Um, moral consensus... let us count - Sauron and his allies outnumbered people of the West at least ten to one. So, the moral consensus was against Aragorn & Co. and Gandalf must have been morally pervert...

But that is just a prank of mine. I understand your position SpM, when overheated on the issue I was correctly checked back by Aiwendil (the Cold Shower :)) - up there, on page 11.

It seems to bounce back on Canonicity issue with regards to the quote provided by davem (I remember using it in similar situation back on page 6 or 7, i.e. - we are discussing in circles, it seems) - i.e. the author believed in the standard which was set, no deviations. Following Aiwendil the reader should believe the standard too only whilst suspending his disbelief - reading the book - as it is a given fact for ME only - the Good is one for everyone and everywhere. There is no given 'fact' of similar nature for our world (unless the circumstantial evidence of existence of such concepts as Good and Evil does not convince you). I wish we could extrapolate it outta da text, but, - this is 'real' world, where sheer number defines the truth. Can't beat them, but won't join them either.

But I have stumbled upon an idea here - the fancy is upon me that I finally know why LoTR is so popular. Of course, there is a spell, there is a plot, and there is a language, but the moral Fact is what draws many of us in - it is the world where Good is, where Truth is, and the task is only to discern them, not to find them in the first place, as is the case in ours. That is, for most of us. For, unfortunately or fortunately, I maintain that every man, in his heart of hearts, knows what is Good, with or without upbringing. We just have wagonload of good excuses not to see it. It does not help our yearning for standard Truth, though, so we find our solace in ME, where it is at the same time harder and yet easier to be a 'good guy'.

Opinions re: of course, we have different opinions - um, I reckon this thread would not reach its length without such a multitude of opinion :)

cheers

davem - I do not say that all we take from a text is that which we (consciously or not) seek to find within it:

This I view as part of the process of reading and engaging in culture in general. We view the text with our own, individual eyes and minds, and we recognise aspects which do resonate within our own experience. But we also learn new things, new 'truths'. I wouldn't try to deny this! But exactly what these truths are that we are learning from any one text, they could well be different from what the next person is picking up on.

I for one, should hate to think that there is a right and a wrong way to understand a text, as this would reduce the pleasure in reading and re-reading, throughout the many and various stages in my life; each time I go back to reading LOTR I have been through new experiences and the text resonates in many different ways each time. Perhaps I respond to my reading on a deep emotional level to some degree, but to do otherwise would seem clinical to me.

I have one example here of how my own 'truth' changed and how it affected my reading of LOTR. Before I suffered a massive accident I had always read Frodo's behaviour as being entirely attributable to the power of the ring and thought at no deeper level about this matter; now with my new experience, I can see Frodo's actions and reactions in the light of my own experience, and I see my suffering reflected in his. Others would not accept this at all, but this is not wrong of them.

And another thing. This is a good discussion, and I am learning a lot from it, but there are people who would think it was morally wrong to discuss the nature of morality at all.

She have put her foot right into it, she did
 

Lalwendë, you are stuck now just like to us, your doom hence will be to come back to this thread and haunt it, forewer! :rolleyes:

PS

mwa-ha-ha-ha!!!!!

PPS

We need some discussion of definitions again, I believe. Aiwendil, I haven't read the whole 9 pages of the link you provided me with yet (lack of time), but the 'meaning of meaning' discussion on the last page was enlightening, thank you :)

HerenIstarion wrote:
Ah! There's my signal (just as Tom Bombadil can be summoned by song, I will inevitably appear in the rare case that someone actually asks for a discussion of definitions).

I must say that I'm somewhat confused by the turn the thread has taken. One moment the discussion concerns "canonicity", the question of the author's importance, and the nature of imaginary worlds. Then suddenly I find myself reading a tirade against moral relativism and even a passing discussion of metaphysics.

I think that the biggest mistake that people tend to make in philosophical-type discussions is the transmutation of an argument on one level into an argument on another. You see this kind of thing all of the time in discussions of free-will, for example - someone will make a psychological or sociological argument as if it can prove a metaphysical point.

I think that something like that is happening here, or trying to happen. It's tempting to resort to real-world moral philosophy in arguing a point about a fictional world. But if you want to have a meaningful discussion regarding that fictional world, you have to suspend your moral disbelief, as it were, and accept that world's morality. I, for example, don't subscribe to the notion in real life that an objective moral code has its source in God. However, in a discussion of Tolkien's work I will unhesitatingly argue that Eru is the ultimate source of good.

So with respect to the validity of different interpretations of morality in Middle-earth, real moral philosphy ought to be completely superceded by Middle-earth's own moral philsophy. Of course it's still quite possible for there to be disagreements about what that moral philosophy is, exactly - but the presumption must always be that, to the extent to which there is a clear moral philosophy outlined in the texts, it must be taken as correct.

Davem is right - there is no question that in Tolkien's universe, morality is objective. But I don't see that anyone has argued otherwise.

