‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

Excellent posts, davem and H-I. What you both seem to be saying is that there is some shared but forgotten "truth" (for want of a better word) which Tolkien's works are not describing, but which they allow us to tap into or "almost remember" as davem puts it.

Davem, you provide a wonderful illustration of this concept of "enchantment". When I try to analyse the enchantment which I experienced when I first read LotR, the best that I can come up with is an image of a dark, moonlit landscape with a road winding through forested hills towards mountains in the distance, a landscape which has a "magical" feel to it. But is this landscape that of Middle-earth or is it something more fundamental? Is it in fact a vision of this half-remembered "truth"? I have always thought the former (since the image is clearly inspired by descriptions given in the Hobbit and LotR), but this discussion makes me question whether it may be the latter.

So what is this "truth" that Tolkien's works put us in touch with? It would not seem to be the "truth" of Middle-earth, whether as perceived by the individual, as intended by Tolkien, or a combination of the two (which this thread started out trying to understand). Middle-earth, it seems, is the medium by which we are put in touch with it (like H-I's painting puts us in touch with the truth of the actual person depicted in it). Is it "Faerie", whatever that may be? Or is it some collective "state of awareness" which manifests itself in myths, folklore and the tales told by those such as Tolkien, and perhaps in our dreams also? This latter concept would indeed seem to be related to Jungian concepts of archetypes and collective subconscious. Then again, should we even be trying to "fully remember" this "truth" by trying to define it, or does that in itself risk destroying the enchantment?

Finally, if Tolkien's works provide us with a window (albeit perhaps an imperfect one) on this "other world", why is it that these works simply do not resonate with some people? Is it because Tolkien's works only provide this medium for certain people (which would seem to weigh against their analysis by reference to Jung's ideas)? And, if so, are there perhaps alternative means by which such people might better be connected with this "perilous realm"?

[davem]

SmP

I suppose it depends what we understand 'Faerie' to be. Our ancstors really believed in the 'other world'. To them, fairies were real beings, as were dwarves, goblins, giants, dragons, etc. Even into the 20th century people in rural areas believed in the existence of fairies. There are numerous accounts from Ireland, by Yeats & Lady Gregory, from Scotland, Wales & Brittany (for example in WY Evans-Wentz's book 'The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries). There is also a very interesting book by a seventeenth century Scottish clergyman, Robert Kirk, called 'The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns & Fairies' which deals with the Highland Seers he dealt encountered & their ability, through the 'second sight' to see fairies (inhabitants of this 'other world', & interact with them. I've also come across accounts from Iceland of people seeing Elves. These are very much the kind of beings Tolkien describes - in appearance at least.

If we take the folklore accounts, then there was a strong belief in the existence of this other level of reality. Certain places, like crossroads, or special trees (notably Oak or Thorn) which were believed to be 'crossing places' into the other world. In Ireland there was a belief that when Men arrived the fair folk retreated inside the earth, where they continued their old life uninterupted. There are accounts in the legends of people entering into fairy hills & finding themselves in 'Faerie', with an open sky above them, & landscapes of hills, forests & mountains. A common tradition is that time itself moves at a different rate, or that it ceases to exist while in faerie.

Clearly we can find 'echoes' of these traditional beliefs in Tolkien's works - many of his Elves live in underground realms, & in Lorien there is an implication that time moves at a different pace.

Tolkien seems to make use of these traditions. In fact, the more you know about these traditions the clearer it becomes that Tolkien hasn't just taken creatures from tradition, like Elves & Dwarves, but many of the beliefs of our ancestors & woven them into Middle Earth. But this has been pointed out by people like Shippey. Tolkien was, at least at first, attempting to recreate a lost world, trying to link together scattered beliefs & traditions so as to get closer to the world our ancestors inhabited imaginatvely.

So, does this mean that we have in some way 'inherited', in our 'genes' (or whatever the psychological equivalent of genes are) some awareness of this 'other world', & that Middle Earth in someway opens a kind of 'window', as you put it, onto this other reality? That's difficult to say, & many Christian Tolkien fans of a more 'fundamentalist' persuasion would be decidedly uncomfortable with this whole idea, believing that 'pagan' gods & such like were all tricks of the Devil intended to 'lure' our ancestors to damnation, or at the very least the result of their being in a state of 'ignorant savagery' from which they needed the teachings of the church to save them.

But what relevance all these traditions have to our understanding of Tolkien's work is questionable. Tolkien makes the point in the Fairy Stories essay that when we read fairy stories we aren't reading them, or more importantly understanding them in the way our ancestors did. For instance, how many people put up a Chrismas tree in full knowledge of its origins in tree worship, which can be traced back to Yggdrasil, the world Tree, whose branches linked together the Nine Worlds of Norse cosmology (Yggdrasil meaning Ygg's, or Odin's, 'horse' - a 'kenning' or poetic image - Odin hung on the Tree for nine nights in order to gain knowledge of the Runes, & therefore of the magical power they conferred), or even further back, to the tree climbed by the ancient shamans in order to gain access to the other world? The fact is, most people don't know that tradition, & wouldn't care about it if they did. They put up their Christmas tree because its 'traditional', & the meaning it has for them comes from their memories of family Christmasses spent decorating it & seeing it in a corner of the room during the festivities.

In other words, we can read too much 'meaning' into these 'mythical' histories, & give too much weight to them. There is a real danger of breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, of breaking the enchantment by attenmpting to find out too much about the spell & the one who cast it. Your 'vision' of the moonlit landscape stretching away to distant mountains may well be archtypal, it may have been a 'glimpse' into the otherworld, which our ancestors would have told you was always 'hiding' just out of sight. Maybe you had a 'falsh' of second sight (are you the seventh son of a seventh son - I think we should be told -it is the kind of thing those seers would have taken quite seriously).

But none of that is really relevant. What matters is the effect that 'vision' had on you. Whether it was inspired by your reading of Tolkien or not, you 'saw' something (some 'place'?) that was not of this world. You saw into a 'secondary world' - your 'own' Middle Earth if not Tolkien's. Maybe you should see where that vision takes you - perhaps you could be another Tolkien. What kind of world was it, who lives there, what's on the other side of those mountains, who is wandering those woods besides you. That's the real question, not where the 'vision' came from, but where it enables you to go imaginatively. Possibly Tolkien's original inspiration came from just such a 'vision', & look what a merry dance he's lead all of us since seeing it

[HerenIstarion]

Well said, davem . It all reminded me of Niggle somehow:

...Even little Niggle in his old home could glimpse the Mountains far away, and they got into the borders of his picture; but what they are really like, and what lies beyond them, only those can say who have climbed them...

[mark12_30]

davem wrote:

There is a real danger of breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, of breaking the enchantment by attempting to find out too much about the spell & the one who cast it.

Perhaps this is why I so vehemently resist attempts to dissect the Letters; they cast a spell all their own for me, a deeper and more mystical and sacred spell than anything in the Sil-- verging on Smith of Wooton Major, or deeper still; and I will not have that spell shattered. I far prefer the standing tower, from whence I can catch a glimpse of the sea.

[The Saucepan Man]

Perhaps this is why I so vehemently resist attempts to dissect the Letters

But don't the Letters themselves dissect the text to some extent by spelling out the author's own intentions and interpretations, thereby risking the reader losing the enchantment gained from the text?

[mark12_30]

Not for me. Half of the enchantment I get from LOTR is that Tolkien *believed* in his characters, knew them, loved them. And this is seen more clearly still in his letters. He talks about Frodo and Gandalf and Faramir as if they lived down the street. He knows what they would and wouldn't do, what they would and wouldn't say. And he demands the same faith from his correspondents, and rails if they fail to give it (see the Movie-review-letter.)

The letters show me how real M-E and its characters were-- are!-- to Tolkien. They make me realize he wasn't lying to me, or laughing up his sleeve at me; that he was, is, and will remain every bit as enchanted as I am. And I like it that way.

But they go deeper still than that. They show me what kind of man he is; they show me where his sub-creation comes from. I cherish that as much, if not more, than the sub-creation itself.

Do not laugh... seeing how his sub-creation was birthed despite (or because of) his eccentricities and foibles, I am emboldened to dream that despite having eccentricities and foibles of my own, I might likewise birth something worthwhile.

[bilbo_baggins]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But don't the Letters themselves dissect the text to some extent by spelling out the author's own intentions and interpretations, thereby risking the reader losing the enchantment gained from the text?

True, Saucepan Man, but the exegesis of the Letters, though they themselves dissect (or exegite) the text of Tolkien, do not completely lay bare everything, and this is where davem and Mark12_30 have their bit. As far as I could tell, they wish not to delve too deeply into the meaning behind the exegesis.

As always, I could be wrong about their beliefs or opinions on the matter, but that is what I think they mean from reading their posts.

And, what I said above applies not only to them, but to me. As I do not want to read the exegesis of a manual too heavily, I do not crossreference said manual either, as it would have the same effect.

If I can quote myself again, for the person on the one side, with a text, it is theirs to do with as they will, as they obtained it in some manner (legal of course). And for the second person, they can do with it as they will, as they have obtained it also. But for either the one person or the second person to try to impress their beliefs on how to exegite the text of the manual, is wrong. Plain and simply wrong.

That's all.

[The Saucepan Man]

But for either the one person or the second person to try to impress their beliefs on how to exegite the text of the manual, is wrong.

But isn't that what Tolkien is doing when he seeks to impress his interpretations of his text on those with whom he is corresponding, bilbo?

