‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Its about understanding what another human being has to say to you, not about your opinion of what he's saying. And how can you even have an opinion of what he's saying if you don't listen as objectively as you can? What I bring to reading Tolkien's works has little or no value, (imo) in comparison to what Tolkien has to teach me.

Applied to the text written and published by the author, I do not disagree with you. Applied to anything beyond the text, I couldn't disagree with you more. An author has no guarantee that readers will actually like his story. From those that do, he cannot expect more than a tiny minority to delve any further than the text. For the vast majority of readers it is impractical for them, or simply of no interest to them, to do so.

I am not saying that they are right and you are wrong, just as I do not believe that you are right and they are wrong. Each is (within the boundaries that we have discussed earlier) an equally valid response to the author's work. Certainly, I cannot imagine that you are saying that we should all respond to art in the same way or approach it according to a specific set of guidelines.

[davem]

SpM I'm saying, as far as possible we must empty our minds, listen to that author as carefully as possible, take in what he/she has to say to the best of our ability, understand as far as we can theirwhole message, what they want to communicate to us, & then make a judgement on it, 'infect' it with our own baggage, etc. We must begin from a position that the author is smarter than we are & has something important to teach us (& whether you, or Aiwendil or Bethberry realise it, that's the position I adopt in regard to your posts on this thread )

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

SpM I'm saying, as far as possible we must empty our minds, listen to that author as carefully as possible, take in what he/she has to say to the best of our ability, understand as far as we can theirwhole message, what they want to communicate to us, & then make a judgement on it, 'infect' it with our own baggage, etc.

Why must we? Are you talking about everyone who reads LotR, those who are interested in delving further than the text, or just those who are interested in having this discourse with the author?

Originally Posted by davem

(& whether you, or Aiwendil or Bethberry realise it, that's the position I adopt in regard to your posts on this thread )

But you are primarily, if not solely, relying on the text of what we have posted.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Why must we? Are you talking about everyone who reads LotR, those who are interested in delving further than the text, or just those who are interested in having this discourse with the author?

Ok, we must if we wish to understand what the author meant.

But you are primarily, if not solely, relying on the text of what we have posted.

Which is as much as I have, but I don't pretend you don't exist, & that the texts pop onto the screen of themselves - I take them as 'expressions of your minds', things that you are communicating to me. The 'texts' are the way we communicate, as much as things in themselves. 'Living shapes that move from mind to mind', & all that.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Ok, we must if we wish to understand what the author meant.

Can't disagree with that. But you seem to be suggesting that we are in some way obligated to try to understand what the author meant, or at least that it is desirable for us to do so. It's there that I think we disagree, since I would hold that it is a perfectly valid response for the reader, if they so wish, to stop at the text and go no further.

[Aiwendil]

What Are We Arguing About?

As I said before, I've been experiencing a growing uncertainty about just what disagreement we actually have in this debate. Initially it was a matter of "canon". Is the canon determined by the author or the reader or the text itself? But this question could not be directly addressed, as there was disagreement over the meaning of "canon" - the question, interesting though it was, was not well formulated.

So there ensued some debate about the term "canon" - debate which seems ultimately futile, since "canon" is just a term and its definition arbitrary.

And here we are on page 12 and as far as I can see we still haven't succeeded at formulating the question.

Is there a fundamental factual disagreement? I don't think so. We all agree that the author had a mind, even those in the "reader's freedom" camp. And likewise we all agree that readers have different ways of understanding the text and different reasons for reading it - even those in the "author's authority" camp cannot dispute that as a mere fact.

So if we do not disagree on the facts, what do we disagree about?

It must be a matter of worth or value that is in dispute. There is the claim that it is primarily or exclusively "worthwhile" to study the author. Then there is the claim that each reader's view has equal "value". And there is the claim that it is the text itself that is "valuable".

I can see no way of recasting those different claims without using words like "worth" or "value".

But what kind of worth are we talking about? Monetary worth? Obviously not. Moral worth? I don't think that's it either, though perhaps I'm wrong. I doubt that Davem would say (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that a reader who disregards Tolkien as a person is actually doing something morally bad.

If not these, then what? We might say "artistic worth" but this is a cheat - it's just the replacement of one ambiguous term with another.

The truth, I think, is that we're each talking about a different kind of worth - and because we all simply say "worth" this gets us into arguments. Each of us has some different goal in mind with respect to which we measure the value of the author, the text, and the reader.

When Davem says that the author's views are the most worthwhile, he means this with respect to the goal of understanding the author and the author's intention. I don't disagree with this. If one's purpose in studying a piece of art is to study it as a manifestation of the author, then surely one of the most valuable things one can do is to study the author.

But if one's goal is something different - say, "mere" enjoyment, then the value of studying the author will not be the same. To someone like me who is interested in studying the text itself - as a text, rather than as a manifestation of or message from the author - it is less valuable (though still valuable) to study the author.

I think the nature of the "disagreement" is exemplified by what Davem wrote in the previous post:

Ok, we must if we wish to understand what the author meant.

This is exactly the point. If we wish to understand what the author meant, then studying the author is important. But that's not what we all wish.

I think that the whole disagreement about how to define the term "canon" arises merely from the fact that we each have a different objective in mind. If your objective is that of the authorial manifestation, then naturally you'll want to define "canon" in terms of authorial intentions, since that's the concept that's of interest to you. If your objective is to study the texts themselves, you might rather define "canon" purely in terms of the texts. There's no "correct" definition - it's merely a matter of different conventions.

That leaves us with the question of whether one objective is "better" than the others. And I'm afraid I can't see any way of arguing this for any of them - why should it be intrinsically "better" to study one thing than to study another?

Edit: Cross-post with The Saucepan Man, who has essentially said exactly the same thing I did but in about a tenth as many words. I think I'll go practice tempering my verbosity.

[davem]

Aiwendil's points are well made - as per - but unfortunately kill this whole thread dead

This has been one of my favourite ever threads, because we've been arguing over something that, lets be honest, doesn't actually matter a damn. But we've been forced to construct & defend positions against the most determined opposition - in my case against some of the smartest people on these boards, & I think we've learned a lot about each other in the process.

