‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Bêthberry]

Given all our thoughts on this thread about Who is the Author, and Authorial Intentions, and Truth, and Where to Find the Author, I think it would not be inappropriate to offer this comment from one of Tolkien's Letter. It is Letter # 229 and Tolkien has been writing in despair about the introduction to the Swedish translation of LotR. Many thanks to Estelyn for bringing this comment to my my attention.

Why should I be made an object of fiction while still alive?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Why should I be made an object of fiction while still alive?

Why would Tolkien make himself into an object of 'fiction' - because that's exactly what he does. He is a character within the mythology - he is the translator of it - in the original Foreword, in the Prologue, & especially in appendix F. He is much an 'object of fiction' (ie a character within his secondary world) as Eriol/Aelfwine.

The Legendarium is not simply a collection of stories, they are the stories collected & passed on by an Elf-friend, in order to pass on knowledge of the past, to keep alive the knowledge of & connection with Faerie. He is a translator of ancient lore, as Bilbo was. He exists within his secondary world, as well as outside it.

Tolkien exists as a figure within the secondary world. He's written himself into it - why?

Lets take your approach. Someone with no knowledge of Tolkien the man, with only LotR to hand, sets out to analyse the work, understand it to the best of his ability. Taking the text itself, he will not simply find the characters within Middle earth, he will also find numerous references to a 'translator', someone who came into posession of a copy of the 'Red Book' of Westmarch. Now, will this reader take this 'translator' as a character, wonder whether he is 'simply' another invented character, or 'just' the author? Won't he ask to what extent the author & the translator are one & the same, & to what extent they differ?

Why the 'fiction' of translation at all? What was Tolkien attempting to do? The fiction is unnecessary if the book is just a fantasy novel. But if we look at the Legendarium as a whole we find the 'Elf friend', the human who meets the elves & is responsible for passing on the ancient, lost lore to mankind. Tolkien makes himself into an elf-friend within his Legendarium.

Its not just about the individual tales, its about their transmission. There is always a 'living' link to the ancient past, the tales move from mind to mind. The writer is not 'external' he is part of a single long tale (cf Sam & Frodo's conversation on the stairs). Tales are passed on from mind to mind. They don't exist unless they're told.

So, don't ask me why Tolkien should be made an object of fiction - ask him why he did it to himself. His answer might surprise us all.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

Do we see in the glass or through it

The whole mode of narration, as you rightly observe (i.e. Tolkien as elf-friend, object of his own fiction), suggests through option.

The external data (i.e all the biographical information implying that Tolkien was inventing his world suggests in option.

But, by and by, I find that I come to conclusion that it does not matter and, that, in fact, you can not tell which mode is more ‘correct’, and the choice between the two comes down to belief, or trust, or, still better term, to estel.

By belief here I do not mean any particular set of religious or theological statements, merely trust of authority

My wording may be a bit clumsy here, please bear with me, I'll try to be as explicit as I'm able to.

Any piece of knowledge any given person may possess if not professionaly concerned with the issue depends on belief. Per instance, I 'know' that earth is round contrary to what I observe with my very eyes as its flatness (or 'foldedness', as my dwelling is in a mountainous country), as I trust the authority of books I've read about the subject. I 'know' that stars are balls of gas, that there is such a place as Duke University, that Kangaroos live in Australia and G.W.Bush is president of USA because of said trust. For I haven't seen neither of them things with my very eyes, their existence is untested and unknown quantity for me in any way. Even if I find an eye witness to existence of these, I still have to lean on trust in authority of the witness.

Now in subcreation the very much discussed suspension of disbelief comes into play. But ‘suspension of disbelief’ is a negative term. Replace it with ‘trust in authority’, and in the glass option is immediately replaced with through the glass. And if the skill of the sub-creator is great, and subcreation produced approaches perfection, it is impossible to tell which is more real – the world one sits on in a chair with a book or the one described in the book.

The Matrix – is being in it bad because it is [sub]created? For there is no way of telling for those inside it? Were there any guarantee (and I have that suspision even before parts 2 and 3 were released) for Neo, when he leaves Matrix, that what he had chosen is not mere exchanging of one Matrix for another Matrix, which, in itself is inside the thrid one and so forth, like to set of nesting dolls?

That was bothering me when I raised the issue of morals. The existence of Moral imperative, somehow, seems to be definitive for ‘realness’ or cogency of any given world. Middle Earth has that in abundance (the imperative is not 'because I will profit' but 'thus shall I sleep better'). And hence my clumsy attempt on crooked logic with probability of existence of imagined things (post #408)

Or, on any given irritation ME responds with appropriate reaction, just like normal world would, even if in a bit idealised way.

