China Mieville on Tolkien and Epic/High Fantasy

[barsoomcore]

Any time you attempt to mention the authors intent or try to guess at his purpose you invariably have to link that back to his perspective.

Right. Which is why the whole point of my argument has been -- don't try to guess at the author's purpose.

However trying to say that a book is sending a particular message is entirely different. A message invariable has to have some relevance to the authors situation, it suggests that you can understand what he was trying to do.

Are you just restating my position here? This is EXACTLY why I'm saying that talking about a book's "particular message" is bad terminology.

Whilst you can try and infer this from the text alone and in some cases that might be all you need the idea that this will be the case all the time simply seems to me a rather primative way of trying to understand literature particually when the author is making a conscious attempt not to actually make the book have a singular message. Unless your saying that Tolkien willfully lied on this point I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

Could you state what it is you think I'm arguing? You seem to think I'm arguing that we should try to determine the particular message of a book without recourse to the author's intent. In fact what I'm arguing is that we should NOT try to determine the particular message of a book because we don't know what the author's intent was.

I am not saying Tolkien willfully lied because, ONE MORE TIME, I am not saying anything about Tokien's intentions at all. I am not interested in Tolkien's intentions -- his intentions have nothing to do with the interpretation of his book.

With regards to your point about some interpretation being better you have to consider primariliy what actually makes an interpretation better. Ultimately the interpretation has to have a consitency with the work itself.

And it has to be interesting in and of itself.

Or rather, it doesn't have to be either. But a better interpretation is one that is BOTH better supported and more interesting.

Are you reading my posts? Because I've been over this three times now.

The problem is that your method of simply using the text can always be circumvented if the author wants that to be the case. If I deliberately use elements which are tangential to the central thrust of a book and people draw all sorts of conclusions from them does that mean that I deliberately set out to make those conclusions possible

I don't care if you deliberately set out to do anything. But if it's in the text then it can be used to support an interpretation.

Again, better interpretations are better-supported by the text. So if somebody describes an interpretation that is based on only one portion of the text, and is perhaps in contradiction with other portions, that's not very well-supported. Other interpretations that address more of the text will be considered superior to that one (assuming they're equally interesting), and rightly so.

However if someone then reads that I've said actually those elements were purely arribtary don't they then have a greater understanding of the text as a whole and can argue from a point of greater strength.

No, they don't. Reading statements by an author about their work may be, as I have said many times now, interesting. It may lead us in useful directions and may serve to cause us to come up with new, more powerful ideas -- but simply reading the statements themselves doesn't do that. And there are any number of ways to come up with new and powerful ideas about a text. The SOURCE of the ideas is unimportant -- it's the ideas themselves that matter.

In fact can't they then quite catagorically say that yes those elements have an applicability but in essence they have no inner message.

They can say whatever they like. They still have to defend their interpretation based on how well-supported it is by the text and how interesting it is. You can't just say, "It must be true because the author said so." You have to prove it if you want other people to take it seriously.

Again, the source of an interpretation is unimportant -- what matters is how good it is, using the criteria I've gotten sick of explaining.

With regards to the last point confusion is inevitable In fact its what makes LoTR quite pardoxical.

My confusion as to what your logical position is has nothing to do with any quality of LotR. You could quite simply clear it up by saying either "I believe that meaning is determined by the author," or, "I believe meaning is determined by the reader," or "I have some other belief about the determination of meaning." It's got nothing to do with some special quality of this particular book.

You've tactically agreed with his initial statement which was that the meaning of the book is purely to what the reader gives it. However this is also the same as saying that the book actually has no message as such and that even if it did the message would be totally irrelevant anyway.

Okay, once again it seems like we're coming up against problems of terminology.

"Message."

"Meaning."

Umbran, see why I wanted to reject these terms?

Okay, let's forget about those terms. Pretend I never used them. Pretend instead I am talking about interpretation. When we read a book, we can interpret it to apply to all sorts of things in our lives. This is the process I am talking about. Do you see that it has nothing to do with the intent of the author? Does this put to rest your objections to the idea that when we evaluate interpretations, we evaluate them solely on their relationship to the text, and their degree of interest?

LotR does indeed have NO MESSAGE, in certain definitions of the word MESSAGE (definitions I have never intended to make use of). I agree with that. In fact, I will go further and say that art is not about MESSAGES. An author may INTEND to send a message, but investigating that fact is one of purely biographical interest, not at all relevant in an assessment of the work's artistic power. Certainly not something I have much interest in.

A work that is intended to deliver a message is an essay, not an artwork. And to assess it according to the accuracy, importance or invention of its delivery is to assess it as an essay, and to ignore what makes it art.

 

[Salthanas]

Right. Which is why the whole point of my argument has been -- don't try to guess at the author's purpose.

My confusion as to what your logical position is has nothing to do with any quality of LotR. You could quite simply clear it up by saying either "I believe that meaning is determined by the author," or, "I believe meaning is determined by the reader," or "I have some other belief about the determination of meaning." It's got nothing to do with some special quality of this particular book.



.

The problem is you can't quite remove the purpose of the author from a book, if he points you in a particular direction is'nt he essentially imposing his will on your interpretation, is'nt he providing the evidence that you actually base your interpretation on or is all just some aribitary nonsence that a monkey on a type writer can come out with. Personally I think you can look at a book considering both the readers and the writers viewpoint, in fact I think its more interesting to see how my opinion of a work might differ from what an author had in mind and how it also might coincide. Trying to justify an interpretation purely on the authors view is defective because it doesnt allow you any creativity when reading the book, however basing it soley on that of the reader IMO is essentially meaningless and that would be my fundamental point which you can't grasp.

No, they don't. Reading statements by an author about their work may be, as I have said many times now, interesting. It may lead us in useful directions and may serve to cause us to come up with new, more powerful ideas -- but simply reading the statements themselves doesn't do that. And there are any number of ways to come up with new and powerful ideas about a text. The SOURCE of the ideas is unimportant -- it's the ideas themselves that matter
.

Only if your using your interpretation in an applicable sense, not if your trying to guess the intent of the author

 

[Umbran]

Umbran, see why I wanted to reject these terms?

Yes. I just don't agree with you.

Some folks here have talked as if the author's will was paramount. You, instead, talk as if the author is pretty much irrelevant. I'm a middle-of-the-road person.

I don't think you can come particularly close to fully appreciating what the work has to say unless you consider the author's intent, the time and culture in which the work was written, etc. This is less important when reading something fairly contemporary, like Tolkien. In such a case the author is rather similar to the reader in many respects. However, it becomes more and more apparent when you read things from the distant past, or from other cultures.

Japanese films are a reasonable approximation here. An American viewer can watch a subtitled or dubbed Japanese film, and walk away without much idea of anything. Without the cultural context, the behaviors of characters and even the cinematogrphical style just don't speak much to you at all. In order to dervie much meaning from them, you have to know something about the makers, and the conventions they use.

Even in some places in Tolkien it becomes important. The Frodo-Sam relationship, for instance. A great many modern readers who ignore where and when Tolkien was from interpret it as a suppressed homosexual romance, and get confused by how the two characters then behave. But it isn't really a romance. It's a master-servant relationship the likes of which are extremely rare in modern America. If you describe the relationship of an Edwardian lord and his head butler to the reader, however, the reader goes, "Oh! That makes so much more sense!"

The terminology I prefer may cause more confusion. However, your terminology tends to lead one to ignore things I find very important. I'd prefer to have to wrangle in discussion and get it (IMHO) right than to miss so much.

 

[barsoomcore]

Trying to justify an interpretation purely on the authors view is defective because it doesnt allow you any creativity when reading the book, however basing it soley on that of the reader IMO is essentially meaningless and that would be my fundamental point which you can't grasp.

Okay, so let me get this straight. Your fundamental point is that basing an interpretation solely on the view of the reader is essentially meaningless. Is that correct? Have I now grasped your fundamental point?

If I have, I would like to address it, but I'll wait to hear from you that I have indeed grasped your fundamental point.

Only if your using your interpretation in an applicable sense, not if your trying to guess the intent of the author

Can I be any more clear about the fact that I'm not trying to guess the intent of the author? If you want to do that, you go right ahead. But I'm not talking about that. I am talking about "the applicable sense."

I take it, however, that in that sense we are therefore in agreement that it is the ideas that matter, not their source. Which is a source of some relief to me, I kid you not.

 

[barsoomcore]

I don't think you can come particularly close to fully appreciating what the work has to say unless you consider the author's intent, the time and culture in which the work was written, etc. This is less important when reading something fairly contemporary, like Tolkien. In such a case the author is rather similar to the reader in many respects. However, it becomes more and more apparent when you read things from the distant past, or from other cultures.

I'm not necessarily in disagreement with any of this, which is why I let it go earlier. This is what I'm saying when I make statements like "learning biographical information can be interesting." That probably sounds like a dismissal, but it isn't. You can glean all sorts of useful information that can help you to appreciate a text from understanding the writer and his or her environment. In some cases it's practically impossible to formulate a useful interpretation until some sort of familiarization has been performed.

My point is that we cannot evaluate interpretations according to how well they correspond to any particular statements attributed to the writer. We can only evaluate them according to a) how well-supported they are by the text, and b) how interesting they are.

The terminology I prefer may cause more confusion. However, your terminology tends to lead one to ignore things I find very important. I'd prefer to have to wrangle in discussion and get it (IMHO) right than to miss so much.

Oh, yeah, sure. I agree. And the truth of the matter is that this is one of those areas where the English language seems to get rather muddy. The meaning of words like, er, "meaning" is fuzzy and hard to pin down, and so people end up using the same terminology to refer to different ideas. I'm not sure my insistent use of "interpretation" is free from that problem, either.

Wrangling, that's what it's all about....

 

[Salthanas]

Okay, so let me get this straight. Your fundamental point is that basing an interpretation solely on the view of the reader is essentially meaningless. Is that correct? Have I now grasped your fundamental point?

If I have, I would like to address it, but I'll wait to hear from you that I have indeed grasped your fundamental point.

Can I be any more clear about the fact that I'm not trying to guess the intent of the author? If you want to do that, you go right ahead. But I'm not talking about that. I am talking about "the applicable sense."

I take it, however, that in that sense we are therefore in agreement that it is the ideas that matter, not their source. Which is a source of some relief to me, I kid you not.

Basing an interpretation purely on the view of the reader is ok, its just they have to accept that without considering their view in tandem with the context of the author their interpretation is really meaningless

And I have at no point said that its the ideas that matter and not the source. What matters is how you choose to use those ideas, if its in an applicable sense fine, if you want to look for inner meaning then no, that needs you to consider the context of the author as well as your own interpretation.

 

[barsoomcore]

Basing an interpretation purely on the view of the reader is ok, its just they have to accept that without considering their view in tandem with the context of the author their interpretation is really meaningless.

I tried really hard to give you a pretty simple question. One that would encourage an answer sort of like, "Yes," or, "No."

Now it seems like you're still saying that "basing an interpretation purely on the view of the reader" is meaningless, which is what I think I asked you in my previous post. You then go on to say it's okay to do so, but failing to simultaneously consider the context of the author will render their interpretation meaningless.

So now I don't know WHAT you're saying. If I base an interpretation purely on the view of the reader, BUT consider it in context of the author, then it's not really based purely on the view of the reader anymore, is it? So it seems like you're saying "Yes, basing an interpretation purely on the view of the reader is meaningless." It's just that first, you say it's ok. So I'm confused.

Is it meaningless or not? That's all I'm asking.

I don't even want to bother with the rest of your post until we are in agreement as to your fundamental point. If you don't like the way I'm stating it, could you at least post an unambiguous statement of your position? Right now you seem to be contradicting yourself, and it makes discussion sort of pointless.

 

[Salthanas]

I tried really hard to give you a pretty simple question. One that would encourage an answer sort of like, "Yes," or, "No."

Now it seems like you're still saying that "basing an interpretation purely on the view of the reader" is meaningless, which is what I think I asked you in my previous post. You then go on to say it's okay to do so, but failing to simultaneously consider the context of the author will render their interpretation meaningless.

So now I don't know WHAT you're saying. If I base an interpretation purely on the view of the reader, BUT consider it in context of the author, then it's not really based purely on the view of the reader anymore, is it? So it seems like you're saying "Yes, basing an interpretation purely on the view of the reader is meaningless." It's just that first, you say it's ok. So I'm confused.

Is it meaningless or not? That's all I'm asking.

I don't even want to bother with the rest of your post until we are in agreement as to your fundamental point. If you don't like the way I'm stating it, could you at least post an unambiguous statement of your position? Right now you seem to be contradicting yourself, and it makes discussion sort of pointless.

Well IMO it goes like this. Whats the point in reading something if you consider your own interpretation the only thing of importance and the authors intent of no consequence. Its like reading a newspaper and ignoring what the journalist is actually saying and simply basing its worth on how it makes you feel. Such an act is pretty meaningless because not only does it mean the authors purpose in writing the article is circumvented but also the reader doesn't really learn anything, he just turns the act of reading into an exercise in symbology. Reading is about trying to understand another perspective in relation to your own, at least IMO. So when I read a book I'm interested in where I agree with the author and where I don't, its about understanding the differences in perspectives and why they exist. Reading a book without considering the intent of the author is therefore IMO about as useful as trying to write one which would be read only by yourself, in otherwords pretty pointless. That doesnt mean it can't be fun, lots of pointless activities are fun, it just depends on whether the activity in question has any real intrinsic value other than to amuse yourself.

 

[Celtavian]

You don't think that is a message? The fact that he resented the way modern society and literature was going and wrote something that deliberately thumbed it's metaphorical nose at both isn't a powerful message?

