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

[Thenamir]

Allow me to give the monkey wrench yet another perverted twist. In my long-winded exposition on the definition of meaning, I neglected to note one more pertinent flaw in the form of Fordim's poll. To the question of the meaning of LOTR, I respond with the question, 'Meaning to whom?'

Obviously we have been going back and forth on how LOTR affects individual readers, to which the obvious answer (stated in many forms) is that it depends on the experience of the reader, hopefully guided by the leadings of the author. But alatar's statement

I assume that we get back to the 'reader majority' where the 'meanings' are averaged and outliers (opinions that are way, WAY outside the curve) are thrown out.

brings another frame of reference to the debate, and that is the meaning to readership in general, or society in general.

The literati (those who make their living either by writing books that are painful to read or by persuading the masses that such pain is for their own good) consider Tolkien an inferior author and his readers to be those not sophisticated enough to comprehend Hemingway. To them, reading is not something to be enjoyed but endured, and since so many people enjoy LOTR it must be worthless. On the other extreme of that spectrum, perhaps, there are those so enraptured by LOTR that they delude themselves into thinking that the story is not fiction, but history -- perhaps even recent history -- and they go off on some trip (with the likely aid of L.S.D.) to find Middle-Earth somewhere in the real world. I think it wise to place both extremes into the great wastebin with those who have never read LOTR and have no intention of doing so. Add to them those whose distorted worldviews force a single message on *every* work they encounter.

That leaves us in the Great Middle, and even amongst ourselves we are mired in endless debate on

elves and orcs and sailing ships,
of stewing herbs and kings,
of why Mount Doom is boiling hot
and whether 'Rogs have wings.

Suffice to say that the meaning of LOTR is where the readers want to find it -- some in the embodiment of personal experience, some in detailed analysis of words (and nuances of words "in between the lines"), and some in just curling up with a good read on a rainy weekend afternoon. It's meaning to society and ultimately to history is not something we will decide here.

I guess my point is that we are getting away from comparing apples to apples. I believe that neither in the realm of "personal experience" nor of "reader consensus" will we ever be able to come up with a finite definition of LOTR which could be described as "THE" Meaning. The never-ending desire in all of us for certainty, to be able to say "this, and not that," is something that is rarely satisfied on this side of eternity. But we will continue in endless circles in this polite discussion until someone better defines the terms, and perhaps even then. Fordim?

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

.... To the question of the meaning of LOTR, I respond with the question, 'Meaning to whom?'

... I believe that neither in the realm of "personal experience" nor of "reader consensus" will we ever be able to come up with a finite definition of LOTR which could be described as "THE" Meaning. The never-ending desire in all of us for certainty, to be able to say "this, and not that," is something that is rarely satisfied on this side of eternity. ...

Originally Posted by Thenamir

.... that certain types of readers gravitate towards works like LOTR -- people like myself (though certainly not confined thereto), who have not yet had all sense of awe and wonder quite beaten out of them by the world and it's drudgeries and injustices. Who can feed their imaginations on words of beautiful possibility and suspend that rationality which monotones on about how incredible and impractical such concepts might be. Like C.S. Lewis's Puddleglum, I will live like a Narnian, even if there is no Narnia. I will maintain Gondorian ideals of honor, of justice tempered with mercy, and of doing what's right, even if the world should laugh in derision. I will ever strive to conform to the objective Standard. And one day I know I will find my Narnia, my Gondor, beyond the walls of the world....

Perhaps LOTR draws such readers; perhaps, sometimes, it transforms the reader into such a one. Either way, beyond the walls of the world, it may be that the meaning is seen in the truth-- that Truth which we glimpse at each eucatastrophe; and the Author of that Truth may be one "to whom" -- or rather by whom-- the meaning is finally declared in full.

[Turgon Philip Noldor]

I don't know whether or not I should join in this conversation, but I guess I will. Of course this is a matter of opinion, and that is what you want, is it not? So I'll just add my opinion. I think the meaning of The Lord of the Rings is in the intention of the author. I know that puts me with the weaker side, or perhaps the "unpopular" side of this poll. (No offence to any who have picked the "Intention of the Author". But that is my oppinion.

[Lyta_Underhill]

I believe that neither in the realm of "personal experience" nor of "reader consensus" will we ever be able to come up with a finite definition of LOTR which could be described as "THE" Meaning. The never-ending desire in all of us for certainty, to be able to say "this, and not that," is something that is rarely satisfied on this side of eternity.

It is interesting that the natural tendency of Man is to attempt to reduce everything to ONE. Or even 42... I've taken a rain check from the 'Canonicity' thread , although I can't help reading it from time to time to see how the boat is swaying today. Honestly, if the meaning is in authorial intent, then it is NOT in reader experience? This would posit only one meaning and only one place it could be. Perhaps we can apply Heisenberg's theory to this question and then admit we can't find the meaning for looking for it so hard, or that it slips through the fingers of one who grasps for it too eagerly.

I'm still not voting, but if I did, I'd have to say the meaning is everywhere, in the author's expressed intent as well as in what the reader takes away with him- or herself, and in a strange synthesis somewhere between the two. Of readers, of course, there are many, so these points would exist almost everywhere. Within every kernel of applicability is the author's intent to show a truth, not necessarily the very truth that is gleaned by the reader, but one that opens a door and starts the reader on the 'road that goes ever on and on.'

Hope that made sense; it is late, and I'm seeing points of meaning everywhere. Or maybe I'm just seeing spots.

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. Good job of wording, Thenamir; even slipped in that word "finite," which seems to be that which we try to pin down...perhaps the meaning is "infinite," rather, and not content to be trapped inside a box! No finite meaning could ever be correct or complete! But am I just playing with words and concepts? What, after all, is an intended meaning with no applicability? Or an oft-cited inspiration without substance?