‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But doesn't this just mean that we have passed 'control' out of the hands of both Author and Reader? Who sets the conditions for interpretation? Is it a peer group of other readers? Or do we allow the professionals to set the boundaries? That suggests that instead of allowing meaning to lie within the experience of the reader and enabling true anarchy, the cognoscenti actually do not wish to relinquish control because said anarchy can also be risky.

No, I really don't see where that necessarily follows, unless my questionable analogy of literary terrorist is at fault, for which bad taste I apologise.

Where individual readers discuss their own interpretations, interpretive communities will be developed out of the ferment, even the anarchy, of the discussions, as readers come to understand each other's perspective. Where we don't castigate interpretations as wrong or invalid or incorrect but instead consider their reasons, where we don't ridicule interpretations because they aren't based on wide reading experience, or grand knowledge or privileged information, we tend to develop better, more imaginative, more open-minded readers.

In pedagogical terms, it is difference between the teacher as a facilitator of learning and the teacher as proponent of content. From comments in your posts, I would assume you knew mainly the latter kind of teacher and school, but I have seen the former kind.

Originally Posted by davem

If the Tower can be made to serve another purpose by someone else, fine, but they would not be using the Tower for the purpose for which it was built - & they should admit that, & not claim that they know the 'real' intention behind it.

Hmm. I am not aware that I have claimed I know the real intention behind this tower. I did say this:

Originally Posted by Bethberry

It in fact often can result in greater understanding or appreciation of his work and his methods.

But that is not the same thing as 'claiming to know the 'real' intention behind it.'

EDIT: Perhaps another way of explaining is to offer this experience of mine. While in London last summer, I came upon a small statue dedicated to someone. This statue was not listed in any of the tour books or guidebooks or histories that I had read prior to coming to London. Yet I knew who this person was because she had had a monument named after her in my home country--a mountain in fact, with a glacier. In one flash, time and space conflated and I was no longer a foreigner in London, but had found a small piece that I could interpret as my own. This interpretation is intensely personal, based upon a work of Art and Nature (how more Blakian than that) and completely independent of any knowledge of why and how the statue got placed in Charing Cross in the first place. That purpose is in fact irrelevant to my artistic experience, which likely has no great importance to others and certainly not to those who heroically endeavoured to commemorate the woman's fate, but remains very important to me. As I read the plaque, of course I came to know more about why the statue was built, but that knowledge really was, if I may borrow a term from davem, baggage which added to my experience after the fact but did not contribute to the initial aesthetic experience.

It is possible to have a meaningful personal experience of a work of Art without knowing what or how the author wanted me to experience. This does not mean the author's intention is irrelevant, but that it is not crucial to the aesthetic experience. At least, intention as explained not in the story itself but in a prose explication written after the fact.

[Thenamir]

Let me begin here by saying that I mean no offense to any particular contributor here. I haven't had a good rant in some time, and I find here an opportunity.

I have been posting in the Canonicity Slapdown thread (nearly identical to this one in terms of fluff and frippery), but I have to say that the amount of noise being generated on this topic is certainly annoying and nearly fatal. In the other thread I have attempted to post my opinions with some lucidity, but now I'm throwing down the gauntlet.

With no attempts to read between the lines or find nuances of influencein some obscure turn of phrase in Letters, I want a sound, authoritative reponse to the following. I will verbally flog anyone who responds to this post with an "I think..." or an "I feel..." Give me facts.

On the topic of Authorial Intent, I posted the following on the other thread:

I remember reading somewhere...that The Good Professor's main, or at least initial intention in writing LOTR was (I paraphrase) to see if it was possible for him to keep readers' interest with a story considerably longer than that of The Hobbit...Secondarily, I believe it was noted by Tolkien in yet another reference which escapes me that he essentially created the corpus of Middle-Earthian history and literature as a place in which his invented languages could "live." -- his linguistic sandbox, if you will.

Now will someone please QUOTE Tolkien and (1) remind me where these references are, and (2) demonstrate that there was something other than these purposes INTENDED by the author, in his own words, with references. Until you can do that (and I am not well-read enough to deny that such references exist), don't pretend to be discussing authorial intent. Anything else is either guesswork or indirect necromancy.

On the subject of reader interpretation, suffice it to say that there are as many identical points of view on "what Tolkien means to me" as there are idenitcal snowflakes. It appears to me that verbage (rhymes with garbage) is being multiplied ad nauseum (with yours truly only adding to the weight of bandwidth) with ideas and whole conversations being repeated until the whole looks like a time-exposure photograph of a dog chasing its tail. Again, I truly mean no offense, but dadgummit, every reader is going to bring something different to this party, and judging one or another opinion as "mainstream" or "crazy" is not going to change the minds of those so inclined. It seems futile to say the least.

It has been said that insanity is "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Not only is the same thing being said over and over with no discernable result, but a new thread has been started which is paralleling the same stuff yet again. In my opinion, which I'm sure will be debated hereafter , this is a thread which should have been closed a year ago.

But then again, I got a really good rant out of it, so maybe it *does* serve a purpose. Flame away! And have fun with it!

[Mister Underhill]

I interpret your post as a big thumbs up on how the thread is progressing and a note of encouragement to continue steady on. And you can take your authorial intention and stick it. Thanks for your support!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Hmm. I am not aware that I have claimed I know the real intention behind this tower.

It wasn't aimed at you - stop trying to catch the spears

But that is not the same thing as 'claiming to know the 'real' intention behind it.' I am talking about education in artistic method, not archeology.

'Education in artistic method' sounds a bit deadly....

It is possible to have a meaningful personal experience of a work of Art without knowing what or how the author wanted me to experience. This does not mean the author's intention is irrelevant, but that it is not crucial to the aesthetic experience. At least, intention as explained not in the story itself but in a prose explication written after the fact.

As I've argued myself, & I would hold that experience as primary & most important - but that's not what we're arguing about in this thread...

Originally Posted by Thenamir

In my opinion, which I'm sure will be debated hereafter , this is a thread which should have been closed a year ago.

You just don't like to see people having fun, obviously. We all know very well what we're doing here, that it is never going to get anywhere. The purpose of this thread is twofold - one, to see in how many ways we can all repeat ourselves, & two, to see how long we can keep it going.

Oh, there is the 'annoying' newbies (to this thread, at least) thing which adds a little spice.....

