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

[Thenamir]

IN any event, the original question of where *readers* find the meaning in LOTR makes moot the question of whether JRRT expected to have readership. Readers are assumed by the form of the question. I just don't want to get sidetracked from this excellent debate.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

In that sense he *did* create Middle Earth for himself. But it would be strange indeed if he did not read it over himself and take pleasure in it, preferring instead to ignore that over which he took so much time and effort.

Yet there is pleasure in the creation process itself. I think of Aule, who created things & then gave them away in order to be free to create other things. His 'fall
(or the closest he comes to it) comes when he creates the dwarves - & in that he is driven by the desire to create something he can 'possess' - 'students' if you like.

Or we could take a runner or a dancer - they train to be able to run or dance, but once the race or the dance is over they leave it behind & move on to the next chance to 'express' themselves - to fully & completely be themselves. In the 'moment' of running or dancing (or writing or singing, etc) they are truly, completely alive. When the act is over they seek their next chance to be alive in that same way. When they are full 'themselves' in that way they touch eternity, & are what 'God' intended them to be.

Without getting all 'zen' about it, of course....

And perhaps that's what readers pick up on? They read the story & feel, vicariously, that sense of being 'alive' - to the universe & to what lies beyond...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

And perhaps that's what readers pick up on? They read the story & feel, vicariously, that sense of being 'alive' - to the universe & to what lies beyond...

... or perhaps they just enjoy a darn good read.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

... or perhaps they just enjoy a darn good read.

But on what do they base that judgement - where does that feeling originate?

And is it, for them, a 'darn good read' or a 'darn Good read'?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

And is it, for them, a 'darn good read' or a 'darn Good read'?

Well that depends upon the reader, doesn't it.

[Ophelia]

I risk dearly by doing what I am - posting without reading more than a few of the posts already explaining , probobly , the same I am about to try to call my opinion in this most interesting debate aswell as many honourable opinions and thoughts I will simply call 'other'

Where is the meaning of Lord of the Rings to be found ? Writers get inspiration and see visions that they understand and begin to love . The writer wants to share with this vision with others but the only tool he has is the word and the letter , ink on paper . The writer clads his thought in words carefully but generously for the tekst that consists of these words has only one main mission - explain the vision , the though of the writer to the reader . How simple . But the writer has no power over the interpretation of the text in the readers mind . He isn't able to do so , that everybody understands it the way he wants it to . He can only direct the reader's thought in the right direction . All else then depends on the state of the readers mind , his fantasy and anything that can be called an effecting facktor .

But then is the reader that the writer can't predict . A child may read Lord of the Rings or hear it as a bedside story and what he will read or hear is this description of a journey , strange people , strange lands and of a great victory which light has over the darkness in the end . Never and not once will the child on his own think that story holds within it some references to a religion or displays some sort of discrimination to a minority or what not else (I apologize if the two possible meanings mentionet displeases someone) . Indeed he won't . But then again an adult (and not even neceseraly an adult) will never not once say that the book was simply a story of a hobbit who did great deeds (by this I do not mean that nobody and not a single person won't find it a plain story of hobbits , elves and orcs, don't get me wrong , I mean 3 people , not to count me , did pick the 4th option in the poll ) . He will find this deeper thought in the book for what else do you expect from a person who is looking for it ? Yes , the person might say that he isn't actually looking for any meaning or a deeper thought but that is what people do . Most of the people just won't admit that there was no thought unwritten directly in the book . A live proof to that is this thread - you are trying to understand where to find the meaning . A deeper one , I dare say . To that I say : who looks for something , finds it . That is where I must agree that the finding of the meaning of the book lies within the experience of the reader .

Ofcourse there are countless deeper meanings or messages hidden in the book that is Lord of the Rings and not just few have been found by me myself , but I choose now not to spoil a great story with pondering on things uncertain and ideas of which we'll never know how true they are . I beg you only not to misunderstand me for this is only my opinion and sight of the topic . But then again , I can never be sure of how you'll interpret my thoughts , if you choose to seek for a deeper meaning of what's written here .

-Ophelia-

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Ophelia

To that I say : who looks for something , finds it . That is where I must agree that the finding of the meaning of the book lies within the experience of the reader .

-Ophelia-

But to me that's a problem. Assume that you're looking for something hateful etc, and you pick up LOTR...guess what? You find something hateful! I assume that we get back to the 'reader majority' where the 'meanings' are averaged and outliers (opinions that are way, WAY outside the curve) are thrown out.

At one time it was thought ludicrous that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, and yet...

