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

[Lhunardawen]

Maybe we should all just vote for option 4, so Fordim would fail in his diabolical quest.

But you voted already, didn't you?

Oh.

[Bêthberry]

Oh, I never take Fordim at his word.

For instance, this little poll does seem to have drawn out many another Downer who never ventured into either the Enchantment thread or the Canonicity thread. Now, there's a democracy of entanglement if ever there was one.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill
Where's the middle-ground -- the collaboration between author and reader?

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Quite right. It's a flawed poll without this option.

On the contrary, there is no collaboration per se between author and reader, unless it is carried on solely within the reader's mind, some sort of necromancy in calling forth an absent human being.

Or perhaps necromancy is not the most applicable metaphor. Mayhap a better one is that of a performance art, with the reader taking the place of the performer rather than member of the audience, who but listens.

Indeedy, perhaps we can take this in a new direction which memory tells me was not examined on either of those two threads: we can even take Estelyn's discussion about music and the Music and apply it here.

Estelyn on musical interpretation

which was inspired by davem's post:

davem on performance

The ball's in other courts now, I believe.

[The Saucepan Man]

It's a no brainer really.

Some have questioned why there is not an "all of the above" category. This was my initial reaction too.

But then I realised that there is. It is that the meaning may be found in the experience of the reader. This covers each of the other categories and more.

The readers' views on the author's intentions, how the text should be analysed and interpreted, his or her enjoyment of it etc all fall within his or her experience of the book. If we feel compelled to divine the author's intentions, then that falls within our experience of the book. If we simply enjoy it as a darn good read, then that too is within our experience of it. Since our experience of the book as readers is dictated by and also dictates our approach to it, this in turn defines its meaning to us as individuals (which, of course, may change over time).

Simply put, a book can have no meaning save by reference to its effect on the individual. There can be no objective meaning which sits apart from the reader's experience. Of course, a group of individuals may share similar experiences of a book and may therefore agree on certain aspects of what it means. But no one individual reader's experience will ever be compeltely identical to another's, and so a book can never have one unified, objective meaning.

But what of the author, you may ask. What about the meaning that he or she intended? Well, the author is but an individual too, and so his or her intended meaning will simply fall within his or her individual experience. Provided that he or she is sufficiently skilled at communicating that intended meaning, then it may well form a part of many readers' experience too. But that will not necessarily be the case, certainly not with every reader.

And so I have voted, rather predictably, for the experience of the reader.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Simply put, a book can have no meaning save by reference to its effect on the individual. There can be no objective meaning which sits apart from the reader's experience. Of course, a group of individuals may share similar experiences of a book and may therefore agree on certain aspects of what it means. But no one individual reader's experience will ever be compeltely identical to another's, and so a book can never have one unified, objective meaning.

Does this only apply to fiction, or are non-fiction books also included - say maths texts, or books on quantum theory? In fact, is it limited only to what we read, or does it extend to movies - & beyond to our everyday lives?

Observer created universe - or solipsism?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Does this only apply to fiction, or are non-fiction books also included - say maths texts, or books on quantum theory? In fact, is it limited only to what we read, or does it extend to movies - & beyond to our everyday lives?

Arguably, all of the above. But I'll restrict myself to works of fiction (in whatever medium) for now, as that is all the poll requires of me.

[Lalwendë]

Just a little something to stir the pot...

I'm not arguing against the 'experience of the reader', but something which makes me not want to side wholly with it is that the reader can quite easily misinterpret the text. If meaning is wholly with the reader then presumably the reader can say/do exactly what he or she likes and then say "I read it in a book" - if someone else points out that said book did actually support their opinion/action then that reader can logically counter by saying "well that's my experience".

Of course, this doesn't really matter all that much when it comes to discussing Tolkien beyond the possibility that it might give a few 'Downers increased blood pressure, but it can matter a lot. What if someone interprets their particular sacred text to mean that they ought to carry out a destructive act? Clearly it does matter in that case. So, why is it OK to do this with LotR but not with a sacred text? Are there limits? Or would it be equally as acceptable to do this where there may be bloody consequences?

I do think that it is important that different interpretations are allowed to exist for any text. In the case of Christianity I much prefer that there are many and varied ways of interpreting that text as we all experience life in different ways and this also stirs debate. But it cannot be denied that they do cause conflict.

I am stirring it a bit, yes...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'm not arguing against the 'experience of the reader', but something which makes me not want to side wholly with it is that the reader can quite easily misinterpret the text.

To state that a text can be misinterpreted is to assume that there is a correct interpretation. But who decides what the correct interpretation is? What right has anyone to deny a genuinely held interpretation of a text simply because they consider it to be incorrect?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

To state that a text can be misinterpreted is to assume that there is a correct interpretation. But who decides what the correct interpretation is? What right has anyone to deny a genuinely held interpretation of a text simply because they consider it to be incorrect?

I know. I agree. I like having the opportunity and freedom to 'misinterpret'.

But it also makes me a bit uncomfortable that to allow free 'interpretation' can have consequences we did not foresee. Does 'interpretation' have any limits, and if so where would we put them? I'm not coming down on any side over this, but it's a question worth thinking about in my opinion.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Does 'interpretation' have any limits, and if so where would we put them?

We should not (and cannot, without the establishment of Thought Police) place any limits on freedom of interpretation. Where we can and should place limits is on the reader's ability to turn such interpretation into action, such as where it will result in loss or harm to others.

So, for example, we cannot stop white supremacists believing that LotR supports their repugnant views. But we can limit their ability to propagate those views by means of legislation prohibiting the incitement of racial hatred.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

We should not (and cannot, without the establishment of Thought Police) place any limits on freedom of interpretation. Where we can and should place limits is on the reader's ability to turn such interpretation into action, such as where it will result in loss or harm to others.

So, for example, we cannot stop white supremacists believing that LotR supports their repugnant views. But we can limit their ability to propagate those views by means of legislation prohibiting the incitement of racial hatred.

