‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

Bethberry Quote:

'I would simply like to say that I agree with Sauce that we can never finally ascertain what Tolkien meant. And, that, for me, to make any effort to determine that apart from a text like LOTR is to engage in an activity which predetermines the text. We can discuss the text in terms of our own experience.'

Well, to that extent we can never finally ascertain what anyone ever means about anything.

We can take the letters, essays, the morality & worldview that comes through in the books, etc. We can take some statements at face value & accept that they express Tolkien's own values. Of course, we're then still having to assume things, but we won't be inventing our 'own' Tolkien from scratch. I don't see that involving 'predetermining the text' - if I understand you're meaning. I don't see this 'discussing the text in terms of our own experience' thing either - we can be changed by the text & emerge a different person. The text may change our 'meaning', rather than us imposing a meaning on it.

So actually, its not true to say :

Quote:I read this as saying you give credence to Tolkien's statements because they accord with something you have felt or experienced prior to reading Tolkien: you grant his words authority because they agree with your experience. Thus, the 'test' (if I may use that word) of the validity or authenticity of Tolkien's words is your own experience.

Reading LotR changed me. I'd never paid any attention to the natural world before reading it, I never had much interest in 'spirituality' - up to discovering LotR at 16 my reading matter of choice had been comicbooks. I was changed by Tolkien's works, they gave me my first 'glimpse' into something beyond materialism. But everytime I go back to them I find more in them, I find confirmation for my experiences. Everything I read in Tolkien's writings - fiction & non fiction. I don't feel myself to be so 'important' in this context - Tolkien has taught me something - & from everything I've read of his, he's taught me exactly what he intended to teach me. I don't believe I've imposed my own meaning on his stories, & that my own meaninbg has just happened to coincide with what he intended by pure fluke.

If I misinterpret something you or another poster here writes you, rightly, take me to task - I'm not free to decide that what you post only means whatever I take it to mean - & I don't distinguish between 'fact' & 'fiction' when it comes to meaning. I think Tolkien's meaning is pretty obvious to everyone who reads his works - until they start 'analysing' it, & trying to work out what it means. I suspect only really 'clever' people struggle over what it all means, & what Truth is, & Joy.

Quote:Perhaps this encompasses both your sense of mystical experience and Aiwendil's aesthetic satisfaction?

Er, no - it doesn't really, does it? Mystical experience is 'spiritual' & aesthetic satisfaction is 'sensory' (unless you believe they have their origin in the same 'state' - 'Truth' perhaps? 'Truth is beauty & beauty, Truth'etc. But I don't think Aiwendil would accept the reality of Mystical experience, unless he was allowed to translate it as meaning the same thing as 'aesthetic satisfaction', & so could say 'There, its all simply 'aesthetic sastisfaction'. I have to seperate the two & keep them seperate, otherwise the 'common ground' is false, & we're simply agreeing for the sake of not arguing, & I don't see where that gets us. Mystical experience is experience 'of' something. At least Tolkien believed that to be the case, & I think its a central question as to whether thats a 'fact' that we're dealing with, as Tolkien believed, or an interpretation. The two are simply of a different order to each other. Don't we need to know whether we are interpreting a 'fact' or interpreting an interpretation. Aren't Facts 'canon' ? If so, then Truth & Joy are canonical, aren't they?

[bilbo_baggins]

Fordim does such a better job at summarizing the thread than I do...

I suppose I might just be repeating facts, but the reader is his own authority. How he interprets the facts of Tolkien's literature is his own business, and what he makes does not necessarily become canon. Everyone can have their own view of M-E. Tolkien was a human, therefore, he was not perfect, and anything he made can not be completely exact.

To Conclude this quick reply: There is no "Tolkien Canon", some magical reference one may pull out and show to others that their beliefs may coincide. It is completely impossible.

But do not lose hope; individual interpretation is not the end of complete interpretation. Many people agree about major ideas in Tolkien, things pretty much unchangeable: ie, Frodo loses one finger in the destruction of the Ring. Some will disagree on minor things: ie, Gollum's fall was chance/purpose. We all agree that he fell, therefore we have some ground for harmony and agreement.

Perhaps we can overlook the minor differences we struggle with and create the new interpretation that Fordim suggests.

[davem]

Fordim

Quote:

'Now, I think I would like to find out what claim or authority does the reading community have on the interpretative act of the reader in this encounter? Or/and: what claim or authority does the interpretative act of the reader have on the reading community?'

This is the reason I was asking for a consensus on what the 'facts' are in regard to Tolkien's Legendarium, & what constitutes 'interpretation' - either Tolkien's own, or a reader's. The reading community cannot, imo, have any claim or authority on the interpretive act of the reader, unless it has come to a consensus as regards what 'facts' are to be interpreted. I suspect that it is the 'common ground' issue again. I consider many things to be 'facts' or 'givens', which other posters consider to be 'interpretations' or subjective experiences.

I think we would be approaching too close to 'orthodoxy' vs 'heresy' if we moved too far down this road of the 'authority' of the community over the individual, or vice versa.

I think, even after all this long discussion we still haven't achieved a consensus, or created what could be called a 'reading community', so I can't see what this 'authority' would be. Have we 'authorised' a view? If the text only means what the reader decides it means, or experiences it as meaning, then there can never be a 'community interpretation' to make a claim on the individual reader - there would only, could only, be a lot of individual readers - never a community.

[Bêthberry]

Really now Fordim, I think there likely will be as many sporting metaphors as we have readers and imaginations willing to create them.

Your question reminds me, Fordim, of Calvin's own dilemma when people began interpreting the Bible differently, after he had assumed there would be consensus of understanding.

davem,

If you will, a few points, although I am increasingly becoming convinced this is futile, particularly after your suggestion we all know what Tolkien means; it is only the 'clever' ones who create confusion. What's the point of discussion here, among a community of people who enjoy reading Tolkien, if we simply say that we would all agree if only we didn't talk about it?

Reading LotR changed me. I'd never paid any attention to the natural world before reading it, I never had much interest in 'spirituality' - up to discovering LotR at 16 my reading matter of choice had been comicbooks. I was changed by Tolkien's works, they gave me my first 'glimpse' into something beyond materialism. But everytime I go back to them I find more in them, I find confirmation for my experiences. Everything I read in Tolkien's writings - fiction & non fiction. I don't feel myself to be so 'important' in this context - Tolkien has taught me something - & from everything I've read of his, he's taught me exactly what he intended to teach me.

With all due respect, and in no way to diminish the power of your experience or epiphany (a word which I use with complete and utter respect, as, indeed was theway I regarded your story about your Guardian Angel), this seems to me still to be valorising Tolkien based on the effect reading him had on you. It is the radical change upon your understanding which the text produced in you that allows you to revere Tolkien so highly. Having then had this awakening, you return to the texts to 'repeat' it, so to speak.

"he's taught me exactly what he intended to teach me" Logically, this seems to me to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Er, no - it doesn't really, does it? Mystical experience is 'spiritual' & aesthetic satisfaction is 'sensory' (unless you believe they have their origin in the same 'state' - 'Truth' perhaps? 'Truth is beauty & beauty, Truth'etc. But I don't think Aiwendil would accept the reality of Mystical experience, unless he was allowed to translate it as meaning the same thing as 'aesthetic satisfaction', & so could say 'There, its all simply 'aesthetic sastisfaction'. I have to seperate the two & keep them seperate, otherwise the 'common ground' is false,

Sorry, I could very well be dense here, but I don't see why you have to keep them separate. Tolkien, I thought, in OFS, clearly explained fairy as the satisfaction of primordial human desires, to survey 'the depths of time and space', 'to hold communion with other liveing things', 'the realisation of '"imagined wonder"', "An essential power of Faërie is thus the power of making immediately effective by the will the visions of 'fantasy'." He was, and I speak humbly here, as humbly if not more so than Tolkien was, offering a racially new explanation of the value of Christianity.

He was valorizing it upon his understanding of the importance and significance of story and story-making to mankind. Fantasy is not important, he was saying, because it reproduces the experience of Christian story. Rather, that for him God redeems "the corrupt-making creatures, men" in "a way fitting to ... their strange nature." "For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation."

This seems to me to place aesthetics upon a far more important level than you would wish to acknowledge. It is, I would humbly suggest, a psychological reality of our species. It accounts, I think for the fact that even those who do not "believe in" or accept your Truth can still experience satisfaction upon reading Tolkien's work. It seems to me that Tolkien in effect explains the significance of Christianity through the esthetic experience.

*takes a deep breath in hopes this does not offend as such is not my purpose*

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I'm not sure why it would be necessary for there to be consensus to have a community. . . in fact, that sounds rather like a dull community to me (or a cult!). We all live in communities that share the same basic values but with radically different opinions, beliefs and interpretations of those values. In my local community, we hold theft to be wrong: some of us for religious reasons, some for legalistic, some for civil, etc etc etc. We don't agree, but we are a community.

Like it or not, we are all members of a community in this thread too (now there is magic at work for you! ). We all share the same sense of enchantment at Tolkien's work, but we experience it in different ways. We can either all lay back and say "Wow, what an enchanting work! This is how it enchants me, how does it echant you? Oooooh interesting") or we can simply acknowledge our existence as an enchanted community and attempt to move beyond that to a greater understanding of the text that we share, of our own community, etc etc etc.

I fear davem, that for whatever reason, you seem unwilling or unable to move beyond this initial sense of wonder and engagement. This may very well be a better or more true response to the text. But, well, being a 'clever' person I don't find it very productive.

[mark12_30]

Fordim, I think it can be related back to the Pursuit of Happiness question... Yes, we are all members of the comunity of this thread. But what are we pursuing that keeps bringing us back to this thread? I won't speak for too many people here... Some of us return to the thread over and over again, because (I think) the question of canon arose and we debate often, so we were drawn in in case the debate rules changed. (raises hand) Maybe lots of us were drawn in for that reason.

But why did we stay?

I stayed, because I wanted to explore the enchantment/ eucatastrophe connection to the Story, and the connection of that to the writer. Why? I write. I desire to see my readers enchanted and experiencing eucatastrophe. So the relationship of enchantment to author's intent matters to me as an author. (I don't think I'm alone among those who have traversed this thread.)

Others here may read more than they write. Perhaps they seek the enchantment itself in what they read.

Perhaps others (and here I am guessing wildly) have other curiosities, analytical, theoretical, psychological, academic.

If some traversing this thread are simply seeking the enchantment, that may be (excuse me) the reason why they are here (I know, I know!! This is how I think, bear with me.) It may be what they are called to do at the moment. If that is the case, then the enchantment is enough. It is the perfection of the moment, with no analysis needed.

Vive le enchantment.

[davem]

Bethberry

Quote:'This seems to me to place aesthetics upon a far more important level than you would wish to acknowledge. It is, I would humbly suggest, a psychological reality of our species.'

Yes, I accept it is, but I think 'mystical experience' is more than a 'psychological reality' - which is all Aiwendil's worldview would allow it to be. I would have to conflate the two for them to fit into any 'common ground', so there would bve no point in distinguishing them, the terms would become interchangeable, & the 'dimension' I'm speaking of would cease to exist. In short, I simply don't believe that while my 'epiphany' (though strangely enough, at the time it felt perfectly 'normal') was 'psychological' in nature, it wasn't simply psychological in origin.

Fordim

Quote:'I fear davem, that for whatever reason, you seem unwilling or unable to move beyond this initial sense of wonder and engagemen't.

Why would I want to move beyond it? Tell me what I'll find if I leave it behind, & if you can convince me its 'better' I'll try & move 'forward'.

Quote:'This may very well be a better or more true response to the text.
But, well, being a 'clever' person I don't find it very productive.'

