‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[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.

[Mithalwen]

Heren Istarion-ing this to facilitate(!!!) my attempt to get Fordim to return.

[mark12_30]

Mith, you scared me. I thought......

But no, it was just wolves howling in the distance.

I miss you too, Fordie. Just in case you were wondering.

[HerenIstarion]

Someone mentioned my name, eh?

[mark12_30]

And a very canonical name it is.

[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.

[Thenamir]

I think you are talking about 'value' rather than 'meaning'.

Nicely said.

[drigel]

cant rep davem anymore
wonderfull Lorien analogy

What he couldn't dictate was what value his work would have (if any) to his readers - what they would get from it.

He was surprised at the response he had back in the 60's. He would be dumbfounded today.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Let me get this straight. I would understand what LotR means to me even if I had never read the book? Well, I may be many things, but I'm not psychic.

Originally Posted by davem

To set up (yet) another dichotomy, I think you are talking about 'value' rather than 'meaning'.

Partly, yes. But I am also talking about what I understand it to mean.

We are, however, getting into semantics here, because "meaning" can be construed in a number of ways. I could say that you are talking about 'message' rather than 'meaning'. Indeed, you have said as much in your last post.

As I said earlier, the difference between us lies in our approach to the question: "What does LotR mean?"

[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

Let me get this straight. I would understand what LotR means to me even if I had never read the book? Well, I may be many things, but I'm not psychic.

You'd understand any 'meaning' you 'found' theat was not Tolkien's intended meaning, because that would be what you had brought to it from your own experience.

We are, however, getting into semantics here, because "meaning" can be construed in a number of ways. I could say that you are talking about 'message' rather than 'meaning'. Indeed, you have said as much in your last post.

As I said earlier, the difference between us lies in our approach to the question: "What does LotR mean?"

To think I should have lived to see a Lawyer be so dismissive of 'semantics'

Well, what do you think it 'means' - 'alone, itself & nameless'? I wasn't referring to the 'message', because, as Tolkien said in the Foreword:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. (my emphasis)

I think Tolkien was drawing a distinction between an 'inner meaning' & an 'outer' or 'obvious' one. The book has a clear meaning, but it is there on the surface, & he makes no attempt to hide it (or it would be an 'allegory'). Any other 'meaning' you find in it is down to you, any 'message' you find in it is down to the 'value' it has to you.