User:Quipp/LotR A Reader Centered Text

The Lord of the Rings: A Reader Centred Text
Daniel Pedruzzi

Reader Centred Reading:
The realm encompassed by The Lord of the Rings is one that will not soon be forgotten. Although the main narrative only embraces the history of limited years chronicled in the Third Age, a wealth of knowledge pertaining to the antiquity of ages departed is available, resulting in a thoroughly complete and tangible world for the reader to delve into. Even though this history is often seen as ‘strange and inaccessible’ (Tolkien p.8), my interest in the subject forced me to look to obtain knowledge. While my adoration for everything within Arda was founded within those pages, I occasionally found myself losing sight of the central plot within the array of tangents that shoot off in the book. Themes which were overlooked at first reading, are continually exposed on further analysis of the text, and as the list of similar literature read grows, so does the seeming tepidity of the story.

At first I found the incredible jumpiness of the books to be quite enjoyable. In the first novel, the haphazard inclusion of characters and wayward tangents of the story, such as the number of fantastic genealogies and histories of many minor events, seemed interesting, and I assumed from previously read works that each of these would, eventually, have an impact on the main story. The inclusion of the ‘Tale of Tom Bombadil’ on first reading seemed quite pleasant, but as I neared the end of the final book, with an ever increasing uncertainty as to whether he would be a pivotal part in the destruction of the Ring, his inclusion in the novel became a wodge of irritation for me. In reading works by other authors, it quickly becomes apparent that every hefty piece of information has a bearing on the story. Other fantasy texts almost seem limited in the information they include, as anything not pertaining to the main story is omitted, but Tolkien’s works do not seem to have this limit and this surprised and at times infuriated me.

While the novel does have extended periods of monotony and tedium, I found even these preferable to Tolkien’s forceful opinions. By this I mean the clear cut world of good and evil, right and wrong. The polarity between good and evil in the book, while managing to go unnoticed for some time, did eventually surface for me, and made me distance myself from the text. This is mostly due to the fact that the book is almost closed in this sense, as it offers little to no opportunities to interpret the factions in any other way other than that presented to the reader. I found myself sympathising with the villains whose history and origins were overlooked. Because of this, I, at times, even started to barrack for the ‘evil’ side, rebelling against the text in the process.

Tolkien’s writing style does, at times, make it difficult to sympathise with the characters in his books. However, I found myself being drawn in by the character of Samwise Gamgee. The unfailing loyalty of Sam to Frodo was, at first, a little weird, but as I delved deeper into the world of Tolkien, and the Ring delved deeper into enemy territory, I began to increasingly empathise with Sam. When travelling to Mordor with Frodo and Sméagol, Sam quickly saw through Sméagol’s charade and tried to warn Frodo, his most trusted friend, of the danger. However, his so called ‘friend’ didn’t believe him and instead began to mistrust Sam, eventually sending him away from him completely. I felt the injustice of Frodo’s treatment of Sam personally. I identified with Sam on multiple levels. As he figured out Sméagol’s secret must faster than anyone else did, I identified with him as, when I was a child, I would understand things much faster than other children, which often left me feeling alienated, much the same as Sam. I also felt that Frodo was not doing as a good friend should in the situation, by not taking Sam’s warning seriously; he hurt not only Sam, but me as well.

Throughout the experience that was reading The Lord of the Rings, I found myself making expectations of the path I thought the text would take. At times, these expectations were met, while at others, the path chosen by Tolkien frustrated and annoyed me; allowing me to distance myself form the text. There were times where I rebelled against the text because of the views I felt it was forcing onto me, and at others I freely accepted the premise provided. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed reading the books, however, some of the decisions that Tolkien made in writing the story did force me to want to take a step back from the text at times.

Reader Centred Defence:
New Critical reading, with its roots forming in text-centred approaches to reading, argues that the fallacy of authorial intention should not impose itself on the reader. Instead, the meaning of the text, according to the New Critics, should not be solely fixed in the text and discoverable through ‘close reading’ (Moon, p. 91). Critics of this approach argued that we should accept that ‘meaning ‘happens’ during the transaction between the reader and the signs on the page’ (Rosenblatt, 1995). The reader’s reaction and understanding of the text is interwoven with their own personal, psychological and cultural experiences. It has been authorised by Tolkien himself, that textual meaning lies in the response of the reader, or at least in the “interaction between language users” (Moon, p. 92) and not by the domination of the writer. I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations… I much prefer history… with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author. (Tolkien, p.15) Therefore, it should be possible to analyse the response of individual readers by rejecting the assumptions of the humanist principles of Leavis and similar theorists, and applying these critical approaches. Using the theories of literary critics such as Jauss, Fish, Iser, Thomson and Holland, my reactions to certain parts of the text, and of the text as a whole, can be explained.