But what do you want to 'produce'? What are you looking to end up with? Is it something other than, or better than, 'wonder & engagement'?

Do you see ther Legendarium as having to be 'for' something, or like a puzzle to be solved, rather than as a thing to be experienced for itself, & perhaps to open us up to the possibility of wonder, enchantment, eucatastrophe?

[HerenIstarion]

One day off, and a wagon-load of posts for me to catch up. But there was a good read on them, and I feel the urge to type I haven't experienced for months before Evil Things thread came to the surface, and which has become even more intense with this particular one, reaching the state of some kind of itch in my fingertips

First of all, my apologies if I sounded like a cheerleader with my post #296. It had indeed the cheering up of certain people in mind, who started to sound a bit bitter to me, so I wanted a bit of Joy around for their enjoyment. I'm sorry if it looked as deliberate 'side-taking', but, well, being of certain views and beliefs, I naturally tend to support people of similar mindset. That does not, definitely, imply my disrespect of any kind or form with regards to opinions of those of the different mindset (even if I fail to make it seen clearly), and the form of cheering up I chose seemed appropriate at the time of choosing. My apologies to those who found it appalling.

Now to essentials - I should say we are already past Tolkien in our discussion and touching here and there on the basic facts about the reality. The whole issue of Truth/truth is grounded not on difference of appreciation of the text, but difference of entire outlook, be it materialistic or religious. Being of the latter, I have a logical (yes, justified and made logical by the fact of my belief) ground to conclude that some statements about the world are more true than others. (and the truth does not lie in numbers, but in relation of each statement to the ultimate Truth), Said Truth with capital T, at Aiwendil's bidding, and not only, I am willing indeed to name as God)

Before I proceed to what I'm going to say, I would be allowed to made a disclaimer: what follows is not posted with the intention to force my views (or such a 'horrible' thing as religion is) on anyone, Eru forbid ). I just hold that I owe you all one, for what forms the ground of Tolkien understanding for me, is rooted, as I've said, in the basic Fact about the world I hold to be true. And, as I believe it to be true, I would be glad if I succed in convincing some in its truth.

So, I hold that the world we live in is created by omnipotent and benevolent Being. I also hold that Evil found in the world is not due to some flaw in said omnipotency or benevolence of the Creator, but because of Freedom given creatures to do as they will, for without such a Freedom they can not be loved in a 'proper way', or indeed would be not worth loving, but mere 'things', or 'items'. I hold also that the creatures, given the ability to do so, indeed have 'gone wrong', abused their freedom and are now ina state which is technically defined, (or merely known, choose whichever you like) as Fallen. but measures to correct such a situation are already taken (Eucatastophe). Despite the fact of being fallen, creatures retain the built-in standard of Good and Evil against which their actions are measured and which is the basic ground for all moralities of all societies throughout history we have a notion of. Furthermore, I hold that, though some of our actions may be well the subsequent to us being half animals, and having instincts, or developments of such instincts, the act of choice we make when acting, and preferring one over the other is not instinct in itself, but the application of combined Freedom/Built in Standard of Good and Wrong. So, much asked for definitions would be (clumsily, no doubt, but I try my best to be honest) as follows:

1. Truth – recognition of createdness of our world by God, as well as built-in moral low, standard of Good and Evil, which enables us to distinguish those and bring ouserves in conformity with Good and unity with God
2. Joy – natural state of unfallen, and state to which redeemed will be returned of unity and harmony with God. The enjoyment and aestetical pleausure associated are natural parts of it, but not the end of it. The end is Truth, i.e., said unity and harmony with God. The feeling of Joy usually convoys the recognition of Truth
3. Light – traditionally vaguely defined substance what corresponds with two previous terms. May be used separately to mark or even replace each.
4. Eucatastrophe – the correcting push, bringing stray humanity back to confomity with the Truth. Accompinied by feeling of Joy, as of enjoyment and recognition, which is indicator of the turnover in the direction of Truth.

Furthermore, I hold that all of the above is arguble logically, even if by means of a 'mere' syllogism. Try that one out:

If the world is a result of random development, the conscious mind of a man, is, likewise, result of enourmously long chain of over-numerous accidents, and thinking process which takes place in said mind is equally accidental and random. Therefore, any conclusions that mind comes to, are all based on billion years worth of fortuity, and chances of it reflecting the affairs 'as they are' are ridiculously small. Indeed, if my mind is random, why conclusion I make with it should be true? (The whole modern cosmogonic theory, coming down to 'in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded' sounds like quite a funny joke to my ear)

Now invert that last paragraph. What is the result? It comes that, only when one admits that universe, and, therefore, one's mind is created by already consicous Being, one's minds claim to possesion of an ability of digging the truth out is based on anything more than a whiff of a wind.

Following all of the above, I hold that some interpretations of anything (including Tolkien) are more right than others, being in closer proximity to Truth in both senses (recognition and built-in standard) (With that admitting that some maybe 'righter' than mine, of course)

Therefore, I can argue that truth lies not in number of people holding this or that statement to be true, but in conformity of the statements itself to the one Big T, if I am allowed to joke about it in such a crude way. And, though I hold that 'sky is blue' and 'water is wet' type of 'truths' also form a part of the Truth, it is essentially about what is Right and what is Wrong. And if to murder is wrong, it is not because certain number of people believe it to be so, but because it is simply so. If 95 out of 100 held murded to be good, it nevertheless would have been bad, because it is simply bad.

As I have fleetingly mentioned above, the rightenss/wrongness of interpratation does not stand in the way of enjoyment. So, there is no claim of mine to state that any feelings, thoughts, inspirations any of you experienced while reading Tolkien are of less value than the next man's, that is, mine.

Furthermore I hold that Tolkien deliberately constructed his stories as to reflect, retell the Truth (again, in both senses), but, instead of using mere statemens just as I did, used a more subtle way of Joy. Inherent standard of Good and Evil enables us to glimpse those, even if uncounsiously so.

But, and very grave 'but' at that, as sub-creation is yet another expression of Man's likeness ot God, Tolkien's [sub]creation may be enjoyed without such a directed revelation, without statement of belief, as things in themselves, artworks. But, another grave 'but', to evaluate those as merely artworks is wrong, but, third grave 'but', only if one making evaluation aknowledges the truth of the Truth, Joy, Light and Eucatastrophe. If he/she denies such a Truth, than he/she may be content to consider LoTR as mere artwork, and is right in doing so..

But, as I've said, I do believe my approach to be more right than some, yet, I would repeat – it does not imply disrespect, or animosity, or any other hard feeling towards those holding different opinion, though, I'm sorrowed to admit, I hold it to be superior approach, as I believe it to be more correct, or more true one.

Confession's over, shoot who will..

[Child of the 7th Age]

Heren Istarion,

I think it is logical and admirable for you to set down the personal beliefs and standards that guide your reading of Tolkien and your personal life.

If we're honest with each other, we would probably all admit that we consider our own particular religious and/or philosophical beliefs, whatever those may be, to be the very "best" possible, at least in the sense that they most perfectly explain what we see and experience in life. If we did not regard them as the "best", then why would we ever adopt them? Like you, Heren, God stands at the center of my existence, and I personally see those same ideas reflected in Tolkien's writings. Yet, if we were to discuss the specifics of that belief, my personal perspective would probably not be identical to yours. And the same is true for everyone else posting on this thread. Even if a number of us could agree on the centrality of God in our view of the world and in Tolkien's own writings, our personal conceptions of who that God is and how best to honor him would vastly differ.

Your post hints that the great dividing line on this thread should be seen in those terms: who does or does not view the Truth (and Tolkien's writings by implication) as reflective of the glory and wonder of God. As central as God is to my being, I do not see it that way. This is a community of readers. We may discuss many things and there are times when a poster may dramatically change his or her mind, based on the words that are put forward on this site. But the one thing that is a given, that is unlikely to change because of such a discussion, is our personal outlook and perspective, how we see ourselves and how we regard the Truth, what place we feel God does or does not occupy in the universe. Those feelings and perspectives are a given, and they are unlikely to alter because of anything that is said here.

So where does that leave us? Basically, we have two options. We can each go forward and stress the uniqueness of our personal beliefs, setting down the reasons why those are the "best" set of beliefs to help us understand Tolkien's writings, and why other perspectives are inaccurate or faulty. One danger with this is that we can can end up splitting hairs.

Is it, for example, enough to be a theist, or even a Christian to understand what the author is saying? Someone who is a devout Catholic could argue that you or I can not truly understand what Tolkien means because we do not share this particular subset of his beliefs, and this subset was obviously very important to him. (Please excuse me Heren if indeed you are Catholic! Someone else who is Catholic could come along and maintain that it isn't enough to be Catholic per se. To understand Tolkien, one must share his particular mindset in regard to the Catholic Church, i.e., the precise feelings he had concerning church reform, women showing up in church wearing slacks and sporting curlers in their hair, or the role of the Church in the world. We can split hairs further and further, until we end up in separate trees throwing coconuts at each other.

The second option is to acknowledge that folk on the Downs do not see the world in exactly the same way, to honestly admit that each of us considers our unique perspective to be the "best one" (because truthfully who doesn't?), but, at the same time, to agree that there is a common ground where we can share and discuss and respect each other's ideas. And this means that personal belief in God, or even seeing the aspect of the numinous in Tolkien's writings, is not a critical prerequisite for a fruitful discussion of the author and his works.

Again, I will reiterate: Tolkien was not Lewis. His primary purpose in writing was not to convert anyone to Christianity or Catholicism. In the course of writing, he did reflect the personal truths that he saw in both Christianity and Catholicism, because that was central to his soul. And he was certainly trying to open us up to the value of goodness, self sacrifice, and fellowship. For those who do believe in God, or at least something beyond, there are obvious hints of light and the numinous. (Personally, these are some of my favorite parts. I have been chasing after Frodo the Elf-friend for over thirty-five years!)

I guess that is one reason this thread is "getting" to me, despite my persistent efforts of late to ignore it. For me, one of the prime messages that comes through in Tolkien is this: people of differing backgrounds, whose culture and beliefs vary widely can come together to fight evil and form close personal bonds. Most of the free folk of Middle-earth did not even know who Eru was, but Tolkien still expected them to stand up and be counted. Whether you were an Elf who understood all the tales of Eru and Valinor, or you were a Hobbit who lived a moral life without any wider grounding of intellect or belief, you still had a part to do, and that part was valuable.

Everything I know about Tolkien's personal life suggests that, despite his strong religious convictions and his desire to pass on the truth of Catholicism to friends, he could also be accepting of differences and was not judgmental in this one sense. His comments about his Jewish friends at the University, his response to the publisher who questioned his Aryan background, and his closeness to Lewis prior to the latter's conversion all reinforce this impression. Tolkien openly vented against stupidity and a blind adherence to the dictates of modern culture. Yet, even in his Letters, he did not denigrate anyone for a lack of belief or claim that such people would have trouble understanding LotR.

If Tolkien can depict the Fellowship and the alliance against Sauron in this positive manner, given all their diverse cultures, beliefs and levels of awareness, why can we not engage in a discussion of the books, without saying that others who don't share our particular beliefs are somehow deficient in how they interpret things or interact with the text?

Heren, I don't mean that you said or implied this in your last post, but there are places on this thread where I do get a sense folk are saying we can't have a fruitful sharing of ideas unless we all approach the text as believers in God. This is frankly not the mindset that I get when I read the messge of LotR.