We've also, I think, learned a lot about the nature of art & what it means to different people.

I still hold to the view that all art is a 'conversation' between two individual, 'living' minds - because the art was the product of a living mind when it came into being, & feel that this is an idea Tolkien gave a lot of weight to - both the Lost Road & Notion Club Papers are about this very thing - individuals alive at one point in time communicating with other individuals in 'their' past or future. The idea of a work of art as a a 'static', fixed thing, set down without any intentional meaning (or any intentional meaning which we should take into account) seems strange to me, & I can't understand it, or relate to it in any way. The Art for me is a 'packet' of meaning - deliberate & intentional, an attempt by the artist to communicate across time & space. Tolkien, as I said, is both the creator of Middle earth, & a character within it - the last of the Elf-friends, the final link in the chain connecting us to Faerie, & that chain is a 'living process' because its links are (within the secondary world) living minds.

Does everyone accept that? That 'Tolkien' is a character within his Legendarium, as much as Eriol/Aelfwine, that he has written himself into the story? Can we discuss the 'character' of the 'translator' Tolkien & the part he plays in the story? And is this Translator Tolkien the same as or different from the Oxford Professor? Yet did Tolkien himself think of himself as both creator & creation? And if he did, how many experiences did they share? Translator Tolkien owned a copy of the Red Book, which Professor Tolkien didn't (?).

The point of that speculation is simply to show that Tolkien didn't see himself as being entirely 'outside' the Legendarium, so how can we?

[HerenIstarion]

Aiwendil's points are well made - as per - but unfortunately kill this whole thread dead

I suppose we can revive it at later point.

This has been one of my favourite ever threads, because we've been arguing over something that, lets be honest, doesn't actually matter a damn. But we've been forced to construct & defend positions against the most determined opposition - in my case against some of the smartest people on these boards, & I think we've learned a lot about each other in the process.

Can't help agreeing . Same the reason for revival at some later point.

davem, if you ever show up in the Know Yer Mates, or a Member Above Ye (shameless advertising, I know) thread, make sure I'm online so I can post after you. The approximate description will be:

...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...

But, if seriously, I must thank you and Fordim, for you two act like catalysts for the rest of us, making us think, write and debate after all years of 'being around', thus refuting malisious gossips that there is not much left, honestly . Special thanks to Aiwendil, the brilliant performer of the 'cold shower' role, which is of vivid importance, since we could talk each other to death in our 'debate heat' but for his posts, full of common sense and logic.

yours truly,

[Bêthberry]

HerenIstarion posted


...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...

My goodness, my dear HI whatever gave you the idea that because I have not posted in the last several hours, I have withdrawn from the discussion?

[Aiwendil]

So I'm like a cold shower. I like that - it works well as an epithet: Aiwendil the Cold Shower.

I just thought I should add (in case it wasn't obvious) that this has been one of my favorite threads ever as well. Perhaps this is because it incorporated so many slightly different debates, and ranged over such a wide array of topics. Most were things that had been discussed before in other contexts, but here it seemed to me we were engaged in a real synthesis of those discussions - even if one that is ultimately futile.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

but here it seemed to me we were engaged in a real synthesis of those discussions - even if one that is ultimately futile.

Well, I think futile is maybe too strong a word - it depends what we wanted to achieve. If anything this has been one of the most productive threads on the Downs.

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

[Bêthberry]

Well now, how can I come here with something light-hearted and elegiac when I wish to clarify a few points davem made on the previous page? I feel like I have walked into one of those long good-byes, where everyone knows it is over and yet they linger just a little bit longer and one person is rather foolishly carrying on as if it weren't over. Be that as it may, I do wish to offer some observations.

davem posted
Its just I find the alternative position too close to 'deconstructionism' - which has always screamed Emperor's New Clothes!!! to me. Simply, I hold to the position that we are obliged, in so far as that is possible to give prime importance & weight to the author's views. I see the art as a manifestation of the artist's will & desire, & as his or her attempt to communicate an experience of the trancendent. As far as Middle earth is concerned the author is 'God'.

I suppose some of my statement hav
e sounded close to deconstruction. Yet my osition does not derive from those hep-cat French radicals with their fans and followers but from a more traditional scholar, the polymath George Steiner, particularly his book After Babel. Steiner has never evoked a hit parade yet he has been to my mind a faithful voice for the humanities in a century of barbarism and mockery. It is to him I owe my idea that interpretation involves a kind of translating over or through time, a life-giving performance which overcomes the barriet between source and receptor. He once called the lectures he famously delivered in Geneva for over thirty years as the closest he has come to a kind of secular Pentecost. It is that sense of the partaking of the ineffable and the transcendent which is included in this idea that the reader, any reader, must be, to use the French word, an interprèt.

davem again!
SpM I'm saying, as far as possible we must empty our minds, listen to that author as carefully as possible, take in what he/she has to say to the best of our ability, understand as far as we can theirwhole message, what they want to communicate to us, & then make a judgement on it, 'infect' it with our own baggage, etc. We must begin from a position that the author is smarter than we are & has something important to teach us (& whether you, or Aiwendil or Bethberry realise it, that's the position I adopt in regard to your posts on this thread )

I don't understand why the reader must become a tabula rasa for this to happen. What is there in this confrontation with the Artist which demands that we must prostrate ourselves and empty our minds, to be filled newly with his ideas? This is no model of communication to me but a totalitarian takeover. Why, if you are valuing the human identity in your reading so much, must readers deny themselves and wipe out their identity?

guess who!

But surely the other person's 'voice' is the only thing worth concentrating on in the conversation, as its the only new thing, the only unknown , so the only thing worth paying attention to - all the other things you mention may be present, but they are obstacles, & should be (as far as possible) transcended, & only accepted as impediments to communication.

