‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

Fordim:

To be enchanted by the novel (to take pleasure in reading it, to accept it) is not just to accept the reality of the other world that it accesses, but to acknowledge it. This is a problem, I think, insofar as there are plenty of people who are enchanted by the text (myself among them) who are committed materialists and thus reject utterly the ‘reality’ of an-other realm (be it Faerie or God or archetypes or whatever).

Being equally of materialist persuasion, I would contend your proposition that this “other world” need necessarily be “real”, in the sense of having a physical existence. I would certainly not regard it as such. I see it more as a world which people can experience in their imagination and in their dreams. A thing need not be tangible in order to inspire.

But this presents us with a whole new set of problems, I think, insofar as the three “types” of enchantment we’ve looked at so far are not really compatible

Like Mister Underhill, I am not sure that I agree with this. The way I see it, the enchantment is triggered by the text (which acts as a kind of road map) and personally experienced by the reader in his or her imagination. To the extent that the experience is a shared one, then perhaps this might be attributed to the collective subconscious described by Jung (or perhaps it might be something entirely different, albeit similarly shared at a primordial level).

But, as Mister U and davem before him have said, why try to define and categorise a concept such as enchantment? Is it not better simply to enjoy the experience?

And to disagree with you too Mr U:

Lastly, and I hesitate to drag back some aspects of the discussion which perhaps are already spent, but I have this nagging sense that there are certain “right” interpretations of any text, and I instinctively rebel against critical theories which suggest that all interpretations of a text have equal merit.

My difficulty with this concept is that the logical conclusion is that those who do not interpret the text in the “right” way cannot fully appreciate it. And I am very uncomfortable with any suggestion that one reader’s appreciation of the text might be accorded greater weight than that of another. Who is to say which way is “right” and which way is “wrong”? Every reader will naturally believe their interpretations to be the “right” ones. But unless they all share the same interpretations (which could never be the case), they can’t all be right.

It's a tale of Good vs. Evil … There is an organizing providential force at work in Middle-earth … Gandalf is wise … Sam is loyal.

But I don’t see these as interpretations. I see them as propositions which are implicit in the text. If you are simply saying that there are certain concepts which are “right” because they are stated in the text, and that we must accept them if we are to accept the text, then I agree with you. But if you are suggesting that there are further levels of interpretation not stated in the text which are equally “right” (for example, because there is a struggle of good v evil and a providential force at work, Middle-earth must be presided over by a monotheistic God), then I would disagree.

Stories mean something.

Indeed. But they can mean different things to different people.

[mark12_30]

The three last paragraphs in the essay below are an illustartion of Fruit being the result of leaf, trunk, root, and soil. Some wisdom from TORn's Tehanu

[Mister Underhill]

My difficulty with this concept is that the logical conclusion is that those who do not interpret the text in the “right” way cannot fully appreciate it. And I am very uncomfortable with any suggestion that one reader’s appreciation of the text might be accorded greater weight than that of another. Who is to say which way is “right” and which way is “wrong”? Every reader will naturally believe their interpretations to be the “right” ones. But unless they all share the same interpretations (which could never be the case), they can’t all be right.

I understand your hesitation and sympathize with it up to a point. I’m not sure how or if “appreciation” comes into it, so I’ll leave that alone. But—

Take an extreme example. I, for one, am not uncomfortable in condemning interpretations like those made by Stormfront (link is to a recent BD discussion, not a white supremacist site). And if there are patently wrong interpretations, doesn’t that imply that there are, indeed, right interpretations?

I certainly agree that differences of interpretation will occur the more we get into details, and those are great and good. Vive le difference. I think we could get beyond simple propositions – indeed, the whole providence issue already might – and still agree before we cross over the border where anything goes.

[davem]

Does this 'widen' the concept of 'canonicity' to include not only what Tolkien wrote, but also what he 'meant'?

[Aiwendil]

Enchantment and Faerie

Note: This is a very long post, for which I apologize, and while I was writing it several other people posted.

