‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

...there is no one interpretation which can be objectively shown to be "right".

I think even at this generalized level (“Stormfront’s interpretation” can be broken down into a set of more specific interpretations, presumably), we can formulate a positive refutation, even if it’s hard to articulate. LotR is not about racial purity and white superiority because a central theme of the book is the cooperation of a group of racially diverse people, who, in the course of their adventures, break down walls of bigotry and prejudice that divide them.

We might be able to refine that through conversation, but I think you’ll probably agree that my interpretation is headed in the right direction.

davem, an interesting post. I’ve never read Fleiger, so that’s the first I’ve seen of that explanation. I’ll leave SoWM alone for now except to say that I’m a bit surprised that you would cite a story clearly intended to have allegorical meaning – deliberately meant to relate to “our world” – as an example of “pure Faerie”.

Originally Posted by davem

In the same way, the 'meaning' of the stories set in the secondary world should stay there, because it can only come through stripped of its secondary world magic.

Are you still talking about allegorical type meanings? If there’s no meaning that we can relate to our own lives and situations, what Tolkien called applicability, then a tale may serve to give us a few hours’ reading enjoyment, but won’t have much more impact. I would argue that a large part of LotR’s enduring appeal lies in its profound depth of meaning.