finrod's tower which guarded the Pass of Sirion.

None of those connections are overtly stated, but they underlie the whole thing.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Very random thoughts off the top of my head late at night...

The more I think about it, the more I see Tolkien's efforts as directed at "world building" rather than simple "novel writing" in terms of Middle-earth and even LotR. How else can we explain the fact that the author used such a variety of forms and devices to express his creative intent for a period extending more than fifty years? A novel, a children's book, mythology and legend as expressed in the Silm, poetry and song, a myriad of invented languages and scripts, maps, colored illustrations and sketches, etymological exercises, heraldic devices, timelines: the list could go on and on. All of these were tools that he used to create the world of Middle-earth. And Tolkien made it quite clear in his letters that this world was somewhat open-ended, since he had wanted to "leave scope for other minds and hands", inviting gifted creators to come in "wielding paint and music and drama."

How many authors invite the reader to add personal touches to his work? And what does this do to our concept of canon?

Even if we confine our discussion to Tolkien himself, all of this diversity has to make the writings more difficult to assess, especially in terms of canon, whether we are talking about a single volume like LotR or the corpus as a whole. Even when we take up LotR and attempt to treat it as a novel, strange little things like languages, etymologies, poems, and such come creeping in, to say nothing of the histories set out in the Appendices.

Maybe I was overly optomistic when I charitably described issues of canon as one of those questions that are "unanswerable"; Fordim may be closer to the mark when he says identifying canon is an "informative process, but futile". "Futile" is a strong word but I think there is some justification for that term.

And yet I am unwilling to go as far as SpM in championing the freedom of the reader: accepting anything that's not specifically excluded by Tolkien, which I believe is the standard he laid out. (If I am mistaken in this, I apologize.) Like Davem, I am uncomfortable with fifteen foot rabbits or slash relationships (although my reasoning vis-a-vis history is totally different than his). I might let an ostrich or two slip in, but that's as far as I go. All kidding aside, there is a difference between ostriches, fifteen foot rabbits, and slash relationships. Each of these raises a different question.

Ostriches are part of the natural world, so they may be lurking about in Middle-earth somewhere, most likely in Harad. Fifteen foot rabbits, in contrast, imply a revision of the rules of nature, in fact almost stepping beyond nature into the realm of outright magic. And there is surprisingly little "magic" in Tolkien, for reasons we've already discussed. If such large rabbits were a legitimate part of faerie or of myth, I might be willing to let them in the back door, but I'm not aware of any that are. The author has the prerogative to bring in Oliphaunts (which do seem to bear some resemblance to actual mastadons and mammoths), but that is his prerogative not mine.

And when we come to "moral" questions and values, it gets even tougher. Everything I've read about Tolkien tells me that he was a Roman Catholic, and that his personal beliefs were shaped by that religious faith. I can find nothing to indicate his views on slash or pornography, for example, were divergent in this regard. Here, I am talking in terms of an "ideal" rather than getting into any questions about civil liberties and such, since this is a totally different issue. Again and again, Tolkien hammered away in LotR at the need for individuals to take a moral stand. SpM is certainly correct that Tolkien did not explicitly address such issues in LotR, but if I go by what I know about the author (not my own standards and beliefs which may be very different), then I find it hard to include either slash or explicit portrayals of sex between men and women. Allusions to sex and rape are a different thing: these certainly exist in Silm. There is a wonderfully tender kiss between Faramir and Eowyn in LotR that hints at the passion that lies underneath. But I would find it difficult to step beyond this in the context of Tolkien.

To some degree, I do feel bound by what I know about the author. When he speaks of creating a world that is 'high', purged of the gross, and fit for the more adult mind of a land long now steeped in poetry", I find myself treading very gently. Perhaps this is an emotional reaction rather than an intellectual one, but surely that has validity as well.

Finally, Bb, Thank you for your post, which was very thought provoking. I agreed with much of what you said. You are correct in saying that we can never know the exact intention of the author (or the creator or the historian -- whatever term we care to use), which is not too different from saying that I can never wholly understand the past. But I think that the effort has to be made and that there are some things that lie in the dominion of the creator/author rather than the freedom of the reader. It's clear that all of us would draw the line at a different point.

If sixties readers best appreciate trees, and modern scholars have discovered Eru, while young people enjoy the sword play, that is all to the good in my opinion. All of these things are implicit in Tolkien's writings. History feeds on variant interpretations: in the clash of ideas, new truths emerge. In fact, without changing ideas and interpretations, you'd end up with a very boring textbook that puts everyone to sleep -- the type that are used in many history classes! My problem in terms of Middle-earth comes only when something "foreign" is introduced, something for which I see little or no basis in the text itself, especially in the context of what I know about the author.

One clarification:

You suggest that the preferable way to define a response to Tolkien is through history rather than the kind of literary criticism which Fordim and I tend to use...

My apologies. I did not mean to say that historiography was more helpful than literary scholarship. I was probably a little overzealous in my argument. In fact I was trying to argue that what we need are more approaches, not fewer ones.

Historiography is indeed a preferable way for me to understand the works, since I have more background and understanding in this regard than I would in terms of literary theories (or of psychological theories, for that matter). But it is a preference only for myself and not to be thrust upon anyone else who will want to forge their own path. Fordim is quite right in saying that diversity is the key here, with each reader applying what he or she knows best.