He talks about Frodo and Gandalf and Faramir as if they lived down the street. He knows what they would and wouldn't do, what they would and wouldn't say. And he demands the same faith from his correspondents, and rails if they fail to give it

I understand what you are saying, Helen, and, believe me, I am finding the insights which I am gaining from reading his Letters fascinating. But, in telling us how we should view this character or that event, isn't Tolkien restricting our "readerly freedom" to make up our own minds? I suppose not, since we are free to accept or reject his interpretations. But, all the same, do we not risk losing out from "delving too deeply", as bilbo puts it? Does not our very awareness of the author's own (firmly expressed) views on his text risk obscuring our personal vision of the perilous realm, as inspired from our own interpretation of the text?

(This line of thought runs contrary to the reasoning adopted in an earlier post which I made on this topic, but I am pursuing it nevertheless as I think that it is perhaps an issue worth exploring.)

[bilbo_baggins]

Does not our very awareness of the author's own (firmly expressed) views on his text risk obscuring our personal vision of the perilous realm, as inspired from our own interpretation of the text

Wow. You got me convinced in some places, SpM. But one thing remains.

Do we really want to go with the author's set point of view? It may not fit what I had in mind, true. So if that happens to be true, should we not think o'er the fact that if we read the Letters too well, we will be impressed with the ideas and views of ME that the author had? There may be some who wish not to have such ideas about that wonderful place that Tolkien made.

But even if they don't read the Letters, or have exactly the viewpoint about ME that Tolkien had, does this inherently discredit the author's worth or merit for creating the book and story? No, of course not. "Tolkien" is now a word in mouth for most. Even if we have slightly different viewpoints, the author does not lose anything, as the Book and World he created are just that, his creations. Nothing we could ever do, would discredit him from his fashionings.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But, in telling us how we should view this character or that event, isn't Tolkien restricting our "readerly freedom" to make up our own minds?

The example that springs to mind is the reader who asked why Gandalf messed up at the gates of Moria, and offered several explainations. Tolkien's response: He said that he forgot. Why didn't you believe him?

Why, indeed. Do I trust the narrator? If not, then why am I reading the book?

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But, all the same, do we not risk losing out from "delving too deeply", as bilbo puts it? Does not our very awareness of the author's own (firmly expressed) views on his text risk obscuring our personal vision of the perilous realm, as inspired from our own interpretation of the text?

I suppose that could happen. It didn't happen to me. When I read the Letters, it separated the Perilous Realm from Tolkien. He became a narrator, like many other narrators out there, who saw into the perilous realm, or was shown it, and given the gift of reporting what he saw. The letters show his looking, his pursuit, as surely as is described in Smith. Why would that obscure my vision? Temporarily, it may; but in the long run, it inspires me to pick up my walking stick, head into the woods, and see what I may for myself.

I suupose when one man prophesies, a response might be, don't get to know that man, because knowing his weakness might make you doubt the prophesy. But another response might be, "Prophet! Apprentice me, and teach me to see!"

I choose the latter.

[Bêthberry]

Well, I am going to stick my foot in the swiftly running discussion here and hope I won't be swept away!

I too would say with SpM to Helen that I understand this love of the writer for his characters. However, as I was rereading Carpenter yesterday, I found this passage (going to use it to reply to bilbo's thread later this morning).

'Stories tend to get out of hand.' Tolkien wrote to his publisher a few weeks later, and 'this has taken an unpremeditated turn.' He was referring to the appearance, unplanned by him, of a sinister 'Black Rider' who is clearly searching for the hobbits. It was indeed the first of several unpremeditated turns that the story was to take. Unconsciously, and unsually without forethought, Tolkien was bending his tale away from the jolly style of The Hobbit towards something darker and grander, and closer in concept to The Silmarillion.... What indeed? [to a question about what the book would be called]. And, much more important, Tolkien still did not have a clear idea what it was all about.

An absolutely fascinating passage, this. It suggests two things to me. First, the Tolkien's habits of composition were intuitive and unconscious to a good degree. Secondly, the passage also suggests that 'the meaning' was something read back into the story once Tolkien had reached a particular stage in the early writing. According to Carpent, it was at this point, shortly after receiving news of the death of E.V.Gordon, that Tolkien "began to organise his thoughts on the central matter of the Ring."

So, we are left with the fact that Tolkien was like any reader, looking around for threads of ideas and then picking up strands to be developed. (Of course, he wasn't just like any reader in that his creative sense of fairey was so great and grand and fine.) It was in retrospective that Tolkien amassed all his storey elements into the grand vision of the Legendarium. For that reason alone I think it valuable to put aside or hold in abeyance if you will his rather insistent claims in later years about what the text means. I am far more interested in what might have brought those Black Riders riding, riding, riding in the first place. My bet is on an entire panoply of possibilities.

Here's to holding tight to my life perserver!

[bilbo_baggins]

I suppose when one man prophesies, a response might be, don't get to know that man, because knowing his weakness might make you doubt the prophesy. But another response might be, "Prophet! Apprentice me, and teach me to see!"

Amazing, Mark12_30.

So, the Letters could be viewed as more of a relay from the Perilous Realm to us, through Tolkien. Hmmm, interesting. Could you not also say, though, that there are those (I'm not one of them) who believe that they themselves can view the Perilous Realm? That they themselves could be Prophets in their own right?

Just something to ponder....

[mark12_30]

An afterthought:

I have come to love the histories-- Trotter, Tinfang Warble, and all-- precisely because they show me *Tolkien's road to Faerie*-- the road that he himself trod over the course of his lifetime. It's the man's own enchantment-- the enchantment that he himself is UNDER-- that I value the most, because that enchantment was what fueled his sub-creation and enchanted so many others. In reading his letters, I see clearly why he is enchanted, and I understand that the enchantment is open to me as well.

And Bilbo, are there other prophets-- in this case, mythmakers? Of course.

It was in retrospective that Tolkien amassed all his storey elements into the grand vision of the Legendarium. For that reason alone I think it valuable to put aside or hold in abeyance if you will his rather insistent claims in later years about what the text means. I am far more interested in what might have brought those Black Riders riding, riding, riding in the first place. My bet is on an entire panoply of possibilities.

But Bethberry, that is his whole theory of sub-creating, myth-making, being a recorder, searching for eucatastrophe. To understand the fruits, check the leaves, trunk, roots and the soil. Look at his life. Look at what he insisted was important for *him*, what he was grounded in.

To put it another way, a man is what he eats, body, soul, and spirit.

[The Saucepan Man]

Why, indeed. Do I trust the narrator? If not, then why am I reading the book?

A good question, Helen, and one, I think, that goes to the very heart of this thread. Since we draw such immense enjoyment (yes and enchantment too) from Tolkien's works, shouldn't we also accept his own subsequent musings on, and interpretations of, what he wrote? The answer, I think, is no, not without question. But we are free to accept them and agree with him if the ideas which he expresses in his Letters "feel right" to us. I am inclined to agree with Bêthberry when she says:

So, we are left with the fact that Tolkien was like any reader, looking around for threads of ideas and then picking up strands to be developed.

We do not have to accept the interpretations of another reader if they do not sit well with us. And, as Bb says, Tolkien, in discussing his stories in his Letters, is not much different from any other reader.

For example, Tolkien made it clear in his Letters that no one (Bombadil excepted) could have destroyed the Ring voluntarily. I fully accept that since any other analysis would belittle Frodo's efforts and render his "failure" real, rather than something which he just perceives in himself. So that idea accords with my understanding of the story. But, having accepted that, I cannot accept Tolkien's speculation (also in his Letters) that, had Gollum's moment of possible redemption on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol not been lost, his growing love for Frodo might have led him to throw himself into the fires of Orodruin with the Ring. That analysis seems to me to be incompatible with the idea that no one could willingly have destroyed the Ring, since Gollum would have been destroying it by "sacrificing" himself. My interpretation tells me that the Ring would not have allowed that to happen.

Nevertheless, I do think that because we all here have an appreciation of Tolkien's ideas, as expressed in his published works, we will be more inclined to accept the ideas which he expressed in his Letters when commenting on those works. And I suspect that this is why, whenever questions are raised here about Middle-earth which cannot be answered from the published texts, the majority of us (myself included) will go running to his Letters and "unpublished" texts to find the "answer" in one quote or another, and also why we are prepared to accept such "answers" as definitive. There is, I think, nothing wrong in that, as long as we do not do so unquestioningly.

As for the risk of destroying the enchantment, I do, on reflection, think my concerns are largely ungrounded. Going back to the point which I made earlier in this thread, almost everyone will have read the stories themselves before they are exposed to any detailed analysis of them (whether by Tolkien himself or others). So their intial enchantment, "unsullied" by analysis, will remain within their experience. For example, my description of that moonlit landscape was my attempt to describe in words my memory of the enchantment which I felt on first reading LotR. That enchantment has since faded (and alas, davem, I am now a very long way away from those wooded hills ), but it remains part of my experience and it allows me to appreciate the "magical" (dare I say ensorcelling) effect of Tolkien's tales. And who knows? If I allow myself, I might even be able to get back to that long winding road one day (cue Beatles song ).

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I must say that I am rather overawed by the eloquence and (yes, let me say it) beauty of the recent posts’ descriptions of the enchantment that we all feel in the encounter with Middle-Earth. While I share this sense of enchantment at a deeply visceral level, I have been feeling, at the same time, a slight nagging doubt nibbling at the edge of my mind as I read through this discussion (surprise surprise).

My doubts stem from a problem about this very idea of enchantment that I don’t think we’ve really confronted yet (although SpM did, I think, allude to it in his reference to the “perilous” realm of Faerie). The problem stems from the ‘source’ of the enchantment – what is it, precisely, that is enchanting us as we read LotR (if, indeed, the enchantment happens, which it does not for many). There have been so far in this discussion at least three possibilities floated in response to this:

1) The enchantment is the result of the text’s “access” to some “other realm” of experience (be it called Faerie or God or Jungian archetypes or whatever). In this case, it would seem that the reader is enchanted through the text by that other realm.

