‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[drigel]

it may have been the digging of Aule as much as the hand of Eru that caused the earth to crumble under Gollums feet
My point i was feebly trying to make was imo, the author drew upon his own creation to supply the life to his subcreation. if that makes sense... Providence is in the stories, but i feel the author is assuming that a conscious person can interpret on his or her own. Thus his dislike for analogy. One can bring anything from 'outside the text': eruism, druidism, alchoholism, any other ism for that matter. I see more proof of valaism than i do eruism. Providence that one finds in ones self is definately in there. To me that can go both ways (as in most providence arguments): was there providence only for mortals? Is there any providence in the elven desire to prolong the present to avoid any change? Where was the providence in the killing of the trees? etc etc

[Lord of Angmar]

Davem

I can see what you mean with the 'Shylock' point - but if we did construct such a Shylock, would he be recognisable as the figure we know - even to Shakespeare? I think the attempt would be futile, as what we would end up with would really tell us nothing in regard to the play.

That was more or less my point- in essence, I was agreeing with you about the futility of attempting to create a canonical Silm, but not quite understanding your analogy. Perhaps my own 'Shylock' analogy would have been more clear if I had ammended it to say that it would be similar to Tolkien's situation if Shakespeare had worked on The Merchant for several years, and had written several different drafts (which, to my knowledge, he did not). I simply did not see taking the works of two different authors and combining them to create a canon view on a subject such as Judaism as analogous to attempting to recreate a canonical Silm.

[Aiwendil]

Your examples of Beethoven's Ninth & LotR don't work for me - if we only had those works in the forms you describe (which i can't think we would have, as there would be no interest in having them, so no publisher would make them available) & all we got was a slew of different versions, no one would no which one to take seriously.

You don't think that if The Lord of the Rings existed only as fragments, it would be of any value for someone to connect and edit those fragments to create a fully realized narrative? Would this thing not have value in itself, even though it was not "canonical" Tolkien?

Perhaps you do in fact think that it would be worthless. Fine. But obviously, a lot of people would disagree with you.

If FoG is the young Tolkien's mythologisation of his experience of the Somme, which I feel it is, to a great extent, & Tuor is the Older Tolkien's attempt to write a legend based in ME, detached by time & his own lifetime of other experiences, the two stories will not fit together in the way you assume.

Who said that we assumed they would fit together in some particular way?

I could argue that, in fact, the old FoG is not really as different from the later Tuor as you claim. But that is beside the point. They are both part of that complex body of source material called the Silmarillion. There are innumerable ways in which they could be put together. We have put them together in one particular way, because that is a way that we find interesting.

Yes, we have characters with the same name recurring throughout the Legendarium, but are they the same characters.

I think that's a meaningless question. They are not real; they are defined only as logical objects within the network of source material. In one sense, they are the same characters. In another they're not. That's purely a matter of definition.

which part of her story do you throw out - The beautiful scene of her rejection of the Ring, & repentance for her 'sins' in LotR (G1) or her role as leader of the forces of the West against Sauron, a role which Tolkien says is equivalent to the role of Manwe in the battle against Morgoth (G2)?

You don't throw anything out.

Instead, you create a new thing out of the old contradictory elements. If you like, you create two new things - each one reconciling the contradiction in its own way.

To take bits from both versions of these characters & try to create a 'canonical' Gollum (1+2 = ?) or a 'canonical' Galadriel seems doomed to failure

I think that perhaps you misunderstood some of my post. I didn't use the word "canonical" at all except when I said something about the ambiguity inherent in the word and when I said that "canonical Silmarillion" is a misnomer. As I said, there is an infinite number of possible Silmarillions. None of them is "official" or "canonical". But I think that a great many of them have value.

[The Saucepan Man]

Fordim

I consciously chose not to call the Guiding Hand in LotR Providence as that is a concept from the Primary World ...

We are sitting in the primary world looking into the fictional world, so I see nothing wrong with using primary world terms to describe concepts in the fictional world. After all, we talk of the concept of evil in Tolkien's works without having to refer to it as Morgothism or Sauronism.

... and I wanted something that would more correctly refer to the version of that (Christian) concept as it is subcreated in M-E.

Careful. You'll set me off again. Darn, too late! My problem with the term "Erusim" is that it implies an awareness of Eru, which many readers simply don't have when they approach LotR. It also implies (to me at least) that it is a concept which can only truly be appreciated by one with Christian beliefs, which I would reject entirely. The concept may be rooted in Tolkien's Christian beliefs, but it is one which a reader can understand and accept as exisiting in the fictional world regardless of his or her own beliefs. After all, we don't have to believe in Hobbits and Elves in the real world to accept their existence in Middle-earth.

So I prefer a more neutral term. And it may be that "providence" is not appropriate in this regard, since it too has strong Christian connotations (although my Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as "the protective care of God or nature"). What I am looking for is a term which admits all possible ways of regarding this "force", whether it be Eru, the Authority, one's own God or Gods, the Valar (as drigel suggests), the spirit of nature, the personification of Arda, the embodiment of fate, or even Tom Bombadil (who, as we know, is not Eru ). Any suggestions?

And I am not so sure that it is just a discussion over terminology, since the terms that we use have their own substantive implications. That is the reason that I am not comfortable with "Eruism".

my current position (and I’m comfortable with it) is that the “struggle” that takes place is entirely internal to the individual reader (or, more appropriately, lest Bêthberry should read this ) to the individual moment of readerly engagement with the text.

Gosh! That makes it all sound like a terribly arduous (Arda-uous?) process. Whereas it is, in my experience, a most enjoyable one. Most readers choose the manner of interpretation that they are comfortable with, and this almost invariably occurs entirely at the subconscious level. It is not so much a "struggle" as a natural process. And when we try to analyse why we react to a text in the way that we do and, in so doing, perhaps perceive a struggle, do we not risk losing davem's "enchantment"?

Yes, ensorcelled is very much a word, in the OED and everything.

It is? It's not in my Concise OD. But I shall take your word for it and use it henceforth at every available opportunity.

Davem

In his case, I can sympathise, because there was no way the publishers would have leapt straight into the publicaction of HoME, & he felt an obligation to make his father's Sil writings available to the public. With the publication of HoME this is no longer necessary.

So, with the publication of UT and HoME, you no longer regard the Silmarillion as having any value? If I am not misunderstanding you, I regard that as a very curious position to take. It may not be "canon" in the strict sense of the word, but it is nevertheless greatly valued by most Tolkien afficionados that I have encountered. And, although it may not have the same gravitas, the "one of many possible Silmarillions" which Maedhros, Findegil and Aiwendil are working on will undoubtedly be regarded as having value by many of those same Tolkien afficionados when it is complete. Does that not make it a worthwhile endeavour in itself, even though you personally may regard it of little value?

And I am with Bêthberry in finding your idea of a living Tolkien speaking to us through the pages of his works as difficult to accept. What Tolkien is saying to us is cast in stone (or paper). We may learn more about him as we read more widely, but what he says to us in any particular passage cannot change. Nor can it react to our responses and interpretations. It is a one way conversation. In that sense, it is not vibrant, which is surely the very essence of life. No, Tolkien is no more alive in his text than a departed loved one is alive in our vivd memory of them.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I’ve debated whether or not to post this, as it might reveal some of the real life me that I like to hide here – but it’s just so darn pertinent to the discussion that I have to contribute.

The other day I was delivering a public lecture on Tolkien to a group of about 200 non-Tolkien experts. (Yes, I actually get asked to talk to groups about Tolkien – and what the heck, just to make sure that you all hate me – I sometimes even get paid to do it.) When I say non-Tolkien experts I mean really non-experts: most of them had never read LotR or TH, and only a few of them had seen the movies: many had seen only one or two. They were just interested in hearing more about Tolkien and M-E, I guess…

Given my audience I kept it pretty general and talked about the subcreation of M-E in light of Tolkien’s life and Catholicism; I got into the creation of the languages and worked through the implications of the names of Aragorn, Arwen and Frodo. I just wanted to give them a sense of how Tolkien subcreated his world from and for the sake of his invented languages. Most of the comments afterward were extremely positive and many people left saying that they were going to read the books now (huzzah!). But I did get one very interesting response that has been nagging at me since.

An elderly woman (with a walker no less!) cornered me and thanked me for the talk, but she said that I had rather put her off the idea of reading the books. Frantic to find out why, I asked her what I had said or done. She simply said that she felt there was “too much she had to know about the book before she could understand it.” I desperately tried to fight a rearguard action, disavowing all that I had said in the previous hour and swearing to her up down and sideways that the books are more than capable of being enjoyed without any kind of the knowledge that I had been discussing. But she was immovable. “It’s too late, you see,” she explained to me. “Now that I know how much more there is to the book, I don’t think I’ll be able to appreciate it without knowing about all the rest.”

To be utterly frank, I’m not really sure what to make of this. An example of the enchantment being broken before the spell is even cast…? Or a potent reminder of what Gandalf says to Saruman: “He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.”

[davem]

Aiwendil

I can't see that putting together 'fragments' of LotR, if that was all that existed, would serve any purpose, beyond satisfying some disire in the person who put it together. And if those fragments were from different versions of the story, & differed in sometimes major ways in the story they told, then you could at best only end up with a general sense of the story - you wouldn't end up with a work of art - unless the person doing the constructing (could we even call it 're-constructing' if there had never been a complete version of it?) was an artist - & then it would be their work - not Tolkien's.

When you say you have 'put together a version of 'Gondolin' which you find 'interesting' you make my point for me - a serious scholarly endevour that only produces a result which is 'interesting' to those involved seems to me to be of little academic value. Your 'rules' for what you will & will not allow into a 'revised' Sil seem simply arbitrary.

When you speak of taking Galadriel (1) & Galadriel (2) & producing 'something new' I can only see this as an admission that what you're doing is not revising but re-writing (if not reinventing entirely) 'The Silmarillion'.

If we take the example of Gollum (1) & Gollum (2). What we have is not so much a 'development' of the character - G(1) evolving into G(2), as a substitution of one character by another. In effect Tolkien has removed G(1) from Hobbit & replaced him with G(2). This was done not for aesthtic reasons, but for practical ones - he wanted Hobbit to correspond more closely to the evolving LotR. in so doing he changes the Hobbit from a self contained story, into a prequel to LotR. And he didn't even do it deliberately - he sent the new version of Riddles in the Dark To A&U as an example of the 'kind' of thing that would necessary if the Hobbit was to be brought into line with LotR. The publishers used the replacement text without confirming with Tolkien that he wanted them to do so, & in the end accepted the change as a fait a compli.

So, does this supply sufficient justification for choosing the revised version over the 1st ed version, for preffering G(2) over G(1)? The only reason for chosing G(2) is that it was later, & that it removes certain problems in reconciling the characters of Gollum in Hobbit & Gollum in LotR. If you make that choice, for that reason, then you would have to choose all the versions of the stories where changes have been made simply in order to remove conflicts with other stories. You choices would be made on grounds of practicality, not aesthetics - or you'd have to 'invent' your own 'new' versions to accomodate the contradictions- which takes you further down the road of producing your own Sil, rather than a version of Tolkien's Sil

Saucepan Man

Its not that I regard the '77 Sil as unecessary - in fact I think its incredibly important - my argument is with the idea of a 'series' of Sil's - which I think will only confuse readers & create uneccessary arguments.

Oh, re the 'two way comunication' with Tolkien - think of it as a mix of philosophical game & a 'fan fic' within the Tolkien 'canon' - its pretty much what Tolkien is saying is possible in Lost Road & Notion Club Papers, as well as in the Fairy Tales essay. - You have to 'disprove' it, not just reject it (that's cheating!), or prove it to be 'uncanonical'

[HerenIstarion]

davem, you seem strongly talented in luring me into long speeches

So, to post number 126 re:

A bit of a side walk first

Have you seen the movie "Joan of Arc"? One starring Mila Jovovich (sp?). It is a nice movie, quite coherent, appealing, moving and dramatic. Allegedly, it is the work of art, and not history. But as their source, the authors were using existing source material. That the story as it is told in the movie is different from what really happened, is beyond any qustioning. But does it make the movie as the movie of less value? I don't think so, otherwise I would not have been wasting my time on it, I'd rather dig some documents and read those. And, voila, in doing so, I would have found that, though all of my sources were contemporary, all of them were different and contradicted each other.