In any case, it's quite clear that agreement on these issues is impossible to reach. Yet, despite the headaches, I think the effort is worth making. What the Silm project is doing is a case in point. It is not canon in any sense, but by the very act of selecting and making judgments, we are given a new perspective on certain aspects of the writings. Well written fanfiction and RPGs perform a similar function.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child

And Tolkien made it quite clear in his letters that this world was somewhat open-ended, since he had wanted to "leave scope for other minds and hands", inviting gifted creators to come in "wielding paint and music and drama."

This brings up the question of how narrowly or broadly Tolkien himself would have defined 'canonicity' - if he was happy (unlike Christopher) for people to expand on his creation, as long, presumably, as they stayed within the spirit of the work. Presumably he didn't think of Middle earth as his sole 'property', & was in a sense giving it to the world - as he said to Milton Waldman, he wanted to dedicate it to England.

If this is the case, then it could be argued that any fanfic which was true to the spirit of the work could be considered 'canonical' as writers would be simply expanding Tolkien's world, with his permission.

Of course, Tolkien, as Shippey among others has shown, was attempting to recreate an already existing mythology, & attempting to explain, for instance, why in Norse myth & Saxon legend there are references to Light Elves, Dark Elves, Elves of the Gloaming, Sea Elves, Wood Elves, etc. So Tolkien, in part , is not 'freely' inventing his stories, he is attempting to account for references in the old sources. So we could say that the Legendarium is an exercise in applied philology, an attempt to reconstruct a lost mythology, as much as an attempt to tell an entertaining story.

[Novnarwen]

From davem's post

If this is the case, then it could be argued that any fanfic which was true to the spirit of the work could be considered 'canonical' as writers would be simply expanding Tolkien's world, with his permission.

I was going to agree with you, and others, who say that fanfics and RPGs etc can be 'canonical'. But now, suddenly, I have changed my mind. When we write our fanfics or our RPG stories it can never be canon or 'canonical' for many reasons. (Only my opinion, of course..)

Saying that Tolkien is letting us into his world and that he is open for writers to expand his works doesn't make our new stories within Middle-earth canon or 'canonical'. They are simply stories which are based on the world Tolkien gave to us through his books. They are stories, which take place and evolve in Middle-earth, they are stories that may resemble Tolkien’s style of writing and they may even be stories that are similar in spirit. However, as I still don't get how we are to judge what is in the spirit of Tolkien or not, I will say that this too is 'evidence' that nothing we write can be canon or 'canonical'. With good conscious, I just cannot do it.. (I might change my mind, but someone needs to convince me.) I mean, we may try to decide what we think is the spirit of Tolkien by our own experiences, opinions and etc., but who's correct and who's not? Naturally, we will see Tolkien differently, as to how we approach him as a person and how we approach his works. To me, it seems impossible to actually claim that "Hello you, but THIS is not in the spirit of Tolkien, duh!" and "Hello, that's what I call the spirit of Tolkien. Your fanfic is therefore 'canonical!'"

From Saucepan Man's Post

by the same token, I would say that there is no reason why a Tolkien fanfic should not include aspects of human nature that Tolkien does not specifically address in his works, provided that they are dealt with in the spirit of Tolkien’s writing.

I agree with everything you say, I think.. A Fanfic or RPG, I think, could include some aspects of human nature that Tolkien perhaps 'forgot' to tell us about. I assume that Tolkien was inspired from his own experiences in life when writing, and different aspects of human nature is not something Tolkien wasn't aware of. I'm not saying, by this, that I believe it is in the spirit (whatever that 'spirit' is) of Tolkien to create homosexual characters, simply because I don't know what the spirit of Tolkien is/was. This is only my point of view, though. Mind you, however, I don't see what wrong it could do..

You see, every time someone writes an RPG post or a Fanfic, we do not write it under John Ronald Reul Tolkien. Next to our posts, our writings, it says for example: "Novnarwen's post." (Okay, it doesn't actually say that by ones post, I just realised, but it says your name... Anyway, it's meant to be "Novnarwen's post... ") As long as it is under our names, it is our posts, our writings and of course our responsibility. We claim that this is our writing, and we say for instance at the RPG discussion threads:" My post is up!" Okay, it's your post.. It is your writing, it is [in] your spirit, why else would you say that it is your post? If it were in the spirit of Tolkien (I don't know how we can say which spirit is Tolkien’s though.. ) it wouldn't have been your post. What I am trying to point out is that we can imitate Tolkien, claim that "This is in the spirit of Tolkien, believe me", but how do we know? No one other than Tolkien can write in his spirit, because no one else is Tolkien! And if no one can write in his spirit, is anything we write then canon or 'canonical'?

Since I've already explained that I do not think other writings and other writers than Tolkien and his writing can be canon or 'canonical', I don't see the reason not to create the characters you like, (as long as it is within the Forum's guidelines,) because it will never be canon or 'canonical' anyway. It is simply your writing, and you have based it on Tolkien's world. Since you are a part of a Tolkien community, which states that there are Tolkien RPGs here, you have already acknowledged that you give full credit to Tolkien for creating Middle-earth. Other than that the credit goes to you..

Anyway, now as that has been said, (If you haven't fallen off your chair already because of my ignorance or whatever, you will certainly now..) I am wondering about something..

