The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they? [Archive]

Lalwendë

04-06-2005, 01:41 PM

Tolkien said LotR was "a fundamentally Catholic work". And by that I see not that it reproduced the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, for that the reader has to turn to other writers, but it reflects certain parts of that faith - perhaps the Valar/Maiar could be seen as versions of saints or angels in a fundamentally ordered, yet very different universe.

LotR does not deny God, so it is not an atheistic or agnostic work. But is it a secular work? Whether Tolkien wanted to exclude symbols of religion or not, they are still to be found in his work. I think this is due in no small part to the fact that many of those symbols, getting away from the obvious ones such as the crucifix or crescent moon, are ingrained within us; archetypes might be the correct term :) . As just one example we have the semi-Trickster figures recently discussed. Or a link can be drawn between Galadriel and Brigid, with the significance of water common to both. I think religions take powerful or familiar symbols from the world about us (or from worlds that were once about us) and make use of them; it is inevitable that Tolkien would have unwittingly/unconsciously used some the less obvious symbols.

I can see exactly why Tolkien would not want to include the more overt symbols of religion in his work. He was creating his own world and those symbols would not belong there as this world would need its own significant symbols, such as the Star of Earendil. Any overt images would make his work not fantasy but something different.

Mithalwen

04-06-2005, 01:49 PM

While I basically agree with Formendacil, I would make a caveat only because of his choice of vocab.... emblems would be incoherent but symbolism does slip in. However only in that certain things have a certain "obvious" symbolism that have been utilised by Christianity but equally also by other belief systems. For example trees have a role in Christian symbolism but are not an exclusively Christian emblem and so it does not jar that The White Tree is symbolic of the rejuvenation of Gondor. Hope this makes sense - I know what I mean but I am not sure I am conveying it.

alatar

04-07-2005, 08:47 AM

If Tolkien were to have placed overt 'emblems of religion' in his works, then he would have to contend with many more problems than just creating a massive fantasy world along with great stories that appear therein. Was the coronation of Aragorn BCE or CE? What religion were the Southrons? Did he portray a particular religion accurately in that there are different versions/sects of Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam, etc?

Would people then see his work as a religious screed - just a cart to carry a religious message and therefore having no value to those not interested in (1) that religion, or (2) any religion? As stated, his intent was not to proselytize - at least overtly - but to entertain. This actually may be a more effective evangelizing method in that more readers are drawn to the works, and those so inclined (or hooked) may read more about Tolkien's life, and also may start looking in to his religious philosophy...

One of the many reasons that I enjoy the Tolkien world is that I can see it as 'history.' If you look at the maps, you can see how we could get to the present day Earth (with some mental gymnastics, of course). Also one assumes that information at the LOTR time was less accurately gathered/archived than when using modern technology. I can fit the 'other history' (some not posting to this site may call it reality :) ) that I learned in with the Tolkien one as JRRT did not 'timestamp' his by using icons or direct references to real history. It's up to me and my imagination (and culture, I assume) to work out the details...like the Numenorians could have been mistaken for the Phoenicians, and obviously Numenor is Atlantis...

Again, he is leaving the possibility open that what went on in the rest of the world still took place, but in his corner of the world, this is how it was.

Lindolirian

04-07-2005, 02:07 PM

alatar

04-07-2005, 02:33 PM

The solemn ceremonies on Meneltarma seem to exemplify what ever religious events might take place in Arda. It was a very sacred event, in which no one was permitted to speak (except the King), all wore pure white ceremonial robes and the emissaries of Manwë never failed to appear (that is until the practices were abandoned). Also the Standing Silence, on the surface, is a tribute to the memory of Numenor, but could easily be construed as a memorial to those sacred thanksgivings to Iluvatar. These are some examples of emblems of religion but Tolkien did, however, keep religion and worship in the background in his stories rather than as a driving force as it was in the history of our world.

Is it that these remembrances and solemn ceremonies seem right and natural for the characters to do, meaning that they do not seem forced nor unrealistic? Tolkien may have wanted to show that there was some religion in his world, but not one in particular. These examples enhance the story, but are not the story. To leave all religious allusions/examples out may have made the world seem more fantastic than he desired.

None of the examples have a direct link to something in my current culture, and when reading them I didn't see any meaning beyond that people in Arda worshipped Iluvatar etc.

The Meneltarma ceremonies were detailed (to me) so that Sauron's debasement of the same could be seen. And the Standing Silence may have been used to show that these men were not common brigands with selfish ends, but noble men with a higher purpose.

Son of Númenor

04-07-2005, 02:42 PM

I think that in this case Tolkien was objecting to the use of religious emblems from our own world (crucifixes, etc.) in fantasy, not depictions of religion in general.

Edit: Cross-posted with alatar, who made basically the same distinction.

Formendacil

04-07-2005, 03:24 PM

Is it that these remembrances and solemn ceremonies seem right and natural for the characters to do, meaning that they do not seem forced nor unrealistic? Tolkien may have wanted to show that there was some religion in his world, but not one in particular. These examples enhance the story, but are not the story. To leave all religious allusions/examples out may have made the world seem more fantastic than he desired.
-emphasis mine.

Are you suggesting that ceremonies and religions in OUR time and place are forced or unrealistic? Because any religion that takes itself seriously MUST consider its practises, or some portion of them, and CERTAINLY its beliefs, to be natural and unforced.

I doubt that this is what you are suggesting, but it is certainly what you came across as saying on my first reading.

alatar

04-07-2005, 09:04 PM

Are you suggesting that ceremonies and religions in OUR time and place are forced or unrealistic? Because any religion that takes itself seriously MUST consider its practises, or some portion of them, and CERTAINLY its beliefs, to be natural and unforced.

I doubt that this is what you are suggesting, but it is certainly what you came across as saying on my first reading.

Sorry for the poor choice of words. What I mean is that some writers/authors with lesser abilities at times feel the need to inject a particular something into a story for whatever reason, and so just slap it in haphazardly. In LOTR it just seems as natural for the Ithilien band to observe the Standing Silence as it is for them to eat and drink - I never felt that that scene was placed in the story so that Tolkien could make some theological point - if it were, then it was cleverly disguised.

Not to stray from the thread, but an example would be PJ's 'fireball of Saruman,' which to me seemed very out of place, out of character, forced, unnatual, etc.

Again apologies, and I will leave the discussion of religions to another forum.

Imladris

04-07-2005, 11:03 PM

It certainly works very well in LotR. It was one of his primary criticisms of the works of C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams (fellow "inklings").

Do you agree or disagree that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy?

What were Tolkien's reasons for discluding them? Which reasons were valid back when he wrote? Are they still valid now?

By "emblems of religion" I'm assuming you mean emblems of religions such as Christianity, Catholocism, etc If I understand you aright, then I say they have no place in Fantasy or Mythology

The role of mythology is to make things more clear, transpose the abstract into the understandable In a word (or more), I think that fantasy/myth is beyond this world, and the religions of this world

Another reason I think they have no place is because the purpose of myth is to creat a real world I would think that putting a religious symbol would wrench the reader from the suspended state of disbelief back into this world Thus, religious symbols have no place, for they wrench the reader from that other world, back into this world

Edit: However, if I am mistaken in thinking of religion emblems as real religions but rather you mean it in the sense of Faramir and his men in that cave, as long as it is part of the story, and enhances it then it belongs

alatar

04-08-2005, 08:26 AM

The role of mythology is to make things more clear, transpose the abstract into the understandable In a word (or more), I think that fantasy/myth is beyond this world, and the religions of this world

Not sure that I agree. I understand what you are saying in that religion is used to make the "abstract" more comprehensible. But on the other hand, religion has its 'fuzzy' areas where some components require faith to fill in gaps in knowledge/facts. Certain things cannot be reduced to cold hard text on a page, but have to be felt, experienced, lived, accepted.

And isn't mythology just another's perspective on one's religion? For example, I've always loved to read Greek/Roman mythology - stories about Zeus, Heracles, et al. Weren't these stories considered at a time to be 'religion?'

Wasn't Tolkien's purpose in writing the Silmarillion etc to create a mythology for Europe? Not sure if there is a church for the same (is it here?), but I like the way Tolkien's religion works.

Imladris

04-08-2005, 11:59 AM

Hmmmm how to explain

But on the other hand, religion has its 'fuzzy' areas where some components require faith to fill in gaps in knowledge/facts. Certain things cannot be reduced to cold hard text on a page, but have to be felt, experienced, lived, accepted.

According to Tolkien, myth and religion is hopelessly entangled I just think that the reason Tolkien did not put any religious symbol is because of that fact Myth, I think (and I use myth as Tolkien and Lewis understood i), is, in part to help us understand religion and the higher things in life But how can Myth help us understand when it uses the same symbols that may be causing confusion? As I said before, myth is beyond this world, thus the symbols of this world doesn't really have a place in it

I think that is why Till We have Faces is more mythic than say, The Chronicles of Narnia I don't recall any religious symbol (such as Aslan), yet it was by far more powerful than Chronicles of Narnia

And isn't mythology just another's perspective on one's religion? For example, I've always loved to read Greek/Roman mythology - stories about Zeus, Heracles, et al. Weren't these stories considered at a time to be 'religion?'.

I have heard that the people truly did not believe these stories, but made them up to help them understand their world Whether this is true, I do not know

alatar

04-08-2005, 12:25 PM

According to Tolkien, myth and religion is hopelessly entangled

I would agree (note that I do not combine myth/religion and fantasy). Would religion be tomorrow's mythology? To me, mythology is stories created from some truth - whether that 'truth' be the creation of the universe or simply a lightning bolt striking a tree - which over time becomes more and more removed from the original revelation/use/purpose. It's the 'telephone game' with one end of the chain way way in the past.

I have heard that the people truly did not believe these stories, but made them up to help them understand their world Whether this is true, I do not know

I would assume that there was some type of 'belief' as there were sacrifices at huge temples with priesthoods regarding the same - but again, this is an assumption.

littlemanpoet

04-09-2005, 02:25 PM

Thanks, everyone, for your well considered replies. It's been enjoyable reading.

I for one agree with Professor Tolkien; if Arwen's banner for Aragorn had a cross emblazoned on it, or if Gondor's seven stars were Stars of David, I think I would be automatically inclined to view Middle-earth as an allegorical rather than a purely fantastic world, and its purpose as evangelical rather than eucatastrophic.

Well said, Son of Númenor. I think that this was in part Tolkien's criticism of C.S. Lewis's Narnia Chronicles.

How could an epic, purported to be set deep in the years B.C., contain Christian symbolism while still maintaining its cohesiveness with real history?

Formendacil, there is much in Tolkien's Letters that deals directly with this (I looked it up in the index under "Religion".) From Letter 156, discussing Gandalf's return: ...I have purposely kept all allusions to the highest matters down to mere hints, perceptible only by the most attentive, or kept them under unexplained symbolic forms. So God and the 'angelic' gods, the Lords or Powers of the West, only peep through in such places as Gandalf's conversation with Frodo: 'behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker's; or in Faramir's Númenórean grace at dinner. Elsewhere in the Letters he refers to Númenór as the one place where religious practice was clearly portrayed. As a note to the same Letter 156, Tolkien writes, The Elves often called on Varda-Elbereth, the Queen of the Blessed Realm, their especial friend; and so does Frodo. Note that Frodo is the most Elvish of the hobbits. There is an obvious connection between Varda, and Mary the Mother of God.

So the answer to your question, Formendacil, is "very carefully". But there it is: Tolkien pulled it off.

...it is inevitable that Tolkien would have unwittingly/unconsciously used some the less obvious symbols.

I'm sure, Lalwendë, that you must be right. Still, I never cease to be astounded, in reading the Letters, how much is in LotR that Tolkien was quite conscious about including, not least of all, archetypes.

...trees have a role in Christian symbolism but are not an exclusively Christian emblem and so it does not jar that The White Tree is symbolic of the rejuvenation of Gondor.

In reading that book that mentioned the Trickster, Mithalwen, I discovered that the Tree of Life is a common theme throughout mythologies ranging from the Mayan to the Oriental to the Semitic to the northwestern European. I guess that makes it a pretty powerful archetype. Tolkien did love trees, and understood archetypes.

As stated, his intent was not to proselytize - at least overtly - but to entertain. This actually may be a more effective evangelizing method in that more readers are drawn to the works, and those so inclined (or hooked) may read more about Tolkien's life, and also may start looking in to his religious philosophy...

Alatar, you are coming quite close to persuading me. :)

I would think that putting a religious symbol would wrench the reader from the suspended state of disbelief back into this world.

Thanks, Imladris, for including this concept from a writer's point of view. I certainly appreciate all that has been offered from the valuable readers' points of view, but this was particularly what I needed to be reminded of. Thanks again, Immy. :)

I think that is why Till We have Faces is more mythic than say, The Chronicles of Narnia I don't recall any religious symbol (such as Aslan), yet it was by far more powerful than Chronicles of Narnia.

I am in agreement, Imladris.

Just to clear up the issue of belief in myths, early folk of every culture did actually believe their myths. It was the growth of abstract thought in each culture (or a more effective religion) that caused doubt regarding the myths; as in, "hey, the world doesn't really work like that; I've found a more empiric explanation; the myth must be wrong". For example, Plato didn't believe the myths were true, but believed they should be taught for their moral value.

davem

04-10-2005, 09:58 AM

Still, I never cease to be astounded, in reading the Letters, how much is in LotR that Tolkien was quite conscious about including, not least of all, archetypes.

