‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Bêthberry]

About this question of allegory, I would like to consider its context.

Originally Posted by Fordim

the text comes alive and gains meaning within a social/political/interpersonal context that far surpasses the limits of any one individuality

Fordim's summation of Barthes is I think an important point about this discussion, that there is always a context which informs the writer's thought and always one which also informs the reader's thought. It is not a question of ignoring the Author or denying what he has said, but recognising that the author wrote within a historical and cultural milieu which informed his thoughts, and recognising also that such a milieu informs readers' interpretations also.

Originally Posted by Estelyn

That's it precisely - no reader can tell the author whether or not his work is an allegory, for an allegory is written purposefully; that decision is made by the author in the process of writing. If the author says it is or isn't an allegory, then we must accept his word for it.

One point I find fascinating about Tolkien's words in the Foreword is that they are written retrospectively, after the writing and publication of LotR, and in response to some critical observations.

In other words, this statement about allegory does not necessarily reflect Tolkien's conscious, deliberate thoughts while he was writing LotR.
They represent his thought, after the fact, in response to critics.
For us to understand the Foreward, we have to realise that this is the author responding to reader's thoughts post-WWII.

[What would be intriguing would be to find letters or other documents which give us insight into Tolkien's discussions with, say, C. S. Lewis, about allegory--a discussion which could have been carried on during the writing of LotR or during those many Inklings sessions at the Bird and Baby.]

On the other hand, this Forward could reflect Tolkien's reading back into his work so that it could not be taken as a simplistic encomium for the Allies. That is, the historical context of WWII and the post war years created a locus of interpretation for LotR--one which did not exist (or was in the process of being created) while Tolkien was writing LotR (but which did not explicitly exist while he was creating the Legendarium). Tolkien therefore had to distinguish between his book and the new historical milieu, in which people would read LotR. His purpose might have been more devoted towards disproving the simplistic equation of Victorious allies with Aragorn and Sauron with Hitler and the Nazis than towards an explicit statement about his allegorical intention. The Foreword in this context would be more about his concept of good and rightful action, in contrast to authoritarian mechanisation, than about his writing habits. It reflects his desire to write his book forward into history, I suppose it could be said.

My point is not to discount Tolkien's statement about the freedom of the reader but more to posit a context in which to consider his authorial statements.

Originally Posted by The Squatter

Anyone who reads my posts will know that I am no stranger to the conclusive Tolkien quotation.

That is, I suggest that 'conclusive quotations' themselves need to be understood as falling within the purview of the interpretive habit.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

Using your definition, it is impossible, by definition, for the reader to perceive an allegory which the author did not intend. The reader is, however, still free to perceive 'applicability' with regard to the same matters in respect of which the author has denied allegory, and so the 'prohibition' raised by Lalwendë does not arise. In other words, the reader is free to 'apply' LotR to WW2, even if the author did not intend the work as an allegory of that event.

No, the prohibition is still in force as to apply what we have read is just to draw parallels, while to see it as an allegory is to take those parallels and draw deeper significance or meaning from them. So for example if I was to say that the situation with Sauron reminded me of the situation with Hitler, that would be applicability. But if I was to go on and attribute the Sauron/Hitler link as being the meaning, then I would be saying it was allegory. And the author tells us explicitly that this is not the meaning.

The other thing is that Allegory is not necessarily forced on the reader in any case - it can be incredibly subtle, or the reader can simply miss it, and by the same token, it is also easy to 'read' something as an allegory even when it is not.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

No, the prohibition is still in force as to apply what we have read is just to draw parallels, while to see it as an allegory is to take those parallels and draw deeper significance or meaning from them.

In which case 'reader-perceived' allegory and applicability are not the same thing, and the reader should be free to take the story as an allegory if that is how he or she genuinely perceives it.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And the author tells us explicitly that this is not the meaning.

He tells us that it is not his intended meaning. But can it not still be the readers perceived meaning?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

In which case 'reader-perceived' allegory and applicability are not the same thing, and the reader should be free to take the story as an allegory if that is how he or she genuinely perceives it.


He tells us that it is not his intended meaning. But can it not still be the readers perceived meaning?

I repeat myself once again. Tolkien wrote his denial of allegory after the fact. Perceiving any kind of analogy with WWII is an act of retroactive reading, taking an historical context and reading it back into a text which was at least begun before the war, even if it was completed under the war's terrible cloud.

There are books which become more 'meaningful'--that is, more significant to our understanding of our world-- when events occur after they are written and published which somehow seem to resonate with events in the book, as if the book were prophetic in some way. The historical events make readers more aware of certain aspects in the book, things which might have been missed before the historical events, highlighting those events in particular ways which point to an interpretation.

This is entirely in keeping with how we read. We bring to every book we read our own personal experience and every other book we read. If we are attentive readers, we are careful to see how readerly desire informs our reading.

To me, the fascinating point about Tolkien's statement is how he attributes to the Allies tendancies more often attributed to Mordor--a point which the Hitler-allegorists were missing. Was Tolkien fighting against the developing mythology of WWII which created very much an evil/good split, particularly as the West came to know more and more about the Holocaust? Was he fighting against the victors' tendancy always to portray history from their point of view?

If so, he was suggesting that the act of reading and interpreting is a very subtle, complex act, rather than telling us an either/or way to read LotR.

[davem]

He tells us that it is not his intended meaning. But can it not still be the readers perceived meaning?

But in order for the book to be taken as an allegory of WW2 (or WW1) there would have to be a one-to one correspondence between the events of the story & the events in the real world - which, as Tolkien points out in the foreword, there is not. Some events within the story may correspond closely to events in the real world - if the reader chooses to make those connections. It depends on how we read the story. Shippey, for instance, compares the Rammas of the Pelennor with the Maginot line - but Lewis & Currie, in The Uncharted Realms of Tolkien, draw a comparison between it & the Star Wars satellite defence system. Therefore, I think that both are approaching the Rammas from the perspective of applicability rather than allegory. If the Rammas was an allegory of the Maginot Line then it could not be applied fully to anything else - Star Wars or whatever. The allegorical meaning would be fixed, because it would be precise. What we have instead is a symbol which is more universal. The reader is free to apply it to any number of similar primary world situations. The story & its events are 'timeless' in that sense, & have no one-to-one connection with specific things/events.

From this point of view, Lembas both is the host & is absolutely not the host - it depends on how, or whether, the reader chooses to apply it. Both statements are true, but therefore Lembas is not an allegory of the Host To some readers it is the Host & nothing but the Host, to others it isn't anything of the sort. Applicability may be as absolute in the mind of the reader as allegory is in the mind of the writer.

One is left with the option of calling it a 'spiritual' allegory of the 'human condition', the events with which it deals being universal 'archetypes'. I suspect this is perhaps how Tolkien saw it. In Letter 71 Tolkien states:

'For 'romance' has grown out of allegory, & its wars are still derived from the 'inner war' of allegory in which good is on one side & various modes of badness on the other. In real (exterior) life men are on both sides: which means a motley alliance of orcs, beasts, demons, plain naturally honest men, & angels.

So, Tolkien admits 'allegory' of a sort into his Legendarium, but I don't think this clashes with his statement in the Foreword to LotR that the book is not an 'allegory' in the generally accepted sense - as, say, the Faerie Queene is, let alone The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

But in order for the book to be taken as an allegory of WW2 (or WW1) there would have to be a one-to one correspondence between the events of the story & the events in the real world

Not necessarily, as an allegory can have slight and subtle correspondences. The text does not even have to be wholly correspond. But it does have to work on more than one level, so it would be quite easy for someone determined enough to find the evidence that LotR was an allegory. It is simple to go from applicability to being able to read the text as an allegory. Which brings it round again to what SpM says:

He tells us that it is not his intended meaning. But can it not still be the readers perceived meaning?

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?

[drigel]

sigh.. the c thread

He tells us that it is not his intended meaning. But can it not still be the readers perceived meaning?

YES of course. But, then again, any written story with characters that are men /women, implied or observed can be treated thus. Jack and Jill went up the hill. So class (in essay form), explain to me what the hill really was. Also incorporate the pail's role in this story, and fully explain how it all relates to Existentialism. Double spaced please.

If so, he was suggesting that the act of reading and interpreting is a very subtle, complex act, rather than telling us an either/or way to read LotR.

