[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwende
Which critic was it who proposed the theory that the reader was important in constructing meaning?

I think it was Bethberry

Ha ha! If I recall, my suggestion was not to give priority to any particular part of this Trinity of Author, Book or Reader, but to consider the space between them as as an active process of the human mind. In fact, my point is not so very far from davem's statement of his reading--that each new reading generates new awareness and understanding. I simply say that out of respect for the act of reading, I do not denigrate any stage of that process, whether it is the first, hesitant or 'naive' reading or subsequent more knowing ones. As I said earlier on this thread, there will be much that some can learn from even as incomplete or skewed a reading as that of the White Supremacists--a point which I think Lawendë is making here.

I learn something new each time, because I'm more open to the truth the older I get & the more experiences I have, but the Truth is constant, & its about coming closer to it.

So, davem's experience reading examplifies my point that the reader's own stand is part of how he or she is able to understand the text. I suppose another way of saying this is that some of us want to define the issue by the destination while others of us wish to say that it is the journey itself which is our interest.

However, now that davem has drawn me back in here, let me say that what has kept me away from this current focus on "Truth" or "moral worth" is what I see as a confusion of semantics. I mention it now to bolster my reputation as a nitpicking pedant but also to suggest how 'meaning' can be slippery.

I won't copy and paste the number of times most of you, HI, SpM, Aiwendil, and davem if not Lawendë also--Fordim is playing cat and mouse now have used the word "objective". Here is just one example.

davem posted

Tolkien is clear in his attitude to Boromir - Boromir does wrong when he tries to take the Ring, whatever Boromir himself might believe at the time. Its not that 'In Tolkien's universe morality is objective' as Aiwendil puts it, its that from Tolkien's pov morality is objective, in a man's house or in the Golden Wood. The distinction simply doesn't stand for Tolkien. Its like claiming that Jesus sets out one moral value system in his parables, but that the moral value system in this world is different. Tolkien's original intent was to awaken people to an objective moral value system through his stories, by presenting that objective standard to us through an invented mythology.

Now, I can surmise that 'ojective' makes a nice flip side to 'subjective' particularly when the position of reader is being refuted as incomplete or partial. However, in my experience, the kind of permanent, eternal standard which is being alluded to more usually is referred to as absolute.

I know that 'objective' often stands in for 'unbiased' and 'unaffected by personal feelings' . I also often carries very positive connotations, derviving from our expectations of the scientic or 'empirical' method as the one less prone to error.

However, in my experience, the kind of unchanging moral worth being posited here is "absolute", meaning free of any 'arbitrary standard,not comparative or relative" , something 'unequivocal, certain, sure," something "full and perfect."

As I said, nitpicking pedant. But HI had asked for definitions.