‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Fordim is playing cat and mouse now

meow

davem has already introduced into this discussion a moment from LotR that I think is useful in thinking through the issues currently at play. When Aragorn says to Éomer:

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

He does not just leave it there for Éomer to work through on his own; instead, Aragorn makes it quite clear that to “discern them” is, in this world, very easy:

Aragorn threw back his cloak. The elven-sheath glittered as he grasped it, and the bright blade of Andúril shone like a sudden flame and he swept it out. ‘Elendil!’ he cried. ‘I am Aragorn son of Arathorn, and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil’s son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!’

In this moment we and Éomer are not being presented with a moral quandary in which he or we must or can decide how to determine moral parameters (i.e. how to differentiate between right and wrong): what Éomer is to choose between, quite explicitly, is Aragorn or not-Aragorn: “Will you aid me or thwart me?”

In this way, the question of morality is, in the context of Middle-Earth, not really a question at all – or, rather, it is a question to which the reader can respond in one of two ways: do we go along with the author in his creation of a moral system in this subcreated world, or do we not go along with him. At risk of looking like an absolutist I genuinely believe that these are really the only two options. The choice that Aragorn presents to Éomer is a stark and obvious one: me or Sauron; right or wrong; good or evil. The story presents up with the same stark choice: accept M-E morality or don’t. In this case, I do not see much room for negotiation or give and take between text and reader.

At the same time, I am placed in a quandary insofar as I do not adhere to the moral vision of LotR – I am not, quite simply, a believer. I think the disturbing power that LotR has is that it makes me so want to be a believer by embodying the moral choice in the form of Aragorn. I want very badly to follow a man like him; were he to appear before me in reality I would follow him to the ends of the Earth – but he never will, so I am left in the primary world of greys and shadows, trying to make my way for myself. LotR simplifies morality in a way that’s nice to imagine, but that in no way reflects how things really are.

[davem]

Forced to be quicker than I'd like (waits for cheers & sighs of relief to die away.......)

Originally Posted by Fordim

I am left in the primary world of greys and shadows, trying to make my way for myself. LotR simplifies morality in a way that’s nice to imagine, but that in no way reflects how things really are.

But does it not indicate how things could be? Or at the very least how, deep down we wish they were & specifically how they ought to be? But where does this desire originate? Why do we feel that way when we read LotR, & encounter Aragorn? Does it come from our past experiences? Well, not in my case.

Some 'voice' is speaking to us, & telling us things we need to hear, telling us what's wrong with ourselves & our world, & giving us a glimpse of 'Arda Unmarred'.

And I don't think that voice is Tolkien's, I think he's just passing on the words.

[Lalwendë]

Some 'voice' is speaking to us, & telling us things we need to hear, telling us what's wrong with ourselves & our world, & giving us a glimpse of 'Arda Unmarred'.

I like this, it seems to sum up something intangible about Tolkien's world. Do we cling to his work in a troubled world? Does it give us something solid in our world of ifs and maybes? Yet to me there are still some areas which concern me, although these shift over time.

I understand and work with the morality of ME when I am reading the books; it is a created world, and as such you do need to allow yourself to be immersed in the cultural and spiritual concepts of that world. Much the same thing happens if I read about different periods in history - I must come to an understanding of the mindset of the time period to fully understand why certain events happened in the way they did. But my own concept of life cannot be wholly suspended. If I read about the Peterloo massacre, then I must know of the fears of the ruling class in order to discover why they acted as they did, yet I cannot fully suspend my modern day sensibilities and I feel righteous anger towards these people.

As I read Tolkien's work I understand his concepts of morality,in particular as I have grown older I take on board, at a deep level, the concept of yearning for a straight path to enlightenment, and yet other things slowly grow to trouble me.

This is because I am a 'mere' reader. Tolkien's concept is his vision, and while I am utterly trapped within his world, and have been for most of my life, there's a small metaphorical hole in the ozone layer of that world, which shifts about. I've probably not expressed this quite as I'd like, but I feel that it is my own personal view of the 'real' world which I cannot help but stop intruding.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Fordim

The choice that Aragorn presents to Éomer is a stark and obvious one: me or Sauron; right or wrong; good or evil. The story presents up with the same stark choice: accept M-E morality or don’t

Um, is it that easy? Is it not about trust rather? The reader knows who is Aragorn, Eomer does not - just a ragged cloak, and bright mail underneath. It rather comes down to 'trust/do not trust' at that moment, than to 'choose Aragorn/Sauron' dichotomy. It is always estel with Aragorn, but, so he is the King who opened the 'gate of night' and 'is victorious' and whose victory those of the 'guard [that] was not vain' should praise in psalm.

