‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

Which is the more valuable? Well, for my part, while the meaning ascribed by Tolkien to LotR (and others’ interpretations of the work) may be of value, the meaning which I ascribe to it myself will be of the greatest value.

Ok, but if you find a 'meaning' in LotR which Tolkien did not put there, then you have introduced something new & personal - what you have 'found' was not actually there - its like someone wandering around with an Ipod on talking about the 'wonderful music' in the air of the city. The music isn't 'in the air' its in their ears. The only 'meaning' in LotR is the meaning the author put there. If you 'find' anything else there you've brought it - as Aragorn says about Lorien. Thus, you are not 'finding' a personal meaning in LotR, but in yourself. That 'meaning' was already present in you, & would be there for you even if you never read the book.

The 'meaning' you are 'ascribing' to the book is nothing to do with the book at all.

You interpret the question as: “What do you mean by LotR, Professor Tolkien?”

I interpret the question as: “What does LotR mean to me?”

But unless the meaning you find corresponds with what Tolkien says he meant then you are not talking about the same thing at all.

To set up (yet) another dichotomy, I think you are talking about 'value' rather than 'meaning'. You're asking 'What is the value of LotR to me?', rather than 'What is the meaning of LotR?'. As I say, the latter question has been answered by Tolkien himself. Tolkien had a very clear idea of the 'meaning' or 'message' he wanted to communicate. What he couldn't dictate was what value his work would have (if any) to his readers - what they would get from it.

[Thenamir]

I think you are talking about 'value' rather than 'meaning'.

Nicely said.

[drigel]

cant rep davem anymore
wonderfull Lorien analogy

What he couldn't dictate was what value his work would have (if any) to his readers - what they would get from it.

He was surprised at the response he had back in the 60's. He would be dumbfounded today.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Thus, you are not 'finding' a personal meaning in LotR, but in yourself. That 'meaning' was already present in you, & would be there for you even if you never read the book.

Let me get this straight. I would understand what LotR means to me even if I had never read the book? Well, I may be many things, but I'm not psychic.

Originally Posted by davem

To set up (yet) another dichotomy, I think you are talking about 'value' rather than 'meaning'.

Partly, yes. But I am also talking about what I understand it to mean.

We are, however, getting into semantics here, because "meaning" can be construed in a number of ways. I could say that you are talking about 'message' rather than 'meaning'. Indeed, you have said as much in your last post.

As I said earlier, the difference between us lies in our approach to the question: "What does LotR mean?"

[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

Let me get this straight. I would understand what LotR means to me even if I had never read the book? Well, I may be many things, but I'm not psychic.

You'd understand any 'meaning' you 'found' theat was not Tolkien's intended meaning, because that would be what you had brought to it from your own experience.

We are, however, getting into semantics here, because "meaning" can be construed in a number of ways. I could say that you are talking about 'message' rather than 'meaning'. Indeed, you have said as much in your last post.

As I said earlier, the difference between us lies in our approach to the question: "What does LotR mean?"

To think I should have lived to see a Lawyer be so dismissive of 'semantics'

Well, what do you think it 'means' - 'alone, itself & nameless'? I wasn't referring to the 'message', because, as Tolkien said in the Foreword:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. (my emphasis)

I think Tolkien was drawing a distinction between an 'inner meaning' & an 'outer' or 'obvious' one. The book has a clear meaning, but it is there on the surface, & he makes no attempt to hide it (or it would be an 'allegory'). Any other 'meaning' you find in it is down to you, any 'message' you find in it is down to the 'value' it has to you.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

You'd understand any 'meaning' you 'found' theat was not Tolkien's intended meaning, because that would be what you had brought to it from your own experience.

No, the meaning that I draw from it is my experience. It is, of course, influenced by my own (past) experience and by Tolkien's intended meaning (to the extent apparent), and no doubt by many other factors.

Originally Posted by davem

To think I should have lived to see a Lawyer be so dismissive of 'semantics'

Dismissive? Surely not, given that it has formed the basis of the difference between us for the last two pages or so. I just thought that the time had come to let on.

Originally Posted by davem

I wasn't referring to the 'message', because, as Tolkien said in the Foreword:

Quote:
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. (my emphasis)

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien had a very clear idea of the 'meaning' or 'message' he wanted to communicate.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

It wasn’t in bad taste at all. When I use the word anarchy, I mean it in its true sense. I don’t mean the emotive ‘anarchy’ used to denote chaos and crime, I mean Anarchy in that there are no rules, the people are free and open to do as they will; there are no authority figures. Applied to literary criticism, this is the state which ought to match Postmodern theories (so long as caveats are not in place to protect the power of the academic) – it is a glorious state whereby any reader may interpret just as he or she wishes and may express that freely without fear of that opinion being rejected as their interpretation will be considered as equal to any other.

The definition of the word "anarchy"...

However, just because Lalwende has clarified what she meant by "anarchy", if what the Reader's Rights camp are saying is to be taken as something other than hypocrisy, then it can be applied here as well. In which case, if my original, subjective reader's viewpoint was the Lalwende meant anarchy in the sense of chaos and crime, then I am entitled to stubbornly believe that for so long as I may desire- clear contradict and explanation here to the contrary.

Indeed, my question now is not whether I am ENTITLED to do so, but rather, being a literate and intelligent English-speaking being, it is POSSIBLE for me to do so. I may make the pretense that I am certain that Lalwende meant otherwise, but in the face of such a direct statement, can I honestly BELIEVE otherwise?

Likewise with the Lord of the Rings: in the face of Tolkien's direct statement that no allegory was intended, and believing him to be telling the honest truth, can I, in my right mind, actually continue to believe that it is an allegory?

Originally Posted by Bethberry

So there. My position is not anti-metaphorist, Formendacil. Nor, in fact, have I categorically rejected Tolkien's statement about allegory. What I have done there is put it in a context.

I wasn't thinking of you in particular, but this section of the 'Downs in general. ANY simile or metaphor by Camp A is bound, t'would seem, to be shot down by Camp B- simply as a matter of principle. The easiest way to defeat the argument of the metaphor is to attack the fact that it is a metaphor, rather than fighting it on its own terms.

You were merely the one who actually did shoot down my metaphor...

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Formendacil, HI, I will dispute your CD/DVD analogy.

Consider it officially incurred.

Although, I will admit that you did a pretty good job of working at the deficiencies of the metaphor from the inside, rather than attacking it as "not being the same".

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Post 549

Welcome ‘big grin’

Thank You.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Originally Posted by davem
I wasn't referring to the 'message', because, as Tolkien said in the Foreword:

Quote:
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. (my emphasis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Tolkien had a very clear idea of the 'meaning' or 'message' he wanted to communicate.

Why are you confused? I was saying that, according to Tolkien in the Foreword, there is no 'inner' (or hidden/allegorical) 'meaning' or 'message'. I agree with this. But that is not to say there is no meaning or message. Tolkien clearly did have a meaning & a message - but it was clearly stated in the story itself. In one of the Letters, which I quoted on another thread, he states that part of his purpose was didactic.