I wonder if I am the only one that is a little bewildered by all this talk of "Faerie", and "windows to Faerie". I think it may be a good idea to pause and consider what is really meant by these things, and whether they have the kind of broad application that is being ascribed to them.

davem wrote (some time ago):

I think so much of Tolkien's capacity for creating the sense of 'enchantment' in his readers comes down to this - we don't feel he is 'revealing' new things to us so much as 'reminding' us of things we have forgotten. So rather than being amazed by our encounter with a completely unknown 'new' world, we feel at once 'at home' in Middle Earth.

I suppose this may be called the "enchantment thesis": what is so enchanting about Tolkien's works is that they remind us of, or give us access to, a "place" with which we all have some sort of subconscious connection.

As something of a logical extension of this idea, we come to the "Faerie" or "Perilous Realm" bit. The idea here seems to be that, once again, there is a "place" to which we have some kind of subconscious access, and that the primary function of fantasy is to "open a window" or "provide a road" to that place for the conscious mind.

Thus, the Legendarium, Smith, Roverandom, etc. become various alternative routes to this place called Faerie. Davem puts it like this:

If both Smith & Roverandom are windows onto Faerie (& the 'Little Kingdom' of Giles, we must also suppose), & if the inhabitants of Faerie even speak to us, & show us visions of their world, then the precise limits & definitions fade & vanish, & we are left with enchantment.

From this vantage point, it is easy to see the concept of "canon" (in its more restrictive meaning) becoming weakened. Again, Davem phrases it nicely:

Would Tolkien have thought 'canon' more important than this enchantment - probably not by the time he came to write Smith.

Perhaps in Smith Tolkien was dismantling his 'canon' & throwing open a 'window' to let in the air of another world, having realised that his 'Tree', the Legendarium which he had worked on all his life was just one tree in the forest of Faerie that Smith wandered in.

Mark12_30 appears to reject the anti-canon argument but to accept the Faerie argument:

I doubt he would have abandoned the cohesiveness that he was seeking for Middle-Earth (a magnificent road into Faerie) just because he had found and described two other roads (Roverandom, Smith.) I think he still pressed towards Eucatastrophe, that moment of truth shining through his myth(s) to the one true myth.

The first question I find myself asking is what exactly this "Faerie" realm is supposed to be. Are we to take all this literally and suppose that there is a real place called Faerie, of which we all have (for whatever reason) some kind of knowledge? Obviously, that would be quite absurd. We cannot really think that Tolkien had visions of some parallel universe; he was not really discovering already existing facts about his characters - he was, when we come down to it, inventing them.

It must, then, not be a real place but rather an imaginary one - one, perhaps, that is subconsciously imaginary. But if this is the case, the very notion of Faerie appears to be in danger - for why should different people all happen to have subconsciously imagine the same thing?

The only possible answer to that question is that various influences, both genetic and cultural, cause us each to formulate the same (or very similar) subconscious concepts.

And I can more or less accept that explanation. The trouble with this is twofold, however. First, it depends on a conjecture about the very complicated relationship between societal dynamics and neurology/psychology. Second (even supposing that conjecture is true), it inevitably deals with the concept of Faerie on an individual basis, as something that exists in this individual's mind, and in that individual's mind, etc. - rather than simply as a single entity, distinct from the individuals. To speak of Faerie simpliciter, rather than "this person's Faerie" and "that person's Faerie" becomes rather a dubious thing.

But supposing that this account is nonetheless valid, we still ought to ask to what extent this window to Faerie contributes to the value of a work of fantasy, and to what extent the value of fantasy depends on it.

This is where all the talk about Smith of Wooton Major and Roverandom and Farmer Giles of Ham makes me a little uneasy. Are these really just alternative roads to Faerie? Is the primary fucntion of fantasy just to act as a portal to this pre-existing imaginary realm?

