Author, Reader, or Text? (aka Canonicity Slapdown 2005)
 

All right, let's just settle this (and maybe this) once and for all.

I say we all line up & throw heavy sharp objects at Fordim, 'cos I think he just wants to start a row ;)

I'm going to avoid this one, I think - you all know how much I hate repeating myself :p

How many times can I vote, and how many of the choices can I select for each vote?

The reason that I ask is that my answer would be dependent on whichever of my personalities is dominant/running the ship that day (skeptic, scientist, La-La-lander, peacemaker, antagonist, conformist, reader, writer, PJ-fanboy, etc).

Is there an "Other" or "None of the above" selection?

Hmm...at least we seem to be of accord thus far.

OK, do you think I ought to be facetious and vote for option 4? I don't want to settle the discussion once and for all! Although they give me headaches and such threads are an addiction I can easily do without, they do get me running (well, metaphorically running anyway, very little actually gets me literally running) to the computer to see what everyone's gone and posted. I'm not totally sold on any of the reader theories anyway.

Unless *puts fingers together in a Sherlock-Holmes-deducing-a-motive fashion* Fordim is sneakily trying to get that whole Canonicity thing up and running again? :p

Well, you see, in my opinion, it is up to the reader. But when discussing the religion of Tolkien, my personal belief is that he wouldn't have wanted me wandering around with an Eagle pendant around my neck muttering "Unto thee, oh Saint Frodo, I am devoted" - so I don't. Others are free to do so if they are of a mind.

Where's the middle-ground -- the collaboration between author and reader?

Sneaks in wearing big hat & false beard & using assumed name so as not to look like a hypocrite....

Where's option five - The meaning is to be found in the glimpse it provides of 'joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief'?

But surely the experience of the reader includes their own personal analysis of the text and their view of the intention of the author. That is why reading is so subjective.

It isn't there, davem because that is an effect the reader experiences based upon his or her own subjective reading experience. So it's there under # 2. :D

Actually, I wouldn't mind a write-in option. ;)

Thus far, the voting is a little lop-sided - too lopsided. Too bad I already voted. I would vote for one of the two that have no voted just to arouse controversy.

But this is the question that has haunted me for some time (since I cannot secure an answer for myself): if one reads a certain message in the author's work, but the author in no way intended it to read that way, is that message interpreted by the reader a valid one? Most English teachers argue "yes", but I know from experience that there are not many things I find more irritating than when people create things in my writing that are not there. There is part of me that says, "You're missing the entire point!" Then, there is another section of me that thinks, "Perhaps somehow I did intend that - or it just birthed itself in my writing." It can be compared, I suppose, to the method I use to write. It is not as though I carefully plan out every facet - it comes almost as though it is arriving through me, not from me. Therefore, does the story have a life of its own once it's out of my hands, open to the interpretation of strangers that know nothing about me?

davem and Bb, you two ought to have your own show.

"So who's from Moria?"
"That's right."
"No, I mean, who's from Moria?"
"Of course he is. Why do you keep repeating yourself?"
"I don't know--"
[Together:]"Iron Hills!"
"Whoooo!"

There's got to be someone to hold back the curtain and someone to look at what's on the other side. A novel is a communication, a meeting of the minds -- a sort of telepathy, as Stephen King would have it.

I'm the only dude who voted for analysis of the text. Sometimes I don't even trust Tolkien when his opinion conflicts with an interpretation that lends itself to a stronger internal consistency.

Edit: It's important to note that this attitude towards his writing was allowed for by Tolkien himself when he chose to write things as if he did not even know the full truth of Middle-earth.

I was torn. I am of the opinion that options A and C are joined at the hip.

However, in my experience in taking multiple choice exams (which I regret to say is considerable) C is usually the right answer...

The answer is C, Text.

Glad I could help.

B
 

I sincerely doubt Tolkien ever had these words in mind as he wrote the books...

"This is what I want it to mean, okay? If you take it in other ways you better put the book down."

In most cases, at least.

Empirically, I know there is no possible way of changing a poll once it is set, and that's bad, as I would have voted option E - all four of the above. Therefore I won't vote :p

As for the 'intended row' - let's have one - I'm bit thirsty after monthful of abstination! :D

EDIT: I did vote option 4 after some consideration.