Or another clumsy analogy – suppose there existed a robot in all ways like to human being, i.e., there were no way of telling it were a robot – all its organs, members and looks perfectly like to those of human being. Further suppose, that imitiation were so perfect that emotions were imitated too – i.e. robot cried when hit, and expressed fear, affection or love in a way similar to that of human

Would it be correct to say that robot can not experience love, if it said that it loved, and expressed it as a human would do?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

...davem is yet unbeaten in debate. Even if opponents would not agree and would not be persuaded, they flee his persistence in defence of his position in most prolix discourses the Internet Era may yet boast of...

Hmm, surely the defining feature of this thread is that the main protagonists have resolutely refused (or found themselves unable) to flee it.

No 'tis like the Ring, drawing us ever deeper into the discussion, revealing yet more layers of complexity and hinting at hidden depths of discourse yet to be discovered and charted.

Originally Posted by davem

though I can see how you, Bethberry & SpM would feel you were 'fighting the long defeat'

Alas, unlike Galadriel, I have failed to pass the test and will not fade and pass West to the Unchattering Lands. I will remain within the realm of Canonicity to carry on the fight.

Davem, I presume that you seek to argue that, since Tolkien included himself as a character in his own tale, this strengthens the argument for the importance of taking account of his views and intentions when we seek to understand the "meaning" of the story. But I would say that, if anything, it does the opposite. Since he includes himself as a fictional character (to carry the fiction that the events described date from a real period in our pre-history), then surely all that we need know of this fictional character should be present in the text. He plays a very small role in the tale and acts purely as its archaeologist and translator. Within this fiction, the account was written by various Hobbit hands and unearthed and translated by the fictional Tolkien. He plays only a very limited editorial role in providing notes on translation and, on rare occasions (restricted almost entirely to The Hobbit and the Shire-based beginning of LotR), including the odd "story-teller's comment". Isn't that all we need to know about him (the fictional Tolkien, as opposed to the factual author) to understand his role in the story?

But, as Aiwendil said, where does this discussion really get us? I recognise that there is a certain value in taking account of the author's thoughts, views and intentions in seeking to understand what he was trying to tell us in LotR and his other works, just as I recognise the value in Bêthberry's literary approach and Child's historical approach. Equally, I can see the value in considering the spiritual and metaphysical aspects of Tolkien's works. Contrary to the impression that I may have given, I am not entirely averse to the idea that his stories can put us in touch with some greater truth (or even Truth ). Indeed, earlier in this thread, I recall being rather attracted by davem‘s concept of “enchantment” and I related how this resonated with the vision of sorts that I experienced when first reading LotR and which I can still vaguely recall when I read it now.

But, like Aiwendil, I believe that the differences arise when we try to ascribe degrees of value to these various approaches. We are all coming at it from different angles and bringing with us our own experiences, disciplines and beliefs. So we are each bound to ascribe greater (personal) value to some approaches than to others. Which is why I would maintain that (within certain boundaries that are morally, socially or legally imposed), no one approach is objectively more valuable than any other. It depends upon personal standpoint. I see nothing wrong if an individual’s purpose in reading the book is pure enjoyment. That’s how I have approached it on the majority of occasions that I have read it. Yet, my perspectives have changed. I am now more interested in looking for meaning within the book, in its historical, mythological and literary foundations and, yes, in what Tolkien himself was trying to get across to us. That change has come about since I joined the Downs, as a direct result of discussions such as this and others like it.

And therein lies the value of this discussion. Thanks to the contributions from all concerned in this thread, I have been compelled to think, to reassess and to look at things from an alternative perspective. As a result, my own perspectives have changed and that, I think, has great value in itself. (Although that is not to lessen the enjoyment value of this thread and I would add my voice to those who have expressed how much they have enjoyed participating in it.)

Personally, I do not feel that the discussion need be over, although I do feel that, for me at least, it does perhaps need to “move on”. (I would add that I am not seeking in any way to curtail the ongoing discussion in the posts that precede this one. It is simply that, from a personal standpoint and for the reasons stated above, I feel unable to add much more to it.) So, in an effort to explore other avenues of Canonicity (although possibly at the risk of killing the thread completely), I will pose a further question.

It seems to me (although I may be wrong on this) that there is general agreement that what I would describe as “pure canon” in the context of Tolkien’s works can only include the events, locations, creatures and characters described in the texts which he published during his lifetime. This, of course, will include the thoughts, feelings and motivations of the characters where they are sufficiently and unambiguously described. Basically, I am talking about those issues of “fact” about which we can all agree because they are there in the text in black and white. Of course, there may still be grey areas, even within this category. For example, some may question the existence of Stone Giants within Middle-earth and ascribe the references to them in The Hobbit to exaggeration on Bilbo’s part when he came to set down his adventure. Nevertheless, I think that we could all reach consensus on a whole range of issues concerning Middle-earth, namely the overwhelming majority of those "facts" set out in the published texts (The Hobbit and LotR).