Why are we putting so much effort into worrying about whether our writings are 'canonical' or not? I know it’s easy for me to say, who is just overly convinced that no one can possibly write a Tolkien fanfic or an RPG and make it canon or 'canonical', but what about you? I mean, as long as we respect the characters Tolkein indeed gave life, such as Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin (in fact every character he mentioned by name, which would take ages and ages to put on paper.), and don't put Meduseld on fire and make Theóden die of poisonous smoke and such, there is nothing 'wrong' we can do. I mean, have we really claimed from the start that we are making canon or that we are writing in the spirit of Tolkien?

Okay, I'm wrapping this up since it's only ramblings now.
Cheers,
Nova

[The Saucepan Man]

When we write our fanfics or our RPG stories it can never be canon or 'canonical' for many reasons.

I agree. The problem with describing fanfics and RPGs as "canon" is that, as I understand it, this word generally refers to the body of an author's work which has been published (ie is accessible to all who wish to read it). Fanfics and RPGs fail on both counts because they have not been written by the author and because they are not generally available. So, if you were to turn round and tell me that Legolas owned a hare (to use a random example ) because you read it in a fanfic, I would be fully justified in disregarding your information completely. It is simply not canon, and that is that.

Having said that, I do agree to some extent with whoever (Aiwendil?) said that a fanfic can be "canon-ish" in the sense that it adheres to the "spirit of Tolkien". But you have amply illustrated the problem with this concept, Novnarwen. Who is to say what is in the spirit of Tolkien and what is not? There are obvious areas where we can agree, but there will also be many areas where we will not.

Which takes me back to my (hackneyed) mantra concerning the freedom of the reader. If I read a piece of fanfic, like it and see it as being within the spirit of Tolkien (and provided that it does not conflict with anything Tolkien wrote), I can choose to believe that in my Middle-earth, the events described in it did happen. But for another person who reads the same fanfic, such events may well be events that they cannot accept as having occurred in their Middle-earth because they do not accord with their conception of Tolkien's vision.

Of course, I agree with Child that there are some things that we would all agree do not, and could never be, within the spirit of Tolkien's Middle-earth writings. But she and I clearly differ when it comes to fifteen foot high rabbits and homosexuality (although I would hasten to add that there are in fact no fifteen foot rodents (whether owned by Legolas or not) in my Middle-earth).

So, to a greater or lesser degree, we will all have different conceptions of Middle-earth. Which means that, when we come together to discuss Tolkien's works, the only things that we can all agree on are those facts which are expressly stated in the text. And even then there is room for interpretation, which brings us back to ...

*Saucepan is overcome with deja vu and falls to the floor noisily in a heap of pots and pans*

I'll give up before I start repeating myself any further ...

Why are we putting so much effort into worrying about whether our writings are 'canonical' or not?

Because ... er ... um ... anyone?

[Aiwendil]

Novnarwen wrote:

I was going to agree with you, and others, who say that fanfics and RPGs etc can be 'canonical'. But now, suddenly, I have changed my mind. When we write our fanfics or our RPG stories it can never be canon or 'canonical' for many reasons.

I have to say, again, that I don't think that this question is as meaningful as it sounds. It seems to me that the disagreement here is not about what Tolkien's texts are, or what fan fiction is, or anything like that - it's simply about what we want to use the term "canonical" to signify. "Canonical" is just a word, just a term. I would say that the conventional usage of the word is more in line with the restricted meaning "Tolkien's texts". But one ought to be able to alter one's definitions and use "canonical" to mean "not contradicting Tolkien's texts" without this necessitating any other changes in one's view.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Who is to say what is in the spirit of Tolkien and what is not? There are obvious areas where we can agree, but there will also be many areas where we will not.

You're right - and this doesn't just apply to the more abstract aspects of Tolkien's work, either. It's often very difficult to say whether a specific, concrete fact in a piece of fan fiction violates another specific, concrete fact from Tolkien's work. I still say there are three fundamental categories: strict canon (Tolkien), possible canon (some fan fiction), and non-canon (other fan fiction). But there are shades of grey in between them, particularly in between the latter two.

[InklingElf]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Who is to say what is in the spirit of Tolkien and what is not? There are obvious areas where we can agree, but there will also be many areas where we will not.

Duly noted.

Don't kill me for this but... because I am a simpleton I think you guys are stressing over this matter too much.While I cannot be more profound and deep in my response the explications that have circulated through this thread I'll get whatever it is out-of-my-system-right-away:

ca•non•i•cal \ke-"na-ni-kel\ adj 1 : of, relating to, or forming a canon 2 : conforming to a general rule or acceptable procedure : orthodox 3 : of or relating to a clergyman who is a canon — ca•non•i•cal•ly \-k(e-)le\ adv
(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

To conform or not to conform? But:

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

"Canonical" is just a word, just a term. I would say that the conventional usage of the word is more in line with the restricted meaning "Tolkien's texts". But one ought to be able to alter one's definitions and use "canonical" to mean "not contradicting Tolkien's texts" without this necessitating any other changes in one's view.

So whatever we are conforming into is not always explicity justified correct? Hence, we are to "alter one's definitions". And that is the acceptable procedure?

...I know I know I'm shooting in the dark -- but the canonicity in this case applies solely to the reader at hand.

