‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem

This will be hurried as I am due at work, but I think you are selling yourself short.

In the first place, would it be such a terrible thing if we politely agreed that there were some points we could agree on, and others that we could not? This thread has reached a total of eight pages. With all those reflections and differing opinions, it's scarcely surprising that it would be difficult to reach a consensus.

Secondly, if we look at the thread as a whole, I think that there is more middle ground here than you are seeing right now. This began as a discussion of the right of the reader to grapple with the text on his own and to come up with interpretations that Tolkien had not personally discussed. It was a celebration of the individual and his or her right to bring his own personal background and experience into the literary mix. In essence, we were doing exactly what Tolkien recommends in his preface: not being locked into an allegorical meaning etched in stone, but having the freedom of applicability, looking at the story through the prism of our unique backgrounds and experiences and applying those ideas. We had individual quibbles about the place of the Letters in this process, or how to respond when confronted with interpretations that seemed contrary to what Tolkien himself said (a lá Stormfront) but for the most part we could at least define a middle ground.

Now we come to the difficult part. The thread drastically switched gears. Instead of celebrating the individual, we began searching instead for those common things that readers see in LotR and Tolkien's writings. In a sense it was like grafting a rose onto a pear tree. This had not been Fordim's initial question or intent.

Still, for the most part, we could agree that there was an element of enchantment or faerie that Tolkien drew upon, and that the majority of readers could sense that in their reading. The problem came when we tried to pin that down and put a name on it.

My personal objection to "Truth" (with a capital T) is not that it doesn't exist in the world as a whole. And I would certainly agree that Tolkien was attempting to reflect truth in LotR, and that it stands at the core of much of what he wrote. Even Aiwendil said he could accept that statement if truth was defined in its broadest sense. My objection to using "Truth" was a practical one. The minute you begin to define that term closely, you leave some people in the room and some people outside of it. This is particular true if you define truth in such a manner to touch upon the existence of God. One person's particular definition of Truth may not be the same as another's.

Tolkien was exceedingly careful not to define things in an explicit manner in LotR. He did not do what Lewis did. He uses the pregnant passive in LotR to give us vague hints of a greater force at work, but he does not spell out any of this in detail, at least not in this particular piece of writing. He tells us in the Letters that he did this intentionally. I also think it was intentional that he did not refer to "Truth" openly in the story itself.

Why did he do this? Helen has already pointed out that he did use the term "Truth" in Mythopoiea and On Faerie Stories. Perhaps because in this particular tale he didn't want to lock himself into the same problem we are having here? The minute you start defining Truth in a precise way, people's defensive walls go up as they begin to consider what side of the fence they are on, whether they fit into that particular defintion of truth or not. Tolkien did want to point out the shortcomings in our dreary old world, and to suggest that there could and should be more to life than that. The last thing he wanted to do was to get people's hackles up, so that they would build a wall and lose sight of what the author was saying.

And I am afraid that's what may be happening here. I sense an underlying exasperation in some of these posts that goes beyond a mere intellectual exchange. So my objection to 'Truth' as a term is merely a practical one. Helen may be right that I am throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But I see people becoming defensive about their particular definition of Truth and how that fits into their personal life and beliefs. I don't think that's what we're aiming for. It would be preferable to find terminology that doesn't raise this problem.

Whether we like it or not, Truth does imply a set standard. That is why I feel more comfortable with the terms "Joy" or "Light" which don't seem to carry quite the same meaning.

Fordim does have a point. If you look at "Truth" from a totally different vantage, you could argue that LotR is about rejecting anyone who comes telling you the "Truth", who claims to know the certainties of life better than you do, who in effect supplants Eru's music with his own ideas and schemes.

And I would say that Sauron does do this. Aiwendil , it's interesting that you mentioned Myths Transformed, because my own view of Sauron and Truth stem directly from that. Unlike Morgoth who was merely a nihilist (or at least had become one by the end of the First Age), Sauron did have a clear vision of "order and planning and organization". It has become the great Truth in his life, supplanting the music and plan that Eru put forward. Saruman had a similar vision. That vision of "order as Truth" is also one that we see in a certain modern political ideologies.

