‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Ah yes Bethberry, old ruts indeed -- some of them very worn too boot!

The discussion so far is interesting (if a bit familiar) but I wonder what ever happened to my point regarding the names of characters and places? I'm still very interested in hearing what role people think these names have in our understanding of the texts.

SpM you make an interesting, if somewhat oddly ambiguous, point about the "take it or leave it" meaning of the names. If you want to piece them out to get an idea of what the author 'meant' then OK, if not, then also OK, just sit back and enjoy. I'm not entirely sure that this is quite so easy. If you are going to allow that a fuller appreciation of the names' meanings gives us 'more' or 'better' information then does that not mean necessarily that there are some readers who are better readers? That is, people who have the knowledge or wherewithal to figure out what the names mean will do a better job of understanding than those who don't?

The other point that has been passed over is what to do with the names once we've recovered them. Do we understand that meaning in terms of the ethos of the author (what Tolkien wanted them to mean to us as readers: e.g. Frodo grows into wisdom of Truth), in terms of their context in the text (what they come to mean in the narrative: e.g. Sam is and becomes half-wise), in terms of their etymological sense (e.g. smaug is a Germanic worm, wyrm) or in the sense we wish to take them (e.g. I get to decide what Frodo's wisdom might be)?

Perhaps if I throw out Frodo/froda as a specific example -- the name is OG for "wise by experience" but what does recovering that meaning add to our understanding of the text? How are we to take it? How much do we need to inqurie into Tolkien's view of what constitutes wisdom, and how much can we rely on our own view of wisdom? How much can we derive from the text itself as to what is wisdom?

What does the meaning of Frodo's name, mean?

[The Saucepan Man]

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).

The moral/ethical dimension must be taken into account in so far as we are able to determine it from the "facts" presented in the text, but excluding the author's own position to the extent that it differs from that stated in the text or remains unaddressed in it. So, to take the example of homosexuality, whatever Tolkien's views on this issue (about which we know little, if anything, for certain), there is (as far as I am aware) nothing within his writings which either condones or condemns it. One could say that it simply doesn't exist within Middle-earth, but that would be like saying that, just because Tolkien did not mention them, hippopotami and ostriches do not exist within his world. Homosexuality doesn't figure within the stories with which we are concerned because, like hippos and ostirches, it is not relevant to them. As to whether it is permissible within fan fiction, well that must, I suppose, be a matter for individual interpretation.

Edit (after cross-posting with Fordim):

If you are going to allow that a fuller appreciation of the names' meanings gives us 'more' or 'better' information then does that not mean necessarily that there are some readers who are better readers? That is, people who have the knowledge or wherewithal to figure out what the names mean will do a better job of understanding than those who don't?

I'm probably going back over old ground here (and making my own rut alongside Bb's), but I would not say that, just because someone has a greater understanding of what the author's intentions were or a better appreciation of his linguistic tricks, their reading experience is in any way more valuable than anyone else's. The reading experience is not one which, as far as I am concerned, can be objectively quantified and compared with that of another. So, while I accept that some readers will be more widely-read, or more knowledgeable, or more in tune with the author's own religious/moral standpoint, that does not make them "better readers" in my book (pun intended ).

[Bêthberry]

Fordim, if there is nothing else in a text to support such esoteric or recondite use of names, then I would argue that the use of such names alone reflects weak writing. There ought to be other signifiers in the text which support that reference, so that a constellation of techniques works towards our understanding of character. The philological meaning or derivation of names is thus one aspect out of many which helps reader appreciate character traits. They make our reading experience richer, but they are not, in a good writer, the sole support for characterisation.

A hidden or secret meaning whick is not supported by other aspects of the text would be rather gnostic, don't you think?

Aiwendil, you are quite right to point out that fanfics cannot be part of Tolkien's 'canon.' They can, however, be 'canonical' or not depending on how they reflect his sensibility and sympathies. I was thinking as someone here who helps young writers learn how to distinguish between "Tolkien elves" and the garden variety type.

[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!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Yet I think we have to be careful to acknowledge that there is more than one perspective

Child, I couldn't have put it better myself, and I stand convicted of approaching Tolkien far too much and far too often through the lens of literary critical practice (and possibly even theory). And this is ironic, for I have written elsewhere of how much I think there is to gain from a more 'historical' approach like the one you speak of so well and so convincingly. This really does buttress the philological analyses I'm wanting to move into as well, as I want to inquire into the historical origins of the names and then seek to find their applicability to us in the here and now.

Bethberry you wrote:

if there is nothing else in a text to support such esoteric or recondite use of names, then I would argue that the use of such names alone reflects weak writing. There ought to be other signifiers in the text which support that reference

I would argue that there are any number of such signifiers that not only invite but demand us to recover the etymology of the names. Off the top of my head I think of Tom Bombadil's explanation of who he is to the hobbits, Treebeard's wonderful delineation of the importance of names and words (doesn't he say that a proper name is the story of the thing?) and the constant renaming of Aragorn (Strider the Ranger, Aragorn the heir, Elessar the King). When I am next near to my books I shall dig up some relevant quotes, but I think everyone knows the moments I am referring to.

Time and again in the books it crops up that to know the name of a thing -- more significantly, to know the meaning of the name of a thing -- is to know the thing (Middle-Earth is clearly pre-post-structuralist in that regard! No split between the signifier and the signified there!). Given this insistence, I think that it's fair to argue that recovering a character's name is probably the clearest and best way to uncover authorial intent.

Your point, Bb, that this should not and cannot be taken as the only or sole mode of characterization is very well taken, though.