‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

Let me get this straight. I would understand what LotR means to me even if I had never read the book? Well, I may be many things, but I'm not psychic.

You'd understand any 'meaning' you 'found' theat was not Tolkien's intended meaning, because that would be what you had brought to it from your own experience.

We are, however, getting into semantics here, because "meaning" can be construed in a number of ways. I could say that you are talking about 'message' rather than 'meaning'. Indeed, you have said as much in your last post.

As I said earlier, the difference between us lies in our approach to the question: "What does LotR mean?"

To think I should have lived to see a Lawyer be so dismissive of 'semantics'

Well, what do you think it 'means' - 'alone, itself & nameless'? I wasn't referring to the 'message', because, as Tolkien said in the Foreword:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. (my emphasis)

I think Tolkien was drawing a distinction between an 'inner meaning' & an 'outer' or 'obvious' one. The book has a clear meaning, but it is there on the surface, & he makes no attempt to hide it (or it would be an 'allegory'). Any other 'meaning' you find in it is down to you, any 'message' you find in it is down to the 'value' it has to you.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

You'd understand any 'meaning' you 'found' theat was not Tolkien's intended meaning, because that would be what you had brought to it from your own experience.

No, the meaning that I draw from it is my experience. It is, of course, influenced by my own (past) experience and by Tolkien's intended meaning (to the extent apparent), and no doubt by many other factors.

Originally Posted by davem

To think I should have lived to see a Lawyer be so dismissive of 'semantics'

Dismissive? Surely not, given that it has formed the basis of the difference between us for the last two pages or so. I just thought that the time had come to let on.

Originally Posted by davem

I wasn't referring to the 'message', because, as Tolkien said in the Foreword:

Quote:
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. (my emphasis)

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien had a very clear idea of the 'meaning' or 'message' he wanted to communicate.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

It wasn’t in bad taste at all. When I use the word anarchy, I mean it in its true sense. I don’t mean the emotive ‘anarchy’ used to denote chaos and crime, I mean Anarchy in that there are no rules, the people are free and open to do as they will; there are no authority figures. Applied to literary criticism, this is the state which ought to match Postmodern theories (so long as caveats are not in place to protect the power of the academic) – it is a glorious state whereby any reader may interpret just as he or she wishes and may express that freely without fear of that opinion being rejected as their interpretation will be considered as equal to any other.

The definition of the word "anarchy"...

However, just because Lalwende has clarified what she meant by "anarchy", if what the Reader's Rights camp are saying is to be taken as something other than hypocrisy, then it can be applied here as well. In which case, if my original, subjective reader's viewpoint was the Lalwende meant anarchy in the sense of chaos and crime, then I am entitled to stubbornly believe that for so long as I may desire- clear contradict and explanation here to the contrary.

Indeed, my question now is not whether I am ENTITLED to do so, but rather, being a literate and intelligent English-speaking being, it is POSSIBLE for me to do so. I may make the pretense that I am certain that Lalwende meant otherwise, but in the face of such a direct statement, can I honestly BELIEVE otherwise?

Likewise with the Lord of the Rings: in the face of Tolkien's direct statement that no allegory was intended, and believing him to be telling the honest truth, can I, in my right mind, actually continue to believe that it is an allegory?

Originally Posted by Bethberry

So there. My position is not anti-metaphorist, Formendacil. Nor, in fact, have I categorically rejected Tolkien's statement about allegory. What I have done there is put it in a context.

I wasn't thinking of you in particular, but this section of the 'Downs in general. ANY simile or metaphor by Camp A is bound, t'would seem, to be shot down by Camp B- simply as a matter of principle. The easiest way to defeat the argument of the metaphor is to attack the fact that it is a metaphor, rather than fighting it on its own terms.

You were merely the one who actually did shoot down my metaphor...

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Formendacil, HI, I will dispute your CD/DVD analogy.

Consider it officially incurred.

Although, I will admit that you did a pretty good job of working at the deficiencies of the metaphor from the inside, rather than attacking it as "not being the same".

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Post 549

Welcome ‘big grin’

Thank You.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Originally Posted by davem
I wasn't referring to the 'message', because, as Tolkien said in the Foreword:

Quote:
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. (my emphasis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Tolkien had a very clear idea of the 'meaning' or 'message' he wanted to communicate.

Why are you confused? I was saying that, according to Tolkien in the Foreword, there is no 'inner' (or hidden/allegorical) 'meaning' or 'message'. I agree with this. But that is not to say there is no meaning or message. Tolkien clearly did have a meaning & a message - but it was clearly stated in the story itself. In one of the Letters, which I quoted on another thread, he states that part of his purpose was didactic.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Why are you confused?

Because you appeared to dispute my observation that you are interpreting 'meaning' as 'message'. I think that we can agree to disagree on how the question should be interpreted and simply agree that the book has a meaning intended by Tolkien and a meaning intepreted by each individual reader, and that all such meanings, while they may overlap to a significant degree, will never be entirely the same. The question of which is the 'correct', 'objective' or most 'valuable' meaning will, I think, have to be left to individual opinion.

