‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader? [Archive] - Page 3

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

07-31-2005, 07:19 PM

Those are difficult questions to answer. Anyone who has read the rather complicated editorial history in the HarperCollins edition will realise that there were many publisher's errors to amend; but I am deeply suspicious of the correction of 'mistakes' that were apparently present in the author's original text. Far better, I think to assume that the inveterate tinkerer who wrote the book had done all the tinkering that he considered necessary before sending off his typescripts. After all, he had nearly twenty years to correct himself if he was unhappy with what he had printed.

Thus far I have avoided this thread, largely because I am so deeply unqualified to talk about literary theory and the philosophy of reading. Indeed I would have continued to leave well alone were it not for a discovery that may serve further to cloud these already murky waters. Anyone who reads my posts will know that I am no stranger to the conclusive Tolkien quotation, so it seems rather apt that in one of the disputedly 'canonical' sources I managed to find one that allows the reader a certain latitude.

The Athrabeth is a conversation, in which many assumptions and steps of thought have to be supplied by the reader.

Author's note #9 to the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth. HoME X, p.335

Of course some will be saying that this is unpublished, and that in any case the auctorial ogre has long since been laid low by the knights of criticism. To the latter I have no answer, other than that a text clearly is composed by someone, and that presumably that someone had at least an inkling of what they were trying to achieve. To the former I can reply that nobody would make such a statement unless he intended that someone else should read it. I would also say to both that my paradoxical use of the quotation above renders it equally useless to each side of the debate.

All of which is but to duck the issue through flippant obfuscation. My own views on Tolkien are every bit as complicated as the preceding comments would indicate. On the one hand he is an author of twentieth-century fiction, and therefore quite open to criticism under the normal rules. Therefore if the text supports the argument when cited in context then the argument stands. On the other hand, I would be the first to wheel out the Professor if someone asked me a question about the history of the Third Age or started saying that Hobbits can go to Aman and live forever. I am also not a subscriber to the 'death of the author' approach to texts. The composer has as much of a place in literature as does the reader, and to remove him from the equation looks suspiciously like an attempt to give the reader, or rather the literary critic, the sole significance in the process. I do not believe that an author's later comments are always correct, or even always consistent with the text, but even an anonymous author is still there, with all his influences and sources, opinions and beliefs. Texts do not write themselves.

Not that Anglo-Saxonists, and that would include the particular scholar under consideration, are any strangers to dead authors. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the early-medieval literary community were a long way ahead of Barthes in their approach to dissemination, and the effects of this are well known. In a fairly recent article, John D. Niles wrote:

While some contemporary scholars may still hesitate to embrace the advance in critical thinking to which Barthes refers - "The author is dead; long live the multidimensional space!" - specialists in Old English literature can rest fairly unperturbed by the banning of authors from the precinct where the meaning of texts is discerned. For it has long been evident that Anglo-Saxon poets, now quite literally dead for over a thousand years, have left behind texts that, with a few exceptions, are inscrutably anonymous. Much as we might wish for evidence bearing on the flesh-and-blood people who sought to endow these texts with significance, all we have today are the texts themselves confronting us in splendid, post-modern isolation. In the original manuscripts, these texts are simply juxtaposed. They are written out in uniform lines, one after another: untitled, unattributed, undatable, with only a capital letter, in many instances, to mark the end of one piece and the beginning of another.

John D. Niles. 'Sign and Psyche in Old English Poetry'. American Journal of Semiotics 9 (1992) 11-25.

My point would be that a writer in whose field most of the authors are anonymous, a large body of the works untitled and the date of composition often doubtful; a writer who himself acknowledges the importance of the reader's perception in the process, might well agree that he is not the owner of his work. However, there are still theories about Tolkien that are clearly just wrong, such as the old second-world-war-allegory chestnut. Where the reader is clearly off his rocker, I can think of no better argument than that of the author. Perhaps what is required in the issue of 'canonicity' is the exercise of our own judgement and common sense. No quotation from Tolkien will ever supply that, and nor will our freedom of interpretation. Somewhere between the two is a medium in which both are important, which is pleasingly similar to the position of the text. It stands poised between the author and the reader, so clearly something is required from both in order for the circuit to be completed. I simply do not understand why one should have to be the master, as though one were to ask whether the ability to speak or the ability to understand were more important in conversation. Having said that, where there is uncertainty I prefer to have the author's opinion rather than just my own guesswork; and I would rather have the opinion of an expert, whatever the issue, than rely on my own. This subject is no exception.

Fordim Hedgethistle

07-31-2005, 09:03 PM

A very interesting point Squatter but I've seen that argument about A-S critics and the anonymous/dead author before, and I must say that I'm suspicious of it. When Barthes declared the author dead he was not, of course, claiming that there is no author, but that from the point of view of the reader the Author (as the locus of meaning) is entirely inaccessible and irrelevant. He completes his argument, remember, with the famous phrase that "the author has always been dead".

In the A-S criticism I've seen (and here I am wandering off my ground...) there is a great deal of emphasis placed on the idea of the author, even though the texts are anonymous. "The Beowulf poet" is as compelling and interesting a presence behind that text (in the minds of the critics) as Tolkien is in the mind of many of his readers -- just because these critics don't know the name and occupation of the writer does not mean that they aren't interested in him (and I'm assuming it's a him). Consistent attention to the absence of the writer -- like the article you cite -- is simply another form of authorial-centric reading; the fact of the author's inscrutibility becomes just another way of focusing the reader's desire toward the author once more.

Please note that I am not claiming that Barthes is right and that all A-S critics are dupes to think that they 'got there first' -- I do tend to give Barthes argument a lot of credit, but only when I remember the whole argument (that the text comes alive and gains meaning within a social/political/interpersonal context that far surpasses the limits of any one individuality) rather than the media-friendly soundbite that is too often given to undergrads and to/by credulous reporters ("the author is dead!"). I am only trying to explain why I think that it might be a bit off the mark to claim that Tolkien's own view might have been in line with more contemporary theory.

That having been said, I could not agree more with your lovely summation of the reading/meaning experience. Like you I have always seen it as the site of negotiation between text and reader, with the opinions and 'intent' of the first reader (the author) as a useful perspective that we can use, or not, in broadening and adding subtlty to our own understanding.

HerenIstarion

08-01-2005, 03:48 AM

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

These are statistics

And here is the summation:

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

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

mark12_30

08-01-2005, 05:45 AM

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

On the writer of the story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tolkien Letter 89
…’eucatastrophe’: the sudden happy turn in a story which pierces you with a joy that brings tears (which I argued it is the hightest function of fairy-stories to produce.) And I was there let to the view that it produces its peculiar effect because it is a sudden glimpse of Truth*… *(Tolkien’s capitalization, not mine.)

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

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

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

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

The Saucepan Man

08-01-2005, 06:47 AM

Should we allow more changes in the statistics as given above (with regards to the titular 'Book or the Reader' issue?Ah, but HI, the fact that the statement is one with which you agree does not mean that it provides the answer for all of us. :p ;)

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

It stands poised between the author and the reader, so clearly something is required from both in order for the circuit to be completed. I simply do not understand why one should have to be the master, as though one were to ask whether the ability to speak or the ability to understand were more important in conversation.I simply do not get this analogy between the act of reading and a conversation. Reading is most unlike a conversation, because the reader is not free to ask the author whatever questions may come to mind and the development (as opposed to meaning) of the story is not dependent upon the reader's responses. The reader can only rely on that which the author has supplied.

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

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

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

davem

08-01-2005, 08:15 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Saucepan Man

08-01-2005, 08:59 AM

This is fine - as long as they don't go on from there & claim that the meaning they find in the text is the author's.Agreed.

If that reader says 'I know what the author meant but I don't like it & choose the text to mean something else.' I have no problem as such - I just don't think their choice is that relevant in a discussion of the text which seeks to understand what the author intended.Agreed.

or in any attempt to understand what the story means.Ah, therein lies the rub. ;)

Authorial intention is not the decisive factor in determining the meaning of a story, but merely the starting point upon which the reader bases his or her individual interpretation. If you want to find some kind of objective meaning outside of individual interpretation then you have to try to look for some kind of consensus between individual readers. Generally, the consensus will be in line with authorial intent, because most readers will exercise the judgment and common sense that Squatter talked of, and will be naturally inclined to take on board authorial intent (to the extent that they are aware of it).

This may not be the author's intention at all, as it assumes that the author is offering a random collection of statements for the reader to give meaning to. No, not a random collection of statements, but an ordered one which allows the reader (if he or she is so inclined) to apply a sensible interpretation (assuming that it is not the author's intention simply to write a load of gibberish ;) ).

mark12_30

08-01-2005, 11:00 AM

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

It may be so; see Letter 328.

HerenIstarion

08-01-2005, 11:23 AM

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

That's why I asks, or even begs, not states.

I was well aware this was coming, ever since that Canonicity Slapdown 2005 (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=12035) appeared, my previous was a feeble attempt to keep the low profile. In fact, I'm mildly surprised it took so long for this here mind-trap to emerge to the surface again. I feel I'm being sucked back in... Well, if you are prepared to go 13 pages of this all over again, so be it. I'm ready, bring them on! (but maybe better tomorrow, not just now)

Should we step up our desks, seeing as the discussion turns to dead poets somehow?

Just a minor bone-picking before I fall asleep from my chair:

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

1. Free questions re: Talking to a person with a large hairy wart on his/her nose, am I free to ask where s/he acquired such an adorment, however curious about the issue I may find myself?

2 Development re: Can I bend conversation to [insert the subject of your choice here], however big my desire, if the person I'm talking to A) was never interested/never heard about [subject of aforesaid choice] in the first place and B) is inclined to talk about flowers in pots?

But that's me being merely peevish, I'll see what the lot of you talk yourself into by morn tomorrow :D

Hoping to get as much fun out of this later as possible, since there seems no inclination of not tickling sleeping dragons, I say my compliments and withdraw for now...

cheers

Lalwendë

08-01-2005, 12:59 PM

Perhaps both C-threads ought to come to a Gentlemen's agreement and take each other outside for a bout of fisticuffs and see who emerges as winner. Or failing that could the threads be merged?

However, there are still theories about Tolkien that are clearly just wrong, such as the old second-world-war-allegory chestnut. Where the reader is clearly off his rocker, I can think of no better argument than that of the author.

Nine times out of ten, the reader's interpretation will accord with authorial intention (that's where common sense and judgment play their role), but it will not always be so. And, in some cases, the reader's interpretation may well be completely at odds with the author's intention, but nevertheless hold meaning for that reader.

I am very, very pleased that Tolkien expicitly stated that LotR was Not an allegory. If he had not done so, then we might all have spent many hours drawing analogies between the events in Middle-earth and events in the 20th Century. Time and again I will read something in LotR that brings to mind events of the last century, but then I stop and think and before I get carried away, remember that Tolkien said this was not the meaning of what I am reading.

So the Author clearly is not irrelevant. Anything I may 'see' or may individually interpret as similar to historical events is effectively wrong. I can see these elements as 'applicable' to our world, but I cannot and must not see them as allegorical. It isn't any consensus which does that, nor is it sense or judgement, it is the Author who tells me that this meaning I am constructing is wrong.

I think Tolkien was all too well aware of how readers can construct meanings, and he did want to steer us away from that particular path or else why would he have stated his case so clearly? If he had not done so then I am quite sure that upon publication some would have picked up LotR and said "ah, an allegory of..." because all the elements are in place; people still do this to this day before they learn otherwise, and it is Tolkien who steps in to 'put them straight' as 'twere.

Like Tony Blair and Saruman before him I'm sticking with the 'third way'. ;)

The Saucepan Man

08-01-2005, 06:56 PM

... how carefully one has to choose one's words on this thread. :D

It may be so; see Letter 328.OK, I'll allow you the possibility. But the fact that Tolkien felt the need to identify the man's pre-existing state of belief would seem to confirm its relevance to the issue.

1. Free questions re: Talking to a person with a large hairy wart on his/her nose, am I free to ask where s/he acquired such an adorment, however curious about the issue I may find myself?

2 Development re: Can I bend conversation to [insert the subject of your choice here], however big my desire, if the person I'm talking to A) was never interested/never heard about [subject of aforesaid choice] in the first place and B) is inclined to talk about flowers in pots?The fact that the scope of a conversation may be limited by social conventions (or any number of other factors) still does not render it analagous to the act of reading, where the involvement of the two 'actors' is restricted to the point where they both play entirely different roles.

It isn't any consensus which does that, nor is it sense or judgement, it is the Author who tells me that this meaning I am constructing is wrong. But what of a reader whose whose honest reaction to the story is to see it as an allegory? Is that reader wrong? Should they deny their genuine reaction to the story simply because the author tells them that it is not his intention that they should react in this way? What of the reader is unaware of the author's intention in this regard?

Surely a reader should be entitled to take the story as an allegory if that is their honest reaction to it, even if they acknowledge and accept that the author did not intend it as such.

Of course, most of us (possibly influenced by authorial intention, possibly relying on our own interpretation, but in most cases probably a combination of both) do not take LotR to be an allegory. So, on a 'near-as-we-can-get-to-an-objective-basis', it is not an allegory.

Like Tony Blair and Saruman before him I'm sticking with the 'third way'.Personally, I relish the company of neither. :eek: ;)

Estelyn Telcontar

08-02-2005, 01:48 AM

The issue of allegory vs. application comes right back to the central theme of this discussion. I can't say it better than Tolkien himself did in his foreword to LotR: ...the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author. That's it precisely - no reader can tell the author whether or not his work is an allegory, for an allegory is written purposefully; that decision is made by the author in the process of writing. If the author says it is or isn't an allegory, then we must accept his word for it.* However, neither can the author tell the reader that he may not apply aspects of his work to whatever he chooses, as application is an individual choice of the individual reader. This is where the interactive aspect comes in - each reader will apply different things to her/himself and her/his worldview, and that may well change during the course of a reader's lifetime/repeated re-readings.

*In the case that we do not have a definitive statement by the author as to whether his work is allegorical or not, there should be enough evidence made obvious in the work itself to prove a claim one way or the other. Otherwise, it remains ambiguous and any discussion thereof is speculative in nature.

The Saucepan Man

08-02-2005, 07:05 AM

That's it precisely - no reader can tell the author whether or not his work is an allegory, for an allegory is written purposefully ...Must an allegorical meaning be intended by the author in order to be an allegory? I think one can make a distinction between an allegorical meaning intended by the author (which does reside in the purposed domination of the author) an an allegorical meaning which the reader perceives, but which the author did not intend (which lies in the freedom of the reader to interpret).

davem

08-02-2005, 07:47 AM

Must an allegorical meaning be intended by the author in order to be an allegory? I think one can make a distinction between an allegorical meaning intended by the author (which does reside in the purposed domination of the author) an an allegorical meaning which the reader perceives, but which the author did not intend (which lies in the freedom of the reader to interpret).

I think this 'allegorical meaning which the reader percieves' is actually 'applicability'. I would put it this way - 'Applicability' is a movement 'outwards' from the secondary world to the primary world & 'overshadows' it in the readers mind. So, Saruman or Sauron may be 'applied' by the reader to Hitler, Stalin, Sadam Husssain, etc. They will 'see the primary world through enchanted eyes', but this will be a result of their freedom, not something that was imposed on them by the writer.