Or, perhaps, we are trying to define a masterpiece. Contemporizing an author who used a non-contemporary writing style (late 19th to early 20th century) in relaying (translating) a tale thats was laid down, and then forgotten, from the dawn of time.

Was he fighting against the victors' tendancy always to portray history from their point of view?

Interesting query Beth! Ill throw out a somewhat rebellious and thought provoking (this could be its own thread) quote from SF author David Brin:

Well, LOTR is obviously an account written after the Ring War ended, long ago. Right? An account created by the victors.

So how do we know that Sauron really did have red glowing eyes?

Isn't some of that over-the-top description just the sort of thing that royal families used to promote, casting exaggerated aspersions on their vanquished foes and despoiling their monuments, reinforcing their own divine right to rule?

Yes, I'm having fun with words like "really" -- relating to a made-up story. But come along with me for a minute. Next time you re-read LOTR, count the number of examples... cases where powerful beings are vastly uglier than anybody with that kind of power would allow themselves to be. Why? How does being grotesquely ugly help you govern an empire?

Then unleash your imagination to take the story a bit farther. Have fun!

Ask yourself - "How would Sauron have described the situation?"

And then -- "What might 'really' have happened?"

Now ponder something that comes through even the party-line demonization of a crushed enemy. This clearcut and undeniable fact. Sauron's army was the one that included every species and race on Middle Earth, including all the despised colors of humanity, and all the lower classes.

Hm. Did they all leave their homes and march to war thinking "Oh, goody, let's go serve an evil dark lord"?

Or might they instead have thought they were the 'good guys', with a justifiable grievance worth fighting for, rebelling against an ancient, rigid, pyramid-shaped, feudal hierarchy topped by invader-alien elves and their Numenorean colonialist human lackeys?

Picture, for a moment, Sauron the Eternal Rebel, relentlessly maligned by the victors of the Ring War -- the royalists who control the bards and scribes (and movie-makers). Sauron, champion of the common Middle-Earther! Vanquished but still revered by the innumerable poor and oppressed who sit in their squalid huts, wary of the royal secret police with their magical spy-eyes, yet continuing to whisper stories, secretly dreaming and hoping that someday he will return... bringing more rings.

The allegories are as endless as there are people considering them...

Brin on Tolkien

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Do we ignore what the Author has told us, ignore the limits he has imposed?

Generally, I would not. The majority of those here would not. But some might (particularly if they are oblivious to such limits).

It's up to the reader.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Generally, I would not. The majority of those here would not. But some might (particularly if they are oblivious to such limits).

It's up to the reader.

I think the 'limits' have been set by Tolkien's definitions of 'allegory' & 'applicability'. If we take those terms & their definitions as the basis of our argument, we have to say that Tolkien was right - LotR is not an allegory in terms of the definition Tolkien set - there is no 'purposed domination of the author' - he did not write it as an allegory of WW2 or anything else. If the reader chooses to apply an 'allegorical' interpretation on it then that does not make it an allegory in Tolkien's terms, it is simply an example of the reader using his/her freedom.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

Generally, I would not. The majority of those here would not. But some might (particularly if they are oblivious to such limits).

It's up to the reader.

Originally Posted by davem

I think the 'limits' have been set by Tolkien's definitions of 'allegory' & 'applicability'. If we take those terms & their definitions as the basis of our argument, we have to say that Tolkien was right - LotR is not an allegory in terms of the definition Tolkien set - there is no 'purposed domination of the author' - he did not write it as an allegory of WW2 or anything else. If the reader chooses to apply an 'allegorical' interpretation on it then that does not make it an allegory in Tolkien's terms, it is simply an example of the reader using his/her freedom.

This what I am getting at. 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.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by drigel

Brin on Tolkien

We on Brin

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I think the 'limits' have been set by Tolkien's definitions of 'allegory' & 'applicability'. If we take those terms & their definitions as the basis of our argument, we have to say that Tolkien was right - LotR is not an allegory in terms of the definition Tolkien set - there is no 'purposed domination of the author' - he did not write it as an allegory of WW2 or anything else. If the reader chooses to apply an 'allegorical' interpretation on it then that does not make it an allegory in Tolkien's terms, it is simply an example of the reader using his/her freedom.

Taking that definition of 'allegory', I agree. But is it a correct definition? Must the author intend a work to be allegorical for it to be labelled as such? There seems to me to be some question over this proposition.

In any event, the effect is the same whether we allow the reader to perceive an unintended allegorical meaning, or whether we categorise it as applicability. The reader remains free to interpret and to form his or her own understanding of the work.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Therefore in this case the Author is of great importance to our understanding, whether we accept or reject what he has stated.

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.

I have not read the Brin article or the thread discussing it in detail, but a brief review highlights for me the importance of not dismissing a reader's interpretation out of hand simply because we do not agree with part (or even all) of what he or she is saying. It looks to me like Brin puts forward some interesting ways of looking at LotR which, while we might not agree with his conclusions, might nevertheless enhance our own understanding of the work.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Taking that definition of 'allegory', I agree. But is it a correct definition? Must the author intend a work to be allegorical for it to be labelled as such? There seems to me to be some question over this proposition.

Ok, in place of 'Allegory' & 'Applicability' substitute the terms 'X' & 'Y'. Tolkien has defined clearly what 'X' is - 'The purposed domination of the author.' ie the author sets a primary world event, or series of events, in a different form (a 'secondary world'), with a one-to-one correlation between the primary world events & the secondary world forms in which they appear - hence Hitler is Sauron, etc. Effectively, the author would be telling you 'Sauron is Hitler, & you must think of Hitler as you think of Sauron'.

He's also defined 'Y' (Applicability) as the freedom of the reader to make connections between the events of the story & events in the real world - if they so choose. Now, because he hasn't committed the 'sin' of doing 'X' those 'similarities' to the real world contained in the story will be sufficiently vague & generalised that the reader may find many opportunities of such 'applicability' without being able to find any absolute one-to-one correspondence for the whole story (ie if LotR is an allegory of WW2, & Sauron is an 'allegory' of Hitler, who is Frodo an allegory of?)

In any event, the effect is the same whether we allow the reader to perceive an unintended allegorical meaning, or whether we categorise it as applicability. The reader remains free to interpret and to form his or her own understanding of the work.

No - its only an allegory if Tolkien deliberately wrote it as one - which he didn't. Allegory is a literary form - an author either writes an allegory intentionally or he doesn't - at least in the sense that Tolkien is using the term. He didn't do 'X'.

[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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

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.

I'd agree with that, as readers will inevitably come to a variety of conclusions (some may choose to ignore what Tolkien said, while others may have simply omitted the foreword in the rush to read the story). So while we are not bound to accept Tolkien's definition, I have to ask, ought we to accept his definition? Does LotR make more sense if we do?

[Mister Underhill]

As a writer -- and indeed just as a person going around in the world -- this attitude of complete interpretive "freedom" sort of bums me out. I picture a reader -- or just some dude that I'm trying to communicate with -- with arms crossed and an arrogant smirk on his face, saying, "You say what you have to say, then I'll decide what I want it to mean." I'd prefer a sincere attempt at understanding.

How annoyed do any of us here get when someone misunderstands -- or deliberately distorts -- the meaning and intention of one of our posts? And now I hear that the author's interpretation of his own post is only as valid as any other reader's?

"No, what I meant was--"
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

In any confrontation between a reader's interpretation and an author's intention, the author has the authority, the right, sometimes even the obligation to clarify his meaning. It reminds me of that scene in Annie Hall where the guy is pontificating about Marshall McLuhan, and Alvy goes, "Well, that's funny, I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here." Well, I happen to have Professor Tolkien right here to tell you that he didn't write an allegory of WWII. Can't we just take him at his word?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I'd prefer a sincere attempt at understanding.

I agree. That is why I have always referred to the reader's 'honest' or 'genuine' understanding.

In any event, I think that we have little to fear from non-sensical interpretations. Even if they are genuine, they will be unacceptable to most other readers and will therefore never form part of our general understanding of the work.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

In any confrontation between a reader's interpretation and an author's intention, the author has the authority, the right, sometimes even the obligation to clarify his meaning.

Agreed. And the reader has the absolute right to disregard such clarification. The inclination of most readers who have any regard for the work, however, will be to take it on board.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

How annoyed do any of us here get when someone misunderstands -- or deliberately distorts -- the meaning and intention of one of our posts? And now I hear that the author's interpretation of his own post is only as valid as any other reader's?

. . . .