We'd probably all agree that The Lord of the Rings is a greater work than any of the three I just mentioned. But why? If these are all just windows into Faerie, why should any window be better than any other? I suppose one could answer that The Lord of the Rings provides us with greater access than the others; the others are perhaps like little peepholes and arrowslits while LotR is a wide window. But again, I'd ask: why? What makes LotR a wider window than the others? Is it its length? Surely not; if Roverandom had happened to be 1,000 pages, that would not make it LotR's equal. Is it that Faerie is depicted more accurately, more vividly, in LotR? This sounds a bit more plausible, but I still don't like it. Roverandom paints a very vivid portrait of its own mythical world, within the limited space it has.

I think the real answer is that the greatness of a work of fantasy is not simply related to the degree to which it gives us access to Faerie. If The Lord of the Rings were just about Hobbits having tea, and Elves singing songs, and Dwarves gathering gold, and Dunedain patrolling the countryside, it would not be particularly good.

It is not enough simply to provide a window to Faerie.

Of course, I can't deny that milieu is a significant factor in the attraction of works like The Lord of the Rings. Nor can I deny that this notion of a place called Faerie has some validity. I am as enthralled by images of eagles circling overhead, of columns of horse-riders disappearing into the distance, of long and winding roads (though not Phil Spector's orchestration . . .), or of dark sylvan glades, as the next person. But when I think of The Lord of the Rings, it is not these generic images that first come to mind. It is, rather, the Balrog stepping forward onto the Bridge of Khazad-dum, the Nazgul being swept away in the flood at the ford, Eowyn plunging her blade into the Witch-king. I think first of images specific to Middle-earth.

This brings to mind a related point. Suppose we are indeed to think of Faerie as a place, albeit an imaginary one lurking somewhere in the subconscious. The images brought to mind by one of these "windows to Faerie" must then be supposed to be actual images of this imaginary place. But the place called Middle-earth is simply incompatible with the village of Wooton Major; they cannot simply be superimposed without contradictions arising between them. So if Faerie really is a single imaginary place, then neither Middle-earth nor Wooton Major can be it (or at least, they cannot both be).

I think it would therefore be advisable to drop the "place" analogy. Faerie is not a place, real or imaginary; it is rather a complex of ideas and associations. There are no facts about events in Faerie, or people in Faerie. There are only various ideas and images, many of them contradictory, that may collectively be called Faerie.

I think it is a mistake to overemphasize the function of fantasy as providing a window or portal to Faerie. This tends to treat a given work only as a means to gain access to that realm, rather than as something worthwhile in itself; it undervalues the individual work. Fordim and Bethberry touched upon this point a while back. Fordim wrote:

This is why I would resist any simplification of a figure like Shelob into something like an archetypal spider, when the ‘real’ (that is, subcreated) history of her is much more interesting and revealing.

And Bethberry:

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?

While I think that the Faerie associations have a lot to do with LotR's appeal to me, I find I am chiefly interested in - dare I say it - the plot and (as a close second) the characters. I am chiefly interested in those things that Tolkien invented.

All of this reminds me of my reservations about the monomyth business of Joseph Campbell, which largely arises from Jung's archetypes. It's not that I don't think that the archetypes have value. Certainly, there are themes that appear again and again in the myths of very different cultures. The monomyth is a useful tool for analyzing these similarities. Where people go astray, I think, is when they assume that the monomyth is the whole story; that all myths are essentially the same, just variations on a single plot.

This kind of thing happens a lot with regard to Star Wars (probably because Lucas acknowledges that he was heavily influenced by Campbell). Someone will equate Anakin/Vader with, say, Satan, or Oedipus, or MacBeth, as if all these characters were fundamentally the same. In such discussions, I always point out that the fundamental progression of the Anakin/Vader character - miraculous birth; becomes champion of good; falls; becomes champion of evil; is redeemed - is something that exists in no other stories that I'm aware of.

It is the same with The Lord of the Rings (and the Silmarillion, for that matter). Take the Ring. I cannot think of another myth with a symbol quite like it - an artifact of immense power that is absolutely evil and will corrupt all that use it; a thing, moreover, that encapsulates the tension between two very different views of evil. This is not just a piece of Faerie; it is something peculiar to Tolkien.

