[The Only Real Estel]

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

Saucie there are millions of readers of a book such as Lord of the Rings. Does that mean that there are millions of different meanings out there? A book that has been written has a meaning. It is the meaning of the author. If no one ever read Rings it would still contain the meaning that Tolkien put into it. Now it does not have meaning to you until you've read it. And as I've said, I'm not dismissing the meaning to the individual reader - you can choose to make it mean whatever you want to you or whatever strikes the proper chord with you. But that doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

True. But why is there no discussion on who was at the Council of Elrond? Because we can all see the author's intention.

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

True. Why? Because we don't know (or at least there's significant debate) the author's intentions on these matters. These are good examples of "ultra-literary" parts of the books; Tolkien didn't exactly specify so there are at least several interpretations. But what would I use to support my side of the Balrog/wing debate for example? My opinion or my interpretation? Only if it was backed up by quotes from the book(s), possibly quotes from the Letters, etc. Why? Because I don't care what my interpretation (or anyone else's) is. If someone says: "My interpretation of the books is that Faramir had blonde hair" & posts a thread about it - what happens? Someone gives a quote from the book (black hair) & the thread is shut down because it is ridiculous. That person is welcome to think whatever they like concerning Faramir's hair - but we can see the author's intention and that is what we are all really hunting for. If we can't see it, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Originally Posted by SpM

...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.

I don't think there's any debate that Tolkien had intentions behind everything in his book. As a reader of the books I want to know what Tolkien's intentions were. Do I have to adopt them as my own? No - it'd be dreadfully boring if you had to accept the author's point of view just because you've read his book. An author may write a book on why solid oak tables are the best. If I prefer metal tables I don't have to change my preference - but that doesn't mean the author's point of the book changed. You can care not a button for the author's meaning & replace his with yours & that's fine.

What I am saying is simply this: That does not change the meaning of Tolkien's (or anyone else's) books. Tolkien himself set the meaning, we as readers can come up with our own but not change his.

We don't go to Balrog/wing threads saying "they have wings for me & they don't for you." Now inevitably we come to different sides of the debate but that's because of "I think Tolkien says they do" & "I think Tolkien says they don't" lines of thinking.

Therefore, if we are trying to decide if the books are 'Christian works;' rather than saying "They're Christian to me & non-Christain to you" (negating the point of discussion) we should try & find what Tolkien intended them to be. This being not quite clear, there will be much debate (as there has been) about it - just like there's debate about Tom Bombadil or the winged/wingless Balrogs.

But "mark" is right - although this is Tolkien-related and also related to finding Christian elements in the books it really is not as much on topic as it should be I don't think.

Then again I'm not a mod...