‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

All right, I swore that I would not post to this thread above once a day, but I simply cannot help myself. Saucepan Man you wrote:

A reader who enjoys it as a cracking good yarn, but without any inclination to explore further the world which Tolkien created, will not be bound by (and most likely will be unaware of) the author's intentions. Those who are interested in learning more about Tolkien and his works (such as most, I should think, who post here) will be more inclined to accept such meaning as Tolkien himself attributed to his works. (emphasis added by me, F.H.)

There is a wonderfully subtle shift in your language here that proves my point (ha!). At the beginning you say that the “unaware” reader is not “bound” by the author’s intention, implying that the relationship between reader and text is one of imprisonment or possibly possession. You then state that a reader who is “interested in learning” will be “inclined to accept” the author’s interpretation of the work (“the meaning…attributed” ). Both of these relationships are wonderfully evocative of the way that the Ring works on its ‘victims’.

If I may force the metaphor a bit: a reader like Gollum, wholly unaware of the power of the Ring – or, rather, wholly unaware of the intention of the Ring’s Maker – is easily captured and subdued by the Ring: “bound” to it. A more aware reader, one who is “interested in learning”, like Frodo (whose name, as I’m sure many already know, is Old Germanic for “wise by experience” ) is not so easily ensnared, and must therefore instead be lead by the magic/illusion/enchantment/power of the Ring to become “inclined to accept” it – or, rather, to accept the intention of the Ring’s Maker for the Ring (power/domination/self/evil).

The more I think about this, the more I think that this is an extremely fruitful way to regard the Ring: as itself a mirror of the text of Middle-Earth, of the subcreation that Tolkien undertook. The reader of Tolkien’s works is, in a sense, being subjected to enormous pressure by the power of the book(s) to “accept” their reality – to turn our back on what we ‘know’ (the Primary World, or, our own individual versions of it) and to embrace instead an illusion (the Secondary World). And this is a disturbing thing to happen. First, in our turn to the Secondary World, we are forced to become complicit in things that we are not perhaps particularly fond of (autocratic kings, rigid class distinctions, a fairly clear-cut hierarchy of racial superiority, inequal social relations between men and women, etc). Second, as soon as we submit to the power of the Secondary World we, in a sense, must give way to the power of that world’s maker: like all those who give in to the Ring, we have to allow someone else to become the arbiter of our “truth” – or, the definer of our desire.

Of course, there are huge differences between the Ring and Tolkien’s texts that I need not go into here (first and foremost being that the Ring’s creator wants to supplant Eru; the maker of Middle-Earth wants only to supplement the Primary Creator) – but the similarity of the relation (individual to Ring; reader to Middle-Earth) is quite striking.

(Or have I simply stayed up too late?)

[Child of the 7th Age]

Fordim,

My post addresses an earlier question you raised. The italics are my own....

This is, I would have thought, an issue which affects most (if not all of us) since most people's first experience of Tolkien's writings will be the Hobbit and LotR, and they will inevitably form their own impressions of the characters and events portrayed. As serious Tolkien enthusiasts, are we justified in clinging to those first impressions, even when they may be at variance with Tolkien's own views, as subsequently discovered? This is, I would have thought, an issue which affects most (if not all of us) since most people's first experience of Tolkien's writings will be the Hobbit and LotR, and they will inevitably form their own impressions of the characters and events portrayed. As serious Tolkien enthusiasts, are we justified in clinging to those first impressions, even when they may be at variance with Tolkien's own views, as subsequently discovered?

Live and learn....! I have been posting at the Downs for a number of years, yet not until I saw your paragraph did I suddenly realize that my initial exposure to Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit was probably quite different from that of most people here. Most newbies introduced to the writings are at least somewhat aware that there is a host of material out there that helps us to define 'canon': biographies of Tolkien, his published Letters, other writings such as the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, and the published interpretations put forward by a whole host of scholars. Whether or not they actually read these works or can define 'canon' in a technical sense, they at least know such studies exist. Morever, they're aware some interpretations are regarded as "correct" because that's what the Professor told us. You reference to Gollum and Providence is a case in point.

My own experience was very different. I first read the Hobbit in 1963; and LotR in 1965. At that time, there was virtually no supplementary material readily available to throw any light on Tolkien or his writings. There was very little discussion of the "rights or wrongs" of various interpretations, and certainly no internet boards. I did attend an early meeting or two of either Mythopoeia or the Tolkien Society (I don't remember which), but that was it. I remember sitting in my college dorm with Barbara Remington's hallucinogenic poster plastered on the wall discussing with my roomates how Tolkien loved trees and the land, and what it meant to say "Frodo Lives."

