[The Saucepan Man]

I don’t know what to say to this. If something is wrong, it must be wrong in relation to something that is right, no? (Mister Underhill)

Well, perhaps. But not in a way that gives rise to any meaningful kind of interpretation. For example, if the interpretation of LotR as supporting the white supremacists' views is a "wrong" interpretation, then the corresponding "right" interpretation is that LotR does not support their views. Which, in my book, is not really a meaningful interpretation at all, but merely a negation of someone else's interpretation.

However, I don’t think we need to reference an outside, objective morality at all. I think every text has its own implicit morality. (Mister Underhill)

But that's just the point, isn't it? Whether a text supports or expounds any particular moral tenet may in itself be a matter of interpretation.

I don't have all that much to say about this, but I will make one point. I think the assumption has been that there are more or less two possibilities: either the "canon" is what Tolkien meant or there is no canon and we are free to interpret the text in any way we like. (Aiwendil)

Like Mr U, I fall between the two (although perhaps not in the same manner). As far as my own view of Middle-earth is concerned, I accept everything that is expressly or implicitly contained within the texts published within Tolkien's lifetime as true for that world. But I consider myself free to accept or reject anything else written by Tolkien, although I will generally be inclined to accept it. Of course, in discussions with others, I recognise that I will be bound by the "rules" of that discussion. So, if the discussion is directed towards establishing what Tolkien intended by a particular text, then I must accept that I am bound by what he himself has expressed as his intentions.

I think that there is a third way. A more useful thing to ask than "what did the author mean?" is "what would a reasonable person have meant?" (Aiwendil)

In law, tests based upon "reasonableness" are directed towards establishing a boundary between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable according to the concensus of the society applying the test. And so, I do not see this approach as being much different from an analysis of whether a particular interpretation is "right" or "wrong" by reference to how the majority within society would view it. The "reasonable man" (or the man on the Clapham Omnibus as he is sometimes known) stands for the consensus within his society.

And there, I think, is the essential dividing line of this entire thread. Some do not believe in absolute Truth, and in that case, Tolkien's definition does not apply very well. Nor would Tolkien's story have a deep Truth to be revealed; everything becomes subjective and individualized. Others do believe in absolute Truth, and can accept Tolkien's definition of Faerie as a revelation of that truth, and see numerous demonstrations of Truth in each of his stories. (mark 12_30)

I do not view it as nearly so clear cut as you suggest, Helen. "Absolute Truth" is in itself subjective, based upon a person's faith. Different faiths will have different ideas (often very subtly so) as to what precisely the "absolute Truth" entails. Whatever the particular faith of an individual, I still think that everyone's response to Tolkien's works will, to an extent, be subjective and individualised. And even those with no (or little) "faith" can still be inspired by his works, can still find their own individual "truths", and can still respond to Tolkien's portrayal of "Faerie". That said, I would still maintain that there is a level upon which we will all, if we allow ourselves, respond to the works in the same way, regardless of faith, politics, societal values, upbringing etc.

Davem, I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you say in your recent post. While we are reading the story, we should be caught up in it and should not waste time consciously analysing our interpretations of it as we go. And I don't think that you and Mr U are actually that far apart here. It is indeed the story, the characters and the events that they experience, as well as the landscape within which those events occur, which create the enchantment that we feel on reading the text. But I do thing that, to some extent, we are nevertheless subconsciously responding to the text and, in that sense, interpreting what it means to us, as we read it. Otherwise, I am not at all sure that we would undergo the enchantment in the first place.

The Legendarium is a series of stories, not just a setting. (Mister Underhill again - shamelessly overposting )

Yes, and it is both the stories and their settings which prompt our enchantment.

Now, anyone fancy summarising the various ideas raised so far on this thread?