When Questions of Canon Should Be Questions of Writing
On one of the Tolkien discussion lists I’m on, the perennial question about Maedhros and Thangorodrim was posed: What does JRRT tell us about how Maedhros survived up there for so long?
The answer to that question is simple: JRRT doesn’t. At least, not in any of the books published during his lifetime or posthumously to this point.
The issue is a larger one. That this question comes up at least every year is indicative of its importance. This is a major event and a popular one to write about. Surely JRRT told us something about it! It is the fanfic writer’s instinct, when confronted with the desire to write about a particular event, to go to the texts for answers. But when there are no answers to be had …
What next?
My short answer was, and is: Use your imagination. Take what you know from the texts and how you personally interpret the texts and make something up. Yet I think that our perception of our relationship with the texts and of the texts to our stories sometimes makes this easier said than done. There is the uncomfortable feeling that one should not simply make up details about an event of such importance. Surely the answers lie in the texts somewhere, to the writer savvy enough to know where to look and know how to put the clues together!
I remember when I wrote Another Man’s Cage, my first reaction to posting that story was to label it as alternate universe (AU). The first reaction of many of my readers was to suggest that I do the same. To use a somewhat odd metaphor, imagine that I hold a rock, and that is my story. The big barnside is the text on which I am writing. If I peg the rock at the side of the barn, and it lands off in the tall weeds somewhere well away from and out of sight of the barn, then that is how scantily AMC was related to anything concrete in the texts. The texts shaped the direction of the story, but the story was quite independent of the texts after that initial toss.
I’ve already discussed at length elsewhere that this is not the same thing as AU. Yet that still does remove all of the squirmy discomfort that, in lobbing stones at barns, where those stones land might still be somehow wrong.
I do think, in writing Tolkien-based stories, that a lot of times we get hung up on questions of canon when the question should be writing: How to create an engaging and internally consistent story from one’s own head. Take the Maedhros-on-Thangorodrim example: JRRT gives us little help. Few events get such varied treatment in stories. I’ve seen,
- Morgoth sending a minion or going himself to force-feed Maedhros;
- Morgoth sustaining Maedhros unnaturally using “magic” (think Húrin);
- Maedhros only hanging for days or weeks, not years, because his story was exaggerated by loremasters and bards looking to tell a good story, so the how of survival isn’t even an issue;
- Maedhros surviving because, as an Elf recently arrived from the Blessed Realm, he had the endurance to do so; and
- Maedhros surviving on bugs and rainwater and determination until he’s rescued.
None of these are right; none are wrong. Each writer can provide his or her own facts from the texts to justify one interpretation over the other, and we’re no closer to an answer than we were at the start.
I love analyzing and discussing canon. I love taking the details used to arrive at each of the above interpretations and evaluating the relative worth of each, combining and recombining and questioning them, but at the end of the day, discussing “canon” about such questions with hopes of arriving at definitive answers to be applied to stories is pointless. It’s like arguing about whether Mexican, Thai, or Indian is the superior type of food. Each person can make her or his argument, but in the end, it really is a matter of taste.
On my list of things that I wish the Tolkien fandom would just get: stop turning such questions into questions of canon. Turn them into questions of writing. Accept that we will still be arguing about this twenty years from now, and–barring the publication or discovery of some textual evidence for the validity of one interpretation over another–we will still be no closer to an answer. What matters, at the end of the debate, isn’t what JRRT said or didn’t say, but how we present our stories, make them compelling, and make them work within our own visions of this world in which we play.
However, I think that anyone whose seen a couple of these go-arounds knows that such discussions tend to deteriorate into a squabbling over which set of facts is better put together than another. The question of how a writer uses her or his freedom to weave a compelling story around a major event where we have little help from the original author is never addressed; at least, I’ve never seen it. But that, I think, would be a productive conversation to have.
lease, come inside my humble cottage and have a seat by the fire. Many are the stories here, and they are not the sorts of stories you'll often hear beyond these walls. Yes, the world is listening--and judging--but do not worry. You are safe here. I am the Heretic Loremaster. I read the same books as everyone else, but I read them a little differently: I don't necessarily take them at their word. I like to look at the stories that build our mythological history from the eyes of those disfavored by that history.
