[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by raynor

I see this rather often; do you accuse him of hipocrisy?

I rather agree with davem on the issue of the reliability of Tolkien’s Letters as determinants of his intentions with regard to LotR. One does not have to consider Tolkien a hypocrite in order to consider them to be inconclusive as to his intentions in this regard. Fascinating though they are, they were generally written in response to specific questions (and in some cases challenges) raised concerning the book and often consist of ex post facto musings on what he had written. As expressions of authorial intent, his Letters are sometimes inconsistent, both with each other and with other published material. Hardly surprising, given that his own perspective and opinions would naturally have changed over time. It is not a criticism.

Indeed that, to me, is one of the main difficulties associated with defining the meaning of a book by reference to authorial intent.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why? Does contradict any part of the story?

Davem’s point, and I rather agree with him here, is that Tolkien’s statement equating the Secret Fire with the Holy Spirit is irrelevant to the story itself. It is only relevant if you are either looking for Christian associations within the text or seeking to determine authorial intent. I have no problem with you doing either, as long as you do not seek to impose your conclusion on me by insisting that the Secret Fire must necessarily be equated with the Holy Spirit in order to properly understand the book, that this is part of the "correct" meaning of the book.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't see why he can't use terms of his mythology to reffer to real life situations, esspecially if his terms are widely known and understood.

One of the few points of discomfort that I find within Tolkien’s Letters is his use of the word “Orcs” to refer to real life people. In the context of LotR, Orcs are presented as (irredeemably?) evil beings and no moral issue is raised concerning their slaughter (unlike, for example, with the dead Haradrim solider). Are treecutters and motorcycle riders really to be considered in the same way? Tolkien is free to do so, but this does not form any part of my understanding of LotR’s meaning. Orcs have no real life equivalent as far as I am concerned.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Not in form, but that is something we agreed from the begining: Tolkien is not writing allegorically.

Indeed. Ergo, he is not seeking to impose his intentions upon his readers. He invites readers to find applicability within LotR. That puts the reader firmly in the position of being free to find his or her own the meaning within the book. If that excludes any Christian associations, whether Tolkien intended them or not, then who is anyone to object when Tolkien himself specifically endorsed such freedom of interpretation?

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Yes; it (specifically the incarnation, passion, & resurrection) is also referred to by Tolkien as the one true myth to which all other myths pointed. Since he set out to write a myth, it's hard for me to imagine he wasn't both assuming and hoping that the myth he wrote would point to the true one.

And bringing up the word "myth" leads to lmp's point regarding mythic unity, which looks to me like the key to this discussion. Some, likeRaynor, see it; others take tentative stabs at it; and others insist it's not there.

I am no rookie (either on this site or in this kind of a discussion ), but this is precisely the kind of statement that I was referring to earlier – the assumption that the Christian interpretation of LotR is objectively the “correct” one. The implication being that, if we are one of those who cannot see it, we are approaching LotR “incorrectly”. That is a proposition which I reject entirely. Indeed, I do not necessarily accept the proposition that there is a universal myth at all (or at least one that is external to the human psyche).

TORE, you define the meaning of a book by reference to the intention of its author. My position is that this definition cannot be sufficient, because it is focussed only on the author and takes no account of the reader. The primary purpose of a novel such as LotR is to be read by a reader. After it has been written, it only has meaning when it is read. Accordingly, I find it difficult to see how a book’s meaning to the individual reader can be so easily dismissed.

As a reader, I can look at what the author intended to say, to the extent that this can be determined (and, as I have said, there are major difficulties involved with doing that), but that will only tell me what the book’s meaning was to the author. It may influence my own understanding of, and reaction to, the book, but it will not determine it.

For me, this is of vital importance in this debate as to whether LotR is a religious book. The author may have intended it as such (and I believe that, at some point, he did) but that does not determine its meaning to me. Some readers may consider it as such, but that does not determine its meaning to me. While the intentions of the author and the interpretations of other readers may be interesting to me, and may even influence my own understanding of the book, they still do not define its meaning as far as I am concerned.

Originally Posted by TORE

First, it will destroy the meaning of the book - no book could possibly have as many different meanings to it as we would come up with. Secondly, it would make conversation ridiculous. Why should we discuss the meaning of a book based soly on our interpretation of it? 'Misunderstanding' of the text is then in possible, because I have my interpretation & you cannot touch it. We are all right, so what’s the point of discussion?

No, your propositions here do not follow at all from my definition of “meaning” by reference to individual readerly reaction and interpretation. There are many areas in which most peoples’ understanding of a book (and authorial intention) will coincide. When Tolkien tells us who was present at the Council of Elrond, we all understand that in the same way. It was Tolkien’s intention that those individuals be present, it is your understanding that they were present and it is my understanding that they were present. Because of our understanding of the language that Tolkien used, we all react to it and understand it in the same way. Our individual “meanings” coincide. So that allows us to discuss it on the same basis. But, when we consider, for example, whether Orcs were irredeemably evil or whether Frodo succeeded in his Quest (or indeed whether Tom Bombadil was a Maia or Balrogs have wings ), we will have different reactions and opinions (and these may well differ from the author’s intention). That does not forestall discussion but, rather, encourages it. Many of the discussions on this forum would have never taken place (or would have been a lot shorter) were it not for the fact that we all have different reactions to, and interpretations of, the book and are prepared to assert them as part of our understanding of its meaning. Through those discussions, our understanding of the book, it meaning to us as individuals, may change in certain respects. But the overall understanding, and therefore the meaning, remains unique to the individual.

And so it is with the proposition that LotR is a fundamentally religious book, or that Aragorn or Frodo or Gandalf is a Christ-figure. The author may or may not have intended either or both of these propositions to be part of its meaning. Other readers may or may not consider either or both of them to be part of its meaning. But it remains the case that neither of these propositions are part of its meaning as far as I am concerned.

Originally Posted by TORE

As I said - it can 'mean' many things to many different people. But that doesn't change the author's initial intention.

No it doesn’t. But what relevance is the author’s intention to me (other, perhaps than biographically) if it does not coincide with, or influence, my own understanding of the book’s meaning? To me, while authorial intention (and the opinions of other readers) may be interesting and even influential, it is my own understanding of the book that is the most important, indeed the only "true" meaning.