Tolkien, Lewis & Theology

[InklingElf]

February19,2003: Now, before you go to burden yourself by clicking the link to the current page-you don't have to. From now on all new topics will be posted on the first post (but it's better if you look at the current page too 'cause that's where all the replies are at). Here is the New Topic, posted on February 18 '03:

What if it happened? What if his stories came true? According to Tolkien it has:
"I would venture to say that approaching the Chrsitian story from this direction, it has long been my feeling (a joyous feeling) that God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospels contain a fairy-sotry, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories...But this story has entered History and the primary world; the desire and aspiration of subcreation has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation."


Lewis put it this way:

"The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact...It happens-at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences...By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle."


Two great authors have stated their opinion. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

---------------------------------------------
Old Topic from September11,2002:
...Many people of cultures-Pagan, Christian or non-christian have always thought of Tolkien's writing to be made of 'pure genious'-I thought so but many people don't understand the fact the Tolkien tried to express Theology in his books...I read the trilogy and the silmaraillion and the trilogy time and time again-with the companion of Finding God in the Lord of the Rings-and understood everything.

[ February 19, 2003: Message edited by: InklingElf ]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Welcome to the Downs, InklingElf. I haven't read the companion, and am a long-term opposer of appropriation of the LotR for one religion above another. But have people here considered the theological implications of the LotR and Tolkien's works? Possibly. LOL smilies/biggrin.gif

You may be interested in one of our longer-running threads. Unfortunately it lost several pages of posts at one point due to a technical glitch. Bible and Trilogy (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000371&p=6)

-Maril

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[InklingElf]

ThankYou very much!I shall go there very soon

[Joy]

Here are two more great topics about Tolkien and Religion.

Unintentional Religion in Tolkien's works? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002079)

....and Consciously So in the Revision (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001436)

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Like I said, it could be that there is some interest in the subject. *tongue firmly in cheek.*

You have stumbled onto a Tolkien group that has an unusually high percentage of Christians posting. I believe it's the policy banning Slash that is responsible. Of course, who am I to tease our Christian friends - I was an ordained Buddhist nun for 14 years. Anyways, enjoy, and do take time to introduce yourself to mark12_30, Bethberry, Child of the 7th Age, Gandalf the Grey and of course, Joy... some of our more erudite Christians on the board. smilies/biggrin.gif

-Maril

[InklingElf]

thank you-I shall introduce myself soon smilies/smile.gif

[Mister Underhill]

Maril, were you the sort of Buddhist nun who wandered through small towns in search of your half-sister, looking out for the weak and helpless, kicking the butts of local tyrants with a bare minimum of physical effort, and tossing off the occasional laconic homily with exquisite minimilastic restraint along the way? Or, erm, the other kind? Inquiring minds want to know. smilies/wink.gif

Zoiks! I'm off-topic. Um, reflections of his deeply held beliefs, yes; allegory, no.

[InklingElf]

hmmm ::looks at Mister Underhill and Maril:: I'm curious too

[JenFramp]

Inklingelf..Welcome welcome!! pleasure to see a new member..its a pleasure to see a thread like this and people not getting upset and agitated smilies/smile.gif...I just came from a forum and I had a huge debate about Tolkien and theology (it was really tense)...There are several books on this topic

[InklingElf]

Thank You Jen-Yes I've seen really intense Threads on this subject

[Child of the 7th Age]

Meril ---So as not to show disrespect for many of my friends here who are believing Christians, let me add that my name should not be included in this honored list. My own family is Jewish, in a very traditional sense. (So I guess the lack of slash also appeals to me!) But I am interested in questions of theology and belief, both Jewish and Christian, as well as mysticism.

Plus, with several degrees in medieval history, I spent long years immersed in Aquinas, Augustine, etc. So the terminology is very familiar to me. This is where the confusion may lie.

The religious interpetation of the books is a very valid one, both in a specific Christian sense and a more general theistic one, especially given Tolkien's own values. But it isn't the only one of value. Tolkien's writing are like a rich mine of knowledge. We all bring different perspectives and backgrounds. I've sometimes found, for example, that my knowlege of medieval history and literature has helped me as much or more in understanding Middle-earth than anything else.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[InklingElf]

aaahhh oh I see-
Me-I've always liked Tolkien and Lewis' work-because of the sense that I'm a christian-and that Tolkien and Lewis are good in Theology...

Oh and I should introduce myself to you Child of the 7th Age-Hello smilies/smile.gif

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: InklingElf ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Inkling Elf -- Pleased to meet you. Yes, I can understand that you would truly appreciate this from a Christian perspective.

However, remember that even within the term "Chrisian" or theistic" there are many variations. For example, Tolkien's Galadriel was heavily influenced by his views on the Virgin Mary, who occupies a unique role within Catholicism. But there are other concepts which are more "generally Christian"--applicable to both Catholics and Protestants-- and still others, like Providence or the concept of sin, which someone like myself can equally appreciate.

Plus, there's the whole ethical element, how we conduct ourselves in the world, that people of good will everywhere can find inspiring. So there's lots of different things to be found and enjoyed.

sharon

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[mark12_30]

InklingElf,

Hi, I'm mark12_30, otherwise known as Helen. Welcome! And I really dig your name! The concept of "The Inklings" has fascinated me, in an abstract sense, for months now. I really wanted to write but I felt that in order to do so and do it well, I'd need an "Inklings". This forum really has provided that, so far.

A book that has fascinated me has been TOlkien's letters. I highly recommend them. They help me understand him more as a Catholic (I'm an charismatic evangelical ex-catholic... crazy, eh?) and Tolkien's works are, I think, richer when understood from that perspective.

Welcome, again, and I look forward to further chatting...

grace and peace, --mark12_30

[mark12_30]

InklingElf and Child7thAge too,
Speaking of great books, Morgoth's Ring has some really interesting Theology in it-- the discussion between Andreth and-- is it Finrod? I just put it down. It was really good, I'll be rereading that section many times I think.

Morgoth's Ring-- It's hardbound and pricey but worth it!

--Mark12_30

[Bêthberry]

Maril,

I'm going to quote you from another thread, the one about LOTR being banned at a high school:

Well, on the other side of the spectrum, this summer I was discussing the Lord of the Rings with the director of Buddhist studies at Naropa University. He considered it to be a testimony to 'basic goodness.' 10 points for the Buddhists?


I'm sure there would be many of us (meaning the entire community and not just those of us who you name as Christians) who would find a thread on this discussion interesting. Hint, hint.

Bethberry

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[InklingElf]

Thankyou for your kind greetings mark/helen-I've always been fascinated by the Inklings-and glad to have found one here. smilies/wink.gif

...What do all of you think? Since Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia is enriched with theology as Tolkien's books are...Whom do you think has more theology in them-I know it's hard to say but please answer just the same.

...And further on...
However, remember that even within the term "Chrisian" or theistic" there are many variations. For example, Tolkien's Galadriel was heavily influenced by his views on the Virgin Mary, who occupies a unique role within Catholicism. But there are other concepts which are more "generally Christian"--applicable to both Catholics and Protestants-- and still others, like Providence or the concept of sin, which someone like myself can equally appreciate.

Child of the 7th Age-isn't Born Again Christianity involved in this topic?-I.E.-The ScewTape Letters by: C.S. Lewis?

[mark12_30]

InklingElf,

I'm going to address the born-again vs catholic issue first... (feel free to weigh in if you'd like, Sharon...)

I'm not sure which church Lewis was involved in, I'm embarassed to say, (I would have guessed the church of England but I could be quite mistaken!) but he was very good at working with the scriptures, which appeals to evangelicals, pentecostals and many other branches of Christianity that are heavily bible-based. I do appreciate that myself.

Some might, however, balk at classifying Lewis as "Born Again"; personally I wouldn't balk at it, since while he might not have been in a "Born Again" labelled denomination, the essence of being "born again" is deciding to follow Jesus as Lord, and I think that we can all agree that Lewis did just that.

However, do be sensitive to the fact that that last distinction is one that will confuse many people. I do not think that the majority of the people on this forum would consider Lewis "born again" and it might cause some backlash (on a bad day, anyway.) But you can avoid arguments along those lines by emphasizing that he was a devoted Christian and clearly scripturally based.

For that matter, it seems obvious to me that Tolkien, having clearly chosen Jesus as Lord, would also technically be considered born-again, but I do not think anyone on this board would label him as such! (I suspect that few catholics would relate to that term.) His theology is more primarily mystical in nature, rather than primarily scripturally based. I think this leads into your second question.

I hesitate to declare one writer over the otehr as "more" theological. What I will say is that Lewis's scriptural references are more immediately apparent, and therefore easier to grasp, and therefore often more immediately effective. Impacting the mind, it then secondarily affects the heart.

On the other hand, I think that Tolkien's theology, being more mystical (like George MacDonald, whom if you have not read, I earnestly recommend, and will gladly give you many links...) where was I?... Tolkien's theology, being more mystical, works on a more subtle level, permeating the heart and soul with wonder and curiosity and generating spiritual hunger. Many people that read Tolkien's work seem to come up with a desire to be more like Somebody Good that they read about in his books. I see many people wanting to be more elvish, more hobbit-like, or to be like Gandalf or one of the noble Numenoreans. I think that this would have pleased Tolkien, and I think that if those desires are allowed to flourish-- if we encourage the pursuit of that luminosity, the shining goodness, the glory, the beauty, the pursuit of truth and transcendance-- that is good theology of a completely different type; it is theology of the heart, which then, afterwards, slowly affects the mind.

There's a Vineyard theory that goes roughly like this: Theology of the heart, without theology of the mind, leads to wild excess and out-of-control self-indulgence. Theology of the mind, without theology of the heart, leads to dead legalism. A balance of theology of the mind and heart together, leads to God.

So-- which has the better theology, Tolkien or Lewis? As I see them, they are different in expression and purpose. Lewis is primarily of the mind (but affects therefore the heart), Tolkien is primarily of the heart (which then affects the mind.) But both are part of the same body, and one cannot say to the other, I have no need of you.

I've written more about mystical fantasy (regarding George MacDonald's works, but it applies equally well to TOlkien's work too) on my rather outdated reviews (http://members.cox.net/hrwright61/books.html) page. I would encourage you to visit and scroll down to the MacDonald section, and read it with Tolkien in mind. (My Tolkien section is very outdated at this point, I'm not sure how much of it I'd agree with now!) You can also follow whatever MacDonald links still work. Let me know if a bad link keeps you from a story you want.

If you want to continue along these heavy theological lines for Lewis and MacDonald, I'd encourage you to send me a Private Message for anything that is not strictly Tolkien related. The moderators are working hard these days to keep this board Tolkien-related and we all applaud their efforts. It's okay to continue to compare Lewis and MacDonald with Tolkien, of course.

It's also a big challenge to keep discussions like this from ruffling too many feathers. I've tried to keep this post within safe boundaries. However I have been known to stray-- So, please, All, if I've strayed outside boundaries (or been speaking too much Christianese again) please let me know. If anybody wants something I've said translated please ask!

Grace & peace, --mark12_30

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Child of the 7th Age, I will amend my reference then to merely erudite. smilies/wink.gif

Mr. U. and InklingElf, I was the monastery-building, drywall hanging, Buddha statue painting, fresco-carving, whistle-blowing, Tibetan translating, meditating in a tent on a mountaintop in a glorious driving rain type nun. One that drove the other nuns bananas. Some people just mistake the form for the essential meaning. My opinion: if it wasn't on the list when I took those vows, it's a low priority. Sigh. I miss it though.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[InklingElf]

-Mark/Helen-

-You are one with a stout heart(that's meant in a good metaphoric way smilies/smile.gif) I wouldn't ask you stop stop speaking in 'Christianese' any day

-Anyway I agree with you that Lewis' theology is easier to grasp-more than Tolkien's is harder...I even saw a principal (on another thread) declaring it was demonolgy!

-BTW this is a strange question: are you a born-again christian?

[InklingElf]

-Maril-
...alright-thx for clarifying

[mark12_30]

LOL! You're a bold one yourself, InklingElf.

In fact, I am an ex-catholic, born-again, spirit-filled evangelical charismatic, currently in a pentecostal church. Yeeow!Did I give you a headache? :-) I have actually come almost full-circle, realising that there is much that the catholic church holds in its vast storehouses that the younger wilder denominations would do well to come explore. (Ever read "Inner Mansions" by St. Teresa of Avila?? ) And that is one reason I enjoy Tolkien-- and some of his Letters-- so deeply; his catholicism is Christianity in a mystical, profoundly spiritual, and practical form. I love it.

You asked if I'm born-again, but you didn't ask what sort of Tolkien-creature I'd like to be. Some days an elf, and some days an elf-hunting hobbit, and it's terribly difficult to descide. Once upon a time, a Rohan sheild-maiden; but they don't get much elvish exposure, and I'm into this shining-light thing that the elves do so well. You can guess why.

--mark12_30

[mark12_30]

Maril,

Are you a storm-lover too? Driving rain... Goldberry's washing day? --mk12_30

[InklingElf]

lol mark!

-elves vs. hobbits...scary thought!

-anyway no you didn't give me a headache-some of my family members became born-again christians that way too!

-I myself -I am a born-again christian as yourself smilies/wink.gif

[Joy]

Helen, that was one awesome post you made about Tolkien and Lewis. You do have a stout heart my sister! smilies/smile.gif

Inkling, I don't think I could have said it better than Mark, but I'll try.

Tolkien's story is more of a myth that points to a Higher Order, a Greater Truth than what is around us. These principles are to show that there is a better way, something more that is beyond us. As Helen said, his works are more metaphysical and mystical.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Child of the 7th Age-isn't Born Again Christianity involved in this topic?-I.E.-The ScewTape Letters by: C.S. Lewis?

Inkling Elf -- I think that Helen has far more "credentials" to approach such a topic that I do! From a personal standpoint, I can say this in terms of my response to the two authors. I've certainly read most of what Tolkien has written as well as a large chunk of Lewis, certainly everything published during his lifetime. (There's an awful lot the estate is publishing now which doesn't seem to be up to the same quality as the earlier things he himself had published.)

First, I have enjoyed reading both authors, but I have a definite bias in favor of Tolkien. I think the reason is this. With Tolkien, I get an incredible sense of wonder which I don't find to the same degree in Lewis. Surprised by Joy, which is obviously non-fiction has a bit of that sense of the beyond. But the other book by Lewis which "speaks" to me because it does carry that sense of wonder is Till We Have Faces. Interestingly, that book carries no explicit Christian message (at least in the same way that most of his other works do), but I find it incredibly moving. To me, that is Lewis' book which stands closest to the spirit of Tolkien. In fact parts of that tale even remind me a bit of certain pieces of Silm (not in content but spirit).

He wrote this work after his marriage and I think that it really shows. He has become a more sensitive person. His depictions of "mature" women (as opposed to the spirited but young Lucy) are sympathetic in a way that I don't sense in his adult science fiction or his fantasy. Has anyone else read that book, or felt that way about it?

Meril --LOL. You complment and "editing" are accepted. I wonder if there are things in Tolkien which you would see or interpret differently than I would because you are looking through the eyes of an "eastern" tradition?

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Tirned Tinnu]

smilies/eek.gif Yiowie! There's a lot of talent in here...
Just wanted to pop by and well, plop down my very simplistic views on C.S. Lewis and Tolkien.

I was graced by having a good librarian who recognised my love of fantasy. She gave me "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" to read. Of course, I gobbled it up and craved more. I read it a book a week until I'd come to the very end, ravinous for an explanation, when the book suddenly turned from mythological/spiritual to a wholly Christian epic. I was stunned. I actually tossed the book at the wall in anger. I was not ready to accept Lewis's intentions. His depication of Christ as the Lamb and the slaying of Alsan disturbed me greatly. Who was this author to mix the Land of Faery with Christian beliefs?! I had considered them separate worlds even though I had never read a Finnish Saga or an Irish tale from the Toyne. I had some greco-roman mythology at the time, and this seem to suffice when it came of fauns and wood spirits.

It wasn't until years later that I got to reading the "Prelandria" Series when I understood Lewis's fancifil worlds. He was all about telling the tale with a slight twist to it, a Christian twist as well as SciFi and Fantasy mingled together.

When I finally happened on Tolkien, it was a bit of a relief not to deal with Christianity on Lewis's level, but to have it symbolized with a First Testiment feel.
I liked that I didn't have to worry about theology and could wrap myself in pure fantasy for a while. Now I know better, having read most of his works.

Yes, LOTR was a work of goodness, a moral code to follow, a tale of happiness, through much sorrow. I adore it, and have of late wondered at its sublime array of tales that I still learn from.

