‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

And would we be required to take Tolkien's moral/religious position - ie, we could have gay characters, but we would have to present that as 'wrong'.

Its difficult to explore this aspect of canonicity without straying into an area that some posters will be uncomfortable with, but the question is about whether Tolkien's moral position, shaped by his Catholicism, is canonical, or whether canonicity only relates to the facts, geographical, historical, biological, of Tolkien's world. Can we include the moral & philosophical dimension in with other facts of Middle Earth, or are they 'optional'? I still think this is the central, unanswered question of this thread.

To expand the question, would a fanfic which presented Sauron or Saruman as heroes, & was approving of their actions be 'canonical' as long as it stuck to the historical 'facts' of LotR, or would it be 'uncanonical' because it went against the moral values which Tolkien espoused?

[Bêthberry]

To expand the question, would a fanfic which presented Sauron or Saruman as heroes, & was approving of their actions be 'canonical' as long as it stuck to the historical 'facts' of LotR, or would it be 'uncanonical' because it went against the moral values which Tolkien espoused?

To my mind, a fanfic or an RPG could very profitably and canonically explore Sauron's or Saruman's or the Nazgul's "fall" as long as it demonstrated Tolkien's abhorrence of power when used for domination. The question turns on what we would agree is the moral value Tolkien espouses in the books. It is an interpretive act.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

The question turns on what we would agree is the moral value Tolkien espouses in the books. It is an interpretive act.

So, any definition of 'canon' must include Tolkien's moral/ethical position (or our best guess at it), & conform to that, as well as to the historical, linguistic & geographical 'facts' - which means that we can also speak of moral 'facts' & ethical 'facts'.

But doesn't this lead us down the road to treating the work as (moral) 'allegory', rather than (feigned) history? If LotR is viewed as an account of a historical period, then the only 'facts' we have to take into account are the 'scientific' ones - the 'moral' ones become optional, down to the individual's judgement.

In the first instance, a fanfic which 'celebrated' either a gay relationship, or Sauron's corruption of the Numenorean's, would be 'uncanonical', because it would be against Tolkien's moral value system (I must emphasise that I'm neither condemning nor condoning homosexuality here, because I don't want to get into that issue - I am assuming that Tolkien, as a committed old school Catholic would have held to the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality). It would be 'uncanonical', even if all the historical, gegraphical & biological facts it contained were correct - it would be uncanonical purely because it did not conform to Tolkien's moral value system.

So, if this is the case with fanfic, doesn't it also apply to the way we must read & interpret the books - the reader's 'freedom' to interpret is delimited by the author's moral value system?

[Bêthberry]

You keep using "Tolkien's moral/ethical position" whereas I used "espouses in the book", davem. And I also said determining this is an interpretive act. As I have earlier stated on this thread, I think LotR is a book which invites readers to take an active role in reading and interpreting, but does not proscribe or prescribe what the reader must determine.

Since I have been down this road before, I politely withdraw from repeating myself ere I work a rut into the thread.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

To expand the question, would a fanfic which presented Sauron or Saruman as heroes, & was approving of their actions be 'canonical' as long as it stuck to the historical 'facts' of LotR, or would it be 'uncanonical' because it went against the moral values which Tolkien espoused?

Wait a minute - I think that in the strict sense, no fan fiction can be called "canonical". Tolkien left us certain texts. It is one thing to consider "canonicity" as it relates to those texts, and the relations among text, author, and reader. It is quite another to consider fan fiction. Not that I don't think both questions are valid ones - but it is important not to confound them.

As a matter of fact, I think that much of the debate comes down to a simple disagreement about how to define the word "canon", rather than to a substantive argument. We have first "canonical" = established as factual by Tolkien's texts and second "canonical" = not in conflict with facts established by Tolkien's texts. It is of course pointless to debate which of these is the "true" definition; they are simply different things.

But I suppose we come back to your question, then, which I guess we can understand as "would a story depicting Sauron or Saruman as a hero conflict with facts established by Tolkien's texts?" I would say "yes". It is a fact in Tolkien's world that Sauron is evil. It is a fact that Eru exists; it's a fact that Eru is good. It is no different to contradict these established facts than it is to contradict facts such as "Frodo was a Hobbit" or "Gandalf was imprisoned in Orthanc".