Can't we just take him [Tolkien] at his word?

Methinks you doth protest too much, Mr. Underhill. You ought to know better than anyone here that sometimes people wilfully distort other people's posts and meanings, for a variety of reasons. It happens to me all the time. What is the recourse? Try to be more circumspect in writing posts originally, or to clarify the intent, or just to shrug it off as a funny thing that happened on the way to the forum?

Taking a writer "at his word" has many consequences. Sometimes writers deliberately try to obfuscate, because for a variety of very legitimate reasons they don't wish to provide an 'authoritative roadmap' to their work. Sometimes they legitimately forget or remember incorrectly (human memory being what it is). Sometimes they move further on with an idea and end up discussing the development, reading it back into the original intention. As Aiwendil discussed on one of our threads--was it Canonicity or one of the Galadriel ones?--Tolkien actually has three characterisations of Galadriel, and deciding which one to make applicable to LotR actually creates three different interpretations of the Lady of Lothlorien. We know that Tolkien changed his conception of what he was doing as he aged--even Christopher Tolkien admits this and in some measure regrets it--so why must we automatically assume any statement to be definitive?

It is thus not 'disrespectful' to the author to apply his own statements to his work. It in fact often can result in greater understanding or appreciation of his work and his methods.

So, along with SpM I agree that the important quality is the sincerity of the desire to understand. And a faith that the significant interpretations are those which will prove lasting. (Yet even here I have to remind myself that some histories have been lost because of the violence done to them.)

This said, however, it does not limit readers from being flippant or satirical or flatfooted or, in fact, even malicious. This kind of (mis)interpretation happens all the time no matter what critics or arbitrators or literary lawgivers might try to legislate or prescribe. Language is not a stable entity. What we can do to hold literary terrorists at bay is to describe the conditions for our interpretations rather than prescribe which meaning, without thought and consideration, is the solely acceptable one. That way, we make ourselves--and our beloved texts--less objects for attack or distortion.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

In any event, I think that we have little to fear from non-sensical interpretations. Even if they are genuine, they will be unacceptable to most other readers and will therefore never form part of our general understanding of the work.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

What we can do to hold literary terrorists at bay is to describe the conditions for our interpretations rather than prescribe which meaning, without thought and consideration, is the solely acceptable one. That way, we make ourselves--and our beloved texts--less objects for attack or distortion.

But doesn't this just mean that we have passed 'control' out of the hands of both Author and Reader? Who sets the conditions for interpretation? Is it a peer group of other readers? Or do we allow the professionals to set the boundaries? That suggests that instead of allowing meaning to lie within the experience of the reader and enabling true anarchy, the cognoscenti actually do not wish to relinquish control because said anarchy can also be risky.

[davem]

If a reader (or a 'critic') interprets (honestly oor otherwise) LotR as an allegory of WW2, that's up to them. the question is whether Tolkien wrote it as such. I think there's enough evidence to show he didn't. It may have been, in part, his response to WW2, & to other things that he had experienced - WW1, loss of his parents at a young age, etc. He himself stated that Sam was in part a tribute to the Batmen of WW1.

So, the Scouring of the Shire may have been his response to the destrucion oof the English countryside that he loved, but the result is not an 'allegory' of that destruction - it would be more accurate (though still not correct) to say it was his 'dream' of how the reality could be overturned & things brought back to the way he wanted them to be. The Ring is not an allegory of the Bomb (an interpretation he was constantly confronted with - it would be closer to the truth to say that the Bomb was an 'allegory' of the Ring - if the situation can work that way - because the Ring is an 'Archetypal' Image of an absolutely destructive, corrupting force. Thus it can be 'applied' (as with the Rammas) to an number of Primary world objects (& philosophies), from toxic waste to Islamicism or the kind of militant Christian fundamentalism that results in doctors & nurses working in abortion clinics being assaualted & even murdered.

The fact that so many different readers can 'find' so many different 'allegorical' interpretations of the work proves that it either was never written as an allegory of WW2 or anything else, or that if it was it was a very poorly done thing, because in spite of the author's supposed intention to tell the story of WW2 in allegorical form, most readers don't get it, & think he was writing an allegory of something else entirely.

As to Bb's point about the development of Galadriel's character over time, to me this shows that Tolkien didn't see the character as an 'allegory' of anyone/thing in WW2 - by changing her character he would have changed the meaning of the story she played a part in. The most you could say then is that possibly, at some point, Tolkien intended an allegorical meaning, but that almost immediately he changed his mind.

This is a point that is too easily forgotten - the Legendarium was [i]never/i] 'fixed'. It was a developing conception, which only became set in stone at his death - because he was no longer around to continue it. It was like Niggle's Tree - constantly being changed on the canvas because the thing he was painting was a 'living' thing. His attempts in the Letters to 'explain' the characters & events of LotR were not so much attempts at pushing his readers into accepting a particular understanding of the story, but rather his own attempts to understand something not entirely (if at all) of his own making. What one gets from reading HoMe & the Letters is the sense that he himself didn't fully understand 'his' mythology - it was as much a mystery to him as to any of its readers.

To read vols 6-9 of HoMe is enough to convince anyone that it is not an allegory of anything - either specifically or generally. If it was simply (even at the time of writing) simply an allegory of WW2 he would not have struggled so much to produce it - he could simply have read the daily reports in the Times & 'rewritten' them in mythic form. He struggled till he 'discovered' 'what really happened'.

And let's face it, he, & his publishers, would have had a much easier time selling an 'allegory' of WW2 to the public than an 'heroic romance'. For all his protestations about it not being an allegory in the Foreword the Second Edition, his words in the First Edition foreword are even clearer that it is not anything but a 'fairystory'.

This tale, which has grown almost to be a history of the great War of the Ring, is drawn for the most part from the memoirs of the renowned Hobbits, Bilbo and Frodo, as they are preserved in the Red Book of Westmarch. This chief monument to Hobbit-lore is so called because it was compiled, repeatedly copied, and enlarged and handed down in the family of the Fairbairns of Westmarch, descended from that Master Samwise of whom this tale has much to say.I have supplemented the account of the Red Book, in places, with information derived from the surviving records of Gondor, notably the Book of the Kings; but in general, though I have omitted much, I have in this tale adhered more closely to the actual words and narrative of my original than in the previous selection from the Red Book, The Hobbit. That was drawn from the early chapters, composed originally by Bilbo himself. If 'composed' is a just word. Bilbo was not assiduous, nor an orderly narrator, and his account is involved and discursive, and sometimes confused: faults that still appear in the Red Book, since the copiers were pious and careful, and altered very little.The tale has been put into its present form in response to the many requests that I have received for further information about the history of the Third Age, and about Hobbits in particular. But since my children and others of their age, who first heard of the finding of the Ring, have grown older with the years, this book speaks more plainly of those darker things which lurked only on the borders of the earlier tale, but which have troubled Middle-earth in all its history. It is, in fact, not a book written for children at all; though many children will, of course, be interested in it, or parts of it, as they still are in the histories and legends of other times (especially in those not specially written for them).I dedicate this book to all admirers of Bilbo, but especially to my sons and daughter, and to my friends the Inklings. To the Inklings, because they have already listened to it with a patience, and indeed with an interest, that almost leads me to suspect that they have hobbit-blood in their venerable ancestry. To my sons and my daughter for the same reason, and also because they have all helped me in the labours of composition. If 'composition' is a just word, and these pages do not deserve all that I have said about Bilbo's work.

For if the labour has been long (more than fourteen years), it has been neither orderly nor continuous. But I have not had Bilbo's leisure. Indeed much of that time has contained for me no leisure at all, and more than once for a whole year the dust has gathered on my unfinished pages. I only say this to explain to those who have waited for the book why they have had to wait so long. I have no reason to complain. I am surprised and delighted to find from numerous letters that so many people, both in England and across the Water, share my interest in this almost forgotten history; but it is not yet universally recognised as an important branch of study. It has indeed no obvious practical use, and those who go in for it can hardly expect to be assisted.Much information, necessary and unnecessary, will be found in the Prologue. To complete it some maps are given, including one of the Shire that has been approved as reasonably correct by those Hobbits that still concern themselves with ancient history. At the end of the third volume will be found some abridged family-trees, which show how the Hobbits mentioned were related to one another, and what their ages were at the time when the story opens. There is an index of names and strange words with some explanations. And for those who like such lore in an appendix some brief account is given of the languages, alphabets and calendars that were used in the West-lands in the Third Age of Middle-earth. Those who do not need such information, or who do not wish for it, may neglect these pages; and the strange names that they meet they may, of course, pronounce as they like. Care has been given to their transcription from the original alphabets and some notes are offered on the intentions of the spelling adopted* But not all are interested in such matters, and many who are not may still find the account of those great and valiant deeds worth the reading. It was in that hope that I began the work of translating and selecting the stories of the Red Book, part of which are now presented to Men of a later Age, one almost as darkling and ominous as was the Third Age that ended with the great years 1418 and 1419 of the Shire long ago.

