The Lord of the Bible? [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lalwendë

08-24-2006, 12:44 PM

No, Tolkien did not 'steal' anything from The Bible any more than he made use of influences from many other sources. Yes he was a Catholic, but references that seem similar to Biblical myth are not there on purpose any more than references that seem similar to Northern myth are there on purpose. Remember Tolkien filtered all his influences through his head and imagination and came up with his own, non-allegorical, tales. So he didn't nick anything, he just used all the influences swirling round in his capacious mind.

You can't deny that things such as his faith will have had an influence but at the higher, deeper level in forming archetypes to work from; I suppose we could say that some of the characters that seem Biblical could equally be from similar archetypes found in say Norse myth. The point is that the mind is a big old stew and influences definitely come through, but Tolkein did not intend them as allegories of certain Biblical characters. You need to read CS Lewis to find that for sure. ;)

If we like to read them that way then there's nothing wrong in that, but I suppose a balance between our own interpretations and what Tolkien intended is important - otherwise you get either entirely personal interpretation (however wild and whacky) or you stick rigidly to Authorial intention and have no room to 'see' new things in the text. I think even Tolkien realised that readers would interpret things differently, as demonstrated in his many letters to fans - you get the impression that he was thinking "Hmmm! I never thought of that!"

Of course there's the infamous "consciously so in the revision", but even that statement is open to interpretation and doesn't mean that he sat down revising his text to turn it into a Christian text - or else it would become allegorical, the thing he said it was not, and everything would start to get very confusing!

I personally think that Tolkien wished the books to reflect his own moral system, i.e. Christianity, but this influence is just one of many. The charcaters have integrity as the characters they are - they are not rewrites of other characters, but this doesn't mean other characters influenced them and that the reader can't read what they like into it.

I guess I've summed up from what I've said before on this old can of worms. What surprises me is how often it comes up. Or maybe it shouldn't as I suspect Tolkien's work is getting close to the Bible in terms of big mythical characters that stay in the shared public consciousness.

The Only Real Estel

08-24-2006, 01:38 PM

No, Tolkien didn't "effectively steal" anything from the Bible because he wasn't trying to. As others have said, Tolkien seemed to be a firm believer in leaving things up to the mind of the reader (applicability rather than allegory) instead of leading their minds to a certain point. Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se.

That said, I think you can draw many similarities (obviously). There are several reasons for this - the most obvious being that you can find similarities anytime, even when there aren't any. But also, I think there are parallels that are in Tolkien's books, whether he meant them to be or not. You can not be so devoted to something (his faith) without it seeping into what you do.

Originally Posted by Gurthang:
Although, I do say otherwise about Melkor. He, in my mind, exactly represents Satan. Sauron does also. Their aspects of being good at one time, falling into evil, often appearing likeable or pleasant, but deeply desiring to hold and corrupt everything sounds extremely close to the story of Lucifer that I've heard. In my mind, Melkor and Sauron directly represent Satan.

I agree. I don't quite see the Balrog=Satan line of thought either. Considering there were mainly Balrogs, I'd think they represented more the "fallen angels" that followed Satan when he was cast out. Of Sauron & Melkor, I'd say that Melkor more directly paralleled Satan because he was cast out by Illuvator & really was the beginning of evil in Tolkien's world. Sauron was simply a pawn of his (though a powerful one).

Anyway, this subject, though a fascinating one in my opinion, could go on & on.

Originally Posted by Lalwende:
Or maybe it shouldn't as I suspect Tolkien's work is getting close to the Bible in terms of big mythical characters that stay in the shared public consciousness.

Well that depends entirely on your beliefs, which is not something we're allowed to discuss here.

Nogrod

08-24-2006, 02:06 PM

= Lalwendë
The point is that the mind is a big old stew and influences definitely come through, but Tolkein did not intend them as allegories of certain Biblical characters.And because the mind is a big old stew with us 21st century people, it was the same with the prophets and the apostles of the Bible - their minds were already full of influeneces from their predecessors from the previous generations and so on... We humans are the stories we tell about us.

Mansun

08-25-2006, 12:12 AM

I think Christopher Lee as Saruman refers to the Balrog as Satan in the movie. PJ certainly went for that image in the first movie, although not necessarily Tolkien.

Just a few more examples as to why I think of Elrond as a Christ-like figure. He is a master of healing, & has command of nature in his valley. One might almost say, he can perform miracles to an extent. He is also a true symbol for Good in Middle-Earth, lord of the elves.

Feanor of the Peredhil

08-25-2006, 07:22 AM

He is a master of healing, & has command of nature in his valley. One might almost say, he can perform miracles to an extent. He is also a true symbol for Good in Middle-Earth, lord of the elves.
While I see your point and I agree with it, by the logic of a symbol of Good and using the examples you've used, all Elves would be seen as Christ figures, would they not? The essence of Goodness. A light in their eyes, in their faces to see for those who can see it. All of them skilled healers, if not necessarily to the same caliber as Elrond. They do not care to endure Darkness, but it does not bother them as it would lesser beings, and Darkness cannot endure their Goodness.

And while Elrond is a lord of Elves, he isn't the lord of them. There were many, especially in the early Ages.

This is a race meant to embody Goodness beyond the world of men, in general terms. Do you think Tolkien would have made so many Christ figures, or do you think maybe that he merely took the greatest qualities of Goodness he could think of, not necessarily of Christness as such, but, being Christian and with very strong beliefs of right and wrong, good and evil, qualities of Christ, if you follow me, and gave them to the firstborn in that way?

And for those who disdain of talk of religious allegory, there appears to me to be no difference in taking a fictional archetype versus taking a biblical one and applying it to your story. Having Christ figures doesn't necessarily mean intentionally having Christ.

Lalwendë

08-25-2006, 10:51 AM

I think Christopher Lee as Saruman refers to the Balrog as Satan in the movie. PJ certainly went for that image in the first movie, although not necessarily Tolkien.

No it wasn't Tolkien's Balrog or it wouldn't have had wings. ;)

It was John Howe's Balrog, if it had been Ted Nasmith's then it would have been wingless. Has Alan Lee ever illustrated the Balrog?

Anyway. If we wanted a Miltonic Satan in the books, I fear we'd be looking for some time, as Tolkien more or less paints his uber-Bad Guys (like Morgoth and Sauron, the Orcs) as just that, bad. I think he has to, as this ups the stakes in the struggles against them, and also enables him to get away with writing of a lot of Orcs being slaughtered!

A Miltonic Satan, however, has to be a bit seductive and gain the sympathies of the reader. If there's any character who comes close, for me it would be Saruman - and I would say that if we had to draw parallels with any vaguely Biblical figure for Saruman, then this is who he 'fits' best. However, you do have to have some degree of interest in Saruman, an appreciation that he wasn't necessarily evil but was just doing things differently (even if this 'differently' was not within his job description when sent to Middle Earth) - i.e. be 'taken in' by him to some extent, like I am! You have to find Saruman as a character attractive, and the fact that a lot (most?) of readers don't find him so, suggests that he is not a Miltonic Satan to most readers.

I suppose the other factor that's needed to 'see' characters as Satan or Lucifer is to accept the Ainur as 'angels' and I hold that they aren't, they are 'gods' wiht much greater power than 'angels', and they are also not sexless like angels. But I'll leave that thorny topic there. ;)

But for something controversial, then let's look at the meaning of Lucifer - Morning Star or Bringer of Light. Who would that be in Quenya? Varda? :eek:

Raynor

08-25-2006, 02:28 PM

As pointed previously, Melkor represents the fallen angel of the Bible - the most important difference being that Melkor introduces evil before the creation is completed (as noted by Tolkien in letter #212: "in this Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the World (Eä); and Eä has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken ").

Concerning Gandalf being Christ, Tolkien stated:
There is no 'embodiment' of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology. Gandalf is a 'created' person; though possibly a spirit that existed before in the physical world [...] Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees.

Nogrod

08-25-2006, 05:26 PM

As pointed previously, Melkor represents the fallen angel of the BibleAnd that's it... full stop? If Melkor represents the fallen angel, then he (?) represents it and that's settled. No need to think or try to open your mind on anything? We just have solved the crossword and the things are settled:

"So that was it, nice to know; now I understand it - peculiar the professor didn't tell it straight, isn't it? Went on to write an ambiguous story around that thing he wanted to tell us about, funny. Happily we can solve these meanings this nicely anyhow. Well, differences? Surely, but they can be accounted for and explained away as poetic license or something, you know those artists, always taking liberties and muddying the waters to make the reader struggle a bit before the final solution that is given to the gifteds and laborious enough; after all, we know now what he meant..."

??? :smokin: :D :D

Mansun

08-26-2006, 12:32 AM

Though I hadn't noticed the correlation between Elrond and Jesus before...

And why must each borrowed character have only one place in a story? Does there really have to be just one Satan? Why not multiple? Why not several heroes? Why not several Christ figures?

Do you see the correlation better now?

I never said that there should be just one borrowed character; the names of characters I gave were just examples which I thought reflected those in the Bible.

I also think ''borrowed'' might have been a better word than ''steal'' for the original thread question.

Boromir88

08-26-2006, 08:28 AM

I also think ''borrowed'' might have been a better word than ''steal'' for the original thread question.

I don't think either word works out well. Tolkien didn't write a story to mimic or be similar to the Bible. The Bible, and his religion, plus his many interests of studies (Beowulf, Egyptian mythology, Anglo-Saxon...etc) all influenced his writing. But, he did not a write a book to mimic anything, he was creating his own story, his own world, with it's own unique history.

Anyone can find allegories, or references to past cultures all throughout Lord of the Rings (but you can also do this through any book, movie, piece of literature if you're looking for it). Gurthang provides a link to a good thread, there is nothing original anymore, everything that can be written has been written. And authors will either intentionally or unconsciously write about stories, histories, cultures, and what influenced them. But what's important to always remember is that most of the time a good author can successfully create a new world, or a new story, by drawing off of what influenced him or her.

It's perfectly reasonable to find similarities and allegories (Tolkien even chimed in with his own at times), but it's the individuality and the freedom of the reader that shouldn't be taken away, by forcing an accepted view that Elrond=Jesus, the Lord of the Rings was written as a 'Biblical book.' And considering that Tolkien and C.S. Lewis' friendship pretty much ended because Tolkien criticized Lewis for writing too much of 'his religion' in the Chronicles of Narnia...I doubt Tolkien was doing the same with LOTR. There were some other reasons that caused strain between the two, but pretty much C.S. Lewis didn't like Tolkien criticizing his books because it had too much of the religious element.

Thinlómien

08-26-2006, 09:10 AM

I don't think either word works out well. I agree. (I was actually just posting that when I saw there was a new post on the thread stating that.... :rolleyes: )

If there is one character I would liken Elrond to, it would be JesusThis as an explanation to you suggesting that Tolkien stole/borrowed characters from the Bible sounds to me like that you wanted to liken elrond somebody and decided on Jesus. Or you wanted to liken Jesus to somebody, and decided on Elrond. I don't see a point in making an allegory only for the case of making an allegory.

I'm along the same lines with Nogrod. I dislike allegories, because if taken too literally, they flatten things. If we, for example, decide that Melkor is Satan and Gandalf is Jesus, we cease thinking of them as many-layered and variable characters; we simplify them to be just Satan and Jesus. That's dangerous; it that prevents us from seeing that there are other perspectives.
(Ok, don't tell me that Melkor wasn't even originally a very many-layered character... :p Hopefully you get the point.)

Lalwendë

08-26-2006, 11:32 AM

But for something controversial, then let's look at the meaning of Lucifer - Morning Star or Bringer of Light. Who would that be in Quenya? Varda? :eek:

I'll answer my own challenge. ;)

Davem says that the equivalent to Lucifer in Quenya would actually be Earendil.

So.... What now, eh? Has this got anything to do with the price of fish?

Actually, I think Tolkien can't have been unaware that the Morning Star and Bringer of Light was also known as Lucifer! But did he aim to turn this on its head a bit by giving a good character's name that meaning?

Hookbill the Goomba

08-26-2006, 11:48 AM

Actually, I think Tolkien can't have been unaware that the Morning Star and Bringer of Light was also known as Lucifer! But did he aim to turn this on its head a bit by giving a good character's name that meaning?

Perhaps he wanted to show Lucifer as he should or could have been? A sign of hope rather than doom?

davem

08-26-2006, 11:58 AM

I'll answer my own challenge. ;)

Davem says that the equivalent to Lucifer in Quenya would actually be Earendil.

So.... What now, eh? Has this got anything to do with the price of fish?

Actually, I think Tolkien can't have been unaware that the Morning Star and Bringer of Light was also known as Lucifer! But did he aim to turn this on its head a bit by giving a good character's name that meaning?

Well, to clarify, I didn't mention Quenya at all......Lucifer is the Light Bringer & is the Morning Star - as is Earendel. However Venus as the Morning Star was associated with John the Baptist in the Crist ('Eala Earendel, engla beorhtast..& all that stuff) as the Morning Star was a 'precursor' of the Sun.

I think Tolkien is using the latter 'myth'. not the former. So I will make myself clearer to Lalwende in future before I let her post anything :p

Bêthberry

08-26-2006, 01:10 PM

Well, to clarify, I didn't mention Quenya at all......Lucifer is the Light Bringer & is the Morning Star - as is Earendel. However Venus as the Morning Star was associated with John the Baptist in the Crist ('Eala Earendel, engla beorhtast..& all that stuff) as the Morning Star was a 'precursor' of the Sun.

I think Tolkien is using the latter 'myth'. not the former. So I will make myself clearer to Lalwende in future before I let her post anything :p

We have such a pick of star myths to choose from. Then there is the Classical one. Orpheus, consumed by grief over loss of Euridyce (and the failure of his quest to bring her back), is taken by Apollo to the stars, from where he can view her forever. I suppose that Earendel doesn't quite view the underworld though, just Middle-earth and we know that Tolkien did not appreciate classical literature as much as Northern. (And, on the other hand, Frodo is given a similar kind of consolation in being taken West when he cannot overcome his despair. Could Frodo look back at Middle earth and see what was happening?)

The problem with this kind of linking is how to distinguish which are the most likely and the most unlikely and what principles to use in making the associations. For example, Elrond is a father and official leader of the Elves. He has fought in wars. These are traits not shared with Jesus. At least, unless we grant credence to the Da Vinci Code. ;)

Feanor of the Peredhil

08-26-2006, 06:14 PM

Tolkien didn't write a story to mimic or be similar to the Bible.I see a huge difference between borrowing character types and borrowing storylines. Having a Jesus character is not the same as having a Bible story.

That's dangerous; it that prevents us from seeing that there are other perspectives.Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."

The problem with this kind of linking is how to distinguish which are the most likely and the most unlikely and what principles to use in making the associations.
The problem with that idea is saying that I should be concerned with logic when making associations. :p

Mansun

08-26-2006, 06:57 PM

I see a huge difference between borrowing character types and borrowing storylines. Having a Jesus character is not the same as having a Bible story.

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."

The problem with that idea is saying that I should be concerned with logic when making associations. :p

I agree with the above statements. On many occasions there is no clear definitive answer, so ridiculing one notion is far worse as suggesting one.
If Tolkein never read the Bible, would you think The Lord of the Rings to be anything like as comparable to the Bible?

davem

08-27-2006, 01:18 AM

Thinlómien

08-27-2006, 03:17 AM

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."Of course. (Hopefully I never denied that.) In my opinion, one can make allegories, but they shouldn't be taken as a truth.
I very much agree with davem here: This is all about applicability. If you see Elrond or Gandalf as a Christ figures I have no problem. I you tell me they are Christ figures I will argue. Just as if you say that to you LotR is an allegory of WWII I don't have a problem. If you say that Tolkien wrote LotR as an allegory of WWII I will feel obliged to show you that you are wrong.

Mansun

08-27-2006, 03:48 AM

This is all about applicability. If you see Elrond or Gandalf as a Christ figures I have no problem. I you tell me they are Christ figures I will argue. Just as if you say that to you LotR is an allegory of WWII I don't have a problem. If you say that Tolkien wrote LotR as an allegory of WWII I will feel obliged to show you that you are wrong.

Knowbody is really saying that so & so are Christ figures etc. More to the truth is that some characters do have a Christ-like aura about them, so one may be entitled to question whether Tolkien was heavily influenced by characters in the Bible in is works. I for one believe that were it not for his experiences of the World Wars, as well as his interest in Christianity, the LOTR would not have been as it is today. It is possible that he may just have ended up with a longer but comparable tale to The Hobbit.

davem

08-27-2006, 04:58 AM

Knowbody is really saying that so & so are Christ figures etc. More to the truth is that some characters do have a Christ-like aura about them, so one may be entitled to question whether Tolkien was heavily influenced by characters in the Bible in is works.

They don't have a 'Christ-like aura' about them for me as I'm not a Christian. For me they are who they are, & are not 'in service' of any other person, real or imagined.

I for one believe that were it not for his experiences of the World Wars, as well as his interest in Christianity, the LOTR would not have been as it is today. It is possible that he may just have ended up with a longer but comparable tale to The Hobbit.

Its a truism that a writer's experiences will shape the kind of tale he tells. I'm not even sure that he woulld have written TH as he did (particularly the Battle of Five Armies) were it not for his wartime experiences - or his trip to Switzerland come to that. However, none of that is evidence of any conscious 'allegorical' element in any of his works.

It could be argued there's as much (if not more) of Odin in Gandalf as Christ, & a reader with a knowledge of Norse myth who was completely unaware of Christianity would possibly see Gandalf as having an' Odin-like aura'. Or one who read LotR first & then came to Christianity would possibly argue that Christ had a 'Gandalf-like aura'. All of which gets us precisely nowhere it seems to me.

LotR works because the Secondary World of Middle-earth is self contained, & has no dependence on primary world myth, religion or history.

As I said, if you want to see Gandalf (or Elrond or Aragorn or Frodo) as a 'Christ' figure, an 'Odin' figure, or a 'Mickey Mouse' figure I couldn't care less. If, on the other hand, you tell me they are that in their essence, I'll tell you you need to get some perspective.

Mansun

08-27-2006, 05:43 AM

As I said, if you want to see Gandalf (or Elrond or Aragorn or Frodo) as a 'Christ' figure, an 'Odin' figure, or a 'Mickey Mouse' figure I couldn't care less. If, on the other hand, you tell me they are that in their essence, I'll tell you you need to get some perspective.

If you couldn't careless, congratulations. You have managed to send lengthy replies even though you didn't careless. Likening characters & past events to the LOTR is all about opinions, where often there is no definitive answer. If there was, then there would be no point in most threads on this website existing. Most of Tolkien's work appears to show ambiguity in order to stimulate interest.

Hookbill the Goomba

08-27-2006, 06:21 AM

I for one believe that were it not for his experiences of the World Wars, as well as his interest in Christianity, the LOTR would not have been as it is today.

I think Tolkien says in the forward to The Lord of the Rings, something along the lines of

"An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous."

Elsewhere in the forward he explains how the story would have differed if it had been an allegory of the world wars. Also, I am of the opinion that, as a Christian, it is very difficult to leave God or anything there related, out of a work so vast and involving so much of a 'creation'. I cannot, of course, speak for Tolkien, but only from my own experiences in story writing that lead me onto that train of through.

Macalaure

08-27-2006, 06:39 AM

I start to get the feeling we're all talking past each other.

More to the truth is that some characters do have a Christ-like aura about them, so one may be entitled to question whether Tolkien was heavily influenced by characters in the Bible in is works.
What exactly do you mean by 'Christ-like aura'. I can't do much with this term.
As many have stated, Tolkien was a Christian and thus of course not only influenced by the characters of the bible, but by the bible itself and its mediated values and ethics (not that these are unambiguous). Surely you can find traces of it in LotR and Silmarillion. The question is: are these traces intentional refers to the bible or just came about because their writer was a faithful Christian? Given Tolkien's dislike for allegory, I think we can rule this out.

Of all the Good free folk in Middle-Earth, Elrond to my mind represents Good better than anyone else (save Gandalf the White perhaps).Just a few more examples as to why I think of Elrond as a Christ-like figure. He is a master of healing, & has command of nature in his valley. One might almost say, he can perform miracles to an extent. He is also a true symbol for Good in Middle-Earth, lord of the elves.
Whether Elrond or Gandalf are the best representatives for Good in the LotR is debatable, but okay.
But I don't think that being a symbol for Good alone qualifies for making a character Christ-like. Though I don't believe in him, Jesus to me represents a very specific kind of good: the Redeemer, mainly. This is a quality I don't see in Elrond at all, and only to a very small extend in Mithrandir (Frodo comes closest, to me). Many of the good characters in LotR have one or the other similarity to Jesus (Legolas did walk on water on Caradhras, didn't he? ;) ), naturally, because the idea of Good that Tolkien had based itself on his Christian belief. But a copy of Jesus, or any other bible character, does not exist in the book.

I for one believe that were it not for his experiences of the World Wars, as well as his interest in Christianity, the LOTR would not have been as it is today. It is possible that he may just have ended up with a longer but comparable tale to The Hobbit.
Your first statement is self-evident, of course. But the second, well, that is a big may in there. I guess that by 'comparable to The Hobbit' you mean: worse. :p This is pretty unanswerable. It would have been different, of course. Who can say for sure it wouldn't have been better?

Likening characters & past events to the LOTR is all about opinions, where often there is no definitive answer. If there was, then there would be no point in most threads on this website existing. Most of Tolkien's work appears to show ambiguity in order to stimulate interest.
I resolutely disagree. An endless exchange of opinions without goal is pointless and boring, in my mind. There might not be a definitive answer, but that shouldn't keep us from searching for one. We can at least always discard opinions which are faulty.
(I'm not suggesting yours in this thread is by this)

Mansun

08-27-2006, 06:55 AM

I resolutely disagree. An endless exchange of opinions without goal is pointless and boring, in my mind. There might not be a definitive answer, but that shouldn't keep us from searching for one. We can at least always discard opinions which are faulty.
(I'm not suggesting yours in this thread is by this)

I believe continuous exchanging of opinions is what helps us get to the ultimate goal - to understand Tolkien's works better by learning new things (so long as they are worthwhile arguements). Ridiculing opinions, to my mind, is the wrong approach. A balanced arguement is probably the best method. Agreeing or disagreeing is acceptable. But discarding???

Macalaure

08-27-2006, 07:13 AM

I start to get the feeling we're all talking past each other.
I should keep to my own words. I don't think we actually disagree. What you call the ultimate goal to understand Tolkien's works better I called searching for answers even if there might be none - and by this understanding Tolkien's works better.

Ridiculing opinions, to my mind, is the wrong approach. A balanced arguement is probably the best method.
If you felt like I ridiculed your opinion then I apologise - honestly. That was not my intention at any rate.

Agreeing or disagreeing is acceptable. But discarding???
If you're able to prove an opinion wrong or incoherent, then discarding it is the only thing left to do. (Take an absurd example: "In my opinion elf women had beards." is a wrong opinion) In reality, sadly, one can usually achieve little more than rendering an opinion implausible, if at all.

Mansun

08-27-2006, 07:22 AM

I see a huge difference between borrowing character types and borrowing storylines. Having a Jesus character is not the same as having a Bible story.

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."

The problem with that idea is saying that I should be concerned with logic when making associations. :p

I think I learn't a lot from this reply above from Feanor of the Peredhil earlier. My views are exactly the same. If ideas are not allowed to be entertained, then the thread will not be of interest to some, & vice versa.

Boromir88

08-27-2006, 09:43 AM

Mansun, if it felt like anyone was ridiculing your opinion I apologize for myself, and the rest, because I'm sure that was not anyone's intent.

I've just been trying to get across davem's point. It isn't the "Lord of the Bible," it isn't "Beowulf of the Rings," it is The Lord of the Ring's, a story of it's own. If you find similarities that's good, but I got the impression that you were saying Tolkien stole and/or borrowed from the Bible. Where I'm disagreeing because someone can certainly not see anything biblical related to the Lord of the Rings, and still be just as 'right' as someone who does.

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."

Fea, you have been saying some wise and truly cogent remarks but this time I'm going to actually have to disagree with you. If someone has no desire to make connections to the 'real' life, or the 'real history,' that's perfectly up to them. If they only look at Elrond as Elrond of Lord of the Rings, I don't see how that is 'dangerous to free thinking.' It makes me wonder how boring this person's life is that he/she couldn't possibly have found a 'connection,' but it's not dangerous to how anyone else thinks of Elrond.

Feanor of the Peredhil

08-27-2006, 11:17 AM

If someone has no desire to make connections to the 'real' life, or the 'real history,' that's perfectly up to them.
I'll certainly agree with that. Far be it for me to force a connection no matter what the context. My only point is that if people really have no interest in making the connections, why haunt this thread at all? It seems a disappointing waste of time and energy, as well as a rather negative activity for all involved.

I think it would be a brilliantly fun exercise to explore the literature Tolkien might have drawn from, Bible included. Not the well known ideas that influenced his story, but the underlying inspiration. When I have more time, and that's a thought that makes me laugh sadly, I think it would a terribly exciting study to make. Literature as a form of psychosociology. How the human mind works as an individual entity and in group situations; how society influences art, as well as art's influence on society. Surely I can't be the only person with a distinct fascination pertaining to the study of ideas with very little practical value?

It's an interesting experience to see the connections that minds make, both author and reader. Why quash them? I'd rather cosset them, cuddle them, perhaps even nuzzle them, and take notes to see what they grow into.

All of which gets us precisely nowhere it seems to me.
When you travel, do you always find the quickest route from beginning to end? Do you never drive roads upon which you've never been, simply to see where they go and enjoy the brand new view? Do you never take a walk and think "Maybe today I'll turn left, instead of right, just because I can."? No lovingly pointless meandering for the sheer sake of not having to be anywhere?

davem

08-27-2006, 11:57 AM

I think it would be a brilliantly fun exercise to explore the literature Tolkien might have drawn from, Bible included. Not the well known ideas that influenced his story, but the underlying inspiration. When I have more time, and that's a thought that makes me laugh sadly, I think it would a terribly exciting study to make. Literature as a form of psychosociology. How the human mind works as an individual entity and in group situations; how society influences art, as well as art's influence on society. Surely I can't be the only person with a distinct fascination pertaining to the study of ideas with very little practical value?

Possibly. Yet Tolkien warns against dismantling the Tower to see where the stones of which it is built originally came from. The Tower was built so that its builder could climb to the top & look out on the Sea.

There are two approaches to such things: where it came from & what it was built for. It seems to me that Tolkien's purpose was not to construct a puzzle to be fathomed out, but a work of Art (or if you prefer a story) principally intended to move the reader, to entertain him or her.

I can play this game of sources & inspirations well enough - I did it for much of the CbC read through, but found that by the end I had not really gotten very far or gained very much. Increasingly I don't see any value in it. If others do then that's fine for them, & I have no desire to stop them doing that. However I do see the danger that this process of dismantling the story to find out how it came to be will leave you only with a pile of old stones & deprived of sight of the Sea.

But each to their own...

Nogrod

08-27-2006, 12:04 PM

There are two approaches to such things: where it came from & what it was built for. It seems to me that Tolkien's purpose was not to construct a puzzle to be fathomed out, but a work of Art (or if you prefer a story) principally intended to move the reader, to entertain him or her.Exactly! Thanks Davem. You put it much more nicely than I as I tried to make the same point.

A work of art / literature can't be analysed into pieces that would convey the exactly same meaning. Happily so.

To re-write the old phrase: a whole is more than the sum of it's parts, and a work of art is more than the ingredients even the author thought consciously of...

Feanor of the Peredhil

08-27-2006, 12:14 PM

davem

08-27-2006, 12:38 PM

Sure. But can you not analyze things without losing the magic? That's not a rhetorical question. Can't you go through something and study it without interest being lost through the findings of the answers? Just because we now know why the sun rises every morning, does that decrease the beauty of dawn? Does knowledge of the origins of lightening take away from the sheer ecstasy that is watching a storm come in and rage above you?.

Does knowing where Leonardo obtained his paints improve your appreciation of the Mona Lisa?

Well, it may do, I suppose.

If you're that way inclined.

I don't see the connection.

Of course, he must have obtained his paints, & canvas, & brushes somewhere (or made them himself perhaps). And I'm sure there's a really interesting story behind that for Art students, but I think its a whole other story, & nothing to do with the Mona Lisa, except very tangentially.

I don't get what you plan to do with this other story about LotR once you get it. It wouldn't be difficult to find Tolkien's sources of inspiration - everything from Northern Myth & Icelandic Sagas & the Bible, to personal experiences of being orphaned & fighting in a war, through Morris' romances, Lonrot's Kalevala, right up to Kipling's Rewards & Fairies & Wyke-Smith's 'Snergs' among much other stuff.

If I knew what relevance it would have to you maybe I'd be more sympathetic to your endevour. But if all it is is just a matter of finding out what his sources were then I have to say that for me what he did is of much greater importance than what he used.

EDIT

In Tolkien Studies volume 2 Dale Nelson wrote a piece attempting to show how Tolkien's descriptions of Mordor were possibly influenced by descriptions of industrial towns in Dicken's Old Curiosity Shop. It is four pages long & is full of 'it may seems unlikely, but's & 'it is possible that's, & in the end tells us that Tolkien may have read said book & may have been influenced by it. In a note to the essay the author states that 'Whatever else Tolkien read by Dickens he must have read the first chapter of The Pickwick Papers (please compare, he begs, Bilbo's speech at the Long Expected Party with Mr Pickwick's oration at the end of the first chapter of PP).

So, what this piece in a respected journal of Tolkien studies tells us is that Tolkien might possibly have read some Dickens & he might possibly have been influenced by some descriptions in those books. Of course, he might not have read any Dickens apart from the first chapter of PP in which case the whole piece is a waste of space.

Feanor of the Peredhil

08-27-2006, 02:24 PM

Does knowing where Leonardo obtained his paints improve your appreciation of the Mona Lisa?
Vastly.

Think on it: say that paints were terribly hard to come by several hundred years ago for an impoverished dozenth or so child of poor parents. Say that canvases are quite equally difficult to find.

Think of how resourceful that person would have to be not only to acquire supplies, but to find the time in which to use them.

Think of how close Leonardo may have come to never having painted the Mona Lisa at all. Do you not further your appreciation of the art before you by knowing what went into it and how, without those things, it never could have come to be?

Without the benefit of smooth transition, I'd like also to say that at this point, I have more interest in Tolkien than I do in his work. What made him tick. What inspired him. What he wrote and why he wrote it. I'm fascinated with writers in general. They have a certain something to them. A writer whose work I read recently said that nobody becomes an artist unless they have to. I'm interested in why people have to. What underlying reasons Tolkien had for what he wrote. I've been pondering Leaf by Niggle, which I finally read, for days now.

Art catches my breath and takes me on wild adventures through realities unguessed. The magic captures me and stays with me.

But people are equally enthralling. Delving into what goes through minds is my equivilant to sifting through a pile of jewels with each piece more enchanting than the last.

Tolkien was a great writer. But I'm interested in the man, not the image of him. I'm curious about how he thought and why he thought it. If I can learn more about humanity by studying the things humans do, say, and make, cool.

davem

08-27-2006, 02:45 PM

Vastly.

Think on it: say that paints were terribly hard to come by several hundred years ago for an impoverished dozenth or so child of poor parents. Say that canvases are quite equally difficult to find.

Think of how resourceful that person would have to be not only to acquire supplies, but to find the time in which to use them.

Think of how close Leonardo may have come to never having painted the Mona Lisa at all. Do you not further your appreciation of the art before you by knowing what went into it and how, without those things, it never could have come to be?

But that's another story, & if you focus on that one you'll miss the picture. The 'story' of Tolkien's sources may be interesting in itself, but it will get in the way of, or overlay, the other story & become something else. Aquisition of raw materials is not something that interests me. Nor, I suspect, was it somthing Leonardo found all that interesting, as rather than leaving us an account of how he got his paints, he actually painted with them.

Without the benefit of smooth transition, I'd like also to say that at this point, I have more interest in Tolkien than I do in his work. What made him tick. What inspired him. What he wrote and why he wrote it. I'm fascinated with writers in general. They have a certain something to them. A writer whose work I read recently said that nobody becomes an artist unless they have to. I'm interested in why people have to. What underlying reasons Tolkien had for what he wrote. I've been pondering Leaf by Niggle, which I finally read, for days now.

Art catches my breath and takes me on wild adventures through realities unguessed. The magic captures me and stays with me.

But people are equally enthralling. Delving into what goes through minds is my equivilant to sifting through a pile of jewels with each piece more enchanting than the last.

Tolkien was a great writer. But I'm interested in the man, not the image of him. I'm curious about how he thought and why he thought it. If I can learn more about humanity by studying the things humans do, say, and make, cool.

As Tolkien put it:

He finds it surprising and pleasing that The Lord of the Rings has had such a success. It seems to him that nowadays almost any kind of fiction is mishandled, through not being sufficiently enjoyed. He thinks that there is now a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost.

“It seems to me comparable to a man who having eaten anything, from a salad to a complete and well-planned dinner, uses an emetic, and sends the results for chemical analysis.”

Feanor of the Peredhil

08-27-2006, 03:30 PM

I understand both your opinion and Tolkien's. I'm just ignoring them in favor of my own. Hope you don't mind too much, darling. :)

Boromir88

08-27-2006, 05:24 PM

I understand both your opinion and Tolkien's. I'm just ignoring them in favor of my own. Hope you don't mind too much, darling.
Are you allowed to do that? What I mean is it's perfectly ok to completely disregard Tolkien's opinion, but ignoring davem's that's blasphomy! :p

But, seriously now I completely understand what you're saying and I agree. Looking further in and 'analyzing' doesn't necessarily destroy the magic of the books. Especially if you have a deep interest in the 'how it came to be.'

Believe it or not, one of the most touching and thought-provoking scenes (for me) in LOTR is with Tolkien's war experience:
Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering bank, a man fell, crashing through the slender trees, nearly on top of them. He came to rest in the fern a few feet away, face downward, green arrow-feathers sticking from his neck below a golden collar. His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of his sword.

It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace-...

Eventhough Tolkien does deny using allegories to the World Wars:
’Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and litttle or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.'

’The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or conclusion.’
~Foreward to LOTR
I can not look at that moment with Sam and say it wasn't Tolkien reflecting on his World War experiences. Now, Tolkien said the 'legendary war' (or the war that he created) in not influenced by the real wars. While this moment with Sam looking at the dead Haradrim soldier has no importance on the main story, the story of the War and the Ring, it's more of just a sidebar, a step away from the action. As I can't look at that passage and not think that Tolkien was being influenced by his war experiences, but this passage with Sam does not play any major part in the storyline itself, it feels more like a 'step away from the story for a brief second.' it's a moment outside of the main plotline...if anyone has any clue as to what I'm saying. :rolleyes:

Fea, I think Letter 109 will fit what you are trying to explain quite perfectly:
Of course, Allegory and Story converge, meeting in Truth. So the only perfectly consitent allegory is real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human ’literature’ , that the better and more closely an allegory is the more easily it can be read ’just as a story’; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it. But the two start out from opposite ends.
'The Story' and 'allegory' start out totally opposite, but as that song goes...'They meet in the middle.'

Tolkien strongly resisted his books as being labeled 'allegorical' but because of their very nature and depth provided- better and more closely woven a story is - those searching can - more easily find allegory in it.