However - I would not say that this makes the author's intent the sole source of canonical validity. Bethberry said:

You keep using "Tolkien's moral/ethical position" whereas I used "espouses in the book", davem.

I think that's putting it very well. "Sauron is evil" is not a fact because Tolkien intended it to be; it is a fact because it is inherent in the text.

I also don't see how any of this leads us back toward an allegorical view of the text. The allegory/story dichotomy is a separate issue from that of determining which "facts" are valid.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

"Sauron is evil" is not a fact because Tolkien intended it to be; it is a fact because it is inherent in the text.

Its only a 'fact' if LotR is an 'artwork', if its a pseudo historical text, its a value judgement. What you seem to be saying is that within Middle earth 'evil' is a verifiable 'fact', which confirms my position that the moral/ethical dimension must be taken into account in any discussion about 'canonicity'(please correct me if I've misunderstood your position).

What I'm saying is that the moral dimension, if it is a 'given' as I think you're saying, must be taken into account as it actaully determines canonicity as much as any historical or 'linguistic' facts, which can be 'scientifically' verified by resort to source texts.

Bethberry's point

The question turns on what we would agree is the moral value Tolkien espouses in the books.

doesn't entirely invalidate the point, as it is still a question of whether the 'moral value' Tolkien espouses in the books (whether or not that corresponds with his own personal moral values) should be treated as a 'fact' within Middle earth, or merely the storyteller's opinion.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Oh, Fordim ....what have you done? I have been in and out of town for several weeks and am just now trying to get resettled and catch up on projects that are seriously overdue. I have studiously avoided all threads in books for that reason, but this one I couldn't resist.

Please bear with me. These ideas have been brewing in my head a while.

First, Aiwendil, I could not agree more: there is no such thing as canonical RPGs or fanfiction. To have true canonical fanfiction or interpretations, the writer would not only have to duplicate Tolkien's philological knowledge but his mastery of history, his staunch Christian faith, his particular views on social issues, and a thousand other things. Tolkien was an individual with unique beliefs, particular academic and personal experiences, and, perhaps most importantly, something less often discussed, someone who writes from a particular vantage point in history. We can and should not pretend that we can insert ourselves, either as reader or writer, and fully recreate that particular mix. Any interpretation we bring will be less rich and nuanced than that originally developed in the author's head.

Just think for a minute....what if I claimed to be writing "canonical" Shakespearean plays? You would have good reason for getting a guffaw out of that. Tolkien is really no different in that regard.

So what is left to us? A great deal, I think. Let me begin with something that may seem like a digression, but actually is not. Fordim, you are extraordinarily good at sparking debate and discussion about Tolkien and his writing. (The classes you teach must be very interesting!) Since your arrival here, our discussions of the text have become decidedly more animated: you have posed basic questions that no one has posited before. In so doing, you have inspired others --people like Bb, and Heren, and Aiwendil, and too many for me to list--to put forward posts that are rich and provoking. As a result, we have lively discussions that leave no stone unturned: posts raising questions that are truly unanswerable.

One of the things that struck me about our recent discussions is how many posters (including yourself) have a wonderful literary background and approach Tolkien's writings in that manner, either because of academic training or simple personal preference. Many of our recent discussions have been framed in literary terms. This is no bad thing -- the present discussion on canonicity even inspired a laggard like me to read a book on literary criticism that dealt with such questions as authorial intent versus the reader's freedom, something I would not normally have done.

Yet I think we have to be careful to acknowledge that there is more than one perspective we can use in trying to make sense of what Tolkien meant, or in attempting to bring our own experiences to the text. Like I've said before, Tolkien is an unending onion: you strip off one layer and another appears. You never quite make it to the core. So you can get one viewpoint from someone who is looking for psychological insight, another from someone who approaches things from a religious viewpoint, and still another from a literary critic or a philosopher. Which of these interpretations is correct or "canonical"? None of them individually. but collectively we may get a little closer to what Tolkien had in his head when he wrote the stories and what meaning we may derive from them by bringing to bear our own knowledge and experience.