Another example – what I was studying at University as history, for the first two years was not source material, but compilation – retelling of events rolled into one continiuos text. There were entries like: year so and so, this and this happened. Now, when I went on to my third year, such a subject as historiography was intorudced. And all of what was clear and continuous history back in year one, was, somehow, countless smithereens of "according to this source, this and this happened in year X, and according to that source, it happened in year Y, and according to third source, it haven't happened at all"

What we were tought, is was that work of historian was to, so to say, collect every pebble of evidence there was to be found, and 'squeeze' the thing mostly approximating the truth out of it where possible. The thing was done not only for the sake of truth (as each individual historian saw it), but for the sake of people who were lazy, unable or too busy to dig among sources themselves

Going back to Joan of Arc than – some of the temporary sources picture her as a witch, some praise her as saint. Movie shows her as neither, but as patriot. But was that really the case? When the concept of France was not very much emerged? And the concept of King was more prominent somehow? I believe that neither is quite accurate, but the truth is not to be digged out unless we start practice necromancy and question Joan herself. And even than such an account would be inaccurate, for language is indeed opaque, as stated above, and what we would require is Osanwe-Kenta.

Going back to historians – given precisely the same number of same sources, no two historians will produce exactly matching results.

now:

then it would be their work - not Tolkien's.

Exactly. Given the mode in which Tolkien was writing, and having in mind that he haven't produced final published product, the material we have for our pleasure is to be treated as source material. And any material which is the source is canon. But no work produced on the basis is canon (yes, neither S77), simply because it is derived from and the consequent to the source material, and is, to some extent, work of art of its compilator, scholar, annalist, whoever.

It is easier to switch to the attitude I describe if you go to suspending primary disbelief as described in Tolkien's On Fairy Story and view the source material as really written by Pengolodh, Aelfwine and number of other elves and men from different ages. Than there no objection arises at some modern scholar trying to produce something continuous out of his sources. His judgement as to what is to be taken into the 'soup' and what is to be rejected, is indeed arbitrary, but nevertheless very natural. Do you condemn researcher of the ancient history of Sumer on the basis he produced the book of his own writing, instead of combining the photoes of the bas-reliefs inscriptions he have interpreted according to whis own arbitrary judgement?

Same is applicable to Tolkien (I believe), for he is too complex to be judged as mere writer. What follows is, that we, readers, compilators, scholars of Tolkien, are free to use any of the texts (starting with the very first up to the very last) which we know to be canonical – i.e. by Tolkien himself, and apply to them our own judgement. We are free to be content with the sources in themselves, but we are also free to compile them into coherent and continuous [one] piece of text. Any course of action is lawfull.

But what we will produce will be not canonical in itself (and that was stated by Aiwendil up there). Still more no one will be forced to read it (as no one is forced to watch the movie and believe it as only true account of the story, or count historian's conclusions as to what was going on in Sumer as one and only true.)

I know, you granted the Rev Sil project people the right to do it. What you seem to reject, is the value of it. But if you follow your reasoning, you may well end up rejecting value of say, your friends account of what he was doing another day in a bar, but ask for filmed and recorded evidence, not trusting his recollections as those may be mere compilation of sources, and requesting minute to minute collation with sight and sound recorder. And you may further argue that, as this videorecorder was recording from north-east corner of the room, and another one from south one, there were in fact, two stories, and not one, for one set of pictures shows your friend with a fork, and another omits such a scene, since where fork should be the tankard obscures the way. But you will dare not assume that the fork is nevertheless there, and say: so, we have two stories about the two different men of the same name, and they differ considerably and could not be merged, since in one of them one man has the fork, and in another one another man does not!

For if you listen to the man himself, he may blunder a bit an mix things up a bit (Somewhere around five, I've drunk fourth beer. But the north–east recorder evidence shows it was 4:56 exactly, and south recorded, catching another watch into shot, will convince you that it was 5:02. Does it eliminate the value of story the man himlself told you? Is it less interesting?).

When you speak of taking Galadriel (1) & Galadriel (2) & producing 'something new' I can only see this as an admission that what you're doing is not revising but re-writing (if not reinventing entirely) 'The Silmarillion'

Yes, yes, yes. Any academic, if we talk about one to tread the boards of history, is doing exactly the thing: re-writing, reinventing. He has his limits – he must not contradict his sources, or, if those contradict themselves, choose greater number against smaller number, or, if he does the opposite, to prove first of all to himsefl, that what he does is logically justified by so and so reasons. He can't create green sun out of his head, but he must make green sun found in his sources plausible. In doing so, he inevitably will add up something of his own [sub]creation into the thing.

I hope you are still here with me , for I'm gently spilling over into conclusions:

A) What Tolkien was creating is nearly as complex as the history of the world itself
B) What he did create, must be viewed (as he himelf was evaluating it as such, 'finding out' rather than 'inventing') as history derived from and depending on different and quite a number of sources as well
C) Following A and B, different sources need not be in agreement between themselves
D) Following C, there is no restriction prohibiting compilations and prescribing to leave the sources be.
E) Following D, there is no law forcing anyone to count compilation produced as the true account of events
F) Nevertheless, piece of work produced has the value in itself, and may be quite plausible and approaching the truth as near as it may be

So, does this supply sufficient justification for choosing the revised version over the 1st ed version, for preffering G(2) over G(1)?

So it does. What it does not, is establishing supremacy of one account over the other, but giving the possible reader the pleasure of having both, and not as twelve volume collection of sources. One is free to prefer sources, but than it is merely matter of taste, than

[davem]

H-I

Not enough time at the moment for a long response. I can see what you're saying, & agree with a lot of it. But I still can't see why all this effort is being put into producing something which will have no 'special' value (& my own understanding is that the intention of those involved is (whether they admit it or not) to produce if not the 'definitive' Sil', then at least a superior one to S77.

If the purpose is not to try & construct a 'canonical' or 'definitive', or 'best of a bad job' Sil, then what is the point? What I see is libraries full of 'versions' of the Sil - & I can only see that making more & more people feel like the lady Fordim has just described to us.

We have the source texts. We have a scholarly & entertaining version of a 'Silmarillion' for those who don't want to wade through them. If a group fo fans want to get together & slave over hot computers to churn out another version, or versions, fine, but I can't see that it has any value to anyone but themselves. Personally, I find the whole idea of it quite pointless, as its based on so many different versions, written over such a long period of time, each version written with a different intent, peopled by different characters (albeit with the same names), that it will only serve to completely mislead any one unfamiliar with the source texts, & have no value to anyone who is familiar with them.

[Bêthberry]

Am I the only one who is becoming a bit uncomfortable with the tenor of this discusssion? We all get heated about our own particular way of reading texts and events, but I would hope we continue to recognise that other interpretations and processes are possible.

I have been someone who has in the past not been interested in the kind of project which those in the "Revised Simillarion Project" have been pursuing because, to me their intention and criteria do not reflect what I understand narrative to be about. That is, I would side with Tolkien--and here I refer back to my post about On Fairy Stories--that things get into the stew of story based upon their narrative significance and how much they satisfy the desires of readers for the consolation of story. When I say this, I mean no discourtesy to Aiwendil and Maedhros and Findegal and the others on the project; their thought and effort is to my mind keen and admirable. However--and this is a very big however even as I disagree with some of their basic premises, I would insist upon their 'right' as readers to be able to recreate any kind of text they wish--I just wouldn't accept it as 'authentic' "authoritative'" or representing Tolkien's intention . The simple fact that as readers they wish to engage in this interpretive activity is enough. In fact, it represents, to me, the entire "purpose" of literature, to engage our minds. To suggest that they cannot do so because what will be produced will not have any "special purpose" or is "pointless" is, in my humble opinion, too restrictive and untenable even, for a discussion board.

To take this discussion forward, however, rather than to become bogged down in refuting posts, I would like to return to On Fairy Stories. Tolkien argues,

we make in our measure and in our derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker.

. . . [and of this faculty. . . ]

Uncorrupted it does not seek delusion or bewitchment and domination; it seeks shared enrichment, partners in making and delight, not slaves

Obvisously here Tolkien's Christian belief is what supports his idea that men are "corrupt making-creatures". But there are other ways to reach this conclusion as well. It remains, for me, the reason why the Silmarillion project has worth and value even as I do not wish to pursue such a study.

What Tolkien is saying to us is cast in stone (or paper). We may learn more about him as we read more widely, but what he says to us in any particular passage cannot change. Nor can it react to our responses and interpretations. It is a one way conversation. In that sense, it is not vibrant, which is surely the very essence of life.

Thank-you, SaucepanMan, for reiterating with greater clarity my point about whether the text can create new forms of communication. Of course it cannot. I feel a bit quilty here as I believe it was me who first raised the metaphor of a living text, but I used that in the context of reading activity, not to suggest a gnostic arguement about the text itself as a living mind of the writer. I would in fact return yet again to On Fairy Stories for consideration of this activity. It is possible to take this concept of "enchantment" too far. Tolkien says that this natural human activity

certainly does not destroy or even insult Reason; and it does not either blunt the appetite for, nor obscure the perception of, scientific verity. On the contrary. The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better fantasy will it make.

Or, as Tolkien again put it, "a prophylactic against loss." A Recovery.

Oh, and, Mr. Hedgethistle, about the terminology of Guilding Hand or Providence. I am glad you chose not to use "Guiding Light". However, as to your disheartened elderly reader, perhaps you can tell her it is like climbing Mount Everest.

[davem]

Bethberry



I'm sorry if anything I've posted has come across as a personal attack on those involved in the project. My 'attack' has always been on the 'aim'. I've said a number of times that I have no problem with the project itself - I simply question the value of it to anyone beyond those involved. I simply can't see that it will add anything, & will probably confuse readers new to Tolkien who will find themselves confronted with two, three, four or more 'Silmarillion's. The situation we have at present - source texts plus a 'Silmarillion' for the general reader is the best situation we can get. I'm sorry if my saying the project is pointless has upset anyone - no-one has to take a blind bit of notice of me - I don't have, or make, any claims of superior right or knowledge in regard to Tolkien. Aiwendil & Maedros have put forward their reasons for what they're doing. I've simply attempted to give my reasons as to why I feel the whole thing is a dead end. Its like fanfiction, painting or music inspired by the Legendarium - it may be good, or bad or indifferent, but it won't be of any real value in the field of Tolkien studies as far as I can see - beyond simply proving that such a thing is possible - which has been proven already by the '77 Sil.

[The Saucepan Man]

(The relevance of the title will not be apparent until the end of this post.)

Fordim

Your story is fascinating, although I would question the merit of providing such an analysis, even one pitched at a general level, at a bunch of people who have not yet read the primary text. Even though it might inspire them to go and read the book, it is difficult to see how being told about the themes and sources underlying Tolkien's works can be of any benefit to them when they have no (or limited) knowledge of the works themselves. On the other hand, if they were interested enough to choose to attend, then I suppose (on the basis of my own reasoning with davem) there must be some value in it to them.

But I think that your old lady does highlight a risk inherent in the exercise. It seems to me that you pretty much hit the nail on the head when you described it as breaking the enchantment (ensorcelment?) before the spell has even been cast. For many, perhaps even for everybody, the enchantment arises when they first read the text themselves, free from any externally derived influences concerning it. It seems to me that this lady was wise enough to recognise this herself. But we will never know whether (and if so how) the other attendees might react differently to the book when they read it than they would have done if they had not been privy to this background information in advance.

For someone who has already read LotR and then chooses to go on to read more widely concerning Tolkien and his works, I think that the position is different. As I said in response to a point raised by Helen (somewhere back on the first page, I think), that initial enchantment will still be part of their experience, even though it may develop into something slightly different as they work through the secondary materials.

Davem

Thank you for clarifying your position on the published Silmarillion. Nevertheless, had you had access to the UT and HoME papers and been acquainted with Christopher Tolkien prior to its publication, wouldn't you be saying precisely the same thing to him as you are saying to Maedhros and co now? Prior to its compilation and publication, it too was one of a potential "series of Silms". And yet, from your current perspective, ie here and now, you regard it as incredibly important.

It seems to me that everyone here who has sought to defend the "Revised Silmarillion" project (whether they are involved in the project themselves or not) has said much the same thing, namely that it is a worthwhile exercise because it has value to those involved in its creation and it will no doubt be of interest, and therefore of value, to others when complete. You recognise the former (its value to its creators), but appear not to accept the latter (its potential value to others).

