It is with no little sense of foreboding that I resurrect this thread!
This is not something I do lightly, but the discussion in the latest Chapter by Chapter posts has been leading me to think that it might be time to revisit some of the issues that were raised so intelligently (and passionately) in this thread last spring.
In particular, one of the trickiest bones of contention was centred upon the idea of authorial intention. Specifically, we were asking if the meaning of the text was to be ‘found’ in reference to the writer (what Tolkien ‘wanted’ us to get out of the text; what he put in it) or the reader (what we get ‘out’ of the text). There has been quite a bit of fascinating discussion in the CbC that centres upon the connotations and possibilities of the names that Tolkien created and from which his story flowed. Now, this raises an interesting issue for those of us (like myself) who lean toward the reader as the source of meaning, since we are not the ones who gave the characters and places their names – Tolkien was. It was the author who named Frodo (OG
frodá ‘wise by experience’ ), Sam (OE
hamfast ‘half-wise’ ) and – my current favourite –
the Brandywine River. My ‘job’ as a reader is to come along afterward and piece together the wonderful etymological clues that Tolkien has left in these names; I follow the trace of his meaning. But, again, am I bound by that meaning? Just because Frodo’s name means “wise by experience” in Old German, do I
have to interpret his journey as a growth into wisdom? And what model of wisdom is entailed by this? Do I also have to make reference to the ‘wisdom’ of the ancient Germanic peoples, or is there some other model of wisdom I can turn to? Perhaps a kind or mode of wisdom that is contained only or entirely within the bounds of Middle-Earth, with not much reference at all to Primary World formulations of wisdom.
There’s another implication to the complex and rich names that Tolkien gives us. In reference to Smaug, Tolkien wrote that it was “a low philological joke” (OG
smugan ‘to squeeze through a small hole’, past tense
smaug). Are all the names then merely language games that he played for his own amusement that we can safely pass over without our full attention? I don’t think so, but then doesn’t that imply that one has to be a philologist of Tolkien’s own stature (and that’s a tall order!) to fully understand or appreciate the text?
And on the other hand, I
do have a role in the creation of meaning still, don’t I? Insofar as I have to do a lot of work and meaning-creation in first working out what the names mean and then working out their application (dare I say “applicability” ) to the book? This begins to look like what Tolkien described as “recovery” however, insofar as I am making reference to a meaning that is pre-given and not one that I get to have any part in.
And finally (I promise) this casts an interesting light on the idea of magic and enchantment that was so much a part of this thread. The names that Tolkien created are literally ‘spells’ – they are actually little stories that tell us everything we need to know about the places and people they denote (aren’t they?). They are a kind of language that exists ‘beyond’ the ordinary insofar as they are truly and magically creative: Frodo is not just a name to identify one hobbit from another, but an incantation that brings a character’s very nature into being. (“And then Tolkien said, ‘Let there be
frodá,’ and he saw that it was good.” )
Trapped between hope that this does not fall flat on its face, and trepidation of what happened the last time…