‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Bêthberry]

posted by davem
This is what we miss - the chain of story - when we ignore the role of the storyteller, which was central to Tolkien's mythology - all the 'texts' are retellings & redactions - they are all accounts of events told by storytellers - 'living shapes that move from mind to mind', not simply the events themselves, but the events being told & retold.

Oh, I have never said that the role of storyteller in the tales should be ignored. Far from it. Look at how Chaucer plays with the personae of tellers of tales in Canterbury Tales. Medieval literature is full of this fascinating multiplicity of perspectives, a multiplicty which became increasingly restricted as we developed concepts of "Author" and the standard Nineteenth century omnisicient narrator.

But this is a far, far jump from the kind of investigation into Authorial Intention which you have been positing in the past, to my mind.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

But this is a far, far jump from the kind of investigation into Authorial Intention which you have been positing in the past, to my mind.

I'm not changing my position, merely coming at it from another angle. My point has always been that authorial intention, in fact authorial 'presence', has to be taken into account if we are to understand a work of fiction - particularly so with this work of fiction, where the author is not simply adopting a Chaucerian role a la Canterbury Tales, but plays a central role in the existence of the story - the Elf-friend is not merely a redactor, he is a living link with a lost past - literally so in the case of the Notion Club Papers.

Tolkien stands both 'outside' his mythology as its creator & inside it as its 'translator', & so he, the author, the man Tolkien, must be taken into account not just because he himself is a character in the secondary world, but because the whole world is a product of his own experience & exists because he desired it to exist.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

authorial 'presence', has to be taken into account if we are to understand a work of fiction - particularly so with this work of fiction

What do you mean by "understand"?

My point, as always, is that different people will have different goals in this regard, will adopt different approaches (which may or may not require an understanding of authorial intent and/or involvement) and will reach different conclusions. I doubt that I would consider most of them "wrong" in doing so (and I only say "most" because I am excluding the likes of the white supremacists).

Ultimately, what is the purpose of a work of fiction such as LotR? To be enjoyed? To be analysed and/or interpreted? To provide enlightenment? To change patterns of behaviour? Most probably Tolkien intended all of these things to one degree or another. But clearly he could never have expected every one of his readers to experience all of them. Is it not therefore the case that the purpose of the work is personal to the individual reader and depends upon what he or she expects and, in practice derives, from it? Regardless of his original intention in creating a work, once an author publishes it he effectively gives carte blanche to each reader to "use" it in whatever way seems best to that individual. In light of this, how can we ever truly "understand" the work?

[davem]

SpM I can't deny that's what readersdo, but can we assume that Tolkien wanted to communicate something specific, whether his readers picked up on that or not?

In the Beowulf essay he re-constructs the poet, tells us his motives, & what he wanted us to understand. He doesn't ever say 'This is my opinion, this 'poet' is entirely my own invention & interpretation, if you don't like it go find your own'. He clearly believed that an artist has an intent, means something, wants too communicate something to his audience. If Tolkien thought that way about art, then clearly he intended us to approach his own art in that way.

Is there any value in attempting to understand Tolkien's meaning - to the extent we are capable of doing so? I'm simply uncomfortable with this idea that the reader has nothing to learn from the artist, that the artist has nothing of value to teach. & that ultimately, there's no point even making the effort to look outside one's own experience, to the wisdom & experience of another.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

I'm simply uncomfortable with this idea that the reader has nothing to learn from the artist, that the artist has nothing of value to teach. & that ultimately, there's no point even making the effort to look outside one's own experience, to the wisdom & experience of another.

I don't think that anyone posting in this thread has made that claim. I think it is quite valuable to study the artist; it can provide tremendous insight into the work. The question is not whether studying the author is worthwhile; it is whether the author's views are the ultimate aribiter of opinions about the work and the only source of value for the art.

And still I wonder to what extent the debate on this thread is simply a case of everyone arguing at cross-purposes. One group says that different readers have different views; the other concedes this. The other says that the author wrote the book for a reason and that studying him is worthwhile; the first group grants this.

What does it mean to say that the author is the final arbiter of "canon"?

[Bêthberry]

davem posted
I'm simply uncomfortable with this idea that the reader has nothing to learn from the artist, that the artist has nothing of value to teach. & that ultimately, there's no point even making the effort to look outside one's own experience, to the wisdom & experience of another.

Aiwendil posted

I don't think that anyone posting in this thread has made that claim. I think it is quite valuable to study the artist; it can provide tremendous insight into the work. The question is not whether studying the author is worthwhile; it is whether the author's views are the ultimate aribiter of opinions about the work and the only source of value for the art.

May I add my voice to what Aiwendi has here written. If I decide, after reflection, that further discussion is worthwhile, I might return to reply to his other question.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I think it is quite valuable to study the artist; it can provide tremendous insight into the work. The question is not whether studying the author is worthwhile; it is whether the author's views are the ultimate aribiter of opinions about the work and the only source of value for the art.

Like Bêthberry, I endorse what Aiwendil has said entirely.

But I would also add this. When LotR was first published, the text itself, together with the text of The Hobbit, were all that readers had to go on. Later, when Tolkien changed the Foreword, he added some autobiographical material, but it was limited. Other bigraphical material concerning Tolkien was limited too. So, friends and family aside, only those who were moved to write to him (something that he came to regard as rather bothersome) or take the time to do some delving could stand any chance of learning anything about the man himself. Tolkien was perfectly aware of this. Indeed, he no doubt positively encouraged it, as I understand that he was a very private person. So, he surely must have recognised that the vast majority of his readers would know nothing about his intentions in writing the book or his views on the themes covered. He could not expect (and would no doubt have been horrified at the thought of) every reader bombarding him with their questions. So, while I agree that authorial detail can be immensely valuable (to those who are interested in it), it was simply not available to many of his readers.

I myself knew almost nothing about the man until roughly 18 months ago, when I first joined this site. I didn't even know that Tolkien was a religious man. This despite LotR having been my favourite book for some 25 years. And I most certainly do not regard any of the five or so times that I read the book during that period as being less valuable than when I read it now.

Which is probably why I am so keen to stick up for those who read and digest the book, apply what meaning they see within it to their own life (if they are so inclined) and delve no further.

[davem]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwendil
I think it is quite valuable to study the artist; it can provide tremendous insight into the work. The question is not whether studying the author is worthwhile; it is whether the author's views are the ultimate aribiter of opinions about the work and the only source of value for the art.

Like Bêthberry, I endorse what Aiwendil has said entirely.

Not the ultimate, just the prime arbiter & source of value, & the one to which the greatest weight should be given. Its about understanding what another human being has to say to you, not about your opinion of what he's saying. And how can you even have an opinion of what he's saying if you don't listen as objectively as you can? What I bring to reading Tolkien's works has little or no value, (imo) in comparison to what Tolkien has to teach me.