‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[mark12_30]

davem wrote:

There is a real danger of breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, of breaking the enchantment by attempting to find out too much about the spell & the one who cast it.

Perhaps this is why I so vehemently resist attempts to dissect the Letters; they cast a spell all their own for me, a deeper and more mystical and sacred spell than anything in the Sil-- verging on Smith of Wooton Major, or deeper still; and I will not have that spell shattered. I far prefer the standing tower, from whence I can catch a glimpse of the sea.

[The Saucepan Man]

Perhaps this is why I so vehemently resist attempts to dissect the Letters

But don't the Letters themselves dissect the text to some extent by spelling out the author's own intentions and interpretations, thereby risking the reader losing the enchantment gained from the text?

[mark12_30]

Not for me. Half of the enchantment I get from LOTR is that Tolkien *believed* in his characters, knew them, loved them. And this is seen more clearly still in his letters. He talks about Frodo and Gandalf and Faramir as if they lived down the street. He knows what they would and wouldn't do, what they would and wouldn't say. And he demands the same faith from his correspondents, and rails if they fail to give it (see the Movie-review-letter.)

The letters show me how real M-E and its characters were-- are!-- to Tolkien. They make me realize he wasn't lying to me, or laughing up his sleeve at me; that he was, is, and will remain every bit as enchanted as I am. And I like it that way.

But they go deeper still than that. They show me what kind of man he is; they show me where his sub-creation comes from. I cherish that as much, if not more, than the sub-creation itself.

Do not laugh... seeing how his sub-creation was birthed despite (or because of) his eccentricities and foibles, I am emboldened to dream that despite having eccentricities and foibles of my own, I might likewise birth something worthwhile.

[bilbo_baggins]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But don't the Letters themselves dissect the text to some extent by spelling out the author's own intentions and interpretations, thereby risking the reader losing the enchantment gained from the text?

True, Saucepan Man, but the exegesis of the Letters, though they themselves dissect (or exegite) the text of Tolkien, do not completely lay bare everything, and this is where davem and Mark12_30 have their bit. As far as I could tell, they wish not to delve too deeply into the meaning behind the exegesis.

As always, I could be wrong about their beliefs or opinions on the matter, but that is what I think they mean from reading their posts.

And, what I said above applies not only to them, but to me. As I do not want to read the exegesis of a manual too heavily, I do not crossreference said manual either, as it would have the same effect.

If I can quote myself again, for the person on the one side, with a text, it is theirs to do with as they will, as they obtained it in some manner (legal of course). And for the second person, they can do with it as they will, as they have obtained it also. But for either the one person or the second person to try to impress their beliefs on how to exegite the text of the manual, is wrong. Plain and simply wrong.

That's all.

[The Saucepan Man]

But for either the one person or the second person to try to impress their beliefs on how to exegite the text of the manual, is wrong.

But isn't that what Tolkien is doing when he seeks to impress his interpretations of his text on those with whom he is corresponding, bilbo?

He talks about Frodo and Gandalf and Faramir as if they lived down the street. He knows what they would and wouldn't do, what they would and wouldn't say. And he demands the same faith from his correspondents, and rails if they fail to give it

I understand what you are saying, Helen, and, believe me, I am finding the insights which I am gaining from reading his Letters fascinating. But, in telling us how we should view this character or that event, isn't Tolkien restricting our "readerly freedom" to make up our own minds? I suppose not, since we are free to accept or reject his interpretations. But, all the same, do we not risk losing out from "delving too deeply", as bilbo puts it? Does not our very awareness of the author's own (firmly expressed) views on his text risk obscuring our personal vision of the perilous realm, as inspired from our own interpretation of the text?

(This line of thought runs contrary to the reasoning adopted in an earlier post which I made on this topic, but I am pursuing it nevertheless as I think that it is perhaps an issue worth exploring.)

[bilbo_baggins]

Does not our very awareness of the author's own (firmly expressed) views on his text risk obscuring our personal vision of the perilous realm, as inspired from our own interpretation of the text

Wow. You got me convinced in some places, SpM. But one thing remains.

Do we really want to go with the author's set point of view? It may not fit what I had in mind, true. So if that happens to be true, should we not think o'er the fact that if we read the Letters too well, we will be impressed with the ideas and views of ME that the author had? There may be some who wish not to have such ideas about that wonderful place that Tolkien made.

But even if they don't read the Letters, or have exactly the viewpoint about ME that Tolkien had, does this inherently discredit the author's worth or merit for creating the book and story? No, of course not. "Tolkien" is now a word in mouth for most. Even if we have slightly different viewpoints, the author does not lose anything, as the Book and World he created are just that, his creations. Nothing we could ever do, would discredit him from his fashionings.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But, in telling us how we should view this character or that event, isn't Tolkien restricting our "readerly freedom" to make up our own minds?