Because of my own background and natural inclinations, I tend to approach Tolkien's writings on Middle-earth more like a work of history than literature. (When I say 'work of history', I am really talking about "historiography" rather than a chronicle of facts or even individual interpretation.) As I read through our recent posts, I keep mumbling to myself: What's going on here? Posters are raising questions and points that historians deal with all the time....

I think there is justification for approaching the writings historically, and I think it can help us to deal with issues of canon, or what I would term "historical truth". We know we're never really going to get there, but you just can't stop trying! Plus, from some things the author has said as well as the narrative "fiction" of translating historical documents, it is clear that some level of Tolkien's mind viewed his writing as an historical or mythological creation rather than purely an artistic one. It was the process of constructing a world--its people, its languages, its landscape--that was even more central to him than writing a novel per se.

In fact, I see the problem of understanding Tolkien as very similar to that of creating and interpreting history. I am at least as interested in the world that Tolkien created as in the fact that he happened to use the format of a novel (Lotr), a children's story (Hobbit) and a reinvented myth (Silm) to set it down on paper. It is, overall, a history. Within that context, I'd like to focus on two quotes from Davem.

...are we obliged to interpret the stories in the light of Tolkien's intentions and values (my view) because Middle earth is an artistic creation? Or can we treat it as "history", in which case we have total freedom of interpretation, & nothing, particularly in human nature could be considered "uncanonical".....

If LotR is viewed as an account of a historical period, then the only "facts" we have to take into account are the 'scientific' ones - the 'moral' ones become optional, down to the individual's judgement.

I have problems with this choice of words, as I think it sets up a dichotomy that doesn't exist. When someone recreates history, at least 'good' history, they do not have total freedom of interpretation, nor can they ignore the 'moral' issues in favor of 'scientific' ones. Whether one deals with a primary source document or with another historical interpretation, the perspective of the person who created that document is at least as important (often more so) than the so-called 'scientific' facts under discussion. This is as true of a manorial court roll as it is of a modern historical monograph. In that sense, it is absolutely vital that we understand Tolkien's moral and personal positions to the best of our ability. We are free to interpret, but that interpretation must at least acknowledge what the author was trying to do. You can recreate the physical trappings of Middle-earth and string out a long list of names and word etymologies but without the inner core -- the understanding of what the historian or chronicler considered important (in effect the structure of morals or values), you will have nothing more than hollow words on paper.


For while we can never have true "canonical" fanfiction or interpretations, we can have pieces of writing or insights on the text that are more or less in line with the world that Tolkien has created. There will be argument and dispute about what constitutes the world created by Tolkien -- the moral fabric as well as more prosaic things--and these will lead to differences of opinion, but we should at least be aware that general guidelines exists--ones that Tolkien has set down--even though we cannot fully comprehend or duplicate this creative effort. Yes, we have freedom to try, but that freedom is not unlimited. In this sense, I am thinking Bb and I may be at two ends of a continuum: not on two different sides but emphasizing different things. To my mind, depicting Sauron or Saruman as heroes or even slash relationships among the characters clearly step outside Tolkien's moral construct that he has postulated for his world. This is not a question of canon but simple respect for the vantage from which the author writes. (In regard to SpM's recent comments on homosexuality or the lack of it in the text, I would say that sometimes what an historian omits is even more important than what he includes.)

I can never fully understand any civilization from the past. As a historian, I accept that limitation. Nor do I expect to be able to get inside Tolkien's creation completely. My own understanding is limited. Yet in trying to apply my own experiences to the text, I feel compelled to take into account what I can untangle from the author's mind: what he meant when he wrote the text and created the world that he did. With all our current emphasis on individual freedom in many different shapes and forms, there is such a thing as respect to the author or historian. If you play in his ballpark, you respect his general rules.

