Author, Reader, or Text? (aka Canonicity Slapdown 2005) - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lalwendë · 07-13-2005, 01:47 AM

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.

View Poll Results: The meaning of The Lord of the Rings is to be found in
The intention of the author	6	11.11%
The experience of the reader	29	53.70%
Analysis of the text	12	22.22%
I haven't the faintest idea, I just think the book is cool	7	12.96%
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll

07-13-2005, 01:47 AM	#20
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	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. __________________ Gordon's alive!