I feel like I still haven't grasped how exactly the discussion made this, I would say, false turn. But we ought to be careful to have at least some idea what we are arguing about and then to rely on arguments that do in fact have point with respect the topic.

I understand even less how metaphysics comes into it.

Shades of grey
 

I am most definately not saying that morality is subjective or that it is dependent upon weight of numbers (although there are those who would make such arguments). There are many examples, past and present, that convince me that this cannot be the case. Perhaps the word "consensus" is wrong, so let's go for "objective moral standards".


Again, a misunderstanding arising from my use of "consensus". My point is that "objective moral standards" do correspond to the concept of "good", whether you believe their source to be some higher Authority or you believe that they developed that way because what's "good" is good for the continuation of society and therefore the human race as a whole. In telling a tale of good and evil, Tolkien was reflecting these objective moral standards. I don't think we disagree on this, although we might disagree on the origins of morality.


Well, to an extent (and disregarding those bothersome capitals ;) ), I agree with you. But I don't think it's that simple. As I have said, there are, in real life, massive grey areas on the borders of "morality". Whereas, its Boromirs and Gollum/Smeagols notwithstanding, LotR is essentially a very "black and white" tale. Subject to limited exceptions, it is easy to tell who is good and who is evil, and easy to see why they are so. It's not quite so easy in real life.

Is the terrorist who wins independence for his country and becomes a great statesman good or evil? There are, in our recent history, examples of such people who are hailed as great heroes. Were the sailors, adrift at sea in a lifeboat, who drew straws and murdered and ate their comrade so that not all of them would die, good or evil? Moral conundrums abound in real life, but are rare, it seems to me, in LotR. What does it, or any of Tolkien's other works, have to tell us in this regard?


Well, courtesy of those repugnant white supremacists, I have to acknowledge that there are "wrong" ways to read LotR. But I agree that there is no one "right" way. (I seem to recall having a conversation with Mister Underhill on this many pages ago ...).


Undoubtedly, but not ever-decreasing ones, it would appear. ;)

Edit after cross-posting with Aiwendil:


As I understand it, this conversation arose around the proposition that Tolkien's works in general, and LotR in particular, reflect moral standards in our world and that we can learn from it in this regard. I don't necessarily disagree with that as a general proposition, although I see the sources of morality in Middle-earth and our world as different (as, like you, I accept that concepts of good and morality in Middle-earth derive from Eru).

But Tolkien didn't draw a distinction between the moral value system of Middle earth & the moral value system of this world. The worlds differed in their inhabitants, geography, etc, but not in their underlying moral value system. There are 'grey areas' in both worlds, but I think this is not because the Good, the True & the Real are different in the two worlds, but because circumstances dictate how closely we can adhere to them.

Middle earth & this world are (in Tolkien's eyes) fallen worlds, & we are fallen inhabitants of those worlds. Therefore we cannot live up to the required standards, but we have to try to the best of our ability. Boromir fails to live up to that required standard, & there are understandable reasons - his background, his experiences, his beliefs - but Tolkien is clear in his attitude to Boromir - Boromir does wrong when he tries to take the Ring, whatever Boromir himself might believe at the time. Its not that 'In Tolkien's universe morality is objective' as Aiwendil puts it, its that from Tolkien's pov morality is objective, in a man's house or in the Golden Wood. The distinction simply doesn't stand for Tolkien. Its like claiming that Jesus sets out one moral value system in his parables, but that the moral value system in this world is different. Tolkien's original intent was to awaken people to an objective moral value system through his stories, by presenting that objective standard to us through an invented mythology.

This is why I don't see Aiwendil's point:
because for me they're two aspects of the same thing. The issue is about what the author is doing & how successfully he does it. Of course, if you believe it is 'art for art's sake' then the two things are totally seperate, if you believe the art had a moral purpose then its different aspects of the same thing, like discussing Shakespeare's intent in Hamlet, his philosophical value system, & asking how well he communicated it to his audience via his 'secondary world' of Elsinore. If Elsinore & its inhabitants had not been believable his message would not have communicated itself as effectively as it did. Or if Elsinore had been believeable as a secondary world, but the 'metaphysics' unconvincing the play would not speak to us. I don't see the seperation. The message must be convincing, & so must the means of comunication. Truth communicated through Art. The Truth must be true & the Art must be artistic or no-one will care, it will not speak to anyone.

This isn't what I'm saying - my own re-readings of the text bring me new insights & understandings - I learn something new each time, because I'm more open to the truth the older I get & the more experiences I have, but the Truth is constant, & its about coming closer to it.

Well, one of the things I was hoping to get at from my first post on the thread was that in my opinion, there is a lot of weight in the theory that the reader constructs meanings - but I think everyone has picked up on the more philosophical side (and there's nothing wrong with that, it's an interesting discussion).