I suspect that you are trying to work through your own feelings about it. You may be persuaded by some of the arguments being put forward, but then again you may not. You may ultimately decide that it really does have no subjective value to you. But you surely cannot deny its value (or potential value at least) on an objective level.

As for your "two way communication with Tolkien" idea, I am not familiar with the Lost Road and Notion Club papers, so I cannot comment on them. But I would disagree that I am under any obligation to "disprove" it. As the proposer of the theory, the burden of proof is upon you to establish it. And as yet I remain far from convinced. Perhaps it would help if you clarified exactly how you regard it as a two way conversation given that conversation is an active process whereby each participant reacts to the views put forward by the other paticipant(s). I can see how Tolkien might be talking to me from the grave when I read his works, but how is he reacting to my own views and interpretations? And, if he is not reacting to them, how can he truly be described as playing an active (and therefore living) role?

Finally, at the risk of inducing further complexity into this discussion, may I take the liberty of introducing an additional theme? It was one which occured to me late last night after I had logged off, when I caught sight of a spider in the bath. I have never been fond of spiders and, as I gazed at it, I experienced a feeling of primordial fear (no doubt intensified by my drowsiness). It got me to thinking about archetypes and shared experience. I think it was davem who mentioned that Jung was no doubt lurking around the edges of this discussion somewhere. And Jung's ideas concerning archetypes have been applied to Tolkien's works, LotR in particular, which is hardly surprising given how heavily he drew on ancient mythology. LotR is itself a kind of "Hero Myth" replete with Jungian archetypes.

Now I am certain that these ideas have been raised and discussed elsewhere on this forum, but I was wondering how they might impact upon one of the central themes in this thread, namely our approach towards the interpretation of Tolkien's works. Does the presence of these archetypes from our shared experience (collective consciousness?) mean that there will be a level upon which we will all react to these materials in the same way, just as spiders evoke in all of us at some level a feeling of revulsion, if not fear? Does this mean that there may in fact be a "right" approach towards interpreting Tolkien at some level?

As will be clear from the clumsy way in which I have raised this idea, it is not something upon which I have a great breadth of knowledge. I was once very interested in Jung's ideas but it is a long time since I last studied them, so I am simply raising the point for possible further discussion. And I am sure that there are others out there who are far better qualified than me to expand on this theme and consider whether (and if so how) it might be relevant to the topic at hand (*looks appealingly at Bêthberry* ).

[Maédhros]

Myself being involved in the Revised Silmarillion Project do not feel at all attacked by any post in this thread. There are persons who feel that what we do have a purpose, and there are those who doesn't. I'm ok with that. Both opinions are valid of course.
For me personally, I have learned a lot that normally I wouldn't if I had not being involved in this project and that is a plus for me. (I think that this may apply to all of the members) Most of the discussions that occur in that place of the forum are really interesting, in a more scholarly way than those of the normal book section.
I don't think that it is precisely truth that only the people involved directly in the project would get a benefit.
I have given copies of a chapter that I'm working on to other people outside the project, and some have come up with a greater appreciation of that particular story, some have not even bother to read them. There are persons that because of that chapter have begun to wonder more about the story than if they wouldn't have read the copy.
Our purpose has never been a Publication of it, I just do it for fun. We thought that we could post it in the open forum here, unfortunately that won't be possible, the Tolkien estate will not allow that.
Would we ever finish such a project? I don't know.

[davem]

Saucepan man

I think the '77 Sil is important, because I think its useful to have that kind of 'synopsis' for those who want it. But I think it could also be seen as a kind of 'primer'. Beyond those things a 'Silmarillion' of any academic value cannot be put together, IMO, because there never was a completed Sil & there never would have been, because what Tolkien wanted a Sil to do changed too often & too quickly for him ever to bring one to completion before he found himself wanting another kind of Sil. I can't see any evidence that Tolkien had a clear sense at any point in his creative career of exactly what the Silmarillion was supposed to be. He began with an idea of the kind of thing he wanted, but, as i said, before it could be completed his idea had changed. As for any academic value it may have - I can see it having some curiosity value, but there is a danger of it creating the false impression among new readers that this 'perfect' Sil would one day have existed - if only Tolkien had had the time to write it. Tolkien's creative life was a process, but it wasn't a process of evolving a single vision & setting it down - though it may look like that to us, looking back on his life's work. The vision changed, though the settings & characters were kept - at least their surface appearance was. As i said, there wasn't one Galadriel - there were at least two, very different characters. Same with Gollum. Same with Sauron.

And Gandalf - Gandalf (1) (from the Hobbit) is by no means the same character as Gandalf(2) (from LotR) & both are different from Gandalf(3) (the figure from the later writings - ie 'Of the Rings of Power & the Third Age'). but if you put together a 'revised Sil' which presents Gandalf (1)(2)&(3) as a single character by removing all the contradictions between accounts, then what you end up with is Gandalf(4) who is not a character created by Tolkien, but by the revisers.

Oh, the 'conversation' is not between you & a Tolkien beyond the grave, but between a living you & a living Tolkien both existing at different places in space-time. The point is that the Tolkien telling the stories is alive when he tells them (or writes them down) & you are alive when you read them, so the communication takes place living mind to living mind, over a distance in space-time. The text is not 'alive', it is the means of communication. Interestingly this is one of the means of communication between 'past-present-future' which is used in Notion Club Papers, along with dream & language. And as for two way communication - maybe some of the fanfics & ideas which spring to mind when we discuss or think about Tolkien's works - are not our own

(And for anyone who hasn't got this yet - this is a bit like the 'Trotter' story - a 'fanfic' using ideas from Tolkien's writings in order to explore the idea of 'canonicity' from a slightly different angle')

I think you may have a point re 'archetypal' ideas & images in Tolkien's work which spark a response in us as we read - though I wouldn't think it was as straightforward as I've just expressed. Tolkien did say that he felt he hadn't 'made it all up' - so he felt he was tapping into something (across space-time ). If that something has some kind of 'objective' (psychological)existence - ie relating to the Collective rather than personal unconscious, then its possible that our feelings of what's 'right' & waht's 'wrong' in Tolkien's works come from there.

Maedhros I

'm relieved that you haven't taken any offence from my posts - absolutely none was intended. My quarrel is with the idea, not with you guys. As I've said, if being involved has deepened your appreciation & understanding of Tolkien, that's great.

[The Saucepan Man]

And Gandalf - Gandalf (1) (from the Hobbit) is by no means the same character as Gandalf(2) (from LotR)

Oh but they are the same to me. I am able to reconcile them in my mind. Am I "re-inventing" Gandalf? Yes, I suppose I am to a degree. But isn't that what the reader is supposed to do: interpret the character from the words provided in the text?

And for anyone who hasn't got this yet - this is a bit like the 'Trotter' story - a 'fanfic' using ideas from Tolkien's writings in order to explore the idea of 'canonicity' from a slightly different angle'

Well then, since they are your ideas based upon what Tolkien wrote, they surely have no academic value.

[Bêthberry]

Just to make something perfectly clear, davem I was not suggesting that you were flaming anyone or engaging in personal attacks. My great hesitation was with the way you reiterated that your definition of worth was the only one tenable and that the entire project could only be made legitimate by recourse to a final, ultimately 'authentic' 'authoritative' source, even after, it seemed to me, there were compelling arguments not only as to the value of the project for many and also about the legitimacy of literary activity as process regardless of 'end result.' I was in fact questioning your aim as much as you questioned that of the project.

As for any academic value it may have - I can see it having some curiosity value, but there is a danger of it creating the false impression among new readers that this 'perfect' Sil would one day have existed - if only Tolkien had had the time to write it.

I would question the kind of thinking which is predicated upon fears of perceived misreading. How can we reject ideas and projects on the basis of perceived or alleged or anticipated effects in future readers? Surely, if the point is to engage in literary discussion to develop our minds rather than to find our own personal point of view established over that of others, then the answer to your concerns is to engage in the kind of discussion which would teach readers how to guard against this when reading. New readers think this is what Tolkien would have produced? An opportunity to explore his process further. This is the value of misreadings; they engender further discussion. Surely the only false or wrong interpretation is that which denies the possibility of further discussion.

This being the case (and I can see some might want to refute this kind of argument), why discredit a project simply because it might be poorly understood?

[Aiwendil]

davem wrote:

I can't see that putting together 'fragments' of LotR, if that was all that existed, would serve any purpose, beyond satisfying some disire in the person who put it together. And if those fragments were from different versions of the story, & differed in sometimes major ways in the story they told, then you could at best only end up with a general sense of the story - you wouldn't end up with a work of art - unless the person doing the constructing (could we even call it 're-constructing' if there had never been a complete version of it?) was an artist - & then it would be their work - not Tolkien's.

There are, I think, two things to say to this.

First, I don't see any fundamental reason that the published The Lord of the Rings might not, in some alternate history, have been compiled by someone out of diverse texts. Indeed, it has been noted that the early parts of the book differ considerably in tone from the later; this makes such an alternate history all the more plausible. Would The Lord of the Rings be worthless if this were its origin? I don't think so. The value of the book has nothing to do with whence it came; it lies in the book itself. You may object that a work like LotR could never have been compiled out of miscellaneous texts and notes. I don't think that's correct; but we could take the thought experiment further and imagine that the book is altered in certain ways to make the alternate history more plausible. Suppose that Tolkien had given up before his final revisions, and had left the original drafts of most of the book V and book VI chapters as the latest extant. Now our hypothetical scholar puts together a continuous narrative out of these texts. It is different from the real-world LotR. Is it worthless? Sure, as compared to the real-world version it may have weak writing in some passages and in certain details it won't be refined. But would a few changes for the worse to The Lord of the Rings really make it utterly worthless? I think not. Perhaps you think so, and thence stems our disagreement, but I would guess that most people would count the thing as having at least some value.

My second point: you say that the construction would not be a "work of art", or if it were, it would not be Tolkien's. As for the first bit, I fail to see how it could be anything other than a work of art. Any continuous narrative is a work of literature. It may be a very bad work of literature, but that doesn't disqualify it from the medium. As for the second: well, yes, it would not exactly be Tolkien's work of art. Nor would it quite be the constructor's. I see no problem with that. The premise is that the work of art will have value in itself, not value derived from its authorship.

I fear that you will disagree with this premise, in which case we're back into an old argument I've had with others in this very forum regarding the nature of art, and I think that there would be little more we could say to each other on the matter without it devolving into a contest of axioms.

Your 'rules' for what you will & will not allow into a 'revised' Sil seem simply arbitrary.

They are! That was part of what I meant to get across with all my ranting about possible Silmarillions. With respect to the whole network of texts that constitute the source material, they are completely arbitrary.

Of course, we did not choose them arbitrarily - but that is a completely different question. We chose them so that they conformed more or less to the logic of the published Silmarillion, the logic of what is often naively called "canon". So, for example, we prefer later texts to earlier ones. Is there any reason that this principle is superior to any other? No. None at all.

When you speak of taking Galadriel (1) & Galadriel (2) & producing 'something new' I can only see this as an admission that what you're doing is not revising but re-writing (if not reinventing entirely) 'The Silmarillion'.

I don't see the utility of making delicate distinctions between revising, rewriting, reinventing, and whatever else we may come up with. I don't care, quite frankly, which one of those three we are doing. Nor do I care about the semantics of "the same character" and "different characters with the same name" and "the same character with different names", etc., etc.

If the purpose is not to try & construct a 'canonical' or 'definitive', or 'best of a bad job' Sil, then what is the point?

An important distinction needs to be made. We do not claim to be constructing a "canonical" or "definitive" Silmarillion. We do, however, aim to produce as "good" a final product as we can. "Good" is here, necessarily, both vague and subjective. Maybe (well, certainly) you won't think that the final product is "better" than the published Silmarillion. Maybe I will. To be quite honest, all that I really care about is how good I think it is in the end.

What I see is libraries full of 'versions' of the Sil - & I can only see that making more & more people feel like the lady Fordim has just described to us.

Insofar as your objection to a New Silmarillion is really a practical objection, I think I ought to be able to put your mind at ease. Our version will never be found in a library. It will never be sold. It will never be published. It will hardly ever be read, save by those who are working on it.

I'm sorry if my saying the project is pointless has upset anyone

It certainly hasn't upset me.

Beyond those things a 'Silmarillion' of any academic value cannot be put together

Again, this makes me think that our disagreement really comes down to an underlying one regarding the nature of art. I do not claim that a new Silmarillion will have any academic value. Only UT and HoMe have academic value. But I do not think that literary value is the same thing. I think that literary value has solely to do with the aesthetic pleasure one has on experiencing (in this case, reading from beginning to end) a coherent work of art.