I suppose that what I'm getting at is this. If we accept the semi-cliche that works of fantasy are windows into Faerie, we ought to combine it with another cliche: that the journey is more important than the destination. I would say that, rather than the value of LotR lying in its revelation of Faerie to us, the value of Faerie lies in its contribution to the greatness of such things as LotR.

A few other miscellaneous points:
Davem wrote:

Would Tolkien have thought 'canon' more important than this enchantment - probably not by the time he came to write Smith.

I think that, partially as a consequence of what I said above, this cannot be the case - for the value of the work lies in itself, not in providing a road to Faerie. In any case, Smith was published in 1967, and Tolkien continued to work on the Silmarillion material (with all appearances of intending to finish it) until shortly before his death.

Davem wrote:

There is a real danger of breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, of breaking the enchantment by attempting to find out too much about the spell & the one who cast it.

Mark12_30, The Saucepan Man, and Mr. Underhill have all expressed similar concerns (about analyzing the Letters, about the Letters analyzing the text, and about analyzing "enchantment", respectively).

I must say that while I think I understand the fear, I don't share it. First of all, we are breaking nothing. Whatever we may say or think, the texts will still exist as they always have. This may seem an obvious and insignificant point, but I think it is important. There is a very real difference between actually breaking something and merely analyzing it.

I have always felt that if the work in question is truly a good one, analysis can never do any harm to it. The enchantment, the spell of Faerie, or whatever you want to call it, is stronger than that. It is not something that scurries away as soon as you say its name. If a work is in fact great, then analyzing it can only deepen one's appreciation for it. And I think that Tolkien's work is great.

Nearly all of us here have engaged in a good bit of analysis of Tolkien's work over the years. Has anyone ever actually found that on re-reading LotR (or anything else), one's enjoyment of the work had been tarnished by over-analysis?

To return to the original topic of the thread: there has been some recent discussion of the validity of interpreting the text. Davem nicely encapsulated the question:

Does this 'widen' the concept of 'canonicity' to include not only what Tolkien wrote, but also what he 'meant'?

I don't have all that much to say about this, but I will make one point. I think the assumption has been that there are more or less two possibilities: either the "canon" is what Tolkien meant or there is no canon and we are free to interpret the text in any way we like. Each view has its difficulties. If it is Tolkien's intentions that matter - well, we can never really know what those intentions were. Moreover, this would mean that no work is self-sufficient; it can only be understood at all in the context of the author's letters, etc. On the other hand, the second view seems to give absurd interpretations the same validity as any others. The white supremacist "interpretations" of LotR are indeed an unpleasant example.

I think that there is a third way. A more useful thing to ask than "what did the author mean?" is "what would a reasonable person have meant?" That saves us from trying to divine Tolkien's state of mind but also allows us to say of certain views "that just doesn't make sense". It allows us to look at the text in itself without clearing the way for bizarre interpretations.

Of course, "reasonable person" is the difficult point, and I don't pretend that this is a simple prescription. But I think it works in principle, and allows us at the very least to dismiss the white supremacists.

What value do the Letters have in such a case? First of all, they obviously have intrinsic value in telling us about Tolkien as a person and an author, regardless of whether we equate Tolkien's meaning with the meaning of the text. But they also have value with regard to the text. For despite the fact that in this view, the meaning of the text is not defined as the intention of the author, we cannot escape the fact that it was Tolkien that wrote those words. If we presume that he was something like a reasonable person, then clearly he will, simply as a practical matter, have very great insight into the texts. His letters then have the same sort of value as anyone else's writings on the Legendarium, but they probably have a greater degree of value as a result of the circumstances of the writing of the texts.

Sorry if this post comes across as long and rambling; it was written with a multitude of interruptions.

[Bêthberry]

Ouch, smouch, Mr. Underhill . "Critical theory' is such an easy target simply because it suggests something new or different to some readers. but I think you protest too much. I might rethink your claim that you are not thin-skinned when you invited me to discuss a Chandler essay. Perhaps I had better not reply about that.