That's another thing to observe about the discussion taking place as well.Thank you for bearing this incoherant post.

[mark12_30]

Why are we putting so much effort into worrying about whether our writings are 'canonical' or not?

Because, except for some present, there is a vague, general understanding that when you say you are writing something canonical (I heartily prefer the term "canon-friendly", myself) that you have loosely translated the longer phrase, "No jedis, starships, Tarzan or Kings Kong; I'm gonna try my best to make it really blend in. Maybe you'll even wonder if the Professor had a hand in it." And most folk have a vague understanding that that's what you kinda sorta mean, and those who are interested in reading 'Something That Might Remind The Reader Of Tolkien' will decide whether or not to check your stuff out.

Then in the review column, the reader can say "Yeah, it's not bad, in some ways it's pretty close, but well-- this thing about Legolas and the fifteen foot rabbit..."

[HerenIstarion]

Why are we putting so much effort into worrying about whether our writings are 'canonical' or not?

I think I know the answer to that question:

Because you (and you, yes, you too!) all are in league plotting my ruin. For surely I'll be fired if I spend an instant more of my office time reading this unending thread, instead of actually doing some work I'm paid for!

As a bonus, be enlightened by the following:

Three blind men were shown into a stall were elephant (oliophaunt?) was kept. None of them has seen one before, so they were asked to touch it and then give their opinion about such a wondrous animal. But as they approached it from different sides, so the body parts they felt were different. So one said: 'elephant is like to a rope' (as he touched the tail), ‘nay’, said another, 'it is like a tree-trunk' (leg was the part of his choice), 'what are you two talking about?', came in the third, 'it's like a snake!' (for it was proboscis in his hand). So they quarreled, and could not agree upon which was right

Now, I hold they all were right

But, free-reader people, do not rejoice, for I’m not joining your ranks

Though I hold that all three blind men were right, I hold such a belief with a proviso there were no one with clear sight to tell them about elephant.

Tolkien is such a sighted one.

cheers

[Bêthberry]

And most folk have a vague understanding that that's what you kinda sorta mean, and those who are interested in reading 'Something That Might Remind The Reader Of Tolkien' will decide whether or not to check your stuff out.

Then in the review column, the reader can say "Yeah, it's not bad, in some ways it's pretty close, but well-- this thing about Legolas and the fifteen foot rabbit..."

I think Helen provides here a very useful definition of what makes fanfiction so popular: people are hungering after "more of the same" from an author they enjoy. This is I suspect the major reason why people read fanfiction and possibly a major reason why people write fanfiction. It does, however, limit writing to a kind of secondhand nature, where the imagination of the fanfic writer is in some measure bound up with the world of, for our purposes, Middle earth.

Yet there surely are other reasons for writing besides this kind of echo. There are many kinds of "influence" possible in the crucible of the creative imagination. When does a fanfiction writer cross over the line between "repeating" his favourite precursor and attaining his own kind of unique form of writing? After all, Tolkien himself was inspired by other writers to create his own Middle earth, a subcreation wholly unique. Is that freedom of invention, inspiration, creativity to be denied to those who follow him?

Tolkien as muse can take many forms. And people are free to define what form they prefer, I suppose.

[Novnarwen]

Because, except for some present, there is a vague, general understanding that when you say you are writing something canonical (I heartily prefer the term "canon-friendly", myself) that you have loosely translated the longer phrase, "No jedis, star ships, Tarzan or Kings Kong; I'm gonna try my best to make it really blend in. Maybe you'll even wonder if the Professor had a hand in it." And most folk have a vague understanding that that's what you kinda sorta mean, and those who are interested in reading 'Something That Might Remind The Reader Of Tolkien' will decide whether or not to check your stuff out.

Aha. Well, I do think, personally, that if you exclude (the) Tarzan and the Jedis, it doesn't make it necessarily canon/canonical/canon-friendly (Whatever term you choose to use..)

Anyway, why should we try to make people believe that Tolkien had a hand in it? What kind of goal is that? Tolkien is not here, so he cannot possibly have had a hand in it. Everyone knows he isn't alive today. So I don't honestly see a point in trying to pretend that he has had a hand in it, when he has certainly not.

As I said before, my previous post, I expressed some of the reasons why I don't believe in creating canon/canonical texts. (It looks kind of silly to quote your own posts (# 381), so I wont..) But I still stand by those reasons.

Anyway, as badly as my question about putting so much effort into making ones writing canonical was formulated, I must correct it: Why do you (Not all, but some) put so much effort into making your writings canonical?

I am changing this for one reason, and that is; I don't believe in making so called canonical texts, because I don't possess the spirit that Tolkien possessed. I'm happy when I write RPG posts that are based on Tolkien's works. I sit down, clear my head and I try to figure out what I'm going to write. Suddenly (often after sitting a long time staring into the air, that is) I figure it out. I plan it; what my character thinks, what my character is going to do, what feelings he/she is going to express towards the situation he/she is facing and so forth. I already know that I'm not Tolkien (Can you believe that? ), so I don't even bother to think about what Tolkien would write here. My posts are mine, but they are based on the world Tolkien gave to us, to me. I'm perfectly happy about doing this, so I do not see a reason to follow everything so slavishly. (Maybe I'm happy about this because I do it for the fun of it, and I don't care about those who are possibly reading it?) As long as I take responsibility for my posts, I don't see the point in why I should make them so that people could think that Tolkien have had a hand in it. I am, however, willing to edit my posts.