What does this have to do with your query? Only this....I did not have the intellectual framework or tools that are now available to all of us. In many ways, I was wholly ignorant! But what I did have was complete freedom to use my imagination and interpret the book any way I chose without anyone telling me I was wrong. A year or two later, when I was in college, I spent a considerable chunk of time in England as an au pair girl and also in Wales as a university student. I tramped around the countryside imagining hobbit holes in every other hillside and even studied Welsh. Yes, I had some very sound academic reasons but deep down I probably thought the language sounded a bit Elvish to my ear.

My exposure to Tolkien came through that creative process as much as anything else. It was a process rooted in imagination rather than in knowledge of text and canon, since the latter for the most part did not even exist yet.

As years rolled by, I was busy with my life, but I also picked up a Tolkien study to read here and there. Gradually, I learned more and more about what the Professor actually intended and also read some of his own works that were first published after his death or became more widely available at that time. I discovered some of my earlier guesses and interpretations had been right; others had been way off center. The real "shocker" came in the late seventies with the publication of the Silmarillion, the Letters, and Carpenter's biography, all in the space of two years. I remember my jaw dropping open in surprise when I realized that there was a whole Legendarium, thousands of years of history to back up those tantalizing references in LotR. I grinned with delight to realize that I had "gotten" Tolkien's interpretation of Frodo pretty much as he had wanted it, just by reading the book itself.

Yet, with all this learning, there was a price. I could no longer rove quite as freely with my imagination as before. It was clear that some interpretations were right and some were wrong. At heart, I did not question that: if Professor Tolkien said the ending was Providence, then it was Providence---not chance or jumping in.

And yet.....I will admit there were impressions I gleaned from my year of tramping around Britain and imagining hobbits in holes that I will never shake off. In my head, the Elves will forever speak a strictly Welsh derivative rather than a tongue influenced by Finnish. Parts of Middle-earth leapt straight out of the Middle Ages, even though I know intellectually that it isn't so. And I am totally convinced that the thatched roofed cottage I rented in the Midlands for a month was definitely modelled on Bag-end!

Perhaps this is a cop out, but I guess I have two answers. When I discuss topics on a public board, I will honestly try to stick to canon as closely as I can. What I see in my own head when I read the books may be a little different, but that's my private prerogative as a reader!

In regard to the related question of fanfiction and RPGs.... This is near and dear to me since I spend considerable time writing on this site. I actually think it's in this realm that I can again exercise that freewheeling imagination that so attracted me to Middle-earth way back when. Only hopefully now I have a bit more knowledge to fill in the holes. It really is a trade-off. I may accept the Professor's definitive word on Gollum's fate but if you read through the Silm, the LotR appendices, and UT, there are so many huge holes just inviting the reader to step inside and imagine what might have been.....

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Welcome to the discussion Child, nice to have you around it.

But there's one thing: the question you quote above and respond to (so eloquently and touchingly) was not posed by me, but by Saucepan Man.

I don't have time to respond at length but I would like to raise one point: you write

It was clear that some interpretations were right and some were wrong.

I couldn't disagree more with the absoluteness of this statement -- at least, not in the context you give it. Sure there are wrong interpretations (LotR is not a fascist text in support of genocidal murder, for example), but that does not mean that there are a set of absolutely "right" interpretations to be gleaned from the Legendarium. For all the reasons I've already ranted about above, I don't think we can start to think this way ("Tolkien is a privileged source for the 'truth' or 'meaning' of the book") without both making Tolkien into a Sauron-like figure (the 'eye/I' is the only source of vision into the text) and, ironically, forsaking the ethical obligations that Tolkien has put on us to interpret for ourselves.

The different interpretations that are possible, the different 'ways' of taking the text are there, to allow us as readers the freedom to develop our own responses and generate our own meaning(s). It just gets tricky because that freedom is not unrestrained -- we can't just overlay whatever interpretation we want, because there are things we can get wrong (another popular wrong example: LotR is a pro-war novel).

[Bêthberry]

Man, you guys make it hard for us Shepherds of the trees, er, pourers over paper books. I will have a very long reply here ready later this morning.

In other words, my first SAVE in Books. Oh to what bad habits do RPGs lead me.

[The Saucepan Man]

There is a wonderfully subtle shift in your language here that proves my point (ha!).