[Snowdog]

Fordim Hedgethistle, I read with interest your opening post, and I have to say that I have always taken it as such:

Given this idea (which, again, was Tolkien’s own) of the writer-as-historian, then does this not mean that we – the readers – are not only able, but compelled, to seek always to reinterpret the tales from our own standpoint rather than continually try to figure out what the ‘first’ historian made of them? Tolkien can give us important clues and hints into the history and – more significantly – the moral fabric of Middle-Earth, as he was the world’s greatest expert on the material. But in the end, it’s up to the reader to really figure it out for him or herself. That’s, I think, the real strength of Middle-Earth over other imagined worlds: it’s open-ended and incomplete; it’s contradictory; it doesn’t make sense – it’s just like our own (primary) world.

Henceforth, I write bits and pieces of the 'missing' record, and have fun doing it. The limiting factor is to stay within the bounds of the defined world (no balrog/elf breeds, etc.). The world has should be taken on its own, without theological interference from our individual worlds.

Good thread! More later.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote (back in post 310):

When I said that 'facts' like 'killing is wrong' or 'water is wet', etc are nothing to do with 'Truth' I meant simply that they are facts, which are 'products' of our response to Truth - ie, 'Truth', in the sense in which I am using it, refers not to moral codes or precepts, but to the source of those codes, the thing which inspires them in us.

Ah! I'm glad you said that. That is I think something like the definition I was asking for. "Truth" means "the source of truth" where the uncapitalized is understood in the conventional sense - is that it? That's certainly a definition I can live with - of course in another context I would still dispute whether "the source of truth" makes any sense. But I can certainly suspend that doubt and accept the term as a well-defined one.

My problem in so far as coming to an agreement as to what Truth is, in an attempt to reach some kind of common ground, is that I cannot 'translate' my conceptions of Truth, Joy, etc into terms which would fit your world view, at least not without sacrificing what I mean by them, in order to make them 'fit' - & if I could, we wouldn't really be debating on common ground, we'd be debating on grounds that you had set out, & we would have to remain on that sharply defined ground, if we wanted the debate to continue, & wherever the debate went, it could only go where you allowed it to go.

I understand that, and that's why I said earlier that we had come to an impasse. For if I were to simply accept your Truth/Joy/Tao, we would be debating on grounds that you had set.

The reason I was so interested in hearing your definition of "Truth" is that I wanted to know whether it was a term we could both accept and simply use even if we thought it meant different things.

Since metaphors are so fashionable in this thread: imagine a Jewish theologian and a Christian theologian discussing some subject. They may very well have occasion to refer to "God" in this discussion. Now, each one means a different thing by "God". The Jew means a singular omnipotent being; the Christian means the Trinity (forgive me if I'm oversimplifying this, but you get the point). But, unless they are debating these specific differences, they can quite comfortably use the word "God" with each other and as if they were referring to exactly the same thing. Their ideas about the meaning of the term "God" are different, but they are similar enough to allow discussion involving "God".

But now take a Christian and an ancient Greek "pagan". The Greek also has a word "god". But he or she means something quite different. There will be few topics that the two could discuss in which they can use the word "god" simpliciter.

I was hoping that our disagreement about Truth was like the Christian and the Jew rather than the Christian and the mythologist. That is, I was hoping that we could accept some broad definition for Truth and leave the exact contents of the definition unspecified. It appeared earlier that we cannot in fact do this. So, to be honest, I am a bit confused about why you continued (back in post 310, again) to argue in favor of your concept of Truth. As I see it, you indeed belive that:

If we limit ourselves to the physical, material world, that can be encompassed by current psychological & literary theories, whatever conclusions we may come to would not really be relevant, as central issues would have been rejected.

. . . then I'm afraid there is simply no more to be discussed, for in such a case your definition of "Truth" differs in a way crucial to the subject at hand from any definition I can accept.

You wrote:

My world view includes the metaphysical as well as the physical, but yours seems limited only to the physical, so I would not be allowed to offer metaphysical 'proofs' - which by their nature can only be expressed through feelings & experiences.

If by "metaphysical" you mean something like "supernatural" or "not reducible to logic and physics" then you're right. I don't want a proof of anything; but again, if Truth is in your view necessarily not reducible to logic and physics, then we have no common term.

I have to say that you & SpM seem to get het up at claims that you are missing something, almost as if you're 'demanding' that I, or Helen, or H-I should 'reaveal' the 'secret' to you, or stop implying that there is such a 'secret'. Yet you claim to be so confident that you have understood it all in the way that you want, & that anything we could 'reveal' - if we deigned to let you in on the hidden meaning - would not interest you because it can't be True anyway, because there's no such thing as Truth.

So, here we are, us saying Truth exists, you denying it exists, but demanding that we tell you what it is anyway. If you don't feel you're missing out on anything why do you keep asking us to tell you what you're missing out on?

Well, I hope I've at last made my position clear (as I've been trying and failing to do in the past two or three posts). I am not demanding that you "reveal" anything to me; I simply wanted to know what you mean when you say Truth - just as, if I started using some term like "goomak" in the discussion, you'd want to know what I meant by it. That's a completely separate issue from that of the viability of reading Tolkien's literary theory with Faerie and Truth as psychological objects rather than metaphysical ones.

In connection with this last point, Mister Underhill wrote:

Surely he means more than “the set of true propositions” about the world: 2+2=4, the earth is round, and so forth. Unless I mistake what you mean by “set of true propositions” – which I take to be limited solely to rational, provable, indisputable, factual propositions

I'm afraid you do misunderstand me. The set of true propositions could (a priori) be as abstract as one likes. It could include truths that cannot, even in principle, ever be tested. It could include transcedent truths, if such things exist. And so on.

Now, as for my claim that "On Faery Stories" and the rest can be read with purely psychological definitions for "Truth" and so on - certainly this is not what Tolkien intended, or what he believed. My point is that nonetheless I think his theory is a perfectly coherent and sound one even if one replaced his transcendental truths with psychological ones.

[HerenIstarion]

To post #329 by Child of Seventh Age re:

You are probably right.

And, to lift the heavy lid covering the pan of bubbling and boiling emotions, I would present (again, for your enjoyment ) the following:

Question: Why did the chicken cross the street?
Answers:

DESCARTES: to go to the other side.

PLATO: For his own sake. On the other side of the street there is the truth

ARISTOTELES: It's part of the chicken's nature to cross streets

KARL MARX: It was historically inevitable

CAPTAIN KIRK: To get where no other chicken had ever got before

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR: I had a dream where all chicken were free to cross streets without having to justify their decisions.

RICHARD M. NIXON: The chicken did not cross the street - I repeat - the chicken never crossed the street.

SIGMUND FREUD: The fact that you worry about why the chicken crossed the street reveals your strong inner feeling of sexual insecurity

BILL GATES: We precisely have just finish to elaborate the new program "Office Chicken 2004" that, on top of crossing streets, will also be able to incubate eggs, archive important documents, etc.

BUDDHA: asking such a thing is to reject your own inner chicken nature

TONY BLAIR: the chicken was going on a humanitarian mission

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY: The reason is in yourself, but you don’t know it yet. Through a small contribution of 1500 Euros, plus the rent of a lie detector, we will run a psychological test that will help us discover the reason

BILL CLINTON: I swear on the Constitution that nothing sexual ever happened between me and that chicken

EINSTEIN: The fact that it is the chicken who crosses the street or the street which moves beneath the chicken is relative.

ZEN: the chicken might be crossing the street in vain, only the Teacher knows the noise of its shadow against the wall

STALIN: the chicken must be shot immediately, as well as all witnesses of the scene plus 10 people chose by hazard as they did not try to prevent this subversive act

GEORGE W. BUSH: the fact that the chicken crossed the street in all impunity despite the UN resolutions, represents a serious attack to democracy, justice and freedom. This proves beyond all doubt that we should have bombed this street a long time ago. With the objective to guarantee peace in the region and to avoid that the values we treasure are once again attacked by such terrorist actions, the government of the US has decided to send 17 warships, 46 destroyers and 154 frigates, with the land support of 243,000 soldiers and 843 bombers, which will have the mission, in the name of freedom and democracy, to destroy all sign of life in poultry in the 5000 KM around the area, and ensure, with some targeted missiles, that anything vaguely resembling poultry will be turned to ashes and will never again be able to defy our nation with his arrogance. We have also decided that afterwards this country will be ruled by our government, which will create new poultry according to safety standards, handing all powers over to a cock democratically elected by the US ambassador. In order to finance such operation, we will take total control of the entire cereal production of the region for the coming 30 years, with local citizens benefiting from a favorable tariff over part of the production, in exchange of their complete cooperation. In this new land of justice, peace and freedom, we can assure you that never again will a chicken attempt to cross a street, for the simple reason that there will be no streets and that chicken will not have paws. God bless America.


Probably, it would be good for myself to remember chicken in question, each time I put my hand on the branch of a tree with the intention of picking up a coconut

cheers

[davem]

Aiwendil

I'm not sure there would be such a difference between the Christian, the Jew & the Pagan in their concept of the ultimate nature of Deity. I think there is a consensus of a kind to be found between Christian, Jewish & Pagan Mystics. My 'singature' is a quote from a Pagan Neo-Platonist Philosopher, & I don't think many Christians or Jews would find a lot to argue with in it. A Christian mystical text like The Cloud of Unknowing could be accepted by Pagans, Christians, Jews & Moslems quite easily.

If we take a Pagan idea - a 'saviour' figure appears in the world, one of his parents is human (usually the mother) his father is divine. He lives a short life, performs great feats or miracles, is killed, often sacrificed for others, & is brought back to life & goes to spend eternity with his divine parent. Often his death involves some kind of piercing - with a spear or an arrow. He is symbolically a 'child' of both worlds - uniting both in himself, & becoming a symbolic 'bridge' between the worlds, enabling his followers to enter into paradise through him. We can find variations of this idea across the world - though not in a 'pure' & perfect' a form as in Christianity. Certainly Achilles is a demiGod who is killed by being pierced with an arrow, so is Krishna. Lugh, in Celtic myth is killed by a spear, & resurrected by his uncle Gwydion.

To relate this back to Christianity, I came across an interpretation - can't remember where - of the Crucifixion. Christ is 'transfixed' on the cross, & pierced by the spear. Symbolically, He hangs between & so unites, earth & sky, he unites in himself God & Man, creator & creation, life & death. There is an eclipse, so even day & night are symbolically one at that point. We have an 'image' - all the 'opposites', the 'fragments' into which creation was broken with the Fall, constellate around the Crucified Christ, who becomes a new 'centre of gravity' for the broken Creation - so the nails are shown going through his palms, & he 'actively' grasps them, rather than through his wrists. He pulls the universe back together.

Ok, sermon over! but the point is, seen in that light, with so many 'Pagan' images & symbols being contained in the Christian story, a Pagan philosopher would have had a great deal of common ground with a Christian, not just in the idea of a Deity (most Pagan Philosophers understood the gods to be 'aspects' of a single Deity, who was beyond human comprehension), but even in details of their beliefs. The similarities between Christianity & Judaism are obvious.

In other words, I'm not sure that your analogy works. Then again, not being a Christian myself (though having sympathy with it) the interpretation of the crucifixion I've just given may be totally heretical, & I expect Helen & H-I to put me right on it if it is wrong!

But we still haven't solved the problem of interpretation of Tolkien. I would say that a proper interpretation of Tolkien's work, a proper understanding of what he was attempting to achieve, requires us to take into account the metaphysical dimension as a fact. If we don't, then the interpretation we end up with will be missing something that I, H-I, Helen, Child & others feel is of central importance, so it won't work for us. I suspect, though, if it did contain the metaphysical dimension we require for it to work, you would find it unsatisfactory. So, as you say, impasse.

Of course, I'm still waiting for Fordim's answer as to what he wants to 'produce' by this process of interpretation & what he wants any consensus of meaning to do - maybe its just for its own sake - like the revised Sil which you're invovled in.