Beauty and the Beast, remember why Beast is beast - cruelty, yes, pride yes, but lack of trust too. I refer to Walt Disney cartoon, yes, the original is a bit different.

I believe we all met such a choice of 'trust/distrust' in real life, the bright mail underneath omitted. But than, it is Tolkien to let us see some ends, for Eomer on the 'green grass' there is no previously provided data. Bright mail, so what? One can be bought, stolen, faked, surely?

PS

Bb, I trust I never used word 'objective' in this here thread

Nice definitions, by the way, my desire is satisfied. I believe you pinned down the salt of our debate - do we seek a destination or just having a pleasant walk? 'Canonicity' in this light will be 'do we need a guide or can manage it ourselves?' Excellent, my compliments

[HerenIstarion]

Um, moral consensus... let us count - Sauron and his allies outnumbered people of the West at least ten to one. So, the moral consensus was against Aragorn & Co. and Gandalf must have been morally pervert...

But that is just a prank of mine. I understand your position SpM, when overheated on the issue I was correctly checked back by Aiwendil (the Cold Shower ) - up there, on page 11.

It seems to bounce back on Canonicity issue with regards to the quote provided by davem (I remember using it in similar situation back on page 6 or 7, i.e. - we are discussing in circles, it seems) - i.e. the author believed in the standard which was set, no deviations. Following Aiwendil the reader should believe the standard too only whilst suspending his disbelief - reading the book - as it is a given fact for ME only - the Good is one for everyone and everywhere. There is no given 'fact' of similar nature for our world (unless the circumstantial evidence of existence of such concepts as Good and Evil does not convince you). I wish we could extrapolate it outta da text, but, - this is 'real' world, where sheer number defines the truth. Can't beat them, but won't join them either.

But I have stumbled upon an idea here - the fancy is upon me that I finally know why LoTR is so popular. Of course, there is a spell, there is a plot, and there is a language, but the moral Fact is what draws many of us in - it is the world where Good is, where Truth is, and the task is only to discern them, not to find them in the first place, as is the case in ours. That is, for most of us. For, unfortunately or fortunately, I maintain that every man, in his heart of hearts, knows what is Good, with or without upbringing. We just have wagonload of good excuses not to see it. It does not help our yearning for standard Truth, though, so we find our solace in ME, where it is at the same time harder and yet easier to be a 'good guy'.

Opinions re: of course, we have different opinions - um, I reckon this thread would not reach its length without such a multitude of opinion

cheers

[HerenIstarion]

davem 103
The Saucepan Man 70
mark12_30 54
Bêthberry 48
Fordim Hedgethistle 43
Aiwendil 38
HerenIstarion 38
Child of the 7th Age 18
Mister Underhill 14
Lord of Angmar 11
bilbo_baggins 10
Lyta_Underhill 8
Maédhros 6
drigel 6
Novnarwen 6
Lalwendë 6
Findegil 4
doug*platypus 3
THE Ka 3
eLRic 3
Sharkû 2
Son of Númenor 2
The Squatter of Amon Rûdh 1
Estelyn Telcontar 1
piosenniel 1
Evisse the Blue 1
InklingElf 1
Snowdog 1
Imladris 1
Saraphim 1
symestreem 1
tar-ancalime 1

These are statistics

And here is the summation:

Originally Posted by Squatter

Perhaps what is required in the issue of 'canonicity' is the exercise of our own judgement and common sense. No quotation from Tolkien will ever supply that, and nor will our freedom of interpretation. Somewhere between the two is a medium in which both are important, which is pleasingly similar to the position of the text. It stands poised between the author and the reader, so clearly something is required from both in order for the circuit to be completed. I simply do not understand why one should have to be the master, as though one were to ask whether the ability to speak or the ability to understand were more important in conversation

Should we allow more changes in the statistics as given above (with regards to the titular 'Book or the Reader' issue?

[mark12_30]

Before the thread is closed and ensconced in Rath Dinen, I shall slip in (at least) one more post. Squatter and Mister Underhill have clarified a few things for me, and here be the results.

On the writer of the story:

Tolkien Letter 192
"The writer of the story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said). See Vol. I p. 65.

(The debate whether that particular 'Writer' is 'dead' is an entirely different one, but one can easily surmise Tolkien's position in said debate.)