With all due respect, my suggestion that there is no definitive interpretation of the Bible is not unfair; I was simply pointing to the best known and most read book in the history of the Western world to suggest something about how communities of readers combine to produce a sense of 'right' meaning. If this is true for a work which many believe to be the word of God, then how much more true must it be for the faulty 'making-creatures', as Tolkien described us, who struggle with their own creations.

This point about communities does not exclude individual interpretations, but rather suggests that how we each read a text has something to do with the presuppositions, conscious and unconscious, which inspires or motivates us as readers.

I think, in fact, that Helen has herself described this very point far better than I can when she wrote in post #153 in this thread:

. I seldom enjoy the works of a writer who hails from a world-view primarily hostile to that which I hold dear; why would I *immerse* myself in the works of a writer if I didn't trust him/ her in the first place? ....
And if one is leery of the author's intentions in the first place, why read the book looking for deep meaning? If we trust our own interpretation so much more than the author's, why read his book instead of writing our own?

Sauce suggests that there is a psychological component in our reading which might account for some responses. To this (which I think we have not yet fully explored) I would again add the importance of the 'interpretive community' to which we belong.

We can, of course, question the world-views, as Helen expresses it, which seem to inspire different interpretations and we can ask just what the role is of this world view in helping to inspire the interpretation, most particularly when we turn to the text and examine other 'propositions' in it which contradict or limit or compromise the interpretion.

The point is not that 'anything goes' but rather that what matters is the engagement of the reader with the text rather than the mining of the text for an all-encompassing, totalising understanding. Just because 'meaning' is subject to parodoxes and indeterminacies doesn't mean that we refuse to examine or compare interpretations. So, White Supremacists want to grab Tolkien for their own? An opportunity to engage them in discussion about their ideas through the text. And maybe, just maybe, the possibility also exists that we might learn something about Tolkien's text---not, I hasten to say that he was in any way part and parcel of their despicable world view but that we might come to understand more fully how LOTR works its magic and how we respond to it.

Edit: This, by the way, actually represents a current of thought in biblical studies today: the very confusions and inaccuracies and variations in how the ancient texts have survived for us to read represents the historical actuality which faith must grapple with. Seen in this light, the Bible (and by extension any other text, I would suggest) becomes an opportunity for each reader to contemplate how he or she comes to understand faith/the text. We read to learn more about who we are as readers, and as human beings. [end edit]

My apologies, also, if others have replied while I have taken so long to post this. I am under constant interruption here today but did not wish to leave Underhill's comments to me rudely unanswered.

[Mister Underhill]

Don’t worry, Bb. That “fresh young newbie” line did sting a bit, as true statements sometimes do, but I’m all better now. I can’t guarantee I won’t cry and pitch a tantrum if you disagree with me about Chandler, though.

Here’s something that may shock you (or maybe not): I think there are certain broad-stroke “right” interpretations of the Bible. It’s in the details where differences – sometimes vast differences, to be sure – arise. For instance, I think any Bible reader could agree on this interpretation: to get to Heaven, you must have a right relationship with God. Obviously, it’s that grey borderland between what is obviously right and what is obviously wrong (interpretively speaking) that makes life interesting. But, I think there are a baseline set of right interpretations for any text, including the Bible.

So, White Supremacists want to grab Tolkien for their own? An opportunity to engage them in discussion about their ideas through the text.

Okay, but this sidesteps the question – who has rightly interpreted the text? Does the white supremacist interpretation have the same merit as a – for lack of a better word – traditional interpretation? Certain schools of relativistic lit-crit theory may think so, but I don’t.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Mr. Underhill, Bethberry

I was writing this while you were posting. So I haven't really taken your last posts into consideration.

You two seem to be inching closer together in agreement, but I still can't shake the feeling that there are some real differences here in how each of us approaches the text....

*****************************

Stories mean something.

Mr. Underhill,

I concur. I am uncomfortable with the idea that all interpretations of text have equal validity, and that assumption still seems to underline much of the discussion on the thread, from the first post onward.