It still all boils down to reader applicability. It is our freedom to think 'hey this reminds me of something in life.' I think of it as a story with allegories that anyone can find - or choose not to find- but it is not an 'Allegorical story.' Meaning there was no intentional authorial design to make allegories. Because, intentionally writing in allegories limits the reader's mind, the reader's applicability. It would mean that we all must see 'Elrond as a Jesus figure,' and this was why I think Tolkien strongly resisted his books being 'allegorical.' Because if they were allegorical, the freedom of applicability would be taken away. And it is this very freedom of the reader, that I believe (at least for me), adds to the stories magic. It makes me as a reader be able to identify and connect with the story and form my own 'allegories.'

Mansun

08-28-2006, 12:19 AM

Are you allowed to do that? What I mean is it's perfectly ok to completely disregard Tolkien's opinion, but ignoring davem's that's blasphomy! :p

But, seriously now I completely understand what you're saying and I agree. Looking further in and 'analyzing' doesn't necessarily destroy the magic of the books. Especially if you have a deep interest in the 'how it came to be.'

Believe it or not, one of the most touching and thought-provoking scenes (for me) in LOTR is with Tolkien's war experience:

Eventhough Tolkien does deny using allegories to the World Wars:

I can not look at that moment with Sam and say it wasn't Tolkien reflecting on his World War experiences. Now, Tolkien said the 'legendary war' (or the war that he created) in not influenced by the real wars. While this moment with Sam looking at the dead Haradrim soldier has no importance on the main story, the story of the War and the Ring, it's more of just a sidebar, a step away from the action. As I can't look at that passage and not think that Tolkien was being influenced by his war experiences, but this passage with Sam does not play any major part in the storyline itself, it feels more like a 'step away from the story for a brief second.' it's a moment outside of the main plotline...if anyone has any clue as to what I'm saying. :rolleyes:

Fea, I think Letter 109 will fit what you are trying to explain quite perfectly:

'The Story' and 'allegory' start out totally opposite, but as that song goes...'They meet in the middle.'

Tolkien strongly resisted his books as being labeled 'allegorical' but because of their very nature and depth provided- better and more closely woven a story is - those searching can - more easily find allegory in it.

It still all boils down to reader applicability. It is our freedom to think 'hey this reminds me of something in life.' I think of it as a story with allegories that anyone can find - or choose not to find- but it is not an 'Allegorical story.' Meaning there was no intentional authorial design to make allegories. Because, intentionally writing in allegories limits the reader's mind, the reader's applicability. It would mean that we all must see 'Elrond as a Jesus figure,' and this was why I think Tolkien strongly resisted his books being 'allegorical.' Because if they were allegorical, the freedom of applicability would be taken away. And it is this very freedom of the reader, that I believe (at least for me), adds to the stories magic. It makes me as a reader be able to identify and connect with the story and form my own 'allegories.'

I totally agree with the above. It appears to me that comparing the Lord of the Rings to, say the Bible, allows great minds to excercise their creative thinking & in the process open a latreal opportunity to learn new perspectives. But there will always be some who prefer to stay with the mainstream Tolkienology, believing that it is the truest & safest approach, but not as imaginative & it may even close new doors for further thought & discussion. This thread was all about opening new doors for those who want to open them, rather than those who prefer to guard the old ones & keep them locked.

davem

08-28-2006, 01:42 AM

I totally agree with the above. It appears to me that comparing the Lord of the Rings to, say the Bible, allows great minds to excercise their creative thinking & in the process open a latreal opportunity to learn new perspectives. But there will always be some who prefer to stay with the mainstream Tolkienology, believing that it is the truest & safest approach, but not as imaginative & it may even close new doors for further thought & discussion. This thread was all about opening new doors for those who want to open them, rather than those who prefer to guard the old ones & keep them locked.

I don't see it as 'learning new perspectives' so much as inventing them. No, I must correct myself there - not 'new' perspectives, but old, ancient, decrepit ones. This whole 'Finding God in the Lord of the Rings' approach has been done to death, resurrected, done to death again, resurrected again, etc, etc,etc. It is not new in any way at all. I probably have hallf a dozen books which claim to show the 'Christian' backstory of LotR (& do it very badly in most cases). Its not even interesting anymore.

Ok, let's try another tack.

Gandalf & Elrond were directly & deliberately inspired by Christ. As was Frodo & Aragorn. The Balrog was meant to be a depiction of Satan (unless Grima or Saruman was), Galadriel of the Virgin Mary, Eowyn of St Ursula, Merry of St Francis, Lobelia of St Catherine of Sienna & the fox a subtle allegory of Nebuchadnezzar.

What, exactly, has that to do with the price of fish?

Or maybe its just me. I'm sure Mansun & the other 'great minds' of this forum should be as free as possible to 'excercise their creative thinking & in the process open a latreal opportunity to learn new perspectives.'

I see that I have now joined the ranks of those who 'prefer to stay with the mainstream Tolkienology, believing that it is the truest & safest approach, but not as imaginative & it may even close new doors for further thought & discussion. This thread was all about opening new doors for those who want to open them, rather than those who prefer to guard the old ones & keep them locked.'

Ah, the radicalism of youth, when we all felt the fire in our bellies! But now we are old, & only seek to imprison the young within the cells we have created for them. We are too old & fuddled to keep up with them. They will reveal the TRUTH to us, for it is their destiny.....

(Anybody else read Logan's Run........?

Feanor of the Peredhil

08-28-2006, 08:21 AM

I don't see it as 'learning new perspectives' so much as inventing them.
Do you have a point? We are not discussing a mysterious and magical text that was brought down from on high within a burst of white light, whose origins are unknown, and that promises to save the world. It wasn't sent over by aliens, it didn't suddenly appear to a hobo in a shack emblazoned with words too hallowed to repeat. We're talking about books. Written by this guy. Tolkien was a great writer, sure, but he was human and his books are merely books, no matter how nicely they are written. Tolkien was happy, got angry, had moments of sadness, of hyperactivity, of hunger, of jealousy; he reproduced with his wife, went to the bathroom. Forgive the blasphemy, but I assume he also burped at least once in his life.

Tolkien was a master wordsmith, but he was still just a guy talking. Making things up. Inventing a world.

If we want to invent perspective with which to view this world, created by this guy, to see if we can learn something, why do you care?

They will reveal the TRUTH to us, for it is their destiny.....
So long as you're aware, m'boy. :p

davem

08-28-2006, 08:52 AM

Do you have a point? We are not discussing a mysterious and magical text that was brought down from on high within a burst of white light, whose origins are unknown, and that promises to save the world. It wasn't sent over by aliens, it didn't suddenly appear to a hobo in a shack emblazoned with words too hallowed to repeat. We're talking about books. Written by this guy. Tolkien was a great writer, sure, but he was human and his books are merely books, no matter how nicely they are written. Tolkien was happy, got angry, had moments of sadness, of hyperactivity, of hunger, of jealousy; he reproduced with his wife, went to the bathroom. Forgive the blasphemy, but I assume he also burped at least once in his life.

Tolkien was a master wordsmith, but he was still just a guy talking. Making things up. Inventing a world.

If we want to invent perspective with which to view this world, created by this guy, to see if we can learn something, why do you care?

Well, I don't exactly see what this 'revelation' is that you assume yourselves to be on the verge of.

Could it be 'Tolkien was a Christian, who had read the Bible, & its possible to find certain similarities between the language & stories of the Bible & his own sub creation!!!!!!!'?

There - I said it for you. Tolkien was quite probably influenced by (among God knows how many other things) the Bible. You can find (&/or impose) Biblical symbolism & allegories on the Legendarium (& for all I know there may well be a hidden code in there too which reveals when the Day of Judgement will take place).

I'm sure there are even some deliberate nods towards his faith - the dates of the setting out of the Fellowship from Rivendell & of the Fall of Barad Dur & all that.

But that's not new, its not original, & God knows why anyone outside of a few evangelicals on a mission to get us all back to church or some seriously anally retentive fans would actually care what went into the 'leaf mould of the mind' out of which grew Tolkien's particular Tree.

We are all influenced by what we read, experience & believe. You seem deserate to prove that this was allso the case with Tolkien - but I don't think anyone is arguing with that.

One word of warning though. As I said earlier, I've read quite a few of these pieces on how LotR is a deeply Christian work - just glancing at my bookshelf now I can see 'Tolkien in Perspective', 'Tolkien's Oridinary Virtues', Finding God in the Lord of the Rings', Secret Fire, Tolkien Man & Myth & JRR Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth among others, along with a nice thick folder of essays printed off from the Web many of which are by Christians & purport to show Tolkien's work was deeply Christian. Their motivation seems twofold - the first can be summed up as 'See, you like LotR, LotR is a Christian book, so, why not come to church this Sunday?' & the second as 'Wow!!! I've just discovered similarities between characters & events in LotR & the Bible! I must be a genius!'. What they all have in common is that they are completely unconvincing, badly written statements of the glaringly obvious or simply embarrassing: 'Aragorn had a beard & long hair & looked like Jesus...'.

Feanor of the Peredhil

08-28-2006, 09:02 AM

Well, I don't exactly see what this 'revelation' is that you assume yourselves to be on the verge of.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I don't seek a revelation at all. I'm just in it for the fun of it all. Eru help us, don't you ever just play?

Lalwendë

08-28-2006, 09:49 AM

Well after thinking of a lengthy explanation I've abandoned it. There was no need for it. ;)

I think that the objections of some readers to the 'explorations' of others ultimately boil down to resistance towards attaching any kind of 'agenda' to LotR.

Lalaith

08-28-2006, 09:57 AM

Their motivation seems twofold

Third possible motivation: there are some Christian churches today which limit the reading and knowledge of their members, and seem actively to discourage them from reading or enjoying anything not directly Bible-related. Fantasy literature in particular is regarded with great suspicion, or even banned.
I think that these attempts to "prove" the biblical and Christian provenance of LotR is a way for some people to read and enjoy the work without feeling sinful.

Lalaith

08-28-2006, 10:22 AM

Clarification of the above: it was not intended as an attack on Christianity in general, but a comment on certain strands within it....strands I have been made aware of primarily from encountering young people here on the Downs who have had their reading heavily restricted by their churches, schools and pastors.

The Only Real Estel

08-28-2006, 10:54 AM

Well, I hate to bring this up but, there could possibly be a (*gasp*) fourth "possible motivation." (*cue the evil conspirator music* :p)

Perhaps, and I know this might be a stretch here, but perhaps some of these books brought up by davem & others that were written by Christians on some of the parallels in Tolkien's world to Christianity (which can be drawn without trying too hard, whether Tolkien intended them or not) are books written towards (although not expressly for) Christians who enjoy Tolkien and would enjoy the parallels as well?

But then there would be no hidden agendas or other exciting things to talk about it would be...just a book with parallels someone saw in it.

At any rate I think Lal says it quite well:

Well after thinking of a lengthy explanation I've abandoned it. There was no need for it. ;)

I think that the objections of some readers to the 'explorations' of others ultimately boil down to resistance towards attaching any kind of 'agenda' to LotR.

Fortunately I don't think that any 'Downers are trying to attach any agenda to it...lets hope it stays that way. :)

davem

08-28-2006, 12:24 PM

Third possible motivation: there are some Christian churches today which limit the reading and knowledge of their members, and seem actively to discourage them from reading or enjoying anything not directly Bible-related. Fantasy literature in particular is regarded with great suspicion, or even banned.
I think that these attempts to "prove" the biblical and Christian provenance of LotR is a way for some people to read and enjoy the work without feeling sinful.

So we're back to the whole issue of 'meaning' then. LotR has to be shown not only to have a meaning, but a specifically Christian (probably a specifically fundamentalist Evangelical) one. If it cannot be shown to be a Christian allegory, or at least 'orthodox' it must be 'evil', & banned?

As to the point that those Christians are just enjoying the parallels between LotR & the Bible. I don't have any problem with that. I do, however, find that those 'paralllels' are invariably forced & don't really stand up to any scrutiny. It always seems to be a case of 'This episode/character in LotR is like/makes me think of..' (at which point they go off on some tangent & start talking about Isaiah or the Virgin Mary).

Now, I accept that in some of the Letters Tolkien himself had a tendency to do that very thing but perhaps he ought to have had more sense - some of the 'interpretations' he comes up with are so tenuous or so odd that they make your head spin: for example, when he claims that the events at the Sammath Naur are a playing out of the lines in the Lord's Prayer ('Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us') he is definitely pushing it. To try to force that kind of analogy, to try to turn one of the most powerful moments in literature into material for scriptural exegesis (or more likely a very embarrassing sermon) is to treat the story (& the reader) with contempt.

This kind of simple 'one-to-one' analogy never, it seems to me, rises above the confused or embarrassing.

littlemanpoet

08-28-2006, 07:20 PM

Or a fifth .... (related to the fourth) .....

Recognition.

....of something dynamic and powerful at a level most books don't reach. The story of LotR strikes a chord that rings with the very tembre of creation itself as it is. Thus, it's a recognition

of Reality.

.... and Christians but not only Christians are drawn to this story like no other in the entire century during which it was written. Those who believe as did its author find themselves saying, "I know this! I recognize it! It's in harmony with the very warp and weft of what I know! I want to celebrate it by sharing it with my friends."

...for example, when he claims that the events at the Sammath Naur are a playing out of the lines in the Lord's Prayer ('Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us') he is definitely pushing it. To try to force that kind of analogy, to try to turn one of the most powerful moments in literature into material for scriptural exegesis (or more likely a very embarrassing sermon) is to treat the story (& the reader) with contempt.davem, you should be ashamed for doing the very thing you are complaining about. If Tolkien made such a statement, it would behoove us to understand that those words from the Lord's Prayer apparently meant that much to him. To so criticize his most dearly held beliefs is to treat him with contempt. Do please attempt to see this from Tolkien's point of view.

davem

08-28-2006, 11:52 PM

davem, you should be ashamed for doing the very thing you are complaining about. If Tolkien made such a statement, it would behoove us to understand that those words from the Lord's Prayer apparently meant that much to him. To so criticize his most dearly held beliefs is to treat him with contempt. Do please attempt to see this from Tolkien's point of view.

Even the artist may fail to fully appreciate or value the art they have created. Tolkien's attempts to impose a Christian interpretation on his work are as much of a failure as the attempts of others.

However much the Lord's Prayer meant to Tolkien it cannot be made to apply to every particular circumstance - & certainly not that one. He was doing exactly the kind of thing he himself condemned in the quote from the interview I gave a few posts back & in his statements there he clearly felt contempt for the very approach he himself took to his own work in that & other letters & comments: He thinks that there is now a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost.

“It seems to me comparable to a man who having eaten anything, from a salad to a complete and well-planned dinner, uses an emetic, and sends the results for chemical analysis.”

He would have been better leaving interpretation to the reader (if they want to interpret it at all) rather than using his work to promote his religion - which simply cheapens it.

Mansun

08-29-2006, 12:12 AM

Even the artist may fail to fully appreciate or value the art they have created. Tolkien's attempts to impose a Christian interpretation on his work are as much of a failure as the attempts of others.

However much the Lord's Prayer meant to Tolkien it cannot be made to apply to every particular circumstance - & certainly not that one. He was doing exactly the kind of thing he himself condemned in the quote from the interview I gave a few posts back & in his statements there he clearly felt contempt for the very approach he himself took to his own work in that & other letters & comments: He thinks that there is now a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost.

“It seems to me comparable to a man who having eaten anything, from a salad to a complete and well-planned dinner, uses an emetic, and sends the results for chemical analysis.”

He would have been better leaving interpretation to the reader (if they want to interpret it at all) rather than using his work to promote his religion - which simply cheapens it.

It is always good to have someone who challenges the ideas of others to balance the argument. But there also comes a point where one asks if a particular thread is for them?

I myself am not a devout Christian as yet, but I find the LOTR & the Bible to be the two most inspirational texts ever written. Therefore I, & many others, would find the prospect of comparing & contrasting the texts with each other to be interesting, educational & even developing a more magical understanding than before. Though this will not be the case for all, as they may not be drawn by the idea from the start.

Lalwendë

08-29-2006, 02:17 AM

It is always good to have someone who challenges the ideas of others to balance the argument. But there also comes a point where one asks if a particular thread is for them?

It's actually essential to have the critic in the corner who is separate from the main thrust of discussion if there's to be any hope of finding more than merely subjective guesses. All Books threads apart from mirth and RPG type ones will have a little critical pixie or two to pop up throughout and argue the opposite. That's part of the fun. :)

davem

08-29-2006, 05:43 AM

Ok. You look at a particularly impressive cloud formation & 'see' a castle. That's fine. However, if you then go on to claim there is something specifically 'castle-like' about that cloud, that it is necessary to know about castles in order to understand/appreciate that cloud, that that cloud can tell you anything about castles, or that only someone with a knowledge of castles can understand what that cloud really is, I will argue with you, because I think we would no longer be dealing with a matter of personal opinion but a wrong opinion (& frankly a silly opinion). To claim that only someone who believes that cloud castles are a real possibility has any valid opinion on clouds is not logical & to think that believing in cloud castles means you will have a deeper experience of that cloud than someone who doesn't believe in them is a bit smug (as well as wrong).

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

08-29-2006, 07:07 AM

I'm going to break in here, and hopefully prevent a riot.

Personally I found the biblical parallels quoted in the first post to be unconvincing, and for the reasons given in Hookbill's response. That does not mean that there are no biblical parallels in LotR, just that those particular examples could have been thought out more carefully. My reading of the book has never suggested a character or plot element that has obviously been lifted directly from the Bible, but Tolkien knew more about the Bible and theology than any of us, and without a similar knowledge both of the Bible and of Roman Catholic theology, modern and medieval, all of our theories are likely to run astray.

I find it unlikely that Tolkien would re-use stories from the Bible, and he certainly wasn't trying to write an allegory. He was frequently troubled by thoughts that his legends veered away from Catholic orthodoxy, and to make any obvious connections would seem to increase that danger. That is not to say that there are not Christian teachings embedded in LotR, such as the importance of mercy, the existence of an individual choice between right and wrong and the centrality of love and self-sacrifice, but these are not biblical characters or events, rather ideas which are expressed in Christian writings. Similarly, if one were to say that a character was a representation of Christ, it would not be enough simply to point to wisdom or self-sacrifice: those characteristics can be found everywhere in world literature. Certainly it's not enough to say that a character preaches (Elrond does not, to my mind, preach at all), or that he narrates stories from history: that character would need to share important characteristics, such as accepting punishment for the crimes of others, rising from the dead or being the son of a deity; preferably all three.

If there is a character who clearly fits a Christian model it is Morgoth. He is the most powerful and beautiful of the Valar, yet his pride in those gifts leads him to reject the authority of his creator . Thenceforth he is renamed to show his new role as the enemy of good, which is embodied in the Creator, Eru. In its essentials this is the story of Satan, who is also renamed from Lucifer ('Light-bearing One') to Satan ('Adversary'). However, this parallel is so obvious that most of us take it for granted; and its source is not the Bible, but a mass of apocryphal literature that was particularly popular in the Middle Ages. The Anglo-Saxon poem Genesis B, translated from contemporary Old Saxon, records this story in verse; and if Tolkien was not intimately familiar with it then I should be very surprised.

Setting aside davem's objections, we should all be aware when looking at Tolkien's sources and his use of them, that he knew and understood many things more completely than do we. His upbringing, education and experiences were far removed from the present-day norm, and he grew up in a society that is now virtually unrecognisable. Nobody seems to look at Thucydides, for example, for Tolkienian parallels, and yet Tolkien once won a school prize for his knowledge of the Greek historian, whom he read in Classical Greek and who was on the syllabus at King Edward's. Tolkien's influences can be sought in the Latin and Greek authors so beloved of nineteenth-century educators, in the Germanic legends with which he was professionally concerned, in the literature of his time, in his religion and in his own experiences and imagination: to pick out these threads requires a frightening amount of study, not only of Tolkien but also of all these areas. My education is not up to the task, and it's difficult nowadays to find anyone who does have the necessary grasp even of the essentials (who has read the Aenead in Latin? Tolkien had, before the age of eighteen.

My point is that when discussing something as central to Tolkien's life as Roman Catholicism, particularly when trying to spot it in his works, we ought first to find out as much about Roman Catholicism and Tolkien's works as possible. If we want to find Biblical parallels, we should at least know the entire Bible, since Tolkien certainly did. The same caveat applies to mythological and literary parallels: know the sources, know the literature, know Tolkien and think carefully. Tolkien was a subtle and learned man: he cannot be dissected with a hammer.

davem

08-29-2006, 07:16 AM

Or we could just read & enjoy the story as a story, stop trying to second guess, impose meanings, foist our own belief systems on the work & generally try & make it serve our own purposes…

Feanor of the Peredhil

08-29-2006, 07:22 AM

Even the artist may fail to fully appreciate or value the art they have created.
But the artist, as the creator, has the most sincere understanding of the work having seen it through from the smallest bud of inspiration to the many rewrites, the many cross-outs, the many deletions, all the way to what you see before you.

Tolkien's attempts to impose a Christian interpretation on his work are as much of a failure as the attempts of others.
You've no idea how hard I'm snickering right now. If Tolkien says his works are vaguely Christian, you'd think he'd know.

in his statements there he clearly felt contempt for the very approach he himself took to his own work in that & other letters & comments:
He would have been better leaving interpretation to the reader (if they want to interpret it at all) rather than using his work to promote his religion - which simply cheapens it.
Davem, dear, are we now discussing what Tolkien would have wanted believed of his work, or what you would prefer? Do you think that the Christian applicability cheapens the story? If the parallels being drawn here weren't Christian, would there be such outcry?

Perhaps he felt contempt for forced understanding, but that doesn't necessarily stop him nor does it cheapen or disqualify the thought. Surely you've done things that you don't entirely agree with. A touch of hypocrisy in the Master? Surely not. Surely he wasn't human?

And besides, it's not like he was promoting his religion as an entity so much as promoting the ideals of it. Does having a definate side of "good guys" cheapen a story because there's less of a threat of betrayal?

To claim that only someone who believes that cloud castles are a real possibility has any valid opinion on clouds is not logical
You would stand beneath my castles in the sky and kick out the foundations based on your own logic? How arrogant. :p

Tolkien was a subtle and learned man: he cannot be dissected with a hammer.
What about the scalpel of free thought?

davem

08-29-2006, 07:39 AM

But the artist, as the creator, has the most sincere understanding of the work having seen it through from the smallest bud of inspiration to the many rewrites, the many cross-outs, the many deletions, all the way to what you see before you.

You've no idea how hard I'm snickering right now. If Tolkien says his works are vaguely Christian, you'd think he'd know.

I'm sure he believed (ie convinced himself ) they were. Which means nothing as far as the works themselves are concerned. They are certainly 'vaguely Christian' but they are also 'vaguely' many other things.

Davem, dear, are we now discussing what Tolkien would have wanted believed of his work, or what you would prefer? Do you think that the Christian applicability cheapens the story? If the parallels being drawn here weren't Christian, would there be such outcry?

There would be from me. I'd be just as critical of a LotR=WWII approach, or a Ring=Atom Bomb approach - or even LotR is a 'pro-pagan' work. So maybe all the Christians can get down from their crosses - no-one's brought nails....

You would stand beneath my castles in the sky and kick out the foundations based on your own logic? How arrogant. :p

Now, if its a 'real' castle I'm not going to be able to bring it down with a few kicks, am I?

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

08-29-2006, 07:46 AM

What about the scalpel of free thought?

Only when it's guided by knowledge and skill. You wouldn't put a scalpel into a child's hands, would you?

It's a peculiarity of the last forty years to teach pupils that they don't need to know anything to come up with valid theories. If my free thought leads me to think that Gandalf was lifted from The Dukes of Hazzard, my knowledge that The Hobbit was out decades before the T.V. series ought to tell me that I'm wrong. It's no different with any other sort of parallel: if you don't know the subject then your theories can only be good by sheer luck. Knowing the area guides theories and makes them less likely to be rubbish.

davem: as for Tolkien's comments on the Paternoster being reflected in the scene at the Sammath Naur, Frodo has forgiven the trespasses of another (Gollum), hence he does not suffer the full penalty for his own failure: Frodo is shown mercy just as he in turn showed mercy to Gollum, which seems a fair interpretation of those lines. Admittedly I doubt that was at the forefront of Tolkien's mind as he wrote the scene.

Hookbill the Goomba

08-29-2006, 07:53 AM

Or we could just read & enjoy the story as a story, stop trying to second guess, impose meanings, foist our own belief systems on the work & generally try & make it serve our own purposes…

I'm inclined to agree here with Mr Dave. Reading Tolkien's forward alone tells us that looking for deeper meanings or messages wasn't the intension in creating the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion, but merely to create a history for his languages and an entertaining story.

It is folly, I think, to assume that Tolkien had any ulterior motive. Perhaps there are hints towards Christ. Perhaps there are some similarities. Who can say? I think that trying to look too deeply down this road can lead to us walking in circles for a long while.

I will not deny that there are some Characters that have some kind of Christ like attributions. Just as Christians are supposed to show forth Christ like behaviour (the term Christian being, of course, an insult to the early church meaning 'Christ like' to describe the behaviour of the early church) this was probably a little more common in Tolkien's day than today and would not have been regarded as anything unusual.

You could look at it a different and more ambiguous way... The Bible says that "God is Good" so, when in a book there is a character who does something good do you say they are an allegory for God? Personally, I wouldn't.
But... hay ho... I don't know...

davem

08-29-2006, 08:40 AM

davem: as for Tolkien's comments on the Paternoster being reflected in the scene at the Sammath Naur, Frodo has forgiven the trespasses of another (Gollum), hence he does not suffer the full penalty for his own failure: Frodo is shown mercy just as he in turn showed mercy to Gollum, which seems a fair interpretation of those lines. Admittedly I doubt that was at the forefront of Tolkien's mind as he wrote the scene.

Well I'm quite familiar with Christianity & those particular lines never sprung to my mind when I was reading it. I can see they may have been in Tolkiens – either at the time of writing or later when he came to analyse them. However from a reading of LotR alone there is no sense that Eru has intervened to 'save' (ie forgive) Frodo, nor to 'damn' Gollum. The whole episode can be read as a working out of wyrd or just a simple fluke. Even when one knows about Eru there is no reason to bring in the Lord's Prayer as an explanation ( a reduction of a supremely powerful episode to a platitude imo), as there is little evidence in the text that Eru is exactly the same deity with the same values & patterns of behaviour as Jehovah. Seeing Eru as Jehovah is another imposition of Christianity on the story. Tolkien may not have distinguished between them (he probably did not) but from the text itself I don't see enough evidence to support the identification.

Boromir88

08-29-2006, 09:07 AM

It's actually essential to have the critic in the corner who is separate from the main thrust of discussion if there's to be any hope of finding more than merely subjective guesses. All Books threads apart from mirth and RPG type ones will have a little critical pixie or two to pop up throughout and argue the opposite. That's part of the fun.~Lalwende
Well what would be more fun is everyone just agreeing with me. :rolleyes:

I think we all must distinguish between Tolkien the omniscient narrator, Tolkien the recorder, and Tolkien the observer. All of which we can get a good dose of (especially in Letters). Of course lmp, I would bet that Tolkien knows his works better than anyone else would. When he is making these allegories to the 'Lord's Prayer,' or there is one instant when he thinks the Numenoreans are most like the Egyptians, it's important to realize that often times he's taking a step back from the story and reflecting upon his own experiences when reading. So, it's only natural that a man such as Tolkien I think would make a connection the the Lord's Prayer as he did.

I didn't see that, and I probably would have never noticed that connection until someone told me:
Tolkien may not have distinguished between them (he probably did not) but from the text itself I don't see enough evidence to support the identification.~davem
And that's the key, when Tolkien goes back he himself, because of the person he is and what influenced him, may be able to find allegories of the Lord's Prayer. But, someone like me when reading the scene in Mount Doom, I thought nothing of it. I think it's important that Tolkien all the way up there in his late ages stressed the importance of the reader:
Of course the L.R. does not belong to me. It has been brought forth and must now go its appointed way in the world, though naturally I take a deep interest in its fortunes , as a person would of a child.~Letter # 328
So, lmp, this is no knock to Tolkien, but what he thought of, what he found for his own 'allegories' really doesn't effect what I find and what I experience when reading his books.

littlemanpoet

08-29-2006, 09:11 AM

One reader's platitude may be another's way of life. That it is a mere platitude for one does in no wise lessen its centrality for the other.

Macalaure

08-29-2006, 09:29 AM

I was just writing about the same that Boro just did, so I'm making this short.

It is understood that Tolkien disliked allegory and looks for applicability.
In this light, Tolkien's interpretation of his scene at Sammath Naur is the way he applies the scene to himself. This does not mean that his interpretation is the only valid one. If it was, it would get us dangerously close to allegory.

The parallel between the scene and the Lord's prayer has never occurred to me before, but now that it is mentioned and explained, I see it. Very nice, though I still don't like the idea of divine intervention causing Gollum's death.

However, this is just Tolkien's application, not an imposed and uncontestable explanation, and noboby is forced to follow it. Edit: To say this view reduces the scene is a little hard, in my mind.

davem

08-29-2006, 09:39 AM

One reader's platitude may be another's way of life. That it is a mere platitude for one does in no wise lessen its centrality for the other.

I suppose that means its all subjective then, a matter of opinion?

Anguirel

08-29-2006, 09:40 AM

To skip back along way to Lalwende's quest for the Miltonic Satan in Tolkien-whom she found closest to Saruman-the character that leapt to mind for me was Galadriel.

Certainly Galadriel and Saruman, for all their enmity, have much in common. Indeed, I always thought their mutual loathing came from recognition of a kindred spirit; Galadriel liked Gandalf because he was a good deal more straightforward than she, and so reassuring. Maybe.

Saruman tempts for his own evil purposes. Fair enough. Galadriel is odder in that she tempts for the greater good. I am vaguely reminded of Gnostic and Cathar heresies, and the so called Gospel of Judas, which hinted that Satan/Judas was consciously fulfilling God's will in their treachery. A bit like certain theories I've seen about Melkor.

Galadriel fits more swiftly than Saruman for me because she is physically as well as mentally tempting. I get a kind of image of the Massolino fresco of the Serpent with the head of a golden-haired woman...

Lalwendë

08-29-2006, 09:43 AM

I'm inclined to agree here with Mr Dave. Reading Tolkien's forward alone tells us that looking for deeper meanings or messages wasn't the intension in creating the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion, but merely to create a history for his languages and an entertaining story.

It is folly, I think, to assume that Tolkien had any ulterior motive. Perhaps there are hints towards Christ. Perhaps there are some similarities. Who can say? I think that trying to look too deeply down this road can lead to us walking in circles for a long while.

Listen to what Hookbill says, he's speaking sense!

Tolkien told us that LotR was not an allegory. Therefore we can find all the metaphors we like in x y or z character or situation, but he didn't intend it that way. So if we do find these metaphors or symbols or whatever, we're not necessarily getting closer to understanding the text as intended, only our own response to it. It's intellectual navel gazing - loadsa fun but then someone might well come along and ask us what the hell we're looking at.

Temper this with the knowledge that Tolkien was indeed a Christian, in fact a devout Catholic, a very particular type of Christian. So of course put together with the other 1,001 influences on his mind, his faith would influence his work. I've just been talking about Catholicism/Gothic elsewhere.

I think the key point is that LotR has a Christian spirit; note that this 'spirit' is not an exclusively Christian one - how could it be for people of so many faiths (and none) to all join in enjoying this book? So it can't be co-opted by one group of society - sorry if anyone was planning on doing that - not that you were. ;)

The book's a good one for Christians as of course some of the themes support a lot of Christian tenets (but do they all??? Now there's a discussion), but it also supports non-Christian ones too. And that is a very good thing as far as I'm concerned, and only further demonstrates Tolkien's sense of humanity

Macalaure

08-29-2006, 09:46 AM

Indeed, I always thought their mutual loathing came from recognition of a kindred spirit;

Interesting. I always thought that Galadriel's loathing for Feanor had the exact same origin. Only that it wasn't mutual and Feanor seemingly was looking for a like mind in the beginning. When rejected, he leaves Galadriel back in Araman like everybody else.

The Only Real Estel

08-29-2006, 10:08 AM

First off, I very much like your 'cloud castle' analogy, davem, because it was imaginative.

Second off, I want to make a few comments on it. :)

Going on the assumption that by 'castles' you mean Christianity & by 'cloud' you mean LotR, which is correct unless I am sadly mistaken:

Ok. You look at a particularly impressive cloud formation & 'see' a castle. That's fine. However, if you then go on to claim there is something specifically 'castle-like' about that cloud, that it is necessary to know about castles in order to understand/appreciate that cloud...

I totally agree. However I don't think anyone is saying that it is necessary to know about Christianity to appreciate The Lord of the Rings. That would be utterly ridiculous. Even in a so clearly allegorical tale as The Chronicles of Narnia the reader doesn't need to know a thing about Christianity/Catholicism to appreciate the story. Would the reader appreciate it more if he did? Possibly. That lies in the individuality of the reader.

...that that cloud can tell you anything about castles, or that only someone with a knowledge of castles can understand what that cloud really is I will argue with you, because I think we would no longer be dealing with a matter of personal opinion but a wrong opinion (& frankly a silly opinion).

Again, I don't think anyone is saying that LotR can tell you about Christianity (or any other religion for that matter). And certainly no one is saying you must have knowledge of Christianity/Catholicism to understand the books! :eek:

To claim that only someone who believes that cloud castles are a real possibility has any valid opinion on clouds is not logical

Or to rephrase it (according to your own comparison: "To claim that only someone who believes that cloud castles (Christian themes in Tolkien) are a real possibility has any valid opinion on clouds (The Lord of the Rings) is not logical." Now I have no idea if that's the course you originally meant your comparison to go or not but I have to say I completely disagree with that.

to think that believing in cloud castles means you will have a deeper experience of that cloud than someone who doesn't believe in them is a bit smug (as well as wrong).

I don't think people finding 'Christian themes' in Tolkien's work & so insisting they have a deeper experience of the books than you is really the issue here - because I don't think that's even remotely a problem. (correct me if I'm wrong)

I'm sure he believed (ie convinced himself ) they were. Which means nothing as far as the works themselves are concerned. They are certainly 'vaguely Christian' but they are also 'vaguely' many other things.

Certainly! Is Christianity the only vague theme in Tolkien's book? Of course not. Forbid it if anyone should try to say that. But it was my understanding that at least this thread was created to talk about the 'vaguely Christian' them of the books. I have no problem with that as long as parallels aren't being wildly drawn with no regard to discuss brought against it.

Or we could just read & enjoy the story as a story, stop trying to second guess, impose meanings, foist our own belief systems on the work & generally try & make it serve our own purposes…

*Raise your hand if you don't enjoy the story as a story*

Alright now *raise your hand if you've spent hours pouring over the text trying to pick out meaning & parallels, twisting everything in sight to make it 'serve your own purposes.'*

Are there those that might do that? Are there those Christians that you remarked about that try too hard to find things in the book 'just to get us all back in church?' Probably so. That's unfortunate, but like you said that will happen in many different circles (WWII, atom bomb, etc.). Discussing possible Christian themes is not equal to the charges you levied in that statement, davem.

However as long as the discussion here doesn't venture off into ridiculous twisting or using the thread to evangelize I don't see what the worry is. Christianity was not the theme of the books, but it is at least arguable that it can be found (without too much trouble) in the books.

And discussing things you've found (or think you've found) in the books is not in place of enjoying them it is a part of enjoying them.

davem

08-29-2006, 11:46 AM

However as long as the discussion here doesn't venture off into ridiculous twisting or using the thread to evangelize I don't see what the worry is. Christianity was not the theme of the books, but it is at least arguable that it can be found (without too much trouble) in the books.

And discussing things you've found (or think you've found) in the books is not in place of enjoying them it is a part of enjoying them.