Incidentally, in case anyone's interested, the threads I alluded to wherein can be found some rather long-winded debates concerning the nature of literature and of art in general are Book of the Century?,The Tolkien Template, and Are There Any Valid Criticisms?

[Novnarwen]

Okay, I had every intention of replying to your question yesterday, Saucepan Man, but 'providence' wanted it otherwise.

Anyway, here it goes:
In your post, post 117, you say:

Quote: from Saucepan Man's post:

I think that the term "Eruism" may be misleading, as it implies an awareness of Eru, which was my bone of contention with Fordim in the first place. And that awareness will not come from a reading of LotR alone. I would prefer to use the term "providence", since it seems to me to be clearly implied in many parts, from the comments of Gandalf, Elrond and others, that providence of some sort is at work.

So, basically what you're saying is that Providence and Eruism are the same thing? But you only choose to refer to Erusim as Providence since 'Eru' isn't mentioned in LOTR and therefore Eruism would be misleading?

Okay, that's just fine, I think.. I must ask you, though, to tell me if you think Providence is controlled by a higher Power, in this case Eru; as we are talking about the sub-created world..?

Quote: From Saucepan Man's post

:
But, taken together with the references mentioned above, it is surely implied that there is something more at work here than mere fortuity. The reader may only be aware of this on a subconscious level (as was the case, I think, with me the first few times that I read it). But, if it was not there, this scene would just not feel "right". As Fordim put it, we would feel cheated. If the Quest, which has been central to the story, was fulfilled by pure chance, it would not be at all satisfactory. However, I am sure that no one who has read and enjoyed the book would describe this resolution as unsatisfactory, even if they did not consciously analyse how and why it happened. Rather they would say that it "felt right". And how could it feel right if it was simply an accident?

That last sentence is, well, confusing. I disagree with you here, because I get the impression that you feel that the whole point in the book would be lost if the Fall of Gollum indeed was an accident.

So, an accident wouldn't according to you be 'right', but Providence would?

Providence as all other things is controlled, or at least that is my opinion. God in our world, (for those who believe in God) and Eru in M-E, (for those who accept him as the Creator of Middle-Earth.) But the thing I don't get, is how you can say that the fall wouldn't be satisfying if it was an accident. Why not? According to my online dictionary, Thesaurus, 'providence' and 'accident' can be the same thing:

From Online Thesaurus:

Function:noun
Definition: fate
Synonyms: accident, advantage, adventure, bad luck, break, cast, casualty, coincidence, contingency, destination, destiny, doom, even chance, fluke, fortuity, fortune, future, gamble, good luck, hap, haphazard, happening, hazard, hit, kismet, lot, lottery, luck out, lucky break, misfortune, occurrence, odds, outcome, peradventure, peril, providence, risk, toss-up
Concept: fate

Function:noun
Definition:fate

Synonyms: accident, break, certainty, chance, circumstances, contingency, destiny, doom, expectation, experience, fifty-fifty, fighting chance, fluke, fortuity, fortunateness, good break, hazard, history, karma, kismet, life, luck, lucked into, lucked out, luckiness, lucky break, lucky hit, portion, providence, scratch, shot, stab, star, success, toss up, whack
Concept:fate

So, let's say it was an accident. Would it really make it less satisfactionary? I mean, the word 'accident' (correct me if I'm wrong) is often used as a negative term. For example: "I'm really sorry, but I broke your vase. It was an accident, sorry!" (Bad example, but it should have to do, I think). Anyway, it's a negative term, used when you've done something 'wrong' or unintentionally, but that doesn't mean it wasn't controlled by a Higher Power. It may still be destiny, a coincidence (maybe), but also providence. So that 'something' at the end, which you referred to earlier was providence, which you insist wasn't an accident (or rather as you out it: And how could it feel right if it was simply an accident?) you're kind of (to me) contradicting yourself. Are you?

I must admit, when first readig the book, I didn't really think of 'Gollum's Fall' other than an accident; a bitter end for a terrible dancer. But still, I thought the book and the end very satisfying. Little things, such as 'Gollum's fall', doesn't mean that it isn't 'good enough'. Little things, may be the only things which really matter in the end. Personally, I have no problems with the 'Gollum-falls-into-the-fire-of-Orodruin-by-accident', because even though it was an accident (or not), it was supposed to happen, it was as you put it: providence, and I have to accept that.

Anyway, to do a short summery of what I have been trying to say in this post: An accident, (I think) is also providence as both are controlled by some Higher Power, in this case Eru. So, if an accident is Providence, how would not an accident seem like a satisfying end of the one Ruling Ring? How can we say that accidents are not as much forsighted as any other event?

(I realise that there have been some posting during my time here, writing (and eating.. ), so, I know that there is something else going on as well. I just had to reply to Saucepan Man's question. )

Cheers,
Nova

[Findegil]

Since others have explained the reasons, which we had to undertake the project of the "Revised Silmarillion" better than I could have done, I only will add some info on the project that might still be missing:
One part of the project will be a large appendix. In addition to the rules, which would be laid bar, it, will contain the full source information for each chapter in particular and the complete project as a whole. Beside that it will give a short summary of the arguments we made in the discussions over the more arcane points in the texts and the conclusions we made in the end.
The reason for us to provide that appendix (which to produce will be a work of nearly as great effort than the text of the "Revised Silmarillion" is in it self) was exactly what davem put forward as his concerns about the effect of our work on "new readers". This concerns I can fully understand and I do share them. But they do apply even more to The Silmarillion published in 1977 by Christopher Tolkien. So I can't see how our work (even if it would be published, which is every think between more than completely unlikely and impossible) would enhance this "danger of it creating the false impression".
It might be (and I think that will happen in the end) that this appendix would be for many (imagined) readers of our work of greater value than the text it self. But to produce that appendix the text is clearly needed. Thus it is right that the project might be of much more value than the product it is aiming at, and I think most of the members do recognise that fact. But without the goal we are aiming at the project would not be in existents at all, and that alone would give the goal a value even if only for members of the project.

About the value to no members: I am very happy that even davem "can see it having some curiosity value". Isn't it that "curiosity value" that will in the first place make as read any book of fiction?
That the result of our project will not have any "academic value" beyond the point of being a collection of selected and arranged source material is absolutely clear to me and hopefully to any other member of the project.

Respectfully
Findegil

[davem]

Saucepan Man

Well, if the Gandalf of the Hobbit & the Gandalf of LotR are the 'same', just try swapping them over. I don't think you can change a character in a story wthout changing the story itself - the character is not seperate from the tale he or she inhabits - hence the 1st ed Hobbit is a different story from the revised Hobbit, because the encounter with Gollum is changed by the substitution of Gollum (2) for Gollum (1). The Hobbit instantly becomes the prequel to LotR. They are different stories, with different aims & a different momentum by the change in Gollum's character.

I never said that my 'fanfic' had any academic value. I was playing a game - taking an idea from the Tolkien 'canon' - the stories in which it appeared are set in 'this' world, & Tolkien uses it himself in Mythopoea - transmission of ideas/experiences across time, but from one living mind to another living mind, & expanding it to encompass the idea of the transmission of 'canonical' ideas within Tolkien's 'mythos'. It is a kind of 'Lost Road' fanfic in that sense. So, the premise of the' story' is that a writer, alive & well at one point in time, can communicate, mentally, with a reader at another point in time, by means of a printed text, as we communicate across space via the web. This is a 'fanfic' within the limits of the Legendarium - it is not an 'alternate universe' idea - even if the stories that inspired it are less well known to readers. We have a case of 'living shapes that move from mind to mind'. At the same time, it steps 'outside' the invented world of the Legendarium, by making the author of the Legendarium, & we as readers, into 'characters' in the fiction. Yet at the same time, it is within the Legendarium, as it makes use of the ideas on which the legendarium is based, & uses the rules by which the Legendarium operates. In other words, it amalgamates (in a stumbling way) the two alternatives set up in this thread - the book or the reader, in order to explore with the whole idea of 'canonicity' , what it means & what its effects are on our freedom as co-creators, & what limits, if any, it imposes.

Bethberry

Quote:'My great hesitation was with the way you reiterated that your definition of worth was the only one tenable and that the entire project could only be made legitimate by recourse to a final, ultimately 'authentic' 'authoritative' source, even after, it seemed to me, there were compelling arguments not only as to the value of the project for many and also about the legitimacy of literary activity as process regardless of 'end result.' I was in fact questioning your aim as much as you questioned that of the project.'

I wasn't saying that my definition was the only one tenable. - though I accept it may have come across that way. Of course, if there is no final, 'authentic' authoritative source, then any value a 'revised' Silmarillion has will be a matter of personal opinion, rather than it having any objective or even academic worth. And if, in order to create it (as opposed to re-creating it - it cannot be recreated because it never existed) one has to cut sizeable chunks from the original sources then it seems to me that it cannot tell us anything -one could construct an 'archetypal' greek vase from sherds from hundreds of different vases, but would the resulting object be anything more than a curiosity - & couldn't it be argued that by breaking bits off the individual sherds to make them fit together, one had done more harm than good, simply in order to create an object that had never actually existed? I'd say that was a pointless exercise, even if I knew that the person who did it was a decent guy, with his heart in the right place, & wouldn't mean it as a personal attack In fact, I'd question the danger of that vase misleading the public into thinking Greek vases were like that. The idea behind the project, as I understand it, is to somehow produce a 'better' Silmarillion than the one CT has given us. But I can't see how it can be better - unless one knoked together 'Greek' vase can be said to be 'better' than another knocked together 'Greek' vase. The only way to judge which was better would be to judge on aesthetic grounds - but you woouldn't be judging which was the 'better' vase, only which was a more pleasant object to look at, & the 'Greekness' of the objects would play no part in that decision - unless you also judged on how intact the pieces were which had been used to construct the relative vases - & if that was your criteria for judgement, then the original sherds would be best of all, in the shape you found them, & they would certainly tell you more about the Ancient Greek individuals & society that produced the originals from which you'd cobbled your 'ideal' versions together.

Its the inevitable 'falseness' of the result of trying to construct a 'single' Galadriel, or Gandalf in this way, let alone a 'single' version of the fall of Gondolin which grates with me. I think its a serious mistake, & will inevitably create a false impression in readers, which will, as you imply, need to be countered - & would not need to be countered if this revised Sil didn't exist. As far as I'm concerned its a dead end, & a much more fruitful field of research would be found in attempting to understand the individual stories, & what the author was attempting to say. It seems to me he is saying very different things to us in FoG & in Tuor, & taking some bits from one & some bits from others - as you might with historical accounts of an event, in order to try & discover what 'really' happened - in order to produce a 'truer' or more 'accurate' account of the History of Gondolin will lead you to miss what Tolkien is saying in those two very different stories. Gondolin is not Troy. The real danger is that we do throw out the author, by pretending there wasn't one. One of the most significant statements in this regard in the whole of HoME is in the introduction to vol 12:

'Since the ceaseless 'making' of his world extended from my father's youth into his old age, The History of Middle Earth is in some sense also a record of his life,a form of biography (my italics), if of a very unusual kind. He had travelled a long road.'

Which is the point - the whole Legendarium is a 'biography' of his inner life. A story such as FoG in BoLT cannot be seen as simply an early version of Tuor - or vice versa, so, they cannot be run together with any real hope of producing anything of more than curiosity value - & while I accept that others find it worthwhile, I still, after all the opposing arguments, cannot see anything of value (& I speak here only for myself) in doing it. CT realised the mistake of making a 'Silmarillion' only after he'd completed & published it. My own feeling is that those involved in the revised Sil project will realise he was right when they've finished what they're doing.

Of course, as I have said before, I may be wrong!

Findegil

Sorry, but it seems to me that your 'revised Sil' with the massive appendix will be very large & confusing, & that it will only appeal to those who have read HoME, & will have formed their own opinions about what should & shouldn't be there anyway. I honestly don't get the point of it, & I'm afraid all the explanations of yourself, Awendil & Maedhros have not made the idea behind it any clearer for me. I just can't see this 'fox' you're all chasing. What will this 'Silmarillion' be for, what will you, or anyone else, actually do with it when its finished, that they couldn't do without it? Is it, as Aiwendil seems to think, a literary work, or as you seem to think, an academic work? Is it designed to enchant readers or to inform students? Are you Schliemanns or Homers? or is it to be Homer annotated by Schliemann?

