‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[mark12_30]

Mister Underhill wrote:

Though as you point out, not all fall under the spell...

Those who do, fall at different times and places. In the old eucatastrophe thread, once people began comparing individual Moments we discovered they varied widely.

If it was predictable, it would be something else.

I instinctively rebel against critical theories which suggest that all interpretations of a text have equal merit. As readers delve into detail and subtlety and nuance, wide-ranging differences of interpretation will arise, but this does not contradict the idea that broader, more primary interpretations are indisputably correct.

You are not alone, and thank you for giving this clear voice.

[Bêthberry]

Ah, Mr. Underhill

I have this nagging sense that there are certain ?right? interpretations of any text, and I instinctively rebel against critical theories which suggest that all interpretations of a text have equal merit. As readers delve into detail and subtlety and nuance, wide-ranging differences of interpretation will arise, but this does not contradict the idea that broader, more primary interpretations are indisputably correct.

I don?t have time to try to back this up at length, and truth be told, I haven?t really thought it through much. It?s my gut reaction to some aspects of this discussion, so I thought I?d toss it out there.

We have all known, I think, that feeling of delight mixed with frustration that we've got the real goods on a book which others just can't seem to sus out. But does feeling one is right mean one is right? How can we demonstrate this?

For example, just which "right" interpretation of the Bible do you think is "indisputably correct'? Or the Koran?

The history of reading as well as literary studies is littered with ships of correct interpretation which have foundered on the shifting shoals of historical perspective, cultural change, personal point of view.

The point more properly is, I would think, not that all interpretations have equal merit but that merit can surprisingly derive even from misunderstanding.

But really, Undey you are sounding rather too much like a fresh young newbie who claims he hasn't thought much about the topic. If you want to stir the pot, give it a bit more thought.

[Mister Underhill]

Ouch.

But really, Bb -- bringing the Bible into it is a bit unfair and likely to pull this thread irretrievably off course.

Maybe you're right that I should have kept my mouth shut in the first place, but now that I have it open, I may as well insert my foot. I can think of a few LotR "interpretations" that seem fairly pat to me:

It's a tale of Good vs. Evil.

There is an organizing providential force at work in Middle-earth.

Gandalf is wise.

Sam is loyal.

These may seem so simple and obvious as to be essentially worthless, but I think we could carry on like this until we have a base of interpretations about the text which are "true" for all but the most misguided and terminally contentious. If you can't do that, then nothing means anything. I can take any text and literally make it mean anything that I like.

I am "free" to interpret Sam as faithless and Gandalf as a fool, just as I am "free" to think that up is down or that the earth is flat. But in this case, freedom is just another word for nothing left to talk about (apologies to Kris Kristofferson).

Stories mean something.

[davem]

Helen

Quote:'I don't see that he dismantled his M-E Legendarium (or canon) at all.'

Well, yes, he changes his focus in Smith, but he seems to be saying Middle Earth is not a different 'secondary world' from Smith's 'Faery'. They are not so much different roads to the same destination, its more like they're the same world seen in different ways. Its like the difference between Archetypes & Archetypal images. We can never experience Archetypes directly. What we experience are Archetypal Images. So, in this sense both the Faery Queen in Smith & Galadriel are Archetypal Images, but the Archetype is always hidden & unreachable until it is given an image we can relate to. In the same way we could say that Gandalf, Merlin, Vainamoinen & even Obi Wan Kenobi & Dumbledore are all images deriving from the same archetype. So, Middle Earth & Smith's Faery are ' Images' of the same underlying Archetype.

So while Middle Earth is fantastically detailed & rule bound, & any fiction set in that world must obey those rules & not contradict those details, any fiction set in Smith's Faery will not have to be so rule bound. But if both 'worlds' are the same place, then the 'rules' of Middle Earth are imposed only by that particular 'window' on Faerie. If we look at the same 'world' through a different 'window' we see Smith's Faery, & all the rules of Middle Earth have vanished. Sowhat of Tolkien's own earlier belief, the one that drove so much of his work on Middle Earth, that those details & rules are necessary if a secondary world is to be convincing? He certainly seems to have put that idea aside in presenting Smith's Faery to us. Its not 'realistic' in any way. Its simply a sequence of 'magical' images & scenes. It rejects all the rules for creating secondary worlds which Tolkien had put together & believed to be essential, yet it works, & is in many ways far more powerful in its enchantment than most of his Middle Earth writings.

[The Saucepan Man]

Fordim:

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

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

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

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

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

And to disagree with you too Mr U:

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

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

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

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

Stories mean something.

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

[mark12_30]

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

[Mister Underhill]

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

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

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

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