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Now, as a parent, wouldn't you say that exerting an influence is a form of control? It may be control in a velvet glove, but it is still done to direct and to steer away from what is seen as the wrong path?

Influence, yes. A measure of control, yes. But absolute control, no (more's the pity ). But is the influence of one reader over another analagous to the parent/child relationship? It's possible, I suppose (for example where one reader is a parent and the other his or her child ), but it depends upon the individuals involved, their relationship to each other and, most likely, a variety of other factors.

Originally Posted by davem

You seem to be suggesting that this 'authorial intention' is something that can be divorced from the work itself - which is another way of denying the author's presence in the work.

Not at all. I am simply saying that it is up to the reader whether or not he accepts authorial intention (as far as he is aware of it) in his interpretation of the work. Of course, to the extent that such intention is intrinsic within the work, then he is bound to take it into account.

In your Tower example, a visitor may well accept that it was built for the specific purpose intended by the builder but, if they find that an alternative purpose suits them better, why should they not be entitled to use it for that alternative purpose?

Originally Posted by davem

If the Tower can be made to serve another purpose by someone else, fine, but they would not be using the Tower for the purpose for which it was built - & they should admit that, & not claim that they know the 'real' intention behind it.

We can never fully know the intentions of the author because we can never know his mind. But to the extent that he has stated his intentions, I see no reason to deny them and have never sought to suggest that we should. Although, as Bêthberry has said, we should acknowledge that the author's intentions will have changed over time.

The thing about your approach though is that it makes the later use of the 'Tower' by someone using it (or seeing it) as a castle equal to to that of the builder - it says that the builder (or writer) is no more important than the user (or reader).

Important to whom and in what regard? The fact that the builder built the tower is clearly very important to the subsequent user, since otherwise he would not be able to use it himself. The use to which the builder put it may also be important to him since it may assist him in deciding how to use it. Or it may be of little value, because he wants to use it for something entirely different. In either case, however, it is the use to which he ultimately puts it which will be of greatest importance to him. Otherwise, he would do something different with it.

Originally Posted by davem

The purpose of this thread is twofold - one, to see in how many ways we can all repeat ourselves, & two, to see how long we can keep it going.

Well, at least we can agree on the purpose of this thread.

[Formendacil]

"Tolkien's Meaning?" Or: "What Tolkien Means?"

It seems to me, that the two sides of the debate can be summed up by one of the two above phrases. Those of the "Tolkien's Meaning" camp are those who are in the Authorial Intent camp (which includes myself, by the way). These readers are looking for Tolkien's Meaning- what did the Author intend to be read here.

Those in the "What Tolkien Means" camp are those who assert the Independence of the Reader (fools, in my opinion). They are not looking for what Tolkien means to say, but are stating what Tolkien means to them.

Now, I am well aware that the Lord of the Rings was not, in Tolkien's opinion, an allegory. Nor was it intended, apparently, to be anything for its readers other than a blessed good read. However, if one looks at the "Meaning" side of things only, it is clear that REASON the Lord of the Rings was written was not so much to give the readers insights into their OWN minds (as the Reader-Camp asserts), but rather a means to pass along the meaning that TOLKIEN intended.

It's like a telagram. The meaning of that message is determined by the sender. That is what he or she is trying to pass along to the receiver. The receiver can, according to his free will (and let's not get that debate mixed in here...) mix up the meaning of that message howsoever he or she wants. And if the message is vague enough, or unclear in parts, then this is a natural happening and should not be harshly judged if the received meaning. But if the meaning is clearing stated by the text, then that is clearly the CORRECT meaning, howsoever you distort it in your own mind for your own purposes.

Likewise, the Lord of the Rings has its intended "messages". This is the canon establised by Tolkien: all the story, innuendo, background, languages, and morals that we are MEANT to receive from his epic. At times the exact definition of this message is confused, hence we have Balrog-wing debates and such to determine what was really intended. But in places where the author is quite clear about what his message, such as the fact that the Lord of the Rings is not an allegory, then going against this is a defial of the proper meaning.

And on the subject of Balrog-wing debates...

Surely none of the Reader's Rights camp should have participated in them- at least not with great heat. After all, if Tolkien's intention as to whether or not the Balrog in the "Fellowship" has wings, then why should they participate, seeing as they believe that Readers' Insights trump Authorial Intent?

~A Very Biased Devil's Advocate -

Formendacil~

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

They are not looking for what Tolkien means to say, but are stating what Tolkien means to them.

The latter does not preclude the former. Indeed, the former is likely to be a significant (and, in many cases, decisive) influence on the latter.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Surely none of the Reader's Rights camp should have participated in them- at least not with great heat. After all, if Tolkien's intention as to whether or not the Balrog in the "Fellowship" has wings, then why should they participate, seeing as they believe that Readers' Insights trump Authorial Intent?

Precisely. Balrog's have wings ...

... if you want them to.

[mark12_30]

I have been waiting for someone else to accept Thenamir's challenge, though Mister Underhill's reaction did give me a bit of a chuckle. And since I am firmly in the "Author's Intention Plus Readers Experience Plus Glimpse Of Divine Truth With A Capital T" Camp, I thought somebody in the "Author's Intent" camp should do this. But nobody has taken a crack at it yet.

I cannot seriously be the only one in this debate with a copy of Letters????

Since the silence (on this topic) is resounding (so far), I will answer Thenamir's first question with another question: Which reference, sir, would you like to see first? I cannot choose. Here are the possibilities, in the ever-so-handy index, under Lord Of The Rings, Contents, author's intentions.

(No, I did not type all this in. Praise Iluvatar for scanners, eh?)