So, is promoting 'racial hatred' objectively wrong, or are you simply seeking to impose your interpretation on others, & force them to live by your standards?

You seem to be saying that there is some objective standard of right & wrong by which the behaviour of individuals should be judged. If so, can one not argue that there is a 'right' & a 'wrong' interpretation of a work of fiction?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

So, is promoting 'racial hatred' objectively wrong, or are you simply seeking to impose your interpretation on others, & force them to live by your standards?

I'm not saying that it is objectively wrong (although I do not preclude the possibility). It is sufficient for me that it is the standard of the society within which I live, and one which I agree with and adhere to.

Originally Posted by davem

You seem to be saying that there is some objective standard of right & wrong by which the behaviour of individuals should be judged. If so, can one not argue that there is a 'right' & a 'wrong' interpretation of a work of fiction?

No. It does not necessarily follow. When an individual behaves in a way which impacts upon others within society, society necessarily has the right to determine whether such behaviour is right or wrong. It has (and can have) no such right to judge in the case of a personally held interpretation of a work of fiction.

What I am saying is that the only way that a work of fiction can have any meaning is by reference to its meaning to an individual reader. A degree of objectivity may be acheived where there is some consensus. But it can never be universally applicable. Societal standards are, however, universally applicable, either because they are enshrined within laws or because it is the consensus of society that all members should abide by them.

[tar-ancalime]

Has anyone noticed that Fordim himself has not voted?

Could it be that there is a secret fifth option that he keeps close, for fear it will stop the debate?

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I'm not saying that it is objectively wrong (although I do not preclude the possibility). It is sufficient for me that it is the standard of the society within which I live, and one which I agree with and adhere to.

No. It does not necessarily follow. When an individual behaves in a way which impacts upon others within society, society necessarily has the right to determine whether such behaviour is right or wrong. It has (and can have) no such right to judge in the case of a personally held interpretation of a work of fiction.

What I am saying is that the only way that a work of fiction can have any meaning is by reference to its meaning to an individual reader. A degree of objectivity may be acheived where there is some consensus. But it can never be universally applicable. Societal standards are, however, universally applicable, either because they are enshrined within laws or because it is the consensus of society that all members should abide by them.

But where does that leave Nazi Germany, Afghanistan under the Taliban, etc?

Can we judge those societies as 'wrong' according to some objective standard, or are we merely imposing our own subjective values on them?

As to books - why cannot a book teach the reader a new 'meaning' or way of thinking - one they did not have before? We can't assume the reader is the whole source of what they find in a book.

[Lalwendë]

Another idea...

The 'experience of the reader' theory also makes me question how this impacts upon the idea of teaching. Traditional teaching (in both educational and religious institutions) centres on the teacher instructing the learner. So when we study a play by Shakespeare, the teacher will tell the class what the meaning of that work is. There may be differing ways of getting to that point, and there may be more than one meaning proferred, but the end result is the same; the teacher is the one who validates the opinion of the learner. Opinions which differ are not necessarily considered valid, even if they are the 'experience of the reader'.

An unusual opinion may prompt the teacher to demand that it is backed up with facts, or it may be dismissed as 'wrong', possibly as the teacher knows that only x, y or z opinion expressed on an exam paper will get the learner to the required standard; or the unusual opinion may challenge the status quo of a religious community. Presumably this is wrong if the 'experience of the reader' is the acceptable way of looking at things.

In reality, 'experience of the reader' is not as free as we think it is. If I was to post a highly controversial view (think of some of the more odious and offensive opinions held in society ) on the 'Downs backed up with selective quotes, then I would expect a barrage of angry replies. I might say "well it was my personal experience which made me interpret the meaning in that way", but this would not hold up as an acceptable defence; many posts would be made telling me why I was wrong. This community we are in has its own rules on interpretation (e.g. LotR is not an allegory, it is not racist, it is not sexist) and if we break one of those rules then 'personal experience' holds no water.

The point I'm trying to make is that just as in society as a whole there are 'rules' (both written and unwritten) which restrict us from acting in a certain way or speaking of certain things, there are also rules (mainly unwritten, imposed by the group) in this very community which likewise prevent us from totally free interpretation. So finding meaning in the experience of the reader is not always applicable, nor is it always even acceptable.

I still like the idea of it, and indeed, I feel strongly that the Thought Police ought to be banished, but in reality, the defence of 'personal experience' is not as watertight as we might think.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Can we judge those societies as 'wrong' according to some objective standard, or are we merely imposing our own subjective values on them?

Good question. I do not pretend to know the answer. Certainly, it is arguable that they were "wrong" according to an objective standard (natural law?), but equally one might argue that what is "right" and "wrong" within a certain society is what that society deems to be "right" and "wrong". All I would say is that the standards of those societies were applicable to those who lived within them, even though we would now say that such standards were wrong and that those who disagreed with and/or sought to resist them were right.

Originally Posted by davem

As to books - why cannot a book teach the reader a new 'meaning' or way of thinking - one they did not have before? We can't assume the reader is the whole source of what they find in a book.

I am most definately not saying that a reader's experience of a book, and therefore its individual meaning to him or her, cannot change through further reading, discussion with others etc. My own interpretation of LotR has changed through discussion here at the Downs and through reading Tolkien's other works, his Letters etc. But the "new meaning" is still within the reader's own experience.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This community we are in has its own rules on interpretation (e.g. LotR is not an allegory, it is not racist, it is not sexist) and if we break one of those rules then 'personal experience' holds no water.

I disagree. If an individual's own interpretation breaks one of these "rules of interpretation", that may cause others to disagree but it will not necessarily change the personal meaning to the individual, if it is genuinely and strongly held. I accept that there will be a (limited) degree of objectivity in consensus (and some benefit in subscribing to the consensus, for exampe in the exam situation which you mention), but the individual still retains the right to find their own meaning which does not follow the consensus, just as others have the right to disagree with it.