Well, there are 'archetypal images & symbols in Tolkien's work, but I wonder how many were deliberately used, or how conscious Tolkien was of waht he was doing while he was doing it. The letters show he was aware of the symbolism of the work, but often I get the sense that he was only aware of it after the fact - ie, when he had gone back to the books as a reader & critic himself. It seems plain that what he writes in some of the letters is in response to reader's enquiries & its almost as if he is discovering the 'meaning' of the stories & images only then.

Just to clear up the issue of belief in myths, early folk of every culture did actually believe their myths. It was the growth of abstract thought in each culture (or a more effective religion) that caused doubt regarding the myths; as in, "hey, the world doesn't really work like that; I've found a more empiric explanation; the myth must be wrong". For example, Plato didn't believe the myths were true, but believed they should be taught for their moral value.

I'm not sure its as simple as that. There were many reasons for a change in religious belief. Its quite clear that in the 'Dark Ages' the change over from Paganism to Christianity wasn't due to individuals taking such a rational approach. Missionaries 'targetted' the Royal courts because they knew that once they had converted the ruler the people would follow - either out of allegiance or fear of the consequences of not doing so. The 'Pagan' religions were quite as complex & capable of explaining the nature of the world & the human experience as Christianity. The 'explanation' offered by Christianity was hardly more 'empiric' than the ones offered by the Druids, Stoics, Epicureans, Manichaeans. In short, Christianity came to dominate over Paganism not because it offered a 'better' account of the world, but because, after Constantine, it became increasingly dangerous not to be a Christian.

Anyway, to the point of the thread - I think Tolkien was right. The emblems of religion do not belong in fantasy... but 'spiritual' emblems & symbols will inevitably be present. They will be used either intentionally or unconsciously because they are the stuff of Faerie Tale, Legend & Myth. If used deliberately the result will usually feel 'false' - as with the Narnia books, or the fantasies of a Christian proseletizer like Stephen Lawhead. We will feel 'preached at' & look elsewhere. If (as I feel happened in Tolkien's case) the story 'arises' from a place 'external' to the writer's consciousness (either the Collective Unconscious, realm of the Archtypes, or somewhere more mysterious) then the result will feel 'real', because the archetypal/spiritual symbols will 'behave' & 'interact (if you understand me) 'naturally' - ie according to their nature.

Ok, I have to qualify that last statement. Tolkien did 'manipulate' the pure archetypes/symbols that appeared in his works, but certainly not to the degree that the other two writers I mentioned did. I think the difference was that with Tolkien the story with its symbols arose first & he merely 'adapted' it to the extent that he felt necessary such that it would not offend his own religious & moral sensibilities, wheras Lewis & Lawhead (the later in particular) seem to have decided that they would make use of archetypal/spiritual symbols in order to proseletize. They are using the symbols, not letting them 'come through'.

The result of this is that those symbols fail to work on us on any deep level, because the 'symbols' have become merely 'signs', the parable merely 'allegory'. What I mean by that is that symbols are (as Jung pointed out) alive with meaning, which cannot be fully or cmpletely expressed. They are effectively like 'windows' onto a deeper reality (or a deeper experience of this reality), whereas 'signs' merely 'signify' something specific - A=B. Thus 'Aslan is Christ disguised in such a way as to make him understandable to children. Gandalf, on the other hand - & especially in LotR, where we are not given an account of his back story - is a figure of mystery. Aslan is a 'sign', Gandalf is a 'symbol'.

So, I see two reasons for Tolkien being right here. One, that (as has been stated) overt use of the emblems of any current or known religious tradition would pull us out of the secondary world into the primary one & 'break the spell', & two, that such overt usage would turn the 'emblems' used from symbols to signs, & make the work into an obvious allegory, rather than a 'parable'.

Or something like that.......

littlemanpoet

04-10-2005, 12:29 PM

Just for the sake of discussion, I'm preparing to plasy "Lewis and Lawhead Advocate"; I'm not ready yet.

But there is one point of contention that I'd like to pursue right now.

I'm not sure its as simple as that.

Missionaries 'targetted' the Royal courts because they knew that once they had converted the ruler the people would follow - either out of allegiance or fear of the consequences of not doing so. The 'Pagan' religions were quite as complex & capable of explaining the nature of the world & the human experience as Christianity. The 'explanation' offered by Christianity was hardly more 'empiric' than the ones offered by the Druids, Stoics, Epicureans, Manichaeans. In short, Christianity came to dominate over Paganism not because it offered a 'better' account of the world, but because, after Constantine, it became increasingly dangerous not to be a Christian.

Nor is it quite as simple as that.

In many of the instances of mass conversion, missionaries cut down the sacred oaks of a given folk; think "Tree of Life" here; or a sacred grove, pool, what have you. When the missionaries were not struck down dead on the spot by the tribes' gods/goddesses, the folk became convinced that this new religion was more powerful than their old one. That's empirical. Now, we moderns may look back at that and be convinced that the missionaries were just as superstitious to think that God was protecting them from being killed by the "demons" that the folk worshipped. Maybe we'd be right to think that, but maybe not. Many things that happen today cannot be explained by our natural laws.

Thanks, davem, for your succinct summary of the two main threads of argument in support of Tolkien's strategy of keeping overt religious emblems out of LotR.

davem

04-10-2005, 02:53 PM

This may seem off-topic, but give me time...

Many things that happen today cannot be explained by our natural laws.

Indeed. But many things happen today, & always have happened, which cannot be accounted for by Christianity (or by pre-Christian philosophies), because that's not the point of Christianity. As I understand it, Christianity was not meant to be a substitute for science & explain the way the universe works.

As for your example, I have to make the point that, apart from the missionaries' acts of cutting down the trees being a vicious & mean minded act of vandalism (one might even liken it to the behaviour of orcs!) it was not simply designed to show that their God was more powerful than the spirits of the Land the people had 'worshipped' from the first-time, but rather to break the people's spirit.

Basically, what the 'missionaries' did in 'Dark Age' Europe was no different to what White European's did to the native peoples of Australia & the Americas. You do away with a people's Tradition by shattering their world view, not by peacably offering a superior one. And this can be shown by the fact that as the 'missionaries' power (ie the power of the authoritarian Church) failed those peoples have returned to their old ways. This was simply inevitable because a people's native beliefs & worldview is not the product of rational analysis, only lasting until a 'better' one comes along, but grows out of their relationship/psycho-spiritual with their native Land & the spirits of that Land.

This brings us back to Tolkien's point. The 'emblems of religion' are manifestations of specific cultures & their understanding of the Divine. So, to use the emblems of primary world religions in a secondary world setting would quite simply 'shatter' the secondary 'reality' the author has attempted to create. This is because the peoples of the secondary world would have developed their own traditions which would be unique to them, & not simply some 'disguised' (ie allegorised) version of primary world traditions.

Lewis & Lawhead don't convince (me, at least) in that they do precisely that. Certainly Lawhead's 'Song of Albion' & his 'Arthurian' cycle deliberately twist & misrepresent British Tradition to the extent that only someone with absolutely no knowledge of that Tradition could take them in any way seriously.

Finally, none of the above should be taken as an attack on Christianity as a spiritual path, only on the 'political' church instigated by Constantine.

Lathriel

04-10-2005, 03:36 PM

I don't think religion belongs in fantasy unless it is used deliberatly by the author in order to make a point about society. For example to state the overly obvious, Pullman with his trilogy His dark materials.

Otherwise I think authors should not include religion,or if they do want to include some sort of religion they should make up one of their own.

As for Tolkien, some symbols in LOTR could be seen as religious but they could also come from the myths or legends Tolkien was so crazy about. Indeed myths/legends are really close to religion because some of the missionaries (in the dark ages)would combine pagan beliefs with christian ones just so that they could get more people interested and thus convert more of them. So some symbols have stayed the same or their meaning is closely related.

alatar

04-10-2005, 09:09 PM

Many things that happen today cannot be explained by our natural laws.

One word - "Yet." Note that I do not intend to insult or to be impolite, but just want to share my thoughts.

Otherwise I think authors should not include religion,or if they do want to include some sort of religion they should make up one of their own.

I think that there are some...for lack of a better word...archetypes that can safely be used as they transcend specific religions/cultures. The "flood of Noah" would be one such example. Many cultures not considered "children of Abraham" have a story regarding a large flood in their history/mythology/belief system. Tolkien added one with Numenor, whether inadvertently or not. It might be safe to choose from the species memories, and I wonder if the archetypes that work well as described above are these.

littlemanpoet

04-12-2005, 01:21 PM

One word - "Yet."

:) You may not know that you've challenged me onto one of my favorite hobby horses. :D

I usually think scientifically. I appreciate the scientific method and all that has resulted from its use. I do not, however, expect the processes of scientific thought (observation, setting up experiments, hypothesis, deduction, induction, empirical evidence tabulated) to reveal all mysteries, just give it enough time. The realm of science is the material world. It is "at sea" in terms of the soul, the spirit, and other such unquantifiable entities. Or do you doubt the existence of the soul or spirit because science can't verify them?

I wonder if the archetypes that work well as described above are these.

If the popularity and staying power of Tolkien is any indication, I think the answer to your question is a resounding "YES".

alatar

04-12-2005, 09:16 PM

:) You may not know that you've challenged me onto one of my favorite hobby horses. :D

Same here - same horse, different color.

I usually think scientifically. I appreciate the scientific method and all that has resulted from its use. I do not, however, expect the processes of scientific thought (observation, setting up experiments, hypothesis, deduction, induction, empirical evidence tabulated) to reveal all mysteries, just give it enough time.

Why not? Besides the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle thing, I think that we will know more about 'mysteries' 100 years from now than we know today. Surely some things may be trivial to 'investigate,' like just why did Tolkien choose to have Gandalf as a grey wizard, but I assume that given time, we will have a much more detailed explanation about the bigger issues. That being said, this is not to say that we will not be finding more mysteries along the way.

Newtonian physics at one time was the end-all, be-all, then someone, not satisfied with that, just had to keep looking and now we have quantum physics, which is a really odd and mysterious place in itself. It would be important to note that this person/people lacked cable TV and access to this forum, and so obviously had too much time on his/her hands. And you know what the Devil does with that...

The realm of science is the material world. It is "at sea" in terms of the soul, the spirit, and other such unquantifiable entities. Or do you doubt the existence of the soul or spirit because science can't verify them?

Yes. It's sad in some ways, but for me this is where the data points. Can't help it, but was born a skeptic. Show me evidence that a soul or spirit exists - at what wavelength does it exist? We can see heat, spectra of light, other radiation, gamma rays from when the universe exploded at the beginning of time, weigh an electron (I think), detect subatomic quarks, yet the soul still eludes us. Note that I am always open to new evidence and arguments, as this is what science is all about, but I will always need to 'see to believe' - and I'll still have some doubts.

littlemanpoet

04-12-2005, 10:11 PM

Show me evidence that a soul or spirit exists - at what wavelength does it exist?

Sorry, can't help you there, since the soul and spirit are immaterial, outside of the whole evidence thing. Do you doubt the existence of love? mercy? justice? These also are immaterial, and the "evidence" for them can be explained by other factors every bit as easily as with soul and spirit.

Formendacil

04-12-2005, 11:05 PM

To take this slightly away from its religious mysteries overtones, has it occurred to you, Alatar, that even if science solves some of today's mysteries, that this will only open up new questions?

Isn't that the nature of mysteries? You solve one, and discover three more? Science will NEVER be done explaining away the mysteries of this universe because every new discovery will reveal more mysteries.

And as far as spiritual matters go though, I doubt that science can ever be brought to bear on them. Some things are a matter of faith and NOT a matter of matter. "Logic", that is the scientific process, may possibly be applicable, but I rather suspect that the central core of religion will retain many of its mysteries.

Lalwendë

04-13-2005, 02:42 AM

alatar is right to say that quantum physics is a very strange area of science, bordering at times on the issues which religion also tries to approach; and it takes a great 'leap of faith' to attempt to understand some of the concepts involved. The language used by quantum physicists is in itself mystical; the Walls of the Universe is a phrase I particularly like. Theoretical science is probably best expressed in the language of maths, which brings the circle back around to mystical concepts in belief involving numbers and combinations of letters. The two, science and religion, are man's attempt to explain what is around us (and what is behind and before us...and what is not around us). I do not separate the two, as I do not think they always negate each other.

To look at a well known example, scientific theories such as Darwin's are not necessarily compatible with religious theories of creationism, but they have caused us to re-examine religious texts; in this case, the six days of creation are interpreted as six ages of creation. To some, it may be wrong to re-examine a religious text, but consider the amount of scholarship over the 2000 years of Christianity, and it is impossible that re-examination could not have happened many times in those years. The Christianity we have today is a result of 2000 years of thought and without that scholarship it is likely that the religion would have become stilted and eventually died out.

What I am trying to say is that religions do not stand still, just as science does not stand still. Both have much in common, and we need both. Even the atheist has a belief.

My take on this comes from my own viewpoint as someone who never could accept the rules, regulations and dogmas of one particular religion, and who finds all religions equal.

I think that despite the seeming worship of pragmatism in the world today, we all know or hope that there is more to life. We can find that through science and exploring the far reaches of the universe, and equally we can find it through prayer.

alatar

04-13-2005, 12:48 PM

Thanks all for the replies.

Sorry, can't help you there, since the soul and spirit are immaterial, outside of the whole evidence thing. Do you doubt the existence of love? mercy? justice? These also are immaterial, and the "evidence" for them can be explained by other factors every bit as easily as with soul and spirit.

I do not doubt that they exist, but each can be reduced to biology.

To take this slightly away from its religious mysteries overtones, has it occurred to you, Alatar, that even if science solves some of today's mysteries, that this will only open up new questions?

