Author, Reader, or Text? (aka Canonicity Slapdown 2005)

[alatar]

The voices inside of alatar's head held a meeting to decide on a poll choice. Here's a glimpse into that conversation...

"Let's look at our options, shall we?

The first choice has it all on the author's side. If Tolkien were writing strictly for Tolkien, then we'd be okay with this choice, but didn't he assume that his works would be read by others (and not just members of his family)? The books are a form of communication, and that presumes that some other will hear the message. All forms of communication have an error rate - the message from inside the head (thought) is transmitted via voice or writing and always something is lost in the translation.

Just look at how fellow B-Ders interpret to our posts.

Even with God-like writings skills and the ability to hammer the 'meaning' into stone, there is still the chance that the message will not be received clearly. As the author cannot control the reader/observer, then one cannot believe that the meaning can be derived solely on the intention of the author.

If an author's intention fell in the woods, would anyone hear it?

Which leads to the second choice. The reader obviously can infer a meaning, but as two different reader can derive two different meanings, this method of determination is subjective. If a thousand readers determined a thousand meanings, should we average or filter these to see what is in common? But what about those readers who cannot read the works in the original language? And then there are those readers who have watched the Peter Jackson films and so are, shall we say, tainted by that?

When did they add that stuff about that Tom guy - he wasn't in the movie.

Choice three seems to be reasonable, but debate by the 'experts' may just devolve into who can shout the loudest and longest. Even with objective standards and guidelines, the analysts, being human, are subjective and also are not privy to the author's pure thoughts but just the 'translations.' Analysis may approximate the meaning, but there will always be doubt.

And there are those that are so 'expert' that they cannot see that sometimes lembas are simply just lembas.

The last choice then would seem to be the most reasonable, as it is noncommittal, states a liking for the text and could preclude having to make such a long-winded rant such as this one...

We vote for #4."

[Formendacil]

The text.

As the text is the written and presented intention of the author, the arbiter of this epic and novel-world, he is the "canon".

In the instance that the text contradicts itself, the author's intentions are to be examined, then the text more congruent with those intentions is to be held as more canonical.

That's MY canon, anyway.

~Formendacil - ~

[davem]

Originally Posted by Alatar

The books are a form of communication, and that presumes that some other will hear the message. All forms of communication have an error rate - the message from inside the head (thought) is transmitted via voice or writing and always something is lost in the translation.

We are still left with the question of what 'message' the author is attempting (well or badly) to communicate. Is it his own 'message' or does it arise elsewhere - is he attempting to communicate an experience he has had, so as to make that experience available to others? Or at least to let others know that such an experience is available for those that want it.

This question was never resolved in the Canonicity debate, because, I suppose, it is about the nature of 'Art'. Is there an objective 'Reality' which Art makes accessible to us, opening a 'window' on another 'world'.

Sorry, but in this kind of discussion I think we will always be reduced to putting terms in quotes, because of the problems of translation Alatar refers to. This is not simply a matter of the translation of an author's ideas into words & of the translation of those words into other languages & media, but of the deeper, more primary, 'translation' of transcendant Reality into mundane methods of communication. This is something Tolkien explored, particularly in his time travel stories, but also in his use of dreams in works like LotR. It is a question of how (& possibly why) 'spirit' breaks into the physical, & what form that 'breaking in' takes, as well as the effect it has on those who find themselves on the recieving end of it.

Of course, LotR, like any art may be just that - art as opposed to Art, simple entertainment. I think we should be open to the possibility that it is more than merely entertainment, because if we rule out that possibility out of hand we will never have the opportunity of experiencing the Transcendent, & merely explain it away. If something changes us then we have to accept its objective reality - the argument then becomes one about the source of that 'reality'. Was Tolkien's work 'merely' his own invention? Would we have been able to have that experence without his works? And finally, what, exactly, is the experience we are having?

Does Tolkien's work provide an experience of 'Joy, beyond the walls of the world'? If it does then there must be something ('Something') beyond the walls of the 'world' (which is to say - if it is to say nothing else - that there is something beyond the 'walls' of our own little 'world', our own experiences or 'baggage') for us to have an experience of.

So, I think that (inevitably) when we ask questions about where the 'meaning' of Tolkien's work (or any other art/Art) is to be found we have to clarify first exactly what we mean by 'meaning' (or 'Meaning')...

[Imladris]

I've always thought that all true story takes a life of it's own, if you will, so I cannot with a good will choose the first two. As for the third option analysis sounds so cold and disect-ful to me And "cool" isn't exactly the word I'd use to describe LotR...

Though a part of me can't help but saying that the reason that a story affects us is quite beyond us, and is quite unsolvable.

It is Myth after all...I don't any of us can truly understand it.

So...this is a very elaborate way of saying "I pass"

[Lalwendë]

The more I think about it, the more in favour of option 4 I get. So I'll run through everything logically like Alatar did.

