‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

H-I

If we take this underlying 'true' level of reality to exist we can say it is the 'Archetype' from which this reality takes its form. Or that this reality is an imperfect image of that reality. So we can bring in Christianity - 'Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in Heaven' - so we pray that this reality will be brought in to line with the divine, perfect reality. Or we could bring in the Hermeticists, with their dictum of 'As Above, So Below'. There is a theory that the positioning of the three pyramids at Gizeh was intened to 'reflect' the stars in the belt of Orion. So there is a sense that this world is not 'perfect' yet & has to be brought into line with some 'ideal'.

The question then arises as to whether Faerie could be said to be some kind of underlying 'blueprint', between the Archetype itself, & this world. So, when we enter Faerie we move a step closer to the 'primary' world - which in this case would not be this world. The 'divine' world would be the 'primary' world, Faerie the 'secondary' world, & this world, the physical, would be the third in the sequence. Which would make the 'secondary' world 'truer' than this one, being 'closer' to the 'primary', Archtypal reality. So the sequence could be expressed theologically as this world = the body, Faerie = the Soul, & the Archetypal world = the Spirit.

Of course, we could put a different case - this world is closest to the Archetypal, ideal, world, & Faerie is a distortion of this world, in which case it would have to be brought into being as close a 'reflection' of this world as possible.

The problem with this alternative is that Faerie deals in absolutes, or 'archetypes' - Death, Love, Beauty, Ugliness, etc, which in this world are never experienced in their 'pure' forms. So, Faerie must be closer to Ideal reality, than this world. And we're back 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' to Plato.

So, when Aiwendil states that a fantasy which showed us only a sequence of images of Faerie would be boring, he is saying that that 'closer' we approach this Ideal, the more bored we will become And that if we ever got to Heaven we'd be bored rigid.

[mark12_30]

davem wrote:

The question then arises as to whether Faerie could be said to be some kind of underlying 'blueprint', between the Archetype itself, & this world. So, when we enter Faerie we move a step closer to the 'primary' world - which in this case would not be this world. The 'divine' world would be the 'primary' world, Faerie the 'secondary' world, & this world, the physical, would be the third in the sequence. Which would make the 'secondary' world 'truer' than this one, being 'closer' to the 'primary', Archtypal reality. So the sequence could be expressed theologically as this world = the body, Faerie = the Soul, & the Archetypal world = the Spirit.

davem, that's a fascinating opening.

Considering your list, I'd suggest an alternative view:
body is analogous to the physical realm
the spirit is analagous to the Truth
and the soul is analogous to our concepts-- which include archetypes, Faerie stories and Myth, and parables, and every other way in which we imperfect beings try to grasp (or grasp at?) the Spirit, the Truth.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

I don't think we can ask 'how much longer could Smith be before it became dreadfully boring?'

Because SoWM is complete as it is. It isn't an edited down version of a longer story.

I agree that it's complete as it is. The logic of the argument up to this point is as follows: Mr. Underhill and I argued that pure Faerie is not enough; there must be plot as well. You argued that Smith demonstrates that pure Faerie, without adventure, is in fact enough.

The claim I was trying to make by asking how much longer Smith could be without becoming boring was that Smith is a special case. Yes, pure Faerie without adventure is enough to sustain a short work like Smith that is, as much as anything else, a meditation upon fantasy and Faerie. But in general, for longer works or for works that are not primarily concerned with the art of fantasy, plot and adventure are needed (I would say, in fact, that they are the most important aspect).

Faerie is not a 'place' with a geographical location, or even a definite psychological one.

Agreed - this is more or less what I was arguing.

So Faerie is 'objectively' real.

I agree. I did not argue that it is not real. I only argued that it is not a place.

I'm not sure. Faerie has no 'purpose' at all - if by that you mean that its simply 'for' us, to provide raw material for the primary world enterprise of making up stories.

You're right; I was careless with my wording. But I stand by the sentiment, which is that in the context of fantasy literature, Faerie is used as a means (a very powerful one) to an end; it is not the end itself.

I think a very great deal 'happens' in Smith

Did I misunderstand you earlier, then? I thought that as an argument against the claim that "pure Faerie is not enough; things must actually happen" you pointed to Smith as an example of pure Faerie sufficing without plot.

I agree that Smith is not plotless. But it is a kind of minimalist plot, so I was willing to accept it as, approximately, an example of pure Faerie without incident.

To call it 'a disguised piece of literary theory more than as a work of fiction in its own right.' is to miss the point - what is Tolkien the 'literary theorist' telling us through the events Smith witnesses

Do you deny that it is, at least in large part, literary theory? If so, then why do you then inquire into Tolkien's role as a literary theorist? If not, then why am I missing the point?

I happen to think it's rather good literary theory, if it comes to that. My point was that it is not very typical of fantasy literature, nor even of Tolkien's work. I'll grant that Smith may be more or less a "window to Faerie" - but I think that it is the exception.

HerenIstarion wrote:

Well, I'll risk being called visionist (which I am not), but I'd say (in this lining up with mark:12-30, if I were to understand her post as she meant it), that in his late years (as in his young years, I'd say, but more obvioulsy so in later writings) Tolkien was not so much trying to conform his secondary world to the primary world, but to the Absolute Truth (call it Primary World with capitalization if you will).