The shift is a logical one and does not, I think, imply that I view the relartionship between the reader and the author as akin to prisoner and jailor or Ringbearer and Ring. My primary position (one which it seems that you would agree with, Fordim) is that everyone is free to interpret Tolkien's works in any way that seems appropriate to them. In that sense, no one is bound to accept Tolkien's own views and opinions on what he wrote, whether they are casual readers or serious Tolkienologists. It is up to them whether they do or not.

But those who take a deeper interest in the Professor's works will surely be more likely to accept his intended meaning than will the casual reader. I am not saying that they are obliged to do so. I am simply acknowledging that they will naturally be more inclined to do so (and possibly adjust any inconsistent preconceptions) because of their more serious interest.

And to take it one stage further, I do think that anyone participating in any serious discussion of Tolkien's works is obliged at least to acknowledge the author's views (assuming that they are aware of them). Again, there is no one forcing them to agree with those views, but they will have to acknowledge that their own views are at odds with those of the author and that they will therefore be of limited value in any serious discussion of Middle-earth.

Child, I was in much the same boat as you when I first started reading Tolkien's works (and btw, yes it was my paragraph you were commenting on ). LotR and the Hobbit were the only published texts at the time. Although the Silm was published shortly after, as I said, I gave up on it. But I do not think that the position is that much different for the modern first-time reader. After all, only a proportion of those who read LotR will be aware of the wealth of background material, and even those who are aware of it will inevitably read the book itself first before going on to review it. And, as Angmar suggests, it is in that first reading that the longest-lasting and most vivid impressions are, I think, formed.

I do agree with you, however, that there is scope for the serious Tolkien enthusiast to retain initial impressions even when they are at odds with the meaning intended by the author. You put it as follows:

When I discuss topics on a public board, I will honestly try to stick to canon as closely as I can. What I see in my own head when I read the books may be a little different, but that's my private prerogative as a reader!

But I think that I would put it slightly differently. I see nothing wrong with any of us setting out on a site such as this our own private impressions of the book in the full knowledge that they are inconsistent with the author's intentions, provided that we acknowledge that inconsistency. Indeed, it may be necessary to do so for illustrative purposes on a thread such as this one. Or it may simply be that we feel that they may be of interest to others. But, as I indicated above, we must also recognise that they will be of limited value in any serious discussion of the legendarium.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

My primary position (one which it seems that you would agree with, Fordim) is that everyone is free to interpret Tolkien's works in any way that seems appropriate to them. In that sense, no one is bound to accept Tolkien's own views and opinions on what he wrote, whether they are casual readers or serious Tolkienologists. It is up to them whether they do or not.

But those who take a deeper interest in the Professor's works will surely be more likely to accept his intended meaning than will the casual reader. I am not saying that they are obliged to do so. I am simply acknowledging that they will naturally be more inclined to do so (and possibly adjust any inconsistent preconceptions) because of their more serious interest.

Nicely put, Saucepan Man, and your point is well-taken (and you are right, I do agree with this). But once more, I have a question about your response. I couldn’t agree more that “anyone participating in any serious discussion of Tolkien's works is obliged at least to acknowledge the author's views” – but where I pull away from your point somewhat is at the odd claim that if my views “are at odds with those of the author…they will be of limited value in any serious discussion of Middle-earth.”

Why? What do you mean by “value” that my interpretation will have less of it than Tolkien’s interpretation? Are you suggesting that his interpretation is more true or right or useful? If so, by what basis can we make this claim?

To go back to my Gollum example: Tolkien’s interpretation of Gollum’s fall is an explicitly Catholic one (he explains in the Letters, in fact, that his ‘take’ on LotR is entirely and “consciously” Catholic throughout); my own interpretation of that moment (which I shan’t get into here) is not. If his interpretation is of greater “value” (and please do address what you mean by that loaded word) than mine – where does that leave me? It would seem to be cutting me off from the text (that is, I’m not “really getting it” because I'm not giving it a Catholic interpretation), even as I am most directly engaged with it (that is, I am developing a meaning that has resonance for me -- and probably for many others -- in my non-Catholic interpretation).

[Findegil]

Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle:

Of course, there are huge differences between the Ring and Tolkien’s texts that I need not go into here (first and foremost being that the Ring’s creator wants to supplant Eru; the maker of Middle-Earth wants only to supplement the Primary Creator) – but the similarity of the relation (individual to Ring; reader to Middle-Earth) is quite striking.