Agree - as I had previously stated. And if they ever 'wrap it all up,' there still remains the question regarding balrog wings...;)

Isn't that the nature of mysteries? You solve one, and discover three more? Science will NEVER be done explaining away the mysteries of this universe because every new discovery will reveal more mysteries.

And as far as spiritual matters go though, I doubt that science can ever be brought to bear on them. Some things are a matter of faith and NOT a matter of matter. "Logic", that is the scientific process, may possibly be applicable, but I rather suspect that the central core of religion will retain many of its mysteries

Agree. Religion can hold to its mysteries as long as it likes. Recently I've read that 'belief' and 'faith' actually impart a survival advantage, and so what's not to like about that?

The two, science and religion, are man's attempt to explain what is around us (and what is behind and before us...and what is not around us). I do not separate the two, as I do not think they always negate each other.

One of the big differences between the two is that one can be used to predict the future with some degree of certainty. If you or I perform an experiment under the same conditions, we will obtain the same results with a probabilty that is more than chance. If we perform the experiment 100 times, we have an idea how many times the experiment would behave as expected.

However, if you and I were to perform the same ritual (or pray, or whatever the equivalent would be), we have no reason to believe that we can get the same result. Also, multiple attempts do not increase the possibility of success more than random chance would indicate.

To look at a well known example, scientific theories such as Darwin's are not necessarily compatible with religious theories of creationism, but they have caused us to re-examine religious texts; in this case, the six days of creation are interpreted as six ages of creation. To some, it may be wrong to re-examine a religious text, but consider the amount of scholarship over the 2000 years of Christianity, and it is impossible that re-examination could not have happened many times in those years. The Christianity we have today is a result of 2000 years of thought and without that scholarship it is likely that the religion would have become stilted and eventually died out.

Changing inspired scriptures/beliefs derived from the same could be a slippery slope - where do you stop? And how do you 'test' revelations? Evolution would be thrown out if the data indicated - surely it would take some large evidence, but eventually it would be done. For religion, what evidence would be used to convince those who require none?

What I am trying to say is that religions do not stand still, just as science does not stand still. Both have much in common, and we need both. Even the atheist has a belief.

Agreed - though some may not admit that a particular religion has changed, or should I say 'evolved?'

I think that despite the seeming worship of pragmatism in the world today, we all know or hope that there is more to life. We can find that through science and exploring the far reaches of the universe, and equally we can find it through prayer.

Nice thought. Wish I could get as wild about science as some seem to be about their religion.

Mithalwen

04-13-2005, 01:04 PM

Nice thought. Wish I could get as wild about science as some seem to be about their religion.

Try a little astronomy - if that doesn't blow your mind, I don't know what will ... and it is still a field where and enthusiastic amateur can make a difference, and you could put the elvish names on your star chart :)

alatar

04-13-2005, 01:21 PM

Try a little astronomy - if that doesn't blow your mind, I don't know what will ... and it is still a field where and enthusiastic amateur can make a difference, and you could put the elvish names on your star chart :)

Nice suggestion - and my son just got a telescope. My children awe me, as to them everything is new and magical. However, sometimes their behavior has me reconsidering the doctrine of 'original sin'...;)

littlemanpoet

04-13-2005, 08:35 PM

It has been said (I forget who by) that the doctrine of "original sin" is the most empirically supported: observe your children; read the daily paper; etc.

littlemanpoet

04-15-2005, 02:37 PM

So, I see two reasons for Tolkien being right here. One, that (as has been stated) overt use of the emblems of any current or known religious tradition would pull us out of the secondary world into the primary one & 'break the spell', - davem

But would it necessarily break the spell? ....as in an if-then cause and effect? It seems to me it would depend on how the things was brought off. Say, for example that one is reading or writing a "transitional" fantasy; that is, one that starts in the primary world (at least as evoked in the feigned reality) and moves into a secondary world. Let us suppose that emblems of religion are explored as they funciton both in the primary and secondary worlds. Does this break the spell? Or rather, does it weave a different kind of enchantment? I think it may do the latter, if brought off well. Now, this does not account for reader taste. If, say, a christian emblem is used, and an atheist simply cannot abide it, then it's not going to work for that atheist. But what if the chrisitan emblem is brought off well and the atheist is open minded enough to appreciate the art as presented, to see where it leads? Am I dreaming up impossibilities, or is it not a matter of expertise in terms of the art?

& two, that such overt usage would turn the 'emblems' used from symbols to signs, & make the work into an obvious allegory, rather than a 'parable'. - davem

Now, this one seems a little easier to answer than the former. Assuming an expertly done work of fiction,, it seems to me that the use of religious emblems from the primary world is no more (and no less) prone to mis-allegorization than is LotR. I have read much of Stephen Lawhead, especially his Arthurian series. It is, I admit, hit or miss in terms of craft, but the better crafted the work is, the more it seems to me that Lawhead has done admirably. I am more convinced of this after having read Leonard Tolstoy's In Search of Merlin, the knowledge of which Lawhead has apparently made great use of in his Merlin, which I think may be the best of the series. Lawhead's Albion series is better than his Arthur series, and it is even more clearly theist (if not christian) than his Arthur series. It is, by the way, a "transitional" fantasy, whereas the Arthur series is "in the deeps of time" as it were, and is thus an "over there" fantasy (there's a better word but I can't think of it right now).

I don't for a minute believe that I've proven anything with the above "devil's advocate" answers, but I wanted to raise the remonstrations since everybody seems to be agreed that primary world religious emblems don't belong in fantasy.

Lalwendë

04-15-2005, 04:23 PM

Something just occurred to me about religion and fantasy. What about Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials? This is obviously full of religious elements, and features major figures from Christianity, including archangels and God. There is even a representation of the papacy in the form of the magisterium. The one aspect I cannot recall, is any use of the symbol of Christianity, the cross. So, he makes great use of religious icons, but not of the most important symbol of that religion.

I'm not sure if I can think of what this means, but I thought it was worth bringing into the discussion. Of course, some might argue that HDM is not even fantasy (I would argue that it is). But taking the position that it is fantasy, does the inclusion of so many icons actually work? And does the omission of overt use of the symbol of the cross make it work?

davem

04-15-2005, 04:59 PM

Say, for example that one is reading or writing a "transitional" fantasy; that is, one that starts in the primary world (at least as evoked in the feigned reality) and moves into a secondary world.

It could work if a Christian from this world entered a non-Christian secondary world. But the secondary world would have to retain its autonomy, & not serve merely to promote the author's Christianity, by having all the characters of the secondary world come to see the 'error of their ways' & convert. The central character's religion could be explored in perhaps profound ways, & maybe his faith would be deepened by his experiences there, but the inhabitants of the secondary world, not living in a world that had known the Incarnation (though perhaps having had some other kind of divine intervention) could not believably 'convert' to a religion which had developed in another 'reality'. Primary & secondary realities would follow their own rules & have their own paths. Otherwise the Secondary reality would become in the end no more than a poor copy of the primary.

This is what occurs in Lawhead's Song of Albion trilogy. The 'Ancient Britain' Lawhead gives us is deeply innaccurate. The ancient Celts were not monothiests but polytheists, & their supreme deity was the Goddess Don or Danu. Basically, Lawhead attempts to present a real cultural/historical period as being something we know it wasn't. My experience all through reading this work was that it was 'wrong' - ie, that Lawhead was lying to me, & lies will break the spell of faerie more effectively than the appearance of primary world religious images would.

The one aspect I cannot recall, is any use of the symbol of Christianity, the cross. So, he makes great use of religious icons, but not of the most important symbol of that religion.

The absence of the Cross (specifically what it symbolises) is one of the greatest failings of HDM. Pullman plays us false in presenting the work as an attack on 'organised religion' (by which he of course means Christianity) but fails to grapple with the central & supremely profound 'symbol' of that religion - the Cross.

Nowhere in Pullman's universes is the idea of the Incarnation of God dealt with. His 'God' is an external being who never got his hands dirty, or suffered with His children. The Cross is the great symbol of divine love & suffering. Pullman actually creates a false god, an 'Aunt Sally' & proceeds to throw stones at it. The core of Christianity is never presented, let alone dealt with. The Incarnation of God is the one thing, the one idea, that has to be confronted in a work like HDM if it is to claim any validity as Art. Pullman fails to deal with, or rather he runs away from, the blood & the pain & the dirt. Tolkien doesn't, neither does Lewis (nor does Lawhead for all his proselytising).

Now, this is not a matter of whether the Christian story is literally true - the parables of the Prodigal Son & the Good Samaritan are true despite the fact that they are not accounts of actual events in early first centruy Palestine. What Pullman fails to confront & therefore the reason his work fails to grip & hold the reader on the deepest & most profound level, is the idea of the Incarnation. What he does is pretend the idea, not just the event itself never was.
He simply picks out the aspects of Christianity that he can easily trash & proceeds to do so while at the same time pretending (to us & possibly also to himself) that the aspects of Christianity he cannot so trash do not exist. Worst of both worlds, if you like...

bilbo_baggins

04-15-2005, 05:16 PM

To add a brief comment to this interesting thread...

You could say that Tolkien's work, mainly the LoTR deal with the Universal religion. It presents, in a manner most persuasive, that the characters must win the battle for the sake of good, which is being trampled on. Whether Tolkien, I, or anyone reading this post believes that one particular religion is the Universal Religion is not a matter that is supposed to be discussed. But the need for it is almost the whole premise from which Tolkien draws his eucatastrophic fantasy. (The other part is wrapping up the mystery of the special ring Bilbo found in tH)

This need for man to have a good side to fight for, and a bad side to possibly succumb to, is the plot of LoTR.

"Yes. It's sad in some ways, but for me this is where the data points."
-alatar

To make a brief response to alatar, on this hobby-horse, you might just question where the data that is pointing comes from. How do you know your eyes can see everything there is to see? How do you know that your ears hear all there is to hear? How do you know anything? You have faith in your scientific data, but that faith is a large leap from nihilism to Scientology (the *theory* that the Scientific theory is correct).

Sorry about jumping a few tracks there.

That's all

b_b

alatar

04-18-2005, 10:26 AM

To make a brief response to alatar, on this hobby-horse, you might just question where the data that is pointing comes from. How do you know your eyes can see everything there is to see? How do you know that your ears hear all there is to hear? How do you know anything? You have faith in your scientific data, but that faith is a large leap from nihilism to Scientology (the *theory* that the Scientific theory is correct).

The theory that the 'theory of science' is correct is open to debate, and scientists continually question whether they are fooling themselves. As humans it's hard/impossible to be 100% objective or remove oneself from the environment/nature to truly observe a thing. As stated, Heisenberg (and Einstein) knew this.

Being a scientist/skeptic makes you a bit suspicious and you start questioning everything.

It seems to me that the first commandment of some religions is 'thou shall not question.' Purported evidence is anecdotal, untestable and unreliable. There are just places you don't go, don't ponder, etc. One might say that having incontrovertible evidence would take away the need for faith, but I would counter that if my eternal existance hinged on that evidence then a benevolent Creator would be a little more forgiving and obvious.

At least Tolkien's 'religion' makes sense to me.

Yes, it's true that I have faith in science. When I want to know the date of the next solar eclipse, I consult NASA, not entrails. If NASA is using entrails, that's fine as long as they are 100% accurate (with error rate).

I know what works for me - the evidence supports what I see, hear and know.

Thanks for your thoughts.

bilbo_baggins

04-18-2005, 01:44 PM

I know what works for me - the evidence supports what I see, hear and know.

That is where you confuse me, alatar. You say the evidence supports what you see hear and know yet the evidence comes from so much assumption that you see hear and know correctly. How do you know that know?

As I am willing to allow a little of my own thought creep into the possibility that I see something on a computer screen, which I assume does exist, I am putting a lot of faith into something that doesn't demand my faith. Why do you put faith in yourself?

Throughout history, if you can believe that it happened, it has never been proven that another sentient mind can exist. You cannot prove even the fact that your eyes present evidence to you, not to mention that another creature like yourself exists, not to even dream of mentioning that the Tolkien books we cherish so much are actually printed pieces of Literature.

[QUOTE=alatar] It seems to me that the first commandment of some religions is 'thou shall not question.' [\QUOTE]

So glossing over the fact, briefly, that you can allow things to seem like something to you, you have just stated that religion is something akin to a unquestioning, unseeking, irrefutable dogma forced by some heirarchy.

In some cases you are true. But I do hope you realize that the major religions do no such thing. They ask you to make assumptions just like the ones you do to allow yourself to believe science works. They ask you only to make an exploratory step.

To retrieve the theme of the thread, I for one believe that Tolkien uses his religious emblems/symbols to allow the reader to make a 'jump of assumption', just as one does to allow eucatastrophe to set in. The jump I speak of, however, lets the reader think there is something worth fighting for. Remeber Sam and Frodo in TTT? Frodo is despondent and believes that there is no point. Sam cheers him up. We should make an assumption and let Tolkien take us away.

b_b

alatar

04-18-2005, 02:27 PM

That is where you confuse me, alatar. You say the evidence supports what you see hear and know yet the evidence comes from so much assumption that you see hear and know correctly. How do you know that know?

I'm also a pragmatist, and so avoid the wondering whether I am a butterfly imagining that I'm a human posting to a Tolkien-lover's forum. Time is short...

And granted, I do make assumptions and accept certain data/evidence by faith - again, time is short and I'm not exactly sure how one goes about verifying that water really is comprised of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms.

Coming from a Christian upbringing, I have looked for evidence that confirms some of the more miraculous claims, and have (1) not found any and (2) have found more secular explanations regarding them. Occam's razor says that I should choose the simpler explanation, and so I do.

