‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Bêthberry]

Ouch, smouch, Mr. Underhill . "Critical theory' is such an easy target simply because it suggests something new or different to some readers. but I think you protest too much. I might rethink your claim that you are not thin-skinned when you invited me to discuss a Chandler essay. Perhaps I had better not reply about that.

With all due respect, my suggestion that there is no definitive interpretation of the Bible is not unfair; I was simply pointing to the best known and most read book in the history of the Western world to suggest something about how communities of readers combine to produce a sense of 'right' meaning. If this is true for a work which many believe to be the word of God, then how much more true must it be for the faulty 'making-creatures', as Tolkien described us, who struggle with their own creations.

This point about communities does not exclude individual interpretations, but rather suggests that how we each read a text has something to do with the presuppositions, conscious and unconscious, which inspires or motivates us as readers.

I think, in fact, that Helen has herself described this very point far better than I can when she wrote in post #153 in this thread:

. I seldom enjoy the works of a writer who hails from a world-view primarily hostile to that which I hold dear; why would I *immerse* myself in the works of a writer if I didn't trust him/ her in the first place? ....
And if one is leery of the author's intentions in the first place, why read the book looking for deep meaning? If we trust our own interpretation so much more than the author's, why read his book instead of writing our own?

Sauce suggests that there is a psychological component in our reading which might account for some responses. To this (which I think we have not yet fully explored) I would again add the importance of the 'interpretive community' to which we belong.

We can, of course, question the world-views, as Helen expresses it, which seem to inspire different interpretations and we can ask just what the role is of this world view in helping to inspire the interpretation, most particularly when we turn to the text and examine other 'propositions' in it which contradict or limit or compromise the interpretion.

The point is not that 'anything goes' but rather that what matters is the engagement of the reader with the text rather than the mining of the text for an all-encompassing, totalising understanding. Just because 'meaning' is subject to parodoxes and indeterminacies doesn't mean that we refuse to examine or compare interpretations. So, White Supremacists want to grab Tolkien for their own? An opportunity to engage them in discussion about their ideas through the text. And maybe, just maybe, the possibility also exists that we might learn something about Tolkien's text---not, I hasten to say that he was in any way part and parcel of their despicable world view but that we might come to understand more fully how LOTR works its magic and how we respond to it.

Edit: This, by the way, actually represents a current of thought in biblical studies today: the very confusions and inaccuracies and variations in how the ancient texts have survived for us to read represents the historical actuality which faith must grapple with. Seen in this light, the Bible (and by extension any other text, I would suggest) becomes an opportunity for each reader to contemplate how he or she comes to understand faith/the text. We read to learn more about who we are as readers, and as human beings. [end edit]

My apologies, also, if others have replied while I have taken so long to post this. I am under constant interruption here today but did not wish to leave Underhill's comments to me rudely unanswered.

[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.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Mr. Underhill, Bethberry

I was writing this while you were posting. So I haven't really taken your last posts into consideration.

You two seem to be inching closer together in agreement, but I still can't shake the feeling that there are some real differences here in how each of us approaches the text....

*****************************

Stories mean something.

Mr. Underhill,

I concur. I am uncomfortable with the idea that all interpretations of text have equal validity, and that assumption still seems to underline much of the discussion on the thread, from the first post onward.

************************

Recently, I have been a lurker on the edge of this thread, one of those contributing to the 2,000+ views, but I feel compelled to throw my generic opinions in the pot .

First, I would heartily agree with the idea that there is no one right reading of the text, and that the individual confrontation with the work is far more important than mining the text for an all-encompassing single meaning, which frankly does not exist. JRRT has given us one way of looking at Gollum and the Ring, but there can be other valid interpretations that we as readers bring to the work.

But just as an individual is free to grapple with the text on his own terms, the author, or any other reader, is free to look at that understanding and question its validity. The initial struggle with the text is only the first step in the critical process; the assessment of that struggle is a vital second step. And part of that second step involves making a judgment on what's been said. That judgment, to me, is not unimportant.

To put it bluntly, there is a point in reading when we are alone. As individuals, we bring our background and understanding forward and apply these to the story. Because our backgrounds and understanding are different, our interpretations and perceptions will inevitably vary. But the process does not stop there. There is a point where the individual reader becomes part of a community of readers, a place where discussion and assessment takes place. And that process is important. I can indicate whether or not their perceptions and interpretation resonate with me. And there are even times when I may tell a reader he is flat wrong. Stormfront comes to mind. One criteria I will use is whether or not the reader acknowledges the basic guidelines that the author has woven into his tale.