How could I possibly cast a vote on only one of the first three options? They're so restrictive if each stands alone! I'm withholding so far, but I just might be ornery and vote for D if the mood strikes me... :p

Weeellll....

Depends how you're using 'subjective' (& 'objective'). I'd say what I'm talking about is a 'subjective' experience of an 'objective' Truth'/Reality. Its 'subjective' because it won't happen to all readers, but I think true Art is a window on another, objective, reality - & that's the 'meaning' we find in the text - ie, that's why its meaningful to us on the deepest level.

And I don't think that's included in option 2.

So there :p

Yup, Kuruharan, you're clearly an old-fashioned kind of critter, like me. Author's intention, positively Victorian. Anyway I hummed and hawed between A&C and went for C.

I'VE BEEN FOUND OUT!!!!

I'm noticing a trend here wanting to discuss what our options ought to be rather than actually voting. Perhaps we should have a poll about what should be in the poll?

Hear, hear.

Hear, hear.

Where's "The collaboration between the author, the reader, and The Author of the Story By Which I Do Not Mean Myself?" Though I'm just rewording davem's option, above. (You go, davem.)

Fordie, I give you applause for starting these polls. The rest of us shoiuld do them more often.

Maybe we should let this poll run its course as is, and then put up another with all the "where's option number umptyfratz" and do it again.

Does Tolkien get to vote too?

A song, Mister Underhill! Sing us a song!

Canon: theme that repeats itself in infinite iterations...
 

Oh great! Another dip into the Canonicity pool! As I am currently fresh from the Dead Marshes, it is tempting to ponder whether this topic is clear as the mere of Kheled-zaram or if it is as tortuous and fraught with "candles of the dead" as the Dead Marshes themselves. Needless to say I haven't voted yet; this requires thought (again) and the re-booting of old patterns woven with new ones. But, drat it all! It requires thought! ;)

I visited the link to the "What broke the enchantment?" thread and found one entry for the Ents. Personally, this created a lasting and new enchantment for me that I can't imagine disregarding as I look at any tree! Different experiences for different people, reacting to the same text. But the trees are there, whether the eye of the reader sees them or not. And they have aspects that are beyond any eyes, perhaps even those of the Professor, as he has hinted in other areas. Maybe this is the literary version of the "tree falling in the forest" question...

Anyway, a jolly good lark, Fordim! Thanks!

Cheers!
Lyta

The voices inside of alatar's head held a meeting to decide on a poll choice. Here's a glimpse into that conversation...

"Let's look at our options, shall we?

The first choice has it all on the author's side. If Tolkien were writing strictly for Tolkien, then we'd be okay with this choice, but didn't he assume that his works would be read by others (and not just members of his family)? The books are a form of communication, and that presumes that some other will hear the message. All forms of communication have an error rate - the message from inside the head (thought) is transmitted via voice or writing and always something is lost in the translation.

Just look at how fellow B-Ders interpret to our posts.

Even with God-like writings skills and the ability to hammer the 'meaning' into stone, there is still the chance that the message will not be received clearly. As the author cannot control the reader/observer, then one cannot believe that the meaning can be derived solely on the intention of the author.

If an author's intention fell in the woods, would anyone hear it?

Which leads to the second choice. The reader obviously can infer a meaning, but as two different reader can derive two different meanings, this method of determination is subjective. If a thousand readers determined a thousand meanings, should we average or filter these to see what is in common? But what about those readers who cannot read the works in the original language? And then there are those readers who have watched the Peter Jackson films and so are, shall we say, tainted by that?

When did they add that stuff about that Tom guy - he wasn't in the movie.

Choice three seems to be reasonable, but debate by the 'experts' may just devolve into who can shout the loudest and longest. Even with objective standards and guidelines, the analysts, being human, are subjective and also are not privy to the author's pure thoughts but just the 'translations.' Analysis may approximate the meaning, but there will always be doubt.

And there are those that are so 'expert' that they cannot see that sometimes lembas are simply just lembas.

The last choice then would seem to be the most reasonable, as it is noncommittal, states a liking for the text and could preclude having to make such a long-winded rant such as this one...;)

We vote for #4."

The text.