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem, I think that most of us would agree that Tolkien did not intend LotR to be an allegory of WW2. Does that assist us (either individually or as an 'intepretive community') in our understanding of LotR? Well, yes. But only to the extent that we take account of authorial intention. And whether or not we do so is down to us (individually or collectively) as readers.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

That suggests that instead of allowing meaning to lie within the experience of the reader and enabling true anarchy, the cognoscenti actually do not wish to relinquish control because said anarchy can also be risky.

Even if they wish to do so, they have no control over the reader's honest reaction to the work. They may have influence, but they have no control.

And just to go back to something that Mister U said:

And now I hear that the author's interpretation of his own post is only as valid as any other reader's?

Valid to whom? An individual's interpretation is more valid than any other to that individual because it is the one that makes sense to them as an individual. But that is not to deny that they may see value in, and ascribe relative values to, the interpretations of others, and so develop their own interpretations accordingly. And we will tend to ascribe greater value (again, as individuals or 'interpretative communities') to the interpretations put forward by particular individuals, such as the author himself, those who have read extensively around the work, those who appear to share our values etc. In this way, we are continually assessing, reassessing and developing our own interpretation. It still remains the most valid one to us, though.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

Even if they wish to do so, they have no control over the reader's honest reaction to the work. They may have influence, but they have no control.

Now, as a parent, wouldn't you say that exerting an influence is a form of control? It may be control in a velvet glove, but it is still done to direct and to steer away from what is seen as the wrong path?

And having an influence can also depend upon who has that influence. If it is someone with status, then they are able to exert greater pressure than those who have little status. As I've said in the other C thread, you may well retain the right to do or say something but if nobody wants to listen or you do not have the means to express yourself then it is of little consequence.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Davem, I think that most of us would agree that Tolkien did not intend LotR to be an allegory of WW2. Does that assist us (either individually or as an 'intepretive community') in our understanding of LotR? Well, yes. But only to the extent that we take account of authorial intention. And whether or not we do so is down to us (individually or collectively) as readers.

I'm focussing on the specific example of 'LotR as an allegory of WW2' in order to explore the idea of seeing it as an allegory generally. Too many people seem to take the approach 'Well, ok, I accept its not an allegory of 'X' (WW2) but I'm pretty sure its an allegory of 'Y' (fill in the blank).

You seem to be suggesting that this 'authorial intention' is something that can be divorced from the work itself - which is another way of denying the author's presence in the work. The work only exists because of the 'Author's intention' that it should. It is not an objective collection of statements but a work of Art. And so it must be taken. The 'Tower' of the Beowulf essay analogy/allegory was not a pile of stones which people who came upon it could take for what they wanted. It was a Tower, built with the express intention on the builder's part that he could look out on the Sea. Of course, others could come along, climb it & look at other things, or even (as in the analogy/allegory) demolish it to find out where the stones of which it was built originated.

If they climb it & look at other things they are not using it for the purpose for which it was built. And however vociferous (& honest) they may be in their claims that it was built to 'look at the stars' or so the builder could have a quiet spot to read in, or that it was a castle (& thence to proceed to invent a 'history' for the local area in which there were assaults by a powerful enemy), etc, they would be wrong. No if, buts, or two ways about it. All the 'explanations' they come up with would be cases of 'applicability', not allegory, & they certainly wouldn't be 'equally valid' alongside the reason explicitly stated by the man who built the thing. If he says 'I built that Tower in order to look out on the Sea' (& if, climbing that tower one could see the Sea from its top) then I think we have to accept that it was built for the reason the man gives, & not try & impute other, more 'nefarious' reasons to him, accuse him of trying to cover up his real motives, or of changing his mind about its purpose after he had built it.

'Its a Tower I built in order that I could look out on the Sea, not a defensive structure.' is a clear enough statement, provable by experiment, & I think we should take his word for it unless we can prove him wrong. If the Tower can be made to serve another purpose by someone else, fine, but they would not be using the Tower for the purpose for which it was built - & they should admit that, & not claim that they know the 'real' intention behind it.

The reader's interpretation is merely what they do with the book. All you seem to be doing is restating Tolkien's own position. It isn't an allegory of WW2 (or anything else) but the reader is free to find whatever meaning or relevance they can, or wish to, in it. The thing about your approach though is that it makes the later use of the 'Tower' by someone using it (or seeing it) as a castle equal to to that of the builder - it says that the builder (or writer) is no more important than the user (or reader). This, to my mind is wrong, if for no other reason than it doesn't show sufficient respect to the builder/writer. We are not equal creators of Middle earth with Tolkien. He gives, we recieve. Gratitude & respect, if nothing else, should require us to take account of 'authorial intention', & to give that greater weight than we give to our own interpretation - even put aside our own interpretation infavour of his stated intention.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But doesn't this just mean that we have passed 'control' out of the hands of both Author and Reader? Who sets the conditions for interpretation? Is it a peer group of other readers? Or do we allow the professionals to set the boundaries? That suggests that instead of allowing meaning to lie within the experience of the reader and enabling true anarchy, the cognoscenti actually do not wish to relinquish control because said anarchy can also be risky.

No, I really don't see where that necessarily follows, unless my questionable analogy of literary terrorist is at fault, for which bad taste I apologise.

Where individual readers discuss their own interpretations, interpretive communities will be developed out of the ferment, even the anarchy, of the discussions, as readers come to understand each other's perspective. Where we don't castigate interpretations as wrong or invalid or incorrect but instead consider their reasons, where we don't ridicule interpretations because they aren't based on wide reading experience, or grand knowledge or privileged information, we tend to develop better, more imaginative, more open-minded readers.

In pedagogical terms, it is difference between the teacher as a facilitator of learning and the teacher as proponent of content. From comments in your posts, I would assume you knew mainly the latter kind of teacher and school, but I have seen the former kind.

Originally Posted by davem

If the Tower can be made to serve another purpose by someone else, fine, but they would not be using the Tower for the purpose for which it was built - & they should admit that, & not claim that they know the 'real' intention behind it.

Hmm. I am not aware that I have claimed I know the real intention behind this tower. I did say this:

Originally Posted by Bethberry

It in fact often can result in greater understanding or appreciation of his work and his methods.

But that is not the same thing as 'claiming to know the 'real' intention behind it.'

EDIT: Perhaps another way of explaining is to offer this experience of mine. While in London last summer, I came upon a small statue dedicated to someone. This statue was not listed in any of the tour books or guidebooks or histories that I had read prior to coming to London. Yet I knew who this person was because she had had a monument named after her in my home country--a mountain in fact, with a glacier. In one flash, time and space conflated and I was no longer a foreigner in London, but had found a small piece that I could interpret as my own. This interpretation is intensely personal, based upon a work of Art and Nature (how more Blakian than that) and completely independent of any knowledge of why and how the statue got placed in Charing Cross in the first place. That purpose is in fact irrelevant to my artistic experience, which likely has no great importance to others and certainly not to those who heroically endeavoured to commemorate the woman's fate, but remains very important to me. As I read the plaque, of course I came to know more about why the statue was built, but that knowledge really was, if I may borrow a term from davem, baggage which added to my experience after the fact but did not contribute to the initial aesthetic experience.

It is possible to have a meaningful personal experience of a work of Art without knowing what or how the author wanted me to experience. This does not mean the author's intention is irrelevant, but that it is not crucial to the aesthetic experience. At least, intention as explained not in the story itself but in a prose explication written after the fact.

[Thenamir]

Let me begin here by saying that I mean no offense to any particular contributor here. I haven't had a good rant in some time, and I find here an opportunity.

I have been posting in the Canonicity Slapdown thread (nearly identical to this one in terms of fluff and frippery), but I have to say that the amount of noise being generated on this topic is certainly annoying and nearly fatal. In the other thread I have attempted to post my opinions with some lucidity, but now I'm throwing down the gauntlet.

