‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Bêthberry]

Humming and in a gentle temper tonight, Bethberry glides in with trays full of smoked Stilton cheese, camembert, paté, light salads and leafy greens, crackers and a variety of fresh breads. Sniffing the air, she quietly throws open the windows to air the room out and then pours herself a large glass of port. She lights candles in empty wine bottles and takes a chair.

Leaving aside for now the categories and classifications of readers, I would like to refer back to something davem.

No, but you'd know that the monkeys weren't trying to write a beautiful piece of music, that they weren't trying to communicate anything to you, or inspire any emotional response, so any response you did have to the music would have its source solely in you. That's not the case if Beethoven wrote it - that fact adds another 'dimension' to the work - it was written with intent - specific intent, to produce a specific response in its hearers. Beethoven wrote it for a reason, it exists for that reason, & if he hadn't had that reason to write it, it wouldn't exist, & you wouldn't ever have experienced your favourite piece of music. From this point of view, the artist/composer/scientist is as iportant as what they produce, even if their intention/motivation is ultimately unknowable. The work is in a sense a 'manifestation' of the worker, the effect the worker has on the world, the 'imprint' he makes on the physical or mental universe around him. There must be some personal aspect to the work, & some 'transcendent' aspect, if the work is true art (imo).

Let me draw on a personal experience here. From time to time, I come across old letters, notes, commentaries, recipes, written by hands who are no longer here. These written messages are inexpressibly precious to me, coming as they do from those who will never write again to me. These messages were no grand expressions of literature. They express nothing greater than the daily routine and activities in the lives of the writers and some thought and reflections on those affairs. Sometimes to my chagrin and shame I found them tedious in their banality. They were written with no greater intent than out of love for me and to share something of their time with me, who lived thousands of miles away.

Now my fingers trace the letters, because for me handwriting is the ineffable trace of the human being. And in the absence of the authors who wrote them, those messages take on new meanings, meanings which the writers did not intend and which I never at the time thought of. The passage of time and the absence of the writers has given them new meaning.

Now, I collect those flimsy pieces of paper and ink and store them in a box. Someday someone will find that box, looking through the effects I leave behind and, if I am important enough or if my own writing reaches enough people, maybe someone will pore over those shards of memory, trying to piece together their importance for me and the meaning the messages disclosed. Or maybe just those I leave behind, close to me, will do that. And they will provide another layer of meaning upon those pages and the handwriting. And I could say the same thing of the delicate pieces of crochet work which my mother produced before she could no longer use her hands. Those pieces had a beauty at the time of their creation, but they have a more substantive meaning now, for in the tiny stitches I can now see the evidence of her struggle with her looming incapacity and fate. I could not see that then. It is only later, in retrospective, that the evidence comes forth.

We read intent backwards, just as you say, davem Tolkien did in his work on the Beowulf poem. In order for Tolkien to arrive at his understanding of the poem, he, as you say, "attributed motives, desires and beliefs" to the poet. This, then, is Tolkien's process as a reader and interpreter. Yet we have no way of ascertaining whether these motives were in fact the poet's motives or whether they rather functioned to help Tolkien produce his interpretation. He as reader uses this poetic personae as an entry point to help him arrive at an understanding of the poem. He reads backwards. Our understanding of intention is often like this, arrived at reading backwards.

This is an important part of the reading process, but it does not necessarily or logically reflect the actual intentions of the author at the time of writing.

*stops to refill her port and then sits back comfortably in a large leather chair.*

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

We read intent backwards, just as you say, davem Tolkien did in his work on the Beowulf poem. In order for Tolkien to arrive at his understanding of the poem, he, as you say, "attributed motives, desires and beliefs" to the poet. This, then, is Tolkien's process as a reader and interpreter. Yet we have no way of ascertaining whether these motives were in fact the poet's motives or whether they rather functioned to help Tolkien produce his interpretation. He as reader uses this poetic personae as an entry point to help him arrive at an understanding of the poem. He reads backwards. Our understanding of intention is often like this, arrived at reading backwards.

All of which I accept, but...

I think with Tolkien there is something more going on - the 'Elf-friend' figure. If we take The book of Lost Tales, for example, we see that it is not simply a collection of old stories - it is a collection of old stories which Eriol-Aelfwine has passed on. Eriol is not just a peg to hang the story on, he is the conduit of story, he makes Faerie available to later generations. I thnk this is why Tolkien felt it necessary to (re)construct the figure of the Beowulf poet - stories only exist if they are told, &so there must be a teller. We have the same thing with the other Elf-friends throughout the stories, & they are the central figures in the two time travel stories.