2) The enchantment is the result of the immense craft and skill of Tolkien as an artist. He has told such an enchanting story that we cannot help but get caught up in it.

3) We are enchanting ourselves, insofar as we choose to immerse ourselves within that world and “make” (accepting and co-creating) it our own.

With each of these three possibilities, however, I think there is a slightly different danger to the enchantment.

1) If we regard the source of the enchantment as something external to the text – another ‘real’ realm of Faerie or God or archetypes or whatever – then we are saying that as we become enchanted by the text we are doing so only because or insofar as we accept the reality of that other world. To be enchanted by the novel (to take pleasure in reading it, to accept it) is not just to accept the reality of the other world that it accesses, but to acknowledge it. This is a problem, I think, insofar as there are plenty of people who are enchanted by the text (myself among them) who are committed materialists and thus reject utterly the ‘reality’ of an-other realm (be it Faerie or God or archetypes or whatever). Is my enchantment in the text “wrong”? Am I some big dupe who is not really “getting it”? Am I not “really” enchanted by it, unlike those lucky and more refined spirits who do believe in the “reality” or “truth” of that other realm?

2) If we regard the source of the enchantment as something internal to the text – as something that has been created by Tolkien’s ability to put words on a page in an enchanting, or aesthetically pleasing manner – then we are saying that as we become enchanted by the text we are being enchanted by an illusion: that is, by something that is not “real” at all, but simply by the beauty of the art work before us. The problem with this approach, is, I think, self-evident, as it empties the work of the kind of reality that would make the subcreated secondary world applicable to the primary world we live in (to borrow davem’s “A Shop on the Edge of the Hills of Fairyland” it would be to say that the painting is only a painting and that we find it a pleasing picture of a place that doesn’t and cannot exist).

3) If we regard the source of the enchantment as something individual – as the result of our willed immersion in the text – then we end up in an endless round of navel-gazing as we affirm our own personal views (“this is what I think the text is about”) as false universals (“this is what the text is about”).

I have already seen in the discussion that none of us really want to adopt any one of these three extreme measures all on its own. In fact, I’m sure that you will all want to argue that the source of the enchantment is some kind of amalgam or relation of all three. But this presents us with a whole new set of problems, I think, insofar as the three “types” of enchantment we’ve looked at so far are not really compatible:

1) The reality of the enchantment cannot simultaneously be both external (from an-other realm) and individual (from us). Either the external reality exists (and thus ‘lives’ in us) or it does not – you have to choose one or the other (as we all do, every moment of our lives: and, of course, there’s no right or wrong answer to this question).

2) The reality of the enchantment cannot simultaneously be both internal (from the text) and external (from an-other realm), or internal (from the text) and individual (from us), since if the enchantment is the result of Tolkien’s craft, then it is not related to reality at all.

The core problem with whole idea of enchantment seems to me to be that it leads somewhat too easily (necessarily?) toward a rather dictatorial approach to the text: the only way to answer the question “what is enchanting about the text” is to say “what is enchanting about it to me” and then to pretend that we can somehow make the leap from our own individual responses to some sort of universal application to all people (“I am enchanted by the text’s access to Faerie, so that’s what enchants everyone else”; “I am enchanted by the beautiful story, so that’s what enchants everyone else”; “I enchant myself by accepting the text, so that’s what everyone else must do to be enchanted as well”).

[davem]

This mention of prophecy ties in with what I was saying yesterday. Both Robert Kirk & Thomas the Rhymer, who was given the gift of 'the tongue that cannot lie' (or prophecy) by the Queen of Elfland, are traditionally believed to have been taken into Elfland rather than dying. It was believed that those who spent time visiting fairyland during life would pass into that realm, & carry on living there, outside time. Tolkien seems to have been taken with this idea of a mortal who stumbles into Faery, & then passes into that realm, leaving the mortal world forever. Frodo is an example, I suppose. There seems to be a sense of unfullfillable restlessness which comes to those who enter faerie, a need to go back there, which can never be sated.

Yet the case is different with Smith. As Flieger puts it, comparing Smith & the Sea Bell, (quoted from A Question of Time)

'The visions in each work are equally beautiful & terrible, but in Smith, as in The Hobbit, the torment is stilled, & the traveller returns to peace with himself & with his world. Like Frodo, Smith must finally leave Faery & not return, but unlike Frodo, he finds consolation in family & friends, in the things of this world. Like the voyager in the Sea Bell, the traveller in Smith of Wooton Major is given to know that this Otherworld is not for him; but unlike the voyager he, he is not summarily & arbitrarily banished from the enchantment (though it must be acknowledged that on one occaision he is sternly warned away). Rather, he comes finally to give it up of free will - albeit reluctantly - & returns to ordinary life & love, not isolated but enriched by where he has been & what he has seen....It was in the writing of Smith that Tolkien came to confront & accept the limits of his own ventures into Faerie, his own travel through time, & it was in that story that he came finally to acknowledge in the way he knew best his growing sense that his time was running out.'

She goes on with reference to an essay Tolkien wrote about the story:

'Where the Elven dwellers in the Faerie world of 'The Sea Bell' ignored the overtures of the solitary voyager & were indifferent to his desires, the Elven folk of this latest Faerie are actively concerned with & perhaps even dependent on the spiritual life of Wooton Major & therefore (it would seem) are careful for the welfare of its inhabitants. It is their unsolicited effort to bring Wooton back from its increasing vulgar materiality that forms the deeper background to the 'external' history that lies behind the story....Both these writings (the story & the essay about it) are deply involved in Tolkien's effort to attain the ....unstated goals in the writing of Smith, the reconciliation of Faerie time & human time & the independent yet interdependent nature of the two worlds'

Tolkien continues in the essay:

'Faery represents at its weakest a breaking out (at least in mind) from the iron ring of the familiar, still more from the adamantine ring of belief that is known, possessed, controlled, & so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered - a constant awareness of the world beyond these rings......Faery might be said indeed to represent 'imagination'; esthetic, exploratory & receptive. & artistic; inventive, dynamic, (sub)creative......the begining & ending of a story is to it like the edges of a canvas or an added frame to a picture, say a landscape. it concestrates the tellers (sic) attention, & yours on one mall part of the country. But there are of course no real limits: under the earth, & in the sky above, & in the remote & faintly glimpsed distances, & in the unrevealed regions on either side, there are things that influence the very shape & colour of the part that is pictured. Without them it would be quite different, & they are really necessary to understanding what is seen'

Final quote from the essay: (Tolkien is speaking about the relationship of Faerie & the human realm)

'this relationship is 'one of love: the elven folk, the chief & ruling inhabitants of faery, have an ultimate kinship with Men & have a permanent love for them in general. Though they are not bound by any moral obligation to assist Men, & do not need their help (except in human affairs), they do from time to time try to assist them, avert evil from them & have relations with them, especially through certain men & women whom they find suitable.''

So we have a vision of two worlds, the inhabitants of each interacting, & forming relationships, based on the love of the one for the other, but all we have is 'glimpses' of that world, limited by the 'frame' of the story. So Middle Earth is Faerie, the same Faerie that Smith enters through the power of the Star, & the same Faerie that we glimpse in dreams & visions, both beautiful & perilous, with 'dungeons for the overbold'.

So, what, from this perspective, would constitute 'canon'? If both Smith & Roverandom are windows onto Faerie (& the 'Little Kingdom' of Giles, we must also suppose), & if the inhabitants of Faerie even speak to us, & show us visions of their world, then the precise limits & definitions fade & vanish, & we are left with enchantment. Would Tolkien have thought 'canon' more important than this enchantment - probably not by the time he came to write Smith.

Smith is an odd story to end up writing. He spent so long defining with incredible precision the 'rules' of his 'secondary world', setting its limits, historical, linguistic, social, religious. But then, in his final stab at a fairy story, he introduces us to a world without those rules & limits. A fanfic set in Middle Earth, in order to convince, has to obey all the rules. A fanfic set in Smith's Faery would, it seems have to obey almost none, as long as it captures the spirit, casts the spell. Yet Tolkien seems to imply that the two worlds are the same, & its only a different focus, a different 'frame' around the two stories, that gives the illusion that they are different worlds. Galadriel & the Queen of Smith's Faery are not so very different creatures. Perhaps in Smith Tolkien was dismantling his 'canon' & throwing open a 'window' to let in the air of another world, having realised that his 'Tree', the Legendarium which he had worked on all his life was just one tree in the forest of Faerie that Smith wandered in.

[mark12_30]

Fordim wrote:

....then to pretend that we can somehow make the leap from our own individual responses to some sort of universal application to all people (“I am enchanted by the text’s access to Faerie, so that’s what enchants everyone else”; “I am enchanted by the beautiful story, so that’s what enchants everyone else”; “I enchant myself by accepting the text, so that’s what everyone else must do to be enchanted as well”).

There is a fourth option, and that is to take the eucatastrophe and run. Perhaps in some cases that is the wisest choice.

So, what, from this perspective, would constitute 'canon'? If both Smith & Roverandom are windows onto Faerie (& the 'Little Kingdom' of Giles, we must also suppose), & if the inhabitants of Faerie even speak to us, & show us visions of their world, then the precise limits & definitions fade & vanish, & we are left with enchantment.

Sounds good to me.

Would Tolkien have thought 'canon' more important than this enchantment - probably not by the time he came to write Smith.

I doubt he would have abandoned the cohesiveness that he was seeking for Middle-Earth (a magnificent road into Faerie) just because he had found and described two other roads (Roverandom, Smith.) I think he still pressed towards Eucatastrophe, that moment of truth shining through his myth(s) to the one true myth.