Allegory, on the other hand, is a movement 'inwards' from the primary to the secondary world, where the primary world (through the author) is imposed, or forced, on the secondary world - Hitler or Stalin is forced by the author on Saruman & the reader therefore has no choice but to accept that imposition.

Hope that makes some kind of sense...

The Saucepan Man

08-02-2005, 08:53 AM

I always saw applicability as involving the reader perceiving a meaning within a work that is personal to him/her as opposed to a meaning which relates to some external event (such as WW2). The latter would be an allegorical meaning, to my mind, even if unintended by the author.

But I take your point. Using your definition, it is impossible, by definition, for the reader to perceive an allegory which the author did not intend. The reader is, however, still free to perceive 'applicability' with regard to the same matters in respect of which the author has denied allegory, and so the 'prohibition' raised by Lalwendë does not arise. In other words, the reader is free to 'apply' LotR to WW2, even if the author did not intend the work as an allegory of that event.

mark12_30

08-02-2005, 09:12 AM

Just for fun:

“You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you like: and allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power” (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1995, p. 121.)

“The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on” (pp. 178-179.)

“Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power (exerted for domination)” (p. 246.)

The Saucepan Man

08-02-2005, 09:34 AM

“Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power (exerted for domination)” (p. 246.)Help! I feel purposively dominated by the power of the author! :p ;)

Bêthberry

08-02-2005, 09:52 AM

About this question of allegory, I would like to consider its context.

the text comes alive and gains meaning within a social/political/interpersonal context that far surpasses the limits of any one individuality

Fordim's summation of Barthes is I think an important point about this discussion, that there is always a context which informs the writer's thought and always one which also informs the reader's thought. It is not a question of ignoring the Author or denying what he has said, but recognising that the author wrote within a historical and cultural milieu which informed his thoughts, and recognising also that such a milieu informs readers' interpretations also.

That's it precisely - no reader can tell the author whether or not his work is an allegory, for an allegory is written purposefully; that decision is made by the author in the process of writing. If the author says it is or isn't an allegory, then we must accept his word for it.

One point I find fascinating about Tolkien's words in the Foreword is that they are written retrospectively, after the writing and publication of LotR, and in response to some critical observations.

In other words, this statement about allegory does not necessarily reflect Tolkien's conscious, deliberate thoughts while he was writing LotR.
They represent his thought, after the fact, in response to critics.
For us to understand the Foreward, we have to realise that this is the author responding to reader's thoughts post-WWII.

[What would be intriguing would be to find letters or other documents which give us insight into Tolkien's discussions with, say, C. S. Lewis, about allegory--a discussion which could have been carried on during the writing of LotR or during those many Inklings sessions at the Bird and Baby.]

On the other hand, this Forward could reflect Tolkien's reading back into his work so that it could not be taken as a simplistic encomium for the Allies. That is, the historical context of WWII and the post war years created a locus of interpretation for LotR--one which did not exist (or was in the process of being created) while Tolkien was writing LotR (but which did not explicitly exist while he was creating the Legendarium). Tolkien therefore had to distinguish between his book and the new historical milieu, in which people would read LotR. His purpose might have been more devoted towards disproving the simplistic equation of Victorious allies with Aragorn and Sauron with Hitler and the Nazis than towards an explicit statement about his allegorical intention. The Foreword in this context would be more about his concept of good and rightful action, in contrast to authoritarian mechanisation, than about his writing habits. It reflects his desire to write his book forward into history, I suppose it could be said.

My point is not to discount Tolkien's statement about the freedom of the reader but more to posit a context in which to consider his authorial statements.

Anyone who reads my posts will know that I am no stranger to the conclusive Tolkien quotation.

That is, I suggest that 'conclusive quotations' themselves need to be understood as falling within the purview of the interpretive habit.

Lalwendë

08-02-2005, 11:43 AM

Using your definition, it is impossible, by definition, for the reader to perceive an allegory which the author did not intend. The reader is, however, still free to perceive 'applicability' with regard to the same matters in respect of which the author has denied allegory, and so the 'prohibition' raised by Lalwendë does not arise. In other words, the reader is free to 'apply' LotR to WW2, even if the author did not intend the work as an allegory of that event.

No, the prohibition is still in force as to apply what we have read is just to draw parallels, while to see it as an allegory is to take those parallels and draw deeper significance or meaning from them. So for example if I was to say that the situation with Sauron reminded me of the situation with Hitler, that would be applicability. But if I was to go on and attribute the Sauron/Hitler link as being the meaning, then I would be saying it was allegory. And the author tells us explicitly that this is not the meaning.

The other thing is that Allegory is not necessarily forced on the reader in any case - it can be incredibly subtle, or the reader can simply miss it, and by the same token, it is also easy to 'read' something as an allegory even when it is not.

The Saucepan Man

08-02-2005, 11:57 AM

No, the prohibition is still in force as to apply what we have read is just to draw parallels, while to see it as an allegory is to take those parallels and draw deeper significance or meaning from them.In which case 'reader-perceived' allegory and applicability are not the same thing, and the reader should be free to take the story as an allegory if that is how he or she genuinely perceives it.

And the author tells us explicitly that this is not the meaning.He tells us that it is not his intended meaning. But can it not still be the readers perceived meaning?

Bêthberry

08-02-2005, 12:23 PM

In which case 'reader-perceived' allegory and applicability are not the same thing, and the reader should be free to take the story as an allegory if that is how he or she genuinely perceives it.

He tells us that it is not his intended meaning. But can it not still be the readers perceived meaning?

I repeat myself once again. Tolkien wrote his denial of allegory after the fact. Perceiving any kind of analogy with WWII is an act of retroactive reading, taking an historical context and reading it back into a text which was at least begun before the war, even if it was completed under the war's terrible cloud.

There are books which become more 'meaningful'--that is, more significant to our understanding of our world-- when events occur after they are written and published which somehow seem to resonate with events in the book, as if the book were prophetic in some way. The historical events make readers more aware of certain aspects in the book, things which might have been missed before the historical events, highlighting those events in particular ways which point to an interpretation.

This is entirely in keeping with how we read. We bring to every book we read our own personal experience and every other book we read. If we are attentive readers, we are careful to see how readerly desire informs our reading.

To me, the fascinating point about Tolkien's statement is how he attributes to the Allies tendancies more often attributed to Mordor--a point which the Hitler-allegorists were missing. Was Tolkien fighting against the developing mythology of WWII which created very much an evil/good split, particularly as the West came to know more and more about the Holocaust? Was he fighting against the victors' tendancy always to portray history from their point of view?

If so, he was suggesting that the act of reading and interpreting is a very subtle, complex act, rather than telling us an either/or way to read LotR.

davem

08-02-2005, 12:35 PM

He tells us that it is not his intended meaning. But can it not still be the readers perceived meaning?

But in order for the book to be taken as an allegory of WW2 (or WW1) there would have to be a one-to one correspondence between the events of the story & the events in the real world - which, as Tolkien points out in the foreword, there is not. Some events within the story may correspond closely to events in the real world - if the reader chooses to make those connections. It depends on how we read the story. Shippey, for instance, compares the Rammas of the Pelennor with the Maginot line - but Lewis & Currie, in The Uncharted Realms of Tolkien, draw a comparison between it & the Star Wars satellite defence system. Therefore, I think that both are approaching the Rammas from the perspective of applicability rather than allegory. If the Rammas was an allegory of the Maginot Line then it could not be applied fully to anything else - Star Wars or whatever. The allegorical meaning would be fixed, because it would be precise. What we have instead is a symbol which is more universal. The reader is free to apply it to any number of similar primary world situations. The story & its events are 'timeless' in that sense, & have no one-to-one connection with specific things/events.

From this point of view, Lembas both is the host & is absolutely not the host - it depends on how, or whether, the reader chooses to apply it. Both statements are true, but therefore Lembas is not an allegory of the Host To some readers it is the Host & nothing but the Host, to others it isn't anything of the sort. Applicability may be as absolute in the mind of the reader as allegory is in the mind of the writer.

One is left with the option of calling it a 'spiritual' allegory of the 'human condition', the events with which it deals being universal 'archetypes'. I suspect this is perhaps how Tolkien saw it. In Letter 71 Tolkien states:

'For 'romance' has grown out of allegory, & its wars are still derived from the 'inner war' of allegory in which good is on one side & various modes of badness on the other. In real (exterior) life men are on both sides: which means a motley alliance of orcs, beasts, demons, plain naturally honest men, & angels.

So, Tolkien admits 'allegory' of a sort into his Legendarium, but I don't think this clashes with his statement in the Foreword to LotR that the book is not an 'allegory' in the generally accepted sense - as, say, the Faerie Queene is, let alone The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe.

Lalwendë

08-02-2005, 01:33 PM

But in order for the book to be taken as an allegory of WW2 (or WW1) there would have to be a one-to one correspondence between the events of the story & the events in the real world

Not necessarily, as an allegory can have slight and subtle correspondences. The text does not even have to be wholly correspond. But it does have to work on more than one level, so it would be quite easy for someone determined enough to find the evidence that LotR was an allegory. It is simple to go from applicability to being able to read the text as an allegory. Which brings it round again to what SpM says:

He tells us that it is not his intended meaning. But can it not still be the readers perceived meaning?

So we have been told that it is not allegory, yet we can read it in that way if we wish. If we do, then that is the reader's perceived meaning, but it is not Tolkien's. So which is right? Do we ignore what the Author has told us, ignore the limits he has imposed?

drigel

08-02-2005, 01:35 PM

sigh.. the c thread :)

He tells us that it is not his intended meaning. But can it not still be the readers perceived meaning?

YES of course. But, then again, any written story with characters that are men /women, implied or observed can be treated thus. Jack and Jill went up the hill. So class (in essay form), explain to me what the hill really was. Also incorporate the pail's role in this story, and fully explain how it all relates to Existentialism. Double spaced please.

If so, he was suggesting that the act of reading and interpreting is a very subtle, complex act, rather than telling us an either/or way to read LotR.

Or, perhaps, we are trying to define a masterpiece. Contemporizing an author who used a non-contemporary writing style (late 19th to early 20th century) in relaying (translating) a tale thats was laid down, and then forgotten, from the dawn of time.

Was he fighting against the victors' tendancy always to portray history from their point of view?

Interesting query Beth! Ill throw out a somewhat rebellious and thought provoking (this could be its own thread) quote from SF author David Brin:

Well, LOTR is obviously an account written after the Ring War ended, long ago. Right? An account created by the victors.

So how do we know that Sauron really did have red glowing eyes?

Isn't some of that over-the-top description just the sort of thing that royal families used to promote, casting exaggerated aspersions on their vanquished foes and despoiling their monuments, reinforcing their own divine right to rule?

Yes, I'm having fun with words like "really" -- relating to a made-up story. But come along with me for a minute. Next time you re-read LOTR, count the number of examples... cases where powerful beings are vastly uglier than anybody with that kind of power would allow themselves to be. Why? How does being grotesquely ugly help you govern an empire?

Then unleash your imagination to take the story a bit farther. Have fun!

Ask yourself - "How would Sauron have described the situation?"

And then -- "What might 'really' have happened?"

Now ponder something that comes through even the party-line demonization of a crushed enemy. This clearcut and undeniable fact. Sauron's army was the one that included every species and race on Middle Earth, including all the despised colors of humanity, and all the lower classes.

Hm. Did they all leave their homes and march to war thinking "Oh, goody, let's go serve an evil dark lord"?

Or might they instead have thought they were the 'good guys', with a justifiable grievance worth fighting for, rebelling against an ancient, rigid, pyramid-shaped, feudal hierarchy topped by invader-alien elves and their Numenorean colonialist human lackeys?

Picture, for a moment, Sauron the Eternal Rebel, relentlessly maligned by the victors of the Ring War -- the royalists who control the bards and scribes (and movie-makers). Sauron, champion of the common Middle-Earther! Vanquished but still revered by the innumerable poor and oppressed who sit in their squalid huts, wary of the royal secret police with their magical spy-eyes, yet continuing to whisper stories, secretly dreaming and hoping that someday he will return... bringing more rings.

The allegories are as endless as there are people considering them...

Brin on Tolkien (http://www.davidbrin.com/tolkienarticle1.html)

The Saucepan Man

08-02-2005, 06:28 PM

Do we ignore what the Author has told us, ignore the limits he has imposed?Generally, I would not. The majority of those here would not. But some might (particularly if they are oblivious to such limits).

It's up to the reader. ;)

davem

08-03-2005, 02:51 AM

Generally, I would not. The majority of those here would not. But some might (particularly if they are oblivious to such limits).

It's up to the reader. ;)

I think the 'limits' have been set by Tolkien's definitions of 'allegory' & 'applicability'. If we take those terms & their definitions as the basis of our argument, we have to say that Tolkien was right - LotR is not an allegory in terms of the definition Tolkien set - there is no 'purposed domination of the author' - he did not write it as an allegory of WW2 or anything else. If the reader chooses to apply an 'allegorical' interpretation on it then that does not make it an allegory in Tolkien's terms, it is simply an example of the reader using his/her freedom.

Lalwendë

08-03-2005, 03:12 AM

Generally, I would not. The majority of those here would not. But some might (particularly if they are oblivious to such limits).

It's up to the reader.

I think the 'limits' have been set by Tolkien's definitions of 'allegory' & 'applicability'. If we take those terms & their definitions as the basis of our argument, we have to say that Tolkien was right - LotR is not an allegory in terms of the definition Tolkien set - there is no 'purposed domination of the author' - he did not write it as an allegory of WW2 or anything else. If the reader chooses to apply an 'allegorical' interpretation on it then that does not make it an allegory in Tolkien's terms, it is simply an example of the reader using his/her freedom.

This what I am getting at. Tolkien has established the terms in which LotR is to be understood, and he has not only stated that LotR is not allegory, but he has then defined that statement.

We could still see the work as allegory, but to do so we must choose to reject Tolkien's terms. Therefore in this case the Author is of great importance to our understanding, whether we accept or reject what he has stated.

HerenIstarion

08-03-2005, 04:22 AM

Brin on Tolkien (http://www.davidbrin.com/tolkienarticle1.html)

We on Brin (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=5939)

The Saucepan Man

08-03-2005, 06:53 AM

I think the 'limits' have been set by Tolkien's definitions of 'allegory' & 'applicability'. If we take those terms & their definitions as the basis of our argument, we have to say that Tolkien was right - LotR is not an allegory in terms of the definition Tolkien set - there is no 'purposed domination of the author' - he did not write it as an allegory of WW2 or anything else. If the reader chooses to apply an 'allegorical' interpretation on it then that does not make it an allegory in Tolkien's terms, it is simply an example of the reader using his/her freedom.Taking that definition of 'allegory', I agree. But is it a correct definition? Must the author intend a work to be allegorical for it to be labelled as such? There seems to me to be some question over this proposition.

In any event, the effect is the same whether we allow the reader to perceive an unintended allegorical meaning, or whether we categorise it as applicability. The reader remains free to interpret and to form his or her own understanding of the work.

Therefore in this case the Author is of great importance to our understanding, whether we accept or reject what he has stated.I don't think that anyone is questioning the importance of the author to the reader's understanding. Without the author, there would be no work for the reader to understand. The question for me is whether the author has the right to dictate the meaning of his work (and indeed the terms within which such meaning is defined) to his readers, and whether other readers have the right to label an interpretation which does not accord with the author's intention (or indeed their own) as (objectively) 'wrong'. I would submit that neither is the case.