I believe the first quote above sheds light on the following statements:

Tolkien Letter 92
What happens to the Ents I don’t yet know. It will probably work out very differently from this plan when it really gets written, as the thing seems to write itself once I get going, as if the truth comes out then, only imperfectly glimpsed in the preliminary sketch…

What is this truth that Tolkien is expecting? Is it simply the story line, or does it have other aspects?

Tolkien Letter 208
As for 'message': I have none really, if by that is meant the conscious purpose in writing The Lord Of The Rings, of preaching, or of delivering myself of a vision of truth specially revealed to me! I was primarily writing an exciting story in an atmosphere and background such as I find personally attractive. But in such a process inevitably one's own taste, ideas, and beliefs get taken up.

TO me, this letter smacks of excess modesty-- or perhaps it is better described as humility, intentionally stepping back and releasing control in order to allow for something else:

Tolkien Letter 89
…’eucatastrophe’: the sudden happy turn in a story which pierces you with a joy that brings tears (which I argued it is the hightest function of fairy-stories to produce.) And I was there let to the view that it produces its peculiar effect because it is a sudden glimpse of Truth*…

*(Tolkien’s capitalization, not mine.)

Tolkien describes this process as a triple interaction: the human writer writes the story; the reader reads the story, and perceives through the story a glimpse of the Truth (of which Truth Tolkien does not claim himself to be the author.) Therefore in this process there are three parties involved, not two.

He gives further clarification here in letter 328. The reader, the writer, and the source of illumination are related thus:

Tolkien Letter 328
You speak of ‘a sanity and sanctity’ in The L.R. ‘which is a power in itself’. I was deeply moved. Nothing of the kind has been said to me before. But by a strange chance, just as I was beginning this letter, I had one from a man, who classified himself as ‘an unbeliever, or at best a man of belatedly and dimly dawning religious feeling… but you, ‘ he said, ‘create a world in which some sort of faith seems to be everywhere without a visible source, like light from an invisible lamp.’ I can only answer: ‘Of his own sanity no man can securely judge. If sanctity inhabits his work or as a pervading light illumines it then it does not come from him but through him. And neither of you would perceive it in these terms unless it was with you also. Otherwise you would see and feel nothing, or (if some other spirit was present) you would be filled with contempt, nausea, hatred. “Leaves out of the elf-country, gah!” “Lembas—dust and ashes, we don’t eat that.”

Of course the L.R. does not belong to me. It has been brought forth and now must go its appointed way in the world, though naturally I take a deep interest in its fortunes, as a parent would of a child.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Should we allow more changes in the statistics as given above (with regards to the titular 'Book or the Reader' issue?

Ah, but HI, the fact that the statement is one with which you agree does not mean that it provides the answer for all of us.

I will continue to influence the statistics, if I may:

Originally Posted by Squatter

It stands poised between the author and the reader, so clearly something is required from both in order for the circuit to be completed. I simply do not understand why one should have to be the master, as though one were to ask whether the ability to speak or the ability to understand were more important in conversation.

I simply do not get this analogy between the act of reading and a conversation. Reading is most unlike a conversation, because the reader is not free to ask the author whatever questions may come to mind and the development (as opposed to meaning) of the story is not dependent upon the reader's responses. The reader can only rely on that which the author has supplied.

Of course the act of reading requires input from both the author and the reader. But they both play very different roles (unlike participants in a conversation). The author provides the material for the reader to inrepret, and the reader has no influence on that material, but it is the reader who interprets. And, to my mind, it is in the act of interpretation that meaning may be found. Nine times out of ten, the reader's interpretation will accord with authorial intention (that's where common sense and judgment play their role), but it will not always be so. And, in some cases, the reader's interpretation may well be completely at odds with the author's intention, but nevertheless hold meaning for that reader.

I wouldn't say that neither reader nor author are the master, but rather that both are masters in different ways. The author has complete control over the material supplied to the reader. But the reader has complete control over how he or she interprets that material and therefore, ultimately, what the story means to him or her.

Originally Posted by mark12_30

The debate whether that particular 'Writer' is 'dead' is an entirely different one, but one can easily surmise Tolkien's position in said debate.

I disagree. The debate whether the 'Writer' is dead (or indeed ever existed) is very relevant to your proposition that there are three parties involved in the act of reading, rather than two. After all, if the 'Writer' does not exist as far a particular reader is concerned, then the 'Writer' will have no place in that reader's interpretation (save to the extent that reader acknowledges the author's belief in said 'Writer').