Can we not at least agree on a broad statement like this? That most readers see a core of 'enchantment' or 'faerie' which Tolkien depicts or draws upon in his writing. That this may go by different names -- truth, Truth, Joy, or Light-- and that we each differ somewhat in how we define or regard this concept, since we bring our own experiences and backgrounds into the process of definition. But can we not also agree that this core reflects the crucial values and themes that Tolkien delineates in his story: concepts of goodness, self sacrifice, love, and hope?

Would that ledge be broad enough to hold most of the readers here, but defined enough to have a least some meaning? If something like that still doesn't work, we may have to politely agree to disagree, which has certainly happened many times before.

Sorry if this is incoherent. I am racing off to work.

Sharon

[bilbo_baggins]

I do believe that this Thread has transcended anything Tolkien-related. How far will it go? How long will the faithful posters reply to each other before their collective creativity dies?

I do believe that question is unanswerable as the repliers on this thread have no intention of stopping. I'm reminded of some sort of endurance race for some strange reason:

"Yes, people, they're coming around the bend with davem and Heren-Istarion in the lead, followed closely by Child, Aiwendil, Mark12_30, and many more! Just look at them go! Will they ever stop? They're not slowing down, not a bit; no giving up in this race, folks! No one could even think of letting it slow down a bit, even if that means everyone would think more clearly and be able to reply to all the latest posts! How exciting this is!"

The argument of Truth (absolute or individual) is a spiritual one and a little socio-political. Do you really believe that any resolution can be acheived? Highly unlikely. Do you really believe that one will conform to your viewpoint? Unlikely in the extreme. Do you believe that we can actually reach some conclusions to this argument? Perhaps.

I hope I don't sound irritated or frustrated with the turn of events. I actually quite enjoy them.

I hope this sort of sums up the current flow.

[Son of Númenor]

I would say, Bilbo_Baggins, with no disrespect intended, that your post does a most inadequate job of summing 'up the current flow'. I personally am fascinated by the discussion, & encouraged by the multitude of allusions, analogies & philosophical insights being made, all of which add to my own rather delicate understanding of these concepts of canon, Truth vs. truth, eucatastrophe, & that most elusive of feelings - 'enchantment' - as they pertain to Professor Tolkien's writing.

The range & depth of this discussion stray far beyond my own credentials as a Tolkien enthusiast & literary analyst, but I would like to say that I sympathize with Davem when he says:

If I use ‘Truth’, however much I repeat that I’m not talking about some set of rules & regulations, I just get asked what rules & regulations I mean, & told that rules & regulations are BAD. If I use the term Joy, it is immediately dismissed as meaningless, or conflated with pleasure. If I use the term God or Heaven I get accused of trying to convert people. I’d use the word Magic, but I suspect it would be interpreted to mean ‘conjuring’ & I’d be asked to explain the ‘trick’. ‘Light’ seems to be acceptable – yet this light must have a source.

Sorry, but I can’t reduce what I’m referring to to something which fits within a narrow definition, & can be argued about from a psychological perspective, or a deconstructionist one. If all anyone gets from reading Tolkien’s works is something that can be reduced to that level, then I will go all the way out on this limb & say they’re missing the ‘truth’ of the story.

Trying to quantify & simplify the 'truth' that we obtain from Tolkien's works is bound to be a fruitless endeavour. While I do not feel that there is any ultimate Truth readily available for us as readers to extract from Tolkien's work, I do feel Tolkien imbued his works with a plethara of ideals & virtues - a wide spectrum of things that Tolkien wished to convey to the reader as 'truths' - 'rights' & 'wrongs' that he felt are inherent both in his world & our own.

I agree with Child of the Seventh Age that Tolkien's writing does not have to be relegated to the role of upholding & advancing any singular religious Truth. There may, however, be a Theme inherent in Tolkien's works consisting of many smaller ideals & author-perceived 'truths' which Tolkien hoped would be applicable to everyday life in the Primary World.

[davem]

Sharon

I still think you're understanding Truth as implying a set of dogmatic 'Laws', dictated by force, on others who are made to believe them- whether they agree with them or not. I was using it in the sense of what is true about 'reality', or 'the ground of Being'. So, in this sense, the statement 'killing is wrong' is not part of that Truth, neither is 'Water is wet', or 2+2=4.