I have not read the Brin article or the thread discussing it in detail, but a brief review highlights for me the importance of not dismissing a reader's interpretation out of hand simply because we do not agree with part (or even all) of what he or she is saying. It looks to me like Brin puts forward some interesting ways of looking at LotR which, while we might not agree with his conclusions, might nevertheless enhance our own understanding of the work.

davem

08-03-2005, 07:45 AM

Taking that definition of 'allegory', I agree. But is it a correct definition? Must the author intend a work to be allegorical for it to be labelled as such? There seems to me to be some question over this proposition.

Ok, in place of 'Allegory' & 'Applicability' substitute the terms 'X' & 'Y'. Tolkien has defined clearly what 'X' is - 'The purposed domination of the author.' ie the author sets a primary world event, or series of events, in a different form (a 'secondary world'), with a one-to-one correlation between the primary world events & the secondary world forms in which they appear - hence Hitler is Sauron, etc. Effectively, the author would be telling you 'Sauron is Hitler, & you must think of Hitler as you think of Sauron'.

He's also defined 'Y' (Applicability) as the freedom of the reader to make connections between the events of the story & events in the real world - if they so choose. Now, because he hasn't committed the 'sin' of doing 'X' those 'similarities' to the real world contained in the story will be sufficiently vague & generalised that the reader may find many opportunities of such 'applicability' without being able to find any absolute one-to-one correspondence for the whole story (ie if LotR is an allegory of WW2, & Sauron is an 'allegory' of Hitler, who is Frodo an allegory of?)

In any event, the effect is the same whether we allow the reader to perceive an unintended allegorical meaning, or whether we categorise it as applicability. The reader remains free to interpret and to form his or her own understanding of the work.

No - its only an allegory if Tolkien deliberately wrote it as one - which he didn't. Allegory is a literary form - an author either writes an allegory intentionally or he doesn't - at least in the sense that Tolkien is using the term. He didn't do 'X'.

Bêthberry

08-03-2005, 08:07 AM

So we have been told that it is not allegory, yet we can read it in that way if we wish. If we do, then that is the reader's perceived meaning, but it is not Tolkien's. So which is right? Do we ignore what the Author has told us, ignore the limits he has imposed?

Tolkien has established the terms in which LotR is to be understood, and he has not only stated that LotR is not allegory, but he has then defined that statement.

We could still see the work as allegory, but to do so we must choose to reject Tolkien's terms. Therefore in this case the Author is of great importance to our understanding, whether we accept or reject what he has stated.

I don't think that anyone is questioning the importance of the author to the reader's understanding. Without the author, there would be no work for the reader to understand. The question for me is whether the author has the right to dictate the meaning of his work (and indeed the terms within which such meaning is defined) to his readers, and whether other readers have the right to label an interpretation which does not accord with the author's intention (or indeed their own) as (objectively) 'wrong'. I would submit that neither is the case.

SpM has clarified exceptionally well in my opinion the subtle distinction between the importance of the author and the freedom of the reader to interpret a work.

I would like to suggest, in response to Lalwendë, that any author's definition about how to interpret his or her work, particularly one written after the work has been completed and published, should be referred back to the text for validation. Does Tolkien's definition of allegory apply to his work or is he attempting to bring out a quality which he wishes now, after publication, other readers to see?

In this case, Tolkien is writing in response to other readers' interpretations, and so it is not simply a question of the author's intention being of great importance to our understanding. This situation is an interpretational matrix where the author as reader is responding to other readers about the text. Tolkien here is an interpreter of his own work and we, as readers, have the right to examine or cross-examine any reader's interpretation to consider its appropriateness. This is particularly relevant in Tolkien's case becase he was such a tinker and wrote so many versions of, in particular, Galadriel. Readers might well indeed decide that in this case his work does support or demonstrate this distinction between allegory and applicability, but readers are not bound to automatically accepting his definition.

Lalwendë

08-03-2005, 09:06 AM

Readers might well indeed decide that in this case his work does support or demonstrate this distinction between allegory and applicability, but readers are not bound to automatically accepting his definition.

I'd agree with that, as readers will inevitably come to a variety of conclusions (some may choose to ignore what Tolkien said, while others may have simply omitted the foreword in the rush to read the story). So while we are not bound to accept Tolkien's definition, I have to ask, ought we to accept his definition? Does LotR make more sense if we do?

Mister Underhill

08-03-2005, 10:59 AM

As a writer -- and indeed just as a person going around in the world -- this attitude of complete interpretive "freedom" sort of bums me out. I picture a reader -- or just some dude that I'm trying to communicate with -- with arms crossed and an arrogant smirk on his face, saying, "You say what you have to say, then I'll decide what I want it to mean." I'd prefer a sincere attempt at understanding.

How annoyed do any of us here get when someone misunderstands -- or deliberately distorts -- the meaning and intention of one of our posts? And now I hear that the author's interpretation of his own post is only as valid as any other reader's?

"No, what I meant was--"
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

In any confrontation between a reader's interpretation and an author's intention, the author has the authority, the right, sometimes even the obligation to clarify his meaning. It reminds me of that scene in Annie Hall where the guy is pontificating about Marshall McLuhan, and Alvy goes, "Well, that's funny, I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here." Well, I happen to have Professor Tolkien right here to tell you that he didn't write an allegory of WWII. Can't we just take him at his word?

The Saucepan Man

08-03-2005, 11:21 AM

I'd prefer a sincere attempt at understanding. I agree. That is why I have always referred to the reader's 'honest' or 'genuine' understanding.

In any event, I think that we have little to fear from non-sensical interpretations. Even if they are genuine, they will be unacceptable to most other readers and will therefore never form part of our general understanding of the work.

In any confrontation between a reader's interpretation and an author's intention, the author has the authority, the right, sometimes even the obligation to clarify his meaning.Agreed. And the reader has the absolute right to disregard such clarification. The inclination of most readers who have any regard for the work, however, will be to take it on board.

Bêthberry

08-03-2005, 11:59 AM

How annoyed do any of us here get when someone misunderstands -- or deliberately distorts -- the meaning and intention of one of our posts? And now I hear that the author's interpretation of his own post is only as valid as any other reader's?

. . . .

Can't we just take him [Tolkien] at his word?

Methinks you doth protest too much, Mr. Underhill. You ought to know better than anyone here that sometimes people wilfully distort other people's posts and meanings, for a variety of reasons. It happens to me all the time. What is the recourse? Try to be more circumspect in writing posts originally, or to clarify the intent, or just to shrug it off as a funny thing that happened on the way to the forum?

Taking a writer "at his word" has many consequences. Sometimes writers deliberately try to obfuscate, because for a variety of very legitimate reasons they don't wish to provide an 'authoritative roadmap' to their work. Sometimes they legitimately forget or remember incorrectly (human memory being what it is). Sometimes they move further on with an idea and end up discussing the development, reading it back into the original intention. As Aiwendil discussed on one of our threads--was it Canonicity or one of the Galadriel ones?--Tolkien actually has three characterisations of Galadriel, and deciding which one to make applicable to LotR actually creates three different interpretations of the Lady of Lothlorien. We know that Tolkien changed his conception of what he was doing as he aged--even Christopher Tolkien admits this and in some measure regrets it--so why must we automatically assume any statement to be definitive?

It is thus not 'disrespectful' to the author to apply his own statements to his work. It in fact often can result in greater understanding or appreciation of his work and his methods.

So, along with SpM I agree that the important quality is the sincerity of the desire to understand. And a faith that the significant interpretations are those which will prove lasting. (Yet even here I have to remind myself that some histories have been lost because of the violence done to them.)

This said, however, it does not limit readers from being flippant or satirical or flatfooted or, in fact, even malicious. This kind of (mis)interpretation happens all the time no matter what critics or arbitrators or literary lawgivers might try to legislate or prescribe. Language is not a stable entity. What we can do to hold literary terrorists at bay is to describe the conditions for our interpretations rather than prescribe which meaning, without thought and consideration, is the solely acceptable one. That way, we make ourselves--and our beloved texts--less objects for attack or distortion.

Lalwendë

08-03-2005, 12:26 PM

In any event, I think that we have little to fear from non-sensical interpretations. Even if they are genuine, they will be unacceptable to most other readers and will therefore never form part of our general understanding of the work.

What we can do to hold literary terrorists at bay is to describe the conditions for our interpretations rather than prescribe which meaning, without thought and consideration, is the solely acceptable one. That way, we make ourselves--and our beloved texts--less objects for attack or distortion.

But doesn't this just mean that we have passed 'control' out of the hands of both Author and Reader? Who sets the conditions for interpretation? Is it a peer group of other readers? Or do we allow the professionals to set the boundaries? That suggests that instead of allowing meaning to lie within the experience of the reader and enabling true anarchy, the cognoscenti actually do not wish to relinquish control because said anarchy can also be risky. ;)

davem

08-03-2005, 01:03 PM

If a reader (or a 'critic') interprets (honestly oor otherwise) LotR as an allegory of WW2, that's up to them. the question is whether Tolkien wrote it as such. I think there's enough evidence to show he didn't. It may have been, in part, his response to WW2, & to other things that he had experienced - WW1, loss of his parents at a young age, etc. He himself stated that Sam was in part a tribute to the Batmen of WW1.

So, the Scouring of the Shire may have been his response to the destrucion oof the English countryside that he loved, but the result is not an 'allegory' of that destruction - it would be more accurate (though still not correct) to say it was his 'dream' of how the reality could be overturned & things brought back to the way he wanted them to be. The Ring is not an allegory of the Bomb (an interpretation he was constantly confronted with - it would be closer to the truth to say that the Bomb was an 'allegory' of the Ring - if the situation can work that way - because the Ring is an 'Archetypal' Image of an absolutely destructive, corrupting force. Thus it can be 'applied' (as with the Rammas) to an number of Primary world objects (& philosophies), from toxic waste to Islamicism or the kind of militant Christian fundamentalism that results in doctors & nurses working in abortion clinics being assaualted & even murdered.

The fact that so many different readers can 'find' so many different 'allegorical' interpretations of the work proves that it either was never written as an allegory of WW2 or anything else, or that if it was it was a very poorly done thing, because in spite of the author's supposed intention to tell the story of WW2 in allegorical form, most readers don't get it, & think he was writing an allegory of something else entirely.

As to Bb's point about the development of Galadriel's character over time, to me this shows that Tolkien didn't see the character as an 'allegory' of anyone/thing in WW2 - by changing her character he would have changed the meaning of the story she played a part in. The most you could say then is that possibly, at some point, Tolkien intended an allegorical meaning, but that almost immediately he changed his mind.

This is a point that is too easily forgotten - the Legendarium was [i]never/i] 'fixed'. It was a developing conception, which only became set in stone at his death - because he was no longer around to continue it. It was like Niggle's Tree - constantly being changed on the canvas because the thing he was painting was a 'living' thing. His attempts in the Letters to 'explain' the characters & events of LotR were not so much attempts at pushing his readers into accepting a particular understanding of the story, but rather his own attempts to understand something not entirely (if at all) of his own making. What one gets from reading HoMe & the Letters is the sense that he himself didn't fully understand 'his' mythology - it was as much a mystery to him as to any of its readers.

To read vols 6-9 of HoMe is enough to convince anyone that it is not an allegory of anything - either specifically or generally. If it was simply (even at the time of writing) simply an allegory of WW2 he would not have struggled so much to produce it - he could simply have read the daily reports in the Times & 'rewritten' them in mythic form. He struggled till he 'discovered' 'what really happened'.

And let's face it, he, & his publishers, would have had a much easier time selling an 'allegory' of WW2 to the public than an 'heroic romance'. For all his protestations about it not being an allegory in the Foreword the Second Edition, his words in the First Edition foreword are even clearer that it is not anything but a 'fairystory'.

This tale, which has grown almost to be a history of the great War of the Ring, is drawn for the most part from the memoirs of the renowned Hobbits, Bilbo and Frodo, as they are preserved in the Red Book of Westmarch. This chief monument to Hobbit-lore is so called because it was compiled, repeatedly copied, and enlarged and handed down in the family of the Fairbairns of Westmarch, descended from that Master Samwise of whom this tale has much to say.I have supplemented the account of the Red Book, in places, with information derived from the surviving records of Gondor, notably the Book of the Kings; but in general, though I have omitted much, I have in this tale adhered more closely to the actual words and narrative of my original than in the previous selection from the Red Book, The Hobbit. That was drawn from the early chapters, composed originally by Bilbo himself. If 'composed' is a just word. Bilbo was not assiduous, nor an orderly narrator, and his account is involved and discursive, and sometimes confused: faults that still appear in the Red Book, since the copiers were pious and careful, and altered very little.The tale has been put into its present form in response to the many requests that I have received for further information about the history of the Third Age, and about Hobbits in particular. But since my children and others of their age, who first heard of the finding of the Ring, have grown older with the years, this book speaks more plainly of those darker things which lurked only on the borders of the earlier tale, but which have troubled Middle-earth in all its history. It is, in fact, not a book written for children at all; though many children will, of course, be interested in it, or parts of it, as they still are in the histories and legends of other times (especially in those not specially written for them).I dedicate this book to all admirers of Bilbo, but especially to my sons and daughter, and to my friends the Inklings. To the Inklings, because they have already listened to it with a patience, and indeed with an interest, that almost leads me to suspect that they have hobbit-blood in their venerable ancestry. To my sons and my daughter for the same reason, and also because they have all helped me in the labours of composition. If 'composition' is a just word, and these pages do not deserve all that I have said about Bilbo's work.

For if the labour has been long (more than fourteen years), it has been neither orderly nor continuous. But I have not had Bilbo's leisure. Indeed much of that time has contained for me no leisure at all, and more than once for a whole year the dust has gathered on my unfinished pages. I only say this to explain to those who have waited for the book why they have had to wait so long. I have no reason to complain. I am surprised and delighted to find from numerous letters that so many people, both in England and across the Water, share my interest in this almost forgotten history; but it is not yet universally recognised as an important branch of study. It has indeed no obvious practical use, and those who go in for it can hardly expect to be assisted.Much information, necessary and unnecessary, will be found in the Prologue. To complete it some maps are given, including one of the Shire that has been approved as reasonably correct by those Hobbits that still concern themselves with ancient history. At the end of the third volume will be found some abridged family-trees, which show how the Hobbits mentioned were related to one another, and what their ages were at the time when the story opens. There is an index of names and strange words with some explanations. And for those who like such lore in an appendix some brief account is given of the languages, alphabets and calendars that were used in the West-lands in the Third Age of Middle-earth. Those who do not need such information, or who do not wish for it, may neglect these pages; and the strange names that they meet they may, of course, pronounce as they like. Care has been given to their transcription from the original alphabets and some notes are offered on the intentions of the spelling adopted* But not all are interested in such matters, and many who are not may still find the account of those great and valiant deeds worth the reading. It was in that hope that I began the work of translating and selecting the stories of the Red Book, part of which are now presented to Men of a later Age, one almost as darkling and ominous as was the Third Age that ended with the great years 1418 and 1419 of the Shire long ago.

The Saucepan Man

08-03-2005, 01:57 PM

Lalwendë

08-03-2005, 02:29 PM

Even if they wish to do so, they have no control over the reader's honest reaction to the work. They may have influence, but they have no control.

Now, as a parent, wouldn't you say that exerting an influence is a form of control? It may be control in a velvet glove, but it is still done to direct and to steer away from what is seen as the wrong path?