[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

I wouldn't say that neither reader nor author are the master, but rather that both are masters in different ways. The author has complete control over the material supplied to the reader. But the reader has complete control over how he or she interprets that material and therefore, ultimately, what the story means to him or her.

He or she does, but if he or she knows what the author intended & chooses to ignore that in favour of the meaning they find there they are stepping out of the secondary world created by the author & into their own. In other words they are ignoring what the author is saying.

This is fine - as long as they don't go on from there & claim that the meaning they find in the text is the author's. If that reader says 'I know what the author meant but I don't like it & choose the text to mean something else.' I have no problem as such - I just don't think their choice is that relevant in a discussion of the text which seeks to understand what the author intended. or in any attempt to understand what the story means.

The author provides the material for the reader to inrepret, and the reader has no influence on that material, but it is the reader who interprets.

This may not be the author's intention at all, as it assumes that the author is offering a random collection of statements for the reader to give meaning to. It may well be that in the author's mind he has already done the interpreting himself & is atually passing on, as best he can, that interpretation. In that case, if the reader goes on to interpret the text he is actually interpreting an interpretation, and placing himself at a further remove from the 'facts'. In other words, the author is not simply offering the reader a collection of words & images to do with as he will, but is showing what he has done with those words & images he himself has 'recieved'.

The reader must, in the first instance, attempt to experience the story as it is & be affected by it in as pure a form as possible, then, if he chooses, make a jugdement on it, interpret it, in the context of his own experience - though this experience may be deeply affected by what he has just read.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I disagree. The debate whether the 'Writer' is dead (or indeed ever existed) is very relevant to your proposition that there are three parties involved in the act of reading, rather than two. After all, if the 'Writer' does not exist as far a particular reader is concerned, then the 'Writer' will have no place in that reader's interpretation (save to the extent that reader acknowledges the author's belief in said 'Writer').

It may be so; see Letter 328.

[Lalwendë]

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.

davem - I do not say that all we take from a text is that which we (consciously or not) seek to find within it:

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'.

This I view as part of the process of reading and engaging in culture in general. We view the text with our own, individual eyes and minds, and we recognise aspects which do resonate within our own experience. But we also learn new things, new 'truths'. I wouldn't try to deny this! But exactly what these truths are that we are learning from any one text, they could well be different from what the next person is picking up on.

I for one, should hate to think that there is a right and a wrong way to understand a text, as this would reduce the pleasure in reading and re-reading, throughout the many and various stages in my life; each time I go back to reading LOTR I have been through new experiences and the text resonates in many different ways each time. Perhaps I respond to my reading on a deep emotional level to some degree, but to do otherwise would seem clinical to me.

I have one example here of how my own 'truth' changed and how it affected my reading of LOTR. Before I suffered a massive accident I had always read Frodo's behaviour as being entirely attributable to the power of the ring and thought at no deeper level about this matter; now with my new experience, I can see Frodo's actions and reactions in the light of my own experience, and I see my suffering reflected in his. Others would not accept this at all, but this is not wrong of them.

And another thing. This is a good discussion, and I am learning a lot from it, but there are people who would think it was morally wrong to discuss the nature of morality at all.

[HerenIstarion]

Lalwendë, you are stuck now just like to us, your doom hence will be to come back to this thread and haunt it, forewer!

PS

mwa-ha-ha-ha!!!!!

PPS

We need some discussion of definitions again, I believe. Aiwendil, I haven't read the whole 9 pages of the link you provided me with yet (lack of time), but the 'meaning of meaning' discussion on the last page was enlightening, thank you

[Aiwendil]

HerenIstarion wrote:

We need some discussion of definitions again, I believe.

Ah! There's my signal (just as Tom Bombadil can be summoned by song, I will inevitably appear in the rare case that someone actually asks for a discussion of definitions).

I must say that I'm somewhat confused by the turn the thread has taken. One moment the discussion concerns "canonicity", the question of the author's importance, and the nature of imaginary worlds. Then suddenly I find myself reading a tirade against moral relativism and even a passing discussion of metaphysics.

I think that the biggest mistake that people tend to make in philosophical-type discussions is the transmutation of an argument on one level into an argument on another. You see this kind of thing all of the time in discussions of free-will, for example - someone will make a psychological or sociological argument as if it can prove a metaphysical point.