I'm sure anyone could find anything they wanted in LotR - but that's not to say its actually in there. Tolkien 'admits' to two specifically 'Christian' additions - the dates of the leaving of Rivendell (Dec 25th) & the Fall of Barad Dur (Mar 25th - the old date of Good Friday). However, a pagan could argue they are 'pagan' dates (Winter Solstice & Spring Equinox). For a general reader though they are merely the dates when the Fellowship left Rivendell & the date when the One went into the Fire & have no primary world connections.

The point is Christian readers of LotR keep coming back to the 'Christian' themes of LotR, & I think that behind that there is a desire to claim Tolkien & LotR as 'one of us', that there are things in the Legendarium which have a special significance to them alone, & that therefore an extra dimension is added to the work which is only accessible to them.

My point is that this is not (objectively) true. Each reader finds in the book something which resonates with them.

More importantly there are readers (Christians & others) who put forward their claims as 'facts' - they are not saying 'This character reminds me of Jesus' but 'This character is a Christ figure'.

If you read through my posts you will see I've repeatedly stated I have no problem with the individual reader's right to 'apply' characters & events in any way they wish. Where I do have a problem is when they state these 'applications' as facts about the story. As I said, this is to allegorise, to place the story in service of something else & thereby to denigrate it to an echo of something else. It is an argument about the nature of Art itself.

I can't see how applying Biblical figures & stories will deepen one's understanding of the story qua story, or of the individual's faith. What it will do, it seems to me, is blur the lines between the two & reduce both. But that's just me.

If you read LotR & think of Aragorn as a Christ figure you will risk missing the aspects of Aragorn's character which do not correspond to Christ. Same applies to Frodo or Gandalf or Elrond. They are not Christ figures (which Tolkien clearly stated). Morgoth's story (as Squatter mentioned earlier) may be close to the Biblical story of Satan, but Sauron's is not, hence the struggle between Aragorn & Sauron is not applicable to the struggle between Christ & Satan. The danger is that a reader who approaches the story as a 'Christian' story starts to 'fill in the gaps' & makes the story something it is not, makes it mean something it does not mean. Why is that a 'danger'? Because we then get the wholly erronious idea that LotR is a Christian allegory simply accepted without question by some readers. To me this is as unnacceptable as the idea that it is a racist work, or an allegory of WWII.

LotR is what it is. Your personal interpretation of it is something else. The two things are, & must be, different. I'm tired of various groups out there claiming the book & its author for their own. Whether Christians, pagans, racists, or accademic 'experts'.

Finally, I've seen no evidence for this 'Christian' interpretation of LotR that stands up at all.

Plus, I enjoy the debate (it will be noticed by some posters on this thread that the rep I have handed out in this debate has all been to those who have opposed me with good arguments...)

The Only Real Estel

08-29-2006, 01:13 PM

The point is Christian readers of LotR keep coming back to the 'Christian' themes of LotR, & I think that behind that there is a desire to claim Tolkien & LotR as 'one of us', that there are things in the Legendarium which have a special significance to them alone, & that therefore an extra dimension is added to the work which is only accessible to them.

LotR is what it is. Your personal interpretation of it is something else. The two things are, & must be, different. I'm tired of various groups out there claiming the book & its author for their own. Whether Christians, pagans, racists, or accademic 'experts'.

I'm sure some readers do go at it from that point of view. I personally have never had an experience with a Christian Tolkien fan who tried to claim the books as works of Christianity or anything remotely like that, but that certainly doesn't mean that no one has ever done that. Most of the Christian Tolkien fans I know seem quite content to discuss 'possible connections' that they see without trying to attach too much to it.

But you're quite right that "every reader finds something which resonates with them." Therefore, a Christian reader might very well 'find' something that someone else would not. That doesn't mean that he's making it up or stretching for it, but neither does it mean that Tolkien specifically intended the connection or parallel or whatever you wish to call it.

Of course some people will put their opinion of what Tolkien intended forward as fact - but I don't think that 'Downers have had a whole lot of trouble with that on this particular topic (fortunately).

The danger is that a reader who approaches the story as a 'Christian' story starts to 'fill in the gaps' & makes the story something it is not, makes it mean something it does not mean. Why is that a 'danger'? Because we then get the wholly erronious idea that LotR is a Christian allegory simply accepted without question by some readers. To me this is as unnacceptable as the idea that it is a racist work, or an allegory of WWII.

Very true. That is a real danger & a bit of a difficult thing to avoid because it's easy to slip into the "fill in the gaps" mode you mention. Again, I think this can be avoided if you take 'Rings' as 'Rings' - any parallels (of any kind) that might be discussed should be matters of opinion. Support those with what you can, but it's very difficult to actually say "I think Tolkien meant..."

Finally, I've seen no evidence for this 'Christian' interpretation of LotR that stands up at all.

I typically just watch these discussions because I think Tolkien did a good job of not making any one thing possible to draw parallels to. As Hookbill said, there are some "Christ-like" characters, but none of them are indeed "Christ." The closest connection I see is indeed Morgoth=Satan, as Squatter brought up, in fact that might be the only one that I would argue much.

But it's still fun to discuss similarities of other characters to things in the Bible, just like it'd be fun for me to discuss similarities of the characters to any other thing I am familiar with.

Plus, I enjoy the debate

Can't argue with that. :D The only thing is I don't want to commandeer a thread...it's difficult to tell whether this discussion is getting too far off the original topic or not. :/

davem

08-29-2006, 02:23 PM

Of course, another danger in taking such a single minded approach to interpretation is that one misses or misinterprets events in the story which can't be explained from that angle of approach. How many readers pick up on the references to Northern myth & legend (for instance the way Bilbo passes Sting onto Frodo in his room in Rivendell by driving it into a wooden pillar is a direct 'echo' of an incident in the Volsungasaga). Such 'echoes' of Northern myth are far more significant & indisputable than the Christian ones - which are vague & general at best. I suspect they were also more important in Tolkien's mind as far as the actual storyline & events were concerned.

But all this is secondary. For the story to work it has to be self contained & not dependent on externals. The events must follow logically one from another, not simply be inserted to make a point, or illustrate a religious ideal. When they do this they are taken out of their original context & that context left behind. Tolkien may have chosen Dec 25th & Mar 25th for their Christian significance, but within the world of the story they actually take on a different significance & bear no relation to their original source. As soon as you see in Appendix B that the Fellowship set off on 'Christmas Day' you are in danger of finding yourself in another 'story' & out of Middle-earth. Tolkien disliked the Arthurian legends for their mixture of Christian & Pagan things. Here he was in danger of perpetrating the same mistake.

There have been numerous books & articles recently by Christians which focus exclusively on the Biblical themes & characters, & attempt to claim the story for the Church. The truth, however, is that Tolkien was inspired by many sources, & possibly least by the Bible in terms of actual events & individuals out of them. I note that he spent a great deal of effort in the Letters attempting to 'prove' the work's orthodoxy - many of his Christian correspondents challenged him on that point. Many of his replies show him pushing the boundaries of 'interpretation' of his work virtually to breaking point, seemingly inventing motives & background on the spot.

Bêthberry

08-29-2006, 02:25 PM

Can't argue with that. :D The only thing is I don't want to commandeer a thread...it's difficult to tell whether this discussion is getting too far off the original topic or not. :/

Indeed. Christian Tolkien fans are not the only ones who ride hobby horses hard. ;) :D

davem

08-29-2006, 02:28 PM

Indeed. Christian Tolkien fans are not the only ones who ride hobby horses hard. ;) :D

I wonder if this thread would have reached 86 posts & nearly a thousand viewings otherwise...

(I would also point fans of my 'equine tendencies' to my own Spun Candy thread & ask them to check out the number of posts & views there & ask them to recall the doldrums we were going through recently...) ;)

Bêthberry

08-29-2006, 03:09 PM

I wonder if this thread would have reached 86 posts & nearly a thousand viewings otherwise...

It's amazing isn't it how quickly the delight in the critical pixies makes ambulance chasers of us Downers, eh? :eek:

The Only Real Estel

08-29-2006, 03:52 PM

Well I guess what it really comes down to then, davem, is that you are asserting that there are Christians out there who want to search Tolkien’s book for Christian-like themes so they can claim The Lord of the Rings “as their own” as you put it. I concede this. It is very likely that that isn’t just your perception of it, that there are actually those that are attempting that. It’s likely true because many circles of life are attempting to do that, as you’ve pointed out.

I am asserting that there is nothing that could even be considered remotely ‘wrong’ or out of place about discussing and debating possible parallels between Tolkien's great work and Christianity that fellow ‘Downers have discovered. As long as it is not trying to reduce it to a religious work (& it hasn’t been to this date) or have Tolkien’s motives dictated for him based solely on opinion then it’s simply individual readers discussing their individual interpretations.

Of course I’m not saying that interpretations should be offered and then shielded “because that’s just my interpretation of it and you can’t take that from me!”

They should still be debated...it’s just that it should be the interpretation, connection, or parallel that’s being debated and not a reader’s right to draw such.

Feanor of the Peredhil

08-29-2006, 05:14 PM

If my free thought leads me to think that Gandalf was lifted from The Dukes of Hazzard, my knowledge that The Hobbit was out decades before the T.V. series ought to tell me that I'm wrong.
You know, I really want to expound upon this now. I'll resist the urge though... things to do and all that. But--

If your free thought allows you to make associations between Gandalf and Uncle Jesse, surely the activity will teach you more about both characters. Nobody's saying that your conclusions have to be right or wrong, but it's like comparing sunlight to shadow: to say that they are the same is logically dead wrong, but to search for similarities teaches tolerance and allows you to learn more about each by delving more deeply into them.

I'm sure anyone could find anything they wanted in LotR - but that's not to say its actually in there.
I'm glad to see we have such a modest and brilliant expert on the matter of what meanings are allowed to be found within these texts. It would be such a sad waste of thought to be forced to seek out our own.

The point is Christian readers of LotR keep coming back to the 'Christian' themes of LotR, & I think that behind that there is a desire to claim Tolkien & LotR as 'one of us', that there are things in the Legendarium which have a special significance to them alone, & that therefore an extra dimension is added to the work which is only accessible to them.
I notice that I am one of your more vocal opponents in this argument. Have you decided that I am a Christian trying to serve my own purpose?

Plus, I enjoy the debate
You are certainly not the only one. There are few delights more delicious than to study what words a simple comment can draw from an opponent.

Mansun

08-30-2006, 01:12 AM

I'm sure anyone could find anything they wanted in LotR - but that's not to say its actually in there. Tolkien 'admits' to two specifically 'Christian' additions - the dates of the leaving of Rivendell (Dec 25th) & the Fall of Barad Dur (Mar 25th - the old date of Good Friday). However, a pagan could argue they are 'pagan' dates (Winter Solstice & Spring Equinox). For a general reader though they are merely the dates when the Fellowship left Rivendell & the date when the One went into the Fire & have no primary world connections.

The point is Christian readers of LotR keep coming back to the 'Christian' themes of LotR, & I think that behind that there is a desire to claim Tolkien & LotR as 'one of us', that there are things in the Legendarium which have a special significance to them alone, & that therefore an extra dimension is added to the work which is only accessible to them.

My point is that this is not (objectively) true. Each reader finds in the book something which resonates with them.

More importantly there are readers (Christians & others) who put forward their claims as 'facts' - they are not saying 'This character reminds me of Jesus' but 'This character is a Christ figure'.

If you read through my posts you will see I've repeatedly stated I have no problem with the individual reader's right to 'apply' characters & events in any way they wish. Where I do have a problem is when they state these 'applications' as facts about the story. As I said, this is to allegorise, to place the story in service of something else & thereby to denigrate it to an echo of something else. It is an argument about the nature of Art itself.

I can't see how applying Biblical figures & stories will deepen one's understanding of the story qua story, or of the individual's faith. What it will do, it seems to me, is blur the lines between the two & reduce both. But that's just me.

If you read LotR & think of Aragorn as a Christ figure you will risk missing the aspects of Aragorn's character which do not correspond to Christ. Same applies to Frodo or Gandalf or Elrond. They are not Christ figures (which Tolkien clearly stated). Morgoth's story (as Squatter mentioned earlier) may be close to the Biblical story of Satan, but Sauron's is not, hence the struggle between Aragorn & Sauron is not applicable to the struggle between Christ & Satan. The danger is that a reader who approaches the story as a 'Christian' story starts to 'fill in the gaps' & makes the story something it is not, makes it mean something it does not mean. Why is that a 'danger'? Because we then get the wholly erronious idea that LotR is a Christian allegory simply accepted without question by some readers. To me this is as unnacceptable as the idea that it is a racist work, or an allegory of WWII.

LotR is what it is. Your personal interpretation of it is something else. The two things are, & must be, different. I'm tired of various groups out there claiming the book & its author for their own. Whether Christians, pagans, racists, or accademic 'experts'.

Finally, I've seen no evidence for this 'Christian' interpretation of LotR that stands up at all.

Plus, I enjoy the debate (it will be noticed by some posters on this thread that the rep I have handed out in this debate has all been to those who have opposed me with good arguments...)

The point of the thread was really to stimulate discussion by comparing & contrasting two great & inspirational texts, drawing parallels where possible in order to understand characters in the LOTR better. Maybe I used the word ''steal'' to such an effect that it decieved you. I was never attempting to say that Tolkein used the Bible as his main purpose for the LOTR, but that there are similarities that can be made between them, even if Tolkein himself didn't intend for that to be the case.

There are other examples of this which spring to mind, for instance I found a lot of connections between The Speckled Band & An Inspector Calls, but who can prove that one author used the work of the other?. One could easily have compared those stories with the LOTR (although that may seem daunting at first), though they are not the subject of discussion here.

davem

08-30-2006, 06:01 AM

Feanor of the Peredhil

08-30-2006, 07:20 AM

Where are the specifics?
Thus far it's been fun simply to antagonize you. The specifics will come when I have free time to think about it. As for anybody else's specifics... you'll have to wait for their responses.

davem

08-30-2006, 08:17 AM

Thus far it's been fun simply to antagonize you. The specifics will come when I have free time to think about it. As for anybody else's specifics... you'll have to wait for their responses.

So in other words you have abolutely nothing to back up your position as yet? It seems that the 'pro-Christian interpretation' lobby are demanding the right to do something they cannot actually do. Bit like demanding the right to turn lead into gold or fly to the moon on a bicycle....

Feanor of the Peredhil

08-30-2006, 08:39 AM

Bit like demanding the right to turn lead into gold or fly to the moon on a bicycle....
If it's possible, should it be forbidden to ride your bike to the moon? Surely not. If it's impossible, why are the con-lobbyists at all worried?

davem

08-30-2006, 09:04 AM

If it's possible, should it be forbidden to ride your bike to the moon? Surely not. If it's impossible, why are the con-lobbyists at all worried?

Who's worried? After all your demands to be allowed to do it we just want to see what kind of job you make of it.

You seem to spend a great deal of time demanding to be allowed to do it & not actually doing very much is all...

The Mouth of Sauron

08-30-2006, 04:57 PM

Does anyone think Tolkien effectively stole many of his ideas from the Bible? Examples are the Balrog - Satan; Saruman/Grima - Judas; Gandalf the White resurrection; Elrond - Jesus?

No .

Mansun

08-30-2006, 06:34 PM

No .

Your contribution was been well established. I look forward to handing you the title for winner of ''The Post of the Barrow Downs Award''.

mark12_30

08-30-2006, 08:02 PM

So in other words you have abolutely nothing to back up your position as yet? It seems that the 'pro-Christian interpretation' lobby are demanding the right to do something they cannot actually do. Bit like demanding the right to turn lead into gold or fly to the moon on a bicycle....

Maybe reminiscing about what's been done in depth elsewhere.

Raynor

08-30-2006, 08:45 PM

Sounds fine but I notice no-one's actually come up with any direct correspondences that work. All the suggestions so far (Elrond or Gandalf or Frodo is a 'Christ figure' all seem to have been rejected. Morgoth's story is a 'bit like' the story of Satan, etc).

The general feeling seems to be that some people are vaguely reminded of Biblical figures/stories.

Where are the specifics?He admitted to Galadriel being linked, to a certain degree, to Mary:
I was particularly interested in your remarks about Galadriel. .... I think it is true that I owe much of this character to Christian and Catholic teaching and imagination about Mary, but actually Galadriel was a penitent: in her youth a leader in the rebellion against the Valar (the angelic guardians). Earendil is linked more than etymologicaly to the concept of divine messenger:
Its earliest recorded A-S form is earendil (oer-), later earendel, eorendel. Mostly in glosses on jubar = leoma; also on aurora. But also in Blickling Homilies, se niwa eorendel applied to St John the Baptist; and most notably Crist, eala! earendel engla beorhtast ofer middangeard monnum sended. Often supposed to refer to Christ (or Mary), but comparison with Blickling Homilies suggests that it refers to the Baptist. The lines refer to a herald, and divine messenger, clearly not the sodfaesta sunnan leoma = Christ.He calls Elendil "a Noachian figure" - and I think that the comparison is rather accurate, seeing that he saved the remnants of an entire culture from deluge. As far as the story of Melkor being "a bit" like that of his Bible counterpart, he did call his rebellion as satanic, and commented on Melkor being "the inevitable Rebel and self-worshipper of mythologies that begin with a transcendent unique Creator", or more directly,"the Diabolos of these tales".

All in all, I don't think he disliked the presence (and the detection) of christian elements in his works; he stated that "I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories)" and he called LotR a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work".

Lalwendë

08-31-2006, 02:07 AM

All in all, I don't think he disliked the presence (and the detection) of christian elements in his works; he stated that "I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories)" and he called LotR a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work".

Full quote goes thus:

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

So many people just include that first clause in discussions, but taken that way it loses its meaning. As Tolkien says above - he made the effort to cut out religious elements, leaving in only the most fundamental elements. The story itself - the battle of little people against big baddies - is the Christian element.

He was probably quite pleased when people wrote him letters saying "Oooh, such and such is like x biblical character", what with being Catholic and all. So no, he didn't dislike this. But the knots he ended up tying himself into over Galadriel at a later stage proved that some things, such as trying to 'build in' Mary Myth to his story weren't working; that whole struggle could even be why he never got round to finishing the Silmarillion, which began as a very pagan work, but which grew more and more thorny as he tried to 'Christianise' it.

davem

08-31-2006, 02:44 AM

My own feeling is that once the 'Christian' elements have been absorbed into the story (assuming of course the 'absorption' is successful ) they lose any specific Christian aspect & become a part of the Secondary world. Hence, they are no longer 'Christian'. To the extent that they are still identifiably Christian they have not been properly absorbed & the Secondary world is not truly self contained.

Raynor

08-31-2006, 03:33 AM

The story itself - the battle of little people against big baddies - is the Christian element.Then again, what moves the battle to its happy ending is the Christian pitty, the one who saves Frodo and the world.
But the knots he ended up tying himself into over Galadriel at a later stage proved that some things, such as trying to 'build in' Mary Myth to his story weren't working; that whole struggle could even be why he never got round to finishing the Silmarillion, which began as a very pagan work, but which grew more and more thorny as he tried to 'Christianise' it.I am not sure, to what problems of Galadriel are you reffering to? If you mean whether her staying in ME in the Third Age is self-choice or a valar ban, then this isn't related to our issue. As for the later part of your statement, I agree; what started initially subconsiously as Christian, he would later emboss in his work even more evidently, should he had had the time.
My own feeling is that once the 'Christian' elements have been absorbed into the story (assuming of course the 'absorption' is successful ) they lose any specific Christian aspect & become a part of the Secondary world. Hence, they are no longer 'Christian'. To the extent that they are still identifiably Christian they have not been properly absorbed & the Secondary world is not truly self contained.We need to consider the fact that Tolkien tried _really_ hard to make his creation like our world. I mean, he try so hard that he almost destroyed his creation. This is true either concerning the phisical level:
It is at any rate clear, for he stated it unambiguously enough, that he had come to believe that the art of the 'Sub-creator' cannot, or should not attempt to, extend to the 'mythical' revelation of a conception of the shape of the Earth and the origin of the lights of heaven that runs counter to the known physical truths of his own days: 'You cannot do this any more'. And this opinion is rendered more complex and difficult of discussion by the rise in importance of the Eldarin 'loremasters' of Aman, whose intellectual attainments and knowledge must preclude any idea that a 'false' astronomy could have prevailed among them. It seems to me that he was devising – from within it – a fearful weapon against his own creation.The "real" creation, at least to Tolkien, is religious, religious as in Christian. I doubt he would try to depict something which is bereft of what he thinks is the central part, i.e. the christian part of it - or to depict it in such a way that it was unrecognisable. To emphasize my point, I also reffer to perhaps the most famous qoute of Humphrey's biography:
We have come from God (continued Tolkien), and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour, while materialistic ‘progress’ leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil.His work evolved around mythmaking - which point to Truth. There is no doubt to my mind that he had but the deepest of respect for other religions, but the Truth, to him, is the one writen in the Gospels - the one he tried to convey, in his on way. After all, he did call the Gospels the greatest fairy story of them all...

davem

08-31-2006, 04:22 AM

Lalwendë

08-31-2006, 04:40 AM

I am not sure, to what problems of Galadriel are you reffering to? If you mean whether her staying in ME in the Third Age is self-choice or a valar ban, then this isn't related to our issue. As for the later part of your statement, I agree; what started initially subconsiously as Christian, he would later emboss in his work even more evidently, should he had had the time.

The problems over her motivation, over why she chose to do what she did. Tolkien's tinkerings with her in letters and later notes, adding elements of the Mary myth to her persona only serve to make her seem flat and one-dimensional, and deeply un-womanly, as though she is reduced to a mere cipher or symbol than a real character. Yet if we simply take the Galadriel we see in LotR she becomes a much more fascinating character, imbued with power and a desire for power. She has failings. What's more she has a more fascinating back story, with Celebrimbor's love for her, the idea of her rebellion etc.

It's not only Galadriel who got him into knots though, it was the Orcs too. He later agonised over whether it was 'moral' to have slaughtered so many Orcs. And he seems to have become alarmed when people saw the huge amount of pagan symbolism in the work (inevitable to me, that a Catholic writer's work would come across in such a way when deliberately avoiding religious allegory, considering that Christianity was built on the foundations of paganism); as a result he used his letters to explore the Christian side of the work and often muddled issues which were established in the secondary world he had created.

Tolkien was the God of Arda, he was the only one who could create it and give it life, and that is what he did. With the letters, it's as though on the 8th day he opened the door and let some other God from another part of the void in, and we know what they say about too many cooks.

Raynor

08-31-2006, 05:11 AM

Tolkien's tinkerings with her in letters and later notes, adding elements of the Mary myth to her persona only serve to make her seem flat and one-dimensional, and deeply un-womanly, as though she is reduced to a mere cipher or symbol than a real character.Considering her deeds in the first age, no amount of later "tinkering" would make her one-dimensional (to me).
Tolkien was the God of Arda, he was the only one who could create it and give it life, and that is what he did. With the letters, it's as though on the 8th day he opened the door and let some other God from another part of the void in, and we know what they say about too many cooks.Well, I am sure the professor would preffer the term sub-creator. In the On fairy-stories essay, he states that a work is believable and can produce "willful suspension of disbelief", or more accurately, secondary belief, only if it achieves inner-coherence, which is what he tried to do all the time with his work. If you are saying that what he did was the opposite, i.e. destroying an existing coherence between the form and essence of his work, I will have to politely disagree.
This is all a bit vague, though, & hardly specifically Christian. Pity, mercy, compassion are all essential to Buddhism, for instance. What is often cited as 'Christian' themes in these arguments are actually much more universal. Tolkien certainly found them in Christianity, but he could equally well have found them in other faiths. I think a Jew or a Muslim could equally well have written LotR, or a Buddhist or Hindu or Sikh. I'm also pretty sure that any readers of LotR who followed those faiths would have no issues with the philosophical underpinnings of the work or feel they were at all strange.If what you imply is that if you want to make a christian/catholic work you must use only elements that are specific to this religion, then I disagree
The specifics of Christianity (Incarnation, Sacrifice of God for the salvation of the World, Resurrection, etc) are absent from the story.Having those in the original form would have been as much as an allegory as you can possibly have. Of course, I could point out to the presence of the Gods who are Incarnate and whose eyes are not dimmed and whose hearts are not hardened; or to the foretold coming of Beren who descends into hell and brings out the light; to the sending of the imperishable flame at the heart of the world, making its foundations good and healing creation from inside; or to the second coming of Turin, who will slay Morgoth; or to the foretold coming of Eru himself, to heal all Creation.

davem

08-31-2006, 05:21 AM

. Of course, I could point out to the presence of the Gods who are Incarnate and whose eyes are not dimmed and whose hearts are not hardened; or to the foretold coming of Beren who descends into hell and brings out the light; to the sending of the imperishable flame at the heart of the world, making its foundations good and healing creation from inside; or to the second coming of Turin, who will slay Morgoth; or to the foretold coming of Eru himself, to heal all Creation.

As to Beren we have Orpheus/Orpheo, Innanna, Gilgamesh & others. Turin is hardly a 'Christ figure' (incest, murder, suicide). As to the Incarnation of Eru in Hinduism we have Krishna as the incarnation of Vishnu the Creator.

As far as the Flame Imperishable which enters into the Heart of the World, I don't at all see any similarity with Christian belief - unless you're referring to the fires of Hell....

mark12_30

08-31-2006, 05:31 AM

This is all a bit vague, though, & hardly specifically Christian. Pity, mercy, compassion are all essential to Buddhism, for instance. What is often cited as 'Christian' themes in these arguments are actually much more universal. Tolkien certainly found them in Christianity, but he could equally well have found them in other faiths. I think a Jew or a Muslim could equally well have written LotR, or a Buddhist or Hindu or Sikh. I'm also pretty sure that any readers of LotR who followed those faiths would have no issues with the philosophical underpinnings of the work or feel they were at all strange.

He could-- if he was from another faith. But he was, as we know, a devout and focused Catholic; so why bring the other faith systems up at all?

The question at the beginning of the thread was whether Tolkien took material from the bible, not whether he took it from the Upanishads, the Koran, or any other text.

The specifics of Christianity (Incarnation, Sacrifice of God for the salvation of the World, Resurrection, etc) are absent from the story.

Of course they are absent from the war of the Ring; Tolkien said they were, and also he said why.

They showed up in his writings much later, in Athrabeth an Andreth.

As far as the Flame Imperishable which enters into the Heart of the World, I don't at all see any similarity with Christian belief - unless you're referring to the fires of Hell....

Denying connections between two works assumes you are familiar enough with both works to make the denial. Here, then, lies your greatest weakness in this whole argument-- ignorance of the main themes of Christianity. If you cannot see the Flame Imperishable within Christian theology and biblical exegesis-- even the simple phrase by itself, let alone the way Gandalf uses that simple phrase on the bridge!-- then your opinion that there are no connections loses its weight within this context.

mark12_30

08-31-2006, 06:09 AM

You know, I'm cheered to see some of you making new discoveries and new associations; please don't let us old, wheezing geezers discourage you from setting out on your explorations.

I'm off to work shortly, and there alas I have no Barrow Downs access. But I'll toss this out for discussion among the newer set.

Picture Gandalf's last stand on the Bridge of Khazad Dum.

Think over the phrase, "Flame Imperishable."

Now-- free-association time; without fretting about reactions and other's opinions... biblically, what comes to mind?

Raynor

08-31-2006, 06:14 AM

As to Beren we have Orpheus/Orpheo, Innanna, Gilgamesh & others. Turin is hardly a 'Christ figure' (incest, murder, suicide). As to the Incarnation of Eru in Hinduism we have Krishna as the incarnation of Vishnu the Creator.

As far as the Flame Imperishable which enters into the Heart of the World, I don't at all see any similarity with Christian belief - unless you're referring to the fires of Hell....Again, it seems to me that the main difference between us is that for you a Christian work is one in which there are refferences to only what is absolutely unique in Christianity - if the work would evolve solely around that, it would be rather barren. [Btw, IIRC, in hinduism, it is Brahma who is the creative aspect of God, not Vishnu]

davem

08-31-2006, 06:26 AM

They showed up in his writings much later, in Athrabeth an Andreth.

A great deal shows up in the later writings - much of it, if included in the Legendarium would cause major problems. Even if accepted we are only dealing there with an Elvish belief, not a fact.

Denying connections between two works assumes you are familiar enough with both works to make the denial. Here, then, lies your greatest weakness in this whole argument-- ignorance of the main themes of Christianity. If you cannot see the connection for the Flame Imperishable within Christian theology and biblical exegesis, then your opinion that there are no connections loses all its weight within this context.

A belief in 'Sacred' fire at the heart of the earth is hardly original to Christianity. The whole point, which I made earlier, is that once an element is successfully absorbed into a Secondary World it becomes part of that world. The things Tolkien 'absorbed' into M-e are Religious universals, rather than specifics. If one didn't know he was Christian & had only the works I don't think - much as he might have hoped - anyone would be able to tell what religion, if any, he followed.

Hence, it is not a 'Christian' work.

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

08-31-2006, 06:29 AM

biblically, what comes to mind?

And Caleb said: He that shall take Cariath-Sepher, and lay it waste, to him will I give my daughter Axa to wife.

Perfect match. :smokin:

Lalwendë

08-31-2006, 06:33 AM

Again, it seems to me that the main difference between us is that for you a Christian work is one in which there are refferences to only what is absolutely unique in Christianity - if the work would evolve solely around that, it would be rather barren. [Btw, IIRC, in hinduism, it is Brahma who is the creative aspect of God, not Vishnu]

If the work contains equally strong elements of other faiths/beliefs (as it does, if anyone wishes to get into some alternative reader-resonse research) then can we still call it a Christian work? Shouldn't we really be calling it an Ecumenical or Universal work?

The fact still remains that the books do not contain that one major (in fact, pretty damn fundamental) aspect of Christianity. Christ.

Hmm, I wonder has anyone considered that perhaps Tolkien, as a devout Catholic, recognised that the Bible, as the Word of God, was the only definitive Christian text. Why would he have sought to demean the real Bible by attempting to create his own version? Wouldn't that be blasphemous?

Bêthberry

08-31-2006, 07:16 AM

Hmm, I wonder has anyone considered that perhaps Tolkien, as a devout Catholic, recognised that the Bible, as the Word of God, was the only definitive Christian text. Why would he have sought to demean the real Bible by attempting to create his own version? Wouldn't that be blasphemous?

Tolkien mentioned this aspect in one of his letters. Unfortunately, I don't have them at hand right now.

Rather than using the word blasphemous, he chose the word parody, which he wanted to avoid. When I can find the letter, I'll edit this post with the proper BD reference.

Raynor

08-31-2006, 07:41 AM

As far as the Flame Imperishable which enters into the Heart of the World, I don't at all see any similarity with Christian belief - unless you're referring to the fires of Hell....What about the fire form that God assumed before Moses? Or the fire with which Jesus baptises and cleans? The pillar of fire which God assumed as a form, to lead Moses' people? The Holy Spirit as Holy Fire?
If the work contains equally strong elements of other faiths/beliefs (as it does, if anyone wishes to get into some alternative reader-resonse research) then can we still call it a Christian work? Shouldn't we really be calling it an Ecumenical or Universal work? Take some Christian prayer or text that doesn't use terms which are _uniquely_ Christian. Does that make it less Christian to Christians, even if its terms & values have a universal ring to it? In general, even if one doesn't know these specifics, one can't exclude it can be christian; but if one does know them, why hold on to a hypothetical ignorance of them?
Tolkien mentioned this aspect in one of his letters. Unfortunately, I don't have them at hand right now.

Rather than using the word blasphemous, he chose the word parody, which he wanted to avoid. When I can find the letter, I'll edit this post with the proper BD reference.Well, as I pointed previously, he called the Gospels the greatest fairy story (letter #89) - nonetheless, he did maintain that myth-making in fairy stories is a path to the Truth, which is quite the opposite of blasphemy

davem

08-31-2006, 07:59 AM

What about the fire form that God assumed before Moses? Or the fire with which Jesus baptises and cleans? The pillar of fire which God assumed as a form, to lead Moses' people? The Holy Spirit as Holy Fire?

What about Surtr, Hephaestos & Brigid, what about Agni. What about Wayland Smith. Fire has long been a symbol of the Divine.

It doesn't matter where Tolkien found the elements he used, what matters is what he did with them. Their final form is not a Christian form. The specifically Christian corners have been knocked off & those elements have been given a non-Christian form. Arguing that LotR is a 'Christian' story, or one with Christian elements is rather like arguing that the book you hold in your hands is a tree because it was made from wood pulp.

Lalwendë

08-31-2006, 07:59 AM

Take some Christian prayer or text that doesn't use terms which are _uniquely_ Christian. Does that make it less Christian to Christians, even if its terms & values have a universal ring to it? In general, even if one doesn't know these specifics, one can't exclude it can be christian; but if one does know them, why hold on to a hypothetical ignorance of them?

That would be a very different thing, as Christian prayers are written for Christians, so even if they do take up universal ideas then they are necessarily framing them within the specifically Christian context. As I've said many posts ago, perhaps the longest spin we can put on Tolkien's work in terms of 'promoting' ideas of Christianity is that it is a book by a Christian and definitely a book suitable for Christians (in that it is sympathetic to the tenets of the faith) but it cannot be ring-fenced as a Christian book, as it simply was not written with that purpose in mind.

Well, as I pointed previously, he called the Gospels the greatest fairy story (letter #89) - nonetheless, he did maintain that myth-making in fairy stories is a path to the Truth, which is quite the opposite of blasphemy

What about the fire form that God assumed before Moses? Or the fire with which Jesus baptises and cleans? The pillar of fire which God assumed as a form, to lead Moses' people? The Holy Spirit as Holy Fire?

'You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. 'I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'

Note that Anor is The Sun. Someone wielding the flames of the Sun? The power of Light given by the Sun? Using it to chase away Darkness? That is an incredibly powerful Pagan image.

Macalaure

08-31-2006, 08:12 AM

The whole point, which I made earlier, is that once an element is successfully absorbed into a Secondary World it becomes part of that world. The things Tolkien 'absorbed' into M-e are rather Religious universals, rather than specifics. If one didn't know he was Christian & had only the works I don't think - much as he might have hoped - anyone would be able to tell what religion, if any, he followed.

Hence, it is not a 'Christian' work.
Which has me thinking, what is a 'Christian' work?

If it is only something which contains christian specifics, in the plot, the characters or the symbolism, then Tolkien's works are not christian.

If it is something which contains christian themes and christian ethics, without solely consisting of them, then they are.
But since most works contain the ethics of their authors, and Tolkien's ethics were deeply influenced by christianity, this is not much of a surprise.

Is it a work which has a christian message?
This is a little difficult, since Tolkien's work does not have a specified message and everything depends on the individual application.
Can you apply Tolkien in a christian way? - obviously you can.
Can you apply Tolkien in a way that is not christian? - obviously you can.

Having those in the original form would have been as much as an allegory as you can possibly have. Of course, I could point out to the presence of the Gods who are Incarnate and whose eyes are not dimmed and whose hearts are not hardened; or to the foretold coming of Beren who descends into hell and brings out the light; to the sending of the imperishable flame at the heart of the world, making its foundations good and healing creation from inside; or to the second coming of Turin, who will slay Morgoth; or to the foretold coming of Eru himself, to heal all Creation.
Raynor, please elaborate. This is what the thread was about - in the first place.