Anyway...if you take on board that each reader does have differing opinions and experiences then it is not such a big step to realising that there is potential for each reader to construct 'truths' of their own. Whether these truths are valid, correct, or moral, then this is up to that reader to convince us (although sometimes we'd rather they didn't bother). In the case of people who read racist meanings into a text such as LOTR, then it is nigh on impossible that they will convince anyone. That SPM mentions this hints to me that someone indeed has constructed this meaning. I don't want to be convinced of such people's arguments, so there's little chance of me ever wasting time in reading such a theory apart from to argue why I think they are wrong, but I may consider reading such ideas if I happened upon them, in much the same way that I like to read the letters page in The Daily Mail as they are invariably diametrically opposed to everything I believe in. I hope this makes sense?

About there being a concrete 'truth' within Tolkien's work - yes, I agree that this must be the case, as it is a work of art. The 'real' world is infinitely more chaotic and random so there is (in my opinion) little chance of finding truth within it - you are lucky if you do find truth within it. But, while Tolkien had his 'truth' which is there to be found within his work, by the very nature of words and semantics, readers will inevitably find other 'truths' of their own. Which critic was it who proposed the theory that the reader was important in constructing meaning? I cannot remember, I have blotted it from my mind since graduating. :rolleyes:

***

Yes, it appears I am now doomed as I have been drawn into the evil 'C' thread. :eek: It is the Corryvreckan of the 'Downs.

It reminds me of one of those discussions you have where everyone's having a drink and in what seems like no time at all, you find yourself sitting in a smoky room at 6am with eyes like pinholes, having set the world to rights....It's been a long time... :)

I think it was Bethberry ;)

Ha ha! If I recall, my suggestion was not to give priority to any particular part of this Trinity of Author, Book or Reader, but to consider the space between them as as an active process of the human mind. In fact, my point is not so very far from davem's statement of his reading--that each new reading generates new awareness and understanding. I simply say that out of respect for the act of reading, I do not denigrate any stage of that process, whether it is the first, hesitant or 'naive' reading or subsequent more knowing ones. As I said earlier on this thread, there will be much that some can learn from even as incomplete or skewed a reading as that of the White Supremacists--a point which I think Lawendë is making here.

So, davem's experience reading examplifies my point that the reader's own stand is part of how he or she is able to understand the text. I suppose another way of saying this is that some of us want to define the issue by the destination while others of us wish to say that it is the journey itself which is our interest.

However, now that davem has drawn me back in here, let me say that what has kept me away from this current focus on "Truth" or "moral worth" is what I see as a confusion of semantics. I mention it now to bolster my reputation as a nitpicking pedant ;) but also to suggest how 'meaning' can be slippery.

I won't copy and paste the number of times most of you, HI, SpM, Aiwendil, and davem if not Lawendë also--Fordim is playing cat and mouse now have used the word "objective". Here is just one example.


Now, I can surmise that 'ojective' makes a nice flip side to 'subjective' particularly when the position of reader is being refuted as incomplete or partial. However, in my experience, the kind of permanent, eternal standard which is being alluded to more usually is referred to as absolute.

I know that 'objective' often stands in for 'unbiased' and 'unaffected by personal feelings' . I also often carries very positive connotations, derviving from our expectations of the scientic or 'empirical' method as the one less prone to error.

However, in my experience, the kind of unchanging moral worth being posited here is "absolute", meaning free of any 'arbitrary standard,not comparative or relative" , something 'unequivocal, certain, sure," something "full and perfect."

As I said, nitpicking pedant. But HI had asked for definitions.

Yes, but I do. And so do many others. The essence of my argument, which I still think is sound, is twofold:

1. You cannot use Middle-earth's morality to prove a point about real world morality - the fact that you or Tolkien or anyone else thinks that these are the same does not logically necessitate that they are the same.

2. A debate over moral philosophy in the real world cannot prove a point about Tolkien's world's reality, because the latter simply is what it is, regardless of whether or not the real world's morality happens to be the same thing.

I understand that Tolkien thought that the morality of the real world is the same as the morality of Middle-earth; and certainly that makes it worthwhile to look at Tolkien's moral philosophy if one is interested in Middle-earth. But what matters here is Tolkien's view - regardless of whether or not that view is correct.

I say this because if real moral philosophy is to be debated, things will quickly come to an impasse. I also worry that we are on the point of seeing a claim like "if you disagree with Tolkien's moral philosophy then you don't fully appreciate his work". If such is in fact your claim, then there's no more to be said. And if such is not, then I don't see how anyone's opinion about real moral philosophy enters into the discussion, provided that one "suspends moral disbelief" as it were, when dealing with Middle-earth.

Bethberry wrote:
"Absolute" works for me. I don't really see a problem with "objective" - depending only on the object - the real world - rather than on the subject - the person viewing the world. But "absolute" in this context means exactly, or almost exactly, the same thing. I don't see, by the way, any reason that "absolute" must mean "full and perfect"; it simply means "the same across the entire domain", "not relative".

Well, as you say, you have to accept it within Middle earth if you are to appreciate his work, because it will not make sense unless you do. But then why would you not accept it outside Middle earth? What I mean is, why would you consider it invalid in the context of this world? Is it that while 'in' Middle earth you 'force' yourself to think in a way that is naturally alien to you, or that is in conflict with the way you normally see things? Tolkien's position is that that approach is invalid, & I think if we are to engage with an artist we can't just say 'I think you're wrong' & leave it at that. What is 'wrong', or 'incorrect', or 'invalid' in Tolkien's philosophy? Why does it only apply within Middle earth?