Note that this application of myth presupposes the truth of the One True Myth. If one cannot assume that truth, then what point does eucatastrophe have according to Tolkien?

Perhaps in Smith Tolkien was dismantling his 'canon' & throwing open a 'window' to let in the air of another world, having realised that his 'Tree', the Legendarium which he had worked on all his life was just one tree in the forest of Faerie that Smith wandered in.

To extend your metaphor, I don't think he had to destroy or even neglect his Legendarium-Tree before he could point to the next tree and describe that too. He simply had to shift his focus.

I don't see that he dismantled his M-E Legendarium (or canon) at all.

[Mister Underhill]

You know the funny thing about “enchantment”? The more you bandy the word about, the more you try to study it and categorize it and analyze it and break it down, the more it fades into mist and, like the Faërie folk themselves, disappears. The more I read about “enchantment” in this thread, the less I feel it. I don’t mean this as a slight towards anyone by any means, and I’m not sure how it relates to the current discussion; just throwing it out there as what’s present for me.

Fordim, that’s an impressive stab at logically snaring this mysterious “enchantment” creature so that we can get a decent look at it. I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion that the three types of ensorcellment (just mixing it up a little) are mutually exclusive.

To illustrate, consider the stories of Empire written by Rudyard Kipling. Now I know that old Rud is unfashionable these days and dreadfully politically incorrect, but I am not alone in finding a sense of enchantment in many of his tales.

Kipling’s stories do have access to an “other realm” which is at once external (it did exist) and internal (I, in some sense, collaborate in the creation of this lost world internally when I read, since I have not, and indeed cannot, visit it). His craft contributes to the enchantment and serves as a medium by which the enchantment is transmitted, but I would not say that the enchantment springs from his craft. There are more forces, and more mysterious forces, at work in the process than logic can ensnare.

I’m reading a book right now which has an interesting definition of story. Words, the author contends, are not the stuff of a story. They are merely a means, a medium for transmitting – well, for transmitting something much less tangible. Energy, emotion, ideas. I’m having a hard time articulating this concisely, and I don’t have the time to bore you with a more detailed attempt. But I think the idea has the ring of truth. Tolkien’s stories – and Middle-earth – are more than just the words they are made of. It may be debatable as to whether the “Perilous Realm” is real or imagined, but the effects that the stories of the Perilous Realm produce are demonstrably real. Though as you point out, not all fall under the spell, so whatever that means. I think it’s a sure sign that there must be some degree of collaboration on the part of the prospective ensorcellee.

Lastly, and I hesitate to drag back some aspects of the discussion which perhaps are already spent, but I have this nagging sense that there are certain “right” interpretations of any text, and I instinctively rebel against critical theories which suggest that all interpretations of a text have equal merit. As readers delve into detail and subtlety and nuance, wide-ranging differences of interpretation will arise, but this does not contradict the idea that broader, more primary interpretations are indisputably correct.

I don’t have time to try to back this up at length, and truth be told, I haven’t really thought it through much. It’s my gut reaction to some aspects of this discussion, so I thought I’d toss it out there.

[mark12_30]

Mister Underhill wrote:

Though as you point out, not all fall under the spell...

Those who do, fall at different times and places. In the old eucatastrophe thread, once people began comparing individual Moments we discovered they varied widely.

If it was predictable, it would be something else.

I instinctively rebel against critical theories which suggest that all interpretations of a text have equal merit. As readers delve into detail and subtlety and nuance, wide-ranging differences of interpretation will arise, but this does not contradict the idea that broader, more primary interpretations are indisputably correct.

You are not alone, and thank you for giving this clear voice.

[Bêthberry]

Ah, Mr. Underhill

I have this nagging sense that there are certain ?right? interpretations of any text, and I instinctively rebel against critical theories which suggest that all interpretations of a text have equal merit. As readers delve into detail and subtlety and nuance, wide-ranging differences of interpretation will arise, but this does not contradict the idea that broader, more primary interpretations are indisputably correct.

I don?t have time to try to back this up at length, and truth be told, I haven?t really thought it through much. It?s my gut reaction to some aspects of this discussion, so I thought I?d toss it out there.

We have all known, I think, that feeling of delight mixed with frustration that we've got the real goods on a book which others just can't seem to sus out. But does feeling one is right mean one is right? How can we demonstrate this?

For example, just which "right" interpretation of the Bible do you think is "indisputably correct'? Or the Koran?

The history of reading as well as literary studies is littered with ships of correct interpretation which have foundered on the shifting shoals of historical perspective, cultural change, personal point of view.

The point more properly is, I would think, not that all interpretations have equal merit but that merit can surprisingly derive even from misunderstanding.

But really, Undey you are sounding rather too much like a fresh young newbie who claims he hasn't thought much about the topic. If you want to stir the pot, give it a bit more thought.

[Mister Underhill]

Ouch.

But really, Bb -- bringing the Bible into it is a bit unfair and likely to pull this thread irretrievably off course.

Maybe you're right that I should have kept my mouth shut in the first place, but now that I have it open, I may as well insert my foot. I can think of a few LotR "interpretations" that seem fairly pat to me:

It's a tale of Good vs. Evil.

There is an organizing providential force at work in Middle-earth.

Gandalf is wise.

Sam is loyal.

These may seem so simple and obvious as to be essentially worthless, but I think we could carry on like this until we have a base of interpretations about the text which are "true" for all but the most misguided and terminally contentious. If you can't do that, then nothing means anything. I can take any text and literally make it mean anything that I like.

I am "free" to interpret Sam as faithless and Gandalf as a fool, just as I am "free" to think that up is down or that the earth is flat. But in this case, freedom is just another word for nothing left to talk about (apologies to Kris Kristofferson).

Stories mean something.

[davem]

Helen

Quote:'I don't see that he dismantled his M-E Legendarium (or canon) at all.'

Well, yes, he changes his focus in Smith, but he seems to be saying Middle Earth is not a different 'secondary world' from Smith's 'Faery'. They are not so much different roads to the same destination, its more like they're the same world seen in different ways. Its like the difference between Archetypes & Archetypal images. We can never experience Archetypes directly. What we experience are Archetypal Images. So, in this sense both the Faery Queen in Smith & Galadriel are Archetypal Images, but the Archetype is always hidden & unreachable until it is given an image we can relate to. In the same way we could say that Gandalf, Merlin, Vainamoinen & even Obi Wan Kenobi & Dumbledore are all images deriving from the same archetype. So, Middle Earth & Smith's Faery are ' Images' of the same underlying Archetype.

So while Middle Earth is fantastically detailed & rule bound, & any fiction set in that world must obey those rules & not contradict those details, any fiction set in Smith's Faery will not have to be so rule bound. But if both 'worlds' are the same place, then the 'rules' of Middle Earth are imposed only by that particular 'window' on Faerie. If we look at the same 'world' through a different 'window' we see Smith's Faery, & all the rules of Middle Earth have vanished. Sowhat of Tolkien's own earlier belief, the one that drove so much of his work on Middle Earth, that those details & rules are necessary if a secondary world is to be convincing? He certainly seems to have put that idea aside in presenting Smith's Faery to us. Its not 'realistic' in any way. Its simply a sequence of 'magical' images & scenes. It rejects all the rules for creating secondary worlds which Tolkien had put together & believed to be essential, yet it works, & is in many ways far more powerful in its enchantment than most of his Middle Earth writings.

[The Saucepan Man]

Fordim:

To be enchanted by the novel (to take pleasure in reading it, to accept it) is not just to accept the reality of the other world that it accesses, but to acknowledge it. This is a problem, I think, insofar as there are plenty of people who are enchanted by the text (myself among them) who are committed materialists and thus reject utterly the ‘reality’ of an-other realm (be it Faerie or God or archetypes or whatever).

Being equally of materialist persuasion, I would contend your proposition that this “other world” need necessarily be “real”, in the sense of having a physical existence. I would certainly not regard it as such. I see it more as a world which people can experience in their imagination and in their dreams. A thing need not be tangible in order to inspire.

But this presents us with a whole new set of problems, I think, insofar as the three “types” of enchantment we’ve looked at so far are not really compatible

Like Mister Underhill, I am not sure that I agree with this. The way I see it, the enchantment is triggered by the text (which acts as a kind of road map) and personally experienced by the reader in his or her imagination. To the extent that the experience is a shared one, then perhaps this might be attributed to the collective subconscious described by Jung (or perhaps it might be something entirely different, albeit similarly shared at a primordial level).

But, as Mister U and davem before him have said, why try to define and categorise a concept such as enchantment? Is it not better simply to enjoy the experience?

And to disagree with you too Mr U:

Lastly, and I hesitate to drag back some aspects of the discussion which perhaps are already spent, but I have this nagging sense that there are certain “right” interpretations of any text, and I instinctively rebel against critical theories which suggest that all interpretations of a text have equal merit.

My difficulty with this concept is that the logical conclusion is that those who do not interpret the text in the “right” way cannot fully appreciate it. And I am very uncomfortable with any suggestion that one reader’s appreciation of the text might be accorded greater weight than that of another. Who is to say which way is “right” and which way is “wrong”? Every reader will naturally believe their interpretations to be the “right” ones. But unless they all share the same interpretations (which could never be the case), they can’t all be right.

It's a tale of Good vs. Evil … There is an organizing providential force at work in Middle-earth … Gandalf is wise … Sam is loyal.