Yet, with both history and Tolkien, it is precisely those grey areas that I find most intriguing: those parts and ideas that are just beyond my grasp. Yes, I believe the reader does have a role in the creation of meaning, but that exercise takes place within certain broad guidelines -- both moral and physical -- that the author has laid down. There are questions that are unanswerable, but it is precisely those questions that make the discussion worth having.

************

P.S. It has taken me such a while to write this that I have cross posted with several people!

[davem]

First of all,Fordim, n his essay, Tolkien as Phiologist, David Lyle Jeffrey gives a number of ‘speculative notes’ on ‘name meanings’ among them are:

Athelas=Old English-spirit of the King
Balrog= Old english- bealu,evil & wreagan,to arouse
Bilbo=Old English-Bil, a sword & -bo, (diminutive): short sword
Elendil=OE-Ellende, adj (foreign, exiled
Elessar=Old Norse-’one who appears in another manner.
Fangorn=OE-’fang’, booty, plunder; cf fon (to imprison) ‘prison-wood, as well as beard-tree*
Hobbit=OE-hob (generic name for clown, rustic), -bit, a diminutive suffix
Saruman=OE saru (pain, sickness), or searu (contrivance, stratagem)
* In an early version of the story Gandalf was to have been held prisoner by ‘Giant Treebeard.

All of which, I think, are quite significant.

As to the 'canonicity' thing. It seems to me we have the following alternatives:

1) Middle earth is Tolkien's own creation. He has decided that homosexuality simply doesn't exist - anymore than 15ft high rabbits or floating rocks.

2) Middle earth is a period of this world's history, some thousands of years ago.

My original point was that if 1) is true, then Middle earth is not a period of this world's history, & any fiction, or adaptation, which attempts to be true to the canon, must take into account every 'fact' about Middle Earth, & the moral stance of the creator (as manifest in the work - whether it reflects exactly the author's 'true' morality is another question) is a 'fact' of that world , as much as 'immortal' elves, magic swords, & 'crystal balls'. We cannot introduce anything into the world, or any attitude, either, unless support for it can be found in the author's works.

If, however, 2) is true, then while accepting all statements about the nature of that world - existence of Elves, dragons, mountains, etc, all the value judgements are up for grabs. Homosexuality would have existed then, as it has existed in all historical periods for which we have any evidence. So, we could introduce gay characters into Middle earth, with the justification that they must have existed - or at least we would be justified in asking anyone who denied that there were gay humans on earth x thousands of years ago to cite their evidence.

So, we either take the whole package as an artistic creation, including the moral value system the author has introduced into it, or we take the bare 'facts' of dates, geography, physics & biology, & feel free to impose our own value system & interpret the events of the story as we like. First alternative means 'slash' is not only incorrect, but 'wrong', & also impossible, as impossible as the fifteen foot rabbits. Second alternative means 'slash' is entirely acceptable, as it is not logically impossible, much though some people (whether they could count Tolkien himself among their number is unknowable, as SpM has pointed out) might wish it to be.

This really is a question about the extent to which we can separate the author's voice from the world he has created. If it was a real historical period we were dealing with we would attempt to do just that, & escape from the historian's biases, concious & unconcious, & draw our own moral lines.

My feeling is that we simply can't do that, & that the moral values & judgements which run through the world are an essential part of it, & therefore cannot be removed from it, & have simply to be accepted.

This means that someone who reads the books from this point of view, who enters into its moral vision fully, belives in the supernatural dimension, the miraculous intervention of Eru, etc, will get more out of it than someone who doesn't, & simply reads it as a story set in a fabulous world where wierd stuff just 'happens'. In other words, there is a 'right' way to read the books, & a 'wrong' way.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

First of all, Fordim, in his essay, Tolkien as Phiologist, David Lyle Jeffrey gives a number of ‘speculative notes’ on ‘name meanings’

Couldn't let this one pass without a quick admission, as DLJ is not only a personal friend, but -- I am proud and pleased to say -- one of my mentors.

Most of what I say about the importance of recovering the full meaning and connotations of names in LotR stems from several long conversations that I had with David many (many) years ago about that very subject. Whereas I speak but a little French and even less Spanish, David is fluent in (at last count) about a dozen languages living and dead, and the kinds of information he could bring to bear on the character- and place-names in LotR was bestaggering and awe-inspiring.

