‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Mister Underhill]

Don’t worry, Bb. That “fresh young newbie” line did sting a bit, as true statements sometimes do, but I’m all better now. I can’t guarantee I won’t cry and pitch a tantrum if you disagree with me about Chandler, though.

Here’s something that may shock you (or maybe not): I think there are certain broad-stroke “right” interpretations of the Bible. It’s in the details where differences – sometimes vast differences, to be sure – arise. For instance, I think any Bible reader could agree on this interpretation: to get to Heaven, you must have a right relationship with God. Obviously, it’s that grey borderland between what is obviously right and what is obviously wrong (interpretively speaking) that makes life interesting. But, I think there are a baseline set of right interpretations for any text, including the Bible.

So, White Supremacists want to grab Tolkien for their own? An opportunity to engage them in discussion about their ideas through the text.

Okay, but this sidesteps the question – who has rightly interpreted the text? Does the white supremacist interpretation have the same merit as a – for lack of a better word – traditional interpretation? Certain schools of relativistic lit-crit theory may think so, but I don’t.