Contents, author's intentions: written to please himself 211,412;
written to amuse, excite, move reader 232-3, 414; a fairy-story for adults 209, 232-3; attempt to induce literary or secondary belief 233,379,412; an exciting story of the sort Tolkien enjoys 267, 297; experiment in arts of long narrative 412; not a novel, but a heroic romance 414; attempt to create world in which a form of language agreeable to his personal aesthetic might seem real 264-5; largely an essay in 'linguistic aesthetic' 220; no 'message' intended 267; not an allegory 41, 121,212,220,239, 246, 262; does not 'objectify Tolkien's experience of life 239; primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power 160; not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power 246; Power and Domination not at centre 246, 262, 284; centre is not in strife and war and heroism but in freedom, peace, ordinary life and good liking 105; journey of Ringbearers heart of the tale 271; deeds of the small, humble, their ennoblement or sanctification 160, 215,220,232, 237, 246, 365; the Quest in 105, 191, 233-4, 238-9; LR in terms of good and evil 11920,121,178-9,197,207,243-4, 262; real theme is death and immortality 246, 262, 267, 284; mainly concerned with relation of Creation to making and subcreation, and related matter of 'mortality' 188; fundamentally religious and catholic work 172; cut out practically all references to 'religion' 172, 220; theological implications in 187-95,233-5, 355; monotheistic world of 'natural theology' 220; sanity and sanctity in LR; Ring verse as leit-motif of LR 153; poetry in 169, 186,396; verses fitted in style and contents to characters and situations 396; archaism in 225-6; vocabulary 249; deliberately left some things unexplained 174, 190; Tolkien does not himself know all the answers 278; better not to state everything, more like real history 354; must concentrate on small part so much will be left out 192; frameless picture, searchlight on brief episode 412; need to omit and compress 289, 293; blends Elvish and human point of view 145; seen mainly through eyes of Hobbits 160,200,237,246; love stories in 160-1,227,323-4; importance of seasons in 271-2; its end like the re-establishment of a Holy Roman Empire with seat in Rome 376 Sources 208, 212, 303, 418; for names etc. 379-87,409-10, 418; main idea not a product of World War II 216; no post-war references 235; his mythology 227,231

[Thenamir]

Unbelievable! Actual new Tolkien references which are not all repeats of the same "allegory versus applicability" citation! All hail mark12_30, Praise Her With Great Praise!

We now have some definitive text to work with. And since her list seems to be quite exhaustive, I will have great fun now reading them all and deciding which ones with which to skewer people with. Great thanks to you, mark12_30. We could all take a lesson from your post.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

I haven't had a good rant in some time, and I find here an opportunity.
. . .
In my opinion, which I'm sure will be debated hereafter , this is a thread which should have been closed a year ago.

But then again, I got a really good rant out of it, so maybe it *does* serve a purpose. Flame away! And have fun with it!

Well, Thena, , I'm not sure this will go down in the annals like Kalessin's Rant, but it's no bad post all things considered.

That you feel you must rant demonstrates in part my point. When interpretive communities get closely contained and almost inbred, they tend to generate a limited number of answers/ responses/ opinions. This produces anger, mayhem, anarchy in those who want a means to state their interpretations but who feel either that the limited answers don't address points which interest them or that they are excluded from the debate, for whatever reason, be it time, knowledge, expertise, or other forms of cachet. I completely understand your anger, man, seeing as you are coming late to the debate.

This is why Fordim's new thread, the Canonicity Slapdown thread, is quite appropo and significant. Look at how many Downers have responded to the poll, at least voting if not posting their opinion. The poll invites people to participate whereas this thread, maybe because it tends towards long windedness and, now, a certain amount of incestuous reproduction of ideas, tends to drive people away. I don't see that as requiring thread closure--I mean, after all, what is the point of debate when it is foreclosed, and, any way, how many successful threads other than RPG threads are closed?

And please to remind all who claim that this thread is merely a rhapsody in reproduction, let me point out that last summer's posts did not consider the issue of allegory. This is actually a new application.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

It's like a telagram.

Well, no, it isn't. A telegram has no artistic purpose or merit. It is designed for other purposes of communication. Any understanding of LotR has to consider the special nature of literature as Art. To the best of my knowledge, LotR has not yet been performed in Morse Code, although I have seen Wuthering Heights attempted in Morse Code.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

They are not looking for what Tolkien means to say, but are stating what Tolkien means to them.

Now, I am well aware that the Lord of the Rings was not, in Tolkien's opinion, an allegory. Nor was it intended, apparently, to be anything for its readers other than a blessed good read. However, if one looks at the "Meaning" side of things only, it is clear that REASON the Lord of the Rings was written was not so much to give the readers insights into their OWN minds (as the Reader-Camp asserts)...

Um, actually, no. Not that I am exclusively in this Reader-Camp (having horrific memories of my summer camps, I tend to steer clear of anything camp, although you might not expect that of me), mind you. Those who acknowledge and respect the role of the reader in interpreting art (davem's Art) don't describe the point as insight into their own minds--which after all can happen even with those who fall exclusively into the Authorial Camp-- but as insight into aesthetic experience, which filters or reflects back into their historical/cultural/ social contexts as much as into their psyche. It is true that my experience of the Edith Cavell memorial in London was intensely personal, but it reflected vast reams of social and cultural context. It could not have happened, I believe, to Esty, nor even to Squatter. It is a post-colonialist act, not a post-modern act. Thus, the readerly approach (with which I march with but one foot, awkwardly) is not exclusively solipcistic, as some of you would expound. The readerly approach is as grounded in the social/political/cultural locus of interpretation as is the historical approach.

Which is why I see Tolkien's analysis of the allegorical reading so interesting. He is responding to a 'meaning' made apparent by the historical condition post-publication.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, no, it isn't. A telegram has no artistic purpose or merit. It is designed for other purposes of communication. Any understanding of LotR has to consider the special nature of literature as Art. To the best of my knowledge, LotR has not yet been performed in Morse Code, although I have seen Wuthering Heights attempted in Morse Code.

A most annoying thing about this Allegorical/Canonical/Applicable/Nonsensical threads is that Metaphor can never be taken as Metaphor or a Simile for a Simile. It has to be taken as literal. Any attempt to use a parable in illustrating a point is immediately attacked as being not the same. This hasn't just happened to me, it's happened to others.

I suppose, being a discussion of "applicability", applying the problem to another situation can only confuse it, but the decisiveness with which people crack down on the metaphor and declare "Ah, but it is not the same!" is not only irksome, but is related to the issue at hand.

After all, if the reason that metaphor is "not the same"- and therefore non-applicable to the discussion- then surely all the linguistic evidence that is being debated should be taken in a similar manner, a manner which is purely literal.

A metaphor or simile, after all, does its work by giving its message with the understanding that the person hearing/reading it understands the intended message. Does not a book work the same way? Yet if Tolkien says that his book is not an Allegory, that it was not written as a Metaphor or a Simile, but that it is intended to be taken at face, or literal, value.

I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this yet, and it may well just stop here, but I found it most amusing that Bêthberry, who is weighing in on the Readers' (and thus the "Metaphorists") side is attacking the use of the my Simile. After all, if one cannot use another situation to explain or describe another, then surely there is no point in debating canonicity, since the text can only describe one situation- the one it literally describes.

