davem post 333:
Quote:
|
I would say that a proper interpretation of Tolkien's work, a proper understanding of what he was attempting to achieve, requires us to take into account the metaphysical dimension as a fact. If we don't, then the interpretation we end up with will be missing something that I, H-I, Helen, Child & others feel is of central importance, so it won't work for us. I suspect, though, if it did contain the metaphysical dimension we require for it to work, you would find it unsatisfactory. So, as you say, impasse.
|
So authorial intention is brought back to the fore in this way!
And it seems that what
Aiwendil might be saying is that this particular authorial intention may be co-opted the same as any other, from metaphysical to psychological. It is yet another
interpretive act of reading. Personally, I think the way Tolkien wrote many passages leaves such interpretations wide open, that Eru was implied, intentionally, but that He wasn't
forced upon the reader, just as the denizens of Middle Earth were not universally aware of Eru's existence or, if so, what part He played.
The closest we come to explicit naming of Eru in LOTR is Faramir's custom at meat in Henneth Annun, when he looks to the West:
Quote:
|
we look rowards Numenor that was, and beyond to Elvenhome that is, and to that which is beyond Elvenhome and will ever be.
|
This suggests, at least, an infinite and unseeable reality, at least from where Faramir is standing. Or, it could be read as a simple psychological ritualization of wondering "where the Sun goes" when it passes West each night, mysteries uncounted, unexplained and far away, the suggestion of their own smallness and the relative 'bigness' of the world (and beyond!). I'm sure there are other ways to read it and probably most of them are more erudite than those my own coffee-soaked brain comes up with. Tolkien suggests something beyond Elvenhome and only gives us a glimpse through a long held custom, thus, even in the sub-created reality, there is the remove of "it is said," rather than a direct revealed Truth. (The sayer, however, is linked back to the old and noble Numenorian race, thus giving his words the force of history in the eyes of one who listens to him). This, I think, gives the reader lots of freedom to interpret and does not necessitate the reader identify Eru explicitly, but Tolkien does place Him as a concept in Middle Earth, explicitly in other writings. So, Eru is
intended in a certain way, but not
forced through authorial heavy-handedness in the text of
The Lord of the Rings.
Personally, the reduction of transcendent and metaphysical concepts to psychological ones is frightening to me, threatening to pull ALL reality inside my own limited brain and reducing my worldview to sadly solipsistic in nature, but then, that's my own view, and perhaps that of some others in the world. Maybe that is why we argue against it, because we do not wish it to be. (I am no psychologist, but I would think proving something true or false in that realm to be tricky at best and the results to be statistically scattered, rather than absolute.)
The concept that one thing can be proven False because another is True does not ring 'true' with me (except in the very fine logical true/false way for simple tests against an arbitrary standard), and I think many interpretations can be made of Tolkien's work, even beyond what he intended in his initial writing of it, but the fact that they are
interpretations does not remove the truth from them, but merely removes them from authorial 'canon,' if you will and along that long string of communication towards the reader. I hope that made sense!
Cheers!
Lyta