EDIT: I should add that the "rules of interpretation" which you mention are themselves derived from the experience of the reader or, in this case, a consensus of reader's experiences.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

I disagree. If an individual's own interpretation breaks one of these "rules of interpretation", that may cause others to disagree but it will not necessarily change the personal meaning to the individual, if it is genuinely and strongly held. I accept that there will be a (limited) degree of objectivity in consensus (and some benefit in subscribing to the consensus, for exampe in the exam situation which you mention), but the individual still retains the right to find their own meaning which does not follow the consensus, just as others have the right to disagree with it.

Yet if the individual wishes to be a part of a community (such as this) then it is very much in their interest to follow the consensus. I often see posts by newbies which go against the accepted views held by those in this community, which will result in said poster ceasing to contribute; this is effectively rejection by the community (constructive dismissal? ) and therefore it is important that a 'Downer accepts the consensus opinion.

Yes, a person has the right to privately retain their own meaning, but if it cannot be aired due to fear of rejection by the community, then what use is it? There may be freedom to interpret, freedom to find meaning in personal experience, but the reality is that this is not always accepted. While we may have the 'right' to express or to share the meaning we have found, we do not necessarily have the permission or ability to do so. To use an analogy, it may say in our property deeds that we have the right to use our neighbours' gardens as a right of way, but if they lock their gates then we are denied the ability to do so.

Sorry, this must seem a little too much like the day job to you.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by tar-ancalime

Has anyone noticed that Fordim himself has not voted?

Could it be that there is a secret fifth option that he keeps close, for fear it will stop the debate?

Heh heh...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Yes, a person has the right to privately retain their own meaning, but if it cannot be aired due to fear of rejection by the community, then what use is it?

Well, provided that it is genuinely and strongly held, then I would say that it is of great value to the individual. And anyway, if we all simply follow the consensus, then we will never learn anything new. Radical interpretations may alter the "consensus interpretation" (ie the interpretation shared by the majority of individual readers) and therefore be of great benefit to the "readership community".

I simply cannot see where them meaning of a text can exist save in the experience of the reader (or readers).

The text itself cannot provide meaning without interpretation, which takes place in the mind of the reader. And the author's intentions cannot be the only measure, since this would impose the "purposive domination of the author" and may deny applicability to the individual reader. In any event, the divination of the author's intention takes place in the mind of the reader too. This is why I see the "reader's experience" category as also being the "all of the above" category.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Sorry, this must seem a little too much like the day job to you.

You mean this isn't my day job?

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

On the contrary, there is no collaboration per se between author and reader, unless it is carried on solely within the reader's mind, some sort of necromancy in calling forth an absent human being.

Should have replied to this a while ago, but better late than never. I wanted to get a comment in before the thread gallops off down the usual well-trodden road.

Look:

Two women, one elderly, the other of indeterminate age, sat in a small alcove with full glass doors that gave out onto the back of the White Horse Inn. Through them could be seen a row of young apple trees, maybe ten feet high. If one were close to them, one could see tiny buds appearing on the branches, but from the Inn they still appeared like dark skeletons against the sky, branches leafless and budless.

The women's eyes turned back towards the Inn, watching the patrons congregate.

"More people from distant lands appear these days, " observed the older woman, her grey hair plaited in thin rounds about her head, her shoulders stooped from toil, but her eyes still bright with shrewd life and wit.

Now, I submit to you, Bb, that when I read these words of yours, the final act of creation is a collaboration between you and me. You haven't described either woman in any great detail, but I have a clear picture in my mind of both of them; likewise the place where they're at. Together we've created something that neither of us alone could have made. You don't have to be here with me, or even alive for that matter, for us to collaborate. Your words on my screen are as fresh as they were the day you typed them on your keyboard for the first time, just as Tolkien's are as fresh when I crack LotR today as they were the day they flowed from his pen. We're having a meeting of the minds, and both of us are bringing something to the party. Later, you may refine or even drastically alter the images in my mind and the way I think about the characters. The collaboration continues as I read. The creative act is ongoing.

Now these few paragraphs have established little or no meaning and not much emotion either. But together over the course of a whole story an author and a reader may collaborate to build whole worlds of image, thought, meaning, and emotion. And it is indeed a collaboration in the truest sense of the word: "to labor together".

Fordim's "analysis of the text" option which he has offered to cover this collaboration is far too dry for me. It implies an intellectual distance and doesn't compass, for me, the creativity and emotion of reading.

As SPM has implied, a book itself is only a sort of potential energy; unread, gathering dust on a shelf, it is meaningless to anyone except the one who wrote it. When another mind engages it, the possibilities that the two may create together are boundless. But it takes both author and reader together to make it happen.

[alatar]

Great discussion, Lalwendë and The Saucepan Man.

In regards to interpreting the text, are there not rules to this art? If so, with whom or where have these rules originated? Are they set in stone, or just simply guidelines? Having a background in science and being born with an overly active skeptic gene, I always consider that my interpretation of results or of an event is subjective. One way to resolve the question is to provide another person or persons with the same data (in this case, the text) and the methodology (the rules) that I used to arrive at the results that I did. These others, hopefully not beholden to me in any way, 'run the experiment' for themselves and compare their results with mine. If we are in concordance, then it's possible that my interpretation is not subjective.

But as we are attempting to analyze the text in a more scientific fashion, we would have to still consider that our concordant interpretations are still flawed as our methodology (the best that we could come up with) may contain error. Even a peer-reviewed and developed method can still be wrong. Science is an art, and when interpreting works of fiction, there may be more art than science - I know of no algorithm that you can dump LOTR into and get "42."

So, if on the Downs I were to propose a meaning regarding the inclusion of Tom Bombadil in LOTR (like the crazy idea that Tolkien prophetically foresaw the creation of Star Trek ), I could just post the thought and get laughed at. I could be a bit smarter and show my evidence, and in this case it would have to be pretty thick and airtight. Some readers may be swayed; others may still not believe the heresy. Hopefully, some person digging around in an attic in Birmingham would find the "lost letters" that would prove me to be right. Then, and only then would my argument be considered true by most of the community - there would still be holdouts who would think (and rightly so) that the lost letters are forgeries.