And having an influence can also depend upon who has that influence. If it is someone with status, then they are able to exert greater pressure than those who have little status. As I've said in the other C thread, you may well retain the right to do or say something but if nobody wants to listen or you do not have the means to express yourself then it is of little consequence.

davem

08-03-2005, 03:01 PM

Davem, I think that most of us would agree that Tolkien did not intend LotR to be an allegory of WW2. Does that assist us (either individually or as an 'intepretive community') in our understanding of LotR? Well, yes. But only to the extent that we take account of authorial intention. And whether or not we do so is down to us (individually or collectively) as readers.

I'm focussing on the specific example of 'LotR as an allegory of WW2' in order to explore the idea of seeing it as an allegory generally. Too many people seem to take the approach 'Well, ok, I accept its not an allegory of 'X' (WW2) but I'm pretty sure its an allegory of 'Y' (fill in the blank).

You seem to be suggesting that this 'authorial intention' is something that can be divorced from the work itself - which is another way of denying the author's presence in the work. The work only exists because of the 'Author's intention' that it should. It is not an objective collection of statements but a work of Art. And so it must be taken. The 'Tower' of the Beowulf essay analogy/allegory was not a pile of stones which people who came upon it could take for what they wanted. It was a Tower, built with the express intention on the builder's part that he could look out on the Sea. Of course, others could come along, climb it & look at other things, or even (as in the analogy/allegory) demolish it to find out where the stones of which it was built originated.

If they climb it & look at other things they are not using it for the purpose for which it was built. And however vociferous (& honest) they may be in their claims that it was built to 'look at the stars' or so the builder could have a quiet spot to read in, or that it was a castle (& thence to proceed to invent a 'history' for the local area in which there were assaults by a powerful enemy), etc, they would be wrong. No if, buts, or two ways about it. All the 'explanations' they come up with would be cases of 'applicability', not allegory, & they certainly wouldn't be 'equally valid' alongside the reason explicitly stated by the man who built the thing. If he says 'I built that Tower in order to look out on the Sea' (& if, climbing that tower one could see the Sea from its top) then I think we have to accept that it was built for the reason the man gives, & not try & impute other, more 'nefarious' reasons to him, accuse him of trying to cover up his real motives, or of changing his mind about its purpose after he had built it.

'Its a Tower I built in order that I could look out on the Sea, not a defensive structure.' is a clear enough statement, provable by experiment, & I think we should take his word for it unless we can prove him wrong. If the Tower can be made to serve another purpose by someone else, fine, but they would not be using the Tower for the purpose for which it was built - & they should admit that, & not claim that they know the 'real' intention behind it.

The reader's interpretation is merely what they do with the book. All you seem to be doing is restating Tolkien's own position. It isn't an allegory of WW2 (or anything else) but the reader is free to find whatever meaning or relevance they can, or wish to, in it. The thing about your approach though is that it makes the later use of the 'Tower' by someone using it (or seeing it) as a castle equal to to that of the builder - it says that the builder (or writer) is no more important than the user (or reader). This, to my mind is wrong, if for no other reason than it doesn't show sufficient respect to the builder/writer. We are not equal creators of Middle earth with Tolkien. He gives, we recieve. Gratitude & respect, if nothing else, should require us to take account of 'authorial intention', & to give that greater weight than we give to our own interpretation - even put aside our own interpretation infavour of his stated intention.

Bêthberry

08-03-2005, 03:51 PM

But doesn't this just mean that we have passed 'control' out of the hands of both Author and Reader? Who sets the conditions for interpretation? Is it a peer group of other readers? Or do we allow the professionals to set the boundaries? That suggests that instead of allowing meaning to lie within the experience of the reader and enabling true anarchy, the cognoscenti actually do not wish to relinquish control because said anarchy can also be risky. ;)

No, I really don't see where that necessarily follows, unless my questionable analogy of literary terrorist is at fault, for which bad taste I apologise.

Where individual readers discuss their own interpretations, interpretive communities will be developed out of the ferment, even the anarchy, of the discussions, as readers come to understand each other's perspective. Where we don't castigate interpretations as wrong or invalid or incorrect but instead consider their reasons, where we don't ridicule interpretations because they aren't based on wide reading experience, or grand knowledge or privileged information, we tend to develop better, more imaginative, more open-minded readers.

In pedagogical terms, it is difference between the teacher as a facilitator of learning and the teacher as proponent of content. From comments in your posts, I would assume you knew mainly the latter kind of teacher and school, but I have seen the former kind.

If the Tower can be made to serve another purpose by someone else, fine, but they would not be using the Tower for the purpose for which it was built - & they should admit that, & not claim that they know the 'real' intention behind it.

Hmm. I am not aware that I have claimed I know the real intention behind this tower. I did say this:

It in fact often can result in greater understanding or appreciation of his work and his methods.

But that is not the same thing as 'claiming to know the 'real' intention behind it.'

EDIT: Perhaps another way of explaining is to offer this experience of mine. While in London last summer, I came upon a small statue dedicated to someone. This statue was not listed in any of the tour books or guidebooks or histories that I had read prior to coming to London. Yet I knew who this person was because she had had a monument named after her in my home country--a mountain in fact, with a glacier. In one flash, time and space conflated and I was no longer a foreigner in London, but had found a small piece that I could interpret as my own. This interpretation is intensely personal, based upon a work of Art and Nature (how more Blakian than that) and completely independent of any knowledge of why and how the statue got placed in Charing Cross in the first place. That purpose is in fact irrelevant to my artistic experience, which likely has no great importance to others and certainly not to those who heroically endeavoured to commemorate the woman's fate, but remains very important to me. As I read the plaque, of course I came to know more about why the statue was built, but that knowledge really was, if I may borrow a term from davem, baggage which added to my experience after the fact but did not contribute to the initial aesthetic experience.

It is possible to have a meaningful personal experience of a work of Art without knowing what or how the author wanted me to experience. This does not mean the author's intention is irrelevant, but that it is not crucial to the aesthetic experience. At least, intention as explained not in the story itself but in a prose explication written after the fact.

Thenamir

08-03-2005, 04:21 PM

Let me begin here by saying that I mean no offense to any particular contributor here. I haven't had a good rant in some time, and I find here an opportunity.

I have been posting in the Canonicity Slapdown thread (nearly identical to this one in terms of fluff and frippery), but I have to say that the amount of noise being generated on this topic is certainly annoying and nearly fatal. In the other thread I have attempted to post my opinions with some lucidity, but now I'm throwing down the gauntlet.

With no attempts to read between the lines or find nuances of influencein some obscure turn of phrase in Letters, I want a sound, authoritative reponse to the following. I will verbally flog anyone who responds to this post with an "I think..." or an "I feel..." Give me facts.

On the topic of Authorial Intent, I posted the following on the other thread:
I remember reading somewhere...that The Good Professor's main, or at least initial intention in writing LOTR was (I paraphrase) to see if it was possible for him to keep readers' interest with a story considerably longer than that of The Hobbit...Secondarily, I believe it was noted by Tolkien in yet another reference which escapes me that he essentially created the corpus of Middle-Earthian history and literature as a place in which his invented languages could "live." -- his linguistic sandbox, if you will.

Now will someone please QUOTE Tolkien and (1) remind me where these references are, and (2) demonstrate that there was something other than these purposes INTENDED by the author, in his own words, with references. Until you can do that (and I am not well-read enough to deny that such references exist), don't pretend to be discussing authorial intent. Anything else is either guesswork or indirect necromancy.

On the subject of reader interpretation, suffice it to say that there are as many identical points of view on "what Tolkien means to me" as there are idenitcal snowflakes. It appears to me that verbage (rhymes with garbage) is being multiplied ad nauseum (with yours truly only adding to the weight of bandwidth) with ideas and whole conversations being repeated until the whole looks like a time-exposure photograph of a dog chasing its tail. Again, I truly mean no offense, but dadgummit, every reader is going to bring something different to this party, and judging one or another opinion as "mainstream" or "crazy" is not going to change the minds of those so inclined. It seems futile to say the least.

It has been said that insanity is "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Not only is the same thing being said over and over with no discernable result, but a new thread has been started which is paralleling the same stuff yet again. In my opinion, which I'm sure will be debated hereafter :rolleyes: , this is a thread which should have been closed a year ago.

But then again, I got a really good rant out of it, so maybe it *does* serve a purpose. :) Flame away! And have fun with it!

Mister Underhill

08-03-2005, 04:44 PM

I interpret your post as a big thumbs up on how the thread is progressing and a note of encouragement to continue steady on. And you can take your authorial intention and stick it. Thanks for your support! :p

davem

08-03-2005, 04:49 PM

Hmm. I am not aware that I have claimed I know the real intention behind this tower.

It wasn't aimed at you - stop trying to catch the spears ;)

But that is not the same thing as 'claiming to know the 'real' intention behind it.' I am talking about education in artistic method, not archeology.

'Education in artistic method' sounds a bit deadly.... :p

It is possible to have a meaningful personal experience of a work of Art without knowing what or how the author wanted me to experience. This does not mean the author's intention is irrelevant, but that it is not crucial to the aesthetic experience. At least, intention as explained not in the story itself but in a prose explication written after the fact.

As I've argued myself, & I would hold that experience as primary & most important - but that's not what we're arguing about in this thread...

In my opinion, which I'm sure will be debated hereafter , this is a thread which should have been closed a year ago.

You just don't like to see people having fun, obviously. We all know very well what we're doing here, that it is never going to get anywhere. The purpose of this thread is twofold - one, to see in how many ways we can all repeat ourselves, & two, to see how long we can keep it going.

Oh, there is the 'annoying' newbies (to this thread, at least) thing which adds a little spice.....

The Saucepan Man

08-03-2005, 06:04 PM

Now, as a parent, wouldn't you say that exerting an influence is a form of control? It may be control in a velvet glove, but it is still done to direct and to steer away from what is seen as the wrong path? Influence, yes. A measure of control, yes. But absolute control, no (more's the pity ;) ). But is the influence of one reader over another analagous to the parent/child relationship? It's possible, I suppose (for example where one reader is a parent and the other his or her child :p ), but it depends upon the individuals involved, their relationship to each other and, most likely, a variety of other factors.

You seem to be suggesting that this 'authorial intention' is something that can be divorced from the work itself - which is another way of denying the author's presence in the work.Not at all. I am simply saying that it is up to the reader whether or not he accepts authorial intention (as far as he is aware of it) in his interpretation of the work. Of course, to the extent that such intention is intrinsic within the work, then he is bound to take it into account.

In your Tower example, a visitor may well accept that it was built for the specific purpose intended by the builder but, if they find that an alternative purpose suits them better, why should they not be entitled to use it for that alternative purpose?

If the Tower can be made to serve another purpose by someone else, fine, but they would not be using the Tower for the purpose for which it was built - & they should admit that, & not claim that they know the 'real' intention behind it.We can never fully know the intentions of the author because we can never know his mind. But to the extent that he has stated his intentions, I see no reason to deny them and have never sought to suggest that we should. Although, as Bêthberry has said, we should acknowledge that the author's intentions will have changed over time.

The thing about your approach though is that it makes the later use of the 'Tower' by someone using it (or seeing it) as a castle equal to to that of the builder - it says that the builder (or writer) is no more important than the user (or reader).Important to whom and in what regard? The fact that the builder built the tower is clearly very important to the subsequent user, since otherwise he would not be able to use it himself. The use to which the builder put it may also be important to him since it may assist him in deciding how to use it. Or it may be of little value, because he wants to use it for something entirely different. In either case, however, it is the use to which he ultimately puts it which will be of greatest importance to him. Otherwise, he would do something different with it.

The purpose of this thread is twofold - one, to see in how many ways we can all repeat ourselves, & two, to see how long we can keep it going.Well, at least we can agree on the purpose of this thread. :D

Formendacil

08-03-2005, 07:20 PM

"Tolkien's Meaning?" Or: "What Tolkien Means?"

It seems to me, that the two sides of the debate can be summed up by one of the two above phrases. Those of the "Tolkien's Meaning" camp are those who are in the Authorial Intent camp (which includes myself, by the way). These readers are looking for Tolkien's Meaning- what did the Author intend to be read here.

Those in the "What Tolkien Means" camp are those who assert the Independence of the Reader (fools, in my opinion). They are not looking for what Tolkien means to say, but are stating what Tolkien means to them.

Now, I am well aware that the Lord of the Rings was not, in Tolkien's opinion, an allegory. Nor was it intended, apparently, to be anything for its readers other than a blessed good read. However, if one looks at the "Meaning" side of things only, it is clear that REASON the Lord of the Rings was written was not so much to give the readers insights into their OWN minds (as the Reader-Camp asserts), but rather a means to pass along the meaning that TOLKIEN intended.

It's like a telagram. The meaning of that message is determined by the sender. That is what he or she is trying to pass along to the receiver. The receiver can, according to his free will (and let's not get that debate mixed in here...) mix up the meaning of that message howsoever he or she wants. And if the message is vague enough, or unclear in parts, then this is a natural happening and should not be harshly judged if the received meaning. But if the meaning is clearing stated by the text, then that is clearly the CORRECT meaning, howsoever you distort it in your own mind for your own purposes.

Likewise, the Lord of the Rings has its intended "messages". This is the canon establised by Tolkien: all the story, innuendo, background, languages, and morals that we are MEANT to receive from his epic. At times the exact definition of this message is confused, hence we have Balrog-wing debates and such to determine what was really intended. But in places where the author is quite clear about what his message, such as the fact that the Lord of the Rings is not an allegory, then going against this is a defial of the proper meaning.

And on the subject of Balrog-wing debates...

Surely none of the Reader's Rights camp should have participated in them- at least not with great heat. After all, if Tolkien's intention as to whether or not the Balrog in the "Fellowship" has wings, then why should they participate, seeing as they believe that Readers' Insights trump Authorial Intent?

~A Very Biased Devil's Advocate -

Formendacil~

The Saucepan Man

08-03-2005, 07:30 PM

They are not looking for what Tolkien means to say, but are stating what Tolkien means to them.The latter does not preclude the former. Indeed, the former is likely to be a significant (and, in many cases, decisive) influence on the latter.

Surely none of the Reader's Rights camp should have participated in them- at least not with great heat. After all, if Tolkien's intention as to whether or not the Balrog in the "Fellowship" has wings, then why should they participate, seeing as they believe that Readers' Insights trump Authorial Intent?Precisely. Balrog's have wings ...

... if you want them to. :p

mark12_30

08-03-2005, 07:32 PM

I have been waiting for someone else to accept Thenamir's challenge, though Mister Underhill's reaction did give me a bit of a chuckle. And since I am firmly in the "Author's Intention Plus Readers Experience Plus Glimpse Of Divine Truth With A Capital T" Camp, I thought somebody in the "Author's Intent" camp should do this. But nobody has taken a crack at it yet.

I cannot seriously be the only one in this debate with a copy of Letters????

Since the silence (on this topic) is resounding (so far), I will answer Thenamir's first question with another question: Which reference, sir, would you like to see first? I cannot choose. Here are the possibilities, in the ever-so-handy index, under Lord Of The Rings, Contents, author's intentions.

(No, I did not type all this in. Praise Iluvatar for scanners, eh?)

