[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I cannot remember exactly which critic developed (or popularised) the theory that the reader constructs meaning, but as it was relatively recent, it must be borne in mind that theories do change and maybe a better one will come along. So what I suppose I am trying to get at is that I would not settle for one theory of how we read. I have to say that I do like this theory, as I like theories which allow for many possible truths, yet the fact that we seem to all have our own ways of reading, and that there are many purposes for reading, suggests that other ideas must be given consideration too.

What we have to accept if we follow such an idea to the exclusion of others is that it does allow for interpretation which we may find at best silly and at worst offensive. If the reader does indeed construct meaning then taking the theory to its most extreme levels then we can say anything we like about a text as long as we can find lines that seem to back up our statements, despite maybe knowing that the author would have been abhorred by our interpretation.

As someone who likes to consider different angles to many things I do like the idea of being freely interpretive, but then I have to step back and consider that if I want to know what the author intended, then I must not rely on this one way of looking at a text, I must look in other ways.

This again leads on to how I read poetry. To enjoy the words without interpreting them, I mean that I listen to/read the way the words are grouped, the sounds and shapes they make, and the immediate meanings they conjour up. The joy in this is that when it comes to looking at that poem in depth, there is much more to be found; a word can be discovered to have another meaning, or the placing of a comma can make a big difference. But like a piece of artwork, poetry is best seen on the surface at first, before we look at what it is made from. If you have an artwork on your wall, you do not often look at it in depth, you simply enjoy it. This does not mean you cannot enjoy peering at where the brushstrokes are, but if you know more about how the brushstrokes have been placed than you do about the way the picture makes you feel when you look at it, then the purpose of the artwork is lost. If that makes sense?

I think much the same approach can be applied with films. I don't often watch "the making of..." documentaries as I can find they spoil the magic of a film. And taking this back to Tolkien, I think the ultimate enjoyment that can be had from the books is from simply enjoying the world he created The next best pleasure is in trying to find out more about it, what he intended by it all, and to find out what he meant, I have to suspend, to a certain extent, my own beliefs and try to understand what his may have been.

But this again, is another theory of reading, possibly veering towards biographical interpretation. I'm not hung up on it though, and I would suppose that this is what I am saying, that to choose one theory, one way of reading is perhaps what can spoil our reading (or more especially our potential to read in many ways and so possibly come to wonderfully surprising realisations) not the way chosen in itself.



As Gandalf did, I've got to apologise for the long ramble. I meant to be short and I was not...

Ah, we seem to have misunderstood each other, Lalwendë. I was referring to the activity of reading, as explained in linguistics, of how we make sense of the marks on the page by distinguishing the marks from the backgrounds, scanning and making predictions, referring them to known patterns in the language, to point out that there is no passive mere experience of language (at least in linguistics). Extrapolating from this is the reader's holding in his or her head the story already read and accruing to that the new information provided by the story.

As for 'reader response' literary theory, there is no one theory, no one model, no one critic, and in fact, no general agreement about what happens. In some form all regard the book as a text, that is, a form of language to which readers supply the codes or strategies as they experience it. There isn't even any general agreement on what the text is. For some, it exists only in the reader's head--they deny the objective existence of the text. The book they admit is objective, but the 'text', the place where the experience occurs, is not. This seems to be the way davem understands my perspective--or at least, how I see him interpreting my perspective. For others in the reader response camp, the psychological effect provides a tool for examining a culture's ideology. (This I think might be a fruitful avenue for more discussions here at the Downs.) For still others (and this is where I come from, to use a cliche) the act of reading is a linguistic event which is a social event, not a personal, solipsistic event, where the interaction between the words on the page and the reader's use of language creates a culture of meaning.

So, while davem and Lalwendë think that reader response means biographical interpretation, that is not the way I have struggled or attempted to explain my position. It's like the old conundrum: if a tree falls in the forest when no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise? It all depends on how one defines noise/text.

For me, the experience of the art is a linguistic act, and that involves making choices about the codes and strategies which comprise the English language. It is not limited to past experience, to psychological trauma/sublimation/transference/ but is part of how language works to create new experience, new understanding. Thus, it is not merely peering into a mirror to see one's self.

So I agree with littlemanpoet that the act of reading does not have to have psychological stimuli or phenomena at all. And so at this point I think I've reached the stage where I have to say, politely, that I must agree to disagree with certain members of this discussion.

As for the Court Proceedings, I think part of difficulty lies with the Defense's insistence that there has to be a rule or convention by which to proceed. My understanding is that the Prosecution is endeavouring to formulate a theory by which he can communicate or explain his experience of Tolkien's story-telling. Why should Tolkien's story-telling be limited by previous teller's? I don't think profiling provides an acceptable means here to determine the case.