[The Saucepan Man]

Thank-you davem, Bêthberry and Fordim for taking up the gauntlet.

Bêthberry

In transference, the truth of the events or the unconscious is not revealed by the therapist telling the patient what the patient's dreams mean. The truth is more properly understood to arise from the performative act, from how the therapist becomes involved in the relationships which the dreams present, from how the patient displaces feelings from past events onto the therapist. That is, we can ask ourselves how a particular reading of a text or dream--our search for meaning and origins--in fact re-enacts a primordial quest, like the Oedipal drama or the myth of Narcissus. Seen in this light, our own interpretations repeat archetypal narratives and relationships.

If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I do not), this approach places the reader in the position of both the patient who experiences the dream and the analyst who interprets it. The patient is that aspect of the reader that reads the text, while the analyst is that aspect of him that seeks to interpret his reactions to it. But, by suggesting that the "truth" arises from the process of analysis, doesn't this approach suggest that the value of reading is in analysing one's reactions to it (whether consciously or subconsciously), whereas I would consider the greater value to lie in the reactions themselves (which will, almost inevitably, arise at the subconscious level)? What I am wondering is whether our instinctive reactions to the archetypal elements in Tolkien's works might be the same on some level, in consequence of our collective subconscious (thanks Bêthberry ), so that there is, in a sense, a "correct" (or perhaps a better word would be "universal") way of responding to these works.

However, I don't think that Jung's ideas about the psyche would result in one interpretation valorised over others. After all, he himself posited a psyche comprised of persona, shadow, anima (the female aspects of the male) or animus (the male aspects of the female) These interact in different ways, which for Jung became Psychological Types based on dichotomies of intuition, introversion, etc.

But, since Jung's archetypes are just that - archetypal figures - is it not axiomatic that we will all respond in the same way to them at some (perhaps very deep and primordial) level?

Fordim

The example of the spider is fortuitous, for it helps demonstrate how the spider is not an archetype at all – at least, not in the sense that we “all” react to spiders the same way.

Yes, I was aware of that when I first raised this issue. Nevertheless, it was my own reaction to the spider which prompted these thoughts. Certainly, I think that there is a "shared experience" of spiders in some (only western?) cultures (I suspect that even the most experienced western arachnologist would feel this fear and/or revulsion at some level, even though it is mastered and superseded by their interest in the creatures). And so spiders are generally portrayed within the folklore of such cultures as "evil" creatures. And this is true of the other creatures that Tolkien places on the side of evil: bats, wolves and crows. Whereas eagles and bears, for example, find themselves on the side of "good". Is this because these animals have traditionally been aligned in this way in western mythology? And does this mean that this alignment will resonate most particularly with those who come from cultures where these myths might be said to form part of (or perhaps it is better to say derive from) the collective cultural subconscious? Might this be why Tolkien's works would seem to be particularly popular amongst those cultures with a strong Anglo-Saxon heritage? (And before I get any apples or other projectiles thrown at me, I am most definately not saying that LotR can only be truly understood by people from such cultures.)

And, if one believes Jung, is it not the case that his archetypes can be identified in the myths and legends of all cultures? As I understand it, the "hero myth" is a concept which turns up time and time again across all cultures. What I am struggling to understand is whether the consequence of this is that we all respond to the archetypes in Tolkien's works in the same way on a very basic level? Of course, our different personalities and cultural traditions will still leave a lot of room for differing reactions and interpretations at higher levels. But might this shared reaction at the most basic level account for the "enchantment" which davem eloquently describes?

As I have already said, this is not my area at all, and I am simply throwing up ideas relevant to this topic for possible discussion.

Mr Underhill

I agree with you and share your reluctance to accept that reading will inevitably involve a struggle between one's own interpretation and the author's perceived interpretation. I was thinking along the same lines when I posted:

Gosh! That makes it all sound like a terribly arduous (Arda-uous?) process. Whereas it is, in my experience, a most enjoyable one. Most readers choose the manner of interpretation that they are comfortable with, and this almost invariably occurs entirely at the subconscious level. It is not so much a "struggle" as a natural process. And when we try to analyse why we react to a text in the way that we do and, in so doing, perhaps perceive a struggle, do we not risk losing davem's "enchantment"?

I just don't see it as a struggle at all. I see it as a natural process. As you say, there will be certain broad interpretations that will be common to all, or at least the majority of, readers (does this hark back to archetypes or is it simply a matter of accepting that which is implicit in the text, such as Fordim's "Eruism"?). And there will be other interpretations which are peculiar to the reader, either because they are that those which he perceives the author as having intended, or because they are truly his own. But I don't think that there is any struggle between these differing responses. They are all present within Fordim's composite reader, and they occur naturally, without the reader having necessarily to think very much about it.