The elucidation of truth

[Child of the 7th Age]

I would claim , if I did not think it presumptious in one so ill-instructed, to have as one object the elucidation of truth, and the encouragement of good morals in this real world, by the ancient device of exemplifying them in unfamiliar embodiments, that may tend to 'bring them home.'

These were Tolkien's words in Letter 153, which he had composed for Peter Hastings, manager of a Catholic bookshop in Oxford (1954). The letter was afterwards marked: "Not sent.....It seemed to be taking myself too seriously."

In other threads on this board, I have seen people write eloquently about how the writings have had an enormous impact on their personal lives and have actually helped guide their conduct or aided them in making certain moral decisions. I have also read other posts that stated quite emphatically the books were a wonderful fantastic tale but should not be regarded as a serious exemplar.

From the above letter and the fact that it was not sent, we may conclude that Tolkien himself may have had split feelings in this regard.

Do you feel that Tolkien succeeded in his stated intent to use his writings for the "elucidation of truth" and the "encouragement of good morals?" How and why is this so? Have their been instances in your own experience when your conduct or ethical decisions were influenced in a positive way by Tolkien's writings? Or do you feel that this is pushing the meaning of the books too far, and that these lovely fantasy tales should not be taken or construed as a way for readers to deal with the very different problems of the 21st century?

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Bêthberry]

Rather than answer your questions directly and personally, Child of the 7th Age, I would like to think for a bit about why Tolkien did not send this most interesting letter.
From the above letter and the fact that it was not sent, we may conclude that Tolkien himself may have had split feelings in this regard.


Another possibility is that Tolkien did not want to force an authorial imprimatur on this truth. He might have preferred it to be something which the reader would come to on his or her own.

I know of several authors who hesitate to say definitely what their intent is/ was, particularly those for whom the discovery is part of an ethical journey.

What makes me suspect that Tolkien is one of these writers who feel the path is there for those who would follow it, is his comments about allegory in the Foreward to the Second Edition of LOTR. He is against allegory because its meaning resides in "the purposed domination of the author" whereas "applicability" (a looser, more free kind of allusion) allows "the freedom of the reader."

Perhaps this takes your ideas in a direction you did not intend, though.

*lies back on the river bank, chewing a long piece of grass, thinking about how authors create their readers*

Bethberry

[burrahobbit]

Do you feel that Tolkien succeeded in his stated intent to use his writings for the "elucidation of truth" and the "encouragement of good morals?"

Yes. Don't be greedy, seemingly unimportant people can have a great impact, loyalty is super-awesome, etc.

I haven't seen any impact on my moral decisions, but then I was already a very moral (read: super-awesome) person to begin with.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Another reason that Tolkien may not have sent the letter is that he feared the bookshop owner would take him too seriously. Sometimes people that see themselves as morally upright become very stiff and uncompromising on the points in their religion that don't matter at all. They become barriers to the people that seek the truth. It may be Tolkien felt that some very "religious" people, possibly the bookshop owner, would not recognize the truth of his work and see instead some sort of parody or sacrilege.

I read the last page of RotK in tears. It wasn't that it was so sad, it was that I had never read anything so joyful and yet so melancholy and true. There is a very deep beauty and power that Tolkien wove into his books, and it isn't the Elves. To do what is right without heeding the darkness that surrounds you is a moral victory that can be found in many novels, but the far greater meaning is seen in Frodo's life afterwards. Doing the right thing rarely makes it all come out okay. It is knowing this that makes it a true sacrifice, and what lends LotR such timeless and moving significance. It recalled to me what I had long forgotten - it is when we act rightly of our own accord and with the knowledge that no reward is guaranteed us that we may glimpse some true meaning in life.