*

When reading HerenIstarion's little story, I think it reflects very well our differences, when we talk about whether this or that is in the spirit of Tolkien. We touch one aspect of his life, and are convinced that this is where his spirit came from. Then again, another may claim that another aspect is which drove him to write. We can argue and argue until we go insane, and never agree. But then again, I must ask, since I don't see it myself, why you () try to write in the spirit of Tolkien? Can't we just leave Tolkien's spirit alone? (I've also said something about this in my previous post, heh..)

I don't think we need one to tell us what is right and what is wrong when it comes to Tolkien's spirit and his perspective on things. I think we just have to be aware that we are fully responsible for the posts we make, and therefore since our RPGs (meaning among them, at this site,) are based on Tolkien's world and his works, we must follow the rules, which apply to the site. I cannot recall anything saying that we should write in the spirit of Tolkien. It should be consistent to his world, yes, but his spirit is not mentioned. If making canon/canonical/canon friendly texts (which I don't believe in the least is possible, bwahahah), of course Tolkien's spirit should be one of the writer's concerns. However, as previously stated in previous post, we can try to imitate, we can try to make a potions that will give us full insight about everything and we can even convince ourselves that we are making a canonical text, but none of us are truly following the spirit of Tolkien, because none of us have the answer, or rather; none of us can define what lays within the word spirit, and definitely not what lays within the spirit of Tolkien.

Nova

EDIT: Cross-posted with Bêthberry

[HerenIstarion]

Ahem...

I hope I won't summon the wrath of the Valar upon my head by reviving this, but upon rereading exerpts of this mightily long thread, I have found something which evaded my attention in the heat of the debate at the time of its posting:

post #309

Originally Posted by SpM

Oh, and yes, H-I, I believe that moral “truths” do “lie in numbers” in the sense that I believe that the basic framework of human morality is a consequence of the social evolution of man: the survival of the most socially effective morals.

I suppose I can relate it to the Canonicity issue - the statement imaybe right or wrong, but that may depend on redears interpretation? Not to stray off Tolkien either, let us consider Aragorn in the light of the statement above:

Aragorn:

'I am Aragorn son of Arathorn; and if by life or death I can save you, I will

This is the instant of the behavior least fitting for the social survival. If Aragorn dies, there is no talk about anything socially effective - his line will end with him, so the Rangers of the North will dwindle and perish. Is his behavior in this instant moral? It is. Socially effective? Well, one may argue that in this particular case, Frodo is the only hope, so the hope of survival for Aragorn and his socium lies in Frodo. (seems I'm talking to myself. Bad example, than)

Let us move on.
m-m-m... Legolas for one?... no... Gimli? neither... ah, I know, I know, that should be Faramir! Not that good upon second thought, it seems...

Well, I can't move on. All of the characters which with Tolkien act upon their moral, do so for their own good and the good of society

But, in this, it seems to me that ME is a bit of an ideal world.

In general, down here our road, self-sacrifice, which is usually considered as a moral act, is not socially effective. Reason: self-sacrifice is allegedly the feat the best [wo]men are capable of - the most brave, loving, wise etc. Logic: if the best act morally, they, eventually, die out. The rest is less good. So, the society which one is left with consists of worse members than original one. Logic: such a society is less, not more good than the original one. Question: where is social efficiency of moral?

Or, now we know where ancestor worship comes from

[davem]

H-I
A big question, which I will have to consider - though I suspect the reason you've brought it up here rather than start a new thread is that you refuse to let this one die! I know this is the Barrow Downs, but not everything is meant to live forever!

I begin to feel it necessary to take action re this thread!


'Ho! Tom bombadil, Tom Bombadillo!
By water.......

[mark12_30]

Careful, davem, you'll evaporate us all!!!!!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

A very interesting question with which to resurrect the thread, H-I – but one that may need a bit of tweaking.

The question as you phrase it would seem to be a bit of a big baggy monster about morality and society in the primary world: a worthy question, but not really in the spirit on the original thread. If I might be allowed to rephrase it, and then take a running start at an answer…

Going back to SaucepanMan’s point:

that moral “truths” do “lie in numbers”

I wonder how applicable this can be to whatever “truths” we discover in a text like LotR? That is, if a hundred people think that Aragorn’s statement that he will help the hobbits is the expression of selfless sacrifice (“I will give up my aspirations for the good of Middle-Earth”) and fifty think that it is enlightened self-interest (“I will help you because it is convenient since my own Road lies that way”) then is the first interpretation more right than the other? What if the ratio changes and there’s a thousand people who support one interpretation and ten who support another? A million against one?

Most of us, I am sure, would want to say that of course interpretation is not a matter of sheer numbers – this is not a democracy! But surely to goodness there is some truth in what SpM is saying when we look at it in terms of interpretation. I mean, there is no way to prove finally that the Ring is not an allegory for the Atomic Bomb, but few people hold to that interpretation any more because majority opinion has swung against it.

And to fully return to the topic of this thread: if there is a democratic aspect to this, does the author get just one vote or more? To adopt (rather inappropriately, I admit) a different metaphor, if the readers and the writer are shareholders in the meaning of a text, does the author have a controlling share or is he just one more shareholder among many?