Aiwendil

I hope I've covered most of your points in the foregoing - we seem to have posted at the same time. One thing though, I don't think the 'multiple Galadriel's (& Gandalfs & Gollums) is merely 'semantics'. They are different characters - as I've pointed out Galadriel (2) is not an exile in ME, Galadriel (1) is, & their stories, & more importantly, their motivations are different. It seems to me that this points up the problem I find with your whole approach - this idea that there is a 'coherent' Sil to be dug out from among all these different texts from different periods in Tolkien's life. Of course, you could construct one - maybe an interesting one - maybe even produce a masterpiece - but it would be your 'masterpiece', not Tolkien's. And that would be of relevance to your fans, not Tolkien's.

Your example of fragments of LotR being put together doesn't work for me - it wasn't a bunch of fragments - it was the work of a man with something specific he wished to communicate. And that's the point - however faithful you try to be, you can't know his mind, or his intent, you can only guess at it, & your guess is as likely to be wrong as right (unless he can communicate with you across space time )

[HerenIstarion]

davem:

Its the inevitable 'falseness' of the result of trying to construct a 'single' Galadriel, or Gandalf

Same advise as before: try to place yourself inside, stop judging from outside: Gandalf of the Hobbit is seen through Bilbo's eyes, Gandalf of LoTR is retold by Frodo, and Gandalf of later accoutns probably by Pengolodh

When I grow older, loosing my hair, forty (I hope more, but who can tell?) years from now... and clutching my inevitable Nobel Prize will pass away, some dude, likewise inevitably, will want to write my biography. The best way would be to question people who knew me whilst I still walked this side of turnpike. But he will hardly find two people who will recall me exactly alike. Some think I'm decent chap with the heart in the right place, some think I'm a prick, some I'm smart, and some I'm dumb. And poor dude will be forced to roll down all of their accounts into some 'historical H-I' in case he still wishes to go on with teh biography by the time, for I may be all of the four indeed - I react to different people differently, and even if I were to react in precisely the same way, their preception differs too. That's why I do not find several allegedly different Gandalfs and Galadriels such a complication.

[HerenIstarion]

Another thing - it would be good to take a look at The Tolkien Template - Carrying on the torch of mythology and folklore , Canon and Fanfiction - imagination vs respect and The Canon too

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

One thing though, I don't think the 'multiple Galadriel's (& Gandalfs & Gollums) is merely 'semantics'. They are different characters - as I've pointed out Galadriel (2) is not an exile in ME, Galadriel (1) is, & their stories, & more importantly, their motivations are different.

It is semantics because it depends entirely upon your definition of "characters". Your Galadriel (1) and your Galadriel (2) differ in certain ways and are similar in others. On the most basic level, that's all there is to be said. There's no need to argue about how to translate those differences into a proposition using the word "character".

The rest of what you said has convinced me that our disagreement really is fundamentally a disagreement about what art is. You say:

Of course, you could construct one - maybe an interesting one - maybe even produce a masterpiece - but it would be your 'masterpiece', not Tolkien's. And that would be of relevance to your fans, not Tolkien's.

Well, it would not exactly be "my masterpiece" simpliciter. Nor, of course, would it be "Tolkien's masterpiece" simpliciter. Most likely, all its virtues would be Tolkien's and all its deficiencies mine. But the real point is that where I would talk of a "work of art", you would talk of "X's work of art". As I said before, our objective is not to create a canonical Tolkien text. It does not matter to me whether you call the thing "Tolkien's work" or "Aiwendil's work" or anything else. The idea is that the thing has value in itself, without reference to its authorship.

I would guess (and I must confess that I have not kept up with the various other sub-threads going on here) that you consider a work of literature to be fundamentally an expression of its author, a sort of message or communication from author to reader. This is the prevalent view in modern literary criticism.

I, on the other hand, consider the chief importance of a work of art to be that work of art itself.

Again, I talked about this view in some depth in those other threads I mentioned. To return to that argument here would veer significantly off-topic.

I have, by the way, rather enjoyed my (limited) participation in this thread.

[The Saucepan Man]

Novnarwen

My starting position on this particular aspect of this thread was that the reader was free to interpret Gollum’s fall as an accident if he was unaware of the existence of Eru when he read LotR. My reasoning was based upon my own perception of it as an accident when I first read the book. But, on considering the points made by Fordim Hedgethistle, it occurred to me that I had subconsciously accepted that Gollum’s fall was “meant to be”, even though I hadn’t analysed it in that way on a conscious level.

And you seem to come to the same conclusion as me, when you say:

Personally, I have no problems with the 'Gollum-falls-into-the-fire-of-Orodruin-by-accident', because even though it was an accident (or not), it was supposed to happen, it was as you put it: providence, and I have to accept that.

Your confusion over my post appears to arise from our differing definition of the terms “accident” and “providence”. You regard them as basically describing the same concept, whereas I am using them (rightly or wrongly) to convey two entirely different concepts. In using the term “accident”, I am talking about an event that occurs purely by chance and chance alone. And by “providence” I mean an event that occurs as a result of the intervention of some “Higher power” (as you put it), an event that is “meant to be” by that “Higher Power”.

For me, if something is “meant to be”, it cannot be accidental. It must be “providential” (in the sense that I am, for current purposes, using it). If I really had considered Gollum’s fall to be “accidental” (ie something which occurred purely by chance), I wouldn’t have found the resolution of the Quest to be at all satisfying. But, because I subconsciously accepted that it was “meant to be”, I didn’t have that problem.

Providence as all other things is controlled, or at least that is my opinion. God in our world, (for those who believe in God) and Eru in M-E, (for those who accept him as the Creator of Middle-Earth.)

I agree, save that this thing that we are calling “providence” should, for me, be wide enough to admit any number of possible ways of imagining what the “Higher Power” that is behind the providential event actually is. That is why I am not entirely comfortable with the word “providence” to describe this concept, although I have not come up with a better term.

So, an accident wouldn't according to you be 'right', but Providence would?

Yes, in the sense that providence (or whatever we call it) is sufficiently inherent in the text to become a part of it. The reader is free to deny it, but to do so would be “wrong” in the same way that it would be “wrong” to deny that Boromir attempted to seize the Ring from Frodo.

Davem

Well, if the Gandalf of the Hobbit & the Gandalf of LotR are the 'same', just try swapping them over.

When I said that they are the same, I meant that Gandalf is the same person in both the Hobbit and LotR. I am aware that his character is portrayed slightly different in each book. Aiwendil has explained how this might be reconciled by reference to the fiction that the two stories were authored by different sub-created authors. There are other ways of achieving this reconciliation. For example, we might say that Gandalf acted differently in the two stories because he was faced with different circumstances and/or because he was not yet ready to reveal the full extent of his nature and powers to any but the wise. But, for me, it is sufficient that Tolkien intended LotR as a sequel to the Hobbit and so clearly intended that your “G1” and “G2” be one and the same person.

I never said that my 'fanfic' had any academic value.

I was being flippant. But I think that you are selling yourself short. Your “game” might well have some academic value if, as you say it, you are using it:

... to explore with the whole idea of 'canonicity' , what it means & what its effects are on our freedom as co-creators, & what limits, if any, it imposes.

It seems to me that the debate over the “Revised Silmarillion” project has been taken about as far as it can go, since the same arguments are now starting to feature, albeit in different form and by reference to different examples. I am not sure that either “side” is going to convince the other of the merits of their position.

Now, anyone care to take up by “Jungian gauntlet”?

[davem]

Aiwendil

I think Saucepan Man is probably right in that the 'revised' Sil discussion has gone as far as it can - We do disagree on our ideas of 'Art' because for me a work of art is the expression of certain ideas by a particular artist. Our understandings of what, exactly, Tolkien's 'art' was 'for' or what it 'means' also seems to differ. I can't for the life of me see a 'coherent' Sil, constructed from bits & pieces of different stories written over a period of 50 odd years, giving any insight into the artist himself or the creative process involved.

And in a way this brings us to Saucepan Man's 'Jungian Gauntlet'.

Aiwendil & the others involved in the RS project seem to be thinking in terms of an 'Archetypal' Middle Earth, which has some kind of 'objective' existence in some other kind of 'reality', which Tolkien himself was attempting to set out in as perfect a form as he could - he got 'flashes' of the truth here & there, but not in every story he wrote, so its simply a matter of studying the texts, finding the 'true' parts, whether they are in Bolt, QN, QS, LotR, Hobbit, or 'Myths Transformed, & putting those 'true' parts together & constructing the truth about this alternate world. If we could do that, they seem to think (unless I'm completely misunderstanding them - as I've admitted I probably am, because their reasons for doing what they're doing still don't make sense to me) we will end up with a 'truer' vision of Middle Earth than we have so far.

The question is, are we dealing with such a case - does ME have an 'objective' existence of that kind, or are the writings the product of Tolkien's 'personal' unconscious, using Archetypal images & themes? Probably the Legendarium is a combination of the two - at least Tolkien himself believed he was not 'inventing'. But he is not simply 'channeling' tales from an alternate/objective (psychological) 'reality' unquestioningly, as he also states that the in the revision of LotR he deliberately worked to make the story conform to Catholicism. Of course, we don't know how hard he worked to make it conform.

If it is the case that Tolkien was in touch with some archetypal 'other world' then to the extent that we ourselves are able to tap into that archetypal (& if that 'reality' is truly Archetypal, we should be able to) then we would have a sense of what was 'true' & what was not, & so we could produce a 'true' account of the History of that World. But... We are then throwing out Tolkien the artist. He becomes simply a pioneer, the 'first' explorer of that world. We would then be in the position of following him & 'colonising' this 'New World', confirming some of his 'discoveries' & rejecting others as false or mistaken. Yet H-I would have us think in terms of all the different versions/accounts of that world as being in some sense equally valid, coming from different people at different times, each with their own value system & agenda.

So far so good. But if this is the approach we are to take, then it is entirely possible that another 'explorer' of Middle Earth, you, I, or those involved in the RS project, could disprove one of the 'pioneer' Tolkien's discoveries, show one of his accounts to be wrong, & we would have to accept this explorer's account over Tolkien's, as being a 'truer' account. So 'canonicity' goes out the window, as we replace that idea with one of 'true' or 'false'. In that case, a work of Fanfic which contradicted Tolkien's writings would not, should not , be automatically rejected, as the writer may be right & Tolkien wrong. And then we will get factions arising, denominations forming, heresy trials & possibly writers as well as texts being consigned to the flames

Or we can see the Legendarium, unfinished & incomplete as it is (much though we might wish it wasn't - & personally, I like the fact that it isn't complete, or set in stone ) as the work of one individual artist, attempting to share his unique vision with us, & simply accept the vision itself, without concerning ourselves overmuch with what inspired the vision. Whether the 'world' Tolkien saw & presented to us as Middle Earth is 'another reality' (whther an 'inner' or an 'outer' reality is not really the issue) & is as he has depicted it (when he was 'successful') or whether it is merely this 'reality', our own, mundane world, seen 'through enchanted eyes', is in the end beside the point. The vision itself is what enchants, not the world it is a vision of.

So 'canon' comes second to enchantment, & the vision is more important than what is 'actually' seen. But that 'vision' is the vision of a single artist, & it encompasses what that artist has been able to include, at different times, from different 'angles' with many differing reasons over his long life, for what he chose to look at, & how he was able to see it.

As to my fanfic 'game', its difficult to play alone, but the more I think about the implications of it, the more intriguing it seems, I must admit.

[HerenIstarion]

davem, you are very inspiring poster

Saucepen, depsite what you've posted about canon, and though I may be repeating myself a bit, I would be glad to have an opportunity to clarify my position some more

I probably failed to communicate this, and maybe it is the try to eat the cake and have it (or may be you are exaggerating a bit too), but was I driving at was more or less what follows:

A) Tolkien's world is Tolkien's entirely
B) Any writing of Tolkien's is canon
C) No other writing is canon

But, having in mind those three maxims, the accounts inside the scope of those may contradict each other, and yet all be valid. All one needs to do is place oneself inside the story.