As the text is the written and presented intention of the author, the arbiter of this epic and novel-world, he is the "canon".

In the instance that the text contradicts itself, the author's intentions are to be examined, then the text more congruent with those intentions is to be held as more canonical.

That's MY canon, anyway.

~Formendacil - :p ~

We are still left with the question of what 'message' the author is attempting (well or badly) to communicate. Is it his own 'message' or does it arise elsewhere - is he attempting to communicate an experience he has had, so as to make that experience available to others? Or at least to let others know that such an experience is available for those that want it.

This question was never resolved in the Canonicity debate, because, I suppose, it is about the nature of 'Art'. Is there an objective 'Reality' which Art makes accessible to us, opening a 'window' on another 'world'.

Sorry, but in this kind of discussion I think we will always be reduced to putting terms in quotes, because of the problems of translation Alatar refers to. This is not simply a matter of the translation of an author's ideas into words & of the translation of those words into other languages & media, but of the deeper, more primary, 'translation' of transcendant Reality into mundane methods of communication. This is something Tolkien explored, particularly in his time travel stories, but also in his use of dreams in works like LotR. It is a question of how (& possibly why) 'spirit' breaks into the physical, & what form that 'breaking in' takes, as well as the effect it has on those who find themselves on the recieving end of it.

Of course, LotR, like any art may be just that - art as opposed to Art, simple entertainment. I think we should be open to the possibility that it is more than merely entertainment, because if we rule out that possibility out of hand we will never have the opportunity of experiencing the Transcendent, & merely explain it away. If something changes us then we have to accept its objective reality - the argument then becomes one about the source of that 'reality'. Was Tolkien's work 'merely' his own invention? Would we have been able to have that experence without his works? And finally, what, exactly, is the experience we are having?

Does Tolkien's work provide an experience of 'Joy, beyond the walls of the world'? If it does then there must be something ('Something') beyond the walls of the 'world' (which is to say - if it is to say nothing else - that there is something beyond the 'walls' of our own little 'world', our own experiences or 'baggage') for us to have an experience of.

So, I think that (inevitably) when we ask questions about where the 'meaning' of Tolkien's work (or any other art/Art) is to be found we have to clarify first exactly what we mean by 'meaning' (or 'Meaning')...

I've always thought that all true story takes a life of it's own, if you will, so I cannot with a good will choose the first two. As for the third option analysis sounds so cold and disect-ful to me :p And "cool" isn't exactly the word I'd use to describe LotR...

Though a part of me can't help but saying that the reason that a story affects us is quite beyond us, and is quite unsolvable.

It is Myth after all...I don't any of us can truly understand it.

So...this is a very elaborate way of saying "I pass" ;)

The more I think about it, the more in favour of option 4 I get. So I'll run through everything logically like Alatar did.

Option 1 seems fair enough to me, that we need to find out what the author intended. Hopefully what he intended is quite clear, but as we know in Tolkien's work there are many many levels so it sometimes results in some digging to find out what he meant. Looking up Letters doesn't always help either, as sometimes I get the sense that he would pluck a grand phrase out of the air without always thinking of how that might be interpreted (shoot me if you must...).

Which leads me on to Option 2. I also like the sound of this one - I'm something of a moral relativist and think that there are few absolutes in this world beyond death and taxes and the same must apply to art. I often find that no matter what the author's intentions were, many readers will inevitably find meanings in the text that weren't necessarily intended. If you think of how The Communist Manifesto has been misused then you have a good example of this. But that does lead me on to my misgiving about this option in that it is a bit of a cop-out, and allows us to make any kind of claim and simply to add the proviso "well, that's my opinion".

Then Option 3 sounds perfectly sensible. It is the text which we are reading and it is the text which contains all the information we need. After all, in the case of Tolkien's work, this entire world would simply not exist without the text; it is different to say, Austen's work, in that her world would have continued to exist if she hadn't decided to write novels. If Tolkien had thought that he couldn't really be bothered then none of this would exist. But my misigiving here is that if we analyse the text then we are entering into something like micromanagement, we are looking at the detail but not seeing the overall picture. I'm guilty of it myself, I even enjoy doing it or why would I come to the 'Downs so often, but I do have to step back sometimes and just enjoy the view (or in the case of the 'Downs, have a bit of fun on Mirth) or else it could all get a bit like school.