With no attempts to read between the lines or find nuances of influencein some obscure turn of phrase in Letters, I want a sound, authoritative reponse to the following. I will verbally flog anyone who responds to this post with an "I think..." or an "I feel..." Give me facts.

On the topic of Authorial Intent, I posted the following on the other thread:

I remember reading somewhere...that The Good Professor's main, or at least initial intention in writing LOTR was (I paraphrase) to see if it was possible for him to keep readers' interest with a story considerably longer than that of The Hobbit...Secondarily, I believe it was noted by Tolkien in yet another reference which escapes me that he essentially created the corpus of Middle-Earthian history and literature as a place in which his invented languages could "live." -- his linguistic sandbox, if you will.

Now will someone please QUOTE Tolkien and (1) remind me where these references are, and (2) demonstrate that there was something other than these purposes INTENDED by the author, in his own words, with references. Until you can do that (and I am not well-read enough to deny that such references exist), don't pretend to be discussing authorial intent. Anything else is either guesswork or indirect necromancy.

On the subject of reader interpretation, suffice it to say that there are as many identical points of view on "what Tolkien means to me" as there are idenitcal snowflakes. It appears to me that verbage (rhymes with garbage) is being multiplied ad nauseum (with yours truly only adding to the weight of bandwidth) with ideas and whole conversations being repeated until the whole looks like a time-exposure photograph of a dog chasing its tail. Again, I truly mean no offense, but dadgummit, every reader is going to bring something different to this party, and judging one or another opinion as "mainstream" or "crazy" is not going to change the minds of those so inclined. It seems futile to say the least.

It has been said that insanity is "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Not only is the same thing being said over and over with no discernable result, but a new thread has been started which is paralleling the same stuff yet again. In my opinion, which I'm sure will be debated hereafter , this is a thread which should have been closed a year ago.

But then again, I got a really good rant out of it, so maybe it *does* serve a purpose. Flame away! And have fun with it!

[Mister Underhill]

I interpret your post as a big thumbs up on how the thread is progressing and a note of encouragement to continue steady on. And you can take your authorial intention and stick it. Thanks for your support!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Hmm. I am not aware that I have claimed I know the real intention behind this tower.

It wasn't aimed at you - stop trying to catch the spears

But that is not the same thing as 'claiming to know the 'real' intention behind it.' I am talking about education in artistic method, not archeology.

'Education in artistic method' sounds a bit deadly....

It is possible to have a meaningful personal experience of a work of Art without knowing what or how the author wanted me to experience. This does not mean the author's intention is irrelevant, but that it is not crucial to the aesthetic experience. At least, intention as explained not in the story itself but in a prose explication written after the fact.

As I've argued myself, & I would hold that experience as primary & most important - but that's not what we're arguing about in this thread...

Originally Posted by Thenamir

In my opinion, which I'm sure will be debated hereafter , this is a thread which should have been closed a year ago.

You just don't like to see people having fun, obviously. We all know very well what we're doing here, that it is never going to get anywhere. The purpose of this thread is twofold - one, to see in how many ways we can all repeat ourselves, & two, to see how long we can keep it going.

Oh, there is the 'annoying' newbies (to this thread, at least) thing which adds a little spice.....

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Now, as a parent, wouldn't you say that exerting an influence is a form of control? It may be control in a velvet glove, but it is still done to direct and to steer away from what is seen as the wrong path?

Influence, yes. A measure of control, yes. But absolute control, no (more's the pity ). But is the influence of one reader over another analagous to the parent/child relationship? It's possible, I suppose (for example where one reader is a parent and the other his or her child ), but it depends upon the individuals involved, their relationship to each other and, most likely, a variety of other factors.

Originally Posted by davem

You seem to be suggesting that this 'authorial intention' is something that can be divorced from the work itself - which is another way of denying the author's presence in the work.

Not at all. I am simply saying that it is up to the reader whether or not he accepts authorial intention (as far as he is aware of it) in his interpretation of the work. Of course, to the extent that such intention is intrinsic within the work, then he is bound to take it into account.

In your Tower example, a visitor may well accept that it was built for the specific purpose intended by the builder but, if they find that an alternative purpose suits them better, why should they not be entitled to use it for that alternative purpose?

Originally Posted by davem

If the Tower can be made to serve another purpose by someone else, fine, but they would not be using the Tower for the purpose for which it was built - & they should admit that, & not claim that they know the 'real' intention behind it.

We can never fully know the intentions of the author because we can never know his mind. But to the extent that he has stated his intentions, I see no reason to deny them and have never sought to suggest that we should. Although, as Bêthberry has said, we should acknowledge that the author's intentions will have changed over time.

The thing about your approach though is that it makes the later use of the 'Tower' by someone using it (or seeing it) as a castle equal to to that of the builder - it says that the builder (or writer) is no more important than the user (or reader).

Important to whom and in what regard? The fact that the builder built the tower is clearly very important to the subsequent user, since otherwise he would not be able to use it himself. The use to which the builder put it may also be important to him since it may assist him in deciding how to use it. Or it may be of little value, because he wants to use it for something entirely different. In either case, however, it is the use to which he ultimately puts it which will be of greatest importance to him. Otherwise, he would do something different with it.

Originally Posted by davem

The purpose of this thread is twofold - one, to see in how many ways we can all repeat ourselves, & two, to see how long we can keep it going.

Well, at least we can agree on the purpose of this thread.

[Formendacil]

"Tolkien's Meaning?" Or: "What Tolkien Means?"

It seems to me, that the two sides of the debate can be summed up by one of the two above phrases. Those of the "Tolkien's Meaning" camp are those who are in the Authorial Intent camp (which includes myself, by the way). These readers are looking for Tolkien's Meaning- what did the Author intend to be read here.

Those in the "What Tolkien Means" camp are those who assert the Independence of the Reader (fools, in my opinion). They are not looking for what Tolkien means to say, but are stating what Tolkien means to them.

Now, I am well aware that the Lord of the Rings was not, in Tolkien's opinion, an allegory. Nor was it intended, apparently, to be anything for its readers other than a blessed good read. However, if one looks at the "Meaning" side of things only, it is clear that REASON the Lord of the Rings was written was not so much to give the readers insights into their OWN minds (as the Reader-Camp asserts), but rather a means to pass along the meaning that TOLKIEN intended.

It's like a telagram. The meaning of that message is determined by the sender. That is what he or she is trying to pass along to the receiver. The receiver can, according to his free will (and let's not get that debate mixed in here...) mix up the meaning of that message howsoever he or she wants. And if the message is vague enough, or unclear in parts, then this is a natural happening and should not be harshly judged if the received meaning. But if the meaning is clearing stated by the text, then that is clearly the CORRECT meaning, howsoever you distort it in your own mind for your own purposes.

Likewise, the Lord of the Rings has its intended "messages". This is the canon establised by Tolkien: all the story, innuendo, background, languages, and morals that we are MEANT to receive from his epic. At times the exact definition of this message is confused, hence we have Balrog-wing debates and such to determine what was really intended. But in places where the author is quite clear about what his message, such as the fact that the Lord of the Rings is not an allegory, then going against this is a defial of the proper meaning.

And on the subject of Balrog-wing debates...

Surely none of the Reader's Rights camp should have participated in them- at least not with great heat. After all, if Tolkien's intention as to whether or not the Balrog in the "Fellowship" has wings, then why should they participate, seeing as they believe that Readers' Insights trump Authorial Intent?

~A Very Biased Devil's Advocate -

Formendacil~

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

They are not looking for what Tolkien means to say, but are stating what Tolkien means to them.

The latter does not preclude the former. Indeed, the former is likely to be a significant (and, in many cases, decisive) influence on the latter.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Surely none of the Reader's Rights camp should have participated in them- at least not with great heat. After all, if Tolkien's intention as to whether or not the Balrog in the "Fellowship" has wings, then why should they participate, seeing as they believe that Readers' Insights trump Authorial Intent?

Precisely. Balrog's have wings ...

... if you want them to.

[mark12_30]

I have been waiting for someone else to accept Thenamir's challenge, though Mister Underhill's reaction did give me a bit of a chuckle. And since I am firmly in the "Author's Intention Plus Readers Experience Plus Glimpse Of Divine Truth With A Capital T" Camp, I thought somebody in the "Author's Intent" camp should do this. But nobody has taken a crack at it yet.