I think that something like that is happening here, or trying to happen. It's tempting to resort to real-world moral philosophy in arguing a point about a fictional world. But if you want to have a meaningful discussion regarding that fictional world, you have to suspend your moral disbelief, as it were, and accept that world's morality. I, for example, don't subscribe to the notion in real life that an objective moral code has its source in God. However, in a discussion of Tolkien's work I will unhesitatingly argue that Eru is the ultimate source of good.

So with respect to the validity of different interpretations of morality in Middle-earth, real moral philosphy ought to be completely superceded by Middle-earth's own moral philsophy. Of course it's still quite possible for there to be disagreements about what that moral philosophy is, exactly - but the presumption must always be that, to the extent to which there is a clear moral philosophy outlined in the texts, it must be taken as correct.

Davem is right - there is no question that in Tolkien's universe, morality is objective. But I don't see that anyone has argued otherwise.

I feel like I still haven't grasped how exactly the discussion made this, I would say, false turn. But we ought to be careful to have at least some idea what we are arguing about and then to rely on arguments that do in fact have point with respect the topic.

I understand even less how metaphysics comes into it.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Um, moral consensus... let us count - Sauron and his allies outnumbered people of the West at least ten to one. So, the moral consensus was against Aragorn & Co. and Gandalf must have been morally pervert...

Originally Posted by davem

He is surely stating that in his view morality is not subjective

I am most definately not saying that morality is subjective or that it is dependent upon weight of numbers (although there are those who would make such arguments). There are many examples, past and present, that convince me that this cannot be the case. Perhaps the word "consensus" is wrong, so let's go for "objective moral standards".

Originally Posted by davem

... the 'moral consensus' only has value to the extent to which it corresponds to the Good.

Again, a misunderstanding arising from my use of "consensus". My point is that "objective moral standards" do correspond to the concept of "good", whether you believe their source to be some higher Authority or you believe that they developed that way because what's "good" is good for the continuation of society and therefore the human race as a whole. In telling a tale of good and evil, Tolkien was reflecting these objective moral standards. I don't think we disagree on this, although we might disagree on the origins of morality.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

... the moral Fact is what draws many of us in - it is the world where Good is, where Truth is, and the task is only to discern them, not to find them in the first place, as is the case in ours. That is, for most of us. For, unfortunately or fortunately, I maintain that every man, in his heart of hearts, knows what is Good, with or without upbringing. We just have wagonload of good excuses not to see it.

Well, to an extent (and disregarding those bothersome capitals ), I agree with you. But I don't think it's that simple. As I have said, there are, in real life, massive grey areas on the borders of "morality". Whereas, its Boromirs and Gollum/Smeagols notwithstanding, LotR is essentially a very "black and white" tale. Subject to limited exceptions, it is easy to tell who is good and who is evil, and easy to see why they are so. It's not quite so easy in real life.

Is the terrorist who wins independence for his country and becomes a great statesman good or evil? There are, in our recent history, examples of such people who are hailed as great heroes. Were the sailors, adrift at sea in a lifeboat, who drew straws and murdered and ate their comrade so that not all of them would die, good or evil? Moral conundrums abound in real life, but are rare, it seems to me, in LotR. What does it, or any of Tolkien's other works, have to tell us in this regard?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I for one, should hate to think that there is a right and a wrong way to understand a text

Well, courtesy of those repugnant white supremacists, I have to acknowledge that there are "wrong" ways to read LotR. But I agree that there is no one "right" way. (I seem to recall having a conversation with Mister Underhill on this many pages ago ...).

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

we are discussing in circles, it seems

Undoubtedly, but not ever-decreasing ones, it would appear.

Edit after cross-posting with Aiwendil:

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I must say that I'm somewhat confused by the turn the thread has taken. One moment the discussion concerns "canonicity", the question of the author's importance, and the nature of imaginary worlds. Then suddenly I find myself reading a tirade against moral relativism and even a passing discussion of metaphysics.

As I understand it, this conversation arose around the proposition that Tolkien's works in general, and LotR in particular, reflect moral standards in our world and that we can learn from it in this regard. I don't necessarily disagree with that as a general proposition, although I see the sources of morality in Middle-earth and our world as different (as, like you, I accept that concepts of good and morality in Middle-earth derive from Eru).

[davem]

But Tolkien didn't draw a distinction between the moral value system of Middle earth & the moral value system of this world. The worlds differed in their inhabitants, geography, etc, but not in their underlying moral value system. There are 'grey areas' in both worlds, but I think this is not because the Good, the True & the Real are different in the two worlds, but because circumstances dictate how closely we can adhere to them.