Another idea on how Maedhros could have survived which I personally thought extremely intriguing was in Nol’s (applegnat on LJ) The Vain Songs. She took up an idea from ancient Greece, from the story of Achilles. After Achilles was born, his over-anxious mother bathed him in something (I forgot what exactly; I keep thinking dragon’s blood, but that may be intereference from the Sigfried/Sigurd saga) to preserve him from all bodily hurt. But of course she couldn’t bob the entire baby into the magic bath, she had to hold on to him somewhere. What she did hold on to was one ankle, which is of course why in the end Achilles is killed because of getting an arrow shot into what is even today called the Achilles tendon.
Nol used the same concept; over-anxious Fëanor, seeking to protect his newly-born son from the world’s harm, concocts some kind of powerful protective brew (no doubt Fëanor could somehow do that
), and bobs baby Maitimo in, providing him with some magical shield that cannot be broken by anyone but Fëanor himself, or “like fire”, as Morgoth tells Maitimo (who, of course, knows nothing about this): “thy god, thy father, and/or me”. (The fiery chasm Maedhros jumps into in the end is filled, of course, with the Flame Imperishable Eru set at the heart of the world, which is why it works.)
Of course Fëanor, too, has to hold on to something while bathing his firstborn in [Eldarin equivalent of dragon's blood]. He holds on to the right wrist.
I really quite love that idea, and I just didn’t snatch it for the plotbunny that crawled out of Angband because, well, it’s Nol’s idea (or at least I first and exclusively came across it in the Vain Songs) and I loved it so much I left it to her, and went with the second option you listed.
On my list of things that I wish the Tolkien fandom would just get: stop turning such questions into questions of canon.
Which is why I keep thinking that as long as something isn’texplicitly contradicted by any published work, it’s not “uncanonical” or AU. (And with that opinion I already consider myself somewhat of a canatic…) And even then I’m not always sure. If, of all the possible pairings in the texts, the writer explicitly denies one (Aredhel/Celegorm), there MUST be something to it, right? *coughs*
My favourite canatic (by which I this time mean people who turn everything into a question of holy canon) argument is “Tolkien would have disapproved of …, so how dare you interpret it into his characters?!” I’ve seen this show up especially on discussions on slash (”Tolkien, being a staunch catholic, would have disapproved of a homosexual love affairs…”), and it keeps boggling me. I mean, I am sure that Tolkien would also have disapproved of kinslaying, ship-burning, or taking the Lord’s name in vain, and YET it appears in his books…
…but that’s a different essay to be written another time.
I agree that Nol’s idea is a really cool one!
And it’s certainly an example of how a writer can use her/his imagination to fill in blanks in a story in a way that’s really intriguing and fun to read.
I sometimes feel like, in questions like this, it’s not so much that people even want an answer so much that they want their peers to contribute opinions as sort of path lights showing off the least controversial interpretations. (I seem to be into odd metaphors for this question!
)
I often say that if I’m at point A (e.g., Maedhros first hung from Thangorodrim) and I have to get to point B (e.g., his rescue by Fingon), then I could walk the straight and narrow path from A to B … or I could step off, wander around a bit, pick some flowers, turn a few cartwheels, retrace my steps for a while, and then waltz by myself to point B, and that’s no less “canonical” than simply walking the straight and narrow path that our Tolkien-writing peers have illuminated with their own work.
On the AU question, I tackle that here, complete with made-up terms and diagrams to illustrate all the ways that writers can use the original texts in creative ways without going “AU.” Personally, I think that very few things count as canon/fact, and very few details used in stories are actually AU, although prevailing fannish opinion leads to many of these ideas being mislabeled as one or the other.
