[Thenamir]

I was drawn to this thread by a link on the Downer's chat. I do apologize for coming very late to this discussion, but I have never been able to resist a good debate, and this is good both in content and participants. Whether my contribution will have any merit rests in the reader's interpretation. I am offering my opinion here, and in doing so I will inevitably refer directly or indirectly to many things already said. I sincerely apologize if I fail to recognize the inspiriational references by name, and am grateful for the thoughtful posts which have gone before.

I find the choices offered in the poll to be hopelessly confused. In the absence of the author's ability to come back from the dead, choices A and C, in my humble opinion, are the same. How else can you attempt to divine the supposedly sacrosanct Authorial Intent except by analysis of the texts he left behind? Unless you are exluding the body of extra-LOTR writings (Letters, etc.) and analyzing only the actual LOTR-proper, C and A are inextricably intertwined. Adding those writings back in merely increases the amount of text to analyze, and still C and A are identical. As for choice D, it is really a restatement of choice B -- in D, whether you care or not, the "I just think its cool" idea is the same as chalking up the significance of LOTR to the experience of the reader.

As to choice B, "the experience of the reader", I think there is much confusion arising in this thread as to the definition of the word "meaning" itself. Allow me to break down my thinking on this idea (as if you could stop me -- just get ready for a long-winded post):

If we are speaking of the definition of LOTR, that can rest only with the author. Tolkien is the one who conceived, defined, and published the works describing the world we know as Middle Earth. What he meant is what he wrote. I am a firm believer in the little-remembered tautology that "Words mean things" -- not just in the concrete but in the abstract. This holds doubly true for a most learned professor specializing in Languages and the derivations of words. Be assured that if the author had intended LOTR to be a Mein-Kampfian diatribe of his beliefs regarding the inferiority of non-Anglo races, he was possessed of the wit and vocabulary to make it quite obvious in the text. The fact that people twist insignificant passages into strange and (I believe) perverted shapes is a reflection of the reader's own twisted nature -- the same kind of nature that inspires some people to produce or to seek out web pages of Disney-oriented cartoon pornography. The one is not proof that the Tolkien was racist, any more than the other is proof that Disney was a satyr or pedophile. It bespeaks more of the character of the reader than of the author. More on that as we go along.

If we are discussing the purpose or intention of LOTR, then we are on slightly different ground. I remember reading somewhere (and I'm sure some sharp-eyed reader will remind me of where) that The Good Professor's main, or at least initial intention in writing LOTR was (I paraphrase) to see if it was possible for him to keep readers' interest with a story considerably longer than that of The Hobbit. This will be true of anyone who reads the story beginning to end -- with the possible exceptions of students made to read the story as an English assignment, and those with a masochistic bent. Therefore, the author's intention is adequately fulfilled in the vast majority of the readers. Secondarily, I believe it was noted by Tolkien in yet another reference which escapes me (Alzheimer's is a terrible thing) that he essentially created the corpus of Middle-Earthian history and literature as a place in which his invented languages could "live." -- his linguistic sandbox, if you will. Again, if we confine ourselves to Authorial Intent, LOTR is a rousing success in and of itself without any readers. (Indeed, the text is responsible for inspiring readers to not only enjoy the languages, but to carry them into the "real" world -- to learn to speak them, write them, and even to do such painstaking things as translate the Bible and other works into them. While the author made reference to the "deplorable cultus" that surrounded his magnum opus, he would no doubt be pleased that the languages he took such pains to invent were being so loved and used.)

Corollary to this is the concept of "meaning" as "an idea intended to be conveyed, a message intended or expressed or signified." I believe that attempts at post-mortem mind-reading are skirting the dangerous fringes of that which Tolkien so adamantly decried, allegory. Was it Tolkien's intention to do anything other than write an interesting story? Was there a central theme outside the story itself about which the author intended to influence the reader? It is my opinion that it was not, and I think I'm on fairly solid ground there. I propound, therefore, that the idea intended was merely that of entertainment in a genre of Tolkien's choosing and on subject matter which Tolkien preferred. To be fair, I have heard many differing opinions as to what probably or admittedly inspired and/or influenced Tolkien in certain aspects of LOTR, such as his experiences in World War I, the destruction of the English countryside, his distaste for advancing industry, etc. -- but one cannot charitably conclude from those supposed or admitted influences that it was Tolkien's intent in writing the story to influence readers that World War I was unnecessary, or that pastoral lands might not be put to other good uses, or that all industry is bad.

Finally, "meaning" can be used to indicate "importance", as in "His critique meant nothing to me." This is where we get into the realm of individual interpretation. If I may step back for a moment, I am a person easily moved by music -- all music, but especially the classical composers -- Handel, Beethoven, Mozart. I remember when I first read the opening pages of the Silmarillion, and how spellbound I was by the description of The Music and the creation of Ea -- drawn in and mesmerized to the point of the near-numinous by the building tension of the attempted interference of Melkor. I remember how moved I was by the flat declaration of finality made by Eru, that none could alter the music in his despite, that those who attempted to do so would find that they were the instruments of even greater things undreamt of by the initiator. (I also remember being rather disappointed by the rest of the Silmarillion in contrast to the beginning, but I digress.) The point I am trying to make here is that that particular passage, or rather the imagery created in my mind because of that passage was important to me, i.e. it had special meaning for me, but that it may not be similarly meaningful to most others. In that sense I agree with those foregoing who have noted that the individual and the author collaborate to create that sense of (to use the word-of-the-moment from the parallel thread) "enchantment". Though the "collaboration" takes place only in the mind of the reader, yet in most cases the words chosen by a competent author can hardly be mistaken by a person reading without a prejudgemental attitude. It would be strange indeed if a somewhat knowledgable someone interpreted the passage

"I see," said Aragorn, "that I have turned my eyes to a treasure no less dear than the treasure of Thingol that Beren once desired."

to mean that Aragorn cared nothing for Arwen and thought that she was less fair than a Balrog.

It is in this final sense that I believe that some amalgamation of choice B with the nearly-identical choices A and C is inevitable. An author without a reader is as meaningless as a reader without an author. Communication is a difficult thing, as Bethberry noted -- there is always something lost between conception and communication. As Henry Owens said,

"No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous."

With this in mind, perhaps we can all tread a bit more softly in questioning the meaning, not only of Tolkien's work, but of what we have said, and contniue to say, about it to each other.