[InklingElf]

bravo bravo! ::claps her hands::

-Tinnu I'm glad you think we have talent-believe me I'm not have of everyone here!

-Did you read all seven books of The Chronicles of Narnia?-I did a few years a go when I was 9-and loved them!

-Child of the 7th Age-I share your same point of view-on Tolkien and Lewis smilies/biggrin.gif

[Mister Underhill]

Some people just mistake the form for the essential meaning. An all too common failing of organized religion, sadly.

There's nothing like a good driving rainstorm to make me want to delve into Tolkien -- not to mention write my own stuff. Why is it that rain and writing go so well together? Unfortunately, it seems to rain here for only about one week out of the year.

Maril, I'm always interested in your Eastern perspective on the occasions when you grace us with it.

[ElanorGamgee]

It is hard to explain, but as I have read the works of Tolkien and Lewis (my two favorite authors), although the novels of both of the writers to me convey Christian messages, they do so in different ways.

I began reading Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia when I was about seven or eight years old, beginning with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and progressing slowly through the series as I grew more interest in his works. Even at a young age Aslan's sacrifice for Edmund clearly reminded me of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. It is nearly allegory, although I suppose the series serves more as a parallel to Biblical truths. However, not all of The Chronicles of Narnia distinctly reminded me of the Bible. Only two others carried this affect in my experience; The Magician's Nephew reminds me of the creation of the world in Genesis and The Last Battle alludes the end of the world and the triumphal return of Christ. In The Space Trilogy, a great deal of the story does not remind me of a specific instance in the Bible, but several factors clearly allude to Christian beliefs. For example, Maledil the Young is obviously Jesus, for he went into Thulcandra, or earth, and died in order to save the people from "The Bent One," or satan. In Perelandra, The Bent One possesses Weston to tempt the Queen of Perelandra to disobey the order of Maledil, just as in Genesis satan takes the body of a snake to tempt Eve to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. So, in Lewis' fantasy novels the allusions to the Bible are usually obvious and nearly allegorical, but do not necessarily carry through the entire work.

Tolkien, on the other hand, seems to weave Christian themes throughout his entire novel, but in a manner more subtle than Lewis. The Ring, for example, to me symbolizes temptation and sin; therefore it must be destroyed. There is a battle between good and evil, and good ultimately prevails. The force of good is stronger than that of evil. The evil ones are corrupted from the good; Melkor rebelled against the Valar and Eru to seek power for himself. Orcs were derived from elves. There are themes that are not exclusively Christian but prevalent in the Bible: self-sacrifice, brotherly love, good coming through evil situations (Gollum and the Ring, for example), and repentance, just to name a few.

So, I guess in my opinion the theology in Lewis' novels is more apparent, but the theology in Tolkien's novels is more subtle and woven throughout. I hope this post makes sense... smilies/smile.gif

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: ElanorGamgee ]

[Nerdanel]

Hello All!

I am new here and was just perusing through the messages. I have enjoyed this thread as an avid fan of both Lewis and Tolkein, as well as one of the "erudite" "Born-again" ilk.

I too find that Lewis' points are less subtle and more firmly based on scriptural passages than Tolkein's. But, if you look closely, Tolkein's passages often read like Psalms - for example, in ROTK, at the end of "The Ride of the Rohirrim". Read this and compare to Psalm 130. Reading of the seige of Gondor and the coming of the Rohirrim with the morning light gives me a visual image of what it is like to wait for dawn "like the watchman who waits for the morning." While Lewis gives me firmly based points to feed my need for logic, Tolkein gives me beautiful imagery to feed my need for emotion.

Just my two cents! Too much "Christianese?"

[Mithuial]

Hello Everyone!
I am new as well. Since I'm a christian, and love both Tolkien and Lewis I thought I'd join in this very fascinating discussion. My two favorite books in the world are: Lord of the Rings and Til We Have Faces. I find it hard to compare allegory in Lewis's Narnia vs. Tolkien's Middle Earth for the reason that Tolkien didn't actually intend to write an allegory at first. He just wanted to write a story, and all these wonderful themes just seemed to work their way in. This really is an example of the way that what we believe (what is important to us) always seems to work its way into everything we write (or think). Lewis, on the other hand wanted to write an allegory for children. In Lewis's books there is usually one distinct Christ figure and one symbol of evil. But we look at LotR and discover 3 or 4 Christ figures. They're all over the place. Frodo, Aragorn, and Gandalf all appear at one time or another as a Christ figure. I was utterly delighted when I read the Silmarillion for the first time a few years ago and was finally able to meet Iluvatar, the creator, and understand Tolkien's words when he talks about the end of days when Iluvatar's chidren sing before him, and when Iluvatar speaks of Melkor's evil intent being used for His glory. I felt a deep peace and understanding that I often experience when reading the Bible. I experienced the same sensation while reading Til We Have Faces when Orual recognizes that the fundamental purpose of human beings is to reach a union with the divine, or divine love, which Psyche had accomplished through her sacrifice but which Orual could not understand. This divine love Orual finally saw as the source of all the longings which she could never quench. As a human, she thirsted for a kind of joy, but never was able to satisfy the desire completely. Orual then recognized just how magnificent the true god always was and her response to this experience is one of reverence and worship. Now, that is something I could relate to. Which is one thing I truly love about Lewis: whenever I read his stuff I feel like I'm looking in a mirror, but this is often true for Tolkien as well. I generally favor Tolkien more on the whole, but both are dear to me; both were good companions in my childhood. They still are.
P.S. Some of my writing fanatic friends and I are in a club much like the Inklings.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Mithuial --

Welcome to the Downs. I'm glad to see someone else who also likes Till We Have Faces. As I said in my earlier post, this is the one book of Lewis where I truly feel that sense of wonder.

Do you see any similarlity between the Silm and Till We Have Faces--not in content, but spirit? Just curious because I've always felt that.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Mithuial]

Yes, I think I can definately say that the two have a lot in common. So many times Tolkien and Lewis really seem to be on the same wavelength, maybe that's partly because they knew and read each other's stuff.

[Everlen]

Hi peoples,
I'm new here and the only person I have communicated w/ is InklingElf (who I still think rocks). I am a huge fan of Tolkein and Lewis. And as for what ElanorGamgee said, I couldn't have said it better myself. God truly put those two men on this Earth to touch us, inspire us, and to help us grow closer to Him. I don't know about ya'll (I'm from G.A., U.S. "Ya'll" is a big part of our vocab. lol) but I find it hard sometimes not to make LOTR and idol. I love it so much that sometimes I will pick up the books more than I do the Bible. The Bible is of course more important to me b/c I am an *ahem**ahem* born again Christian and it is God's love letter to us and lets us know bout Him. Well... I've lost my point in writing this... so thats all I suppose. smilies/wink.gif

[Mithuial]

I know exactly what you mean. I'm always wanting to read LotR, and I know there are other christians that struggle with the same thing. I'm kinda psycho like that. If there's something I love, then I really love it, and I think about it all the time, and I have to talk it out with God. He's always real cool about it though. He's so awesome! He knows that I love it, and He's really helped me, by using my love for LotR to get closer to him and to witness at my school. My obsession with LotR has really helped me to learn not to limit God. Sometimes He does tell me to tone it down a bit, but I just have to learn to use some self discipline, and when I feel the urge to pick up the Silmarillion, I pick up the Bible first then maybe I can compare scripture and text in the book.

[mark12_30]

Yeah, and the surrounding Christians get nervous: "Are you reading that AGAIN? You're obsessing!" ...and I respond, "Your point?" I think that's one reason that I love some of Tolkien's letters so much (I always rave about that one to Michael, about women, and communion.) It shows that the spiritual side of Tolkien's sub-creation isn't accidental. The man was deep. And so are his books.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Tirned Tinnu]

OOOahhhh, have I got a number to drop on some of you.
InklingElf - 7 books? Whoa, I forget now, how many were there? I thought it was 11 books? At least that's what I remember. I know they have combined some of them. I adored Narnia, until it turned into a lesson. I was a grumpy child! Now I love it, all of C.S's works are great to read.

ElanorGamgee - You are so right about so right about Tolkien's subtle writing style. That's what I loved about his work.

And for the Born Agains *coughcough* in the crowd, I must point to Divine Love as an actual thing! (I'd better tread lightly here, but I will say that I have felt it.) Yep that's right, I saw it, felt it, know it's there, and almost had a chat with the Big Guy. Or rather, Gal. Whom ever. It was on the otherside, and I wasn't about to question God's choice in sex! (Just thought I'd put a big thumbs up to those who have read about joining with the Divine Mind and Love. Lewis and Tolkien had the right idea, as well as that other author and series mentioned above! smilies/smile.gif

It's great to read about everyone's experiences. I'm so glad this thread was created!

smilies/biggrin.gif

[HerenIstarion]

May be you'll find This Thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000240) interesting

[InklingElf]

-:;waves to Everlen:: your are too kewl ur self!

-Tinnu there are 7 main Chronicles of Narnia::nods:: yep

-welcome Nerdanel!-ooh I hope I spelled that right!-I agree with your points as well

[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: InklingElf ]

[InklingElf]

...Tolkien and Lewis-One of the most superb literary friendships of all time-I always thought so...

-::waves:: my kind greetings to you Mithual smilies/smile.gif

[Mithuial]

:: Bows:: And you, Inkling Elf.

What's your favorite Lewis work? I think I can guess what everyone's favorite Tolkien work is, but I have several friends who like the Silmarillion much more than LotR. My favorite Lewis work is Til We Have Faces as I said before. I love Narnia and I adore the Science Fiction Trilogy, and let's not forget Mere Christianity and Screwtape Letters. All this talk makes me really want to read all their works again.
::wanders over to her bookshelf and picks up some of Lewis's poetry.:: Time for some reading, guys.

[Everlen]

Ok... so I was wondring. Do ya'll think that Denethor symoblizes, in a way, King Saul in the Bible? It sorta makes sense to me. Faramir and Aragorn are friends, Denethor is about to have his power taken away from him and he kinda gets knocked off his rocker and ends up killing himself. Jonathan and David are friends, Saul is about to have his power taken from him and he goes nuts and ends up killing himself also. Hm... kinda closely knit there. I'm not sure if Tolkein intended it to be that way but hey, look at the similarities. No one goes there anymore, it's too crowded." Yogi Berra

[Mithuial]

Hey, in 2 Kings (I'm not sure of the chapter or verse right now, but I'll get back to you on it) there was a king that burnt himself in the same way Denethor did. I think that he definately symbolizes Saul, and I think Tolkien got a few of his ideas from the Bible.

[InklingElf]

What's your favorite Lewis work? I think I can guess what everyone's favorite Tolkien
work is, but I have several friends who like the Silmarillion much more than LotR. My
favorite Lewis work is Til We Have Faces as I said before. I love Narnia and I adore the
Science Fiction Trilogy, and let's not forget Mere Christianity and Screwtape Letters. All
this talk makes me really want to read all their works again.
::wanders over to her bookshelf and picks up some of Lewis's poetry.::

Well Mithual-let's just say I share your opinion in liking Lewis' and Tolkien's works smilies/smile.gif

[Evisse the Blue]

Yea, but the relationship between Denethor and Aragorn in no way resembles that of Saul and David so the similarities stop here.

[Craban]

Alright, well, here goes, trying to phrase this very carefully (a little nervously)...

I'm not a Christian; I'm a Pagan. I'm curious to attempt more Lewis someday, but even as a child the ending of the Narnia series I felt essentially said to me, "This story is not for you. There's a clear line drawn here and you're on the other side." So when one encounters that feeling, what can one do but say "I'm sorry you feel that way," and walk away. There is nothing in Tolkien that gives me this feeling, however. To me, it's a mark of Tolkien's great generosity of spirit that he can work the _spirit_ of his faith into his work so thoroughly that the _letter_ of the writing does not exclude or insult those who are also of good will but of a different faith. The themes of struggle, sacrifice, humility, and wonder are Christian, but not EXCLUSIVELY Christian; they are universal no matter what name one calls the Inner Light by. A true moral code is one that comes from within and certainly can exist independent of faith (my atheist father is one of the most ethical and moral people I know).

Superficial speaking, Tolkien's Elven cosmology, with the sub-creative Valar under the One and the Maia beneath them who act as helpers and adversaries to the children of Arda, is as applicable to Pagan theology as to Christian, and yet dismissive to neither. Every artist, regardless of religion, can relate to the moral vicissitudes of those under Aule, and identify with Yavanna's love for all green and growing things, and the compassion and sorrow of Nienna (and her pupil Olorin). And I think it's very wise of Tolkien to leave the ultimate beyond-the-world fate of Man rather vague - as a writer and a Christian he understood humility well enough not to pretend to know.

Tolkien was well aware of the dangerous potential of remaining too attached to one's sub-creations, wasn't he? Once a work of art is released into the world, the artist must give up total control of how that work is received, and I think that knowledge enabled him to free his own work from the constraints of allegory (which suffers as art a lot of times because it has one explicit correct interpretation). The artwork that sustains multiple, possibly contradictory interpretations over time seems the greater to me.

[InklingElf]

well Craban-I sort of understand why you would'nt feel so much "theology" In Tolkien's work....Tolkien doesn't really "show"-or how should I say this-When you comprehend it as a christian as myself and others on this forum-you begin to see the Theology in his owrk-but if your not-you typically don't see it...well someone else might give you a better explanation...Now on Lewis' case-It is easier to grasp-so to speak-the Theology-since there are many things in the bible that are in Lewis' work...

In addition to that-Tolkien was also well aware that non-christians wouldn't see the Theology...

[InklingElf]

-Craban-please don't take anything I say in offense-I dont mean it to be so controversial....

-On Comparing Characters in The Lord of The Rings:
hmmm...I always thought of Gandalf to be like Micheal the Archangel in the Bible
-and Lucifer as Saruman...
Get it?-SInce Gandalf and Saruman were supposed to be heavenly beings-(sort of like angels)-I thought of that as I was laying on my bed last night...What do you think?

[Craban]

Don't worry, InklingElf - I'm not offended! Thanks for your concern, though.

That just goes with what I was saying about layers of interpretation - it makes sense that there would be layers in there that Christians would get and others might not. Honestly, I think it's impossible for a writer to keep his/her beliefs out of the work and it's dumb to try anyhow (it can only cheapen the work to try to keep out what's important to one's soul). I'm just admiring Tolkien's ability to create something that's beautiful and meaningful to Christians and non-Christians alike, that's all....but of course it might not be beautiful and meaningful in the exact same ways.

[Mithuial]

I think that one of the obvious reasons that Christians relate so well to LotR, and why it's so special to them is that Tolkien was a Christian himself. I can relate directly to the author. I'm not saying that non-christians can't relate to him or to the books, because, yet again I remind you, that Tolkien never intended to write any sort of an allegory when he started. It just sorta happened. What I am trying to say is that I love the fact that I can relate to him adn his books.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

This is an interesting topic. I'm sorry I've only just gotten to it so late in the game. Oh well...

Child, you said that you felt excluded when you read the Chronicles of Narnia. How old were you then? Old enough to see that they were decidedly Christian?

When I read them I didn't understand Christ, Jesus' sacrifice, creation, etc. Those things were all empty myths to me, stories told to take up time in Sunday school class. To me, this Sunday school Jesus was a pale thing compared to Aslan. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was the first real book I read after reading primers, but my mother had read them to me many times as a baby and later as a small child. I loved Aslan just as Lucy loved him and revered him just as Jill did. He was my Jesus. I felt like he suffered and died at the hands of the White Witch not just for Edmund, but for me also. This speaks worlds for Lewis' incredible ability to convey wonder, trust and even love.

Most small children will not understand complex worlds like Middle Earth, but Narnia is like a gentle mother. It doesn't need sound mythology or sensible diction, the wonder shines through the cool green glades, the deep voices of the centaurs, and the gold of Aslan's mane.

Initially, I read the Space Trilogy as Sci-fi/Fantasy, but after reading it again it seems more like prophesy to my mind. I don't think it's allegory at all, it's "what-if" perspective. If other beings lived outside our orbit, why should they call Jesus "Jesus"? Why not Maleldil? Why should they be a fallen people too? Could not the human race be alone in its error? It really is the union of theology and science fiction, only renovated.

The truths that Lewis conveys in his trilogy reminded me of the conversation between Tolkien, Lewis and Dyson in Humphrey Carpenter's Tolkien biography. Tolkien asks why Lewis demands so much of the Christian "myth" when he asks so little of pagan myths. The "myth" of the Genesis temptation is played over again on Perelandra as truth. What then is the difference between truth and myth? Ransom asks himself if all myths on Earth might not be truth elsewhere in the universe.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Child, you said that you felt excluded when you read the Chronicles of Narnia. How old were you then? Old enough to see that they were decidedly Christian?

