‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Lalwendë]

One moment the discussion concerns "canonicity", the question of the author's importance, and the nature of imaginary worlds. Then suddenly I find myself reading a tirade against moral relativism and even a passing discussion of metaphysics.

Well, one of the things I was hoping to get at from my first post on the thread was that in my opinion, there is a lot of weight in the theory that the reader constructs meanings - but I think everyone has picked up on the more philosophical side (and there's nothing wrong with that, it's an interesting discussion).

Anyway...if you take on board that each reader does have differing opinions and experiences then it is not such a big step to realising that there is potential for each reader to construct 'truths' of their own. Whether these truths are valid, correct, or moral, then this is up to that reader to convince us (although sometimes we'd rather they didn't bother). In the case of people who read racist meanings into a text such as LOTR, then it is nigh on impossible that they will convince anyone. That SPM mentions this hints to me that someone indeed has constructed this meaning. I don't want to be convinced of such people's arguments, so there's little chance of me ever wasting time in reading such a theory apart from to argue why I think they are wrong, but I may consider reading such ideas if I happened upon them, in much the same way that I like to read the letters page in The Daily Mail as they are invariably diametrically opposed to everything I believe in. I hope this makes sense?

About there being a concrete 'truth' within Tolkien's work - yes, I agree that this must be the case, as it is a work of art. The 'real' world is infinitely more chaotic and random so there is (in my opinion) little chance of finding truth within it - you are lucky if you do find truth within it. But, while Tolkien had his 'truth' which is there to be found within his work, by the very nature of words and semantics, readers will inevitably find other 'truths' of their own. Which critic was it who proposed the theory that the reader was important in constructing meaning? I cannot remember, I have blotted it from my mind since graduating.

***

Yes, it appears I am now doomed as I have been drawn into the evil 'C' thread. It is the Corryvreckan of the 'Downs.

It reminds me of one of those discussions you have where everyone's having a drink and in what seems like no time at all, you find yourself sitting in a smoky room at 6am with eyes like pinholes, having set the world to rights....It's been a long time...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Which critic was it who proposed the theory that the reader was important in constructing meaning?

I think it was Bethberry

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwende
Which critic was it who proposed the theory that the reader was important in constructing meaning?

I think it was Bethberry

Ha ha! If I recall, my suggestion was not to give priority to any particular part of this Trinity of Author, Book or Reader, but to consider the space between them as as an active process of the human mind. In fact, my point is not so very far from davem's statement of his reading--that each new reading generates new awareness and understanding. I simply say that out of respect for the act of reading, I do not denigrate any stage of that process, whether it is the first, hesitant or 'naive' reading or subsequent more knowing ones. As I said earlier on this thread, there will be much that some can learn from even as incomplete or skewed a reading as that of the White Supremacists--a point which I think Lawendë is making here.

I learn something new each time, because I'm more open to the truth the older I get & the more experiences I have, but the Truth is constant, & its about coming closer to it.

So, davem's experience reading examplifies my point that the reader's own stand is part of how he or she is able to understand the text. I suppose another way of saying this is that some of us want to define the issue by the destination while others of us wish to say that it is the journey itself which is our interest.

However, now that davem has drawn me back in here, let me say that what has kept me away from this current focus on "Truth" or "moral worth" is what I see as a confusion of semantics. I mention it now to bolster my reputation as a nitpicking pedant but also to suggest how 'meaning' can be slippery.

I won't copy and paste the number of times most of you, HI, SpM, Aiwendil, and davem if not Lawendë also--Fordim is playing cat and mouse now have used the word "objective". Here is just one example.

davem posted

Tolkien is clear in his attitude to Boromir - Boromir does wrong when he tries to take the Ring, whatever Boromir himself might believe at the time. Its not that 'In Tolkien's universe morality is objective' as Aiwendil puts it, its that from Tolkien's pov morality is objective, in a man's house or in the Golden Wood. The distinction simply doesn't stand for Tolkien. Its like claiming that Jesus sets out one moral value system in his parables, but that the moral value system in this world is different. Tolkien's original intent was to awaken people to an objective moral value system through his stories, by presenting that objective standard to us through an invented mythology.

Now, I can surmise that 'ojective' makes a nice flip side to 'subjective' particularly when the position of reader is being refuted as incomplete or partial. However, in my experience, the kind of permanent, eternal standard which is being alluded to more usually is referred to as absolute.

I know that 'objective' often stands in for 'unbiased' and 'unaffected by personal feelings' . I also often carries very positive connotations, derviving from our expectations of the scientic or 'empirical' method as the one less prone to error.

However, in my experience, the kind of unchanging moral worth being posited here is "absolute", meaning free of any 'arbitrary standard,not comparative or relative" , something 'unequivocal, certain, sure," something "full and perfect."

As I said, nitpicking pedant. But HI had asked for definitions.

[Aiwendil]

But Tolkien didn't draw a distinction between the moral value system of Middle earth & the moral value system of this world.