I cannot seriously be the only one in this debate with a copy of Letters????

Since the silence (on this topic) is resounding (so far), I will answer Thenamir's first question with another question: Which reference, sir, would you like to see first? I cannot choose. Here are the possibilities, in the ever-so-handy index, under Lord Of The Rings, Contents, author's intentions.

(No, I did not type all this in. Praise Iluvatar for scanners, eh?)

Contents, author's intentions: written to please himself 211,412;
written to amuse, excite, move reader 232-3, 414; a fairy-story for adults 209, 232-3; attempt to induce literary or secondary belief 233,379,412; an exciting story of the sort Tolkien enjoys 267, 297; experiment in arts of long narrative 412; not a novel, but a heroic romance 414; attempt to create world in which a form of language agreeable to his personal aesthetic might seem real 264-5; largely an essay in 'linguistic aesthetic' 220; no 'message' intended 267; not an allegory 41, 121,212,220,239, 246, 262; does not 'objectify Tolkien's experience of life 239; primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power 160; not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power 246; Power and Domination not at centre 246, 262, 284; centre is not in strife and war and heroism but in freedom, peace, ordinary life and good liking 105; journey of Ringbearers heart of the tale 271; deeds of the small, humble, their ennoblement or sanctification 160, 215,220,232, 237, 246, 365; the Quest in 105, 191, 233-4, 238-9; LR in terms of good and evil 11920,121,178-9,197,207,243-4, 262; real theme is death and immortality 246, 262, 267, 284; mainly concerned with relation of Creation to making and subcreation, and related matter of 'mortality' 188; fundamentally religious and catholic work 172; cut out practically all references to 'religion' 172, 220; theological implications in 187-95,233-5, 355; monotheistic world of 'natural theology' 220; sanity and sanctity in LR; Ring verse as leit-motif of LR 153; poetry in 169, 186,396; verses fitted in style and contents to characters and situations 396; archaism in 225-6; vocabulary 249; deliberately left some things unexplained 174, 190; Tolkien does not himself know all the answers 278; better not to state everything, more like real history 354; must concentrate on small part so much will be left out 192; frameless picture, searchlight on brief episode 412; need to omit and compress 289, 293; blends Elvish and human point of view 145; seen mainly through eyes of Hobbits 160,200,237,246; love stories in 160-1,227,323-4; importance of seasons in 271-2; its end like the re-establishment of a Holy Roman Empire with seat in Rome 376 Sources 208, 212, 303, 418; for names etc. 379-87,409-10, 418; main idea not a product of World War II 216; no post-war references 235; his mythology 227,231

[Thenamir]

Unbelievable! Actual new Tolkien references which are not all repeats of the same "allegory versus applicability" citation! All hail mark12_30, Praise Her With Great Praise!

We now have some definitive text to work with. And since her list seems to be quite exhaustive, I will have great fun now reading them all and deciding which ones with which to skewer people with. Great thanks to you, mark12_30. We could all take a lesson from your post.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

I haven't had a good rant in some time, and I find here an opportunity.
. . .
In my opinion, which I'm sure will be debated hereafter , this is a thread which should have been closed a year ago.

But then again, I got a really good rant out of it, so maybe it *does* serve a purpose. Flame away! And have fun with it!

Well, Thena, , I'm not sure this will go down in the annals like Kalessin's Rant, but it's no bad post all things considered.

That you feel you must rant demonstrates in part my point. When interpretive communities get closely contained and almost inbred, they tend to generate a limited number of answers/ responses/ opinions. This produces anger, mayhem, anarchy in those who want a means to state their interpretations but who feel either that the limited answers don't address points which interest them or that they are excluded from the debate, for whatever reason, be it time, knowledge, expertise, or other forms of cachet. I completely understand your anger, man, seeing as you are coming late to the debate.

This is why Fordim's new thread, the Canonicity Slapdown thread, is quite appropo and significant. Look at how many Downers have responded to the poll, at least voting if not posting their opinion. The poll invites people to participate whereas this thread, maybe because it tends towards long windedness and, now, a certain amount of incestuous reproduction of ideas, tends to drive people away. I don't see that as requiring thread closure--I mean, after all, what is the point of debate when it is foreclosed, and, any way, how many successful threads other than RPG threads are closed?

And please to remind all who claim that this thread is merely a rhapsody in reproduction, let me point out that last summer's posts did not consider the issue of allegory. This is actually a new application.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

It's like a telagram.

Well, no, it isn't. A telegram has no artistic purpose or merit. It is designed for other purposes of communication. Any understanding of LotR has to consider the special nature of literature as Art. To the best of my knowledge, LotR has not yet been performed in Morse Code, although I have seen Wuthering Heights attempted in Morse Code.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

They are not looking for what Tolkien means to say, but are stating what Tolkien means to them.

Now, I am well aware that the Lord of the Rings was not, in Tolkien's opinion, an allegory. Nor was it intended, apparently, to be anything for its readers other than a blessed good read. However, if one looks at the "Meaning" side of things only, it is clear that REASON the Lord of the Rings was written was not so much to give the readers insights into their OWN minds (as the Reader-Camp asserts)...

Um, actually, no. Not that I am exclusively in this Reader-Camp (having horrific memories of my summer camps, I tend to steer clear of anything camp, although you might not expect that of me), mind you. Those who acknowledge and respect the role of the reader in interpreting art (davem's Art) don't describe the point as insight into their own minds--which after all can happen even with those who fall exclusively into the Authorial Camp-- but as insight into aesthetic experience, which filters or reflects back into their historical/cultural/ social contexts as much as into their psyche. It is true that my experience of the Edith Cavell memorial in London was intensely personal, but it reflected vast reams of social and cultural context. It could not have happened, I believe, to Esty, nor even to Squatter. It is a post-colonialist act, not a post-modern act. Thus, the readerly approach (with which I march with but one foot, awkwardly) is not exclusively solipcistic, as some of you would expound. The readerly approach is as grounded in the social/political/cultural locus of interpretation as is the historical approach.

Which is why I see Tolkien's analysis of the allegorical reading so interesting. He is responding to a 'meaning' made apparent by the historical condition post-publication.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, no, it isn't. A telegram has no artistic purpose or merit. It is designed for other purposes of communication. Any understanding of LotR has to consider the special nature of literature as Art. To the best of my knowledge, LotR has not yet been performed in Morse Code, although I have seen Wuthering Heights attempted in Morse Code.

A most annoying thing about this Allegorical/Canonical/Applicable/Nonsensical threads is that Metaphor can never be taken as Metaphor or a Simile for a Simile. It has to be taken as literal. Any attempt to use a parable in illustrating a point is immediately attacked as being not the same. This hasn't just happened to me, it's happened to others.

I suppose, being a discussion of "applicability", applying the problem to another situation can only confuse it, but the decisiveness with which people crack down on the metaphor and declare "Ah, but it is not the same!" is not only irksome, but is related to the issue at hand.

After all, if the reason that metaphor is "not the same"- and therefore non-applicable to the discussion- then surely all the linguistic evidence that is being debated should be taken in a similar manner, a manner which is purely literal.

A metaphor or simile, after all, does its work by giving its message with the understanding that the person hearing/reading it understands the intended message. Does not a book work the same way? Yet if Tolkien says that his book is not an Allegory, that it was not written as a Metaphor or a Simile, but that it is intended to be taken at face, or literal, value.

I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this yet, and it may well just stop here, but I found it most amusing that Bêthberry, who is weighing in on the Readers' (and thus the "Metaphorists") side is attacking the use of the my Simile. After all, if one cannot use another situation to explain or describe another, then surely there is no point in debating canonicity, since the text can only describe one situation- the one it literally describes.

Maybe that was my point... I don't know. I'm so confused...

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This is why Fordim's new thread, the Canonicity Slapdown thread, is quite appropo and significant. Look at how many Downers have responded to the poll, at least voting if not posting their opinion. The poll invites people to participate whereas this thread, maybe because it tends towards long windedness and, now, a certain amount of incestuous reproduction of ideas, tends to drive people away. I don't see that as requiring thread closure--I mean, after all, what is the point of debate when it is foreclosed, and, any way, how many successful threads other than RPG threads are closed?

And please to remind all who claim that this thread is merely a rhapsody in reproduction, let me point out that last summer's posts did not consider the issue of allegory. This is actually a new application.

Quite.

