Oh, this
is fun,
Mr. Underhill. Why, look at the number of views for threads on page 1 of The Books. This Canonicity thread, at the time of my writing, has 2339 views, compared to the next most viewed tread with 1247 views (Evil Things), 1099 (Those Little), 995 (Nebulous 'It'), and then 443 (Unnumbered Tears). It would appear that not only are we who are posting engaged in something of interest and pleasurable to us, but so must there be viewers who find this fun. Unless we are all masochists and madly rereading this thread over and over.
Edit: Actually, I never said the reader must engage in analysis of himself or his subconscious. What I did was offer a current model of reading in response to SpM's question about archetypes. The model of transference does not say that the reader must examine his response for the ways he battles the old archetypes: the model merely suggests that for all readers, at some level, their interpretation of the text will enact a kind of primal archetypal scene.
I would agree with
SpM that this effort to decode a text is not a struggle but part of the delight of reading. Also, I don't think I have ever stated that a reader's interpretation must be completely independent.
Where the difficulties of interpreting the intentions of a writer like Tolkien come into play lies with, in part, I think, the way he chose to tell his tale and in determining just what text it is which demonstrates his intention. For instance, he did indeed choose to make the LOTR more consciously conform with his Catholicism in the revising,
but--and this is a mighty big but--he also chose not to make that identification
explicit. For whatever reasons, he left us with a tale that is covert rather than overt. Why would he do this? I return to his words in the forward where he himself contrasted "the freedom of the reader" with "the purposed domination of the author." I can only conclude that for some sufficient reason Tolkien valued this model of reading.
And, of course, just what text do you refer in order to determine Tolkien's intentions? As this thread has shown, his intentions changed over time and he left conflicting drafts of many stories. His own intentions are in conflict, so is it any wonder that readers cannot agree on what his intentions were? Under what conditions is it possible to apply, say,
Unfinished Tales to understanding LOTR? Is Christopher Tolkien's way of handling his father's body of work the only way of discussing Tolkien?
Fordim, I would agree with you that to emphasise the archetypal quality over the exquisite details of Tolkien's individualising of the characters is reductive. That has been the problem it seems to me with the structuralist approach to narrative variants. It does not account for readers prefering one version over another. At some point we have to acknowledge and appreciate Tolkien's artistry--just what is it that has made us prefer his story over the archetypes of other fantasy writers?
SpM, my own question about this model of reading drawn from the transference of analysis has to do with its applicabilty.
The analytical model is derived from a context of illness (neurosis, psychosis, some kind of unhappiness or malajustment). The end result of therapy is to make the patient more aware of what causes his unhappiness so he can free himself from it (unless it is also to make the therapist richer). As Tolkien suggests, at least about fantasy, reading operates to satisfy primordial desires rather than eliminate them.
The point you raise about the experience or the analysis of experience is a classic conundrum. It was Aristotle I think who made some comment about the 'unexamined life' but I would rather say that reading provides any number and kind of pleasures and I would not want to impose any one pleasure by saying that kind is more valuable than any other. Had Tolkien, for instance, not examined his own responses to faërie (however he did it, subconsciously or consciously) we might not have had the pleasure of Middle-earth. Yet I will also agree with you that the prime value of art is its experience. That is, in fact, why I have been arguing against the necessary primacy of any one interpretation
As to "our instinctive reactions to the archetypal elements .. in consequence of our collective subconscious", as you put it, that would depend upon demonstrating that 'instinctive reactions" are all the same for all readers and, in fact, proving that we do have a collective subconscious. Current psychology (if not parental experience) tells us that teenage girls have very different responses to their mothers than teenage boys. (True variation also for different responses to fathers.) How does this historical/personal experience impinge upon any archetypal response? In short, the 'universal' application of archetypes falters on gender issues. But then, I'm no expert on Jung and I offerred the transference model as merely one way archetypes are now being discussed, since you had appealed for my help.