*Holds out an olive branch to davem in a desparate attempt to bring an end to the circular and time-consuming discussion*

Originally Posted by Formendacil

However, just because Lalwende has clarified what she meant by "anarchy", if what the Reader's Rights camp are saying is to be taken as something other than hypocrisy, then it can be applied here as well. In which case, if my original, subjective reader's viewpoint was the Lalwende meant anarchy in the sense of chaos and crime, then I am entitled to stubbornly believe that for so long as I may desire- clear contradict and explanation here to the contrary.

This mischaracterisation of the position 'Reader's Rights' camp is one which has been commonly adopted on this thread. We are portrayed as positively encouraging the reader to wilfully misread and misinterpret what Tolkien has written and to deliberately come up with non-sensical meanings and crackpot theories if that is what he wants to do. But that misrepresents the reality of the position. Indeed, the label 'Reader's Rights' is in some ways misleading. I prefer the term 'reader's experience'.

The interpretion of a work of literature occurs both consciously and subconsciously. Often, we have no conscious control over how we interpret a work and therefore what it means to us. That is not to say that one cannot reach a position through deliberate analysis and logical thought, but both processes will generally be at work here.

So, when we are discussing the 'meaning' of LotR, it is not a question of the reader having the right wilfully to misread Tolkien and deliberately ignore reasonable explanations to the contrary. It is a question of what Tolkien's works genuinely mean to the reader. Of course, the reader has the right to be obtuse and stubbornly hold to an adopted position. But if he does so without having an honest belief in that position, then he will (in my opinion) be acting unreasonably and will be rightfully open to criticism for doing so.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Because you appeared to dispute my observation that you are interpreting 'meaning' as 'message'. I think that we can agree to disagree on how the question should be interpreted and simply agree that the book has a meaning intended by Tolkien and a meaning intepreted by each individual reader, and that all such meanings, while they may overlap to a significant degree, will never be entirely the same. The question of which is the 'correct', 'objective' or most 'valuable' meaning will, I think, have to be left to individual opinion.

*Holds out an olive branch to davem in a desparate attempt to bring an end to the circular and time-consuming discussion*

.

Where I'm confused is in what you mean by 'meaning' in this context. I accept that the book may have a different value & relevance to each reader, may speak to each reader in a different way, but I just don't get how it can have a different meaning.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I accept that the book may have a different value & relevance to each reader, may speak to each reader in a different way, but I just don't get how it can have a different meaning.

And I don't get how, if a book speaks to readers in different ways, it cannot have different meanings to each of them.

But let's just leave it at that, shall we? I am running out of different ways to keep making the same points ...

[Thenamir]

I accept that the book may have a different value & relevance to each reader, may speak to each reader in a different way, but I just don't get how it can have a different meaning.

See my original post in the Canonicity Slapdown thread for my attempt to show the differing definitions of "meaning" and how hopelessly confusticated they had become in the course of the debate.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

And I don't get how, if a book speaks to readers in different ways, it cannot have different meanings to each of them.

But let's just leave it at that, shall we? I am running out of different ways to keep making the same points ...

Sorry, I suppose I'm not exactly following what you mean by 'meaning' - do you mean 'interpretation'? If so I'd accept your argument - though I'd have to say that what each individual reader is doing there is interpreting the meaning of the book, rather than finding a different meaning in it.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

This mischaracterisation of the position 'Reader's Rights' camp is one which has been commonly adopted on this thread. We are portrayed as positively encouraging the reader to wilfully misread and misinterpret what Tolkien has written and to deliberately come up with non-sensical meanings and crackpot theories if that is what he wants to do. But that misrepresents the reality of the position. Indeed, the label 'Reader's Rights' is in some ways misleading. I prefer the term 'reader's experience'.

Note that I said Readers' RIGHTS, not READERS SUPREME...

I believe I am correct is saying that the group of thought I refer to as the "Readers' Rights" group is the group that holds that the experience and interpretation of the reader takes precedence over that of the author.

If that is not what you are saying, then this thread is REALLY mixed up...

I agree that readers have rights, but I put the rights of the author first.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The interpretion of a work of literature occurs both consciously and subconsciously. Often, we have no conscious control over how we interpret a work and therefore what it means to us. That is not to say that one cannot reach a position through deliberate analysis and logical thought, but both processes will generally be at work here.

But in the event of a dispute between the apparent meaning of the author and the original perception of the reader, which wins? For example, when I first read the Lord of the Rings Minas Tirith was pronounced Mye-nass Tirith. I liked it that way, I thought it was correct. However, upon learning that the correct pronunciation was Mee-nass Tirith, I changed my pronunciation, because Tolkien's pronunciation- the author's pronunciation- takes precedence. It is the canonical pronunciation.

In the event, of course, that there is no clear statement by Tolkien on a subject- and if I could not make any sense of his conflicting opinions (think Gil-galad, but worse) then I would be perfectly fine with imaging my own solution. But if a letter came up from the depths of someone's attic laying out a different solution than mine- I would, perhaps reluctantly, accept it.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Of course, the reader has the right to be obtuse and stubbornly hold to an adopted position. But if he does so without having an honest belief in that position, then he will (in my opinion) be acting unreasonably and will be rightfully open to criticism for doing so.

Quite so. And my opinion is that Tolkien's word is the canon.