I must say that all this discussion of "Truth" with a capital T makes me a bit uneasy. What is meant by it? Perhaps this is obvious to others, but I am perplexed. "Truth" as I understand it is a property of certain propositions (those propositions that are not false). It is a logical term.

Obviously, this is not the way in which it is being employed here. What, then, is it supposed to mean?

I suppose it may mean God, or heaven, or something like that. If that is indeed the case, I think it would be much more clear simply to say so.

If, then, I understand this correctly, the claim at hand is either that 1. the "Faerie" element that we detect in fantasy is in fact a reflection or image of God/heaven/"Truth" or 2. the first claim is true and, additionally, to achieve such an image is the primary purpose of fantasy.

Now, being non-religious, I obviously disagree with both of these claims.

The trouble is that there's not much more to say than that. I do not think that I fail to fully appreciate Tolkien's work because I don't subscribe to this notion of "Truth". Nor do I think that my appreciation of it is due, unbeknownst to me, to some subconscious acceptance of this "Truth".

And I think that the whole conjecture of "Truth" as the real identity of "Faerie" must be left at that, unless one whishes to enter into a debate on theological claims (which presumably one does not).

[The Saucepan Man]

I must say that all this discussion of "Truth" with a capital T makes me a bit uneasy.

You and me both, Aiwendil.

It was precisely this concern which led me to question Helen's division of the thread between those who believe in "absolute Truth" and those who do not. Because every person is the product of different upbringings, social and cultural influences, experiences etc, every person's beliefs will vary to one degree or other. Certainly amongst those of different faiths and those who have little or no religious beliefs, but also the values of those who share a faith can vary quite considerably from one person to another. So I cannot accept that any one person is able to say that their a belief in an "absolute Truth" is any more "right" than another person's belief in the same concept, or indeed than the values of someone who does not strive for this "absolute Truth".

And so, while I would agree that there are "wrong" interpretations of Tolkien's works (judged by societal norms, although those will vary from one society to another), I would maintain that (apart from the negative counterparts of such "wrong" interpretations), there is no obectively measurable "right" way of interpreting them.

Certainly, I cannot agree with H-I's proposition that:

without such a concept [God] there is not way of understanting Tolkien. Appreciation, love, enjoyment – yes. Understanding – no.

since that is akin to saying that, unless one happens to hold a particular belief, one cannot truly understand Tolkien's works. Instinctively, for me, that just seems wrong.

[Lord of Angmar]

Certainly, I cannot agree with H-I's proposition... ...since that is akin to saying that, unless one happens to hold a particular belief, one cannot truly understand Tolkien's works. Instinctively, for me, that just seems wrong.The Saucepan Man

I hope I am not misrepresenting your view, HerenIstarion, when I say that what you meant by:

without such a concept [God] there is not way of understanting Tolkien. Appreciation, love, enjoyment – yes. Understanding – no.

was not that you must believe in a (Christian... Catholic) God to 'understand' Tolkien, but that you must realize that Tolkien held strong beliefs in the existence of such a God, and that an omnipotent God is present in Middle-earth, to fully understand where Tolkien is coming from in his writing. In other words, you could 'appreciate' the ending of The Lord of the Rings with Gollum 'accidentally' falling into the fires of Sammath Naur, but to fully understand the scene as it was intended by the author, you must realize the presence of a Divine Providence in Middle-earth.

This all ties back in with the question of, "Should the author's intention factor into our reading experience and individual interpretion?", but I haven't the time to give any real (or original) input on the subject.

[The Saucepan Man]

I apologise, H-I, if I mischaracterised what you were saying.

... you must realize that Tolkien held strong beliefs in the existence of such a God, and that an omnipotent God is present in his writings, to fully understand where Tolkien is coming from in his writing.

I certainly do not have any difficulty with that as a proposition, provided that the distinction is made between understanding "where Tolkien is coming from" and understanding the text itself. I was talking about the latter in putting forward my view that, subject to what is expressly or implicitly stated in the text (and I would include the concept of "providence" here) there is no one "right" way of interpreting (or understanding) his works.

[Lord of Angmar]

I was talking about the latter in putting forward my view that there is no one "right" way of interpreting (or understanding) his works.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am also skeptical that there is any wrong way to interpret a piece of fictional writing. Joyce Carol Oates said that, as a writer, she had no relationship with her writing after it had been published. Her self as an author, she said, was a person she did not know, a person who did not exist except in her writing. I believe that fictional writing, once published, should be considered the only primary source on the story told within its pages. Whatever a writer may say about his or her intentions before, during or after the writing should not sway the reader's interpretation. If the story cannot stand on its own to uphold the values that the author tried to imbue it with, then it should be open to any interpretation the reader reasonably sees in the course of his/her private reading. The reader should even, God forbid, be allowed to present his/her interpretation in a public forum without fear that anyone (besides, I suppose, the author speaking directly to the reader in a public medium) will proclaim it a blanketly "wrong" interpretation.

Sorry for the awkward wording and, perhaps, nonsensicality of this post; just my one and a half cents on the subject.

-Angmar