‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Lalwendë]

Perhaps both C-threads ought to come to a Gentlemen's agreement and take each other outside for a bout of fisticuffs and see who emerges as winner. Or failing that could the threads be merged?

Originally Posted by Squatter

However, there are still theories about Tolkien that are clearly just wrong, such as the old second-world-war-allegory chestnut. Where the reader is clearly off his rocker, I can think of no better argument than that of the author.

Originally Posted by SpM

Nine times out of ten, the reader's interpretation will accord with authorial intention (that's where common sense and judgment play their role), but it will not always be so. And, in some cases, the reader's interpretation may well be completely at odds with the author's intention, but nevertheless hold meaning for that reader.

I am very, very pleased that Tolkien expicitly stated that LotR was Not an allegory. If he had not done so, then we might all have spent many hours drawing analogies between the events in Middle-earth and events in the 20th Century. Time and again I will read something in LotR that brings to mind events of the last century, but then I stop and think and before I get carried away, remember that Tolkien said this was not the meaning of what I am reading.

So the Author clearly is not irrelevant. Anything I may 'see' or may individually interpret as similar to historical events is effectively wrong. I can see these elements as 'applicable' to our world, but I cannot and must not see them as allegorical. It isn't any consensus which does that, nor is it sense or judgement, it is the Author who tells me that this meaning I am constructing is wrong.

I think Tolkien was all too well aware of how readers can construct meanings, and he did want to steer us away from that particular path or else why would he have stated his case so clearly? If he had not done so then I am quite sure that upon publication some would have picked up LotR and said "ah, an allegory of..." because all the elements are in place; people still do this to this day before they learn otherwise, and it is Tolkien who steps in to 'put them straight' as 'twere.

Like Tony Blair and Saruman before him I'm sticking with the 'third way'.

[The Saucepan Man]

... how carefully one has to choose one's words on this thread.

Originally Posted by mark12_30

It may be so; see Letter 328.

OK, I'll allow you the possibility. But the fact that Tolkien felt the need to identify the man's pre-existing state of belief would seem to confirm its relevance to the issue.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

1. Free questions re: Talking to a person with a large hairy wart on his/her nose, am I free to ask where s/he acquired such an adorment, however curious about the issue I may find myself?

2 Development re: Can I bend conversation to [insert the subject of your choice here], however big my desire, if the person I'm talking to A) was never interested/never heard about [subject of aforesaid choice] in the first place and B) is inclined to talk about flowers in pots?

The fact that the scope of a conversation may be limited by social conventions (or any number of other factors) still does not render it analagous to the act of reading, where the involvement of the two 'actors' is restricted to the point where they both play entirely different roles.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It isn't any consensus which does that, nor is it sense or judgement, it is the Author who tells me that this meaning I am constructing is wrong.

But what of a reader whose whose honest reaction to the story is to see it as an allegory? Is that reader wrong? Should they deny their genuine reaction to the story simply because the author tells them that it is not his intention that they should react in this way? What of the reader is unaware of the author's intention in this regard?

Surely a reader should be entitled to take the story as an allegory if that is their honest reaction to it, even if they acknowledge and accept that the author did not intend it as such.

Of course, most of us (possibly influenced by authorial intention, possibly relying on our own interpretation, but in most cases probably a combination of both) do not take LotR to be an allegory. So, on a 'near-as-we-can-get-to-an-objective-basis', it is not an allegory.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Like Tony Blair and Saruman before him I'm sticking with the 'third way'.

Personally, I relish the company of neither.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

The issue of allegory vs. application comes right back to the central theme of this discussion. I can't say it better than Tolkien himself did in his foreword to LotR:

...the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

That's it precisely - no reader can tell the author whether or not his work is an allegory, for an allegory is written purposefully; that decision is made by the author in the process of writing. If the author says it is or isn't an allegory, then we must accept his word for it.* However, neither can the author tell the reader that he may not apply aspects of his work to whatever he chooses, as application is an individual choice of the individual reader. This is where the interactive aspect comes in - each reader will apply different things to her/himself and her/his worldview, and that may well change during the course of a reader's lifetime/repeated re-readings.


*In the case that we do not have a definitive statement by the author as to whether his work is allegorical or not, there should be enough evidence made obvious in the work itself to prove a claim one way or the other. Otherwise, it remains ambiguous and any discussion thereof is speculative in nature.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Esty

That's it precisely - no reader can tell the author whether or not his work is an allegory, for an allegory is written purposefully ...

Must an allegorical meaning be intended by the author in order to be an allegory? I think one can make a distinction between an allegorical meaning intended by the author (which does reside in the purposed domination of the author) an an allegorical meaning which the reader perceives, but which the author did not intend (which lies in the freedom of the reader to interpret).

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Must an allegorical meaning be intended by the author in order to be an allegory? I think one can make a distinction between an allegorical meaning intended by the author (which does reside in the purposed domination of the author) an an allegorical meaning which the reader perceives, but which the author did not intend (which lies in the freedom of the reader to interpret).