Anyway, I think that it boils down to the consensus of the community, whether it be the rules of interpretation or the interpretation itself. If we differ with the community, then either we provide an argument that eventually is assimilated into that community or one becomes a lone voice crying in the desert.

And the truth is a Bayesian approximation anyway - we might not know the answer, but we know with some probability that we're close - or not.

[the phantom]

You didn't think you could have a big debate without the phantom weighing in, did you?

As a reader, I would love to say that the reader holds the meaning because I would like to be able to order things my way. However, I am not inclined to extend this courtesy to my fellow readers, because everyone else doesn't always agree with me, and when that happens, if the meaning is truly determined by the reader, then their opinion is just as correct and valid as mine no matter who they are or what they think. I cannot accept that, because I believe that every opinion is not equally valid or correct.

For instance, if someone reads LOTR and declares the meaning of the book to be "clowns are scary", that person is not expressing a "different" opinion, they are expressing a wrong opinion, no doubt about it- and don't even give me the "what gives you the right to judge" crap- they are wrong and you know it even if you are scared to say it.

And now I ask, why would such an opinion be wrong?

The answer- because nothing within the text supports the conclusion as being a rational one.

You can't find meaning in a text if it is not truly in the text, if you get my drift. You can't read "The paper is blue" and draw from it "The pen is green". Meaning has to actually be in the text in order to be found. It's a logical fact. Therefore, we can declare an individual right or wrong through analysis of the text.

Which means, of course, that analysis of the text is a better choice than the experience of the reader. A reader has only found meaning in a text if the text supports it.

But is there an even better choice than analysis of the text?

I want you all to imagine that you have written a book reflecting a few of your core beliefs. Then, some terrorist group claims that they have found a message within your book- "kill women and children". Don't you, as an author, have the authority to say "No, you are wrong- that message is not in that book. I know because I'm the one who wrote the darn thing."?

Of course you have that right. You are the author. You overrule the terrorist group who read your book.

Perhaps there were women and children killed in your book, and because of a mistake you made in writing the book it was unclear who did the deed, and some people interpreted the book to be saying that the hero of the story did it. In this case, the textual analysis could possibly be on the side of the terrorist group. But then if you, as an author, step forward and say "Just to clear things up, it was the bad guy in the book who was responsible for killing those people, not the hero", doesn't that make it the correct way to interpret the passage?

The creator is the one who knows what is going on. The creator knows what the book is trying to say. Therefore, the creator's interpretation overrules all else.

Now, I'm not saying that the author is always correct morally or anything- merely that they are correct about the meaning of what they have written. For instance, if a Nazi says that the meaning of his book is "other races are dumb", you may disagree with him and think he is wrong morally, but his statement about the meaning of his book is still correct.

Unfortunately, the creator is not always around to answer questions. For instance, Tolkien is not here to talk to us about Balrog wings, therefore we must turn to analysis of the text, which is what will bring us closer to the creator's correct interpretation than anything else. Then, if the analysis still leaves the question unanswered, the reader has the right to think what he wants and not be declared "wrong".

[alatar]

Originally Posted by the phantom

As a reader, I would love to say that the reader holds the meaning because I would like to be able to order things my way. However, I am not inclined to extend this courtesy to my fellow readers, because everyone else doesn't always agree with me, and when that happens, if the meaning is truly determined by the reader, then their opinion is just as correct and valid as mine no matter who they are or what they think. I cannot accept that, because I believe that every opinion is not equally valid or correct.

And now I ask, why would such an opinion be wrong?

Reminded me of the Rorschach psychological evaluation using inkblots that I...ahhh...read about. Just because others don't see Alan Lee and John Howe sketchings in the images doesn't mean that I'm wrong or nuts, it's the sorry fact that they're not 'Downers.

"It's a Balrog...with wings..."

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

As SPM has implied, a book itself is only a sort of potential energy; unread, gathering dust on a shelf, it is meaningless to anyone except the one who wrote it. When another mind engages it, the possibilities that the two may create together are boundless. But it takes both author and reader together to make it happen.

I don't think anyone would argue that writer & reader are 'co-creator's' of the Secondary world. Tolkien says as much in the Fairy Stories essay, where he states that when a story refers to a tree, river or hill the reader will inevitably supply the image for himself, which will be an amalgam of all the trees, rivers or hills he/she has ever known, but principally of the first of those things the reader experienced, which, to them will mean Tree, River or Hill.

But the point is that the reader is supplying the images of those things, not adding those things to the story off their own bat. And if the story refers to a tree, the reader is not free to imagine a car. The imagery may be unique to each reader, but the story is not. The story(teller) is in control of the events of the tale, the reader only what it 'looks' like - & even then he is only 'free' to a very limited extent. Even with a tree - if the story refers to a gigantic tree the reader is not free to imagine a bonsai.

Ok, the reader is free to imagine a bonsai tree, but then the events of the story will not make sense - particularly if the next event described is that the hero climbs the tree. So, if the author says the hero came to a gigantic tree what constitutes 'gigantic' will be down to the reader - 50 ft? 100? 200? 1000? On the other hand, if the author says the hero came to a 'gigantic tree, 300 feet tall at the least.' the reader must imagine exactly that.

In other words, the more precise the storyteller is in his description the less freedom the reader has in his/her contribution to the experience.

So much for the imagery. The same must also apply to the value system & morality of the story. If the writer says merely 'Fred was a good man.' the reader is free to apply his/her own concept of 'goodness' to Fred. If, however, the writer says 'Fred was a good man because he was kind to animals' the reader must accept (for the purposes of the story) that being kind to animals is 'good' behaviour within the world of the story. Similarly, if the writer says 'Fred was a good man because he hated Elves' & the story shows Elves to be bad people, then the reader, if he/she is to fully enter into the world of the story, must accept that a) Elves are bad & b) that Fred is a good man because he hates them. To bring in 'Tolkienesque' baggage about Elves & choose to believe that Elves in this secondary world must be good because they're good in Middle earth means that the reader will not be able to enter into the world of the story, because the events of the story will become increasingly 'nonsensical'.

