‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

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 definition of the word "anarchy"...

However, just because Lalwende has clarified what she meant by "anarchy", if what the Reader's Rights camp are saying is to be taken as something other than hypocrisy, then it can be applied here as well. In which case, if my original, subjective reader's viewpoint was the Lalwende meant anarchy in the sense of chaos and crime, then I am entitled to stubbornly believe that for so long as I may desire- clear contradict and explanation here to the contrary.

Indeed, my question now is not whether I am ENTITLED to do so, but rather, being a literate and intelligent English-speaking being, it is POSSIBLE for me to do so. I may make the pretense that I am certain that Lalwende meant otherwise, but in the face of such a direct statement, can I honestly BELIEVE otherwise?

Likewise with the Lord of the Rings: in the face of Tolkien's direct statement that no allegory was intended, and believing him to be telling the honest truth, can I, in my right mind, actually continue to believe that it is an allegory?

Originally Posted by Bethberry

So there. My position is not anti-metaphorist, Formendacil. Nor, in fact, have I categorically rejected Tolkien's statement about allegory. What I have done there is put it in a context.

I wasn't thinking of you in particular, but this section of the 'Downs in general. ANY simile or metaphor by Camp A is bound, t'would seem, to be shot down by Camp B- simply as a matter of principle. The easiest way to defeat the argument of the metaphor is to attack the fact that it is a metaphor, rather than fighting it on its own terms.

You were merely the one who actually did shoot down my metaphor...

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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

Consider it officially incurred.

Although, I will admit that you did a pretty good job of working at the deficiencies of the metaphor from the inside, rather than attacking it as "not being the same".

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Post 549

Welcome ‘big grin’

Thank You.