Contents, author's intentions: written to please himself 211,412;
written to amuse, excite, move reader 232-3, 414; a fairy-story for adults 209, 232-3; attempt to induce literary or secondary belief 233,379,412; an exciting story of the sort Tolkien enjoys 267, 297; experiment in arts of long narrative 412; not a novel, but a heroic romance 414; attempt to create world in which a form of language agreeable to his personal aesthetic might seem real 264-5; largely an essay in 'linguistic aesthetic' 220; no 'message' intended 267; not an allegory 41, 121,212,220,239, 246, 262; does not 'objectify Tolkien's experience of life 239; primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power 160; not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power 246; Power and Domination not at centre 246, 262, 284; centre is not in strife and war and heroism but in freedom, peace, ordinary life and good liking 105; journey of Ringbearers heart of the tale 271; deeds of the small, humble, their ennoblement or sanctification 160, 215,220,232, 237, 246, 365; the Quest in 105, 191, 233-4, 238-9; LR in terms of good and evil 11920,121,178-9,197,207,243-4, 262; real theme is death and immortality 246, 262, 267, 284; mainly concerned with relation of Creation to making and subcreation, and related matter of 'mortality' 188; fundamentally religious and catholic work 172; cut out practically all references to 'religion' 172, 220; theological implications in 187-95,233-5, 355; monotheistic world of 'natural theology' 220; sanity and sanctity in LR; Ring verse as leit-motif of LR 153; poetry in 169, 186,396; verses fitted in style and contents to characters and situations 396; archaism in 225-6; vocabulary 249; deliberately left some things unexplained 174, 190; Tolkien does not himself know all the answers 278; better not to state everything, more like real history 354; must concentrate on small part so much will be left out 192; frameless picture, searchlight on brief episode 412; need to omit and compress 289, 293; blends Elvish and human point of view 145; seen mainly through eyes of Hobbits 160,200,237,246; love stories in 160-1,227,323-4; importance of seasons in 271-2; its end like the re-establishment of a Holy Roman Empire with seat in Rome 376 Sources 208, 212, 303, 418; for names etc. 379-87,409-10, 418; main idea not a product of World War II 216; no post-war references 235; his mythology 227,231

Thenamir

08-03-2005, 08:55 PM

Unbelievable! Actual new Tolkien references which are not all repeats of the same "allegory versus applicability" citation! All hail mark12_30, Praise Her With Great Praise!

We now have some definitive text to work with. And since her list seems to be quite exhaustive, I will have great fun now reading them all and deciding which ones with which to skewer people with. Great thanks to you, mark12_30. We could all take a lesson from your post.

Bêthberry

08-03-2005, 09:27 PM

I haven't had a good rant in some time, and I find here an opportunity.
. . .
In my opinion, which I'm sure will be debated hereafter , this is a thread which should have been closed a year ago.

But then again, I got a really good rant out of it, so maybe it *does* serve a purpose. Flame away! And have fun with it!

Well, Thena, , I'm not sure this will go down in the annals like Kalessin's Rant, but it's no bad post all things considered.

That you feel you must rant demonstrates in part my point. When interpretive communities get closely contained and almost inbred, they tend to generate a limited number of answers/ responses/ opinions. This produces anger, mayhem, anarchy in those who want a means to state their interpretations but who feel either that the limited answers don't address points which interest them or that they are excluded from the debate, for whatever reason, be it time, knowledge, expertise, or other forms of cachet. I completely understand your anger, man, seeing as you are coming late to the debate.

This is why Fordim's new thread, the Canonicity Slapdown thread, is quite appropo and significant. Look at how many Downers have responded to the poll, at least voting if not posting their opinion. The poll invites people to participate whereas this thread, maybe because it tends towards long windedness and, now, a certain amount of incestuous reproduction of ideas, tends to drive people away. I don't see that as requiring thread closure--I mean, after all, what is the point of debate when it is foreclosed, and, any way, how many successful threads other than RPG threads are closed?

And please to remind all who claim that this thread is merely a rhapsody in reproduction, let me point out that last summer's posts did not consider the issue of allegory. This is actually a new application.

It's like a telagram.

Well, no, it isn't. A telegram has no artistic purpose or merit. It is designed for other purposes of communication. Any understanding of LotR has to consider the special nature of literature as Art. To the best of my knowledge, LotR has not yet been performed in Morse Code, although I have seen Wuthering Heights attempted in Morse Code.

They are not looking for what Tolkien means to say, but are stating what Tolkien means to them.

Now, I am well aware that the Lord of the Rings was not, in Tolkien's opinion, an allegory. Nor was it intended, apparently, to be anything for its readers other than a blessed good read. However, if one looks at the "Meaning" side of things only, it is clear that REASON the Lord of the Rings was written was not so much to give the readers insights into their OWN minds (as the Reader-Camp asserts)...

Um, actually, no. Not that I am exclusively in this Reader-Camp (having horrific memories of my summer camps, I tend to steer clear of anything camp, although you might not expect that of me), mind you. Those who acknowledge and respect the role of the reader in interpreting art (davem's Art) don't describe the point as insight into their own minds--which after all can happen even with those who fall exclusively into the Authorial Camp-- but as insight into aesthetic experience, which filters or reflects back into their historical/cultural/ social contexts as much as into their psyche. It is true that my experience of the Edith Cavell memorial in London was intensely personal, but it reflected vast reams of social and cultural context. It could not have happened, I believe, to Esty, nor even to Squatter. It is a post-colonialist act, not a post-modern act. Thus, the readerly approach (with which I march with but one foot, awkwardly) is not exclusively solipcistic, as some of you would expound. The readerly approach is as grounded in the social/political/cultural locus of interpretation as is the historical approach.

Which is why I see Tolkien's analysis of the allegorical reading so interesting. He is responding to a 'meaning' made apparent by the historical condition post-publication.

:p ;) :D

Formendacil

08-03-2005, 11:28 PM

Well, no, it isn't. A telegram has no artistic purpose or merit. It is designed for other purposes of communication. Any understanding of LotR has to consider the special nature of literature as Art. To the best of my knowledge, LotR has not yet been performed in Morse Code, although I have seen Wuthering Heights attempted in Morse Code.

A most annoying thing about this Allegorical/Canonical/Applicable/Nonsensical threads is that Metaphor can never be taken as Metaphor or a Simile for a Simile. It has to be taken as literal. Any attempt to use a parable in illustrating a point is immediately attacked as being not the same. This hasn't just happened to me, it's happened to others.

I suppose, being a discussion of "applicability", applying the problem to another situation can only confuse it, but the decisiveness with which people crack down on the metaphor and declare "Ah, but it is not the same!" is not only irksome, but is related to the issue at hand.

After all, if the reason that metaphor is "not the same"- and therefore non-applicable to the discussion- then surely all the linguistic evidence that is being debated should be taken in a similar manner, a manner which is purely literal.

A metaphor or simile, after all, does its work by giving its message with the understanding that the person hearing/reading it understands the intended message. Does not a book work the same way? Yet if Tolkien says that his book is not an Allegory, that it was not written as a Metaphor or a Simile, but that it is intended to be taken at face, or literal, value.

I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this yet, and it may well just stop here, but I found it most amusing that Bêthberry, who is weighing in on the Readers' (and thus the "Metaphorists") side is attacking the use of the my Simile. After all, if one cannot use another situation to explain or describe another, then surely there is no point in debating canonicity, since the text can only describe one situation- the one it literally describes.

Maybe that was my point... I don't know. I'm so confused...

This is why Fordim's new thread, the Canonicity Slapdown thread, is quite appropo and significant. Look at how many Downers have responded to the poll, at least voting if not posting their opinion. The poll invites people to participate whereas this thread, maybe because it tends towards long windedness and, now, a certain amount of incestuous reproduction of ideas, tends to drive people away. I don't see that as requiring thread closure--I mean, after all, what is the point of debate when it is foreclosed, and, any way, how many successful threads other than RPG threads are closed?

And please to remind all who claim that this thread is merely a rhapsody in reproduction, let me point out that last summer's posts did not consider the issue of allegory. This is actually a new application.

Quite.

As a relative newbie who has not read the parts of the discussion that occured prior to my arrival, I have been hesitant to enter into what, for all intents and purposes, appeared to be an "Verbose Old Guard" private debate...

Fortunately (or unfortunately?), I got over that...

HerenIstarion

08-04-2005, 02:43 AM

You overwhelm me. Probably time difference – I leave few innocent looking posts the evening; next thing I see in the morning is another pageful of posts. I’m responding one to one, downward, now, starting with 534. I write as I read, so probably I’m bound to repeat something already posted in some of the posts past 534, my apologies in advance, but I’m doing it for my own sake as well, to have the whole Canonicity issue revived and to refresh my own memory of what exactly do I think about it. I intend to apply my usual methodology – giving an analogy (ies) and building around it. Here we go:

Post 534:

I would like to suggest, in response to Lalwendë, that any author's definition about how to interpret his or her work, particularly one written after the work has been completed and published, should be referred back to the text for validation. Does Tolkien's definition of allegory apply to his work or is he attempting to bring out a quality which he wishes now, after publication, other readers to see?

I suppose yes

Analogy 1:

Suppose I’ve installed a CD-ROM to my PC. ‘Tolkien’s definition’ in this analogy would be an icon on my Control Panel defining the device as CD-ROM, not DVD-ROM or any other device. But as a user (=reader), I’m perfectly free to stick DVDs or any other things which take my fancy into the thing. Now tapes would not fit, and blatant inconsistency of them would be obvious to me, but DVDs are different story, ain’t they? They look alike with CDs, and I may find error messages my PC is bound to throw up the whole point of the thing, and fancy everything is right and proper, but if I’m to see what’s ‘supposed’ to be seen, I should insert CDs, not DVDs.

Emotions and experiences associated with seeing error messages would be as vivid, rightful, valid, whatever, as those of a user put CDs in CD-ROM and see things as they are supposed to be seen, but those are emotions, they have no evaluative meaning whatsoever.

I’m free to prefer ‘There is no CD in the device’ message to the [whatever the CD should have contained], and it is my right to read messages instead of [whatever the CD should have contained], but I’m getting less for my money.

Analogy 2:

CD-ROM’s CD holder part can slide out and form a perfect coffee-cup holder. I may find it quite useful to insert a cup there every time I’m posting here, it would place the hot and invigorating coffee within my reach and I’d avoid risks of spilling it over my keyboard, but would not it be better for me to read the manual and employ my CD-ROM to its full potential?

I voted ‘the book is cool’ option in the Canonicity Slapdown, meaning it to enhance that and ‘all of the above’ option together, but surely, Intention of the Author should be taken into account, as the manual should with CD-ROM devices, Experience of the Reader is there to prevent me of trying to force square VHS tapes into round CD slots, and Analysis of the Text comes into play when I’ve already found round disc to fit round slot, they are of compatible types, and now I may think about what I see on my screen.

(Aside for LmP = feeling of enchantment may arise in case of IoA + EoR, but not necessarily adding up AoT to the soup. On the other hand, some may be enchanted by ‘there is no DVD in the drive’ message, seeing how it pops up miraculously every time.)

but readers are not bound to automatically accepting his definition.

Of course they’re not. Neither user is bound to read user’s manual, but it would be advisable, wouldn’t it? And if my CD-ROM is broken in my attempt to fit VHS tapes into it, should I accept repairman’s help or decide that CD-ROM was ‘a load of crap' all along?

Post 535:

I have to ask, ought we to accept his definition? Does LotR make more sense if we do?

If ‘ought’ here stands to mean ‘we are forced, bound’ etc, no, we are not. But yes, we ought, in a broader sense as given above.

Post 536

In any confrontation between a reader's interpretation and an author's intention, the author has the authority, the right, sometimes even the obligation to clarify his meaning

Can not agree more

Post 537

I agree. That is why I have always referred to the reader's 'honest' or 'genuine' understanding

Yes, and I won’t laugh at anyone putting their CD-ROM to coffee-holding service, as I suppose no one not ‘honestly’ sure that’s the purpose would do that at all.

I think that we have little to fear from non-sensical interpretations. Even if they are genuine, they will be unacceptable to most other readers and will therefore never form part of our general understanding of the work.

One or two extravagant chaps won’t harm us? I suppose they won’t. But in case the ‘general understanding’ is what we pursue. On the other hand, if we want this particular user to enjoy his CD-ROM to its full extent, should not we interfere and help them see what it can do apart from cup-holding?

And from another angle – remember ‘moral consensus’ of few pages back? What if these extravagant gentlemen have found some exiting ways of using CD-ROM the manufacturer originally installed but haven’t explicitly explained in the manual? Truth (guess whether it is with capital T or not, as I’ve deliberately put it as the opening word of the sentence) is not in numbers.

Post 538

Agreement in general.

Side note – existence of several statements of the Author, even if they contradict slightly between themselves, does not entitle us to introduce even more interpretations. We can settle by choosing one of the Author’s, or work them all into one, or (in Tolkien’s case) explain them by historiography and multitude of sources argument. But imagine CD-ROM (I stick by analogy) manual to state on page 5 that recommended record speed is 32 kb/ps, and on page 7 that is 16 kb/ps. Probing, we would probably find that it can do both, or that indeed one is preferable, but abstain from recording at all ‘cause it contradicts itself’ (being flippant or satirical or flatfooted or, in fact, even malicious) would be less wise.

Post 539

No comments

Post 540

Bits of the manual being recited :D. Good repairman this gentlehobbit is, I always said so

Post 541

Valid to whom? An individual's interpretation is more valid than any other to that individual because it is the one that makes sense to them as an individual. But that is not to deny that they may see value in, and ascribe relative values to, the interpretations of others, and so develop their own interpretations accordingly. And we will tend to ascribe greater value (again, as individuals or 'interpretative communities') to the interpretations put forward by particular individuals, such as the author himself, those who have read extensively around the work, those who appear to share our values etc. In this way, we are continually assessing, reassessing and developing our own interpretation. It still remains the most valid one to us, though.

Yes, but to stick to coffee-cup holder usage of CD-ROM, for is ‘what I genuinely believe the thing is supposed to do’ once the manual is read and new information presented is a bit, hem, less than bright?

Post 542

Lal seems to have ‘no comments’ from me for the most part today. But I have to fight fire with fire – what the ‘control’ in question is for?

Post 543

'Its a Tower I built in order that I could look out on the Sea, not a defensive structure.' is a clear enough statement, provable by experiment, & I think we should take his word for it unless we can prove him wrong. If the Tower can be made to serve another purpose by someone else, fine, but they would not be using the Tower for the purpose for which it was built - & they should admit that, & not claim that they know the 'real' intention behind it.

Good. Se my apology above for probably repeating what may have been already posted. Agreement – how dare they claim it! ;)

Post 544

It is possible to have a meaningful personal experience of a work of Art without knowing what or how the author wanted me to experience

Agreed. But I come to resort to capital letters here again – what is the purpose of the work of Art – to bring aesthetic pleasure or to communicate some Message beyond that? If the former, yours was the proper way to react, if the latter, than, aesthetic pleasure is by-product (a baggage), not vice versa, and the plaque with the explanation on the statue, as the communicator of the Message, is where 'appreciator'’s priority should be placed.

(I do not mean to say you are not free to choose your priorities, Eru forbid).

There is an analogy of a stutterer in a plane who alone is aware of one of the engines on fire. His only way to communicate information is to sing it to the stewards (as he is not stuttering when he is singing), and he sings it: The engine is on fire, sha-la-la-la. Seemingly, he is in possession of a good singing voice, so the steward and other passengers join in the chorus with their own ‘sha-la-la-las’. All round everybody is aesthetically pleased and humoured, but the final results is, fire is not extinguished and plain crushes. Should they seek the meaning besides the aesthetics; something could have been done about the situation.