************************

Recently, I have been a lurker on the edge of this thread, one of those contributing to the 2,000+ views, but I feel compelled to throw my generic opinions in the pot .

First, I would heartily agree with the idea that there is no one right reading of the text, and that the individual confrontation with the work is far more important than mining the text for an all-encompassing single meaning, which frankly does not exist. JRRT has given us one way of looking at Gollum and the Ring, but there can be other valid interpretations that we as readers bring to the work.

But just as an individual is free to grapple with the text on his own terms, the author, or any other reader, is free to look at that understanding and question its validity. The initial struggle with the text is only the first step in the critical process; the assessment of that struggle is a vital second step. And part of that second step involves making a judgment on what's been said. That judgment, to me, is not unimportant.

To put it bluntly, there is a point in reading when we are alone. As individuals, we bring our background and understanding forward and apply these to the story. Because our backgrounds and understanding are different, our interpretations and perceptions will inevitably vary. But the process does not stop there. There is a point where the individual reader becomes part of a community of readers, a place where discussion and assessment takes place. And that process is important. I can indicate whether or not their perceptions and interpretation resonate with me. And there are even times when I may tell a reader he is flat wrong. Stormfront comes to mind. One criteria I will use is whether or not the reader acknowledges the basic guidelines that the author has woven into his tale.

I do not insist that everyone who reads Lord of the Rings emerge with the interpretation that there is one God in charge of things, but I do believe there are certain boundaries the author has laid down with his own pen. These themes, whether you call them 'interpretations' or 'propositions' are inherent in the text: the theme of good and evil; the fact that Gandalf is wise, or Sam loyal; even concepts such as self-sacrifice, the exaltation of the humble, or the power of humility versus the destructive and self-negating futility of pride. You can come up with an interpretation of LotR that ignores these themes, but not one that directly says these themes don't exist, at least within the world that the author has created. (Whether they are true within my personal world is a wholly separate question, which is one reason why a 'materialist' modern reader can still appreciate Tolkien's works.)

In effect the author hands us the notes we can use. We are free to arrange these notes in any melodic pattern we would like. But we do not have the right to introduce totally foreign notes, just because we think it might produce a "nicer" song.

Let me cite one other extreme example of a critic who has chosen to ignore the author's boundaries: that of Germaine Greer. Germaine Greer detests the views put forward by Tolkien and has been hacking away at his work for many years, initially the book and more recently the movies. Greer once suggested:

"The Lord of the Rings represents a rejection of otherness and a craving for people like oneself.

I can understand how she might reach such a conclusion, and that such an idea is worthy of discussion. However, when queried about the movie, she went beyond this to state that the plight of the Orks -- the poor, oppressed workers whom the 'so-called' heroes unjustly harass -- stands at the core of LotR.

Germaine Greer has the absolute right as an individual to put forward this view. But those who belong to the Tolkien community (fans, academics, whatever), who read and discuss the works, also have the right to reject that view. Her interpretation is not of 'equal value' because, frankly, she has ignored many of the guideposts that the author laid down in the actual text.

In the case of both the individual Greer and the group Stormfront, these two have chosen to insert their own ideology into Tolkien's stories, coming up with ideas that simply aren't there. (Please, I am not equating Greer with the folk in Stormfront, but I am saying they are similar in this one small respect.) As Bethberry suggests, there may be some glint of understanding I will gain because of their flawed contribution, some interesting ideas that come forward in the discussion. But, in the long run, their ideas can and should be rejected.

We are more than individual readers. There is a point where we interact as a community and reach some consensus, even if that consensus is to disagree. That consensus, by its very definition, is self limiting and flawed. Views change from one generation to the next as we bring new insights to the table, and minority viewpoints sometimes come to the fore. But, as flawed as that community discussion may be, it is better than saying that each of us sits alone in a closet of our own making, spinning out different ideas, all of equal merit.

This may be a dangerous question, but.... I am wondering if this wish to make the individual reader virtually self sufficient (dare I say sovereign?), to limit the influcence of the author's voice through something like the Letters, and to remove the idea of having any set of shared standards by which we may judge an interpretation, doesn't reflect the culture and values underlining our own society?