Its funny to have come so far with this if that's all we're looking to end up with.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

My point is that nonetheless I think his theory is a perfectly coherent and sound one even if one replaced his transcendental truths with psychological ones.

Hmm. Is the sum of this and your Christian/Jew analogy all to say that you believe in God (in the broadest possible sense of that word) -- but only as a set of psychological principles? I admit that I am still confused.

[bilbo_baggins]

...I am still confused

(Mister Underhill)

If I may say such an over-used cliche: "join the club!"

[davem]

MrU

I have to agree that the idea of God as a set of psychological principles is the kind of thing that sounds fine, but simply doesn't work - especially in the context of what Tolkien is describing in Fairy Stories - how would eucatastrophe work? What is the 'gleam' that comes through? Where does it come from? Tolkien's concept can only work if there is an objectively existing 'spiritual' dimension which fantasy opens us up to, which can affect us.

If its proposed that its some 'unconscious' process or 'function' which is somehow 'activated' by the reading of a particular kind of fiction, or exposure to specific images, then I can't see how that fits in with any current psychological theory, & would, I suspect, be dismissed as nonsense.

No, I can see either dismissing Tolkien's theory altogether, or accepting it at face value - & that requires acceptance that we are dealing with something much more than simply psychological processes.

[The Saucepan Man]

When I said that 'facts' like 'killing is wrong' or 'water is wet', etc are nothing to do with 'Truth' I meant simply that they are facts, which are 'products' of our response to Truth - ie, 'Truth', in the sense in which I am using it, refers not to moral codes or precepts, but to the source of those codes, the thing which inspires them in us. (davem)

"Truth" means "the source of truth" where the uncapitalized is understood in the conventional sense - is that it? That's certainly a definition I can live with …(Aiwendil)

Yes, me too. Indeed, I think that it is a very good one (assuming that it is acceptable as a broad proposition to all). If this is the definition that we are using, then I would say that I do have a belief in the existence of Truth, although it is neither strong nor central to my life. In fact, it would probably be more accurate to say that I recognise the possibility of the existence of Truth. Just as I recognise the possibility of glimpsing truth in LotR, although I have not glimpsed it there myself. I readily accept that I have experienced enchantment in LotR, but I have never experienced Eucatastrophe in it, or indeed in any other form of art, if I correctly understand that term to mean a religious experience. To put it another way, I do not have what is often described as “Faith”. Is that wrong? Am I somehow “missing out” on something? No, I don’t feel that either is the case, since I am perfectly content with my current state of belief. I do not feel the need for anything more. Of course, I do not preclude the possibility that I may someday glimpse Truth, if it exists, since I do not preclude the possibility of its existence.

Now, I hope that finally clarifies why it is that I have taken the position that I have on certain discussions within this thread.

Now, I think I would like to find out what claim or authority does the reading community have on the interpretative act of the reader in this encounter? Or/and: what claim or authority does the interpretative act of the reader have on the reading community? (Fordim)

The reading community cannot, imo, have any claim or authority on the interpretive act of the reader, unless it has come to a consensus as regards what 'facts' are to be interpreted … If the text only means what the reader decides it means, or experiences it as meaning, then there can never be a 'community interpretation' to make a claim on the individual reader - there would only, could only, be a lot of individual readers - never a community. (davem)

I agree with your first point here, davem, but not your second one. Of course, neither the reader nor the interpretative community can have any automatic claim or authority over the interpretative act of the other. But that does not, to my mind, render interpretative communities valueless. What I was trying to say in my previous posts is that we can still discuss Tolkien’s works and reach consensus (or something approaching it) on a range of issues. But their value is much greater than that. By sharing our thoughts, interpretations and experiences in relation to his works, and listening to those of others, we can, I think learn a lot about ourselves and even be persuaded to change our views (if not our beliefs) on certain issues. By exposing ourselves to what others have to say, we open up the range of possibilities available to us, and some things which we had not thought of before, or on which we previously had different thoughts, may just “click” into place. If nothing else, this thread has certainly increased my knowledge, and will probably influence the way that I read LotR next time I pick it up (although that’s not to say that the way I read it was wrong before ). And it has also made me think very deeply about the spiritual aspects of my own beliefs and, though it may not have changed them, it has helped me to define them a little better within my own mind. And though I did say that they are not central to my life, it does not follow that they are not of interest to me.

The sentiments which I am trying to express here are, I think, similar to those expressed by Child in her last post, upon which I make no comment save to agree wholeheartedly with everything said within it (and that’s not cheerleading, it’s admiring and agreeing. )

If the world is a result of random development, the conscious mind of a man, is, likewise, result of enormously long chain of over-numerous accidents, and thinking process which takes place in said mind is equally accidental and random. Therefore, any conclusions that mind comes to, are all based on billion years worth of fortuity, and chances of it reflecting the affairs 'as they are' are ridiculously small. (HerenIstarion)

But the evolution of physical attributes is not random. Creatures evolve in such a way that they are admirably suited to their environment. Why should moral precepts not evolve in the same way? Of course no creature is ever ideally suited to its environment, but then again can we say that any society has an ideal moral code? OK, you may not accept evolutionism, but there is to my mind a sound rational basis behind it. And I do not see it as inconsistent with a belief in Truth, since Truth can still be the source of the process if not the outcome.

And finally:

TONY BLAIR: the chicken was going on a humanitarian mission (HerenIstarion)

A most enjoyable post overall, H-I. But I have to say that, to my mind, Tony Blair and humanitarianism go together about as well as Sauron and pink fluffy bunnies.

[Lyta_Underhill]

davem post 333:

I would say that a proper interpretation of Tolkien's work, a proper understanding of what he was attempting to achieve, requires us to take into account the metaphysical dimension as a fact. If we don't, then the interpretation we end up with will be missing something that I, H-I, Helen, Child & others feel is of central importance, so it won't work for us. I suspect, though, if it did contain the metaphysical dimension we require for it to work, you would find it unsatisfactory. So, as you say, impasse.

So authorial intention is brought back to the fore in this way! And it seems that what Aiwendil might be saying is that this particular authorial intention may be co-opted the same as any other, from metaphysical to psychological. It is yet another interpretive act of reading. Personally, I think the way Tolkien wrote many passages leaves such interpretations wide open, that Eru was implied, intentionally, but that He wasn't forced upon the reader, just as the denizens of Middle Earth were not universally aware of Eru's existence or, if so, what part He played.

The closest we come to explicit naming of Eru in LOTR is Faramir's custom at meat in Henneth Annun, when he looks to the West:

we look rowards Numenor that was, and beyond to Elvenhome that is, and to that which is beyond Elvenhome and will ever be.

This suggests, at least, an infinite and unseeable reality, at least from where Faramir is standing. Or, it could be read as a simple psychological ritualization of wondering "where the Sun goes" when it passes West each night, mysteries uncounted, unexplained and far away, the suggestion of their own smallness and the relative 'bigness' of the world (and beyond!). I'm sure there are other ways to read it and probably most of them are more erudite than those my own coffee-soaked brain comes up with. Tolkien suggests something beyond Elvenhome and only gives us a glimpse through a long held custom, thus, even in the sub-created reality, there is the remove of "it is said," rather than a direct revealed Truth. (The sayer, however, is linked back to the old and noble Numenorian race, thus giving his words the force of history in the eyes of one who listens to him). This, I think, gives the reader lots of freedom to interpret and does not necessitate the reader identify Eru explicitly, but Tolkien does place Him as a concept in Middle Earth, explicitly in other writings. So, Eru is intended in a certain way, but not forced through authorial heavy-handedness in the text of The Lord of the Rings.

Personally, the reduction of transcendent and metaphysical concepts to psychological ones is frightening to me, threatening to pull ALL reality inside my own limited brain and reducing my worldview to sadly solipsistic in nature, but then, that's my own view, and perhaps that of some others in the world. Maybe that is why we argue against it, because we do not wish it to be. (I am no psychologist, but I would think proving something true or false in that realm to be tricky at best and the results to be statistically scattered, rather than absolute.)

The concept that one thing can be proven False because another is True does not ring 'true' with me (except in the very fine logical true/false way for simple tests against an arbitrary standard), and I think many interpretations can be made of Tolkien's work, even beyond what he intended in his initial writing of it, but the fact that they are interpretations does not remove the truth from them, but merely removes them from authorial 'canon,' if you will and along that long string of communication towards the reader. I hope that made sense!

Cheers!
Lyta

[The Saucepan Man]

But Lyta, isn't there a difference between accepting the metaphysical elements contained expressly or impliedly within the Tolkien's stories (such as LotR) and accepting the metaphysical implications of his theories (such as that expressed in OFT)? I would say that we have to accept the former as part of the story if we are to accept the story itself, while we are free to reject the latter without rejecting the story.

[Aiwendil]

Davem:

I think that, on anything like a traditional interpretation of Christian theology and Greek mythology, the two would have quite different conceptions of the term "God".

But the whole Christian/Jew/Pagan thing is quite beside the point (and consequently not worth arguing about). I was simply making an analogy. You can take it or leave it; I don't care.

Mr. Underhill wrote:

Hmm. Is the sum of this and your Christian/Jew analogy all to say that you believe in God (in the broadest possible sense of that word) -- but only as a set of psychological principles? I admit that I am still confused.

I'm not sure what it could mean to believe in God as a set of psychological principles. But I honestly don't think that my own beliefs (or lack thereof) have very much to do with Tolkien. All that I meant to say is that if you read "On Faery Stories" with my definitions of Faerie and Enchantment and Truth (i.e. that they are psychologically important concepts) then I think you get quite a sensible theory.

[Lyta_Underhill]

But Lyta, isn't there a difference between accepting the metaphysical elements contained expressly or impliedly within the Tolkien's stories (such as LotR) and accepting the metaphysical implications of his theories (such as that expressed in OFT)?

Certainly there is a difference; I was referring to the reading experience of Lord of the Rings in particular, really, as a self-contained work; the supplemental and subsequent work by Tolkien explicates his position on the meaning of the story and of his own philosophy of sub-creation, but I don't think it negates the reader's freedom to interpret it in his or her own way as well. The theories put forth by Tolkien in other writings, and the more mythological bent of the Silmarillion and supplemental post-mortem offerings do not need to enter into the reader's experience with Lord of the Rings, but, of course it is all the more explicit in the First Age writings. (I think a reader is still granted the option to dismiss the Ainulindale in its literality if he or she so chooses, and to do so puts the reader as perhaps a revisionist historian inside Middle Earth, if you will but doesn't invalidate the experience.) What the reader believes Tolkien's Eru to be representative of in his or her own life is another matter and is subjective, although the reader can choose to be affected and perhaps enlightened by Tolkien's other writings, accept them or reject them, or accept some of them conditionally; it is all optional for the reader. There are many other ways to read a work, even one so well-documented as the History of Arda.

We can, therefore, accept Faramir's words at their value (which is nebulous and provocative of thought even inside Middle Earth), and we can take these words into the primary world and interpret them there as well. "Faramir believes in God; Faramir believes there is some realm beyond; Faramir values that realm and it informs him in his daily life; Faramir is a crackpot who performs a silly ritual; Faramir's rituals help him deal with the reality of constant war by taking his mind off it...etc. etc..." Insert Joe Smith next door for Faramir (not that I think there are any Faramirs where I live!) But one can accept Faramir as a noble character or crackpot, or what have you and see Faramir reflected in the primary world, just as one can see other concepts or characters reflected. The reader's perception of the concept or character does not necessitate that he or she accept Tolkien's definitions in secondary writings as you said, SpM, nor that the reader accept the expressed motivations behind the works as his or her own motivations.