As Flieger has pointed out Tolkien himself is the greatest Elf-friend, & in a sense he is a character in his own stories - he is the one who translates, passes on, the contents of the Red Book - LotR exists because Tolkien the Elf-friend has served as that conduit of story, from the Third Age to ourselves. Effectively he has written himself into his mythology. So we have, in a way, two Tolkien's, one the Oxford Professor, who can, if one wishes, be put aside, but the other Tolkien cannot, because he has become absorbed, by his own intention, into the mythology, as its conduit to ourselves.

So, how different are these two Tolkiens? Are they the same man, or is the 'translator' Tolkien different from the man, with different motives & aims? How did the translator Tolkien come into possesion of the copy of the Red Book which he translates & passes on to us - did Tolkien the man have an explanation for that?

This is what we miss - the chain of story - when we ignore the role of the storyteller, which was central to Tolkien's mythology - all the 'texts' are retellings & redactions - they are all accounts of events told by storytellers - 'living shapes that move from mind to mind', not simply the events themselves, but the events being told & retold.

[Bêthberry]

posted by davem
This is what we miss - the chain of story - when we ignore the role of the storyteller, which was central to Tolkien's mythology - all the 'texts' are retellings & redactions - they are all accounts of events told by storytellers - 'living shapes that move from mind to mind', not simply the events themselves, but the events being told & retold.

Oh, I have never said that the role of storyteller in the tales should be ignored. Far from it. Look at how Chaucer plays with the personae of tellers of tales in Canterbury Tales. Medieval literature is full of this fascinating multiplicity of perspectives, a multiplicty which became increasingly restricted as we developed concepts of "Author" and the standard Nineteenth century omnisicient narrator.

But this is a far, far jump from the kind of investigation into Authorial Intention which you have been positing in the past, to my mind.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

But this is a far, far jump from the kind of investigation into Authorial Intention which you have been positing in the past, to my mind.

I'm not changing my position, merely coming at it from another angle. My point has always been that authorial intention, in fact authorial 'presence', has to be taken into account if we are to understand a work of fiction - particularly so with this work of fiction, where the author is not simply adopting a Chaucerian role a la Canterbury Tales, but plays a central role in the existence of the story - the Elf-friend is not merely a redactor, he is a living link with a lost past - literally so in the case of the Notion Club Papers.

Tolkien stands both 'outside' his mythology as its creator & inside it as its 'translator', & so he, the author, the man Tolkien, must be taken into account not just because he himself is a character in the secondary world, but because the whole world is a product of his own experience & exists because he desired it to exist.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

authorial 'presence', has to be taken into account if we are to understand a work of fiction - particularly so with this work of fiction

What do you mean by "understand"?

My point, as always, is that different people will have different goals in this regard, will adopt different approaches (which may or may not require an understanding of authorial intent and/or involvement) and will reach different conclusions. I doubt that I would consider most of them "wrong" in doing so (and I only say "most" because I am excluding the likes of the white supremacists).

Ultimately, what is the purpose of a work of fiction such as LotR? To be enjoyed? To be analysed and/or interpreted? To provide enlightenment? To change patterns of behaviour? Most probably Tolkien intended all of these things to one degree or another. But clearly he could never have expected every one of his readers to experience all of them. Is it not therefore the case that the purpose of the work is personal to the individual reader and depends upon what he or she expects and, in practice derives, from it? Regardless of his original intention in creating a work, once an author publishes it he effectively gives carte blanche to each reader to "use" it in whatever way seems best to that individual. In light of this, how can we ever truly "understand" the work?

[davem]

SpM I can't deny that's what readersdo, but can we assume that Tolkien wanted to communicate something specific, whether his readers picked up on that or not?

In the Beowulf essay he re-constructs the poet, tells us his motives, & what he wanted us to understand. He doesn't ever say 'This is my opinion, this 'poet' is entirely my own invention & interpretation, if you don't like it go find your own'. He clearly believed that an artist has an intent, means something, wants too communicate something to his audience. If Tolkien thought that way about art, then clearly he intended us to approach his own art in that way.

Is there any value in attempting to understand Tolkien's meaning - to the extent we are capable of doing so? I'm simply uncomfortable with this idea that the reader has nothing to learn from the artist, that the artist has nothing of value to teach. & that ultimately, there's no point even making the effort to look outside one's own experience, to the wisdom & experience of another.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

I'm simply uncomfortable with this idea that the reader has nothing to learn from the artist, that the artist has nothing of value to teach. & that ultimately, there's no point even making the effort to look outside one's own experience, to the wisdom & experience of another.

I don't think that anyone posting in this thread has made that claim. I think it is quite valuable to study the artist; it can provide tremendous insight into the work. The question is not whether studying the author is worthwhile; it is whether the author's views are the ultimate aribiter of opinions about the work and the only source of value for the art.

And still I wonder to what extent the debate on this thread is simply a case of everyone arguing at cross-purposes. One group says that different readers have different views; the other concedes this. The other says that the author wrote the book for a reason and that studying him is worthwhile; the first group grants this.

What does it mean to say that the author is the final arbiter of "canon"?