Looking deeper, I have tried to figure out 'how it all works.' In Tolkien's world it would seem that you just show up, choose sides (unless you're an orc, but that's a whole other thread ;) ), and live your life accordingly. Be good, honest and merciful and you will go one way. It probably helps to acknowledge Iluvatar now and again, but if memory serves, no one in LOTR stops to do this. Our world is not so plain and simple.

As I am willing to allow a little of my own thought creep into the possibility that I see something on a computer screen, which I assume does exist, I am putting a lot of faith into something that doesn't demand my faith. Why do you put faith in yourself?

I do, but I also know that (1) I am probably fooling myself and (2) that I can be fooled just like anyone else. So there's always questions...

So glossing over the fact, briefly, that you can allow things to seem like something to you, you have just stated that religion is something akin to a unquestioning, unseeking, irrefutable dogma forced by some heirarchy.

I can easily believe that my experiences are limited and therefore somewhat skewed, yet at some point (an assumption) I think you are discouraged from noticing that the emperor has no clothes.

In some cases you are true. But I do hope you realize that the major religions do no such thing. They ask you to make assumptions just like the ones you do to allow yourself to believe science works. They ask you only to make an exploratory step.

I have seen it otherwise, but again my experience may be limited.

To retrieve the theme of the thread, I for one believe that Tolkien uses his religious emblems/symbols to allow the reader to make a 'jump of assumption', just as one does to allow eucatastrophe to set in. The jump I speak of, however, lets the reader think there is something worth fighting for. Remeber Sam and Frodo in TTT? Frodo is despondent and believes that there is no point. Sam cheers him up. We should make an assumption and let Tolkien take us away.

I found Tolkien's allusions great as you needn't be a member of any religion to appreciate his works. When Sam talks about the stars being out of reach of the darkness (or something like that), I feel as he does and I assume as any religious person reading the same.

bilbo_baggins

04-18-2005, 02:52 PM

[QUOTE=alatar]I'm also a pragmatist, and so avoid the wondering whether I am a butterfly imagining that I'm a human posting to a Tolkien-lover's forum. Time is short...

And granted, I do make assumptions and accept certain data/evidence by faith - again, time is short and I'm not exactly sure how one goes about verifying that water really is comprised of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms. [\QUOTE]

Why is time short? As one of your admired scientists proclaimed, "Time is relative, and no man can understand it."

Truly, you make a comment and assume that Time is short. But why? Is it not of the utmost importance that your very view on whether time is short be reconciled to yourself? Do you really believe that everything one has told you concerning findings is accurate?

You mock me when you depict yourself an imagining butterfly. Who is to say you really exist? Do you reconcile yourself to the fate that your eyes see something, and therefore you are there? Or hear yourself speaking, and therefore you must be able to communicate? Do you find a piece of evidence as Chicken Little did, and proclaim with all self-sincerity that the sky is falling? Or that there is no God?

All thought and all reason points to the simple fact that an outside intelligence acts and makes us assume that we ourselves exist, and not only that, but that our fellow man exists. And that Time is slipping by. That there is learning that has been made by great men of olden days.

So, not to attempt to strike an enemy that seems fallen, but could very well be standing, I will say this.

For man to have survived the trials of life, and survived the five or six thousand years we all agree have occured, then there must have been someway to have foreknowledge of what paths to take, and what trains of thought to wander, and what ideas to defend. How did our ancestors make themselves self-aware if not by God? How did they assume that their neighbors were real if someone didn't tell them. I can recall to mind a little girl asking her father if the animals in the zoo were really there. Or a little boy asking why the sky is blue.

The questions of the ancients had answers and ours do too.

A world cannot exist without such answers, and so Tolkien included them in his work. LoTR was really just a great big answer to historical legend.

b_b

alatar

04-18-2005, 03:17 PM

Why is time short? As one of your admired scientists proclaimed, "Time is relative, and no man can understand it."

Sorry that you've so misunderstood me. Time is short as I have a life that involves three little children who continually are increasing local entropy ;).

Truly, you make a comment and assume that Time is short. But why? Is it not of the utmost importance that your very view on whether time is short be reconciled to yourself? Do you really believe that everything one has told you concerning findings is accurate?

Nope; thought that I stated that.

You mock me when you depict yourself an imagining butterfly. Who is to say you really exist? Do you reconcile yourself to the fate that your eyes see something, and therefore you are there? Or hear yourself speaking, and therefore you must be able to communicate? Do you find a piece of evidence as Chicken Little did, and proclaim with all self-sincerity that the sky is falling? Or that there is no God?

My intent was never to mock you, and apologies if it seemed that way :(. I was actually quoting an old friend who always said the same. And not sure about the rest of that, but absence of evidence is not evidence.

All thought and all reason points to the simple fact that an outside intelligence acts and makes us assume that we ourselves exist, and not only that, but that our fellow man exists. And that Time is slipping by. That there is learning that has been made by great men of olden days.

If you believe so. I agree that we all stand on the shoulders of giants.

For man to have survived the trials of life, and survived the five or six thousand years we all agree have occured, then there must have been someway to have foreknowledge of what paths to take, and what trains of thought to wander, and what ideas to defend. How did our ancestors make themselves self-aware if not by God? How did they assume that their neighbors were real if someone didn't tell them. I can recall to mind a little girl asking her father if the animals in the zoo were really there. Or a little boy asking why the sky is blue.

Not exactly sure what you mean, but my presumption is that we evolved to be as we are now. Those that made poor choices did not continue into the next generation. As stated recently, there is information regarding how a belief system imparts a survival advantage.

Maybe we'd better wander back on topic as I would assume that you and I will not agree. Thanks for your replies.

bilbo_baggins

04-18-2005, 03:27 PM

--- but absence of evidence is not evidence.

Technically, alatar, absence of evidence is evidence that the argument built on the first evidence is partially illogical.

I hope your kids are doing well.

The emblems of religion belong, and not only that, but are necessary for the survival of a realistic story.

The emblems of religion help the story's character seem more life-like as they attempt to fill the gap in their soul. The aching desire to fulfill one's dreams cannot be separated from reality. So, therefore, to keep a story to its truest sense, one must at least have emblems of religion.

b_b

alatar

04-18-2005, 08:46 PM

The emblems of religion belong, and not only that, but are necessary for the survival of a realistic story.

The emblems of religion help the story's character seem more life-like as they attempt to fill the gap in their soul. The aching desire to fulfill one's dreams cannot be separated from reality. So, therefore, to keep a story to its truest sense, one must at least have emblems of religion.

I would have to agree with you here. Think that I may have said this earlier in the thread. We have common ground in believing that the story would not have seemed as real as it does if religion - in whatever form - were totally absent. Specifying one particular religion or sect would have pinned the story too close to reality, and so Tolkien played it just right.

Again the scene in which Sam remarks about the star light really resonates with me as it makes me realize that all of this, even the earth on which I stand, will one day pass away, yet there will always be something somewhere to continue the fight against darkness. The stars shown down when I wasn't here and they will still be shining when I'm gone, and somehow that makes it all okay.

littlemanpoet

04-19-2005, 09:14 AM

alatar

04-19-2005, 10:30 AM

Occam's razor means that we should accept the simplest solution that accounts for all known data, then question the solution as soon as new data becomes known. Of course, Occam was a Nominalist. Tolkien was a Universalist, I'm thinking. At any rate, have fun locking horns. ;)

Thought that Tolkien was devout Roman Catholic (Christian), and did not think that universalism was part of that doctrine. In another thread we've considered the fate of orcs, which, seemingly, are excluded from grace, but that's a different topic. My point, however, is that Tolkien may not have even given orc afterlife a thought, but if so, then would orcs not negate the universalism that you propose? And what of Black Numenoreans?

And how did you know that I had horns? ;)

bilbo_baggins

04-19-2005, 08:59 PM

To jump off the nitch that I got stuck on, I will assume that the reality we all try to agree to does actually exist. So, onward...

Hmm.

I just thought that we have been mentioning the emblems of religion in Tolkien's work without truly defining the emblems.

What are the emblems? Is it the inherent goodness in the moral ethics shown in the behaviour of Hobbits in their Shire? Or is it references to Illuvatar and the Undying Lands? What are emblems that need to stay and/or go? What is necessary and what is not?

Even though I for one enjoy the idea of having an Illuvatar, Tolkien seems to downplay his existence and even the existence of the Valar in the Trilogy and the Hobbit, which are more widely read. Even in the Silmarillion, which has much to do with the Valar, Illuvatar does not have much of an active role aside from the Ainundale. So it would seem that Eru is not an emblem that need stay.

Of course, the Maiar of Middle Earth, like the wizards, balrogs, and Tom Bombadil (he is a Maia, isn't he?) are very necessary, and could correlate to angels/demons in classic religion. They help to impart a special link of reality, though heightened sense of reality, into the story. So, in my opinion they can stay.

Comments?

b_b

littlemanpoet

04-20-2005, 02:26 PM

Thought that Tolkien was devout Roman Catholic (Christian), and did not think that universalism was part of that doctrine.

You're thinking of theological universalism, which is the assertion that "everybody makes it heaven in the end". The opposite of this is "limited grace".

I meant philosophical universalism, which is the assertion that that there is a "correspondence of our intellectual concepts to things existing outside our intellect."

Actually, I mis-stated in my last post. It is my opinion that Tolkien was a Realist in terms of the "problem of universals"; Occam was a Nominalist. There. That's better. For more on this, check
this (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm) out.

What are the emblems?

Good question, bilbo_baggins. There are actually two emblems in LotR: (1) when Faramir and his men stand and face the west at Henneth Annún. It's a religious act/observation. (2) when Frodo, Sam, or someone else calls upon Elbereth Gilthoniel for aid (equivalent to praying to the Virgin Mary).

Actually, Tolkien only downplays the existence of Iluvatar in LotR. In some Letter I just read in the last day or so, Tolkien says that the "historical situation" per se of the Third Age was such that there were no religious practices; there was religious practice on Númenor in the 2nd age.

Tolkien is pretty clear that the Valar (including Maiar) are created angels. He is far less clear regarding Tom Bombadil, on purpose, according to the Letters.

alatar

04-21-2005, 10:44 AM

You're thinking of theological universalism, which is the assertion that "everybody makes it heaven in the end". The opposite of this is "limited grace".

I meant philosophical universalism, which is the assertion that that there is a "correspondence of our intellectual concepts to things existing outside our intellect."

Actually, I mis-stated in my last post. It is my opinion that Tolkien was a Realist in terms of the "problem of universals"; Occam was a Nominalist. There. That's better. For more on this, check
this (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm) out.

Thanks for the information - my brain is already starting to hurt ;). And as I can't remember ever having philosophy, and as this thread has been tending to discuss religion, when I saw 'universalism,' one thought came to mind.

And emblems or no, it's always been clear to me in LOTR who were the 'good' and exactly what 'goodness' stood for/meant. The trilogy is filled with moral content that is not overtly specific to one religion. I never associated - even loosely - any of the content with angels or the Virgin Mary.

Lathriel

04-22-2005, 08:38 PM

Whatever religion is in a book,or traces of religion one thing they all have in common is that the good side defeats evil. And in general the good side favours freedom of speech, tolerance towards other countries,(or regions) and different cultures.

bilbo_baggins

04-23-2005, 10:21 AM

Yes, Lathriel, in most cases, emblems of religion in books are advocates of free speech and tolerance of other regions. But to me, Tolkiens works don't seem like they favor any regions or other ideas of speech. Take Denethors doomsaying for example. It didn't hold very well with Gandalf and the Hobbits. And it seemed as though no one really liked Mordor, Harad, or Rhun. ;)

"I never associated - even loosely - any of the content with angels or the Virgin Mary" (quote) - alatar

I can understand that, alatar, knowing your stated background. But do you see the implicit inference that Tolkien has made? He has shown such a need for the existence of spirits you must suspend your disbelief for a moment. (Even if I think your belief wrong, it must be temporarily suspended anyway :) )

The Vala and Maia are, in Tolkien's world, real. And they aren't native to Middle-Earth. I think an analogous statement from the real world would be "Not of this world." ;)

Does anyone here remember seeing Bethberry's sig?

b_b

Lathriel

04-23-2005, 12:06 PM

I also didn't realize there was a connection between angels and the Maiar. When I read fantasy books I usually read right over any religious connections unless they are very obvious (An extreme example Philip Pullman's Dark materials)
My family is not very religious and most of the things that I have learned from the bibel come from my grandmother who became protestant later in life. So this is a very interesting discussion for me.

alatar

04-25-2005, 10:59 AM

And it seemed as though no one really liked Mordor, Harad, or Rhun.

One wonders why that could have been...;) And actually, though I don't remember the exact text, but doesn't either Sam or Frodo show a little sympathy to the Haradrim (or whichever army they see) as one them wonders if the person were truly evil or just conscripted or lied to or something?

I can understand that, alatar, knowing your stated background. But do you see the implicit inference that Tolkien has made? He has shown such a need for the existence of spirits you must suspend your disbelief for a moment. (Even if I think your belief wrong, it must be temporarily suspended anyway)

I'm not sure exactly about the "need' for spirits but I accept them as an integral part of his (and seemingly our) world. Is there a human culture that does not show 'some' acknowledgement to a spirit world, whether the spirits be personal or impersonal 'forces?'

And you might be surprised regarding my stated background. My point is that, though I am somewhat knowledgeable (at least in my mind ;) ) in many religions and having a more-than-general understanding of Christianity, I did not see the Virgin Mary as Elbereth Gilthoniel.

The Vala and Maia are, in Tolkien's world, real. And they aren't native to Middle-Earth. I think an analogous statement from the real world would be "Not of this world."