Cheers,
Lyta

[HerenIstarion]

SpM

But the evolution of physical attributes is not random

That's what I tried to point out

[davem]

Not really an attempt to resurrect this thread, but I've just come across this article, which seems to sum up a lot of what has been said here:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/is.../16-8pg42.html

(of course, if this sparks off the debate again, that would be cool).

[HerenIstarion]

I have strong suspicion people are just having a time-out, getting their breaths back for another nine page dive

Thanks for the link, read first, comment later

*heads off in the direction of Touchstone...

edit:

Thank you again, there was a good read on it. Should we stress on:

And does so effectively. I know a number of teenagers, contemporaries of my oldest daughter, who have no religious background at all, and yet who are completely caught up in the mythos of Middle-earth. Through this mythos, symbolically embedded in the story, young people are unconsciously absorbing any number of spiritual nutrients which may serve them well in later life. They will have learned to see the world in a certain way, as it is seen by Christianity.

?

[davem]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Should we stress on:

...They will have learned to see the world in a certain way, as it is seen by Christianity.

?

Clearly Tolkien's wish & intention. And I suppose Caldecott is correct also in her analysis of Pullman's intentions, & of his desired intentions. What strikes me most strongly is the way Pullman, even in a 'fantasy' story, cannot let go of his athiesm. He's basically undermining fairy story, by deliberately denying any possibility of eucatastrophe. He eventually cuts this world off from magic, & from any possibility of 'liberation'. So, he strands us, here, in this one world, this one life. And all we have to look forward to is cessation.

Tolkien seems to be offering the exact opposite.

So, can we class both writer's works as 'fantasy' - HDM is not 'fantasy' in the sense in which Tolkien uses the term, because Eucatastrophe is completely absent. Indeed, Pullman seems to have created a story in which eucatastrophe is impossible. He seems almost to see enchantment & eucatastrophe as part of the 'childish' innocence which has to be outgrown & left behind. Yet the world he offers to the 'wise' adult is simply bleak & ultimately hopeless. Pullman seems incapable of accepting the possibility of enchantment even in a story. His 'fantasy' worlds have to be as bleak as the 'real' world, as far as he is concerned.

Tolkien's secondary world, as well as his vision of this world, are equally 'enchanted'. So, a fanfic set in Middle Earth, if it is to be 'canonical' must contain & express that hope, & eucatastrophic possibility, while a 'Pullmanic' fanfic must be free of all enchantment, & even of the possibility of it.

To bring this back to the subject of this thread, I think we have to say that 'enchantment' & 'eucatastrophe' are central to Tolkien's canon, & have to be seen as present in everything he wrote, rather than as things which can be ignored, or seen as peripheral. Its really in a comparison with Pullman's work that we can see this clearly. The total absence of enchantment & eucatastrophe in Pullman's world(s) shows their presence in sharp relief in Tolkien's world. It also shows them as being at the emotional core of Tolkien's creative work.

I think it also explains why HDM left me cold. Tolkien is attempting to get us to see the world in a certain way, from a certain perspective - a'Christian' one, as Caldecott will have it, & that seems to go to the core of his purpose - as if that was the 'canonical tradition' that he was working within, & attempting to conform his writings to. Pullman is working within a different canonical tradition - equally biased - though no doubt he would claim more objectively 'true'.


Both writer's visionsare quite 'dark', but what seems to anger Pullman as regards Tolkien's vision, is that Tolkien holds out the possibility of Light breaking through.

I don't know if I've strayed away from the subject of this thread here, but I think maybe its easier to explore the relationship of reader to book if we compare different writers work.

[Bêthberry]

This is an interesting approach here,davem, to develop the discussion by comparison with other fantasy writers. However, I think the comparison with Pullman, as represented by the Touchstone article, is perhaps not the only way for a Christian to interpret the Dark Materials trilogy.

I am copying something which Rimbaud sent to some of us, a review of the stage production in London, England of Pullman's trilogy. I think Rimbaud got this from the Guardian but I am not sure. It is written by the current Archbishop of Cantebury, the spiritual head of the Anglican Church and strikes me as being far more astute or perceptive about literature and faith than the Touchstone article, but this is simply my opinion.

'A near-miraculous triumph'

Archbishop Rowan Williams reveals how it felt to see religion savaged and God killed in His Dark Materials

Wednesday March 10, 2004

In the interval of the second part of His Dark Materials, I found myself surrounded by a lively school party from Essex wanting to know what I thought of it so far. Was I shocked? No. But wasn't it about killing God? Yes - but which God is it who gets killed? Is this what a believer would recognise as the real God? This set some animated discussion going: some of the group had noticed the scattered hints that "the Authority" in Philip Pullman's story had arrogated power to himself, or that he was not the actual creator.

And that is the kind of discussion that I think the drama ought to provoke. Nicholas Wright's version of Pullman's story in fact brings into sharper focus some of these issues. It is clear very early on that there is a plan to overthrow the Authority and that the Church is aware of this and determined to prevent it. What takes Pullman a long stretch of very subtle development to uncover is here foregrounded almost at once. But what kind of a church is it that lives in perpetual and murderous anxiety about the fate of its God?

What the story makes you see is that if you believe in a mortal God, who can win and lose his power, your religion will be saturated with anxiety - and so with violence. In a sense, you could say that a mortal God needs to be killed, from the point of view of faith (as the Buddhists say: "If you meet the Buddha, kill him"). And if you see religious societies in which anxiety and violence predominate, you could do worse than ask what God it is that they believe in. The chances are that they secretly or unconsciously believe in a God who is just another inhabitant of the universe, only more powerful than anyone else. And if he is another inhabitant of the universe, then at the end of the day he just might be subject to change and chance like everything else. He needs protecting: churches are there to keep him safe.

I read the books and the plays as a sort of thought experiment: this is, after all, an alternative world, or set of worlds. What would the Church look like, what would it inevitably be, if it believed only in a God who could be rendered powerless and killed, and needed unceasing protection? It would be a desperate, repressive tyranny. For Pullman, the Church evidently looks like this most of the time; it isn't surprising that the only God in view is the Authority.

Like some of the Gnostic writers of the second century, Pullman turns the story upside down - the rebels are the heroes. Unlike them, though, this is all done to reaffirm the glory of the flesh, the actuality of here and now. The Harpies guarding the land of the dead find peace and nourishment only in stories of the actual, the everyday, in the wonder of the utterly ordinary. The scene where Lyra pacifies these monsters (far more frightening in the book than the play, because the book can show how they activate the inner devils of self-doubt or self-loathing) by talking of children's games in Oxford is intensely moving.

The dramatised version also highlights and simplifies the most ambitious metaphor in the books: Dust. Dust is precisely the glory and vitality of the ordinary; if you try to live in more than one world, Dust drains away, from the individual and from the world as a whole. So the knife that cuts doors between the worlds has to be broken. The whole story is about the triumph of Dust, of the glory of the everyday. Dust is threatened from one side by the Authority and the Church, who fear the everyday and its contingency, who fear even more the risk of error and tragedy that are part of the everyday, part of adult experience. They want to prevent real decision-making, with its potential for loss and betrayal. But Dust is also threatened by those who want to obliterate the consequences of once-and-for-all decisions, and once-and-for-all death, by making possible an endless retreat into alternative worlds. Dust is somewhere between repression and empty or uncommitted liberty, a danger to both - between premodern absolutism and the postmodern aversion to history and personal psychology.

Pullman is very much a celebrant of a kind of modernity, in that sense. What he does for the religious reader/spectator is to prompt the question of how this sort of modernity (a word that theologians these days often don't like) may converge with some accounts of what a settled religious life entails: acceptance (not passivity); the monitoring of fantasy for the sake of adult responsibility; but also the sense of hidden glory pervading the environment, the beauty that is open to Christian theoria and Buddhist mindfulness. The life-sustaining energy of being itself becomes invisible, even blocked off and ineffectual, if there is always an escape from the unwelcome here and now, an escape that the human will can manipulate. If anything, Wright's drama, by pushing the characters of Asriel and Mrs Coulter just a bit more towards conventional romanticism, weakens Pullman's unsparing portraits of the moral ambivalence of these liberators. Timothy Dalton and Patricia Hodge turn in what the director calls "high-definition" performances, which I felt made them less interesting, less mysterious.

Repressors and would-be liberators are equally merciless to the individual; that is why Lyra's life is at risk from both sides. As Lyra, Anna Maxwell Martin manages flawlessly the shifting perspective of a child "on the cusp" of adolescence, and the fusion of profound strength with emotional openness that is Pullman's greatest achievement in creating this unforgettable character. Dominic Cooper as Will lacks the stolid, taciturn integrity of Will in the books, but their relationship works on stage.

Overall, the stage version is a near-miraculous triumph. It may well end up with Brook's Midsummer Night's Dream or Nicholas Nickleby as one of those theatrical experiences that justifies the whole enterprise of live theatre in our day. Of course, there are failures. The angels were disappointingly unmysterious, left only with a rather querulous dignity, which didn't allow much room for the seriousness of their mutual love. The death of the Authority lost all its pathos; Pullman manages the remarkable feat of making it both a matter of chance and a moment of disturbing poignancy, all the more poignant for not being fully grasped by the children at first. On stage it was flat to the point of being almost comical. But so much was so well-imagined, not least the realisation of the daemons and the evocation of different universes.

I said earlier that it rather underlined some of the themes in Pullman that should prevent us just concluding that this is an anti-Christian polemic. Pullman's views are clear; but he is a good enough writer to leave some spaces. This is a church without creation or redemption, certainly without Christ; it was interesting that on stage the ritual gesture of the clergy was not the sign of the cross but a sort of indeterminate marking of the brow, as if to acknowledge that this is not simply the historical Church. Pullman's most overt attempt to connect the Church of Lyra's world with ours is in the character of Mary Malone, the ex-nun, whose adventures form one of the main strands (beautifully imagined) in the third volume. Wright removes her entirely - understandably in terms of narrative economies, sadly in terms of the human depth and warmth of the story, and provocatively in allowing that bit more distance between the historical Church and the alternative.

But this should not be read as a way of wriggling out of Pullman's challenges to institutional religion. I end where I started. If the Authority is not God, why has the historic Church so often behaved as if it did indeed exist to protect a mortal and finite God? What would a church life look like that actually expressed the reality of a divine freedom enabling human freedom?

A modern French Christian writer spoke about "purification by atheism" - meaning faith needed to be reminded regularly of the gods in which it should not believe. I think Pullman and Wright do this very effectively for the believer. I hope too that for the non-believing spectator, the question may somehow be raised of what exactly the God is in whom they don't believe.

[Child of the 7th Age]

While a high school student from Arkansas is a long way from the Archbishop of Canterbury, this brief article also suggests what Bethberry was saying: that a person may account themselves a Christian yet view Pullman in a different light than that put forward in Touchstone. This young Christian woman feels that a reading of HDM "allowed her to grow as a person and closer to God." This student feels that reading Pullman has made her better able to understand the complexities of life, and less likely to automatically condemn someone whose faith is diferent than her own. On this, click here.

My personal views on HDM are a bit more complicated than that. I find some parts of the series challenging, even questionable, and others spell-binding and positive. I will never feel the easy affinity I do when reading Tolkien. Yet I hesitate to say Pullman's work presents a totally "bleak" world that lacks any enchantment. This is not at all the feeling I had when I closed the pages on the final volume. I will try to organize my thoughts later as I am running out the door, but for now will offer several links for anyone who's interested.

For the upcoming movie and the enormous difficulties in transferring Pullman's themes to film given the very real religious sensibilities that exist, see this.

For a general fansite, and an article discussing the relation of Pullman's works to myth in general and the Creation story in particular, check here.