What about the fire form that God assumed before Moses? Or the fire with which Jesus baptises and cleans? The pillar of fire which God assumed as a form, to lead Moses' people? The Holy Spirit as Holy Fire?
I always understood the Imperishable Flame as the source of the indepentent life, contrary to the lives of animals, the source of the fëar of elves, men and dwarves, making their fëar imperishable in Arda. Gandalf refers to it when he calls himself a servant of the secret fire and I see it as a symbol for Eru in this place, whom he serves via serving the Valar.
I cannot see a resemblance to this in your examples.

davem

08-31-2006, 08:13 AM

Note that Anor is The Sun. Someone wielding the flames of the Sun? The power of Light given by the Sun? Using it to chase away Darkness? That is an incredibly powerful Pagan image.

A little Norse myth:

The world will be in uproar, the air will quake with booms, blares and echoes. Amid this turmoil, the fire giants of Muspelheim, led by Surtr, will advance from the south and tear apart the sky itself as they too, close in on Vigrid. Surtr will brandish a fierce fire sword, the Sword of Revenge, that consumes everything in his path with flames. As Surtr and the others ride over Bifröst, the rainbow bridge will crack and break behind them. Garm, the hellhound bound in front of Gnipahellir, will also get free. He will join the fire giants on their march.

So all the Jotuns and all the inmates of Hel, Fenrir, Jörmungandr, Garm, Surtr and the blazing sons of Muspelheim, will gather on Vigrid. They will all but fill that plain that stretches one hundred and twenty leagues in every direction.

Meanwhile, Heimdall, being the first of the gods to see the enemies approaching, will blow his Giallar horn, sounding such a blast that it will be heard throughout the nine worlds. All the Gods will wake and at once meet in council. Odin will then mount Sleipnir and gallop to Mímir's spring and consult Mímir on his own and his people's behalf.

Then, Yggdrasil, the world tree, will shake from root to summit. Everything on the earth, in the heavens, and Hel will quiver. All Æsir and Einherjar will don their battle dresses. This vast host (432,000 Einherjar - 800 from each of Valhalla's 540 gates) will march towards Vigrid and Odin will ride at their head, wearing a golden helmet and a shining corselet, brandishing Gungnir.

I think we can see the Balrog on the Bridge of Khazad Dum, Boromir blowing his horn & Odin in his 'sun-god' aspect here (wearing a golden helmet & shining corslet...

The Saucepan Man

08-31-2006, 09:13 AM

Well, this all just goes to prove the primacy of the individual reader as the determinant of a book’s meaning. ;)

Davem said earlier:

LotR is what it is. Your personal interpretation of it is something else. The two things are, & must be, different.True, as far as it goes. But what is LotR, taken in a vacuum as it were, without the individual’s reaction to it? It is simply a collection of pages with words printed upon them. Those words can mean nothing without a reader to read them.

Of course, you might say that they mean what the author intended them to mean. But that only holds true as far as the author is concerned, together with those who are aware of such intended meaning (to the extent that it can be determined) and inclined to accept it. That again comes down to individual choice and individual reaction.

Ultimately, therefore, it all comes down to personal reaction.

Many here are arguing that LotR is a fundamentally religious and Catholic work. Others are arguing that it is nothing of the sort, because it does not contain specific Christian symbolism. Well, in my view, both camps are right and both camps are wrong.

For those who perceive LotR as a fundamentally religious and Catholic book, then it is just that - for them. But it is neither fundamentally religious nor fundamentally Catholic to others. It depends upon your individual perspective, which informs and shapes your individual reaction.

For those who insist that it cannot be a fundamentally religious and Catholic book, well you are right to suggest that it cannot be fundamentally religious or Catholic to those who do not perceive it as such, but you are wrong to deny the reaction of those who do perceive it in that way.

Of course, there will be areas where our individual reactions overlap, where some of us can reach some measure of agreement as to the “meaning” of LotR, but that does not mean that such “meaning” will hold true for everyone. So, for example, Catholics may agree that there are Catholic themes and Catholic symbolism within LotR, although they may sometimes disagree on the specifics. Similarly, Muslims may agree that there are Muslims themes within LotR, while those of us without any strong religious belief may simply focus on what the book has to tell us about the human condition.

Or, as davem has suggested, we may simply enjoy it as an entertaining story. Even then, our differing experiences and perspectives mean that we will have different individual reactions to it – in terms, for example, of how much we enjoy a particular aspect or how we interpret a character or event within the context of the fictional world. In this regard, therefore, I think that none of us can fully comply with davem’s entreaty to “leave our baggage behind”. Our individual experiences and perspectives will always be there, lurking in the background, influencing our reaction to the story. To a greater or lesser degree (and perhaps even only in very subtle ways) my vision of Middle-earth and my experience of the War of the Ring will always be different to yours.

Davem suggested that the Christian interpretation of LotR is at its most objectionable when it seeks to evangelise or to preach, in effect to insist that this approach is the (only) correct one. Well, I might say that it is equally objectionable to seek to persuade those who do apply a Christian interpretation that they are wrong to interpret it in such a way, since that is in effect doing exactly the same thing. But, as a general principle, I would agree that it is wrong for anyone to insist that there is only one possible approach to a book like LotR and to use this to persuade others to subscribe to their “world-view”. Nothing wrong with expressing one’s reaction to LotR and attempting to delineate areas of agreement, perhaps even to find whether it strikes a chord with others. Quite wrong in my view to attempt to insist that one’s reaction is the only proper reaction or that it gives you a better appreciation of the book than others. Sometimes, though, it can be a fine line between the two.

In my experience, it is a line which is crossed quite frequently here, particularly in discussions of religion and LotR. I have no doubt that this is usually unintentional. The subtle phrasing of a sentence to suggest implicitly that one has a superior understanding of LotR because one shares Tolkien’s faith. Or through seeking to define the terms of the discussion by reference to words which may appear quite neutral on the face of it, but which have implicit religious connotations. A prime example of this is the frequent bandying about of “truth-with-a-capital-T”, a word for which (despite many requests) I have never received a satisfactory explanation. As I understand it, it denotes the existence of some objective, eternal “truth”, independent of mankind, which cannot be denied. But I don’t necessarily accept that as a concept and so cannot accept it as a “given” in a discussion. Another example is “Eucatastrophe”, a word which I understand Tolkien himself coined. I am happy to discuss it in terms of what Tolkien meant by it. Similarly, I am happy to use it by reference to its simple, literary meaning – denoting a piece of writing which produces sudden joy in the reader at an unexpected and significant upturn in events. But I am uncomfortable with it when used implicitly to refer to the undeniable existence of that “truth-with-a-capital-T”, whatever it is. And a final example is those frequent references to the “sub-created world” when talking about the fictional world, since that phrase necessarily implies that the world within which we live, the “primary” world, was wilfully “created” by some sentient supernatural being. Again, that is a concept to which I do not necessarily subscribe.

So, I see nothing wrong in discussing the possible biblical themes and symbolism within LotR. But I think that those whose reaction to LotR leads them to perceive it as a fundamentally Christian work should be careful not to insist that this is the only, or even the “best” or “correct”, interpretation of the book. Similarly, those who do not accept this approach should be careful not to deny the genuine and honest reaction of others who do. We all have our individual reactions to LotR. There are some that most, or even all, of us can probably agree on. There are others that some of us will never agree on. But, whether we can agree or not, it does not follow that any one particular reaction is the “right” or “correct” or “best” one.

The Only Real Estel

08-31-2006, 09:32 AM

A prime example of this is the frequent bandying about of “truth-with-a-capital-T”, a word for which (despite many requests) I have never received a satisfactory explanation. As I understand it, it denotes the existence of some objective, eternal “truth”, independent of mankind, which cannot be denied. But I don’t necessarily accept that as a concept and so cannot accept it as a “given” in a discussion.

Truth: Truth is the matching relation between a truth bearer (me saying that the world is round) and a truth maker [reality] (the world being round). The matching of those two is 'Truth.'

As for the text of The Lord of the Rings being Christian or non-Christian this really is a ridiculous discussion. It does not depend on the reader's point of view. It has nothing to do with the reader. If you're asking if the text is Christian for davem, for Fea, for yourself, or for myself - then it depends on how we interpret the text.

But the actual meaning of a text is not dependant on a reader's interpretation, it depends on the author's intentions. To decide if "Rings" is a Christian work or not (which really shouldn't be the issue here) you have to go back to Tolkien's intentions.

Tolkien did not intend for the books to be "Christian." Are there Chrisitan elements in them? That's what the discussion should be - I think there are. There are also many other elements in them.

But the books are not Christian works because Tolkien didn't intend them to be.

The Saucepan Man

08-31-2006, 09:48 AM

Truth: Truth is the matching relation between a truth bearer (me saying that the world is round) and a truth maker [reality] (the world being round). The matching of those two is 'Truth.'Fine, as long as the reality can be established as a truth. More often than not, however, the word is used in a context whereby the supposed reality cannot be proven, but is a matter of faith.

But the actual meaning of a text is not dependant on a reader's interpretation, it depends on the author's intentions.Hmm. Countless pages of canonicity thread would suggest that it is not quite so clear-cut as you portray it. Am I fundamentally obliged to accept the author's intended meaning of the book as its true meaning? What if it does not strike a chord with me? What if society has significantly changed since the book was written and the author's intended meaning is no longer relevant to me? Why do I have to accept it as the meaning of the book if I perceive an entirely different meaning? What if we cannot sufficiently determine the author's intended meaning? What if the author changed his mind as to its meaning (as Tolkien frequently did)?

I can accept that the author may have intended his work to mean some specific thing. It does not follow that the work will have the same meaning to me, or indeed to others.

But the books are not Christian works because Tolkien didn't intend them to be.Tolkien stated that he intended the book to be a fundamentally religious and Catholic work - consciously so in the revision. That was the meaning (or part of it) that he intended to convey. It does not follow that I have to view it as a fundamentally religious or Catholic work.

Raynor

08-31-2006, 10:23 AM

Their final form is not a Christian form. It seems to me that you overrate form (which brings one to allegory) and underrate message and intent of the author; please correct me if I am wrong.
Arguing that LotR is a 'Christian' story, or one with Christian elements is rather like arguing that the book you hold in your hands is a tree because it was made from wood pulp.If, despite all arguments put forth, you deny even the existence of Christian elements, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
... but it cannot be ring-fenced as a Christian book, as it simply was not written with that purpose in mind.I believe that Letter #142 which we both quoted points oppositely. It is exactly the purpose of the author that it is beyond doubt; the only thing left to discuss is the form in which he presented Christians idea.
Note that Anor is The Sun. Someone wielding the flames of the Sun? The power of Light given by the Sun? Using it to chase away Darkness? That is an incredibly powerful Pagan image.More important than the refference to Anor (the word derives from fire) is the refference to the secret fire, the imperishable flame of Eru. Moreoever, let's track the meaning of Anor:
Therefore Iluvatar, at the entering in of the Valar into Ea, added a theme to the Great Song which was not in it at the first Singing, and he called one of the Ainur to him. Now this was that Spirit which afterwards became Varda (and taking female form became the spouse of Manwe). To Varda Iluvatar said: 'I will give unto thee a parting gift. Thou shalt take into Ea a light that is holy, coming new from Me, unsullied by the thought and lust of Melkor, and with thee it shall enter into Ea, and be in Ea, but not of Ea.' Wherefore Varda is the most holy and revered of all the Valar, and those that name the light of Varda name the love of Ea that Eru has, and they are afraid, less only to name the One.
...
Now the Sun was designed to be the heart of Arda, and the Valar purposed that it should give light to all that Realm, unceasingly and without wearying or diminution, and that from its light the world should receive health and life and growth. Therefore Varda set there the most ardent and beautiful of all those spirits that had entered with her into Ea, and she was named Ar(i), and Varda gave to her keeping a portion of the gift of Iluvatar so that the Sun should endure and be blessed and give blessing.
...
But Arie rejected Melkor and rebuked him, saying: 'Speak not of right, which thou hast long forgotten. Neither for thee nor by thee alone was Ea made; and thou shalt not be King of Arda. Beware therefore; for there is in the heart of As a light in which thou hast no part, and a fire which will not serve thee. So, the power of Anor is in fact the power of the imperishable flame.

Interestingly enough, Clyde S. Kilby notes in his book "Tolkien as Christian Writer" that:
Professor Tolkien talked to me at some length about the use of the word "holy" in The Silmarillion. Very specifically he told me that the "Secret Fire sent to burn at the heart of the world" in the beginning was the Holy Spirit Raynor, please elaborate. This is what the thread was about - in the first place.We have gods who are incarnate, serving the good and keeping a guard on the Children; Beren descending into hell and bringing out the light of the silmaril back into the world would parallel, to me, Christ's days in the desert and the light he later brings, or the "fire" with which he baptises; Turin, though he did have his shortcomings (though some of them don't constitute sins, since they were done under the dragon's spell), is mentioned in one of the versions of the second prophecy of Mandos in HoME IV as the one who will defeat Melkor, again, a Christian, even Christ-like, element to me - which is even more evident, for example, in the Atrabeth, where Finrod states that Eru himself will come inside his Creation and will heal it of evil.
I always understood the Imperishable Flame as the source of the indepentent life, contrary to the lives of animals, the source of the fëar of elves, men and dwarves, making their fëar imperishable in Arda. Gandalf refers to it when he calls himself a servant of the secret fire and I see it as a symbol for Eru in this place, whom he serves via serving the Valar.I don't think it should be understood in a restrictive way; it is stated in the Silmarillion, Ainulindale, that "then the themes of Iluvatar shall be played aright, and take Being in the moment of their utterance, for all shall then understand fully his intent in their part, and each shall know the comprehension of each, and Iluvatar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire, being well pleased"; also: in Note 11, Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth the secret flame is said to be "the Creative activity of Eru (in some sense distinct from or within Him), by which things could be given a 'real' and independent (though derivative and created) existence". These refferences mean to me that the imperishable flame brings into existence not just souls but "things" too.
I think we can see the Balrog on the Bridge of Khazad Dum, Boromir blowing his horn & Odin in his 'sun-god' aspect here (wearing a golden helmet & shining corslet...A good example of using applicability, though too lightly if you ask me.

The Mouth of Sauron

08-31-2006, 10:33 AM

LOTR is a novel .

Obviously any book written will be influenced by previous books that the author has read, together with his/her life experiences .

So in the same way as LOTR was doubtless written against the background of Tolkien's own life and beliefs , it is surely true that other works of fiction, including the Bible, were written within the framework of their time and the predilictions of their authors .

davem

08-31-2006, 11:55 AM

A good example of using applicability, though too lightly if you ask me.

This is where I would argue you are completely wrong & factually wrong too. One of Tolkien's intentions for the Legendarium, in fact a principle one, was to try & recreate the ancient myths & Legends of North-Western Europe (See Shippey). Tolkien (rightly or wrongly) believed that there had once been a coherent body of myth which had once existed but that over the millenia it was forgotten or lost for various reasons leaving only fragments. His intention was to attempt to recreate that lost mythology by constructing a body of myths into which those fragments could be fitted. Shippey's essay on Light & Dark Elves in Tolkien Studies vol one is an examination of how he approached the problem of the existence of 'Light' & 'Dark' Elves (the exact nature of which, along with their story & oorigin, has been lost). Tolkien's account of the High Elves who saw the Light of the Trees & the Grey & Dark Elves who remained in M-e is the account he produced to explain how there could be two (or more) different types of Elves.

Hence, we are not dealing here with 'applicability' at all, but a deliberate use by Tolkien of ancient myths, as he attempted to get at the 'real' story behind the legend.

Tolkien's claims of orthodoxy for LotR are often his attempts to prove a point, confirm his Catholic credentials if you like - often in response to readers who questioned that. One cannot use the letters (written after the event in most cases) to prove his 'good' intentions. He also stated on numerous occasions that he was not inventing anything at all, but rather attempting to discover 'what really happened'. He stated that the events at the Sammath Naur were dictated by the logic of the story at that point.

Tolkien's statement that the Secret Fire 'is' the Holy Spirit is not something that should simply be accepted without question. Tolkien also referred to men using chainsaws on trees, & in one case a young man riding a motorbike, as 'Orcs'. The Secret Fire is a very clever literary device, but I can't see any exact match between it & the Holy Ghost of Christian theology. Similarities perhaps - but that's the point. Many elements, from Christianity, Paganism, botany, biology & many other things were taken up into the secondary world but once there they took on new & unique forms & were no longer the same thing.

Anyone who has read HoM-e will find it difficult to accept Tolkien's statement that the story was 'consciously Christian in the revision' because the revisions are all there to see & they all follow logically from the dynamic of the story, none from a desire to 'Christianise' the thing. That said, I have no doubt that Tolkien believed what he said.

Finally to the Athrabeth. I have to say that the whole thing about Eru entering into Arda to heal it felt completely false to me - mainly because I agree with Tolkien's opinion on the Arthurian legends - that the prominence of Christian elements is an essential weakness. Its a flaw in one of Tolkien's greatest works & is as out of place as the whole 'Dome of Varda' fiasco.

Lalwendë

08-31-2006, 01:03 PM

I believe that Letter #142 which we both quoted points oppositely. It is exactly the purpose of the author that it is beyond doubt; the only thing left to discuss is the form in which he presented Christians idea.

Let's look at the whole passage rather than the juicy first sentence.

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little;

And let's also bear in mind that this letter was written to a Catholic priest, who also seems to have been the first person to suggest this later Galadriel/Mary connection, even before Tolkien began to tinker with her character. So now we have context.

Let's note that Tolkien makes his grand statement, and then later revokes that grand statement, saying he planned very little. And from looking at HoME, as we are privileged to have the drafting process in front of us, he did indeed plan very little, but redrafted much. And as davem points out there just isn't the evidence to prove that he went through and Catholicised the text. As Tolkien himself says, the religious element is absorbed into the story and symbolism, and as Tolkien also said, the story is not an allegory. Therefore some balance point in interpretation must be found, and it lies in that charcaters and situations are not meant to represent Biblical characters and situations but that the story, the narrative itself, is in sympathy with Christian ideals. Which it is. Isn't the Bible filled with tales of good vs evil? Of the insignificant winning over the worldly and powerful?

So to sum up from Tolkien's usually misquoted words (like the 'Mythology for England' misquote), it's there if you want to find it, but only scant references may have been put there on purpose.

davem

08-31-2006, 01:06 PM

Bêthberry

08-31-2006, 03:39 PM

Isn't the Bible filled with tales of good vs evil? Of the insignificant winning over the worldly and powerful?

It is. And so, as Ronald Hutton pointed out in a talk at Tolkien 2005, are fairy stories.

And as far as this 'consciously so in the revison' thing goes, could some of those quoting it as evidence of the essentially Christian nature of the work cite examples from HoM-e?

This seems as likely a spot as any to suggest something that I've been mulling over as this thread accumulates.

We have this dichotomy between ancient myths and Legendarium, or paganism and Christianity/Catholicism. And we seem to have groups of readers who respond, on a continuum, but roughly into two sides (although Downers such as Sauce, Fordim and myself probably constitute a 'third' side. ;))

I wonder if we don't need to consider how possibly these aspects could be linked. We have Fairie, we have mythology, we have religion. Were these all as separate for Tolkien as they are for us?

Some time ago--I think it was on the Canonicity thread--I made an observation about Tolkien's OFS. I suggested that Tolkien believed in Chrisitianity because it provided the finest and fullest (for him) experience of that which he found in Fairie. I was expected to be stoned by certain quarters but mainly my point went ignored. I don't think he legitimised Fairie by reference to his faith; he legitimised his faith through fairie. This, at least, is how I read his comments on eucatastrophe.

Recently, a new essay by Tolkien on Smith of Wootton Major has been published. In it, Tolkien apparently defines Fairie as love--the greatest of that trinity, faith, hope and charity. At least, this is what Estelyn Telcontar has relayed to me about the essay. And davem has quoted a passage from it which makes the same comparison (on 'Spun Candy'?). I have not read the essay in its entirely, so I can only make wondering suggestions about what he might mean by this 'love.' (And how love relates to eucatastrophe is another matter.)

What this might suggest is that at some point Tolkien came to understand a common element in his great loves, the pagan mythologies and his faith. After all, his faith commonly said there were great truths in early pagan religions and beliefs and cultural symbols. This is why the Church was able to incorporate pagan symbols into its rich tableau of images--and the Catholic tradition is a very visual tradition, unlike the more austere Protestant forms of faith. (Yes, I realise this argument can be quite successfully deconstructed, but that is aside from my point for the moment.) (And I realise this is my interpretation of one difference between Catholic and Protestant. Literalism provides less opportunity to develop an aesthetic of symbols.)

I'm not in the camp of authorial intention, but it does strike me that there could be a possibility that Tolkien saw a continuum in these topics, saw something inchoate in the early mythologies that he saw working out in his stories. Perhaps something in the act of writing helped him develop this idea, an idea he may not have started out with. This does not explain the absence, for instance, of an Incarnation or a holy Trinity, or a Christ figure fully detailed, but it could account for how elements of the story are so suggestive for certain readers.

A second way of understanding this dichotomy among readers is to think of another author, Graham Greene. I recall some interesting discussions years ago about his Brighton Rock about where or how does Greene incorporate a religious element. Readers who were Catholic saw it replete with the images, colours and symbols of their faith. Those who were not of course did not. This issue then is, for whom does an author write? Like a gnostic, does an author envision a secret second language for those specially knowledgeable? Or does he simply tell a story using the words and images which form in his imagination and allow those who read to take what meaning they wish, believing that those who seek will find?

But aside from this idea of who Tolkien might have imagined his readers to be, I think there is fruitful discussion to be had concerning what exactly he conceived Fairie to be, mythology to be, and faith to be.

The Saucepan Man

08-31-2006, 04:48 PM

And as far as this 'consciously so in the revison' thing goes, could some of those quoting it as evidence of the essentially Christian nature of the work cite examples from HoM-e?I cite it only as evidence that, at some stage, Tolkien intended (or at least believed that he intended) his work to be a fundamentally religious and Catholic one. The remainder of the quote, as fully given by Lal, merely addresses the manner in which he addressed (or believed that he addressed) that. In saying that little was planned, I believe that he is reiterating the point that the process was unconscious at first. But the reference to it being conscious in the revision indicates that he understood it to have been intentional.

Of course, my point is that, although Tolkien might have intended his work to be a fundamentally religious one, it does not follow that the reader must react to it as such.

I suggested that Tolkien believed in Chrisitianity because it provided the finest and fullest (for him) experience of that which he found in Fairie.

Recently, a new essay by Tolkien on Smith of Wootton Major has been published. In it, Tolkien apparently defines Fairie as love--the greatest of that trinity, faith, hope and charity.

I'm not in the camp of authorial intention, but it does strike me that there could be a possibility that Tolkien saw a continuum in these topics, saw something inchoate in the early mythologies that he saw working out in his stories.Interesting points. But, despite Tolkien's reference to Faerie as the "perilous realm", Tolkien's Faerie (the Faerie of Smith of Wootton Major, for example) appears to me to be a rather different place to the Faerie of the original (pre-disney ;) ) Faerie-Tales. The latter, it seems to me, is more accurately portrayed in the novel, Mr Norrell and Jonathan Strange - a truly perilous realm. Did Tolkien compromise the original concept of Faerie in order to bring it in line with his faith? If so, might it be said that, as far as Tolkien was concerned, the Christian themes within the book trumped its mythological roots?

Raynor

08-31-2006, 04:55 PM

This is where I would argue you are completely wrong & factually wrong tooI don't see how the fact that Tolkien intended "once upon a time" to make such a body of connected legends to dedicate it to England refutes the religious aspect of his writing. Moreoever, I believe he called this initial endeavour as absurd.
One cannot use the letters (written after the event in most cases) to prove his 'good' intentions. I see this rather often; do you accuse him of hipocrisy?
Tolkien's statement that the Secret Fire 'is' the Holy Spirit is not something that should simply be accepted without question. Why? Does contradict any part of the story?
Tolkien also referred to men using chainsaws on trees, & in one case a young man riding a motorbike, as 'Orcs'I don't see why he can't use terms of his mythology to reffer to real life situations, esspecially if his terms are widely known and understood.
Many elements, from Christianity, Paganism, botany, biology & many other things were taken up into the secondary world but once there they took on new & unique forms & were no longer the same thing.Not in form, but that is something we agreed from the begining: Tolkien is not writing allegorically.
I have to say that the whole thing about Eru entering into Arda to heal it felt completely false to me I really fail to see what other power could remove Melkor's marring.
So now we have context.First, do you accuse him of being a hypocrite? Second, does anything in your second quote of that paragraph somehow refutes the religious essence of his work? Because I fail to see; I agree with you that Christianity is present in an un-allegorical fashion (though in a much stronger manner than you seem to imply - that being our difference), I present some more quotes to that extent:
For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. 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. (I am speaking, of course, of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days. And I will not repeat what I tried to say in my essay, which you read.)The stories of Beatrix Potter lie near the borders of Faerie, but outside it, I think, for the most part. Their nearness is due largely to their strong moral element: by which I mean their inherent morality, not any allegorical significatioAccording to Tolkien, one can write a fairy story which is moral (or religious/christian/catholic) in essence without being moralistic (or allegorical). I believe that interpreting his work in such a way is accurate and does give him due credit.

mark12_30

08-31-2006, 06:27 PM

Therefore some balance point in interpretation must be found, and it lies in that charcaters and situations are not meant to represent Biblical characters and situations but that the story, the narrative itself, is in sympathy with Christian ideals. Which it is. Isn't the Bible filled with tales of good vs evil? Of the insignificant winning over the worldly and powerful?

Yes; it (specifically the incarnation, passion, & resurrection) is also referred to by Tolkien as the one true myth to which all other myths pointed. Since he set out to write a myth, it's hard for me to imagine he wasn't both assuming and hoping that the myth he wrote would point to the true one.

And bringing up the word "myth" leads to lmp's point regarding mythic unity, which looks to me like the key to this discussion. Some, likeRaynor, see it; others take tentative stabs at it; and others insist it's not there.

I'm interested in those tempted to take tentative stabs at it. Us old warhorses have thumped this general topic (and some associated topics) to death over the past several years, and we can predict much of what the others will argue.

Let's hear from the rookies.

The Only Real Estel

08-31-2006, 06:36 PM

Fine, as long as the reality can be established as a truth. More often than not, however, the word is used in a context whereby the supposed reality cannot be proven, but is a matter of faith.

No problem with that. Words are often used out of context, but that is the clearest definition of 'truth' (or 'Truth,' as you put it) that I've heard to date.

Hmm. Countless pages of canonicity thread would suggest that it is not quite so clear-cut as you portray it.

There are countless pages of canonicity thread because there will always be a debate for what the text means to us. There will be many different interpretations of it, so of course there will be many arguments & discussion (all perfectly fine & good).

What if we cannot sufficiently determine the author's intended meaning?

Does that mean he didn’t intend one? I’m not saying we must find the author’s intended meaning to each & every book we read or there’s no point in reading it. What I am saying is his point is not dependant on my point of view.

Am I fundamentally obliged to accept the author's intended meaning of the book as its true meaning? What if it does not strike a chord with me?

First question: No. You're not obliged to accept anything - no one is forcing you too. But choosing not to accept the intended meaning of a book (or even if you’re convinced you’re accepting the proper meaning & you, in fact, are not) doesn't alter the actual meaning. What if it doesn't strike a chord with you? Quite frankly, it doesn't matter! The author wasn't writing the book to strike the proper chord with The Saucepan Man (nor The Only Real Estel :D). Smart authors are not going to try to write a book with the purpose of making their intended meaning strike the right chords with everyone. That would be impossible & a waste of time.

What if society has significantly changed since the book was written and the author's intended meaning is no longer relevant to me?

Say I write a book before the world is discovered to be round. I assert that the world is flat. When it is discovered to be, beyond the shadow of a doubt, round, does that change the intent of the book? No. Society has significantly changed & the book is no longer relevant to you but it hasn't changed the meaning behind my book a bit.

Why do I have to accept it as the meaning of the book if I perceive an entirely different meaning?

You can believe it or perceive it to be whatever you wish. That doesn't change it. If we all look at a book and decide to discover the author's intentions via our own perceptions two things will happen.

First, it will destroy the meaning of the book - no book could possibly have as many different meanings to it as we would come up with. Secondly, it would make conversation ridiculous. Why should we discuss the meaning of a book based soly on our interpretation of it? 'Misunderstanding' of the text is then in possible, because I have my interpretation & you cannot touch it. We are all right, so what’s the point of discussion?

I can accept that the author may have intended his work to mean some specific thing. It does not follow that the work will have the same meaning to me, or indeed to others.

As I said - it can 'mean' many things to many different people. But that doesn't change the author's initial intention.

If I write a book on Hinduism & you interpret that I am a Hindu, that does not (at all) make you correct.

A stop sign in the road means ‘stop.’ If I decide it does not, that doesn’t change it.

Bêthberry

08-31-2006, 06:54 PM

A stop sign in the road means ‘stop.’ If I decide it does not, that doesn’t change it.

Well, in Quebec (Canada), a decision was made which runs against decisions in many other countries. Stop signs in Quebec, unlike in France, read 'Arretez.' The Province of Quebec did decide to change it. :D

More seriously: Language has many functions and fulfils many needs in human society and culture. The form of language used in stop signs, exit signs, washroom signs, technical writing, instructions, legal codes are dependent upon highly important aspects of functions in that context. They are forms of language which attempt to control very highly the boundaries of interpretation--for very important and significant reasons. They operate very differently from literary language.

Literary language, the language of stories, of metaphor, of similes, of poetry, of rock music, of musicals (I would include advertising and political speeches, but they are subsets of this group with slightly different appeals) grants to readers/hearers much greater scope for interpretation, because the context and the purpose is very different. In these uses of language, the significant aspect is the active role of the reader in comprehension. Another way of saying this is that they are reader unfriendly!! They don't do al the work of the reader for the readers, but expect the reader to participate actively in comprehension. This is the high end of language comprehension in terms of how much work the reader must do.

My point here is simply to point out that language operates to satisfy many, many needs in human communication. What works with "reader friendly" language (informational/instructional language) does not necessarily work with "reader challenging" language. In Tolkien's work, I suggest that we are dealing with the literary end of human communication, "reader challenging" language, that end wherein Tolkien himself granted the greatest and most essential freedom of interpretation. For very moral reasons.

mark12_30

08-31-2006, 06:59 PM

A belief in 'Sacred' fire at the heart of the earth is hardly original to Christianity. The whole point, which I made earlier, is that once an element is successfully absorbed into a Secondary World it becomes part of that world. The things Tolkien 'absorbed' into M-e are Religious universals, rather than specifics.

I suspect Tolkien would reverse your logic. The elements are universal because they point to the one true myth.

If one didn't know he was Christian & had only the works I don't think - much as he might have hoped - anyone would be able to tell what religion, if any, he followed.

Hence, it is not a 'Christian' work.

I disagree that the second sentence followed from the first.

The Only Real Estel

08-31-2006, 07:01 PM

Literary language, the language of stories, of metaphor, of similes, of poetry, of rock music, of musicals (I would include advertising and political speeches, but they are subsets of this group with slightly different appeals) grants to readers/hearers much greater scope for interpretation, because the context and the purpose is very different. In these uses of language, the significant aspect is the active role of the reader in comprehension. Another way of saying this is that they are reader unfriendly!! They don't do al the work of the reader for the readers, but expect the reader to participate actively in comprehension. This is the high end of language comprehension in terms of how much work the reader must do.

I entirely agree. The 'stop sign' is but an example. I also entirely agree that Tolkien's work is a work in the 'literary language' you speak of. He left many things up to the reader, the reader's imagination, etc.

I am certainly for reading books in a literary sense also. Take in all you can, feel free to interpret, whatever you like. But I am quite sure Tolkien had his own meaning behind his works, despite his decision to leave much of the thinking up the reader.

And that is what "literary reading" does not change.

davem

09-01-2006, 04:37 AM

I don't see how the fact that Tolkien intended "once upon a time" to make such a body of connected legends to dedicate it to England refutes the religious aspect of his writing. Moreoever, I believe he called this initial endeavour as absurd.
.
It precisely 'refutes the religious aspect' (if I follow you). It does not 'refute' the spiritual aspect though. There is a spiritual aspect to the world & stories, & to the characters. What there isn't, it seems to me, is any 'religious' aspect - Tolkien specifically denies the presence of organised religion.

The Mouth of Sauron

09-01-2006, 05:07 AM

I can understand that if people are of a religious persuasion there is an attractive option always available to them, whereby they try and underpin and reinforce their belief by attributing its features to the works of authors , contending that the writer consciously or unconsciously used the belief framework as a basis for the book .

Sorry .

LOTR is FICTION .

You can use allegory to explain anything . I'm sure a devout Muslim could take LOTR apart and cite as many Islamic traits in the book as a commited Christian could . In the end it's all a meaningless exercise . Just enjoy the story .

I am the Mouth of Sauron .

Lalwendë

09-01-2006, 05:20 AM

Yes; it (specifically the incarnation, passion, & resurrection) is also referred to by Tolkien as the one true myth to which all other myths pointed. Since he set out to write a myth, it's hard for me to imagine he wasn't both assuming and hoping that the myth he wrote would point to the true one.

And bringing up the word "myth" leads to lmp's point regarding mythic unity, which looks to me like the key to this discussion. Some, likeRaynor, see it; others take tentative stabs at it; and others insist it's not there.

I'm interested in those tempted to take tentative stabs at it. Us old warhorses have thumped this general topic (and some associated topics) to death over the past several years, and we can predict much of what the others will argue.

Let's hear from the rookies.

I agree in Universal Myth, but precisely that. It doesn't belong to any one religion or faith, but to all. That to me is the point of something Universal.

I also wonder just how far the text points to a 'Christian' myth because I can honestly say it directed me in completely the opposite direction, as a young Christian when I first read the books!

davem

09-01-2006, 05:57 AM

I don't know how many times it has to be stressed that just because a novel is (intentionally or accidentally) in sympathy with a particular religious philosophy that does not make it a 'religious' work. That Tolkien may (or may not) have written LotR to conform to the tenets of his Catholic faith does not mean it is a Catholic work. If Tolkien thought so then he thought wrong.

No-one is saying that LotR contradicts Christian belief/teaching at any point. But there are a number of belief systems one could put forward which are not contradicted by anything in LotR. I can't see how a story (or painting or piece of music) which does not refer directly or allegorically to Christianity can be called a Christian story (fundamentally or otherwise). If there is no direct or indirect mention or depiction of Christian/Biblical figures or themes then how it can be 'Christian' is beyond me.

Just because a book is written by a Christian writer does not make it a Christian book, anymore than if a Christian builds a car it is a 'Christian' car, or if he takes out the trash he is putting 'Christian' trash into a 'Christian' trash can.

mark12_30

09-01-2006, 06:02 AM

mark12_30

09-01-2006, 06:04 AM

davem

09-01-2006, 06:40 AM

In your opinion. Which, in your opinion, deletes the spiritual aspect of his Catholicism (spirituality being the essence of his faith) from your argument. And in my opinion, that deletion makes no sense. So, in my oinion, your argument makes no sense.

No, Christianity is a religion & the religion of Christianity is absent from the book. Claims for the superiority of Christianity over other traditions without any supporting evidence is just cultural supremicism.

As to where Tolkien's 'spirituality' came from I have to admit I have no evidence as regards where it came from, so I'd just be making something up if I answered that. It could be it was a 'Pagan' spirituality (hence his deep love of nature), or a Christian one. Certainly he believed it came from his Catholic faith. My statement about 'spirituality' in the work was merely a reference to there being a 'spiritual' realm & beings within the story not to the story itself being a 'spiritual' work – which is a matter of opinion/subjective judgement.

