‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

We can't know, because Tolkien didn't discover in time, but we can know that one of them is correct & the other isn't, because, given time, Tolkien would have discovered which one was 'correct'.

But, as Aiwendil points out, Tolkien's own thoughts and intentions changed over time. What he may have thought was "correct" at one point in time may well have seemed "incorrect" to him later in his life. Would you argue that Tolkien's latest thoughts on a particular issue should always take precedence on the basis that he was moving ever closer to the "truth" as he grew older? Even where those thoughts might conflict with his published works (for example, his ideas on the origins of Orcs, arguably)? Maybe his earlier ideas were the more "correct", but how would we ever know?

Originally Posted by Fordim Hegethistle

NOTE: I do not include in this the category of "atheists" -- those who believe the text has no meaning -- for the simple reason that the mere act of reading implies a faith that contradicts this idea: if reading were truly meaningless, why would anyone do it?

I think that there's a case to be made for the atheist reader. Someone who reads the book simply for pleasure and gives no thought to what it might mean to them or the world around them. Of course, it's unlikely that such a reader would hang around here on the Downs for very long, but it is (to my mind) a valid response nevertheless. Indeed, I could probably class myself as having been such a reader when I first read LotR.

Originally Posted by davem

My own feeling is that we cannot ignore the artists intention

I go back to what I said earlier in this thread. How many people read LotR with any idea of, or inclination to understand, Tolkien's intentions? 1%? Less? Tolkien "enthusiasts" are in a massive minority when it comes to those who have read LotR. Are 99%+ of people who read the book are misguided or simply wasting their time?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I think that there's a case to be made for the atheist reader. Someone who reads the book simply for pleasure and gives no thought to what it might mean to them or the world around them.

Ah, but then the meaning of the reading act would be to generate pleasure for the reader. The reader would still be 'using' the text to realise some 'purpose'. Such a limited and shallow purpose is sad and boring, but it still proceeds toward and through the meaning of the reading act for the reader.

[Bêthberry]

Her silver slippers glimmering like fishes' mail in the moonlight, and dancing effortlessly like the whispering brook, and bearing other cliches of grace and loveliness, Bethberry attempted mimesis, a reference to the real actions of Goldberry.

"Ahem, boys... er, gentlemen."

In this house, the discussion does not continue amongst the men after the ladies withdraw for the night. And withdrawing I am.

*looks around and collects all the candles, yellow and whites ones, their tapers flickering in her hand, and walks away with them*

May I suggest that you all retire also to think over your positions and words er they become too... hasty? Besides, I wish to join the frey, but must wait now until another day.

Using verse even worse than the original thought in some other author's imagination or unfully formed intention, and tripping over a bowl of lilies inexplicably left out on the floor, Bethberry curtsied graciously to all the verbal combatants and withdrew, humming to herself and taking all the light with her.

"We can always continue in the dark" whispered one voice.

"isn't that where we've always been?" asked another.

Yet a third announced, "What a daft save that was."

[davem]

(Whispers in case Bethberry is listening at the door)

Is the art seperate from the artist - can we treat the art as if it simply appeared out of nowhere, or pretend that we know nothing about the artist - or should we do that? The art stands alone, & that's all we have. If the artist meant anything, had any reason for painting the picture, that purpose should have gone to the grave with him. What was Leonardo's purpose in painting the Mona Lisa, & even if he had one, should we care?

Or, how important is Tolkien the man, the artist, in this discussion. Perhaps I'm arguing against myself (A habbit of the stupid ), because if Tolkien was attempting to communicate some 'objective' truth, then his part, to the extent that he succeeded, is irrelevant, & his contribution only plays a part to the extent that he failed. Yet, even if he was attempting to communicate an objective 'truth' it was his attempt, & we should respect that.

