LotR -- Book 4 - Chapter 10 - The Choices of Master Samwise

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

I have yet to see any argument which convinces me that we must "stay in Middle-earth" as we read or risk destroying the truth. Where does one determine when reading/interpretation takes place--in the moment of reading or when one closes the book? It is, I posit, logically impossible to postulate such a split. Interpretation of meaning is an always ongoing process, not start and stop, for we are always reading ahead, to imagine where this leads, how the characters inter-relate.

Does this only apply to fiction, or to 'non-fiction' as well - say, for example, the posts on this particular thread? Is it not possible to read other's posts without imposing our own individual - even idiosyncratic - 'reading' on them?

I mean, should we even bother trying to understand what the poster intended or should we simply take whatever 'meaning' we as individual readers happen to find in it...

Having said that, I do begin to wonder if Tolkien was able to foresee the way certain words would develop new or even alternate meanings - he did make a lot of use of the words 'gay' & 'queer' after all.....

[Lalwendë]

Shakespeare at times seems to 'hear' inside a word or phrase the history of its future echoes.

This is a fanciful. It does not seek to understand what the author intended, it simply notes odd word usage and makes links to today's language. It is about curiosities of linguistics, about changes in language, not about what the author intended. We can go looking through older texts for odd turns of phrase which have different meanings today and we could find them by the score, and that's interesting. But it tells us nothing about what the author meant when he or she used that word or phrase. It satisifes our own interpretations, but that's as far as it goes.

This is why I do not like much literary criticism or analysis, as it seems to me that the critic is simply pulling apart a text to find what they want to find. I want to know what the author intended, I don't want to reconstruct a text for myself, for my own meaning.

There are many echoes in Tolkien's work, but it is also important to bear in mind what Tolkien himself may have learned, experienced or thought about. If it was simply not possible that he could consider a matter then it is not possible it could pass into his writing, and when I come across an odd word or phrase which seems to have alternate meanings I stop to consider if that could be the case. It's often interesting to bring up such alternate and arresting meanings and consider them, but ultimately it is unsatisfying as to getting towards the deeper meaning. Sometimes what we find in a text says more about us than it does about the author.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Does this only apply to fiction, or to 'non-fiction' as well - say, for example, the posts on this particular thread? Is it not possible to read other's posts without imposing our own individual - even idiosyncratic - 'reading' on them?

I mean, should we even bother trying to understand what the poster intended or should we simply take whatever 'meaning' we as individual readers happen to find in it...

Having said that, I do begin to wonder if Tolkien was able to foresee the way certain words would develop new or even alternate meanings - he did make a lot of use of the words 'gay' & 'queer' after all.....

davem, you are being particularly naughty here. Steiner's observation was,

these two nuances are beautifully apposite to Iachimo

Are you saying the same about 'gay' and 'queer'? (Rhetorical question--you needn't answer obviously. )

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This is a fanciful. It does not seek to understand what the author intended, it simply notes odd word usage and makes links to today's language. It is about curiosities of linguistics, about changes in language, not about what the author intended. We can go looking through older texts for odd turns of phrase which have different meanings today and we could find them by the score, and that's interesting. But it tells us nothing about what the author meant when he or she used that word or phrase. It satisifes our own interpretations, but that's as far as it goes.

This is why I do not like much literary criticism or analysis, as it seems to me that the critic is simply pulling apart a text to find what they want to find. I want to know what the author intended, I don't want to reconstruct a text for myself, for my own meaning.

This is your preference and of course you are entitled to it. It does not really well describe what Steiner is getting at here, as he is not one of these wild post modernists, but if you wish to characterise literary scholars--and remember that Tolkien was one--this way, that is your right here.

But this is bringing us back to the topic of the Canonicity thread and far away from the Chapter by Chapter reading thread, and so I would like to return to some specific comments about this chapter.

I would like to consider lmp's question about Gollem.

Originally Posted by littlmanpoet

But where is Gollum? Hiding? Fallen? Why is he not anywhere to be found at this point, considering that he shows up again later?

It seems to me that Gollem's hand is played out in the preceeding chapter, having led Frodo to Shelob in the great betrayal and then having failed to get the best of Sam. Gollem slinks off, essentially demonstrating his coward-like characteristics.

In terms of plot, though, Gollem cannot stay around, for he could have turned matters against Sam. The battle must, in dramatic terms, be between Sam and Shelob alone. Nor would it suit Gollem's plans to call the Orcs in, for he has no say with them. He wants the Ring. I don't want to look ahead too far, but don't we need him offstage so we don't dwell on his betrayal? This makes his final appearance at Mount Doom all that much more powerful I think as unexpected drama.

