‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

So we have been told that it is not allegory, yet we can read it in that way if we wish. If we do, then that is the reader's perceived meaning, but it is not Tolkien's. So which is right? Do we ignore what the Author has told us, ignore the limits he has imposed?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Tolkien has established the terms in which LotR is to be understood, and he has not only stated that LotR is not allegory, but he has then defined that statement.

We could still see the work as allegory, but to do so we must choose to reject Tolkien's terms. Therefore in this case the Author is of great importance to our understanding, whether we accept or reject what he has stated.

Originally Posted by SpM

I don't think that anyone is questioning the importance of the author to the reader's understanding. Without the author, there would be no work for the reader to understand. The question for me is whether the author has the right to dictate the meaning of his work (and indeed the terms within which such meaning is defined) to his readers, and whether other readers have the right to label an interpretation which does not accord with the author's intention (or indeed their own) as (objectively) 'wrong'. I would submit that neither is the case.

SpM has clarified exceptionally well in my opinion the subtle distinction between the importance of the author and the freedom of the reader to interpret a work.

I would like to suggest, in response to Lalwendë, that any author's definition about how to interpret his or her work, particularly one written after the work has been completed and published, should be referred back to the text for validation. Does Tolkien's definition of allegory apply to his work or is he attempting to bring out a quality which he wishes now, after publication, other readers to see?

In this case, Tolkien is writing in response to other readers' interpretations, and so it is not simply a question of the author's intention being of great importance to our understanding. This situation is an interpretational matrix where the author as reader is responding to other readers about the text. Tolkien here is an interpreter of his own work and we, as readers, have the right to examine or cross-examine any reader's interpretation to consider its appropriateness. This is particularly relevant in Tolkien's case becase he was such a tinker and wrote so many versions of, in particular, Galadriel. Readers might well indeed decide that in this case his work does support or demonstrate this distinction between allegory and applicability, but readers are not bound to automatically accepting his definition.