[davem]

This is the central argument - can we divorce Tolkien's intent from the way we read his work - or perhaps we should start with 'Did he have any intent?' The Foreword to the second edition is self contradictory in a way - he claims there is no allegory, & the reader is free to apply the story in any way they please, then he immediately refutes what was probably the most obvious 'application' for readers at that time, that to WW2, by showing that anyone who did apply it in that way would be completely ignorant.

This seems to be drawing together a number of current threads - 'Reality', The Nazi's, Partners & The Soddit, etc. To what extent are we free to interpret & apply, if the author has refused to do that himself, & has given us express permission to do so - we may interpret & apply as we wish if the author will not do that for us. Yet we mustn't contradict explicit statements of the author -

'Marriage, save for rare ill chances or strange fates, was the natural course of life for all the Eldar', Marriage is chiefly of the body, for it is achieved by bodily union, [i]& its first operation is the begetting of the bodies of children...And the union of bodies in marriage is unique, & no other union resembles it' & 'Seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust amongst them'. (Laws & Customs Among the Eldar)

This clearly states that sex outside marriage, 'lustful' relationships, sexual relationships for any purpose other than a loving union which is intended to produce offspring, is not consistent with 'Canon', so pornographic fanfic, whether 'slash' or not, is not acceptable - less for 'moral' reasons, as because it goes expressly against Tolkien's statements on the nature of the elves - it would be as 'wrong' (ie incorrect) as 6 foot hobbits, or non imortal elves, or lazy dwarves with a fear of being underground.

So, to Aragorn; I think we have to dismiss the 'enlightened self interest' explanation for his actions, in that that goes totally against his character, as shown in numerous other examples where he goes out of his way to help others & often lays his life on the line for them when he doesn't have to. We aren't free to interpret this incident at Bree in a way that is in contradiction to his other actions later in the story. Aragorn is a particular type of person, & he behaves in a particular way.

So, for a story or interpretation to be in line with canon, it must not contradict either clear statements of the author about his world or its inhabitants, or interpret certain actions of a character in a way that isn't consistent with what we know of them. Frodo, for example, is clearly & obviously celebate - & not for reasons of 'Victorian morality' - celebacy is part of his nature, a manifestation of his spiritual nature & one of the reasons for his isolation at the end of the story - so a Frodo/Sam slash fanfic is simply incorrect, because he wouldn't respond in a sexual way to anyone, male or female - he is on a different path.

In short, whatever place 'democracy' may have in interpretations of Tolkien's writings, it cannot go against the given 'laws' of the world he created.

[HerenIstarion]

I knew two ants to come out first would be winding davem and hedged fordim...

Well, the real start of the morality issue was when we talked about Truth/truth back on page 7 and 8 of current thread.

The argument presented by SpM was that every [wo]man may have his personal moral and personal truth, which was responded by yours truly with a question should a murderer still be accused on moral grounds if the murder s/he committed have been approved of by his/her personal 'truth' and moral code. The morality in numbers issue came as the answer to that.

Back to matters at hand:

Authorship/Readership and shareholding - an analogy, a bit one-sided, but still valid, may be applied to LoTR and my statement on page 6 [without God there is no understanding of LoTR – i.e. suppose someone read only LoTR and haven’t heard of Eru]. Let me explain myself:

There may be two assumptions about moral, or Moral Law:

1. Moral Law as directly implemented by Eru
2. Moral Law as the product of social evolution.

In case one, there can be no place for calculation/weighting - if action A, than consequence B, which is good for society, therefore A is morally good. Case 2 allows such calculations. In LoTR, calculations are somehow out of place - characters merely act because 'thus shall I sleep better', (I have had my example, btw, I wanted to see your reaction first - I've quoted Theoden here, whose decision to take part in the war is mostly socially inefficient - he probably risks the very existence of the whole of the society he's in charge of).

That in the end morally good actions bring about good of society, is expression of Tolkien's sense of justice, or so it seems

Or, back to shareholders analogy – if the Moral Law is a company created by Eru, than He has the casting vote of what is moral and what is not, no democracy. If, on the other hand, Moral Law is the product of social development, than my previous post shows that the actions evaluated as most moral are least socially efficient. But moral democracy is dangerous – yes, question of ‘why should I do this’ can be answered with ‘because this is good for society’, but following question of ‘why should I prefer good of society over my personal good’ can not be answered by means of moral democracy. The logical chain may be than extended to state that any moral is good in itself – brings us to ‘bag-end’ (i.e. cul-de-sac) – murderer may be in his/her right, as his actions were in accordance with his/her personal moral.

If the option two – moral democracy - be right, than Aragorn, Theoden etc act senseless in the book, and Jackson’s Aragorn is more true than one of the book – his choice is determined by ‘democracy’ – he’s nagged by Arwen, Elrond brings him his sword, he’s constantly pushed on by ‘public opinion’, ‘moral of numbers’. If not that stimuli, he may have even fallen for Eowyn, one can’t help wondering. Jackson’s Theoden is even better expression of democracy moral – ‘Where have been Gondor when Rohan needed help’, instead of book’s ‘we will fulfill our oath of allegeance, whatever befell us’

But why opinion of two should be preferred over opinion of one? Can someone convince me that taller people are better than shorter ones, or vice versa?