Post 545

the whole looks like a time-exposure photograph of a dog chasing its tail

I should have read this before I started to write, but I’m on page 5 of a Word file, I can not possibly abandon it now? Besides, I voted for the whole thing to stop in one of my previous, didn’t I? How exactly that entitles me to write longish posts instead, I myself can not see, yet ‘show must go on’ malady should be someplace inside the whole thing.

As I’ve already chosen the methodology, I have to write through to the end of [currently existing] posts to see if anyone have come with requested quotes already. Promise to make a search if no one did.

Post 546

I run out of smileys seeing as there is a limit of three per post, but imagine ‘big grin’ here

Post 547

Another ‘big grin’. ‘Show must go on’ malady above rendered to ‘circus addicts buying tickets off profiteer’

Post 548

Influence, yes. A measure of control, yes. But absolute control, no (more's the pity). But is the influence of one reader over another analagous to the parent/child relationship

Again, as above, it’s all well and proper, but what the control is for? To force ‘proper’ ways of receiving an ‘aesthetical pleasure’? There are none, obviously? I may immensely enjoy ‘coffee-cup holder’ of a CD-ROM more than putting some flat ringlets into it, and you would not persuade me that that is less ‘enjoyable’. But assumption of control being there to ensure ‘correct usage’ (transfer of the Message, seeing of Truth, whatever), will end you, inevitably, with conclusion that there is, after all, Right Way of Reading It? Otherwise, the whole ‘control’ issue could be put for safe-keeping to that particularly shady dell where star nearest to this Earth is rumoured to never have emanated down to ;)

Besides, if the freedom in ‘using the Tower’ is important for the user, for whom is the ‘correct usage’ important? For surely control must be there (if at all?) to ensure ‘proper usage of the Tower (CD-ROM)’?

Post 549

Welcome ‘big grin’

Post 550

No comment

Post 551

Gratitude and relief of not having to find all that myself. ‘smile’

Post 552

Agreement

Post 553

And please to remind all who claim that this thread is merely a rhapsody in reproduction, let me point out that last summer's posts did not consider the issue of allegory. This is actually a new application.

Rhapsody of reproduction – yes, but in ascending circles, with slight deviation each new round. Otherwise, why should I trespass on my employer’s right to my time in the office and spend the whole morn composing ‘incestuous reproduction of ideas’?

New application, yes, but not quite: Back there, page 4-5, also 7-8, there was an attempt to bring in the concepts of Truth, Something Else, Shop on the Border of Fairyland (all with capitals), if you remember, all with claims that there were Messages Tolkien tried to bring across, and there were attempts of defining these also.

Well, no, it isn't. A telegram has no artistic purpose or merit. It is designed for other purposes of communication. Any understanding of LotR has to consider the special nature of literature as Art. To the best of my knowledge, LotR has not yet been performed in Morse Code, although I have seen Wuthering Heights attempted in Morse Code.

Why not? If I send poetry over, per instance? And even if I resort to merely reporting weather conditions, my choice of wording may have artistic merit after all?

Literature may lean heavily on aesthetics, but without ‘telegram’ inside it, it would be Art for Art’s sake. Bodybuilding is an exercise in obtaining a ‘beautiful body’ in the end, but sound exercise has Health as its final goal, beauty being enjoyable, pleasant, even desirable, but still by-product.

Besides, turning ‘aesthetics’ back on you (wink), would you bet there won’t be people who would appreciate LoTR in Morse Code purely on it’s aesthetics and what Morse Code means personally to them?

Post 554

A most annoying thing about this Allegorical/Canonical/Applicable/Nonsensical threads is that Metaphor can never be taken as Metaphor or a Simile for a Simile. It has to be taken as literal. Any attempt to use a parable in illustrating a point is immediately attacked as being not the same. This hasn't just happened to me, it's happened to others.

Seeing as majority of my writing resorts to analogies, I invite you to join the club. But there is only one other way – to give out something based on ‘terms’ and ‘definitions’, which I find less enjoyable (My freedom! Mine! It came to me...)

Post 555

Here we see... wait, that’s this very post of mine. Nice number, three fives ‘big grin’

The Saucepan Man

08-04-2005, 05:39 AM

... but those are emotions, they have no evaluative meaning whatsoever. :eek:

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Formendacil ( ;) ), HI, I will dispute your CD/DVD analogy.

The instruction manual, in so far as it pertains to loading and running the program, details how it is to be used, not what it is to be used for. If we are equating a computer program with a literary work, then I would say that it is the latter rather than the former which equates to the meaning of the work.

Yes, if one tries to run an application using the wrong equipment or application, then one will not get much out of it. But, if one tries to read LotR upside down or at a distance of 50 feet, then one will not get much out of it either.

But the program may be used for a variety of different functions. A database, for example, may be used to store addresses or list one’s favourite LotR quotes or for a variety of other functions. The programmer may well have had intended it to be used for a certain function or functions, but it is up to the user how he actually uses it. Similarly, the author may intend his work to have a certain meaning, but it is up to the reader how he interprets it.

Of course, the software may have been designed to work particularly well when used for particular functions, and it is likely therefore that a sensible user will use it for those functions. Just as the skilled author will be successful in conveying his intended meaning to a sensible reader.

The freedom nevertheless resides with the user/reader.

Am I repeating myself? :rolleyes:

Lalwendë

08-04-2005, 05:57 AM

No, I really don't see where that necessarily follows, unless my questionable analogy of literary terrorist is at fault, for which bad taste I apologise.

It wasn’t in bad taste at all. :) When I use the word anarchy, I mean it in its true sense. I don’t mean the emotive ‘anarchy’ used to denote chaos and crime, I mean Anarchy in that there are no rules, the people are free and open to do as they will; there are no authority figures. Applied to literary criticism, this is the state which ought to match Postmodern theories (so long as caveats are not in place to protect the power of the academic) – it is a glorious state whereby any reader may interpret just as he or she wishes and may express that freely without fear of that opinion being rejected as their interpretation will be considered as equal to any other.

The perfect state is one in which readers can interpret as they wish and have the right to fully express their conclusions, but this does not happen, not even on the ‘Downs are we free. Total freedom is perilous, it means that nobody has power, nobody can set any limits. There is the potential for a lot of silly, ugly or confrontational (of course, in the opinion of the reader...) ideas and language, but the moment we say “you cannot use offensive language” or any other such statement we have begun to impose limits and restrictions on what the reader can do.

If we are now saying that we are in an ‘interpretive community’ then this is a very different thing to true reader freedom; a community has rules, therefore as readers we are in no way ‘free’. In an interpretive community meaning might reside within the reader but that meaning is only validated by approval from our peers. We are faced with the decision of whether to stand by our opinion and be rejected by the group or to alter our opinion and remain within the community. The interpretive community can never be more than freedom-lite.

I happen to like the idea of an interpretive community as I feel more comfortable within certain boundaries. But who determines the boundaries of the interpretive community? Someone must be there to define the point at which we cross a line. To take the ‘Downs as a case in point, is it the Barrow-Wight? Or is it a democratic process? Or do we have rule by consensus? In that case, is it the highest repped members who set the boundaries? Or the longest standing members? Or is it majority/survival of the fittest? And finally, is Tolkien part of this community? Does he get a say?

He definitely does! Because even if we are an interpretive community and think ourselves 'free' we use his words as boundaries. We do not tend to accept allegorical interpretations (I have seen these well and truly shot down in flames) and we are even asked to base our RPG characters on what Tolkien said about different races of Elves. We look up what Tolkien said in “Letters” or HoME. We might have our own ideas and responses but we still back them up and modify them according to what was laid down on the page – we don't just say what the heck we like. For all our intellectualising, the Author aint dead round these parts.

Am I repeating myself?

Yeah, but me too. I'm getting used to it now, but I'm running low on vocabulary and might have to recycle some :p :)

The Saucepan Man

08-04-2005, 06:25 AM

If we are now saying that we are in an ‘interpretive community’ then this is a very different thing to true reader freedom; a community has rules, therefore as readers we are in no way ‘free’. In an interpretive community meaning might reside within the reader but that meaning is only validated by approval from our peers. But who determines the boundaries of the interpretive community? Someone must be there to define the point at which we cross a line. To take the ‘Downs as a case in point, is it the Barrow-Wight? Or is it a democratic process? Or do we have rule by consensus? In that case, is it the highest repped members who set the boundaries? Or the longest standing members? Or is it majority/survival of the fittest? ... And finally, is Tolkien part of this community? Does he get a say?

He definitely does! Because even if we are an interpretive community and think ourselves 'free' we use his words as boundaries.I thoroughly agree.

From my very first post on this thread:

Everyone is free to interpret the meaning of the events portrayed in the book in whichever way they choose. The way that they choose will, however, depend upon the manner in which they approach the story. A reader who enjoys it as a cracking good yarn, but without any inclination to explore further the world which Tolkien created, will not be bound by (and most likely will be unaware of) the author's intentions. Those who are interested in learning more about Tolkien and his works (such as most, I should think, who post here) will be more inclined to accept such meaning as Tolkien himself attributed to his works. It is, I think, beholden upon those posting seriously here to at least acknowledge, if not accept, Tolkien's own thoughts on what he wrote.That remains my position.

As to who determines the boundaries, I would include all of those you mention, although (with the exception of the forum rules stipulated by the Admins and, to a lesser extent, the Mods), they are not generally formulated or imposed in any formal manner.

Lalwendë

08-04-2005, 06:47 AM

So, would you agree that the meaning of the text can be both defined by readers and by the Author? ;)

The Saucepan Man

08-04-2005, 07:27 AM

:D

So, would you agree that the meaning of the text can be both defined by readers and by the Author?of course. The author is an individual and so the work has a meaning that is individual to him.

To clarify, the full meaning of the work can only lie with the individual reader (because it will mean something different to each individual). Aspects of that meaning may be shared.

davem

08-04-2005, 08:00 AM

To clarify, the full meaning of the work can only lie with the individual reader (because it will mean something different to each individual). Aspects of that meaning may be shared.

No. The book means what it means - which is what the author intended it to mean - nothing more or less.

I think that this discussion is really about what readers do with the book, rather than what it means to them. Are all the readers doing with the book what the author intended them to do with it? No. Are they all picking up on the meaning? Again, no - & for various reasons. But the point stands - the book means what it means & that meaning is an objective thing & the author has stated what that meaning is.

If you 'find' anything other than that in it you've put it there: its not in the book - sorry - you didn't find it in there - you couldn't have, 'cos Tolkien didn't put it in there.

Therefore, whatever other 'meaning' you find has nothing to do with either LotR or with its author. Its your 'baggage' - kindly don't leave it in the aisle for others to trip over.....

Bêthberry

08-04-2005, 08:19 AM

Let me point out that while Thenamir and HI have publically commended Helen's industrious post, I at least have quietly repped her. :)

As to the question about how interpretive communities set their 'agendas', let me suggest that even here at the Barrow Downs we have had successive or various communities. Take a look at the style, content, and perspective of the threads from the early years. Then look at threads which developed during the movie years. Now look at our topics in the past year. There was nothing like the literary discussion we have now in the early years, just as there are few "Where's the inconsistency in the Legendarium" threads now, generally speaking at least.

Downers such as Mithadan, Mr. Underhill, Barrow Wight, Sharkey, Mhoram, burrahobbit, HI, Bruce MacCullough, Gilthalion, red and others talked about the things which interested them about Tolkien. The Silm project is a splinter community from these early years. Topics shiftedly slightly with the arrival of posters such as Rimbaud and The Squatter of Amon Rudh, piosenniel, Birdie, and Child of the 7th Age. Things shifted again with the arrival of SaucepanMan, davem, Lalwende, Fordim Hedgethistle and likely will shift again with the arrival of people like Formendacil. Departures, of course, also influence the nature of communities. I am leaving out many Downers for simplicity's sake--for which I apologise, especially to those of the Wharg persuasion--and of course these various 'categories' are not exclusive; there's lots of cross-pollination. In fact, those I name here tend not to be part of the other communities which post in Mirth and Quizzes and the RPGs, and then there are those who provide much fodder for bandwidth about avatars and signatures. Sometimes age becomes a factor in how these communities congregate. Again, these informal groupings are not mutually exclusive.

But my point is that the Downs, even under the rules and guidelines set by the Barrow Wight and the other Admins, demonstrates the subtle fluctuations which pertain to interpretive communities. The 'boundaries' are set as much by the posters and their ideas and what they wish to say as by those who run the joint--even more so, I would suggest. The interpretive community announces itself in the very act of posting.

As for my apalling audacity in questioning similes, I would beg to point out that metaphors are different from similes. A metaphor combines two unlike objects or ideas into a completely new vision. It is a 'going beyond' to something new. A simile simply seeks out similarities. Saucepan has considered the applicability of HI's computer analogy. I will rather say--am I repeating myself here?--that literary language is different from other uses of language. What was it Sidney said about poetry? "Poetry never lies, because it never affirms." Story and poem and epic romance and novel take us someplace other than the primary world and so, I would suggest, we need to address such creative language in ways which recognise its creativity. Lal has already suggested this in the CxC discussion where she posited a language of pleasure and a language of information.

So there. My position is not anti-metaphorist, Formendacil. ;) Nor, in fact, have I categorically rejected Tolkien's statement about allegory. What I have done there is put it in a context. :p

The Saucepan Man

08-04-2005, 08:59 AM

I understand what you are saying, davem. Believe me, I really do.

And it’s clear that the difference between us lies in our respective approaches to the question: “What is the meaning of LotR?”

You interpret the question as: “What do you mean by LotR, Professor Tolkien?”

I interpret the question as: “What does LotR mean to me?”

Imagine that we both meet Tolkien and ask him what he meant by LotR. Your approach dictates that you must be content with his response and accept that as the only true meaning. My approach allows me to take on board Tolkien’s response in my consideration of what LotR means to me.

Which, objectively, is the correct meaning? Neither. My meaning cannot be objectively correct because it will not be shared by others (not entirely, at least). And Tolkien’s meaning (even if we could ever fully understand it, which we cannot because we can never fully understand the man’s mind) cannot be objectively correct because that would deny the applicability which he was so concerned to allow his readers.

Which is the more valuable? Well, for my part, while the meaning ascribed by Tolkien to LotR (and others’ interpretations of the work) may be of value, the meaning which I ascribe to it myself will be of the greatest value.

And which is the correct approach? Well that depends upon what you wish to get out of the book.

Fordim Hedgethistle

08-04-2005, 09:13 AM

I went back and re-read the first post in this...um...thread, just to see how and where it all began (more than a year ago!). One interesting thing that I found in that post, which I think we have lost sight of, is the importance that I placed on the "open-endedness" or even unfinished nature of Tolkien's works and world. The fact that there are so many inconsistencies in the fabric of this world was, I argued, an opportunity for (even a demand upon) the reader to approach the corpus of M-E as history and not literary (which is how the Professor preferred it to be taken).

One point I would immediately make in light of this is that it is impossible to sustain any allegorical reading of the stories, not because Tolkien won't "allow" us, and not simply because the stories are complicated, but because at some level, like history, they don't make perfect sense. Until we can nail down with absolute certainty the full blood lines of Aragorn and Arwen we can never really know what their union means in an allegorical way (is it the marriage of Reason and Love, or whatever...we can't know because there will always be some shadowy aspects to the past and natures of Ar and Ar due to the less than entirely clear lineages Tolkien gave them in various sources).