****************

Davem, Helen,

The funny thing is that I can see how Davem can say that JRRT was beginning to dismantle his Legendarium in his final years. But my stance would be the exact opposite of Davem's....not seeing the greater freedom as reflected in Smith, but rather the more defined lines of science and theology that begin to surface in later writings like Morgoth's Ring. JRRT had always said that truth shone through myth, but now he was abandoning it (perhaps others would say enhancing it) for other things. There are writings that suggest he would have changed the Elf-centric viewpoint of the Silm, and instead substituted Man at the core.

But this, I think, would really belong in another discussion.

***************************

For the next few days, I will be off doing my "duty" at the birthday party thread, so will resume the post of a lurker.

[The Saucepan Man]

Mister U:

I’m not sure how or if “appreciation” comes into it, so I’ll leave that alone.

Bah! I always try to choose my words so carefully, and yet I always get picked up on them. By “appreciation”, I mean the experience that each person draws from reading the text, whether it be understanding, insight, inspiration, enchantment or whatever. I would be extremely hesitant about saying that one person’s experience of the text is necessarily more valid or valuable, from an objective point of view, than that of another.

I, for one, am not uncomfortable in condemning interpretations like those made by Stormfront.

Well, I think that we have to recognise that some of the concepts that they use to support their dreadful views are “correctly” interpreted because they are implicit in the text (examples would be the importance of the bloodline of Numenor and the superiority in some respects (longetivity, prowess, hardiness) of the Dunedain over other types of Men). But, to the extent that they seek to use those concepts to interpret LotR in a way which supports their view that one race can be inherently superior in all respects to another, I would condemn them too because I utterly reject that way of thinking. For me, therefore, their interpretation is “wrong”. And for the majority of people too, I suspect. Does that make it “wrong” on an objective level? Possibly it does, but only if one either tries to formulate some objective moral code against which to measure it (a tricky business) or takes the position that something is “wrong” if the majority believes it to be so. One thing is for certain though: Tolkien never intended his story to lend support to the views of those such as Stormfront since he too rejected such views (unless his private thoughts differed significantly to those which he committed to paper, which I somehow doubt).

And if there are patently wrong interpretations, doesn’t that imply that there are, indeed, right interpretations?

No. I don’t think that the one necessarily follows from the other. Even if there are “patently wrong” interpretations, we can still be left with a plethora of conflicting interpretations, no one of which is necessarily superior to the others (and all of which might therefore be said to be "right").

I do, however, agree with Sharon, when she says:

I do not insist that everyone who reads Lord of the Rings emerge with the interpretation that there is one God in charge of things, but I do believe there are certain boundaries the author has laid down with his own pen. These themes, whether you call them 'interpretations' or 'propositions' are inherent in the text …

This is what I was trying to get across when I said:

If you are simply saying that there are certain concepts which are “right” because they are stated in the text, and that we must accept them if we are to accept the text, then I agree with you.

To the extent that anything put forward by Stormfront, or Germaine Greer, or anyone else, clearly contradicts that which is expressly or implicitly stated in the text, then it cannot (in my view) be considered a valid interpretation of that text.

[Mister Underhill]

No. I don’t think that the one necessarily follows from the other.

I don’t know what to say to this. If something is wrong, it must be wrong in relation to something that is right, no? Granting, once again, that there certainly will be grey areas and that one overarching, all-inclusive Interpretation is not possible or even desirable.

Does that make it “wrong” on an objective level? Possibly it does, but only if one either tries to formulate some objective moral code against which to measure it (a tricky business) or takes the position that something is “wrong” if the majority believes it to be so.

Ack! A slippery slope that we’ve already argued in detail on Esty’s old Plato thread. However, I don’t think we need to reference an outside, objective morality at all. I think every text has its own implicit morality. I would be just as wrong to try to foist a peace, love, and tolerance interpretation on Mein Kampf.

Otherwise, I think we’re homing in on a consensus.