So ultimately, out of all of those options, there's a bit of each I like and dislike, but when it boils down to it, I would say Option 4 is the one closest to my heart, because despite everything, LotR is just the coolest book, ever. ;)

mwa HA hahahahahahaaaaaaaaa *Fordim rubs hands*

"My plan has worked. Fools! Caught once more in my web...little do they realise that in secret I have crafted a master thread...."

*Fordim opens the One Thread*

"One Thread to rule them all! One Thread to find them!
One Thread to bring them all, and in endless debate bind them!"

Um, oh, wait -- sorry, did you all see that? Oh well, it's just a...yes...a...costume, yes, that's it...a costume that I am putting together for a Middle-Earth party...that's right...I'm just pretending...all a game you know....

At any rate:

To those, primarilly Misty Undy, who have expressed a desire for an option which encapsulates some kind of interation between reader and writer, I personally would point to the third option, insofar as it seems to me that analysis of the text would entail precisely that, as the reader 'works' with or engages imaginatively the only thing about the author that we have direct access to: his writing.

For those, primarilly davem and Mark 12_30, who wish for an option that encapsulates a sense of enchantment of and through the text which springs from some other realm (faerie?), I personally would point toward the fourth option, insofar as it offers them precisely the kind of non-rational (but not irrational!) sense of wonder before the text that they so notoriously relish and desire.

*smoke and fire in the background; nine figures cloaked in black emerge, each of them bearing a Thread of Power*

Uhhh, excuse me all for a moment, there are some....people here I need to speak with about....things...... :D

He held the mouse in his hand, hesitating, forcing himself to remember the original Canonicity thread; and then with an effort he clicked the mouse, as if to delete the poll -- but he found that he had clicked "post reply" instead.

Underhill laughed grimly. "You see?" he thought. "Already you too, Underhillo, cannot easily close the thread, nor will to delete it."

Are you now a victim of this addicting thread too, Mister Underhill? I swear Fordim put an enchantment on it or something - even if I don't have anything to add, I keep being pulled back here.

Oh, but it doesn't offer 'precisely' anything. It also says that we don't have the faintest idea - & I think we have more than that.

Your phrasing of the option 'assumes that which is to be proved' & I'm shocked that a man of your cal-i-ber would stop so low ;)

2-15-8-2?

Not really enough for a fight, yet. ;)

On an aside, what happened to the polls we used to have on the site? It would be quite amusing to have some of these public polls about favourite Hobbit or whatnot.

It's really up to Fordim; he's the one who always starts this trouble. :p

Clearly caught in the thread-spell he himself wove. Lo how the mighty has fallen.

Nay, no more than Fordim, we cannot wield it. Nor can we hide it to keep it safe. There remains only one choice.

Who will journey with Underhillo to the Delete Thread button?

Author's Weaving, Reader's Enchantment, Structure of the Net?
 

Look how the most interesting concepts defy attempts to pin them down! It is this very literary squidginess that keeps some running after it, while others grab onto one aspect and decide they've figured it out and sit quiet and smug on the raging battlefield...should it be any other way? ;)

Cheers!
Lyta (still haven't decided, but I think it will end up like complete burning of molecule--a percentage of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen--tells us the absolute makeup of a molecule without giving a clue to its sublime structure...why did I say that? Because the coffee hasn't worked its magic fully yet!) And this glides smoothly to Gandalf's words about "he who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom." Forgive my free association and atrocious post structure. I have still managed to stay atop the fence though!

Cheers again!

Hey! The voting isn't anonymous. If you click on the numbers, you can see who voted for what...

True. ;)

:p I didn't know...

I thought I didn't know...but I think I do.

And so my name is immortalized with the reader's experience crowd. So...just for the record: let he who is without opinion cast the first stone.

Quite right. It's a flawed poll without this option. Care to start another, Fordim? ;)

Edit: I can't begin to understand how anyone can think that "analysis" is the extent of the collaboration between author and reader.

Edit2: Okay, since Fordim has explicated choice #4 to include the collaboration between author and reader, thus including the sense of wonder and enchantment, that's how I'll vote. I just wish the option didn't read quite so dunderheaded compared to the rest of them.