Silver Shod Muse --

No, I believe you're mistaken here. That wasn't me who said that. I believe it was Craban.

I had no problem reading Narnia when I was younger, although I am not a Christian. I was very aware that the story was "Christian" but I don't like to shut myself off from a piece of literature just because it's a tradition different than my own. For me, there are too many hidden glimpses of truth in different places to put on blinders and pretend its not there.

Creban mentioned feeling that he felt there was a line drawn in the sand, but that's not how I connected with it. That's probably because I felt touched by it on a very personal level. For example, in my own neighborhood, I saw myself as a Lucy amid a whole gaggle of Susans.

Also, I think it's possible to be deeply touched by a work, even if you don't share its particular faith. To take two examples from my own tradition, many people who are not Jewish have found The Diary of Anne Frank, or Elie Wiesel's Night to be quite moving. So I guess that Creban and I had different experiences and responses.

Having said this however, I do prefer Tolkien to Lewis for the same reason that Creban alluded to. The story can be read and enjoyed on so many different levels---a good yarn growing out of ancient myths and legends, a tale which celebrates values prized by many people of good will, or a story which reflects, at least in some of its themes and allusions, the particular belief system of its author.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[lindil]

Helen said: Many people that read Tolkien's work seem to come up with a desire to be more like Somebody Good that they read about in his books. I see many people wanting to be more elvish, more hobbit-like, or to be like Gandalf or one of the noble Numenoreans. I think that this would have pleased Tolkien, and I think that if those desires are allowed to flourish-- if we encourage the pursuit of that luminosity, the shining goodness, the glory, the beauty, the pursuit of truth and transcendance-- that is good theology of a completely different type; it is theology of the heart, which then, afterwards, slowly affects the mind.


an absolutly beautiful summation.

I have only read abit of Lewis outside of narnia.So Ican only speak to that a bit.
I was profoundly moved though to read about JRRT's part in lewis' conversion.And the Screwtape letters is sobering in the extreme.

I have read pretty much all of tolkien except some of the lotr drafts in HoME.

I'm a convert to Orthodox Christianity of 7 yrs or so. via taoist practices and a lot of other things. So I appreciate JRRT's Christian roots and how subtly they are woven into the LotR. They are much more visible in the Silm and quite pronounced in many of the HoME writings intended for the Silm but left out by CRT. I must say I got shivers reading Finrod declaim the need for Eru to become incarnate in order to purify creation.

I think Tolkien and Lewis have been some of the biggest missionaries in euro-american 20th cent. I know quite a few [ there must be millions] whom they felt played a key roll in their conversion.


A note about the Last Battle. This was always my favorite narnia book, even way before I was a Christian. It puzzled me but gave me hope. I have always had a sort of apocalyptic attitude towards modern life [ Revelations was the first book in the Bible I read] and the Last Battle presented that idea in a rather simple but profound package.

I read it again recently, this time to my 5 year old daughter and was seriously spooked by the whole 'Tashlan' business. Way to close to the mark. Of course Lewis was in England as the whole Ecumenical movement was gaining steam and saw the logical 'preogression' of thought.

JRRT is for me more like Christs parables; where in layer upon layer can be uncovered.

Lewis is more like the Episles of the Apostles, where what you see is what you get. A simplistic analogy I know.

A beautiful thread folks at a wonderful board. How lucky we are!

[InklingElf]

-lindil-Yes, I too like The Last Battle---It has always been my favorite Lewis work---as oppose to his other works...I always had that "Revelation" feeling from the Bible---even when I was 8 or 9 then-I'm 13 now....I'm glad you like this thread too smilies/biggrin.gif

-Craban- No problem smilies/smile.gif ::smiles::

[Mithuial]

Muse, I heard you mention that Aslan was Jesus to you in your childhood. I found it fascinating that someone else would share the same opinion that I had as a child. Aslan was my king, my friend; he was my Jesus, but even as young as I was I realized that a story is a story and is not real. I knew what fiction was, and it broke my heart to think that Aslan wasn't "real." My mother, who was very religious explained to me that Aslan was "real." I had been introduced to Jesus when I was tiny, but I never really made the connection of Jesus and Aslan until much later, when all was explained to me. This experience created a more personnel and real relationship with Jesus, as small as I was, that I may never have experienced had I not read the C. of Narnia. If Lewis were still alive I would write him a long thankyou note, and I thank God often for using the books to reach a little girl. There was a time when I outgrew Jesus a little, just as Susan outgrew Narnian and Aslan. I never fell away completely, but I was rather scornful of what I called "churchy stuff." Then I read the science fiction trilogy, and my eyes were opened a second time. It not long after, that I encountered LotR and again my faith was linked with someone else's through literature, and I was in awe. I find it so interesting all the ways God uses literature to speak to us. When I was in my "too old for this Jesus" faze I thought God only spoke through the Bible, so I suppose I avoided it as much as possible. I was terribly wrong. lol.

I heard someone say that many are moved by the Diary of Ann Frank and Night by Elie Weisel. I would find it interesting to hear what people think about a loving God (an Aslan, a Maleldil, Valar, Jesus etc.) existing in a world filled with so much pain. I don’t want you to get the wrong idea, because I listed Jesus among a group of fictional characters, because I personally believe that Jesus is real, but anyway, I know it doesn’t directly relate to Tolkien, and it’ll probably start some killer controversies, but I really want to hear some of your thoughts on this subject: How can God and Suffering co-exist?
May I open with one of my favorite quotes. C.S. Lewis said in The Problem of Pain, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains; it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”

[HerenIstarion]

Well, not to stray too much away from the main course, on this subject same C.S.Lewis'
"The Problem of Pain" should be recommended. It's a series of the esseys chapter by chapter concerning each particular kind of suffering. As usual with C.S.L, highly logical and supplied with the profound argument

[merlilot]

Craban, I hope you are not offended when I tell you that I am praying for you. Some people are. But I will, whether you are offended or not. Dear one, you may have seen a clear line drawn that you were on the wrong side of, but remember that it is a line and you can step over it. Also remember that even some who had opposed Tirian the King were allowed through the Door. And the Calormene boy! I love that part of the story! He knows your heart, Craban. And whether you know it or not you may be seeking Him as eagerly as He is seeking you. I will assume you are relatively open-minded and suggest that you read the story of the Lost Son in Luke. (I can't remember the verses exactly, but someone here can tell you certainly) And whatever happens, if you feel like you need to find something out, don't not do it because people will think it is out of character or whatever. If all else fails, you can email or PM me. I champion tolerance and non-predjudice, so I WILL NOT judge you. If you have any questions...

Anyway. As that l-o-n-g paragraph revealed, I am a lover of Christ and Lewis, and of course Tolkien.
Hi! Everyone!

Just adressing a few topics:
Even though some of my christian friends think I am abandoning my faith for fantasy (how absurd!), I read them to see the parallels. Sort of a supplement.
All the x-references you guys made *Gandalf=Michael* *Saruman=Satan* etc, were really good. I never really thought about that...
I also waver between wanting to a hobbit and an elf...that's why in my full pseudonym...Merlilot Fealin Earien...The first is a hobbit name, the second is Quenya, and the third (so I am told) is Sindarin. So I can be whatever I feel like being that day.

I know there were more things I wanted to touch on, and I will certainly be back on this thread.

Kudos to all on the thread!

(Oh, and consider this my formal introducton to all the Christians and otherwise theological experts. I love deep convos, so if you wanna talk, I check my email roughly every day)

[HerenIstarion]

merlilot smilies/smile.gif

as to the problem of pain, I think I can draw a quick outline.

Pain is unnatural. But considering our current situation, Man as he is is unnatural as well - Man has fallen. Consequently, as before his fall there was no pain, and afterwords there is, it must be seen as a result of it. c.f Tolkiens Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth. (HoME X)
Yet among my people, from Wise unto Wise out of the darkness, comes the voice saying that Men are not now as they were, nor as their true nature was in their beginning
Elswhere is stated that whole essence of Arda contains some “melkorian” element, therefore is not as it ment to be, is Arda Marred.

But as it is a result of the fall, it is also the means of redeeming. It’s not clearly stated with JRRT, but implications run through (for instance, Frodo through great suffering becomes nobler than he was before)

Yet the pain is not remedy unless it’s recepient shows right attitude towards it. It’s forbidden to judge because we are not omniscient. (cf “even very wise can not see all ends” of Tolkien. Again, not written stictly about pain, but applicable in this case as well) Consider Turin’s case – his sufferings are as great as Frodo’s (or even greater), yet the end is diffferent, the reason being Turin’s pride. Strictly speaking, both of them were receiving sufferings from Dark Lord. Quite true – all suffering is Satan’s invention. but:
(Eru to Melkor in Silm77)
And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.
After that strict samples are given of showers and fogs impossible if Melkor has not attacked water with frost, yet it’s applicable to all else as well.

The pain is direct means of redeeming in case of Boromir. How do you think he would develop if not Saruman’s orks?

I do not try to convince you that JRRT has written all the bulk of his mythologies just to express this. I only want to say it’s in one of the layers.
As a conclusion – pain is a “heavy cross”, but if considered as one of the trials of God becomes “light burden”.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Ah, Helen, you've just given me an insight into myself, what I am and who I want to be:

Many people that read Tolkien's work seem to come up with a desire to be more like Somebody Good that they read about in his books. I see many people wanting to be more elvish, more hobbit-like, or to be like Gandalf or one of the noble Numenoreans. I think that this would have pleased Tolkien, and I think that if those desires are allowed to flourish-- if we encourage the pursuit of that luminosity, the shining goodness, the glory, the beauty, the pursuit of truth and transcendance-- that is good theology of a completely different type; it is theology of the heart, which then, afterwards, slowly affects the mind.

In all the fanfictions or RPGs I've ever been in, I have never been an Elf. A hobbit, a human, an animal, and even an Ent, but never an Elf. Now why is that? Because in all my wildest dreams, I could never imagine having that shining goodness and luminosity which is so apparent in the "very best" Elves. Now, I'm not talking about the corrupted ones--I suppose I could certainly manage to be one of those on my bad days, but who'd want to?

That's not to say I'm not attracted by it. So I fear I am a hobbit or, most likely, a hobbit-chasing-after Elves, a bit like Sam and Frodo!

Does anyone else see this in Tolkien, and identify with a particular character in the way Helen has mentioned? Or are there characters in Lewis which have this same impact on you, as a model of personal goodness and light?

sharon

[Bill Ferny]

Extremely interesting thread, and the posts are absolutely extraordinary! From my experience you will often find kinder, more faith filled posts on forums not directly related to websites devoted to the subject. This is certianly true as regards this forum. I've spent the last two hours reading and re-reading the posts on this thread. I think that all of you who have posted here are intelligent, wise, and brave.

I really appreciate Craban's post, and what he says highlights the danger in calling Tolkien a theologian. As a Catholic, I can see decidely Catholic themes, such as original sin, the communion of saints, faith and works, the Virgin Mary, liturgy, etc in Tolkien's works, as well as aspects of more general Christian mythology and cosmology. However, like JRRT, himself, I wouldn't characterize his Middle Earth as a Christian allegory, especially to the extent that C.S. Lewis allegorizes in his books.

These elements are present in Tolkien because, like all writers and storytellers, he wove his story from what he knew and experienced. JRRT was a devote Christian, so obviously his experiences as a Christian come through. He was also to one degree or another an archiologist, historian, linguist, student of mythology, and a lover of Anglo-Saxon England. All these elements of the author's life shine equally with his Christianity. In my mind, that makes Tolkien's Middle Earth a land for all peoples.

If Tolkien can be called a theologian to any degree, he would have to be characterized as a moral theologian. The one consistent theme through all his many weaves is the enduring and unrelenting will of the virtuous soul in the face of evil. Despite all the fury of hell, there is in the heart of all the ability to do good as long as one keeps faith. That is a Catholic notion, a Christian notion, a religious notion, a spiritual notion, a human notion no matter what greater power one may perceive.

[mark12_30]

Craban,
Honestly, I think it's impossible for a writer to keep his/her beliefs out of the work and it's dumb to try anyhow (it can only cheapen the work to try to keep out what's important to one's soul).

That might sound obvious, but it's amazing how many times as a writer I've felt somehow obligated (for whatever reason) to stifle what's important to my soul. Thanks for putting it so clearly.

Incidentally, it's amazing to me how much of an impact the release of the movie had on me on those terms. Tolkien created his myth in such a way that 28 years ago, I walked in and settled down immediately, and I've been there ever since despite numerous efforts to leave it behind. Realizing that perhaps I should relax and explore and enjoy my old home was a huge breakthrough in my own Christianity, and while I'm still sorting it out, it's been a relief to realize that in a sense, it meshes with what Tolkien intended all along, and PJ & Co gave me a shove "Backwards" into Tolkien that I needed.

I'm very grateful for that shove. As imperfect as the movie was, it was a doorway into my past that I needed to move more fully into my future and my calling.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[InklingElf]

-Child of the 7th Age-
...On good days...Always wanting to be an Elf like Galadriel, Wizard-like Gandalf, a wise Ent....or as heart -warming as a hobbit...
On bad days maybe an orc, a dark elf, or
even a balrog....

In my case I've never been and I never tried to be anything else but an elf...Maybe it's because of the longing to be as wise and graceful as them...I don't know.

[mark12_30]

In response to Sharon--Lately I seem to be all elf-hunting hobbit. I love the elves, and I want to imitate the elves, and learn from the elves-- but there's no way I could fool anybody into thinking I WAS an elf. (No matter how I braid my hair.)

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[ElanorGamgee]

I agree with Child; it is hard for me to imagine being an elf because they are so often portrayed as being nearly perfect, both physically and ethically. In RPG's I have always played a hobbit, for I can relate to them more than to the other races, although at times I feel more fit to play an orc. Hobbits are portrayed as a generally good and gentle people, but they are not perfect by any means. The typical hobbit may be gluttonous, grudging, cowardly, and uninterested with the rest of the world, content to live out a comfortable life (by the way, I love the hobbits, but I'm being a bit hard on them for the purpose of the discussion). I can relate, for although the people I know, to my knowledge, would describe me as kind and friendly, I am perpetually struggling with what are often considered small, petty sins, but problems nonetheless. I tend to want to sit in my room and enjoy myself, comforted by the fact that I am in the good opinions of my friends, when I know that there are so many things that ought to be done for others. I am afraid to step out of my comfortable, familiar routine and tend to be selfish by default, too self-righteous and self-centered to notice my own errors. This is why I like C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters so much; it gives insight into the little things that a Christian might do every day and never think about that are actually detrimental to his relationship with God. They can be more deadly than the "big sins" because they go largely unnoticed.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: ElanorGamgee ]

[HerenIstarion]

by ElanorGamgee

the little things that a Christian might do every day and never think about that are actually detrimental to his relationship with God. They can be more deadly than the "big sins" because they go largely unnoticed.

Appaling truth, yet truth all the same. Lewis is very sobering in that aspect indeed

[Craban]

Wow - I'm sorry I've been away for a bit, I've missed a lot.

I do appreciate the prayers - I believe that good will is good will no matter what. But I am quite confident in my own faith as you are in yours.

When I read the Narnia books through the second time (because that was the time that gave me the twitches) I was in my teens and was well aware of the Christian allegory, and that's what hurt, actually. The Last Battle specifically (although I still find The Horse and His Boy kind of...if I dare say...racist, perhaps? Or at least intolerant of another culture). Because I went through a Christian phase prior to that. Had to - everyone I knew was Christian, it was sheer peer pressure; had to go to church to have a social life at all. My parents were very indulgent and dropped me off at the door and picked me up when it was over. I felt Spirit in church, no doubt. I met Jesus and still consider him a friend; I think we have an understanding. But none of the feelings I met in church were anywhere near as strong as the ones I felt in the woods, and the Voices there answered to other Names.

So anyway, all through high school and college I studied comparative religion and read many holy books and did much prayer and meditation, and that's how I came by the path I'm now on (fifteen years ago, that was). I'm very deeply convinced and no one will shake me of this: there is Truth in every path.

And as I was saying, that's why I still after all these years respect Tolkien so much: because he insults no one, and because people all over the world, of many faiths, have found meaning and beauty in his work. I have met Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus and atheists and Pagans and Christians and Jews who love his books for deeply spiritual reasons that ring true for all of them in different but no less "right" or "wrong" ways, although Tolkien himself was a Catholic who remained always true to that. That is rare and important. That was what I was trying to say.

The theologian Matthew Fox once wrote that the most important difference between the demons and the angels is that Demons do not/cannot _praise_. But to be able to honor creation and its Creator: only those entities with a beauty of spirit can do that.