On the question of intent–thank you for saying this; I completely agree! This is not a fair argument. First, JRRT is now more than three decades dead; he’s not answering our inquiries. Secondly, it’s just not playing fair. It’s trying to invest one interpretation with extra significance because of perceived adherence to the author’s own religious/moral beliefs. Implying that deviating from popular interpretation shows a lack of respect for JRRT and his work is similarly rage-inducing.
What disgusts me most about this particular argument as it is applied to slash goes along with your point: There is rape, torture, and murder in the Silm. In saying that there would not have been homosexuality because this is something so awful that JRRT never would have allowed his imaginary world to be tainted by it, that puts homosexuality as worse than rape, torture, and murder. This argument always tells me more about the backwards views of the person making it than it does about the imaginary world in which we all play.
Yes, yes, and yes! If it isn’t written down, make it up. There’s so little detail in the Silm that things have to be. And unless there’s a direct quote from said book to contradict the added details, I won’t consider them AU. It just doesn’t make sense to, else every story in this fandom would be AU.
“There is the uncomfortable feeling that one should not simply make up details about an event of such importance.” I suppose this is where concentrating mostly on original fiction makes a difference for me: I’m used to using my imagination to fill in all the details. Focusing mostly on fanfic, in some ways, can limit that ability, especially in fandoms where the details are spelled out. I don’t have that feeling- I simply check to make sure that I’m not accidently contradicting anything in the Silm (since I don’t consider HoME canon) and then write.
“What matters, at the end of the debate, isn’t what JRRT said or didn’t say, but how we present our stories, make them compelling, and make them work within our own visions of this world in which we play.” This. This is our duty as writers. It doesn’t matter how Maedhros survived, or if Balrogs have wings, or what color Legolas’ hair is. What matters is that we tell an internally consistant story.
“The question of how a writer uses her or his freedom to weave a compelling story around a major event where we have little help from the original author is never addressed [. . .].” It would defintely be an interesting discussion, since there are so many ways to do it.
I think that not only did JRRT not write about how Maedhros stayed alive for so long on Thangorodrim, but he didn’t consider it in any way. The Silmarillion in the form he left it has so few words to cover such a vast amout of time that he couldn’t afford to get bogged down in such petty details
But seriously, to me his world-building seems to be about the big picture, and we only see even such important characters as Maedhros and Feanor when they impact on that picture. It just isn’t about everyday life, which is why stories like your AMC are needed to fill in the gaps. There’s a lot of freedom there. As for the minor details, like the elf who cleans the public restrooms in Alqualonde, the chef at Ingwe’s palace, or the elf who keeps the parks in Tirion neat and tidy – I expect they would need to exist, but Tolkien (and fanfic authors, I guess) wasn’t interested in writing about them.
Oloriel, I am wondering about this:
If, of all the possible pairings in the texts, the writer explicitly denies one (Aredhel/Celegorm), there MUST be something to it, right? *coughs*
Its amazing how many people assume what a fannish writer might want to say when writing a piece regarding those two. Within Tolkien’s works, friendships are so immensely multi-layered that when a friendship grows between a man and woman, that – to me – doesn’t necessarily equal romance. I’ve seen it work, I read and appreciated it, but what I can’t appreciate is when people keep on insisting that I did mean something with a work where it absolutely isn’t there. I have no issues that folks see things in my work which I haven’t seen myself, but it becomes rather annoying when people keep on pushing their canonical view on someone at all cost. It really doesn’t leave any room for a different interpretation.
Dawn: However, I think that anyone whose seen a couple of these go-arounds knows that such discussions tend to deteriorate into a squabbling over which set of facts is better put together than another. The question of how a writer uses her or his freedom to weave a compelling story around a major event where we have little help from the original author is never addressed; at least, I’ve never seen it. But that, I think, would be a productive conversation to have.