Where he and I parted ways on Tolkien is pretty much where (I suspect) davem and I do as well: DLJ always insists that one must 'recover' not just the meaning of the names, but do so from within the specifically Christian ethos that Tolkien was working from. I didn't really agree with it then, and I'm not sure that I do so know -- but as DLJ explained to me then, the act of recovering this sort of meaning is a method of study that owes much to biblical exegesis, so it's only natural (he even argued "responsible") to proceed in that manner.

Who am I to disagree with my mentor! Answer: a good student!

PS Sorry if this looks like name-dropping; it truly is not meant as such. I'm just so tickled to see someone quoted herein whom I know. Now if someone ever quotes the one paper I wrote on Tolkien I will die of happiness (not that this is very likely to happen).

[The Saucepan Man]

Sorry if this looks like name-dropping; it truly is not meant as such. (Fordim)

It not only looks like outrageous name-dropping, it feels very much like it too. Scandalous!

And now onto business.

Yet in trying to apply my own experiences to the text, I feel compelled to take into account what I can untangle from the author's mind: what he meant when he wrote the text and created the world that he did. With all our current emphasis on individual freedom in many different shapes and forms, there is such a thing as respect to the author or historian. If you play in his ballpark, you respect his general rules. (Child)

I would say that, while one is free to investigate the author's intentions and values, an understanding of these is not necessary fully to appreciate the text. The text should be self-contained. Everything that we need to know about the protagonists, the events portrayed and the world in which it takes place should be in there. In other words, the reader should not be obliged to investigate authorial intention and standpoint in order to appreciate the text. After all, how many readers of the book do in fact do that? It follows that, while one might be aware of the author's own views and intentions, one is free to reject them if they are not implicit within the text.

In regard to SpM's recent comments on homosexuality or the lack of it in the text, I would say that sometimes what an historian omits is even more important than what he includes.

There is much that Tolkien omits from the text (just as there is much that a historian omits from a historical account) simpy because it is not relevant to the subject matter at hand. Apologies in advance if this gets distasteful, but Tolkien never (as far as I am aware) mentions his characters' toliet habits. Nor does he (save in very oblique references with regard to Aragorn and Arwen and (I think) Beren and Luthien) mention any sexual activity. We assume that these activities occur, because the world would not be credible if they did not. But, because they are not relevant to the story that he is telling, they do not need to be addressed. For me, homosexuality falls within the same category. It is a fact of life and therefore existed within Middle-earth. The world would not be credible to me if it did not. Others may (and no doubt will) take a different view. I am simply giving my take on it.

So, we either take the whole package as an artistic creation, including the moral value system the author has introduced into it, or we take the bare 'facts' of dates, geography, physics & biology, & feel free to impose our own value system & interpret the events of the story as we like. First alternative means 'slash' is not only incorrect, but 'wrong', & also impossible, as impossible as the fifteen foot rabbits. Second alternative means 'slash' is entirely acceptable, as it is not logically impossible, much though some people (whether they could count Tolkien himself among their number is unknowable, as SpM has pointed out) might wish it to be. (davem)

I do not see why the first alternative has to have the consequences that you have stated. The moral system which Tolkien has introduced into Middle-earth is not a complete recreation of his moral standpoint. It reflects only those aspects that he has chosen to include within it. As far as I can see, it does not preclude homosexuality. Nor do the facts that he has given us about the world necessarily preclude the existence of fifteen foot high rabbits (or hippos or ostriches). Why should they not exist? They are no less ludicrous in some respects than walking, talking trees. They do not feature in his tales because they are not relevant to them, but I would say that the reader is free to believe that they exist in Middle-earth if he or she so wishes.

On the other hand, we are not free to see Sauron and (LotR) Saruman as the good guys because we are clearly told that they are not. Nor are we free to interpret their evil acts as noble or heroic or attractive because it is clear from the text itself that this is incompatible with the moral value system that Tolkien has incorporated into his world. So, if we are to accept the story, we have to accept it as a "given" that Sauron is evil and that his behaviour is (within the story) morally incorrect.