[Bêthberry]

Thank-you, Child, for posting that other Christian witness to Pullman's trilogy. I was indeed hoping to suggest that many interpretations and experiences are possible and, of course, all equally valid for the reader.

I am also heartened by your statement that you do feel Pullman's world does incorporate enchantment. Indeed, I was very uneasy with davem's initial statement that Pullman's books cannot be fantasy as Tolkien defines it because they are atheistic. That, to my mind, defines literary genres by ideology, something which leads inherently I think to a grave limitation of what can legitimately be called literature.

What strikes me most strongly is the way Pullman, even in a 'fantasy' story, cannot let go of his athiesm. He's basically undermining fairy story, by deliberately denying any possibility of eucatastrophe. He eventually cuts this world off from magic, & from any possibility of 'liberation'. So, he strands us, here, in this one world, this one life. And all we have to look forward to is cessation.

Tolkien seems to be offering the exact opposite.

So, can we class both writer's works as 'fantasy' - HDM is not 'fantasy' in the sense in which Tolkien uses the term, because Eucatastrophe is completely absent. Indeed, Pullman seems to have created a story in which eucatastrophe is impossible.

I think we need to be very careful using words such as eucatastrophe and magic. For instance, Tolkien gives very specific and special meaning to his use of 'magic', suggesting that it is not a slight of hand or optical illusion which defies the physical properties of ths earth but rather a particular kind of artistic unity or vision where intention and completion are united. It is art. "the magic, or rather art," Tolkien says in OFs.

In this sense, Pullman's His Dark Materials are full of artistic wonder and breathtaking feats of writing for me. His concept of dæmon pulls at my heart and mind every time I read the books, particularly in the uniqueness of each person's dæmon and in the special relationship with an animal which is at its heart--something Tolkien also discusses in OFS. The gyptians and their boats and the marshlands of the lower Thames and Lyra's escape are quintessentially elements of fantasy for me, as is the description of her childhood at Jordan. The bears? The confederacy of the witches? The Angels? Mary Malone? Mary's life speaks so poignantly to me of hope and the great possibilities of love which human beings are capable of. And I could go on naming so many other elements of His Dark Materials which strike me as high points of articistic creation, the very spell of which Tolkien speaks.

However, I suspect that for you Tolkien's definition of magic and eucatastrophe are inescapably religious. That you view them in this manner is, of course, your right as a reader. ( Nor are these two facets of fantasy the sole elements which Tolkien discusses.) However, I would like to focus on eucatastrophe alone for now and respectfully point out that Tolkien's definition is not primarily religious. Here I will go back to my earlier post and explain it more lucidly I hope.

Tolkien introduces the word "eucatastrophe" in the section entitled "Recovery, Escape, Consolation." (He says that eucatastrophe is the highest function of fantasy, but not the sole one. ) And he also defines it as the unexpected consolation of the Happy Ending. He uses the words Joy and Evangelium but the main focus of his argument lies in examining the effect of this unexpected turn of events.

It is only in the Epilogue that Tolkien brings in what for him was "the greatest and most complete conceivable eucastrophe," the story of Christ. He does not define the Christian witness or truth as the function of fantasy. He argues it the other way around. He establishes first his definition and understanding of how fantasy satisfies human desires, and in particular this unexpected consolation, and then he offers what for him is the most complete form of the artistic effect. I would venture to say that Tolkien remained a Christian, a Catholic, because for him its very heart reflected the fundamental truth of art for him.
A letter which Tolkien never sent seems to me to confirm this idea that for him fantasy was an artistic or literary effect primarily (and that it could be used for ill or good).

I refer to the draft of Letter 153, to Peter Hastings. Hastings, a Catholic, had apparently written to Tolkien to question metaphysical matters in LotR. Tolkien several times observes that Hastings takes Tolkien too seriously , and, indeed, Carpenter provides a note which explains why Tolkien never sent the draft: "It seemed to be taking myself too seriously." I offer two passages from the letter to suggest Tolkien's desire that his writing be viewed as art.

I am taking myself even more seriously than you did, and making a great song and oration about a good tale, which admittedly owes its similitude to mere craft.

and

The tale is after all in the ultimate analysis a tale, a piece of literature, intended to have a literary effect, and not realy history.

It is here, I would suggest, that we can find explanation why people of so many different persuasions and faiths can find such great enjoyment in Tolkien. A truth of art, which for him his faith also mirrored, but an aesthetic experience first and foremost.

I write in haste and am called away. My apologies for the many infelicities of expression.

[davem]

Of course Pullman 'enchants' - the whole of the story is enchanting, magical, open to possibilies uncounted. Right till the end, & then Pullman snatches it all away, closes the doors to the other worlds forever, & even seperates the two lovers forever. Its an incredibly cruel ending - not just for Lyra & Will but for us all, especially for child readers, because it denies the possibility of Magic breaking in ever again - unless something goes 'wrong'. If things go 'right', all the worlds will remain seperate forever. The Magic & wonder you feel when reading the book is taken from you at the end. Because for Pullman that 'magic' & enchantment are 'childish', & things which must be grown out of. They are 'childish things' which must be put aside.

My discomfort with Pullman is not what he gives us throughout the story, but with the fact that having given it to us, let it become meaningful & uplifting, he then snatches it away, & when we grieve for it, he tells us, 'Well, sorry, but that's only for children, & you have to grow up now & leave it all behind'. What message do the two writers offer us - Tolkien tells us that the magic, the possibility of enchantment, is always there - 'Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate', & that like Smith, we too may find our way into Faerie. Pullman tells us not to be so silly & grow up.

Essentially, Pullman is like Nokes - the Fairy Queen is pretty, & all very nice for children, but no sensible grown-up will believe in her, or take the idea of Faerie seriously - and any children who insist on holding on to that belief must be shown how dangerously unrealistic it is, & be persuaded to give it all up, & come & live in the real world with the grown-ups who know better.

I heard Pullman on a radio interview back when The Amber Spyglass came out. He said that he was using fantasy to undermine fantasy, & wished he could write 'serious' fiction.

I don't doubt that: ''this young Christian woman feels that a reading of HDM "allowed her to grow as a person and closer to God." but is that what Pullman wants? - the growing closer to God part, I mean? Nothing in the book makes me feel that. The message running throughout the story seems to be that authority is simply wrong- especially supernatural authority, & must be broken free of. He seems to be the same as the scientists who separate the children from their daemons. He wants ultimatley to remove the possibility of real magic from his child readers, where Tolkien wants to give it to them & to all of us.

Pullman seems to see all magic, enchantment, & faith as dangerous & corrupting, as something we must be 'saved' from. We must be awakened from the mad 'dreme' & grow up into sensible adults. The young woman Child mentions, is, it seems to me, a classic example od what this thread is about - she's finding something in Pullman's work that he didn't put there, something in fact which is the opposite of his intention.

[Bêthberry]

I have time now for only the briefest of replies. I would myself be very interested in reading that inverview with Pullman, davem. And as for the girl's reading of Pullman, I would not hesitate to accept her reading experience, as I have said here about readings of Tolkien. We can listen to statements of an author's intention but when all is said and done a book, like a child, must make sense and meaning without parental control. As, in fact, your gloss on Pullman reflects your feeling that he betrays fantasy. That is an interpretation, your interpretation, but it is not the only interpretation.

I would, however, ask you to consider some other aspects of fantasy which Tolkien discusses because I think it is an aspect that Pullman draws upon in the trilogy. Tolkien says that faerier never really ends, the story goes on. Look at the last line of LOTR, Sam returning to the everyday world of The Shire, "Well, I'm back." The Amber Spyglass ends with Lyra telling her daemon they must build "The Reublic of Heaven." This is not a denial of fantasy, but a suggestion that the responsibility for continuing the vision it offers us lies with us, a challenge to see this world newly under what we have learnt from faerie. Pullman's trilogy goes on as much as Tolkien's does.

As for your statement of alleged cruelty thatf the lovers are separated, I think not. I would point to Eowyn's first love for Aragorn and Tolkien's recognition that not all first loves are like the mythic love of Aragorn and Arwen. In this "shipwreck of life"--to use Tolkien's phrase--there are many different kinds of love and not all need lead to domesticity and plighting of eternal troth. There is narrative wholeness and profound respect for the characters, for fantasy and for human existence. It is, for me, hopeful.

Writers are a bothersome lot oftentimes. Give them a genre or form and they will immediately begin to see ways to expand upon it, redefine it, to extend it, to reimagine it. That's what Tolkien did with the old northern narratives, to give them form and meaning for the Seventh Age. And that is what Pullman is doing. Faerie, the perilous realm, is endless. Some of us take strength from it, are invigorated by it, and, like Sam and Rosie, use that strength to rebuild this world. Others, like Frodo, find it leads elsewhere. No path is necessarily better or worse and no one path suffices for us all.

I must bid you all adieu. I will be away from this thread for some days now.

[davem]

The Pullman interview was on Radio, so I can't give a refference - It was conducted by Germaine Greer, so maybe Pullman was intimidated! He has repeated the statement about wanting to write 'serious' novels in other places though - in an interview for another radio programme by Brian Sibley - 'Fired by the Ring'. He does seem to see fantasy as 'escapist', but not in the positive sense used by Tolkien. He seems to think of fantasy as running away from 'reality', or at least as at best a way to focus people back on the 'real' world.

Quote:'We can listen to statements of an author's intention but when all is said and done a book, like a child, must make sense and meaning without parental control. As, in fact, your gloss on Pullman reflects your feeling that he betrays fantasy. That is an interpretation, your interpretation, but it is not the only interpretation.'

This is the core of this thread, I think - has Pullman any intention in his writing - is he trying to 'teach' us anything? I think he would say he is, & I don't think he would have written what he has if he didn't feel that he had something to say that we needed to hear. The difference between him & Tolkien is simply that he is around to argue his case.

Quote: 'The Amber Spyglass ends with Lyra telling her daemon they must build "The Reublic of Heaven." This is not a denial of fantasy, but a suggestion that the responsibility for continuing the vision it offers us lies with us, a challenge to see this world newly under what we have learnt from faerie. Pullman's trilogy goes on as much as Tolkien's does.'

'The Republic of Heaven' is ultimately a meaningless concept. The whole work is about an attempt at liberation from the 'supernatural' dimension, about cutting us off from it, & from metaphysical 'fantasies', yet 'Heaven' is a metaphysical concept - how can one 'build' a metaphysical 'reality'? A 'Republic of Heaven' sounds clever, but means nothing. Pullman simply replaces God with humanity - & as Chesterton said - 'When people cease believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. Pullman's republic of Heaven is bound to descend into some form of fundamentalism, as everyone will be out to construct, to impose, their own concept of 'Heaven' - Paradise as a product of democracy - satisfying no-one, because designed by the whim of the electorate. How could it be anything else - there is no metaphysical dimension, no chance for 'Light' to break in, because the rules of Pullman's world demand that all new roads & secret gates are irretrievably shut, on pain of Death.

Quote: ' As for your statement of alleged cruelty thatf the lovers are separated, I think not. I would point to Eowyn's first love for Aragorn and Tolkien's recognition that not all first loves are like the mythic love of Aragorn and Arwen. In this "shipwreck of life"--to use Tolkien's phrase--there are many different kinds of love and not all need lead to domesticity and plighting of eternal troth. There is narrative wholeness and profound respect for the characters, for fantasy and for human existence. It is, for me, hopeful.