To me what doesn't map out exactly is whereas the Elves had direct contact with the Valar and Maia - and even saw them as cousins - we do not have the same intermediary group. In Tolkien's world one has Iluvatar, Valar, Maia, Elves then humans. In a Christian world (which is what I assume we are discussing) one has the triune God, the arch-angels and angels then humans. And when humans encountered the Maia (at least in the case of the Istari), they did not see them as 'messengers of God' nor as spirit beings. Any thoughts?

bilbo_baggins

04-25-2005, 02:45 PM

To me what doesn't map out exactly is whereas the Elves had direct contact with the Valar and Maia - and even saw them as cousins - we do not have the same intermediary group. In Tolkien's world one has Iluvatar, Valar, Maia, Elves then humans. In a Christian world (which is what I assume we are discussing) one has the triune God, the arch-angels and angels then humans. And when humans encountered the Maia (at least in the case of the Istari), they did not see them as 'messengers of God' nor as spirit beings. Any thoughts?

To reply,

I wonder whether or not Tolkien wanted his world to map out exactly. ?? Is his world supposed to be completely as realistic as some hold our world to be? The intermediary groups need not have corrolaries in the 'real' (is it real?) world.

And though it seems that men did not hold the Istari in highest regard, those few like Aragorn or Legolas or Elrond did bow and give him some trifle of obeisance did they not?

And, since we do seem to be discussing, there are mentions of intermediary beings. Can you not recall, if you are as knowledgeable as you seem to be in Christian and para-Christian history and ancient theologies, the angelic men of the Nephilim? The Giants of Gaza? Goliath, and the sons of Anak? Thats a little of the track of this discussion, though. :rolleyes:

b_b

alatar

04-25-2005, 08:45 PM

I wonder whether or not Tolkien wanted his world to map out exactly. ?? Is his world supposed to be completely as realistic as some hold our world to be? The intermediary groups need not have corrolaries in the 'real' (is it real?) world.

His writings aren't history? :eek: ;)

And though it seems that men did not hold the Istari in highest regard, those few like Aragorn or Legolas or Elrond did bow and give him some trifle of obeisance did they not?

Surely. And less lofty citizens such as B. Butterbur held them in esteem too. But there seems to me a difference in reverence. And don't angels declare themselves as messengers of God whereas the Istari were not to be as open about their purpose (though Gandalf dropped a hint to Denethor). Plus the Valar sent the Istari, not Iluvatar. But I quibble.

And, since we do seem to be discussing, there are mentions of intermediary beings. Can you not recall, if you are as knowledgeable as you seem to be in Christian and para-Christian history and ancient theologies, the angelic men of the Nephilim? The Giants of Gaza? Goliath, and the sons of Anak? Thats a little of the track of this discussion, though.

Interesting. But I would first ask if we've ever found any giant bones of course. Then I would ask how these beings came into...well...being.

Are we to assume that angelic beings can mate with humans? How would that be, as angels do not have physicality? I would assume that fallen angels would not have this ability at the least. If they did, then how would one be able to tell the difference between a fallen angel that took on a body and the risen Christ?

Here (http://www.equip.org/free/DG064.pdf) is a good argument regarding the same.

Tolkien, via Iluvatar, permitted Maia-elf-human hybrids.

bilbo_baggins

04-25-2005, 09:14 PM

His writings aren't history?

Well, Tolkien did say that he was trying to write something emulating history, but his works seem to be more of a mythology and legendary background. I could go on to discuss with some fervor about how his works actually seem to disagree with the Christian view of world history that he fervently believed in. I therefore tend to think he was trying to write a piece of entertainment and not actually something that was seriously trying to explain history. Sort of a joke if you will...

Surely. And less lofty citizens such as B. Butterbur held them in esteem too. But there seems to me a difference in reverence. And don't angels declare themselves as messengers of God whereas the Istari were not to be as open about their purpose (though Gandalf dropped a hint to Denethor). Plus the Valar sent the Istari, not Iluvatar. But I quibble.

Yes, you are quibbiling, but I have to beg your ear here as well. Yes, in many cases, with Mary, for example, the angel declares itself a messenger, but how do you know that the person sitting beside you on the bus isn't an angel? Perhaps the people you see walking down the street have a spiritual purpose in their comings and goings. But I digress into theology again.

Interesting. But I would first ask if we've ever found any giant bones of course. Then I would ask how these beings came into...well...being.

Are we to assume that angelic beings can mate with humans? How would that be, as angels do not have physicality? I would assume that fallen angels would not have this ability at the least. If they did, then how would one be able to tell the difference between a fallen angel that took on a body and the risen Christ?

Tolkien, via Iluvatar, permitted Maia-elf-human hybrids.

Interesting discussion. 'Applause'.

I do have to bring up the fact that 'bones of unusual size' have been found in the Middle East, but they are not complete evidence I admit. Instead I rely on the tales and legends that speak of them, and tell of how they still live among some of us. And yes, since I believe that they were descendants of angels that descended, rather than fell, that angels can take physicality of some sort.

And one would be able to tell the difference between any angel (not just a fallen one) and the risen Christ (or His Holy Spirit for that matter) because His presence would begin to fill the space in your human soul which is expressed in man's desire for spirituality. Or will we have to disagree that that exists as well?

One must needs realize that without traces, or emblems, of religion, such as Faramir and co. facing the West, that tie back into this world, the entire necessity of the struggle dies. Even in this world, if we lose the emblems of religion, the need for us to be on the side of 'good' dissappears. If it has no meaning why should we not join with Saruman and Sauron? At least then we can enjoy power and opulence as long we are his faithful servants. He would enjoy good people with high rank like Gimli or Aragorn, Legolas or Gandalf.

The emblems of religion keep the good side, the right side, the thing we fight for.

b_b

alatar

04-25-2005, 09:47 PM

Thanks for the reply - I'm glad that we can have this discussion in a gentlepersonly fashion (I wasn't sure what your reply would be as I never know how closely to the bone I'm cutting).

Well, Tolkien did say that he was trying to write something emulating history, but his works seem to be more of a mythology and legendary background. I could go on to discuss with some fervor about how his works actually seem to disagree with the Christian view of world history that he fervently believed in. I therefore tend to think he was trying to write a piece of entertainment and not actually something that was seriously trying to explain history. Sort of a joke if you will...

I tried to get my smilies in quickly but maybe not quick enough, but anyway I'm in total agreement - though I still like to pretend that it's the 'real' history.

Yes, you are quibbiling, but I have to beg your ear here as well. Yes, in many cases, with Mary, for example, the angel declares itself a messenger, but how do you know that the person sitting beside you on the bus isn't an angel? Perhaps the people you see walking down the street have a spiritual purpose in their comings and goings. But I digress into theology again.

Can't argue with you here - I think that it's put nicely in Isaiah 55:8-10 regarding God's ways and purposes.

I do have to bring up the fact that 'bones of unusual size' have been found in the Middle East, but they are not complete evidence I admit. Instead I rely on the tales and legends that speak of them, and tell of how they still live among some of us. And yes, since I believe that they were descendants of angels that descended, rather than fell, that angels can take physicality of some sort.

If you are referring to a photo of people digging around some huge bones, well, that's a hoax. And I would disagree regarding angels (spirits) taking physical form. I believe that in the cases in the Bible when they do, this was done by God, not the angel (unless the angel is an Old Testament Christophony). Demons would not have the ability to create a body that would allow for mating unless this were sanctioned by God.

Another thought is that Tolkien, as stated, permitted the mingling of Maia, Eldar and Edain 'blood.' The assumption is that they are all of one species (or Tolkien didn't consider biology). What was he trying to say regarding these pairings? Was he trying to show that some have the blood of a divine? Thoughts?

One must needs realize that without traces, or emblems, of religion, such as Faramir and co. facing the West, that tie back into this world, the entire necessity of the struggle dies. Even in this world, if we lose the emblems of religion, the need for us to be on the side of 'good' dissappears. If it has no meaning why should we not join with Saruman and Sauron? At least then we can enjoy power and opulence as long we are his faithful servants. He would enjoy good people with high rank like Gimli or Aragorn, Legolas or Gandalf.

The emblems of religion keep the good side, the right side, the thing we fight for.

So what you are saying is that the emblems are just manifestations/signposts/markers for the side to which our soul gravitates? (not sure that what I just wrote makes sense even to me ;) ). What I am trying to say is that Faramir et al have souls, and these can choose the West or the East, and one of the outward demonstrable ways of choosing West is observing the Standing Silence?

Estelyn Telcontar

04-26-2005, 01:11 AM

I'm reading Patrick Curry's Defending Middle-Earth and found some passages there which apply to this topic. He feels that there is no obvious use of one religion and its symbols (despite what Tolkien said about consciously revising it to be consistent with Catholic belief) because it is not limited to one specific set of doctrines. Here is one thought that I find particularly interesting: The Lord of the Rings transcends any strictly monotheistic reading. Instead, it manifests an extraordinary ethico-religious richness and complexity which derives from the blending of Christian, pagan, and humanist ingredients. It is all of these, and no single one of them. He also quotes Tolkien himself, from one of his Letters: Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary "real" world. That would definitely preclude outward signs of a specific religion.

It is his combination of mythological and religious elements that I find so fascinating in Middle-earth. The idea that the old "gods" are angelic beings works for me without requiring too much "willing suspension of belief". ;) Yet there can be no usage of the most important icon of Christian faith, the cross, for example, since there is no incarnation of God himself there. He did try to include that possibility in his later writing, especially the Athrabeth.

Lalwendë

04-26-2005, 02:55 AM

I want to pick up on a few interesting points here. Firstly, I see that the Valar and Maiar can be viewed as somehow corresponding to angels, though this is not something which comes through strongly to me. Maybe how we view them is to do with what we have learned in our own spiritual lives? I was brought up Protestant and such figures did not feature strongly in worship, whereas in the Catholic church (some relatives were strict Catholics), the angels do take on an almost mythical status (the saints could possibly be seen as corresponding to Elves?).

I have said it before, but I shall say it again, the Valar and Maiar can just as easily be recognised in figures from other religions/beliefs as they can from Christianity. They are strongly reminiscent of the various Pagan gods and goddesses, especially in how the Valar correspond to various aspects of the natural world. It is important to note that many of these were Universal figures, common to many cultures, and eventually absorbed into Christianity. Thinking of the Valar and Maiar in this way also solves another problem, and that is with figures such as Gandalf. Yes, he is not a mere mortal, but likewise, he is not a god. And I am sure Tolkien was keen to make sure we realised this, as part of what makes Saruman bad is that he attempts to behave in a god-like fashion. Gandalf is instead somewhat like Merlin, an intercessor between the Gods and men. He is very much real and can be killed, yet he is somehow 'apart'.

This is why I think that looking at Tolkien's work through the eyes of one belief/religion only is risky. There is much within from many religions, and so to interpret it against the tenets of only one religion can be troublesome.

Even if we use Christianity as our measuring stick then we can run into problems. Eru is clearly not a Trinity figure, so which branch of Christianity can we apply to him? He is definitely not a Catholic or Protestant God, is he a Unitarian God? And there is one immense difference. In Arda there has been no Christ, no redeemer. Those within Arda must atone for their own sins. It is not a Christian world, but nor is it anything else we have here in our world.

Aiwendil

04-26-2005, 06:52 AM

Lalwende wrote:
Eru is clearly not a Trinity figure

Is he not? Certainly if so it is not explicit. But then Christianity interprets the God of the Old Testament as a trinity, and this is certainly not explicit there (for indeed, Judaism interprets the same texts with a unitary God). Without a precise theological statement, one could view Iluvatar either way, I think.

But note that in the "Athrabeth" we do have what seems like a reference to a Messianic incarnation of Eru. Add to this the possible interpretation of the "Secret Fire" as something like Christianity's Holy Spirit and I think you do have a trinity.

HerenIstarion

04-26-2005, 07:08 AM

Trinity in ME = Eru + Flame Imperishable + Incarnation hinted at as far-future event in Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth.

Backing up Aiwendil here. Or maybe pushing it a little bit further.

Symbols of [real/modern] religion(s) would not fit on the 'anachronism' basis, though. (On assumption ME is our world in some other [imagined] time)

Tolkien let slip some things, though. The colours, per instance. Blue and gold are colours of Heaven in Christian art. The serpent on Southorn or Harad banner, for another. Little things like that.

Lalwendë

04-26-2005, 07:19 AM

Without a precise theological statement, one could view Iluvatar either way, I think.

How I see it is that if we can view him either way, then we can only go on what evidence we have, and that is that Eru is One. However, the idea of the Secret Fire being a possible link to the concept of the Holy Spirit is a good one - perhaps a theological concept expressed through an elemental one, which I like.

As there are differing concepts within Christianity of the nature of God, I find it interesting that the Catholic nature of God does not come through so clearly as it might be expected to, considering Tolkien's strong faith. We have to interpret the nature of Eru, while in Catholicism, the nature of God is central. Eru could as easily be One, as in other branches of Christianity, and indeed, in other religions.

Although, to further muddy the waters, what was Gandalf's true nature following his return to Middle Earth? Could he have been seen as a Messianic figure?

What's quite odd about this whole discussion is that as lmp said:

Tolkien asserted that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy

And yet, here we all are, looking for them. Would we look for them if we knew nothing of Tolkien's faith? Does it necessarily follow that because he personally was a Catholic that he would put his own religion in his work? If he made the statement that emblems of religion did not belong, then wouldn't he have taken great care that they were not there in the text? So when we find them it could be either that we want to find them, or maybe that such emblems of religion are unavoidable as they are shared across cultures and beliefs, and even across time.