How will we know the uniqueness of this other voice if we forget the language we know? Rather than being obstacles, those features of language which I named function in a dynamic process to give contrast, identity, chiaroscuro to the new ideas. It is through the difference that I can begin to perceive the new meaning.

davem still

I still hold to the view that all art is a 'conversation' between two individual, 'living' minds - because the art was the product of a living mind when it came into being, & feel that this is an idea Tolkien gave a lot of weight to - both the Lost Road & Notion Club Papers are about this very thing - individuals alive at one point in time communicating with other individuals in 'their' past or future. The idea of a work of art as a a 'static', fixed thing, set down without any intentional meaning (or any intentional meaning which we should take into account) seems strange to me, & I can't understand it, or relate to it in any way. The Art for me is a 'packet' of meaning - deliberate & intentional, an attempt by the artist to communicate across time & space.

Perhaps it all comes down to where we place this sense of the static. You accord to the Artist a complete control of intention and will. I am more hesitant about the nature of artistic creation, othe artist's mind to know completely what goes on in the cauldron of writing. As I quoted elsewhere today, Steiner said "The heart can be manifold, even self-contradictory." For that reason, it is not that I deny intentional meaning, but rather see it as always and ever being limited by the human condition of babel, the confusion of tongues. You seem to want to include the Artist in the Art. He is there, along with many other personas, but to think that he would be knowable or discernable with absolute certainty is I think as difficult as to know intimately the minds of all those around us. When we can so easily misunderstand the living, how much greater is our possible confusion over the dead?

Thus, for me, this place where interpretation occurs, the reader as [i]interprète[i], is the space between the text and the reader--not either one in a hierarchy over the other, but in equilibrium. It is not a static , carved in stone commandement, but the process of making meaning, and it works both ways. It is not an imposition of the reader's solipcism or egotism upon the text (althought it can be that, and when such happens, such interpretations do not stand the test of time), but a dialogue out of which new meaning occurs. And sometimes the new meanings will include the possibility of things which the Artist did not intend or realise but was held there in the text, in plenitude, waiting for fulfillment. And that fulfillment is ever-ongoing, ever-not yet completed.

So, all in all, I think I agree with Aiwendil that we are differing over matters of definition rather than substance.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I don't understand why the reader must become a tabula rasa for this to happen. What is there in this confrontation with the Artist which demands that we must prostrate ourselves and empty our minds, to be filled newly with his ideas? This is no model of communication to me but a totalitarian takeover. Why, if you are valuing the human identity in your reading so much, must readers deny themselves and wipe out their identity?

Only temporarily, until we have taken in & assimilated what the other has to say to us - the more baggage we bring with us, the harder it will be to hear what the other is saying. It is the admission of profound ignorance which enables us to learn anything new. Once we have learned we must analyse & judge. But that analysis & judgement must be made based on what the other has taught us. The more baggage we hold onto the less objective we are.

How will we know the uniqueness of this other voice if we forget the language we know? Rather than being obstacles, those features of language which I named function in a dynamic process to give contrast, identity, chiaroscuro to the new ideas. It is through the difference that I can begin to perceive the new meaning.

Of coourse, but those are the tools by which we perform our analysis, not the means by which we listen.

Perhaps it all comes down to where we place this sense of the static. You accord to the Artist a complete control of intention and will. I am more hesitant about the nature of artistic creation, othe artist's mind to know completely what goes on in the cauldron of writing. As I quoted elsewhere today, Steiner said "The heart can be manifold, even self-contradictory." For that reason, it is not that I deny intentional meaning, but rather see it as always and ever being limited by the human condition of babel, the confusion of tongues. You seem to want to include the Artist in the Art. He is there, along with many other personas, but to think that he would be knowable or discernable with absolute certainty is I think as difficult as to know intimately the minds of all those around us. When we can so easily misunderstand the living, how much greater is our possible confusion over the dead?

This is our struggle, but one worth making, to my mind. The artist exists in the work, & is therefore knowable, & if we don't make the effort to know the artist, how can we ever truly know the art? It is not in the certainty, but in the attempt - we honour the artist & validate his work by that attempt. To give up & dismiss the attempt as impossible is an aknowledgement of failure before we even begin.

Thus, for me, this place where interpretation occurs, the reader as [i]interprète[i], is the space between the text and the reader--not either one in a hierarchy over the other, but in equilibrium. It is not a static , carved in stone commandement, but the process of making meaning, and it works both ways. It is not an imposition of the reader's solipcism or egotism upon the text (althought it can be that, and when such happens, such interpretations do not stand the test of time), but a dialogue out of which new meaning occurs.

But doesn't dialogue require a clear (or as clear as possible) distinction between self & other? If we don't, as far as possible, shed our baggage, then to a great extent our 'dialogue' is only with our own past selves. It is an inner, not an outer dialogue, & we end up only talking to ourselves, & hearing our own voices, & 'learning' only what we already knew.

As to 'making meaning' - this implies that there is no 'objective' meaning, only imposed meaning. Meaning, or Truth, or Reality may simply exist - & it hasn't been disproved yet. It seems to me that its only from the point of view that there is no 'meaning' beyond what we ourselve impose that leads us to deny the 'living' presence of the artist in the art, & leads us to value our familiar baggage over the new & unknown. If we won't put aside (as far as we are able) what we've brought with us, how can we judge anything at all - we can only judge ourselves, what we think - the 'new' merely throws us back on ourselves, into self analysis. The art is glass - but is it a window, or only a mirror?

[Bêthberry]

Once again, I think, you express a dichotomy too starkly and too rigidly. It is neither window nor mirror. We see through a glass, darkly, davem.

This has been for me as for you others, one of my favourite threads even if at times we just went around in circles. Until the next thread ...

[davem]

We see through a glass, darkly, davem.

Oh, but this is it - the whole thing, the unanswerable question:

Do we see in the glass or through it?