[Anarya SilverBranch]

Wow. You guys are smart. I'm sitting here with my little handheld dictionary having to look up a word every other sentence on your posts smilies/smile.gif

Anyway, I think I sort of understand your question Child of the 7th age. I believe, as a teenager, the moral problems and dilemmas faced in lotr pertain very directly to my life in a wierd way. I've thought of the ring as being sin or doing somthing bad. It looks tempting but it can only lead to bad things. I see this especially in an incident I had when someone offered me drugs. It was like Gandalf being offered the ring. Taking the ring for Gandalf would give him power but in the end would destroy him and other people around him. If I had taken the drugs, it would had given me popularity but in the end would have destroyed me and my family. If you think of that in that respect, lotr is not some little cute fairy tale but somthing you can relate to in everyday life and I think thats the way Tolkien wanted it.

I hope I answered your question correctly smilies/smile.gif

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Hullo Child of the 7th Age:

Thank you for presenting us with so fascinating a topic. * smiles in appreciation * smilies/smile.gif

I would say that Tolkien chose not to send the letter for the following reasons:

1) Humility

2) When elucidation of the truth is successful in a profound way, the truth speaks for itself far more eloquently than any who would seek to be the truth's advocate. For Tolkien to chime in with comments to the effect of "BTW, I'm trying to elucidate the truth here, and teach morals of antiquity comparable to Aesop's fables, solve what ails the world and show people how to lead happier, improved lives" would diminish and ponderously undercut his own work in an anticlimactic way suggestive of those trivial and cheap "Solve All Your Problems in Just Ten Minutes a Day" self-help books.

Personally, I see nothing that leads me to conclude that Tolkien may have had split feelings regarding the validity of what he wrote ... just that he chose discretion as the better part of valor. To my mind, he preferred not to trumpet all of his ideals from the towers with white banners unfurling in the wind, but rather quietly live them out in his Shire, from which haven to reach out and affect the rest of Middle Earth with the gentleness of Hobbit-sense.

Gandalf the Grey

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: Gandalf_theGrey ]

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Greetings Bethberry:

Am glad you mention from time to time Tolkien's reference to allegory as seen in the light of his related reference to applicability. Some things need to be repeated ... this point is one of them! smilies/smile.gif

Hail and Well Met, Silver-shod Muse:

When you say,

To do what is right without heeding the darkness that surrounds you is a moral victory that can be found in many novels, but the far greater meaning is seen in Frodo's life afterwards. Doing the right thing rarely makes it all come out okay. It is knowing this that makes it a true sacrifice, and what lends LotR such timeless and moving significance. It recalled to me what I had long forgotten - it is when we act rightly of our own accord and with the knowledge that no reward is guaranteed us that we may glimpse some true meaning in life.


All's I can reply is ... definitely worth the price of the book! smilies/smile.gif

Hail and Well Met, Anarya SilverBranch:

You show a wisdom beyond your years. smilies/smile.gif

~~ Gandalf the Grey

[mark12_30]

After pondering this for a bit, I think the essence of my answer is this:

More than anything, Tolkien's books made me realise that spirituality, transcendance, and holiness were beautiful, attractive, desireable things, not dead, stuffy, musty, buried-in-an-old-church-basement kinds of things. Tolkien made holiness, spirituality, and transcendance-- and therefore, right moral behavior--- DESIREABLE. Before they had mostly been shouldas and oughtas.

It's like putting somebody in a classroom and lecturing them for six months on how great Ice Cream tastes, complete with chemical analysis, physical digestive analysis, psychological analysis, and numerous reviews and writeups on various Ice Creams.

Or you can just hand somebody the spoon and the box of Ice Cream and say, taste it.

Tolken handed me, actually, a spoon and a whole banquet of different flavors. I saw-- tasted!-- holiness and transcendance and Hearing-the-call-to-what-is-higher in many places: in the elves, in Aragorn, in Faramir, in the hobbits espcially Frodo and Sam, and even in Gimli-- isn't that "Glittering Caves" discourse of his just stunning? Like Legolas, I reply, "You move me, Gimli; I have not heard you speak like this before." The call to What is Higher just keeps surfacing again and again in all of TOlkien's work. Even Bilbo's Arkenstone Gambit hints at transcendance-- albeit in a rather burglarish sort of way. I guess transcendance is a process by which one continually climbs higher and one must start wherever one is, at the moment.

There's even a sort of transcendace in Shadowfax-- okay, I realise theologically, this is stretching it a bit-- but look at him. He is the most magnificent of all the Mearas and he gives himself wholeheartedly to serve his master. He is the greatest, but he becomes a slave; and in doing so, he becomes far greater in the end than he was.

Even Gollum almost-- almost-- transcended his level of existance. He came so close in the pass. Poor Sam.

*end ramble*

[Liriodendron]

I read Tolkien for pleasure, but I don't think "the encouragement of good morals" is pushing it too far. The elucidating of the truth is tricky as "truth" is in the mind of the reader. Maybe the letter wasn't sent because he didn't want to label truth, but let the readers come to their own conclusions. These types of ideas have more meaning when they come from within, arrived upon of free will. I'm thankful that Tolkien bothered to encourage good morals in such a beautiful and moving manner! We need more of this. The example of the drugs decision was wonderful. The arts seems to be one of the best ways to subtly influence people, stun them with beauty or brilliance (or whatever) then come in the back door with the good morals. Beats listening to lectures or sermons. Tolkien was certainly a master of artistic brilliance. I'm going to be sure to read his stuff to my young son! smilies/smile.gif smilies/smile.gif

My goodness!! to anyone who gave me a nice rating, Thank-you!! I needed that!
smilies/biggrin.gif

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Greyhame]

There is almost a subversive morality in LOTR. The reader isn't beaten over the head with it, but Prof. Tolkien very intentionally wove a decidedly theistic ethic into the tapestry of his sub-creation.

I do agree with the view that JRR left it implicit for the reader to discover. That's why I think of it as being subversive. The story is wholly understandable and enjoyable without it, but the experience is richer and fuller if you can pick up these elements.

Sorry, ramblings from a sleep-deprived, overwhelmed wanderer in search of affordable, yet beautiful engagement rings. If Greyhame survives this test, he will be the true Lord of the Rings (except good). smilies/biggrin.gif

[Child of the 7th Age]

There are many interesting ideas here, but the post that caught my eye and tugged a bit at my heart was that of Amarya SilverBranch. Amarya, you are an extraordinary young woman and I, who am many years your senior, would be proud and pleased if my own daughter turns out to be as thoughtful as you are.

I do agree with Gandalf the Grey that humility was part of Tolkien's personality in a very basic way. On the one hand, Tolkien could be incredibly stubborn about what he perceived as the truth. Yet, at the same time, he did not want to take himself too seriously, or set himself upon a high place which he felt he did not deserve.

I also sense he was an intensely private person. His writings, his legends, were like private jewels which he feared to put out before the public because it was almost like baring a piece of his own soul. This seems to have been particularly true of some of the material in the Silmarillion, and I almost wonder if this is one of the many reasons he could never bring himself to "complete" it. For how can anyone complete the portrayal of their own inner self before their personal story ends?

In the same way perhaps, he would draw back when sending out a letter like the one above. For perhaps it was making a piece of himself public which he inherently felt was a bit private.

There are many places in the Letters where Tolkien's words bespeak both humility and reserve as if he almost downplayed those undrlying ideas which were at the core of his writing. The best known passage, I think, is when he spoke of the structure, form, and purpose of the legendarium:

Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a large body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story--the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths which I would dedicate simply to: to England; to my country.....I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd.

Do not laugh? Absurd? I think not, Professor Tolkien.

I don't think in his wildest dreams Tolkien ever considered that so many outside his native counry would read these tales. It is amazing how many readers, who have never lived in England or studied its history and literature, still respond intellectually and emotionally to the legendarium. I was fortunate enough to work and study in England for some time and the stories of the Shire and hobbits came alive for me when I fell in love with the English countryside. But when I look at this board, and see the different countries that people are from, I know that the pull goes far beyond that!