In many ways, I am what could be considered close to an ‘ideal reader’ of The Lord of the Rings. That is, the ideal reader is someone who ‘understand[s] a text in all its possible richness and complexity’ (Moon, 123). This is evident in the fact that I read and understood the vast quantity of (fictional) historical references in the trilogy of novels. Being raised in a Western setting, my cultural background is very similar to that of the author; therefore, allowing me to understand cultural references in the text. As a similarly educated male with an interest in fantasy, the author and I are quite similar which helps me to understand the complexities embedded in the text. Living in different time periods does little to change my reading as I am considered to be an ‘educated reader’ (Iser, 1974), because I have appropriate knowledge of the time at which the book was written and have a wealth of knowledge pertaining to the creation of The Lord of the Rings.

My annoyance with the arbitrary inclusions or characters in the foundation of the story can be attributed to Jauss’s theories of intertextuality. Having read a large quantity of fantasy texts before The Lord of the Rings, I had the predetermined, conventional idea that all segments included in a novel would have a significant effect on the eventual conclusion of the story, that is, the loose ends would tie together. This preconceived notion was described by Jauss as ‘horizons of expectations’ (Jauss, 1967). When reading the latter stages of the book, a ‘horizon of expectation’ was established within me, as I anticipated a triumphant return of Tom Bombadil in the closing stages of the novel. This ‘want’ of a conventional and linear narrative structure emanates from the ‘interpretive community’ (Fish, 1980) to which I belong. Being a student inured in 21st century narrative conventions, I was taught to always start writing with a planning phase to create a conventionally tidy narrative structure. The interpretive community that I belong to would likely have a similar response to me, as they share a ‘discourse’; as shown by the Tolkien editor, Tom Shippey: Tom Bombadil, got into print in 1934 as the hero of a poem, and then became perhaps the most mysterious figure in the world of The Lord of the Rings. (Tolkien, p.13) This explanation of the character of Tom Bombadil shows that both Jauss’s and Fish’s theories work in conjunction to explain my reaction to the text. However, Iser believed that “the text is not an object but rather its effects on the reader”, contrary to Fish’s view that meaning is determined by the ‘interpretive community’ to which the reader belongs, Iser believes that meaning is something implicitly individual. Fish proposes that meaning is made socially while Iser postulates that meaning is made in more idiosyncratic ways within each individual reader. In this respect, I find myself agreeing with Fish’s theory over Iser’s, as it is clear that many other people have similar views on the novel, due to their shared ‘discourse’.

When I first started reading, the ideologies underpinning the novel were unseen to me; but as I continued to read further into the story the clear cut depiction of both good and evil made me distance myself from the text. This is likely due to my young adult community’s liking for anti-heroes and the denial of simple dichotomies of good and evil. This seemingly didactic act from the text allowed me to sympathise with the societies depicted as purely evil, without having their histories explained, making an oppositional reading in the process. My sympathy for the evicted people of Dunland and the pursued race of Black Numenorians can be understood by looking at Iser’s theory of expectations. The more a text individualises or confirms an expectation it has initially aroused, the more we become aware of its didactic purpose, so that at best we can only accept or reject the thesis forced upon us. More often than not, the very clarity of such texts will make us want to free ourselves from their clutches. (Iser, 1974) It was only when I realised that the text was trying to force a childish good/evil dichotomy upon its readers that I rebelled against the intended reading of the text. Instead of feeling animosity towards the evil factions, I began to sympathise with and take pity on them.

The reason behind my empathising with Samwise as a character is thought to be because ‘readers are emotionally drawn to characters whose experiences they recognise as similar…to their own.’ (Thomson 1987). Because of my alienation from other children felt as a child, a treatment also felt by Sam, I could relate my feelings with the feelings of the character. Thomson’s theories focus on the psychological events and meanings in a reader’s reaction to a text. Another theorist from the field of psychological reader response is Holland, who said that ‘the situations that cause a person’s [psychological] defences to emerge in their interpersonal life will cause them to emerge in reading.’ (Holland 1975). This is exactly what happened in relation to my feelings of betrayal of Samwise by Frodo. I began to see the story through the eyes of Samwise, and Frodo ‘hurt not only Sam, but me as well’ with his actions. This is because everyone is ‘perceive[ing] the world through the lens of [their] psychological experience.’ (Tyson, p. 183) This ‘lens’ can be understood in light of Holland’s theory, as it is present in both our interpersonal lives and in our reading. Therefore, my reaction to this character relates both my previous experiences and their effects on my psychological defences to their respective theorists.

In my reading of The Lord of the Rings, I unconsciously used the theories of multiple theorists, including Holland, Iser, Fish and Jauss. Tying together the theories of interpretive communities, psychological analysis, horizons of expectations and ideal readers has allowed the theorists to collaborate and effectively explain my reaction to Tolkien’s fantasy tale, The Lord of the Rings.