‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

SpM I can't deny that's what readersdo, but can we assume that Tolkien wanted to communicate something specific, whether his readers picked up on that or not?

In the Beowulf essay he re-constructs the poet, tells us his motives, & what he wanted us to understand. He doesn't ever say 'This is my opinion, this 'poet' is entirely my own invention & interpretation, if you don't like it go find your own'. He clearly believed that an artist has an intent, means something, wants too communicate something to his audience. If Tolkien thought that way about art, then clearly he intended us to approach his own art in that way.

Is there any value in attempting to understand Tolkien's meaning - to the extent we are capable of doing so? I'm simply uncomfortable with this idea that the reader has nothing to learn from the artist, that the artist has nothing of value to teach. & that ultimately, there's no point even making the effort to look outside one's own experience, to the wisdom & experience of another.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

I'm simply uncomfortable with this idea that the reader has nothing to learn from the artist, that the artist has nothing of value to teach. & that ultimately, there's no point even making the effort to look outside one's own experience, to the wisdom & experience of another.

I don't think that anyone posting in this thread has made that claim. I think it is quite valuable to study the artist; it can provide tremendous insight into the work. The question is not whether studying the author is worthwhile; it is whether the author's views are the ultimate aribiter of opinions about the work and the only source of value for the art.

And still I wonder to what extent the debate on this thread is simply a case of everyone arguing at cross-purposes. One group says that different readers have different views; the other concedes this. The other says that the author wrote the book for a reason and that studying him is worthwhile; the first group grants this.

What does it mean to say that the author is the final arbiter of "canon"?

[Bêthberry]

davem posted
I'm simply uncomfortable with this idea that the reader has nothing to learn from the artist, that the artist has nothing of value to teach. & that ultimately, there's no point even making the effort to look outside one's own experience, to the wisdom & experience of another.

Aiwendil posted

I don't think that anyone posting in this thread has made that claim. I think it is quite valuable to study the artist; it can provide tremendous insight into the work. The question is not whether studying the author is worthwhile; it is whether the author's views are the ultimate aribiter of opinions about the work and the only source of value for the art.

May I add my voice to what Aiwendi has here written. If I decide, after reflection, that further discussion is worthwhile, I might return to reply to his other question.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I think it is quite valuable to study the artist; it can provide tremendous insight into the work. The question is not whether studying the author is worthwhile; it is whether the author's views are the ultimate aribiter of opinions about the work and the only source of value for the art.

Like Bêthberry, I endorse what Aiwendil has said entirely.

But I would also add this. When LotR was first published, the text itself, together with the text of The Hobbit, were all that readers had to go on. Later, when Tolkien changed the Foreword, he added some autobiographical material, but it was limited. Other bigraphical material concerning Tolkien was limited too. So, friends and family aside, only those who were moved to write to him (something that he came to regard as rather bothersome) or take the time to do some delving could stand any chance of learning anything about the man himself. Tolkien was perfectly aware of this. Indeed, he no doubt positively encouraged it, as I understand that he was a very private person. So, he surely must have recognised that the vast majority of his readers would know nothing about his intentions in writing the book or his views on the themes covered. He could not expect (and would no doubt have been horrified at the thought of) every reader bombarding him with their questions. So, while I agree that authorial detail can be immensely valuable (to those who are interested in it), it was simply not available to many of his readers.

I myself knew almost nothing about the man until roughly 18 months ago, when I first joined this site. I didn't even know that Tolkien was a religious man. This despite LotR having been my favourite book for some 25 years. And I most certainly do not regard any of the five or so times that I read the book during that period as being less valuable than when I read it now.

Which is probably why I am so keen to stick up for those who read and digest the book, apply what meaning they see within it to their own life (if they are so inclined) and delve no further.

[davem]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwendil
I think it is quite valuable to study the artist; it can provide tremendous insight into the work. The question is not whether studying the author is worthwhile; it is whether the author's views are the ultimate aribiter of opinions about the work and the only source of value for the art.

Like Bêthberry, I endorse what Aiwendil has said entirely.

Not the ultimate, just the prime arbiter & source of value, & the one to which the greatest weight should be given. Its about understanding what another human being has to say to you, not about your opinion of what he's saying. And how can you even have an opinion of what he's saying if you don't listen as objectively as you can? What I bring to reading Tolkien's works has little or no value, (imo) in comparison to what Tolkien has to teach me.

[Bêthberry]

Its about understanding what another human being has to say to you, not about your opinion of what he's saying. And how can you even have an opinion of what he's saying if you don't listen as objectively as you can? What I bring to reading Tolkien's works has little or no value, (imo) in comparison to what Tolkien has to teach me.

I will assume, davem, that you have taken this position as a rhetorical or logical strategy, to attempt to redefine the discussion rather than as a literal statement that we who do not agree with you do not listen to others but operate out of our own personal vanities and egotism. The first I consider a fair part of discussion; the second I consider unfair and disrespectful of the many who have given a great deal of thoughtful time and effort to this thread.

Where are we to find this person who you want to teach us? You seem to treat the concept of Author as separate from Art, some kind of validating or authorising principle which helps us understand the Art (aka the Text). Thus, it seems to me, you would give priority to such extra-textual statements as can be found in letters, diaries, personal reminiscences.

For me at least, I would regard this position as denying the value and integrity of the Art; it says that peripheral and extraneous statements must take precedence to the Art/Text, which somehow fails to identify itself adequately and must be explained. This is like saying that readers cannot understand literature without some sort of guiding hand.