Read Leaf By Niggle lately? Or Tree and Leaf? Or Mythopoeia?

Nope – just finished Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy & now finally got around to Gibbon's Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, so I probably won't be reading them again in the foreseeable future.

The Saucepan Man

09-01-2006, 07:21 AM

I see this rather often; do you accuse him of hipocrisy?I rather agree with davem on the issue of the reliability of Tolkien’s Letters as determinants of his intentions with regard to LotR. One does not have to consider Tolkien a hypocrite in order to consider them to be inconclusive as to his intentions in this regard. Fascinating though they are, they were generally written in response to specific questions (and in some cases challenges) raised concerning the book and often consist of ex post facto musings on what he had written. As expressions of authorial intent, his Letters are sometimes inconsistent, both with each other and with other published material. Hardly surprising, given that his own perspective and opinions would naturally have changed over time. It is not a criticism.

Indeed that, to me, is one of the main difficulties associated with defining the meaning of a book by reference to authorial intent.

Why? Does contradict any part of the story?Davem’s point, and I rather agree with him here, is that Tolkien’s statement equating the Secret Fire with the Holy Spirit is irrelevant to the story itself. It is only relevant if you are either looking for Christian associations within the text or seeking to determine authorial intent. I have no problem with you doing either, as long as you do not seek to impose your conclusion on me by insisting that the Secret Fire must necessarily be equated with the Holy Spirit in order to properly understand the book, that this is part of the "correct" meaning of the book.

I don't see why he can't use terms of his mythology to reffer to real life situations, esspecially if his terms are widely known and understood.One of the few points of discomfort that I find within Tolkien’s Letters is his use of the word “Orcs” to refer to real life people. In the context of LotR, Orcs are presented as (irredeemably?) evil beings and no moral issue is raised concerning their slaughter (unlike, for example, with the dead Haradrim solider). Are treecutters and motorcycle riders really to be considered in the same way? Tolkien is free to do so, but this does not form any part of my understanding of LotR’s meaning. Orcs have no real life equivalent as far as I am concerned.

Not in form, but that is something we agreed from the begining: Tolkien is not writing allegorically.Indeed. Ergo, he is not seeking to impose his intentions upon his readers. He invites readers to find applicability within LotR. That puts the reader firmly in the position of being free to find his or her own the meaning within the book. If that excludes any Christian associations, whether Tolkien intended them or not, then who is anyone to object when Tolkien himself specifically endorsed such freedom of interpretation?

Yes; it (specifically the incarnation, passion, & resurrection) is also referred to by Tolkien as the one true myth to which all other myths pointed. Since he set out to write a myth, it's hard for me to imagine he wasn't both assuming and hoping that the myth he wrote would point to the true one.

And bringing up the word "myth" leads to lmp's point regarding mythic unity, which looks to me like the key to this discussion. Some, likeRaynor, see it; others take tentative stabs at it; and others insist it's not there.I am no rookie (either on this site or in this kind of a discussion ;)), but this is precisely the kind of statement that I was referring to earlier – the assumption that the Christian interpretation of LotR is objectively the “correct” one. The implication being that, if we are one of those who cannot see it, we are approaching LotR “incorrectly”. That is a proposition which I reject entirely. Indeed, I do not necessarily accept the proposition that there is a universal myth at all (or at least one that is external to the human psyche).

TORE, you define the meaning of a book by reference to the intention of its author. My position is that this definition cannot be sufficient, because it is focussed only on the author and takes no account of the reader. The primary purpose of a novel such as LotR is to be read by a reader. After it has been written, it only has meaning when it is read. Accordingly, I find it difficult to see how a book’s meaning to the individual reader can be so easily dismissed.

As a reader, I can look at what the author intended to say, to the extent that this can be determined (and, as I have said, there are major difficulties involved with doing that), but that will only tell me what the book’s meaning was to the author. It may influence my own understanding of, and reaction to, the book, but it will not determine it.

For me, this is of vital importance in this debate as to whether LotR is a religious book. The author may have intended it as such (and I believe that, at some point, he did) but that does not determine its meaning to me. Some readers may consider it as such, but that does not determine its meaning to me. While the intentions of the author and the interpretations of other readers may be interesting to me, and may even influence my own understanding of the book, they still do not define its meaning as far as I am concerned.

First, it will destroy the meaning of the book - no book could possibly have as many different meanings to it as we would come up with. Secondly, it would make conversation ridiculous. Why should we discuss the meaning of a book based soly on our interpretation of it? 'Misunderstanding' of the text is then in possible, because I have my interpretation & you cannot touch it. We are all right, so what’s the point of discussion?No, your propositions here do not follow at all from my definition of “meaning” by reference to individual readerly reaction and interpretation. There are many areas in which most peoples’ understanding of a book (and authorial intention) will coincide. When Tolkien tells us who was present at the Council of Elrond, we all understand that in the same way. It was Tolkien’s intention that those individuals be present, it is your understanding that they were present and it is my understanding that they were present. Because of our understanding of the language that Tolkien used, we all react to it and understand it in the same way. Our individual “meanings” coincide. So that allows us to discuss it on the same basis. But, when we consider, for example, whether Orcs were irredeemably evil or whether Frodo succeeded in his Quest (or indeed whether Tom Bombadil was a Maia or Balrogs have wings ;)), we will have different reactions and opinions (and these may well differ from the author’s intention). That does not forestall discussion but, rather, encourages it. Many of the discussions on this forum would have never taken place (or would have been a lot shorter) were it not for the fact that we all have different reactions to, and interpretations of, the book and are prepared to assert them as part of our understanding of its meaning. Through those discussions, our understanding of the book, it meaning to us as individuals, may change in certain respects. But the overall understanding, and therefore the meaning, remains unique to the individual.

And so it is with the proposition that LotR is a fundamentally religious book, or that Aragorn or Frodo or Gandalf is a Christ-figure. The author may or may not have intended either or both of these propositions to be part of its meaning. Other readers may or may not consider either or both of them to be part of its meaning. But it remains the case that neither of these propositions are part of its meaning as far as I am concerned.

As I said - it can 'mean' many things to many different people. But that doesn't change the author's initial intention.No it doesn’t. But what relevance is the author’s intention to me (other, perhaps than biographically) if it does not coincide with, or influence, my own understanding of the book’s meaning? To me, while authorial intention (and the opinions of other readers) may be interesting and even influential, it is my own understanding of the book that is the most important, indeed the only "true" meaning.

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-01-2006, 07:51 AM

To the 'It's only fiction!' camp, I direct to you part of a quote from the movie V for Vendetta.

My father was a writer. You would've liked him. He used to say that artists use lies to tell the truth...
Lies exist solely to direct meaning. They are merely a separate form of truth, whatever truth is, not the opposition to it. Have you never experienced a situation in which you learn far more by how a person tries not to react to an experience than by how he does? Do you ever listen to what people make a conscious effort not to say? Take the time to listen to the quality of the silence? Every word holds within it secret meaning, if you take a moment to truly listen.

You ask why is fiction written; for any reason but to tell a story? Surely not. To direct meaning as such seems manipulative; dirty. The magic is lost for it. But what is a story but the artistic conveyance of an idea? And what is an idea conveyed as such but some veiled form of truth that the author finds important enough to share in such a way?

It is only fiction. Yes, it is fiction, but surely it is more than only.

The Saucepan Man

09-01-2006, 08:14 AM

But what is a story but the artistic conveyance of an idea? And what is an idea conveyed as such but some veiled form of truth that the author finds important enough to share in such a way?Ah, but it does not follow that what the author intends to convey is indeed the "truth".

Consider Mein Kampf.

Bad example, perhaps, because it was not intended as a work of fiction, but you get the point.

Bêthberry

09-01-2006, 08:19 AM

IInteresting points. But, despite Tolkien's reference to Faerie as the "perilous realm", Tolkien's Faerie (the Faerie of Smith of Wootton Major, for example) appears to me to be a rather different place to the Faerie of the original (pre-disney ;) ) Faerie-Tales. The latter, it seems to me, is more accurately portrayed in the novel, Mr Norrell and Jonathan Strange - a truly perilous realm. Did Tolkien compromise the original concept of Faerie in order to bring it in line with his faith? If so, might it be said that, as far as Tolkien was concerned, the Christian themes within the book trumped its mythological roots?

Quite an interesting idea, eh, especially in light of Tolkien's own frustrations over what he perceived were Shakespeare's diminishing of the seriousness of Fairie.

Are you asking if Tolkien intended this? Or are you asking if the work itself can suggest this? ;)

Certainly his depiction of evil and of horror is fascinating for their specific absence. That is, they are knowable not by their presence per se but by struggles of, in particular, Frodo and Sam, by the fear instilled in the characters. Was this a deliberate decision to avoid glamourising evil, as happened with Milton?

I am certainly for reading books in a literary sense also. Take in all you can, feel free to interpret, whatever you like. But I am quite sure Tolkien had his own meaning behind his works, despite his decision to leave much of the thinking up the reader.

And that is what "literary reading" does not change.

Sauce's post previous to this one of mine supplies a good many reasons why it is difficult to determine from outside sources and after the fact just what an author's intent was, so I won't needlessly repeat them here. Plus of course even an author's intention can change over time, so initial statements of intention may or may not line up with final decisions. And sometimes, even, authors may not consciously be aware of how the story will affect readers.

Much depends upon how one understands the act of reading. It is not merely an activity of mining, of digging for and dredging up gems of meaning. This is not what actually goes on when people comprehend written language. Every word is mediated by the reader's previous experience of the words and by how the reader responds to the words, the characters. Reading is as performative as any other art. Some readings can be modified by pointing out errors of fact or of omission, some by pointing out where the reader has filled in 'gaps' which aren't there, but none of that really changes the fact that reading is an active process, not a passive one of simply receiving meaning.

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-01-2006, 09:19 AM

Ah, but it does not follow that what the author intends to convey is indeed the "truth".
It does if you don't consider truth to be objective.

davem

09-01-2006, 09:26 AM

It is only fiction. Yes, it is fiction, but surely it is more than only.

I don't disagree with you as regards that statement. But I don't think that's what we're arguing over. Its about whether LotR is a specifically Christian work, whether the 'more than only' is a specifically Christian/Biblical 'more than only'. So far lots of people have argued that it is, but no-one has given actual examples of how. To say well it contains elements of myth & Tolkien considered the Christian story the purest myth therefore anything that contains mythic elements contains Christian elements is hardly evidence. To claim it has a spiritual aspect & that for Tolkien Christianity was the source of sprituality therefore it is a Christian work is hardly evidence either.

What, exactly, are these specifically Christian aspects of the story? Are they really there, or was Tolkien simply interpreting 'universal' symbols in his own work from a Christian perspective? Even when he attempts to create a Virgin Mary figure, as he does with Varda, the result could as easily be applied to Isis as Queen of Heaven (not surprising considering much Marian iconography was derived from Isis).

He claimed he made little up. Possibly he did not fully understand what he wrote & interpreted it according to his own lights. Many mystics had the same experience. Julian of Norwich experienced a series of visions during a near fatal illness & spent the next twenty years trying to understand them, &, more importantly, ensure that her interpretations were strictly orthodox...

The Saucepan Man

09-01-2006, 09:36 AM

Are you asking if Tolkien intended this? Or are you asking if the work itself can suggest this?I am asking whether Tolien intended this. As readers, we are entitled to draw our own conclusions ... ;)

There are elements of the perilous realm within Tolkien's writings - Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wight, for example - but overall it is sanitised. In particular, its "rulers" (Tom Bombadil, Alf the Prentice and Galadriel) are largely devoid of the tricksy, mischievous and sometimes immoral characteristics generally found in traditional Faerie beings.

It does if you don't consider truth to be objective.Precisely. :D

Bêthberry

09-01-2006, 10:09 AM

The Saucepan Man

09-01-2006, 10:25 AM

Why do you think this difference exists between the malevolent aspects of Fairie and Tolkien's versions?In my view, because Tolkien sanitised Faerie to accord with the tenets of his faith. Hence my question:

... might it be said that, as far as Tolkien was concerned, the Christian themes within the book trumped its mythological roots?If so, then that seems to me to be a good basis for arguing that, from the perspective of authorial intention, LoTR may properly described as a specifically Christian work, rather than simply a "universally mythological" one.

Raynor

09-01-2006, 12:45 PM

It precisely 'refutes the religious aspect' (if I follow you). It does not 'refute' the spiritual aspect though. There is a spiritual aspect to the world & stories, & to the characters. What there isn't, it seems to me, is any 'religious' aspect - Tolkien specifically denies the presence of organised religion.I disagree; I don't see in Tolkien the separation between myth, religion and spirituality - all of them are united. He has no problem in calling various Christian themes as myths and no problem either in calling myths a path to the Truth (thus, Imo, equivalating them, to a large extent, to religion). I will reinforce my previous quote from letter #89 that the gospels are the greatest Fairy-story
The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels—peculiarly artistic, beautiful, and moving: “mythical” in their perfect, self-contained significance; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe.... This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the “inner consistency of reality.” There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true, and none which so many sceptical men have accepted as true on its own merits. For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation. To reject it leads either to sadness or to wrath.More importantly:
Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall.Of what fall does Tolkien talk about that myths takes us beyond? It seems to me, beyond doubt, that it is the Christian Fall, one thing which we cannot ignore when considering the core of his mythology.
One does not have to consider Tolkien a hypocrite in order to consider them to be inconclusive as to his intentions in this regard.So, if you are not saying that he is a hypocrite, then you are saying that someone else than the author is more trustworthy to identify his intention??
I have no problem with you doing either, as long as you do not seek to impose your conclusion on me by insisting that the Secret Fire must necessarily be equated with the Holy Spirit in order to properly understand the book, that this is part of the "correct" meaning of the book.This is a debate, nobody can "impose" anything. As far as I am concerned, Tolkien statement that the secret fire is the christian Holy Fire makes perfect sense to me; the story does achieve the "inner consistency" required for it to be a veritable, successful, subcreation.
In the context of LotR, Orcs are presented as (irredeemably?) evil beings and no moral issue is raised concerning their slaughter (unlike, for example, with the dead Haradrim solider). Are treecutters and motorcycle riders really to be considered in the same way? Tolkien is free to do so, but this does not form any part of my understanding of LotR’s meaning. Orcs have no real life equivalent as far as I am concerned.I really think that the treecutting business reffers to the New Shadow, where kids following a satanist cult start cutting down trees without any reason - them showing "most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good ". I don't know about the motorcycle riders being orcs, but fetishism of machines is a mark of evil to him, that is the least I can say. As far as orcs not being treated (or at least expected to be treated) appropiately, I disagree; Tolkien stated in Myths Transformed that orcs were supposed to be treated with mercy, [though it didn't always happen so during wars - then again, he identified orcs in Japan, Germany and even England who would behave truly evil].
He invites readers to find applicability within LotR.Err, I am not aware of such a statement; sure, he dislikes forced suspension of disbelief, but what he strives to achieve is to successfully reflect the Truth (the Christian one, I add) - that being the mark of a veritable fairy-story.

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-01-2006, 12:57 PM

But I don't think that's what we're arguing over. Its about whether LotR is a specifically Christian work, whether the 'more than only' is a specifically Christian/Biblical 'more than only'.
Really? I was under the impression that I couldn't care less if LotR is Christian in nature, appearance, or dream. I only ever argued that if I wanted to see that meaning, nobody should have the nerve to say I can't. :)

I've always liked Voltaire. Think for yourself, and let others enjoy the right to do the same.

davem

09-01-2006, 01:10 PM

I wonder if it would help matters if you could give an example, davem, of a work which you consider to be a Christian work? What would in your eyes consitute a successful Christian work?

Oh, the Narnia books, Pilgrim's Progress, HDM.

Hookbill the Goomba

09-01-2006, 01:26 PM

Just a small note to throw into the discussion...

I was just re-listening to an interview with Tolkien that was on Radio 4 a while back. I downloaded it and put it on my iPod * sadsadsad :D *

In it, this little exchange took place:

Interviewer: Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?
Tolkien: He's mentioned once or twice I think.

I thought that was interesting. If I knew how to upload sound files, I would...

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

09-01-2006, 01:53 PM

There are recordings and a transcript of the interview at News From Bree (http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/). Have I won something?

davem

09-01-2006, 02:51 PM

Interviewer: Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?
Tolkien: He's mentioned once or twice I think.

That would be:

Gandalf crept to one side of the window. Then with a dart he sprang to the sill, and thrust a long arm out and downwards. There was a squawk, and up came Sam Gamgee's curly head hauled by one ear. 'Well, well, bless my beard!' said Gandalf. 'Sam Gamgee is it? Now what may you be doing?' 'Lor bless you, Mr. Gandalf, sir!' said Sam. 'Nothing!

&

Merry went to the door: 'What about supper and beer in the throat?' he called. Frodo came out drying his hair. 'There's so much water in the air that I'm coming into the kitchen to finish,' he said. 'Lawks!' said Merry, looking in. The stone floor was swimming.

Lalwendë

09-01-2006, 03:28 PM

There are elements of the perilous realm within Tolkien's writings - Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wight, for example - but overall it is sanitised. In particular, its "rulers" (Tom Bombadil, Alf the Prentice and Galadriel) are largely devoid of the tricksy, mischievous and sometimes immoral characteristics generally found in traditional Faerie beings.

I'd agree with that! I think we've discussed this one before - in the Trickster thread and in davem's Fairie thread, and it did seem that Tolkien's own version of Faerie missed out a lot of the elements that Faerie traditionally has, such as chaos and amorality. If you look at drafts of the Silmarillion in particular, you can see that over time, Tolkien de-Paganised much of what he had originally written.

However, some of the biggest enigmas in his work seem to be hangovers from older versions of Tolkien's work, and trying to understand them, you find a lot of illumination in HoME; Tolkien did not always revise everything either, but left some things as he originally intended. For example, Ungoliant does indeed seem to have existed outside of all the creation in Arda, coming from 'The Void' and being neither good or bad, just being.

If Tolkien did try to sanitise his work, then he did not sanitise all of it! I think as a Catholic he naturally did not veer towards too much sympathy for 'evil' characters, which is possibly why there is no Miltonic Satan figure, but there are still some traces of the amoral and chaotic in the world he created, beings which may well be out of Eru's 'control'.

It's a question that fascinates me, after hearing Ronald Hutton talk about The Pagan Tolkien, and considering his influence on readers who think his work records real English mythology (it doesn't, it misses out all the sex and violence). And its worth considering that possibly a greater influence on Tolkien than his religion was his love of myth, particularly Northern myth, which was very non-Christian (but could be seen as quite Catholic, which is an old and quite visceral religion, built on even older and more visceral religions). Maybe at a later stage in life (in the twenties he was not much of a churchgoer) he became more uncomfortable with how the themes of these tales echoed in his own and did grasp at moments suggested to him which seemed more Christian.

Hmm, maybe even his idea that all myths pointed to 'The Truth' was reaction in itself to his own love for obviously pagan myth whereas he was a Catholic - so he came up with the idea that loving Northern myths was 'OK' for a Christian because they all pointed to 'The Truth' anyway. Self-justification? Or not, given that in Tolkien's day there was nothing at all 'evil' or dangerous about the occult like there is today for some Christians? And by the way, some Christians today are comfortable with both as we have a Spiritualist church here where a workmate, a devout Christian, is learning to be 'a psychic'.

Perhaps we have to learn not to be so 'fundamentalist' about the influence of religion on this work. Tolkien was a believer but not a tub-thumper (as Lewis in some ways was), and he was also incredibly subtle with his poetic language. So maybe we have to accept that there may be a few things that remind us of Biblical/Christian elements, but also accept that they are not put there to give us deeper understanding of the story, beyond basics also shared by other faiths such as pity, forgiveness and tenacity.

The Saucepan Man

09-01-2006, 05:43 PM

So, if you are not saying that he is a hypocrite, then you are saying that someone else than the author is more trustworthy to identify his intention??No, not at all. I am saying that the Letters are generally inconclusive as to his intention. Hence the difficulty in ascertaining his intention. Hence the problems associated with trying to find the meaning within his works by reference to his intention.

Trying to divine authorial intention is all well and good, but it is an imperfect science without knowing the man's mind.

As far as I am concerned, Tolkien statement that the secret fire is the christian Holy Fire makes perfect sense to me; the story does achieve the "inner consistency" required for it to be a veritable, successful, subcreation.But the imposition of the parallel between the secret fire and the holy fire is not only unnecessary for the success of the story (qua story), but it is wholly at odds with "inner consistency", since it requires the imposition of a concept external to the story. If you wish to find "meaning" within LotR by equating the two, that's fine. But I think that you are wrong to suggest that it is necessary, or even complimentary, to the story's "inner consistency". And why do you refer to the story as a "subcreation"? Surely it is simply a creation.

As far as orcs not being treated (or at least expected to be treated) appropiately, I disagree; Tolkien stated in Myths Transformed that orcs were supposed to be treated with mercy ...Can you give me any example of this occuring during LotR? Did Eru treat Orcs with mercy? Possibly, once they were dead. But allowing beings to be born within a disfigured body and a brutish, evil-serving society hardly seems merciful to me.

... then again, he identified orcs in Japan, Germany and even England who would behave truly evilHe may well have done. But, in my view, there are few instances, even (or perhaps especially) in war, where one might label a person as truly evil. Mostly, they are just human.

Err, I am not aware of such a statement; sure, he dislikes forced suspension of disbelief, but what he strives to achieve is to successfully reflect the Truth (the Christian one, I add) - that being the mark of a veritable fairy-story.In the second version of the foreword to LotR, where Tolkien discusses the difference between allegory and applicability, he disavows the former but readily admits the latter.

I'd agree with that! I think we've discussed this one before - in the Trickster thread and in davem's Fairie thread, and it did seem that Tolkien's own version of Faerie missed out a lot of the elements that Faerie traditionally has, such as chaos and amorality. If you look at drafts of the Silmarillion in particular, you can see that over time, Tolkien de-Paganised much of what he had originally written.Yes, on reflection, I rather think that I meant amoral, rather than immoral.

I agree with you concerning the parallels between Norse mythology and Catholicism. But Norse mythology is quite far removed from the (original) concept of Faerie, is it not?

mark12_30

09-01-2006, 05:51 PM

Saucie-- we've agreed to disagree before, old chap. No hard feelings on my part; I'm hoping there are no hard feelings on yours either. But IMO, this does rehash a lot of the canonicity & eucatastrophe ground.

Really? I was under the impression that I couldn't care less if LotR is Christian in nature, appearance, or dream. I only ever argued that if I wanted to see that meaning, nobody should have the nerve to say I can't. :)

I'll take it a step further than that. The owner of this thread asked a simple question, which was this:

Does anyone think Tolkien effectively stole many of his ideas from the Bible? Examples are the Balrog - Satan; Saruman/Grima - Judas; Gandalf the White resurrection; Elrond - Jesus?

If your answer is "Yep, professor's a thief," then state your list of items stolen.

If your answer is, "I wouldn't say stole but I think there are some things that connect," you may have some lengthy explaining to do.

But if your answer is "No, I don't think so, " that doesn't take very long to say.

This looks, to me, like a thread that's been hijacked. If you want to have a debate about whether making these connections is somehow forced or strained or immoral or illegal or what have you-- feel free to start your own thread.

There is plenty that I'd like to say about what I do see. I have no problem with someone else saying "I see nothing." But if you insist that I have no right to see what I see, do you seriously expect me to respect your insistence?

Meanwhile, the original intent of this thread is buried in replays of older threads. If we want to rehash old debates, let's take it back to the old threads.

The Only Real Estel

09-01-2006, 08:13 PM

TORE, you define the meaning of a book by reference to the intention of its author. My position is that this definition cannot be sufficient, because it is focussed only on the author and takes no account of the reader. The primary purpose of a novel such as LotR is to be read by a reader. After it has been written, it only has meaning when it is read. Accordingly, I find it difficult to see how a book’s meaning to the individual reader can be so easily dismissed.

Saucie there are millions of readers of a book such as Lord of the Rings. Does that mean that there are millions of different meanings out there? A book that has been written has a meaning. It is the meaning of the author. If no one ever read Rings it would still contain the meaning that Tolkien put into it. Now it does not have meaning to you until you've read it. And as I've said, I'm not dismissing the meaning to the individual reader - you can choose to make it mean whatever you want to you or whatever strikes the proper chord with you. But that doesn't make it so.

There are many areas in which most peoples’ understanding of a book (and authorial intention) will coincide. When Tolkien tells us who was present at the Council of Elrond, we all understand that in the same way. It was Tolkien’s intention that those individuals be present, it is your understanding that they were present and it is my understanding that they were present. Because of our understanding of the language that Tolkien used, we all react to it and understand it in the same way. Our individual “meanings” coincide. So that allows us to discuss it on the same basis.

True. But why is there no discussion on who was at the Council of Elrond? Because we can all see the author's intention.

But, when we consider, for example, whether Orcs were irredeemably evil or whether Frodo succeeded in his Quest (or indeed whether Tom Bombadil was a Maia or Balrogs have wings ), we will have different reactions and opinions (and these may well differ from the author’s intention). That does not forestall discussion but, rather, encourages it.

True. Why? Because we don't know (or at least there's significant debate) the author's intentions on these matters. These are good examples of "ultra-literary" parts of the books; Tolkien didn't exactly specify so there are at least several interpretations. But what would I use to support my side of the Balrog/wing debate for example? My opinion or my interpretation? Only if it was backed up by quotes from the book(s), possibly quotes from the Letters, etc. Why? Because I don't care what my interpretation (or anyone else's) is. If someone says: "My interpretation of the books is that Faramir had blonde hair" & posts a thread about it - what happens? Someone gives a quote from the book (black hair) & the thread is shut down because it is ridiculous. That person is welcome to think whatever they like concerning Faramir's hair - but we can see the author's intention and that is what we are all really hunting for. If we can't see it, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

...what relevance is the author’s intention to me (other, perhaps than biographically) if it does not coincide with, or influence, my own understanding of the book’s meaning? To me, while authorial intention (and the opinions of other readers) may be interesting and even influential, it is my own understanding of the book that is the most important, indeed the only "true" meaning.

I don't think there's any debate that Tolkien had intentions behind everything in his book. As a reader of the books I want to know what Tolkien's intentions were. Do I have to adopt them as my own? No - it'd be dreadfully boring if you had to accept the author's point of view just because you've read his book. An author may write a book on why solid oak tables are the best. If I prefer metal tables I don't have to change my preference - but that doesn't mean the author's point of the book changed. You can care not a button for the author's meaning & replace his with yours & that's fine.

What I am saying is simply this: That does not change the meaning of Tolkien's (or anyone else's) books. Tolkien himself set the meaning, we as readers can come up with our own but not change his.

We don't go to Balrog/wing threads saying "they have wings for me & they don't for you." Now inevitably we come to different sides of the debate but that's because of "I think Tolkien says they do" & "I think Tolkien says they don't" lines of thinking.

Therefore, if we are trying to decide if the books are 'Christian works;' rather than saying "They're Christian to me & non-Christain to you" (negating the point of discussion) we should try & find what Tolkien intended them to be. This being not quite clear, there will be much debate (as there has been) about it - just like there's debate about Tom Bombadil or the winged/wingless Balrogs.

But "mark" is right - although this is Tolkien-related and also related to finding Christian elements in the books it really is not as much on topic as it should be I don't think.

Then again I'm not a mod... :D

The Saucepan Man

09-01-2006, 08:49 PM

Does that mean that there are millions of different meanings out there?Yes, although they will overlap to a very significant degree due to our common understanding of the language that he used.

But that doesn't make it so.It makes it the only "true" meaning to me.

Because we don't know (or at least there's significant debate) the author's intentions on these matters.Actually, the author claimed that Frodo failed in his Quest. I disagree with him on that.

But what would I use to support my side of the Balrog/wing debate for example? My opinion or my interpretation? Only if it was backed up by quotes from the book(s), possibly quotes from the Letters, etc.I have always held that Durin's Bane had wings because, when I first read the book, that's how I imagined him. I was influenced, of course, by the words used by the author. But was it his intention that the Balrog be winged? Who can say? Irrespective of his intention, I see the Balrog with wings. That is my interpretation, the "meaning" that I give to that passage. I do not insist that others see it in the same way.

But "mark" is right - although this is Tolkien-related and also related to finding Christian elements in the books it really is not as much on topic as it should be I don't think.Well, she is right that we have been through these arguments before (it's an eternal struggle :D ). But I disagree that it has no relevance to the ongoing debate (if not the original question). If one is claiming (or denying) that LotR is a Christian work, one must define the basis upon which such claim is made. Individual interpretation? Authorial intention? Or something else? If so, what?

The Only Real Estel

09-01-2006, 09:01 PM

Myself: "Does that mean that there are millions of different meanings out there?"

Sauce: "Yes, although they will overlap to a very significant degree due to our common understanding of the language that he used."

True, I should have said does that mean there are millions of actual meanings to the book? No. There may be millions of opinions & interpretations out there (nay, billions more like it! :D), but one book is incapable of that many meanings.

It makes it the only "true" meaning to me.

False Sauce. Though that may be your opinion (which I can't take from you), even if the author communicates his meaning behind the book in such a way that we could not possibly find it does that mean my interpretation of the meaning is the book's meaning? No. It does make it a very poorly written book, however. :p

I have always held that Durin's Bane had wings because, when I first read the book, that's how I imagined him. I was influenced, of course, by the words used by the author. But was it his intention that the Balrog be winged? Who can say? Irrespective of his intention, I see the Balrog with wings. That is my interpretation, the "meaning" that I give to that passage. I do not insist that others see it in the same way.

That is fine. Imagination is a wonderful thing.

But that does not mean that Tolkien meant the same thing. Do you suppose Tolkien created the Balrog not knowing if it has wings or not? Of course not. But since this matter is highly debatable it essentially does come down to reader interpretation because it is so difficult to discern the author's.

There is far more information out there (in Tolkien's own words even) on his intentions behind the book & any "Christian meaning" behind it. Plenty that we don't have to rely totally on interpretation.

The Saucepan Man

09-01-2006, 09:20 PM

... but one book is incapable of that many meanings.Why so?

... which I can't take from you ...I am not asking you to.

Imagination is a wonderful thing.Indeed it is. So why not embrace it and allow yourself to find your own meaning within the book, rather than limiting yourself purely by reference to what the author intended?

But that does not mean that Tolkien meant the same thing.I am not saying that it does. I am saying that what Tolkien meant does not necessarily equate to the book's meaning.

Meaning, like truth, is subjective.

Raynor

09-02-2006, 01:58 AM

I am saying that the Letters are generally inconclusive as to his intention.Well, I see you repeating this, but I see no valid reason given for their inconclusiveness. You mentioned that they are sometimes at odd with each other or the work - yet this occured due to the changes that happened to the work in progress. At some points in time, he had certain "feelings" about how the work would proceed, which didn't make it in the final form; that isn't, per se, an inconsistency. Moreover, even if such inconsistencies exist in some cases, that is no reason to call those letters in question as inconclusive to showing his mind at that moment; even more, even if so, the "hystorical" type of inconclusiveness of some letters (due to the changing aspect of his work), if it exists, shouldn't be extended to other letters, in which he expressely states his intent - that would be guilt by association, a logical fallacy.
But the imposition of the parallel between the secret fire and the holy fire is not only unnecessary for the success of the story (qua story), but it is wholly at odds with "inner consistency", since it requires the imposition of a concept external to the story. If you wish to find "meaning" within LotR by equating the two, that's fine. But I think that you are wrong to suggest that it is necessary, or even complimentary, to the story's "inner consistency". And why do you refer to the story as a "subcreation"? Surely it is simply a creation.Why is it wrong to suggest such a thing? I see a union between his work, this world and the christian mythology; the later two are real, according to him; about the first one, he whishes it to be real - obviously, real in correspondence with the world and Christianity.

As about creation and subcreation, I use this term because this is the supreme artistic achievement for Tolkien - a successful writer is a veritable sub-creator, whose Art reflects God's Truth.
Can you give me any example of this occuring during LotR? Did Eru treat Orcs with mercy? Possibly, once they were dead. But allowing beings to be born within a disfigured body and a brutish, evil-serving society hardly seems merciful to me.Frodo compares Gollum to an orc and states that he deserves death; Gandalf agrees about deserving (and the comparison, I might add) but also states that one should not deal out death in judgement, and that Gollum (and the orcs, by my extension) have a chance, however slight, of repentance. Is the life of orcs one of continuous unhappiness (at least to them)? I doubt it; they certainly derive pleasure from their fetishism with machines, or with whatever cruel art or deeds - no single race in Arda experiences only pleasure or only pain. The orcs may not even be held culpable for what they did, if they are indeed gifted with souls and not just (reduced to) beasts.

I would also like to mention the existence of sin in his creation (Myths Transformed):"Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru".
In the second version of the foreword to LotR, where Tolkien discusses the difference between allegory and applicability, he disavows the former but readily admits the latter.It seems to me, firstly, that Tolkien was choosing between the less of wto evils, allegory and aplicability. Though subtle, the difference between inviting to applicability and accepting it bears huge influence to our discussion. If he does invite readers to anything it would be, in my opinion, the Christian Joy, the eucatastrophe - the apex of the story.
Actually, the author claimed that Frodo failed in his Quest. I disagree with him on that.I propose we put that into context:
Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted. I do not say 'simple minds' with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is unattainable. Their weakness, however, is twofold. They do not perceive the complexity of any given situation in Time, in which an absolute ideal is enmeshed. They tend to forget that strange element in the World that we call Pity or Mercy, which is also an absolute requirement in moral judgement (since it is present in the Divine nature). In its highest exercise it belongs to God. For finite judges of imperfect knowledge it must lead to the use of two different scales of 'morality'. To ourselves we must present the absolute ideal without compromise, for we do not know our own limits of natural strength (+grace), and if we do not aim at the highest we shall certainly fall short of the utmost that we could achieve. To others, in any case of which we know enough to make a judgement, we must apply a scale tempered by 'mercy': that is, since we can with good will do this without the bias inevitable in judgements of ourselves, we must estimate the limits of another's strength and weigh this against the force of particular circumstances.And let us also state the true mission of Frodo, from the same source:
His real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that.

davem

09-02-2006, 03:26 AM

This looks, to me, like a thread that's been hijacked. If you want to have a debate about whether making these connections is somehow forced or strained or immoral or illegal or what have you-- feel free to start your own thread.

But no 'connections' have actually been made between LotR & the Bible/Christianity. A few have been put forward, but there has been no agreement about them even among Christian posters. The best that has been put forward so far is the Secret Fire/Holy Spirit thing, & the best that can be said in support of it is that the two are rather alike & the concepts don't directly contradict each other.

LotR & the Bible don't directly contradict each other. Is that it?
It seems to me that the 'pro-Christian interpretation' camp want the rest of us to accept that there are specifically Christian elements to the story without any supporting evidence other than Tolkien saying in odd letters & interviews that there are. If they are there, what are they? What is specifically & uniquely Christian in the story, & in what way is it necessary to percieve those 'elements' as Christian in order to fully appreciate the story?

This is not an attack on the freedom of Christian readers to compare notes but more a request to know what 'notes' they are actually comparing.

I could argue that there are similarities between Gandalf & that old bloke I see at the bus stop every morning because they both have two arms & grey hair, but I wouldn't expect anyone to take the point seriously. Surely a thread about similarities between the Bible & LotR has to have more going for it than such vague 'similarities' if it is to justify taking up space here.

mark12_30

09-02-2006, 05:12 AM

But no 'connections' have actually been made between LotR & the Bible/Christianity. A few have been put forward, but there has been no agreement about them even among Christian posters.