So, obviously, there is a degree of reader input into the story, co-creation does happen, but the writer is in charge, & determines the degree of input the reader has.

[Mister Underhill]

Well, even on a simplistic level of imagery, there can be much variation and room for creativity. In your mind's eye, summon up your Frodo. Hopefully he bears only a passing resemblance, if that, to Elijah Wood. Really see him. What color exactly is his hair? Is it curly? How curly? How long? What about his eyes? See the shape of his face, see his characteristic expressions. Are his teeth straight? Picture his clothes. What's the fabric like? The colors? What do the buttons on his waistcoat look like? How does he walk? What do his fingernails look like? How does he smell? Can you see him clean and freshly bathed in the Shire? Dirty and lean and tired in his bones and clad in orc mail in Mordor? Forget the books. The books don't matter right now. Tolkien was the catalyst, but the Frodo that was created between you and him isn't his anymore. He's not all yours either -- no one ever heard of Frodo until Tolkien thought him up -- but he *is* unique, different from all the other Frodos in all the other minds of other readers.

Now of course we can progress beyond simple imagery into deeper and more ambiguous concepts. An author may dramatize a profound truth you've always felt but never been able to express. He may open your mind to new concepts or new ideals, which you are able to articulate only after having read his story. He may reveal ambiguities or doubts in a belief you were previously sure of.

Readers may come away from LotR having drawn meaning about the concept of honor, for instance. We can discuss what honor means to the characters, what it might have meant to Tolkien, what it means to us in light of the story, how our own concepts of honor agree or disagree with the story's, how they may have been influenced by the story, and so on. In fact, it's what we do here all the time.

It is in the fusion of Tolkien's intention and our own reading experience that meaning is found or created. If it were only Tolkien's intention, there'd be nothing to talk about, and if it were only individual reader experience, we wouldn't have the basis for a community. Meaning is found in the dance between reader and author, mind and mind, heart and heart.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

However, I am not inclined to extend this courtesy to my fellow readers, because everyone else doesn't always agree with me, and when that happens, if the meaning is truly determined by the reader, then their opinion is just as correct and valid as mine no matter who they are or what they think. I cannot accept that, because I believe that every opinion is not equally valid or correct.

To my mind, it is not a question of whether one meaning is objectively of greater value or more correct than another. It is a question of whether a particular meaning is subjectively right for a particular individual. That determination can only take place within the experience of that individual.

Generally, we will tend to ascribe greater "value" or "correctness" to the meaning adhered to by the majority and/or those particularly qualified to interpret the text in question (such as the author, for example) and, as I have said a (limited) degree of objectivity may be obtained in this regard. But it does not follow that the meaning subscribed to by the majority or the high priests of analysis or even the author will be the right one for a particular individual reader.

Originally Posted by davem

So, obviously, there is a degree of reader input into the story, co-creation does happen, but the writer is in charge, & determines the degree of input the reader has.

The author provides the building blocks, but they are assembled within the experience of the reader. The reader is totally at liberty to assemble them as he or she wishes, or even to ignore them completely. The majority will assemble them largely as the author intended.

Edit: Cross-posted with Mister U.

[tar-ancalime]

Mister Underhill said:

An author may dramatize a profound truth you've always felt but never been able to express. He may open your mind to new concepts or new ideals, which you are able to articulate only after having read his story. He may reveal ambiguities or doubts in a belief you were previously sure of.

I'd like to add that, most of the time, while the reader's mind is being opened and the ambiguities in her/his beliefs revealed, the book is there but the AUTHOR IS NOT.

Once the book is written and sent off into the world (like a child on the first day of school--I've got the strange feeling I've written this post before, not that that will stop me from writing it again...), the author has to relinquish at least some control. Even if, as the phantom suggests, an author might wish to clarify or explain his/her work, s/he cannot possibly address every question from every reader, especially those that are never articulated. Therefore, I suggest that the collaborative process is less like a dialogue between the author and the reader, and more like a commentary or a performance--when I play a Brahms sonata, I try my best to study performance practice, to follow the composer's instructions, and to show the audience just what Brahms was on about. But the dirty truth remains--Brahms is dead and can never, ever tell me if I got it right or wrong. The reins have passed to me, the performer, in the same way that an author must relinquish control to the reader.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Should have replied to this a while ago, but better late than never. I wanted to get a comment in before the thread gallops off down the usual well-trodden road.

Look: Now, I submit to you, Bb, that when I read these words of yours, the final act of creation is a collaboration between you and me. You haven't described either woman in any great detail, but I have a clear picture in my mind of both of them; likewise the place where they're at. Together we've created something that neither of us alone could have made. You don't have to be here with me, or even alive for that matter, for us to collaborate. Your words on my screen are as fresh as they were the day you typed them on your keyboard for the first time, just as Tolkien's are as fresh when I crack LotR today as they were the day they flowed from his pen. We're having a meeting of the minds, and both of us are bringing something to the party. Later, you may refine or even drastically alter the images in my mind and the way I think about the characters. The collaboration continues as I read. The creative act is ongoing.

Now these few paragraphs have established little or no meaning and not much emotion either. But together over the course of a whole story an author and a reader may collaborate to build whole worlds of image, thought, meaning, and emotion. And it is indeed a collaboration in the truest sense of the word: "to labor together".

Fordim's "analysis of the text" option which he has offered to cover this collaboration is far too dry for me. It implies an intellectual distance and doesn't compass, for me, the creativity and emotion of reading.

As SPM has implied, a book itself is only a sort of potential energy; unread, gathering dust on a shelf, it is meaningless to anyone except the one who wrote it. When another mind engages it, the possibilities that the two may create together are boundless. But it takes both author and reader together to make it happen.