I think this 'allegorical meaning which the reader percieves' is actually 'applicability'. I would put it this way - 'Applicability' is a movement 'outwards' from the secondary world to the primary world & 'overshadows' it in the readers mind. So, Saruman or Sauron may be 'applied' by the reader to Hitler, Stalin, Sadam Husssain, etc. They will 'see the primary world through enchanted eyes', but this will be a result of their freedom, not something that was imposed on them by the writer.

Allegory, on the other hand, is a movement 'inwards' from the primary to the secondary world, where the primary world (through the author) is imposed, or forced, on the secondary world - Hitler or Stalin is forced by the author on Saruman & the reader therefore has no choice but to accept that imposition.

Hope that makes some kind of sense...

[The Saucepan Man]

I always saw applicability as involving the reader perceiving a meaning within a work that is personal to him/her as opposed to a meaning which relates to some external event (such as WW2). The latter would be an allegorical meaning, to my mind, even if unintended by the author.

But I take your point. Using your definition, it is impossible, by definition, for the reader to perceive an allegory which the author did not intend. The reader is, however, still free to perceive 'applicability' with regard to the same matters in respect of which the author has denied allegory, and so the 'prohibition' raised by Lalwendë does not arise. In other words, the reader is free to 'apply' LotR to WW2, even if the author did not intend the work as an allegory of that event.

[mark12_30]

Just for fun:

“You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you like: and allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power” (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1995, p. 121.)

“The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on” (pp. 178-179.)

“Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power (exerted for domination)” (p. 246.)

[Bêthberry]

About this question of allegory, I would like to consider its context.

Originally Posted by Fordim

the text comes alive and gains meaning within a social/political/interpersonal context that far surpasses the limits of any one individuality

Fordim's summation of Barthes is I think an important point about this discussion, that there is always a context which informs the writer's thought and always one which also informs the reader's thought. It is not a question of ignoring the Author or denying what he has said, but recognising that the author wrote within a historical and cultural milieu which informed his thoughts, and recognising also that such a milieu informs readers' interpretations also.

Originally Posted by Estelyn

That's it precisely - no reader can tell the author whether or not his work is an allegory, for an allegory is written purposefully; that decision is made by the author in the process of writing. If the author says it is or isn't an allegory, then we must accept his word for it.

One point I find fascinating about Tolkien's words in the Foreword is that they are written retrospectively, after the writing and publication of LotR, and in response to some critical observations.

In other words, this statement about allegory does not necessarily reflect Tolkien's conscious, deliberate thoughts while he was writing LotR.
They represent his thought, after the fact, in response to critics.
For us to understand the Foreward, we have to realise that this is the author responding to reader's thoughts post-WWII.

[What would be intriguing would be to find letters or other documents which give us insight into Tolkien's discussions with, say, C. S. Lewis, about allegory--a discussion which could have been carried on during the writing of LotR or during those many Inklings sessions at the Bird and Baby.]

On the other hand, this Forward could reflect Tolkien's reading back into his work so that it could not be taken as a simplistic encomium for the Allies. That is, the historical context of WWII and the post war years created a locus of interpretation for LotR--one which did not exist (or was in the process of being created) while Tolkien was writing LotR (but which did not explicitly exist while he was creating the Legendarium). Tolkien therefore had to distinguish between his book and the new historical milieu, in which people would read LotR. His purpose might have been more devoted towards disproving the simplistic equation of Victorious allies with Aragorn and Sauron with Hitler and the Nazis than towards an explicit statement about his allegorical intention. The Foreword in this context would be more about his concept of good and rightful action, in contrast to authoritarian mechanisation, than about his writing habits. It reflects his desire to write his book forward into history, I suppose it could be said.

My point is not to discount Tolkien's statement about the freedom of the reader but more to posit a context in which to consider his authorial statements.

Originally Posted by The Squatter

Anyone who reads my posts will know that I am no stranger to the conclusive Tolkien quotation.

That is, I suggest that 'conclusive quotations' themselves need to be understood as falling within the purview of the interpretive habit.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

Using your definition, it is impossible, by definition, for the reader to perceive an allegory which the author did not intend. The reader is, however, still free to perceive 'applicability' with regard to the same matters in respect of which the author has denied allegory, and so the 'prohibition' raised by Lalwendë does not arise. In other words, the reader is free to 'apply' LotR to WW2, even if the author did not intend the work as an allegory of that event.

No, the prohibition is still in force as to apply what we have read is just to draw parallels, while to see it as an allegory is to take those parallels and draw deeper significance or meaning from them. So for example if I was to say that the situation with Sauron reminded me of the situation with Hitler, that would be applicability. But if I was to go on and attribute the Sauron/Hitler link as being the meaning, then I would be saying it was allegory. And the author tells us explicitly that this is not the meaning.

The other thing is that Allegory is not necessarily forced on the reader in any case - it can be incredibly subtle, or the reader can simply miss it, and by the same token, it is also easy to 'read' something as an allegory even when it is not.