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Anarya SilverBranch]

But when I look at this board, and see the different countries that people are from, I know that the pull goes far beyond that!

You can say that again child of the 7th age! I had friends from Japan who came to visit me recently and I found out from them that they're most dearly loved books of all time were lotr. It was sort of weird to me for them to say that though because Tolkien wrote most of the stories while England and America were on ends with Japan. Tolkien definently wouldn't have expected that.

(I mean no offense to Japanese people with this post. I, myself, am of asian descent)

[Kalla]

I think...and I'm sure I'm reiterating what someone else has said at some point on some post, but my emotions are up so I have to do somethign with them. smilies/smile.gif I think that his books are sorta like Beethoven or any other great work...how they become great is that they transcend through the ages and generations and people can continue to relate and find better understanding of themselves, others and the world around them through these works. The great thing about it is you can take from it what you will, be it a nice escape, a moral guidebook, or something that makes you think and find others of like mind to discuss the world around you. In that sense, I feel he very much succeeded because look at how many people his works have touched. Look at just this forum and how many people are discussing matters that relate to real life. I sorta view any work be it literature, music, art, whatever, as an extension and expression of life and so long as that remains true, I see no way that it can become just another story without meaning. I think what his works have helped, at least for me, is not so much to promote good morals, but to define what I believe is good and poor. In sharing this experience with others, I move closer towards the truth within myself of who I am and what I believe. A reflection of life. A search for the truth. I do not think our problems so different today than from Frodo's time. They just have different names and shapes. Instead of Sauron we've had Hitler, instead of the War of the Ring we've had WWI. We may not have rangers roaming around, but we have homeless that are often mistunderstood the same way. PLus the moral dilemmas of right/wrong are still very present today. Like in the other thread about mercy and death, or in about responsibilty and sacrifices...those are all still very present today...perhaps it is just the realization that our actions DO affect those around us and so long as that is the case...these issues will always be in the present. It's obvious from posts or even just watching how people react that we are not agreed upon these issues...and a work such as Tolkien's world becomes a springboard to jump from to discuss, learn and define and in time discovery what is true to our hearts.

[littlemanpoet]

There's a reflective air about the quote; the date of 1954 helps me understand Tolkien's words a little bit. By this point the books had been written and at least the first one had been published. My dates are a little rusty.

Not having the context of the quote, I can't say much for sure. In any case, agreeing with Gandalf the Gray on humility, I see Tolkien as looking back on what he had written, thinking about it, and acknowledging that this aspect was part of what went into the writing of it. Perhaps it was the first time he had put it in these kinds of words for himself, so it could have been a bit of self-discovery. Being a private person, and humble, I can imagine JRRT not wanting to let the letter see the light of day.

I remember times when I was not doing well, engaged in self-damaging activities, thinking of lotr and realizing how orcish I was being, how definitily un-Sam-like. Not that I suddenly stopped the poor attitude and behavior, but I remember it having given me pause, and having added to a general sense of "I really don't want to stay this way". So I guess in a way the ideals have helped me, somewhat, on a day to day basis.

More importantly, lotr was formative in my development. It gave me hope when as a teenager I found very little hope anywhere.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Amazing Mark12_30! That was probably the most stunningly precise elucidation that I have yet read. THAT is what I've been trying to give voice to, and you did it so very eloquently.

The first time I read LotR, I was struggling to reconcile the God of sunday school coloring books and grape Kool-Aid with the compelling, merciful, overwhelmingly exultant God that I saw other Christians reveling in.

When I saw what Frodo had done, I understood it. Crackers and Kool-Aid are gone forever, but this is something that is so fiercely joyful that it can never fade. It was, instantly and irrevocably, a paradigm for the spirit I had missed.

Thank you Mark, I was hoping that amid all these convictions someone would hit it smilies/biggrin.gif.