HerenIstarion

04-26-2005, 07:31 AM

Eru could as easily be One, as in other branches of Christianity

There is no branch of Christianity I'm aware of which does not accept the concept of Trinity

The concept of Christ's nature is where views may differ (Was He human or God by nature, or both. Most part of Christians believe that both)

And yet, here we all are, looking for them.

Not them exactly, I surmise. Slips of the tongue (conscious in the revision, no doubt ;)), as mentioned, mainly.

Lalwendë

04-26-2005, 08:19 AM

There is no branch of Christianity I'm aware of which does not accept the concept of Trinity

The concept of Christ's nature is where views may differ (Was He human or God by nature, or both. Most part of Christians believe that both)

Unitarians reject the Nicean Creed; this has been a tradition among some Christians (and a heresy) since the 4th century, as the Trinity was seen as something 'added' to Christianity by theologians who were in favour of strengthening the position of Christ as a divine entity. Prior to this, the Trinity was just one of many ideas. Interestingly, not all Unitarians would identify themselves as Christian with a big 'c', or even at all, and it is not a central creed or dogma that the Nicean Creed be rejected, as each person seeks their answers from whatever sacred texts/beliefs that seem appropriate. This embraces the concept of Christ as a prophet or teacher, but not an incarnation of God - a belief which many Christians share whether unitarian or trinitarian.

:eek:

Formendacil

04-26-2005, 11:24 AM

Prior to this, the Trinity was just one of many ideas.

Really?

I am somewhat skeptical. Quote me one early Christian father who didn't believe in the Trinity who was NOT condemned as a heretic.

Furthermore, remembering the mystery of Unity and Trinity, remember that while Catholics believe in a three-person God, they are still believing in "The One" God. While Eru is specifically referred to as "The One", where does it say that He is One Person? For all that we know, He could be Three Persons. :p

Lalwendë

04-26-2005, 01:45 PM

Yet this was how Christianity did develop in its early years, until 325 when the Nicene Creed (which I spelled incorrectly ;) ) established the 'nature of God' as a Trinity. After then, yes, many will have been murdered as heretics. There's a good link here (http://www.uua.org/info/origins.html) which explains some of the early history, though there's vast amounts of early Christian history on the net which goes into this more deeply.

Since this afternoon, I've discovered that other Christian faiths which are unitarian (small u) include Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and certain Pentecostal churches. The essential difference between trinitarians and unitarians is that while the former worship Christ as a deity, as an aspect of God, the latter do not, but he is just as important. Both still worship God, he just feels a bit different.

Well, my position is still that we don't know that Eru is Three or One. I would say that for Eru to be a trinity then we would have to have seen a Messiah on Arda in order for that to happen. There may be a Messiah at some point in the future, but there hasn't been one as far as we know (unless maybe we start pondering Gandalf... :eek: ), so Eru is still One in terms of the timeframe of Arda we know about. In terms of our world I'm sure people did not start to become Christians before Christ appeared? That there has not yet been a Messiah could even hint that Arda is a Judaic world, though as I don't know enough about that, I'm not going to nail my colours to the mast on that opinion!

Maybe this is why Tolkien didn't want to see emblems of religion in fantasy! He knew we'd start arguing! ;)

Aiwendil

04-26-2005, 05:22 PM

Lalwende wrote:
There may be a Messiah at some point in the future, but there hasn't been one as far as we know (unless maybe we start pondering Gandalf... )

Of course, while Gandalf may be a kind of Messianic figure, he is emphatically not a "person" of God.

so Eru is still One in terms of the timeframe of Arda we know about. In terms of our world I'm sure people did not start to become Christians before Christ appeared?

Yes, but once that's conflating two issues. Christian theology (excluding the unitarian sects you mentioned) holds that God was always a trinity, even before there were any Christians.

That there has not yet been a Messiah could even hint that Arda is a Judaic world, though as I don't know enough about that, I'm not going to nail my colours to the mast on that opinion!

I think that the "Athrabeth" is rather strong evidence that Tolkien considered, at least at one time, the incarnation of God to be a definite part of Arda's future. Of course, there is also a Messianic tradition in Judaism.

bilbo_baggins

04-26-2005, 07:26 PM

You leave a thread for one day, and everyone decides to reply to it.... Now I look like a nobody. :rolleyes:

Of course, while Gandalf may be a kind of Messianic figure, he is emphatically not a "person" of God.

May I ask what you mean by a "person" of God? Technically Gandalf is of the Valar, which are of Eru, so Gandalf is of Eru, indirectly. He isn't of the God in this world of course, because as has been shown so vigorously, Tolkien's world is not an actual picture of ours.

Of course, there is also a Messianic tradition in Judaism.

And Judaism holds that the Messiah has yet to come, so it could correlate to LoTR rather more easily than mainstream Christianity.

To beg a question that I don't think has come up is if all the emblems of religion that come up in the books (like the colors and facing the west, and even mentions of afterlife) are intentional? Some are, when he revises to make sure he does not include overtly heretical thoughts, but are all the connections made because he wanted them in? Or perhaps he couldn't have them out?

And, yes, I'm baiting. :p

b_b, Esq.

HerenIstarion

04-27-2005, 04:01 AM

but are all the connections made because he wanted them in? Or perhaps he couldn't have them out?

Some are , some were unconscious. Per isntance, serpented banner of the enemy might have been intentional, the colour of the banner (though in accordance with the whole picture) might have been accidental. But one can never be sure. Why is it Samurai Jack wears white, whilst Aku is the darkness itself? Conventions?

Some other interesting things to take a look at:

Green as representation of Evil (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=10734) (by [b]Joy)
Tolkien spirituality... a hint of buddhism? (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=11393) (by THE Ka)
The Role of Fate in Middle Earth (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=1172) (by Mithadan)
The Downfall of Númenor (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=2405) (by Mithadan)
Was Eru a Sadist? (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=10705) (by Bombadil)
Ten Commandments for Middle Earth (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=1200) (by Aerandir Carnesir)
Is there any hope of Redemption? (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=1647[/url) (by The SaucepanMan)
Descent into Hell!!! Rarrr!...Well, sort of... (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=11729) (by Lush)
Science and Faith in Middle Earth (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=11312) (by Fordim Hedgethistle)
Forever? (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=11359) (by Son of Númenor)
Nebulous "It" and Absolutes (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=10513) (by Dininziliel)
Finrod, Andreth, and the coming of Eru (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=472) (by Angry Hill Troll)
Seven Deadly Sins in Middle Earth (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=2314) (by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh)
The Yin and the Yang of it (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=2354) (by Kaiserin)
Inherent Evil (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=1619) (by Lord of Angmar)
Inherent Evil (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=317) (by mhoram)
The Gift of Men and Atrabeth (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=4407) (by Voronwe)
The Ring and the Cross (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=443) (by Manwe Sulimo)
Tolkien - Evolutionist or Creationalist? (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=2890) (by Lotessa)
Hope and Hopelessness (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=1272) (by Estelyn Telcontar)

Bêthberry

04-27-2005, 10:50 AM

I would like for now to move away from the questions of intentionality and return to the intial framing of the topic from littlemanpoet and Son of Númenor's first reply.

The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tolkien asserted that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy.... or something to that effect (I may not have this worded or remembered quite right).

It certainly works very well in LotR. It was one of his primary criticisms of the works of C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams (fellow "inklings").

Do you agree or disagree that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy?

What were Tolkien's reasons for discluding them? Which reasons were valid back when he wrote? Are they still valid now?

Tolkien's assertion about emblems of religion having no place in fantasy could be linked to his dislike for allegory. Fantasy, Tolkien deemed, should have the ultimate purpose of lifting its reader to 'eucatastrophe' -- something along the lines of a state of pure revelation and joy. It would be hard for readers of different faiths to attain such a state with overtly Christian (or Muslim, Jewish, etc.) symbolism penetrating the narrative. I for one agree with Professor Tolkien; if Arwen's banner for Aragorn had a cross emblazoned on it, or if Gondor's seven stars were Stars of David, I think I would be automatically inclined to view Middle-earth as an allegorical rather than a purely fantastic world, and its purpose as evangelical rather than eucatastrophic.

I am going to consider these posts in light of a particular chapter, the 'Journey to the Cross-Roads" chapter of Book IV.

I have in the Chapter by Chapter discussion explained my reading about this chapter but I think that I can also apply my thoughts fruitfully here. I am also going to take lmp's "emblems" and use the concept more widely, to include symbolism of a particular sort. I hope this would not be taking his thoughts too broadly for what he initially intended.

In this chapter, Tolkien gives little dialogue, with the main action being the hurried and harried trek of Sam, Frodo and Gollem from the respite of Henneth Annûn towards the fateful steps of Cirith Ungol. Despite their fears, they are undiscovered and nothing happens, not even the dreadful pull of dark Mordor upon Frodo and the Ring, which begins the next chapter.

What this does is highlight the description Tolkiens offers of the geography and the terrain. It is brought to the fore as the primary topic of the chapter. That description depends very much upon darkness and upon a day that does not dawn but subsists witha sickly brownish smudge and then darkness. Some of the detail may in fact have derived from Tolkien's experience in the trenches of World War I, when the incessant guns and smoke cast a grey pallor over the sky.

Yet the predominant words are darkness and evil. Evil is repeated several times, to the point that even the road is called evil. Clearly the imagery is building towards the culmination of Minas Morgul as hell. However, because the description is so dominant in this chapter, it seems--at least to me--that Tolkien has here moved to close to allegory. All the imagery pertains so closely to that of the traditional iconography of hell that I move out of the fantasy world of Middle earth and into the primary world of Tolkien's faith. I think Son of Númenor's point about evangelical versus eucatastrophic pertains particularly well to this chapter, unlike most of the rest of LotR.

In its most extreme example, this occurs in the statement that a road can be evil. This is at least the fourth use of that word in as many pages.

He [Gollem] would not rest on the ground so near the evil road ...

The basis for this statement, and the rest of the description of Mordor as a land of incarnate evil lies in the theological concept that evil can be incarnate in a person or being. This is a philosophical or theological position and one which not every reader will ascribe to. Those who don't will, I suggest, have difficulty with this chapter because it highlights the description. Rather than being suggestive, as Tolkien I think wisely argues elsewhere, it becomes literal fact.

Coupled with this particular use of darkness, black and evil is the obvious symbolic import of the setting sun shining on the vandalised head of the statue of the king, with the even more symbolic portent of the ring of white flowers.

I think Tolkien was at least partly aware of the difficulty in writing this chapter, given his very interesting decision to give Sam a meaningful dream. I would argue, then, that this chapter demonstrates the validity of Tolkien's argument against allegory and against explicit religious symbols in fantasy. It destroys the artistry of the sub-created world by depending too much upon the iconography of the artist's primary world. Tolkien bore the truth of his idea in his own writing.

littlemanpoet

04-27-2005, 01:38 PM

Bêthberry, reading your post was the first time I ever cognated Minas Morgul as hell. Are you certain that it's Tolkien allegorizing and not you? Is there somewhere in Tolkien's Letters that he refers to Minas Morgul or Mordor as his depiction of hell? The only adjective Tolkien uses for the vale of Minas Morgul in the Letters, that I could find, was "dreadful". I'll give you that MM is hellish, but that's as far as I can go.

I admit that I cannot come at this from the same space as some of you (I almost said "objectivity" instead of "space", but who are we kidding? None of us are really objective about this topic), because I was born in, raised in, and still practice, the same faith as Tolkien; so some things are apparently "home" to me that are alien to other readers.

That said, I find it interesting that you admitted that Tolkien's vision of Minas Morgul seemed to have come from his experience in WW1; in my recent reading of the chapter, I had the same thought. So did you cognate Minas Morgul as hell in your very first reading, Bêthberry? Did others of you? If you did, then this section did function for you as a disenchanting emblem of religion. I suspect that Tolkien had no such intention, but wrote this out of who he was just as much as every other part of LotR. A writer with integrity cannot be blamed for that which his readers bring to his work. Not that I think anybody's accusing Tolkien of lack of integrity; I'm just trying to point some things out; with limited success, I'm sure.

davem

04-27-2005, 03:55 PM

Isn't this simply the nature of Faerie - both good & evil are incarnate in that world rather than simply moral concepts. LotR isn't a 'realistic' novel, but a fairy story - which is why its so relevant (& why so many 'realistic' novels are not).

Lalwendë

04-27-2005, 04:20 PM

It's an interesting idea, Bethberry, and now I'll have to read that chapter over again to see if I can see what you see. But for me, something else always stood out as emblematic of Hell, and that is Moria. The Balrog too reminds me of Satan, certainly of the pictures of Satan that my Catholic grandmother conjoured up in my mind, that he was very much a real being who could be 'battled' rather than a concept.

This is why I think that while there are emblems of religion in the text, as it simply cannot be helped, these symbols are in some cases universal, it is very much dependent upon a reader's own beliefs and understandings as to what they pick up on. From my own understanding of Christ and God, I simply cannot see that Eru is or could be a trinity figure, while others can. For my own part, I see emblems of the old religions throughout the text while others do not see these.

alatar

04-28-2005, 02:09 AM

Never saw Minas Morgul as Hell - surely a dreadful place, but if there were a Hell in the story, then I think that it would be located somewhat closer to Barad Dur. Does not the concept of Hell require not just a 'yucky' place but also active torment? The experience of Gollum and whatever was done to his fingers comes to mind.

And in regards to emblems such as Hell (as described) and the serpent on the flag etc; aren't there certain (possibly cultural) images that are typically used to signify 'bad?'