I can't say that my understanding of Tolkien's Art is superior (or inferior) to yours, or anyone else's. I would say that I don't change my moral stance when I enter into Middle earth, so I find I'm not required to deliberately alter my perspective, to think myself into the secondary world. I find the idea strange - that one would have to stop for a moment before beginning to read & think 'Right, now I have to adopt a different moral value system, in order to understand & orientate myself to this otherworld.

Now, I say that not as a Christian, because I don't think its necessary to be a Christian to orientate oneself into Middle earth. I don't think the moral value system is specifically Christian - & this is where to an extent I can see where you're coming from, because there are somethings within the stories which require one to 'suspend disbelief' & accept Christian symbolism, because that will enable you to understand some of the significance of the story more easily, or in greater depth - for instance if you hold in mind the idea of Mary, & the Host, you'll get more out of the figures of Galadriel & Elbereth, & of Lembas - you're experience will be enhanced - but that is not the same as adopting a wholly different moral value system or metaphysics.

But what is this 'destination' - is it a 'place/state' which exists already, towards which we are moving - does the 'Road' lead somewhere specific, or are we making the road as we travel - is this 'destination' a place that is waiting for us, or is it simply wherever we end up?

My favourite poem (anonymous, prob. originally Middle English)

And, for me, that's the end of the 'Road'.

(Actually, it kind of is, 'cos I'm off to Oxonmoot tomorrow, & won't be back till late Sunday.)

meow

davem has already introduced into this discussion a moment from LotR that I think is useful in thinking through the issues currently at play. When Aragorn says to Éomer:

He does not just leave it there for Éomer to work through on his own; instead, Aragorn makes it quite clear that to “discern them” is, in this world, very easy:

In this moment we and Éomer are not being presented with a moral quandary in which he or we must or can decide how to determine moral parameters (i.e. how to differentiate between right and wrong): what Éomer is to choose between, quite explicitly, is Aragorn or not-Aragorn: “Will you aid me or thwart me?”

In this way, the question of morality is, in the context of Middle-Earth, not really a question at all – or, rather, it is a question to which the reader can respond in one of two ways: do we go along with the author in his creation of a moral system in this subcreated world, or do we not go along with him. At risk of looking like an absolutist ;) I genuinely believe that these are really the only two options. The choice that Aragorn presents to Éomer is a stark and obvious one: me or Sauron; right or wrong; good or evil. The story presents up with the same stark choice: accept M-E morality or don’t. In this case, I do not see much room for negotiation or give and take between text and reader.

At the same time, I am placed in a quandary insofar as I do not adhere to the moral vision of LotR – I am not, quite simply, a believer. I think the disturbing power that LotR has is that it makes me so want to be a believer by embodying the moral choice in the form of Aragorn. I want very badly to follow a man like him; were he to appear before me in reality I would follow him to the ends of the Earth – but he never will, so I am left in the primary world of greys and shadows, trying to make my way for myself. LotR simplifies morality in a way that’s nice to imagine, but that in no way reflects how things really are.

Forced to be quicker than I'd like (waits for cheers & sighs of relief to die away.......)

But does it not indicate how things could be? Or at the very least how, deep down we wish they were & specifically how they ought to be? But where does this desire originate? Why do we feel that way when we read LotR, & encounter Aragorn? Does it come from our past experiences? Well, not in my case.

Some 'voice' is speaking to us, & telling us things we need to hear, telling us what's wrong with ourselves & our world, & giving us a glimpse of 'Arda Unmarred'.

And I don't think that voice is Tolkien's, I think he's just passing on the words.

I like this, it seems to sum up something intangible about Tolkien's world. Do we cling to his work in a troubled world? Does it give us something solid in our world of ifs and maybes? Yet to me there are still some areas which concern me, although these shift over time.

I understand and work with the morality of ME when I am reading the books; it is a created world, and as such you do need to allow yourself to be immersed in the cultural and spiritual concepts of that world. Much the same thing happens if I read about different periods in history - I must come to an understanding of the mindset of the time period to fully understand why certain events happened in the way they did. But my own concept of life cannot be wholly suspended. If I read about the Peterloo massacre, then I must know of the fears of the ruling class in order to discover why they acted as they did, yet I cannot fully suspend my modern day sensibilities and I feel righteous anger towards these people.

As I read Tolkien's work I understand his concepts of morality,in particular as I have grown older I take on board, at a deep level, the concept of yearning for a straight path to enlightenment, and yet other things slowly grow to trouble me.

