‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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.)

[The Saucepan Man]

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

Help! I feel purposively dominated by the power of the author!

[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.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

In which case 'reader-perceived' allegory and applicability are not the same thing, and the reader should be free to take the story as an allegory if that is how he or she genuinely perceives it.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And the author tells us explicitly that this is not the meaning.

He tells us that it is not his intended meaning. But can it not still be the readers perceived meaning?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

In which case 'reader-perceived' allegory and applicability are not the same thing, and the reader should be free to take the story as an allegory if that is how he or she genuinely perceives it.


He tells us that it is not his intended meaning. But can it not still be the readers perceived meaning?

I repeat myself once again. Tolkien wrote his denial of allegory after the fact. Perceiving any kind of analogy with WWII is an act of retroactive reading, taking an historical context and reading it back into a text which was at least begun before the war, even if it was completed under the war's terrible cloud.

There are books which become more 'meaningful'--that is, more significant to our understanding of our world-- when events occur after they are written and published which somehow seem to resonate with events in the book, as if the book were prophetic in some way. The historical events make readers more aware of certain aspects in the book, things which might have been missed before the historical events, highlighting those events in particular ways which point to an interpretation.

This is entirely in keeping with how we read. We bring to every book we read our own personal experience and every other book we read. If we are attentive readers, we are careful to see how readerly desire informs our reading.

To me, the fascinating point about Tolkien's statement is how he attributes to the Allies tendancies more often attributed to Mordor--a point which the Hitler-allegorists were missing. Was Tolkien fighting against the developing mythology of WWII which created very much an evil/good split, particularly as the West came to know more and more about the Holocaust? Was he fighting against the victors' tendancy always to portray history from their point of view?

If so, he was suggesting that the act of reading and interpreting is a very subtle, complex act, rather than telling us an either/or way to read LotR.

[davem]

He tells us that it is not his intended meaning. But can it not still be the readers perceived meaning?

But in order for the book to be taken as an allegory of WW2 (or WW1) there would have to be a one-to one correspondence between the events of the story & the events in the real world - which, as Tolkien points out in the foreword, there is not. Some events within the story may correspond closely to events in the real world - if the reader chooses to make those connections. It depends on how we read the story. Shippey, for instance, compares the Rammas of the Pelennor with the Maginot line - but Lewis & Currie, in The Uncharted Realms of Tolkien, draw a comparison between it & the Star Wars satellite defence system. Therefore, I think that both are approaching the Rammas from the perspective of applicability rather than allegory. If the Rammas was an allegory of the Maginot Line then it could not be applied fully to anything else - Star Wars or whatever. The allegorical meaning would be fixed, because it would be precise. What we have instead is a symbol which is more universal. The reader is free to apply it to any number of similar primary world situations. The story & its events are 'timeless' in that sense, & have no one-to-one connection with specific things/events.

From this point of view, Lembas both is the host & is absolutely not the host - it depends on how, or whether, the reader chooses to apply it. Both statements are true, but therefore Lembas is not an allegory of the Host To some readers it is the Host & nothing but the Host, to others it isn't anything of the sort. Applicability may be as absolute in the mind of the reader as allegory is in the mind of the writer.

One is left with the option of calling it a 'spiritual' allegory of the 'human condition', the events with which it deals being universal 'archetypes'. I suspect this is perhaps how Tolkien saw it. In Letter 71 Tolkien states:

'For 'romance' has grown out of allegory, & its wars are still derived from the 'inner war' of allegory in which good is on one side & various modes of badness on the other. In real (exterior) life men are on both sides: which means a motley alliance of orcs, beasts, demons, plain naturally honest men, & angels.

So, Tolkien admits 'allegory' of a sort into his Legendarium, but I don't think this clashes with his statement in the Foreword to LotR that the book is not an 'allegory' in the generally accepted sense - as, say, the Faerie Queene is, let alone The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe.