Hello, I'm a long time lurker and I have a question.
This has something to do with the first article reviewed and, I've always wondered about it. Why do you think Tolkien scholars and, fans for that matter, are so...rigid, I guess, in their beliefs of what is (perceived as) Tolkiens' intentions?
That wasn't worded in the best way but, do you know what I mean? My experience in the fandom has been like this. I'm in other book fandoms too, and none of them seem as staunch in the belief of, "the author isn't dead"(if you will), as in LotR fandom. I've wondered why that is and can't come up with an answer myself.
Hi, nice meeting you - I’m glad you decided to de-lurk! And that’s a really interesting question, too. Yes, I totally know what you mean. I haven’t been active in any other book-based fandoms myself, but from all I hear, it’s true that no other author is given the same amount of authority over the study and interpretation of his works. Tolkien is quite an exception there.
Anyway, I’ve spent some time today thinking about the possible reasons for this situation. A couple of thoughts below, though they don’t fully answer the question. I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts - or comments & suggestions from anybody who may come across this post
( ... )
Finally, I think that if you admire an author’s works and they touch you on a very personal level, it’s almost natural to wish for the author’s approval of your own understanding of his text. Within our culture, the individual author’s ‘voice’ (or genius) is generally credited with greater authority as a source of meaning than the authorless text or story all by itself. (With vernacular literature in the middle ages, it’s quite the other way round.) Enthusiastic readers may hope that their reading experience is what the author wanted to share with them; scholars will try to legitimize their readings by locating evidence on the biographical level. If you can conclude your argument by stating “This is the meaning I get out of the text, and here’s proof that the author wanted me to understand it just like this”, you lay claim to a superior truth. Or at least that’s my general impression
( ... )
Re: reply part 2slender_sailJanuary 18 2008, 22:29:24 UTC
Omg, the fans and their Precious, laying claim to a superior truth... But you'd imagine that the text itself might have, in some way, warned them about that sort of dependence structure, i.e "here is a juicy thing I want to share with you and only you". Anyway, I think it works itself out, with time. Thanks for starting this yummy discussion!
Having heard Michael Drout speak in person, and listened to 'Rings, Swords and Monsters' (have you had a chance to do that yet?), what he said in his essay doesn't come as a surprise (but it makes me admire him even more). It also reflects some things that you and I discussed a long time ago in emails (don't know if you recall) about the Letters and inconsistencies therein (particularly in regard to Sam), and how Tolkien's perceptions/attitudes might have changed in the years since the books were published.
I just wanted to illustrate that Drout’s fairly theoretical consideration of the author’s role can be interesting and encouraging for readers who see a homoerotic subtext in LotR... :)Music to a F/S lover's ears
( ... )
It also reflects some things that you and I discussed a long time ago in emails (don't know if you recall) about the Letters and inconsistencies therein (particularly in regard to Sam), and how Tolkien's perceptions/attitudes might have changed in the years since the books were published.
Oh, of course I recall our previous exchange! :) And yes, it's true, Tolkien's diverging & changing views of Sam (and, to some degree, Frodo) really illustrate that the biographical sources don't provide one final, unequivocal meaning. Not to mention that for a lot of intriguing points in the texts no explanation or comment from Tolkien exists (or has been published, at any rate).
Personally, I've never liked the 'addiction' theory, and wish that PJ and co. hadn't adopted it for the movie. It seems to me to oversimplify (and cheapen) the Ring's effect and the struggle of Frodo to resist it.Yes, same here. I think the differences between the Ring and drugs/addiction by far exceed the few similarities, which just renders the comparison less than
( ... )
Will start by giving a nod to Cara for starting this amazingly exciting discussion.
My personal beliefs haven't changed at all since I was 6 years old when I acknowledged them consciously. The rest is just experience.
My theory about the rigidity is that the texts (the subject matter) appeal to people on a very deep level, and therefore they engage themselves without making use of self criticism or sense of humour. Coincidentally, Tolkien wrote "fictionally" that tales have a tremendous power through the evoked emotions; since he twined so much of himself with the work, readers then point to the single man who wrote it all. This rigidity wouldn't be the worst aspect (although it can be quite annoying), but some people have been drawn to experiences not of their own accord and blamed Tolkien's authorial intentions for this. Once again, this to me signals that the subject matter is influential in itself.
The One Ring in relation to marriage of the material and spiritual sure provokes *me*! Yes, yes, YES!! But it's a rather late hour again, and I'm sure to discuss this better when rested
( ... )
why do you consider the Ring exceeds the analogy of divorce and stuff?
I think your interpretation of 'marriage' (or 'divorce') in this context is much wider than that the article's author had in mind: what you wrote about Sauron splitting off a part of himself, or the Secret Fire, doesn't enter into the concept applied in the essay. That's one reason why I felt that his reading didn't address all the implications. Another is that the Ring provokes fantasies of power and an all-devouring, powerful Oneness that doesn't have much to do with the common notion of marriage, let alone marriage as a sacrament. (Also, this illusory Oneness is contrasted with the Twoness of Frodo and Sam. :)
The analogy is an interesting one, and I find it more useful than Shippey's drug/addiction analogy, but it doesn't quite cover all the facets for me.
I'm thinking of taking back what I wrote about Sauron not having such a "Factor" (his own Two-ness) - he might have one; but it is not a Factor visible to us, at least.
Now, quoting something in the discussion above It is in and of itself inherently evil, because Sauron put much of his own evil into it. It imposes its will on others, and actively works to return to Sauron. One can't say that about any drug.There are unfortunately certain things, 'devices', in our world, which can be traced back to their makers, supposed to lead to such a pre-determined outcome - whilst causing destructive obsession and pain on the way. The comparison can be present where the person uses something to 'escape', yet the effect is the opposite, imprisonment (or rather, dissociation between realism and delusions, both being exacerbated to amount to a 'walking death' as understood in the framework of LotR: death=unnatural severance of body/fëa). Certainly not all drugs are believed to have been 'designed' for specific imprisonment (and are certainly not
( ... )
Hm. Before Christianity, in tribal situations, demons used to be seen as also playing a positive part in the economy of salvation. Their task was to break the hero in pieces so that he or she could introduce a better state, etc.
What I personally feel about that? "EEWWWWW! We are talking about someone's real experience here, not initiation rites". Perhaps that's one aspect of why you feel the Ring 'exceeds these analogies'. But by the same token, it would *want* you to think it exceeds them.
Overall, I guess Zlosnik’s article also failed to convince me because the far-reaching parallels and theoretical frameworks she brings up aren’t matched by an equally attentive interpretation of the actual text.You are such a spoil-sport, LOL! She wanted to equate wraiths with Vampires? Yeah, I don't think we know enough about either wraiths or vampires, let alone the combination. But what would you do if... (excuse me while I have a chortle to myself)... Hm - I think I need to learn more about the subject though, before I say anything
( ... )
Comments 21
This has something to do with the first article reviewed and, I've always wondered about it. Why do you think Tolkien scholars and, fans for that matter, are so...rigid, I guess, in their beliefs of what is (perceived as) Tolkiens' intentions?
That wasn't worded in the best way but, do you know what I mean? My experience in the fandom has been like this. I'm in other book fandoms too, and none of them seem as staunch in the belief of, "the author isn't dead"(if you will), as in LotR fandom. I've wondered why that is and can't come up with an answer myself.
Reply
Anyway, I’ve spent some time today thinking about the possible reasons for this situation. A couple of thoughts below, though they don’t fully answer the question. I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts - or comments & suggestions from anybody who may come across this post ( ... )
Reply
Finally, I think that if you admire an author’s works and they touch you on a very personal level, it’s almost natural to wish for the author’s approval of your own understanding of his text. Within our culture, the individual author’s ‘voice’ (or genius) is generally credited with greater authority as a source of meaning than the authorless text or story all by itself. (With vernacular literature in the middle ages, it’s quite the other way round.) Enthusiastic readers may hope that their reading experience is what the author wanted to share with them; scholars will try to legitimize their readings by locating evidence on the biographical level. If you can conclude your argument by stating “This is the meaning I get out of the text, and here’s proof that the author wanted me to understand it just like this”, you lay claim to a superior truth. Or at least that’s my general impression ( ... )
Reply
Anyway, I think it works itself out, with time. Thanks for starting this yummy discussion!
Reply
I just wanted to illustrate that Drout’s fairly theoretical consideration of the author’s role can be interesting and encouraging for readers who see a homoerotic subtext in LotR... :)Music to a F/S lover's ears ( ... )
Reply
Oh, of course I recall our previous exchange! :) And yes, it's true, Tolkien's diverging & changing views of Sam (and, to some degree, Frodo) really illustrate that the biographical sources don't provide one final, unequivocal meaning. Not to mention that for a lot of intriguing points in the texts no explanation or comment from Tolkien exists (or has been published, at any rate).
Personally, I've never liked the 'addiction' theory, and wish that PJ and co. hadn't adopted it for the movie. It seems to me to oversimplify (and cheapen) the Ring's effect and the struggle of Frodo to resist it.Yes, same here. I think the differences between the Ring and drugs/addiction by far exceed the few similarities, which just renders the comparison less than ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
My personal beliefs haven't changed at all since I was 6 years old when I acknowledged them consciously. The rest is just experience.
My theory about the rigidity is that the texts (the subject matter) appeal to people on a very deep level, and therefore they engage themselves without making use of self criticism or sense of humour. Coincidentally, Tolkien wrote "fictionally" that tales have a tremendous power through the evoked emotions; since he twined so much of himself with the work, readers then point to the single man who wrote it all.
This rigidity wouldn't be the worst aspect (although it can be quite annoying), but some people have been drawn to experiences not of their own accord and blamed Tolkien's authorial intentions for this. Once again, this to me signals that the subject matter is influential in itself.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I think your interpretation of 'marriage' (or 'divorce') in this context is much wider than that the article's author had in mind: what you wrote about Sauron splitting off a part of himself, or the Secret Fire, doesn't enter into the concept applied in the essay. That's one reason why I felt that his reading didn't address all the implications. Another is that the Ring provokes fantasies of power and an all-devouring, powerful Oneness that doesn't have much to do with the common notion of marriage, let alone marriage as a sacrament. (Also, this illusory Oneness is contrasted with the Twoness of Frodo and Sam. :)
The analogy is an interesting one, and I find it more useful than Shippey's drug/addiction analogy, but it doesn't quite cover all the facets for me.
Reply
Reply
Now, quoting something in the discussion above
It is in and of itself inherently evil, because Sauron put much of his own evil into it. It imposes its will on others, and actively works to return to Sauron. One can't say that about any drug.There are unfortunately certain things, 'devices', in our world, which can be traced back to their makers, supposed to lead to such a pre-determined outcome - whilst causing destructive obsession and pain on the way. The comparison can be present where the person uses something to 'escape', yet the effect is the opposite, imprisonment (or rather, dissociation between realism and delusions, both being exacerbated to amount to a 'walking death' as understood in the framework of LotR: death=unnatural severance of body/fëa). Certainly not all drugs are believed to have been 'designed' for specific imprisonment (and are certainly not ( ... )
Reply
What I personally feel about that? "EEWWWWW! We are talking about someone's real experience here, not initiation rites". Perhaps that's one aspect of why you feel the Ring 'exceeds these analogies'. But by the same token, it would *want* you to think it exceeds them.
Overall, I guess Zlosnik’s article also failed to convince me because the far-reaching parallels and theoretical frameworks she brings up aren’t matched by an equally attentive interpretation of the actual text.You are such a spoil-sport, LOL! She wanted to equate wraiths with Vampires? Yeah, I don't think we know enough about either wraiths or vampires, let alone the combination. But what would you do if... (excuse me while I have a chortle to myself)... Hm - I think I need to learn more about the subject though, before I say anything ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment