‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I suppose this simply rephrases the question of whether there is some underlying objective 'reality' - because otherwise we would simply accept everything Tolkien wrote as 'fact' - why is it that some statements by Tolkien would feel 'wrong'? That would imply that some statements are 'right', & that even Tolkien could be wrong in the facts he stated about Middle earth. What strikes me most strongly is this sense that on some level we feel we can judge even Tolkien to have got things 'wrong' - even Aiwendil & I agree that some of the later writings (Myths Transformed) where Tolkien rewrites the cosmology, are 'mistakes' - they don't work - as CT himself more or less admits. Why this general agreement on where Tolkien got it right & where he got it wrong?

I agree that my question touches on the issues that you have been exploring, davem, for the reasons that you have stated. Although the "objective reality" theory does not provide the only answer. It could simply be that, having inwardly digested Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, we have become conditioned to his style and to the "atmosphere" (for want of a better word) of the world that he (sub) created and that we are therefore able, almost instinctively, to recognise what fits within that style and that world and what doesn't.

And it's also worth bearing in mind that there are areas where we, as individuals, will disagree on what fits and what doesn't. It is clear from discussions on this board that we will have different views on certain issues which will be incapable of being proved objectively as "right" or "wrong" by reference to Tolkien's works. The issue of homosexuality is one such issue. I personally see no reason why homosexual characters should not exist within Middle-earth, indeed it would seem strange to me if they didn't. And yet others see no place whatsoever for same sex relationships in Middle-earth. Similarly, when I raised the Gollum example above on another thread some time ago, there were those who posted to the effect that Tolkien's speculation on this point worked for them. And there are no doubt those who will happily accept Tolkien's re-writing of Middle-earth cosmology which you and Aiwendil find objection with. These individual variations in what fits in Middle-earth and what doesn't would seem to mitigate against the "objective reality" theory.

And yet, viewed at from the angle at which I have re-phrased the issue, I can see merit in the theory. There is, to use an oxymoron, a "fictional reality" upon which most, if not all, of us can agree, comprising the body of unpublished material which does not conflict with, or which can at least be reconciled with, the published works. It may even go further than that to encompass fan fiction writings (such as Mithadan's Tales of Tol Eressea, which seem to have met with almost universal acceptance) and individual theories on Middle-earth facts and events. Since this material is "unpublished" (in the sense that I am using the word) and, in the case of "universally acceptable" fan fiction etc, does not even flow from Tolkien himself, there is no reason why we should accept it as forming part of our image of Middle-earth almost without question. And yet we do. Why would this be if it were not in some sense real to us, even if it is a "fictional reality"? Hmm, I need to ponder this further ...