Better for Gollem to withdraw and regroup methinks and better for the very dramatic eucatastrophe at the end. Any other thoughts?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

davem, you are being particularly naughty here. Steiner's observation was,

Quote:

these two nuances are beautifully apposite to Iachimo

But was that what Shakespeare meant by calling Iachimo 'yellow'. Yes, the current meaning of yellow may be apposite, but it is not necessary to our understanding of Iachimo's character, which Shakespeare makes clear to us in other ways. My question would be whether Shakespeare was using the term 'yellow' to tell us something else about his character. Now, not being familiar with Elizabethan english I can't say whether 'yellow' had some other meaning in that period, but if it did then we should try & find out what that meaning was & take that on board, because it may add more depth to the character & tell us more about him. The danger is that if we get too caught up with this 'coincidence' that 'yellow' 'currently' carries implications of cowardice, then we may miss what Shakespeare is trying to tell us. Steiner's observation is (perhaps) interesting, but it could lead us to miss something more important. In fact, just doing a quick search I find that 'the color was traditionally associated rather with treachery'. So, its quite possible that Postumous was here statingnot that Iachimo was cowardly or jealous, but that he was treacherous. If this was the case we learn a little more about both Iachimo and Postumous than the mere yellow=cowardice/jealousy tells us - which is, as I said before, something we already know about Iachimo because Shakespeare has already told us it in other ways.

My point about 'gay' & 'queer' was simply that words do change meaning over the centuries, even come to mean something quite different to what they originally meant. It was in response to Steiner's

Shakespeare at times seems to 'hear' inside a word or phrase the history of its future echoes.

& was merely intended to show that its possibly just a fluke that the current meaning of 'yellow' fits one aspect of Iachimo's character, & that if 'yellow' had developed a different meaning then Steiner's point would just collapse. In short, its hardly a case - as far as I can see - of Shakespeare being able to ''hear' inside a word or phrase the history of its future echoes' & more one of an interesting (if possibly misleading, as far as our understanding of the characters goes) co-incidence which has been made way too much of by someone who wants to impute some kind of 'psychic' power to his literary hero. What would he have made of the appellation if 'yellow' had come to refer in modern parlance to homosexuality? Would he have read some kind of gay subtext into the story, or just ignored the whole thing?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

This is your preference and of course you are entitled to it. It does not really well describe what Steiner is getting at here, as he is not one of these wild post modernists, but if you wish to characterise literary scholars--and remember that Tolkien was one--this way, that is your right here.

It is no personal preference that I would rather look for the author's meaning in a text, it is central to the purpose of reading that we look for this. Yes, we will add in and build meanings of our own, as I've said before a text can resonate in many different ways, but why read at all if we disregard what the author intended to say?

Tolkien was not a literary scholar, he was a scholar of language, and as such approached the meaning of texts from a linguistic background, seeking to find the original meanings of the words and forming his analysis of the meaning on this. In On Fairy Stories he states his case against those critics who seek to deconstruct in order to find evidence to suit their own theories.

[Kuruharan]

You two will have very interesting dinner table conversations I think.

Then again, on the other hand, you may use the BD to discuss brainy things and spend dinner discussing Monty Python and Blackadder.

[Bêthberry]

Well, well, throw a Downer a bone in the shape of a suggestion that not all of Tolkien's writing was consciously so and they will worry it to death!

As I said in my previous post, I think this is getting off topic. That might be for the moderator to decide, but I will briefly suggest some thoughts here and then will retire to suggest that we hash out this particular aspect in PM.

As "we" have discussed elsewhere, Tolkien actually thought different things at different times about his Legendarium. Aiwendil argued rather nicely (was it on Canonicity or here in the Chapter by Chapter discussion of the Lothlorien chapters?) that there are three different stages to the characterisation of Galadriel, developed over a substantial period of time, with each stage suggesting rather different interpretations for LotR.

Then we have littlemanpoet's The Single Greatest (Publishing) Tragedy in Tolkien's Life thread where we are considering Tolkien's habit, later in his writing life, of revising in order to create an assumed consistency among all his vast works.

This is the difficult point about Tolkien and intention: he intended different things at different times in his writing, and each shift created little ripples in the fabric, sometimes requiring greater shifts and sometimes much dike-building.

Then there is his attitude towards applicability: Tolkien rejected allegory for the specific reason that it created a purposed domination of the author; in his chosen applicability lay the freedom of the reader ("Foreward to the Second Edition", LotR). (my bolding in place of quotation marks)

What was it Tolkien wrote in Letter #213, where he mentions the reader who deduced the similarity of Sam and Gimli's words about Galadriel to Catholic devotion of Mary, or the similarity of lembas under fasting to the Eucharist?

That is, far greater things may colour the mind in dealing with the lesser things of a fairy-story.

What would I give to be able to inquire of Tolkien his thoughts about Lilith and Shelob? About how the artistic structures of mythological narrative informed his imagination in fascinating and wonderful ways? Heck, even to be able to ask Christopher Tolkien these points. A very great deal. But alas I don't have that access.

So the issue is not that I would force my own idiosyncratic reading on a text that cannot bear it. The issue is a 'what if' and if so, how does this colour our understanding of this marvellous fantasy.

And, anyways, how sure are you, after all, that your denial of any applicability of the Lilith myth is in fact consistent with Tolkien, that he would have denied such applicability? How do we square "On Fairy Tales" with his later revisions? I don't think we can. Nor should we need to.

All I am saying is that my seeing 'applicability' of the Lilith legend to Shelob enhances my reading of Tolkien's myth-making. Just as the applicability of the hero's mystic marriage with the queen goddess brings richness to my reading of Aragorn and Arwen.

As an aside about the Steiner passage, davem, Steiner does mention Renaissance meaning in his reference to Middleton, which can be found in the OED. Your search that yellow was traditionally associated with treachery is interesting, but that is a meaning not found in the OED. (Despite Fordim's great admiration for that dictionary, and mine, I must point out that it is not infallible.) And, after all, Steiner was engaged in a large larger argument than that one passage can make clear. Perhaps your problems with the passage show something about interpretation: that context invariably impinges upon passages. This certainly is what happens when I read this chapter, I constantly cross reference it back to things I recall from previous chapters. And at this point, forward too, which takes me far out of bounds of that illusory, imaginary first reading.

But, shall we adjourn to PM so this thread can return to the chapter proper?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

All I am saying is that my seeing 'applicability' of the Lilith legend to Shelob enhances my reading of Tolkien's myth-making. Just as the applicability of the hero's mystic marriage with the queen goddess brings richness to my reading of Aragorn and Arwen.

I wouldn't deny your right to find any kind of applicability in the text. My point was that I can see more differences than similarities between Shelob & Lilith. They aren't at all the same kind of being, & their origins, motivations & 'fates' are different. What I'm saying is that first of all, as far as possible, we should read & experience the story as story & let it work on us. We should enter into the secondary world to teh fullest extent that we can, leaving as much baggage behind as we are able to. Second, we should attempt, just as objectively & without attempting to psychoanalyse him/her, to appreciate the story the author is telling us, what he wants us to know. Then, in the third stage, we can step back & psychoanalyse text & author (& ourselves if we wish), deconstruct, reconstruct, play around with, make guesses about it, draw on it, throw it around or set fire to it - because this is the least important, & least necessary, stage of the process. It breaks the spell, it is the 'breaking of the text to find out what it is made of.

Lilith carries too much baggage with her, & the danger of allowing that (inevitable?) mental connection to have its head is that we start seeing Shelob as 'nothing but' Lilith, or at least of having our appreciation of Shelob & what Tolkien was doing with her & saying about the nature (or one aspect of it) of evil.

Dion Fortune once said 'All the gods are one God & all the goddesses are one Goddess' which is absolutely true on one level, & completely wrong on another. The Romans had a tendency on encountering the deities of another culture, to declare them as being merely versions of their own gods. Any foreign god that might have had an association with battle was immediately declared to be a manifestation of Mars, of love a manifestation of venus, of Smithcraft, of Vulcan, etc. This lead to some complete misallocations & misunderstandings which went on to cause confusion among mythographers of later periods. What do you do with a goddess like Bridget, who is patron of poetry, healing & smithcraft, for instance?

I can't help feeling that if you could ask Tolkien about his thoughts on the Shelob/Lilith debate he would acknowledge some similarities, many differences, & then ask you how you felt reading the story he wrote - did it frighten you, inspire you, & most of all, did it 'enchant' you enough that you were 'in the moment' as you read it. If you weren't, if while reading of Shelob you were thinking of Lilith (or the shopping, or what you were going to watch on tv in half an hour) then he's probably feel he'd failed as a writer.

This certainly is what happens when I read this chapter, I constantly cross reference it back to things I recall from previous chapters. And at this point, forward too, which takes me far out of bounds of that illusory, imaginary first reading.

I don't think Tolkien would have had a problem with that - in fact I think that's what he would have wanted you to do. But in doing that you are mentally remaining within Middle earth, not tripping off to the ancient Middle east.