‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

you have made it perfect, clear-cut and too the point

I did? How very out of character.

Saucepan Man, you have described more eloquently and accurately what I have tried to say

What a polite way of describing plagiarism (unconscious, I might add).

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

In summary, the freedom of the reader is boundless, but, on an external level, it may on occasion be circumscribed by the circumstances in which he or she is interacting with others.

Hmmmm. . .this raises an interesting question, Saucepan Man. If the "freedom of the reader is boundless" then does this mean that there is no such thing as a wrong or incorrect interpretation? I'm not talking about the questions of 'fact' (whether those facts are resolvable -- when did Gollum find the Ring? -- or not -- did balrogs have wings?); I'm talking about questions of meaning.

For example: what about the people out there who interpret LotR as a fascist novel? Or, what about people -- who do exist, sadly -- who interpret the novel as supporting white supremacy? What if I want to interpret the novel as an allegory about the rise of Communism (Sauron) in the early 20th century and the reprisal against that by bourgeouis, middle-class humanism (hobbits) and the remnants of a European aristrocratic society (Gondor)?

The only recourse that you seem to be leaving open to combat these interpretations Saucepan Man is that they may be "circumscribed by the circumstances in which he or she is interacting with others." I'm not entirely clear on where you are going with this, but it would seem to suggest that if we are to combat the above examples (and we should -- they are wrong) we can do so only by attacking the interpretative positions that generate them (fascism, racism, simple-mindedness). Is there no way we can go to the text, to point to Tolkien's writings and use those as actual proof that such interpretations are incorrect, insofar as they contradict what is found on the page?

And so, does this not mean that we must maintain some sense of the texts (and the authorial reflections upon the text) as authoritative?

And just for those who might have missed it, I am now taking a position to the contrary of what I've been taking all along -- this is not, however, a flip-flop: I just feel that the answer to approaching any text -- but raised to a problematic level of almost cosmit proportions in Tolkien -- is a constant process of movement and negotiation between the freedom of the reader (which must be maintained if we are to make the text our own and not be slaves to, "What does Tolkien says it meant?") and the authority of the text/author (which must be acknowledged if we are to prevent the slide into the absolute relativism "It can mean whatever you want").

[Findegil]

The question is, if we are talking about the intentions of Tolkien (which would mean allegory) or of the applicability of the text itself.
Tolkien himself stated that he did not put any allegorical meaning into his writings. So if anybody say, that he has written the text to support white supremacy (only as an example of many), we can and must clearly argue against that with what we know about Tolkien and his own interpretations of the text as given in the Letters.
But if it is argued that the text can be used interpreted in a way that it does support white supremacy, the only way to argue against that is to analyse the text itself and the way it is interpreted.
By the way: I don't think that "attacking the interpretative positions" will work at all. People how interpret texts like you listed in your post Fordim, do normally not like arguing at all. And they will clearly not allow you to attack their general believe. If arguments against those interpretations cannot be found in the published believes of the author, (as could be case if they deny he was faithful to the believes showing truth in his writings we asked openly) they must be searched in the failures of the argumentation of the text. That process might not ever be successful, but it will often falsify the "wrong" interpretations by statements in text under discussion.

Respectfully
Findegil

[mark12_30]

Sharon: I love the 'sliding scale ' idea. Anyone else interested in returning to one of the old canon threads to discuss that?

More on the Wild Theories Theme. Negative/ dissenting forms of "Reader's Interpretation" do seem to keep popping up: Everything from "Tolkien was a White Supremacist" to "Frodo degraded Sam by calling him a servant" to "Tolkien looked down on women." Often these threads fizzle with some form of, "Tolkien's letters say (Letters, number xyz...) So while you have a right to your opinion/ interpretation, don't label it Tolkien's original stance without doing your research...."

While the 'dissident' can rarely be persuaded, the grief for me is that other readers are often disheartened by these statements about an author they have come to trust and now feel that they must doubt. Did Tolkien *really* hate women? Did he *really* believe in White Supremacy? In those cases the Letters can be very reassuring indeed.

[The Saucepan Man]

If the "freedom of the reader is boundless" then does this mean that there is no such thing as a wrong or incorrect interpretation?

Of course there isn't, as far as an individual's personal thoughts are concerned. The reader is free to think what he or she chooses. Any other analysis would come close to conjuring up the "thought police" of 1984.

But, as I said, where the individual interacts with others (for example by entering a discussion or publishing his or her views), then that individual's freedom may be circumscribed by the circumstances of the interaction. Such circumscription might be legal, by application of laws such as those relating to defamation or race relations (for example, it recently became a criminal offence in the UK to incite others to racial hatred). Or it might be by means of censorship, editorial discretion, self-selection or even simply social pressure.

what about people -- who do exist, sadly -- who interpret the novel as supporting white supremacy?

I am unfortunately aware of the "white supremacy" issue (there is a thread concerning a site devoted to this view somewhere around here). To answer you, these people are free to think what they want and, subject to the legal issues that I mention above, they are free to disseminate their views to others. Indeed, it appears that they set the agenda on their own site and censor any posts which do not accord with their views (as Findegil said, they don't want to have to deal with dissenting opinions). Thus, the freedom of those who seek to point out the fallacies in the white supremacists' interpretation is, in these circumstances, circumscribed by censorship/editorial discretion.