So I was in no way implying that other 'explorers' can disprove what 'first pioneer' have said about the world. But if one is to suspend his disbelief (which is an easy task with Tolkien), and place oneself inside the secondary world as 'found out" by Tolkien, than all rules that work in our primary world are perfectly intact inside the secondary one. We may argue that Gandalf of the Hobbit is truer than one of the LoTR, or vice versa, but it would be similar to, say, our choice between intepretations of some event as broadcast by different news stations, and matter of taste and reasoning grounded on it, like in our primary world I tend to prefer BBC broadcast over CNN, but I realise that neither of those gives really true account of what happened, for there may be countless other accounts catching some other angles of it. But, I do not go to the opposite and and do not say by it that any of those accounts is entirely untrue. With Tolkien, the whole evaluation process is inside the secondary world, otherwise processes are similar.

And, as I've said already, the secondary world is defined by what Tolkien have wrought. Inside this, we are free to work out truer versions of anything for ourselves, but are not allowed to add something from outside. So, the bark eaters, which do not originate from what Tolkien himslef wrote, can not be credible but in fanfiction, but, given source material we have, what can be 'revised' and 'combined' out of it can be.

What would be the value of such a 'revised' thing? The same as any broadcast has. Or any history primer has. For it is understood that no primer reflects history as it really happened. And it can be argued that one primer is therefore enough, but primers are written and published dozens by year.

Take the much discussed providence for instance – our research of the case is limited by what is given inside the texts by Tolkien. Some interpret it this way, and some other, but in any argument they are forced to lean on their sources – i.e., by what Tolkien said about the subject. I can not have a valid argument if I say it is drawn directly from the ME as I have had a vision of it in a dream last night (however archetypal my vision may have been, or even if I try to convince you that it was like to experience of Notion Club Papers, and I have been in communion with Elendil himself who have told me so and so), but have to give you an excerpt from the text which is known to be written by Tolkien himself. Those are my limitation, but we all are free to interpret our sources in different way. This is our freedom.

Or, to give another analogy, let us say that genuinely Tolkien texts are stones, and our interpretation is house we build out of those. There are no more stones around than what Tolkien left us, and no one can create another stone. But what house each of us will built out of given number of stones, is entirely up to ourselves.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

A) Tolkien's world is Tolkien's entirely
B) Any writing of Tolkien's is canon
C) No other writing is canon

About half a year ago i read 'War and Peace' by Leo Tolstoy
It is a book about Russia in the time of Alexander the Great and Napolean Bonaparte (sp?). Reading this book (comprised of 15 books) gave me the distinct impretion that most of what we learn about the french revolution is taken from french sources and that when looking at russian sources and french sources a more accurate account could be established.

At times in the book Tolstoy seems only to be stating historical events and not telling a story, and in these times (usually a chapter or 2 long) the facts are stated with such a "this is fact" tone that i got the feeling that Tolstoy had studied almost all of the sources relating to this event and come to a conclusion based on the consistancy and reliability of sources. (and all of the "facts" have footnotes referring to which source has been used). Although i do not know the history of Tolstoy's life, near the end of the book he writes on the nature of historians and the study of history that i can only assume that he himself was a learned historian.

Now the point of saying that is this... There never will be and never was a completely true account of all the events in the French Revolution but Tolstoy undertook indepth studies to establish an account that is IMO almost as close to the truth as we might ever get. And yet even after the book is written (in the books epilogue) Tolstoy does not claim that he knows the truth).

Now if we consider Tolkien's writings as sources, and apply Tolstoy's attitude, we will be able to, with indepth studies, establish an account that is almost as close to the truth about ME as we will ever get. But we will never have a completely true account and can never claim to have established one.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

A) Tolkien's world is Tolkien's entirely
B) Any writing of Tolkien's is canon
C) No other writing is canon

In response:
A: This statement can not be falsified, Tolkien wrote the books didn't he
B: Tolkien was the only true witness of ME, and his writings on it are the only sources of ME we have. Nobody else could see into Tolkien's mind and witness ME.
C: No other writings are sources, they are deductions of sources.

therefore if "canon" is considered to be "a reliable source of ME" then i agree with HerenIstarion completely in these 3 maxims.

hope that helps

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

I think Saucepan Man is probably right in that the 'revised' Sil discussion has gone as far as it can

I concur. I would just like to emphasize, though, that when you say:

I can't for the life of me see a 'coherent' Sil, constructed from bits & pieces of different stories written over a period of 50 odd years, giving any insight into the artist himself or the creative process involved.

. . . I completely agree. It will give no such insight whatsoever.

[Bêthberry]

First, an apology to anyone reading this. I attempted early this morning (before I had my coffee) to revise my post from yesterday ('sleeping on the post' did wonders for my thinking--not that I fell asleep here at the keyboard ) and in the process somehow lost much of what I rewritten. And so in a fit of typerly pique, I nuked the whole thing. Let me reconstruct again.

SaucepanMan, your story about the spider brought a gleam to my eye as I remembered Jung's own dream where scarabs and flying beetles led him to develope his idea of synchroncity. However, the question you post to me and others is this:

Does the presence of these archetypes from our shared experience (collective consciousness?) mean that there will be a level upon which we will all react to these materials in the same way, just as spiders evoke in all of us at some level a feeling of revulsion, if not fear? Does this mean that there may in fact be a "right" approach towards interpreting Tolkien at some level?

I don't think the collective unconscious--which is what I think you meant here--even if there is one, would operate this way. Let me turn to some thoughts about interpretation in contemporary critical theory. I will be taking a different tact from that suggested by davem, so for now I won't comment on his observations about archetypes.

To the best of my knowledge (which is faulty on Jung I must acknowledge) there is no current critical theory on literature which uses Jungian archetypes as a metalanguage (paradigm or model) which will produce an interpretation of the material, "the text.' This was what critics such as Joseph Campbell did with Jungian archetypes in his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces. (That book remains, to me, fascinating to read in context with Tolkien's "On Fairy-Stories.") What I mean here is interpreting a text by equating Tolkien's characters with Jung's archetypes, such as Galadriel with the all-powerful Mother archetype, or even seeing how Jung's own dream of the wise old man accompanied by a young girl (who represents Jung's female aspects, we are told authoritatively) or the rough dwarf who helped him slay the beautiful young Siegfried relate to Tolkien's narrative.

For those who might not know Campbell, I have a rather reductive explanation of his work on narrative plots, the monomyth, but the link is not working now. Perhaps I will return to insert it.

However, there is another way to regard the relationship between psychoanalysis and literature and this is currently an interest in critical theory, to examine how the process of interaction between the therapist/analyst and the patient can stand for what happens when we read texts. This act is called in psychoanalysis transference and it is most commonly used in conjunction with Freudian analysis. I'm no authority on it but I can provide a small explanation of it and then consider whether Jung's idea of the psyche would lead to a monolithic interpretation of "one right way", as SpM has wondered.

In transference, the truth of the events or the unconscious is not revealed by the therapist telling the patient what the patient's dreams mean. The truth is more properly understood to arise from the performative act, from how the therapist becomes involved in the relationships which the dreams present, from how the patient displaces feelings from past events onto the therapist. That is, we can ask ourselves how a particular reading of a text or dream--our search for meaning and origins--in fact re-enacts a primordial quest, like the Oedipal drama or the myth of Narcissus. Seen in this light, our own interpretations repeat archetypal narratives and relationships. As Jonathan Culler explains it:

Awareness of the centrality of transference, recognition that the truth of a text may lie not in what an authoritative interpreter says about it but in the interpreter's unexpected relationship to it, makes possible a subtle and fruitful investigation of the problems of interpretation. The Pursuit of Signs

Using this idea of transference, we could ask what particular archetype comes most into play in our own, individual interpretations. (There are critics who say that Freud, in attempting to interpret the Oedipal story, himself repeats that myth, or acts it out, in The Interpretation of Dreams.)

However, I don't think that Jung's ideas about the psyche would result in one interpretation valorised over others. After all, he himself posited a psyche comprised of persona, shadow, anima (the female aspects of the male) or animus (the male aspects of the female) These interact in different ways, which for Jung became Psychological Types based on dichotomies of intuition, introversion, etc. So it would seem to me that we would have not one way to interpret the text (again, the master interpreter telling us what the text means) but a variety of ways in which our own psychological makeup infact has us repeat the archtypes in our own interpetations.

I'm sure that Fordim would have more to say about this.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Fordim does! (But not nearly so much, or so useful, as Bêthberry has already provided above.)

I am about as far as one can get from an expert on Jungian analysis (or Freudian psychology for that matter). But I do have some experience with the kind of interpretations that come about through psychological-based ‘readings’ of texts. My concern with all such attempts is that they far too often (although by all means not always) are merely a more terminology-laden way of avoiding the difficult and ethically demanding task of interpretation that I’ve been hammering away on in this thread. That is, whereas the question of “What Tolkien meant” is far too often used as a way to either,

a) avoid generating one’s own interpretation (and thus become a Nazûl) or
b) generating one’s own interpretation and then pretending that it is Tolkien’s own (and thus become a very petty version of Sauron)

the turn to Jungian archetypes is merely the same attempt in disguise. “What did Tolkien intend/mean?” becomes “What does this archetype mean?” and we’re back to options a) or b) above as we look for answers either outside the individual experience of the text, or we project our own experiences onto the text and then claim that they’re from an ‘outside’ source of truth.

The example of the spider is fortuitous, for it helps demonstrate how the spider is not an archetype at all – at least, not in the sense that we “all” react to spiders the same way. In West African cultures, Spider is a trickster figure: a spirit of creation and destruction who embodies the chaotic and random elements of the natural cycle. Not evil at all, or frightening, just a force to be reckoned with. The African who were brought to the Caribbean as slaves brought their memories of Spider with them, and in the historical struggle by the slaves for liberation, he became Anansi – a powerful spirit who embodied all the rebellious tricksterism, the survival tactics, wit and ingenuity required by the enslaved. (Anyone familiar with Native American legends might be thinking of Coyote here – and you’d be right to! ) What’s more, I know several entomologists who would be horrified by the idea that they are “supposed” to be horrified by spiders.

This is why I would resist any simplification of a figure like Shelob into something like an archetypal spider, when the ‘real’ (that is, subcreated) history of her is much more interesting and revealing. And here we go back into the author/text relationship again, for Tolkien wrote in his letters that one of his earliest memories was of running across the lawn at his home in South Africa after being bitten by a spider – he attributes his dislike of arachnids to this event. (He also wrote of a recurring dream he had throughout his life of a wave coming from the west and destroying the land – the birth of Numenor.)

Images, symbols, tropes and figures are the result of historical processes that we can watch and trace and study. And once more, I am led to the interesting case presented by Tolkien’s subcreated world in this regard. One example of what I’m talking about is the Evening Star. In ‘our’ (Western/European tradition) the Evening Star is associated with either Venus – and thus love – and/or Lucifer – and thus the glory of the fallen angels. But what about the Evening Star in Middle-Earth? Tolkien gives us a long and elaborate history for Earendil that includes not one jot (at least overtly) of the mythos of Venus or Lucifer – does this mean that the symbolic value of the Evening Star in Middle-Earth is divorced from its symbolic value in the Primary World? Or can we (should we) be able to look for concordances between the Secondary World symbol and the Primary World symbol? That is, how much – if any – Venus and/or Lucifer is there in Earendil? Is such a question even valid?

[Mister Underhill]

Another quick, woefully inadequate post:

I don’t know if I am dense or just getting tripped up on the metaphors and terminology in play here. Likely both.

I confess that I’m still puzzled at this tug of war between author and reader. Isn’t it natural for an author’s intentions – at least insofar as they are encoded (a dangerous word and probably the completely wrong one for the occasion, but I can’t think of a better one at the moment) within the text itself – to inform our interpretation of any text? Why must we be so vigilant in our resistance to the author’s intentions? What exactly is this completely independent interpretation the reader must generate in order to avoid becoming a mental slave of the author? What do we even mean by “interpretation” anyway? Are we really obligated to puzzle out what a writer’s – or a reader’s – interpretation of a text really reveals about them on some subconscious level? Isn’t our interpretation of the “true meaning” of their interpretation really revealing something about our own subconscious – and hence we soon find ourselves in a vicious, endless circle of unfathomable subtextual analysis?

I’ll be frank – none of it sounds like much fun.

It seems that there are at least certain broad-stroke “interpretations” of LotR which, if not universally “correct”, are at least inevitable.

P.S. -- "Ensorcelled" is indeed a most excellent word.

[The Saucepan Man]

Thank-you davem, Bêthberry and Fordim for taking up the gauntlet.