I think the point as far as Eowyn's love for Aragorn goes, is that, as Tolkien shows, it is not 'true' love - Eowyn loves 'a shadow & a thought'. Will & Lyra are suppposed to be the new Adam & Eve, symbolic as much as real, & Pullman even denies the possibility of their being together after death - eternal seperation of the lovers - except in the form of their physical atoms coming together after their bodies have broken down. What 'respect' does this show - for the characters themselves, or for love itself. The whole message, especially compared to Tolkien's story of Aragorn & Arwen, where even death itself is a price worth paying for love, is pathetic & nasty & incredibly cruel. How much hope (estel) is inspired by Pullman's ending - love is hopeless, & death ends it all. But how can there be any hope beyond the circles of the World in Pullman's vision? He has spent 1300 pages telling us that going beyond this world is dangerous, ultimately fatal, for all of us, even the universe itself, so, we must stay here till we die, & that's it - & if we read anything else into his story, hope that in some way Will & Lyra will find each other again someday, that's 'uncanonical'. And these are 'children's ' books - (which despite Pullman's claims after the event, they were written to be) - so what message is Pullman sending out. Actually, I'd say they are childish books - they revel in the childish notion that all authority is bad, & has to be gotten rid of, & that really children know best.

Quote: Writers are a bothersome lot oftentimes. Give them a genre or form and they will immediately begin to see ways to expand upon it, redefine it, to extend it, to reimagine it. That's what Tolkien did with the old northern narratives, to give them form and meaning for the Seventh Age. And that is what Pullman is doing. Faerie, the perilous realm, is endless. Some of us take strength from it, are invigorated by it, and, like Sam and Rosie, use that strength to rebuild this world. Others, like Frodo, find it leads elsewhere. No path is necessarily better or worse and no one path suffices for us all.

But some paths are better - the road to Heaven is better than the road to Hell - Pullman simply denies the metaphysical existence of either, in order to make it seem like niether road exists, & that whatever road we take will lead us to whatever place we want to be - we can build a Republic of Hell more easily (& we're more likely to, given our history & natural proclivities) than a Republic of Heaven. Of course, we all take different paths, but the question is where the paths lead, & they don't all automatically lead to the same place - much though Pullman might wish it.

Tolkien offers us destinations, & says that while we may follow different paths to get to them, there are choices to be made, because Heaven is in a specific place & Hell is too, & those places exist - we don't have to build them when we get there.

[HerenIstarion]

Well, well, well

I must confess I haven't read the story so heatedly debated. After reading the Touchstone article, I thought 14.95$ I intended for purchase of the trilogy from Amazon were saved from spending, but now, as I look at your bone - picking, I'm in two minds - should I read it and add some bones to the boiling soup here, or rather wait until you retell the whole plot of the story for me and save me money

But, to be serious, what I have read and heard up to now makes me feel that, if push comes to show, I'll be in league with davem here:

But some paths are better - the road to Heaven is better than the road to Hell - Pullman simply denies the metaphysical existence of either, in order to make it seem like niether road exists, & that whatever road we take will lead us to whatever place we want to be - we can build a Republic of Hell more easily (& we're more likely to, given our history & natural proclivities) than a Republic of Heaven. Of course, we all take different paths, but the question is where the paths lead, & they don't all automatically lead to the same place - much though Pullman might wish it.

Hits the ten mark in the T - embossed truth categories for yours truly

Can not be more prolix till the drift goes over to something I've actually read

So cheers until than

[davem]

H-I I wouldn't want to put you off reading HDM - its incredibly exciting & entertaining in parts - it only really starts to collapse with the third volume, but even that will sweep you along.

My problem is with the 'philosophy' that underlies it. Pullman is someone who has lived a nice, safe, middle class existence, & read a lot of 'clever' books, & so can play with ideas of 'good' & 'evil', as though they are intellectual toys. Tolkien, on the other hand, had seen true evil, knew true Good, & knew mankind for what we are, so he couldn't, honestly, play the game Pullman plays & reduce the human condition to a childish adventure story of 'youngsters' vs. Blake's 'Old Nobodaddy'.

Pullman does present some very complex, visionary ideas, from Milton & Blake especially, but he seems simply to have taken their philosophies at face value & 'dramatised' them without analysing the implications.

I know the ending of the story 'moves' many to tears, but I can't help feeling that too many who are moved in that way are moved for purely sentimental reasons, when the two young lovers are seperated forever - a kind of Romeo & Juliet ending - taken at face value. Problem is, Pullman's ending is much darker & more hopeless, & he offers only the meaningless platitude of creating a 'Republic of Heaven', which, as I said, means absolutely nothing if one thinks about it.

However, if you can leave on one side both the pretentiousness & the nihilism & just read it as a childrens adventure story, you may well be swept away by it. There are some very beautiful moments in it as well, I have to admit.

[davem]

Just a couple of responses from Philip Pullman in an interview with Brian Sibley in the BBC Radio 4 documentary 'Fired by the Ring':

Sibley asked Pullman whether fantasy stories are needed.

Pullman: We need all sorts of stories. I think we don't need that sort of story as much as we need realistic stories. My view of fantasy is that its inherantly a trivial form, a form of less importance than realism & speaking for myself if I could write interesting stories of everyday people I'd gladly do that. I can't do that & make it interesting, so I have to write fantasy.

(Sibley then asks about the idea that the stories of Middle Earth are set in a period of our own ancient history) .

Pullman: Yes, well if he said that its the purest bunkum. I will believe that if they find a fossil Hobbit. Its not the real world, but there are large numbers of fantasy fans who hold conventions & who know a great deal about the Saga of the doomsword or frithlefroth or whatever it is, but who don't know what day it is& haven't changed their t-shirt for a month & clearly they're getting something out of it. What they get out of that sort of genre & this sort of thing is a mystery to me because I don't get it.

I think that kind of sums up Pullman's whole attitude to Fantasy & the 'value' he feels it has. (Its not very complementary about fantasy fans, either!)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Not having read the novels currently being worked over. . uh, through. . .I don't have much to back this up other than the brief snippets davem gives above, but it would seem to me that this Pullman fellow is writing fantasy, and has had the wherewithal to realise that one of the best ways to sell his books is by generating a bit of controversy around them. If Madonna wrote a fantasy novel, you can bet she'd be saying pretty much the same sort of thing. . .

The question of money and marketability just pops something else into my head. Tolkien did very well (financially) from LotR, and somewhere in his Letters he says that in making the decision of whether to sell the rights of the book to a movie maker he would do so either for "art" -- if the script were good -- or "cash" if it were not.

Now, I do NOT want to kick of yet another round of the movie debate here -- so please nobody reply to that particular strand of my ramblings (ample room for that in the Movies forum). All I am working toward is the question of profitability and marketability for Tolkien.

It strikes me, that at least part of his 'intent' in writing a rip-roaringly good and entertaining book would be to make it have as wide an appeal as possible, that is, to find as large a potential market as possible. Without suggesting that Tolkien was in it "for the money" -- which is patently untrue (he was stunned by his financial successes) -- this has led me to wonder to what extent did questions of the marketplace influence the nature of his story? If he went "all out" with the religious views that underly the text, then it would have turned people off. By focusing so much more on the more ambiguous (I can practically hear Mark 12_30 and davem yelling "Universal") appeal of a "successful" eucatastrophe, was he not also writing a more appealling/saleable book? You know: happy ending -- unlike Pullman -- and not all "preachy" -- like Lewis?

[The Saucepan Man]

Just a few thoughts on Pullman's Trilogy. I read the books recently and thoroughly enjoyed them. Funnily enough, whatever Pullman may think of Tolkien's works (and regardless of his intentions), it seems to me that there are a lot of common themes. Friendship, loyalty and trust can be seen in Lyra's determination to rescue Roger, as well as in the relationships that she forms with many of the other characters. Her bond with Iorek Byrnison being one of the most poignant for me. Her relationship with Will also shows the value of trust and loyalty. Misuse of power, and its consequences and pitfalls, is also evident in the characters of Lord Asriel and Mrs Coulter (both of whom are given, and take, the opportunity of redeeming their past sins), and also Metatron and the agents of the Church. And there are for me environmental overtones in the concept of a series of parallel worlds which are at harmony with each other until humans start messing about with the bonds between them. Witness the effects on Lyra's world when Lord Asriel opens the gate into the world of Cittàgazze.

Of course there are a lot of differences too and you are right, davem, to point out the differing approaches to the spiritual side of things in the two trilogies. Child and Bêthberry have pointed out some favourable reactions amongst the Christian community, but I think that we neverthless have to acknowledge that, in Pullman's world, there is no Truth in the metaphysical sense. The Authority did not even create the Universe. He just made out that he did. Where I differ from you is in viewing his message as one which brings no joy or hope. The passage where the dead are released to become particles of Dust seems to me to be one of great joy. They are finding peace in becoming at one with the Universe. And it seems to me that this in itself provides a message of hope. The Dust is in effect a "living" entity and suffuses the entirety of the Universe and those who die become part of that. Indeed, if there is any representation of Truth in Pullman's works, it is in the Dust, which the agents of the "fake" Authority regard as evil. They are in some ways similar to Morgoth's forces, setting themselves against the Truth of the Dust and seeking to overturn the natural order of things.

Yes, there is no Heaven. But there is an Afterlife: a permament existence within the Universe within the matter which suffuses and succours it. Is that so different from the Men of Middle-earth passing beyond the Circles of the World and being at one with Eru? Yes, I suppose it is in the sense that the Dust remains a part, indeed an essential part, of the Universe. But, for me, it is no less a path which can inspire hope. The hope of being at one with the Universe (which was denied to those trapped in the awful dreary Land of the Dead).

As for the Republic of Heaven, this to me represents an opportunity to build "Heaven on Earth". In other words, for the denizens of each of the parallel worlds to live their lives for the good of the Universe on the basis of the qualities which we can admire in the protagonists, rather than being subjugated by the agents of a remote (and false) Authority. An ideal perhaps but, again it is, for me, a message of hope. In the same way, for example, that the Hobbits in LotR are able to develop throughout the story in such a way as to be capable of driving out Saruman's "Authority" from the Shire. The Shire, free from such influence, might be equated to the ideal of the Republic of Heaven.

I suppose it depends how you look at it, but I for one certainly don't see Pullman's novels as propagating a message of hopelessness and despair.

Incidentally, I would agree that Pullman overreached himself during the second book and certainly in the third one. For me, they are just not convincing enough. I do not find it believable that Lord Asriel was able to set up his fortress and rally the forces opposed to the Authority across an infinate number of parallel worlds within the timescale of the books. Nor do I find the depiction of an army made up of such forces and the final battle in which they become embroiled convincing. Perhaps Pullman set himself too difficult a task in trying credibly to portray such epic events. But, in any event, this is where Tolkien wins out for me and why, much as I enjoyed His Dark Materials, the trilogy comes nowhere close to LotR. Tolkien's world, although a fantasy world, is utterly believable. Pullman's worlds, for me, fall short on that count.

Finally, a brief response to the question raised by Fordim:

this has led me to wonder to what extent did questions of the marketplace influence the nature of his story?

I think that I touched on this in an earler post, but Tolkien clearly did have an eye to the "marketplace" when writing LotR, since it was written in response to calls from the public (and therefore his publishers) for a sequel to the Hobbit. Although it turned out to be much more than that, he was conscious of the "requirement" that it should appeal to those who had read and enjoyed the Hobbit. I get the feeling that, but for that, it might (like the Silmarillion) not have included Hobbits at all. And, from my perspective at least, it would have been the poorer for their absence.

In fact, thinking about it, but for the clamour for a sequel to the Hobbit, LotR would probably never have been written at all. And that would have been a great shame.

Oops! So much for "just a few thoughts".

[davem]

I suppose in a way both Tolkien & Pullman are writing about the end of 'magic', & having to build a world without it. But Tolkien views the loss with regret, & still hopes for its return, that it will break through sometime, somewhere. The 'Republic of Heaven' that the Hobbits build in the Shire is one built out of loss, & is an attempt to get back what they once had. Pullman' RoH is one that is built out of a hatred of the past & a sense of relief that its all been left behind.

