[Child of the 7th Age]

Mr. Underhill, Bethberry

I was writing this while you were posting. So I haven't really taken your last posts into consideration.

You two seem to be inching closer together in agreement, but I still can't shake the feeling that there are some real differences here in how each of us approaches the text....

*****************************

Stories mean something.

Mr. Underhill,

I concur. I am uncomfortable with the idea that all interpretations of text have equal validity, and that assumption still seems to underline much of the discussion on the thread, from the first post onward.

************************

Recently, I have been a lurker on the edge of this thread, one of those contributing to the 2,000+ views, but I feel compelled to throw my generic opinions in the pot .

First, I would heartily agree with the idea that there is no one right reading of the text, and that the individual confrontation with the work is far more important than mining the text for an all-encompassing single meaning, which frankly does not exist. JRRT has given us one way of looking at Gollum and the Ring, but there can be other valid interpretations that we as readers bring to the work.

But just as an individual is free to grapple with the text on his own terms, the author, or any other reader, is free to look at that understanding and question its validity. The initial struggle with the text is only the first step in the critical process; the assessment of that struggle is a vital second step. And part of that second step involves making a judgment on what's been said. That judgment, to me, is not unimportant.

To put it bluntly, there is a point in reading when we are alone. As individuals, we bring our background and understanding forward and apply these to the story. Because our backgrounds and understanding are different, our interpretations and perceptions will inevitably vary. But the process does not stop there. There is a point where the individual reader becomes part of a community of readers, a place where discussion and assessment takes place. And that process is important. I can indicate whether or not their perceptions and interpretation resonate with me. And there are even times when I may tell a reader he is flat wrong. Stormfront comes to mind. One criteria I will use is whether or not the reader acknowledges the basic guidelines that the author has woven into his tale.

I do not insist that everyone who reads Lord of the Rings emerge with the interpretation that there is one God in charge of things, but I do believe there are certain boundaries the author has laid down with his own pen. These themes, whether you call them 'interpretations' or 'propositions' are inherent in the text: the theme of good and evil; the fact that Gandalf is wise, or Sam loyal; even concepts such as self-sacrifice, the exaltation of the humble, or the power of humility versus the destructive and self-negating futility of pride. You can come up with an interpretation of LotR that ignores these themes, but not one that directly says these themes don't exist, at least within the world that the author has created. (Whether they are true within my personal world is a wholly separate question, which is one reason why a 'materialist' modern reader can still appreciate Tolkien's works.)

In effect the author hands us the notes we can use. We are free to arrange these notes in any melodic pattern we would like. But we do not have the right to introduce totally foreign notes, just because we think it might produce a "nicer" song.

Let me cite one other extreme example of a critic who has chosen to ignore the author's boundaries: that of Germaine Greer. Germaine Greer detests the views put forward by Tolkien and has been hacking away at his work for many years, initially the book and more recently the movies. Greer once suggested:

"The Lord of the Rings represents a rejection of otherness and a craving for people like oneself.

I can understand how she might reach such a conclusion, and that such an idea is worthy of discussion. However, when queried about the movie, she went beyond this to state that the plight of the Orks -- the poor, oppressed workers whom the 'so-called' heroes unjustly harass -- stands at the core of LotR.

Germaine Greer has the absolute right as an individual to put forward this view. But those who belong to the Tolkien community (fans, academics, whatever), who read and discuss the works, also have the right to reject that view. Her interpretation is not of 'equal value' because, frankly, she has ignored many of the guideposts that the author laid down in the actual text.

In the case of both the individual Greer and the group Stormfront, these two have chosen to insert their own ideology into Tolkien's stories, coming up with ideas that simply aren't there. (Please, I am not equating Greer with the folk in Stormfront, but I am saying they are similar in this one small respect.) As Bethberry suggests, there may be some glint of understanding I will gain because of their flawed contribution, some interesting ideas that come forward in the discussion. But, in the long run, their ideas can and should be rejected.

We are more than individual readers. There is a point where we interact as a community and reach some consensus, even if that consensus is to disagree. That consensus, by its very definition, is self limiting and flawed. Views change from one generation to the next as we bring new insights to the table, and minority viewpoints sometimes come to the fore. But, as flawed as that community discussion may be, it is better than saying that each of us sits alone in a closet of our own making, spinning out different ideas, all of equal merit.

This may be a dangerous question, but.... I am wondering if this wish to make the individual reader virtually self sufficient (dare I say sovereign?), to limit the influcence of the author's voice through something like the Letters, and to remove the idea of having any set of shared standards by which we may judge an interpretation, doesn't reflect the culture and values underlining our own society?

****************

Davem, Helen,

The funny thing is that I can see how Davem can say that JRRT was beginning to dismantle his Legendarium in his final years. But my stance would be the exact opposite of Davem's....not seeing the greater freedom as reflected in Smith, but rather the more defined lines of science and theology that begin to surface in later writings like Morgoth's Ring. JRRT had always said that truth shone through myth, but now he was abandoning it (perhaps others would say enhancing it) for other things. There are writings that suggest he would have changed the Elf-centric viewpoint of the Silm, and instead substituted Man at the core.

But this, I think, would really belong in another discussion.

***************************

For the next few days, I will be off doing my "duty" at the birthday party thread, so will resume the post of a lurker.