Bêthberry

In transference, the truth of the events or the unconscious is not revealed by the therapist telling the patient what the patient's dreams mean. The truth is more properly understood to arise from the performative act, from how the therapist becomes involved in the relationships which the dreams present, from how the patient displaces feelings from past events onto the therapist. That is, we can ask ourselves how a particular reading of a text or dream--our search for meaning and origins--in fact re-enacts a primordial quest, like the Oedipal drama or the myth of Narcissus. Seen in this light, our own interpretations repeat archetypal narratives and relationships.

If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I do not), this approach places the reader in the position of both the patient who experiences the dream and the analyst who interprets it. The patient is that aspect of the reader that reads the text, while the analyst is that aspect of him that seeks to interpret his reactions to it. But, by suggesting that the "truth" arises from the process of analysis, doesn't this approach suggest that the value of reading is in analysing one's reactions to it (whether consciously or subconsciously), whereas I would consider the greater value to lie in the reactions themselves (which will, almost inevitably, arise at the subconscious level)? What I am wondering is whether our instinctive reactions to the archetypal elements in Tolkien's works might be the same on some level, in consequence of our collective subconscious (thanks Bêthberry ), so that there is, in a sense, a "correct" (or perhaps a better word would be "universal") way of responding to these works.

However, I don't think that Jung's ideas about the psyche would result in one interpretation valorised over others. After all, he himself posited a psyche comprised of persona, shadow, anima (the female aspects of the male) or animus (the male aspects of the female) These interact in different ways, which for Jung became Psychological Types based on dichotomies of intuition, introversion, etc.

But, since Jung's archetypes are just that - archetypal figures - is it not axiomatic that we will all respond in the same way to them at some (perhaps very deep and primordial) level?

Fordim

The example of the spider is fortuitous, for it helps demonstrate how the spider is not an archetype at all – at least, not in the sense that we “all” react to spiders the same way.

Yes, I was aware of that when I first raised this issue. Nevertheless, it was my own reaction to the spider which prompted these thoughts. Certainly, I think that there is a "shared experience" of spiders in some (only western?) cultures (I suspect that even the most experienced western arachnologist would feel this fear and/or revulsion at some level, even though it is mastered and superseded by their interest in the creatures). And so spiders are generally portrayed within the folklore of such cultures as "evil" creatures. And this is true of the other creatures that Tolkien places on the side of evil: bats, wolves and crows. Whereas eagles and bears, for example, find themselves on the side of "good". Is this because these animals have traditionally been aligned in this way in western mythology? And does this mean that this alignment will resonate most particularly with those who come from cultures where these myths might be said to form part of (or perhaps it is better to say derive from) the collective cultural subconscious? Might this be why Tolkien's works would seem to be particularly popular amongst those cultures with a strong Anglo-Saxon heritage? (And before I get any apples or other projectiles thrown at me, I am most definately not saying that LotR can only be truly understood by people from such cultures.)

And, if one believes Jung, is it not the case that his archetypes can be identified in the myths and legends of all cultures? As I understand it, the "hero myth" is a concept which turns up time and time again across all cultures. What I am struggling to understand is whether the consequence of this is that we all respond to the archetypes in Tolkien's works in the same way on a very basic level? Of course, our different personalities and cultural traditions will still leave a lot of room for differing reactions and interpretations at higher levels. But might this shared reaction at the most basic level account for the "enchantment" which davem eloquently describes?

As I have already said, this is not my area at all, and I am simply throwing up ideas relevant to this topic for possible discussion.

Mr Underhill

I agree with you and share your reluctance to accept that reading will inevitably involve a struggle between one's own interpretation and the author's perceived interpretation. I was thinking along the same lines when I posted:

Gosh! That makes it all sound like a terribly arduous (Arda-uous?) process. Whereas it is, in my experience, a most enjoyable one. Most readers choose the manner of interpretation that they are comfortable with, and this almost invariably occurs entirely at the subconscious level. It is not so much a "struggle" as a natural process. And when we try to analyse why we react to a text in the way that we do and, in so doing, perhaps perceive a struggle, do we not risk losing davem's "enchantment"?

I just don't see it as a struggle at all. I see it as a natural process. As you say, there will be certain broad interpretations that will be common to all, or at least the majority of, readers (does this hark back to archetypes or is it simply a matter of accepting that which is implicit in the text, such as Fordim's "Eruism"?). And there will be other interpretations which are peculiar to the reader, either because they are that those which he perceives the author as having intended, or because they are truly his own. But I don't think that there is any struggle between these differing responses. They are all present within Fordim's composite reader, and they occur naturally, without the reader having necessarily to think very much about it.

[Bêthberry]

Oh, this is fun, Mr. Underhill. Why, look at the number of views for threads on page 1 of The Books. This Canonicity thread, at the time of my writing, has 2339 views, compared to the next most viewed tread with 1247 views (Evil Things), 1099 (Those Little), 995 (Nebulous 'It'), and then 443 (Unnumbered Tears). It would appear that not only are we who are posting engaged in something of interest and pleasurable to us, but so must there be viewers who find this fun. Unless we are all masochists and madly rereading this thread over and over.

Edit: Actually, I never said the reader must engage in analysis of himself or his subconscious. What I did was offer a current model of reading in response to SpM's question about archetypes. The model of transference does not say that the reader must examine his response for the ways he battles the old archetypes: the model merely suggests that for all readers, at some level, their interpretation of the text will enact a kind of primal archetypal scene.

I would agree with SpM that this effort to decode a text is not a struggle but part of the delight of reading. Also, I don't think I have ever stated that a reader's interpretation must be completely independent.

Where the difficulties of interpreting the intentions of a writer like Tolkien come into play lies with, in part, I think, the way he chose to tell his tale and in determining just what text it is which demonstrates his intention. For instance, he did indeed choose to make the LOTR more consciously conform with his Catholicism in the revising, but--and this is a mighty big but--he also chose not to make that identification explicit. For whatever reasons, he left us with a tale that is covert rather than overt. Why would he do this? I return to his words in the forward where he himself contrasted "the freedom of the reader" with "the purposed domination of the author." I can only conclude that for some sufficient reason Tolkien valued this model of reading.
And, of course, just what text do you refer in order to determine Tolkien's intentions? As this thread has shown, his intentions changed over time and he left conflicting drafts of many stories. His own intentions are in conflict, so is it any wonder that readers cannot agree on what his intentions were? Under what conditions is it possible to apply, say, Unfinished Tales to understanding LOTR? Is Christopher Tolkien's way of handling his father's body of work the only way of discussing Tolkien?

Fordim, I would agree with you that to emphasise the archetypal quality over the exquisite details of Tolkien's individualising of the characters is reductive. That has been the problem it seems to me with the structuralist approach to narrative variants. It does not account for readers prefering one version over another. At some point we have to acknowledge and appreciate Tolkien's artistry--just what is it that has made us prefer his story over the archetypes of other fantasy writers?

SpM, my own question about this model of reading drawn from the transference of analysis has to do with its applicabilty. The analytical model is derived from a context of illness (neurosis, psychosis, some kind of unhappiness or malajustment). The end result of therapy is to make the patient more aware of what causes his unhappiness so he can free himself from it (unless it is also to make the therapist richer). As Tolkien suggests, at least about fantasy, reading operates to satisfy primordial desires rather than eliminate them.

The point you raise about the experience or the analysis of experience is a classic conundrum. It was Aristotle I think who made some comment about the 'unexamined life' but I would rather say that reading provides any number and kind of pleasures and I would not want to impose any one pleasure by saying that kind is more valuable than any other. Had Tolkien, for instance, not examined his own responses to faërie (however he did it, subconsciously or consciously) we might not have had the pleasure of Middle-earth. Yet I will also agree with you that the prime value of art is its experience. That is, in fact, why I have been arguing against the necessary primacy of any one interpretation

As to "our instinctive reactions to the archetypal elements .. in consequence of our collective subconscious", as you put it, that would depend upon demonstrating that 'instinctive reactions" are all the same for all readers and, in fact, proving that we do have a collective subconscious. Current psychology (if not parental experience) tells us that teenage girls have very different responses to their mothers than teenage boys. (True variation also for different responses to fathers.) How does this historical/personal experience impinge upon any archetypal response? In short, the 'universal' application of archetypes falters on gender issues. But then, I'm no expert on Jung and I offerred the transference model as merely one way archetypes are now being discussed, since you had appealed for my help.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I confess that I’m still puzzled at this tug of war between author and reader. Isn’t it natural for an author’s intentions – at least insofar as they are encoded (a dangerous word and probably the completely wrong one for the occasion, but I can’t think of a better one at the moment) within the text itself – to inform our interpretation of any text?

Mister Underhill, I for one would heartily agree. I seldom enjoy the works of a writer who hails from a world-view primarily hostile to that which I hold dear; why would I *immerse* myself in the works of a writer if I didn't trust him/ her in the first place?

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Why must we be so vigilant in our resistance to the author’s intentions? What exactly is this completely independent interpretation the reader must generate in order to avoid becoming a mental slave of the author? What do we even mean by “interpretation” anyway? Are we really obligated to puzzle out what a writer’s – or a reader’s – interpretation of a text really reveals about them on some subconscious level?

And if one is leery of the author's intentions in the first place, why read the book looking for deep meaning? If we trust our own interpretation so much more than the author's, why read his book instead of writing our own?

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Isn’t our interpretation of the “true meaning” of their interpretation really revealing something about our own subconscious – and hence we soon find ourselves in a vicious, endless circle of unfathomable subtextual analysis?

Cheers and applause...

[davem]

SPM

On the spider 'archetype'. Actually Spiders are not seen in an entirely negative way in the west. The goddess Ariadne has spider associations, as do all goddesses associated with weaving. Her Welsh equivalent, Arianrhod, or 'silver wheel' is suppposed have come by that name either due to a conection with a 'whirling palace' (Caer Arianrhod), or with a spider's web. In the myth Theseus deserts her & Bacchus transforms her crown into a constelation. We also have Arachne the wever turned into a spider. Also in one of the 'gnostic' gospels there is a story of a spider weaving a web to hide the Holy family from Herod's persuing troops. So we're possibly dealing with an ancient Spider Goddess figure, whose legends have survived in these various legends - many ancient Mother Goddesses are depicted as weavers of fate - particularly in relation to Tolkien we have the Norns, three goddesses who spin & weave the individual's wyrd or destiny, in Norse myth, obviously connected with the Greek Fates.

In other words, spiders, even in the west, don't have an entirely bad press

Tolkien does make spiders particularly monstrous & threatening, so its probably this that we respond to, rather than some kind of 'archetypal arachnophobia', as our ancestors didn't think of spiders as entirely bad - on a mundane level, spider webs have long been used to help wounds heal, by speeding up the healing process. And whether their makers are entirely pleasant to look at, a spider web covered in dew is a particularly magical sight.

Also, Fordim's point about Lucifer - 'Lucifer ' translates as the 'Light Bringer' which Earendel himself is - though not in the Biblical sense, of course . There is a very tenuous link to be made from this to Tolkkien & the Grail - in one version of the story, the Grail is a stone which fell from the crown of Lucifer when he was cast out of Heaven, & which embedded itself deep in the earth - so we have the image of an object of Heavenly beauty, buried in the depths of the earth, which must be won by the Grail knight - shades of Beren & Luthien entering Angband to win the Silmaril from Morgoth's crown - was this episode deliberatley adapted by Tolkien, or was it an 'archtypal' image which arose in his conscious mind?

Yet all this, as Fordim has said, is a dead end, & doesn't explain why we respond to Tolkien's stories - how many of us would respond in the same way to the myths & legends I've just recounted? Its not what Tolkien 'looked at' in mythic or archetypal terms, its what he saw. As I said in another post, its his 'vision' we respond to, not the physical (horrors of the Somme, or Edith dancing through the hemlocks at Roos) or mythological things that inspired that vision. The vision enchants us, the way he saw what he was looking at. If we had witnessed the horrors of the Somme, we would not have seen Gondolin, & I suspect that if we had come upon Edith Tolkien dancing amid the flowers at Roos we wouldn't have seen Luthien Tinuviel dancing & singing among the Hemlocks in the woods of Neldoreth. Jung once stated, in response to Freud's obsession with complexes, that he found the whole idea of them dull & uninteresting - everyone has complexes - what Jung found interesting was the effect of our complexes on us, what we with them do - or what they do with us.