Its as much the Author, the Book or the Reader we're discussing, because the book is the author's attempt to communicate something to the reader. I'm happy enough to accept that there were different things the author wished to communicate at different times in his life, & that early stuff can & does contradict later, but I'm not entirely satisfied with it, because he continued to use the same stories, & its as likely that he was simply attempting to communicate his understanding of 'truth' from different angles, giving different aspects priority at different times. Perhaps, to pursue my earlier analogy, we have various sketches of the Tree, from different angles & with different numbers of branches, different shaped leaves, etc - some would argue from this that the artist was making up the tree, because if he was painting the tree differently each time then he couldn't have had a real physical model. Yet it could simply be that he never got the chance to study the tree properly - he only ever saw it from a distance, from the window of his train as he travelled into work each morning, & from his fleeting glimpses he tried to communicate not the tree itself, but his response to it.

And yet, does that matter, if all we have is the painting - I can see the argument, but I just feel that before we dismiss his intent, we must come to an understanding of what that intent was - to the extent that's possible, rather than just dismiss that unkown as unknowable.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

Is the art seperate from the artist - can we treat the art as if it simply appeared out of nowhere, or pretend that we know nothing about the artist - or should we do that? The art stands alone, & that's all we have.

This has always been more or less my view, though obviously one not very popular in literary circles. It has always seemed strange to me that the value of a work of art should critically depend on something as unknowable as the author's innermost thoughts. If it were discovered that Beethoven's fifth symphony had in fact been written at random by a team of millions of monkeys, that would do nothing to dislodge it from its place as my favorite piece of music. If it turned out that "Beowulf" had in fact been written in the early 20th century, a fact covered up by some massive conspiracy, I would not suddenly call it pastiche and condemn it to oblivion; I would still read and enjoy it.

Of course, such things are remarkably improbable. Works of art do not form at random, and it would be extremely difficult for an artist of one time to produce a work that so perfectly fit a much different time. That is where the importance of the artist lies, I think. The artist is like the inventor or the scientist in this regard: his or her importance lies not in the fact of being an artist, but rather in the art produced. We do not think that to appreciate the theory of relativity we must appreciate the details of Einstein's inner thoughts; rather, we appreciate Einstein because he produced the theory of relativity. The theory is what really matters, and so it is, I think, with the art.

And yet, does that matter, if all we have is the painting - I can see the argument, but I just feel that before we dismiss his intent, we must come to an understanding of what that intent was - to the extent that's possible, rather than just dismiss that unkown as unknowable.

Indeed; I hope I haven't given the impression that I think it is worthless to inquire into the author's intent. I think it is worthwhile, but for a different reason. The fact is that the artist physically produced the art - that is, the texts have their present form as a direct result of certain processes going on in Tolkien's brain. It's not surprising, then, that by studying Tolkien and Tolkien's mind, we can learn things about the text. A first-time reader of LotR may not be aware of any Catholic overtones in the work. Reading Tolkien's letters, he or she discovers Tolkien's Catholicism and its role in his writing, and comes to appreciate that aspect of the work. It's not that LotR has Catholic elements simply because Tolkien said so; those elements are inherent in the text. But studying Tolkien the man may help to illuminate such inherent elements.

Now I think I'll fall silent lest Bethberry comes around again.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

If it were discovered that Beethoven's fifth symphony had in fact been written at random by a team of millions of monkeys, that would do nothing to dislodge it from its place as my favorite piece of music.

No, but you'd know that the monkeys weren't trying to write a beautiful piece of music, that they weren't trying to communicate anything to you, or inspire any emotional response, so any response you did have to the music would have its source solely in you. That's not the case if Beethoven wrote it - that fact adds another 'dimension' to the work - it was written with intent - specific intent, to produce a specific response in its hearers. Beethoven wrote it for a reason, it exists for that reason, & if he hadn't had that reason to write it, it wouldn't exist, & you wouldn't ever have experienced your favourite piece of music. From this point of view, the artist/composer/scientist is as important as what they produce, even if their intention/motivation is ultimately unknowable. The work is in a sense a 'manifestation' of the worker, the effect the worker has on the world, the 'imprint' he makes on the physical or mental universe around him. There must be some personal aspect to the work, & some 'transcendent' aspect, if the work is true art (imo).

(edit cross-posted with BB) I will only add that I think Tolkien did attempt to take into account the authors of the ancient texts he studied - particularly Beowulf - & a good part of the Beowulf essay is spent attributting motives, desires & beliefs to that unknown poet (he even gave him a name, if I remember rightly!)- so he clearly felt that it was of such importance to take into account the artist in an attempt to understand a work of art that if he didn't know about him, he would make up a character for him - so for Tolkien, it seems, an artist could be discovered, dug out from his work, in fact it almost seems that he felt it necessary for an understanding of the work to have the possibility of a 'dialogue' with that author - even if Tolkien had to create the author in order to have the dialogue.

