‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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.

[mark12_30]

I had been planning to create a second poll on meaning. It would have run thusly:

The Real Meaning of the Lord of the Rings is to be found in:
The author's intent
The reader's individual opinion
Mainstream reader consensus
Barrowdowns Book Forum consensus
A Glimpse of Divine Truth
The reader's collaboration with both the author's intent and the opinions of others
Divine Truth glimpsed by the individual reader guided by the author's intent
we need another poll on the meaning of meaning
:

[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.

[The Saucepan Man]

Oh, alright davem. You can have the last word ...

Oops!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

*Esty picks up Saucy's olive branch and sticks it into the spokes of this perpetuum merry-go-round, in hopes that it will stop!

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Oh, alright davem. You can have the last word ...

Oops!

Sorry. I know its come across that way, but I'm not trying to just repeat myself - & I actually think its important...

Look, Tolkien told us what LotR was 'about' on a number of occasions - its a long story meant to entertain, its the story of a hobbit broken down & made into something entirely other (approximation - I'm quoting from memory), etc. Others (the green movement, the far right, etc) have also told us what its about - as far as they're concerned.

So, all these different groups & individuals are claiming a knowledge of what the book is about, why it speaks to them, what they take from it, etc. My question is, are those things the same as the meaning of the book? Is there a difference between 'What the book means' & 'What the book means to me?

In other words, is the meaning I find in the book the only meaning there can be, or does the story itself mean something - does it have an 'objective' meaning which an individual reader can choose either to accept or reject?

Does there have to be an either' or choice made between the two - or why does one have to take priority over the other?

I'm fumbling around & probably not making much sense here...

EDIT

Let me try & clarify. In Middle earth Eru creates Ea. Its meaning is the one He gives it - its purpose is what He declares it to be. Yet all his children are free to either accept that meaning, adapt it, or reject it. They can 'find' whatever meaning in it they wish - as they wish. Some, however, will place Eru's meaning & purpose above their own, & even willingly sacrifice their own in favour of His.

Tolkien's position on this is clear - he states that the 'Right' approach for the children is to put His intention, meaning & purpose before their own - even if they suffer or die as a result.

Can we draw an analogy between Eru & the children & Tolkien & his readers?

Actually, that is probably just confusing things more...

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

2 & 1/2 years since this darkened my inbox. Just felt it might be time to give it a bump:

Seems to me there's three questions:

1) What did Tolkien intend: what was it that he wanted to do with this book when he started it and as he wrote it?

2) What did Tolkien come to think it was about: what were his views of LotR in the months, years and decades after it was published? He added to it substantially in interesting ways (clarifying and explaining it in letters, completing and fleshing out the moral framework provided by the extensive backstory in the Sil)

3) What does the book mean: what do we as readers take from it?

And most importantly, how are these three things directly related to one another? Does number three owe anything to number one? Does number two in any way effect number one?

Let's perhaps begin with a nasty example; Gollum's little tumble into the Crack of Doom

1) the INTENT: to end the story in some way that made sense and was satisfying. Having Frodo or anyone else toss in the Ring would not be believable given the amount of time spent talking about how no-one could destroy it or give it away; having it not go in the fire would have been terrible, cause, well, Sauron would have won!

2) For Tolkien this moment came to be ABOUT the moral demonstration of Eru's (Providence's?) guiding hand over events. We don't actually see Eru 'taking charge' of the novel at this point, we only find that out by reading Tolkien's Letters and the Sil.

3) For me it MEANS a lot of things: that Gollum is in a way some kind of hero; that free will in Middle-earth does exist in a Boethian sort of way; that the design of Middle-earth history is essentially Providential in a Catholic manner; and that Frodo is being rewarded and saved by that Providential power.

To my mind, my number three owes nothing to number two, and is the dynamic result of my own readerly response to number one.

So there we are. Shall we begin this again, or leave it to moulder forever in the archives? Either is acceptable to me.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

So there we are. Shall we begin this again, or leave it to moulder forever in the archives? Either is acceptable to me.

Originally Posted by ancient poet, amended

And by these posts, all shall approve
Us canonized for love of Tolkien

[HerenIstarion]

I'm glad to see some things linger on, even if I'm not there to watch the 'lingering'