‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Aiwendil]

Well, my computer just ate the post I had spent long minutes crafting, just as I was about to hit "submit reply". So, as it's getting late now, I'll reconstruct only a few brief replies to some of Davem's points.

Davem wrote:

But then why would you not accept it outside Middle earth? What I mean is, why would you consider it invalid in the context of this world?

I hold certain opinions about the world, because having weighed the evidence I think that those opinions are the most rationally justified. If Tolkien were to present me with a convincing argument, I would alter my views accordingly. But the mere fact that he held certain opinions does not mean that I should hold the same.

Is it that while 'in' Middle earth you 'force' yourself to think in a way that is naturally alien to you, or that is in conflict with the way you normally see things?

This exaggerates the matter. It is no more difficult to "suspend moral disbelief" than it is to suspend literal disbelief. I don't have to pause before I read Tolkien and say to myself, "Okay, now in this world Elves and dragons are real". And my view of things is not really so radically different from Tolkien's. It's not as though in real life I would consider someone like Saruman good and someone like Aragorn evil.

Tolkien's position is that that approach is invalid

I don't think that Tolkien thought that all readers must agree exactly with his moral code, or else their reading is "invalid". If he did in fact believe this, then I disagree with him.

I think if we are to engage with an artist [...]

This makes me think that perhaps we're just going in circles around the impasse I identified a short while back. I don't know exactly what it might mean "to engage with an artist" but I have the feeling that it isn't what I intend to do when I read a piece of literature.

Now, I say that not as a Christian, because I don't think its necessary to be a Christian to orientate oneself into Middle earth. I don't think the moral value system is specifically Christian

Maybe it's not specifically Christian, but it is fundamentally and undeniably theistic. And I am not a theist. To a very large extent, my disagreement with Tolkien does come down to a matter of religion.

By the way, H-I, I almost missed it when you said:

but the 'meaning of meaning' discussion on the last page was enlightening, thank you

I'm shocked and delighted that you actually sat through a page or so of that debate! The metaphysics of meaning is probably my favorite subject in philosophy - in fact it may be my favorite subject of all. I hesitate to get into it on this thread for that very reason - and because I think that in the end it doesn't have much to do with canonicity.

[Lyta_Underhill]

I believe we all met such a choice of 'trust/distrust' in real life, the bright mail underneath omitted. But than, it is Tolkien to let us see some ends, for Eomer on the 'green grass' there is no previously provided data. Bright mail, so what? One can be bought, stolen, faked, surely?

Certainly, in this world of con artists and cult leaders, a true and pure leader like Aragorn is a dream of hope long given up to a cynical caricature. As a matter of fact, I imagine that, if Aragorn were to pursue his heritage in the modern Seventh Age Earth, he would be beset by both the lawful and lawless, avoided by mothers everywhere who didn't want their kids following some ragged fool on something as ominous as the "Paths of the Dead," whether or not he said it was their own choice or not!

Yes, I can see how the "real world" and Middle Earth diverge in this way. If Aragorn popped up in the modern world, he would be a true anachronism. But there are Aragorns in this world; they just don't have as clear a path. I'd love to see someone write a fanfiction about Aragorn trying to fulfill his destiny in modern London...leading the Corsair ships up the Thames...oh, watch out for that barge! *SMASH!*

Anyway, it is a pleasure to read the peregrinations of this thread through truths, perceptions, meanings, etc. and realize just how many divergent and nearly convergent viewpoints there really are!

Some 'voice' is speaking to us, & telling us things we need to hear, telling us what's wrong with ourselves & our world, & giving us a glimpse of 'Arda Unmarred'.
And I don't think that voice is Tolkien's, I think he's just passing on the words.

I do get this impression, most strongly, strangely enough, from the Lost Tales, which I have just found. The rudimentary construction of what would be pieced together later and finally set down for all time by Christopher Tolkien in The Silmarillion hint at the lights as Tolkien saw them, the truths and fancies that drove him in his sub-creative fervor. He seemed more to be chasing fairy lights than moral absolutes. In a strange way, it seems to point to the path as being never-ending, perhaps not the back and forth of davem's Key of the Kingdom, or a convergence toward a single truth, but perhaps a path with a transcendant ending, or no ending, the Straight Path which none can pinpoint unless it be shown to them in a moment of revelation. The confusions and "splintering" of the modern world is something that is gladly thrown off by many who read Tolkien's tales, and indeed, as Aiwendil pointed out, it would be confusing to take a modern world view into this second reality and apply comparisons; one could not enjoy the tale for all the interference.