This is because I am a 'mere' reader. Tolkien's concept is his vision, and while I am utterly trapped within his world, and have been for most of my life, there's a small metaphorical hole in the ozone layer of that world, which shifts about. I've probably not expressed this quite as I'd like, but I feel that it is my own personal view of the 'real' world which I cannot help but stop intruding.

another 'just a minor point'
 

Um, is it that easy? Is it not about trust rather? The reader knows who is Aragorn, Eomer does not - just a ragged cloak, and bright mail underneath. It rather comes down to 'trust/do not trust' at that moment, than to 'choose Aragorn/Sauron' dichotomy. It is always estel with Aragorn, but, so he is the King who opened the 'gate of night' and 'is victorious' and whose victory those of the 'guard [that] was not vain' should praise in psalm.

Beauty and the Beast, remember why Beast is beast - cruelty, yes, pride yes, but lack of trust too. I refer to Walt Disney cartoon, yes, the original is a bit different.

I believe we all met such a choice of 'trust/distrust' in real life, the bright mail underneath omitted. But than, it is Tolkien to let us see some ends, for Eomer on the 'green grass' there is no previously provided data. Bright mail, so what? One can be bought, stolen, faked, surely?

PS

Bb, I trust I never used word 'objective' in this here thread :rolleyes:

Nice definitions, by the way, my desire is satisfied. I believe you pinned down the salt of our debate - do we seek a destination or just having a pleasant walk? 'Canonicity' in this light will be 'do we need a guide or can manage it ourselves?' Excellent, my compliments :)

Well, my computer just ate the post I had spent long minutes crafting, just as I was about to hit "submit reply". So, as it's getting late now, I'll reconstruct only a few brief replies to some of Davem's points.

Davem wrote:
I hold certain opinions about the world, because having weighed the evidence I think that those opinions are the most rationally justified. If Tolkien were to present me with a convincing argument, I would alter my views accordingly. But the mere fact that he held certain opinions does not mean that I should hold the same.

This exaggerates the matter. It is no more difficult to "suspend moral disbelief" than it is to suspend literal disbelief. I don't have to pause before I read Tolkien and say to myself, "Okay, now in this world Elves and dragons are real". And my view of things is not really so radically different from Tolkien's. It's not as though in real life I would consider someone like Saruman good and someone like Aragorn evil.

I don't think that Tolkien thought that all readers must agree exactly with his moral code, or else their reading is "invalid". If he did in fact believe this, then I disagree with him.

This makes me think that perhaps we're just going in circles around the impasse I identified a short while back. I don't know exactly what it might mean "to engage with an artist" but I have the feeling that it isn't what I intend to do when I read a piece of literature.

Maybe it's not specifically Christian, but it is fundamentally and undeniably theistic. And I am not a theist. To a very large extent, my disagreement with Tolkien does come down to a matter of religion.

By the way, H-I, I almost missed it when you said:
I'm shocked and delighted that you actually sat through a page or so of that debate! The metaphysics of meaning is probably my favorite subject in philosophy - in fact it may be my favorite subject of all. I hesitate to get into it on this thread for that very reason - and because I think that in the end it doesn't have much to do with canonicity.

Certainly, in this world of con artists and cult leaders, a true and pure leader like Aragorn is a dream of hope long given up to a cynical caricature. As a matter of fact, I imagine that, if Aragorn were to pursue his heritage in the modern Seventh Age Earth, he would be beset by both the lawful and lawless, avoided by mothers everywhere who didn't want their kids following some ragged fool on something as ominous as the "Paths of the Dead," whether or not he said it was their own choice or not!

Yes, I can see how the "real world" and Middle Earth diverge in this way. If Aragorn popped up in the modern world, he would be a true anachronism. But there are Aragorns in this world; they just don't have as clear a path. I'd love to see someone write a fanfiction about Aragorn trying to fulfill his destiny in modern London...leading the Corsair ships up the Thames...oh, watch out for that barge! *SMASH!*

Anyway, it is a pleasure to read the peregrinations of this thread through truths, perceptions, meanings, etc. and realize just how many divergent and nearly convergent viewpoints there really are!
I do get this impression, most strongly, strangely enough, from the Lost Tales, which I have just found. The rudimentary construction of what would be pieced together later and finally set down for all time by Christopher Tolkien in The Silmarillion hint at the lights as Tolkien saw them, the truths and fancies that drove him in his sub-creative fervor. He seemed more to be chasing fairy lights than moral absolutes. In a strange way, it seems to point to the path as being never-ending, perhaps not the back and forth of davem's Key of the Kingdom, or a convergence toward a single truth, but perhaps a path with a transcendant ending, or no ending, the Straight Path which none can pinpoint unless it be shown to them in a moment of revelation. The confusions and "splintering" of the modern world is something that is gladly thrown off by many who read Tolkien's tales, and indeed, as Aiwendil pointed out, it would be confusing to take a modern world view into this second reality and apply comparisons; one could not enjoy the tale for all the interference.
That is an interesting way to describe it, Lalwende. Perhaps close to the applicability with age and experience idea you mentioned earlier with your new understanding of Frodo's suffering after your own accident. In a way, this applicability gives us a glimpse into the "other world," not only Middle Earth, but perhaps beyond, to Faerie, the source of it all, the light behind all things. In this way, Tolkien's Arda is a true reflection of a greater world than this one, one that can be communicated through text, but which become richer once applied to the reader and perhaps correlated to the author as well. (I think this concept is one reason autobiographies are so popular.)

