[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I will assume, davem, that you have taken this position as a rhetorical or logical strategy, to attempt to redefine the discussion rather than as a literal statement The first I consider a fair part of discussion; the second I consider unfair and disrespectful of the many who have given a great deal of thoughtful time and effort to this thread.

To be honest I was simply putting my own position as clearly & concisely as possible, & I can't see that anything I said implied lack of respect for you or anyone else. Its just I find the alternative position too close to 'deconstructionism' - which has always screamed Emperor's New Clothes!!! to me. Simply, I hold to the position that we are obliged, in so far as that is possible to give prime importance & weight to the author's views. I see the art as a manifestation of the artist's will & desire, & as his or her attempt to communicate an experience of the trancendent. As far as Middle earth is concerned the author is 'God'.

Maybe I can put it this way: When I listen to and speak with the people around me, I am invariably involved not just in decoding idiolects (mine and theirs) but the entire range and variety of dialects which make up the English language and the social culture of my time. It gets a little crowded at times, but to suggest that there is just one valorising or validating voice, the person I am speak with, limits the nature of language. When we speak with others, there is always this blancing or negotiating of one out of many, of listening to the unique voice out of the plurality that makes up language.

But surely the other person's 'voice' is the only thing worth concentrating on in the conversation, as its the only new thing, the only unknown, so the only thing worth paying attention to - all the other things you mention may be present, but they are obstacles, & should be (as far as possible) transcended, & only accepted as impediments to communication.

For me at least, I would regard this position as denying the value and integrity of the Art; it says that peripheral and extraneous statements must take precedence to the Art/Text, which somehow fails to identify itself adequately and must be explained.

No, it says that in the case of Tolkien in particular the art is the artist, & vice versa.

In short, must I leave behind other Art/ Texts in order to listen to your god-like Author?

As far as humanly possible, I'd say.

Are you suggesting that SpM, Aiwendil, Fordim and I are reading solipsistically and self-centredly?

I'm suggesting we all are (myself included), & that that's a bad thing, & gets in the way of our understanding what an artist has to say to us.