Option 1 seems fair enough to me, that we need to find out what the author intended. Hopefully what he intended is quite clear, but as we know in Tolkien's work there are many many levels so it sometimes results in some digging to find out what he meant. Looking up Letters doesn't always help either, as sometimes I get the sense that he would pluck a grand phrase out of the air without always thinking of how that might be interpreted (shoot me if you must...).

Which leads me on to Option 2. I also like the sound of this one - I'm something of a moral relativist and think that there are few absolutes in this world beyond death and taxes and the same must apply to art. I often find that no matter what the author's intentions were, many readers will inevitably find meanings in the text that weren't necessarily intended. If you think of how The Communist Manifesto has been misused then you have a good example of this. But that does lead me on to my misgiving about this option in that it is a bit of a cop-out, and allows us to make any kind of claim and simply to add the proviso "well, that's my opinion".

Then Option 3 sounds perfectly sensible. It is the text which we are reading and it is the text which contains all the information we need. After all, in the case of Tolkien's work, this entire world would simply not exist without the text; it is different to say, Austen's work, in that her world would have continued to exist if she hadn't decided to write novels. If Tolkien had thought that he couldn't really be bothered then none of this would exist. But my misigiving here is that if we analyse the text then we are entering into something like micromanagement, we are looking at the detail but not seeing the overall picture. I'm guilty of it myself, I even enjoy doing it or why would I come to the 'Downs so often, but I do have to step back sometimes and just enjoy the view (or in the case of the 'Downs, have a bit of fun on Mirth) or else it could all get a bit like school.

So ultimately, out of all of those options, there's a bit of each I like and dislike, but when it boils down to it, I would say Option 4 is the one closest to my heart, because despite everything, LotR is just the coolest book, ever.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

mwa HA hahahahahahaaaaaaaaa *Fordim rubs hands*

"My plan has worked. Fools! Caught once more in my web...little do they realise that in secret I have crafted a master thread...."

*Fordim opens the One Thread*

"One Thread to rule them all! One Thread to find them!
One Thread to bring them all, and in endless debate bind them!"

Um, oh, wait -- sorry, did you all see that? Oh well, it's just a...yes...a...costume, yes, that's it...a costume that I am putting together for a Middle-Earth party...that's right...I'm just pretending...all a game you know....

At any rate:

To those, primarilly Misty Undy, who have expressed a desire for an option which encapsulates some kind of interation between reader and writer, I personally would point to the third option, insofar as it seems to me that analysis of the text would entail precisely that, as the reader 'works' with or engages imaginatively the only thing about the author that we have direct access to: his writing.

For those, primarilly davem and Mark 12_30, who wish for an option that encapsulates a sense of enchantment of and through the text which springs from some other realm (faerie?), I personally would point toward the fourth option, insofar as it offers them precisely the kind of non-rational (but not irrational!) sense of wonder before the text that they so notoriously relish and desire.

*smoke and fire in the background; nine figures cloaked in black emerge, each of them bearing a Thread of Power*

Uhhh, excuse me all for a moment, there are some....people here I need to speak with about....things......

[Mister Underhill]

He held the mouse in his hand, hesitating, forcing himself to remember the original Canonicity thread; and then with an effort he clicked the mouse, as if to delete the poll -- but he found that he had clicked "post reply" instead.

Underhill laughed grimly. "You see?" he thought. "Already you too, Underhillo, cannot easily close the thread, nor will to delete it."

[VanimaEdhel]

Are you now a victim of this addicting thread too, Mister Underhill? I swear Fordim put an enchantment on it or something - even if I don't have anything to add, I keep being pulled back here.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

For those, primarilly davem and Mark 12_30, who wish for an option that encapsulates a sense of enchantment of and through the text which springs from some other realm (faerie?), I personally would point toward the fourth option, insofar as it offers them precisely the kind of non-rational (but not irrational!) sense of wonder before the text that they so notoriously relish and desire.

Oh, but it doesn't offer 'precisely' anything. It also says that we don't have the faintest idea - & I think we have more than that.

Your phrasing of the option 'assumes that which is to be proved' & I'm shocked that a man of your cal-i-ber would stop so low

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

2-15-8-2?

Not really enough for a fight, yet.

On an aside, what happened to the polls we used to have on the site? It would be quite amusing to have some of these public polls about favourite Hobbit or whatnot.

It's really up to Fordim; he's the one who always starts this trouble.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

Oh, but it doesn't offer 'precisely' anything. It also says that we don't have the faintest idea - & I think we have more than that.

Your phrasing of the option 'assumes that which is to be proved' & I'm shocked that a man of your cal-i-ber would stop so low

Clearly caught in the thread-spell he himself wove. Lo how the mighty has fallen.

Nay, no more than Fordim, we cannot wield it. Nor can we hide it to keep it safe. There remains only one choice.

Who will journey with Underhillo to the Delete Thread button?