Maybe that was my point... I don't know. I'm so confused...

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This is why Fordim's new thread, the Canonicity Slapdown thread, is quite appropo and significant. Look at how many Downers have responded to the poll, at least voting if not posting their opinion. The poll invites people to participate whereas this thread, maybe because it tends towards long windedness and, now, a certain amount of incestuous reproduction of ideas, tends to drive people away. I don't see that as requiring thread closure--I mean, after all, what is the point of debate when it is foreclosed, and, any way, how many successful threads other than RPG threads are closed?

And please to remind all who claim that this thread is merely a rhapsody in reproduction, let me point out that last summer's posts did not consider the issue of allegory. This is actually a new application.

Quite.

As a relative newbie who has not read the parts of the discussion that occured prior to my arrival, I have been hesitant to enter into what, for all intents and purposes, appeared to be an "Verbose Old Guard" private debate...

Fortunately (or unfortunately?), I got over that...

[HerenIstarion]

You overwhelm me. Probably time difference – I leave few innocent looking posts the evening; next thing I see in the morning is another pageful of posts. I’m responding one to one, downward, now, starting with 534. I write as I read, so probably I’m bound to repeat something already posted in some of the posts past 534, my apologies in advance, but I’m doing it for my own sake as well, to have the whole Canonicity issue revived and to refresh my own memory of what exactly do I think about it. I intend to apply my usual methodology – giving an analogy (ies) and building around it. Here we go:


Post 534:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I would like to suggest, in response to Lalwendë, that any author's definition about how to interpret his or her work, particularly one written after the work has been completed and published, should be referred back to the text for validation. Does Tolkien's definition of allegory apply to his work or is he attempting to bring out a quality which he wishes now, after publication, other readers to see?

I suppose yes

Analogy 1:

Suppose I’ve installed a CD-ROM to my PC. ‘Tolkien’s definition’ in this analogy would be an icon on my Control Panel defining the device as CD-ROM, not DVD-ROM or any other device. But as a user (=reader), I’m perfectly free to stick DVDs or any other things which take my fancy into the thing. Now tapes would not fit, and blatant inconsistency of them would be obvious to me, but DVDs are different story, ain’t they? They look alike with CDs, and I may find error messages my PC is bound to throw up the whole point of the thing, and fancy everything is right and proper, but if I’m to see what’s ‘supposed’ to be seen, I should insert CDs, not DVDs.

Emotions and experiences associated with seeing error messages would be as vivid, rightful, valid, whatever, as those of a user put CDs in CD-ROM and see things as they are supposed to be seen, but those are emotions, they have no evaluative meaning whatsoever.

I’m free to prefer ‘There is no CD in the device’ message to the [whatever the CD should have contained], and it is my right to read messages instead of [whatever the CD should have contained], but I’m getting less for my money.

Analogy 2:

CD-ROM’s CD holder part can slide out and form a perfect coffee-cup holder. I may find it quite useful to insert a cup there every time I’m posting here, it would place the hot and invigorating coffee within my reach and I’d avoid risks of spilling it over my keyboard, but would not it be better for me to read the manual and employ my CD-ROM to its full potential?

I voted ‘the book is cool’ option in the Canonicity Slapdown, meaning it to enhance that and ‘all of the above’ option together, but surely, Intention of the Author should be taken into account, as the manual should with CD-ROM devices, Experience of the Reader is there to prevent me of trying to force square VHS tapes into round CD slots, and Analysis of the Text comes into play when I’ve already found round disc to fit round slot, they are of compatible types, and now I may think about what I see on my screen.

(Aside for LmP = feeling of enchantment may arise in case of IoA + EoR, but not necessarily adding up AoT to the soup. On the other hand, some may be enchanted by ‘there is no DVD in the drive’ message, seeing how it pops up miraculously every time.)

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

but readers are not bound to automatically accepting his definition.

Of course they’re not. Neither user is bound to read user’s manual, but it would be advisable, wouldn’t it? And if my CD-ROM is broken in my attempt to fit VHS tapes into it, should I accept repairman’s help or decide that CD-ROM was ‘a load of crap' all along?


Post 535:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I have to ask, ought we to accept his definition? Does LotR make more sense if we do?

If ‘ought’ here stands to mean ‘we are forced, bound’ etc, no, we are not. But yes, we ought, in a broader sense as given above.


Post 536

Originally Posted by Mr. Underhill

In any confrontation between a reader's interpretation and an author's intention, the author has the authority, the right, sometimes even the obligation to clarify his meaning

Can not agree more


Post 537

Originally Posted by SpM

I agree. That is why I have always referred to the reader's 'honest' or 'genuine' understanding

Yes, and I won’t laugh at anyone putting their CD-ROM to coffee-holding service, as I suppose no one not ‘honestly’ sure that’s the purpose would do that at all.

Originally Posted by SpM

I think that we have little to fear from non-sensical interpretations. Even if they are genuine, they will be unacceptable to most other readers and will therefore never form part of our general understanding of the work.

One or two extravagant chaps won’t harm us? I suppose they won’t. But in case the ‘general understanding’ is what we pursue. On the other hand, if we want this particular user to enjoy his CD-ROM to its full extent, should not we interfere and help them see what it can do apart from cup-holding?

And from another angle – remember ‘moral consensus’ of few pages back? What if these extravagant gentlemen have found some exiting ways of using CD-ROM the manufacturer originally installed but haven’t explicitly explained in the manual? Truth (guess whether it is with capital T or not, as I’ve deliberately put it as the opening word of the sentence) is not in numbers.


Post 538

Agreement in general.

Side note – existence of several statements of the Author, even if they contradict slightly between themselves, does not entitle us to introduce even more interpretations. We can settle by choosing one of the Author’s, or work them all into one, or (in Tolkien’s case) explain them by historiography and multitude of sources argument. But imagine CD-ROM (I stick by analogy) manual to state on page 5 that recommended record speed is 32 kb/ps, and on page 7 that is 16 kb/ps. Probing, we would probably find that it can do both, or that indeed one is preferable, but abstain from recording at all ‘cause it contradicts itself’ (being flippant or satirical or flatfooted or, in fact, even malicious) would be less wise.