'Truth' is the origin of those & similar ideas, or call it 'God' or Light or Joy, in the sense in which Tolkien used it in Fairy Stories. It is the 'Source' from which all 'True' things arise, & the source of the 'Joy' which we glimpse at the moment of Eucatastrophe. And whatever others may say, it is 'real' to the extent that any profoundly moving experience is 'real'. No 'theory', literary or pyschological can account for it, or reduce it to its own terms.

And now, at the risk of being accused of 'crossing a line' in my 'psychoanalysis' of other posters once more, I can only say in response to Bethberry's:

"I don't think I have this experience you claim for all of us. What I feel when I finish reading Tolkien is little different than feelings of departures from other extremely well imagined worlds of fiction. It is narrative cessation--a post-reading desire comedown--not a sense that this world somehow fails. "

And Aiwendil's:

"This is more or less my experience as well. I am naturally always just a bit unhappy that the book is over, but no more so than when I read any good book (or when I listen to a good symphony, or watch a good movie, etc.). "

I'm surprised. Nothing more than with any other fictional world? Just another escape into a Never-Never Land? Maybe I am unusual, then. Middle Earth changed me. I'll never be the same person again. I suppose I may be in the wrong, perhaps overvaluing the stories & the writer, & in not subscribing to the 'right' theories, in pyschology, or literature, but if I am wrong I'm glad, because I like the fact that Middle Earth is a window on Truth & Joy to me, And that when I put down the book my feelings are closer to grief at the loss of something beloved than to 'narrative cessation'. From her previous posts, I 'd kind of assumed that it was so for Bethberry too. I don't know if its down to whether you experience that Truth or Joy, whether its that that determines whether its just another escapist fantasy to you or much more than that.

Again, I may be wrong in believing in the existence of Truth & Joy, but if that's the reason I experience Tolkien's stories in the way I do, & am affected by them in the way I am, then I'll choose being wrong.

[mark12_30]

Son of Numenor wrote:

While I do not feel that there is any ultimate Truth readily available for us as readers to extract from Tolkien's work

SoN, that would be why the concepts of "glimpse" and "window" (and the resulting mysticism) is important-- not just to me, but apparently to Tolkien as well (See On Faery Stories.) Tolkien spoke of opening the reader to a far-off glimpse. Tolkien himelf rarely lectures. This is why Child's definition is incomplete for me, and based on his essay I would say it is imcomplete for TOlkien as well; but this thread is supposed to be geared towards the reader...

davem wrote:

Again, I may be wrong in believing in the existence of Truth & Joy, but if that's the reason I experience Tolkien's stories in the way I do, & am affected by them in the way I am, then I'll choose being wrong.

The other day I went hunting for the Puddleglum quote from the Silver Chair and found it here. In the meantime, reread the Epilogue of On Faery Stories, davem. Have a look at "Sing Now Ye People" that H-I quoted above. And relax.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Gee, Helen! You ought to start a mailing list and send inspirational tidbits to everyone to start out their day right! And many thanks to HI for the lift!

From the Epilogue of "On Fairy Stories," so helpfully pointed to by Helen:

The Christian still has to work, with mind as well as body, to suffer, hope and die; but he may now perceive that all his bents and faculties have a purpose, which can be redeemed.

he may actually assist in effoliation and multiple enrichment of creation.

I think the perception here can be applied to more than just the Christian, as Tolkien enumerates here, at least in my experience. The "consolation" factor of the self-consistent second world with a coherent story to be told is of great value. For there is purpose and a clear path, clearer than that which is laid before most of us in the real world. One comes away from the story with the idea that there is applicability of the second world to the first, that some of Middle Earth is in your backyard. I do not, like some others on this thread, feel let down when I finish the story, but rather, I see aspects of the story in the primary world, so that the story seems never to end. The story is so well told that its images and concepts resonate within the primary world and seem to jump out into reality, and at times seem MORE real than the world I can see and touch.

This process of assimiliation or amalgamation of the reader and the book is complex, and rather than separating the two worlds, I think it draws them closer, to the 'edge of Faerie' if you will, so that one can walk in the two worlds simultaneously. Of course, there is the "head in the clouds" syndrome that one must avoid while driving at high speeds on the Interstate highways, etc., but while I walk in the forests, I absolutely believe in Ents. ( I still believe in them on the highway, but hardly expect to see them there!)

So, as to the question of the Book or the Reader? I think the answer is whereever the Book meets the Reader or the Reader meets the Book. It is a process, and I think Helen's idea of the cyclical process upon re-reading jibes with my experience of seeing new things and finding new applicability as years pass and re-readings mount. (See! I don't think I used the T word even once!)

Cheers,
Lyta

[Aiwendil]

I think that, perhaps as a result of my incessant pressure for definitions and specificity, my essential argument has been to some extent misconstrued.

Davem wrote:

Well, I’m stuck. It seems that whatever term I use to refer to some underlying ‘state’ of ‘reality I’ll be asked to reduce it to a set of facts & figures.

I don't want "facts and figures". What I was interested in is whether this "Truth" is someting that I think is meaningful or not. I kept asking for a definition because I wondered whether there was in fact a definition that would satisfy me. And the point I've tried to make a few times now is that, as it turns out, there seems not to be.

The point is resolved, as far as I'm concerned; the resolution is that we disagree about the philosophy of meaning. That's all.

I was perhaps a bit insistent only because I thought (and I was wrong) that perhaps there would in fact turn out to be a general definition of "Truth" that we could all accept. Had there been, I think we might have continued our inquiry into the nature of Faerie and of "eucatastrophe". Unfortunately, as things are, we can go no further.

But I would still like to clarify some things.

If I use ‘Truth’, however much I repeat that I’m not talking about some set of rules & regulations, I just get asked what rules & regulations I mean, & told that rules & regulations are BAD.

I should point out that I do not share Fordim's opinion in this regard.

If I use the term Joy, it is immediately dismissed as meaningless, or conflated with pleasure.

I realized (and said so) that you would not equate Joy with pleasure. I was only pointing out that it is no use with me to define "Truth" by switching to "Joy".

If I use the term God or Heaven I get accused of trying to convert people.

On the contrary; as I said earlier, if God or Heaven is what you mean, please say so.

Sorry, but I can’t reduce what I’m referring to to something which fits within a narrow definition, & can be argued about from a psychological perspective, or a deconstructionist one. If all anyone gets from reading Tolkien’s works is something that can be reduced to that level, then I will go all the way out on this limb & say they’re missing the ‘truth’ of the story.

This is what, paradoxically, both takes us back to the beginning of the thread and brings us to the impasse I talked about. You say that I am missing the "truth" of the story. I say I am not. What more can be said?

It seems to me that some posters here are coming at things from the perspective that any statement about Tolkien’s works or intentions is only valid if it corresponds with some theory about the world which they hold to reflect reality.

Forgive me if this sounds rude - but you seem to be claiming just that; you have a theory about the world (that this Truth exists) and moreover about Tolkien's work (that its purpose is to give us a glimpse of Truth) and you claim that those who don't see this in Tolkien's work are "missing the truth of the story".

And I don't say that with any pejorative intent. Of course if you have a theory about literature you will disagree with statements about Tolkien's work that disagree with your theory. There's nothing at all wrong with that. I don't dispute your right to hold your opinion, or even your right to claim that I am wrong because I hold a different one.

But what has all this to do with Tolkien? He wrote about Truth (but we have to dismiss that, because there’s no such thing

As I said before, I think that "On Faery Stories" and the rest of his literary theory can be understood quite well with "truth" meaning simply "the set of true propositions".

He wrote about Joy, & said it was the purpose of Fairy stories to expose us to it, but that has nothing to do with anything.

I think this can be understood as a kind of aesthetic pleasure.

He wrote about Love, but that’s just a subjective emotional state, & all we can do is argue about the particular chemicals which cause it

Has anyone said that? As a matter of fact, I think it is a subjective emotional state, but what does that matter?

He wrote about Magic, but that’s all primitive trickery.

Again, I don't think anyone said that. In fact I specifically denied that I think magic and the like are "silly superstitions". I don't believe that magic actually exists, if that's what you mean; but I don't believe Hobbits or Balrogs exist either.

So, in this sense, the statement 'killing is wrong' is not part of that Truth, neither is 'Water is wet', or 2+2=4.

That's helpful, especially since it apparently means that you and Helen mean different things by "Truth" (she explicitly said that "2+2=4" and "The Sky is a big place" are included in Truth).

I'm surprised. Nothing more than with any other fictional world?

Of course I like some fictional worlds better than others.

Just another escape into a Never-Never Land?

That's putting it cynically. I think that The Lord of the Rings is an immensely powerful and deeply satisfying work of art; I think it's one of the greatest achievements of the human mind.

