‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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