I do have comments on what has been put forward. But it's been difficult to get a word in edgewise for the past two and a half pages.

This is not an attack on the freedom of Christian readers to compare notes but more a request to know what 'notes' they are actually comparing.

As I said, it's been difficult to get a word in edgewise.

The Saucepan Man

09-02-2006, 09:42 AM

You mentioned that they are sometimes at odd with each other or the work - yet this occured due to the changes that happened to the work in progress. At some points in time, he had certain "feelings" about how the work would proceed, which didn't make it in the final form; that isn't, per se, an inconsistency. Moreover, even if such inconsistencies exist in some cases, that is no reason to call those letters in question as inconclusive to showing his mind at that moment; even more, even if so, the "hystorical" type of inconclusiveness of some letters (due to the changing aspect of his work), if it exists, shouldn't be extended to other letters, in which he expressely states his intent - that would be guilt by association, a logical fallacy.The Letters are good evidence of Tolkien's intent at the time each was written. If, however, one is seeking to divine the "meaning" of LotR by reference to authorial intent, I would regard them as persuasive (to the extent that they do not conflict with other material) but, overall, insuffuficient to allow any firm conclusion to be drawn.

Why is it wrong to suggest such a thing?Because it implies that those who do not percevie or accept such a connection have an inferior appreciation of the book.

As about creation and subcreation, I use this term because this is the supreme artistic achievement for Tolkien - a successful writer is a veritable sub-creator, whose Art reflects God's Truth.As I suspected. It implies the existence of a Creator and thus bases the dicussion on a premise which not all accept.

Is the life of orcs one of continuous unhappiness (at least to them)? I doubt it; they certainly derive pleasure from their fetishism with machines, or with whatever cruel art or deeds - no single race in Arda experiences only pleasure or only pain. The orcs may not even be held culpable for what they did, if they are indeed gifted with souls and not just (reduced to) beasts.You didn't provide any example of an orc being shown mercy. But that doesn't matter, because it's actually OK being an Orc. You get to play with cool machinery and be brutish and cruel and everything, and you don't get to feel guilty. You may not even be held responsible for what you do. Boy, Eru sure is a loving and merciful God to allow them to live such a life of Reilly. ;)

As I read that passage about Frodo, it seems to me that Tolkien is saying the Frodo failed, but that his failure was negated or absolved by divine mercy. To my mind, Frodo didn't fail at all. He did all that was required of him (as stated in the second passage you quote which, funnily enough, appears to contradict the first :D ).

littlemanpoet

09-02-2006, 10:28 AM

One reader's platitude may be another's way of life. That it is a mere platitude for one does in no wise lessen its centrality for the other.
I suppose that means it's all subjective then, a matter of opinion?
You may of course suppose it if you wish, but it isn't the only logical possibility. An alternate logical possibility is that one may be correct and the other incorrect. Considering the topic at hand, the latter is the more likely.

While LotR is clearly Universal, it is a severe contortion to deny that there are specificially Christian themes just because such themes can also be found in Buddhism; this is so because Tolkien was Christian, not Buddhist.

Tolkien's use of Northern myth does not confound the Christian themes in LotR, because northern mythic themes have been transformed to fit a Christian world view. More on that later.

Those of us who have been born into, and nurtured on, Western civilization, have a very difficult job of deciphering what in our brain content is actually Christian-based and what isn't. So much of western culture is received from Christianity that to argue that it can't be found is like an ocean fish insisting that the water's not really salty; it's so used to the salt it can't tell when water's NOT salty.

The Only Real Estel

09-02-2006, 10:52 AM

Why So?

Because, for one reason, it's nowhere close to logical. Let’s look at it logically: the law of non-contradiction - "A is not non-A." How could non-A = A? It can't. By the same token a book can not have that many meanings - do you have any idea how many of those meanings would be contradictory? It is not logical to assume what you're suggesting.

I am not asking you to.

Good, because I would never try! :D

Indeed it is. So why not embrace it and allow yourself to find your own meaning within the book, rather than limiting yourself purely by reference to what the author intended?

First off - you are making a straw man out of my position Saucepan. You are misrepresenting (intentionally or not) me to be anti-imagination & that is not the case.

Imagination is fine & should be encouraged. You can imagine the size of Aragorn's nose - & many other much more exciting things - because there is no way we can know Tolkien's ideas behind these things. Of course I'm sure he had it in his head what his characters look like - but he purposefully didn't write down every detail so that we could imagine them. When the author's intent can not be discerned imagination is a perfectly acceptable recourse. I cannot accept that Tolkien's intent behind the 'Christian aspects' of his books is not attainable given the amount of verbage out there from him on this subject. And when the author's intention can be discerned, imagination does not trump it.

To say that it does is ridiculous. You can imagine the orcs to be little, furry pink teletubbies if you wish & no one can stop you from that but when you do that you're not reading "The Lord of the Rings" but "The Lord of the Rings - As Imagined by The Saucepan Man." You cannot disregard the author's clear intentions in favor of imagination.

Your imagination does not override the author's meaning behind the book Sauce. And neither does mine or anyone else’s. I've given many examples - you believing the author to mean something doesn't mean he did. You are saying that any human beings intentions are subjective to the interpretations of others and that is not true. If it were, I could simply 'interpret' that you have been agreeing with me all along and I would be right (though you most certainly haven't been :D). You would also interpret the opposite to be true and you would be right. Surely you can see that this isn't logical, can't you?

Why would you bother to write a book that will simply be stripped of any meaning whatsoever and have the reader's interpretation (no matter how educated) be substituted? The reason for you writing has now entirely gone by the wayside.

What you are talking about is Deconstructionism - disregarding the author's original intent and making everything relative.

Meaning, like truth, is subjective.

Well first - that is highly debatable but that would be getting off topic so we won't go there. :p Second, that is a very weak analogy because you are attempting to prove that meaning is subjective by comparing it to truth - which you are assuming is subjective but you cannot prove that it is. Not to mention that the issue of truth being brought up at all is really a red herring. It's entirely inconclusive to this debate and you brought it up solely to "prove" that meaning is subjective by comparing it to truth when you should in fact be proving why meaning is subjective...

At any rate it's getting close to the 'agree to disagree' point. Firstly, I've stated & attempted to prove my position as logical & clearly as I can but it seems that you simply continue to fall back on circular reasoning to prove yours. And secondly (and more importantly), as mark pointed out, it's difficult for her or anyone else to get a word in edgewise & our little debate here (though on-topic as you have pointed out) is probably one of primary reasons for that.

Raynor

09-02-2006, 11:27 AM

If, however, one is seeking to divine the "meaning" of LotR by reference to authorial intent, I would regard them as persuasive (to the extent that they do not conflict with other material) but, overall, insuffuficient to allow any firm conclusion to be drawn.But that would mean to disregard also all of the other Tolkien's statement about myths, Art and Truth.
It implies the existence of a Creator and thus bases the dicussion on a premise which not all accept.Is there a single hallucinating author who pretends to have writing premises who all will accept?? If you are arguing for this, of if you are arguing from the _position_ of atheism, then our disscussion is at a deadpoint; continuing it would mean to talk about something else.
Because it implies that those who do not percevie or accept such a connection have an inferior appreciation of the book.According to Tolkien, the highest function of the myth is to bring us into the [Christian] Truth. Can this be achieved in the case of someone who is not actually Christian? I will ask again, beyond what Fall will such a myth take you? Is it possible that such a myth can lead you to a Truth and beyond a Fall that are both not Christian? Of what kind are they? And is there any other Artistic achievement which is superior to, nay, equal, such a function of myth? These are, to me, rethoric questions, but I will be delighted with such a discussion.
You didn't provide any example of an orc being shown mercy. Point taken; I will ask you in turn: can you provide a single example of an unnecessarily unkind act towards an orc?
As I read that passage about Frodo, it seems to me that Tolkien is saying the Frodo failed, but that his failure was negated or absolved by divine mercy.I disagree; the quote states that saying that Frodo failed is a sign of shallow judgement and one which is not in accordance with morality.
as stated in the second passage you quote which, funnily enough, appears to contradict the first I disagree again; the essence of both passages is that one (Frodo) should do the most one can.

davem

09-02-2006, 12:05 PM

While LotR is clearly Universal, it is a severe contortion to deny that there are specificially Christian themes just because such themes can also be found in Buddhism; this is so because Tolkien was Christian, not Buddhist.

No. If the themes which underlie LotR are universal then it is not a 'Christian' work. To be a 'Christian' work it would have to have underlying themes which are uniquely Christian. To claim that the 'universal' themes are somehow 'Christian' because they are in a story by a Christian author (ie the themes are Christian because a Christian set them out) is like claiming that if a Christian tells me its raining outside then the statement 'Its pouring down out there' is a 'Christian' statement. If a work contains themes that are 'universal' they are just that - universal - wherever the author got his knowledge of them from.

Tolkien's use of Northern myth does not confound the Christian themes in LotR, because northern mythic themes have been transformed to fit a Christian world view. More on that later.

I could argue that Tolkien actually transformed his Christianity to fit a Northern mythic worldview (& I suspect I'd be more correct in that).

Those of us who have been born into, and nurtured on, Western civilization, have a very difficult job of deciphering what in our brain content is actually Christian-based and what isn't. So much of western culture is received from Christianity that to argue that it can't be found is like an ocean fish insisting that the water's not really salty; it's so used to the salt it can't tell when water's NOT salty.

Sorry, but I can recognise Christian propaganda when I hear it. I know enough of pre-Christian North-Western European culture to know that, once again, the truth is the other way about. Christianity was very much an add-on. Western culture has its origin in the Roman Empire. Our laws & institutions, our cultural values, are classical/pagan (not a little Viking/Saxon) not Middle-eastern. You can't construct an entire culture from a crucifixion & resurrection.

All of which is a side issue.

The point is. LotR is not a Christian work. It is a work by a Christian, which does not contradict Christian teaching - which, I suspect, is all Tolkien meant by saying it is 'fundamentally' a Catholic work - simply that it is a work which is more or less in line with his faith.

Could you tell us (I ask yet again) what these 'specifically, uniquely' Christian aspects of LotR are, the things which make it a Christian story, rather than just a story by a Christian?

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-02-2006, 12:51 PM

If you are arguing for this, of if you are arguing from the _position_ of atheism, then our discussion is at a dead point; continuing it would mean to talk about something else.
If atheism is the trouble, I can continue his argument for him. I am not atheist.

Sorry, but I can recognise Christian propaganda when I hear it.
If Christianity is the trouble, I can continue his argument for him. I am not Christian.

This entire discussion smacks of, not intolerance for religion, but intolerance for opinion based upon its own congenital biases.

If it is believed that a Christian cannot argue without his words being tainted with Christian bias, or that an atheist cannot argue without his words being tainted with an atheist bias, or that a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Taoist, a Wiccan, a Hindu cannot view the world without a strictly idealistic bend, surely it is a logical conclusion that a man cannot write prolifically without his works being imbued with the same biases from which he, as a person, suffers?

If we cannot agree that objectivity is a possibility within debate, how can we possibly be arrogant enough to believe that objectivity is possible within a novel? Every experience you've had, every day you've lived, every breath you've taken becomes a part of you. A writer, though he may take what he believes and turn it upon its head for the sake of a story, has still written something that has come from the very beginning: him. A writer may be a writer, but everything created by him is created in his own image. This writer was not simply a Christian writing a book with secret Christian meaning. He was John Tolkien, and he wrote because he was a writer. If we are to take him at face value when he states that the book was not consciously a Christian book, it must be accepted that if there are Christian biases within it, they are there by accident.

But to say that they do not exist at all is the very same level of folly as to claim that they are blatantly apparent.

If it begins to appear that your opponent in your debate cannot seem to admit that he may have something to learn, perhaps it is best to step back and view one's own words thus far; it may be time to take one's own advice.

Now onward.

I would like to view the Bible through the lens of The Lord of the Rings. I want to learn more about all religions, but it seems easiest to start with the religion of my parents, the religion of most of my friends, the religion I grew up submersed, be it conscious or not, within.

Saruman has been labelled as a sort of a Judas figure within the story. This interests me. Who was Judas, who was Saruman, and what attributes do they share? Why has this connection been made?

Raynor

09-02-2006, 02:31 PM

To be a 'Christian' work it would have to have underlying themes which are uniquely ChristianWhy uniquely? This work doesn't set out to present the definition of Christianity, against whatever other beliefs or perspectives; as I presented three quotes so far, the author presents Christianity in its essence. Because, as I stated previously:

"Again, it seems to me that the main difference between us is that for you a Christian work is one in which there are refferences to only what is absolutely unique in Christianity - if the work would evolve solely around that, it would be rather barren."
If atheism is the trouble, I can continue his argument for him. I am not atheist.My reason for singling out atheism is that it excludes from the start the very existence of the [Christian] Truth; if there is no such common base, how can the relation between Truth, Art and myth be discussed? It would be, first and foremost, a matter of proselytism, which breaks all the boundaries of this discussion (and my taste). The function of Tolkien's myths, to link back to the Truth, would, theoretically, not function.

davem

09-02-2006, 04:17 PM

I can see that a book which is written by a Christian & which generally conforms to the Christian faith can be called a 'Christian' book. At the same time I think it is essentially a meaningless label if it is to be applied to a story which actually contains nothing specifically Christian at all & is only generally in conformity with the mood of the faith (as it is in conformity with many other faiths & with secular humanism to a great degree).

In what way (other than authorial hope - one can't even say authorial intention as most of it was not invented consciously at all) can it be said to be 'Christian'? Is any book which is generally in conformity with Christianity to be called a Christian book. or only books written by Christian authors?

So, lets put forward a 'supposal'. Suppose you read a book which is in conformity with Christianity & as far as you are aware it was written by a Christian. Is it a Christian book? If LotR is a Christian book due to its general conformity with Christian faith (despite absence of specific Christian symbols & themes) then you would have to say this book was also a Christian book, wouldn't you?

But what, after accepting it as a Christian book, you later found out the author was not actually a Christian? Would the book then cease to be a Christian book?

Or suppose we found letters from Tolkien denouncing Christianity & saying it was all nonsense & he'd been faking all along. Would LotR suddenly stop being a Christian book?

So, the question is, is there something specifically Christian about the story itself which would make it a Christian story whether or not its author was Christian?

As to Fea's question:

Saruman has been labelled as a sort of a Judas figure within the story. This interests me. Who was Judas, who was Saruman, and what attributes do they share? Why has this connection been made?

It seems to me that there is no similarity at all, other than that both are traitors. If there is a Judas figure in LotR it is rather Boromir. Yet the similarity is extremely vague & there are few real similarities. I have no idea what (of value) one would learn by doing such a comparison, either about Saruman (or Boromir) or Judas.

(BTW, my point re 'Christian propaganda' was specifically in response to LMP's claim that Christianity had somehow produced Western civilisation all on its ownsome. I'm reminded of a radio programme I heard by some American evangelical who said he was so grateful to St Paul for spreading the Gospel, because his own ancestors were from Scotland & before the emergence of Christianity all the Scots were running around naked in the forests. He clearly believed that just two thousand years ago Europeans were grunting neanderthals eating raw meat (a la the start of Kubrick's 2001). In fact the Celts, as is well known, were a highly advanced society, well respected for their learning even as far as Greece & Rome.)

Nogrod

09-02-2006, 04:40 PM

Every intelligible discussion, every succesful exhange of ideas, every rational argumentation calls for a shared ground from which to make a point. The old Greeks and St. Thomas Aquinas in his time already made the point. I'm not the one to argue against their judgement here. The western culture and thought relies on those principles.

The question then becomes, where do we draw the limits of intelligible discussion? Some people like to narrow the categories "I will not take the arguments of the theists / atheists as they are profoundly misguided and unintelligible to me". After that the disagreements are solved with a sword (or rockets / smart bombs). As a reaction to this, there has developed a stance that everyone has her/his point of view and that's it. Call it subjectivism if you like.

But there's a void in here.

Subjectivism makes any meaningful discussion pointless.

But the thrive for "objectiviness" on behalf of some particular cultural principles or ideologies (atheist, lutheran, evangelical, catholic, orthodox, Shia, Sunni, ...) leads easily to narrow-mindedness and "the agreement of us" against the others. In the worst case to outward racism and hate, as we have seen too clearly nowadays.

Let's find the common ground from something more basic than ideologies centering around mere religious beliefs?

Just to tease (leaping across a few associative bridges): why should we ask the question what the author meant while writing? Why should we care? For many people of the 21st century Shakespeare's Macbeth is a story that so greatly depicts the horrors of totalitarian states and the problems our century has raised in front of (and with a thrive for) absolute rule and power. Shakespeare could not have thought of these as he lived in the 17th century (if there was the person "Shakespeare" to begin with). Are we wrong about his works now?

Is an author an omnipotent being, able to create meaning into the world like God which we should either understand or fail? Are you a God of your utterances? If all the other people take your utterances in a way X while you yourself have tried to explain them as Y, who is correct: all the others or you alone? (Be honest here!) Can we make a question of someone being right concerning meaning in the first place? :D

Boromir88

09-02-2006, 10:29 PM

Just a little comment that may be a bit off track, but I promise I'll stay on topic. :)

As I read that passage about Frodo, it seems to me that Tolkien is saying the Frodo failed, but that his failure was negated or absolved by divine mercy.~SpM
I beg to differ, and agree with Raynor, the 'as conceived by simple minds,' is I feel a great importance. Tolkien acknowledges that the 'simple-minded' (which he didn't mean to insult anyone) may see Frodo as a failure, because he gave in, he chickened out, he 'ratted.' But, Tolkien never said he believed Frodo failed, but that the simple-minded may see Frodo as a failure. In fact he goes on to explain why he felt like Frodo succeeded.

So, here we have the classic example of the argument of the thread. Tolkien acknowledges that some people may see Frodo not fulfilling his quest as a failure, but he went out and explains as to why he felt like Frodo should not be labelled as a 'failure' and why he deserves all honour.

Which brings to the biggest question does authorial intent matter? And if so, exactly how much should it matter?
“The LotR exists, apart from what Tolkien said at one time or another it was supposed to mean. It was largely a product of the realm of fantasy in the unconscious: that was the ultimate source. Therefore, what Tolkien later consciously thought about it is interesting, but not authoritative as to the work’s meaning”~Norman Cantor
That's Cantor's take on it, but let's see what Tolkien talks about:
“I do not ‘know all the answers’. Much of my own book puzzles me; and in any case much of it was written so long ago (anything up to 20 years) that I read it now as if it were from a strange hand.’~Letter 211
I think that many confuse ’applicability’ with ’allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."~Interview with BBC Radio, 1971
Then on the other side:
"But if we speak of a Cauldron, we must not wholly forget the Cooks. There are many things in the Cauldron, but the Cooks do not dip in the ladle quite blindly. Their selection is important. The gods are after all gods, and it is a matter of some moment what stories are told of them"~Tolkien's essay on Faerie Stories.
It appears Tolkien is contradicting himself. He talks about his dislike of allegory (allegory is a 'domination of the author'), the 'freedom of applicability' that is with the readers, reading the book for enjoyment. Then at other times he tells us his intentions with his books, and I am intrigued by the parallel he draws with 'cooks.'

How about we view this quote:

'But if we speak of a Cauldron, we must not wholly forget the Cooks. There are many things in the Cauldron, but the Cooks do not dip in the ladle quite blindly. Their selection is important.

And alter it a bit to this:

'But if we speak of a book, we must not wholly forget the author. There are many things in the book, but the author does not write a story blindly. His/her selection is important.'

Puts an interesting spin on things? It seems like there is some conflict, we have the applicability of the reader vs. the intent of the author. But, I don't see a conflict, there is a delicate balance between the two.

I think Tolkien brings up a very interesting parallel, authors don't write, just to write. They don't write 'blindly.' One of the biggest fuels for authors is purpose. What is their purpose? They're writing for a reason, they're not writing for absolutely no purpose at all. So, the author shouldn't just be cast aside and say 'ahh forget the old coot, who cares about him, I will believe what I want.' Which, of course anyone can believe whatever they want, but I'm afraid that means you've missed the author's purpose.

Then comes in the reader applicability, and the reader's freedom. After Tolkien's books were released, he mentions taking a deep interest in seeing how they develop, which is probably why Tolkien in Letter's and elsewhere starts talking about his intentions. It's after the fact, after his stories were published, and taking an interest in how the public viewed his works, is when and why we start seeing what he intended his works mean.

Which brings us back to the delicate balance between the author and the reader. The author is the mastermind behind his books, and above anyone else knows what his books are about, and what his purpose is, or what his purpose was. The reader will read the book and apply their own meaning when reading, and this meaning may conflict with the author's intentions. But, 'intentions' is the key, there's this tone of acceptance...It's like "That is not what I had intended, but I can certainly understand how you see it that way."

I call it a delicate balance, because if there is too much "authorial intent" it falls into 'domination of the author,' which I feel that Tolkien didn't want to do. He didn't want to 'dominate' over his readers. However, if there is too much freedom of the reader, the entire reason and purpose of the author is cast aside. As Roland Barthes notes in "The Death of the Author":
We know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the {Authorial} myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.”
Not all stories are as unique as this one, but with Tolkien it was a balancing act. The cooks are just as important as the cauldron...Tolkien did not just blindly write, there was a reason and a purpose. Then there is the reader's applicability, but too much freedom and the author is left behind in the dust, and the true meaning, the true purpose is lost.

davem

09-03-2006, 12:19 AM

This has turned into yet another Canonicity argument. For myself, I accept that Tolkien has greater insight into his invented world & the 'meaning' of his stories than anyone else. However..

This is not a discussion on Canonicity. It is not an argument about who knows more about Middle-earth, the creator or the audience? It is not even an argument about whether Tolkien believed LotR was a 'Chritian' work - clearly he did (or at least that it conformed to Christianity).

This is a discussion on whether there are similarities between LotR & people/events in the Bible. My argument all along has been that, beyond a general 'mood' or 'tone' of style, language & morality, there is no one-to-one correspondence. Said 'mood' or 'tone' is not, however, uniquely or specifically 'Christian/Biblical' enough, in & of itself, to constitute a 'Christian' work - unless negatively: its not a 'not-Christian' work (ie it doesn't actually contradict anything in the Bible).

For some here it seems that the fact that a) Tolkien was a Christian & his 'moral value system' was inspired by his faith (but see Shippey on Tolkien's Northern theory of courage - Tolkien's 'moral value system' was not uniquely Christian, & definitely not pacifistic) & b) the work is generally in conformity with Christian belief, is enough to justify calling it a Christian work, & therefore to start looking for parallells between events & people in LotR & the Bible.

For others, such a 'negative' correspondence does not justify such 'parallell-seeking' because LotR is about as much (& as little) in conformit with the Bible as it is with WWII. One can say that 'To me Saruman is a Judas figure', but one can also say 'To me Saruman is a Hitler figure'. & no-one has any problem (well, I don't anyway). However..

This is equivalent to saying Tolkien was an Englishman, writing during the 1940's when Hitler's armies were on the verge of over-running his country & destroying everything he loved, so his hopes & fears must automatically have gone into his work, & therefore he could not help but write a story which had an underlying WWII theme, & that an analysis of, say, the similarities between Hitler & Saruman will give us an insight in to both Saruman's character & Hitler's as well. Personally, I think that the Characters & motivations, the origins, & most importantly the desires, of Saruman, Judas & Hitler are so different as to cancel out any percieved similarities between them.

I'm still not sure whether the 'pro-Christian interpretation' side are just looking for a chat along the lines of 'Ooh! 'x' (Saruman/Frodo/other character) is a bit like 'y'(Judas/Jesus/other biblical figure) isn't he? Which is all fine as far as I'm concerned - I just don't think that kind of thing belongs in Books - which is intended for serious & rigorous debate - but rather in Novices & Newcomers. If it is to remain in Books then the participants should expect to be challenged on their statements & be asked to offer some justification for them.

mark12_30

09-03-2006, 04:58 AM

davem

09-03-2006, 06:35 AM

davem: you seem frustrated that you have to keep repeating yourself. There's a simple solution: just type "ibid" and let it go.

If you really think this discussion belongs in N&N then take it up with the mods.

It seems no-one, for all their demanding the right to do it, can actually provide any direct correspondences between LotR & the Bible, or indicate out how, or in what way, LotR is a 'Christian' work.

I think its now perfectly clear that either LotR is not a 'Christian' work in any real sense, or that no-one on the Downs at present can show it is.

I'm happy to leave the whole thing here - unless someone asks me for a response on any point.

The Saucepan Man

09-03-2006, 06:42 AM

TORE, the discussion between you and I can be boild down to our different definition of the word “meaning” in the question: “What is the meaning of LotR? I define “meaning” as the meaning of the story to the individual reader, as influenced by what the author meant to convey. You define it as what the author meant by the story, as supplemented by the reader’s imagination.

I do not deny that the author “meant” something by the story, although I would argue that it is impossible to ever settle on an accurate and complete picture of what that might be, and I am not sure that Tolkien himself would bhave been ablke to do so either (hence my debate with Raynor over the Letters). You do not deny (it would appear) that the story can have different meanings to different individual readers.

The essence of our difference is that, when we consider whether there is one single, objective meaning to LotR, your position is that there is and that it is the meaning that the author intended to convey, while my position is that there is no single, objective meaning. The book can, as far as any individual reader is concerned, only carry the meaning that that reader attributes to it.

And to pick up the assertion that I am disregarding the author’s intent, as supplemented by the point which Boromir88 makes, I am doing no such thing. Of course individual meaning does not disregard the author. The author selects words, imagery, symbolism specifically to convey a particular meaning. In most cases (such as in the “factual” events depicted, certain elements of the descriptions give etc) we will all pick up on that intended meaning and incoporate it as part of our own meaning. Hence there will be broad, if not unanimous, consensus on many points. A skilfull author, such as Tolkien, may be able to convey much more of his intended meaning to a greater number of readers.

My point is that each individual reader will still find his or her own “meaning” within LotR. That’s fine by me and I am more than happy to listen to, and discuss, the opinions of others. Where a strong case is put forward for a particular “meaning” , for example on the basis of the text itself and/or extraneous material indicating authorial intention, I am generally quite happy to absorb it within my own understanding of the book, provided that it does not conflict with my own individual intepretation or even, occasionally, if it does - if it makes more sense within the context of my overall understanding of the book.

Where I draw the line is the insistence that I should accept as “fact” the individual understaning of others, or even of the author, where it does not, and will not, fit with my own understanding of the book.

I should probably concede the “Frodo issue”. I had thought that there was a definitive statement by Tolkien that Frodo had failed. I may be wrong. I do not have the Letters to hand. It does not alter the fact that there are statements made by Tolkien, published since I first read the book, which do not accord with my understanding of the book and which I do not feel bound to accept. The example that I usually give is the assertion that, under a certain set of circumstances, Gollum would willingly have sacrificed himself and the Ring by throwing himself into Mount Doom with it. I do not accept (within the context of my understanding of the character) that he would ever have done so under any circumstances.

That sets out my position. I do not expect everyone to agree with it. But it is pretty much immutable, as far as I am concerned.

So why is that relevant to the topic at hand?

If someone is to assert that Gandalf is a Christ figure, Sauron is a Lucifer figure or Saruman is a Judas figure or that the Secret Fire equates with the Holy Ghost, or whatever, then that may well be very interesting as an academic discussion point. But it is an individual interpretation, and not one which I feel obligation (morally, academically or otherwise) to accept. Even had Tolkien himself stated that it was his intention that these parallels be drawn by his readers, I would not accept them. They are not necessary to my understanding and appreciation of the story.

And what really draws me from my slumber and perks my interest, such that I feel the need to set out on the dangerous course of articulating my position (as above) once more, is when I am (expressly or implicitly) told that I must accept LotR as a fundamentally religious and Catholic story simply because Tolkien himself was a Catholic and because he said that it was his intention (unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision) that it be so.

Hence, when it is said that the story undeniably reflects a fundamental and universal “Truth”, I object. I feel perfectly entitled to challenge that, at least until some adequate explanation of what this “truth-with-a-capital-T” is. If it is said to be the essence of the “one true (Christian) myth” or the existence of God or whatever, then I cannot accept that either as I do not accept that the Chrisitian myth, as set out in the Bible for example, is true or that God (at least in the sense depicted within Christianity and, indeed, most major religions) exists.

If you want to believe that, as part of your understanding of LotR, I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem when I am told that this “Truth” (whatever it may be) is undeniable and that, if I do not accept it as part of my understanding of the “meaning” of LotR, then I have an inferior appreciation of the book to those who do or that I am otherwise somehow “wrong” in my reaction to it.

Finally, on the side-issue of Orcs (and in response to Raynor), I would suggest that it is a basic premise of the book that it is “right” to treat Orcs without kindness or mercy (contrast the treatment, for example, of the Haradrim and Dunlendings). I have no problem with that, as a feature of the fictional fantasy world. But I do object to any parallel being drawn (as Tolkien did) between Orcs, portrayed as such, with trecutters and bikers.

PS If these points are not considered relevant to the ongoing debate, then feel free to ignore them and carry on. I will be happy of the opportunity not to have to keep repeating myself. :D

narfforc

09-03-2006, 07:20 AM

There is nothing uniquely Christian in LotR, and furthermore I believe there is nothing unique in the bible. Other religions/cult/sects have all the same stories but with different names. The Creation, Virgin Birth, Ressurection, Miracles, Demons and lots of old wise men with white beards, occur all over the Religiuos/Mythologies. Being the Son of a God is also widespread. Good fighting Evil is not a Christian monopoly. Pointing to LotR and saying: This is a Christian work is wrong, what it does have are principles portrayed in the bible, and those very same principles occur in other religions. I am not religious, I do not need a book or Ten Commandments to tell me how to be a good person, I am one, and I have hundreds of commandments of my own. What I read in LotR is Good fighting Evil, and that is mirrored in all sorts of things non-religious. Gandalf fighting The Balrog in Moria smacks of Frey fighting Surt at Ragnorak, Shadowfax compares to Skinfaxi, now the Vikings would be really upset by people calling LotR Christian. I agree that as Tolkien was a Christian some of his beliefs have filtered into the book, however because he was Christian does not make him holier than the next guy, if I had wrote the book and said the same things, how could you then call it a Christian work.

Macalaure

09-03-2006, 07:23 AM

First of all, this is a very interesting debate to follow, though it still seems to come down to what we accept as a definition of the term 'Christian work'. I agree so far with the arguments, though not on all occasions with the tone, of davem.

I have just a little to add to the side issues of this discussion.

Some time ago Fea wroteThe problem with that idea is saying that I should be concerned with logic when making associations.and Mansun agreed on this. On this background I'd like to add to
My point is that each individual reader will still find his or her own “meaning” within LotR. That’s fine by me and I am more than happy to listen to, and discuss, the opinions of others. Where a strong case is put forward for a particular “meaning” , for example on the basis of the text itself and/or extraneous material indicating authorial intention, I am generally quite happy to absorb it within my own understanding of the book, provided that it does not conflict with my own individual intepretation or even, occasionally, if it does - if it makes more sense within the context of my overall understanding of the book.
that the reader is not entirely free in his/her meaning of LotR or any book. A meaning or opinion needs to satisfy coherence and conclusiveness in order to not be, well, meaningless.

I would suggest that it is a basic premise of the book that it is “right” to treat Orcs without kindness or mercy I would disagree on this on the basis of Gandalf's words to Denethor: "As for me, I pity even his slaves"
It is not absolutely clear who he refers to with 'slaves'. I picture all the tiny, miserable snagas, but it could well also only refer to the men under Sauron's knout.
If we agree on the former, then orcs are to be pitied - at least in theory.

davem

09-03-2006, 07:31 AM

Ok, so I got dragged back in...

As far as I'm aware Tolkien hardly ever at made any one-to one connections between his fictional world & the Bible, merely stating on various occasions that something in his writings was 'like' a Biblical event, or in his opinion 'played out' a certain Christian truth (he did refer to Satan as Sauron occasionally, so it seems the two were interchangeable in his mind. As were Orcs & men with chainsaws - personally I think both analogies are flawed & certainly don't stand up to scrutiny). Certainly he was pleased when correspondents drew analogies with Christianity, but one suspects that was because so many readers & critics denied there was any Christian meaning there at all.

Out of respect for the author I think we should refrain from stating 'what Tolkien believed' about this or that. He rejected any allegorical interpretation, & only reluctantly accepted applicability because it was inevitable readers would find their own meanings & interpret the work in their own way. The repeated pleas on his part for people not to interpret the thing, or allegorise it in any way were perfectly understandable in that he did not want a particular interpretation or 'meaning' to be imposed on it, & he himself to be held responsible for a particular 'teaching' or ideological stance. I suspect he would have been appalled by all the books & essays out there which purport to reveal the truth behind LotR.

Now, as someone who is open to the possibility of 'Truth' & suspects that Tolkien was perfectly correct when he agreed that he had 'broken through the veil' I have no problem at all with the idea that a work like LotR can give us a glimpse of something 'more' (or even 'Something More'). Where I get irritated is when people start telling me exactly what that something more is, & that the key to understanding LotR is to read the Bible (or the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita, etc, etc).

I agree so far with the arguments, though not on all occasions with the tone, of davem.

'He only does it to annoy
Because he knows it teases'
Lewis Carroll :smokin:

Boromir88

09-03-2006, 08:00 AM

This has turned into yet another Canonicity argument.
Sorry if you've missed the point of my last post.

It is not an argument about who knows more about Middle-earth, the creator or the audience?
Oh, but that's what it appears the argument was all about. Should we accept what Tolkien interpretted and intended for his own books, or should the readers freely apply their own meanings even if it is in contradiction to what Tolkien 'intended?' That has been the whole argument since post number 2 it seems.

It very much so centers around the author's intent vs. the reader's freedom. Did the author want to make this a Christian work or didn't he? And if he did, should the reader accept and agree with this interpretation? What makes a Christian Work?

I'm pointing out that all though what Tolkien had 'intended' for his stories may not be taken as authoritative. His purpose should not be utterly cast aside because the reader chooses to believe whatever he feels like. If Tolkien comes out and tells us certain instances which have a religious element, and religion is within the symbolism of Middle-earth, than it's the reader who must accept that Tolkien was trying to say something, and not just throw it off to the side.

If Tolkien comes out and says that a particular moment in his books was like a scene from the Bible, than his meaning should not be cast off as foolishness. The reader may not see it the same way as Tolkien, but I think the reader must accept what the author had wanted to portray, and his intentions should not be thrown out the door.

Where I get irritated is when people start telling me exactly what that something more is, & that the key to understanding LotR is to read the Bible
That is simply what I've been trying to argue all along. I don't think we can just toss out and ignore religion (specifically a Christian one), because it was something that was important to the author of the story. And something that can be found in the story. It's perfectly ok for the reader not to see eye to eye with Tolkien, or agree with what he thought about after writing the stories, but he should not be forgotten. The author is also an important factor in the story, like cooks are when making food. What they use, and why they use it, because there is a purpose for each item, should not be ignored.

It was not the author's purpose to dominate over his readers and say 'this is how it is.' But, the reason for creating the stories, and the purpose behind it (whether there's a christian one or not, I don't know) should not be ignored because the reader chooses to.

The Saucepan Man

09-03-2006, 09:07 AM

On this background I'd like to add to ... that the reader is not entirely free in his/her meaning of LotR or any book. A meaning or opinion needs to satisfy coherence and conclusiveness in order to not be, well, meaningless.Of course the reader is entirely free in his meaning of the book. Whether he will find anyone that agrees with him is another matter. If someone seeks to assert that LotR is all about a rebellion by the evil Free Peoples of the West against a good Sauron, then he is entirely free to do so. If he genuinely believes that, then it is the "right" meaning for him. But most of us would disagree, on the basis that we are heavily influenced by the meaning that the author intended to convey (and so the words, imagery etc that he chose).

I would disagree on this on the basis of Gandalf's words to Denethor: "As for me, I pity even his slaves"Whatever individual characters may have said, there is not one example of Orcs being shown pity or mercy, in contrast to the Haradrim and the Dunlandings. The closest we get to an approximation of sympathy for Orcs is in the individual characterisations, such as Ugluk, Shagrat and Gorbag. We can possibly understand their desires and motivations here, even if we do not agree with them. But, in essence, Orcs are there to serve evil and be slaughtered by the "good guys". Treecutters, bikers, and even thugs and criminals in the real world are a different kettle of fish entirely.

It was not the author's purpose to dominate over his readers and say 'this is how it is.' But, the reason for creating the stories, and the purpose behind it (whether there's a christian one or not, I don't know) should not be ignored because the reader chooses to.Why not? Most of us pay great heed to what the author intended through our reading of the words on the page and our interpretation of them. We accept the events portrayed, the descriptions, the motivations of the characters as depicted because of our mutual understanding and acceptance of the language Tolkien used and the manner in which this is to be interpreted (although, even there, there is scope for differing interpretation). But why should we accept that LotR is a Christian work just because the author tells us it is (if indeed that is what he has told us) if it is not necessary for our appreciation of the story? And, if you were to tell me that it is necessary to my appreciation of the story, I would reply that, as far as I am concerned, it is not.

Raynor

09-03-2006, 09:17 AM

Who is to say what are the necessary elements of a story in order to be Christian? Why isn't the intent and the general impression sufficient?

Let's take a zen koan (esspecially one with no significant relevance to oriental geography, culture or religion). Now, we may view this as just another fine story; we may even laugh, I know I did several good times. Now if we know the source and intent of these stories, does anyone have any problem to call them zen stories, even though they may be understood in an infinite number of ways? Even if they may have some (excuse me) lower function, such as to teach, perhaps, morality, good manners, or maybe even to relax, isn't their purpose, actually, to link back to the [zen/buddhist] Truth? Why do we have problems then with Tolkien's work, if, just the same, we know the source, the intent, and the best possible destination to which the author wishes us the story takes us?

If someone wants to convey a message and we understand something else, isn't this understanding, irregardless of how coherent, in fact, an error of communication? How could such an understanding be the prevalent one? Maybe the "tools" used, maybe the "environment" in which we perceived the messaged have distort it. For all of us who admire this work, can Tolkien make an excellent work, and still transmit the wrong message, not the one he intended? Can he be gloriously wrong?

Macalaure

09-03-2006, 09:53 AM

Of course the reader is entirely free in his meaning of the book. Whether he will find anyone that agrees with him is another matter. If someone seeks to assert that LotR is all about a rebellion by the evil Free Peoples of the West against a good Sauron, then he is entirely free to do so. If he genuinely believes that, then it is the "right" meaning for him. But most of us would disagree, on the basis that we are heavily influenced by the meaning that the author intended to convey (and so the words, imagery etc that he chose).
Well, of course one is free to do whatever one wants to. Still, if his meaning is not coherent and conclusive, then it is invalid and of no substance. Of course, nobody can be punished for having an invalid opinion. (at least not where you and I live)
However, I agree on your second point. A reader can of course maintain a valid meaning that was not intended by the author. The less the author forces his intention upon the reader, the more probable this is.

We have agreed, I think, that the LotR conforms with Christian faith. If you agree on the values that the book carries (you don't agree on all, I know) then this means that on these cases, your values coincide with christian values. Does it suffice for a 'Christian work', that those who agree on its values in consequence agree on christian values? Sorry I keep on asking things like this, but I think that as soon as we all agree on a definition, we're halfway done.
Who is to say what are the necessary elements of a story in order to be Christian?I don't know. As it seems that even we few are unable to come to a common point, somebody should go look it up in an encyclopedia. ;)

Whatever individual characters may have said, there is not one example of Orcs being shown pity or mercy, in contrast to the Haradrim and the Dunlandings. The closest we get to an approximation of sympathy for Orcs is in the individual characterisations, such as Ugluk, Shagrat and Gorbag. We can possibly understand their desires and motivations here, even if we do not agree with them. But, in essence, Orcs are there to serve evil and be slaughtered by the "good guys". Treecutters, bikers, and even thugs and criminals in the real world are a different kettle of fish entirely.
Closest would be Aragorn's speech on the wall of Helm's Deep, but I would't count that. Yet Gandalf's words are at least something. He doesn't say "Only a dead orc is a good orc".
Concerning the equalisation of orcs and treecutters, I don't like this, too. I would only agree so far as to call unnecessary violent or rude behaviour etc., like treecutting, orcish. In the real world, it's Men who commit orcish acts, which is maybe even sadder.

Lalwendë

09-03-2006, 10:25 AM

We have agreed, I think, that the LotR conforms with Christian faith. If you agree on the values that the book carries (you don't agree on all, I know) then this means that on these cases, your values coincide with christian values. Does it suffice for a 'Christian work', that those who agree on its values in consequence agree on christian values? Sorry I keep on asking things like this, but I think that as soon as we all agree on a definition, we're halfway done.

Well even if Barrow-downers agreed that the book at least was in sympathy with the Christian faith (and I don't think all will) then it still wouldn't necessarily be aptly labelled a 'Christian' work. I wonder how the great numbers of Christians out there who consider LotR to be a work of the devil would feel? I knew a few people who were like this and while at school had someone tell me I'd go straight to Hell for reading "a book of Demonic Intent like that". I happen to think that LotR is in broad sympathy with Christian values, but that we still could not label it a "Christian Book" as it is not specifically Christian.

And leading on from that, a quick contrast sprang to mind when reading posts where people talk of LotR signposting readers to "The Truth". One series of books did set out to do this and that was Narnia. So, in what ways is LotR the same as Narnia?

Anyway, some of this thread reminds me of a little old pub called The Eagle and Child. Not the Oxford one, but one in which I spent many happy hours getting sozzled before it was turned into a Gastropub. In the old days it was run by one formidable Mrs Gill, whose Word was Law. Above the bar was a large sign proclaiming "No Religion or Politics To Be Discussed In This Pub!". Well we haven't got one of those signs at the Downs (but we do have a "Mrs Gill" who will tell us off if we're rude or personal about said topics) so threads like this one are able to spring up from time to time. Of course, as soon as you do mention one of those topics people will necessarily want to argue their case (which is why the formidable Mrs Gill had said sign up in her pub). So, when opening cans of worms the birdies will inevitably follow. Controversial ideas will attract rigorous debate.

davem

09-03-2006, 10:29 AM

May I return to my analogy of the 'Christian' car? A Christian mechanic makes a car, which he tells me in all seriousness is a 'Christian' car. He assures me that in the manufacture, the materials, the electronics, everything about it, it is in conformity with the scriptures (he never worked on the Sabbath, etc). He is not lying to me. From his perspective it is a 'Christian' car.

But suppose, when I go into the showroom this 'Christian' car is parked next to another one which is exactly the same model, same colour - absolutely identical, but made by a Muslim mechanic. It is a 'Muslim' car. Beside it is a 'Jewish' car, & making up the set is a 'Pagan' car & a 'godless commie pinko liberal bed-wetter' car .

Now, as I say, they are all exactly the same in terms of appearance, performance, everything. In what way is the 'Christian' car unique, or special, other than in the intent, or perception of the mechanic? That intent/perception is entirely subjective. All the cars have been built according to the same plans, in the same way, & are designed to do the same job.

Now I, not being a 'Christian' am unable to percieve any difference between the 'Christian' car & the others. They all seem exactly the same to me & the only difference the belief systems of the individual mechanics.

My question is, is the 'Christian' car actually a Christian car?

Raynor

09-03-2006, 11:00 AM

My question is, is the 'Christian' car actually a Christian car?I doubt any car could be a Christian car, due to the fact that, according to you, it should somehow actually have a refference to Jesus, the resurrection or other Christian themes you mentioned - but I interpret this to be un- (or even anti-) Christian thing to have on a car. Christianity requires, as a first commandment, to love the Lord "And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength" Mark 12-30 ;) (hint)

And this is what Tolkien actually does; the work reffers, first and foremost, to the grace of the One, and this is more Christian than whatever "idolatry of other Christian movites" he could have put.

To continue your analogy with "hypothetical real life", what if Tolkien, the carpenter ;), set out to make an altar (put whatever other religious object here, if this doesn't come your way), but what he ends up with you consider to be a chair; useful for you to read a book in, to enjoy landscape in, to have a conversation in it, because this is what it is for you... Aren't you in fact missing the point? Isn't it that in this case, your are to say that "hey, go to that Tolkien gentleman, he is a great carpenter, he thinks he makes altars, although he may not realise he makes chairs?"

davem

09-03-2006, 11:12 AM

And this is what Tolkien actually does; the work reffers, first and foremost, to the grace of the One, and this is more Christian than whatever "idolatry of other Christian movites" he could have put.

No it doesn't. It refers, first & foremost, to an individual's self-sacrifice for the good of others, & his subsequent suffering & rejection by that same community.

On second thoughts, it refers, first & foremost, to the ennoblement of the humble.

On third thoughts, it refers, first & foremost...(fill in the blank)

To continue your analogy with "hypothetical real life", what if Tolkien, the carpenter ;), set out to make an altar (put whatever other religious object here, if this doesn't come your way), but what he ends up with you consider to be a chair; useful for you to read a book in, to enjoy landscape in, to have a conversation in it, because this is what it is for you... Aren't you in fact missing the point? Isn't it that in this case, your are to say that "hey, go to that Tolkien gentleman, he is a great carpenter, he thinks he makes altars, although he may not realise he makes chairs?"

No, I'm not missing the point at all. An altar would be supremely useless (& quite meaningless) to me. If I use the object as a chair at least I am getting something of value out of it. The fact that I can use it as a chair means that it is not specifically & uniquely an altar.

Raynor

09-03-2006, 11:41 AM

No it doesn't. It refers, first & foremost, to an individual's self-sacrifice for the good of others, & his subsequent suffering & rejection by that same community.

On second thoughts, it refers, first & foremost, to the ennoblement of the humble.

On third thoughts, it refers, first & foremost...(fill in the blank)Even if you are right, and I am not saying that you aren't, none of these would be possible withouth the Grace, that other power at work, which is refferenced several times in the very work.
An altar would be supremely useless (& quite meaningless) to me. Then, if I follow you, you admit that you do not want to use it for its highest (and intended) function. Though your other use may be accepted by the author, it is, by no means, the most proper use possible; not necessarily an mis-use, but an "under"-use.

davem

09-03-2006, 11:57 AM

Even if you are right, and I am not saying that you aren't, none of these would be possible withouth the Grace, that other power at work, which is refferenced several times in the very work.

Yes they would. An individual can sacrifice themselves for others without God being involved, a humble individual may be ennobled without God. In Lotr what we see is not the presence of God as such, but rather a lot of characters who believe in God & refer things & events to Him. Maybe they're just a superstitious bunch...

Then, if I follow you, you admit that you do not want to use it for its highest (and intended) function. Though your other use may be accepted by the author, it is, by no means, the most proper use possible; not necessarily an mis-use, but an "under"-use.

No, I'm saying it 'highest & intended function' has no relevance to me. Therefore it cannot be a 'mis-use' as I could not use it for the intention it was designed. To imply that I would be 'under-using' it is to assume that which is to be proved - that somehow the object is 'more' of an altar than a chair. In what way, beyond the builder's wish/intent, is it specifically an altar?I think your analogy is based in the idea that the 'true' meaning of LotR is 'Christian', & that if I do not pick up on that, if, in effect, I do not use the book as a devotional work to aid in my specifically Christian prayers & meditations, I am not using it to its fullest, & am missing something. Needless to say I disagree ...

Raynor

09-03-2006, 12:17 PM

Yes they wouldI disagree; the Grace is evident at all the important steps: Bilbo finding the ring, the winning of the game by Bilbo, the elves finding the hobbits in the forest, Gandalf reluctance to talk to Saruman, the coming of the ring to Frodo, the coming of all of the fellowship to Rivendell, etc ETC - and these all are recognised, in the books, as manifestation of, what I call, Grace.
No, I'm saying it 'highest & intended function' has no relevance to me. Then why do you have a problem with the fact that your understanding is not the highest possible?
To imply that I would be 'under-using' it is to assume that which is to be proved - that somehow the object is 'more' of an altar than a chairIf the most of its applicability, for you, is a chair, fine by even the author. Not the best intended and possible use though..
In what way, beyond the builder's wish/intent, is it specifically an altar?IIn its potence to give access to the Truth. To take you back before the Fall. That is, if you accept the likes of such concepts. If you don't, it will most likely forever remain a chair.
I think your analogy is based in the idea that the 'true' meaning of LotR is 'Christian', & that if I do not pick up on that, if, in effect, I do not use the book as a devotional work to aid in my specifically Christian prayers & meditations, I am not using it to its fullest, & am missing something.Not in your prayers; its cathartic effect should directly come from simply reading it. Enjoying this aspect should not require any other ingredient.

Boromir88

09-03-2006, 12:30 PM

But why should we accept that LotR is a Christian work just because the author tells us it is (if indeed that is what he has told us) if it is not necessary for our appreciation of the story? And, if you were to tell me that it is necessary to my appreciation of the story, I would reply that, as far as I am concerned, it is not.~SpM

I think part of the confusion has been that I haven't been all that clear. Now that I have some more time, perhaps I can speak (or type?) with some more clarity.

Some have been mentioning an irritation of having others tell them the 'meaning' of LOTR and shoving it down their throats. Personally, I find that irritating as well. But is it not just as irritating to deny that religion, that christianity, was an important influence in Tolkien's life, and absolutely cannot be found in his books? For one to even imagine something as 'Christian' in LOTR is flawed, useless, and serves no purpose

One of my good friends is a minister, and we both share the same passion for LOTR. He is able to connect things with the bible that I never thought of, nor would I ever have considered. And we have had some interesting conversations over the years. One of which he compared the friendship between Sam and Frodo like that of Mary and Joseph's. I don't see it that way, and I don't agree with him, but I understand where he's coming from, and I understand how he sees that. For more information check out this old, old, old thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11440&highlight=conversation)...

History and literature are big passions of mine. So, I see things that my friend would not, and vice versa. The question is who is right, who is wrong, which is the intent of the author?

The answer is neither, neither of us is more right than the other. And as far the intent of the author goes, personally I think both can be in line. Tolkien as well as being a professor and a historian, was also tied closely to his faith, so I certainly understand why two different people, can see things from Tolkien's books two different ways. Perhaps, if I give an example of a flawed interpretation, it may be a little clearer. I've heard often that the Ring is a representation of Nuclear power, and the Nuclear threat...Tolkien comes out and says in a TV interview on BBC Radio:
'May I point out that I wrote these stories before the H bomb was even heard of.'
Whoever, believes that the Ring is a representation of nuclear power, quite frankly, in this case is wrong. It is completely conflicts with the author's purpose and designs. The person may keep going on to believe that the ring is Tolkien representing nuclear power, but bottom line is, this is something Tolkien comes flat out and denies.

The vast majority of the time, we don't have a case like this. But we do know what Tolkien was passionate about, what influenced him, and what he loved, and therefor we can draw our own conclusions.

So, to my friend, to christians, or anyone who chooses to see it that way, LOTR is a 'Christian book.' To me, it's not a Christian book, but it's a historical fantasy adventure. To others it may look like a Hindu book...etc. Which one of us is right? No one is more or less right than the other.

Eventhough to me I don't see it as a Christian book, I see no purpose to be stubborn and say, "whoever believes it is, is wrong, flawed, and it is useless to read it as a Christian book." Because that would deny one of the very many and passionate influences of the author.

Lalwendë

09-03-2006, 12:56 PM

I disagree; the Grace is evident at all the important steps: Bilbo finding the ring, the winning of the game by Bilbo, the elves finding the hobbits in the forest, Gandalf reluctance to talk to Saruman, the coming of the ring to Frodo, the coming of all of the fellowship to Rivendell, etc ETC - and these all are recognised, in the books, as manifestation of, what I call, Grace.

Only by some. They aren't categorically 'moments of grace' by a long way. In fact there have been several threads on here discussing whether the Ring itself is sentient and has deliberately betrayed its bearer or left them. There is also the thorny topic of fate vs free will to consider, including whether all the actions of the characters are fated (or determined by Wryd, considering the influence on Tolkien, too, of Beowulf), which would necessarily have implications for both characterisation and on the significance of events such as Frodo's acceptance of Gollum.

Raynor

09-03-2006, 01:54 PM

Only by some.Well, if some of those are Gandalf and Elrond, the chief lore masters of Middle-Earth, then I would call this rather representative.
They aren't categorically 'moments of grace' by a long way. It is in tone with Tolkien's statement in the Silmarillion, Letters and the Atrabeth about Eru's ever-present action.
In fact there have been several threads on here discussing whether the Ring itself is sentient and has deliberately betrayed its bearer or left them.Even if so, "behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker; I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker; in which case you also were meant to have it. And that maybe an encouraging thought." Shadow of the Past
There is also the thorny topic of fate vs free will to considerHow do you consider fate would refute the position I am arguing for? Its very existence would be a manifestation of Grace, given Eru's intent - the only one who could actually decide fate.

davem

09-03-2006, 02:50 PM

Well, if some of those are Gandalf and Elrond, the chief lore masters of Middle-Earth, then I would call this rather representative.
It is in tone with Tolkien's statement in the Silmarillion, Letters and the Atrabeth about Eru's ever-present action.
Even if so, "behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker; I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker; in which case you also were meant to have it. And that maybe an encouraging thought." Shadow of the Past
How do you consider fate would refute the position I am arguing for? Its very existence would be a manifestation of Grace, given Eru's intent - the only one who could actually decide fate.

Even if we accept that the incidents you describe are a consequence of 'grace' this merely means that the behaviour of Eru is similar to the behavour of the Christian God. That does not prove that LotR is a Christian work, merely that it doesn't contradict Christian teaching. Allah, Vishnu, the 'God' concieved by many cultures & religious traditions could be represented by Eru. If a non-Christian read the book they would have no reason to take it as a Christian work. Hence, only a Christian is likely to interpret such general references to Deity as references to the Christian God. That means that only in the mind of its author & its Christian readers is it a Christian work. To other readers it isn't. I'm quite sure many Christians don't regard it as a Christian work - it does not evangelise, does not mention Jesus or the crucifixion & resurrection of Christ, or the need for repentance & acceptance of His sacrifice. If it mentioned, either directly or indirectly (as in Aslan's death & resurrection on LWW) I would happily accept it as a Christian work. It doesn't, therefore it isn't.

Lalwendë

09-03-2006, 03:59 PM

How do you consider fate would refute the position I am arguing for? Its very existence would be a manifestation of Grace, given Eru's intent - the only one who could actually decide fate.

Because Fate would take away the important choices which characters must make in order to do the right thing. If Fate had it pre-ordained that they were going to choose to act in a certain way then there would be no point in choosing to do the right thing, there would be no point to Frodo's behaviour, nor any point to his suffering. This reduces the whole tale to just a sick game played by a creator who wants the beings he has created to go through the mill for some unknown reason, whereas when events are determined by their actions alone, it is up to them to do right and act in the way that will please Eru.

The Saucepan Man

09-03-2006, 06:10 PM

Strike me down! Well I do declare! Am I imagining things or are davem and I arguing from the same position on this thread ... !!?? :eek: :D

Will wonders never cease?

So, to my friend, to christians, or anyone who chooses to see it that way, LOTR is a 'Christian book.' To me, it's not a Christian book, but it's a historical fantasy adventure. To others it may look like a Hindu book...etc. Which one of us is right? No one is more or less right than the other.

Eventhough to me I don't see it as a Christian book, I see no purpose to be stubborn and say, "whoever believes it is, is wrong, flawed, and it is useless to read it as a Christian book." Because that would deny one of the very many and passionate influences of the author.You'll find no argument from me there. I have no objection to people having their own interpretation. I only object when they try to foist it on me, either directly or indirectly by implying that my appreciation of it is inferior to theirs because I do not share their view of it.

mark12_30

09-03-2006, 08:09 PM

Philomythus to Misomythus

You look at trees and label them just so,
(for trees are 'trees', and growing is 'to grow');
you walk the earth and tread with solemn pace
one of the many minor globes of Space:
a star's a star, some matter in a ball
compelled to courses mathematical
amid the regimented, cold, inane,
where destined atoms are each moment slain.

At bidding of a Will, to which we bend
(and must), but only dimly apprehend,
great processes march on, as Time unrolls
from dark beginnings to uncertain goals;
and as on page o'er-written without clue,
with script and limning packed of various hue,
an endless multitude of forms appear,
some grim, some frail, some beautiful, some queer,
each alien, except as kin from one
remote Origo, gnat, man, stone, and sun.
God made the petreous rocks, the arboreal trees,
tellurian earth, and stellar stars, and these
homuncular men, who walk upon the ground
with nerves that tingle touched by light and sound.
The movements of the sea, the wind in boughs,
green grass, the large slow oddity of cows,
thunder and lightning, birds that wheel and cry,
slime crawling up from mud to live and die,
these each are duly registered and print
the brain's contortions with a separate dint.
Yet trees are not 'trees', until so named and seen
and never were so named, tifi those had been
who speech's involuted breath unfurled,
faint echo and dim picture of the world,
but neither record nor a photograph,
being divination, judgement, and a laugh
response of those that felt astir within
by deep monition movements that were kin
to life and death of trees, of beasts, of stars:
free captives undermining shadowy bars,
digging the foreknown from experience
and panning the vein of spirit out of sense.
Great powers they slowly brought out of themselves
and looking backward they beheld the elves
that wrought on cunning forges in the mind,
and light and dark on secret looms entwined.
He sees no stars who does not see them first
of living silver made that sudden burst
to flame like flowers bencath an ancient song,
whose very echo after-music long
has since pursued. There is no firmament,
only a void, unless a jewelled tent
myth-woven and elf-pattemed; and no earth,
unless the mother's womb whence all have birth.
The heart of Man is not compound of lies,
but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,
and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,
Man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned,
and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned,
his world-dominion by creative act:
not his to worship the great Artefact,
Man, Sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with Elves and Goblins, though we dared to build
Gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sowed the seed of dragons, 'twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which we're made.

Yes! 'wish-fulfilment dreams' we spin to cheat
our timid hearts and ugly Fact defeat!
Whence came the wish, and whence the power to dream,
or some things fair and others ugly deem?
All wishes are not idle, nor in vain
fulfilment we devise -- for pain is pain,
not for itself to be desired, but ill;
or else to strive or to subdue the will
alike were graceless; and of Evil this
alone is deadly certain: Evil is.

Blessed are the timid hearts that evil hate
that quail in its shadow, and yet shut the gate;
that seek no parley, and in guarded room,
though small and bate, upon a clumsy loom
weave tissues gilded by the far-off day
hoped and believed in under Shadow's sway.

Blessed are the men of Noah's race that build
their little arks, though frail and poorly filled,
and steer through winds contrary towards a wraith,
a rumour of a harbour guessed by faith.

Blessed are the legend-makers with their rhyme
of things not found within recorded time.
It is not they that have forgot the Night,
or bid us flee to organized delight,
in lotus-isles of economic bliss
forswearing souls to gain a Circe-kiss
(and counterfeit at that, machine-produced,
bogus seduction of the twice-seduced).
Such isles they saw afar, and ones more fair,
and those that hear them yet may yet beware.
They have seen Death and ultimate defeat,
and yet they would not in despair retreat,
but oft to victory have tuned the lyre
and kindled hearts with legendary fire,
illuminating Now and dark Hath-been
with light of suns as yet by no man seen.

I would that I might with the minstrels sing
and stir the unseen with a throbbing string.
I would be with the mariners of the deep
that cut their slender planks on mountains steep
and voyage upon a vague and wandering quest,
for some have passed beyond the fabled West.
I would with the beleaguered fools be told,
that keep an inner fastness where their gold,
impure and scanty, yet they loyally bring
to mint in image blurred of distant king,
or in fantastic banners weave the sheen
heraldic emblems of a lord unseen.

I will not walk with your progressive apes,
erect and sapient. Before them gapes
the dark abyss to which their progress tends
if by God's mercy progress ever ends,
and does not ceaselessly revolve the same
unfruitful course with changing of a name.
I will not treat your dusty path and flat,
denoting this and that by this and that,
your world immutable wherein no part
the little maker has with maker's art.
I bow not yet before the Iron Crown,
nor cast my own small golden sceptre down.

In Paradise perchance the eye may stray
from gazing upon everlasting Day
to see the day illumined, and renew
from mirrored truth the likeness of the True.
Then looking on the Blessed Land 'twill see
that all is as it is, and yet made free:
Salvation changes not, nor yet destroys,
garden nor gardener, children nor their toys.
Evil it will not see, for evil lies
not in God's picture but in crooked eyes,
not in the source but in malicious choice,
and not in sound but in the tuneless voice.
In Paradise they look no more awry;
and though they make anew, they make no lie.
Be sure they still will make, not being dead,
and poets shall have flames upon their head,
and harps whereon their faultless fingers fall:
there each shall choose for ever from the All.

The Only Real Estel

09-03-2006, 09:03 PM

So, to my friend, to christians, or anyone who chooses to see it that way, LOTR is a 'Christian book.' To me, it's not a Christian book, but it's a historical fantasy adventure. To others it may look like a Hindu book...etc. Which one of us is right? No one is more or less right than the other.

Eventhough to me I don't see it as a Christian book, I see no purpose to be stubborn and say, "whoever believes it is, is wrong, flawed, and it is useless to read it as a Christian book." Because that would deny one of the very many and passionate influences of the author.

Yes, they have their own interpretation - certainly. But it is not logical that everyone's individual interpretation of the book is 'right.' If anyone attempts to argue that then he has, as the saying goes, "both feet planted firmly in mid-air."

There is one meaning to a book - what the author intended. There can be trillions of different interpretations (not the one meaning) by different readers. That is fine. But it doesn't change the intent of the author, which is what I think we have to look at if we want to know if LotR is a 'Christian book' or not.

I have no objection to people having their own interpretation. I only object when they try to foist it on me, either directly or indirectly by implying that my appreciation of it is inferior to theirs because I do not share their view of it.

davem brought up that point earlier when I was discussing a slightly different matter with him on this thread.

I am not trying to 'foist' my interpretation of LotR being a 'Christian work' on you. I am simply saying look at what the author's intention was - if that is that it was a Christian work, then consider Tolkien to be foisting his intentions on you.

And I don't see how your appreciation could possibly be inferior to mine or anyone else's if you choose to value your interpretation over Tolkien's. As far as I'm concerned LotR being a 'Christian work' means very little in the sense of how you read the book.

At any rate, I guess I'll be pulling back to a spectator's seat (most likely ;)) because the discussion is drifting farther from the original topic in my opinion & I'd rather not help it along.

mark12_30

09-03-2006, 09:55 PM

The first N posts: Character oriented. Some quick notes, although I don't think the meat is really here, and I don't want to get bogged down.

the Balrog - Satan;{or} Melkor-Satan
Melkor gets my vote.
Saruman/Grima - Judas Hmmm. Not quite; although Grima is a better possibility than Saruman. I'm still mulling this one over, and could be prevailed upon to expound... for Fea in particular, if she asks us nicely, preciousss. The other treasonous varmints to consider are Smeagol/Gollum, and, Denethor. Hoom. Smeagollum is worth some more thought-- after some more homework. EDIT: Actually, Boromir is also worth considering. (My poor Boromir!) (end edit)
Gandalf the White resurrection Well, yes, but not the resurrection of Jesus. There are several resurrections in the scriptures. This is worth taking a closer look at later. Remind me.
Elrond - Jesus?
Again, not the similarity I would have focused on-- although Elrond's role in healing, preaching, history-linking, and counsel is certainly notable, it doesn't shout "redeemer" to me. Maybe "prophet." Healings happened under more hands than Jesus' alone. Elrond reminds me more of Elijah & Elisha than he reminds me of Jesus. .
Another important comparison is the ending to the LOTR - Gandalf passes into the far green country where the undying lands await. Does this not ring bells as to where Jesus ends up when he has done his tme on earth? Tolkien was a devout Christian I can imagine.
The very word paradise, means garden. This is a whole interlocking, interlacing theme throughout scripture. It probably also shows up in other myths-- I can't speak to that; but I can definitely speak to the scriptural theme. More later if folks are interested.

Now, post number 8:
Though I hadn't noticed the correlation between Elrond and Jesus before... I usually see Jesus in Aragorn. The child, raised by his mother and one not his father; one who did great things for his lands; one with compassion, with the hands of a healer; one who descended into the terror of the lands of the dead to bring those there into light; one who compelled strength and hope into those around him; one that was loved and trusted by nearly all; one willing to die so that others could live; the King that Returns.
Could hardly have said it better myself. I tried, about ten years ago, and this is stil posted on my old website (http://members.cox.net/hrwright61/books.html):
From an obscure-- but ancient and royal-- lineage, a prince rises. He keeps his lineage secret. He is faithful to a fiancee (1) and a life-vision (2) that he has had since he was a very young man. He carries a sword (3) before which the darkness gives way; he has a name (4)-- the Heir of Isildur-- which the darkness fears. After numerous journeys, skirmishes and battles (5) with the darkness, in which his character is proven practically fautless (6), he travels--- three days (7)--- on the paths of the dead, bringing a spiritual, ghostly host with him when he emerges (8); fights a battle beside them against the darkness; he then releases the souls from their bondage to go in peace.(8) He continues against the darkness until he is at the very gates of the kingdom of darkness. At this point in time, the kingdom of darkness is defeated (granted, not by the prince directly, but he is there when it happens.) All of Middle Earth is released from the authority of Sauron.(9) (However, there are pockets of resistance left over that must be cleaned up. In a similar vein, we are released from the authority of Satan; his power is broken; but there are still battles to be fought.) The prince then returns to the seat of his fathers(10), claims his throne, sits in judgement, and then marries a bride (11) (a bride that has the heritage of eternal life, although she chooses to forsake it and become mortal. The parallel fails there.) Together, they reign in peace over a prosperous and joyful kingdom. (12)

1. The church, not formed yet during Jesus' ministry, but clearly foretold.
2. To win the Kingdom back so that he can marry the bride.
3. The Word Of God.
4. The Name of Jesus.
5. The ministry of Jesus.
6. The sinlessness of Jesus.
7. "Just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale..."
8. The "Harrowing of Hell"-- release of Hell's captives.
9. Satan defeated by the cross and resurrection of Christ-- destruction of Satan's power.
10. Minas Tirith-- Jerusalem.
11. The church.
12. The post-millenial reign with the church (after the judgement.)

And why must each borrowed character have only one place in a story? Does there really have to be just one Satan? Why not multiple? Why not several heroes? Why not several Christ figures?
A very, very perceptive point-- especially since, in the Old Testament, there are a bunch of them. They are not allegories (achoo.) They are imperfect Types. ONe aspect of their life forecasts a specific trait of the messiah. Obviously the Types have their faults (otherwise they'd be sinless.) However, taken together as just Types, the Types give a cumulative portrait of the expected one. Off the top of my head,
Biblical OT Messianic TYPES:
Adam-- the first of a new race. (Christ is the first (and firstfruits) of the New Creation..)
Noah: End of the old creation, beginning of the new. (According to Paul, a symbol of baptism -- passing through death to new life.)
Isaac: (The Son of promise, (almost) sacrificed. Redeemed.)
Joshua: (Ushers in a new kingdom. Jesus is named after Joshua.)
David as Shepherd. David as worshipper. David as King. Solomon as King. Daniel. Jonah. Hoseah. I'm missing some. Anyway you get the point. More than one forecasting Type is not only allowed, but required to form the broader picture.
So Fea's question is extremely perceptive, and yes I'd be happy to elaborate. Bottom line, I see three main pre-messianic Types, each forecasting a different Messianic aspect. Aragorn forecasts the kingly aspect, Gandalf the prophetic aspect, Frodo the sacrificial aspect. And no, none of them are complete picture in and of themselves; but taken together, the picture begins to form-- as it does with the OT types.

Phew! I'm only on post number 8 ?!?!? Moving on. Post number 10:
Gandalf died to save his companions from the balrog. Because of this, and because his quest was not yet fulfilled, he was resurrected. Jesus died and came back to save mankind from their sins. I'd say this is a significantly different motive. It is a resurrection, but not 'The' resurrection.
Correct. Neither is Aragorn's emerging from "three days in the belly of the" paths of the dead. Neither is Frodo's being stung into unconsciousness by Shelob, waking up to hellish torture, and then waking up again at the call of a loved one's voice. Neither is Frodo's being lifted off of Hellish Mount Doom, unconscious, and borne off by eagles to sit on Aragorn's makeshift throne at the field of Cormallen. However, they make pretty good Types. Not allegories; no-no-no, don't go there! But Types? Yes. Highly applicable Types.
Preaching and counselling was not everything Jesus did in his life, so I don't see the connection. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the bible to tell whether one of the prophets of the old testament could have a similarity to him.
I believe Macalaure was referring to Elrond here? In which case, I've already agreed with him. Very Elijah-Elisha-ish. Now, this begs the question: Did Tolkien steal Elijah-Elisha from the bible and squeeze him into the pages earmarked for Elrond? Hardly. More on this later.

Post 12, from Boromir88, and I paraphrase: : ...egads, don't use the word allegory
To which I also agree. Tolkien didn't want to shove anything down anybody's throat; that wasn't his style. No allegories. Allegories Nyet.
Post 13, Fea: You make me smile.
Now, as far as specifics are concerned, I can see some. There could be strong cases made that Gandalf, Aragorn, and even Frodo were Christ-like. A case could even be made that Elrond was also. I wouldn't initially make that connection, but links between the two do exist. Although, I don't think any of them could really be said to represent Jesus.Amazing. And I've never lectured Gurthang. Ever!
Although, I do say otherwise about Melkor. He, in my mind, exactly represents Satan. Sauron does also. Their aspects of being good at one time, falling into evil, often appearing likeable or pleasant, but deeply desiring to hold and corrupt everything sounds extremely close to the story of Lucifer that I've heard. In my mind, Melkor and Sauron directly represent Satan.
Melkor I've already agreed about. While Sauron comes close, he's too vulnerable to tactical defeat via physical destruction of the Ring. Melkor (versus Earendil) on the other hand, was a spot-on Foreshadowing..
You can't deny that things such as his faith will have had an influence but at the higher, deeper level in forming archetypes to work from
Aaaahhh, now we come to it. Archetypes and myth. Hold that thought. And kudos to Lal for bringing it up.
I suppose we could say that some of the characters that seem Biblical could equally be from similar archetypes found in say Norse myth.
Yes; but read On Fairy Stories and read Mythopoeia, to see that Tolkien believed all myths point to the One True Myth.
The point is that the mind is a big old stew and influences definitely come through, but Tolkein did not intend them as allegories of certain Biblical characters.
Mustn't say the a-word. Agreed. No allegories here.
No, Tolkien didn't "effectively steal" anything from the Bible because he wasn't trying to. As others have said, Tolkien seemed to be a firm believer in leaving things up to the mind of the reader (applicability rather than allegory) instead of leading their minds to a certain point. Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se.