(BTW, I'm female. Not that it matters online. smilies/smile.gif )

[Tirned Tinnu]

OOoooo, Craban, now you've got my mind chugging. I've just come from an intensive search of Google under the terms "Tolkien + Joseph Campbell". You gave me the idea! I found some wonderful links, several in fact, of Lewis's relationship with Tolkien. Here's a quote which I loved:

I happened to encounter ("The Power of Myth") while at Magdalen College in Oxford, home of C. S. Lewis, who was himself fascinated with myth. In fact, it was along Addison's Walk in that college one autumn night in 1931 that Lewis engaged his friend J. R. R. Tolkien in a conversation on myth. Lewis, who had not yet been converted to the Christian faith, experienced that night something of a pre-evangelical conversion to the power of myth. Tolkien had been arguing that the mythic language of silver elves and moon-lit trees carried a far richer truth than Lewis the rationalist had been willing to admit. As they spoke a gust of wind swept the fall leaves around them in a flurry of enchantment, as if to authenticate what had just been said. Lewis never forgot that night and the experience that gave birth to his love of myth, his openness to Christian faith, and his later forays into the land of Narnia.

Belden C. Lane is professor of theological studies and American studies at Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri.


I also found this class on Gnosticism and Tolkien, and found it highly entertaining. Get out your pens and pencils kiddies, this is one to listen to and take notes on:

Dr. Hoeller - "J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings: Gnosis for Our Day"
http://www.gnosis.org/981002.ram
(Realplayer format, 75 minutes.) He starts out slow, and turns in a very lyrical poetry reading as well as several laughs that are sure to please. Very informative as to certain subjects, such as the different types of souls and Sufi tradition. Touches on Joseph Campbell and Jung for a moment or two.

And for those who want more of this fellow, and his Gnostic views: http://www.gnosis.org/lectures.html

I am rather happy after finishing the lecture. Many of my theories are cemented by Dr. Hoeller! He brings up points which I'm sure we will want to discuss.

****OH! as a treat, I offer you this link to Joseph Campbell Online: http://www.jcf.org/
Membership is free, so register so that you can listen to his lectures for free! There is also a bboard that discusses Myth. I'm going back there now to do some reading. *sigh* I love the internet.

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: Tirned Tinnu ]

[TolkienGurl]

First of all, I am Christian. I was baptized by a Lutheran church but I do not like the use of denominations to describe one's faith. What I mean by Christian is this:

ONE WHO IS CHRISTIAN...
believes in the Trinity - Father Son and Holy Ghost - Three persons in One God
believes that Jesus Christ is true God and true man.
believes the only way to heaven is by believing in Christ and his death on the cross - not by anything man has ever done. Ephesians 2:8-9
believes the Holy Bible is the true and infalliable Word of God and everything in it is absolutely true.

I am not trying to set myself apart from others by stating the fact that I am Christian, but I do believe that true Christianity as defined above is the true way to glorify God and attain heaven through faith. Denominations such as Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, etc are not needed. It should just be Christian, used as a collective term for those who fill the definition.

Christianity is not a denomination. Denominations are sections of the church that have modified (extensively or minimally) the true Bible and teach certain aspects of it (and ignore others) whether actually contained in the Bible or not.

If you disagree, please do not take offense. None was meant.

I am Christian (by the above definition) and when I say that Tolkien and Lewis do include Biblical principles and ideas from the Holy Bible I am not being critical of other religions. On the other hand, I do not have to say "Well, if Tolkien and Lewis have Christian principles in their works then they also contain principles from other religions because if they don't then that's not fair." Just because a famous writer decides to use a Christian source as an inspiration for their works doesn't mean that he has to "be fair" to other religions. If he doesn't believe in Buddhism, for example, does he have to teach/imply priniples of Buddhism through his writings? No! Saying something is Christian is not being unfair to other religions or detrimental in any way. Saying something is Christian does not say "Ha ha I am right and all other beliefs are wrong." What Christianity is is a person's belief in the Bible unmodified by denominations. It is essentially truth.

Thanks for reading my long winded explanation. If I was too harsh, I apologize. No offense was meant.

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

[Tirned Tinnu]

TolkienGurl - you said "What Christianity is is a person's belief in the Bible unmodified by denominations. It is essentially truth."

I'm glad that you ended your post that way. Indeed, each religion essentially seeks that same goal, truth. I'm glad that you're not prejudiced towards other religions.
Too often I am rocked by the attitude of "One God, and you who don't like him get to go to Hell." It's nice to hear that you are non-biased on that issue. True, the writer is under no obligation to explain myth in all forms, especially if his particular specialty is of his own religion.

Anyway, I hope that people will avail themselves of the nice sites I put up in my last post, and I offer another now because it's so darling and contains so much valuable information.

Sacred Texts Website (http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm)

There is a link to the sacred texts that Tolkien was known to have studied. Good reading to you.

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Tirned Tinnu ]

[Bill Ferny]

Tinnu

Thank you for the link to Dr. Hoeller’s lecture. I am very familiar with many of Dr. Hoeller’s works especially The Fall of Sophia: A Gnostic Text on the Redemption of Universal Consciousness, Freedom: Alchemy for a Voluntary Society, The Royal Road: A Manual of Kabbalistic Meditations on the Tarot, and a number of books he wrote about Jung. To be honest, I read these books in order to write a treatise in grad school refuting Hoeller and modern gnosticism.

In the interests of clarity, I think it should be pointed out to any one who may be interested in the lecture provided by Tinnu, that Dr. Hoeller’s notions about Jesus Christ, redemption and eschatology are not Christian according to any established doctrinal norms, Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. Many of his views are also at odds with TolkienGurl's personal Christian creed above. In fact, many established Christian churches and modern theologians have characterized Hoeller’s modern gnostic movement as occultism. Not that I’m putting down anyone out there who might be an occultist! Not that I’m blindly upholding Christianity! Its just that Hoeller and his devotees sometimes neglect to mention that their views are at odds with the doctrines of nearly every established Christian church out there. So if you are member of one of these established Christian faiths, beware.

Tolkien said himself that he was not into the business of allegorizing the real world, theological or otherwise. If Hoeller sees an allegory between Tolkien and modern gnosticism, then I'm pretty sure the only person putting that allegory there is him, especially since Tolkien's personal beliefs and faith couldn't be more different than those held by Hoeller or gnostics, modern or ancient. For any of you who have ever studied early Christian gnosis, you would know that gnostics are very good at accepting everything as their own, even obviously contradictory ideas and traditions. The parallels that Hoeller draws between his brand of gnosticism and Tolkien are contrived at best.

As I said before, making Tolkien into a theologian is dangerous, because he never intended to write theology, especially gnostic theology! Its alright, in my opinion, to point out obvious parallels in Tolkien’s writings to his Catholic faith. Just as it is alright to point out parallels between Middle Earth and Anglo-Saxon, Icelandic, and Scandinavian culture and history. It is fine to see Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon mythology at work in Tolkien’s Middle-Earth, but just because Tolkien was a student of pre-Norman Europe, knew and loved the mythology and languages, and used them extensively in his works, certainly doesn’t make him or his works pagan. This seems to be the argument that Hoeller makes, based on his exercise of forcing his gnostic worldview onto Tolkien’s Middle Earth.

Don't get me wrong! Its not my intention to attack anyone or anyone's beliefs. However, to make Tolkien and his books into something they are not is to do violence to him and his genius.

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

[Tirned Tinnu]

Well met, Bill Ferny.
There are just three points I do have to make about religion and myth. We all take the written word as fact, do we not? Certainly you must agree that The Bible is a group of stories written by many men and told from differing points of view. To understand it as a whole, one must take into account that there will be discrepancies. Seeing how we tear into Tolkien's works parallels the way we compare the Apostle's views in The Bible.

I will not argue here the validity of such works, handed down by mouth and translated umpteen times for a voratious public. Each group has their own opinions on what is fact and what is fantasy. You make the statement
"I am just blindly backing up Christianity".
That is exactly what I fear. Blindness is a sort of disease, it leads people unaware into alleys and drags them to a spot where they cannot see other views and blindly declares that Gnosis and other forms of Chrisitanity are "Pagan".

We would do well to understand what the word "Pagan" really means. The actual translation of the word is "rural", referring to those that live in the country, and practice religions alien to city-living.

I find the term rather awkward. In today's society it is the Victorian (as Dr. Hoeller mentioned to my joy) attitiude of closedmindedness that pervades our religion. Anything different is thus chaulked up to being "Pagan" or - "devil worship!" Oh, yes, I eat babies everyday for breakfast. Hmph!
Tolerance is something that has to be learned. Using the word "Pagan" only enforces the belief that anything other than what you believe is evil.

Now getting to Mythology, would you not say that Myths themselves are "Pagan"? look at the miriad of myths Tolkien used. Finnish Gods and Goddesses, Roman ideals, Norse Gods...all renamed and retold so that they are "harmless" to the general public. He was in fact, making them accessable to those who might otherwise have labeled LOTR and The Silm "dangerous!"

I find it strange and rather foolish that people believe that by reading Lewis and Tolkien that they are "safe" from "harm".
That was not the intention of their works. Rather, they had an open-minded view of religion that allows for a comparision and a union between other religions and Christianity. Learning about the origins of your religion is not a "bad" thing. It merely allows one to be more tolerant of others.

I do not ascribe to the belief that Tolkien had much to do with Christianity in his works. That the Silm is much like The Bible does not seem likely in the light of having read The Kabbalah, Irish myth such as The Toyne, Persian Poetry and Finnish sagas.
It is a mish-mash of religions and myths.

I recognise your interest, Ferny, in "warning" people not to listen to Dr. Hoeller's and Joseph Campbell's works. However! I do have the urge to make known that your point of view will make sure that many will ignore and become more ignorant of their own religious backrounds. (Just what the Mother Church wanted from the beginning, more paritioners to keep her fantastic machine of money and power running.)
I find that sad." Myths are to be shared in innocence and wonder, not to be dashed against the walls of Christianity as Paganism.

[mark12_30]

Tirned, You state,

To understand it as a whole, one must take into account that there will be discrepancies.

This statement neglects one of the central doctrines of mainline Christain churches (and I believe Jewish theology as well) which is that God's Spirit orchestated, unified, and directed all of those separate writers, and therefore anything that looks like a discrepancy would be clearly resolved if the unified whole could be seen from God's point of view.

This is of course a central catholic doctrine, which Tolkien would have held. And on this pivotal issue rests much of the rest of the arguement. Those who hold this stance may not be able to dispute a particular logic, but their belief in God's ability to orchestrate the scriptures as inerrant would override that. As a solid Catholic, Tolkien would have staunchly defended the inerrancy of the scriptures. And he certainly would not have held the viewpoint that all belief systems are equally valid.

For instance, (and I say this ONLY to illustrate the importance of Tolkien's belief system to him, and his non-relativistic outlook) his biggest dispute, as I understand it, with C. S. Lewis was that C. S. Lewis got a divorce. Tolkien believed that divorce was wrong-- not wrong for some, not wrong depending on your viewpoint; he held, as Catholics did and do, that the scriptures firmly stated that divorce is just plain wrong. And that drove a permanent and lasting wedge into the middle of a wonderful, fulfilling, friendly, prosperous and helpful relationship.

I say this **NOT** to bring up a debate about divorce-- let me repeat, I do ***NOT*** intend nor wish for a debate about divorce-- and if anybody does bring up a debate about divorce, I'll point to these sentences! I say this only (only!!!) to illustrate that Tolkien did not hold a relativistic point of view, but held that there were right views and wrong views, right beliefs and wrong beliefs, good doctrines and bad doctrines, good texts and bad texts. And he felt strongly enough about that to lose a friendship over it. This was not something Tolkien held lightly.

Neither is he alone in believing that some texts and belief systems hold more credibility than others. I do not intend to start a debate on this, and I suspect that it is extensively covered elsewhere; but in response to the statement quoted above, I do feel that a reply was needed. As a staunch catholic, Tolkien would have disagreed with it. Other texts may be interesting, entertaining, enjoyable, challenging, or what-not, but one should not assume that all readers will-- or should-- find all texts equally valid and truthful; they will not.
Tolkien himself would not have.

Tolkien himself is frequently quoted as saying that the Gospel was the only completely true myth. He enjoyed and used and wrote many others, but to none of these others did he ever give the distinctive that they were "completely true."

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Just one correction, mark12_30; C. S. Lewis was not himself divorced - he married a divorcee. I too have read that this caused a rift in the friendship between Tolkien and Lewis.

[mark12_30]

Thank you very much, Estelyn, for clarifying that.

I find the rift in the friendship sad, myself. I loved that they were friends. But I cetainly understand the intense doctrinal standings and feelings involved.

Thanks again, Estelyn.

[Bêthberry]

Does anyone else see this in Tolkien, and identify with a particular character in the way Helen has mentioned?


Helen and Child, this is interesting. I have never, ever wanted to play or be an elf. Hobbit, yes; dwarf, yes; elf, never. I have never been impressed by all their alleged luminosity. This morning, while waiting for my daughter in the orthodontist's office and reading the Letters I came across this, for me, utterly fascinating quotation:

But I kept him [Tom Bombadil] in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out. I do not mean him to be an allegory--or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name--but'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure(real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coveval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with'doing' anything with the knowldgedge: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture. Even the elves hardly show this: they are primarily artitists. (Letter 153)

Right there is explained why "I" am a Bombadil and lack any sympathy with elves. Also fascinating in that I spent years studying this very idea of artistic creation as a false desire to control, frame, limit or dominate life by turning it into an aesthetic object. I'm not sure if this will make sense to any of you, though. And I guess this takes the discussion completely off-topic.

Bethberry Bombadil

[Tirned Tinnu]

Great! So we have established the fact that he didn't like divorce. We have not established the unexplained oddity of his liking Myths and Legends ie: The Religions of Other Peoples.
ie: Paganism.
How does it all work out? In the mind of a Catholic, or a Christian?
Hmmm?

Here, let me give you an example. I was born into a family that was made up of an Irish Catholic mother, and a Protestant father who converted to Roman Catholicism for my mother. They went to church every day, they taught me the values of Christianity and Catholisism.

But here's where they differed from the norm - they were artists. As artists they saw the need to educate me in myth and legend. They recognised the great British and American writers, and made sure that if I could not read them myself that they read and explained them to me. This was a Bohemian view, and not right in the eyes of the church. They sinned, in teaching me these pagan myths.

I was allowed to watch movies that asked the question, "What is God?" without being dragged from the tv set. I was encouraged to find my own way, and for a long time I found myself blindly being led down the alley of "tradition" and respect. I even wanted to become a nun. (Not because of my staunchness of heart, but because the church taught me that men and women could do many sins unto themselves, and rather than face that I wanted to run away to the "sanctity" and "purity" of her convents.) I even had the curious interest in being a soldier of God, like Jean, who was a favorite saint of mine.

I was told that Jean was not a fully confirmed saint, and such that he was not approved by our bishop for confirmation names. I baulked. This saint has a resting place near me - In the Cloisters. I had touched his tomb! He was a symbol of purity from the Middle Ages, one of my favorite times in history. He was a feudal knight who gave his lands and title to The Church, and went off to battle in the Crusades! I was crushed.
Then I decided to change it to Joan, who also fought in God's name. She too was medievalist and fierce. But there was one problem. She had just recently been beatified. Her "voices" and the fact that she was "mistakenly" burned by Mother Church was enough to make me wonder. So I did a little recearch, and I grew up. I learned about the Inquisition and the Papacy. I learned about all the things that Mother Church and my public school refused to teach due to the "violent nature" or "explicit nature" of the history. Too horrible for little ears, no less. Never mind history, you'll learn it in college. (Even then, it has only been of late that anyone has dared to write down or research and accurate portrayal of the Birth of Chrisitanity.) I had to find a course on it at another college.

I understand that other denominations do not recognise the Saints. It pains me that the things that I have studied have brought me to the state I am in, that of distrust in the Church as a whole, and the distrust of the very dogma that they preach. I am rather (to take as a for instance) like Mel Gibson, who, for reasons of his own has had a church built upon his property and celebrates the Eucharist alone, with his family. His belief is that he can do it better for himself. I understand that. It puts a pit in the bottom of my stomach, but I understand it.

Now that's where I am angry - if Tolkien disaproved of Lewis marrying a divorced woman, it was against church doctrine, but it was also in bad taste. My grandfather was a divorcee. My grandmother waited until she was on her deathbed to reveal that fact, she was so ashamed. She went to her death feeling that she had sinned against God and her family. She kept it secret for 50 years. Can you imagine the sorrow that keeping mum about that caused her? It was a thing done in bad taste, and she did not wish to bring misery to her family. Here we are today, when people do it all the time, and she was still ashamed. We never got to know Grandfather's other family, and I find that sad. I have half-aunts and uncles somewhere in the UK, and I shall never find them. I doubt they would want to meet me, the product of two generations of sin.