Granted, I'll agree with you if you restrict your comments to the details of Lord of the Rings only, but if you talk about the work as a broader whole, it most certainly did send a message, and a powerful one at that.

First and foremost, I would like to state that I don't think messages and meanings cannot be drawn from Lord of the Rings. I find the work very meaningful and I can see all kinds of unintended messages.

I do not believe Tolkien sat down with the intent of sending a message. Tolkien seemed to enjoy writing tales. It was a break from the world for him. He had been doing it for years privately without really thinking that he was going to publish the work. I'm sure you read how The Hobbit came to be when Tolkien wrote down one sentence that came to mind while he was correcting papers. He had a wandering imagination.

A writer can create a story without intending any message whatsoever for the sheer joy of storytelling. I think Tolkien was that type of writer. He loved to tell tales, it was a passion for him. He was good at it, and inevitably people found alot of meaning in his work and saw messages whether or not he intended them.

I don't know how to state it more clearly. It seems as though people think I am saying "Because Tolkien didn't intend any message or meaning, then there is no message or meaning." When what I am trying to to say is "Because Tolkien didn't intend any message or meaning, he cannot be blamed for the way others interpret the work."

Since this discussion was sparked by China Mieville's comments concerning Tolkien's work. I felt it important to note that attributing belief's to Tolkien such as glorifying war or supporting a class system and requiring others to follow certain fantasy standards like incorporating elves and dwarves into their story baseless. He was a taleteller first, and any messages sent were of secondary importance and not meant to be taken as a literal statement of his stance on a variety of complex moral issues.

I hope this better denotes my position on this debate.

 

[Celtavian]

There's the work itself.

The ONLY objective fact in critical analysis is the work itself. What the author thinks he said or claims to say is subjective. What anybody else thinks or says is subjective. All we have is the work.

You missed my point by not looking at the reason this debate started in the first place. China Mieville derided Tolkien's work in a manner that attributed to the author certain moral ideas and fantasy standards that he used within Lord of the Rings. I shot back that Tolkien was a storyteller, and because he uses certain elements within his book the author himself is not necessarily in agreement or disagreement with said elements.

Tolkien told a tale. Within that tale there are a variety of elements that we as human beings can identify with morally or historically. That is the sign of a good tale one that can intertwine the real and unreal to make a compelling whole, not a personal statement by the author.

You seem to think that suggesting that a work contains certain ideas is equivalent to saying that the author possesses the same idea.

Not my thinking at all. I believe a work can be completely separate, wholly or partially, from the author itself.

On the other hand, I also believe an author can convey a very pointed and direct message to a reader which does convey his opinion or stance on a particual topic.

What exactly is the position you think you're attacking here? I never said anything remotely like this.

That an author can't write a tale for the sheer joy of storytelling without an intended message while using moral and historical elements that we as human beings can identify with. For example, just because Tolkien writes about war in a manner that makes it seem high and glorious in certain passages in the book, doesn't mean he himself thinks war is high and glorious.

OF COURSE he's capable of doing this. You're quite right. In fact, this is exactly what he did. I have never said that LotR is a set of instructions on how to live or a statement on the rightness of any particular social structure. But it DOES reflect the Professor's point of view on the world. It does contain ideas about how people relate to each other, how evil affects human life, and what the price is of fighting against it. It's full of ideas like this. And there are almost certainly ideas about class structure in this book -- indeed, it would be bizarre if there were not.

Never said otherwise. Just don't agree with you that it necessarily reflects Tolkien's views on such complex matters. The characters served the story. Tolkien let the story take him where it would.

Many of these ideas Professor Tolkien will have used intentionally. Many MORE of these ideas he will have used unconsciously, simply incorporating them into the work as part of his world-view. It's more than possible that ideas are present in the work that he did not intend to include. It's even possible that the work presents ideas he would not, if he thought about them consciously, agree with.

Not arguing against this. Once again, look at the comments by China that started the debate.

Looks like we're debating nothing. I don't particularly disagree with your stance unless you insist that an "an author cannot write for the sheer joy of storytelling with no message or meaning intended." That's not the same as saying there is no message or meaning present.

I feel every author tries to structure a tale in such a way as to make it compelling to a human reader by using literal constructs that move us and make us think. I just don't think every author is making some kind of inalterable personal statement about life that we should take to heart.

Certain authors do, I used an example of a few. Twain and Orwell crafted messages into their work about people and life that were unmistakable. They supported their position personally, and did not really intend the work purely for entertainment. Orwell's 1984 was made as a warning and Twain's The Man who Corrupted Hadleyburg was an insult. To my knowledge, both author's made it quite clear what the story was trying to convey.

Authorial intent is relevant when analyzing a story to define the story's message and to judge whether or not the author did a competent job of conveying that intended message.