Post 539

No comments


Post 540

Bits of the manual being recited . Good repairman this gentlehobbit is, I always said so


Post 541

Originally Posted by SpM

Valid to whom? An individual's interpretation is more valid than any other to that individual because it is the one that makes sense to them as an individual. But that is not to deny that they may see value in, and ascribe relative values to, the interpretations of others, and so develop their own interpretations accordingly. And we will tend to ascribe greater value (again, as individuals or 'interpretative communities') to the interpretations put forward by particular individuals, such as the author himself, those who have read extensively around the work, those who appear to share our values etc. In this way, we are continually assessing, reassessing and developing our own interpretation. It still remains the most valid one to us, though.

Yes, but to stick to coffee-cup holder usage of CD-ROM, for is ‘what I genuinely believe the thing is supposed to do’ once the manual is read and new information presented is a bit, hem, less than bright?


Post 542

Lal seems to have ‘no comments’ from me for the most part today. But I have to fight fire with fire – what the ‘control’ in question is for?


Post 543

Originally Posted by davem

'Its a Tower I built in order that I could look out on the Sea, not a defensive structure.' is a clear enough statement, provable by experiment, & I think we should take his word for it unless we can prove him wrong. If the Tower can be made to serve another purpose by someone else, fine, but they would not be using the Tower for the purpose for which it was built - & they should admit that, & not claim that they know the 'real' intention behind it.

Good. Se my apology above for probably repeating what may have been already posted. Agreement – how dare they claim it!


Post 544

Originally Posted by Bb

It is possible to have a meaningful personal experience of a work of Art without knowing what or how the author wanted me to experience

Agreed. But I come to resort to capital letters here again – what is the purpose of the work of Art – to bring aesthetic pleasure or to communicate some Message beyond that? If the former, yours was the proper way to react, if the latter, than, aesthetic pleasure is by-product (a baggage), not vice versa, and the plaque with the explanation on the statue, as the communicator of the Message, is where 'appreciator'’s priority should be placed.

(I do not mean to say you are not free to choose your priorities, Eru forbid).

There is an analogy of a stutterer in a plane who alone is aware of one of the engines on fire. His only way to communicate information is to sing it to the stewards (as he is not stuttering when he is singing), and he sings it: The engine is on fire, sha-la-la-la. Seemingly, he is in possession of a good singing voice, so the steward and other passengers join in the chorus with their own ‘sha-la-la-las’. All round everybody is aesthetically pleased and humoured, but the final results is, fire is not extinguished and plain crushes. Should they seek the meaning besides the aesthetics; something could have been done about the situation.


Post 545

Originally Posted by thenamir

the whole looks like a time-exposure photograph of a dog chasing its tail

I should have read this before I started to write, but I’m on page 5 of a Word file, I can not possibly abandon it now? Besides, I voted for the whole thing to stop in one of my previous, didn’t I? How exactly that entitles me to write longish posts instead, I myself can not see, yet ‘show must go on’ malady should be someplace inside the whole thing.

As I’ve already chosen the methodology, I have to write through to the end of [currently existing] posts to see if anyone have come with requested quotes already. Promise to make a search if no one did.


Post 546

I run out of smileys seeing as there is a limit of three per post, but imagine ‘big grin’ here


Post 547

Another ‘big grin’. ‘Show must go on’ malady above rendered to ‘circus addicts buying tickets off profiteer’


Post 548

Originally Posted by SpM

Influence, yes. A measure of control, yes. But absolute control, no (more's the pity). But is the influence of one reader over another analagous to the parent/child relationship

Again, as above, it’s all well and proper, but what the control is for? To force ‘proper’ ways of receiving an ‘aesthetical pleasure’? There are none, obviously? I may immensely enjoy ‘coffee-cup holder’ of a CD-ROM more than putting some flat ringlets into it, and you would not persuade me that that is less ‘enjoyable’. But assumption of control being there to ensure ‘correct usage’ (transfer of the Message, seeing of Truth, whatever), will end you, inevitably, with conclusion that there is, after all, Right Way of Reading It? Otherwise, the whole ‘control’ issue could be put for safe-keeping to that particularly shady dell where star nearest to this Earth is rumoured to never have emanated down to

Besides, if the freedom in ‘using the Tower’ is important for the user, for whom is the ‘correct usage’ important? For surely control must be there (if at all?) to ensure ‘proper usage of the Tower (CD-ROM)’?


Post 549

Welcome ‘big grin’


Post 550

No comment


Post 551

Gratitude and relief of not having to find all that myself. ‘smile’



Post 552

Agreement


Post 553

Originally Posted by Bb

And please to remind all who claim that this thread is merely a rhapsody in reproduction, let me point out that last summer's posts did not consider the issue of allegory. This is actually a new application.

Rhapsody of reproduction – yes, but in ascending circles, with slight deviation each new round. Otherwise, why should I trespass on my employer’s right to my time in the office and spend the whole morn composing ‘incestuous reproduction of ideas’?

New application, yes, but not quite: Back there, page 4-5, also 7-8, there was an attempt to bring in the concepts of Truth, Something Else, Shop on the Border of Fairyland (all with capitals), if you remember, all with claims that there were Messages Tolkien tried to bring across, and there were attempts of defining these also.

Well, no, it isn't. A telegram has no artistic purpose or merit. It is designed for other purposes of communication. Any understanding of LotR has to consider the special nature of literature as Art. To the best of my knowledge, LotR has not yet been performed in Morse Code, although I have seen Wuthering Heights attempted in Morse Code.

Why not? If I send poetry over, per instance? And even if I resort to merely reporting weather conditions, my choice of wording may have artistic merit after all?

Literature may lean heavily on aesthetics, but without ‘telegram’ inside it, it would be Art for Art’s sake. Bodybuilding is an exercise in obtaining a ‘beautiful body’ in the end, but sound exercise has Health as its final goal, beauty being enjoyable, pleasant, even desirable, but still by-product.

Besides, turning ‘aesthetics’ back on you (wink), would you bet there won’t be people who would appreciate LoTR in Morse Code purely on it’s aesthetics and what Morse Code means personally to them?



Post 554

Originally Posted by Formendacil

A most annoying thing about this Allegorical/Canonical/Applicable/Nonsensical threads is that Metaphor can never be taken as Metaphor or a Simile for a Simile. It has to be taken as literal. Any attempt to use a parable in illustrating a point is immediately attacked as being not the same. This hasn't just happened to me, it's happened to others.

Seeing as majority of my writing resorts to analogies, I invite you to join the club. But there is only one other way – to give out something based on ‘terms’ and ‘definitions’, which I find less enjoyable (My freedom! Mine! It came to me...)


