[the phantom]

You didn't think you could have a big debate without the phantom weighing in, did you?

As a reader, I would love to say that the reader holds the meaning because I would like to be able to order things my way. However, I am not inclined to extend this courtesy to my fellow readers, because everyone else doesn't always agree with me, and when that happens, if the meaning is truly determined by the reader, then their opinion is just as correct and valid as mine no matter who they are or what they think. I cannot accept that, because I believe that every opinion is not equally valid or correct.

For instance, if someone reads LOTR and declares the meaning of the book to be "clowns are scary", that person is not expressing a "different" opinion, they are expressing a wrong opinion, no doubt about it- and don't even give me the "what gives you the right to judge" crap- they are wrong and you know it even if you are scared to say it.

And now I ask, why would such an opinion be wrong?

The answer- because nothing within the text supports the conclusion as being a rational one.

You can't find meaning in a text if it is not truly in the text, if you get my drift. You can't read "The paper is blue" and draw from it "The pen is green". Meaning has to actually be in the text in order to be found. It's a logical fact. Therefore, we can declare an individual right or wrong through analysis of the text.

Which means, of course, that analysis of the text is a better choice than the experience of the reader. A reader has only found meaning in a text if the text supports it.

But is there an even better choice than analysis of the text?

I want you all to imagine that you have written a book reflecting a few of your core beliefs. Then, some terrorist group claims that they have found a message within your book- "kill women and children". Don't you, as an author, have the authority to say "No, you are wrong- that message is not in that book. I know because I'm the one who wrote the darn thing."?

Of course you have that right. You are the author. You overrule the terrorist group who read your book.

Perhaps there were women and children killed in your book, and because of a mistake you made in writing the book it was unclear who did the deed, and some people interpreted the book to be saying that the hero of the story did it. In this case, the textual analysis could possibly be on the side of the terrorist group. But then if you, as an author, step forward and say "Just to clear things up, it was the bad guy in the book who was responsible for killing those people, not the hero", doesn't that make it the correct way to interpret the passage?

The creator is the one who knows what is going on. The creator knows what the book is trying to say. Therefore, the creator's interpretation overrules all else.

Now, I'm not saying that the author is always correct morally or anything- merely that they are correct about the meaning of what they have written. For instance, if a Nazi says that the meaning of his book is "other races are dumb", you may disagree with him and think he is wrong morally, but his statement about the meaning of his book is still correct.

Unfortunately, the creator is not always around to answer questions. For instance, Tolkien is not here to talk to us about Balrog wings, therefore we must turn to analysis of the text, which is what will bring us closer to the creator's correct interpretation than anything else. Then, if the analysis still leaves the question unanswered, the reader has the right to think what he wants and not be declared "wrong".