I think those of us who do respond to Tolkien's writings 'positively' - many don't - are probably responding to the same things, if not in exactly identical ways (but probably more or less so). Whether this is due to 'the Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious' we all supposedly carry around in our brain structure, or whether its something deeper & more 'spiritual' in us is another question. We seem, for whatever reason, to respond to Tolkien's vision, I don't think sticking a label on our responses & putting them down to 'Archetypal' resonances, or whatever, will explain that response satisfactorily. His 'secondary world' seems real - even some of his 'lesser' works elicit the same response - in fact, there's a painting of his,from 1924, included in 'Artist & Illustrator' showing a store with a garden in front & behind, with the sun setting to the left behind a hill, & mountains rising to the right, titled 'A Shop on the Edge of the Hills of Fairyland' which evokes an incredible sense of 'enchantment' - & even if you haven't seen it, probably just reading the title now, has sparked some response - why would a shop be there, what does it sell, who to, & who would run such a place? There's a whole story there in the title, & its almost like, on some level, we feel we 'know' that story, but just can't quite remember it, & desperately want someone to remind us how it goes. And that feeling runs through so much of Tolkien's work - glimpses of 'far off mountains' which seem at once strange, yet familiar - if only we could remember!

So, 'Archetypes' or something more like Niggle's experience - was the Tree created as a 'gift' for Niggle, or was it there all along, & the 'gift' he speaks of simply the 'unconscious' knowledge he had all along of that 'real' (truly real) tree?

And does it really matter? Will knowing the 'explanation' (ie knowing which 'label' to stick on our experience) get us to Niggle's parish any faster?

[The Saucepan Man]

In other words, spiders, even in the west, don't have an entirely bad press

Fair enough. I'll lighten up on the spiders. But don't expect me to like them!

And does it really matter? Will knowing the 'explanation' (ie knowing which 'label' to stick on our experience) get us to Niggle's parish any faster?

Absolutely not. But it makes an interesting subject for discussion.

[HerenIstarion]

There's a whole story there in the title, & its almost like, on some level, we feel we 'know' that story, but just can't quite remember it, & desperately want someone to remind us how it goes. And that feeling runs through so much of Tolkien's work - glimpses of 'far off mountains' which seem at once strange, yet familiar - if only we could remember!

Excellent, davem!

But I can't leave it as mere approval without adding up a bit, even if it were a tiny bit (two coins worth, heh)

The feeling you describe strikes me as similar to what I for myself got intensively when reading LoTR for the first time, (and which haven't disappeared since, though is somewhat less intense for I know what to expect), selfsame feeling C.S.Lewis describes as joy, and which is than defined as glimpses of basic and eternal Truth seen in created artwork (but not only, it may be experienced in many modes and as a response to manifold irritants). And with Tolkien it is best defined in the poem he dedicated to said C.S.Lewis, Mythopoeia (I can't give it in full, I suppose, for the copyright's sake, but I can scrap essential bit):

Blessed are the legend-makers with their rhyme
of things not found within recorded time.
It is not they that have forgot the Night,
or bid us flee to organized delight,
in lotus-isles of economic bliss
forswearing souls to gain a Circe-kiss
(and counterfeit at that, machine-produced,
bogus seduction of the twice-seduced).

Such isles they saw afar, and ones more fair,
and those that hear them yet may yet beware.
They have seen Death and ultimate defeat,
and yet they would not in despair retreat,
but oft to victory have turned the lyre
and kindled hearts with legendary fire,
illuminating Now and dark Hath-been
with light of suns as yet by no man seen.

I would that I might with the minstrels sing
and stir the unseen with a throbbing string.
I would be with the mariners of the deep
that cut their slender planks on mountains steep
and voyage upon a vague and wandering quest,
for some have passed beyond the fabled West.
I would with the beleaguered fools be told,
that keep an inner fastness where their gold,
impure and scanty, yet they loyally bring
to mint in image blurred of distant king,
or in fantastic banners weave the sheen
heraldic emblems of a lord unseen.

***

In Paradise perchance the eye may stray
from gazing upon everlasting Day
to see the day-illumined, and renew
from mirrored truth the likeness of the True

This blurred (and it can't be precise, for men as the race are fallen) image of the ultimate truth, I believe, what Tolkien is after, and we his readers (whatever the issue with slavery/mastery ) feel as, what was the word? Ensorcellment. But that is the French word, and with the full respect to French, I have a suspicion Professor himself (dangerous ground again - much accused tendency of finding out what Tolkien's intentions would have been) would have preferred some genuinely English word, like, let me see - spellbound. Such a term is justified on other grounds too - spell=word, and texts consist of words. And bound - for selfwilled submitting to said mastery of the author + voluntary suspension of disbelief, are both, more or less, required from the reader to enjoy his/her reading

As for

was the Tree created as a 'gift' for Niggle, or was it there all along, & the 'gift' he speaks of simply the 'unconscious' knowledge he had all along of that 'real' (truly real) tree?

I have given it a long thought at my time indeed, and came out with the usage of the word 'niWi' for the word 'gift' in Georgian translation (the meditation on the subject has arisen as a result of my working on translation of Niggle story). Said word means in Georgian 'gift', 'present' (in an archaic sense), and 'talent' (in modern sense). My reasoning being that gift in English likewise may refer to man's abilities (as in 'he's gifted poet') So my interpretaion is that tree is A) gift for Niggle - his reward, whilst B) his ability to have glimpses of it is likewise a gift and C) third thing there is to be added - Niggle's 'talent' - i.e. sub-creative ability. Or, he may have been painting real 'true' tree of which he has had glimpses, but maybe he have been creating 'true' tree by painting glimpses of it before he went on his journey. And I rather lean to the latter option.

My wording have been clumsy in this last paragraph, I know, so I hope you followed my meaning

[bilbo_baggins]

Highly confusing, only slightly enlightening topic! Too scholarly for words. I have my two cents worth, too Heren. I may not be an insight for anything that is truly being discussed here, but I can give a shot, can't I?

I think any 'canon' we might find would not be entirely un-touchable by the readers. Tolkien even created LoTR just because of the enormous Hobbit-fanfare.

Tolkien (in foreword of LoTR): encouraged by requests from readers for more information concerning hobbits and their adventures.

So, technically, the book was created for us, so we have a little liberty, right? And all (well, most) books are created for the enjoyment of readers. (Probably not some textbooks, unless you're really strange) So books are created for you personally and communally. Books belong, at least in heart, to the reader. The reader may interpret any statements or action on the part of the author any way s/he likes. It is for the reader to decide how much of the story they like/dislike, and how much they might change if they were the author. Any revision or rewriting on the part of readers would be a compliment to the author, as the reader would take time to think of how to make the story (in the reader's opinion) better.

And whenever a reader undertakes to read (wouldn't be a reader if they didn't) a story, it is their time and enjoyment they are creating. Each unto his own, as they say.

Well, that's my thought. I am no Tolkien lore-master, so take a grain of salt with every paragraph I type!

[davem]

H-I

I think so much of Tolkien's capacity for creating the sense of 'enchantment' in his readers comes down to this - we don't feel he is 'revealing' new things to us so much as 'reminding' us of things we have forgotten. So rather than being amazed by our encounter with a completely unknown 'new' world, we feel at once 'at home' in Middle Earth. What this has to do with 'canonicity', I'm not quite sure, but certainly there is a sense of 'rightness' in much of Tolkien's world, & the sense Helen has described as regards some 'fanfic', that it is 'wrong', & breaks the spell Tolkien has cast may be down to this.

Of course, we are then back to the idea of some kind of 'pre-existing' 'Other world', which we all 'once' knew. But then, how close are we to saying that some other 'explorer' may get things right about that world, which Tolkien may have got 'wrong'?

Its this sense of 'familiarity' we feel about Middle Earth that is difficult to explain. Can we go so far as to say that we are 'remembering' something, some 'real' (in 'inner' or 'outer' terms. This would be ridiculous, if not insane, yet the feeling is there. Why do so many of us feel 'at home' in Middle Earth, even before we've got far into a first reading? Is it because Tolkien has used so many elements from folklore & fairtales? But how many of us are all that familiar with the sources Tolkien used? Not that many, I'd guess. In my case it was only after discovering Middle Earth that I sought out the sources Tolkien used, & I didn't feel 'at home' in the worlds of the Mabinogion or the Eddas or the kalevala. They reminded me of Middle Earth, where I really did feel 'at home'. It was almost as if Middle Earth was the real place & the myths & legends were corrupt, half remembered versions of it, rather than it being an amalgam of them. Of course, that could simply be because I discovered Middle Earth first - but I can't help feeling that it was something more.

Going back to the painting I mentioned - why a shop on the edge of the Hills of Fairyland? We'd expect a castle, or even a cottage, but a shop? Yet, on some level, we know a shop is 'right', that it should be a shop. We are filled with curiosity about what is sold there, & who frequents the place. Logically we know a shop is the last place that should be standing at the place where this world meets the otherworld. Yet, where else would we get the particular kind of supplies we will need for our journey 'over the hills & far away'? A shop, with all the associations of 'commercialism' would seem too mundane & out of place, yet to see the picture is to 'know' it belongs right where it is. We can almost 'remember' having visited the place, because we can almost (but not quite) remember what is in there.

So much of Tolkien's writings inspire this sense, of almost, but not quite remembering. Tolkien wrote of fairy stories satisfying his desire for magic, while whetting that desire immeasurably. Its that feeling that 'still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate' that I think most of us have felt now & then, that just round the next corner we may find what we've been looking for all along, for those sudden pangs we all feel when something or someone almost 'breaks our lifelong dream' & we nearly 'wake up' & remember who we are & what we're really doing, that we find in Tolkien's work. He almost 'wakes us up', but not quite, & we quickly, like Frodo, 'fall asleep again', & only remember that we nearly woke up. Which is odd in writer of 'fantasy'. Can it really be that we wander in Middle Earth in search of the 'real' world? That the 'escape' we seek there is really the escape from our 'dream'? That we don't go to Middle Earth to escape 'reality', but to find it? And is this what SMP is really talking about when he casts down the 'Jungian Gauntlet'?

[drigel]

davem
perfect synopsis of why i love JRRT! You even throw in a Zep reference! I bow to your greatness.

In regards to your post - I understand why people are drawn to expand on the canon: * artistic greatness inspires* - period. I simply like to research the canon and further my appreciation of the work. Whos to say that JRRT had the only insight? Whatever our shared "mythology" is, the fact is that its shared, its in all of us. I am just glad he had the vision to "see" it, and the skill to expertly put it down to prose.

[HerenIstarion]

davem:

I think so much of Tolkien's capacity for creating the sense of 'enchantment' in his readers comes down to this - we don't feel he is 'revealing' new things to us so much as 'reminding' us of things we have forgotten. So rather than being amazed by our encounter with a completely unknown 'new' world, we feel at once 'at home' in Middle Earth

Agreed and shared

Of course, we are then back to the idea of some kind of 'pre-existing' 'Other world', which we all 'once' knew. But then, how close are we to saying that some other 'explorer' may get things right about that world, which Tolkien may have got 'wrong'?

Quite close, I daresay. (Platonism again, eh?) [b]But[/i] that does not eliminate the 'canonicity' of what Tolkien wrote a tiniest bit. Analogy (or a short story, may I say so?) is as follows:

Let us suppose that there was a person all of the mankind remembered to an extent, or in some subconscious way. Let us further suppose that some genius of a painter produced a portrait of the person, and quite a good one, so all the onlookers agreed that the likeness was very great indeed. But, as each one of the onlookers had their own, however dim, memory of the person, their agreement was ill-matched. Some said that nose was reproduced all right, but ears were slightly differed from the real thing, others said eyes should have been blue instead of green and so forth. Otherwise, they said, the portrait was very good and as near a real thing as it may be.

(What I'm driving at, that portrait as a portrait, fait accompli was no more than the portrait but no less than it. So, as far as being a portrait, it was a 'canon'.

As far as likeness to the real person is concerned, the portrait produced by any one painter, is not a canon. It is just particular way of communicating)

So, in a story I have been telling you, another painter has risen with the times and has produced another portrait of the person, which, as selfsame onlookers agreed, was even closer to the original than the first portrait. But noone came up with a rubber, razor and brush to defile the first artwork and bring it 'closer to real likeness', for, as an artwork, it was 'canon'.

Yet many were drawing caricatures, scatches, drafts, reproductions, copies and so forth of an artwork as an artwork