‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

So, in a sense, there is no 'canon', in the sense of a coherent, self consistent sub created world.

Yes - this is where many discussions of "canon" are, I think, misguided. For, as I tried to say long ago in the early pages of the thread, you cannot simply ask "what are the facts about Middle-earth?" Middle-earth is fictional. There is no real world to which the texts refer, and with reference to which propositions may be true or false. One can only have a discussion about the "true story" of Middle-earth if one first decides upon certain principles by which to select which statements to take as fact and which not to.

So when you ask:

So, do we have to accept all statements of 'fact' that Tolkien made as equally valid? Surely the facts of geography are unquestionable? But he changed certain geographical 'facts' over the course of his writings. Or 'facts' about the nature of his races - they changed. Or 'facts' about particular characters- again, same thing. Simply, he never stopped creating & changing the 'facts' about Middle earth, & if he'd lived he would have carried on doing that.

. . . the problem is that "accept" is not defined. What does it mean to "accept" a fact about Middle-earth? Accept that this particular text contains this particular statement? There is certainly no problem with this. Accept that some fact is true about Middle-earth? That's nonsense - there is no Middle-earth. There are only texts.

HerenIstarion wrote:

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...

Which it certainly is. And indeed that means that when we discuss Middle-earth, we must accept, within the fictional world, that option 1 is true. Our opinions about that assumption in the real world ought to have nothing to do with our opinions about the same in Middle-earth (unless we find option 1 so glaringly self-inconsistent that we cannot even suspend disbelief and accept it in Arda).

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

What does it mean to "accept" a fact about Middle-earth? Accept that this particular text contains this particular statement? There is certainly no problem with this. Accept that some fact is true about Middle-earth? That's nonsense - there is no Middle-earth. There are only texts.

Yes, but the texts refer to something beyond themselves, so to what extent do they refer to the same thing- or do they all refer to different, but similar 'Middle earths'. This was my point way back, when I questioned the approach of taking parts of The Fall of Gondolin & combining them with parts of Tuor to create a new 'complete' account. This brings in the question of the author's intent at the time of writing. If there are only texts then Middle earth is merely an expression of of the artist's desire(s) at the time he wrote, & any internal consistency of the world they refer to is secondary - yet isn't this the very thing Tolkien struggled so long & hard to achieve?

'Accept that some fact is true about Middle-earth? That's nonsense - there is no Middle-earth. There are only texts'

This I would argue with - of course, I can't give a precise definition of Middle earth, & I don't think Tolkien could have either, but Middle earth is 'real' to many of us, because Middle earth exists for us beyond the texts - the very fact that people can write fanfics about ME, or speculate on the character's motives shows that in some sense Middle earth has a kind of objective existence for readers. The texts are the way we're introduced to Middle earth, our way into that world, & Tolkien clearly understood that, or he wouldn't have speculated on other's adding to that world.

The texts, illustrations, movies (for some), even the philosophical & religious speculation all 'constellate' around, or grow out of the 'thing' (whatever it really is) that we understand as Middle earth. The texts themselves are just that - they're written as accounts by observers, or redactions by later writers from earlier texts, each one referring back to a time/place/event which we, the readers of those texts, can never experience directly. In other words, Tolkien is recounting to us 'old tales of long ago'. So, the texts are not Middle earth, they are about Middle earth - they refer to something which exists beyond themselves.

[tar-ancalime]

davem said:

The texts themselves are just that - they're written as accounts by observers, or redactions by later writers from earlier texts, each one referring back to a time/place/event which we, the readers of those texts, can never experience directly. In other words, Tolkien is recounting to us 'old tales of long ago'.

and also:

So, do we have to accept all statements of 'fact' that Tolkien made as equally valid? Surely the facts of geography are unquestionable? But he changed certain geographical 'facts' over the course of his writings. Or 'facts' about the nature of his races - they changed. Or 'facts' about particular characters- again, same thing. Simply, he never stopped creating & changing the 'facts' about Middle earth, & if he'd lived he would have carried on doing that.

So what are we left with - talk about 'a fox that isn't there' - the more precisely you try to define 'canon' - either in terms of the facts of the world, or the writer's moral position, the more confused you become, & the less unquestionable 'facts' you find yourself with.

To me, this is the real crux of the matter--the fact that the "facts" continually change is what makes Middle-Earth seem so real. Reading about it is exciting because it is just like historical research: the accounts conflict. Places are described in one way in one source and in another way in another source. This is the ideal situation for what Tolkien was doing--presenting accounts by observers or later historians. I think it's vastly more appropriate that the accounts should not always line up.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

Yes, but the texts refer to something beyond themselves

Do they really? In the philosophy of meaning there are two major schools of thought - the correspondence theory of truth, which holds that propositions "refer" to real things and their truth-value depends upon the state of the real things, and the coherence theory of truth, which holds that a proposition's truth-value depends on its logical consistency with a set of other true propositions.

Now, I don't mean to get into a debate on meaning. But I think that, whichever of the two views one holds in general, one must view the statements in a work of fiction, especially in one so convoluted and self-contradictory as the Silmarillion, with a coherence theory in mind. For the statements in the texts cannot possibly refer to real things; Middle-earth is fictional. But if they don't, in the most literal sense, refer to things, then what do they refer to? Perhaps, one might say, they refer to imaginary things - that is, to things in the minds of various people. But of course, different people will imagine things differently; and it is strange in the extreme to say that Tolkien was in fact really writing about the neurons in my brain.