[Thenamir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bêthberry]

Hmm. I sense something here, not a monkey wrench so much as a ... "Thenamire." Or are we caught between atar and a landlubber?

Originally Posted by alatar

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

At one time it was thought ludicrous that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, and yet...

Originally Posted by Thenamir

I think it wise to place both extremes into the great wastebin with those who have never read LOTR and have no intention of doing so. Add to them those whose distorted worldviews force a single message on *every* work they encounter.

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

I'm not sure what to think of these two suggestions.

Alatar and Thenamir, are you both saying that extreme interpretations should be rejected simply on the basis of being extreme, that is, in the minority or seemingly absurd? I'm not sure how logically sound that would be, for the extremes or absurdities of one generation often come 'round to being the middle of the road opinions of later generations. It seems a bit of a tautology to accept only those whose ideas appear to lead to certainty. Could not uncertainty be a plausible meaning?

Or

Are you suggesting that LotR, like many books, in fact creates its own kind of reader, who happens to have certain qualities which fall in the mainstream?

Kettle, signing off...

[Thenamir]

Are you suggesting that LotR, like many books, in fact creates its own kind of reader, who happens to have certain qualities which fall in the mainstream?

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

<Geez, what a sappy tirade. I take this stuff way too seriously.>

Going back to your first question, I am not at all saying that extreme interpretations should be rejected simply on the basis of being outside the mainstream -- on the contrary, as in any discipline, it is precisely in the examination of a thousand seemingly absurd propositions that one finds the one idea that holds merit and perhaps forms the basis for chaging the worldview, and perhaps the world as well. You must smelt tons of ore to isolate the few ounces of gold therein, but only in the hard work of excavating, heating, and casting off the dross does one find that which is valuable. You probably have to research and sort through a similar weight of scientific reasearch before coming up with a valid theory or useful construct. Why should literature be any different?

In the categories which I cited there are those who (1) don't think LOTR is worth the time, (2) are clinically insane, and (3) find the same meaning in every work from kindergarden reading primers to epic fiction to cookbooks. The people who fall into category (1) are moot to the poll and this thread, since the fact that we are discussing LOTR means that we think it worthy of examination. The question of the literary worthiness of LOTR is certainly a topic worth thorough treatment, but for those of us here, I believe it is a settled question. And even if we were to open that can of verbal worms, it would merit a separate thread.

The people in categories (2) and (3) are kindred, in that their views of LOTR are not viewed through the lens of reality -- the difference between them being that the mental impairment of those in category (2) is not of their own making. Category (3) people (white supremecists, race-baiters, and conspiracy-theorists), like the stubborn dwarves in the closing scenes of C.S. Lewis's The Last Battle, have willfully shut their eyes to everything but their own unreal viewpoint, seeing only darkness in the strong sunlight, smelling only stable dung where beautiful flowers grew, and tasting only manger-fodder when presented with a kingly feast. There are truly none so blind as those who will not see.

That being said there remains a remarkablly wide variety of opinion to be considered (and often rejected) in coming to conclusions. As an example, I once had a long conversation with someone a few years ago who maintained that Melkor was actually the "good guy" in the Silmarillion, since he actually paid attention to the created world (albeit in a cruel and possessive fashion) while the rest of the Valar took the age off to play golf somewhere. To me it was certainly, on the face of it, a bizarre point, making me wonder what mental machinations would lead someone to this conclusion, but I have to admit that she had some arguments that, of themselves, seemed persuasive. But then some people believe that it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven. It was certainly worthy of consideration, and it was only the difference in our worldviews (mine having a clear idea of "good" versus "evil", and hers being extremely relative on such matters) that caused us to differ. If you approach it from Authorial Intent, I believe mine was closer to Tolkien's view, though even that is debatable. If you approach it from reader experience, her view was at least as valid as mine. If you take the route of mainstream-ness or consensus, then my view would win. But which is "correct"?

Thus the question I asked previously still remains, from what frame of reference are we seeking discussing the meaning of LOTR? Are we (meaning those who read and post in the canonicity threads) looking for the meaning to individuals? Are we seeking a definitional consensus such that that which lies within the proscribed canonical circle is somehow "mainstream" and that which lies without is "heresy"? Are we not really attempting to find rigid rules to describe the delicate relation between the composer of the world-tune and the steps we dance to it?

Or are we here, like Melkor, merely braying upon a few notes and trying to make our small opinion drown out the glorious whole, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"? <Thenamir raises his hand and hangs his head.>

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

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

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

Originally Posted by Thenamir

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

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

[Turgon Philip Noldor]

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

[Lyta_Underhill]

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

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

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

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

Cheers!
Lyta

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