Does the fact that I am the product of sin leave me blameless, or am I to burn, to be shunned by revealing the fact?
Were my parents sinners for teaching me about the religions of other peoples?
Am I a Pagan for understanding Joan of Arc and her teachings?
Please, I believe the question here is one of ignorance and waiting on the church to get up to speed with their attitudes. It's very sad that Tolkien had to break off his relationship with Lewis because he sinned.
It's disgusting to me, actually. We shun the sinner, when inactuality Christ preached -love the sinner for he is closer to God than you and me...I guess that doesn't count with marriages with divorced women. Rather, I think Tolkien sought not to stain his perfect image in society. One cannot associate with "that sort" of people.
By the way, did anyone see "Dogma"?

[mark12_30]

Tirned,

Have you read Tolkien's own brilliant essay, "On Fairy Stories"? Perhaps that might answer some of your questions. I would heartily recommend it as an essential peice for understanding Tolkien's outlook on faerie and mythos.

--mark12_30

[Tirned Tinnu]

Yes, in fact, I'm looking right at it. In it Tolkien brings up some decidedly "pagan" attitudes, as it has been put in this thread. To believe in "The Path to The Land of Faery" is far and away a "pagan" belief. What I am getting at here is that anything other than what is taught in the Bible is considered by many to be blasphemy. What I have wanted to know throughout my postings is why people can believe one thing and yet do another. That is heretical. In my opinion Tolkien was reaching far outside his "beliefs" in order to continue to live his dreams. I cannot speak for him but to quote him:
"Art has been verified. (Speaking of the validity and history of The Gloria) God is Lord of Angels, and of men - and of elves. Legend and history have met and fused."

So here we see Tolkien making obvious reference to the fact that The Bible is mythos just like any other legend. He states that "it has been proved". So he is making the assumption that since the validity of The Bible is "no longer in question" then God is there, presiding over even elves, Tolkien's work, even his world. Apparently he did not shun the idea that we can walk around in a world of our own making and yet can still be redeemed. Why then, as I have asked before, how then, in fact, does Tolkien gain the power to rewrite the attitudes of many Christians? Or CS Lewis, who now since we know he married a divorcee and has sinned - how can we take his word for it either?
Do you see what I'm getting at?

If we shun the myths or the doctrin of other beliefs from our minds (Because they are pagan) we limit our belief in God. We limit the way in which we get to know Him. Tolkien wrote about Faery and myths as a path to knowing God. So, in essence, to label other people as Pagan is not what Tolkien sought to do. He sought to make up his own world, with decidedly Paganist ideas (the middle road of imagination), that others might learn about myths and compare their origins to the way the Bible was made up, to see the actual pieces unfold, and understand why Christianity as a whole operates so efficiently! I wonder, though, as I have said before, why anyone in this thread would seek to tell others to "listen at their peril" to the teachings of men, who in my opinion, have done more for myth and Christianity than any others. Do any of you doubt that Lewis and Tolkien were not redeemed? And what of Campbell, who in his very presence seemed to give off peace and harmony, a completeness with the universe, an innocent and loving heart for God? Was he not taken into the loving embrace of Christ, even though he may have gone by a different name?
I realize these questions are hard to face. but face them as Christians we must, in order to understand only a small portion (that which man can try to comprehend) of the mind of God.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Tirned Tinnu ]

[mark12_30]

Tirned,

You wrote:

If we shun the myths or the doctrin of other beliefs from our minds (Because they are pagan) we limit our belief in God. We limit the way in which we get to know Him. Tolkien wrote about Faery and myths as a path to knowing God.

I would say that he wrote about Faery and Myths as a method of showing some truth in another setting; but he did not intend that the "other setting" be mistaken for the truth. Nor did he mistake it to be so. He still held that the gospel is the one entirely true myth. Therein lies the difference.

[merlilot]

I am of the mind that one cannot truly understand her own religion deviod of knowledge of others. Just my thoughts, of course...
I read myths and stuff for the simple fact that they make good stories and are a good tool for getting into the minds of other people...quite useful to an actress. I escpecially love Greek myths...

And I would like to give another kudos: to everyone who is being openminded and willing to see another side of the story. If there is one thing that irritates me, its closed mnds and stereotypes. Also, to the Christians, and to everyone who follows their beliefs devoutly, and finally to Craban, whom I am still praying for. I appreciate your graciouness in teh matter of prayer. The last person I told I would pray for sent me a strongly worded email about that subject. smilies/frown.gif (Hes stil on my list as well.)

[mark12_30]

InklingElf, and all, I was reading earlier up the thread, and i was wondering if any of you have charaters in Narnia that remind you of characters in Middle-Earth, and why. (Mithadan and/or the Barrow Wight will certainly want us to explain Why, and that's half the fun.)

I'll start.

Reepicheep reminds me of Boromir! Valiant to a fault, a little too obsessed with hopeless last stands and glory charges, and always willing to stand up in a meeting (impromptu or otherwise) and go on and on about the neccessity of military action and maintainging one's honor.

I love them both, of course.

[Bill Ferny]

Tinnu,

I'm afraid that you misunderstood my post. I wasn't trying to say that one should not listen to Dr. Hoeller! Quite the contrary, actually. My warning was simply that Dr. Hoeller calls himself a Christian, but according to our historical understanding of Christianity, he is not. He is often very unclear on that point. My view of Hoeller is based largely on a thorough reading of his books. So its pretty obvious that I’ve listened to the man, myself.

Thus, my warning is not for people to close their minds. Rather, it is an invitation for people to listen and read with critical ears and eyes. Just for the record I would never bad mouth Professor Campbell! His work on myth is utterly fantastic! (Myth is a story or collection of stories that attempt to (or do) express spiritual or religious truths. I can proudly say I’m a professed believer in the Christian Myth!) Putting Campbell and Hoeller on the same level? Well, personally, I think that’s a huge disservice to Professor Campbell. While Campbell looks at all mythology, including Christianity, with objectivity and the eye of the scientist, Hoeller looks at mythology with a subjective agenda.

When I used the word “pagan” I intended the more common usage of the word… a polytheism that’s tradition is pre-Christian European. I could have just as easily used the word “heathen”. No judgement of any type was intended. It was meant to be an example. Just because one reads and is fascinated by a certain mythology or many (as in the case of Tolkien) does not make them an adherent of the spiritual or religious truths that these mythologies express. Tolkien, just because he utilized these myths, doesn’t mean that he’s a polytheist who secretly worshiped Njord. Likewise, just because an agnostic writes a book about a Methodist minister, doesn’t make her anything more or less than an agnostic. In the same way, just because I can perceive a gnostic theme in something that Tolkien wrote, that does not make Tolkien an advocate of gnosticism.

I really was surprised by and interested in the lecture you provided, and did listen to it carefully. Hoeller, though, makes it seem as though Tolkien was a closet gnostic. That’s simply contrary to what he has said, and what his friends and family has said about him: that he was a rather conservative minded Roman Catholic.

I agree wholeheartedly that ancient mythologies are important, especially for the Christian. All myth contains the seeds of truth, and no myth should be ignored, even a modern reconstruction such as Tolkien’s Middle Earth. Plus, they can be a lot of fun to read. I’ve gotten hours of enjoyment from reading and rewriting Celtic mythology! But it would be wrong of me to force a meaning onto these myths, especially a subjective meaning that these myths never intended to express, and pass it off for fact.

[I have yet to read the rest of the many, MANY, posts that have gone up since I was last here. I felt it important to clarify my position as regards Hoeller, Campbell, and the virtues of an open mind. I’m going to start reading right now! smilies/rolleyes.gif ]

[Mithuial]

notice how in the C. of Narnia there are four children and in LotR there are 4 hobbits! lol! I think that's just coincidence, but many times the children do remind me a lot of the hobbits on the quest. I can see where you think Reepicheep is like Boromir, but I think Reepicheep is cooler (maybe cuz he's a mouse), and has a less corruptable heart. I think Caspian reminds me a tad of Aragorn. (?) Mr. Beaver and Mrs. Beaver remind me a little of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, but maybe that's stretching it, and now your all starting to laugh at me. smilies/wink.gif

[mark12_30]

Mithuial,

Caspian (as he was in Voyage) and Tirian were probably my favorite Narnians, and now you've got me thinking. Hmmm.

I think Tirian and Faramir, maybe, because of The Anticipation Of The End, and living in the shadow of The End. Faramir got out of it, but Tirian didn't. Tirian got to see the world drowning (through the door) like Faramir dreamed of (Numenor.)

Caspian: hmmm..... I want to say Amroth, for loving a woman across the sea... although Caspian did get to marry the star's daughter. Who else married a star's daughter? Earendil-> Elrond->Arwen. So, Aragorn, I guess. But it's not the same. Hmmm....

Caspian almost reminds me of Legolas, carefully building a boat, and sailing off in pursuit (sort of) of old comrades, to the ends of the world.

I'll have to think about his some more!!

[ElanorGamgee]

Shasta from The Horse and His Boy kind of reminds me of Pippin, mostly because he is so small and insignificant at the beginning of the story yet rises to save Narnia from invasion, just as Pippin plays his role to save Middle-earth and grows up in the process. Also, Shasta's feelings of insecurity and weakness remind me of how Pippin thinks of himself as "baggage" during his capture by the Uruk-hai. Puddleglum makes me think of Treebeard for some reason, maybe because both of them are kind of slow and solemn, although Treebeard isn't nearly as pessimistic.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: ElanorGamgee ]

[Tirned Tinnu]

Whooo... I'm glad we all ironed that out. As for the word "heathen", good grief, man! Heathen is the wrong word altogether. It means "strange" and "uncivilized." Please, I beg of you, when you use words to describe other people's religions to keep them in terms which are agreeable. We are, after all, "civilized" Christians, aren't we?

As for my favorite character in Narnia, it's Puddleglum the Marsh Wiggle. I found that it was he who lead Pole and Eustus (sic?) to find Caspian's son - and acted as a leader and scout though his fears were plain and his complaints many. By the time all are safe and sound, we've learned that not all Puddleglum's fears were false, and that he is filled with interesting wisdom.
Oh, and I have just recently been introduced to eel! It's most tasty. I would certainly like to take a nice afternoon by his wigwam to have some of his delicious eel stew!
smilies/tongue.gif

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Tirned Tinnu ]

[Mithuial]

I love Puddleglum! And, I think I agree that Caspian is like Legolas. He has the whole Legolas personality. I always thought he was a tad elvish. I dunno. But I think even more so he's like a Dunedain; adventurous, but rather of choice than of need (unlike Aragorn) and he makes a good king. He also was a restorer just as Aragorn was. Caspian reestablished the Old Kingdom of Narnia with the Talking Beasts, etc. and Aragorn reestablished the rule of the Numemorean line. Yes, and I love Caspian, too!

[Bill Ferny]

LOL!

One of my best friends in the Army put Heathenism his dog tags. He was serious too. Sigh... heathen doesn't always mean uncultured... it could actually mean just the plain old original meaning: someone who doesn't believe in the God of the bible.

So tell me... is there a politically correct enough name out there? Perhaps we should call them... ummm... how about "many male/female supreme being respecters". smilies/wink.gif

[Tirned Tinnu]

*Tinnu snorts*
Irm, what about their religion of choice, like...Wiccans, Druids, Nature-Worshippers, Santerians, New-Agers, Polytheists, Gardnerians, Gaians,...should I go on? I see that Christians are vehemently upset at being called by other denominational names... *sigh* nice of you to joke, anyways. I like a good *SNORT!* every once in a while. smilies/tongue.gif

[HerenIstarion]

Heathen is the wrong word altogether. It means "strange" and "uncivilized

on the other hand, "civilization" means only "art of living in a town", and who told you all of us are towners? smilies/rolleyes.gif

[mark12_30]

Returning to Tolkien and C. S. Lewis: "How about those retired stars!" Do Coriakin and/or Ramandu remind you of anybody in Tolkien's works?

Puddleglum... sometimes Boromir behaved like that-- gloomy, I mean... Although, actually, one could describe Bilbo like that. Frequently complaining about his lack of teakettle and homey fireplace, but in the end, leading and coming to the forefront.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[InklingElf]

mark12_30: yes, hhmmm Peter reminds me of Aragorn in a way who else?

[merlilot]

Coriakin and Ramandu remind me of Tom in a way...

[Nar]

Very fun question! Coriakin reminds me of Gandalf in his personality and how he treats his one-legged Mumph-a-somethings: crusty but kind. However, Ramandu does NOT remind me of Saruman in the least-- maybe of Elrond, though, because of the serene wisdom, long memory, beautiful and wise daughter, which would make Caspian a bit like a young Aragorn. I love the comparison between Boromir and Reepicheep! Reep's my favorite character-- I was so happy for him when he went over that wave at the end of the world. Rillian's maybe something like Faramir in getting trapped in his own mind by bad magic and needing help to get out. Puddleglum and Bilbo-- brilliant! Like that one.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[mark12_30]

Monopods... Dufflepuds!!! They remind me (a little) of The Gaffer, or I suppose closed-minded hobbits, except that the gaffer often comes out with real pithy wisdom, while the dufflepuds just have a running inane commentary. But the attitudes seem similar to me.

Coriakin and Gandalf-- good one! Love the Ramandu/Elrond connection, complete with daughter and prince.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[InklingElf]

aaarrrgghh-sorry everyone for not posting for such a long time!-School you see.... Well on Lewis' chracters and Tolkien's -ummm Lucy would be like Frodo and Edmund sort of like Boromir... smilies/biggrin.gif

[Arie]

Alright!-I'm now officialy mad that I wasn't here for a VERY long time! Anyway something just came into mind...My mom bought me this book on The Chronicles of Narnias' morals etc... I loved it! it brought the essence of what Lewis was trying to express in his books...Have you read it?

[InklingElf]

Hello everyone! Glad this thread is going again-and Yes Arie I loved it very much aswell! I liked the fact it had allot of quotes that I can relate to

[InklingElf]

I have a questioin-that I hope will not cause controversy-just wondering about the events in The Lord of the Rings-I heard some people talk about the book itself and the events in the Bible...WHat events in the Bible or any other book has a relation to Tolkien's work?

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Hail and Well Met, Inkling Elf!

* bows an introductory greeting * smilies/smile.gif

To answer your question, here are slightly-amended copies of two posts I made in a thread called "Seasonal Symbolism."

1)Two obvious Biblical references, nay dates, that come to mind:

December 25 - The Fellowship of the Ring sets forth from Rivendell.

March 25 - The Ring is destroyed at Mt. Doom.

A journey from Christmas to Good Friday, perhaps?

2) For having done a brief bit of research, I wish to slightly amend my earlier comment.

According to a website called "From Bethlehem to Calvary," I should not have marked March 25th as Good Friday, but rather as Easter. (Though actually, while I am now proposing a connection between March 25th and Easter, I would still like to stand by Good Friday, due to all that Good Friday represents.)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Jesus-story, it will now be seen, has a greater number of correspondences with the stories of former Sungods and with the actual career of the Sun through the heavens - so many indeed that they cannot well be attributed to mere coincidence or even to the blasphemous wiles of the Devil! Let us enumerate some of these. There are (1) birth from a Virgin mother; (2) the birth in a stable (cave or underground chamber); and (3) on the 25th December (just after the winter solstice). There is (4) the Star in the East (Sirius) and (5) the arrival of the Magi (the 'Three King's); there is (6) the threatened Massacre of the Innocents, and the consequent flight into a distant country (told also of Krishna and other Sungods). There are the Church festivals of (7) Candlemas (2nd February), with processions of candles to symbolize the growing light; of (8) Lent, or the arrival of Spring; of (9) Easter Day (normally on 25th March) to celebrate the crossing of the Equator by the Sun; and (10) simultaneously the outburst of lights at the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above quote comes from the website at the following URL: http://www.netnews.org/bk/bethlehem/beth1019.html

And of course any speak soothly who say that the date on which Good Friday is commemorated varies from year to year.

* bows *

Gandalf the Grey

[InklingElf]

My utmost greetings to you wise wanderer smilies/smile.gif

aaaahhh yes I shall check that thread!-I understand this was a well researched topic...I believe the connection to Good Friday is quite possible.... and something has also come u on my mind....About the fligt to Bruinen-and this is a very obvious one i suspect-I sensed a connection to the Exodus. Do you have a comment on this?

::bows once again::

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: InklingElf ]

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Hullo again InklingElf,

I like your name, btw.

As for your seeing a connection between the flight to the Ford of Bruinen and the Parting of the Red Sea in which Pharoah's horses and charioteers eventually were drownded, thank you for pointing out this connection. And after the crossing of the Ford, there is a lengthy time of trial and purgation spent wandering deserted wastelands, eating manna/lembas. Now that you mention it, I can agree with you as to the similarities ... on my own, I'd never looked at it that way, so you've taught me something new. smilies/smile.gif

At your Service,

Gandalf the Grey

[Elanor-of-Lorien]

Hi all. This is my first post here...I have loved reading this thread and seeing the different ways that we have all experienced Tolkien, Lewis, and others...

I am too, one of those people who get wrapped up in the story. I find myself often thinking unconsciously of the story, the characters...and I recently asked myself "how is it that Tolkien's middle-earth, his characters, get into my heart?" I don't really have an answer for this yet, except to say that we have an innate need for something beyond ourselves...and somehow Tolkien has tapped into that need to speak to our hearts. Perhaps it's the people we want to be. People that have depth of character and honor like Aragorn, that have the faithfulness of Sam, that have the wisdom of Gandalf.

As to the "theology" of Tolkien...he himself states that he detests allegory and that he never intended his writings to be allegorical. However, I think the power of his writing is that it is open to interpretation...it speaks to the heart of the reader. For example, I love classical literature. It moves me to the depths of my soul...I have sometimes felt guilty for being so moved by Tolkien or Dumas, yet not by the words of my Savior. But my husband (knowing my love), recently pointed out to me that I can experience and draw closer to God through literature (not to discount the necessity of God's word). In fact, many times after reading something - especially Tolkien - I find myself drawn to prayer and worship...furthermore, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings have given voice to many emotions and experiences that I could not otherwise voice.

Did he mean to be allegorical? No. Did he mean to thread his theology throughout his writings? Being a Christian, with a Christian worldview, of course he wrote out of this. However unlike Lewis who was deliberately writing a "Christian" book in the Narnia Chronicles, Tolkien was a Christian who was writing a story...

Just a few of my ramblings...it's nice to join in on a topic like this...I hope I didn't go too far off base.

[TolkienGurl]

Exactly. Tolkien didn't mean to refer to the Bible. It just kind of happened. At least that's what I've gathered from everyone else. smilies/biggrin.gif

[elvenchristian]

Hey all.

This is my first post here but Iv'e tryed to read up on what you've all been talking about. In her last post TolkienGurl said that she didn't think Tolkien intended for his christianity to permeate his books, it just happened.

I agree and would not be in the least bit surprised to find this to be the case. As a believer myself I have a hard enough time carrying on a conversation without mentioning my spiritual experiences let alone writing a book without saying anything.

I think that it is natural for a TRUE follower of Christ to refer constantly to their Saviour. Tolkien could have tried to prevent his spiritual beliefs from coming out and they probably still would have anyway.

That's just my thoughts on the subject. I've been pretty impressed by the quality of discussion here and am looking forward to participating.

[InklingElf]

-::bows:: welcome elvenchristian (hehehe cool name) I'm glad you like this thread-I'm pretty impressed by everyone my self

-Elanor-of-Lorien hello there too smilies/smile.gif glad you came by-I agree w/ your point of view a bit-because I can see that it isdeliberately a fantasy book-but I also believe Tolkien meant to have Theologyin his works....

-Gandalf_theGrey ::smile:: i'm glad-::bows to the Grey wanderer:: I hope you come by often to speak your views on Theology

-Tolkien Gurl-I also thank you for your view-but I also think Tolkien meant to put theology (ahem saying it again) in his work-It takes alot of brain power and research to include Theology in fantasy-whether it's hard to see or not...

[TolkienGurl]

InklingElf: I haven't read a biography on Tolkien, so that was just my point of view. I didn't want to make an absolute statement, because I didn't really know the answer. Unless he actually said that, we shouldn't assume things because they may not be true. That's really cool if he did mean to incorporate the Bible into LOTR, Silm, etc. Next to it they are my favorite books! smilies/biggrin.gif

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

[Arie]

wow!some pretty deep stuff here! anyway on Theology and why I think Tolkien really did mean to put ot in his writing
1. He was influenced by Lewis
2. He did it because he wanted to leave evidence that he is a christian

-Ultimately, that's pretty much it

[Elanor-of-Lorien]

It's always fun, of course, to debate...

Seeing as how I don't know Tolkien personally *wink,wink*, I too, do not intend to make any absolute statements about what he did or did not intend to put in his writings (be it theology or otherwise).

But I will say it again, Tolkien was a Christian and therefore wrote from a Christian worldview. The worldview we each hold is sort of like a road map or glasses, if you will, which we view the world through. Of course his story will have the undertones of redemption, sacrifice, salvation, temptation...etc. The very things he believed strongly in.

But I digress again. Here's what the man himself said (don't remember where else I've read this, but this particular quote comes from the 1965 edition forward)

"The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people...and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide, i had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving...As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical or topical."

Someone said it above, but hobbitlore.com has a great biography on Tolkien...

So, the debate continues...
smilies/wink.gif

[elvenchristian]

I'm going to have to disagree with Arie on both her points.

First, although I'm not that educated on the subject, I believe that it was Tolkien who had a greater influence on Lewis' life, not the other way around. In CS Lewis' SURPRISED BY JOY he states that Tolkien was influential in his eventual conversion to christianity.

Second, I think that if one wants to leave evidence of being a christian for after one is gone, then that person would write a book which addresses that issue directly. If I want people to know that I am a believer I will write a book on how I became one, not a fantasy that might be misinterpreted.

I don't think that Tolkien thought that if he put his beleifs in his stories that everyone would remember him for his christianity. He probably just wanted to write an entertaining story that all could enjoy, and it just happened that his beleifs crept into his writing

[Alcerin]

WoW! I've got alot to cover!

I really wish I was as good with words as most of you are, smilies/frown.gif but I will say what I can...

Elanor,TolkienGurlandelvenchristian,you have said exactly what I feel within my heart every time I read Tolkien or Lewis.
Also,though Tolkien did greatly influence Lewis' salvation, afterwards you cannot tell who influnced the other the most, becuase in fact,they influenced each other! It was inevitable that Lewis and Tolkien meet,it was not inevitable that they should become friends ~The Magic Never Ends~at the meetings of "the inklings" the group of authers had a unique opportunity to critique each others writings.
Hmm... as to my favourite book....in the Narnia series it is The Magicians Nephew,perhaps because I am so interested in creation,indeed it boggles my mind that God is so powerful...yet he is! Mere Christianityis such a great book I cannot even say whether i like it or not,it is simply great,Lewis is a geneous for writing a book so logical,it can hardly be dissagreed with-the reader is forced to believe it!!! The Lord of The Rings trilogy is the best of its kind,and really,I have to say that both Tolkien and Lewis remind me of Gandalf smilies/wink.gif smilies/biggrin.gif smilies/smile.gif smilies/biggrin.gif smilies/wink.gif
Hey! I had'nt thought of the comparison between Saul and Denethor...it is fascinating what the human mind is capable of!

WoW I cant believe I said this much...and I still have more to say!!!!!!!

[TolkienGurl]

*waves a friendly greeting to elvenchristian*
Many people are misinterpreting Tolkien's books - even on this board! Some people have said that Tolkien was trying to use occultism, and influence people to follow that "religion." He took qualities from mythology, not occultism!

If Tolkien wanted to tell everyone that he was a Christian, he would have written books like C.S.Lewis did.

BTW, I'm going to read Lewis' books. Are they good? I've heard good things about Mere Christianity.

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

[InklingElf]

-TolkienGurl-::nods:: I think I'll start to read Mere Christianity -I did a book report on Lewis once in 6th grade and -I included the book in my chronology

[elvenchristian]

Oh man TolkienGurl.

Are they good?

They're awesome. I just finished Mere Christianity, Surprised By Joy, and Pilgrim's Regress, an allegory of Lewis's search for christianity in the style of Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan [another book I reccomend]. I'm in the middle of God in the Dock right now and it is great. All of these are great books which I highly reccomend.

Later All.

[elvenchristian]

Has anybody here read the book Finding God in the Lord of the Rings? I'm thinking of reading it and wanted to see what evryone thought about the book.

[TolkienGurl]

I've heard its really good. I have it but I haven't read it yet. Darn homework! smilies/smile.gif

[InklingElf]

-elvenchristian- :;nods:; yes I've read Finding God in the Lord of the Rings and thought that it was magnificentin exposing the Theological factors in the trilogy smilies/smile.gif -I think you'd enjoy it!

[Carannillion]

Just a thought: If the "incorporation" of Christianity in Tolkien's books just "happened", was Tolkien aware of it? Did he not become aware of it before somebody pointed it out? Did he ever try to avoid it or re-write to make it less evident?

Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of Letters has anythng on this...?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Quite the opposite happened, Carannillion; Tolkien rewrote passages of his books to make them more consistent with his Christian beliefs. In one of his letters, he says: "...and consciously so in the revision." You can read more in this thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001436) of the same title.

[InklingElf]

Estelyn and Carnnillion-I quite agree with the fact that Tolkien did actually know that there was Christian content in his books---and as Estelyn says he rewrote passages in the book so that they're more consistent w/ his Christian beliefs.... Tolkien-being smart as he is-I believe he deliberately added Christianity to his books....

[elvenchristian]

Hey everybody,

I just finished reading the book Finding God In The Lord Of The Rings. Just wanted to say that I was really disappointed with it. It was really simplistic and I expected something alot deeper from a book about Middle Earth and Christianity. The conclusions drawn in the book can be seen easily without having them pointed out. Anyone can draw the conclusion that the ring is a little like sin and that Sauron is kinda like Satan. I was really dissapointed in the book and would not reccomend it to anyone. It's a waste of your time. You'd be better off drawing your own conclusions than listening to the simple ones presented in this book.

[InklingElf]

-elvenchristian- w/ my utmost sincerity- I hope you will be the first one to come up with a better book smilies/smile.gif-and I agree it was very simplistic-although i like it very much...

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: InklingElf ]

[InklingElf]

can anyone provide a brief synopsis of The ScrewTape Letters? -I know a bit of information -like the fact that the Devil is instructing an apprentice-Screwtape in tempting humanity to sin but that's about it...

[Kiara]

InklingElf:
I've read "screwtape" and what you know about it is a pretty good one-line summary. it is a very interesting look at what could possibly be the way that demons interact and "feed" upon us through our sin. it is not necessarly THE devil himself who is speaking, but another higher-level demon, and the ending is consistent with the already kinda twisted theme. I do know that Lewis said that writing it made him feel sick to his stomach, but that he wanted to explore that type of theme anyway...

[Kiara]

Does that help at all? smilies/smile.gif

[InklingElf]

Yes thx!-Now I understand...

[Arie]

-InklingElf-
Here is a good synopsis from a site I found:
Synopsis of the Screwtape Letters
"The Screwtape Letters" is fiction. But only fiction in the sense that the characters and the dialogue sprang from the imagination of one of the greatest modern Christian writers. Yet in our terrestrial reality the issues confronted in this book play out in our lives every day.

The book contains thirty-one letters from Screwtape to his nephew, Wormwood, who is screwtape's underling in fiendishness. Screwtape is an upper-level functionary in the complex bureaucracy of the underworld. The "Screwtape Letters" are friendly advice from this elder statesman to a front-line tempter on how to procure the soul of his "patient", a young Christian man just trying to live out his everyday life.

We get the letters only from one side of the correspondence (Screwtape's), yet the story of the meanderings of the Christian "patient's" soul is clearly read between the lines. The letters begin with Wormwood's failure to keep his subject from becoming a Christian. The urbane Screwtape informs him that, although this is an alarming development, his patient is by no means lost to the dark forces of evil.

World War II serves as the backdrop for the Letters. Yet war and strife do not play a significant roll in the work. The book is about more everyday and universal problems. Problems every individual must deal with even today.

Thus, each letter addresses various aspects of the travails of the human soul and how the devil tempts that soul away from goodness and toward evil - not evil on a grand scale, but evil on a petty scale. They show how evil can seep into a Christian's relationships with friends and family, in his views on the church, even in his practice of prayer.

As each letter unfolds, we find the Christian "patient" slipping more and more out of the hands of Wormwood and his temptations. Screwtape's advice to the tempter becomes more firm and yet more subtle. And, by degrees, we come to see the workings of evil in our own hearts. "The Screwtape Letters" is a book that entertains while it instructs. It is a book to be treasured and studied.

It was from:The ScrewTapw Letters [Synopsis] (http://www.biblestudyinfo.com/screwtape/synopsis.shtml)

[hehehe]

Hello I'm new smilies/smile.gif-Even better-I have here and analysis...

>The correspondence of devils would not be an easy composition for most writers. Yet C. S. Lewis was a master at revealing subtleties of the diabolical mind. We find Screwtape to be urbane, intelligent, witty and even charming. These qualities are tools. Like a hammer or a screwdriver, in the right hands they can build a cathedral. In the wrong hands they could destroy a high-speed turbine in motion.

Through the "Screwtape Letters" we come to realize that evil seldom pops up as the genocidal maniac slaughtering millions (though it does on occasion show up in the guise of a Stalin or a Hitler). For individuals, it generally takes the form of little urgings that come from within, telling us to respond brusquely to a family member or to frown on that poor soul in the neighboring pew with the funny hat.

It is evil in our everyday lives that Screwtape addresses, petty evils that add up in the end to the destruction of our morality, the demise of our individuality and the utter destruction of our souls.

The book is sprinkled with advice from Screwtape to his nephew, Wormwood, telling him what he must do to gain the soul of a Christian for the underworld. This mostly involves "muddying the waters". That is: not allowing the "patient" to clearly see the truth. Thus we are shown how evil is overcome by simple, clear actions and thought.

In the end we find that the battle between good and evil is fought out on the field of our relationships with others and most of all our relationship with God.

Each Letter has something important to say, and should be read and reviewed in detail

>i luv that book!
smilies/biggrin.gif smilies/biggrin.gif

[hehehe]

elvenchristian&InklingElf
-Yes, the Finding God in the Lord of the Rings was a bit simplistic but I liked it very very much!
-It was great hoe the author(s) added some quotes and passages from lotr and the bible...-This book was very well thought of-though very simplistic-even-non-christians can understand

[InklingElf]

This must be a very good book! Arie-The point that World War II was involved in this fills me with a slight grief-because even know the wounds of that war still exists and will always be there...to thelastbattle-ahh!my favorite book of the Chronicles of Narnia! I bid you welcome!-I can tell you are a very humble fellow and will get along fine at the BarrowDowns-thankyou for your analysis-it has helped me better understand it...so Wormwood is a nephew afterall!

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: InklingElf ]

[Kiara]

no, actually the nephew is "Wormwood" smilies/evil.gif

[InklingElf]

har har har -Typo

[Arie]

InklingElf-I read ScrewTape but do you possibly know any other of Lewis: essays etc? -and if you do can you give a synopsis about them? thx! AND: since you know allot about his CHronicles series-can you provide some Themes and Motifs from The Lion,The WItch and the Wardrobe?-you see I'm doing a report on it and I need help ASAP!
smilies/eek.gif

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: Arie ]

[Kiara]

Maybe I can help a bit too?

If you want fiction, he wrote a planetary series that I have read twice and just think are brilliant (I love Lewis' style). There are 3 of them, and they are actually rather quick reads, except for the last one which gets a bit heavy at times. They are about the inter-planetary travels (and the results) of a man named Ransom who is a linguist and a walker (he loves to take walking trips across England). He stumbles upon a couple of men who are making experiments on planetary travel, and it all starts there....Great books!

Lewis also wrote a TON of non-fiction: God in the Docks; Mere Christianity; Surprised by Joy (I think?) are a few of them, though I could be wrong, please check my resources anyone who cares to. His philosophy & theology are great to read, and I love the man's heart and mind as much as I do Tolkien's. Check him out! Also check out this website, there is a TON of info on it (and a forum like there is here on the Downs): cslewis.drzeus.net (http://cslewis.drzeus.net)

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: Kiara ]

[InklingElf]

ok Arie, here's my contribution:

Themes, Motifs, and Symbols

Themes


The Danger of Gluttony - Critics have proposed that each of the seven novels in The Chronicles of Narnia addresses one of the seven deadly sins. Whether or not this is true, it is certainly the case that The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe specifically focuses on gluttony. Edmund's descent into the Witch's service begins during his frantic consumption of the magic Turkish Delight. Since this is enchanted Turkish Delight, Edmund cannot be held accountable for his gluttony as if he were overindulging in ordinary candy. The real sin occurs when Edmund allows himself to fixate on the Turkish Delight long after he leaves the Witch. Edmund's consumption of the Turkish Delight may also be a reference to the sin of Adam and Eve, when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Adam and Eve also committed a sin of consumption, and God punishes them as well. Edmund's gluttony for the Turkish Delight alludes to Adam and Eve's desire to eat the apple.