I shall begin, blushing, with Mr. Underhill's comments here using an example of my writing from The White Horse Inn. I wish he had not found a passage with a typo though!

With all due respect to your mind and the courtesy you have shown me, Mr. Underhill I would point out that Fordim's first wording was the intention of the author. If I understand you correctly, when you say that as you read this passage from TWH, you find a collaboration between my mind and yours, that is to change the terms slightly. It is as impossible for any of you to know the full extent of my intention when I wrote this passage, as it was for me when I read passages from another gamer whose work stimulated and prodded my response. And certainly at the time, I was not aware of his full intentions, any more than he was aware of mine. I do know that he sought certain effects, as did I. What readers create now is in part the culmination of those intentions. The better the writer, the better that culmination fits the writer's intentions. But this is not to say that my mind or my purpose is present there. My artistic effort is, and it is this, manifested in the passage, which readers pick up. If you were to see my other kinds of writing you might more readily accept this point, but I will not show that here.

If I may, let me take from the many other posts here some general ideas. Lalwendë , you have mentioned that here at the Barrow Downs our community values abhorr the White Supremacists' interpretations of LotR. Yet let me say that, rather than reacting with shock at the idea Tolkien could be taken to support such claims, let's step back a bit and ask some important questions. It is in such asking that we learn more about how people read, what they bring together to form their interpretations, and indeed maybe even about the text.

What is it in LotR that prompts White Supremacists to make their claims? If we are honest, we will look closely at their arguments. We will see some interesting patterns. First, we will see that they give priority to certain passages in the text over other passages. Some passages they will ignore. They will tend to use the text to reinforce or buttress the ideology which they hold before they read the text. In rebuttal, we can point out everything they have ignored or downplayed. Yet at the same time, perhaps we might also recognise certain tendencies in Tolkien's vision of the past that uncomforatably allows them to exaggerate their claims. It is somewhat similar to reading T.S. Eliot's book of Practical Cats and being horrified by how many times Eliot alludes to a yellow peril. Tolkien never goes that far, but he does demonstrate a tendency of his time to prioritise his culture and his values over those of other countries and geographies. If we ignore this habit, as a habit mind and not as a despicable ideology, then we too are forming an interpretation from the book that suits our sense of who and what Tolkien was and what Middle earth is. The question is always, how much do readers read selectively. If we are not willing to see or grant that Tolkien was as much a man of his time and generation and station as he was of something beyond that, we are ourselves creating the persona "Tolkien."

As an example, let me point to Lalwendë 's very good discussion of how to try to understand Denethor apart from the overwhelming pressure of the story. In one context, I suspect both she and I would say that this misrepresents how the story wants readers to interpret him. Yet such an approach also opens up the story to us, so that we can become more aware of how Tolkien plays his cards, when he holds, when he folds, when he discards. For littlemanpoet, this puts him into a quandry as he becomes less prone to the spell of the text. Both approaches lead to greater appreciation of the text.

I always laugh when I see posters trying to discount the reader by taking the most absurd examples of readerly solipcism. Yet again, the absurdity can always tell us something either about the reader or about the text which we had not noticed, and we are free then to either discard the idea or incorporate it. Intrepretation is an always on going process rather than a final arrival at an objective or absolute fixed meaning. And to those who discount the reader as the source of meaning, I would ask: How do you account for the historical changes that have come about in how people have read various texts? How do you account for history in authorial intention or The Text?

But this point about the spell of the text brings me to my main point here--and just in case anyone is still with me, this is a point I have not raised before, either on the dreaded "C" thread or the "Enchantment" thread or any others. It is to step back and ask something similar to what Lalwendë did when she posited a difference between reading for information and reading for pleasure. What is it we mean by the word literature? How do we understand these artistic artefacts and their purpose?

For davem, literature brings us into a vision of a perilous realm beyond our own temporal existence. For Mr. Underhill, reading brings us into contact with other minds. For Saucepan, reading is an experiential activity. For Aiwendil, oblo, Sono, literature provides a touchstone for rational explication. I'm leary of ascribing others to any particular approach, so please do not mind that I mention no other names.

What all of these various ways of understanding literature demonstrate, however, is that the creative realms speaks to our heart's desire however we understand that desire.

I would posit that authors do not write to express their own mind, although this is part of the complex activity of writing. They write to tell a story, create beauty with words which enchant us. Authors who know their stuff write to appeal to our heart's desire. They translate desire into words and then back again into desire, the reader's desire. And desire is a large and vast emotion, a house with many rooms. Every author worth his or her salt writes with this understanding of how to appeal to the reader. Readers with large, magnanimous hearts (and this will include cynics and wits) will take widely to the book while readers with limited imaginations and personal agendas will limit their understanding of the book.

Yet in discussing our various desires, we can come to expand our own understanding of our own desire. That is, I would suggest, the way to approach meaning in literature. Again, a journey, not a destination.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

With all due respect to your mind and the courtesy you have shown me, Mr. Underhill I would point out that Fordim's first wording was the intention of the author. If I understand you correctly, when you say that as you read this passage from TWH, you find a collaboration between my mind and yours, that is to change the terms slightly.

Just for the sake of clarity, my complaint all along in this thread has been the lack of a collaborative option. Intention of the author is only part of the equation as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

For davem, literature brings us into a vision of a perilous realm beyond our own temporal existence. For Mr. Underhill, reading brings us into contact with other minds. For Saucepan, reading is an experiential activity. For Aiwendil, oblo, Sono, literature provides a touchstone for rational explication. I'm leary of ascribing others to any particular approach...

I'd hate to limit myself to that awkward sounding definition. All the approaches you suggest, and more, are part of my own reading experience. That Gordian knot will not be sliced with such a blunt and clumsy instrument as this poll.

Very nice work with the rest of your post, Bb, especially those last couple of paragraphs.