Son of Numenor wrote:

Trying to quantify & simplify the 'truth' that we obtain from Tolkien's works is bound to be a fruitless endeavour.

I think I ought to emphasize again, for Davem and for everyone, that I am not interested in quantifying anything. I am perfectly happy to carry on a discussion of these things on an abstract level.

I had thought this might be possible by defining "Truth" as the set of true propositions. For I thought that what was chiefly intended by it was some truth about God. If God exists, it is a fact that God exists, and the set of true propositions includes it. Obviously, we wouldn't agree on what those true propositions are, but structurally, "Truth" would be (in my view) a viable term. I understand now that such a definition is not deemed acceptable. Wherefore the impasse.

Mark12_30 wrote:

Aiwendil, the beginning of the statement "those three concepts" referred to your provided list of three supernatural things: " God, heaven, and the Divine Plan" . Those things (each of which I consider heavily related, interrelated, and infinite) are included in Truth.

A misunderstanding perhaps. As I've just said in response to Davem (and perhaps should have pointed out a page ago), "God exists" would be a true proposition (if God exists, of course). So I don't see how your inclusion of those three concepts necessitates your choice of option 2, that "Truth" is more than the set of true propositions.

Aiwendil, it's been a pleasure discussion these things; thanks

I've quite enjoyed it as well. As I've said, I fear that this is as far as the debate can go. Thanks to both you and Davem for a very enjoyable discussion (and for providing me with something to do while procrastinating about studying for finals).

[Bêthberry]

A rather rushed response here, on several levels.

Helen and H-I,

I am very glad that you both found enjoyment in the verse H-I posted. It is a very interesting verse. However, to my mind, that post did not advance the discussion. That is, it did not suggest a new way of looking at the issue or a way to resolve a dilemma or impasse in the discussion. It, and this is simply my humble opinion, was rather more akin to cheerleading and that always makes me rather uncomfortable on a discussion forum, as if the spectators on the 'sides' of the discussion are calling out for their favourite team to win. A discussion is not, to my mind, a sporting event where we must draw sides and where one side must lose, winner take all. It is all of us engaged in a discussion of what our words meanand what are the consequences of our positions and what are our experiences and where do they meet and where converge. I regret if this statement offends, but I feel I must express this disappointment that the discussion apparently is about sides. I am, by the way, viewing this in rhetorical terms of how we handle discussion and not in terms of the content was intriguing.

And let me say here that Child's post provides an example of what I mean by 'advancing the discussion.' I will return to her post later today. For now, however, I think I need to address a crucial point.

davem,

Some of your wording here I think suggests where our impasse lies.

I suppose I may be in the wrong, ... but if I am wrong I'm glad, because I like the fact that Middle Earth is a window on Truth & Joy to me, And that when I put down the book my feelings are closer to grief at the loss of something beloved than to 'narrative cessation'. ... whether its just another escapist fantasy to you or much more than that.

Again, I may be wrong in believing in the existence of Truth & Joy, but if that's the reason I experience Tolkien's stories in the way I do, & am affected by them in the way I am, then I'll choose being wrong.

I cannot see where anyone has called you wrong for your experience of Tolkien, davem, not Fordim, nor Aiwendil nor SaucepanMan and certainly not myself nor Child. In fact, it seems to me that a great deal of effort has been expended towards defending the validity of any one's interpretation.

If you read Tolkien as a kind of religious text, then that is your experience and it is legitimate as your experience. I do not wish to denigrate it nor devalue it. However, reading Tolkien for me is not a religious experience--and I hope that some of my posts here have suggested just how much time I have spent reading texts in religious traditions. (In fact, you have never really acknowledged that I offered a Christian, spiritual tradition--different from that of your mystics--where meaning is held in potential.) I have felt great, overwhelming grief at parts of his work, grief that brought me to my knees (metaphorically speaking), but I will not say this is a religious experience. And I will say that I have found other writers whose reading is similarly affecting for me.

I will also say that you mischaracterise my postion when you suggest that reading Tolkien is either an all or nothing proposition. I have never said that reading him is merely escape or Never-never Land. That is your characterisation, not mine. The reason I think so highly of Tolkien's "On Fairy Stories" is that in fact it liberates fantasy from this niggardly attitude of 'mere escape.' But if you choose to see my reading in this light, then there is little I can do to help you see understand my reading. Will I say you are wrong? No, I will rather say that your own experience seems to leave you with little room for understanding the experience of others except as in complete opposition. The only words that are left, it seems to me, belong to Nienna and we are left with 'a long defeat.'