But I don’t see these as interpretations. I see them as propositions which are implicit in the text. If you are simply saying that there are certain concepts which are “right” because they are stated in the text, and that we must accept them if we are to accept the text, then I agree with you. But if you are suggesting that there are further levels of interpretation not stated in the text which are equally “right” (for example, because there is a struggle of good v evil and a providential force at work, Middle-earth must be presided over by a monotheistic God), then I would disagree.

Stories mean something.

Indeed. But they can mean different things to different people.

[mark12_30]

The three last paragraphs in the essay below are an illustartion of Fruit being the result of leaf, trunk, root, and soil. Some wisdom from TORn's Tehanu

[Mister Underhill]

My difficulty with this concept is that the logical conclusion is that those who do not interpret the text in the “right” way cannot fully appreciate it. And I am very uncomfortable with any suggestion that one reader’s appreciation of the text might be accorded greater weight than that of another. Who is to say which way is “right” and which way is “wrong”? Every reader will naturally believe their interpretations to be the “right” ones. But unless they all share the same interpretations (which could never be the case), they can’t all be right.

I understand your hesitation and sympathize with it up to a point. I’m not sure how or if “appreciation” comes into it, so I’ll leave that alone. But—

Take an extreme example. I, for one, am not uncomfortable in condemning interpretations like those made by Stormfront (link is to a recent BD discussion, not a white supremacist site). And if there are patently wrong interpretations, doesn’t that imply that there are, indeed, right interpretations?

I certainly agree that differences of interpretation will occur the more we get into details, and those are great and good. Vive le difference. I think we could get beyond simple propositions – indeed, the whole providence issue already might – and still agree before we cross over the border where anything goes.

[davem]

Does this 'widen' the concept of 'canonicity' to include not only what Tolkien wrote, but also what he 'meant'?

[Bêthberry]

Ouch, smouch, Mr. Underhill . "Critical theory' is such an easy target simply because it suggests something new or different to some readers. but I think you protest too much. I might rethink your claim that you are not thin-skinned when you invited me to discuss a Chandler essay. Perhaps I had better not reply about that.

With all due respect, my suggestion that there is no definitive interpretation of the Bible is not unfair; I was simply pointing to the best known and most read book in the history of the Western world to suggest something about how communities of readers combine to produce a sense of 'right' meaning. If this is true for a work which many believe to be the word of God, then how much more true must it be for the faulty 'making-creatures', as Tolkien described us, who struggle with their own creations.

This point about communities does not exclude individual interpretations, but rather suggests that how we each read a text has something to do with the presuppositions, conscious and unconscious, which inspires or motivates us as readers.

I think, in fact, that Helen has herself described this very point far better than I can when she wrote in post #153 in this thread:

. I seldom enjoy the works of a writer who hails from a world-view primarily hostile to that which I hold dear; why would I *immerse* myself in the works of a writer if I didn't trust him/ her in the first place? ....
And if one is leery of the author's intentions in the first place, why read the book looking for deep meaning? If we trust our own interpretation so much more than the author's, why read his book instead of writing our own?

Sauce suggests that there is a psychological component in our reading which might account for some responses. To this (which I think we have not yet fully explored) I would again add the importance of the 'interpretive community' to which we belong.

We can, of course, question the world-views, as Helen expresses it, which seem to inspire different interpretations and we can ask just what the role is of this world view in helping to inspire the interpretation, most particularly when we turn to the text and examine other 'propositions' in it which contradict or limit or compromise the interpretion.

The point is not that 'anything goes' but rather that what matters is the engagement of the reader with the text rather than the mining of the text for an all-encompassing, totalising understanding. Just because 'meaning' is subject to parodoxes and indeterminacies doesn't mean that we refuse to examine or compare interpretations. So, White Supremacists want to grab Tolkien for their own? An opportunity to engage them in discussion about their ideas through the text. And maybe, just maybe, the possibility also exists that we might learn something about Tolkien's text---not, I hasten to say that he was in any way part and parcel of their despicable world view but that we might come to understand more fully how LOTR works its magic and how we respond to it.

Edit: This, by the way, actually represents a current of thought in biblical studies today: the very confusions and inaccuracies and variations in how the ancient texts have survived for us to read represents the historical actuality which faith must grapple with. Seen in this light, the Bible (and by extension any other text, I would suggest) becomes an opportunity for each reader to contemplate how he or she comes to understand faith/the text. We read to learn more about who we are as readers, and as human beings. [end edit]

My apologies, also, if others have replied while I have taken so long to post this. I am under constant interruption here today but did not wish to leave Underhill's comments to me rudely unanswered.

[Mister Underhill]

Don’t worry, Bb. That “fresh young newbie” line did sting a bit, as true statements sometimes do, but I’m all better now. I can’t guarantee I won’t cry and pitch a tantrum if you disagree with me about Chandler, though.

Here’s something that may shock you (or maybe not): I think there are certain broad-stroke “right” interpretations of the Bible. It’s in the details where differences – sometimes vast differences, to be sure – arise. For instance, I think any Bible reader could agree on this interpretation: to get to Heaven, you must have a right relationship with God. Obviously, it’s that grey borderland between what is obviously right and what is obviously wrong (interpretively speaking) that makes life interesting. But, I think there are a baseline set of right interpretations for any text, including the Bible.

So, White Supremacists want to grab Tolkien for their own? An opportunity to engage them in discussion about their ideas through the text.

Okay, but this sidesteps the question – who has rightly interpreted the text? Does the white supremacist interpretation have the same merit as a – for lack of a better word – traditional interpretation? Certain schools of relativistic lit-crit theory may think so, but I don’t.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Mr. Underhill, Bethberry

I was writing this while you were posting. So I haven't really taken your last posts into consideration.

You two seem to be inching closer together in agreement, but I still can't shake the feeling that there are some real differences here in how each of us approaches the text....

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

Stories mean something.

Mr. Underhill,

I concur. I am uncomfortable with the idea that all interpretations of text have equal validity, and that assumption still seems to underline much of the discussion on the thread, from the first post onward.

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

Recently, I have been a lurker on the edge of this thread, one of those contributing to the 2,000+ views, but I feel compelled to throw my generic opinions in the pot .

First, I would heartily agree with the idea that there is no one right reading of the text, and that the individual confrontation with the work is far more important than mining the text for an all-encompassing single meaning, which frankly does not exist. JRRT has given us one way of looking at Gollum and the Ring, but there can be other valid interpretations that we as readers bring to the work.

But just as an individual is free to grapple with the text on his own terms, the author, or any other reader, is free to look at that understanding and question its validity. The initial struggle with the text is only the first step in the critical process; the assessment of that struggle is a vital second step. And part of that second step involves making a judgment on what's been said. That judgment, to me, is not unimportant.

To put it bluntly, there is a point in reading when we are alone. As individuals, we bring our background and understanding forward and apply these to the story. Because our backgrounds and understanding are different, our interpretations and perceptions will inevitably vary. But the process does not stop there. There is a point where the individual reader becomes part of a community of readers, a place where discussion and assessment takes place. And that process is important. I can indicate whether or not their perceptions and interpretation resonate with me. And there are even times when I may tell a reader he is flat wrong. Stormfront comes to mind. One criteria I will use is whether or not the reader acknowledges the basic guidelines that the author has woven into his tale.

I do not insist that everyone who reads Lord of the Rings emerge with the interpretation that there is one God in charge of things, but I do believe there are certain boundaries the author has laid down with his own pen. These themes, whether you call them 'interpretations' or 'propositions' are inherent in the text: the theme of good and evil; the fact that Gandalf is wise, or Sam loyal; even concepts such as self-sacrifice, the exaltation of the humble, or the power of humility versus the destructive and self-negating futility of pride. You can come up with an interpretation of LotR that ignores these themes, but not one that directly says these themes don't exist, at least within the world that the author has created. (Whether they are true within my personal world is a wholly separate question, which is one reason why a 'materialist' modern reader can still appreciate Tolkien's works.)

In effect the author hands us the notes we can use. We are free to arrange these notes in any melodic pattern we would like. But we do not have the right to introduce totally foreign notes, just because we think it might produce a "nicer" song.

Let me cite one other extreme example of a critic who has chosen to ignore the author's boundaries: that of Germaine Greer. Germaine Greer detests the views put forward by Tolkien and has been hacking away at his work for many years, initially the book and more recently the movies. Greer once suggested:

"The Lord of the Rings represents a rejection of otherness and a craving for people like oneself.

I can understand how she might reach such a conclusion, and that such an idea is worthy of discussion. However, when queried about the movie, she went beyond this to state that the plight of the Orks -- the poor, oppressed workers whom the 'so-called' heroes unjustly harass -- stands at the core of LotR.

Germaine Greer has the absolute right as an individual to put forward this view. But those who belong to the Tolkien community (fans, academics, whatever), who read and discuss the works, also have the right to reject that view. Her interpretation is not of 'equal value' because, frankly, she has ignored many of the guideposts that the author laid down in the actual text.

In the case of both the individual Greer and the group Stormfront, these two have chosen to insert their own ideology into Tolkien's stories, coming up with ideas that simply aren't there. (Please, I am not equating Greer with the folk in Stormfront, but I am saying they are similar in this one small respect.) As Bethberry suggests, there may be some glint of understanding I will gain because of their flawed contribution, some interesting ideas that come forward in the discussion. But, in the long run, their ideas can and should be rejected.

We are more than individual readers. There is a point where we interact as a community and reach some consensus, even if that consensus is to disagree. That consensus, by its very definition, is self limiting and flawed. Views change from one generation to the next as we bring new insights to the table, and minority viewpoints sometimes come to the fore. But, as flawed as that community discussion may be, it is better than saying that each of us sits alone in a closet of our own making, spinning out different ideas, all of equal merit.