My boy, just this past week, found a small snake. Initially he just observed the same and told Mom, who of course thought that he was fibbing (it's a bit early in the season). When she finally saw that it was real, they all took off running (son, daughters, cousins) as Mom was screaming in her retreat. Anyway, my assumption is that if these children weren't born with an innate fear/respect for snakes, well, they surely have one now. I cannot think that if I were to draw a serpent flag for my children that they would equate it (especially now) with 'the good guys.'

Same goes with anything regarding darkness - I think that it's instinctual to be wary of the same.

Religions, whether created or revealed, surely include these same basics.

The Saucepan Man

04-28-2005, 09:59 AM

I have, as with most threads these days, been observing this one in the background with interest.

Generally, I ascribe to the view that Tolkien did not include overt emblems of his (or any other) religion since that would have risked prejudicing the credibility of the fantasy world that he had created, by jolting the reader back into the real world. Additionally, given his interest in the motifs of mythology and legend, he could not include these alongside overt Catholic symbolism without compromising both.

But something that Bêthberry said got me thinking:

The basis for this statement, and the rest of the description of Mordor as a land of incarnate evil lies in the theological concept that evil can be incarnate in a person or being. This is a philosophical or theological position and one which not every reader will ascribe to. Those who don't will, I suggest, have difficulty with this chapter because it highlights the description.The concept of both living beings and objects being capable of being imbued with good or evil is a concept present in both the myths and legends which Tolkien drew upon and in his religion. So he is able to work with the concept without compromising either influence.

But Bêthberry questions whether those who do not ascribe to this concept are able to accept its presence in a work of fantasy literature such as LotR without it destroying (or at least affecting) the fictional world's "reality" for them. Now, while I am by no means an atheist, I do not have strong religious beliefs and religion does not take a central role in my life. And I certainly do not ascribe to the view that, in "real life", people or objects can be inherently evil. Yet I have no difficulty in accepting this concept in LotR. To me, it is consistent with the world that Tolkien has created and made credible.

Yet I wonder whether I would have the same reaction if I was to read the book for the first time now, rather than when I was young (and impressionable ;) ). And I wonder too how acceptable (in terms of credibility), Tolkien's works are to complete non-believers.

Certainly, had Tolkien's works included overt Christian symbolism and been evangelical in nature, this would have put me off them (certainly now, if not when I first read them).

Lalwendë

04-28-2005, 10:51 AM

Now, while I am by no means an atheist, I do not have strong religious beliefs and religion does not take a central role in my life. And I certainly do not ascribe to the view that, in "real life", people or objects can be inherently evil. Yet I have no difficulty in accepting this concept in LotR. To me, it is consistent with the world that Tolkien has created and made credible.

This sums up where I am coming from; I don't subscribe to any particular belief, but I am also no atheist. And I too don't agree with the idea of inherent evil. So why can I accept this?

Possibly it has, quite literally, to do with 'suspension of belief'? Not only do we have to let go of our own world to some extent to get into Tolkien's created world, but we also have to let go of our own beliefs. Within the work are ideas and symbols that might or might not be ascribed to all kinds of beliefs, and while it is in no way wrong to search for and identify these, it's also important to realise that this is a secondary world with a different moral structure.

What intrigues me about it is to consider whether I myself would cope in Arda, and I have to come to the conclusion that I would not. For one, I would have some misgivings about whether the Orcs really were inherently evil, because at heart I'm a liberal (small L politically ;) ).

I'm not sure if age might always have something to do with it, as when I first read the books I was beginning to develop keen political opinions which I think would have rejected a lot of the moral stances found within Arda. But maybe experience might have something to do with it. Yet I know someone who used to be a staunch marxist who read LotR not all that long ago and was not offended.

And in regards to emblems such as Hell (as described) and the serpent on the flag etc; aren't there certain (possibly cultural) images that are typically used to signify 'bad?'

Some time ago I watched a documentary which explored the human emotion of disgust; it is just as instinctive a reaction to us as fear, love, hate etc. Apparently disgust is inbuilt as a natural reaction to those things which are bad for us, which may explain why most of us are not fond of flying insects or food which smells rotten. A serpent may cause many to react with natural disgust which is why it is often shown as a symbol of evil. Conversely, many will deliberately over-ride this natural reaction and take a conscious interest in serpents; this may be why those who wish to convey their power choose such emblems as a way of conveying how masterful over such trifles as emotions they are.

Bêthberry

04-28-2005, 10:57 AM

Never saw Minas Morgul as Hell - surely a dreadful place, but if there were a Hell in the story, then I think that it would be located somewhat closer to Barad Dur.

Well, heck, alatar, hell is an expansive place. Dante's has several levels and Milton's has a capital city (Pandemonium). ;)

Are you certain that it's Tolkien allegorizing and not you? Is there somewhere in Tolkien's Letters that he refers to Minas Morgul or Mordor as his depiction of hell? The only adjective Tolkien uses for the vale of Minas Morgul in the Letters, that I could find, was "dreadful". I'll give you that MM is hellish, but that's as far as I can go.

I admit that I cannot come at this from the same space as some of you (I almost said "objectivity" instead of "space", but who are we kidding? None of us are really objective about this topic), because I was born in, raised in, and still practice, the same faith as Tolkien; so some things are apparently "home" to me that are alien to other readers.

That said, I find it interesting that you admitted that Tolkien's vision of Minas Morgul seemed to have come from his experience in WW1; in my recent reading of the chapter, I had the same thought. So did you cognate Minas Morgul as hell in your very first reading, Bêthberry? Did others of you? If you did, then this section did function for you as a disenchanting emblem of religion. I suspect that Tolkien had no such intention, but wrote this out of who he was just as much as every other part of LotR.

Well, I can certainly see why you did not participate in Fordim's Canonicity thread, lmp. :) My point here was to consider Tolkien's comment and relate it to his work rather than to Lewis's as is often done. For much of LotR, I think Tolkien handles his allusions to his faith very much in keeping with his avowed intention. For me, he creates a secondary world of great awe and splendor, with the delight being that his allusions ask for readers such as yourself and myself to intuit that fuller meaning. I think this is a crucial aspect of Tolkien's art, that he choose deliberately to veil some things. In doing so, he places certain demands on his readers. He expects them to become very active readers, seeking out patterns, consistencies, putting things together. To my mind, he is an author who holds out greater rewards for readers who are creative rather than passive.

To that end, this chapter of the Cross Roads disappointed me because it destroyed that secondary world. The imagery, symbols, descriptions, became too obvious. Do I discount Tolkien as a superb writer for that? Hardly. I cannot think of one writer who does not at times fall from the hight of his or her talent. Authors are, after all, human, and humans are on this long defeat.

Like you, I have recently been reading about Tolkien's World War I experiences and that likely helped me on this reading place some of the characteristics of the felt experience here. Yet I don't think they are intended to suggest that experience, to lead readers to say, yes, this was what it was like in the trenches. The experience supplied "information" which, together with Tolkien's literary and religious experience, went into the cauldron here to describe this long march.

Why did I refer these descriptions to Hell? Because--and this was even as a child--I understand the evil in LotR as an absence of goodness, a complete and utter separation from those things which Galadriel, Aragorn, Elrond, Frodo, Sam stand for. Anyone who grew up reading Victorian literature as I did knows Tophet and Moloch's Valley of Hinnon, and Milton and Dante too. The cultural milieu is inescapable--even if one wanted to. While the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) discusses hell as a place of punishment for those who have chosen to reject God, Pope John Paul II (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html) discussed hell more in terms of estrangement from God. It is this concept which informs my reading. That it differs from yours should not be the grounds for innuendo about the lack of integrity in other readings.

Isn't this simply the nature of Faerie - both good & evil are incarnate in that world rather than simply moral concepts. LotR isn't a 'realistic' novel, but a fairy story - which is why its so relevant (& why so many 'realistic' novels are not).

I clearly was not clear in my explanation! My point here was not to deny the role of good and evil in Faerie but to suggest that, for me, because of the way this chapter is written (and came to be written) this particular part of LotR destroyed the secondary world for me by bringing the references from the primary world too directly to mind. I don't have this response to other chapters we have already discussed; I don't object to good and evil in Lothlorien or Moria. My point is I guess an aesthetic one rather than a narrative one. This is why I found Son of Númenor's distinction between evangelical and eucatastrophic so interesting. SoNo generated an explanation from Tolkien's own ideas. And it was that creativity which prompted my reply here.

EDIT: cross posted with SpM and Lal!

Mithalwen

04-28-2005, 11:33 AM

To put a slightly contrary point (surprise, suprise ;) ), I was a believer when I first read the books and am now am definitely not (and this has not affected my love of the books btw), however I think it may be possible for people to be inherently evil (for want of a better word).

A couple of years ago, I attended some lectures and workshops given by an eminent criminal psychologist and while in many of the cases examined you could argue nature v. nurture indefinitely the cases I found most disturbing were those where the criminal behaviour could have biological factors. One is the vastly disproportionate number of men in prison who have two y chromosomes against the general population. While some argue that the slightly freaky appearance this gives leads to alienation and so an increased likelihood of becoming criminally antisocial, I don't think the genetic factor can be discounted completely : there is that more common genetic defect that vastly increases your chances of winding up in gaol, the Xy combo ;) .... Men with an extra y chromosome are statistically more likely to become violent killers, women with an extra x chromosome are merely extra girly girls who on no account should be allowed to drive cars ( I might as well offend absolutely everyone while I am at it) .... I think there could be something in it.

Scarier were these kids with abnormal brainwaves - they were unbelievably violent and destructive so much so that even family members feared for their safety, and family pets were killed without seeming malice or remorse.

All this, if it is ever proved has great repercussions - morally and legally can people be punished for things which are not their fault? But the wider community has to be protected and if someone is biologically destined to kill do you let them walk the streets until they do?

All this is a long way of saying that the concept of evil is not exclusive to religion.
*confusing self now*

Formendacil

04-28-2005, 01:13 PM

I can believe that there is an influencing factor in that criminals have a greater tendency towards having an extra X chromosome (in men). However, I cannot believe that this necessarily makes them criminal. An extra chromosome means a different physical makeup, which make them uncomfortable in society. Is the fact that more of them tend to go into crime a sign that such men are inherently criminal, or that such men tend to feel unaccepted in normal society, and thus tend to leave it? Either way, I'm not sold.

And then with regards to brainwaves, I will admit to know next to nil on the subject, but I wonder. Are the brainwaves present AFTER the evil sets in (and thus as an effect of it), or are they there BEFORE (and thus the cause)?

If you apply the same reasoning to the orks, one wonders: the orks seem inherently evil. Is this a result of their "culture", which forces them into evil, which modifies their brain so that they are "conditioned" to be evil? Or is it something that they are born with, making them automatically evil?

I also find it interesting that Hell is being read into Minas Morgul...

SpM and Lalwende have both admitted to being not-exactly-active religious-wise, and some others, such as alatar, are self-confessed as not coming from the same religious stock as the good professor.

Now I am a Catholic. Anyone looking at my current signature should be able to read this and say "duh! you're Catholic". What's more, I am a well-educated in the Catholic faith, and actually believe everything taught in it. So I believe that single priests are good, male-only priests are fine, that Hell actually exists, and no, contraception is wrong. In other words, exactly the same religion that Tolkien himself professed, quite strongly, throughout his entire life.

Now, I am not trying to inflame anybody with my firm Catholicism. I am simply setting up for my point, which is this: I find it rather amazing that I, whose religious background is the same as the author's, did not read this religious application into Minas Morgul.

Yes, it was more than a decade from Tolkien's death until my birth. Yes, it was a lot longer from his childhood until mine. Yes, I have not got the EXTENSIVE training that he had in pagan mythology. All the same, Catholic beliefs have not changed in 50 years. Some of the Disciplines have, some of the emphasis has, but none of the basic doctrines. So how is it that Tolkien, who consciously revised The Lord of the Rings as a Catholic work, didn't raise any flags in my mind in this chapter? Ever.

It's something to think about, don't you agree?

davem

04-28-2005, 01:18 PM

Thinking about it, doesn't LotR start to become more & more loaded with 'symbolism' from this point on? Mordor is depicted as Hell on earth, with, at its heart, a place of supernatural fire, Minas Tirith is referred to in terms which make it seem a physical 'echo' of the Heavenly City, the Eagle's song, as Shippey has pointed out bears striking similarities to the psalms of the King James Bible both in style & wording - 'Sing ye people of the Tower of Guard...The Black Gate is thrown down, & your King has passed through & he is victorious. And he shall come again & dwell among you all the days of your lives'...etc. We also have (Shippey again) the fact that the Fall of Sauron takes place on March 25th - the old date of Easter, etc, etc. Not to mention Frodo's passing into the West, which may or may not symbolise his death, depending on how you choose to read it....

It may be significant that this 'turn' in the narrative takes place after the encounter with Faramir - in fact it could be argued that this 'turn' occurs at the moment in Henneth Annun where the Rangers turn to face West before eating. Something is 'invoked' there which seems to become active in the story, which take an increasingly symbolic turn from then on, moving away from the 'pagan' to the 'Christian', from 'myth' to 'Religion'. Its almost like we experience 'Incarnation' from this point, as things which up to this point have been merely history & legend become real & present. Sam's discussion of Story seems to refer to this, when he talks about the Star Glass containing the Light of the Silmaril borne by Earendel. We've gone from 'myth' to 'reality' all of a sudden. The 'Holy' Light of the Silmaril, the Light of the Two Trees, suddenly blazes forth in fact from the hand of Frodo the Hobbit. He holds forth the Light of the Trees in the Darkness of Cirith Ungol, & once again we're back to 'primary world' religious emblems - 'The Light Shines in the Darkness, & the Darkness has not overcome it.'