This is because I am a 'mere' reader. Tolkien's concept is his vision, and while I am utterly trapped within his world, and have been for most of my life, there's a small metaphorical hole in the ozone layer of that world, which shifts about.

That is an interesting way to describe it, Lalwende. Perhaps close to the applicability with age and experience idea you mentioned earlier with your new understanding of Frodo's suffering after your own accident. In a way, this applicability gives us a glimpse into the "other world," not only Middle Earth, but perhaps beyond, to Faerie, the source of it all, the light behind all things. In this way, Tolkien's Arda is a true reflection of a greater world than this one, one that can be communicated through text, but which become richer once applied to the reader and perhaps correlated to the author as well. (I think this concept is one reason autobiographies are so popular.)

Well, it is late, and I got myself in over my head by daring to post again in this thread...it is all HI's fault, really!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Evisse the Blue]

Tolkien

Certainty you crave.
He gives you none. You live in
The web of his dreams.

I wonder how many of you are going to slap their foreheads to see this topic bumped to the top again...this mental image alone was worth this post

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Bwa hahahahahaha haaaaaaaaaaaaa

Another fly caught in my sinister web of dark peril. Another fresh and innocent soul to be taken and corrupted by the shadowy thread into which many have ventured, and from which none have returned unchanged. . .or unscathed. . .

And again I say:

Bwa hahahahahaha haaaaaaaaaaaaa

Postscript: Whaddya mean his "dreams" anyway -- don't you know that the legendarium is historical/canonical and thus verifiably and objectifiably True? Unless of course it isn't. . . Or maybe, then again, it could be, but not in and of itself, but in the performance of the reader's interpretative act. . .but then what is this reader person anyway, and who is she/he to constitute something as true. . .if she/he is constituting it as true. . .I mean, how can we even do that when we don't know what belongs in the legendarium. . .sure the books published in Tolkien's lifetime belong. . .oh, and the Sil. . .but not fan-fiction. . .well, maybe fan-fiction. . .and that Sil, now that I think of it, has all kinds of problems, perhaps there's another more authoritative text out there being built. . .but surely it can't be more authoritative than the HoME. . .if you believe in that sort of thing. . .which I don't. . .I don't think. . .I guess. . .

[The Saucepan Man]

Whaddya mean his "dreams" anyway -- don't you know that the legendarium is historical/canonical and thus verifiably and objectifiably True? Unless of course it isn't. . . Or maybe, then again, it could be, but not in and of itself, but in the performance of the reader's interpretative act. . .but then what is this reader person anyway, and who is she/he to constitute something as true. . .if she/he is constituting it as true. . .I mean, how can we even do that when we don't know what belongs in the legendarium. . .sure the books published in Tolkien's lifetime belong. . .oh, and the Sil. . .but not fan-fiction. . .well, maybe fan-fiction. . .and that Sil, now that I think of it, has all kinds of problems, perhaps there's another more authoritative text out there being built. . .but surely it can't be more authoritative than the HoME. . .if you believe in that sort of thing. . .which I don't. . .I don't think. . .I guess. . .

This message is brought to you by the Reduced Canonicity Thread Company c/o Hedgethistle, Prof. F, CyD*
_______________________________
*Doctor of Canonicity

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Well, Fordim, after that wonderfully succinct summary, what more could anyone possibly have to say on this subject? (Knowing the kind of discussion this has been, lots and lots, I'm afraid... *sigh*)

[davem]

Has anyone got the new 50th Anniversary LotR yet - it was supposed to be published last Monday. I'm really intrigued as to whether CRRT has put in the changes he says should have been made in the text. He has supervised the new edition. I know I've speculated on this before, but what if he has - would the new edition - with, say, the extra verses of Bilbo's song of Earendel - be 'canonicl', would it have an equal or lesser place alongside the editions published in Tolkien's lifetime?
Anyway, I have the volume on order, so I'll comment more when I see it.