‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[HerenIstarion]

You overwhelm me. Probably time difference – I leave few innocent looking posts the evening; next thing I see in the morning is another pageful of posts. I’m responding one to one, downward, now, starting with 534. I write as I read, so probably I’m bound to repeat something already posted in some of the posts past 534, my apologies in advance, but I’m doing it for my own sake as well, to have the whole Canonicity issue revived and to refresh my own memory of what exactly do I think about it. I intend to apply my usual methodology – giving an analogy (ies) and building around it. Here we go:


Post 534:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I would like to suggest, in response to Lalwendë, that any author's definition about how to interpret his or her work, particularly one written after the work has been completed and published, should be referred back to the text for validation. Does Tolkien's definition of allegory apply to his work or is he attempting to bring out a quality which he wishes now, after publication, other readers to see?

I suppose yes

Analogy 1:

Suppose I’ve installed a CD-ROM to my PC. ‘Tolkien’s definition’ in this analogy would be an icon on my Control Panel defining the device as CD-ROM, not DVD-ROM or any other device. But as a user (=reader), I’m perfectly free to stick DVDs or any other things which take my fancy into the thing. Now tapes would not fit, and blatant inconsistency of them would be obvious to me, but DVDs are different story, ain’t they? They look alike with CDs, and I may find error messages my PC is bound to throw up the whole point of the thing, and fancy everything is right and proper, but if I’m to see what’s ‘supposed’ to be seen, I should insert CDs, not DVDs.

Emotions and experiences associated with seeing error messages would be as vivid, rightful, valid, whatever, as those of a user put CDs in CD-ROM and see things as they are supposed to be seen, but those are emotions, they have no evaluative meaning whatsoever.

I’m free to prefer ‘There is no CD in the device’ message to the [whatever the CD should have contained], and it is my right to read messages instead of [whatever the CD should have contained], but I’m getting less for my money.

Analogy 2:

CD-ROM’s CD holder part can slide out and form a perfect coffee-cup holder. I may find it quite useful to insert a cup there every time I’m posting here, it would place the hot and invigorating coffee within my reach and I’d avoid risks of spilling it over my keyboard, but would not it be better for me to read the manual and employ my CD-ROM to its full potential?

I voted ‘the book is cool’ option in the Canonicity Slapdown, meaning it to enhance that and ‘all of the above’ option together, but surely, Intention of the Author should be taken into account, as the manual should with CD-ROM devices, Experience of the Reader is there to prevent me of trying to force square VHS tapes into round CD slots, and Analysis of the Text comes into play when I’ve already found round disc to fit round slot, they are of compatible types, and now I may think about what I see on my screen.

(Aside for LmP = feeling of enchantment may arise in case of IoA + EoR, but not necessarily adding up AoT to the soup. On the other hand, some may be enchanted by ‘there is no DVD in the drive’ message, seeing how it pops up miraculously every time.)

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

but readers are not bound to automatically accepting his definition.

Of course they’re not. Neither user is bound to read user’s manual, but it would be advisable, wouldn’t it? And if my CD-ROM is broken in my attempt to fit VHS tapes into it, should I accept repairman’s help or decide that CD-ROM was ‘a load of crap' all along?


Post 535:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I have to ask, ought we to accept his definition? Does LotR make more sense if we do?

If ‘ought’ here stands to mean ‘we are forced, bound’ etc, no, we are not. But yes, we ought, in a broader sense as given above.


Post 536

Originally Posted by Mr. Underhill

In any confrontation between a reader's interpretation and an author's intention, the author has the authority, the right, sometimes even the obligation to clarify his meaning

Can not agree more


Post 537

Originally Posted by SpM

I agree. That is why I have always referred to the reader's 'honest' or 'genuine' understanding

Yes, and I won’t laugh at anyone putting their CD-ROM to coffee-holding service, as I suppose no one not ‘honestly’ sure that’s the purpose would do that at all.

Originally Posted by SpM

I think that we have little to fear from non-sensical interpretations. Even if they are genuine, they will be unacceptable to most other readers and will therefore never form part of our general understanding of the work.

One or two extravagant chaps won’t harm us? I suppose they won’t. But in case the ‘general understanding’ is what we pursue. On the other hand, if we want this particular user to enjoy his CD-ROM to its full extent, should not we interfere and help them see what it can do apart from cup-holding?

And from another angle – remember ‘moral consensus’ of few pages back? What if these extravagant gentlemen have found some exiting ways of using CD-ROM the manufacturer originally installed but haven’t explicitly explained in the manual? Truth (guess whether it is with capital T or not, as I’ve deliberately put it as the opening word of the sentence) is not in numbers.