That said, I think you can draw many similarities (obviously). There are several reasons for this - the most obvious being that you can find similarities anytime, even when there aren't any. But also, I think there are parallels that are in Tolkien's books, whether he meant them to be or not. You can not be so devoted to something (his faith) without it seeping into what you do.
In my opinion, this agrees quite nicely with most of the above, except perhaps my enthusiastic, specific, one-to-one endorsement of Melkor as Satan. But Estel isn't done yet:
I agree. I don't quite see the Balrog=Satan line of thought either. Considering there were mainly Balrogs, I'd think they represented more the "fallen angels" that followed Satan when he was cast out. Of Sauron & Melkor, I'd say that Melkor more directly paralleled Satan because he was cast out by Illuvator & really was the beginning of evil in Tolkien's world. Sauron was simply a pawn of his (though a powerful one).
Another agreement.

However, in the interest of a good night's sleep I think I will pause here at Post 16. Grace and peace, all.

davem

09-04-2006, 03:18 AM

Well, firstly, as regard's Mark's quotation from Mythopoea – I have to say that I am not arguing with the possibility of some kind of spiritual dimension to LotR, that it may provide an open minded reader with a glimpse of something 'more'.

As to her list of Biblical figures who are similar to LotR characters, are we talking a deliberate taking up by Tolkien of those specific characters into his secondary world, or simply an example of 'applicability' due to some, often vague, similarities? I don't think the former can be the case, as Tolkien specifically denied 'inventing' very much of the story. Hence, it seems we are dealing with a case of the 'leaf mould of the mind' – Biblical figures & imagery were part of the subconscious store he drew on, along with myths, legends, fairy stories etc.

The fact that one can find such correspondences with Biblical figures does not prove the work is 'Christian' any more than the fact that one can find correspondences with Pagan figures proves it is a Pagan work.

Lalwendë

09-04-2006, 03:50 AM

I think the chief sticking point here is this idea that all myths point to the truth, because yes, I can see aspects of certain characters reflected in Biblical myth (though not whole characters, who seem to have a distinct integrity within the separate cosmology of Arda) e.g. I can see the aspect of Gandalf that was 'reborn', though Gandalf is most definitely not Christ, he is Gandalf. However, there are as many if not more apsects which do not stem from Christianity, or which could equally be from other beliefs/myths/folklore.

However, as I say above, I know that I will be told again that all myths point to The Truth. I have to stick my neck out and venture to say that though Tolkien may have put forward this idea, it is by no means accepted by everyone, and possibly only by a small proportion of Tolkien readers. It is also a shaky argument which in order to accept ourselves, we first have to accept that Christianity is the only acceptable belief and that all others are just 'little copies' of it, and their followers are really just Christians. News - they're not. They're Moslems, Jainists, Wiccans, Taoists etc. But everyone is indeed under the same umbrella, yes, its just that its a bit more multi-coloured. The concept is basically similar to those put forward by Jung and Campbell of Collective Unconscious, but ring-fencing it in favour of one religion of the many available, which defeats the object of what Campbell suggests - that there is indeed one myth, but it cannot be 'claimed' by anyone. It belongs to us all, and we don't have to have a pass to get in.

It is also an idea put forward in a quite obscure text which Tolkien would not have considered would even be read by many (if any) of his fans - so my argument is that how would he have expected anyone to know, let alone accept this argument and system of interpretation. He simply gave us non-allegorical stories which he accepted could be read in any way. He kept his own interpretations under his hat (or in his desk ;)) because he did not wish to impose. He was not an evangelist.

Really, if we are hoping to pinpoint any Primary World 'messages' that he wants to put to readers, shouldn't we only be focussing on those texts he intended for us to read? If said messages can only be vaguely supported in principle by papers he determinedly did not publish or make otherwise generally available (and lecture notes are not such documents), then can we truly say that he wanted those messages to be read in that way?

Macalaure

09-04-2006, 04:55 AM

It is also a shaky argument which in order to accept ourselves, we first have to accept that Christianity is the only acceptable belief and that all others are just 'little copies' of it, and their followers are really just Christians.
Why this?
The way I understand it, which could certainly be wrong, the "One True Myth"-Theory just says that there is an amount of truth in every myth and religion and the "One True Myth" itself isn't equal to Christian Myth or any other, and it is approachable from Christianity as well as from every other one. Other myths and religions aren't copies of Christianity, but each contains a different component of the Big one.

And, of course, if Tolkien wanted the Lord of the Rings to point to this true myth, then it is no wonder that people find application in it, regardless of their religion.

It is also an idea put forward in a quite obscure text which Tolkien would not have considered would even be read by many (if any) of his fans - so my argument is that how would he have expected anyone to know, let alone accept this argument and system of interpretation.
...
Really, if we are hoping to pinpoint any Primary World 'messages' that he wants to put to readers, shouldn't we only be focussing on those texts he intended for us to read? If said messages can only be vaguely supported in principle by papers he determinedly did not publish or make otherwise generally available (and lecture notes are not such documents), then can we truly say that he wanted those messages to be read in that way?
I don't see why there shouldn't be elements or messages in it that Tolkien didn't expect people, or at least not the majority of people, to understand. He was also writing a book he himself would want to read, after all.

davem

09-04-2006, 05:19 AM

Why this?
The way I understand it, which could certainly be wrong, the "One True Myth"-Theory just says that there is an amount of truth in every myth and religion and the "One True Myth" itself isn't equal to Christian Myth or any other, and it is approachable from Christianity as well as from every other one. Other myths and religions aren't copies of Christianity, but each contains a different component of the Big one.
.

No - for Tolkien Christianity was this 'One True Myth' of which all others were flawed copies.

A case of 'There's only one True religion, & blow me! it just so happens its the one I'm already following. That's lucky! Imagine what a pain it would be if I'd been following the wrong one all these years. Looks like everybody else is going to have to change their religion but I'm ok to carry on as I am!' perhaps?

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-04-2006, 06:32 AM

It is also a shaky argument which in order to accept ourselves, we first have to accept that Christianity is the only acceptable belief and that all others are just 'little copies' of it, and their followers are really just Christians. News - they're not.
If we can suspend disbelief into declaring that Gandalf is Gandalf and not just a conglomeration of words on paper, surely we can suspend disbelief on religion long enough to think [openly]?

Mark, that was a fantastic post. Don't just feel free to expound, know that I'm sitting here hoping that you will. I don't know enough about Christianity to do a credible job of it. Right now, for me, it's all rather like spotting a blue bird and saying "Hey, that looks a bit like the sky." Sure, in thinking, they are inextricably connected: yes, on the surface they share a color, but that is merely illusionary. Looking more deeply, one survives within the other. Talk about attachment.

*uncomfortable silence*

So that parallel just worked way too well for comfort. I'm going to class now and thinking about fixing the ozone. That's easy. :p

davem

09-04-2006, 06:43 AM

What I don't get is why, if people want to know about Christianity they don't just read the Bible - is that book so difficult or so boring that the only way to make sense of it is to read it in the 'light' of LotR.

I begin to wonder whether its not a case of trying to find the Bible in LotR but of trying to find LotR in the Bible...

Lalwendë

09-04-2006, 06:48 AM

No - for Tolkien Christianity was this 'One True Myth' of which all others were flawed copies.

A case of 'There's only one True religion, & blow me! it just so happens its the one I'm already following. That's lucky! Imagine what a pain it would be if I'd been following the wrong one all these years. Looks like everybody else is going to have to change their religion but I'm ok to carry on as I am!' perhaps?

Exactly why I think the theory is bunkum. It's terribly convenient that believers in this theory just happen to have chosen the right one; and I mean of whatever faith, I'm not just picking on one! However, nobody has to change their religion as the theory says, ultimately, we're all Christians, and so were our ancestors who built Stonehenge and so were the builders of Mecca, hey, even Pullman is one! ;)

It interests me though, why would someone come up with such a theory? Is it to explain away a lack of comfort with a love for distinctly bloody Pagan myth while being devoutly Catholic? To forestall critics who would be horrified at world-building and playing God in an Act Of Literature?

If we can suspend disbelief into declaring that Gandalf is Gandalf and not just a conglomeration of words on paper, surely we can suspend disbelief on religion long enough to think [openly]?

No, because this would require me to start thinking as though Christianity is the only acceptable Truth in this world, and I do not deal in absolutes. If I had the capacity to suspend my intellectual disbelief on any religion then I would follow it. However I strongly believe that no one religion has got the handle on the 'Truth' so that would be entirely impossible.

Accepting Gandalf as Gandalf takes very little suspension of disbelief as he is there on the page, crafted in words for me to see and hear, and he is part of an entire, coherent and entirely self-supporting secondary world. That's how Tolkien made him, and if he wished Gandalf (or any other character) to be viewed in the light of the Primary World, he should not have set them within an entirely self-contained, non-allegorical, Secondary World context.

The Saucepan Man

09-04-2006, 07:04 AM

Just as I expect people to respect my right not to have any particular belief system foisted on to me as an essential element of my understanding of LotR, so I respect the right of those who do hold strong beliefs and see them mirrored in LotR to explain the connections that they see.

I don’t expect anyone to belittle me for having no strong religious beliefs. Equally, I don’t think that we should be in the business of belittling or ridiculing the beliefs of others.

It seems to me that some comments on this thread are getting close to doing that.

Please can all posting here make sure that they do so courteously and with respect for other posters’ beliefs and opinions.

Thank you.

davem

09-04-2006, 07:13 AM

Well, in the Bhagavad Gita Krishna claims: Even those who worship other gods, because of their love, they worship me.

But who's going to take seriously a Hindu text which claims that the One True Myth from which all the others devolved is Hinduism?

I know that Muslims believe that the 'True' versions of Biblical stories are to be found in the Koran.

Perhaps there is no One True Myth. Perhaps LotR is just a very entertaining story & we should just enjoy it without trying to find the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe & everything in there.

mark12_30

09-04-2006, 07:29 AM

.....several tempting things.....

Ai Ai, Lal! Almost thou temptest me to leave my systematic post by post approach. Very tempting! But no. I shall resist.

I shall return to my post-by-post track...

But perhaps not right away. The sun is shining, the grass is drying, and my sons have been cooped up for far too long....

davem

09-04-2006, 07:38 AM

Please can all posting here make sure that they do so courteously and with respect for other posters’ beliefs and opinions.

Thank you.

Can I just state for the record that I hold all belief systems in equal respect - whether that's Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Paganism, Platonism, Comunism, Fascism, Scientology, Free-thinkerismology, Satanism, Blue Meanyism, Jedi-ism or whatever else is currently doing the rounds. It is a matter of simple human decency to respect whatever anyone happens to believe, however ridiculous or unfounded or self-contradictory it may be.

I myself believe there is an invisible pink elephant in my attic & that this can be proven by a hidden code in the Athrabeth. I hope no-one will make fun of that sincerely held belief.

If any cartoons depicting my elephant appear in mirth I shall complain to the mods in the most vociferous fashion....

Lalwendë

09-04-2006, 08:11 AM

I myself believe there is an invisible pink elephant in my attic & that this can be proven by a hidden code in the Athrabeth. I hope no-one will make fun of that sincerely held belief.

If any cartoons depicting my elephant appear in mirth I shall complain to the mods in the most vociferous fashion....

Now now, how could an invisible pink elephant be depicted in Mirth? In fact, how do you know it is pink?

Seriously - if anyone feels belittled then please argue away. I'm not an atheist much as it may seem, but part of my own beliefs is that all are equal (where harm is not done to others, so I wouldn't support you were you to admit to being a believer in Combat 18 say) as belief is intensely personal; that there is no Truth owned by any religion; that souls should not be 'claimed' as belonging to any one faith in acts of religious imperialism; and finally, that all debate is rigorous and open. That might even include questioning the beliefs of Tolkien. So stone me for it if you must. :)

davem

09-04-2006, 08:44 AM

In fact, how do you know it is pink?

Faith.

Macalaure

09-04-2006, 08:56 AM

Are you sure it isn't a unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn)? :D

Estelyn Telcontar

09-04-2006, 09:08 AM

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-04-2006, 09:25 AM

It is a matter of simple human decency to respect whatever anyone happens to believe, however ridiculous or unfounded or self-contradictory it may be.
And it is deliciously respectful to refer to them as ridiculous.

What I don't get is why, if people want to know about Christianity they don't just read the Bible - is that book so difficult or so boring that the only way to make sense of it is to read it in the 'light' of LotR.
I've already read it. And while the Old Testament was infinitely more interesting to me than the New, they're both fascinating. What can possibly be more interesting than to study something for which people are willing to die and kill?

But now that I've read it once, I'd like to get a better grasp on it. And an easy way to get a better grasp on things is to associate them with things with which you're already familiar. Have you never taken a Psych class?

davem

09-04-2006, 09:33 AM

A reminder to all mice playing here - the cat may not have been monitoring the hole constantly, but it's still on the premises. Please heed Saucepan's admonition to post respectfully and without personal rancour. Threads involving discussion of religious matters are on the top of the "most frequently closed due to flaming" list...

So far two people have made fun of my Pink Elephant faith. May I request that all faiths are respected or that all are equally open to ridicule?

This is how wars start.

mark12_30

09-04-2006, 10:08 AM

narfforc

09-04-2006, 10:19 AM

May I be allowed to join The Worshippers of The Pink Elecorn or is it The Pink Uniphant, Oh no God we've fragmented already, expect war......

P.S I've tried all the other ones Davem mentioned, but I never won the lottery or had visions (only when I drank too much at a party once), In fact Religion has done absolutey nothing for me, LotR has, it makes me happy just as a book.

davem

09-04-2006, 10:20 AM

It strikes me that there is also another "faith" or "religion"-- and that is the faith that says, there is no God, no truth, and no moral law, and everyone who says that there is, is wrong, untrue, and false. That 'faith' has started a few wars of its own.

Proof or refutation of this 'faith' is left as an exercise for the reader.

How about the one which says my faith is the One True Myth from which all other myths & religions devolved & are second rate versions of my own?

My own belief teaches the equality of all faiths, love for humankind, respect for the natural world & free buns.

mark12_30

09-04-2006, 10:28 AM

Well, there it is. Glad that's settled.

Narfforc-- your sig is absolutely hilarious. Pardon me while I go to the "sig" thread and say so.

The Saucepan Man

09-04-2006, 10:43 AM

I know that it has at times embarked on diversions away from the original post, but can we at least please get back to discussing Tolkien and his works. :rolleyes:

Raynor

09-04-2006, 12:18 PM

Even if we accept that the incidents you describe are a consequence of 'grace' this merely means that the behaviour of Eru is similar to the behavour of the Christian God. That does not prove that LotR is a Christian work, merely that it doesn't contradict Christian teaching.It seems to me that your statement disregards the source of the work. I am curious, if the pope would have been the author of this story, and if he declared it is catholic, would you still express your doubts about it?
Allah, Vishnu, the 'God' concieved by many cultures & religious traditions could be represented by Eru. If a non-Christian read the book they would have no reason to take it as a Christian work.How much did he know about Allah or Vishnu, or the other cultures you reffer to? It seems that you have gone from ignoring the author to atributing him something he likely didn't have at all, which raises the question of the "glorious mistake" to which I reffered previously.
it does not evangelise, does not mention Jesus or the crucifixion & resurrection of Christ, or the need for repentance & acceptance of His sacrifice. If it mentioned, either directly or indirectly (as in Aslan's death & resurrection on LWW) I would happily accept it as a Christian work. It doesn't, therefore it isn't.Let me put it another way: is a painting Christian only if it represents Jesus, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the need for repentance and acceptance of His sacrifice? Personally, I guess any serious painter would laugh if one were to impose such restrictions on him. Even if so, are these themes supposed to be shown only "photographically"? Can't they be shown in more subtle or abstract ways, in a form, which though not "photographical", still conveys the substance?
Because Fate would take away the important choices which characters must make in order to do the right thing. It seems to me that the limits of the extension of Fate are arbitrarily set too large; if anything, Tolkien stated:
Free Will is derivative, and is only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences.And if we take this to reffer to mean solely to the ainur, as it would appear from the letter, we must keep in mind about his Children that they are given expressely the gift of free will. If Fate operates in any way, it is to fulfill Eru's design: "the joy of his Children".
As to her list of Biblical figures who are similar to LotR characters, are we talking a deliberate taking up by Tolkien of those specific characters into his secondary world, or simply an example of 'applicability' due to some, often vague, similarities? I don't think the former can be the case, as Tolkien specifically denied 'inventing' very much of the story. Yet he also revised a lot, which makes the former actually the more likely explanation, given the amount of revision that took place. But haven't we gone over this before?
It is also an idea put forward in a quite obscure text which Tolkien would not have considered would even be read by many (if any) of his fansTo what particular text are you reffering to? That idea appears in the letters, in the On Fairy-stories public lecture, he mentioned that to friends (and it made it to his biography) and even in the above quoted poem. Hardly obscure.

davem

09-04-2006, 12:18 PM

I know that it has at times embarked on diversions away from the original post, but can we at least please get back to discussing Tolkien and his works. :rolleyes:

It seems satire is out of place here, so if I may explain my position.

1)I think it coud be argued that 'Pink Elephantism' is no more irrational or ridiculous than any other religion & is as deserving of dis/respect as any other. Perhaps we could have a list of 'religions deserving of respect' & 'religions open to mockery' along with the criteria by which they are to be judged to be one or the other.

2) I think, if examined objectively, it will be found that LotR contains/confirms elements of any & every religion/belief system/world view that has, does, or will ever exist. This being the case I consider the 'discovery' of Christian elements in LotR to be supremely irrelevant as a topic as one could find Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, humanist (& very probably Pink Elephantist elements) in there because you'll find whatever you look for.

3) If LotR is to be considered a 'Christian' work it has to be proved that it is not an 'anything else' work, or at least that it is a more 'Christian' work than it is an 'anything else' work. To me that has not been done & we've been at this for more years than I care to remember ...

It seems to me that your statement disregards the source of the work. I am curious, if the pope would have been the author of this story, and if he declared it is catholic, would you still express your doubts about it?

Well, I wouldn't just accept it as a fact. I'd want to know in what sense he considered it to be 'Catholic'. You seem to be saying that as a Catholic wrote the book it is a Catholic story. In what way is LotR 'Catholic' to a non Catholic reader?

Forget who wrote it, forget all Tolkien's statements. Just look at the story itself. What would make an open minded reader of no faith think 'This is a Christian book'?

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-04-2006, 01:00 PM

Forget who wrote it, forget all Tolkien's statements. Just look at the story itself. What would make an open minded reader of no faith think 'This is a Christian book'?
But davem, the problem is taking the author out of the equation. Once a book has been written, yes, it becomes a separate entity. But it's like saying that a child, once grown, does not have within him some of his parents' biological makeup.

I see your point though. If I did not know that Tolkien was a devout Catholic, would I see Christian ideas within the book? Probably, because I was raised in a rural W.A.S.P. community. That's just the way most of NY is. I would spot it because that's what I've been submersed in since I was born. You see what you're used to seeing.

But let's say that I wasn't raised in such a setting, that I didn't know Tolkien's life story, that I knew nothing pertaining to religion in either of our lives... but I still knew religion enough that I'd be curious enough to try to guess what his leanings were.

I would see Celtic nature worship in beings like Goldberry, I would see a Christian Satan in Melkor, I would see, probably, a bit of Buddha's compassion and unattachment to material goods within Bombadil. I would spot the Valar with their individual talents as maybe Greek or Roman gods. Eru would be a conglomeration of the god[s?] of every monotheistic religion. I don't know enough about any other religion to make the connections.

So your point of non-Christian Universalism is clearly accurate. There is nothing within the text to say that the work has Christian ideals in it. It is not, as I believe Raynor said, a portrait of Christ. You can't call it a Christian book, but if you read a story with underlying themes of ultimate goodness that's written by a devout Christian, those "good" qualities, whether or not they apply to every other religion, are probably going to lean more into the Christian slot of the roulette wheel.

Lalwendë

09-04-2006, 01:27 PM

But davem, the problem is taking the author out of the equation. Once a book has been written, yes, it becomes a separate entity. But it's like saying that a child, once grown, does not have within him some of his parents' biological makeup.

I see your point though. If I did not know that Tolkien was a devout Catholic, would I see Christian ideas within the book? Probably, because I was raised in a rural W.A.S.P. community. That's just the way most of NY is. I would spot it because that's what I've been submersed in since I was born. You see what you're used to seeing.

But let's say that I wasn't raised in such a setting, that I didn't know Tolkien's life story, that I knew nothing pertaining to religion in either of our lives... but I still knew religion enough that I'd be curious enough to try to guess what his leanings were.

I would see Celtic nature worship in beings like Goldberry, I would see a Christian Satan in Melkor, I would see, probably, a bit of Buddha's compassion and unattachment to material goods within Bombadil. I would spot the Valar with their individual talents as maybe Greek or Roman gods. Eru would be a conglomeration of the god[s?] of every monotheistic religion. I don't know enough about any other religion to make the connections.

So your point of non-Christian Universalism is clearly accurate. There is nothing within the text to say that the work has Christian ideals in it. It is not, as I believe Raynor said, a portrait of Christ. You can't call it a Christian book, but if you read a story with underlying themes of ultimate goodness that's written by a devout Christian, those "good" qualities, whether or not they apply to every other religion, are probably going to lean more into the Christian slot of the roulette wheel.

Me too. I mean, brought up in a rural community where going to church was 'the norm'. But I read the books when I was most definitely a Christian, I used to go to church every Sunday religiously (well, you would, wouldn't you? ;)) and was confirmed - a big deal to me. After reading the books it was as though I'd had a revelation. There was a whole world out there that was not bound by the church, bound by rules or dogma - as I then began to see it. I saw that you could be good, and heroic, and all that other stuff just by living. The books woke me up to the older world, to the Celtic myths, to the peoples who lived in Britain before the Romans brought this Middle-Eastern religion.

I saw nothing remotely Christian in the books, and I still don't see that.

And yes, I had read the biography and I knew full well Tolkien's religion. I also knew Catholicism well as my grandmothers were both catholics - one rejected it entirely and vehemently as she was 'cast out' for 'sin', the other used to sneakily give me catechisms and the like to read as bedtime stories (sneakily as my father found this to be a bit disturbing for a child to read such stuff). And believe me, I read the books over and over and over.

So why, if the book was Christian, was it the catalyst for me not being a Christian any more? Nobody can answer me that. And its probably at the root of why I always refute that it is a Christian book in the sense of any dogmatic message, as I fundamentally find it to be anything but. It's wide open, Universal and wonderful and totally above differences of religion.

mark12_30

09-04-2006, 01:57 PM

Wow.

The throad goes ever ever on.

Well, then. Will Fea's questions ever be taken seriosly? We wonders, aye, we wonders.

Here's a possibility. I could open another thread, with a narrower thesis, and see if the discussion can proceed along more orderly lines. Maybe either here in books, or, elsewhere such as in Novices and Newcomers... how pedestrian! ;) .....and I could place in the opening post something like this:

Tolkien has produced a large body of work, incuding letters, lectures, various notes and outlines, numerous smaller stories and tales, and the legendarium. Some of this was published with his consent, some was published posthumously. Using any of this material, and, the reference material commonly used by adherents to the Christian and Catholic faith, discuss the effect and affect that Tolkien's Christian and Catholic faith had or may have had on the development of his Legendarium. Discuss his stated background, his stated assumptions, his stated goals, and his stated intentions (contradictions included).

Please do not attempt to prove or disprove the veracity of Tolkien's positions as that is NOT the purpose of this thread.

davem

09-04-2006, 02:03 PM

Tolkien has produced a large body of work, incuding letters, lectures, various notes and outlines, numerous smaller stories and tales, and the legendarium. Some of this was published with his consent, some was published posthumously. Using any of this material, and, the reference material commonly used by adherents to the Christian and Catholic faith, discuss the effect and affect that Tolkien's Christian and Catholic faith had or may have had on the development of his Legendarium. Discuss his stated background, his stated assumptions, his stated goals, and his stated intentions (contradictions included).

Please do not attempt to prove or disprove the veracity of Tolkien's positions as that is NOT the purpose of this thread. :

You bring the bulldozer, the Tower's over there....

Lalwendë

09-04-2006, 02:27 PM

So, no kind of critical analysis of assumptions made would be allowed then? :rolleyes:

davem

09-04-2006, 02:37 PM

The Lord of the Rings is the story of a time long ago, 'in the quiet of the world, when there was less noise & more green', a time when Elves, Dwarves & Hobbits walked the woods & fields, when wizards & warriors fought great battles against Goblins, Trolls & wicked Men, when Trees walked, & dragons took wing against the stars.

It is a tale full of heroism, courage againts the odds, of friendship & sacrifice, beauty & terror, of love & betrayal & the victory of good over evil.

Its not an allegory, its not a collection of disguised Biblical symbols, or Pagan symbols or even (loathe as I am to say it) Pink Elephantist symbols.

If people would just stop pulling it apart, analysing it, explaining it, claiming to understand or appreciate it better than other people I'm pretty sure the world would be a better place, global warming would go away, we'd win the war on terror & we'd all live happily ever after...

mark12_30

09-04-2006, 02:41 PM

You have stated your opinion many times.

mark12_30

09-04-2006, 02:43 PM

So, no kind of critical analysis of assumptions made would be allowed then? :rolleyes:

You would of course be free to start a separate thread about that.

davem

09-04-2006, 02:46 PM

You have stated your opinion many times.

Can't have too much of a good thing...

Lalwendë

09-04-2006, 02:54 PM

You would of course be free to start a separate thread about that.

Sorry but I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of threads which people are not welcome to contribute towards. Factions and Ghettoes. Sure, discussion has got heated in this thread, but if people wish to discuss ideas which are controversial then others will wish to argue. That's what forums are about. I also feel quite strongly about freedom of speech. :)

I won't stop anyone from saying what they want to say on here. I merely respond to the points I feel I want to discuss, which haven't all been just critical of religion's place in LotR. I discussed the place of a Miltonic Satan earlier on.

mark12_30

09-04-2006, 03:00 PM

Lal, no one is questioning your freedom to post, or your freedom to speak. But the downs DOES have rules on topic versus off-topic. And my suggested topic is simple literary analysis which (IMO) should have a place in Books.

The thing we are NOT supposed to do on the Downs is have a protracted debate about religion. And that is where this thread keeps going.

When Maril had her thread on Shire-immorality ( on a family-friendly site no less) I decided I wasn't comfortable with it. So I stayed away from the thread. I'm aware of several others who did so. I could have gone in thundering; sometimes I was tempted. But what would it have gained?

I understand you have strong feelings, and as I have mentioned, you are naturally free to open a thread to discuss them. But the content of a thread is guided by the thread owner, with the mods having veto power. That's the way the Downs has always been run.

Sorry but I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of threads which people are not welcome to contribute towards. Factions and Ghettoes. Sure, discussion has got heated in this thread, but if people wish to discuss ideas which are controversial then others will wish to argue. That's what forums are about. I also feel quite strongly about freedom of speech. :)

I won't stop anyone from saying what they want to say on here. I merely respond to the points I feel I want to discuss, which haven't all been just critical of religion's place in LotR. I discussed the place of a Miltonic Satan earlier on.

davem

09-04-2006, 03:19 PM

The thing we are NOT supposed to do on the DOwns is have a protracted debate about religion. And that is where this thread keeps going.
.

How are you going discuss the Bible without mentioning religion?

This thread has been examining whether there is anything specifically Christian about LotR. There has been agreement that the work is generally in conformity with Christian principles & values, but any attempt to provide specific, one-to-one correspondences has faile to come up with the goods.

It seems to me that the thread you are proposing is more of a 'prayer group', where Christian Downers will examine the text for uplifting Christian analogies, & from which non-believers/critics will be excluded (cast into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing & gnashing of teeth, & rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight O'clock & stuff).

At the same time, for all my criticism of the idea, I'm tempted by the idea of starting threads where only those in agreement with you are allowed to post anything...

Lalwendë

09-04-2006, 03:33 PM

Lal, no one is questioning your freedom to post, or your freedom to speak. But the downs DOES have rules on topic versus off-topic. And my suggested topic is simple literary analysis which (IMO) should have a place in Books.

The thing we are NOT supposed to do on the Downs is have a protracted debate about religion. And that is where this thread keeps going.

When Maril had her thread on Shire-immorality ( on a family-friendly site no less) I decided I wasn't comfortable with it. So I stayed away from the thread. I'm aware of several others who did so. I could have gone in thundering; sometimes I was tempted. But what would it have gained?

I understand you have strong feelings, and as I have mentioned, you are naturally free to open a thread to discuss them. But the content of a thread is guided by the thread owner, with the mods having veto power. That's the way the Downs has always been run.

Firstly, how could it be literary analysis if nobody is seriously analysing?

Secondly, a thread of that nature would be by nature discriminatory if it did not also consider contra-opinions. The reason I would not be comfortable with the idea is that I have always found the discussion on the Downs to be rigorous and interesting, and in discussing topics with those with opposing views I find I often come to new opinions. Closed debate does not allow that. It becomes little more than a cosy reading group.

As I've already said, I've also contributed ideas to this thread, not to mention I've had serious discussion with Raynor about free-will etc. But not closed discussion.

And I'm well used to defending controversial opinions I've put forwards. That to me is the nature of discussion, and is the only way we learn from others.

mark12_30

09-04-2006, 03:36 PM

How are you going discuss the Bible without mentioning religion?

The question is whose religion are we going to discuss-- yours and mine, or Tolkien's? And the Downs taboo has always been, arguing about religion on a personal opinions basis-- I.E. Harry's religion is right and Joe's religion is wrong. That is not discussing Tolkien's religion; that is discussing the poster's religion.

However, there have been many (very civilised) discussions on how religion and spirituality are connected with Tolkien's work and vice versa. We have had some interesting, and very respectful, discussions between (for instance) Christians and Buddhists and Jews and agnostics and atheists. THe thread usually managed to stay focused on the topic at hand, which was the relationship of the religious/spiritual item to Tolkien's work, or vice versa.

Tolkien and everything about him, is and has always been up for discussion on the Downs. Tolkien stated his beliefs quite clearly, and quoted from the scriptures frequently, analyzing his religious viewpoint is not particularly difficult.

Most serious Downs members through the years have been able to maintain cordiality.

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-04-2006, 03:43 PM

Well, then. Will Fea's questions ever be taken seriosly? We wonders, aye, we wonders.
I ponder taking the discussion to PM so that it can be discussed instead of qualified, though I do not want to leave any interested parties out. Helen, would you be interested in helping me out with some independent study if we can't interest any others?

mark12_30

09-04-2006, 03:47 PM

Firstly, how could it be literary analysis if nobody is seriously analysing?

I find this a strong statement. I hope it wasn't as arrogantly meant as it was written.

I've also contributed ideas to this thread, not to mention I've had serious discussion with Raynor about free-will etc. But not closed discussion.

Generally speaking, I've enjoyed many of your contributions, and had begun saying so. But you miss my point. Any thread-- RPG, games, mirth, what have you-- is supposed to be a 'closed discussion' in the sense that the thread is supposed to be 'on topic.' If someone comes in and says 'but was Legolas blonde', on a thread about Numenoreans, it's off-topic. Threads have topics. We're supposed to stick with them.

That's been my whole frustration with THIS thread. Somehow, we've traveled through a host of other threads, ghosts of threads, shadows of threads, and graves of threads, without ever saying, Gee, let's take the discussion back to the old thread (where it belongs.)

The Barrow Wight has strongly recommended that a thread-starter should follow a certain pattern when starting a thread, in order to structure the thread so that foks stay on-topic. (Clear statement of question, and sample answer, with detailed textual support.) That was probably before Mansun's time; not his fault and I'm not blaming him. So this thread was stated a bit more generally (and his questions were being refined as hiis discussion continued. Once upon a time, Downers would have respected that and worked with that, and maintained a sense of decorum.) But I'm not seeing a general respect for Mansun's topic or his questions, not for several pages now.

Instead, I'm seeing lots of desk-thumping. And I find that rather sad.

mark12_30

09-04-2006, 03:48 PM

I ponder taking the discussion to PM so that it can be discussed instead of qualified, though I do not want to leave any interested parties out. Helen, would you be interested in helping me out with some independent study if we can't interest any others?

Of course-- but first, let's verify who is interested.

davem

09-04-2006, 03:52 PM

The question which started this thread was:

Does anyone think Tolkien effectively stole many of his ideas from the Bible? Examples are the Balrog - Satan; Saruman/Grima - Judas; Gandalf the White resurrection; Elrond - Jesus?

Thus the thread is not about Tolkien's religious beliefs, or anyone's personal opinion on his religious beliefs. It is (& I keep trying to drag it back to this) whether Tolkien deliberately & with malice aforethought used Biblical figures 'in disguse' in LotR.

There are only two options: 'Yes, he did (the Plagiarist!) & this is the proof: (fill in the blank). Or: No, there's no evidence for any direct (& precious little for much indirect) correspondences.

Now those who favour response one have to provide evidence for their stance. Those who lean towards response two only have to demonstrate that the responses put forward by 'Group 1' don't stand up. To be able to do that they 'Group 2' have to take a critical approach.

The point being: This thread began with a question - 'Did Tolkien do 'x',' not 'Let's discuss how Tolkien did 'x'.' I think the thread you want is the latter - but you'll have to start that one yourself, not hijack this one.

Lalwendë

09-04-2006, 04:03 PM

The question is whose religion are we going to discuss-- yours and mine, or Tolkien's? And the Downs taboo has always been, arguing about religion on a personal opinions basis-- I.E. Harry's religion is right and Joe's religion is wrong. That is not discussing Tolkien's religion; that is discussing the poster's religion.

However, there have been many (very civilised) discussions on how religion and spirituality are connected with Tolkien's work and vice versa. We have had some interesting, and very respectful, discussions between (for instance) Christians and Buddhists and Jews and agnostics and atheists. THe thread usually managed to stay focused on the topic at hand, which was the relationship of the religious/spiritual item to Tolkien's work, or vice versa.

Tolkien and everything about him, is and has always been up for discussion on the Downs. Tolkien stated his beliefs quite clearly, and quoted from the scriptures frequently, analyzing his religious viewpoint is not particularly difficult.

Most serious Downs members through the years have been able to maintain cordiality.
Mansun asked:

Does anyone think Tolkien effectively stole many of his ideas from the Bible? Examples are the Balrog - Satan; Saruman/Grima - Judas; Gandalf the White resurrection; Elrond - Jesus?

And some answered No. So I think that puts to rest whether the thread went off topic.

By way of what's respectful and what's not, I might add that I have found some posts on this thread disrespectful too, but did not mention it as others brought the topic up more eloquently. Namely when posters suggested that only those who were Christian knew The Truth. Even if Tolkien thought it it doesn't mean I have to agree with that to understand his work.

And I'm deadly serious. And also apologise where I may have not been cordial. :)

I find this a strong statement. I hope it wasn't as arrogantly meant as it was written.

If you want to analyse then you must consider multitudes of avenues and opinions. How can there be analysis if all agree? I'm sometimes quite fierce in how I word things, yes. But it is not meant arrogantly. As said, I enjoy the rigour of debate at the Downs.

And by the by, please do post your opinions because once they're on here they can be discussed and argued with as necessary. I've already discussed with Raynor. If other posts are more pressing just ignore them, which is what I do if someone is irritating me. ;)

EDIT And I do mean that. I'd far rather have the free for all than closed topics where certain opinions just cannot be considered. For one, I would be unlikely to ever read such a topic, and in that case I would learn nothing. It was a previous thread on religion that got me into accepting that certain symbolism was there; as I've said, I previously saw absolutely nothing in the texts, until I was shown otherwise. I now accept that the broad themes are indeed based on Christian morality, which I did not see, and that morality is the basis of the morality I follow myself! I am as noted, not an Atheist nor one who merely wishes to cause a stink. :)