EDIT. I had meant to include this in the post. It refers again to something davem posted:

If all anyone gets from reading Tolkien?s works is something that can be reduced to that level, then I will go all the way out on this limb & say they?re missing the ?truth? of the story.

.

The great irony here to me is that you are calling your reading the Truth of the Book where to my mind it is rather the freedom of the Reader, you as Reader, to to expound his reading. That you wish to suggest yours is the only correct understanding is, to my mind, unfortunate, because it devalues the experience of others, but , as I said, there clearly is a long defeat and no longer any purpose to continue this discussion. It has been ... enlightening. Thanks to all.

EDIT Wonders never cease! I was cross posting with bilbo_baggins and never saw his post until after I made this one. Horse racing! I was thinking of wrestling or some such sport.

[mark12_30]

I am very glad that you both found enjoyment in the verse H-I posted. It is a very interesting verse. However, to my mind, that post did not advance the discussion. That is, it did not suggest a new way of looking at the issue or a way to resolve a dilemma or impasse in the discussion.

I disagree, Bethberry. It was a reminder that this is a discussion-- and not a war; that the things Tolkien wrote about of lasting value will be there for each of us after the discussion just as they were before; and that there is time to sing and something to sing about. That reminder was a breath of fresh air in a room which had gotten very tense. And without it I would not have continued the discussion today. Hence, it did indeed advance the discussion-- by lightening it up.

It, and this is simply my humble opinion, was rather more akin to cheerleading and that always makes me rather uncomfortable on a discussion forum, as if the spectators on the 'sides' of the discussion are calling out for their favourite team to win.

Why would an unedited, un-commented quote of pure, published, indisputably canonical Tolkien presented in order to lighten things up be upsetting on a Tolkien forum?

[davem]

Bethberry

I may have gone too far in my interpretation of your position, but

Quote: "I don't think I have this experience you claim for all of us. What I feel when I finish reading Tolkien is little different than feelings of departures from other extremely well imagined worlds of fiction. It is narrative cessation--a post-reading desire comedown--not a sense that this world somehow fails. "

And

Quote:I have felt great, overwhelming grief at parts of his work, grief that brought me to my knees (metaphorically speaking),

seem to me a bit contradictory. I wouldn't say I treat LotR as a 'religious' text, though, I would say that through it I am able to glimpse something else, something that moves me - & I mean that - something moves me. It is something external to me, that affects me deeply, & all the psychological theories don't mean anything, or explain anything in regard to it. I know its real. Just as I know that an experience I had a few months back was 'real' & True. I was walking along a farm track, between hedges, with big old trees along the way. The sky was clear & the stars were shining through the branches. I was feeling a little down, & though, as I said, I'm not a 'Christian', I began reciting 'Hail Mary's. After a few repetitions, the air seemed to become hazy, & I felt my Guardian Angel standing behind me, enfolding me with It's wings. It was absolutely 'real', & True. And before anyone decides to psychologise that, I don't care, & you'd be wrong, because I'm old enough to know what's real & what's not.

Tolkien's stories put me in touch with the same 'True', Joyous dimension of Reality
that I experienced then.

Also, when you state 'Quote':

I cannot see where anyone has called you wrong for your experience of Tolkien, [davem[/b], not Fordim, nor Aiwendil nor SaucepanMan and certainly not myself nor Child. In fact, it seems to me that a great deal of effort has been expended towards defending the validity of any one's interpretation.

I didn't intend to imply anyone had called my experience wrong - I was simply saying if my experience is 'wrong', 'incorrect', not in accord with 'Truth', as judged by some kind of 'objective standard' then I don't care & am happy for it to be 'wrong'.

Aiwendil

Sorry, I don't think there is any contradiction between what Helen & I are saying about Truth - I suspect you are being deliberately literalist.

[Bêthberry]

I must say thank you to Helen--and to Lyta also--for making my point about encouragement much better than I could.

[The Saucepan Man]

Although I have been able to follow this thread over the last day or so, I have not had an opportunity to post. And since there is no conceivable way that I can respond to everything that has been said in the interim as fully as I would like to, I will simply attempt to summarise my position, briefly explore whether there might be any common ground between us and leave it at that for now.

