The Lord of the Bible?

[Boromir88]

Just a little comment that may be a bit off track, but I promise I'll stay on topic.

As I read that passage about Frodo, it seems to me that Tolkien is saying the Frodo failed, but that his failure was negated or absolved by divine mercy.~SpM

I beg to differ, and agree with Raynor, the 'as conceived by simple minds,' is I feel a great importance. Tolkien acknowledges that the 'simple-minded' (which he didn't mean to insult anyone) may see Frodo as a failure, because he gave in, he chickened out, he 'ratted.' But, Tolkien never said he believed Frodo failed, but that the simple-minded may see Frodo as a failure. In fact he goes on to explain why he felt like Frodo succeeded.

So, here we have the classic example of the argument of the thread. Tolkien acknowledges that some people may see Frodo not fulfilling his quest as a failure, but he went out and explains as to why he felt like Frodo should not be labelled as a 'failure' and why he deserves all honour.

Which brings to the biggest question does authorial intent matter? And if so, exactly how much should it matter?

“The LotR exists, apart from what Tolkien said at one time or another it was supposed to mean. It was largely a product of the realm of fantasy in the unconscious: that was the ultimate source. Therefore, what Tolkien later consciously thought about it is interesting, but not authoritative as to the work’s meaning”~Norman Cantor

That's Cantor's take on it, but let's see what Tolkien talks about:

“I do not ‘know all the answers’. Much of my own book puzzles me; and in any case much of it was written so long ago (anything up to 20 years) that I read it now as if it were from a strange hand.’~Letter 211

I think that many confuse ’applicability’ with ’allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."~Interview with BBC Radio, 1971

Then on the other side:

"But if we speak of a Cauldron, we must not wholly forget the Cooks. There are many things in the Cauldron, but the Cooks do not dip in the ladle quite blindly. Their selection is important. The gods are after all gods, and it is a matter of some moment what stories are told of them"~Tolkien's essay on Faerie Stories.

It appears Tolkien is contradicting himself. He talks about his dislike of allegory (allegory is a 'domination of the author'), the 'freedom of applicability' that is with the readers, reading the book for enjoyment. Then at other times he tells us his intentions with his books, and I am intrigued by the parallel he draws with 'cooks.'

How about we view this quote:

'But if we speak of a Cauldron, we must not wholly forget the Cooks. There are many things in the Cauldron, but the Cooks do not dip in the ladle quite blindly. Their selection is important.

And alter it a bit to this:

'But if we speak of a book, we must not wholly forget the author. There are many things in the book, but the author does not write a story blindly. His/her selection is important.'

Puts an interesting spin on things? It seems like there is some conflict, we have the applicability of the reader vs. the intent of the author. But, I don't see a conflict, there is a delicate balance between the two.

I think Tolkien brings up a very interesting parallel, authors don't write, just to write. They don't write 'blindly.' One of the biggest fuels for authors is purpose. What is their purpose? They're writing for a reason, they're not writing for absolutely no purpose at all. So, the author shouldn't just be cast aside and say 'ahh forget the old coot, who cares about him, I will believe what I want.' Which, of course anyone can believe whatever they want, but I'm afraid that means you've missed the author's purpose.

Then comes in the reader applicability, and the reader's freedom. After Tolkien's books were released, he mentions taking a deep interest in seeing how they develop, which is probably why Tolkien in Letter's and elsewhere starts talking about his intentions. It's after the fact, after his stories were published, and taking an interest in how the public viewed his works, is when and why we start seeing what he intended his works mean.

Which brings us back to the delicate balance between the author and the reader. The author is the mastermind behind his books, and above anyone else knows what his books are about, and what his purpose is, or what his purpose was. The reader will read the book and apply their own meaning when reading, and this meaning may conflict with the author's intentions. But, 'intentions' is the key, there's this tone of acceptance...It's like "That is not what I had intended, but I can certainly understand how you see it that way."

I call it a delicate balance, because if there is too much "authorial intent" it falls into 'domination of the author,' which I feel that Tolkien didn't want to do. He didn't want to 'dominate' over his readers. However, if there is too much freedom of the reader, the entire reason and purpose of the author is cast aside. As Roland Barthes notes in "The Death of the Author":

We know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the {Authorial} myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.”

Not all stories are as unique as this one, but with Tolkien it was a balancing act. The cooks are just as important as the cauldron...Tolkien did not just blindly write, there was a reason and a purpose. Then there is the reader's applicability, but too much freedom and the author is left behind in the dust, and the true meaning, the true purpose is lost.