Well, it is late, and I got myself in over my head by daring to post again in this thread...it is all HI's fault, really! ;)

Cheers!
Lyta

i thought this little haiku would fit quite well in here
 

I wonder how many of you are going to slap their foreheads to see this topic bumped to the top again...this mental image alone was worth this post :D

Bwa hahahahahaha haaaaaaaaaaaaa

Another fly caught in my sinister web of dark peril. Another fresh and innocent soul to be taken and corrupted by the shadowy thread into which many have ventured, and from which none have returned unchanged. . .or unscathed. . .

And again I say:

Bwa hahahahahaha haaaaaaaaaaaaa

Postscript: Whaddya mean his "dreams" anyway -- don't you know that the legendarium is historical/canonical and thus verifiably and objectifiably True? Unless of course it isn't. . . Or maybe, then again, it could be, but not in and of itself, but in the performance of the reader's interpretative act. . .but then what is this reader person anyway, and who is she/he to constitute something as true. . .if she/he is constituting it as true. . .I mean, how can we even do that when we don't know what belongs in the legendarium. . .sure the books published in Tolkien's lifetime belong. . .oh, and the Sil. . .but not fan-fiction. . .well, maybe fan-fiction. . .and that Sil, now that I think of it, has all kinds of problems, perhaps there's another more authoritative text out there being built. . .but surely it can't be more authoritative than the HoME. . .if you believe in that sort of thing. . .which I don't. . .I don't think. . .I guess. . .

This message is brought to you by the Reduced Canonicity Thread Company c/o Hedgethistle, Prof. F, CyD*
_______________________________
*Doctor of Canonicity

Well, Fordim, after that wonderfully succinct summary, what more could anyone possibly have to say on this subject? (Knowing the kind of discussion this has been, lots and lots, I'm afraid... :rolleyes: *sigh*)

Has anyone got the new 50th Anniversary LotR yet - it was supposed to be published last Monday. I'm really intrigued as to whether CRRT has put in the changes he says should have been made in the text. He has supervised the new edition. I know I've speculated on this before, but what if he has - would the new edition - with, say, the extra verses of Bilbo's song of Earendel - be 'canonicl', would it have an equal or lesser place alongside the editions published in Tolkien's lifetime?
Anyway, I have the volume on order, so I'll comment more when I see it.

I’ve just got my hands on this new (limited) edition (A ‘standard’ edition of this revision is out in December). Now, I haven’t checked every page, so I can’t go into depth here. Two things I have checked & can confirm. The Earendelinwe (Bilbo’s song of Earendel) is unchanged, & doesn’t include the final changes - the references to the Feanorians attack on the Havens of Sirion, but the change to Aragorn’s words in reference to Pippin being ‘smaller than the other’ has been amended to ‘smaller than the others.

Now, is this change as ‘trivial’ as it seems? Aragorn’s whole attitude to the Hobbits is changed by this addition of one letter. CT notes (Treason of Isengard p404) :

So, for fifty years readers have understood Aragorn to have spoken of Pippin (& by extension all the hobbits) in a ‘remote tone’. Now we have an new, authorised, edition with three or four hundred emendations - all authorised by CT (admittedly the greatest living expert on his father’s writings) but none authorised by Tolkien himself.

Question is, should we accept this new edition as ‘canonical’? Which version of the text should have priority - the new revision or the current ‘standard’ one?

There are also a couple of new family trees - Bolger of Budgeford & Boffin of the Yale - are they equally ‘canonical’ with the ones for Baggins, Took, Brandybuck & Gamgee in the standard edition?

Finally, is there anyone out there who will refuse to accept these changes, who wont ever accept that Aragorn didn’t use a ‘remote tone’ in referring to the Hobbits? Is this edition, & the thinking behind it, valid?

Various musings
 

Those are difficult questions to answer. Anyone who has read the rather complicated editorial history in the HarperCollins edition will realise that there were many publisher's errors to amend; but I am deeply suspicious of the correction of 'mistakes' that were apparently present in the author's original text. Far better, I think to assume that the inveterate tinkerer who wrote the book had done all the tinkering that he considered necessary before sending off his typescripts. After all, he had nearly twenty years to correct himself if he was unhappy with what he had printed.

Thus far I have avoided this thread, largely because I am so deeply unqualified to talk about literary theory and the philosophy of reading. Indeed I would have continued to leave well alone were it not for a discovery that may serve further to cloud these already murky waters. Anyone who reads my posts will know that I am no stranger to the conclusive Tolkien quotation, so it seems rather apt that in one of the disputedly 'canonical' sources I managed to find one that allows the reader a certain latitude.