The Power of Satan - Edmund is a traitor and his life is forfeit to the White Witch, just as any sinner's life is forfeit to Satan after death without the intervention of God. The White Witch may not be an exact representation of Satan—the imagery that surrounds her does not quite fit that of the devil himself. Perhaps she is a servant of Satan and an overlord of Narnia—Narnia's special patron demon. The Witch claims the lives of all Narnians who sin irrevocably, an allusion to Satan's claim of the souls of such sinners.


Humankind's Redemption - Not everything in Narnia directly parallels the story of Jesus, but the similarities are too striking to ignore. Aslan sacrifices his life to save Edmund, just as Christ gave his life to save mankind. Through Aslan's death, Edmund's sin is expunged, and Edmund is permitted to live. Similarly, mankind is permitted to live in heaven now that Christ's death has expunged Adam's original sin when he disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. Lewis's goal is to present us with a variation on the Christian legend. Narnia presents us with a different perspective on faith, and helps the story of Jesus come to life.


Motifs


Seasons - The Witch imposes an enchanted, eternal winter on Narnia, symbolizing a dead, stagnant time. Nothing grows, animals hibernate, and people crouch around fires rather than enjoying the outdoors. Nearly every human being has a visceral negative reaction to winter, even when it is a normal length. We can imagine how quickly an eternal winter would become intolerable. The Witch's winter destroys the beauty and the life in Narnia. There is a pristine appeal to woods blanketed in snow and frozen waterfalls, but our overall impression is one of a barren, empty land. The season of winter represents that Narnia has fallen under an evil regime. As snow falls, so does the land of Narnia. The Witch's snow hides all traces of Aslan or the Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea. Narnia is undoubtedly bleak and grim.
How much more wondrous, then, is the spring that occurs when Aslan arrives in Narnia. Of course, Christmas occurs before spring can come, because Christmas is the birth of Christ. It is Christmas that signals hope for mankind: with the birth of Christ, we are given the hope of new life. Spring follows Christmas and all of a sudden the woods are completely alive—flowers are blooming, springs and brooks are chuckling, birds are singing, and delightful smells waft past on gentle breezes. This is no ordinary spring, just as the Witch's winter was no ordinary winter. The spring is just as enchanted as the winter, only now Narnia is experiencing the epitome of life rather than death.


Symbols


Aslan - In the allegory of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Aslan represents Christ. Aslan's death to save Edmund's life and his subsequent resurrection are clear references to the life of Christ. Lewis's novel makes some essential changes to the figure of Christ that makes Aslan more accessible to children than the Christ they learn about in church. Lewis's method worked well—he even received a letter from a very distraught little boy pleading for help because he could not help loving Aslan more than Jesus, even though he knew he was supposed to love Jesus above everything else. The very shift from a man to a lion is quite significant. Christ is a human being, which is both confusing and compelling, particularly for a child. Christ seems almost too familiar to a small child, blurring the boundary between a god who deserves reverence and a friend who deserves affection. The beauty of the figure of a lion is that a child would have no problems showing both emotions for a lion. A lion, as king of the forest, is fearful and intimidating. The lion is also a big cat, and Lewis emphasizes this side of Aslan by depicting him as romping and playing merrily with the children. A talking animal at once inspires love and respect, magic and mystery. Lewis adapts the figure of Jesus for children while still maintaining all the essential characteristics of Christ.


The Stone Table - The Stone Table refers to the stone tablets that Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai, according to the Bible. These tablets contain the Ten Commandments and they represent an older, stricter form of religion. In the days when the Ten Commandments were brought down from the mountain, infractions against God would be punishable by death—retribution was swift, harsh, and irrevocable. When Aslan rises from the dead, the Stone Table is shattered, signifying the end of an older, crueler time and the advent of a newer, kinder era. Aslan has defeated death by rising from the dead, signaling the end of harsh customs and death as an acceptable punishment. Instead, human beings enforce justice and mete out punishments.


The sea - There are only a few passing references to the sea in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but they are significant because of the context. We only get a glimpse of the sea and we learn that the Emperor-Over-the-Sea, who is Aslan's father, is God himself. The sea becomes a boundary between Narnia, the Earth, and "Aslan's country," or heaven. Lewis reveals in later novels, such as Voyage of the Dawn Treader, that it is actually possible to physically sail across the sea to Aslan's country. Moreover, the sea is also a boundary between Narnia and our world. In traditional imagery, the sea often represents death, and that seems rather appropriate here—but not death in the sense that we have come to know and dread it, as the Grim Reaper with a hood and a scythe, rather, it is death that is life, or death as rebirth into heaven.

-Hope that helps!




smilies/biggrin.gif

[InklingElf]

I believe the quotations in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe are very important too-here's what I have:

Important Quotations

1. "The White Witch?" said Edmund; "who's she?"
"She is a perfectly terrible person," said Lucy. "She calls herself the Queen of Narnia thought she has no right to be queen at all, and all the Fauns and Dryands and Naiads and Dwarfs and Animals—at least all the good ones—simply hate her. And she can turn people into stone and do all kinds of horrible things. And she has made a magic so that it is always winter in Narnia—always winter, but it never gets to Christmas. And she drives about on a sledge, drawn by reindeer, with her wand in her hand and a crown on her head."
Edmund was already feeling uncomfortable from having eaten too many sweets, and when he heard that the Lady he had made friends with was a dangerous witch he felt even more uncomfortable. But he still wanted to taste that Turkish Delight more than he wanted anything else. [Explanation]

2. And now a very curious thing happened. None of the children knew who Aslan was any more than you do; but the moment the Beaver had spoken [his name] everyone felt quite different…. At the name of Aslan each one of the children felt something jump in its inside. Edmund felt a sensation of mysterious horror. Peter felt suddenly brave and adventurous. Susan felt as if some delicious smell or some delightful strain of music had just floated by her. And Lucy got the feeling you have when you wake up in the morning and realize that it is the beginning of the holidays or the beginning of summer.

3. "Aslan?" said Mr. Beaver. "Why, don't you know? He's the King. He's the Lord of the whole wood, but not often here, you understand. Never in my time or my father's time. But the word has reached us that he has come back. He is in Narnia at this moment. He'll settle the White Queen all right. It is he, not you, that will save Mr. Tumnus."
"Is—is he a man?" asked Lucy.
"Aslan a man!" Mr. Beaver said sternly. "Certainly not. I tell you he is the King of the wood and the son of the great Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea. Don't you know who is the King of Beasts? Aslan is a lion—the Lion, the great Lion."
"Ooh!" said Susan, "I'd thought he was a man. Is he—quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion."
"That you will, dearie, and no mistake," said Mrs. Beaver; "if there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they're either braver than most or else just silly."

4. "Have you forgotten the Deep Magic?" asked the Witch.
"Let us say I have forgotten it," answered Aslan gravely. "Tell us of this Deep Magic."
"Tell you?" said the Witch, her voice growing suddenly shriller. "Tell you what is written on that very Table of Stone which stands beside us? Tell you what is written in letters deep as a spear is long on the fire-stones on the Secret Hill? Tell you what is engraved on the scepter of the Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea? You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to kill…. And so that human creature is mine. His life is forfeit to me. His blood is my property… unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water."
"It is very true," said Aslan, "I do not deny it."

5. At that moment they heard from behind them a loud noise—a great cracking, deafening noise as if a giant had broken a giant's plate…. The Stone Table was broken into two pieces by a great crack that ran down it from end to end; and there was no Aslan.
"Who's done it?" cried Susan. "What does it mean? Is it more magic?"
"Yes!" said a great voice from behind their backs. "It is more magic." They looked round. There, shining in the sunrise, larger than they had seen him before, shaking his mane (for it had apparently grown again) stood Aslan himself.
"Oh, Aslan!" cried both the children, staring up at him, almost as much frightened as they were glad….
"But what does it all mean?" asked Susan when they were somewhat calmer.
"It means," said Aslan, "that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward."

[InklingElf]

Kiara- thx for your PM -I think your contributions are great too smilies/wink.gif

[InklingElf]

For long months I have let this thread go dormant. I apologize for that, but please know I won't let that happen anymore...

On the ScrewTape Letters. Has anyone been reading it? I still haven't bought the book but I'm planning to soon. Once I've read it I will begin an in-depth study on it. YOu may join me if you would like.

Please tell me about any other books you are interested in discussing in this thread. Thank You-and I hope to hear from you soon. smilies/smile.gif

[Iarwain]

I started Screwtape a while ago, read about fifteen pages, and then stopped. The letters are too obvious. THe only problem I have with it is that while reading, you get at what Lewis is saying far too easily. Of course, I'm just saying this from fifteen pages... smilies/wink.gif

Iarwain

P.S. Just like to say that I like the topic of this thread (though I haven't read most of the posts) and that Jack is my favorite author, with Tolkien in a near second. smilies/biggrin.gif

[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[InklingElf]

Thanks Iarwain! Yes, Jack is one of my favorite authors aswell.
BTW: I've been reading Out of the Silent Planet, one of the books in his sci-fi trilogy. I'm half-way done-I think it's pretty interesting, considering that it was his first attempt to write a science fiction story.

[Iarwain]

It is a good book, Perelandra is way, way better though.

Enjoy! smilies/biggrin.gif ,
Iarwain

[InklingElf]

Please tell me more about Perelandra. I don't think I've heard of it before-is it Lewis?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Please remember that this is a Tolkien forum; discussions of C.S.Lewis' works should be related to Tolkien and his works. (Kiara provided a link to a Lewis forum for those who wish to discuss his works there.) A good example of a comparative discussion can be found on the Maiar=eldila? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002818) thread. That should interest all who have read Lewis' Space Trilogy.

(Aside to Iarwain - I agree; Perelandra is my favorite of the Space Trilogy as well!)

[InklingElf]

Alright Estelyn no problem smilies/biggrin.gif

I guess I have two good books to find now-i'm planning to go to Barnes & Noble tommorow smilies/wink.gif

BTW: Yes, I think Perelandra the planet was mentioned in Out of the Silent Planet-and Ransom is supposed to be old in the book you and Estelyn were talking about...ok this ends the discussion about Lewis' sci-fi books-In this thread anyway.

[ January 30, 2003: Message edited by: InklingElf ]

[InklingElf]

Argh! I wasn't able to get the Scretape Letters-or Perelandra! Sorry Iarwain Perelandra will have to wait smilies/frown.gif

But I was able to get the Lost Road and this book of Tolkien's Middle-Earth Paintings...

On the Lost Road. I started on it and I haven't much to discuss about it yet.
What about you Estelyn &Iarwain? Did you read it yet? It's pretty good so far smilies/biggrin.gif

::Looks downs at her book again::
the inlkings of greatness...

[Iarwain]

I've never managed to get a copy. Sounds quite captivating, though. Isn't it out of print? Is the other book "JRRT, Artist and Illustrator"? I have that too. It's pretty informative, though I've never read the whole thing.

Iawain

[ February 04, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Iarwain]

Sorry for the double post, but this doesn't quite fit with the previous. To respond to your last very lengthy post from Dec 3 at 7:36 P.M, I think it is very funny that Lewis wrote quite that way. He is writing to children in quote number 2 about numinous appreciation of God. Its very interesting, because if you ever read "The Problem of Pain", he talks specifically about that in exactly that way.

IArwain

[InklingElf]

Iarwain, I don't mind the double post-I do it quite frequently myself smilies/wink.gif


The Problem of Pain. Hmmm, you know I have alot to catch up with! No, I have not read it yet but i'm glad I was able to say like Lewis intended...I'll read a synopsis of it online if I can-but if you could provide me with one I'll be glad to read it smilies/biggrin.gif

And one more thing Iarwain, the illustrated book is entitled:Tolkien's World:Paintings of Middle-earth. It has various paintings from different artists such as Jhon Howe and Alan Lee etc. Is that the one that's out of print? It was the last one on the shelf so I took it.

On The Lost Road and other writings:
I got up to Chapter II:Alboin and Audoin.
I think Alboin is quite a bit like Tolkien in his younger years. Alboin is constantly into Linguistics,and always coming up with his own languages...

Question: Is it really supposed to be like that? Did Tolkien write it as some sort of reflection of himself?

[Iarwain]

No, actually, Tolkien's World is not out of print, and I have a copy of it also. The book I was thinking of was "J.R.R. Tolkien, Artist and Illustrator" which has tons of different paintings, drawings, etc. by Tolkien himself. Its quite amazing (also not out of print). You could get some interesting analysis out of the Lost Road, if it's that symbolic, very interesting indeed!

I'm actually in the middle of "The Problem of Pain" right now, so I can't quite give you a synopsis of it... I do know, however, that its dedicated to the Inklings (I smiled at that), and that he wrote it after and because of his wife's death. Very depressing. He explains in the book how pain has arisen in humanity as a biproduct of the Fall and Christ's sacrifice. At the beginning of the intro, I felt like weeping for the man. He says that he was going to publish it anonymously because of the things he says in it. So far, its very good and explains more basic theology to the reader. As I've said before, Jack's my favorite. I love the way he writes.

Iarwain

[InklingElf]

Iarwain:Ahh yes, well Jack was a very passionate man. I bet he comes out even more passionate with that book because of Joy. (Reresh my memory: did Joy die of cancer?) I shall have to look for that book to, after I finish the one I'm reading.

Do like the paintings? I do with an exception of a few. I like Alan's and Phenix's the best.

[Aerandir Carnesir]

It's about time I found someone else who beleives the way as me. I'm outraged at what pagans have done to Tolkeins works. You know that Tolkein convinced C.S. Lewis into accepting Christ. I'm just glad that there are others on this forum who beleive in religion tied in with our religious beleifs/truths. Thank you for your post. Check out my premier post "God and Lord of the Rings" I'm new to forums and I want to see if I'm making an impact. I like your signature too. Namaarie(farewell) and God bless you!!!

[Iarwain]

Glad to meet you too, Aerandir. Nice to see someone so vigilant! smilies/smile.gif

Inkling, I like Alan Lee's paintings too, they're very good! John Howe's also exceptional. My favorites are the One of Minas Tirith at dawn, and Barad-Dur through the Palantir. They're so vivid. Joy did die of cancer, and Lewis himself died of a heart attack mixed with kidney failure. Apparently, I was wrong about "the Problem of Pain" I've just been looking over a timeline of Lewis's life, and it was published in 1940. "A Grief Observed" is actually the book about him dealing with his pain. Wow, I suppose I'll have to read that after I finish this one... Huh. So strange,

Slightly Bewildered,
Iarwain

[InklingElf]

Aerandir Carnesir:Thank You, and I welcome you to the Barrow-Downs. I shall look at your thread soon and possibly post a reply.GOD BLESS smilies/wink.gif

Iarwain: Hehehe. It's alright, I hate it when I do that too, especially in front of my teachers! smilies/eek.gif

The Lost Road and other writings:I take it, you've read it? I'm on the part when Alboin has a dream about Elendil and acts irritable in the morning to his son, Audoin. I have a question: Why does Alboin call Elendil, Herendil? I might have missed something while I was reading. Heh.

I still think Alboin is like Tolkien. He has I believe, almost all of his traits: He's a linguist, he creates his own languages (that which is similiar and is Tolkien's,etc.

Alboin is so far, my favorite character, but I also like Audoin too.

Have you seen the Etymologies? I was certainly amazed. This book really is fit for those studying Tolkien's languages.

Iarwain tell me, what does Lewis have anything to do w/ the Lost Road? I still haven't found any story, or narrative in the book. I don't get why he is included on the summary, on the back of the book. ::scratches her head::

And the paintings: Yes, I also find John Howe's paintings impressive! I like how he paints action (Like the Flight to the Ford)

[InklingElf]

BTW: Since we have far drifted off from the topic of Theology, I ask that someone, anyone that is interested to post any
Biblical Allusions that they notice from any of Tolkien's books. I believe there are some on page 2 & 3. You can add to those. Thank You.

[Iarwain]

Sorry to dissapoint, Inkling, but I've honestly never read "Lost Road". I thought it was out of print, and I've never even seen a copy. From what you say, I sounds quite captivating. Interesting that Lewis was involved in the text though, we must remember that for about ten years, they considered each other best friends. Flight to the Ford is a great painting. In Mordor also shows a great deal of movement.

Iarwain

[Iarwain]

I think I'm going to take the time to read the entire thread, I started page 2, and it's very interesting, so I'll just start from the beginning.