Middle earth & this world are (in Tolkien's eyes) fallen worlds, & we are fallen inhabitants of those worlds. Therefore we cannot live up to the required standards, but we have to try to the best of our ability. Boromir fails to live up to that required standard, & there are understandable reasons - his background, his experiences, his beliefs - but Tolkien is clear in his attitude to Boromir - Boromir does wrong when he tries to take the Ring, whatever Boromir himself might believe at the time. Its not that 'In Tolkien's universe morality is objective' as Aiwendil puts it, its that from Tolkien's pov morality is objective, in a man's house or in the Golden Wood. The distinction simply doesn't stand for Tolkien. Its like claiming that Jesus sets out one moral value system in his parables, but that the moral value system in this world is different. Tolkien's original intent was to awaken people to an objective moral value system through his stories, by presenting that objective standard to us through an invented mythology.

This is why I don't see Aiwendil's point:

I must say that I'm somewhat confused by the turn the thread has taken. One moment the discussion concerns "canonicity", the question of the author's importance, and the nature of imaginary worlds. Then suddenly I find myself reading a tirade against moral relativism and even a passing discussion of metaphysics

because for me they're two aspects of the same thing. The issue is about what the author is doing & how successfully he does it. Of course, if you believe it is 'art for art's sake' then the two things are totally seperate, if you believe the art had a moral purpose then its different aspects of the same thing, like discussing Shakespeare's intent in Hamlet, his philosophical value system, & asking how well he communicated it to his audience via his 'secondary world' of Elsinore. If Elsinore & its inhabitants had not been believable his message would not have communicated itself as effectively as it did. Or if Elsinore had been believeable as a secondary world, but the 'metaphysics' unconvincing the play would not speak to us. I don't see the seperation. The message must be convincing, & so must the means of comunication. Truth communicated through Art. The Truth must be true & the Art must be artistic or no-one will care, it will not speak to anyone.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

I for one, should hate to think that there is a right and a wrong way to understand a text, as this would reduce the pleasure in reading and re-reading, throughout the many and various stages in my life; each time I go back to reading LOTR I have been through new experiences and the text resonates in many different ways each time. Perhaps I respond to my reading on a deep emotional level to some degree, but to do otherwise would seem clinical to me.

This isn't what I'm saying - my own re-readings of the text bring me new insights & understandings - I learn something new each time, because I'm more open to the truth the older I get & the more experiences I have, but the Truth is constant, & its about coming closer to it.

[Lalwendë]

One moment the discussion concerns "canonicity", the question of the author's importance, and the nature of imaginary worlds. Then suddenly I find myself reading a tirade against moral relativism and even a passing discussion of metaphysics.

Well, one of the things I was hoping to get at from my first post on the thread was that in my opinion, there is a lot of weight in the theory that the reader constructs meanings - but I think everyone has picked up on the more philosophical side (and there's nothing wrong with that, it's an interesting discussion).

Anyway...if you take on board that each reader does have differing opinions and experiences then it is not such a big step to realising that there is potential for each reader to construct 'truths' of their own. Whether these truths are valid, correct, or moral, then this is up to that reader to convince us (although sometimes we'd rather they didn't bother). In the case of people who read racist meanings into a text such as LOTR, then it is nigh on impossible that they will convince anyone. That SPM mentions this hints to me that someone indeed has constructed this meaning. I don't want to be convinced of such people's arguments, so there's little chance of me ever wasting time in reading such a theory apart from to argue why I think they are wrong, but I may consider reading such ideas if I happened upon them, in much the same way that I like to read the letters page in The Daily Mail as they are invariably diametrically opposed to everything I believe in. I hope this makes sense?

About there being a concrete 'truth' within Tolkien's work - yes, I agree that this must be the case, as it is a work of art. The 'real' world is infinitely more chaotic and random so there is (in my opinion) little chance of finding truth within it - you are lucky if you do find truth within it. But, while Tolkien had his 'truth' which is there to be found within his work, by the very nature of words and semantics, readers will inevitably find other 'truths' of their own. Which critic was it who proposed the theory that the reader was important in constructing meaning? I cannot remember, I have blotted it from my mind since graduating.

***

Yes, it appears I am now doomed as I have been drawn into the evil 'C' thread. It is the Corryvreckan of the 'Downs.

It reminds me of one of those discussions you have where everyone's having a drink and in what seems like no time at all, you find yourself sitting in a smoky room at 6am with eyes like pinholes, having set the world to rights....It's been a long time...