The other point I would re-iterate here is that no matter how badly one may desire the authortative/authorial voice to guide us, that isn't going to happen -- at least, not in any reliable way insofar as that voice (like the voices of all individuals) is fragmented and multifarious. To turn over the interpretive act to the reader in the case of Middle-Earth is not to be as Saruman and break the white light into many hues, but to acknowledge that the rainbow exists already -- to seek to ignore that is folly, to seek to resolve it is, I would suggest, limiting and hubristic.

Again, referring back to my original post, I used the examples there of Balrogian wings and the origin of orcs (to that I would now add the shape of Elven ears and the identity of Gothmog: not to mention far more perplexing riddles such as the precise function and nature of the Ring, the ability of Saruman to fool Sauron, the relation between magic/art/technology, and the list goes on...). These examples were chosen to demonstrate that in most cases, if we go looking for the authoritative/authorial version or meaning, we will find only that it's just not there. The fact that we can continue the discussions about these things, all of us with careful reference to the works, proves that! I would venture to go so far as to say that if the author is dead, then it is the reading COMMUNITY which has killed him, insofar as the voice of one person (the reader) cannot overwhelm the voice of one other person (the writer) so effectively as can the overwhelming voice of a large and excited group of people!

I would go even further than this: to interpret the text at all, that is, to make a choice of any sort about what it means, is to insert yourself not just into the process of the text, but to put yourself before the text. "Before" in both senses -- both before it as we stand before the altar, in reverence, awaiting some kind of outside beneficence, but also before meaning in greater priority and placing the text behind and into the background. Let's face it, the reading act is about as solipsistic and isolated an event as there is: the presence of another person in the room can be enough to ruin the reading act. Conversation with someone else is impossible. To those who would say that the act of reading is itself a conversation with the author I would merely say that it's unlike any I've ever had -- I've never been able to stop the other person from talking merely by looking away from them, and I'm usually able to effect what they say by saying something myself!

drigel

08-04-2005, 09:38 AM

In an interpretive community meaning might reside within the reader but that meaning is only validated by approval from our peers.

not for me, thankfully :)

So, would you agree that the meaning of the text can be both defined by readers and by the Author?

cant have one w/o the other milady

For all our intellectualising, the Author aint dead round these parts

Agreement. Except for the fact that his work is dead. Which leads me to:

That remains my position.

Same here - HA. My original thoughts on this thread being that the only thing I consider *canon* is what actually published by the *author* for us *readers*.

The 'boundaries' are set as much by the posters and their ideas and what they wish to say as by those who run the joint--even more so, I would suggest.

Unless they fall into the group from my first quote of Lal. Then, they might get shouted down, drowned out, or become *disenchanted* by either a majority or an outspoken minority.

And which is the correct approach? Well that depends upon what you wish to get out of the book.

And what one wants to get out of this site as well. Beths entry does cause me to conisder the nature of this forum. I like to discuss Tolkien on many levels, both inside and outside of the pages. I also appreciate the resulting creativity that has been inspired by the works. But as to the tenor of the overall attitude/opinions on this thread, I wonder if there is an influence. I dont RPG and fanfic, so in this case, I am an outsider here. I just like discussion, along with some pot stirring and devils advocation. But, as to opinion influence, once you "help yourself" to the original creation in terms of writing, RPGing etc, does not the author's intentions become inconsequential, even irrelevent? Anything I have read about the author's intentions on the subject of interpreting his work dealt with visual art, music and cinema.

Story and poem and epic romance and novel take us someplace other than the primary world and so, I would suggest, we need to address such creative language in ways which recognise its creativity.

YES. This is why the work is great. Plenty of that stuff out there, but whats special about Tolkien? I would submit that it's because of the authors mastery of the various subjects incorporated in the stories, and the desire to tell a Story. Of course the author has intentions for the Story, and IMO at least, the author wasnt intending to say "oh look - a how clever I am! Those english lit guys are going to really enjoy this nugget of metaphorical anit-dada puffinstuff that Ive snuck into the subtext!

But when some read *no* allegory/simile/metaphors, others will read *open to any* allegory/simile/metaphors. And, as Beth said in an earlier post, it depends on who your english teacher was in your formative years....

Sorry you have caught me on a day off...

Thenamir

08-04-2005, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by SPaM:
To clarify, the full meaning of the work can only lie with the individual reader (because it will mean something different to each individual). Aspects of that meaning may be shared.

At last I read something upon which I can hang a decent point, or at least a good question -- the idea of "community".

Is it our purpose here to come up with (or at least to discuss ad mortem) a corpus of "meanings" which are shared by this community as a whole? Or perhaps, by a simple majority? Now there is a discussion from which we might actually produce something tangible, something other than interminable laps around the same philosophical track. A series of posts or even threads, each beginning with a particular thought or idea that was especially meaningful to a member of this community, followed by commentary by others about that point and whether it should be included in the community standard. Once all have spoken, the community moves on to another point, and so on. How useful the finished (ha!) product would be is something I cannot fathom, but at least it would bring some semblance of order to the repetitive chaos, and provide many an interesting insight into the ways that the participants approach and internalize the Great Work Under Discussion.

Originally posted by SPaM:
You interpret the question as: “What do you mean by LotR, Professor Tolkien?” I interpret the question as: “What does LotR mean to me?”

Magnificent! I could have saved much bandwidth in the Canonicity Slapdown thread if I had had your mind, Saucy. This is the penultimate encapsulation of all I have been trying (in way too many words) to express. The Reader Camp seems to be fighting for the right to bring whatever personal influences to bear on the meaning of LOTR to them, and misinterpreting (probably unintentionally) the Authorial Camp to be dictatorially restricting their individuality and invalidating the nuances that their personal experience brings to their reading of the text. The Authorial Camp on the other hand, rightfully defending the right of the creator of a work not to have that work defaced, seems to be similarly misinterpreting the defenses of the Reader Camp to mean that the intent of the author can have *no* bearing on how a work is to be received. And so the war continues, like the Yooks and the Zooks of Dr. Seuss, fighting over the "right" way to eat bread -- butter-side-up or butter-side-down.

I find HI's CD-ROM analogy to be most fitting. Everyone has the right to apply, contort, distort, retort, or strawberry torte :D, any input your senses receive, and we cannot stop them from doing so, no matter how far afield from "authorial intent" such ideas may be. But it is commonly true that the maximum use of an object is employing it as it was designed (or intended) to be used.

That is not to say that someone cannot come up with something innovative that might be applicable, but such innovation usually comes from thorough knowledge of the workings and components (that is to say, the original design or intent)of that from which you wish to innovate. A person who wished to invent, say, a laser-pointer from the parts of a malfunctioning CD-ROM drive (were it not already convenient and inexpensive to buy the same thing already built and designed for that use) would be innovating. A person who attempts to shove a videotape into a CD-ROM drive might be attempting to innovate, but is operating from a fundamental ignorance of the workings of the drive. Such attempts at innovation are, like Morgoth's attempts to "innovate" elves into orcs, usually counterproductive, and can even be destructive. Even so, I assert that the best "innovations" upon "established" or "mainstream" ideas about the meaning of LOTR will come from those who have given some time and effort to understanding what Tolkien intended. (As well they should attempt to find and comprehend as many of the ideas and attempted innovations which have come before, so as to avoid unnecessary duplication. We don't need any more "Is Tom Bombadil a maia?" threads.

In a way, those of the Authorial Camp may be more kindred to the Reader Camp than either would like to admit -- for in researching Authorial Intent, they are merely attempting to expand that totality of their own experience from which they form their conclusions and take their meanings (and thus, the personal import) of LOTR -- yet even the results of such research are subjective to each individual researcher. The Reader Camp, perhaps, feels less of a necessity to find our more about what JRRT intended, finding themselves content to see what they see in it and needing no more than that. But in merely reading the work through to its conclusion they are (for whatever personal reason) participating in the author's intent, because it is his work that they read and can not participate in it except for the fact that the Learned Professor, whose specialty was words and languages, used these words and not others to express himself. It is JRRT's book, and it was published with the intent that it be read. You can choose to read it or not, but if you do you are, whether you like it or not, part of Authorial Intent.

Going back to my first point in this post, I think that it would be more productive to share the most important meanings from each of us, as each may be willing, and to see how each post resonates (or not) with our own perceptions. It would not do, though, to attempt to divine the authorial intent of each such post -- if that were to happen, this thread would spiral in on itself until it imploded.

Just one more small voice in the bandwidth maelstrom.

davem

08-04-2005, 12:40 PM

Which is the more valuable? Well, for my part, while the meaning ascribed by Tolkien to LotR (and others’ interpretations of the work) may be of value, the meaning which I ascribe to it myself will be of the greatest value.

Ok, but if you find a 'meaning' in LotR which Tolkien did not put there, then you have introduced something new & personal - what you have 'found' was not actually there - its like someone wandering around with an Ipod on talking about the 'wonderful music' in the air of the city. The music isn't 'in the air' its in their ears. The only 'meaning' in LotR is the meaning the author put there. If you 'find' anything else there you've brought it - as Aragorn says about Lorien. Thus, you are not 'finding' a personal meaning in LotR, but in yourself. That 'meaning' was already present in you, & would be there for you even if you never read the book.

The 'meaning' you are 'ascribing' to the book is nothing to do with the book at all.

You interpret the question as: “What do you mean by LotR, Professor Tolkien?”

I interpret the question as: “What does LotR mean to me?”

But unless the meaning you find corresponds with what Tolkien says he meant then you are not talking about the same thing at all.

To set up (yet) another dichotomy, I think you are talking about 'value' rather than 'meaning'. You're asking 'What is the value of LotR to me?', rather than 'What is the meaning of LotR?'. As I say, the latter question has been answered by Tolkien himself. Tolkien had a very clear idea of the 'meaning' or 'message' he wanted to communicate. What he couldn't dictate was what value his work would have (if any) to his readers - what they would get from it.

Thenamir

08-04-2005, 12:51 PM

I think you are talking about 'value' rather than 'meaning'.

Nicely said.

drigel

08-04-2005, 12:55 PM

cant rep davem anymore
wonderfull Lorien analogy

What he couldn't dictate was what value his work would have (if any) to his readers - what they would get from it.

He was surprised at the response he had back in the 60's. He would be dumbfounded today. :smokin:

The Saucepan Man

08-04-2005, 01:51 PM

Thus, you are not 'finding' a personal meaning in LotR, but in yourself. That 'meaning' was already present in you, & would be there for you even if you never read the book.Let me get this straight. I would understand what LotR means to me even if I had never read the book? Well, I may be many things, but I'm not psychic. :rolleyes:

To set up (yet) another dichotomy, I think you are talking about 'value' rather than 'meaning'.Partly, yes. But I am also talking about what I understand it to mean.

We are, however, getting into semantics here, because "meaning" can be construed in a number of ways. I could say that you are talking about 'message' rather than 'meaning'. Indeed, you have said as much in your last post.

As I said earlier, the difference between us lies in our approach to the question: "What does LotR mean?"

davem

08-04-2005, 02:47 PM

Let me get this straight. I would understand what LotR means to me even if I had never read the book? Well, I may be many things, but I'm not psychic.

You'd understand any 'meaning' you 'found' theat was not Tolkien's intended meaning, because that would be what you had brought to it from your own experience.

We are, however, getting into semantics here, because "meaning" can be construed in a number of ways. I could say that you are talking about 'message' rather than 'meaning'. Indeed, you have said as much in your last post.

As I said earlier, the difference between us lies in our approach to the question: "What does LotR mean?"

To think I should have lived to see a Lawyer be so dismissive of 'semantics' :eek:

Well, what do you think it 'means' - 'alone, itself & nameless'? I wasn't referring to the 'message', because, as Tolkien said in the Foreword:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. (my emphasis)

I think Tolkien was drawing a distinction between an 'inner meaning' & an 'outer' or 'obvious' one. The book has a clear meaning, but it is there on the surface, & he makes no attempt to hide it (or it would be an 'allegory'). Any other 'meaning' you find in it is down to you, any 'message' you find in it is down to the 'value' it has to you.

The Saucepan Man

08-04-2005, 05:04 PM

You'd understand any 'meaning' you 'found' theat was not Tolkien's intended meaning, because that would be what you had brought to it from your own experience.No, the meaning that I draw from it is my experience. It is, of course, influenced by my own (past) experience and by Tolkien's intended meaning (to the extent apparent), and no doubt by many other factors.

To think I should have lived to see a Lawyer be so dismissive of 'semantics'Dismissive? Surely not, given that it has formed the basis of the difference between us for the last two pages or so. I just thought that the time had come to let on. ;)

I wasn't referring to the 'message', because, as Tolkien said in the Foreword:

Quote:
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. (my emphasis)

Tolkien had a very clear idea of the 'meaning' or 'message' he wanted to communicate. :confused: :p

Formendacil

08-04-2005, 08:03 PM

It wasn’t in bad taste at all. When I use the word anarchy, I mean it in its true sense. I don’t mean the emotive ‘anarchy’ used to denote chaos and crime, I mean Anarchy in that there are no rules, the people are free and open to do as they will; there are no authority figures. Applied to literary criticism, this is the state which ought to match Postmodern theories (so long as caveats are not in place to protect the power of the academic) – it is a glorious state whereby any reader may interpret just as he or she wishes and may express that freely without fear of that opinion being rejected as their interpretation will be considered as equal to any other.

The definition of the word "anarchy"...

However, just because Lalwende has clarified what she meant by "anarchy", if what the Reader's Rights camp are saying is to be taken as something other than hypocrisy, then it can be applied here as well. In which case, if my original, subjective reader's viewpoint was the Lalwende meant anarchy in the sense of chaos and crime, then I am entitled to stubbornly believe that for so long as I may desire- clear contradict and explanation here to the contrary.

Indeed, my question now is not whether I am ENTITLED to do so, but rather, being a literate and intelligent English-speaking being, it is POSSIBLE for me to do so. I may make the pretense that I am certain that Lalwende meant otherwise, but in the face of such a direct statement, can I honestly BELIEVE otherwise?

Likewise with the Lord of the Rings: in the face of Tolkien's direct statement that no allegory was intended, and believing him to be telling the honest truth, can I, in my right mind, actually continue to believe that it is an allegory?

So there. My position is not anti-metaphorist, Formendacil. Nor, in fact, have I categorically rejected Tolkien's statement about allegory. What I have done there is put it in a context.

I wasn't thinking of you in particular, but this section of the 'Downs in general. ANY simile or metaphor by Camp A is bound, t'would seem, to be shot down by Camp B- simply as a matter of principle. The easiest way to defeat the argument of the metaphor is to attack the fact that it is a metaphor, rather than fighting it on its own terms.

You were merely the one who actually did shoot down my metaphor...

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Formendacil, HI, I will dispute your CD/DVD analogy.

Consider it officially incurred.

Although, I will admit that you did a pretty good job of working at the deficiencies of the metaphor from the inside, rather than attacking it as "not being the same".

Post 549

Welcome ‘big grin’

Thank You.

davem

08-05-2005, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by davem
I wasn't referring to the 'message', because, as Tolkien said in the Foreword:

Quote:
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. (my emphasis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Tolkien had a very clear idea of the 'meaning' or 'message' he wanted to communicate.