P.S. -- I meant to correct that typo for you and forgot... it is now done.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Bb

The women's eyes turned back towards the Inn, watching the partons congregate.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Now, I submit to you, Bb, that when I read these words of yours, the final act of creation is a collaboration between you and me. You haven't described either woman in any great detail, but I have a clear picture in my mind of both of them.

Indeed. The younger has long red nails, a southern accent, big blonde hair and a buxom figure.



{Forgive me.}

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Indeed. The younger has long red nails, a southern accent, big blonde hair and a buxom figure.



{Forgive me.}

There is nothing to forgive, my dear, for I assume that is your own, legitimate desire to see her that way.

Should you wish to put that desire into action , however, and, for example, burn her at the stake, that is a different matter.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

There is nothing to forgive, my dear, for I assume that is your own, legitimate desire to see her that way.

Au Contraire!!! Clearly I have been overwhelmed by the author's intent. (Was it a typo or a freudian slip???)

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Should you wish to put that desire into action , however, and, for example, burn her at the stake, that is a different matter.

Me??? Mess with the author's intent? Perish the thought.

[Thenamir]

I was drawn to this thread by a link on the Downer's chat. I do apologize for coming very late to this discussion, but I have never been able to resist a good debate, and this is good both in content and participants. Whether my contribution will have any merit rests in the reader's interpretation. I am offering my opinion here, and in doing so I will inevitably refer directly or indirectly to many things already said. I sincerely apologize if I fail to recognize the inspiriational references by name, and am grateful for the thoughtful posts which have gone before.

I find the choices offered in the poll to be hopelessly confused. In the absence of the author's ability to come back from the dead, choices A and C, in my humble opinion, are the same. How else can you attempt to divine the supposedly sacrosanct Authorial Intent except by analysis of the texts he left behind? Unless you are exluding the body of extra-LOTR writings (Letters, etc.) and analyzing only the actual LOTR-proper, C and A are inextricably intertwined. Adding those writings back in merely increases the amount of text to analyze, and still C and A are identical. As for choice D, it is really a restatement of choice B -- in D, whether you care or not, the "I just think its cool" idea is the same as chalking up the significance of LOTR to the experience of the reader.

As to choice B, "the experience of the reader", I think there is much confusion arising in this thread as to the definition of the word "meaning" itself. Allow me to break down my thinking on this idea (as if you could stop me -- just get ready for a long-winded post):

If we are speaking of the definition of LOTR, that can rest only with the author. Tolkien is the one who conceived, defined, and published the works describing the world we know as Middle Earth. What he meant is what he wrote. I am a firm believer in the little-remembered tautology that "Words mean things" -- not just in the concrete but in the abstract. This holds doubly true for a most learned professor specializing in Languages and the derivations of words. Be assured that if the author had intended LOTR to be a Mein-Kampfian diatribe of his beliefs regarding the inferiority of non-Anglo races, he was possessed of the wit and vocabulary to make it quite obvious in the text. The fact that people twist insignificant passages into strange and (I believe) perverted shapes is a reflection of the reader's own twisted nature -- the same kind of nature that inspires some people to produce or to seek out web pages of Disney-oriented cartoon pornography. The one is not proof that the Tolkien was racist, any more than the other is proof that Disney was a satyr or pedophile. It bespeaks more of the character of the reader than of the author. More on that as we go along.

If we are discussing the purpose or intention of LOTR, then we are on slightly different ground. I remember reading somewhere (and I'm sure some sharp-eyed reader will remind me of where) 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. This will be true of anyone who reads the story beginning to end -- with the possible exceptions of students made to read the story as an English assignment, and those with a masochistic bent. Therefore, the author's intention is adequately fulfilled in the vast majority of the readers. Secondarily, I believe it was noted by Tolkien in yet another reference which escapes me (Alzheimer's is a terrible thing) 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. Again, if we confine ourselves to Authorial Intent, LOTR is a rousing success in and of itself without any readers. (Indeed, the text is responsible for inspiring readers to not only enjoy the languages, but to carry them into the "real" world -- to learn to speak them, write them, and even to do such painstaking things as translate the Bible and other works into them. While the author made reference to the "deplorable cultus" that surrounded his magnum opus, he would no doubt be pleased that the languages he took such pains to invent were being so loved and used.)

Corollary to this is the concept of "meaning" as "an idea intended to be conveyed, a message intended or expressed or signified." I believe that attempts at post-mortem mind-reading are skirting the dangerous fringes of that which Tolkien so adamantly decried, allegory. Was it Tolkien's intention to do anything other than write an interesting story? Was there a central theme outside the story itself about which the author intended to influence the reader? It is my opinion that it was not, and I think I'm on fairly solid ground there. I propound, therefore, that the idea intended was merely that of entertainment in a genre of Tolkien's choosing and on subject matter which Tolkien preferred. To be fair, I have heard many differing opinions as to what probably or admittedly inspired and/or influenced Tolkien in certain aspects of LOTR, such as his experiences in World War I, the destruction of the English countryside, his distaste for advancing industry, etc. -- but one cannot charitably conclude from those supposed or admitted influences that it was Tolkien's intent in writing the story to influence readers that World War I was unnecessary, or that pastoral lands might not be put to other good uses, or that all industry is bad.

Finally, "meaning" can be used to indicate "importance", as in "His critique meant nothing to me." This is where we get into the realm of individual interpretation. If I may step back for a moment, I am a person easily moved by music -- all music, but especially the classical composers -- Handel, Beethoven, Mozart. I remember when I first read the opening pages of the Silmarillion, and how spellbound I was by the description of The Music and the creation of Ea -- drawn in and mesmerized to the point of the near-numinous by the building tension of the attempted interference of Melkor. I remember how moved I was by the flat declaration of finality made by Eru, that none could alter the music in his despite, that those who attempted to do so would find that they were the instruments of even greater things undreamt of by the initiator. (I also remember being rather disappointed by the rest of the Silmarillion in contrast to the beginning, but I digress.) The point I am trying to make here is that that particular passage, or rather the imagery created in my mind because of that passage was important to me, i.e. it had special meaning for me, but that it may not be similarly meaningful to most others. In that sense I agree with those foregoing who have noted that the individual and the author collaborate to create that sense of (to use the word-of-the-moment from the parallel thread) "enchantment". Though the "collaboration" takes place only in the mind of the reader, yet in most cases the words chosen by a competent author can hardly be mistaken by a person reading without a prejudgemental attitude. It would be strange indeed if a somewhat knowledgable someone interpreted the passage

"I see," said Aragorn, "that I have turned my eyes to a treasure no less dear than the treasure of Thingol that Beren once desired."

to mean that Aragorn cared nothing for Arwen and thought that she was less fair than a Balrog.