This means that someone who reads the books from this point of view, who enters into its moral vision fully, belives in the supernatural dimension, the miraculous intervention of Eru, etc, will get more out of it than someone who doesn't, & simply reads it as a story set in a fabulous world where wierd stuff just 'happens'. In other words, there is a 'right' way to read the books, & a 'wrong' way. (davem)

While it will not surprise you to hear that I do not agree with your final sentence (since, as I have said, I do not believe in making subjective assessments of an individual's reading experience), I do actually agree with the rest of what you have said here. But just because an individual does not subscribe personally to the author's moral vision (whether that be the limited one presented within the text or the broader perspective as ascertained from external investigation), it does not follow that he or she is "wrong", at least as far as he or she (as an individual) is concerned.

[Bêthberry]

You have written a long and gracious and eloquent post, Child and say much with which I would agree--and, in fact, Fordim has already acknowledged a point I would respect, the need to be inclusive of several different perspectives. You are right--We cannot enter completely and wholly and naively into the mind and sensibility of a previous age!

I remember being told that the right way to go about literary scholarship was to read everything the author read and immerse oneself in the author's age so as to come to terms with what the author meant. How to ignore or overlook the intervening years between any author's and my own I was never told. How those intervening years might impinge upon an understanding of the author and/or text in question was a moot point from this perspective. Such a concern would be dismissed as irrelevant. And we could only study dead authors because they were the only ones who could be relied upon not to publish works which subsequently "proved" us wrong. It was an archeologoy all right. Take a look to see what constituted the study of "English literature" at the time Tolkien taught at Oxford to see this perspective in operation. (I do not ascribe this situation to Tolkien at all. In fact, I think he was ruefully disappointed in it, as his comments and shudders over academic syllabus show.)

You have so graciously acknowledged many of the points here that I almost feel it is rude of me to disagree. Almost. But please bear with me.

It is not any act of disrespect which causes me to question whether we can with absolute certainty say we know an author's intention. It is the experience of seeing that authors often write from depths of inspiration and thought which they themselves do not wholly or completely understand at the time of writing. Or seeing authors wish to withhold their true sense of intention from deliberate statement, wanting the work of art to speak for them. And even seeing authors deliberately engage in disguise and subterfuge as a way to challenge readers.

The difficulty is always what to do with the passage of time. As you yourself pointed out, in the sixties, it was Tolkien's environmental focus which was the topic of interest. Now, with publication of The Silm, HoME and UT, the moral or religious focus is what draws many to Tolkien. Yet this focus--even, both of them I would say--was largely absent from the movies. which has brought the thrill of the ancient epics and sword play to the forefront of some people's interest. Are we to say that those who read Tolkien in the sixties were wrong because they didn't know of Eru? Are we to say that those who relish the warrior aspects are limited in their appreciation because they might denigrate the environmental issues?

This issue of how time changes our perspective, even our definitions, pertains as much to historiography as it does to literary questions. Here in Canada, for both World War I and World War II, our participation was argued over, depending upon whether one felt we must rise to the call of the Empire and help defend England (English Canada) or stay out of the English dog's war (French Canada). In the United States, which entered World War II much later than Canada, there was a certain degree of sympathy for the Nazi Government. Only later in the war, when the extent of the genocide became apparent, did opinion coalesce. The same can be said for other wars. The American Civil War began over the question of the right of the southern states to secede. Only as the war progressed did the issue of slavery rise to the fore. (At least, this is the viewpoint I brought away with me after I visited Gettysburg.) Is there a lesson here in how cultures use moral issues to define historical moments? Maybe.

While bowing to your expertise in historical matters, I would politely suggest that the issues which bedevil our attempts to find a definitive, absolute interpretation of literary works based on an ability to know truly a writer's intention also impede historical research. I think back to the difference perspective which you and Rimbaud had over the question of whether a "middle class" existed in the middle ages. How historiographers define issues can influence their findings and their histories as much as definitions thwart literary scholars.

You suggest that the preferable way to define a response to Tolkien is through history rather than the kind of literary criticism which Fordim and I tend to use, maybe even davem, perhaps even Saucepan. And your justification for suggesting such an approach is Tolkien's own interest in history, which you say was more important than his interest in story.

Yet I think back to 'On Fairy Stories' and his deliberations over the bishop and the banana peel. Things get into the cauldron of story to flavour the story, not because they have any historical objectivity.

Which I suppose is my way of saying that there is indeed a continuum of interpretation and understanding as you suggest rather than davem's either or dichotomy. I don't see why a fanfic which explores an area Tolkien alluded to but left undeveloped, like Sauron's or Saruman's fall, is not possible within his moral universe. But perhaps that hinges on how we each define "hero". At the very least, I don't think 'historiography' is much more helpful to us than literary scholarship. When all is said and done, what we have are our words together, even when we disagree.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Child of the 7th Age:

I can never fully understand any civilization from the past. As a historian, I accept that limitation. Nor do I expect to be able to get inside Tolkien's creation completely. My own understanding is limited. Yet in trying to apply my own experiences to the text, I feel compelled to take into account what I can untangle from the author's mind: what he meant when he wrote the text and created the world that he did.

Davem:

This really is a question about the extent to which we can separate the author's voice from the world he has created. If it was a real historical period we were dealing with we would attempt to do just that, & escape from the historian's biases, concious & unconcious, & draw our own moral lines.

I suppose this is the danger of the conceit of historicity of fiction. If one posits that Middle Earth exists outside the realm of Tolkien’s mind and that he really didn’t make it all up, as quipped by one of his correspondents in Letters so long ago, then the history is open to interpretation. Middle Earth is no longer Tolkien’s, but it becomes everyone’s. But, because we understand it to be a conceit—fiction, not history, the world belongs to the author who set it down. Thus, only his words are canon.

If we treat Middle Earth as a world which transcends its creator, then there could be all sorts of “revisionist histories” written from the discoveries of other works. Just think what could be written by one who uncovered the Library at Minas Tirith or who found Saruman’s records at Orthanc, or who wrote simply from the Book of Mazarbul with no other reference. Tolkien’s conceit of “The Red Book of Westmarch” means that “The Lord of the Rings” is to be the travelogue of Frodo, with all Frodo’s idiosyncrasies, beliefs, moral values, etc. along with his extraordinary experiences. So, if one wants to take the argument to its internal point, the canon of Lord of the Rings is the Weltanschauung of one Mr. Frodo Baggins, his first person experiences and journalistic interpretations of his talks with others involved in the War of the Ring.

I think the fact that this argument exists speaks to the verisimilitude and completeness of Tolkien’s creation of the realm of Middle Earth. When a world transcends the act of its creation, it strikes me in the same way Eru calling upon the Ainur to make music upon his themes would. I can see davem’s point about not allowing the discordant notes near a ‘canonical’ text, but also, I subscribe to Aiwendil’s view that no fanfiction or secondary writing is, by definition, canon (without getting into the sticky wicket of Christopher Tolkien's compilations/amalgamations/interpretations, i.e., Silmarillion etc.)*. That is not to say that fanfiction cannot enrich an already well-conceived world. Also, as painful as it might be to see the Morgoths and Saurons of this world exercise this right to expression, I cannot say they are not entitled to practice it, as long as they do not claim canonicity for their works. No badly written Mary Sue fanfiction is going to destroy the beauty of Tolkien’s world for me. There just isn’t enough power in it to do such a thing.

That said, I often have thoughts of just how the subcreated ‘history’ would fare if documents from the other side were uncovered, if there was, say, a ‘scribe of Minas Morgul’ who kept a journal and recounted his experiences in the War of the Ring and had a very different view of what actually happened in the conflict recorded, according to Tolkien’s conceit, by Frodo Baggins in the Red Book of Westmarch. But, of course, Tolkien did not write this, so one could never call it canon.

All this said, I must close with a blessing and a curse. Curse you and bless you, Fordim, for dredging up this topic again and taking my attention away from all the other little things I should have been doing!