As a relative newbie who has not read the parts of the discussion that occured prior to my arrival, I have been hesitant to enter into what, for all intents and purposes, appeared to be an "Verbose Old Guard" private debate...

Fortunately (or unfortunately?), I got over that...

[HerenIstarion]

You overwhelm me. Probably time difference – I leave few innocent looking posts the evening; next thing I see in the morning is another pageful of posts. I’m responding one to one, downward, now, starting with 534. I write as I read, so probably I’m bound to repeat something already posted in some of the posts past 534, my apologies in advance, but I’m doing it for my own sake as well, to have the whole Canonicity issue revived and to refresh my own memory of what exactly do I think about it. I intend to apply my usual methodology – giving an analogy (ies) and building around it. Here we go:


Post 534:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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?

I suppose yes

Analogy 1:

Suppose I’ve installed a CD-ROM to my PC. ‘Tolkien’s definition’ in this analogy would be an icon on my Control Panel defining the device as CD-ROM, not DVD-ROM or any other device. But as a user (=reader), I’m perfectly free to stick DVDs or any other things which take my fancy into the thing. Now tapes would not fit, and blatant inconsistency of them would be obvious to me, but DVDs are different story, ain’t they? They look alike with CDs, and I may find error messages my PC is bound to throw up the whole point of the thing, and fancy everything is right and proper, but if I’m to see what’s ‘supposed’ to be seen, I should insert CDs, not DVDs.

Emotions and experiences associated with seeing error messages would be as vivid, rightful, valid, whatever, as those of a user put CDs in CD-ROM and see things as they are supposed to be seen, but those are emotions, they have no evaluative meaning whatsoever.

I’m free to prefer ‘There is no CD in the device’ message to the [whatever the CD should have contained], and it is my right to read messages instead of [whatever the CD should have contained], but I’m getting less for my money.

Analogy 2:

CD-ROM’s CD holder part can slide out and form a perfect coffee-cup holder. I may find it quite useful to insert a cup there every time I’m posting here, it would place the hot and invigorating coffee within my reach and I’d avoid risks of spilling it over my keyboard, but would not it be better for me to read the manual and employ my CD-ROM to its full potential?

I voted ‘the book is cool’ option in the Canonicity Slapdown, meaning it to enhance that and ‘all of the above’ option together, but surely, Intention of the Author should be taken into account, as the manual should with CD-ROM devices, Experience of the Reader is there to prevent me of trying to force square VHS tapes into round CD slots, and Analysis of the Text comes into play when I’ve already found round disc to fit round slot, they are of compatible types, and now I may think about what I see on my screen.

(Aside for LmP = feeling of enchantment may arise in case of IoA + EoR, but not necessarily adding up AoT to the soup. On the other hand, some may be enchanted by ‘there is no DVD in the drive’ message, seeing how it pops up miraculously every time.)

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

but readers are not bound to automatically accepting his definition.

Of course they’re not. Neither user is bound to read user’s manual, but it would be advisable, wouldn’t it? And if my CD-ROM is broken in my attempt to fit VHS tapes into it, should I accept repairman’s help or decide that CD-ROM was ‘a load of crap' all along?


Post 535:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I have to ask, ought we to accept his definition? Does LotR make more sense if we do?

If ‘ought’ here stands to mean ‘we are forced, bound’ etc, no, we are not. But yes, we ought, in a broader sense as given above.


Post 536

Originally Posted by Mr. Underhill

In any confrontation between a reader's interpretation and an author's intention, the author has the authority, the right, sometimes even the obligation to clarify his meaning

Can not agree more


Post 537

Originally Posted by SpM

I agree. That is why I have always referred to the reader's 'honest' or 'genuine' understanding

Yes, and I won’t laugh at anyone putting their CD-ROM to coffee-holding service, as I suppose no one not ‘honestly’ sure that’s the purpose would do that at all.

Originally Posted by SpM

I think that we have little to fear from non-sensical interpretations. Even if they are genuine, they will be unacceptable to most other readers and will therefore never form part of our general understanding of the work.

One or two extravagant chaps won’t harm us? I suppose they won’t. But in case the ‘general understanding’ is what we pursue. On the other hand, if we want this particular user to enjoy his CD-ROM to its full extent, should not we interfere and help them see what it can do apart from cup-holding?

And from another angle – remember ‘moral consensus’ of few pages back? What if these extravagant gentlemen have found some exiting ways of using CD-ROM the manufacturer originally installed but haven’t explicitly explained in the manual? Truth (guess whether it is with capital T or not, as I’ve deliberately put it as the opening word of the sentence) is not in numbers.


Post 538

Agreement in general.

Side note – existence of several statements of the Author, even if they contradict slightly between themselves, does not entitle us to introduce even more interpretations. We can settle by choosing one of the Author’s, or work them all into one, or (in Tolkien’s case) explain them by historiography and multitude of sources argument. But imagine CD-ROM (I stick by analogy) manual to state on page 5 that recommended record speed is 32 kb/ps, and on page 7 that is 16 kb/ps. Probing, we would probably find that it can do both, or that indeed one is preferable, but abstain from recording at all ‘cause it contradicts itself’ (being flippant or satirical or flatfooted or, in fact, even malicious) would be less wise.



Post 539

No comments


Post 540

Bits of the manual being recited . Good repairman this gentlehobbit is, I always said so


Post 541

Originally Posted by SpM

Valid to whom? An individual's interpretation is more valid than any other to that individual because it is the one that makes sense to them as an individual. But that is not to deny that they may see value in, and ascribe relative values to, the interpretations of others, and so develop their own interpretations accordingly. And we will tend to ascribe greater value (again, as individuals or 'interpretative communities') to the interpretations put forward by particular individuals, such as the author himself, those who have read extensively around the work, those who appear to share our values etc. In this way, we are continually assessing, reassessing and developing our own interpretation. It still remains the most valid one to us, though.

Yes, but to stick to coffee-cup holder usage of CD-ROM, for is ‘what I genuinely believe the thing is supposed to do’ once the manual is read and new information presented is a bit, hem, less than bright?


Post 542

Lal seems to have ‘no comments’ from me for the most part today. But I have to fight fire with fire – what the ‘control’ in question is for?


Post 543

Originally Posted by davem

'Its a Tower I built in order that I could look out on the Sea, not a defensive structure.' is a clear enough statement, provable by experiment, & I think we should take his word for it unless we can prove him wrong. If the Tower can be made to serve another purpose by someone else, fine, but they would not be using the Tower for the purpose for which it was built - & they should admit that, & not claim that they know the 'real' intention behind it.

Good. Se my apology above for probably repeating what may have been already posted. Agreement – how dare they claim it!


Post 544

Originally Posted by Bb

It is possible to have a meaningful personal experience of a work of Art without knowing what or how the author wanted me to experience

Agreed. But I come to resort to capital letters here again – what is the purpose of the work of Art – to bring aesthetic pleasure or to communicate some Message beyond that? If the former, yours was the proper way to react, if the latter, than, aesthetic pleasure is by-product (a baggage), not vice versa, and the plaque with the explanation on the statue, as the communicator of the Message, is where 'appreciator'’s priority should be placed.

(I do not mean to say you are not free to choose your priorities, Eru forbid).

There is an analogy of a stutterer in a plane who alone is aware of one of the engines on fire. His only way to communicate information is to sing it to the stewards (as he is not stuttering when he is singing), and he sings it: The engine is on fire, sha-la-la-la. Seemingly, he is in possession of a good singing voice, so the steward and other passengers join in the chorus with their own ‘sha-la-la-las’. All round everybody is aesthetically pleased and humoured, but the final results is, fire is not extinguished and plain crushes. Should they seek the meaning besides the aesthetics; something could have been done about the situation.


Post 545

Originally Posted by thenamir

the whole looks like a time-exposure photograph of a dog chasing its tail

I should have read this before I started to write, but I’m on page 5 of a Word file, I can not possibly abandon it now? Besides, I voted for the whole thing to stop in one of my previous, didn’t I? How exactly that entitles me to write longish posts instead, I myself can not see, yet ‘show must go on’ malady should be someplace inside the whole thing.

As I’ve already chosen the methodology, I have to write through to the end of [currently existing] posts to see if anyone have come with requested quotes already. Promise to make a search if no one did.