Of course some will be saying that this is unpublished, and that in any case the auctorial ogre has long since been laid low by the knights of criticism. To the latter I have no answer, other than that a text clearly is composed by someone, and that presumably that someone had at least an inkling of what they were trying to achieve. To the former I can reply that nobody would make such a statement unless he intended that someone else should read it. I would also say to both that my paradoxical use of the quotation above renders it equally useless to each side of the debate.

All of which is but to duck the issue through flippant obfuscation. My own views on Tolkien are every bit as complicated as the preceding comments would indicate. On the one hand he is an author of twentieth-century fiction, and therefore quite open to criticism under the normal rules. Therefore if the text supports the argument when cited in context then the argument stands. On the other hand, I would be the first to wheel out the Professor if someone asked me a question about the history of the Third Age or started saying that Hobbits can go to Aman and live forever. I am also not a subscriber to the 'death of the author' approach to texts. The composer has as much of a place in literature as does the reader, and to remove him from the equation looks suspiciously like an attempt to give the reader, or rather the literary critic, the sole significance in the process. I do not believe that an author's later comments are always correct, or even always consistent with the text, but even an anonymous author is still there, with all his influences and sources, opinions and beliefs. Texts do not write themselves.

Not that Anglo-Saxonists, and that would include the particular scholar under consideration, are any strangers to dead authors. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the early-medieval literary community were a long way ahead of Barthes in their approach to dissemination, and the effects of this are well known. In a fairly recent article, John D. Niles wrote:

My point would be that a writer in whose field most of the authors are anonymous, a large body of the works untitled and the date of composition often doubtful; a writer who himself acknowledges the importance of the reader's perception in the process, might well agree that he is not the owner of his work. 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. Perhaps what is required in the issue of 'canonicity' is the exercise of our own judgement and common sense. No quotation from Tolkien will ever supply that, and nor will our freedom of interpretation. Somewhere between the two is a medium in which both are important, which is pleasingly similar to the position of the text. It stands poised between the author and the reader, so clearly something is required from both in order for the circuit to be completed. I simply do not understand why one should have to be the master, as though one were to ask whether the ability to speak or the ability to understand were more important in conversation. Having said that, where there is uncertainty I prefer to have the author's opinion rather than just my own guesswork; and I would rather have the opinion of an expert, whatever the issue, than rely on my own. This subject is no exception.

A very interesting point Squatter but I've seen that argument about A-S critics and the anonymous/dead author before, and I must say that I'm suspicious of it. When Barthes declared the author dead he was not, of course, claiming that there is no author, but that from the point of view of the reader the Author (as the locus of meaning) is entirely inaccessible and irrelevant. He completes his argument, remember, with the famous phrase that "the author has always been dead".

In the A-S criticism I've seen (and here I am wandering off my ground...) there is a great deal of emphasis placed on the idea of the author, even though the texts are anonymous. "The Beowulf poet" is as compelling and interesting a presence behind that text (in the minds of the critics) as Tolkien is in the mind of many of his readers -- just because these critics don't know the name and occupation of the writer does not mean that they aren't interested in him (and I'm assuming it's a him). Consistent attention to the absence of the writer -- like the article you cite -- is simply another form of authorial-centric reading; the fact of the author's inscrutibility becomes just another way of focusing the reader's desire toward the author once more.

Please note that I am not claiming that Barthes is right and that all A-S critics are dupes to think that they 'got there first' -- I do tend to give Barthes argument a lot of credit, but only when I remember the whole argument (that the text comes alive and gains meaning within a social/political/interpersonal context that far surpasses the limits of any one individuality) rather than the media-friendly soundbite that is too often given to undergrads and to/by credulous reporters ("the author is dead!"). I am only trying to explain why I think that it might be a bit off the mark to claim that Tolkien's own view might have been in line with more contemporary theory.

That having been said, I could not agree more with your lovely summation of the reading/meaning experience. Like you I have always seen it as the site of negotiation between text and reader, with the opinions and 'intent' of the first reader (the author) as a useful perspective that we can use, or not, in broadening and adding subtlty to our own understanding.

davem 103
The Saucepan Man 70
mark12_30 54
Bêthberry 48
Fordim Hedgethistle 43
Aiwendil 38
HerenIstarion 38
Child of the 7th Age 18
Mister Underhill 14
Lord of Angmar 11
bilbo_baggins 10
Lyta_Underhill 8
Maédhros 6
drigel 6
Novnarwen 6
Lalwendë 6
Findegil 4
doug*platypus 3
THE Ka 3
eLRic 3
Sharkû 2
Son of Númenor 2
The Squatter of Amon Rûdh 1
Estelyn Telcontar 1
piosenniel 1
Evisse the Blue 1
InklingElf 1
Snowdog 1
Imladris 1
Saraphim 1
symestreem 1
tar-ancalime 1

These are statistics

And here is the summation:

Should we allow more changes in the statistics as given above (with regards to the titular 'Book or the Reader' issue?

Before the thread is closed and ensconced in Rath Dinen, I shall slip in (at least) one more post. Squatter and Mister Underhill have clarified a few things for me, and here be the results.