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by H-I

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,

This is a good point - something I speculated on in the latest Chapter by Chapter thread, where as Awendilpoints out CT says in HoME 7 that Bilbo's song of Earendil that appears in the published text is not the final version, the one that Tolkien intended to publish, its just that when it came time to send the poem to the publisher the final text was mislaid. So, if in the new 50th anniversary edition due out in November (which is supposed to be a definitive version, overseen by CT, & according to the publishers the LotR asTolkien would have wished it to appear) the final version of the poem replaces the one we've had for 50 years, which would be the 'canonical' version? It will include the facsimilies of the pages of the Book of Mazarbul which Tolkien wished included, but were left out for cost reasons - should they be included, as Tolkien originally wanted them in, or excluded, as Tolkien didn't publish an edition including them in his lifetime. And what about smaller errors in the text - ie, in the scene where Aragorn, Legolas & Gimli are pursuing the Uruk Hai, Aragorn finds Pippin's tracks, & says that they must be Pippin's as he was 'smaller than the other' CT points out that this obviously should have been 'smaller than the others, as the first version is quite insultingly phrased. So, which version should stand?

[Bêthberry]

Oh, this should be fun. More bones with some meat this time to throw into the cauldron of story.

We shall have to look at the structuralists of the last century who amassed their versions of fairy stories and consider their methods in determining the "prime" or "first" version out of which all others derived. Except we would be working forwards.

Or, we could all just dance on the head of a pin. It would be a springle ring dance of course.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I can see the debates now: how many BDers can dance on the head of a pin?

And would they be winged or not, as they did so?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

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'?

Again we come to the "underlying reality" idea, which, I must confess, I still don't really understand.

Is this underlying reality just a convenient shorthand for referring to some specific fictional reality, such as "Middle-earth as Tolkien would have intended it if he had lived long enough to come to a final decision on everything?"

Is it a Platonic reality - the "essence" of Middle-earth - that exists, factually, on a different plane from our reality?

Is it a literally real place?

At different times, it has seemed to me like each of these contradictory definitions was intended.

But, like The Saucepan Man, I must say that I find it odd to maintain both the fundamental importance of the author and the objective existence of Middle-earth. It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. If Middle-earth has an objective, independent existence and Tolkien was merely "discovering" then you cannot see his work as essentially a manifestation of himself, any more than you can see the Pelopponesian war as a mere manifestation of Thucydides.

On the other hand, if art is really to be thought of in the modern way as a manifestation of the artist, then Middle-earth's origin, in fact its entire existence, is in Tolkien himself, as an artist.

Personally, I don't go for either view - Middle-earth as a real place or art as a manifestation of the artist. But my point here is simply that those two views seem to me to be inconsistent.

As for why we are capable of feeling that certain parts of the text are "wrong" - I see no real mystery about this. For a fact about Middle-earth to seem incorrect it only need contradict, explicitly or implicitly, another fact or set of facts about Middle-earth, one that the reader in question takes to be "true". In the case of The Saucepan Man's example about Gollum - here, based on the facts given in LotR, The Saucepan Man concludes that Gollum would have acted in a certain way had he regained the Ring at Mt. Doom. Tolkien's claim contradicts his conclusion, so he considers Tolkien's claim wrong. The contradiction need not be simple or literal.

In the case of Myths Transformed, I, at least, feel that the new cosmology was "wrong" in the sense that it damaged the story. There was no need for, nor in fact possibility of, Tolkien making the Silmarillion scientifically believable; hence the contortions he went through trying to achieve that believability only harmed the story. I don't need to hypothesize that there is a real Middle-earth and that it started out flat in order to come to this conclusion.

[mark12_30]

Again we come to the "underlying reality" idea, which, I must confess, I still don't really understand.

Tolkien also asked a similar question, it seems to me:

Whence came the wish, and whence the power to dream,
or some things fair and others ugly deem?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I must say that I find it odd to maintain both the fundamental importance of the author and the objective existence of Middle-earth. It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. If Middle-earth has an objective, independent existence and Tolkien was merely "discovering" then you cannot see his work as essentially a manifestation of himself, any more than you can see the Pelopponesian war as a mere manifestation of Thucydides.

On the other hand, if art is really to be thought of in the modern way as a manifestation of the artist, then Middle-earth's origin, in fact its entire existence, is in Tolkien himself, as an artist.

Ok, lets take Niggle's tree - did Niggle 'invent' the tree, or did he merely 'communicate' the real tree's image to the world? The Tree may have a real existence but that doesn't invalidate Niggle's role in making the idea of it available to those who couldn't exprience it directly. What Niggle does is not unimportant, his role is in no way negligeable. Niggle is a vital part of the process of comunicating something REAL.

Its not a case of 'having it both ways'. Niggle's painting is of THE Tree, but at a particular moment in time, from a particular angle, but the Tree itself is a living thing. Niggle makes available an image of it. Whether we're speaking of a 'Platonic' reality here is another question, & I don't think it is that, exactly.

I think Tolkien was 'in touch' with something, but what its exact form & nature is, I can't say - its too abstract - Truth, Reality, Meaning. Tolkien gave it a particular form, in order to make it accessible & understandable. I'm not wishing to imply that Middle earth exists exactly as Tolkien described it. But there is 'something' there which is communicated to the reader by the stories. The stories open us up to something which cannot be expressed directly. Like parables they communicate in symbolic form something which can't be communicated any other way -not platitudes about self sacrifice & loss & good vs evil, but some other, underlying Truth about us & our nature.

The form Tolkien gives to those 'Truths' are his own, so he is vital to the comunication process. Those 'Truths' are to my mind essential things. I can't be clearer, but the alternative, that they are simply stories, with no inherent connection to that 'Truth' doesn't work for me, & I can't understand it, because for me, that 'Truth' is a fact. Whatever it is - if I ever experience it directly I am convinced that my response will be like Niggle's on seeing 'his' Tree - it will remind me of nothing so much as Middle earth.

[HerenIstarion]

Is it a literally real place?

Sometimes I think it is both and the third too .

Er... how do you define real?