[Elendur]

I think alot about some of the qualitys that Gandalf showed in the books. I remember certain quotes of his that I think of every day as an example of what I should be doing. One that comes to mind, though not exact is "Do not speak about what you know nothing of!" when he was talking to Thorin about hobbits. It may have been used in a totally different context than what I will apply it to in life, but it is something that makes sense both in the books and in my everyday actions. I listen and then speak. And when I dont know the background of something I am discussing, I will make sure that is known and be timid in what I say. Like I said, that is just one example. I could go on with this.

Kalla, I dont think you can allegorically say that someone in the books is some historical or present figure. Hitler was nothing like Sauron. They have similar qualities maybe, but they are definitely not interchangable as an evil figure. I see where you are coming from, but that is really not a good comparison. Sauron was evil for the purpose of domination over everything on Middle Earth. Hitler was a very misguided person who thought that he was leading his "Aryan race" to power where they rightly belonged. After that he supposedly planned on giving up his power because he himself was not Aryan. You can see the differnces just by those facts. I could go on about this for a while, but I think you understand what I am saying.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Elendur ]

[Kalla]

Interesting Elendur...but I still feel the same. Anyone who could rationalize what Hitler did for any reason I feel has quite an evil streak. There are many people I could compare it to, and I'm not saying that they are interchangable. This is a different time and the specifics adjust to that, but the point is that there is always some figure of evil or darkness or whatever you want to call it in every period. As with so many things in life, we have different perspectives on it. I do not judge yours. If I disagree I may ask for you to clarify it so I can understand even if I disagree. My personal life has seen much evil and much good, or I would not have made that statement. However, I cannot pull from an experience you have not had for it will not explain my thoughts, so I pulled from what everyone would understand. If you can tell me there was no evil in what Hitler did, then although I do not agree I understand your point. Also, you do not know exactly what was in Hitler's heart, nor in Sauron's. We are all made up of the characters in middle earth and if you cannot see the Gandalf's, Aragorn's, Orcs, etc. then I know not what to say. For you lost the main point of my statement...this book transcends through time, that does not mean there is a direct comparison. It means that you can relate to it, learn from the lessons in it, learn from the way it can change how you look at your world and what you learn in discussing it with others. You can fill in whoever's name you like and like the book, take from my post what you will. That is your choice...just agree to disagree, but do not tell someone their opinion is wrong especialy when you know nothing of why that person may say what they say. I hope others do not judge you the way you judged what I said without understanding it. I am sorry I was not clear enough before and perhaps this is not much clearer, but there is no use in explaination once the verdict is reached.

[Child of the 7th Age]

These questions never cease to intrigue me, so I am digging them up again.

sharon

[drigel]

Truth is truth. The statement reflects to me that JRRT wasnt preaching anything, merely showing truth in a context that was different. Nothing changed about the truth, it's the same ethics today as it was 2000 years ago.

[Aredhel Idril Telcontar]

The first time I read the Books, I did not really take them seriously, I thought they were just a really good piece of fantasy. I was 11 at the time, so you'll forgive me for that.
When I read them a few months later, I began realizing they were something more, something that faces the problems of today and beats them with the help of trust, loyalty and friendship.
I fully agree with Anarya SilverBranch, and being a teenager myself, I understand fully what she means. The One Ring, in my opinion, symbolizes sin or temptation, which is so hard to overcome, but is possible if one tries really hard.
Some, who have read LotR think it to be just a piece of fiction (I know plenty of people who do just that), but I think most people here at the Downs know it's something more smilies/smile.gif. Everyone has their opinions and they must be respected smilies/smile.gif
Everytime I re-read the Books, I catch another small detail, something that makes me re-think about the moral of the Books.
Whenever I read about the Scouring of the Shire, I become really sad, knowing that Frodo did not help save his home for himself, he did it for his people and for the future generations...

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Humiliation- you touch upon a true issue Gandalf_theGrey. which he feared to put out before the public because it was almost like baring a piece of his own soul.

