TORE, the discussion between you and I can be boild down to our different definition of the word “meaning” in the question: “What is the meaning of LotR? I define “meaning” as the meaning of the story to the individual reader, as influenced by what the author meant to convey. You define it as what the author meant by the story, as supplemented by the reader’s imagination.
I do not deny that the author “meant” something by the story, although I would argue that it is impossible to ever settle on an accurate and complete picture of what that might be, and I am not sure that Tolkien himself would bhave been ablke to do so either (hence my debate with Raynor over the Letters). You do not deny (it would appear) that the story can have different meanings to different individual readers.
The essence of our difference is that, when we consider whether there is one single, objective meaning to LotR, your position is that there is and that it is the meaning that the author intended to convey, while my position is that there is no single, objective meaning. The book can, as far as any individual reader is concerned, only carry the meaning that that reader attributes to it.
And to pick up the assertion that I am disregarding the author’s intent, as supplemented by the point which Boromir88 makes, I am doing no such thing. Of course individual meaning does not disregard the author. The author selects words, imagery, symbolism specifically to convey a particular meaning. In most cases (such as in the “factual” events depicted, certain elements of the descriptions give etc) we will all pick up on that intended meaning and incoporate it as part of our own meaning. Hence there will be broad, if not unanimous, consensus on many points. A skilfull author, such as Tolkien, may be able to convey much more of his intended meaning to a greater number of readers.
My point is that each individual reader will still find his or her own “meaning” within LotR. That’s fine by me and I am more than happy to listen to, and discuss, the opinions of others. Where a strong case is put forward for a particular “meaning” , for example on the basis of the text itself and/or extraneous material indicating authorial intention, I am generally quite happy to absorb it within my own understanding of the book, provided that it does not conflict with my own individual intepretation or even, occasionally, if it does - if it makes more sense within the context of my overall understanding of the book.
Where I draw the line is the insistence that I should accept as “fact” the individual understaning of others, or even of the author, where it does not, and will not, fit with my own understanding of the book.
I should probably concede the “Frodo issue”. I had thought that there was a definitive statement by Tolkien that Frodo had failed. I may be wrong. I do not have the Letters to hand. It does not alter the fact that there are statements made by Tolkien, published since I first read the book, which do not accord with my understanding of the book and which I do not feel bound to accept. The example that I usually give is the assertion that, under a certain set of circumstances, Gollum would willingly have sacrificed himself and the Ring by throwing himself into Mount Doom with it. I do not accept (within the context of my understanding of the character) that he would ever have done so under any circumstances.
That sets out my position. I do not expect everyone to agree with it. But it is pretty much immutable, as far as I am concerned.
So why is that relevant to the topic at hand?
If someone is to assert that Gandalf is a Christ figure, Sauron is a Lucifer figure or Saruman is a Judas figure or that the Secret Fire equates with the Holy Ghost, or whatever, then that may well be very interesting as an academic discussion point. But it is an individual interpretation, and not one which I feel obligation (morally, academically or otherwise) to accept. Even had Tolkien himself stated that it was his intention that these parallels be drawn by his readers, I would not accept them. They are not necessary to my understanding and appreciation of the story.
And what really draws me from my slumber and perks my interest, such that I feel the need to set out on the dangerous course of articulating my position (as above) once more, is when I am (expressly or implicitly) told that I must accept LotR as a fundamentally religious and Catholic story simply because Tolkien himself was a Catholic and because he said that it was his intention (unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision) that it be so.
Hence, when it is said that the story undeniably reflects a fundamental and universal “Truth”, I object. I feel perfectly entitled to challenge that, at least until some adequate explanation of what this “truth-with-a-capital-T” is. If it is said to be the essence of the “one true (Christian) myth” or the existence of God or whatever, then I cannot accept that either as I do not accept that the Chrisitian myth, as set out in the Bible for example, is true or that God (at least in the sense depicted within Christianity and, indeed, most major religions) exists.
If you want to believe that, as part of your understanding of LotR, I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem when I am told that this “Truth” (whatever it may be) is undeniable and that, if I do not accept it as part of my understanding of the “meaning” of LotR, then I have an inferior appreciation of the book to those who do or that I am otherwise somehow “wrong” in my reaction to it.
Finally, on the side-issue of Orcs (and in response to Raynor), I would suggest that it is a basic premise of the book that it is “right” to treat Orcs without kindness or mercy (contrast the treatment, for example, of the Haradrim and Dunlendings). I have no problem with that, as a feature of the fictional fantasy world. But I do object to any parallel being drawn (as Tolkien did) between Orcs, portrayed as such, with trecutters and bikers.
PS If these points are not considered relevant to the ongoing debate, then feel free to ignore them and carry on. I will be happy of the opportunity not to have to keep repeating myself.