At least the Hobbits, & the other races of ME are working to a 'template' - they have a real Heaven, which they are attempting to imitate - Truth exists in ME, & all the 'good' races are attempting to manifest that Truth. Their truths are reflections of, attempts to imitate, Truth. Their Republics of Heaven are reflections of, attempts to imitate, Heaven.

Pullman has destroyed 'Heaven' - & made us feel good about it being destroyed, by making it seem like the worst vision of Hell imaginable. I can't see that he leaves the reader, especially the child reader, with any real hope at all. A child swept away by the wonders of the early parts of the story, is, at the end, left bereft of them, having them replaced with the idea of a 'Republic of Heaven' - & if you can get any child to explain what that is, or any adult to define it without falling back onto platitudes about a place/time where everybody is just really, really *N*I*C*E* to each other, I'd love to hear it. What template do we use to build the RoH?

I think Pullman's attempt at fantasy fails not because he doesn't understand Tolkien's view of Fantasy, or enchantment or eucatastrophe, but because he see it as wrong, as immoral - he views it as the flight of the deserter, not the escape of the prisoner. Would 'fantasy' itself be allowed in Pullman's RoH? or would only 'serious' stories - about cars & guns & drugs be allowed? Pullman's idea of humanity 'overeaching itself' by 'crossing' into other worlds, & his presentation of that as being dangerous is a denial of the human imagination - are we worse for having crossed into Middle Earth? Is this world more endangered because of it? Pullman, I think, would say we are & it is - because we've run away from 'reality'.

As to Tolkien's 'comercialism', i don't see it - i think he wrote the only kind of story he could write - & even at the time it was published it was dismissed by the 'inteligensia' as simplistic, old fashioned & reactionary. Most of the critics said nobody would want to read it. If tolkien had been aiming at capturing what the Public was supposed to want, he wouldn't have written what he did. On the other hand, i think Pullman has gone for the cynical, athiestic, 'real-worlders' in an incredibly cynical way, & I'm struck by the number of (a certain 'educated' class of) people who are much happier seeing their children reading Pullman than Tolkien, or even Harry Potter.

I don't think anyone's surprised Pullman is such a success in these times, HDM is a novel for the Damien Hirst/Tracy Emin generation. The thing that gives me some sense of hope is that tolkien is still going strong, & is more popular than its ever been.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

It is with no little sense of foreboding that I resurrect this thread! This is not something I do lightly, but the discussion in the latest Chapter by Chapter posts has been leading me to think that it might be time to revisit some of the issues that were raised so intelligently (and passionately) in this thread last spring.

In particular, one of the trickiest bones of contention was centred upon the idea of authorial intention. Specifically, we were asking if the meaning of the text was to be ‘found’ in reference to the writer (what Tolkien ‘wanted’ us to get out of the text; what he put in it) or the reader (what we get ‘out’ of the text). There has been quite a bit of fascinating discussion in the CbC that centres upon the connotations and possibilities of the names that Tolkien created and from which his story flowed. Now, this raises an interesting issue for those of us (like myself) who lean toward the reader as the source of meaning, since we are not the ones who gave the characters and places their names – Tolkien was. It was the author who named Frodo (OG frodá ‘wise by experience’ ), Sam (OE hamfast ‘half-wise’ ) and – my current favourite – the Brandywine River. My ‘job’ as a reader is to come along afterward and piece together the wonderful etymological clues that Tolkien has left in these names; I follow the trace of his meaning. But, again, am I bound by that meaning? Just because Frodo’s name means “wise by experience” in Old German, do I have to interpret his journey as a growth into wisdom? And what model of wisdom is entailed by this? Do I also have to make reference to the ‘wisdom’ of the ancient Germanic peoples, or is there some other model of wisdom I can turn to? Perhaps a kind or mode of wisdom that is contained only or entirely within the bounds of Middle-Earth, with not much reference at all to Primary World formulations of wisdom.

There’s another implication to the complex and rich names that Tolkien gives us. In reference to Smaug, Tolkien wrote that it was “a low philological joke” (OG smugan ‘to squeeze through a small hole’, past tense smaug). Are all the names then merely language games that he played for his own amusement that we can safely pass over without our full attention? I don’t think so, but then doesn’t that imply that one has to be a philologist of Tolkien’s own stature (and that’s a tall order!) to fully understand or appreciate the text?

And on the other hand, I do have a role in the creation of meaning still, don’t I? Insofar as I have to do a lot of work and meaning-creation in first working out what the names mean and then working out their application (dare I say “applicability” ) to the book? This begins to look like what Tolkien described as “recovery” however, insofar as I am making reference to a meaning that is pre-given and not one that I get to have any part in.

And finally (I promise) this casts an interesting light on the idea of magic and enchantment that was so much a part of this thread. The names that Tolkien created are literally ‘spells’ – they are actually little stories that tell us everything we need to know about the places and people they denote (aren’t they?). They are a kind of language that exists ‘beyond’ the ordinary insofar as they are truly and magically creative: Frodo is not just a name to identify one hobbit from another, but an incantation that brings a character’s very nature into being. (“And then Tolkien said, ‘Let there be frodá,’ and he saw that it was good.” )

Trapped between hope that this does not fall flat on its face, and trepidation of what happened the last time…

[davem]

This is interesting; I agree there is almost a whole other story, or set of stories, going on, just under the surface. It sort of reminds me of those 'Magic Eye' pictures, which seem to be a jumble of shapes & images on the surface, but if you view them in the right way, they form a 3d image. of course, with LotR its different, in that the 'surface' image also has meaning. I can't help wondering whether, if we could 'read' the underlying story we'd like it as much, or more, or whether we'd feel disappointed - sometimes the mystery is more attractive & exciting than the solution.

Now, Mods, PLEASE bear with me here:

One other thing regarding 'canonicity, which I'm a bit dubious about bringing up here, was inspired by the little debate last week on 'Why doesn't the Downs allow 'Slash'. The reason given was that it is 'uncanonical'. But what struck me at the time was, there are two ways of looking at that:

One - Tolkien created a world, over which he has absolute creative control - as an artist he can create a world in which Homosexuality, like cars or spaceships or t-rex's, don't exist. So, Slash is uncanonical, & has no place in Middle earth fiction.

Two - Tolkien claimed that Middle earth is this world at an earlier period in our history. If this is the case then we are dealing with a world in which nothing of human nature can be excluded as 'uncanonical'. In this case, a fanfic with gay characters, or a fanfic where characters find a frozen t-rex.

My question WITHOUT, PLEASE, getting into the slash debate, is to what extent we are restricted to Tolkien's 'rules' for Middle earth - are we obliged to interpret the stories in the light of Tolkien's intentions & values (my view), because Middle earth is an artistic creation? Or can we treat it as 'history', in which case we have total freesom of interpretation, & nothing, particularly in human nature could be considered 'uncanonical'.

[The Saucepan Man]

... and like a moth to a candle, I find myself irresistibly drawn to it once again.

My ‘job’ as a reader is to come along afterward and piece together the wonderful etymological clues that Tolkien has left in these names; I follow the trace of his meaning. But, again, am I bound by that meaning? (Fordim Hedgethistle)

It will come as no surprise to regular subscribers to this thread that I am going to adopt the “freedom of the reader” approach here. Like the events described in the story, the characters’ names are a given. We can no more deny that Frodo is called Frodo than we can deny that Gandalf was imprisoned at Orthanc. But, that does not mean that we have to be aware of the (real world) etymological derivation of Frodo’s name in order to enjoy the story, any more than we have to know that Lembas was (intentionally) a representation of the bread of communion. I have been wholly unaware of each of these underlying “meanings” on every previous occasion that I have read the book, but I don’t feel that this has impaired my enjoyment of the book in any way. I might not have fully understood Tolkien’s intentions, but does that really matter? Well, no, not as far as I (as a reader) am concerned.

So I would say that the reader’s “job” is not to piece together Tolkien’s etymological clues, but rather simply to enjoy the material and to draw from it whatever seems appropriate to him/her. If readers want to piece together these clues, then they are free to do so, but there is no obligation on them to do so (that’s becoming somewhat of a mantra for me, isn’t it? ).

Are all the names then merely language games that he played for his own amusement that we can safely pass over without our full attention? I don’t think so, but then doesn’t that imply that one has to be a philologist of Tolkien’s own stature (and that’s a tall order!) to fully understand or appreciate the text? (Fordim Hedgethistle)

I don’t think that he played these “language games” solely for his own amusement. The clues are there for readers who are interested in finding them. But, equally, readers are free safely to pass over them (and most will) while still appreciating the story and finding in it what is applicable to them. Yes, I suppose one does have to have a good knowledge of philology in order fully to appreciate the text and Tolkien’s skills as a writer (if one can ever acheive such a thing), but then (save as an academic pursuit) reading is not an occupation that one has to be qualified for and work at. It is a pastime that one can put as much into, and get as much out of, as one wishes. I am sure that Tolkien never intended his works to be enjoyed only by fully-fledged philologists, just as he didn’t expect them to appeal to devout Christians alone (although I am equally sure that he would be delighted that those with the inclination and knowledge to do so do pick up on these clues).

That said, Tolkein does use some names which will almost inevitably conjure up images in the reader's mind and which reinforce the characterisation of the characters that bear them. Wormtongue is a classic example and it requires no grounding in philology to latch on to the message that his name conveys. Goldberry is another example as, I think, are names such as Barliman Butterbur, Bilbo, Merry and Pippin. The name Bilbo, for example, suggests to me a "cuddly" (for want of a better word) character that I can immediately warm to, although it may of course bring up a different image others. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that, with many of the names used by Tolkien, one does not have to delve deeply into Anglo-Saxon linguitics or the like in order for them to enhance one's understanding of the characters that bear them. In many cases, the effect is instantaneous and almost instinctive (at least for those with a reasonable understanding of the English language).

My question WITHOUT, PLEASE, getting into the slash debate, is to what extent we are restricted to Tolkien's 'rules' for Middle earth - are we obliged to interpret the stories in the light of Tolkien's intentions & values (my view), because Middle earth is an artistic creation? Or can we treat it as 'history', in which case we have total freesom of interpretation, & nothing, particularly in human nature could be considered 'uncanonical'. (davem)

Interesting that you should raise this, davem, since that debate caused me to think along very similar lines. In interpreting Tolkien’s text, we are restricted (unless we are to reject the entire story) to the “facts” contained within it. So, just like we cannot deny that Gandalf was imprisoned at Orthanc, we cannot deny that Saruman was corrupted by the desire for power or that Hobbits were (as a race) somewhat parochial in nature. Those “facts” are there for us to see. Similarly, we cannot intrude “facts” that are not there, such as a homosexual relationship between Frodo and Sam (or indeed any other two characters of the same gender). That is simply not the nature of their relationship, and that is that. Unless there is a textual basis for seeing a particular aspect of human nature in a character, then we cannot do so (without, as I said, rejecting the entire text).

But, when it comes to fanfics, the inclusion of a character, location or aspect of human nature does not make the story “uncanonical” simply because that character, location or aspect of human nature was not specifically included by Tolkien in any of his Middle-earth works. For example, I see no reason why a character adventuring in Far Harad should not encounter an ostrich or a hippopotamus, or some fantastical creature of the author’s own devising, simply because Tolkien makes no reference to them himself. So, by the same token, I would say that there is no reason why a Tolkien fanfic should not include aspects of human nature that Tolkien does not specifically address in his works, provided that they are dealt with in the spirit of Tolkien’s writing.