Post 546

I run out of smileys seeing as there is a limit of three per post, but imagine ‘big grin’ here


Post 547

Another ‘big grin’. ‘Show must go on’ malady above rendered to ‘circus addicts buying tickets off profiteer’


Post 548

Originally Posted by SpM

Influence, yes. A measure of control, yes. But absolute control, no (more's the pity). But is the influence of one reader over another analagous to the parent/child relationship

Again, as above, it’s all well and proper, but what the control is for? To force ‘proper’ ways of receiving an ‘aesthetical pleasure’? There are none, obviously? I may immensely enjoy ‘coffee-cup holder’ of a CD-ROM more than putting some flat ringlets into it, and you would not persuade me that that is less ‘enjoyable’. But assumption of control being there to ensure ‘correct usage’ (transfer of the Message, seeing of Truth, whatever), will end you, inevitably, with conclusion that there is, after all, Right Way of Reading It? Otherwise, the whole ‘control’ issue could be put for safe-keeping to that particularly shady dell where star nearest to this Earth is rumoured to never have emanated down to

Besides, if the freedom in ‘using the Tower’ is important for the user, for whom is the ‘correct usage’ important? For surely control must be there (if at all?) to ensure ‘proper usage of the Tower (CD-ROM)’?


Post 549

Welcome ‘big grin’


Post 550

No comment


Post 551

Gratitude and relief of not having to find all that myself. ‘smile’



Post 552

Agreement


Post 553

Originally Posted by Bb

And please to remind all who claim that this thread is merely a rhapsody in reproduction, let me point out that last summer's posts did not consider the issue of allegory. This is actually a new application.

Rhapsody of reproduction – yes, but in ascending circles, with slight deviation each new round. Otherwise, why should I trespass on my employer’s right to my time in the office and spend the whole morn composing ‘incestuous reproduction of ideas’?

New application, yes, but not quite: Back there, page 4-5, also 7-8, there was an attempt to bring in the concepts of Truth, Something Else, Shop on the Border of Fairyland (all with capitals), if you remember, all with claims that there were Messages Tolkien tried to bring across, and there were attempts of defining these also.

Well, no, it isn't. A telegram has no artistic purpose or merit. It is designed for other purposes of communication. Any understanding of LotR has to consider the special nature of literature as Art. To the best of my knowledge, LotR has not yet been performed in Morse Code, although I have seen Wuthering Heights attempted in Morse Code.

Why not? If I send poetry over, per instance? And even if I resort to merely reporting weather conditions, my choice of wording may have artistic merit after all?

Literature may lean heavily on aesthetics, but without ‘telegram’ inside it, it would be Art for Art’s sake. Bodybuilding is an exercise in obtaining a ‘beautiful body’ in the end, but sound exercise has Health as its final goal, beauty being enjoyable, pleasant, even desirable, but still by-product.

Besides, turning ‘aesthetics’ back on you (wink), would you bet there won’t be people who would appreciate LoTR in Morse Code purely on it’s aesthetics and what Morse Code means personally to them?



Post 554

Originally Posted by Formendacil

A most annoying thing about this Allegorical/Canonical/Applicable/Nonsensical threads is that Metaphor can never be taken as Metaphor or a Simile for a Simile. It has to be taken as literal. Any attempt to use a parable in illustrating a point is immediately attacked as being not the same. This hasn't just happened to me, it's happened to others.

Seeing as majority of my writing resorts to analogies, I invite you to join the club. But there is only one other way – to give out something based on ‘terms’ and ‘definitions’, which I find less enjoyable (My freedom! Mine! It came to me...)


Post 555

Here we see... wait, that’s this very post of mine. Nice number, three fives ‘big grin’

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

... but those are emotions, they have no evaluative meaning whatsoever.

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

The instruction manual, in so far as it pertains to loading and running the program, details how it is to be used, not what it is to be used for. If we are equating a computer program with a literary work, then I would say that it is the latter rather than the former which equates to the meaning of the work.

Yes, if one tries to run an application using the wrong equipment or application, then one will not get much out of it. But, if one tries to read LotR upside down or at a distance of 50 feet, then one will not get much out of it either.

But the program may be used for a variety of different functions. A database, for example, may be used to store addresses or list one’s favourite LotR quotes or for a variety of other functions. The programmer may well have had intended it to be used for a certain function or functions, but it is up to the user how he actually uses it. Similarly, the author may intend his work to have a certain meaning, but it is up to the reader how he interprets it.

Of course, the software may have been designed to work particularly well when used for particular functions, and it is likely therefore that a sensible user will use it for those functions. Just as the skilled author will be successful in conveying his intended meaning to a sensible reader.

The freedom nevertheless resides with the user/reader.

Am I repeating myself?

[Lalwendë]

No, I really don't see where that necessarily follows, unless my questionable analogy of literary terrorist is at fault, for which bad taste I apologise.

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 perfect state is one in which readers can interpret as they wish and have the right to fully express their conclusions, but this does not happen, not even on the ‘Downs are we free. Total freedom is perilous, it means that nobody has power, nobody can set any limits. There is the potential for a lot of silly, ugly or confrontational (of course, in the opinion of the reader...) ideas and language, but the moment we say “you cannot use offensive language” or any other such statement we have begun to impose limits and restrictions on what the reader can do.

If we are now saying that we are in an ‘interpretive community’ then this is a very different thing to true reader freedom; a community has rules, therefore as readers we are in no way ‘free’. In an interpretive community meaning might reside within the reader but that meaning is only validated by approval from our peers. We are faced with the decision of whether to stand by our opinion and be rejected by the group or to alter our opinion and remain within the community. The interpretive community can never be more than freedom-lite.

I happen to like the idea of an interpretive community as I feel more comfortable within certain boundaries. But who determines the boundaries of the interpretive community? Someone must be there to define the point at which we cross a line. To take the ‘Downs as a case in point, is it the Barrow-Wight? Or is it a democratic process? Or do we have rule by consensus? In that case, is it the highest repped members who set the boundaries? Or the longest standing members? Or is it majority/survival of the fittest? And finally, is Tolkien part of this community? Does he get a say?

He definitely does! Because even if we are an interpretive community and think ourselves 'free' we use his words as boundaries. We do not tend to accept allegorical interpretations (I have seen these well and truly shot down in flames) and we are even asked to base our RPG characters on what Tolkien said about different races of Elves. We look up what Tolkien said in “Letters” or HoME. We might have our own ideas and responses but we still back them up and modify them according to what was laid down on the page – we don't just say what the heck we like. For all our intellectualising, the Author aint dead round these parts.

Originally Posted by SpM

Am I repeating myself?

Yeah, but me too. I'm getting used to it now, but I'm running low on vocabulary and might have to recycle some

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If we are now saying that we are in an ‘interpretive community’ then this is a very different thing to true reader freedom; a community has rules, therefore as readers we are in no way ‘free’. In an interpretive community meaning might reside within the reader but that meaning is only validated by approval from our peers. But who determines the boundaries of the interpretive community? Someone must be there to define the point at which we cross a line. To take the ‘Downs as a case in point, is it the Barrow-Wight? Or is it a democratic process? Or do we have rule by consensus? In that case, is it the highest repped members who set the boundaries? Or the longest standing members? Or is it majority/survival of the fittest? ... And finally, is Tolkien part of this community? Does he get a say?

He definitely does! Because even if we are an interpretive community and think ourselves 'free' we use his words as boundaries.

I thoroughly agree.

From my very first post on this thread:

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Everyone is free to interpret the meaning of the events portrayed in the book in whichever way they choose. The way that they choose will, however, depend upon the manner in which they approach the story. A reader who enjoys it as a cracking good yarn, but without any inclination to explore further the world which Tolkien created, will not be bound by (and most likely will be unaware of) the author's intentions. Those who are interested in learning more about Tolkien and his works (such as most, I should think, who post here) will be more inclined to accept such meaning as Tolkien himself attributed to his works. It is, I think, beholden upon those posting seriously here to at least acknowledge, if not accept, Tolkien's own thoughts on what he wrote.

That remains my position.

As to who determines the boundaries, I would include all of those you mention, although (with the exception of the forum rules stipulated by the Admins and, to a lesser extent, the Mods), they are not generally formulated or imposed in any formal manner.

[Lalwendë]

So, would you agree that the meaning of the text can be both defined by readers and by the Author?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

So, would you agree that the meaning of the text can be both defined by readers and by the Author?

of course. The author is an individual and so the work has a meaning that is individual to him.

To clarify, the full meaning of the work can only lie with the individual reader (because it will mean something different to each individual). Aspects of that meaning may be shared.