It is in this final sense that I believe that some amalgamation of choice B with the nearly-identical choices A and C is inevitable. An author without a reader is as meaningless as a reader without an author. Communication is a difficult thing, as Bethberry noted -- there is always something lost between conception and communication. As Henry Owens said,

"No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous."

With this in mind, perhaps we can all tread a bit more softly in questioning the meaning, not only of Tolkien's work, but of what we have said, and contniue to say, about it to each other.

[davem]

An author without a reader is as meaningless as a reader without an author.

May not an artist create a work of art for himself alone, write a story, paint a picture, compose a tune, for the moment, & even not go back to it, read what he has written, or look at his painting, or hum the tune? He obeys his muse & then moves on.

It is surely possible. He needs to create the thing, but may not need to do anything with it, or have anyone else do anything with it. Another may later stumble across it, without the creator intending they should do so. In that case, the effect on the reader/viewer would have played no part in the creator's intention. The art is a product of the moment & the mood the artist found himself in. He may have been driven to create his art with no thought of what he (or anyone else for that matter) would 'do' with it.

I'm reminded of Niggle here. In his case it seems that he had no thought of anyone ever seeing his Tree - & in Niggle's 'Primary world' no-one ever did - unless we count the fragment that survived. Some may have seen it 'in Eternity' - yet we don't know whether Niggle's Tree was Niggle's own painting brought to life, or whether it had always been 'there' & Niggle merely set down his own 'vision' of it in paint on canvas. In that story it is the act of creation of the art that is important, & the fact that no-one ever saw it, let alone appreciated it, was irrelevant - and most of all it was irrelevant to Niggle himself.

If this is the case - & it may well be - then the art stands, even if no-one ever experiences it, because it it the act of creation by the artist that is the only point....

[Thenamir]

He needs to create the thing, but may not need to do anything with it, or have anyone else do anything with it. Another may later stumble across it, without the creator intending they should do so. In that case, the effect on the reader/viewer would have played no part in the creator's intention. The art is a product of the moment & the mood the artist found himself in. He may have been driven to create his art with no thought of what he (or anyone else for that matter) would 'do' with it.

This is certainly true. However, in the case of LOTR, as I noted above, this is not the case.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

From the second post in this thread:

Originally Posted by davem

I say we all line up & throw heavy sharp objects at Fordim, 'cos I think he just wants to start a row

I'm going to avoid this one, I think - you all know how much I hate repeating myself

May he who is without repetition cast the first heavy sharp object...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

This is certainly true. However, in the case of LOTR, as I noted above, this is not the case.

Yet he carried on writing it even during periods when he had lost all hope of seeing it published. With some of his other writings on the Legendarium we know that no-one read them during Tolkien's lifetime & he had no reason to believe that anyone would read them after his death. Certainly, if he was writing with publication (& therefore with a readership in mind) he would not have taken the approach he did. He would have focussed on each individual story & brought it to completion & sent it off to Allen & Unwin.

If, as Tolkien believed, we are made in the image of a Creator, then it is in our nature to (sub)create - not for any particular purpose, or with any goal in mind, but simply because that's the way we are, its what we do.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

If, as Tolkien believed, we are made in the image of a Creator, then it is in our nature to (sub)create - not for any particular purpose, or with any goal in mind, but simply because that's the way we are, its what we do.

Well now, I think it just might be that davem has come up with the most post-modern statement of all.

There is a great deal of truth in this, that we create because it is in our nature to create, and not because we have any particular 'meaning' to espouse to others.

Yet, yet. Writers don't have to aspire to the commercial aspects of publication to have the desire for a readership. Why would Tolkien have spent so many hours with the Inklings reading their works aloud to each other if he wrote only to satisfy the urge for creating? Eru, after all, created the valar and maiar and elves and men, for he wanted someone to do something with his music. He wasn't satisfied just with the music. He wanted to see what others would do with it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

.Yet, yet. Writers don't have to aspire to the commercial aspects of publication to have the desire for a readership. Why would Tolkien have spent so many hours with the Inklings reading their works aloud to each other if he wrote only to satisfy the urge for creating? .

Of course - right from his early manhood, as John Garth shows, he had a desire to create something for 'England'. He wanted to create a mythology he could dedicate to his country.

Yet, yet. What would his life have been without his creation of Middle earth? It wasn't what he wanted to do with the Mythology that gave his life meaning, that allowed him to become the fulfilled human being that he bacame. It was the creation itself - the creative process. Even if no-one had read his work it would have had its effect on him. I suspect he created Middle earth because he could, in the end, do no other.

The Legendarium was his response to 'life, the universe & everything' his personal '42' if you like.

[Thenamir]

In rereading and rethinking davem's initial reply to my verbosity-bomb, I believe I stand by my original statement that an author without a reader is meaningless. If the author writes for himself and his pleasure alone, then the author and reader are one. It would border on insanity for an author to create something which he never expected to consider or even remember later on. After creation, or in Tolkien's view subcreation, the unpublished author becomes the reader, pehaps inspired by his work to create further works, as indeed was the case with Tolkien.

As I noted previously, Tolkien

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. Again, if we confine ourselves to Authorial Intent, LOTR is a rousing success in and of itself without any readers.

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.