Author, Reader, or Text? (aka Canonicity Slapdown 2005)

[davem]

Sneaks in wearing big hat & false beard & using assumed name so as not to look like a hypocrite....

Where's option five - The meaning is to be found in the glimpse it provides of 'joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief'?

[Kath]

But surely the experience of the reader includes their own personal analysis of the text and their view of the intention of the author. That is why reading is so subjective.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Sneaks in wearing big hat & false beard & using assumed name so as not to look like a hypocrite....

Where's option five - The meaning is to be found in the glimpse it provides of 'joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief'?

It isn't there, davem because that is an effect the reader experiences based upon his or her own subjective reading experience. So it's there under # 2.

Actually, I wouldn't mind a write-in option.

[VanimaEdhel]

Thus far, the voting is a little lop-sided - too lopsided. Too bad I already voted. I would vote for one of the two that have no voted just to arouse controversy.

But this is the question that has haunted me for some time (since I cannot secure an answer for myself): if one reads a certain message in the author's work, but the author in no way intended it to read that way, is that message interpreted by the reader a valid one? Most English teachers argue "yes", but I know from experience that there are not many things I find more irritating than when people create things in my writing that are not there. There is part of me that says, "You're missing the entire point!" Then, there is another section of me that thinks, "Perhaps somehow I did intend that - or it just birthed itself in my writing." It can be compared, I suppose, to the method I use to write. It is not as though I carefully plan out every facet - it comes almost as though it is arriving through me, not from me. Therefore, does the story have a life of its own once it's out of my hands, open to the interpretation of strangers that know nothing about me?

[Mister Underhill]

davem and Bb, you two ought to have your own show.

"So who's from Moria?"
"That's right."
"No, I mean, who's from Moria?"
"Of course he is. Why do you keep repeating yourself?"
"I don't know--"
[Together:]"Iron Hills!"
"Whoooo!"

There's got to be someone to hold back the curtain and someone to look at what's on the other side. A novel is a communication, a meeting of the minds -- a sort of telepathy, as Stephen King would have it.

[obloquy]

I'm the only dude who voted for analysis of the text. Sometimes I don't even trust Tolkien when his opinion conflicts with an interpretation that lends itself to a stronger internal consistency.

Edit: It's important to note that this attitude towards his writing was allowed for by Tolkien himself when he chose to write things as if he did not even know the full truth of Middle-earth.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It isn't there, davem because that is an effect the reader experiences based upon his or her own subjective reading experience. So it's there under # 2.

Actually, I wouldn't mind a write-in option.

Weeellll....

Depends how you're using 'subjective' (& 'objective'). I'd say what I'm talking about is a 'subjective' experience of an 'objective' Truth'/Reality. Its 'subjective' because it won't happen to all readers, but I think true Art is a window on another, objective, reality - & that's the 'meaning' we find in the text - ie, that's why its meaningful to us on the deepest level.

And I don't think that's included in option 2.

So there

[Lalaith]

Yup, Kuruharan, you're clearly an old-fashioned kind of critter, like me. Author's intention, positively Victorian. Anyway I hummed and hawed between A&C and went for C.

[Kuruharan]

Yup, Kuruharan, you're clearly an old-fashioned kind of critter

I'VE BEEN FOUND OUT!!!!

I'm noticing a trend here wanting to discuss what our options ought to be rather than actually voting. Perhaps we should have a poll about what should be in the poll?

[alatar]

The voices inside of alatar's head held a meeting to decide on a poll choice. Here's a glimpse into that conversation...

"Let's look at our options, shall we?

The first choice has it all on the author's side. If Tolkien were writing strictly for Tolkien, then we'd be okay with this choice, but didn't he assume that his works would be read by others (and not just members of his family)? The books are a form of communication, and that presumes that some other will hear the message. All forms of communication have an error rate - the message from inside the head (thought) is transmitted via voice or writing and always something is lost in the translation.

Just look at how fellow B-Ders interpret to our posts.

Even with God-like writings skills and the ability to hammer the 'meaning' into stone, there is still the chance that the message will not be received clearly. As the author cannot control the reader/observer, then one cannot believe that the meaning can be derived solely on the intention of the author.

If an author's intention fell in the woods, would anyone hear it?

Which leads to the second choice. The reader obviously can infer a meaning, but as two different reader can derive two different meanings, this method of determination is subjective. If a thousand readers determined a thousand meanings, should we average or filter these to see what is in common? But what about those readers who cannot read the works in the original language? And then there are those readers who have watched the Peter Jackson films and so are, shall we say, tainted by that?

When did they add that stuff about that Tom guy - he wasn't in the movie.

Choice three seems to be reasonable, but debate by the 'experts' may just devolve into who can shout the loudest and longest. Even with objective standards and guidelines, the analysts, being human, are subjective and also are not privy to the author's pure thoughts but just the 'translations.' Analysis may approximate the meaning, but there will always be doubt.

And there are those that are so 'expert' that they cannot see that sometimes lembas are simply just lembas.

The last choice then would seem to be the most reasonable, as it is noncommittal, states a liking for the text and could preclude having to make such a long-winded rant such as this one...

We vote for #4."

[Formendacil]

The text.

As the text is the written and presented intention of the author, the arbiter of this epic and novel-world, he is the "canon".

In the instance that the text contradicts itself, the author's intentions are to be examined, then the text more congruent with those intentions is to be held as more canonical.

That's MY canon, anyway.

~Formendacil - ~

[davem]

Originally Posted by Alatar

The books are a form of communication, and that presumes that some other will hear the message. All forms of communication have an error rate - the message from inside the head (thought) is transmitted via voice or writing and always something is lost in the translation.

We are still left with the question of what 'message' the author is attempting (well or badly) to communicate. Is it his own 'message' or does it arise elsewhere - is he attempting to communicate an experience he has had, so as to make that experience available to others? Or at least to let others know that such an experience is available for those that want it.

This question was never resolved in the Canonicity debate, because, I suppose, it is about the nature of 'Art'. Is there an objective 'Reality' which Art makes accessible to us, opening a 'window' on another 'world'.

Sorry, but in this kind of discussion I think we will always be reduced to putting terms in quotes, because of the problems of translation Alatar refers to. This is not simply a matter of the translation of an author's ideas into words & of the translation of those words into other languages & media, but of the deeper, more primary, 'translation' of transcendant Reality into mundane methods of communication. This is something Tolkien explored, particularly in his time travel stories, but also in his use of dreams in works like LotR. It is a question of how (& possibly why) 'spirit' breaks into the physical, & what form that 'breaking in' takes, as well as the effect it has on those who find themselves on the recieving end of it.

Of course, LotR, like any art may be just that - art as opposed to Art, simple entertainment. I think we should be open to the possibility that it is more than merely entertainment, because if we rule out that possibility out of hand we will never have the opportunity of experiencing the Transcendent, & merely explain it away. If something changes us then we have to accept its objective reality - the argument then becomes one about the source of that 'reality'. Was Tolkien's work 'merely' his own invention? Would we have been able to have that experence without his works? And finally, what, exactly, is the experience we are having?

Does Tolkien's work provide an experience of 'Joy, beyond the walls of the world'? If it does then there must be something ('Something') beyond the walls of the 'world' (which is to say - if it is to say nothing else - that there is something beyond the 'walls' of our own little 'world', our own experiences or 'baggage') for us to have an experience of.

So, I think that (inevitably) when we ask questions about where the 'meaning' of Tolkien's work (or any other art/Art) is to be found we have to clarify first exactly what we mean by 'meaning' (or 'Meaning')...

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Where's the middle-ground -- the collaboration between author and reader?

Hear, hear.

Originally Posted by davem

Where's option five - The meaning is to be found in the glimpse it provides of 'joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief'?

Hear, hear.

Where's "The collaboration between the author, the reader, and The Author of the Story By Which I Do Not Mean Myself?" Though I'm just rewording davem's option, above. (You go, davem.)

Fordie, I give you applause for starting these polls. The rest of us shoiuld do them more often.

Maybe we should let this poll run its course as is, and then put up another with all the "where's option number umptyfratz" and do it again.

Does Tolkien get to vote too?

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Perhaps we should have a poll about what should be in the poll?

A song, Mister Underhill! Sing us a song!

[Lyta_Underhill]

Oh great! Another dip into the Canonicity pool! As I am currently fresh from the Dead Marshes, it is tempting to ponder whether this topic is clear as the mere of Kheled-zaram or if it is as tortuous and fraught with "candles of the dead" as the Dead Marshes themselves. Needless to say I haven't voted yet; this requires thought (again) and the re-booting of old patterns woven with new ones. But, drat it all! It requires thought!

I visited the link to the "What broke the enchantment?" thread and found one entry for the Ents. Personally, this created a lasting and new enchantment for me that I can't imagine disregarding as I look at any tree! Different experiences for different people, reacting to the same text. But the trees are there, whether the eye of the reader sees them or not. And they have aspects that are beyond any eyes, perhaps even those of the Professor, as he has hinted in other areas. Maybe this is the literary version of the "tree falling in the forest" question...

Anyway, a jolly good lark, Fordim! Thanks!

Cheers!
Lyta