Quote:
|
Are you suggesting that LotR, like many books, in fact creates its own kind of reader, who happens to have certain qualities which fall in the mainstream?
|
I deal with the last question first, since it has the shorter answer. I personally think that it's the other way around -- that certain types of readers gravitate towards works like LOTR -- people like myself (though certainly not confined thereto), who have not yet had all sense of awe and wonder quite beaten out of them by the world and it's drudgeries and injustices. Who can feed their imaginations on words of beautiful possibility and suspend that rationality which monotones on about how incredible and impractical such concepts might be. Like C.S. Lewis's Puddleglum, I will live like a Narnian, even if there is no Narnia. I will maintain Gondorian ideals of honor, of justice tempered with mercy, and of doing what's
right, even if the world should laugh in derision. I will ever strive to conform to the objective Standard. And one day I know I will find my Narnia, my Gondor, beyond the walls of the world.
<Geez, what a sappy tirade. I take this stuff way too seriously.>
Going back to your first question, I am not at all saying that extreme interpretations should be rejected simply on the basis of being outside the mainstream -- on the contrary, as in any discipline, it is precisely in the examination of a thousand seemingly absurd propositions that one finds the one idea that holds merit and perhaps forms the basis for chaging the worldview, and perhaps the world as well. You must smelt tons of ore to isolate the few ounces of gold therein, but only in the hard work of excavating, heating, and casting off the dross does one find that which is valuable. You probably have to research and sort through a similar weight of scientific reasearch before coming up with a valid theory or useful construct. Why should literature be any different?
In the categories which I cited there are those who (1) don't think LOTR is worth the time, (2) are clinically insane, and (3) find the same meaning in every work from kindergarden reading primers to epic fiction to cookbooks. The people who fall into category (1) are moot to the poll and this thread, since the fact that we are discussing LOTR means that we think it worthy of examination. The question of the literary worthiness of LOTR is certainly a topic worth thorough treatment, but for those of us here, I believe it is a settled question. And even if we were to open that can of verbal worms, it would merit a separate thread.
The people in categories (2) and (3) are kindred, in that their views of LOTR are not viewed through the lens of reality -- the difference between them being that the mental impairment of those in category (2) is not of their own making. Category (3) people (white supremecists, race-baiters, and conspiracy-theorists), like the stubborn dwarves in the closing scenes of C.S. Lewis's
The Last Battle, have willfully shut their eyes to everything but their own unreal viewpoint, seeing only darkness in the strong sunlight, smelling only stable dung where beautiful flowers grew, and tasting only manger-fodder when presented with a kingly feast. There are truly none so blind as those who will not see.
That being said there remains a remarkablly wide variety of opinion to be considered (and often rejected) in coming to conclusions. As an example, I once had a long conversation with someone a few years ago who maintained that Melkor was actually the "good guy" in the Silmarillion, since he actually paid attention to the created world (albeit in a cruel and possessive fashion) while the rest of the Valar took the age off to play golf somewhere. To me it was certainly, on the face of it, a bizarre point, making me wonder what mental machinations would lead someone to this conclusion, but I have to admit that she had some arguments that, of themselves, seemed persuasive. But then some people believe that it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven. It was certainly worthy of consideration, and it was only the difference in our worldviews (mine having a clear idea of "good" versus "evil", and hers being extremely relative on such matters) that caused us to differ. If you approach it from Authorial Intent, I believe mine was closer to Tolkien's view, though even that is debatable. If you approach it from reader experience, her view was at least as valid as mine. If you take the route of mainstream-ness or consensus, then my view would win. But which is "correct"?
Thus the question I asked previously still remains, from what frame of reference are we seeking discussing the meaning of LOTR? Are we (meaning those who read and post in the canonicity threads) looking for the meaning to individuals? Are we seeking a definitional consensus such that that which lies within the proscribed canonical circle is somehow "mainstream" and that which lies without is "heresy"? Are we not really attempting to find rigid rules to describe the delicate relation between the composer of the world-tune and the steps we dance to it?
Or are we here, like Melkor, merely braying upon a few notes and trying to make our small opinion drown out the glorious whole, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"? <Thenamir raises his hand and hangs his head.>