I think that the text does not refer to imaginary things. Rather the opposite. The text does not refer to anything except itself. It is we that refer to it when we imagine Middle-earth. Out of the mish-mash of texts and notes we can find vast networks of statements that cohere well, and from these we can formulate an imaginary world. Of course, there are different ways of choosing the set of coherent statements.

We imagine Middle-earth. That is what allows it to exist beyond the text; that is what allows fan fiction; that is what allows us to speculate on matters not discussed by Tolkien. But all of this begins with the text. And if two people, with their different minds and different images, are going to discuss "canon", then the place to which they must look is the text.

Whereas you say:

The texts, illustrations, movies (for some), even the philosophical & religious speculation all 'constellate' around, or grow out of the 'thing' (whatever it really is) that we understand as Middle earth.

I would say the opposite. The "thing" - the imaginary world - grows out of the texts, illustrations, etc.

[davem]

So, back to Faerie...

Our ancestors believed in Faerie, the Other World, Heaven, in short, in other dimensions of 'reality', beyond this one. Middle earth may be a secondary world, an imaginary dimension, yet it partakes of one of these 'dimensions' - Faerie. Now faerie was believed to be absolutley real, & still is by many people (just as Heaven is, though I'm not implying equality between the two). There are numerous works - Evans-Wentz's Fairy faith in Celtic Countries, Robert Kirk's Secret Commonwealth, etc.

Now, I know we've been here before, so I won't go over old ground, but merely make the point that simply because an 'imaginary' (fictional or one accessed through the imagination/second sight) has no basis in physical fact, that does not mean it does not 'exist', or have an internal 'reality'. The texts are our means of accessing that 'imaginative' dimension, & the 'fact' that we may each percieve that imaginative dimension slightly differently, does not in itself mean that we are not experiencing the same thing, anymore than the fact that I & someone who is colour blind don't see a red flower in exactly the same way means that we are looking at different flowers. We are see the same flower in different ways, & the flower has an objective existence.

Tolkien was writing about a 'place', a self consistent world, & it has an 'objective existence in the sense that even though each reader of the texts may not 'see' it in exactly the same way, they are all 'in' the same place, mentally, when they read it (ok, not 'all', in that some of them may find events which Tolkien presents as tragic as being hilariously funny, but I'm speaking about all those who respond 'normally' - as opposed to abnormally, not implying any 'moral' judgement - the death of a good person is tragic, etc)

What Tolkien does is to tap into archetypal situations & figures, & they have an 'objective' 'reality' in that they arise/exist in the collective rather than the personal unconcious. So, while Middle earth is 'fictional', & all we have 'physically' are the texts, the question arises as to the extent to which Tolkien is allowing us access to that 'objective' dimension (whether internal or external to the human mind). Middle earth or faerie is an objectively existing 'realm', internally consistent, & the inhabitants & places described by Tolkien are 'real' within that dimension. Tolkien gives individual forms & personalities to those things, but did they arise out of the 'archetypal' unconscious dimension, 'given' to him - as he seems to have believed, or did he consciously make use of archetypal/mythical images - which he didn't believe he was doing?

If the images & stories did arise out of the mythic imagination, & he didn't invent them consciously, then they have their origin in the objective psyche, & so have an objective origin & existence, & that is perhaps the reason why they strike us as 'real', & why Middle earth may be the particular experience of Tolkien, (but it is an experience of an 'objective reality') which he passes on to us, but the 'real' Middle earth is just that - 'real'. So Canonicity would require faithfulness not just to the texts, but to what the texts arose out of & have their existence in.

So the question is about the extent to which Tolkien communicates his experience of that objective reality, & how close what he sets out for us in his writings is to that 'reality'.

Or in other words, how much are Tolkien's writings about Faerie in line with 'canon'? Is he simply making use of old ideas & beliefs, or is he attempting to recreate them, give them a new face, make them accessible, & this is all tied up with what he wanted to achieve. Why did he feel it was important to give England back its lost mythology - merely because he didn't like the idea that 'Johny Foreigner had something that dear old Blighty didn't have, or because he felt that a national mythology gave a people access to something ineffable, but at the same time something life giving. Form the TCBS' comments it would seem to be the latter.

Whether he succeeded or failed is down to the individual reader to answer, but his (original, at least) intent was to put us in touch with something that did have an objective 'reality'. The texts 'refer' us to that reality, or at least are attempts on Tolkien's part to open us up to the possibility of connecting with it.

[HerenIstarion]

Well, let me present you with several statements, which, alas, are not original, but the result of which I immensely enjoyed when expressed in literature, like to, say, Stanislav Lem's short stories (probable and improbable dragon (dragon was [im]probable, not hunt), hunt one was concerned with, but I do not remember the name right at the spot to refer you to)

Let us, in the light of recent developments, go, than:

Humanity is the part of the universe. Allegedly, it's mind/imagination can not reach outside the universe and imagine things which are from outside. Being the reverse of said, the following maxim states, that, therefore, human mind is capable of imagining what is in this universe. Following this crooked logic, one may argue, that, since it can imagine all things which are part of the universe and so exist, all things human mind can imagine may be parts of the universe and exist.

With which, let me take your leave

[davem]

It strikes me there may be an analogy with Atlantis. Originally we had Plato's Timaeus, which is the text that began the whole thing, yet that text sparked multiple searches for remains of the 'real' Atlantis - ie, it struck a chord in people, & they began a search for what the text 'referred' to. Its irrelevant whether Atlantis ever 'really' existed in this world, because something symbolised by the text was 'calling' to those who read it.