[Aiwendil]

The work is in a sense a 'manifestation' of the worker, the effect the worker has on the world, the 'imprint' he makes on the physical or mental universe around him. There must be some personal aspect to the work, & some 'transcendent' aspect, if the work is true art (imo).

Well that's the crux of our disagreement. I'm afraid I hold fast to the view that the art is valuable in itself, without reference to its creator, though again I don't think that this makes studying the author unimportant. I recall some old threads where I argued this; I'll dig them out and link to them if I get a chance.

Anyway, I wonder whether there's any value in further discussion of the issue, with such a fundamental disagreement.

And I still wonder to what extent this is all anything more than a disagreement about definitions.

Edit: Here are those links; each of them touches on issues we've also touched on here, though they cover a lot of other ground as well:

Book of the Century

Are There Any Valid Criticisms?

Dumbing Down the Books

[Bêthberry]

Bethberry comes in, brushing toast crumbs off her shirt, and licking a stray bit of honey from her fingers, having had a hard time sleeping for the playing in her head those whispers of davem...

davem, did Tolkien know the author's intention when he wrote about The Battle of Maldon or Beowulf? Lost to the dim echoes of time are the Anglo Saxon bards who gave him and us the poems. Yet that did not stop Tolkien from engaging with the works and giving us fruitful things to consider about them. Are we to have two different kinds of reading, one for ancient texts about which we cannot ascribe any authorial authorising, and one for modern texts about which we must say is insufficient since we must go to other things outside it to understand what it means?

On the other hand, if we consider the text as an self-contained object which holds its meaning, which the reader digs out, then we assume a certain condition on the part of the reader: a kind of blank entity which the text fills up, a bucket, waiting impassively to be filled up. I don't think this model really describes the kind of reader Tolkien was--it cannot account for how he saw newly.

But if we become more self-reflexive as readers, asking ourselves why we respond to certain things and not others, asking ourselves what other stories we are reminded of, what other experiences--in short, if we consider the value of our different interpretations--then I think we get closer to where the value of literature lies--creating experiences which allow us to be more fully human, more fully aware, more fully responsive. We will always endlessly be caught in the pursuit of meaning because that is important, but if we become too set and hardfast in saying that our end goal is simply to determine meaning, then we overlook the glorious aspect of faerie (which I might be tempted to say is the experience of all art and not just fantasy, but I grant this could be reductive), which is this seeing newly for the first time.

*wanders off thinking she really needs a second cup of coffee*

Edit: cross posting with Aiwendil, whose post I must now go read.

[The Saucepan Man]

Has Bêthberry gone? *Saucepan breaks out the port and cigars*

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Ah, but then the meaning of the reading act would be to generate pleasure for the reader. The reader would still be 'using' the text to realise some 'purpose'.

Well of course you are right. If someone derives enjoyment from a book, and nothing else, it still means something to them. But I was thinking more in terms of a class distinct from your "agnostics" and "believers". On your definitions, both of these classes are aware that there is some meaning to be derived from the book beyond the story itself, but the "agnostics" take their meaning from the text alone, while the "believers" are convinced that the meaning derives from something beyond the text. To "atheists", there is no meaning beyond the story itself, which simply serves to amuse them and perhaps divert them for a while from the realities of life (to which it bears, for them, no relation).

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Such a limited and shallow purpose is sad and boring, but it still proceeds toward and through the meaning of the reading act for the reader.

I would disagree that such purpose is either shallow or boring to those who approach the book in this way. These readers may find meaning to their lives elsewhere, or perhaps they regard such meaning (in spiritual terms) as unimportant. They might well consider it boring to look any further into LotR beyond the story itself, while finding fascinating other pursuits which you or I would find mind-numbingly dull. But I would not dismiss pure and simple enjoyment of the story told in LotR as shallow and dull, and I rather suspect that Tolkien wouldn’t either.