Post 555

Here we see... wait, that’s this very post of mine. Nice number, three fives ‘big grin’

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

... but those are emotions, they have no evaluative meaning whatsoever.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Formendacil ( ), HI, I will dispute your CD/DVD analogy.

The instruction manual, in so far as it pertains to loading and running the program, details how it is to be used, not what it is to be used for. If we are equating a computer program with a literary work, then I would say that it is the latter rather than the former which equates to the meaning of the work.

Yes, if one tries to run an application using the wrong equipment or application, then one will not get much out of it. But, if one tries to read LotR upside down or at a distance of 50 feet, then one will not get much out of it either.

But the program may be used for a variety of different functions. A database, for example, may be used to store addresses or list one’s favourite LotR quotes or for a variety of other functions. The programmer may well have had intended it to be used for a certain function or functions, but it is up to the user how he actually uses it. Similarly, the author may intend his work to have a certain meaning, but it is up to the reader how he interprets it.

Of course, the software may have been designed to work particularly well when used for particular functions, and it is likely therefore that a sensible user will use it for those functions. Just as the skilled author will be successful in conveying his intended meaning to a sensible reader.

The freedom nevertheless resides with the user/reader.

Am I repeating myself?

[Lalwendë]

No, I really don't see where that necessarily follows, unless my questionable analogy of literary terrorist is at fault, for which bad taste I apologise.

It wasn’t in bad taste at all. When I use the word anarchy, I mean it in its true sense. I don’t mean the emotive ‘anarchy’ used to denote chaos and crime, I mean Anarchy in that there are no rules, the people are free and open to do as they will; there are no authority figures. Applied to literary criticism, this is the state which ought to match Postmodern theories (so long as caveats are not in place to protect the power of the academic) – it is a glorious state whereby any reader may interpret just as he or she wishes and may express that freely without fear of that opinion being rejected as their interpretation will be considered as equal to any other.

The perfect state is one in which readers can interpret as they wish and have the right to fully express their conclusions, but this does not happen, not even on the ‘Downs are we free. Total freedom is perilous, it means that nobody has power, nobody can set any limits. There is the potential for a lot of silly, ugly or confrontational (of course, in the opinion of the reader...) ideas and language, but the moment we say “you cannot use offensive language” or any other such statement we have begun to impose limits and restrictions on what the reader can do.

If we are now saying that we are in an ‘interpretive community’ then this is a very different thing to true reader freedom; a community has rules, therefore as readers we are in no way ‘free’. In an interpretive community meaning might reside within the reader but that meaning is only validated by approval from our peers. We are faced with the decision of whether to stand by our opinion and be rejected by the group or to alter our opinion and remain within the community. The interpretive community can never be more than freedom-lite.

I happen to like the idea of an interpretive community as I feel more comfortable within certain boundaries. But who determines the boundaries of the interpretive community? Someone must be there to define the point at which we cross a line. To take the ‘Downs as a case in point, is it the Barrow-Wight? Or is it a democratic process? Or do we have rule by consensus? In that case, is it the highest repped members who set the boundaries? Or the longest standing members? Or is it majority/survival of the fittest? And finally, is Tolkien part of this community? Does he get a say?

He definitely does! Because even if we are an interpretive community and think ourselves 'free' we use his words as boundaries. We do not tend to accept allegorical interpretations (I have seen these well and truly shot down in flames) and we are even asked to base our RPG characters on what Tolkien said about different races of Elves. We look up what Tolkien said in “Letters” or HoME. We might have our own ideas and responses but we still back them up and modify them according to what was laid down on the page – we don't just say what the heck we like. For all our intellectualising, the Author aint dead round these parts.

Originally Posted by SpM

Am I repeating myself?

Yeah, but me too. I'm getting used to it now, but I'm running low on vocabulary and might have to recycle some

[Bêthberry]

Let me point out that while Thenamir and HI have publically commended Helen's industrious post, I at least have quietly repped her.

As to the question about how interpretive communities set their 'agendas', let me suggest that even here at the Barrow Downs we have had successive or various communities. Take a look at the style, content, and perspective of the threads from the early years. Then look at threads which developed during the movie years. Now look at our topics in the past year. There was nothing like the literary discussion we have now in the early years, just as there are few "Where's the inconsistency in the Legendarium" threads now, generally speaking at least.

Downers such as Mithadan, Mr. Underhill, Barrow Wight, Sharkey, Mhoram, burrahobbit, HI, Bruce MacCullough, Gilthalion, red and others talked about the things which interested them about Tolkien. The Silm project is a splinter community from these early years. Topics shiftedly slightly with the arrival of posters such as Rimbaud and The Squatter of Amon Rudh, piosenniel, Birdie, and Child of the 7th Age. Things shifted again with the arrival of SaucepanMan, davem, Lalwende, Fordim Hedgethistle and likely will shift again with the arrival of people like Formendacil. Departures, of course, also influence the nature of communities. I am leaving out many Downers for simplicity's sake--for which I apologise, especially to those of the Wharg persuasion--and of course these various 'categories' are not exclusive; there's lots of cross-pollination. In fact, those I name here tend not to be part of the other communities which post in Mirth and Quizzes and the RPGs, and then there are those who provide much fodder for bandwidth about avatars and signatures. Sometimes age becomes a factor in how these communities congregate. Again, these informal groupings are not mutually exclusive.

But my point is that the Downs, even under the rules and guidelines set by the Barrow Wight and the other Admins, demonstrates the subtle fluctuations which pertain to interpretive communities. The 'boundaries' are set as much by the posters and their ideas and what they wish to say as by those who run the joint--even more so, I would suggest. The interpretive community announces itself in the very act of posting.

As for my apalling audacity in questioning similes, I would beg to point out that metaphors are different from similes. A metaphor combines two unlike objects or ideas into a completely new vision. It is a 'going beyond' to something new. A simile simply seeks out similarities. Saucepan has considered the applicability of HI's computer analogy. I will rather say--am I repeating myself here?--that literary language is different from other uses of language. What was it Sidney said about poetry? "Poetry never lies, because it never affirms." Story and poem and epic romance and novel take us someplace other than the primary world and so, I would suggest, we need to address such creative language in ways which recognise its creativity. Lal has already suggested this in the CxC discussion where she posited a language of pleasure and a language of information.

