‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

I must say that all this discussion of "Truth" with a capital T makes me a bit uneasy.

You and me both, Aiwendil.

It was precisely this concern which led me to question Helen's division of the thread between those who believe in "absolute Truth" and those who do not. Because every person is the product of different upbringings, social and cultural influences, experiences etc, every person's beliefs will vary to one degree or other. Certainly amongst those of different faiths and those who have little or no religious beliefs, but also the values of those who share a faith can vary quite considerably from one person to another. So I cannot accept that any one person is able to say that their a belief in an "absolute Truth" is any more "right" than another person's belief in the same concept, or indeed than the values of someone who does not strive for this "absolute Truth".

And so, while I would agree that there are "wrong" interpretations of Tolkien's works (judged by societal norms, although those will vary from one society to another), I would maintain that (apart from the negative counterparts of such "wrong" interpretations), there is no obectively measurable "right" way of interpreting them.

Certainly, I cannot agree with H-I's proposition that:

without such a concept [God] there is not way of understanting Tolkien. Appreciation, love, enjoyment – yes. Understanding – no.

since that is akin to saying that, unless one happens to hold a particular belief, one cannot truly understand Tolkien's works. Instinctively, for me, that just seems wrong.