And, while we are on the subject, I am not so sure that the term "agnostic" (the group to which I imagine that I have been relegated ) is appropriate in this context, since it implies an uncertainty as to the existence of any meaning beyond the story itself. Your definition of this class, on the other hand, holds that they are aware that such meaning exists. It is just that they are not too bothered about pinning it down, and are content to simply apply their notion of it to themselves in whatever manner seems appropriate.

Nevertheless, I accept your definition. I am quite content to accept that there is meaning within LotR beyond the story. It "means" something more to me than just a good story. To me, this is a consequence of Tolkien tapping into issues central to human existence and experience, whether they be archetypes, character traits, aspects of morality and so on. And I don’t doubt that this was both intentional (in some respects) and subconscious (in others) on Tolkien’s part (although, as has been said, his intentions and subconscious motivations would have changed, however imperceptibly, over time). But I would class myself as “part-believer”, because I do have an interest in exploring such ideas (otherwise, why would I keep returning to this thread). It is just that this “external meaning” is not something which is central to my life (whether in relation to LotR or otherwise). And I have no difficulty in accepting and understanding those who regard such matters as unimportant, irrelevant or fruitless (the confirmed “agnostics” and the “atheists”).

[Bêthberry]

Humming and in a gentle temper tonight, Bethberry glides in with trays full of smoked Stilton cheese, camembert, paté, light salads and leafy greens, crackers and a variety of fresh breads. Sniffing the air, she quietly throws open the windows to air the room out and then pours herself a large glass of port. She lights candles in empty wine bottles and takes a chair.

Leaving aside for now the categories and classifications of readers, I would like to refer back to something davem.

No, but you'd know that the monkeys weren't trying to write a beautiful piece of music, that they weren't trying to communicate anything to you, or inspire any emotional response, so any response you did have to the music would have its source solely in you. That's not the case if Beethoven wrote it - that fact adds another 'dimension' to the work - it was written with intent - specific intent, to produce a specific response in its hearers. Beethoven wrote it for a reason, it exists for that reason, & if he hadn't had that reason to write it, it wouldn't exist, & you wouldn't ever have experienced your favourite piece of music. From this point of view, the artist/composer/scientist is as iportant as what they produce, even if their intention/motivation is ultimately unknowable. The work is in a sense a 'manifestation' of the worker, the effect the worker has on the world, the 'imprint' he makes on the physical or mental universe around him. There must be some personal aspect to the work, & some 'transcendent' aspect, if the work is true art (imo).

Let me draw on a personal experience here. From time to time, I come across old letters, notes, commentaries, recipes, written by hands who are no longer here. These written messages are inexpressibly precious to me, coming as they do from those who will never write again to me. These messages were no grand expressions of literature. They express nothing greater than the daily routine and activities in the lives of the writers and some thought and reflections on those affairs. Sometimes to my chagrin and shame I found them tedious in their banality. They were written with no greater intent than out of love for me and to share something of their time with me, who lived thousands of miles away.

Now my fingers trace the letters, because for me handwriting is the ineffable trace of the human being. And in the absence of the authors who wrote them, those messages take on new meanings, meanings which the writers did not intend and which I never at the time thought of. The passage of time and the absence of the writers has given them new meaning.

Now, I collect those flimsy pieces of paper and ink and store them in a box. Someday someone will find that box, looking through the effects I leave behind and, if I am important enough or if my own writing reaches enough people, maybe someone will pore over those shards of memory, trying to piece together their importance for me and the meaning the messages disclosed. Or maybe just those I leave behind, close to me, will do that. And they will provide another layer of meaning upon those pages and the handwriting. And I could say the same thing of the delicate pieces of crochet work which my mother produced before she could no longer use her hands. Those pieces had a beauty at the time of their creation, but they have a more substantive meaning now, for in the tiny stitches I can now see the evidence of her struggle with her looming incapacity and fate. I could not see that then. It is only later, in retrospective, that the evidence comes forth.

We read intent backwards, just as you say, davem Tolkien did in his work on the Beowulf poem. In order for Tolkien to arrive at his understanding of the poem, he, as you say, "attributed motives, desires and beliefs" to the poet. This, then, is Tolkien's process as a reader and interpreter. Yet we have no way of ascertaining whether these motives were in fact the poet's motives or whether they rather functioned to help Tolkien produce his interpretation. He as reader uses this poetic personae as an entry point to help him arrive at an understanding of the poem. He reads backwards. Our understanding of intention is often like this, arrived at reading backwards.

This is an important part of the reading process, but it does not necessarily or logically reflect the actual intentions of the author at the time of writing.

*stops to refill her port and then sits back comfortably in a large leather chair.*

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

We read intent backwards, just as you say, davem Tolkien did in his work on the Beowulf poem. In order for Tolkien to arrive at his understanding of the poem, he, as you say, "attributed motives, desires and beliefs" to the poet. This, then, is Tolkien's process as a reader and interpreter. Yet we have no way of ascertaining whether these motives were in fact the poet's motives or whether they rather functioned to help Tolkien produce his interpretation. He as reader uses this poetic personae as an entry point to help him arrive at an understanding of the poem. He reads backwards. Our understanding of intention is often like this, arrived at reading backwards.

All of which I accept, but...

I think with Tolkien there is something more going on - the 'Elf-friend' figure. If we take The book of Lost Tales, for example, we see that it is not simply a collection of old stories - it is a collection of old stories which Eriol-Aelfwine has passed on. Eriol is not just a peg to hang the story on, he is the conduit of story, he makes Faerie available to later generations. I thnk this is why Tolkien felt it necessary to (re)construct the figure of the Beowulf poet - stories only exist if they are told, &so there must be a teller. We have the same thing with the other Elf-friends throughout the stories, & they are the central figures in the two time travel stories.

As Flieger has pointed out Tolkien himself is the greatest Elf-friend, & in a sense he is a character in his own stories - he is the one who translates, passes on, the contents of the Red Book - LotR exists because Tolkien the Elf-friend has served as that conduit of story, from the Third Age to ourselves. Effectively he has written himself into his mythology. So we have, in a way, two Tolkien's, one the Oxford Professor, who can, if one wishes, be put aside, but the other Tolkien cannot, because he has become absorbed, by his own intention, into the mythology, as its conduit to ourselves.

So, how different are these two Tolkiens? Are they the same man, or is the 'translator' Tolkien different from the man, with different motives & aims? How did the translator Tolkien come into possesion of the copy of the Red Book which he translates & passes on to us - did Tolkien the man have an explanation for that?

This is what we miss - the chain of story - when we ignore the role of the storyteller, which was central to Tolkien's mythology - all the 'texts' are retellings & redactions - they are all accounts of events told by storytellers - 'living shapes that move from mind to mind', not simply the events themselves, but the events being told & retold.

[Bêthberry]

posted by davem
This is what we miss - the chain of story - when we ignore the role of the storyteller, which was central to Tolkien's mythology - all the 'texts' are retellings & redactions - they are all accounts of events told by storytellers - 'living shapes that move from mind to mind', not simply the events themselves, but the events being told & retold.

Oh, I have never said that the role of storyteller in the tales should be ignored. Far from it. Look at how Chaucer plays with the personae of tellers of tales in Canterbury Tales. Medieval literature is full of this fascinating multiplicity of perspectives, a multiplicty which became increasingly restricted as we developed concepts of "Author" and the standard Nineteenth century omnisicient narrator.

But this is a far, far jump from the kind of investigation into Authorial Intention which you have been positing in the past, to my mind.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

But this is a far, far jump from the kind of investigation into Authorial Intention which you have been positing in the past, to my mind.

I'm not changing my position, merely coming at it from another angle. My point has always been that authorial intention, in fact authorial 'presence', has to be taken into account if we are to understand a work of fiction - particularly so with this work of fiction, where the author is not simply adopting a Chaucerian role a la Canterbury Tales, but plays a central role in the existence of the story - the Elf-friend is not merely a redactor, he is a living link with a lost past - literally so in the case of the Notion Club Papers.

Tolkien stands both 'outside' his mythology as its creator & inside it as its 'translator', & so he, the author, the man Tolkien, must be taken into account not just because he himself is a character in the secondary world, but because the whole world is a product of his own experience & exists because he desired it to exist.