So there. My position is not anti-metaphorist, Formendacil. Nor, in fact, have I categorically rejected Tolkien's statement about allegory. What I have done there is put it in a context.

[The Saucepan Man]

I understand what you are saying, davem. Believe me, I really do.

And it’s clear that the difference between us lies in our respective approaches to the question: “What is the meaning of LotR?”

You interpret the question as: “What do you mean by LotR, Professor Tolkien?”

I interpret the question as: “What does LotR mean to me?”

Imagine that we both meet Tolkien and ask him what he meant by LotR. Your approach dictates that you must be content with his response and accept that as the only true meaning. My approach allows me to take on board Tolkien’s response in my consideration of what LotR means to me.

Which, objectively, is the correct meaning? Neither. My meaning cannot be objectively correct because it will not be shared by others (not entirely, at least). And Tolkien’s meaning (even if we could ever fully understand it, which we cannot because we can never fully understand the man’s mind) cannot be objectively correct because that would deny the applicability which he was so concerned to allow his readers.

Which is the more valuable? Well, for my part, while the meaning ascribed by Tolkien to LotR (and others’ interpretations of the work) may be of value, the meaning which I ascribe to it myself will be of the greatest value.

And which is the correct approach? Well that depends upon what you wish to get out of the book.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I went back and re-read the first post in this...um...thread, just to see how and where it all began (more than a year ago!). One interesting thing that I found in that post, which I think we have lost sight of, is the importance that I placed on the "open-endedness" or even unfinished nature of Tolkien's works and world. The fact that there are so many inconsistencies in the fabric of this world was, I argued, an opportunity for (even a demand upon) the reader to approach the corpus of M-E as history and not literary (which is how the Professor preferred it to be taken).

One point I would immediately make in light of this is that it is impossible to sustain any allegorical reading of the stories, not because Tolkien won't "allow" us, and not simply because the stories are complicated, but because at some level, like history, they don't make perfect sense. Until we can nail down with absolute certainty the full blood lines of Aragorn and Arwen we can never really know what their union means in an allegorical way (is it the marriage of Reason and Love, or whatever...we can't know because there will always be some shadowy aspects to the past and natures of Ar and Ar due to the less than entirely clear lineages Tolkien gave them in various sources).

The other point I would re-iterate here is that no matter how badly one may desire the authortative/authorial voice to guide us, that isn't going to happen -- at least, not in any reliable way insofar as that voice (like the voices of all individuals) is fragmented and multifarious. To turn over the interpretive act to the reader in the case of Middle-Earth is not to be as Saruman and break the white light into many hues, but to acknowledge that the rainbow exists already -- to seek to ignore that is folly, to seek to resolve it is, I would suggest, limiting and hubristic.

Again, referring back to my original post, I used the examples there of Balrogian wings and the origin of orcs (to that I would now add the shape of Elven ears and the identity of Gothmog: not to mention far more perplexing riddles such as the precise function and nature of the Ring, the ability of Saruman to fool Sauron, the relation between magic/art/technology, and the list goes on...). These examples were chosen to demonstrate that in most cases, if we go looking for the authoritative/authorial version or meaning, we will find only that it's just not there. The fact that we can continue the discussions about these things, all of us with careful reference to the works, proves that! I would venture to go so far as to say that if the author is dead, then it is the reading COMMUNITY which has killed him, insofar as the voice of one person (the reader) cannot overwhelm the voice of one other person (the writer) so effectively as can the overwhelming voice of a large and excited group of people!

I would go even further than this: to interpret the text at all, that is, to make a choice of any sort about what it means, is to insert yourself not just into the process of the text, but to put yourself before the text. "Before" in both senses -- both before it as we stand before the altar, in reverence, awaiting some kind of outside beneficence, but also before meaning in greater priority and placing the text behind and into the background. Let's face it, the reading act is about as solipsistic and isolated an event as there is: the presence of another person in the room can be enough to ruin the reading act. Conversation with someone else is impossible. To those who would say that the act of reading is itself a conversation with the author I would merely say that it's unlike any I've ever had -- I've never been able to stop the other person from talking merely by looking away from them, and I'm usually able to effect what they say by saying something myself!

[thelotrfreak1]

[QUOTE=Fordim Hedgethistle;404135]I would go even further than this: to interpret the text at all, that is, to make a choice of any sort about what it means, is to insert yourself not just into the process of the text, but to put yourself before the text. "Before" in both senses -- both before it as we stand before the altar, in reverence, awaiting some kind of outside beneficence, but also before meaning in greater priority and placing the text behind and into the background. QUOTE]

I agree and I have always enforced this view, however as fans of the book and the author's legendarium we are always allowed to speculate about the best possibility. One person may think that the Balrog has wings, while another may not. It all depends on how we interpret the text that we read since Tolkien never told us. I always enjoy having a discussion that are all about facts, but that does not stop me from liking debates about the most probable personal view.

[drigel]

In an interpretive community meaning might reside within the reader but that meaning is only validated by approval from our peers.

not for me, thankfully

So, would you agree that the meaning of the text can be both defined by readers and by the Author?

cant have one w/o the other milady

For all our intellectualising, the Author aint dead round these parts

Agreement. Except for the fact that his work is dead. Which leads me to:

That remains my position.

Same here - HA. My original thoughts on this thread being that the only thing I consider *canon* is what actually published by the *author* for us *readers*.

The 'boundaries' are set as much by the posters and their ideas and what they wish to say as by those who run the joint--even more so, I would suggest.

Unless they fall into the group from my first quote of Lal. Then, they might get shouted down, drowned out, or become *disenchanted* by either a majority or an outspoken minority.

And which is the correct approach? Well that depends upon what you wish to get out of the book.

And what one wants to get out of this site as well. Beths entry does cause me to conisder the nature of this forum. I like to discuss Tolkien on many levels, both inside and outside of the pages. I also appreciate the resulting creativity that has been inspired by the works. But as to the tenor of the overall attitude/opinions on this thread, I wonder if there is an influence. I dont RPG and fanfic, so in this case, I am an outsider here. I just like discussion, along with some pot stirring and devils advocation. But, as to opinion influence, once you "help yourself" to the original creation in terms of writing, RPGing etc, does not the author's intentions become inconsequential, even irrelevent? Anything I have read about the author's intentions on the subject of interpreting his work dealt with visual art, music and cinema.

Story and poem and epic romance and novel take us someplace other than the primary world and so, I would suggest, we need to address such creative language in ways which recognise its creativity.