Back to Canonicity: My intended answer was posted for me by davem already :

So, for a story or interpretation to be in line with canon, it must not contradict either clear statements of the author about his world or its inhabitants, or interpret certain actions of a character in a way that isn't consistent with what we know of them

End of democracy, long live the King (m-m, constitutional monarchy?)

[Aiwendil]

Fordim wrote:

I mean, there is no way to prove finally that the Ring is not an allegory for the Atomic Bomb, but few people hold to that interpretation any more because majority opinion has swung against it.

We must be very careful with definitions. What does it mean to say that "the Ring is an allegory for the atomic bomb?" If "allegory" means what it usually means, then the claim is equivalent to "when Tolkien wrote 'Ring' he meant, instead of or in addition to the fictional Ring, the atomic bomb." And we know that this claim is false for the simple reason that Tolkien said it was false. Short of claiming that he was lying, we cannot entertain the possibility that "the Ring is an allegory for the atomic bomb" is true. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a majority of people disagreeing with the claim.

But you see, that particular point depends upon the specific meaning of the word "allegory" - a word that by definition has to do with the author's intent. We ought not to be surprised that when we ask a question about the author's intent, our answer will depend critically upon the author's intent! Nor can we then infer that all matters of interpretation and "canon" depend critically on the author's intent. The inference is invalid because the case from which we would infer is peculiar.

davem wrote:

The Foreword to the second edition is self contradictory in a way - he claims there is no allegory, & the reader is free to apply the story in any way they please, then he immediately refutes what was probably the most obvious 'application' for readers at that time, that to WW2, by showing that anyone who did apply it in that way would be completely ignorant.

I don't see a contradiction here. He does not say that the reader is free to interpret the story in any way he or she chooses. He does say that there is no allegory. But "no allegory" does not mean that all interpretations by all readers are valid. Again, allegory has a very specific meaning. When he says that there is no allegory, he means that this is not the kind of book that is merely code for a message; it's not the kind of book where when he writes X,Y,Z he means A,B,C; it's not the kind of book that is, primarily or exclusively, about World War II or about atomic power or about anything other than the story itself.

That certainly does not leave us with the total freedom of the reader. The reader can indeed "apply" the story to real life, but there is no assurance that every application will be valid. And of course a reader still cannot "interpret" the book in a way that is directly contradicted by the text itself.

As you say, "lustful" relationships cannot be "canon"; they contradict a statement in one of the texts. Nor can Aragorn be considered to act in self-interest, because that contradicts a whole complex system of statements in the texts.

What I think is all too often forgotten in this debate, which has in large part come down to Author vs. Reader, is the Text itself. There are severe problems with saying either that the author is the final arbiter of interpretation, or that the reader is. I say that it is in the text that whatever truths there are about interpretation must lie. This view does everything it ought to do - it eliminates the problem that we can never really know the precise contents of the author's mind, but it does not make "interpretations" that are simply incorrect valid.

HerenIstarion:

You describe well the two opposing assumptions concerning morality. But, as Fordim points out, we must either talk about the real world or about Middle-earth; we cannot mix and match freely.

In Middle-earth there is no question. Option 1 is simply right and option 2 is simply wrong. This is because the texts can only be read consistently with option 1 as an assumption, not with option 2. That has nothing to do with the validity of either assumption in the real world - as I recall (and I may be wrong; it was a while ago) The Saucepan Man's original point related to the real world.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

as I recall (and I may be wrong; it was a while ago) The Saucepan Man's original point related to the real world.

Touché

I'm an intriguer, which I admit freely ,

Being an intriquer, I can not help twisting and slithering a bit before ackowledging defeat - pages 4 and 5, or maybe 5 and 6, those even more lost in the famous Mists of Time, deal with some 'Shop on the borders of Fairyland'. If there be such a shop, and it be seen by Tolkien who told us about it, than moral issue would be applicable to it as well?

Besides, relating it to Canonicity issue, if such an assumption (option 1 in origin of Moral Law) were imperative for the Author, and he made it explicit in his letters...

Ok, ok, don't pay heed...

PS 'Morals and real life' moves on to PM, or so I assume. My inbox is open

[Bêthberry]

Well, HeronIstarion, here is another ent lumbering up the long and winding davem to the forded hedge, to get A-windil of the discussion. Just think--or not--of the lines possible with my nick.

Actually, I would refute davem's claim that 'lustful' relationships are non-canonical. Let's look again at what he posted:

'Marriage, save for rare ill chances or strange fates, was the natural course of life for all the Eldar', Marriage is chiefly of the body, for it is achieved by bodily union, & its first operation is the begetting of the bodies of children...And the union of bodies in marriage is unique, & no other union resembles it' & 'Seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust amongst them'. (Laws & Customs Among the Eldar)

This reads Seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust amongst them. 'Seldom' does not mean 'never' and the restriction refers to tales, not the behaviour itself. The gist of the sentence is that tales are not told about it, not that it never occurs. Silence on a subject does not mean the subject ceases to exist or never exists. As we all know from the revelations of the twentieth century, child abuse exists even when codes of silence surround it. Rape exists even when shame forces victims and families to maintain a code of silence which amounts to denial--a hypocrisy some might say.