The example that springs to mind is the reader who asked why Gandalf messed up at the gates of Moria, and offered several explainations. Tolkien's response: He said that he forgot. Why didn't you believe him?

Why, indeed. Do I trust the narrator? If not, then why am I reading the book?

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But, all the same, do we not risk losing out from "delving too deeply", as bilbo puts it? Does not our very awareness of the author's own (firmly expressed) views on his text risk obscuring our personal vision of the perilous realm, as inspired from our own interpretation of the text?

I suppose that could happen. It didn't happen to me. When I read the Letters, it separated the Perilous Realm from Tolkien. He became a narrator, like many other narrators out there, who saw into the perilous realm, or was shown it, and given the gift of reporting what he saw. The letters show his looking, his pursuit, as surely as is described in Smith. Why would that obscure my vision? Temporarily, it may; but in the long run, it inspires me to pick up my walking stick, head into the woods, and see what I may for myself.

I suupose when one man prophesies, a response might be, don't get to know that man, because knowing his weakness might make you doubt the prophesy. But another response might be, "Prophet! Apprentice me, and teach me to see!"

I choose the latter.

[bilbo_baggins]

I suppose when one man prophesies, a response might be, don't get to know that man, because knowing his weakness might make you doubt the prophesy. But another response might be, "Prophet! Apprentice me, and teach me to see!"

Amazing, Mark12_30.

So, the Letters could be viewed as more of a relay from the Perilous Realm to us, through Tolkien. Hmmm, interesting. Could you not also say, though, that there are those (I'm not one of them) who believe that they themselves can view the Perilous Realm? That they themselves could be Prophets in their own right?

Just something to ponder....

[mark12_30]

An afterthought:

I have come to love the histories-- Trotter, Tinfang Warble, and all-- precisely because they show me *Tolkien's road to Faerie*-- the road that he himself trod over the course of his lifetime. It's the man's own enchantment-- the enchantment that he himself is UNDER-- that I value the most, because that enchantment was what fueled his sub-creation and enchanted so many others. In reading his letters, I see clearly why he is enchanted, and I understand that the enchantment is open to me as well.

And Bilbo, are there other prophets-- in this case, mythmakers? Of course.

It was in retrospective that Tolkien amassed all his storey elements into the grand vision of the Legendarium. For that reason alone I think it valuable to put aside or hold in abeyance if you will his rather insistent claims in later years about what the text means. I am far more interested in what might have brought those Black Riders riding, riding, riding in the first place. My bet is on an entire panoply of possibilities.

But Bethberry, that is his whole theory of sub-creating, myth-making, being a recorder, searching for eucatastrophe. To understand the fruits, check the leaves, trunk, roots and the soil. Look at his life. Look at what he insisted was important for *him*, what he was grounded in.

To put it another way, a man is what he eats, body, soul, and spirit.

[Bêthberry]

Well, I am going to stick my foot in the swiftly running discussion here and hope I won't be swept away!

I too would say with SpM to Helen that I understand this love of the writer for his characters. However, as I was rereading Carpenter yesterday, I found this passage (going to use it to reply to bilbo's thread later this morning).

'Stories tend to get out of hand.' Tolkien wrote to his publisher a few weeks later, and 'this has taken an unpremeditated turn.' He was referring to the appearance, unplanned by him, of a sinister 'Black Rider' who is clearly searching for the hobbits. It was indeed the first of several unpremeditated turns that the story was to take. Unconsciously, and unsually without forethought, Tolkien was bending his tale away from the jolly style of The Hobbit towards something darker and grander, and closer in concept to The Silmarillion.... What indeed? [to a question about what the book would be called]. And, much more important, Tolkien still did not have a clear idea what it was all about.

An absolutely fascinating passage, this. It suggests two things to me. First, the Tolkien's habits of composition were intuitive and unconscious to a good degree. Secondly, the passage also suggests that 'the meaning' was something read back into the story once Tolkien had reached a particular stage in the early writing. According to Carpent, it was at this point, shortly after receiving news of the death of E.V.Gordon, that Tolkien "began to organise his thoughts on the central matter of the Ring."

So, we are left with the fact that Tolkien was like any reader, looking around for threads of ideas and then picking up strands to be developed. (Of course, he wasn't just like any reader in that his creative sense of fairey was so great and grand and fine.) It was in retrospective that Tolkien amassed all his storey elements into the grand vision of the Legendarium. For that reason alone I think it valuable to put aside or hold in abeyance if you will his rather insistent claims in later years about what the text means. I am far more interested in what might have brought those Black Riders riding, riding, riding in the first place. My bet is on an entire panoply of possibilities.

Here's to holding tight to my life perserver!