Post 538

Agreement in general.

Side note – existence of several statements of the Author, even if they contradict slightly between themselves, does not entitle us to introduce even more interpretations. We can settle by choosing one of the Author’s, or work them all into one, or (in Tolkien’s case) explain them by historiography and multitude of sources argument. But imagine CD-ROM (I stick by analogy) manual to state on page 5 that recommended record speed is 32 kb/ps, and on page 7 that is 16 kb/ps. Probing, we would probably find that it can do both, or that indeed one is preferable, but abstain from recording at all ‘cause it contradicts itself’ (being flippant or satirical or flatfooted or, in fact, even malicious) would be less wise.



Post 539

No comments


Post 540

Bits of the manual being recited . Good repairman this gentlehobbit is, I always said so


Post 541

Originally Posted by SpM

Valid to whom? An individual's interpretation is more valid than any other to that individual because it is the one that makes sense to them as an individual. But that is not to deny that they may see value in, and ascribe relative values to, the interpretations of others, and so develop their own interpretations accordingly. And we will tend to ascribe greater value (again, as individuals or 'interpretative communities') to the interpretations put forward by particular individuals, such as the author himself, those who have read extensively around the work, those who appear to share our values etc. In this way, we are continually assessing, reassessing and developing our own interpretation. It still remains the most valid one to us, though.

Yes, but to stick to coffee-cup holder usage of CD-ROM, for is ‘what I genuinely believe the thing is supposed to do’ once the manual is read and new information presented is a bit, hem, less than bright?


Post 542

Lal seems to have ‘no comments’ from me for the most part today. But I have to fight fire with fire – what the ‘control’ in question is for?


Post 543

Originally Posted by davem

'Its a Tower I built in order that I could look out on the Sea, not a defensive structure.' is a clear enough statement, provable by experiment, & I think we should take his word for it unless we can prove him wrong. If the Tower can be made to serve another purpose by someone else, fine, but they would not be using the Tower for the purpose for which it was built - & they should admit that, & not claim that they know the 'real' intention behind it.

Good. Se my apology above for probably repeating what may have been already posted. Agreement – how dare they claim it!


Post 544

Originally Posted by Bb

It is possible to have a meaningful personal experience of a work of Art without knowing what or how the author wanted me to experience

Agreed. But I come to resort to capital letters here again – what is the purpose of the work of Art – to bring aesthetic pleasure or to communicate some Message beyond that? If the former, yours was the proper way to react, if the latter, than, aesthetic pleasure is by-product (a baggage), not vice versa, and the plaque with the explanation on the statue, as the communicator of the Message, is where 'appreciator'’s priority should be placed.

(I do not mean to say you are not free to choose your priorities, Eru forbid).

There is an analogy of a stutterer in a plane who alone is aware of one of the engines on fire. His only way to communicate information is to sing it to the stewards (as he is not stuttering when he is singing), and he sings it: The engine is on fire, sha-la-la-la. Seemingly, he is in possession of a good singing voice, so the steward and other passengers join in the chorus with their own ‘sha-la-la-las’. All round everybody is aesthetically pleased and humoured, but the final results is, fire is not extinguished and plain crushes. Should they seek the meaning besides the aesthetics; something could have been done about the situation.


Post 545

Originally Posted by thenamir

the whole looks like a time-exposure photograph of a dog chasing its tail

I should have read this before I started to write, but I’m on page 5 of a Word file, I can not possibly abandon it now? Besides, I voted for the whole thing to stop in one of my previous, didn’t I? How exactly that entitles me to write longish posts instead, I myself can not see, yet ‘show must go on’ malady should be someplace inside the whole thing.

As I’ve already chosen the methodology, I have to write through to the end of [currently existing] posts to see if anyone have come with requested quotes already. Promise to make a search if no one did.


Post 546

I run out of smileys seeing as there is a limit of three per post, but imagine ‘big grin’ here


Post 547

Another ‘big grin’. ‘Show must go on’ malady above rendered to ‘circus addicts buying tickets off profiteer’


Post 548

Originally Posted by SpM

Influence, yes. A measure of control, yes. But absolute control, no (more's the pity). But is the influence of one reader over another analagous to the parent/child relationship

Again, as above, it’s all well and proper, but what the control is for? To force ‘proper’ ways of receiving an ‘aesthetical pleasure’? There are none, obviously? I may immensely enjoy ‘coffee-cup holder’ of a CD-ROM more than putting some flat ringlets into it, and you would not persuade me that that is less ‘enjoyable’. But assumption of control being there to ensure ‘correct usage’ (transfer of the Message, seeing of Truth, whatever), will end you, inevitably, with conclusion that there is, after all, Right Way of Reading It? Otherwise, the whole ‘control’ issue could be put for safe-keeping to that particularly shady dell where star nearest to this Earth is rumoured to never have emanated down to

Besides, if the freedom in ‘using the Tower’ is important for the user, for whom is the ‘correct usage’ important? For surely control must be there (if at all?) to ensure ‘proper usage of the Tower (CD-ROM)’?