If the real world is the one communicated to the brain by means of senses, than Tolkien's world is real, just the routes of communication are poorer - merely sight, no other senses taking part in the process. I suppose, if I were from the day of my birth, say, placed into some locked room, and my only means of getting data about outside world were books, on my own, unless told by someone that Tolkien's was a 'fiction', I would believe it to be the history, and maybe reject some genuine and verily real biography as a work entirely made up?

If real is something which conforms to standard of 'reality' inherent to human beings, than something may be more 'real', less 'real' or as 'real' etc. Like PC helmet and gauntlet and costume (I don't know the correct terms, but I believe you know what I mean). If the programme substituting the 'real' world is done prefectly, there is no way of telling you are inside it. But, there is no way of telling that what we experience now is not such a substitue, but 'real' world either. (er, Matrix, of course, may have had something to do with it, but not much - that piece of thinking was done long before Neo. Nevertheless, Matrix may be a goodly illustration to it)

Furthermore, if there were such a 'standard of reality', some built-in ability of recognition of it, than the fact that LoTR 'rings true' for such a great number of people may be an indicator of:

A. The world Tolkien described is the real place (I certainly knew it was real up to my middle teens. Than I grew up, but sometimes I still wonder - which of me - the one dozen years back or the current one, - is right?)
B. His skill of an artist was so great, and subcreation so perfect, that the likeness to real world achieved is astounding

But, even if it were B option we are in for here, the distinction somehow ceases to matter? As in both cases we react to it as to 'real place'? (Unless, of course, some Morpheus (not the old type, the other one, one of leather coat and red pill) comes to drag us out of it)

Besides, the question (with a capital T stuck into it) hovers somewhere beyond sight, yet very much present - um, where exactly the built-in standard of reality came from?

PS

If it does remind you of invisible cats in chairs, please do not hesitate to inform me

[Lalwendë]

I resisted for long enough...

Everyone makes their own 'truths', this is the nature of us as individuals. Why else would there be so much debate over the meaning of things like Tolkien, the Bible, politics, etc. When I say we 'make' our own truths, these are obviously tempered by what we learn along the way, our upbringing, our life experience, what someone else on the 'Downs thinks. Eveyone brings their own truths to Tolkien as readers. For example, I have a big interest in archaeology, history, words, and as such, I pick up on these things in Tolkien. Others may have strong faiths which they bring to the books and so they pick up on these aspects. I even know someone who views the books in a marxist way. All these differing ways of reading don't mean that I can't necessarily appreciate the other person's point of view - I want to know what other people think.

I do think that the writer creates his (or her) 'world', and sets out their vision of 'truth', and that it is there for our taking, but that we also bring ourselves to the work. When a person reads, for example, a political text, they are looking for a meaning, but those parts which resonate with their own experience are the parts which they will take most away from. And, a reader will also pick up on other parts of a text and assimilate this as a new aspect of their 'truth'.

Words are a frightening thing, the writer puts them down intending one thing, but the reader can take away a whole other meaning. As an example, I have written speeches in my line of work, and these take a long time to perfect, as every word must be carefully placed, yet those who hear them do pick up on things all the time which had lain unnoticed. And this is the spoken word, which is tempered by nuance and gesture; the written word has a lot more potential to cause debate. After all, who hasn't written an e-mail that has been taken the wrong way?

We have facts about Middle Earth (or think we do, some are also debatable), but as for meanings of things in the text, we all take away differing ideas - and I'm all for it, or else there would be no 'Downs and no enjoyable debate, which in itself can help us to form new 'truths'.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

What Niggle does is not unimportant, his role is in no way negligeable. Niggle is a vital part of the process of comunicating something REAL.

I agree. And I certainly do think that Tolkien is important as the author, and would be important as a mere historian if in fact Middle-earth literally did exist and he had literally discovered it. My point was that if you see Middle-earth as a real place that exists independent of Tolkien, then you cannot see it as being ultimately subservient to and completely predicated upon Tolkien's will. To put it another way: would you say that the real Middle-earth defines canon or that Tolkien's intent defines canon?

HerenIstarion wrote:

Er... how do you define real?

You might not want to ask me that question. I'm afraid that if I begin to answer it I'll have trouble stopping. If you really wonder what I think about it (or are interested in an extremely long-winded but fascinating debate) you might want to take a look at the later pages of this thread at the Tolkien Forum.

But honestly I don't think it's necessary to get into metaphysics or empiricism. What I mean when I ask whether it's a "real" place is simply whether it is a place in the same way as Madagascar or Canada or Mars. And if not, then what is it?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Just a minor point, for I believe the status of being published is less definitive to the canonicity issue then it may seem.

My point in taking the works published by Tolkien during his lifetime as "pure canon" is that these are the texts that he actively placed in the hands of his readers (whatever he may have intended had the circumstances been different). Once published, they could not be altered, save in minor, primarily typographical and philological, respects which did not actually change the facts presented. With one very important exception, namely the change that Tolkien made to the Riddles in the Dark chapter in The Hobbit to reconcile it with the story that he was writing in LotR. This incident seems to me to be highly significant in two respects. First, it indicates that it was important to Tolkien that his published works were complimentary rather than contradictory. And secondly, it is apparent that he felt it necessary to come up with a reason as to why Bilbo would have related the first (inaccurate) account of how the Ring came into his possession, so as to explain away that account having been given in the original editions of The Hobbit. These two factors suggest to me that Tolkien attached great importance to the publishing of his works, ie the process by which they were placed in the hands of his readers.

So, while the "published" works are, in effect, cast in stone, it is quite possible (and indeed quite likely) that the "facts" which were published following his death (in The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, the HoME series and the Letters) would have taken on a different shape had he published them himself. They therefore potentially, but by no means certainly, incorporate the facts about Middle-earth that he would actively have placed in his readers hands, had he had the opportunity and/or inclination to do so. That is why I do not class these materials as "pure canon" along with the texts published in his lifetime.

But it is not a definition that I would go to the wall for. I am quite content to class the "unpublished" materials as part of the "canon" of Middle-earth. Doing so, however, only makes the answer to the question that I posed clearer. We accept the materials in these "unpublished" texts, to the extent that they are unambiguous and do not conflict with, or can be reconciled with, the "published" texts because they do in fact form part of the fictional account of Middle-earth. It makes it more difficult to reject them if they do not "feel right" to us, but I think that we can still do so where they are the product of speculation on Tolkien's part (such as my Gollum example) or where it is apparent that Tolkien had not reached any final conclusion on them (as I suspect is the case with the cosmology of Middle-earth, although I have not read the relevant texts myself).

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Furthermore, if there were such a 'standard of reality', some built-in ability of recognition of it, than the fact that LoTR 'rings true' for such a great number of people may be an indicator of:

A. The world Tolkien described is the real place (I certainly knew it was real up to my middle teens. Than I grew up, but sometimes I still wonder - which of me - the one dozen years back or the current one, - is right?)
B. His skill of an artist was so great, and subcreation so perfect, that the likeness to real world achieved is astounding

I would, of course, unhesitatingly go for B (with the caveat that I do not see it as astoundingly alike to the real world, but rather astoundingly internally consistent and credible as an alternative world). That, no doubt, is where I was going with my "fictional reality" idea. He was not, of course, such a skilful artist as to be able to produce a world which does not jar in some (and different) respects with some people. Then again, what artist, having produced such a wealth of material, would be? (Don't answer that, Helen .)

We know that (infinate parallel universe theories aside) Middle-earth does not exist because we know that it is a work of fiction. And if we get into questioning whether Middle-earth might exist because we cannot definitively prove that it does not exist, then we start questioning the very basis of reality itself. Who is to say that the world around me is not simply a figment of my imagination, or a dream from which I shall shortly wake up? Well, who indeed. But where does that kind of analysis get us on a practical level? We have to have a basis for determining reality, and the starting point is the evidence provided to us by our senses and by those that we trust. And that evidence tells me in no uncertain terms that LotR et al are works of fiction.

Originally Posted by davem

I think Tolkien was 'in touch' with something, but what its exact form & nature is, I can't say - its too abstract - Truth, Reality, Meaning. Tolkien gave it a particular form, in order to make it accessible & understandable.

This is, of course an entirely different proposition to saying either, on the one hand, that Tolkien's world rings true to us solely because it is incredibly well crafted or, on the other, that it does so because it actually physically exists. I don't doubt that there is something within Tolkien's works that can put some of those who read them in touch with some very basic and fundamental aspects of human nature, but I have probably already made my thoughts on this issue quite clear at various stages during this discussion. So I will take it no further, save to reiterate that, like Aiwendil, I do not believe that a spiritual or metaphysical explanation is necessarily required.

Finally, massive kudos to Lalwendë, who manged to say in one single post precisely what I have been trying to say throughout much of this thread.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Everyone makes their own 'truths', this is the nature of us as individuals.

Does this work? What exactly does 'truth' mean in this context? Opinion? can something be considered 'true' simply because an individual believes it? Doesn't it have to be related to 'Facts', to a concept of what is TRUE. Mathematics doesn't work in that way, why should metaphysics? If we're all simply to pick what we like, believe it, & have it generally accepted as 'true' because of that, where do we end up? Its equivalent to people rejecting the established moral code (Ten commandments, whatever) because they refuse to be bound by traditional morality & feel they should be free to determine what is moral & immoral. What we usually end up with in most cases is people constructing a 'moral' code for themselves which permits them the freedom to do whatever they wish & only forbids them to do things that they wouldn't want to do anyway. A Nazi or a paedophile could construct a 'moral' code of their own which declared that death camps or child abuse is 'good', & if we all construct our own moral codes without reference to anything 'objective' or 'transcendent', & determine our own 'truth' how can we argue with them? If we set out to stop them doing what they have determined is 'good' then our only justification would be that our 'truth' (though no more 'valid' than theirs) is backed by our superior strength - they become in their own minds 'martyrs', being persecuted for their beliefs.

So the question is still whether the Good, the True, the Real exist metaphysically, & provide an objective standard by which to judge the individual's own concepts of good, true, real.

In other words, I don't think we can simply dismiss the question by saying that we all determine 'truth' for ourselves (well, not unless we live in [b]H-I[/i]'s cell, or alone on some island.

If there is some metaphysical Reality, Good, Truth on which we can base our judgements, measure them against, then my feeling is that it cannot be experienced directly, in terms of what we call 'facts ' in this world. It could only be communicated through symbolism, parable, metaphor. Now all those things can be perverted to a greater or lesser degree, but that's not inevitable. My feeling is that we have an innate sense of 'Right', 'Real', 'Good', 'True', & that when we encounter it we respond to it. We know that herding people into gas ovens or abusing children is WRONG, not because we have happened to construct our own 'truth' which confirms that, but because, even though we might not be able to cite a long list of 'logical' facts against it (its not like either of those practices is likely to lead to a threat to the existence of the human race - overpopulation is a major problem & any practices which 'thinned out' our numbers may even benefit our survival - let the weakest go to the wall - if the strong go to the wall in defense of the weak, who'd be left to defend the weak: they wouldn't survive long anyway). But we don't think that way, & not for 'logical' reasons.

So, my position is that the Good, True, Real are 'facts', but not 'facts' that can be tested in a lab. They exist & it is possible to know them & to communicate them to others, to speak of them. Clearly this was Tolkien's original intent, at least, & though he seemed to shy away from saying it in his later life, I don't think he ever lost or rejected that desire. Even in his depiction of orc speech he shied away from putting really foul language into their mouths. He wished to communicate his love of the natural world, his values, to us through his 'fiction' but I don't for a minute believe that he felt he had 'invented' those values, any more than CS Lewis did.

His fiction was an attempt not simply to pass on those values, but to 'awaken' his readers to the direct experience of them. Obviously he struggled over the best way to do that, to give a form to those 'Truths' which would make them as accessible as possible. Mythology for him, a self consistent, 'believable' mythology was the most effective way.

