Just a little something to stir the pot...
I'm not arguing against the 'experience of the reader', but something which makes me not want to side wholly with it is that the reader can quite easily misinterpret the text. If meaning is wholly with the reader then presumably the reader can say/do exactly what he or she likes and then say "I read it in a book" - if someone else points out that said book did actually support their opinion/action then that reader can logically counter by saying "well that's
my experience".
Of course, this doesn't really matter all that much when it comes to discussing Tolkien beyond the possibility that it might give a few 'Downers increased blood pressure, but it can matter a lot. What if someone interprets their particular sacred text to mean that they ought to carry out a destructive act? Clearly it does matter in that case. So, why is it OK to do this with LotR but not with a sacred text? Are there limits? Or would it be equally as acceptable to do this where there may be bloody consequences?
I do think that it is important that different interpretations are allowed to exist for any text. In the case of Christianity I much prefer that there are many and varied ways of interpreting that text as we all experience
life in different ways and this also stirs debate. But it cannot be denied that they do cause conflict.
I
am stirring it a bit, yes...