If, on the other hand, these people were to try to make the "white supremacist" argument on this forum, I would expect a flurry of well-argued points refuting their position by reference to Tolkien's writings (both published and unpublished). They choose not to do so because they don't want to hold themselves up to ridicule in this way (self-selection/social pressure). In other situations, the dissemination of their views may well be restricted by means of censorship or editorial discretion. So, in effect their freedom to argue for their interpretation will also be circumscribed in certain circumstances.

What if I want to interpret the novel as an allegory about the rise of Communism (Sauron) in the early 20th century and the reprisal against that by bourgeouis, middle-class humanism (hobbits) and the remnants of a European aristrocratic society (Gondor)?

Again, you are free to think this. And you are free to make your interpretation known to others. You would have to accept that Tolkien did not intend this allegory, since he made clear that his novels were not intentionally allegorical. But, as a personal interpretation, it may still be of interest and/or value to others.

[Bêthberry]

This is, indeed, a quintessential dilemma, of how to account for mistaken or misguided readings which seem so 'wrong' to us and yet how not to fall into the "deus ex machina" as doug platypus so humorously phrased it, of quoting chapter and verse of the Letters, unexamined for any of the issues of reliability which hamper letters of all writers. And I particularly like the way Mr. Hedgethistle has droitly picked up the distaff side in order to help us consider all the angles. Do you do this for a living, sir? A lawyer or some such shark? (Looks over shoulder worrying about Mith.)

One answer, of course, is to ask readers to be self-aware, reflective readers, conscious of their own desires, willful expectations, and particular points of view which they bring to bear, consciously and unconsciously, upon the text, and of the cultural, social and polical matrix which informs them as readers. This, to me, is part of the process of learning to read, not simply the letters on the page, but becoming aware of how we conspire to create the text and what we learn about ourselves in the process. Inexperienced or naive readings will always give way, in a discussion forum as in a classroom or a reading club, to greater understanding and appreciation. And sometimes, too, "wrong" readings will, willynilly, end up becoming the ocassion for much greater understanding.

The point remains, I suppose, on whether one wants to give up the idea of an absolute, unchanging meaning for a text or whether one wants to understand literatue as an activity. It's how you make the journey that matters as much as the getting there, isn't it? (And while I make that claim, perhaps I should ask Mr. Hedgethistle why he has conjoined author and text in his dichotomy. To me, the text is separate from the author--and, indeed it is the text which "holds supremacy", for both author and reader, although that text is an ephemeral thing.)

Take, for example, a discussion some of us had back a year or so ago, on the question of the English mythology impetus behind LOTR. This discussion was brought back to mind now by Helen's most recent post. Helen characterised as a "Wild Theme" the statement, "Frodo degraded Sam by calling him a servant." The discussion was mainly between Child and Rimbaud, with Rimbaud suggesting that the relationship between Sam and Frodo was slightly or barely above the level of parody of the master servant relationship. Rimbaud is far more acutely aware of the English social class structure--which still to this day informs English society--than any of we North Americans, even those who have visited England for some time. To think of how that historical situation is mediated in the text of LOTR is, to me, fascinating, particularly as Sam is the one who is left Mayor of The Shire. That a reader could so little understand English class structure as to ask that kind of question seems to me to provide a perfect example of the benefit of asking such "wild themes."

To those readers who are made uncomfortable by such questions as Rimbaud's point or that concerning Tolkien's depiction of women or even Tolkien's depiction of evil and Saruman, I would echo Sharkey's point early on in this thread:

If a reader refuses to acknowledge certain parts of a work of fiction (or actual fact, for that matter), there's nothing I can do about it, but that person's position in a discussion forum is difficult to say the least. Conversely, I doubt someone with a clear idea of his own which one is unwilling to give up would ask such a question anyway.

Hmm. And I haven't got around to Child's post yesterday.

[mark12_30]

Helen's most recent post. Helen characterised as a "Wild Theme" the statement, "Frodo degraded Sam by calling him a servant." The discussion was mainly between Child and Rimbaud, with Rimbaud suggesting that the relationship between Sam and Frodo was slightly or barely above the level of parody of the master servant relationship.

Rimbaud's and Child's discussion had not entered my mind. I was referring to numerous discussions by those quite new to the books, who thought that it was shocking how condescendingly Sam was treated by Frodo.

I do not view Child's or Rimbaud's discussions or viewpoints as Wild Themes.

(That is, outside of Master Rimbaud's work in Entish Bow.)

[Bêthberry]

Ah, but Helen, I do not in fact say you were referring to Child's and Rimbaud's discussion. I said "it brings to mind". Let me clarify my purpose, for I certainly was not trying to mischaracterise your position and if I have given that impression, I am sorry.

I was using your statement as an example of how something triggers an idea, an idea which can then go on to find some elaboration or relevance. It was my way of demonstrating that even misreadings can be fruitful. I meant that the statement "Frodo degraded Sam by calling him a servant" could in fact represent a way in which the very 'error' of the statement leads to a greater understanding of ideas in the text. Even a naive or newbie statement can open up discussion.

That's why, to me, there are no "Wild Themes" or points which should not be discussed. Some, like Balrog Drool Threads, can be dispatched with wit and humour but they need not be censored.