Yes, but I do. And so do many others. The essence of my argument, which I still think is sound, is twofold:

1. You cannot use Middle-earth's morality to prove a point about real world morality - the fact that you or Tolkien or anyone else thinks that these are the same does not logically necessitate that they are the same.

2. A debate over moral philosophy in the real world cannot prove a point about Tolkien's world's reality, because the latter simply is what it is, regardless of whether or not the real world's morality happens to be the same thing.

I understand that Tolkien thought that the morality of the real world is the same as the morality of Middle-earth; and certainly that makes it worthwhile to look at Tolkien's moral philosophy if one is interested in Middle-earth. But what matters here is Tolkien's view - regardless of whether or not that view is correct.

I say this because if real moral philosophy is to be debated, things will quickly come to an impasse. I also worry that we are on the point of seeing a claim like "if you disagree with Tolkien's moral philosophy then you don't fully appreciate his work". If such is in fact your claim, then there's no more to be said. And if such is not, then I don't see how anyone's opinion about real moral philosophy enters into the discussion, provided that one "suspends moral disbelief" as it were, when dealing with Middle-earth.

Bethberry wrote:

However, in my experience, the kind of unchanging moral worth being posited here is "absolute", meaning free of any 'arbitrary standard,not comparative or relative" , something 'unequivocal, certain, sure," something "full and perfect."

"Absolute" works for me. I don't really see a problem with "objective" - depending only on the object - the real world - rather than on the subject - the person viewing the world. But "absolute" in this context means exactly, or almost exactly, the same thing. I don't see, by the way, any reason that "absolute" must mean "full and perfect"; it simply means "the same across the entire domain", "not relative".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I also worry that we are on the point of seeing a claim like "if you disagree with Tolkien's moral philosophy then you don't fully appreciate his work". If such is in fact your claim, then there's no more to be said. And if such is not, then I don't see how anyone's opinion about real moral philosophy enters into the discussion, provided that one "suspends moral disbelief" as it were, when dealing with Middle-earth.

Well, as you say, you have to accept it within Middle earth if you are to appreciate his work, because it will not make sense unless you do. But then why would you not accept it outside Middle earth? What I mean is, why would you consider it invalid in the context of this world? Is it that while 'in' Middle earth you 'force' yourself to think in a way that is naturally alien to you, or that is in conflict with the way you normally see things? Tolkien's position is that that approach is invalid, & I think if we are to engage with an artist we can't just say 'I think you're wrong' & leave it at that. What is 'wrong', or 'incorrect', or 'invalid' in Tolkien's philosophy? Why does it only apply within Middle earth?

I can't say that my understanding of Tolkien's Art is superior (or inferior) to yours, or anyone else's. I would say that I don't change my moral stance when I enter into Middle earth, so I find I'm not required to deliberately alter my perspective, to think myself into the secondary world. I find the idea strange - that one would have to stop for a moment before beginning to read & think 'Right, now I have to adopt a different moral value system, in order to understand & orientate myself to this otherworld.

Now, I say that not as a Christian, because I don't think its necessary to be a Christian to orientate oneself into Middle earth. I don't think the moral value system is specifically Christian - & this is where to an extent I can see where you're coming from, because there are somethings within the stories which require one to 'suspend disbelief' & accept Christian symbolism, because that will enable you to understand some of the significance of the story more easily, or in greater depth - for instance if you hold in mind the idea of Mary, & the Host, you'll get more out of the figures of Galadriel & Elbereth, & of Lembas - you're experience will be enhanced - but that is not the same as adopting a wholly different moral value system or metaphysics.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

So, davem's experience reading examplifies my point that the reader's own stand is part of how he or she is able to understand the text. I suppose another way of saying this is that some of us want to define the issue by the destination while others of us wish to say that it is the journey itself which is our interest.

But what is this 'destination' - is it a 'place/state' which exists already, towards which we are moving - does the 'Road' lead somewhere specific, or are we making the road as we travel - is this 'destination' a place that is waiting for us, or is it simply wherever we end up?

My favourite poem (anonymous, prob. originally Middle English)

The Key of the Kingdom.

This is the Key of the Kingdom;
In that Kingdom is a City;
In that City is a Town;
In that Town is a Street;
In that Street there winds a Lane;
In that Lane there is a Yard;
In that Yard there is a House;
In that House there waits a Room;
In that Room there is a Bed,
And on that Bed a basket;
A basket of sweet Flowers;
Of Flowers, of Flowers,
A basket of sweet Flowers.

Flowers in a basket;
Basket on the bed;
Bed in the Room;
Room in the House;
House in the Yard;
Yard in the Winding lane;
Lane in the Street;
Street in the Town;
Town in the City;
City in the Kingdom.
This is the Key of the Kingdom,
Of the Kingdom this is the Key.

And, for me, that's the end of the 'Road'.

(Actually, it kind of is, 'cos I'm off to Oxonmoot tomorrow, & won't be back till late Sunday.)