Cheers!
Lyta

*Note from above: I actually find sometimes that the notes of CJT enhance the 'historical' effect of JRRT's works by being speculation much on the order of what historians must do to interpret intent or objective truth from disparate sources!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

All this said, I must close with a blessing and a curse. Curse you and bless you, Fordim, for dredging up this topic again and taking my attention away from all the other little things I should have been doing!

I stand shamed and humbled within the rain of your condemnatory benediction.

Canon is a tricky thing. To this point in the thread, I'm not sure that I've even really tackled it head on in terms of addressing what is an is not 'canonical', and I don't really propose to do so now as the idea of canon – of setting aside certain texts or kinds of texts as the 'real' Tolkien – tells us nothing about the texts or the author and everything about our own expectations as readers. If one believes that the meaning of a text resides wholly or primarily in relation to the author, then only works by that author will be canon; if one believes that the meaning of a text resides wholly or primarily in relation to the reader, then works or fan fiction (or parody) will be acceptable. This homiletic truth is born out, I think, within this very thread, for those who hold to the former position do not appear in the RPG forums, while those who hold to the latter do (more or less).

This is not, obviously, a strictly either/or scenario, where there are only two positions available. I have argued elsewhere (quite convincingly, I might add ) that there is within every reading experience both the desire for meaning from the authorial source, and the desire for meaning in relation to the self – which would mean that there is a constant tension within every reading act and reader between these two forms of canon-formation. We are all of us, I think, simultaneously and somewhat ambivalently exclusive (the work belongs to the author) and inclusive (the work belongs to me) in our responses to all texts. But this exclusive-inclusivity, or inclusive-exclusivity is even more pronounced in relation to Tolkien, I think, insofar as the world that the text explores is not (directly) one that we share – it’s Tolkien’s world, so it’s his rules, his truth, his canon. At the same time, however, because this world is imaginary we as readers have to do a lot more work (pleasurable as it may be) to bring it to life. We are more active participants in the creation of this world than we are of, say, Dickens’ London or even Chaucer’s west country, insofar as these places have independent existence from the texts that reflect them.

So the problem of canon is even more fraught with Tolkien than is usual. But the good news is, the promise of canon is richer. This promise is the ability that it gives us to reflect upon our own expectations as readers, which is – finally – what canon is all about. The instant we decide what truly ‘belongs’ and what does not, we set up a very clear mirror into our own expectations and desires as readers. The more we want to define the canonical ‘truth’ of the text by the author, the more we want to turn to the mirage of authorial intention for meaning. The more we want to define the canonical ‘truth’ of the text by ourselves, the more we want to turn to the fantasy of individual response.

In the end, I would suggest that the quest for Tolkien’s canon is an informative process, but futile.

EDIT -- Cross-posting with Davem to whom I would like to say I agree whole-heartedly with the tripartite form of allusiveness you speak of in relation to the etymological pursuit of meaning in LotR.

[davem]

As to etymology enhancing our understanding of the books, its interesting how it can reveal earlier versions of the story - ie Farmer Maggot's original, unpleasant character is prob. revealed through the name - 'maggotty'=cantankerous or drunken. The later character doesn't reflect these attributes at all, but they're there. Same thing with Fangorn=OE-’fang’, booty, plunder; cf fon (to imprison) ‘prison-wood, as well as beard-tree, which reflects the earlier version of the story, where Gandalf is imprisoned by Giant Treebeard, etc. Athelas means both 'spirit of the king' in OE & Kings foil (or leaf) in Sindarin.

But we have two 'levels' of inner/'hidden' meaning in Tolkien's books, the OldEnglish/Old Norse/Middle English, etc level, & the Elvish one, where subtle connections are made for readers - ie Strider telling the hobbits Frodo has been stabbed by a 'morgul blade' at weathertop - when we then hear the name Minas Morgul we consciously or unconsciously relate the the two places, just as we connect Minas Morgul with Minas Tirith, & Minas Tirth itself links back (for readers of the Sil) to Finrod's tower which guarded the Pass of Sirion.

None of those connections are overtly stated, but they underlie the whole thing.