The question is not simply how we read the books, what we bring to them, how we interpret them. Its also whether Tolkien was right, & whether that 'metaphysical' reality is true. Has Tolkien anything to teach us that we don't know, or more importantly, anything that we've forgotten?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Does this work? What exactly does 'truth' mean in this context? Opinion? can something be considered 'true' simply because an individual believes it? .. Its equivalent to people rejecting the established moral code (Ten commandments, whatever) because they refuse to be bound by traditional morality & feel they should be free to determine what is moral & immoral. What we usually end up with in most cases is people constructing a 'moral' code for themselves which permits them the freedom to do whatever they wish & only forbids them to do things that they wouldn't want to do anyway.

But when Lalwendë talks of "personal truth", she is referring to the individual reader's personal interpretation of a fictional text. That is a world away from actions that impacts upon others or upon society as a whole. I see no contradiction between individuals choosing to interpret a fictional text as they see fit while at the same time considering themselves bound by society's moral and legal values in their interactions with that society and others within it. It is only when they come to share their interpretation with others, either through discussion or publication, that such social values will have any bearing upon that interpretation.

So the question is still whether the Good, the True, the Real exist metaphysically, & provide an objective standard by which to judge the individual's own concepts of good, true, real.

I believe that the concepts you identify can be scientifically explained, while acknowledging that their basis in science cannot be definitively proved. I am not definitively rejecting a metaphysical origin, but rather simply making the point that it is not the only possible explanation.

His fiction was an attempt not simply to pass on those values, but to 'awaken' his readers to the direct experience of them.

I do not disagree with that statement. But, as I have said, a metaphysical explanation is not necessarily required for the values which he was seeking to pass on.

[Lalwendë]

My feeling is that we have an innate sense of 'Right', 'Real', 'Good', 'True', & that when we encounter it we respond to it. We know that herding people into gas ovens or abusing children is WRONG, not because we have happened to construct our own 'truth' which confirms that, but because, even though we might not be able to cite a long list of 'logical' facts against it

I was indeed talking of readers' individual responses to texts - it's those darned words again, wreaking havoc...

Our sense of right and wrong is learned. If we did not learn these things then we would exist on the primitive level of survival and instinct alone. As children we are disciplined if we steal, or swear or use bad manners. Witness the unfortunate children who do not have parents or guardians who care to teach them, they do not gain an understanding of what society at large sees as right and wrong, and they act against society. If we did not learn about the horrors of the Nazi regime then we would not know that these things happened and these things are wrong. And the men who were involved in these things, many of them were taught that this was the right thing to do, they learned that they did these things or they would face the cruelty of the regime themselves.

Our 'truths' are learned. The things I have learned and my experiences have resulted in one of my 'truths' being that all religious beliefs are equally valid, and that they are also personal. But many do not think this, even those closest to me, as their 'truth' is different, they have one belief, or no belief and their 'truth' is this.

Recently there was a link to an article which linked elements of LOTR to the Iraq war; many of us found this ludicrous and wondered why this argument had been constructed. But the person who wrote it was applying their 'truth' to the text. While I did not agree with it, I learned something from it (maybe not what the writer intended, though...). And others on the 'Downs also did not agree with it, which showed that there is a consensus about certain 'truths' held by others, that they do not have as much validity as others. This shows that we have our individual 'truth', but that we are also swayed by collective 'truth'.

Edit: And my contribution to the argument, this is part of my own 'truth', and others have different 'truths'. This might seem like philosophical fence-sitting, but this is all part of what I am trying to say.

[HerenIstarion]

With great respect of much common sense and logic displayed in the process, I rather lean to define 'personal truth' of Lalwende's post as 'opinion'.

Remember the murderer and his 'personal truth' of some pages back. I am forced to bring him/her back again, even if it is foricble dragging in of 'real life' into 'bookish' discussion.

For if we stick to the 'personal truth', we loose the right of judgement of any action not by ourselves. If 'personal truth' is what matters, than Nazis (again, mentioned in the previous) were rigth in doing what they've done - their actions were in compliance with their own 'personal truths'. Sauron was right - his 'personal truth' required an order that he only could carry out. Saruman was right, etc, etc. and the whole plot of LoTR degrades down from "Holy War of Good against Evil' down to mere strive for survival, where strongest lives on, taking not fit to the wall. Or, how you judge which 'personal truth' is better? For you will judge it, no doubt about it. Everyone does it on daily basis - Mr. X is better than Mr Y, as the latter beats his wife. But why beating of one;s wife is bad, if 'personal truth' is what matters - surely, Mr Y's 'personal truth' allows for such a behavior?

When one compares something to another thing, he/she inevitably compares both to some standard of 'eternal good', something inherent, built-in. The one which complies more is therefore counted as 'better', any action can be measured against it, and come out more true, less true or as true as some other action.

So, my opinion is as good as yours, and yours as good as mine, if it is only an opinion. Say, I like blue, and you red. Both are equal. But if in pursuit of my warm feeling, I paint your house blue, is it right? My 'personal truth' allowed me to do it. Well, convention tells me that the house belonging to someone else is not mine to pain blue, but if I proclaim that my 'personal truth' does not recognize such a 'bourgeois' and 'Philistine' conventions, and if I insist on my right to paint it blue, I'll end up in jail.

And I would not be able to appeal to justice, for the whole concept of justice is lost if all we have is 'personal truth'. I'd be merely outnumbered by similar 'personal truths' which agreed upon convention that painting other people's houses blue is to be punished by jail sentence.

[Lalwendë]

This thread is sucking me into the quicksand like so many others have been drawn in before me ...

Yes, when I say 'truths' I am talking about our opinions and beliefs (whether religious, political, philosophical) which we bring to the text. I see I should be distinguishing between our moral 'truths' and our opinion 'truths'. Words again...

I still think that as humans we must be taught our way in the world. This does not mean that if someone goes against society that they can get away with any heinous crime just by claiming that 'they did not know any better'. We must put these things into context and while the person is appropriately punished if necessary, we must also ensure that they learn.