This may be a dangerous question, but.... I am wondering if this wish to make the individual reader virtually self sufficient (dare I say sovereign?), to limit the influcence of the author's voice through something like the Letters, and to remove the idea of having any set of shared standards by which we may judge an interpretation, doesn't reflect the culture and values underlining our own society?

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

Davem, Helen,

The funny thing is that I can see how Davem can say that JRRT was beginning to dismantle his Legendarium in his final years. But my stance would be the exact opposite of Davem's....not seeing the greater freedom as reflected in Smith, but rather the more defined lines of science and theology that begin to surface in later writings like Morgoth's Ring. JRRT had always said that truth shone through myth, but now he was abandoning it (perhaps others would say enhancing it) for other things. There are writings that suggest he would have changed the Elf-centric viewpoint of the Silm, and instead substituted Man at the core.

But this, I think, would really belong in another discussion.

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

For the next few days, I will be off doing my "duty" at the birthday party thread, so will resume the post of a lurker.

[The Saucepan Man]

Mister U:

I’m not sure how or if “appreciation” comes into it, so I’ll leave that alone.

Bah! I always try to choose my words so carefully, and yet I always get picked up on them. By “appreciation”, I mean the experience that each person draws from reading the text, whether it be understanding, insight, inspiration, enchantment or whatever. I would be extremely hesitant about saying that one person’s experience of the text is necessarily more valid or valuable, from an objective point of view, than that of another.

I, for one, am not uncomfortable in condemning interpretations like those made by Stormfront.

Well, I think that we have to recognise that some of the concepts that they use to support their dreadful views are “correctly” interpreted because they are implicit in the text (examples would be the importance of the bloodline of Numenor and the superiority in some respects (longetivity, prowess, hardiness) of the Dunedain over other types of Men). But, to the extent that they seek to use those concepts to interpret LotR in a way which supports their view that one race can be inherently superior in all respects to another, I would condemn them too because I utterly reject that way of thinking. For me, therefore, their interpretation is “wrong”. And for the majority of people too, I suspect. Does that make it “wrong” on an objective level? Possibly it does, but only if one either tries to formulate some objective moral code against which to measure it (a tricky business) or takes the position that something is “wrong” if the majority believes it to be so. One thing is for certain though: Tolkien never intended his story to lend support to the views of those such as Stormfront since he too rejected such views (unless his private thoughts differed significantly to those which he committed to paper, which I somehow doubt).

And if there are patently wrong interpretations, doesn’t that imply that there are, indeed, right interpretations?

No. I don’t think that the one necessarily follows from the other. Even if there are “patently wrong” interpretations, we can still be left with a plethora of conflicting interpretations, no one of which is necessarily superior to the others (and all of which might therefore be said to be "right").

I do, however, agree with Sharon, when she says:

I do not insist that everyone who reads Lord of the Rings emerge with the interpretation that there is one God in charge of things, but I do believe there are certain boundaries the author has laid down with his own pen. These themes, whether you call them 'interpretations' or 'propositions' are inherent in the text …

This is what I was trying to get across when I said:

If you are simply saying that there are certain concepts which are “right” because they are stated in the text, and that we must accept them if we are to accept the text, then I agree with you.

To the extent that anything put forward by Stormfront, or Germaine Greer, or anyone else, clearly contradicts that which is expressly or implicitly stated in the text, then it cannot (in my view) be considered a valid interpretation of that text.

[Mister Underhill]

No. I don’t think that the one necessarily follows from the other.

I don’t know what to say to this. If something is wrong, it must be wrong in relation to something that is right, no? Granting, once again, that there certainly will be grey areas and that one overarching, all-inclusive Interpretation is not possible or even desirable.

Does that make it “wrong” on an objective level? Possibly it does, but only if one either tries to formulate some objective moral code against which to measure it (a tricky business) or takes the position that something is “wrong” if the majority believes it to be so.

Ack! A slippery slope that we’ve already argued in detail on Esty’s old Plato thread. However, I don’t think we need to reference an outside, objective morality at all. I think every text has its own implicit morality. I would be just as wrong to try to foist a peace, love, and tolerance interpretation on Mein Kampf.

Otherwise, I think we’re homing in on a consensus.

[The Saucepan Man]

Otherwise, I think we’re homing in on a consensus.

That would never do!

[bilbo_baggins]

To disagree with your (hopefully) sarcastic statement, it would do wonders, SpM. Everyone here has lost me about a million posts ago.

But, I can try to say something.

To agree (I think) with some of you, the Bible is obviously 'canon' for several million people, whether they disagree on various and sundry details (I mean the really little ones, like real or fake wine used in Eachurist). The same can be true about Tolkien. Many people disagree on little things in Tolkien, and sometimes don't realize that they agree on the big things.

Hopefully, we all agree that LoTR was written by Tolkien. And, hopefully again, that he also wrote TH, helped to write Sil., and HoME. The Big things. To appreciate Tolkien, the reader must decide for himself whether it is right or wrong to pursue what Tolkien wanted, or to be content with his own interpretation of the text. True, there may be good things about following pure Tolkien doctrine (if I may use such a word with all its connotation's), but on the other hand, one may find that a fellow Tolkienite doesn't agree on small things. That is okay.

SpM: Well, I think that we have to recognise that some of the concepts that they use to support their dreadful views are “correctly” interpreted because they are implicit in the text (examples would be the importance of the bloodline of Numenor and the superiority in some respects (longetivity, prowess, hardiness) of the Dunedain over other types of Men).

Saucepan, if I may dare to tell you, I believe everybody sees the obviousness of the Numenoreans superiority. That's a big thing, that most people believe. If one does not believe this, they are just sidetracked. I think that I'm agreeing with you here.

[Aiwendil]

Enchantment and Faerie

Note: This is a very long post, for which I apologize, and while I was writing it several other people posted.

I wonder if I am the only one that is a little bewildered by all this talk of "Faerie", and "windows to Faerie". I think it may be a good idea to pause and consider what is really meant by these things, and whether they have the kind of broad application that is being ascribed to them.

davem wrote (some time ago):

I think so much of Tolkien's capacity for creating the sense of 'enchantment' in his readers comes down to this - we don't feel he is 'revealing' new things to us so much as 'reminding' us of things we have forgotten. So rather than being amazed by our encounter with a completely unknown 'new' world, we feel at once 'at home' in Middle Earth.

I suppose this may be called the "enchantment thesis": what is so enchanting about Tolkien's works is that they remind us of, or give us access to, a "place" with which we all have some sort of subconscious connection.

As something of a logical extension of this idea, we come to the "Faerie" or "Perilous Realm" bit. The idea here seems to be that, once again, there is a "place" to which we have some kind of subconscious access, and that the primary function of fantasy is to "open a window" or "provide a road" to that place for the conscious mind.

Thus, the Legendarium, Smith, Roverandom, etc. become various alternative routes to this place called Faerie. Davem puts it like this:

If both Smith & Roverandom are windows onto Faerie (& the 'Little Kingdom' of Giles, we must also suppose), & if the inhabitants of Faerie even speak to us, & show us visions of their world, then the precise limits & definitions fade & vanish, & we are left with enchantment.

From this vantage point, it is easy to see the concept of "canon" (in its more restrictive meaning) becoming weakened. Again, Davem phrases it nicely:

Would Tolkien have thought 'canon' more important than this enchantment - probably not by the time he came to write Smith.

Perhaps in Smith Tolkien was dismantling his 'canon' & throwing open a 'window' to let in the air of another world, having realised that his 'Tree', the Legendarium which he had worked on all his life was just one tree in the forest of Faerie that Smith wandered in.

Mark12_30 appears to reject the anti-canon argument but to accept the Faerie argument:

I doubt he would have abandoned the cohesiveness that he was seeking for Middle-Earth (a magnificent road into Faerie) just because he had found and described two other roads (Roverandom, Smith.) I think he still pressed towards Eucatastrophe, that moment of truth shining through his myth(s) to the one true myth.

The first question I find myself asking is what exactly this "Faerie" realm is supposed to be. Are we to take all this literally and suppose that there is a real place called Faerie, of which we all have (for whatever reason) some kind of knowledge? Obviously, that would be quite absurd. We cannot really think that Tolkien had visions of some parallel universe; he was not really discovering already existing facts about his characters - he was, when we come down to it, inventing them.

It must, then, not be a real place but rather an imaginary one - one, perhaps, that is subconsciously imaginary. But if this is the case, the very notion of Faerie appears to be in danger - for why should different people all happen to have subconsciously imagine the same thing?

The only possible answer to that question is that various influences, both genetic and cultural, cause us each to formulate the same (or very similar) subconscious concepts.

And I can more or less accept that explanation. The trouble with this is twofold, however. First, it depends on a conjecture about the very complicated relationship between societal dynamics and neurology/psychology. Second (even supposing that conjecture is true), it inevitably deals with the concept of Faerie on an individual basis, as something that exists in this individual's mind, and in that individual's mind, etc. - rather than simply as a single entity, distinct from the individuals. To speak of Faerie simpliciter, rather than "this person's Faerie" and "that person's Faerie" becomes rather a dubious thing.

But supposing that this account is nonetheless valid, we still ought to ask to what extent this window to Faerie contributes to the value of a work of fantasy, and to what extent the value of fantasy depends on it.

This is where all the talk about Smith of Wooton Major and Roverandom and Farmer Giles of Ham makes me a little uneasy. Are these really just alternative roads to Faerie? Is the primary fucntion of fantasy just to act as a portal to this pre-existing imaginary realm?

We'd probably all agree that The Lord of the Rings is a greater work than any of the three I just mentioned. But why? If these are all just windows into Faerie, why should any window be better than any other? I suppose one could answer that The Lord of the Rings provides us with greater access than the others; the others are perhaps like little peepholes and arrowslits while LotR is a wide window. But again, I'd ask: why? What makes LotR a wider window than the others? Is it its length? Surely not; if Roverandom had happened to be 1,000 pages, that would not make it LotR's equal. Is it that Faerie is depicted more accurately, more vividly, in LotR? This sounds a bit more plausible, but I still don't like it. Roverandom paints a very vivid portrait of its own mythical world, within the limited space it has.

I think the real answer is that the greatness of a work of fantasy is not simply related to the degree to which it gives us access to Faerie. If The Lord of the Rings were just about Hobbits having tea, and Elves singing songs, and Dwarves gathering gold, and Dunedain patrolling the countryside, it would not be particularly good.

It is not enough simply to provide a window to Faerie.

Of course, I can't deny that milieu is a significant factor in the attraction of works like The Lord of the Rings. Nor can I deny that this notion of a place called Faerie has some validity. I am as enthralled by images of eagles circling overhead, of columns of horse-riders disappearing into the distance, of long and winding roads (though not Phil Spector's orchestration . . .), or of dark sylvan glades, as the next person. But when I think of The Lord of the Rings, it is not these generic images that first come to mind. It is, rather, the Balrog stepping forward onto the Bridge of Khazad-dum, the Nazgul being swept away in the flood at the ford, Eowyn plunging her blade into the Witch-king. I think first of images specific to Middle-earth.

This brings to mind a related point. Suppose we are indeed to think of Faerie as a place, albeit an imaginary one lurking somewhere in the subconscious. The images brought to mind by one of these "windows to Faerie" must then be supposed to be actual images of this imaginary place. But the place called Middle-earth is simply incompatible with the village of Wooton Major; they cannot simply be superimposed without contradictions arising between them. So if Faerie really is a single imaginary place, then neither Middle-earth nor Wooton Major can be it (or at least, they cannot both be).

I think it would therefore be advisable to drop the "place" analogy. Faerie is not a place, real or imaginary; it is rather a complex of ideas and associations. There are no facts about events in Faerie, or people in Faerie. There are only various ideas and images, many of them contradictory, that may collectively be called Faerie.

I think it is a mistake to overemphasize the function of fantasy as providing a window or portal to Faerie. This tends to treat a given work only as a means to gain access to that realm, rather than as something worthwhile in itself; it undervalues the individual work. Fordim and Bethberry touched upon this point a while back. Fordim wrote:

This is why I would resist any simplification of a figure like Shelob into something like an archetypal spider, when the ‘real’ (that is, subcreated) history of her is much more interesting and revealing.

And Bethberry:

Fordim, I would agree with you that to emphasise the archetypal quality over the exquisite details of Tolkien's individualising of the characters is reductive. That has been the problem it seems to me with the structuralist approach to narrative variants. It does not account for readers prefering one version over another. At some point we have to acknowledge and appreciate Tolkien's artistry--just what is it that has made us prefer his story over the archetypes of other fantasy writers?

While I think that the Faerie associations have a lot to do with LotR's appeal to me, I find I am chiefly interested in - dare I say it - the plot and (as a close second) the characters. I am chiefly interested in those things that Tolkien invented.

All of this reminds me of my reservations about the monomyth business of Joseph Campbell, which largely arises from Jung's archetypes. It's not that I don't think that the archetypes have value. Certainly, there are themes that appear again and again in the myths of very different cultures. The monomyth is a useful tool for analyzing these similarities. Where people go astray, I think, is when they assume that the monomyth is the whole story; that all myths are essentially the same, just variations on a single plot.

This kind of thing happens a lot with regard to Star Wars (probably because Lucas acknowledges that he was heavily influenced by Campbell). Someone will equate Anakin/Vader with, say, Satan, or Oedipus, or MacBeth, as if all these characters were fundamentally the same. In such discussions, I always point out that the fundamental progression of the Anakin/Vader character - miraculous birth; becomes champion of good; falls; becomes champion of evil; is redeemed - is something that exists in no other stories that I'm aware of.

It is the same with The Lord of the Rings (and the Silmarillion, for that matter). Take the Ring. I cannot think of another myth with a symbol quite like it - an artifact of immense power that is absolutely evil and will corrupt all that use it; a thing, moreover, that encapsulates the tension between two very different views of evil. This is not just a piece of Faerie; it is something peculiar to Tolkien.

I suppose that what I'm getting at is this. If we accept the semi-cliche that works of fantasy are windows into Faerie, we ought to combine it with another cliche: that the journey is more important than the destination. I would say that, rather than the value of LotR lying in its revelation of Faerie to us, the value of Faerie lies in its contribution to the greatness of such things as LotR.

A few other miscellaneous points:
Davem wrote:

Would Tolkien have thought 'canon' more important than this enchantment - probably not by the time he came to write Smith.

I think that, partially as a consequence of what I said above, this cannot be the case - for the value of the work lies in itself, not in providing a road to Faerie. In any case, Smith was published in 1967, and Tolkien continued to work on the Silmarillion material (with all appearances of intending to finish it) until shortly before his death.

Davem wrote:

There is a real danger of breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, of breaking the enchantment by attempting to find out too much about the spell & the one who cast it.

Mark12_30, The Saucepan Man, and Mr. Underhill have all expressed similar concerns (about analyzing the Letters, about the Letters analyzing the text, and about analyzing "enchantment", respectively).

I must say that while I think I understand the fear, I don't share it. First of all, we are breaking nothing. Whatever we may say or think, the texts will still exist as they always have. This may seem an obvious and insignificant point, but I think it is important. There is a very real difference between actually breaking something and merely analyzing it.

I have always felt that if the work in question is truly a good one, analysis can never do any harm to it. The enchantment, the spell of Faerie, or whatever you want to call it, is stronger than that. It is not something that scurries away as soon as you say its name. If a work is in fact great, then analyzing it can only deepen one's appreciation for it. And I think that Tolkien's work is great.

Nearly all of us here have engaged in a good bit of analysis of Tolkien's work over the years. Has anyone ever actually found that on re-reading LotR (or anything else), one's enjoyment of the work had been tarnished by over-analysis?

To return to the original topic of the thread: there has been some recent discussion of the validity of interpreting the text. Davem nicely encapsulated the question:

Does this 'widen' the concept of 'canonicity' to include not only what Tolkien wrote, but also what he 'meant'?

I don't have all that much to say about this, but I will make one point. I think the assumption has been that there are more or less two possibilities: either the "canon" is what Tolkien meant or there is no canon and we are free to interpret the text in any way we like. Each view has its difficulties. If it is Tolkien's intentions that matter - well, we can never really know what those intentions were. Moreover, this would mean that no work is self-sufficient; it can only be understood at all in the context of the author's letters, etc. On the other hand, the second view seems to give absurd interpretations the same validity as any others. The white supremacist "interpretations" of LotR are indeed an unpleasant example.

I think that there is a third way. A more useful thing to ask than "what did the author mean?" is "what would a reasonable person have meant?" That saves us from trying to divine Tolkien's state of mind but also allows us to say of certain views "that just doesn't make sense". It allows us to look at the text in itself without clearing the way for bizarre interpretations.

Of course, "reasonable person" is the difficult point, and I don't pretend that this is a simple prescription. But I think it works in principle, and allows us at the very least to dismiss the white supremacists.

What value do the Letters have in such a case? First of all, they obviously have intrinsic value in telling us about Tolkien as a person and an author, regardless of whether we equate Tolkien's meaning with the meaning of the text. But they also have value with regard to the text. For despite the fact that in this view, the meaning of the text is not defined as the intention of the author, we cannot escape the fact that it was Tolkien that wrote those words. If we presume that he was something like a reasonable person, then clearly he will, simply as a practical matter, have very great insight into the texts. His letters then have the same sort of value as anyone else's writings on the Legendarium, but they probably have a greater degree of value as a result of the circumstances of the writing of the texts.

Sorry if this post comes across as long and rambling; it was written with a multitude of interruptions.

[mark12_30]

Aiwendil,

There is a fundamental difference, I think, in the way that Faerie is viewed on which hinges all these discussions. I have shied away from it, but I think it is time to quote Tolkien. These quotes are both from On Fairy Stories; I had to scrounge for them online. Here goes.

“The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more correctly
of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous ‘turn’ (for there is no true end to any
fairy-tale): this joy, which is one of the things which fairy-stories can
produce supremely well, is not essentially ‘escapist’, or ‘fugitive’. In it’s
fairy-tale - or otherworld - setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace:
never to be counted on to recur. "


“.. the ‘joy’ in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse
of the underlying reality of truth. It is not only a ‘consolation’ for the sorrow
of this world, but a satisfaction, and an answer to that question, ‘Is it true?’
…But in the ‘eucatastrophe’ we see in a brief vision that the answer may be
greater – it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world.”

If one does not believe in absolute Truth, then the phrase " a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality of truth " is of little value, and hence the concept of "windows into Faerie" turns into something other than what Tolkien intended it to be and becomes amorphous indeed. in that case his definition is of little use.

If one believes in absolute Truth, one can accept Tolkien's definition as useful.

And there, I think, is the essential dividing line of this entire thread. Some do not believe in absolute Truth, and in that case, Tolkien's definition does not apply very well. Nor would Tolkien's story have a deep Truth to be revealed; everything becomes subjective and individualized. Others do believe in absolute Truth, and can accept Tolkien's definition of Faerie as a revelation of that truth, and see numerous demonstrations of Truth in each of his stories.

I doubt the two opposing views will come to agreement on that topic any time soon.

[bilbo_baggins]

And there, I think, is the essential dividing line of this entire thread. Some do not believe in absolute Truth, and in that case, Tolkien's definition does not apply very well. Nor would Tolkien's story have a deep Truth to be revealed; everything becomes subjective and individualized. Others do believe in absolute Truth, and can accept Tolkien's definition of Faerie as a revelation of that truth, and see numerous demonstrations of Truth in each of his stories.

Good one, Mark12_30, and I believe, those who take the side of non_absolutism for theory's sake.

I do believe that what you touched upon has a slight tinge of apprehension in it, at least for me. Let me quote again to clarify:

To understand the fruits, check the leaves, trunk, roots and the soil. Look at his life. Look at what he insisted was important for *him*, what he was grounded in.

Again, that was from another of Mark12_30's posts. I do believe that what you are touching, Mark, could be traced to Tolkien's Christianity. This could turn the thread to matters gone over time and time again. The thread really has been estranged.

[mark12_30]

That's why I stopped where I did. Peace.

[Mister Underhill]

Not at all, Aiwendil – it’s a typically lucid and reasoned post.

To clarify my own feeling slightly, I’m not really “concerned” about analyzing “enchantment”. If I were, I probably would have quit the Downs years ago. I merely observed that the analysis, for me, doesn’t get me any closer to understanding why or how it works.

I’m somewhere between the two poles you mentioned at the end of your post – author’s intentions at one end, anything goes at the other. I see where you’re headed with the “reasonable person” idea and it might make a good practical solution in many cases, but something tells me that there are many blind alleys and pitfalls down that road. For instance, we can hardly read Mein Kampf while giving Hitler the benefit of the doubt of being a reasonable person. Maybe that’s slightly off point since it’s not a work of fiction. Think of someone like the Marquis de Sade, then.

The book I mentioned earlier is called Story, by a fellow named Robert McKee. It’s nominally about screenwriting, but I think his theories on story can be discussed with regard to any medium intended to transmit story, including prose. He articulates a view which I have long held:

Master storytellers never explain. They do the hard, painfully creative thing – they dramatize. Audiences are rarely interested, and certainly never convinced, when forced to listen to the discussion of ideas. [...] A great story authenticates its ideas solely within the dynamics of its events; failure to express a view of life through the pure, honest consequences of human choice and action is a creative defeat no amount of clever language can salvage. [...] A story cannot be reduced to a rubric. Far more is captured within the web of a story than can ever be stated in words – subtleties, subtexts, conceits, double meanings, richness of all kinds. A story becomes a kind of living philosophy.

I think we can derive a certain amount of right meaning from a story without outside reference to the author’s intent or a hypothetical reasonable person. I think this might be the sort of idea that I, SPM, and Child were all nibbling around the edges of up above. If not, I’m sure they’ll let me know.

I doubt the two opposing views will come to agreement on that topic any time soon.

A most reliable prophecy, I think.

[davem]

Child

I think you make an interesting point re Tolkien's latest intentions about the Legendarium. Its something I've expressed before. The later works you mention are clearly 'theological' in intention, exploring the meaning of the Legendarium as much if not more than developing the story. I don't think they necessarily contradict the idea that he was moving away from the idea that such definite 'rules' & limits are important in sub creating a secondary world. I think the lack of set bounds & limits in Smith gave him a sense of freedom to create, & explore, Faerie. All the background he had created for Middle Earth would necessarily restrict his imagination, his sesne of artistic freedom. Perhaps part of his motivation in introducing (or attempting to) a new story, a new account, of the early period was simply that he felt too bound by what he already had. Whether you like or dislike the contents of 'Myths Transformed', what you see is a sudden burst of creativity. Smith is part of that to my mind. He was trying to break free from the restrictive rules he had imposed on himself.

As to interpretation, there is some freedom, but that freedom is limited, because, as has been pointed out, we can't make the text mean whatever we want it to mean. Of course, if we remove the author from the work, & treat it as a 'historical' account of an objectively existing 'world', then interpretation is not only valid, but necessary. So the question then becomes, is the Legendarium such an account, or is it a work of Art? Or a collection of Artworks.

If it is Art, then it is to be 'experienced' as much as (or more than) interpreted, & the effect it has on us will be the issue. So, whatever effect it has on us as individuals will be valid.

There was recently an bit of a spat in the Tolkien Society over whether a book by Terry Donaldson should be sold by the Society. The author is Irish, & in the book he stated that when he first read it he identified the people of the West as the Irish, & the Orcs, Nazgul, Balrogs, & ultimately Sauron, as representing the British 'invaders'. So we have an example of 'alplicabilty' here, whether its his interpretation, Stormfront's, or that of some Christians who see it as a Christian work. Art 'enchants' in a good or bad way, it casts a spell, changes us & the way we see the world. If we are enchanted we will experience the art, rather than interpret it or seek to discover 'meaning' or 'relevance'. If we are interpreting it we are not experiencing it. Interpretation is only possible once the spell is lifted (or if it was never truly cast).

In other words, like the wanderers in Faery, experiencing a 'fairy drama', who Tolkien speaks about in the Fairy Stories essay, while the spell is working we will simply believe that what we are seeing is 'real'. It will move us, to ecstacy, fear, horror, awe, & it will have no 'applicabilty' to anything beyond itself. This is the power of LotR or Smith. While we read (especially for the first time) these stories we are caught up in the enchantment, & the events & characters are simply what they are. Only when we step out of that world & attempt to interpret the events will we impose 'relevance' on those events & characters, & try & work out what they 'mean'. But while we were 'ensorcelled' they meant nothing beyond themselves. Aragorn (or Gandalf, or Frodo) was not an allegory of Christ while we were travelling with him on his journey through Middle Earth with the Fellowship. He was simply Aragorn. The Numenoreans were not Aryan 'supermen' while we were watching their history unfold within Middle Earth - or if they were then we were not enchanted, & were simply trying to understand an 'allegory'. It would then have been an intellectual game, played to gain ammunition for a 'battle' to be fought in the 'real' world.

So the issue of 'enchantment' is the central one here, not a side issue. Enchantment cannot be explained, only explained away. There is no 'meaning', no explanation, while we are wandering the paths of Faerie. It is what it is. When 'meaning' is sought, & certainly when we believe we have 'found' it, we are really admitting the spell has been lifted. Our attempts at 'interpretation' are really attempts to enchant ourselves - we are trying to work out how the trick was done, so we can do it to ourselves. But magic doesn't work that way. The teller of the tale is not enchanted by the telling, though he may have (must have?) been enchanted once. So all interpretations of Art are 'wrong', because they are unecessary. I don't think Tolkien drew much distinction between 'Monsters' & 'Critics' in this sense. A critic who attempts to 'explain' what a work of Art means has simply broken the thing to find out what it is made of, in order to put it back together, 'remake it in his own image', in order to claim it for his own. So Stormfront, or Mr Donaldson, or the Christian fundamentalists, or whoever are trying to claim the power of enchantment from Tolkien, to dictate the form of the enchantment that we will experience. But not being Artists themselves, but 'allegorists' they not only fail to enchant us, but risk breaking the power of the Art to enchant anyone again.

Where Tolkien the Artist succeeds, there is no 'meaning' to his stories, not 'intellectually' analisable 'meaning' - anymore than you or I or the guy across the street has any 'meaning', in the sense of our 'meaning' something else; we are what we are. Where Tolkien fails as an artist, we may find lots of 'meanings', but they won't matter to us in the least, if we have any sense, because then he would be attempting to make us think like him. He would be trying to 'allegorise' the world for us, rather than enchanting us.

The search for 'Meaning' in the 'secondary' world is one of the vices of we inhabitants of the 'primary' world. While we truly inhabit the secondary world it should seem as real as this world, because we should be totally 'in' that world, not looking on it, in a detatched way, from this world, & analyzing its 'meaning'. This world is this world, Middle Earth is Middle Earth, & I think Tolkien went to such pains to deny any allegorical meaning to his stories not because he wanted to avoid a lot of hassle from readers asking him how, exactly, LotR was 'allegorizing' WW2, (or the Christian life, or any other damn thing they could come up with) but because he knew that looking for allegory, interpreting the secondary world in terms of the primary, breaks the spell better than anything else.

The Legendarium doesn't 'mean' anything. That's why its so enchanting. There's no 'meaning' to argue about, no correct or incorrect 'interpretation' of anyone or anything in it, because when you're able to argue about such things you're no longer in that world, you're back in this one, & that's a bit like Aragorn or Gandalf trying to understand the meaning of this world, & interpret the 'allegory' of this particular world. This world is not an allegory, neither is Middle Earth, so neither of them can be interpreted, & nothing of relevance to this world can be found in Middle Earth while you're there. And you should be very careful in trying to bring anything back when you leave. In the old stories people who tried to bring back gold from Faerie found themselves with merely a handful of dead leaves (or something even less savoury )

[Mister Underhill]

At the risk of over-posting today:

davem, you seem to be equating “meaning” and "interpretation" with “allegorical meaning” and "allegorical interpretation". This is certainly not what I’m driving at; I don’t think others are either. You also seem to be expressing the idea that enchantment and meaning are mutually exclusive. Here I disagree strongly. I am with Aiwendil: without plot and characters, where is enchantment? If LotR were a thousand pages of standing around at an Elvish picnic admiring all the otherworldly aspects of Faerie while pixie-dust sprinkled gently down on our heads, we’d be using words like “intensely boring” and “pointless” instead of “enchanting”. The much-referenced “On Fairy Stories”:

Stories that are actually concerned primarily with “fairies,” that is with creatures that might also in modern English be called “elves,” are relatively rare, and as a rule not very interesting. Most good “fairy-stories” are about the adventures of men in the Perilous Realm or upon its shadowy marches. (emphasis Tolkien’s)

The Legendarium is a series of stories, not just a setting.