Why are you confused? I was saying that, according to Tolkien in the Foreword, there is no 'inner' (or hidden/allegorical) 'meaning' or 'message'. I agree with this. But that is not to say there is no meaning or message. Tolkien clearly did have a meaning & a message - but it was clearly stated in the story itself. In one of the Letters, which I quoted on another thread, he states that part of his purpose was didactic.

The Saucepan Man

08-05-2005, 04:50 AM

Why are you confused?Because you appeared to dispute my observation that you are interpreting 'meaning' as 'message'. I think that we can agree to disagree on how the question should be interpreted and simply agree that the book has a meaning intended by Tolkien and a meaning intepreted by each individual reader, and that all such meanings, while they may overlap to a significant degree, will never be entirely the same. The question of which is the 'correct', 'objective' or most 'valuable' meaning will, I think, have to be left to individual opinion.

*Holds out an olive branch to davem in a desparate attempt to bring an end to the circular and time-consuming discussion* ;)

However, just because Lalwende has clarified what she meant by "anarchy", if what the Reader's Rights camp are saying is to be taken as something other than hypocrisy, then it can be applied here as well. In which case, if my original, subjective reader's viewpoint was the Lalwende meant anarchy in the sense of chaos and crime, then I am entitled to stubbornly believe that for so long as I may desire- clear contradict and explanation here to the contrary.This mischaracterisation of the position 'Reader's Rights' camp is one which has been commonly adopted on this thread. We are portrayed as positively encouraging the reader to wilfully misread and misinterpret what Tolkien has written and to deliberately come up with non-sensical meanings and crackpot theories if that is what he wants to do. But that misrepresents the reality of the position. Indeed, the label 'Reader's Rights' is in some ways misleading. I prefer the term 'reader's experience'.

The interpretion of a work of literature occurs both consciously and subconsciously. Often, we have no conscious control over how we interpret a work and therefore what it means to us. That is not to say that one cannot reach a position through deliberate analysis and logical thought, but both processes will generally be at work here.

So, when we are discussing the 'meaning' of LotR, it is not a question of the reader having the right wilfully to misread Tolkien and deliberately ignore reasonable explanations to the contrary. It is a question of what Tolkien's works genuinely mean to the reader. Of course, the reader has the right to be obtuse and stubbornly hold to an adopted position. But if he does so without having an honest belief in that position, then he will (in my opinion) be acting unreasonably and will be rightfully open to criticism for doing so.

davem

08-05-2005, 07:06 AM

Because you appeared to dispute my observation that you are interpreting 'meaning' as 'message'. I think that we can agree to disagree on how the question should be interpreted and simply agree that the book has a meaning intended by Tolkien and a meaning intepreted by each individual reader, and that all such meanings, while they may overlap to a significant degree, will never be entirely the same. The question of which is the 'correct', 'objective' or most 'valuable' meaning will, I think, have to be left to individual opinion.

*Holds out an olive branch to davem in a desparate attempt to bring an end to the circular and time-consuming discussion* ;)

.

Where I'm confused is in what you mean :p by 'meaning' in this context. I accept that the book may have a different value & relevance to each reader, may speak to each reader in a different way, but I just don't get how it can have a different meaning.

The Saucepan Man

08-05-2005, 07:42 AM

I accept that the book may have a different value & relevance to each reader, may speak to each reader in a different way, but I just don't get how it can have a different meaning.And I don't get how, if a book speaks to readers in different ways, it cannot have different meanings to each of them.

But let's just leave it at that, shall we? I am running out of different ways to keep making the same points ... :D

Thenamir

08-05-2005, 11:00 AM

I accept that the book may have a different value & relevance to each reader, may speak to each reader in a different way, but I just don't get how it can have a different meaning.

See my original post in the Canonicity Slapdown thread for my attempt to show the differing definitions of "meaning" and how hopelessly confusticated they had become in the course of the debate.

mark12_30

08-05-2005, 11:26 AM

I had been planning to create a second poll on meaning. It would have run thusly:

The Real Meaning of the Lord of the Rings is to be found in:
The author's intent
The reader's individual opinion
Mainstream reader consensus
Barrowdowns Book Forum consensus
A Glimpse of Divine Truth
The reader's collaboration with both the author's intent and the opinions of others
Divine Truth glimpsed by the individual reader guided by the author's intent
we need another poll on the meaning of meaning
:

davem

08-05-2005, 12:40 PM

And I don't get how, if a book speaks to readers in different ways, it cannot have different meanings to each of them.

But let's just leave it at that, shall we? I am running out of different ways to keep making the same points ... :D

Sorry, I suppose I'm not exactly following what you mean by 'meaning' - do you mean 'interpretation'? If so I'd accept your argument - though I'd have to say that what each individual reader is doing there is interpreting the meaning of the book, rather than finding a different meaning in it.

The Saucepan Man

08-05-2005, 01:35 PM

Oh, alright davem. You can have the last word ...

Oops! :p :D

Estelyn Telcontar

08-05-2005, 01:45 PM

*Esty picks up Saucy's olive branch and sticks it into the spokes of this perpetuum merry-go-round, in hopes that it will stop!

Formendacil

08-05-2005, 02:46 PM

This mischaracterisation of the position 'Reader's Rights' camp is one which has been commonly adopted on this thread. We are portrayed as positively encouraging the reader to wilfully misread and misinterpret what Tolkien has written and to deliberately come up with non-sensical meanings and crackpot theories if that is what he wants to do. But that misrepresents the reality of the position. Indeed, the label 'Reader's Rights' is in some ways misleading. I prefer the term 'reader's experience'.

Note that I said Readers' RIGHTS, not READERS SUPREME...

I believe I am correct is saying that the group of thought I refer to as the "Readers' Rights" group is the group that holds that the experience and interpretation of the reader takes precedence over that of the author.

If that is not what you are saying, then this thread is REALLY mixed up...

I agree that readers have rights, but I put the rights of the author first.

The interpretion of a work of literature occurs both consciously and subconsciously. Often, we have no conscious control over how we interpret a work and therefore what it means to us. That is not to say that one cannot reach a position through deliberate analysis and logical thought, but both processes will generally be at work here.

But in the event of a dispute between the apparent meaning of the author and the original perception of the reader, which wins? For example, when I first read the Lord of the Rings Minas Tirith was pronounced Mye-nass Tirith. I liked it that way, I thought it was correct. However, upon learning that the correct pronunciation was Mee-nass Tirith, I changed my pronunciation, because Tolkien's pronunciation- the author's pronunciation- takes precedence. It is the canonical pronunciation.

In the event, of course, that there is no clear statement by Tolkien on a subject- and if I could not make any sense of his conflicting opinions (think Gil-galad, but worse) then I would be perfectly fine with imaging my own solution. But if a letter came up from the depths of someone's attic laying out a different solution than mine- I would, perhaps reluctantly, accept it.

Of course, the reader has the right to be obtuse and stubbornly hold to an adopted position. But if he does so without having an honest belief in that position, then he will (in my opinion) be acting unreasonably and will be rightfully open to criticism for doing so.

Quite so. And my opinion is that Tolkien's word is the canon.

davem

08-05-2005, 04:01 PM

Oh, alright davem. You can have the last word ...

Oops! :p :D

Sorry. I know its come across that way, but I'm not trying to just repeat myself - & I actually think its important...

Look, Tolkien told us what LotR was 'about' on a number of occasions - its a long story meant to entertain, its the story of a hobbit broken down & made into something entirely other (approximation - I'm quoting from memory), etc. Others (the green movement, the far right, etc) have also told us what its about - as far as they're concerned.

So, all these different groups & individuals are claiming a knowledge of what the book is about, why it speaks to them, what they take from it, etc. My question is, are those things the same as the meaning of the book? Is there a difference between 'What the book means' & 'What the book means to me?

In other words, is the meaning I find in the book the only meaning there can be, or does the story itself mean something - does it have an 'objective' meaning which an individual reader can choose either to accept or reject?

Does there have to be an either' or choice made between the two - or why does one have to take priority over the other?

I'm fumbling around & probably not making much sense here...

EDIT

Let me try & clarify. In Middle earth Eru creates Ea. Its meaning is the one He gives it - its purpose is what He declares it to be. Yet all his children are free to either accept that meaning, adapt it, or reject it. They can 'find' whatever meaning in it they wish - as they wish. Some, however, will place Eru's meaning & purpose above their own, & even willingly sacrifice their own in favour of His.

Tolkien's position on this is clear - he states that the 'Right' approach for the children is to put His intention, meaning & purpose before their own - even if they suffer or die as a result.

Can we draw an analogy between Eru & the children & Tolkien & his readers?

Actually, that is probably just confusing things more...

Fordim Hedgethistle

01-23-2008, 09:36 AM

2 & 1/2 years since this darkened my inbox. Just felt it might be time to give it a bump:

Seems to me there's three questions:

1) What did Tolkien intend: what was it that he wanted to do with this book when he started it and as he wrote it?

2) What did Tolkien come to think it was about: what were his views of LotR in the months, years and decades after it was published? He added to it substantially in interesting ways (clarifying and explaining it in letters, completing and fleshing out the moral framework provided by the extensive backstory in the Sil)

3) What does the book mean: what do we as readers take from it?

And most importantly, how are these three things directly related to one another? Does number three owe anything to number one? Does number two in any way effect number one?

Let's perhaps begin with a nasty example; Gollum's little tumble into the Crack of Doom

1) the INTENT: to end the story in some way that made sense and was satisfying. Having Frodo or anyone else toss in the Ring would not be believable given the amount of time spent talking about how no-one could destroy it or give it away; having it not go in the fire would have been terrible, cause, well, Sauron would have won!

2) For Tolkien this moment came to be ABOUT the moral demonstration of Eru's (Providence's?) guiding hand over events. We don't actually see Eru 'taking charge' of the novel at this point, we only find that out by reading Tolkien's Letters and the Sil.

3) For me it MEANS a lot of things: that Gollum is in a way some kind of hero; that free will in Middle-earth does exist in a Boethian sort of way; that the design of Middle-earth history is essentially Providential in a Catholic manner; and that Frodo is being rewarded and saved by that Providential power.

To my mind, my number three owes nothing to number two, and is the dynamic result of my own readerly response to number one.

So there we are. Shall we begin this again, or leave it to moulder forever in the archives? Either is acceptable to me.

Bêthberry

02-04-2008, 09:31 AM

So there we are. Shall we begin this again, or leave it to moulder forever in the archives? Either is acceptable to me.

And by these posts, all shall approve
Us canonized for love of Tolkien

:D

HerenIstarion

02-16-2008, 11:07 AM

I'm glad to see some things linger on, even if I'm not there to watch the 'lingering' :rolleyes:

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

02-16-2008, 01:35 PM

I haven't read the entire thread, it being quite long and I rather new to the board, but here's my two cents:

From what I can glean from all my reading of Tolkien's works (that being the finished stories, unfinished stories, notes, letters, etc.), his intent was to ultimately create a mythology for England, along the lines of other mythic cycles he loved so well. His ultimate intent does not appear to be his original intent, for he certainly did not have anything so complex in mind when he began writing "a Hobbit sequel," nor when he jotted down the line, "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit." From what I recall, at that time, he was more engaged with language and with faery, but they provided seeds from which his greater works grew. He did not set out with the intent of making this subcreation reflect his Catholic beliefs, but he did admit that it unconsciously reflected them as all writing reflects its author, and later consciously reflected them when he did revisions (some of which, we have seen, he was never able to fully reconcile; witness his problems with orcs, where they came from, whether or not they have souls, what happens to them after death if they do, etc.)

"Meaning" is not as objective a word as one would like it to be. A word can have many meanings, depending on context. And I have found that, whatever the author's intended meaning, readers are going to find their own, no matter how much the author might protest to the contrary. As an example (pardon the digression, but I think it's relevant): in one of my own novels, I have a female character who calls her father "Daddy." I wrote her that way because I have known a number of women, well up in years, who called their father "Daddy" until the day he died. Their relationship was not at all juvenile, nor in any way warped, but most of these women were the only daughters in the family, and "Daddy" was for them a term of endearment, a nickname that reflected a special bond they shared. I considered this a very minor matter in the story, a small idiosyncrasy that was intended to show a bit of the relationship between the two characters without expounding at length about all its details. Yet one reader latched onto this and sent me a several-thousand word analysis, telling me that I must have some issues with my own father, that I was revealing a childish attachment to him in my writing, that no one who isn't messed up and doesn't have an unhealthy relationship with their father would EVER call him "Daddy" into adulthood. Never mind that this person knew zilch about me (I stopped calling my father "daddy" around age 8; it was always "Dad" thereafter). Her immense diatribe had nothing to do with me or my authorial intent, it had nothing to do with the characters in the story; it had everything to do with her own personal baggage (which I know since she kindly told me all about her own life and past abuse so that I would know how very well she understood everyone else in the world).

Everyone brings baggage to what they read and what they write; I don't see how it can be avoided. If as you write, you do not allow your own voice to somehow flow into the words, they tend to become meaningless. If as you read, you don't allow yourself to resonate with what you're reading, it's all just words, style without substance. I know that when I write, I do so for myself, not with the express intent of pushing buttons, so to speak, with the readers. It has meaning for me, but I know it may wind up having very different meaning to some readers. It does not offend me when people tell me they felt something I hadn't put there. Their lives are not mine, so they may not react to things I wrote that had great meaning for me, and yet may have a powerful reaction to something in the same story that for me had no great import. The person who tried to psychoanalyze me was not offensive until she kept insisting that I must have suffered the same abuse as she, and if I did not intend to put that into the story, there was something wrong with me and I was in deep denial (my therapist would beg to differ :rolleyes: ). I don't know why she couldn't accept that this was not an intended and deliberate subtext.

I have seen similar attitudes in some Tolkien fans and scholars. They see meaning in his work that is important to them. All well and good. But then, they insist that because they see this, and find it important, it must somehow have been intended by the author, and (worst of all, to my mind) is the only "correct" interpretation of the work. That's where head-butting and shouting matches begin. All of this is probably why, though I've found the HoME books interesting, I often think they just muddied the waters. They present a lot of JRRT's thinking about what he had created and was still in the process of creating when he died; they present his son's feelings and interpretations. They show alternatives, things under consideration, a lot of food for thought -- but not as much in terms of definitive answers. The only person who could have provided that is long dead (bless his soul), and even he was undecided about many things.

So what does all this rambling mean? I tend to think "canon" is what people are pointing at when they say "canon." One person will accept only what was in LotR and the Hobbit before JRRT died. Another will accept that and The Silmarillion (without revisions). One will allow for the various revisions to all works done by CT, and the more complete hitherto unpublished works, like those in Unfinished Tales. And still others will try to find a way to incorporate much of what's in the HoME books, or even try to reconcile absolutely everything (including things that contradict). It's all very personal, because we all react differently to information that is given to us. When we are presented with contradictory information, we tend to give greater credence to one or the other, but it isn't always because one provided more factual information or made a better argument for their position; it can simply be because one "feels" right and the other doesn't. I'm sort of in this camp on the question of Gil-galad's parentage, and I think I tend to prefer one over the other because to me, it seems more as I would have written it myself, and thus feels more "logical" to my way of thinking (I also rather think that neither version is superior; they're merely different). I may be completely wrong, but since the jury's still out, I feel free to choose the side I prefer, for whatever reasons I might have. And others are free to do the same. Which might very well mean we're either both wrong or both right, or in this case, right and wrong do not exist. :D

Okay, now I know for a fact I'm rambling. What was the original topic...? :D