I hope that it is abundantly clear from what I have been saying that I am not seeking to deny anyone’s experience of Tolkien’s works. Davem, I accept, of course, that you genuinely react to them in the way that you have described. I believe you when you say that you have found glimpses of “Truth” and “Joy” in Tolkien’s works. I believe Helen too when she says the same and I do not doubt that H-I and Sharon and many others besides have had very similar experiences. As far as I am concerned, all of your reactions are entirely valid, and I find each one of them fascinating. This is precisely why I keep coming back to this thread time and time again (and will continue to do as long as it lasts, even if just in the role of observer). However, I will not and cannot agree that your experience, or anyone else’s for that matter, is somehow more valid or right or truthful than mine, and that I am either somehow wrong for not experiencing the books in the same way or in some way afraid of opening myself up to that experience. Surely you must accept that others will experience the books differently, albeit no less validly, to you?

If we are going to use capitalised terms such as “Truth” or “Joy” or “Light”, which clearly (in light of their capitalisation) have some meaning to the people using them beyond their common usage, then I think it is necessary for those using them to provide some sort of definition. Otherwise, how are those of us who see no such meaning supposed to be able to compare what it is that they are being used to describe with our own experiences and determine whether there is any common ground and, if so, where it might lie? And I most certainly do not require a definition by reference to “facts and figures” but rather by reference to emotions, feelings and concepts (as commonly understood).

Having said that, I think that I do now have a reasonable understanding of what people mean when they use these terms. And, like Aiwendil, I do feel that everyone means something slightly different by them, although that does not surprise me since everyone is different and will react differently based upon their own beliefs and experiences. Of course, I am aware that Helen, for example, would say that the “Truth” is the same for everybody and that it is just the “glimpses” of that “Truth” which vary. And that’s fine by me. I'm content to agree to disagree on that one because it is the “glimpses” that I would prefer to concentrate on. That, I think, is where we will find the common ground.

And, like Sharon, it seems to me that there is a lot of common ground if we only take the time to look for it. It is clear to me from reading the posts here (and elsewhere on this forum) that I am not alone in experiencing intense joy and deep sadness in Tolkien’s works. And the feeling of enchantment that those works engender is a common experience too. Tolkien champions the virtues of friendship, courage, humility, goodness and love, to name but a few. These surely are values which we can all appreciate and respond to positively in the characters who display them. Just as we can all appreciate the dangers of pride and lust for power and domination from those characters that display these characteristics. And I think that we can recognise the dilemmas that we are presented with in our own lives in the situations faced by characters such as Boromir, Denethor, Eowyn and even Saruman. And yes, we can be inspired to try and live our lives in a better way as a result of reading about these characters and the experiences which they undergo (although we shouldn't need Tolkien’s tales to prompt us to do so).

It seems to me we are all capable of experiencing these things when we read LotR and the other tales, whether we believe them to be glimpses of some over-arching “Truth” or “Joy” or not, and whether or not we believe in the existence of God. Of course, not everyone will respond to them (at least not in the way Tolkien presents them, even though they may share the same values). And we will all respond to them differently, based upon our own personal values and experiences. But I would hazard a guess that they are important features of Tolkien’s works to most, if not all, of those posting here. And I am sure that there is much more common ground between us too.

So, when I say that my experience of Tolkien’s works is different from davem’s, or Helen’s or Aiwendil’s or Bêthberry’s, I am not saying that it is entirely different. In very many ways, there are a great deal of similarities between each of our individual experiences, I am sure. All I am saying is that we should acknowledge the differences, accept that we cannot force the entirety of our own experiences on others and move on to find the common ground.

Now, where does that gets us in terms of “Canonicity v the reader”? As should be clear from what I have been saying throughout this thread, I am in favour of the reader (subject to the restrictions placed upon him or her by the text itself). But I am also in favour of groups of readers sharing (not imposing) experience and attempting to find common ground within the “interpretive communities” that Bêthberry talked of. Indeed, why would I be on this forum if I wasn’t?

(Oh, and yes, H-I, I believe that moral “truths” do “lie in numbers” in the sense that I believe that the basic framework of human morality is a consequence of the social evolution of man: the survival of the most socially effective morals. But I doubt that is common ground. )