‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I think the 'limits' have been set by Tolkien's definitions of 'allegory' & 'applicability'. If we take those terms & their definitions as the basis of our argument, we have to say that Tolkien was right - LotR is not an allegory in terms of the definition Tolkien set - there is no 'purposed domination of the author' - he did not write it as an allegory of WW2 or anything else. If the reader chooses to apply an 'allegorical' interpretation on it then that does not make it an allegory in Tolkien's terms, it is simply an example of the reader using his/her freedom.

Taking that definition of 'allegory', I agree. But is it a correct definition? Must the author intend a work to be allegorical for it to be labelled as such? There seems to me to be some question over this proposition.

In any event, the effect is the same whether we allow the reader to perceive an unintended allegorical meaning, or whether we categorise it as applicability. The reader remains free to interpret and to form his or her own understanding of the work.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Therefore in this case the Author is of great importance to our understanding, whether we accept or reject what he has stated.

I don't think that anyone is questioning the importance of the author to the reader's understanding. Without the author, there would be no work for the reader to understand. The question for me is whether the author has the right to dictate the meaning of his work (and indeed the terms within which such meaning is defined) to his readers, and whether other readers have the right to label an interpretation which does not accord with the author's intention (or indeed their own) as (objectively) 'wrong'. I would submit that neither is the case.

I have not read the Brin article or the thread discussing it in detail, but a brief review highlights for me the importance of not dismissing a reader's interpretation out of hand simply because we do not agree with part (or even all) of what he or she is saying. It looks to me like Brin puts forward some interesting ways of looking at LotR which, while we might not agree with his conclusions, might nevertheless enhance our own understanding of the work.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Taking that definition of 'allegory', I agree. But is it a correct definition? Must the author intend a work to be allegorical for it to be labelled as such? There seems to me to be some question over this proposition.

Ok, in place of 'Allegory' & 'Applicability' substitute the terms 'X' & 'Y'. Tolkien has defined clearly what 'X' is - 'The purposed domination of the author.' ie the author sets a primary world event, or series of events, in a different form (a 'secondary world'), with a one-to-one correlation between the primary world events & the secondary world forms in which they appear - hence Hitler is Sauron, etc. Effectively, the author would be telling you 'Sauron is Hitler, & you must think of Hitler as you think of Sauron'.

He's also defined 'Y' (Applicability) as the freedom of the reader to make connections between the events of the story & events in the real world - if they so choose. Now, because he hasn't committed the 'sin' of doing 'X' those 'similarities' to the real world contained in the story will be sufficiently vague & generalised that the reader may find many opportunities of such 'applicability' without being able to find any absolute one-to-one correspondence for the whole story (ie if LotR is an allegory of WW2, & Sauron is an 'allegory' of Hitler, who is Frodo an allegory of?)

In any event, the effect is the same whether we allow the reader to perceive an unintended allegorical meaning, or whether we categorise it as applicability. The reader remains free to interpret and to form his or her own understanding of the work.

No - its only an allegory if Tolkien deliberately wrote it as one - which he didn't. Allegory is a literary form - an author either writes an allegory intentionally or he doesn't - at least in the sense that Tolkien is using the term. He didn't do 'X'.