Now, as I have touched on previously (many many pages back), I would not include The Silmarillion within this category, as it was not finalised and published by Tolkien within his lifetime. Had he done so, it almost undoubtedly would have been different (although most probably not profoundly so). Also included within this category are the other “unfinished” materials that were published following Tolkien’s death, most particularly Unfinished Tales, the HoME series and (to the extent that they bear upon issues of “Middle-earth fact”) the Letters.

So, my question is this: Why is it that Tolkien enthusiasts invariably take as “canon” anything specifically stated in these “unpublished” materials which does not contradict (or which can be reconciled with) anything stated in the “published” texts? Time and time again in discussions on this board (and no doubt in discussions on other boards like it and in “real life” discussions between committed fans of Tolkien’s works), someone will come up with a fact stated in Unfinished Tales or one of the HoME series or the Letters and the stated fact is generally accepted as “true“. The same thing occurs in games in the Quiz Room. Facts sourced from these materials are accepted as the correct answer to a question concerning them. Similarly, sites such as The Encyclopedia of Arda and books such as Tyler’s The Complete Tolkien Companion recite such facts as, well, facts. But why is this, given that they were not included as facts within the texts published during Tolkien’s lifetime (and were therefore subject to change should he have sought to include them within a published work)?

It seems to me that there are some “unpublished facts” which are supported by the published texts and make perfect sense in light of them. An example would be the statement made by Tolkien in (I think) a number of his Letters to the effect that (leaving Bombadil aside) no one could willingly have destroyed the Ring. Although I cannot recall this being clearly stated in LotR, it is (to my mind) implicit in Frodo’s inability to destroy it. If someone else could have carried out the deed, then it devalues Frodo’s character. Another example would be the existence of Eru. As far as I can recall, he is not specifically referred to in LotR. He only features in the “unpublished materials” (in which I include, as I have said, The Silmarillion). But his existence makes sense in the context of LotR, given the strong sense of providence implicit within the story.

Perhaps that’s the answer. We accept the “unpublished facts” because they derive from Tolkien and they make perfect sense within the context of the texts that were published within Tolkien’s lifetime. Of course there will, for some of us, be “unpublished facts” which do not ring true. A personal example which I relayed earlier (again a long way back on this thread) is Tolkien’s account in one of his Letters as to what would have happened had Gollum seized the Ring but not stumbled into the Fire of Orodruin. Tolkien suggests that he would have sought to resolve his desire for possession of the Ring with his feelings towards Frodo by throwing himself into the Fire. That just does not ring true to my conception of Gollum’s character (although it will no doubt make sense to others). But such examples are rare, and will almost always fall within the realm of speculation. So what is within us Tolkien aficionados that makes us all respond to the vast majority of “unpublished facts” with the same degree of acceptance? What is it that makes these matters “ring true” to us? And if there are matters which do not ring true to us on a personal level (such as my reaction to the Gollum example cited above), are we, as Tolkien enthusiasts entitled to reject them?

Well, my intention was to open up a new channel for discussion, but I suspect that I have merely provided the means of re-opening issues that have already been debated at length here. Nevertheless, I have sought to focus the issue as best I can so, if you will, have at it.

[davem]

I suppose this simply rephrases the question of whether there is some underlying objective 'reality' - because otherwise we would simply accept everything Tolkien wrote as 'fact' - why is it that some statements by Tolkien would feel 'wrong'? That would imply that some statements are 'right', & that even Tolkien could be wrong in the facts he stated about Middle earth. What strikes me most strongly is this sense that on some level we feel we can judge even Tolkien to have got things 'wrong' - even Aiwendil & I agree that some of the later writings (Myths Transformed) where Tolkien rewrites the cosmology, are 'mistakes' - they don't work - as CT himself more or less admits. Why this general agreement on where Tolkien got it right & where he got it wrong?

As to Tolkien's role in the mythology:

Originally Posted by SpM

He plays a very small role in the tale and acts purely as its archaeologist and translator. Within this fiction, the account was written by various Hobbit hands and unearthed and translated by the fictional Tolkien. He plays only a very limited editorial role in providing notes on translation and, on rare occasions (restricted almost entirely to The Hobbit and the Shire-based beginning of LotR), including the odd "story-teller's comment". Isn't that all we need to know about him (the fictional Tolkien, as opposed to the factual author) to understand his role in the story?