Yet, if Middle-earth was this world in ancient times, & if, as Tolkien believed, Christianity is True, why would such things not be present in some form in Middle-earth? What I'm getting at is, the forms, the 'outward signs' of Religion certainly do not belong in Faerie (or in the historical period before they came into being) but the 'facts' those forms & emblems refer to, if they are True must exist there, if Faerie itself is at all True.

(Davem takes refuge in his sig, in case he's just contradicted himself....)

littlemanpoet

04-28-2005, 08:49 PM

The Eagles' words being reminiscent of King James English may have more to do with the state of early 17th century English than biblicality of language; I wonder what the Psalms would sound like if they were translated verbatim from Davidic Hebrew to modern English, or to King James English?

In Letter #210, Tolkien critiques the abortive Zimmerman screenplay of the late 50's. One interesting statement made by Tolkien in this context is: In the book lembas has two functions. It is a 'machine' or device for making credible the long marches with little provision, in a world which as I have said 'miles are miles'. But that is realtively unimportant. It also has a much larger significance, of what one might hesitatingly call a 'religious' kind (my bold). This becomes later apparent, especially in the chapter 'Mount Doom' (III 213 and subsequently.

There is a footnote to 'III 213', which runs like so: The lembas had a virtue without which they would long ago have lain down to die ...... It fed the will, and it gave strength to endure, and to master sinew and limb beyondn the measure of mortal kind.

The word "religious" is used in the first quote, and perhaps explained in the second. Is lembas a religious emblem, or not?

I especially appreciate the reference to "veiled", as one or more of you have used it, for our discussion has served to reveal to me that emblems of religion (Catholic and ancient mythic) seem to be scattered all over LotR, but veiled. Which raises my original question perhaps in a fresh way. Is it perhaps a matter of craft rather than either/or?

Mithalwen

04-29-2005, 06:18 AM

Lalwendë

04-29-2005, 07:14 AM

Thinking about it, doesn't LotR start to become more & more loaded with 'symbolism' from this point on?

And from this point on, Tolkien's writing style changes, becoming more heavy and ponderous, or biblical, as it has been termed. He is here beginning to move on from the struggles of the journey to the struggles of the great deeds, battles and sieges. More symbolism could well be a natural result of trying to write in such a high flown style; there is more use of hyperbole and ever grander descriptions are needed as the days get darker and the battles harder. It is a way of emphasising the importance of what all the characters are engaged in. Tolkien had to show that the battle with Shelob was worse than the battle with the Balrog, that the Battle of the Pelennor Fields was worse than the battle of Helms Deep. He was building up the momentum by making the language more dense and noble.

Yet the predominant words are darkness and evil. Evil is repeated several times, to the point that even the road is called evil. Clearly the imagery is building towards the culmination of Minas Morgul as hell.

Thinking again about whether a place can be inherently evil, a 'Hell', I thought of Auschwitz, if its right to use this as a comparison I do not know, so I apologise if that does offend anybody. The place remains of course as a memorial and reminder, but when operative, was it the place that was evil or what the place was used for? What was done there was more evil than anything we might imagine, and even now, the symbols of the train tracks which go nowhere else and the chimneys are incredibly powerful symbols of evil. But is it the place itself that is evil, or what was done there that is evil? What I am saying is that a deed can be an evil deed, or an intention can be an evil intention, but can a place be evil? Even if we say that by being in such a place it might inspire a person to commit evil acts, is that the fault of the place or something within the person?

I'm not sure I know the answer to that one, but if I did then I could definitely agree or disagree that Minas Morgul was Hell. As it is, it may or may not appear so to us as readers; and the fact that we can each interpret that vision ourselves actually makes it effective writing. Remembering that it is the Tower of the Moon, it ought also to have shifting characteristics, and it seems to have these if we can all read it differently.

All this, if it is ever proved has great repercussions - morally and legally can people be punished for things which are not their fault? But the wider community has to be protected and if someone is biologically destined to kill do you let them walk the streets until they do?

Scientists are always trying to explain evil deeds, and the nature/nurture debate always rears its head. Someone may have certain hormonal or mental disabilities which statistically may make them more likely to commit crimes, but statistics are also often misleading and contradictory. The hormonal imbalances which are seen in x percentage of criminals may seem to be the cause of their crimes, but it may instead be lack of proper medical and social care which leads people to be disaffected and hence commit crimes.

The law does take this into account. If a criminal is found to have acted under diminished responsibility then they are charged and dealt with accordingly. We can't do much more than that, as where does it stop if we start looking at probabilities?

But what is evil anyway? We automatically label a murderer as evil, but what about the greedy chief executive who siphons assets until the company goes bust and all the workforce are sacked and plunged into poverty? Or the company which buys cheap produce from third world countries where the workers are treated badly?

Evil of course is more defined in the moral structure of Arda, but even there it pays to be careful and not too presumptious about a person. Gollum is plainly untrustworthy and unstable, but Gandalf knows that he is also not entirely evil; he shows that inherent evil is not quite so easy to define as we might think.

Mithalwen

04-29-2005, 10:06 AM

Scientists are always trying to explain evil deeds, and the nature/nurture debate always rears its head. Someone may have certain hormonal or mental disabilities which statistically may make them more likely to commit crimes, but statistics are also often misleading and contradictory. The hormonal imbalances which are seen in x percentage of criminals may seem to be the cause of their crimes, but it may instead be lack of proper medical and social care which leads people to be disaffected and hence commit crimes.

The law does take this into account. If a criminal is found to have acted under diminished responsibility then they are charged and dealt with accordingly. We can't do much more than that, as where does it stop if we start looking at probabilities?

.

Once again I would point out the caveats in my original posts...... :rolleyes:

Lalwendë

04-29-2005, 10:54 AM

Once again I would point out the caveats in my original posts......

And I apologise for not recognising that! I just could not help myself but put in the causal link between the disability and the negative consequences, it's an occupational hazard. And I have to confess, disability issues are a bit of a hobby horse. :)

Another idea - if Hell is symbolised (for some) by certain places in Middle Earth, what is also interesting is that there has already been a Hell, the one created by Morgoth. This one was destroyed yet another one has been created which has to be destroyed. Will this continue throughout the history of Middle Earth? The story The New Shadow in HoME seems to hint at this, and interestingly it would be a Hell created by Men. So each Hell would be created by powers increasingly more 'weak' or earthly. And together with this, the 'Heaven' of Middle Earth becomes increasingly less magical along with the destruction of each Hell. The Middle Earth of the Third Age is a little less magical than Beleriand, and the Fourth Age ME is a little less magical than the Third Age ME, with the departure of the Elves. As time passes by it seems Middle Earth would eventually become like our own world where both Hell and Heaven are somehow diminshed and at times, indistinguishable.

Mithalwen

04-29-2005, 11:21 AM

And I apologise for not recognising that! I just could not help myself but put in the causal link between the disability and the negative consequences, it's an occupational hazard. And I have to confess, disability issues are a bit of a hobby horse. :)

.

I certainly wasn't intending to attack the disabled - I chose Special Needs ed for my dissertation and more recently have worked in Supported Housing and for a Trust for Adults with Learning Disabilities so it was the last thing on my mind.

However I do think scientific research will raise difficult ethical issues - but may also help some groups - for example reduce the stigma still attached to mental illness. Now I am thinking of Samuel Butler's Erewhon .....

And evil is such and emotive term but what is the alternative? I don't know if II can completely separate the behaviour from the person a la Lord Soper.. but I do think someone who chooses "an evil path" is vastly more culpable than someone whose path has been forced by their genetic make up.

It isn't easy and I can understand why Tolkien had such trouble with the orcs....

I would expand, but I know that my own examples of evil are likely to offend at least one contributor so I think I will leave it there....

alatar

04-29-2005, 12:36 PM

Great posts all - too much to take in.

Yet, if Middle-earth was this world in ancient times, & if, as Tolkien believed, Christianity is True, why would such things not be present in some form in Middle-earth? What I'm getting at is, the forms, the 'outward signs' of Religion certainly do not belong in Faerie (or in the historical period before they came into being) but the 'facts' those forms & emblems refer to, if they are True must exist there, if Faerie itself is at all True.

One way to 'fit' the ME history with our own plus stay consistent with Christianity, one can set the Fourth Age in BCE then assume that the ME history has been blurred a bit during repeated transcriptions. As assumedly the events in ME did not happen in the Middle East (but in Europe?), then Biblical references to the crowning of Aragorn, Gondor, Elves etc can be easily be accounted for as these weren't part of the 'world' at that time. For example, does the Bible refer to events in China?

And reading the various posts made me see a similarity between the ME and Christian Bible history. In each, one goes from an ancient time of worldy Paradise to a more modern age where miracles (meaning what we would consider to be miracles) are less common, human lives are shortened and intervention by the Divine is more subtle if existent. Knowledge, meaning the kind that would seem divine in nature, is also decreasing - one does not see anyone building Orthanc or making Palantiri in the Third Age.

Evil too is in a slide, becoming more human in form as time passes.

I would say, from a naturalistic pov, that the reverse has taken place in our reality/world. Surely there were golden ages in the past, but we now live longer, have more technology and knowledge (but not wisdom ;) ). One thing is the same though; the intervention of the Divine is less apparent than in the past.

And a few post scripts:

Males are XY and females are XX (with a few exceptions, of course). I'm a skeptic (it's my religion). And I believe in genetic predisposition, not genetic predeterminism, meaning that most things aren't 'on/off' but are a spectrum ( a 'normal' bell curve) where one can have a greater or lesser predisposition to a trait.

littlemanpoet

04-29-2005, 01:57 PM

I wasn't clear before.

In the book lembas has two functions. It is a 'machine' or device for making credible the long marches with little provision, in a world which as I have said 'miles are miles'. But that is realtively unimportant. It also has a much larger significance, of what one might hesitatingly call a 'religious' kind. This becomes later apparent, especially in the chapter 'Mount Doom' (III 213 and subsequently) ... The lembas had a virtue without which they would long ago have lain down to die ...... It fed the will, and it gave strength to endure, and to master sinew and limb beyond the measure of mortal kind.

Religion is (usually formal) human activity in response to the perceived supernatural.

Tolkien hesitates to call it religious, but does not stop from doing so. The Elves seem gifted to make everyday created stuff supernaturally potent, be it food, rope, clothing, boats that don't sink, swords that reveal the presence of enemies; even in the Third Age.

But why does Tolkien call this "religious"?

Is it because it's supernatural? Or is it because it's consciously Catholic in the revision? Which reminds me of another thread I haven't found in a while, "Consciously So in the Revision".

alatar

04-29-2005, 02:24 PM

The Elves seem gifted to make everyday created stuff supernaturally potent, be it food, rope, clothing, boats that don't sink, swords that reveal the presence of enemies; even in the Third Age.

Would disagree. What exactly did the Elves of the Third Age create that would surpass (in greatness units? ;) ) something created in the Second or First? The swords, Rings, lembas etc are created earlier. One may bake a new batch of lembas, but the recipe is still the same as it ever was.

Was Aragorn's sheath for Anduril created? Was Anduril created anew or simply just Narsil 2.0?

Even Arwen, the Evenstar, did not rival Tinúviel.

My take on the elves regarding rope, boats and other 'well-made' items is just that - after sitting around pondering and experimenting with rope weaving/design/use for 3-4 thousand years one tends to end up with a well-made product. That and we would have to include a little extra- or super- natural input into the same as we are considering elves.

And if you're tutored in the same by some Elf who's seen Aman...

davem

04-29-2005, 03:37 PM

Would disagree. What exactly did the Elves of the Third Age create that would surpass (in greatness units? ) something created in the Second or First? The swords, Rings, lembas etc are created earlier. One may bake a new batch of lembas, but the recipe is still the same as it ever was.

Well, I suppose this just reflects Elvish psychology. The past was 'perfect' for them. 'Change' of any kind would be seen as change for the worse. This is what's behind their desire to 'embalm' the world, to prevent it changing. It also accounts for their pessimism. Men seek to improve things, make things better, whereas Elves struggle to prevent them getting worse. So, Men are (psychologically) evolutionists, in that they struggle to improve upon the past (putting aside those with a strong 'Numenorean' strain as personified by Faramir), while Elves think in terms of 'devolution' from an ideal.

So, Elves could not make 'better' swords than those made in the past as any alteration in sword design would be a change away from perfection, hence it would go against their whole way of thinking, against their nature, to alter what they had recieved. The Elves of the Third Age have effectively stopped, & are attempting to hold back the tides of change. They cannot make better swords, Rings, Lembas, rope, or anything else, they can only make 'worse' ones. The 'Long Defeat' they fight against is, ultimately, the wearing of Time itself. Time is the enemy, because Time moves them away from the perfection that once was - even if that 'perfection' never really was, & only existed as a 'dream' in the minds of later Elves looking back. Yet that's what they did. Even Feanor's appeal to the Noldor in Aman was to Cuivienen. He offered to take them back to Middle-earth. But when they got there they almost instantly began looking back to Aman.

In short, I don't think we can expectanything else from the Firstborn than that they would refuse to change anything they had inherited. It wasn't so much that they had experimented over the millenia & come up with the best they could possibly make of Swords, Rings, Waybread Boats & Rope, etc, so that there was no point in trying to improve it, it was that what they had was what they had inherited from the past, so it couldn't be improved, only made worse by being made 'different'. They simply weren't going to surrender to their true Enemy - Time itself.

Which brings us, perhaps, to the 'Elvish' strain in Tolkien, because for all he condemns the Elves for their backward-looking he seems to be of the elvish party himself.