I think its a matter of people wanting to maintain control over things in their lives. Some are just obsessed with that and what they know and how they see things are the absolute truth. Even though they might claim they are open minded, it is very hard to be truly that way (we can try though but we all have our weak moments). I think what matters more is just to simply show respect to those having another view and let them be if it bothers you. You can always click away, ignore it, ignore the writer or heed the warnings, yet it remains that itchy feeling, the need to correct people and get them in your comfy box. I don’t think that will ever change though.
Oh and the only wee AU’ish thing I can see in AMC might be the usuage of Formenos as an existing stronghold. Hence the usage of the word might here.
I personally loved AMC to bits!
Indy: As an o-fic writer as well, we’re in the same boat on this.
While I’m not trying to fault anyone for how they enjoy fanfic, I find myself baffled by the idea of reading fanfic to “get more Tolkien.” For me, it’s the opposite: I know what Tolkien said. When I pick up a fanfic, I want to see what that author has to say. My favorite authors weave gorgeous stories that uses yet remains in many ways independent of the texts. I like their stories, so that is why I read their writing. If I wanted more Tolkien … well, I have a whole shelf of books in the study! 
Also, I wish more people would take your point that if AU = invention, then all fanfic is AU. I here the spluttering, “But–but–you made that up!!” sometimes, but we all make things up, to a degree, in fanfic. Calling that “AU” makes the term AU absolutely meaningless.
On the last point, because there are so many ways to do it is why I wish more fanfic writers wanted to have this conversation. I often feel like we make up our minds where we stand in terms of “canon” but not in terms of where we stand on questions of craft or art. And, on the whole, I think that canon is the least important of the two where stories are concerned.
Lois: I’ve always felt that way too! I find it annoying when people impart some magical authority to the Silm when it was 1) published posthumously, 2) never finished, and 3) in part the invention of CT and Guy Kay. If JRRT had worked on Maedhros’s story more, who knows what he would have come up with. He was thinking of scrapping his Sun and Moon legend, so anything is possible.
And that’s an excellent point about how we only see the characters when their actions touch on the larger story. So the spluttering, “But–but–that’s not in the book!” that I mentioned in my reply to Indy is rather silly as well. It’s not possible for it to be in the book; that’s why we–as the minds and hands that JRRT said he wanted to carry out his vision–must put it there. Can you imagine a Silmarillion written with even half of the detail of LotR? My goodness!
Rhapsody: I agree that it’s poor form to ascribe intent to an author, which is part of the reason that the whole school of thought on canon that revolves around JRRT’s perceived intent annoys me so badly. I agree with you that, if someone walks away from your Celegorm/Aredhel friendship story convinced that there’s more to it than friendship, that’s their right, but to insist that you meant for them to have that interpretation is crossing a line, imho.
I think your point about truth is spot on as well. I think that people sometimes forget that we’re not talking about actual real-world facts when we talk about canon. We’re not talking about, for example, a writer in the literary genre making a mistake about the population of New York City in 1912 or getting the facts wrong about African religions. There are answers to those things and (in the case of the second example) mistakes can be disrespectful, even harmful. There aren’t necessarily answers in JRRT’s texts, but people need that perception of truth. To have multiple (equal) versions of truth is unsettling.
On Formenos, the only compelling argument I’ve heard so far about why there could not have been a settlement called Formenos before Feanor’s exile came from Darth Fingon, who pointed out that the meaning of Formenos (northern fortress? northern stronghold?) was suggestive of it being built with a defensive purpose in mind. I still don’t think that’s insurmountable, though, especially given my vision of Aman as a place that is often as dangerous as Middle-earth (with the exception of Melkor, at that point anyway). The idea that Formenos was built for Feanor’s exile, as far as I can tell, is CT’s idea.
So I’m content to agree with you and keep it firmly in the realm of Might!
[...] presented in the stories can’t be challenged in some way. I’ve argued yet elsewhere that where people are hung up on questions of canon, they need to be asking questions about stories [...]