One could argue the same in regard to Eriol in the Lost Tales, but I don't think that actually stands up in his case. Aelfwine is actually a major character, with a detailed history, & to an extent Tolkien never completley rejected this 'framing device'. The point for me is that The 'translator' role is not necessary, & Tolkien, like the writers of every other fantasy novel could have left the idea out. It is this idea that Tolkien is merely passing on an already existing story/mythology, that adds to the verisimilitude of the world. We are repeatedly told by the translator, 'this really happened, I'm not making this up', & on some level we believe that, feel it to be true - because we have a sense of what is 'correct' & what is 'incorrect' - this has been pointed out in one of the currect 'Women' threads, the way some events in the story feel 'wrong' & 'break the spell' - but how are we making this judgement, & what are we basing it on? If the Art has no inherent 'meaning', does not 'refer' to or connect us with something 'objective' then where does the feeling come from? Because (imo) it is a different kind of feeling to the one I get with other works of fiction - I often feel that a writer has lost the plot, or failed to write a convincing character, or forced a situation in order to tie up loose ends, but almost never get the sense as I do with tolkien on rare occasions, that he has written something 'wrong', that it 'didn't happen that way'.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I suppose this simply rephrases the question of whether there is some underlying objective 'reality' - because otherwise we would simply accept everything Tolkien wrote as 'fact' - why is it that some statements by Tolkien would feel 'wrong'? That would imply that some statements are 'right', & that even Tolkien could be wrong in the facts he stated about Middle earth. What strikes me most strongly is this sense that on some level we feel we can judge even Tolkien to have got things 'wrong' - even Aiwendil & I agree that some of the later writings (Myths Transformed) where Tolkien rewrites the cosmology, are 'mistakes' - they don't work - as CT himself more or less admits. Why this general agreement on where Tolkien got it right & where he got it wrong?

I agree that my question touches on the issues that you have been exploring, davem, for the reasons that you have stated. Although the "objective reality" theory does not provide the only answer. It could simply be that, having inwardly digested Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, we have become conditioned to his style and to the "atmosphere" (for want of a better word) of the world that he (sub) created and that we are therefore able, almost instinctively, to recognise what fits within that style and that world and what doesn't.

And it's also worth bearing in mind that there are areas where we, as individuals, will disagree on what fits and what doesn't. It is clear from discussions on this board that we will have different views on certain issues which will be incapable of being proved objectively as "right" or "wrong" by reference to Tolkien's works. The issue of homosexuality is one such issue. I personally see no reason why homosexual characters should not exist within Middle-earth, indeed it would seem strange to me if they didn't. And yet others see no place whatsoever for same sex relationships in Middle-earth. Similarly, when I raised the Gollum example above on another thread some time ago, there were those who posted to the effect that Tolkien's speculation on this point worked for them. And there are no doubt those who will happily accept Tolkien's re-writing of Middle-earth cosmology which you and Aiwendil find objection with. These individual variations in what fits in Middle-earth and what doesn't would seem to mitigate against the "objective reality" theory.

And yet, viewed at from the angle at which I have re-phrased the issue, I can see merit in the theory. There is, to use an oxymoron, a "fictional reality" upon which most, if not all, of us can agree, comprising the body of unpublished material which does not conflict with, or which can at least be reconciled with, the published works. It may even go further than that to encompass fan fiction writings (such as Mithadan's Tales of Tol Eressea, which seem to have met with almost universal acceptance) and individual theories on Middle-earth facts and events. Since this material is "unpublished" (in the sense that I am using the word) and, in the case of "universally acceptable" fan fiction etc, does not even flow from Tolkien himself, there is no reason why we should accept it as forming part of our image of Middle-earth almost without question. And yet we do. Why would this be if it were not in some sense real to us, even if it is a "fictional reality"? Hmm, I need to ponder this further ...

[HerenIstarion]

Just a minor point, for I believe the status of being published is less definitive to the canonicity issue then it may seem. It is very much circumstantial affair - if there were no shortages of paper in the post-war England, or if prior to the war the reader of the publishing house have seen the whole bulk of materials sent in, not the fragments of lays only, or if the post offices worked less or more bona fide and lost or did not loose (this latter we do not know, of course) one or more letters in correspondence of Tolkien with his publishers, if, if, if, if etc, the:

A. Published texts may have been different
B. There may have been more of them

Or, to put less words around it, the origin is what matters - i.e. the work should be written by Tolkien, but it's status as of being published or not is of less consequence

Or, I'm more or less in for historiography issue again - i.e. it matters if the source is genuine, it does not were it bound in leather and gold in its time or daubed on a hut wall.