How and why did this change of perception, this sudden 'seeing', happen in real life in the Twentieth Century? And the seeing involves much more than just child abuse or rape or genocide (The Jews in WWII, the Blacks in the Congo, the Amerinds in North America, the witches in late medieval Europe, the gypsies in Europe also, to name just a few). The 'seeing' is a recognition that outside the histories we receive are the lives of "others" who have been pushed to the peripheries. How and why does this new vision come about? What is the creative process whereby people can look at history (and texts) and see for the first time?

I would agree with Aiwendil that the text's the thing wherein we may catch the conscious of interpreting. But rather than focus exclusively on a static text, I would prefer to think of reading as a process or interplay, an active act of the mind in communication with words on the page. Interpretation engages the imagination and there, through some strange alchemy, new vision appears. This was, for me, the great tragedy of the elves. They looked back stagnantly and nostalgically rather than imaginatively.

Let me turn this away from referring to the historical world, our world, in order to forestall any of this strain which says that Middle-earth is entirely self-referential. (I don't buy that argument--since Fordim has suggested we bring in the vocabulary of the marketplace--but for now I will simply sidestep it for my main interest here.)

When Tolkien read texts, what was it that simmered in that cauldron of his mind, to create his inspired readings? What was it that enabled him to see the literary and narrative value of dragons and story in Beowulf when others around him saw in the text only an ancient language to be retrived labouriously by conning grammars and lexicons? What was it that gave him his insight in The Battle of Maldon which led to his essay on chivalry and The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son? We can see now in these early texts what others could not because of Tolkien's vision. How does this happen?

And if Tolkien could do it, why must we deny the possibility that others may do it for his texts?

(Note, I am not saying that we must allow slash fanfics in our RPGs here, for I accept the right of interpretive communities to set their own guidelines. Well, here they were first carved in internet stone by the Barrow Wight, but they have since been discussed, debated, explored and largely reaffirmed more fully by the community. This is what, after all, a discussion board is for.)

What I am asking here, in this dancing on the head of the pin called the Canonicity rag, is how to account for new interpretations. And how to 'authorise' them.

How and where and when do we see newly and how do we determine which new visions to accept? Unless our discussion can account for Tolkien finding new visions in his reading--I will go even further--unless we can account for how Child produced that brilliant reading of history in "A Knife in the Dark" and how we have come to acknowledge her vision--we limit, proscribe, restrict our minds. Somewhere in this author--text--reader triad we have to account for imagination.

Yours not-Lothlorienly,
Bethberry

[mark12_30]

Bb wrote:

This reads Seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust amongst them. 'Seldom' does not mean 'never' and the restriction refers to tales, not the behaviour itself. The gist of the sentence is that tales are not told about it, not that it never occurs.

Logical as it stands; however, davem's quote is also limited. Naturally, I am away from my books (see corresponding thread) but Tolkien states that elves are different than men in this manner before he states that 'seldom is any tale told.'

Here's a snippet:

but the right of revoking (a betrothal) was seldom used, for the Eldar do not err lightly in such choice. They are not easily deceived by their own kind; and their spirits being masters of their bodies, they are seldom swayed by the desires of the body only, but are by nature continent and steadfast.

(Aside, IMO: Generally speaking, the shorter a species' lifespan, the higher the reproductive drive; it stands to reason therefore that elves would not have a major issue with it.)

Edit: Michael maritinez includes the full quote here , page 85.

[davem]

This essay is also interesting:
http://www.ansereg.com/what_tolkien_...y_said_abo.htm

[Bêthberry]

(Aside, IMO: Generally speaking, the shorter a species' lifespan, the higher the reproductive drive; it stands to reason therefore that elves would not have a major issue with it.)

Hmm, interesting, Helen. In the last five hundred years, the average lifespan of our species has increased roughly 50%. Men now live an average 75 years (in North America) compared with something like 40 to 50 years in medieval times. Does that mean mankind's reproductive drive is decreasing or is this too short a span for evolutionary developments to occur? (I believe one of the main reasons for that statistical increase is the great achievements in wiping out high infant mortality rates.)

Thank you both Helen and davem for those links. When I first arrived at the Downs, Mithadan warned me about Martinez's--how shall I say this--lack of reliability. I never got him to elaborate though--mea culpa. However, I don't think even the entire passage obviates my point. It simply suggests how Tolkien worked to increase the level of idealisation in his portrayal of the elves.

I enjoyed that other link very much. What is does well is point out the inconsistencies within Tolkien's statements as he worked through his ideas. I think Aiwendil has earlier on this thread pointed out the problems with automatically assuming that the best strategy is to accept the last known statement of an author as canonical. And certainly we are still left with hints and instances of violence and agression.

However, and this is a very big however, I used davem's quotation as a rhetorical device to enter into discussion of how to account for change in interpretations, how to account for creativity, originality, new vision. How did Tolkien see in those texts what others before and around him had not? How did Child see those historical links? How are we all coming to see how the creation of Aragorn helped create LotR and not simply a sequel to TH?

In any discussion of Canonicity, I think it is imperative to account for the psychological processes of reading newly. To say categorically either Authorial Intent, or Text, or Reader is to overlook the imaginative act of negotiating our interaction with language which we call reading. Is reading merely archival or creative?