Post 549

Welcome ‘big grin’


Post 550

No comment


Post 551

Gratitude and relief of not having to find all that myself. ‘smile’



Post 552

Agreement


Post 553

Originally Posted by Bb

And please to remind all who claim that this thread is merely a rhapsody in reproduction, let me point out that last summer's posts did not consider the issue of allegory. This is actually a new application.

Rhapsody of reproduction – yes, but in ascending circles, with slight deviation each new round. Otherwise, why should I trespass on my employer’s right to my time in the office and spend the whole morn composing ‘incestuous reproduction of ideas’?

New application, yes, but not quite: Back there, page 4-5, also 7-8, there was an attempt to bring in the concepts of Truth, Something Else, Shop on the Border of Fairyland (all with capitals), if you remember, all with claims that there were Messages Tolkien tried to bring across, and there were attempts of defining these also.

Well, no, it isn't. A telegram has no artistic purpose or merit. It is designed for other purposes of communication. Any understanding of LotR has to consider the special nature of literature as Art. To the best of my knowledge, LotR has not yet been performed in Morse Code, although I have seen Wuthering Heights attempted in Morse Code.

Why not? If I send poetry over, per instance? And even if I resort to merely reporting weather conditions, my choice of wording may have artistic merit after all?

Literature may lean heavily on aesthetics, but without ‘telegram’ inside it, it would be Art for Art’s sake. Bodybuilding is an exercise in obtaining a ‘beautiful body’ in the end, but sound exercise has Health as its final goal, beauty being enjoyable, pleasant, even desirable, but still by-product.

Besides, turning ‘aesthetics’ back on you (wink), would you bet there won’t be people who would appreciate LoTR in Morse Code purely on it’s aesthetics and what Morse Code means personally to them?



Post 554

Originally Posted by Formendacil

A most annoying thing about this Allegorical/Canonical/Applicable/Nonsensical threads is that Metaphor can never be taken as Metaphor or a Simile for a Simile. It has to be taken as literal. Any attempt to use a parable in illustrating a point is immediately attacked as being not the same. This hasn't just happened to me, it's happened to others.

Seeing as majority of my writing resorts to analogies, I invite you to join the club. But there is only one other way – to give out something based on ‘terms’ and ‘definitions’, which I find less enjoyable (My freedom! Mine! It came to me...)


Post 555

Here we see... wait, that’s this very post of mine. Nice number, three fives ‘big grin’

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

... but those are emotions, they have no evaluative meaning whatsoever.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Formendacil ( ), HI, I will dispute your CD/DVD analogy.

The instruction manual, in so far as it pertains to loading and running the program, details how it is to be used, not what it is to be used for. If we are equating a computer program with a literary work, then I would say that it is the latter rather than the former which equates to the meaning of the work.

Yes, if one tries to run an application using the wrong equipment or application, then one will not get much out of it. But, if one tries to read LotR upside down or at a distance of 50 feet, then one will not get much out of it either.

But the program may be used for a variety of different functions. A database, for example, may be used to store addresses or list one’s favourite LotR quotes or for a variety of other functions. The programmer may well have had intended it to be used for a certain function or functions, but it is up to the user how he actually uses it. Similarly, the author may intend his work to have a certain meaning, but it is up to the reader how he interprets it.

Of course, the software may have been designed to work particularly well when used for particular functions, and it is likely therefore that a sensible user will use it for those functions. Just as the skilled author will be successful in conveying his intended meaning to a sensible reader.

The freedom nevertheless resides with the user/reader.

Am I repeating myself?

[Lalwendë]

No, I really don't see where that necessarily follows, unless my questionable analogy of literary terrorist is at fault, for which bad taste I apologise.

It wasn’t in bad taste at all. When I use the word anarchy, I mean it in its true sense. I don’t mean the emotive ‘anarchy’ used to denote chaos and crime, I mean Anarchy in that there are no rules, the people are free and open to do as they will; there are no authority figures. Applied to literary criticism, this is the state which ought to match Postmodern theories (so long as caveats are not in place to protect the power of the academic) – it is a glorious state whereby any reader may interpret just as he or she wishes and may express that freely without fear of that opinion being rejected as their interpretation will be considered as equal to any other.