It seems to me that this concept of Author is a substitution for God as source of ultimate meaning. (Forgive me if this offends your personal beliefs or values, or those of others.) I would say that, if the Art / Text is to have some sort of universal or transcendent value, it ultimately must be given to the ages; it must be understood anew for each generation/reader.

And what do you mean by "listening objectively"? Are you suggesting that SpM, Aiwendil, Fordim and I are reading solipsistically and self-centredly? Am I not to bring my understanding of Anglo Saxon literature to bear on my reading, or my knowledge of northern myths and other mythologies? Can I not bring my understanding of why people find such worth and value to quest literature? In short, must I leave behind other Art/ Texts in order to listen to your god-like Author?

Maybe I can put it this way: When I listen to and speak with the people around me, I am invariably involved not just in decoding idiolects (mine and theirs) but the entire range and variety of dialects which make up the English language and the social culture of my time. It gets a little crowded at times, but to suggest that there is just one valorising or validating voice, the person I am speaking with, limits the nature of language. When we speak with others, there is always this balancing or negotiating of one out of many, of listening to the unique voice out of the plurality that makes up language.

Treating Author as God strikes me as limiting the Art very much. It isn't that I don't listen to Tolkien, but that I bring to my conversation with him my conversations with other Artists as well. And Tolkien now being dead, that conversation must involve the Art he left behind.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I will assume, davem, that you have taken this position as a rhetorical or logical strategy, to attempt to redefine the discussion rather than as a literal statement The first I consider a fair part of discussion; the second I consider unfair and disrespectful of the many who have given a great deal of thoughtful time and effort to this thread.

To be honest I was simply putting my own position as clearly & concisely as possible, & I can't see that anything I said implied lack of respect for you or anyone else. Its just I find the alternative position too close to 'deconstructionism' - which has always screamed Emperor's New Clothes!!! to me. Simply, I hold to the position that we are obliged, in so far as that is possible to give prime importance & weight to the author's views. I see the art as a manifestation of the artist's will & desire, & as his or her attempt to communicate an experience of the trancendent. As far as Middle earth is concerned the author is 'God'.

Maybe I can put it this way: When I listen to and speak with the people around me, I am invariably involved not just in decoding idiolects (mine and theirs) but the entire range and variety of dialects which make up the English language and the social culture of my time. It gets a little crowded at times, but to suggest that there is just one valorising or validating voice, the person I am speak with, limits the nature of language. When we speak with others, there is always this blancing or negotiating of one out of many, of listening to the unique voice out of the plurality that makes up language.

But surely the other person's 'voice' is the only thing worth concentrating on in the conversation, as its the only new thing, the only unknown, so the only thing worth paying attention to - all the other things you mention may be present, but they are obstacles, & should be (as far as possible) transcended, & only accepted as impediments to communication.

For me at least, I would regard this position as denying the value and integrity of the Art; it says that peripheral and extraneous statements must take precedence to the Art/Text, which somehow fails to identify itself adequately and must be explained.

No, it says that in the case of Tolkien in particular the art is the artist, & vice versa.

In short, must I leave behind other Art/ Texts in order to listen to your god-like Author?

As far as humanly possible, I'd say.

Are you suggesting that SpM, Aiwendil, Fordim and I are reading solipsistically and self-centredly?

I'm suggesting we all are (myself included), & that that's a bad thing, & gets in the way of our understanding what an artist has to say to us.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Its about understanding what another human being has to say to you, not about your opinion of what he's saying. And how can you even have an opinion of what he's saying if you don't listen as objectively as you can? What I bring to reading Tolkien's works has little or no value, (imo) in comparison to what Tolkien has to teach me.

Applied to the text written and published by the author, I do not disagree with you. Applied to anything beyond the text, I couldn't disagree with you more. An author has no guarantee that readers will actually like his story. From those that do, he cannot expect more than a tiny minority to delve any further than the text. For the vast majority of readers it is impractical for them, or simply of no interest to them, to do so.

I am not saying that they are right and you are wrong, just as I do not believe that you are right and they are wrong. Each is (within the boundaries that we have discussed earlier) an equally valid response to the author's work. Certainly, I cannot imagine that you are saying that we should all respond to art in the same way or approach it according to a specific set of guidelines.

[davem]

SpM I'm saying, as far as possible we must empty our minds, listen to that author as carefully as possible, take in what he/she has to say to the best of our ability, understand as far as we can theirwhole message, what they want to communicate to us, & then make a judgement on it, 'infect' it with our own baggage, etc. We must begin from a position that the author is smarter than we are & has something important to teach us (& whether you, or Aiwendil or Bethberry realise it, that's the position I adopt in regard to your posts on this thread )

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

SpM I'm saying, as far as possible we must empty our minds, listen to that author as carefully as possible, take in what he/she has to say to the best of our ability, understand as far as we can theirwhole message, what they want to communicate to us, & then make a judgement on it, 'infect' it with our own baggage, etc.

Why must we? Are you talking about everyone who reads LotR, those who are interested in delving further than the text, or just those who are interested in having this discourse with the author?

Originally Posted by davem

(& whether you, or Aiwendil or Bethberry realise it, that's the position I adopt in regard to your posts on this thread )

But you are primarily, if not solely, relying on the text of what we have posted.