On the writer of the story:

(The debate whether that particular 'Writer' is 'dead' is an entirely different one, but one can easily surmise Tolkien's position in said debate.)

I believe the first quote above sheds light on the following statements:

What is this truth that Tolkien is expecting? Is it simply the story line, or does it have other aspects?

TO me, this letter smacks of excess modesty-- or perhaps it is better described as humility, intentionally stepping back and releasing control in order to allow for something else:

*(Tolkien’s capitalization, not mine.)

Tolkien describes this process as a triple interaction: the human writer writes the story; the reader reads the story, and perceives through the story a glimpse of the Truth (of which Truth Tolkien does not claim himself to be the author.) Therefore in this process there are three parties involved, not two.

He gives further clarification here in letter 328. The reader, the writer, and the source of illumination are related thus:

Ah, but HI, the fact that the statement is one with which you agree does not mean that it provides the answer for all of us. :p ;)

I will continue to influence the statistics, if I may:

I simply do not get this analogy between the act of reading and a conversation. Reading is most unlike a conversation, because the reader is not free to ask the author whatever questions may come to mind and the development (as opposed to meaning) of the story is not dependent upon the reader's responses. The reader can only rely on that which the author has supplied.

Of course the act of reading requires input from both the author and the reader. But they both play very different roles (unlike participants in a conversation). The author provides the material for the reader to inrepret, and the reader has no influence on that material, but it is the reader who interprets. And, to my mind, it is in the act of interpretation that meaning may be found. 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 wouldn't say that neither reader nor author are the master, but rather that both are masters in different ways. The author has complete control over the material supplied to the reader. But the reader has complete control over how he or she interprets that material and therefore, ultimately, what the story means to him or her.

I disagree. The debate whether the 'Writer' is dead (or indeed ever existed) is very relevant to your proposition that there are three parties involved in the act of reading, rather than two. After all, if the 'Writer' does not exist as far a particular reader is concerned, then the 'Writer' will have no place in that reader's interpretation (save to the extent that reader acknowledges the author's belief in said 'Writer').

He or she does, but if he or she knows what the author intended & chooses to ignore that in favour of the meaning they find there they are stepping out of the secondary world created by the author & into their own. In other words they are ignoring what the author is saying.

This is fine - as long as they don't go on from there & claim that the meaning they find in the text is the author's. If that reader says 'I know what the author meant but I don't like it & choose the text to mean something else.' I have no problem as such - I just don't think their choice is that relevant in a discussion of the text which seeks to understand what the author intended. or in any attempt to understand what the story means.

This may not be the author's intention at all, as it assumes that the author is offering a random collection of statements for the reader to give meaning to. It may well be that in the author's mind he has already done the interpreting himself & is atually passing on, as best he can, that interpretation. In that case, if the reader goes on to interpret the text he is actually interpreting an interpretation, and placing himself at a further remove from the 'facts'. In other words, the author is not simply offering the reader a collection of words & images to do with as he will, but is showing what he has done with those words & images he himself has 'recieved'.

The reader must, in the first instance, attempt to experience the story as it is & be affected by it in as pure a form as possible, then, if he chooses, make a jugdement on it, interpret it, in the context of his own experience - though this experience may be deeply affected by what he has just read.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Ah, therein lies the rub. ;)

Authorial intention is not the decisive factor in determining the meaning of a story, but merely the starting point upon which the reader bases his or her individual interpretation. If you want to find some kind of objective meaning outside of individual interpretation then you have to try to look for some kind of consensus between individual readers. Generally, the consensus will be in line with authorial intent, because most readers will exercise the judgment and common sense that Squatter talked of, and will be naturally inclined to take on board authorial intent (to the extent that they are aware of it).

No, not a random collection of statements, but an ordered one which allows the reader (if he or she is so inclined) to apply a sensible interpretation (assuming that it is not the author's intention simply to write a load of gibberish ;) ).

It may be so; see Letter 328.

It's a bird!.. it's a plane!... it's dead author down my lane...
 

That's why I asks, or even begs, not states.

I was well aware this was coming, ever since that Canonicity Slapdown 2005 appeared, my previous was a feeble attempt to keep the low profile. In fact, I'm mildly surprised it took so long for this here mind-trap to emerge to the surface again. I feel I'm being sucked back in... Well, if you are prepared to go 13 pages of this all over again, so be it. I'm ready, bring them on! (but maybe better tomorrow, not just now)

Should we step up our desks, seeing as the discussion turns to dead poets somehow?

Just a minor bone-picking before I fall asleep from my chair:

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?

But that's me being merely peevish, I'll see what the lot of you talk yourself into by morn tomorrow :D

Hoping to get as much fun out of this later as possible, since there seems no inclination of not tickling sleeping dragons, I say my compliments and withdraw for now...

cheers

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?

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'. ;)

My, how could I forget ...
 

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

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.

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.

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.

Personally, I relish the company of neither. :eek: ;)

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: 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.

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...

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.

Just for fun:

Help! I feel purposively dominated by the power of the author! :p ;)