YES. This is why the work is great. Plenty of that stuff out there, but whats special about Tolkien? I would submit that it's because of the authors mastery of the various subjects incorporated in the stories, and the desire to tell a Story. Of course the author has intentions for the Story, and IMO at least, the author wasnt intending to say "oh look - a how clever I am! Those english lit guys are going to really enjoy this nugget of metaphorical anit-dada puffinstuff that Ive snuck into the subtext!

But when some read *no* allegory/simile/metaphors, others will read *open to any* allegory/simile/metaphors. And, as Beth said in an earlier post, it depends on who your english teacher was in your formative years....

Sorry you have caught me on a day off...

[Thenamir]

Originally posted by SPaM:
To clarify, the full meaning of the work can only lie with the individual reader (because it will mean something different to each individual). Aspects of that meaning may be shared.

At last I read something upon which I can hang a decent point, or at least a good question -- the idea of "community".

Is it our purpose here to come up with (or at least to discuss ad mortem) a corpus of "meanings" which are shared by this community as a whole? Or perhaps, by a simple majority? Now there is a discussion from which we might actually produce something tangible, something other than interminable laps around the same philosophical track. A series of posts or even threads, each beginning with a particular thought or idea that was especially meaningful to a member of this community, followed by commentary by others about that point and whether it should be included in the community standard. Once all have spoken, the community moves on to another point, and so on. How useful the finished (ha!) product would be is something I cannot fathom, but at least it would bring some semblance of order to the repetitive chaos, and provide many an interesting insight into the ways that the participants approach and internalize the Great Work Under Discussion.

Originally posted by SPaM:
You interpret the question as: “What do you mean by LotR, Professor Tolkien?” I interpret the question as: “What does LotR mean to me?”

Magnificent! I could have saved much bandwidth in the Canonicity Slapdown thread if I had had your mind, Saucy. This is the penultimate encapsulation of all I have been trying (in way too many words) to express. The Reader Camp seems to be fighting for the right to bring whatever personal influences to bear on the meaning of LOTR to them, and misinterpreting (probably unintentionally) the Authorial Camp to be dictatorially restricting their individuality and invalidating the nuances that their personal experience brings to their reading of the text. The Authorial Camp on the other hand, rightfully defending the right of the creator of a work not to have that work defaced, seems to be similarly misinterpreting the defenses of the Reader Camp to mean that the intent of the author can have *no* bearing on how a work is to be received. And so the war continues, like the Yooks and the Zooks of Dr. Seuss, fighting over the "right" way to eat bread -- butter-side-up or butter-side-down.

I find HI's CD-ROM analogy to be most fitting. Everyone has the right to apply, contort, distort, retort, or strawberry torte , any input your senses receive, and we cannot stop them from doing so, no matter how far afield from "authorial intent" such ideas may be. But it is commonly true that the maximum use of an object is employing it as it was designed (or intended) to be used.

That is not to say that someone cannot come up with something innovative that might be applicable, but such innovation usually comes from thorough knowledge of the workings and components (that is to say, the original design or intent)of that from which you wish to innovate. A person who wished to invent, say, a laser-pointer from the parts of a malfunctioning CD-ROM drive (were it not already convenient and inexpensive to buy the same thing already built and designed for that use) would be innovating. A person who attempts to shove a videotape into a CD-ROM drive might be attempting to innovate, but is operating from a fundamental ignorance of the workings of the drive. Such attempts at innovation are, like Morgoth's attempts to "innovate" elves into orcs, usually counterproductive, and can even be destructive. Even so, I assert that the best "innovations" upon "established" or "mainstream" ideas about the meaning of LOTR will come from those who have given some time and effort to understanding what Tolkien intended. (As well they should attempt to find and comprehend as many of the ideas and attempted innovations which have come before, so as to avoid unnecessary duplication. We don't need any more "Is Tom Bombadil a maia?" threads.

In a way, those of the Authorial Camp may be more kindred to the Reader Camp than either would like to admit -- for in researching Authorial Intent, they are merely attempting to expand that totality of their own experience from which they form their conclusions and take their meanings (and thus, the personal import) of LOTR -- yet even the results of such research are subjective to each individual researcher. The Reader Camp, perhaps, feels less of a necessity to find our more about what JRRT intended, finding themselves content to see what they see in it and needing no more than that. But in merely reading the work through to its conclusion they are (for whatever personal reason) participating in the author's intent, because it is his work that they read and can not participate in it except for the fact that the Learned Professor, whose specialty was words and languages, used these words and not others to express himself. It is JRRT's book, and it was published with the intent that it be read. You can choose to read it or not, but if you do you are, whether you like it or not, part of Authorial Intent.

Going back to my first point in this post, I think that it would be more productive to share the most important meanings from each of us, as each may be willing, and to see how each post resonates (or not) with our own perceptions. It would not do, though, to attempt to divine the authorial intent of each such post -- if that were to happen, this thread would spiral in on itself until it imploded.

Just one more small voice in the bandwidth maelstrom.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

Which is the more valuable? Well, for my part, while the meaning ascribed by Tolkien to LotR (and others’ interpretations of the work) may be of value, the meaning which I ascribe to it myself will be of the greatest value.

Ok, but if you find a 'meaning' in LotR which Tolkien did not put there, then you have introduced something new & personal - what you have 'found' was not actually there - its like someone wandering around with an Ipod on talking about the 'wonderful music' in the air of the city. The music isn't 'in the air' its in their ears. The only 'meaning' in LotR is the meaning the author put there. If you 'find' anything else there you've brought it - as Aragorn says about Lorien. Thus, you are not 'finding' a personal meaning in LotR, but in yourself. That 'meaning' was already present in you, & would be there for you even if you never read the book.

The 'meaning' you are 'ascribing' to the book is nothing to do with the book at all.

You interpret the question as: “What do you mean by LotR, Professor Tolkien?”

I interpret the question as: “What does LotR mean to me?”

But unless the meaning you find corresponds with what Tolkien says he meant then you are not talking about the same thing at all.

To set up (yet) another dichotomy, I think you are talking about 'value' rather than 'meaning'. You're asking 'What is the value of LotR to me?', rather than 'What is the meaning of LotR?'. As I say, the latter question has been answered by Tolkien himself. Tolkien had a very clear idea of the 'meaning' or 'message' he wanted to communicate. What he couldn't dictate was what value his work would have (if any) to his readers - what they would get from it.