Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mister Underhill
How annoyed do any of us here get when someone misunderstands -- or deliberately distorts -- the meaning and intention of one of our posts? And now I hear that the author's interpretation of his own post is only as valid as any other reader's?
. . . .
Can't we just take him [Tolkien] at his word?
|
Methinks you doth protest too much,
Mr. Underhill. You ought to know better than anyone here that sometimes people wilfully distort other people's posts and meanings, for a variety of reasons. It happens to me all the time. What is the recourse? Try to be more circumspect in writing posts originally, or to clarify the intent, or just to shrug it off as a funny thing that happened on the way to the forum?
Taking a writer "at his word" has many consequences. Sometimes writers deliberately try to obfuscate, because for a variety of very legitimate reasons they don't wish to provide an 'authoritative roadmap' to their work. Sometimes they legitimately forget or remember incorrectly (human memory being what it is). Sometimes they move further on with an idea and end up discussing the development, reading it back into the original intention. As
Aiwendil discussed on one of our threads--was it Canonicity or one of the Galadriel ones?--Tolkien actually has three characterisations of Galadriel, and deciding which one to make applicable to LotR actually creates three different interpretations of the Lady of Lothlorien. We know that Tolkien changed his conception of what he was doing as he aged--even Christopher Tolkien admits this and in some measure regrets it--so why must we automatically assume any statement to be definitive?
It is thus not 'disrespectful' to the author to apply his own statements to his work. It in fact often can result in greater understanding or appreciation of his work and his methods.
So, along with
SpM I agree that the important quality is the sincerity of the desire to understand. And a faith that the significant interpretations are those which will prove lasting. (Yet even here I have to remind myself that some histories have been lost because of the violence done to them.)
This said, however, it does not limit readers from being flippant or satirical or flatfooted or, in fact, even malicious. This kind of (mis)interpretation happens all the time no matter what critics or arbitrators or literary lawgivers might try to legislate or prescribe. Language is not a stable entity. What we can do to hold literary terrorists at bay is to describe the conditions for our interpretations rather than prescribe which meaning, without thought and consideration, is the solely acceptable one. That way, we make ourselves--and our beloved texts--less objects for attack or distortion.