The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Author, Reader, or Text? (aka Canonicity Slapdown 2005)

alatar · 07-28-2005, 10:29 AM

Great discussion, Lalwendë and The Saucepan Man.

In regards to interpreting the text, are there not rules to this art? If so, with whom or where have these rules originated? Are they set in stone, or just simply guidelines? Having a background in science and being born with an overly active skeptic gene, I always consider that my interpretation of results or of an event is subjective. One way to resolve the question is to provide another person or persons with the same data (in this case, the text) and the methodology (the rules) that I used to arrive at the results that I did. These others, hopefully not beholden to me in any way, 'run the experiment' for themselves and compare their results with mine. If we are in concordance, then it's possible that my interpretation is not subjective.

But as we are attempting to analyze the text in a more scientific fashion, we would have to still consider that our concordant interpretations are still flawed as our methodology (the best that we could come up with) may contain error. Even a peer-reviewed and developed method can still be wrong. Science is an art, and when interpreting works of fiction, there may be more art than science - I know of no algorithm that you can dump LOTR into and get "42."

So, if on the Downs I were to propose a meaning regarding the inclusion of Tom Bombadil in LOTR (like the crazy idea that Tolkien prophetically foresaw the creation of Star Trek

), I could just post the thought and get laughed at. I could be a bit smarter and show my evidence, and in this case it would have to be pretty thick and airtight. Some readers may be swayed; others may still not believe the heresy. Hopefully, some person digging around in an attic in Birmingham would find the "lost letters" that would prove me to be right. Then, and only then would my argument be considered true by most of the community - there would still be holdouts who would think (and rightly so) that the lost letters are forgeries.

Anyway, I think that it boils down to the consensus of the community, whether it be the rules of interpretation or the interpretation itself. If we differ with the community, then either we provide an argument that eventually is assimilated into that community or one becomes a lone voice crying in the desert.

And the truth is a Bayesian approximation anyway - we might not know the answer, but we know with some probability that we're close - or not.

07-28-2005, 10:29 AM	#61
alatar Doubting Dwimmerlaik Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Heaven's basement Posts: 2,466	Great discussion, Lalwendë and The Saucepan Man. In regards to interpreting the text, are there not rules to this art? If so, with whom or where have these rules originated? Are they set in stone, or just simply guidelines? Having a background in science and being born with an overly active skeptic gene, I always consider that my interpretation of results or of an event is subjective. One way to resolve the question is to provide another person or persons with the same data (in this case, the text) and the methodology (the rules) that I used to arrive at the results that I did. These others, hopefully not beholden to me in any way, 'run the experiment' for themselves and compare their results with mine. If we are in concordance, then it's possible that my interpretation is not subjective. But as we are attempting to analyze the text in a more scientific fashion, we would have to still consider that our concordant interpretations are still flawed as our methodology (the best that we could come up with) may contain error. Even a peer-reviewed and developed method can still be wrong. Science is an art, and when interpreting works of fiction, there may be more art than science - I know of no algorithm that you can dump LOTR into and get "42." So, if on the Downs I were to propose a meaning regarding the inclusion of Tom Bombadil in LOTR (like the crazy idea that Tolkien prophetically foresaw the creation of Star Trek ), I could just post the thought and get laughed at. I could be a bit smarter and show my evidence, and in this case it would have to be pretty thick and airtight. Some readers may be swayed; others may still not believe the heresy. Hopefully, some person digging around in an attic in Birmingham would find the "lost letters" that would prove me to be right. Then, and only then would my argument be considered true by most of the community - there would still be holdouts who would think (and rightly so) that the lost letters are forgeries. Anyway, I think that it boils down to the consensus of the community, whether it be the rules of interpretation or the interpretation itself. If we differ with the community, then either we provide an argument that eventually is assimilated into that community or one becomes a lone voice crying in the desert. And the truth is a Bayesian approximation anyway - we might not know the answer, but we know with some probability that we're close - or not. __________________ There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.