The difficult thing is that our morals and our opinions can be very indistinct at times, and getting back on topic and tying this in with Tolkien, I can see that he recognised this. The example I often draw upon is the character of Gollum - I could discuss him for a long time and still come to no conclusion about whether he was good or bad.

[davem]

It is hard to be sure of anything among so many marvels. The world is all grown strange. elf & Dwarf in company walk in our daily fields; & folk speak with the Lady of the Wood & yet live, & th esword comes back to war that was broken in the long ages ere the father's of our fathers rode into the Mark! How shall a man judge what to do in such times?'

'As he ever has judged.' said Aragorn. 'Good & ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among elves & Dwarves & another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'

'As much in the Golden Wood as in his own house'. As much in fiction as in 'real' life. Fiction doesn't have different rules, & 'personal truth' is not different in fiction. An immoral act is an immoral act, because our standards of judgement are (or should be) constant.

If I judge the events of 9/11, or the recent horrors in the school at Beslan, to be 'Wrong' & the terrorists who commited them judge them to be 'Right', is that really just down to the way I've been brought up? And is my judgement no more 'True' than Osama bin Laden's? Both equally valid? Yet if they aren't equally valid, then on what can I base my claim that my judgement is better, if not to some objective standard?

This kind of moral equivalence of all views is what produces the Saruman's - why shouldn't one see Sauron's point, surely he is doing what he believs is 'right'? In fact, maybe he is right - its all down to point of view after all, & if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'.

I can't understand this approach of judging fiction (the 'Golden Wood') differently from fact ('one's own house'). This approach - our morality is simply what we've been taught is simply another form of denying the artist has anything to teach us, & that all we find in a work of art is what we bring to it, everything is subjective. But that's the way the Ring corrupts, it convinces you that everything is relative, & your own 'good' is as valid as any other, because all there is is 'survival of the fittest' - ie of the 'fittest' 'good'. But that's where the 'wraithing process' begins, because if there's no objective standard by which to judge (''As heever has judged.') then where's the hope?

Tolkien is stating his position very clearly in this scene, & saying that it is based on an 'objective' standard, & if its 'objective' then (for Tolkien at least) it applies in every 'world'.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

The example I often draw upon is the character of Gollum - I could discuss him for a long time and still come to no conclusion about whether he was good or bad.

Its not a question for me of whether Gollum was 'good' or 'bad' he did some good things & some bad things - ie he made moral choices, & immoral choices at different times, & we can all distinguish which was which, because we judge him not by his moral code, or our own, but by an objective standard, as Aragorn points out.

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem, I think you are misunderstanding what Lalwendë and I are saying. Neither of us is saying that individuals view fiction and reality from two different moral perspectives. Of course, peoples’ morals remain the same whether they are reading a novel or the newspaper.

But Lalwendë's first post on this point (#470) was not discussing morality at all. Rather, it was simply pointing out that different individuals have different perspectives, beliefs and experiences and will therefore react differently to a text and take slightly different things from it. Surely there is nothing controversial in that. I think that the use of the word “individual truth” may have led to this confusion, but Lalwendë has made it clear that, by this, she indeed meant “individual opinion”.

So, to start talking about the road that Saruman went down on top of that seems slightly odd to me. But, since you and HerenIstarian have raised the issue of morality in the context of what she said …

First, I should reiterate that I believe that there is such a thing as a moral consensus (or standard, if you prefer), or at least a consensus on what comprise basic moral values. (There are, to my mind grey, areas, such as the question of capital punishment which I raised earlier on this thread, but lets stick with the basics.) Although I believe that these basic moral values do not necessarily require a metaphysical explanation, that matters not for the purposes of what I say below.

Now, there are undeniably people who will read a piece of fiction such as LotR from a moral standpoint which differs from the consensus (we discussed some of them earlier – the white supremacists). The point that I am trying to make is that, while their moral standpoint will be “right” to them as individuals, it will be “wrong” as far as the moral consensus is concerned. So, they will have to face the consequences (social, legal etc) if they seek to interact with others in society on the basis of their individual moral standpoint.

To use an extreme example, if someone was to read LotR and decide that it justified unprovoked attacks on Arabic people simply because the human allies of Sauron came from the east of Middle-earth, that would be unacceptable from the point of view of the moral consensus.

But, although we can seek to persuade, we cannot (unless we bring in the thought police) force those whose moral outlook differs from the “standard” to conform to it. Now, if Tolkien was, through LotR, seeking to persuade people towards the moral standard, all well and good. I salute him. But there will always be those (including amongst those who enjoy the book) who can, or will, not be persuaded.

[davem]

Ok, I accept that in making my points I have presented other's points in too extreme a way, but I'm not sure I can go along with all the distinctions you make. When Tolkien has Aragorn say:

'Good & ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among elves & Dwarves & another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'

He is surely stating that in his view morality is not subjective - he says a man must discern the diference between good & ill, rather than choose for himself. The implication is that the Good exists objectively, & is not something we must decide on for ourselves. This seems to imply that we don't have freedom to decide what is good, only to discern it & live up to it. So, while we may have 'different perspectives, beliefs and experiences ' we are not free to use them as an excuse to decide what constitutes the Good.

So how much weight should we give to our own beliefs? In Tolkien's view it seems that even our personal perspectives & beliefs can be 'wrong', out of synch with the Good, & if so they have to be changed. This was my point about, as far as possible, putting aside the baggage we bring with us & listening to what the artist is saying, in order to be able to discern the Truth which is 'out there'. In other words, we may have 'different perspectives, beliefs and experiences' but as Aragorn tells Eomer, that's no excuse for not acknowleging the 'facts' & doing the right thing.

So from Tolkien's perspective its not correct to say:

if someone was to read LotR and decide that it justified unprovoked attacks on Arabic people simply because the human allies of Sauron came from the east of Middle-earth, that would be unacceptable from the point of view of the moral consensus.

because it wouldn't simply be unacceptable from the point of view of the moral consensus, it would be wrong from the point of view of the Good, whatever the moral consensus happened to be, because the 'moral consensus' only has value to the extent to which it corresponds to the Good.