Oh, that is so true Child of the 7th Age, so true. Putting forth one's talents can, and for some people, it constantly is, extremely difficult. It's exactly like placing a part of yourself, up high, and naked, for everyone to see. It feels humiliating, and when people laugh at it, it is depressing and overly discouraging. When you put forth so much of your time and effort to work on something. And you toil with setbacks and obstacles, and overcome them (sometimes, just barely), to achieve something both beautiful and great in its own self, just to be laughed at, is something frustrating, disappointing, and horrible that ruins morale and destroys confidence. I believe, that is humility, in its greatest form. Once you feel that, you feel like you never want to allow that to happen again. You end up cloaking your talents and putting them aside, shoving them in the shadows where you think no one will ever see them again. I don't blame J.R.R. Tolkien at all when he says, "Do not laugh!" The fear of being laughed at, is taunting and intimidating.

[Neferchoirwen]

Do you feel that Tolkien succeeded in his stated intent to use his writings for the "elucidation of truth" and the "encouragement of good morals?" How and why is this so? Have their been instances in your own experience when your conduct or ethical decisions were influenced in a positive way by Tolkien's writings?

Following Mark's ramblings (sort of)...as I have been reflecting on myself over the last few months, I finally came to the conclusion that I generally am irritated at people who are of lower status than I am. Ironically, I love my relatives from the country, but sometimes (and ashamedly so), I couldn't stand their ignorance, and at how gullible they can be. I was posting in the novices forum, and I am surprised that there are people who think that Samwise Gamgee is one of the "worst" characters in the books.

I guess Tolkien does not necesarily present the truth. He does, in fact, encourage good morals, and thus presents the ideal. If Tolkien's work displays what is good, then he must be addressing something wrong.

The Books to me seem to a kind of charter, or a yard stick on the ideal. And in evaluating myself on my outlook towards different kind of people, I have come short of Frodo's standard on tolerance genuine love and friendship.

[ June 13, 2003: Message edited by: Neferchoirwen ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

Good day to you all! I have quite enjoyed this thread and I agree with most of it! I wanted to share something that might cast a light on Tolkien's reticence to expose too much of himself, or perhaps be seen as "too serious" in these matters. I uncovered an original Life magazine from Feb. 24, 1967 as part of a large lot of old magazines, and while flipping through it, I found an article, a review of sorts, called "Can America Kick the Hobbit?" subtitled "The Tolkien Caper" by Charles Elliot. Contained therein are contained some of the most condescending statements about this great work I can imagine!
If I sound sour, it is because success seems to have spoiled Tolkien. For me, that is.
The notion of fan clubs devoted to discussions of the history and linguistics of Middle Earth hills me with horror. Yet such fan clubs now exist--at Harvard, at Berkeley, on a host of other campuses.
The Lord of the Rings is thoroughly innocent. It is even innocent of ideas, which doubtless helps recommend it to those aggressive searchers for sincerity, the opt-out crowd. Although hobbits may very well be a precipitous comedown from Holden Caulfield or Piggy and the lads, these days the student must find solace where he can, if necessary in the Baggins of Bag End bag.

This Life magazine reviewer is looking at the work through the veil of a student craze, a fad, and he sees only the faddish qualities, not the truth within the text. It is a symptom of those who exclude certain genres or topics from the realm of truth worthy of consideration. The mind of popular America is ever begrudging of new ideas, and those who do not see them of their own free will, through their own honest search for truth, can never understand and accept them; and many, like Charles Elliot, ridicule them as beneath their notice.

Tolkien himself was dismayed at the way his works were treated in America as I recall. It is so easy to be misunderstood or an underlying meaning taken wrongly, especially if a work has such a cult status as LOTR did in 1967. It would not have helped for Tolkien to state the meaning outright. Only those who are true seekers would see it there; the others may wander in this haze of "reviewer truth."

I hope you've enjoyed my bit of sharing, and I have quite enjoyed all the posts here! Thanks!

Cheers,
Lyta

[ June 18, 2003: Message edited by: Lyta_Underhill ]