I do not insist that everyone who reads Lord of the Rings emerge with the interpretation that there is one God in charge of things, but I do believe there are certain boundaries the author has laid down with his own pen. These themes, whether you call them 'interpretations' or 'propositions' are inherent in the text: the theme of good and evil; the fact that Gandalf is wise, or Sam loyal; even concepts such as self-sacrifice, the exaltation of the humble, or the power of humility versus the destructive and self-negating futility of pride. You can come up with an interpretation of LotR that ignores these themes, but not one that directly says these themes don't exist, at least within the world that the author has created. (Whether they are true within my personal world is a wholly separate question, which is one reason why a 'materialist' modern reader can still appreciate Tolkien's works.)

In effect the author hands us the notes we can use. We are free to arrange these notes in any melodic pattern we would like. But we do not have the right to introduce totally foreign notes, just because we think it might produce a "nicer" song.

Let me cite one other extreme example of a critic who has chosen to ignore the author's boundaries: that of Germaine Greer. Germaine Greer detests the views put forward by Tolkien and has been hacking away at his work for many years, initially the book and more recently the movies. Greer once suggested:

"The Lord of the Rings represents a rejection of otherness and a craving for people like oneself.

I can understand how she might reach such a conclusion, and that such an idea is worthy of discussion. However, when queried about the movie, she went beyond this to state that the plight of the Orks -- the poor, oppressed workers whom the 'so-called' heroes unjustly harass -- stands at the core of LotR.

Germaine Greer has the absolute right as an individual to put forward this view. But those who belong to the Tolkien community (fans, academics, whatever), who read and discuss the works, also have the right to reject that view. Her interpretation is not of 'equal value' because, frankly, she has ignored many of the guideposts that the author laid down in the actual text.

In the case of both the individual Greer and the group Stormfront, these two have chosen to insert their own ideology into Tolkien's stories, coming up with ideas that simply aren't there. (Please, I am not equating Greer with the folk in Stormfront, but I am saying they are similar in this one small respect.) As Bethberry suggests, there may be some glint of understanding I will gain because of their flawed contribution, some interesting ideas that come forward in the discussion. But, in the long run, their ideas can and should be rejected.

We are more than individual readers. There is a point where we interact as a community and reach some consensus, even if that consensus is to disagree. That consensus, by its very definition, is self limiting and flawed. Views change from one generation to the next as we bring new insights to the table, and minority viewpoints sometimes come to the fore. But, as flawed as that community discussion may be, it is better than saying that each of us sits alone in a closet of our own making, spinning out different ideas, all of equal merit.

This may be a dangerous question, but.... I am wondering if this wish to make the individual reader virtually self sufficient (dare I say sovereign?), to limit the influcence of the author's voice through something like the Letters, and to remove the idea of having any set of shared standards by which we may judge an interpretation, doesn't reflect the culture and values underlining our own society?

****************

Davem, Helen,

The funny thing is that I can see how Davem can say that JRRT was beginning to dismantle his Legendarium in his final years. But my stance would be the exact opposite of Davem's....not seeing the greater freedom as reflected in Smith, but rather the more defined lines of science and theology that begin to surface in later writings like Morgoth's Ring. JRRT had always said that truth shone through myth, but now he was abandoning it (perhaps others would say enhancing it) for other things. There are writings that suggest he would have changed the Elf-centric viewpoint of the Silm, and instead substituted Man at the core.

But this, I think, would really belong in another discussion.

***************************

For the next few days, I will be off doing my "duty" at the birthday party thread, so will resume the post of a lurker.

[The Saucepan Man]

Mister U:

I’m not sure how or if “appreciation” comes into it, so I’ll leave that alone.

Bah! I always try to choose my words so carefully, and yet I always get picked up on them. By “appreciation”, I mean the experience that each person draws from reading the text, whether it be understanding, insight, inspiration, enchantment or whatever. I would be extremely hesitant about saying that one person’s experience of the text is necessarily more valid or valuable, from an objective point of view, than that of another.

