‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Why are you confused?

Because you appeared to dispute my observation that you are interpreting 'meaning' as 'message'. I think that we can agree to disagree on how the question should be interpreted and simply agree that the book has a meaning intended by Tolkien and a meaning intepreted by each individual reader, and that all such meanings, while they may overlap to a significant degree, will never be entirely the same. The question of which is the 'correct', 'objective' or most 'valuable' meaning will, I think, have to be left to individual opinion.

*Holds out an olive branch to davem in a desparate attempt to bring an end to the circular and time-consuming discussion*

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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.

This mischaracterisation of the position 'Reader's Rights' camp is one which has been commonly adopted on this thread. We are portrayed as positively encouraging the reader to wilfully misread and misinterpret what Tolkien has written and to deliberately come up with non-sensical meanings and crackpot theories if that is what he wants to do. But that misrepresents the reality of the position. Indeed, the label 'Reader's Rights' is in some ways misleading. I prefer the term 'reader's experience'.

The interpretion of a work of literature occurs both consciously and subconsciously. Often, we have no conscious control over how we interpret a work and therefore what it means to us. That is not to say that one cannot reach a position through deliberate analysis and logical thought, but both processes will generally be at work here.

So, when we are discussing the 'meaning' of LotR, it is not a question of the reader having the right wilfully to misread Tolkien and deliberately ignore reasonable explanations to the contrary. It is a question of what Tolkien's works genuinely mean to the reader. Of course, the reader has the right to be obtuse and stubbornly hold to an adopted position. But if he does so without having an honest belief in that position, then he will (in my opinion) be acting unreasonably and will be rightfully open to criticism for doing so.