The perfect state is one in which readers can interpret as they wish and have the right to fully express their conclusions, but this does not happen, not even on the ‘Downs are we free. Total freedom is perilous, it means that nobody has power, nobody can set any limits. There is the potential for a lot of silly, ugly or confrontational (of course, in the opinion of the reader...) ideas and language, but the moment we say “you cannot use offensive language” or any other such statement we have begun to impose limits and restrictions on what the reader can do.

If we are now saying that we are in an ‘interpretive community’ then this is a very different thing to true reader freedom; a community has rules, therefore as readers we are in no way ‘free’. In an interpretive community meaning might reside within the reader but that meaning is only validated by approval from our peers. We are faced with the decision of whether to stand by our opinion and be rejected by the group or to alter our opinion and remain within the community. The interpretive community can never be more than freedom-lite.

I happen to like the idea of an interpretive community as I feel more comfortable within certain boundaries. But who determines the boundaries of the interpretive community? Someone must be there to define the point at which we cross a line. To take the ‘Downs as a case in point, is it the Barrow-Wight? Or is it a democratic process? Or do we have rule by consensus? In that case, is it the highest repped members who set the boundaries? Or the longest standing members? Or is it majority/survival of the fittest? And finally, is Tolkien part of this community? Does he get a say?

He definitely does! Because even if we are an interpretive community and think ourselves 'free' we use his words as boundaries. We do not tend to accept allegorical interpretations (I have seen these well and truly shot down in flames) and we are even asked to base our RPG characters on what Tolkien said about different races of Elves. We look up what Tolkien said in “Letters” or HoME. We might have our own ideas and responses but we still back them up and modify them according to what was laid down on the page – we don't just say what the heck we like. For all our intellectualising, the Author aint dead round these parts.

Originally Posted by SpM

Am I repeating myself?

Yeah, but me too. I'm getting used to it now, but I'm running low on vocabulary and might have to recycle some

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If we are now saying that we are in an ‘interpretive community’ then this is a very different thing to true reader freedom; a community has rules, therefore as readers we are in no way ‘free’. In an interpretive community meaning might reside within the reader but that meaning is only validated by approval from our peers. But who determines the boundaries of the interpretive community? Someone must be there to define the point at which we cross a line. To take the ‘Downs as a case in point, is it the Barrow-Wight? Or is it a democratic process? Or do we have rule by consensus? In that case, is it the highest repped members who set the boundaries? Or the longest standing members? Or is it majority/survival of the fittest? ... And finally, is Tolkien part of this community? Does he get a say?

He definitely does! Because even if we are an interpretive community and think ourselves 'free' we use his words as boundaries.

I thoroughly agree.

From my very first post on this thread:

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Everyone is free to interpret the meaning of the events portrayed in the book in whichever way they choose. The way that they choose will, however, depend upon the manner in which they approach the story. A reader who enjoys it as a cracking good yarn, but without any inclination to explore further the world which Tolkien created, will not be bound by (and most likely will be unaware of) the author's intentions. Those who are interested in learning more about Tolkien and his works (such as most, I should think, who post here) will be more inclined to accept such meaning as Tolkien himself attributed to his works. It is, I think, beholden upon those posting seriously here to at least acknowledge, if not accept, Tolkien's own thoughts on what he wrote.

That remains my position.

As to who determines the boundaries, I would include all of those you mention, although (with the exception of the forum rules stipulated by the Admins and, to a lesser extent, the Mods), they are not generally formulated or imposed in any formal manner.

[Lalwendë]

So, would you agree that the meaning of the text can be both defined by readers and by the Author?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

So, would you agree that the meaning of the text can be both defined by readers and by the Author?

of course. The author is an individual and so the work has a meaning that is individual to him.

To clarify, the full meaning of the work can only lie with the individual reader (because it will mean something different to each individual). Aspects of that meaning may be shared.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

To clarify, the full meaning of the work can only lie with the individual reader (because it will mean something different to each individual). Aspects of that meaning may be shared.

No. The book means what it means - which is what the author intended it to mean - nothing more or less.

I think that this discussion is really about what readers do with the book, rather than what it means to them. Are all the readers doing with the book what the author intended them to do with it? No. Are they all picking up on the meaning? Again, no - & for various reasons. But the point stands - the book means what it means & that meaning is an objective thing & the author has stated what that meaning is.

If you 'find' anything other than that in it you've put it there: its not in the book - sorry - you didn't find it in there - you couldn't have, 'cos Tolkien didn't put it in there.

Therefore, whatever other 'meaning' you find has nothing to do with either LotR or with its author. Its your 'baggage' - kindly don't leave it in the aisle for others to trip over.....