I, for one, am not uncomfortable in condemning interpretations like those made by Stormfront.

Well, I think that we have to recognise that some of the concepts that they use to support their dreadful views are “correctly” interpreted because they are implicit in the text (examples would be the importance of the bloodline of Numenor and the superiority in some respects (longetivity, prowess, hardiness) of the Dunedain over other types of Men). But, to the extent that they seek to use those concepts to interpret LotR in a way which supports their view that one race can be inherently superior in all respects to another, I would condemn them too because I utterly reject that way of thinking. For me, therefore, their interpretation is “wrong”. And for the majority of people too, I suspect. Does that make it “wrong” on an objective level? Possibly it does, but only if one either tries to formulate some objective moral code against which to measure it (a tricky business) or takes the position that something is “wrong” if the majority believes it to be so. One thing is for certain though: Tolkien never intended his story to lend support to the views of those such as Stormfront since he too rejected such views (unless his private thoughts differed significantly to those which he committed to paper, which I somehow doubt).

And if there are patently wrong interpretations, doesn’t that imply that there are, indeed, right interpretations?

No. I don’t think that the one necessarily follows from the other. Even if there are “patently wrong” interpretations, we can still be left with a plethora of conflicting interpretations, no one of which is necessarily superior to the others (and all of which might therefore be said to be "right").

I do, however, agree with Sharon, when she says:

I do not insist that everyone who reads Lord of the Rings emerge with the interpretation that there is one God in charge of things, but I do believe there are certain boundaries the author has laid down with his own pen. These themes, whether you call them 'interpretations' or 'propositions' are inherent in the text …

This is what I was trying to get across when I said:

If you are simply saying that there are certain concepts which are “right” because they are stated in the text, and that we must accept them if we are to accept the text, then I agree with you.

To the extent that anything put forward by Stormfront, or Germaine Greer, or anyone else, clearly contradicts that which is expressly or implicitly stated in the text, then it cannot (in my view) be considered a valid interpretation of that text.

[Mister Underhill]

No. I don’t think that the one necessarily follows from the other.

I don’t know what to say to this. If something is wrong, it must be wrong in relation to something that is right, no? Granting, once again, that there certainly will be grey areas and that one overarching, all-inclusive Interpretation is not possible or even desirable.

Does that make it “wrong” on an objective level? Possibly it does, but only if one either tries to formulate some objective moral code against which to measure it (a tricky business) or takes the position that something is “wrong” if the majority believes it to be so.

Ack! A slippery slope that we’ve already argued in detail on Esty’s old Plato thread. However, I don’t think we need to reference an outside, objective morality at all. I think every text has its own implicit morality. I would be just as wrong to try to foist a peace, love, and tolerance interpretation on Mein Kampf.

Otherwise, I think we’re homing in on a consensus.

[The Saucepan Man]

Otherwise, I think we’re homing in on a consensus.

That would never do!

[bilbo_baggins]

To disagree with your (hopefully) sarcastic statement, it would do wonders, SpM. Everyone here has lost me about a million posts ago.

But, I can try to say something.

To agree (I think) with some of you, the Bible is obviously 'canon' for several million people, whether they disagree on various and sundry details (I mean the really little ones, like real or fake wine used in Eachurist). The same can be true about Tolkien. Many people disagree on little things in Tolkien, and sometimes don't realize that they agree on the big things.

Hopefully, we all agree that LoTR was written by Tolkien. And, hopefully again, that he also wrote TH, helped to write Sil., and HoME. The Big things. To appreciate Tolkien, the reader must decide for himself whether it is right or wrong to pursue what Tolkien wanted, or to be content with his own interpretation of the text. True, there may be good things about following pure Tolkien doctrine (if I may use such a word with all its connotation's), but on the other hand, one may find that a fellow Tolkienite doesn't agree on small things. That is okay.

SpM: Well, I think that we have to recognise that some of the concepts that they use to support their dreadful views are “correctly” interpreted because they are implicit in the text (examples would be the importance of the bloodline of Numenor and the superiority in some respects (longetivity, prowess, hardiness) of the Dunedain over other types of Men).

Saucepan, if I may dare to tell you, I believe everybody sees the obviousness of the Numenoreans superiority. That's a big thing, that most people believe. If one does not believe this, they are just sidetracked. I think that I'm agreeing with you here.