‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

Has Bêthberry gone? *Saucepan breaks out the port and cigars*

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Ah, but then the meaning of the reading act would be to generate pleasure for the reader. The reader would still be 'using' the text to realise some 'purpose'.

Well of course you are right. If someone derives enjoyment from a book, and nothing else, it still means something to them. But I was thinking more in terms of a class distinct from your "agnostics" and "believers". On your definitions, both of these classes are aware that there is some meaning to be derived from the book beyond the story itself, but the "agnostics" take their meaning from the text alone, while the "believers" are convinced that the meaning derives from something beyond the text. To "atheists", there is no meaning beyond the story itself, which simply serves to amuse them and perhaps divert them for a while from the realities of life (to which it bears, for them, no relation).

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Such a limited and shallow purpose is sad and boring, but it still proceeds toward and through the meaning of the reading act for the reader.

I would disagree that such purpose is either shallow or boring to those who approach the book in this way. These readers may find meaning to their lives elsewhere, or perhaps they regard such meaning (in spiritual terms) as unimportant. They might well consider it boring to look any further into LotR beyond the story itself, while finding fascinating other pursuits which you or I would find mind-numbingly dull. But I would not dismiss pure and simple enjoyment of the story told in LotR as shallow and dull, and I rather suspect that Tolkien wouldn’t either.

And, while we are on the subject, I am not so sure that the term "agnostic" (the group to which I imagine that I have been relegated ) is appropriate in this context, since it implies an uncertainty as to the existence of any meaning beyond the story itself. Your definition of this class, on the other hand, holds that they are aware that such meaning exists. It is just that they are not too bothered about pinning it down, and are content to simply apply their notion of it to themselves in whatever manner seems appropriate.

Nevertheless, I accept your definition. I am quite content to accept that there is meaning within LotR beyond the story. It "means" something more to me than just a good story. To me, this is a consequence of Tolkien tapping into issues central to human existence and experience, whether they be archetypes, character traits, aspects of morality and so on. And I don’t doubt that this was both intentional (in some respects) and subconscious (in others) on Tolkien’s part (although, as has been said, his intentions and subconscious motivations would have changed, however imperceptibly, over time). But I would class myself as “part-believer”, because I do have an interest in exploring such ideas (otherwise, why would I keep returning to this thread). It is just that this “external meaning” is not something which is central to my life (whether in relation to LotR or otherwise). And I have no difficulty in accepting and understanding those who regard such matters as unimportant, irrelevant or fruitless (the confirmed “agnostics” and the “atheists”).