‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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.