Have you reflected what you did write here? "Supplement the Primary Creator" is really the last think of all Tolkien would have intended. The "only" before this phrase makes it nearly a blasphemous statement for people deeply believing in a Primary Creator (as Tolkien had clearly done), even without considering the action it self.
Without a question the analogy is good, since the action of Sauron was clearly blasphemous in the same way. But it fails entirely if once the background of Author of Middle-Earth is taken into account.
And thus we come nicely bake to the subject under discussion: Your interpretation of Tolkiens writing was as freely made, as you wanted it all over this thread. But it can be proved as clearly wrong by considering the additional information available as can be the interpretation of The Lord of the Ring as pre-war-novel or as supporting fascistic ideas. If you demand freedom in one direction, you can't deny it in the other one. The book as a stand-alone allows a lot of interpretations, and since a book is meant as a stand-alone publication, we are free to read and interpret it as a single item.
What makes the book so attractive is in my view the glimpses of underlying stories, which are at once recognised as the holes left by the author to be filled with our own imagination. Thus the book does at once fire up our own imagination and waking our interest for more information on the subjects of our imagination.
By providing the information the imaginations is more and more restricted. What is the art of Tolkien, which even the extensive editing of his son could not destroy, is that with each new information given or found new holes for your imagination will be discovered. And Tolkien was really aware of this, as is shown in his story Tree and Leaf. And being less sure in his craftsmanship in writing than his son is, JRR Tolkien would have restricted the publication much more than Chritopher Tolkien did.
What is now the bearing of this to the topic? Well, even Fordim Hedgethistle in his first post had admitted that the approach of scholarly research is "entertaining and extremely informative". None of us would discuss here if it were not for this entertaining. And I think many have come here in the first place for exactly that informativeness of such approaches.
Thus it isn't suppressing at all that the scholarly approach get the majority of posts in this thread. Asking the same question in a forum, which would discuss literature and not just the story given in it, would probably turn the table.

Respectfully
Findegil

[The Saucepan Man]

Why? What do you mean by “value” that my interpretation will have less of it than Tolkien’s interpretation? Are you suggesting that his interpretation is more true or right or useful?

No, not at all. Your interpretation is certainly of value to you (assuming that you do not prefer the author's interpretation when you hear of it). And it may well be of value to others in discussions of the book as a "stand-alone" publication (as Findegil put it). But it will be of little value in discussions of the "truth" of Middle-earth, as handed to us by the author (ie what the author intended). And I would concur with Findegil that most serious discussions here fall into the latter category.

You may argue that the discussions here should allow people more scope for arguing in favour of their personal interpretation, even though it may be inconsistent with that of the author. But it seems to me that the primary purpose of the serious discussion threads is to determine (where we can) what the author's intentions were. As I said, many here will be inclined to accept these and adjust their own interpretation accordingly (as I have done on a number of issues). But, having established the author's intentions, people are free to reject them and retain (on a personal level) their own interpretation, which will remain of greater value to them.

And you can always start up a new thread to discuss personal interpretations of the events and characters portrayed and how these might differ from the those of the author.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

But it seems to me that the primary purpose of the serious discussion threads is to determine (where we can) what the author's intentions were.

Thank you so much for clearing this up so succinctly Saucepan Man. This is the core issue upon which we disagree, for I believe that the practice of critical interpretation is emphatically not to seek the “author’s intention” but, rather, to develop our own interpretations and to subject those interpretations to the corrective of reasoned dialogue with other people who may or may not share our interpretations (and Findegil’s corrective post about the “blasphemous” practice that I inaccurately attributed to Tolkien is an object lesson in this – indeed, “supplement” is entirely the wrong word there).

The reasons I reject this search for the author’s intent are many. First, we need look no further than the fact he wrote the book for his primary intention – he intended for the book to be read and enjoyed. Beyond that, we can read in the Letters that his intention was that the book be Catholic (but Tolkien only arrived at this intention after the first draft had been written) – are non-Catholic interpretations wrong then? Of course not. Or, at least, not necessarily. Finally, seeking the “intention” of anyone for anything is doomed to failure – if nothing else, sociology, psychology, history, molecular biology, theology all tell us (in their own ways) that human action (like writing a book) is governed by a lot of things other than the “intention” of our conscious minds/wills/selves. In other words, there is always going to be lots of stuff in a book that the author never “intended” to put there.

This next bit may sound like I’m slagging you Sauce (if I can call you Sauce), but I truly and honestly am not. To be entirely honest, I can’t think of a more boring way to approach a text than the one you’ve put forward. Tolkien’s intentions are useful to know, maybe even required, but if to know them is to know the book – well, that way lies the death of all discussion and debate. The answer to every question becomes precisely the same, “What does Tolkien say?” and if we can find the answer, then conversation is resolved with one person being right, and the other being wrong. If we can’t find the answer, then the conversation simply dies.