Iarwian

[InklingElf]

Iarwain:Take your time smilies/smile.gif

The Lost Road is hard to find. There was only one more on the shelf! So I took it, and I'm glad I did. I think you can buy one online from Barnes&Noble or Amazon.

[InklingElf]

The Lost Road and other writings:an excerpt, and one of my favorite scenes so far:

In a wide shadowy place he heard a voice.
'Elendil!' it said, 'Alboin, whither are you wandering?'
'Who are you?' he answered. 'And where are you?'
A tall figure appeard, as if descending an unseen stair towards him. For a moment it flashed through his thought that the face, dimly seen, reminded him of his father.
'I am with you. I was of Numenor, the father of many fathers before you. I am Elendil, that is in Eressean "Elf-friend," and many have been called so since. You may have your desire.'
'What desire?'
'The long-hidden and the half-spoken: to go back.'
'But that cannot be, even if I wish it. It is against the law.'
'It is against the rule. Laws are commands upon the will and are binding. Rules are conditions; they may have expectations.'

[Arie]

Alright, on biblical allusions: Gandalf. He could represent (sory if I'm going back to the topic-I haven't been reading the other pages) Michael the Archangel and Saruman could be Lucifer-but I think Sauron would be a better choice...

I have a quick question: What is Tom Bombadil. InklingElf I think you answered this on another thread but I forgot what it is...

[InklingElf]

On your Biblical Allusion: I think Sauron would better define what Lucifer was.

Tom Bombadil: (or Iarwain smilies/wink.gif ) Tom is a riddle. He is neither a Maia or and Elf. The article I posted was on the Council of Elendili.

Here is the piece of information that I found from the Encyclopedia of Arda:

The Riddle of Tom Bombadil

Tom Bombadil is the prevailing mystery in Tolkien's work. While almost every other aspect of Middle-earth is described for us in exacting detail, Tom is an enigma. We have almost no clue of his origins or his fate, his purpose or even what kind of being he is. It is no surprise that none of Tolkien's characters have attracted more discussion.

This article makes no attempt to provide a definite answer to the 'Bombadil Problem' - it's very unlikely that a definite answer is possible. What we will attempt, though, is to round up the more common suggestions, both from within Tolkien's cosmology and without, and discuss some of the arguments for and against each.

Tolkien himself is uncharacteristically reticent on the question of Tom's identity:

"And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954


Fortunately, he gives us more clues than this suggests, but by no means enough to solve the mystery with certainty.

There are two real approaches to the problem of Tom's identity; we can try to fit him into the cosmology of The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, or we can view him more broadly as a literary character. We'll attempt both here, starting with a discussion of Tom in relation to Tolkien's fictional cosmology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bombadil Within Tolkien's Cosmology
Tolkien's universe is inhabited by a multitude of races and beings: our problem is that what we know of Tom does not fit easily with any of these. He seems almost to have been 'transplanted' from elsewhere. In fact, this is almost certainly what happened, at least in a literary sense, but at this point we are concerned primarily with giving Tom a place within Tolkien's universe.

Though there are many candidates to choose from, we can at least dismiss most of these immediately. Tom is definitely not a Man, a Hobbit, a Dwarf, or indeed of any mortal kind, and we can also take it for granted, for obvious reasons, that he is not an Orc, a Troll, an Ent, a Dragon or an Eagle! But this still leaves plenty of possibilities:

Was Tom an Elf?
Tom's capering, his wisdom, his great age and his love of song undoubtedly give him a certainly 'Elvish' quality. This possibility though, is easily disproved by the following from The Lord of the Rings:

"'When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already...'"
Tom's own words, from The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil


Tom would hardly have said this if he was an Elf himself! This is, incidentally, proof of Tom's great age - the Elves 'passed westward' in the Great Journey some six Ages before he spoke these words.

Was Tom a Maia?
This a very common suggestion, to the extent that it is sometimes treated almost as 'fact'. There is, though, no direct evidence for this - it seems to be based on the idea that since Tom can't be a Vala, and there is no other possibility, he must be a Maia. As we'll see, these are both flawed assumptions - Tom might be a Vala, and there is at least one other possibility.

Though we can't say for certain that Tom wasn't one of the Maiar, there are grave difficulties with this position. The most important of these is that the Ring had no effect on him:

"Then Tom put the Ring round the end of his little finger and held it up to the candlelight... There was no sign of Tom disappearing!"
The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil


There were other mighty Maiar in Middle-earth at the time of the War of the Ring, especially Sauron, Saruman and Gandalf, and all of these were in some sense under the power of the Ring. Yet Tom is unaffected by its power of invisibility, nor does he feel any desire to keep it (he hands it back to Frodo 'with a smile'). Tolkien himself points out the importance of Tom's immunity. On this topic, he says:

"The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion - but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 153, dated 1954


Was Tom a Vala?
The last of Tolkien's named races (using the term loosely) that might include Tom is that of the Valar, the Powers of the World. A common argument against this is that we know the names of all the Valar, and Tom isn't among them. This doesn't hold water:

"...[the Valar] have other names in the speech of the Elves in Middle-earth, and their names among Men are manifold."
The Silmarillion, Valaquenta


While of Tom himself it is said:

"'[Bombadil] was not then his name. Iarwain Ben-adar we called him, oldest and fatherless. But many another name he has since been given by other folk...'"
Elrond, from The Fellowship of the Ring II 2, The Council of Elrond


It isn't inconceivable, then, that Tom is one of the fourteen known Valar, dwelling incognito in Middle-earth. Though we can't be certain, it seems likely that a Vala would be capable of resisting the power of the Ring, and so that difficulty can be set aside. The 'Vala Hypothesis', though, is not without difficulties of its own, with perhaps the most significant being:

"'Eldest, that's what I am... Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn... He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside.'"
The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil


All of the beings who became Valar existed before Arda was made, so any of them could with justification claim the title 'Eldest'. But Tom says he 'knew the dark under the stars' (that is, he was in the World, not outside it) 'before the Dark Lord came from Outside'. The term 'Dark Lord' is uncertain here - it might apply to either Melkor or Sauron, and both originally came from 'Outside' the World. If he means Melkor, then this is very significant: consider this description of the entry of the Valar into the World, from the original conception of the Silmarillion:

"Now swiftly as they fared, Melko was there before them..."
The Book of Lost Tales, Part I, III The Coming of the Valar and the Building of Valinor


'They' here refers to Manwë and Varda, who were explicitly the first Valar to enter Arda apart from Melko (Melkor). In Tolkien's original conception, then (and there is nothing in the published Silmarillion to contradict this) Melkor was the first being from 'Outside' to enter the World, and yet Tom suggests that he was already here when Melkor arrived!

Admittedly Tom may be referring to Sauron, who must have come to Arda after these great ones, but the phrase 'before the Dark Lord came from Outside' seems to make more sense if he means Melkor (that is, he is referring to an event of cosmic significance, and a specific point in the World's history, which isn't the case with Sauron).

This is only one of the objections to the Vala theory. Another, for example, is that characters who we would expect to recognize a Vala living in their midst (especially Gandalf) don't apparently do so.

There are many other arguments to be made both for and against Tom's status as a Vala. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, and some more concrete conclusions, Eugene Hargrove's fascinating essay Who is Tom Bombadil? is strongly recommended.

Was Tom Ilúvatar Himself?
Tom's powers are apparently limitless, at least within his own domain, and this has led a lot of people of suggest that he might be none other than Eru Ilúvatar himself. There are certainly several hints in the text of The Lord of the Rings that this might be the case; he is called 'Master', and 'Eldest', and Goldberry says of him simply;

"'He is.'"
The Lord of the Rings I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil


All of these points might suggest that Tom and Ilúvatar were in some sense the same being. In fact, though, this is one of the very few theories about Tom that we can bring to a definite conclusion. This point is touched on several times in Tolkien's letters, and each time he makes it clear that Tom and Eru should not be confused. Perhaps his most definite statement is this:

"There is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien No 181, dated 1956


If there is no embodiment of the One (that is, Eru), then Tom cannot of course be such an embodiment.

Was Tom a 'Spirit'?
The idea that Tom might be a 'spirit' (as opposed to a Maia or Vala) is certainly possible according to The Silmarillion. Though it seems to be commonly assumed that only the Valar and the Maiar entered Arda, a tantalising glimpse of Tolkien's original vision survived into the published form of the work. Here, discussing the Aratar or eight mightiest Valar, he says:

"...in majesty they are peers, surpassing beyond compare all others, whether of the Valar and the Maiar, or of any other order that Ilúvatar has sent into Eä."
The Silmarillion, Valaquenta


This single phrase 'any other order' seems to be a survival of a much older and more detailed account found in the Lost Tales:

"...brownies, fays, pixies, leprawns, and what else are they not called, for their number is very great... they were born before the world and are older than its oldest, and are not of it, but laugh at it much..."
The Book of Lost Tales, Part I, III The Coming of the Valar and the Building of Valinor


It is hard not to hear the echo of Tom Bombadil in these words, and perhaps here we see the first germ of his inspiration (the Lost Tales predate Tom's first appearance in print by about a decade). Whether Tom is a brownie, fay, pixie or leprawn, though, is open to doubt - none of these creatures appears in Tolkien's published works, and their function as a bridge to later folklore seems to have been taken up, at least partly, by the Hobbits.

This version of the 'spirit' idea doesn't address many of the other problems already discussed, though. Why should a 'leprawn' be immune to the Ring when the Maiar are not? Could a 'brownie' have entered the World before the first of the Valar?

There is another kind of spirit that Tom could be though: a 'spirit of nature'. Tolkien himself seems to support this point of view:

"Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story?"
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 19, dated 1937


This letter predates Tom's appearance in The Lord of the Rings (in fact, this quotation is part of discussion of the possible sequel to The Hobbit), so it is at best circumstantial evidence.

The idea of a 'nature spirit', though, is certainly possible within Tolkien's universe. Though this area of his cosmology is never directly addressed, Middle-earth seems at times to be full of spirits - at least some trees apparently have spirits, for example (consider Old Man Willow, or the Huorns of Fangorn). Consider too:

"'But the Elves of this land were of a race strange to us of the silvan folk, and the trees and the grass do not now remember them. Only I hear the stones lament them..."
Legolas, from The Fellowship of the Ring II 3, The Ring Goes South


There are numerous other examples of this kind: it is clear that in Tolkien's universe, the stuff of nature is somehow more alive, and more aware, than in the modern world. It is a short step from this to the idea of 'spirits of nature', but a much longer one to 'spirits of nature' that wear yellow boots and live in houses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Bombadil as a Literary Character
It seems clear that, within the cosmos to which he belonged, Tom cannot be classified with any certainty. Outside that cosmos, though, we can at least reach some firmer conclusions (and offer some freer speculations).

Tom's Origins in Earlier Writings
At the time of writing The Lord of Rings, Tolkien had already completed a body of work that many writers would do well to equal in a lifetime. Tom himself had appeared in print as early as 1933 (though the collection The Adventures of Tom Bombadil did not appear until 1961 - and in fact Tom only appears in the first two of these sixteen poems). What's more, the Silmarillion was already well developed (though much of it as it existed then would be unrecognisable to readers familiar with the published version, a great deal of its narrative was already in place).

It seemed at that time that the Silmarillion would never be published, and so Tolkien felt free to use names from that work in his sequel to The Hobbit: Glorfindel is the most famous example, but the names Gildor, Denethor, Boromir, Minas Tirith and many others besides all appear in both works, referring to different characters and places (the hyperlinks here refer to entries for the older versions).

Tom must also have been part of this process, but in his case, his entire character, rather than just his name, seems to have been transplanted into the emerging Lord of the Rings. Tom's appearance in the early chapters is natural - Tolkien at that time seems to have envisaged the work as a children's book, a sequel to The Hobbit following the same style, and Tom certainly would not have seemed out of place. As it grew, though, the world of The Lord of the Rings began to merge with that of The Silmarillion. Here the difficulty seems to have arisen - a character like Tom, though he fits easily into the unconstrained story-telling of The Hobbit, doesn't have an obvious place in the detailed universe of The Silmarillion.

Though Tom's insertion into the nascent Lord of the Rings might be viewed (at least in a sense) as 'accidental', it is certainly no accident that he remained there. Tolkien reviewed and revised the book with his customary meticulousness - it is inconceivable that the character of Tom Bombadil would have stayed in place if Tolkien didn't see him, in some sense, 'fitting' with the rest of the story. In Tolkien's own words:

"...I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 153, dated 1954


In the same letter, he goes on to summarise what these 'certain things' are. It is difficult to paraphrase his statements here: the suggestion is that while all sides in the War of the Ring seek, in their different ways, some sort of political power, Tom is immune from this in the same way that he is immune from the Ring. He only wishes to understand things for what they are, and desires no control over them. (This is a rather pale rendering of Tolkien's actual comments - for further study of this topic, a copy of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, with special reference to Nos 144 and 153, is indispensible.)

Tom's Place in Mythology
Tolkien's own understanding of what Tom represents in the Lord of the Rings seems to have evolved 'after the event': from what evidence we have, Tolkien apparently first decided that he wanted Tom in the book, and then rationalised his inclusion. One of his earliest comments on Tom after the publication of The Lord of the Rings is:

"...he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954


In the same passage, he then goes on to give an account of Tom's literary function within the book, and the ideas that he represents. But this is an account of ideas from an intellectual perspective, not of the 'feeling' that led to his original inclusion. Here we will speculate a little (the word 'speculate' cannot be over-emphasised!) on Tom's mythological role, and where Tolkien's 'feeling' might have originated. Before continuing, though, it's important to note that Tolkien himself disliked this line of reasoning. Writing of an introduction to the Swedish version of The Lord of the Rings by a Dr Åke Ohlmarks, he says:

"As for Wayland Smith being a Pan-type, or being reflected both in Bombadil and Gollum: this is sufficient example of the silly methods and nonsensical conclusions of Dr O[hlmarks]."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 229, dated 1961


(Wayland Smith is a god of the Anglo-Saxons; Pan is of course Greek). It is unclear here whether Tolkien is criticising Dr Ohlmarks' specific conclusions (sadly we have no record of what these were), or whether he is dismissing the role of mythological comparison altogether. Ultimately, though, Tolkien was in the business of creating his own mythology (intentionally or not); to avoid comparison with other mythologies is to miss a rich seam of material. Nonetheless, what follows should be read in light of his own comments quoted above.

The particular aspect of other mythologies that we address here is the role of the 'mischievous outsider'. This refers to a god or other being who in some sense does not 'belong' with the others (and indeed, is often literally imported into a mythology from outside). Such characters may be meddlesome and irritating (like the Norse Loki, or the original form of the Arthurian Cei or Kay), but more usually they are simply jolly, frolicsome creatures (Egypt had Bes, the baboon-god, while the Greeks 'borrowed' Bacchus from the people of Thrace). There are many other examples who fulfil this archetype: Coyote in North America, Ueuecoyotl in Mexico or the eastern monkey-god variously called Hanuman or Sun Hou-tzu (better known in the West simply as 'Monkey').

It is not our concern here to discuss why this figure should be so universally represented, only to note that he is. (The word 'he' is used advisedly - this role always seems to be filled by a male).

Is Tom Bombadil a 'mischievous outsider'? He is certainly 'mischievous' (or, more precisely, joyfully unconcerned with the world at large), and we've seen that he is emphatically an 'outsider', in that he doesn't fit easily with the rest of Tolkien's universe. What we're suggesting here is that these elements are not in any sense objections to his inclusion in The Lord of the Rings; in fact they are recommendations: they help to add an inherent sense of 'myth' to the book, that would otherwise be far less evident.

This is not to suggest, of course, that Tolkien consciously considered these points. Rather, to a man steeped in mythical tradition as he was, Tom would have 'felt' right as a character - he helps to lift the Quest of Mount Doom from mere 'legend' into the realms of 'myth'. This perhaps (remember we are speculating wildly here) helps to account for Tolkien's imprecise 'feeling' about him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Conclusion'
There is only one answer to the riddle of Tom Bombadil: that there is no answer. Though we've presented some of the evidence here, this article does no more than dip beneath the surface. It seems, though, that Tom's nature is ultimately undiscoverable, and this is surely a good thing.

Part of the wonder of Tolkien's world is its depth and detail, but it needs its mysteries and unknowns too: if we knew everything about the World of Arda and its inhabitants, there would be no joy of exploration and discovery. If nothing else, Tom Bombadil stands proudly as a symbol of the mysterious, and we should be glad that he does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading
What is Tom Bombadil? thoughts and discussion by Steuard Jensen
Who is Tom Bombadil? an essay by Eugene Hargrove

Notes
1 In his preface to The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Tolkien tells us that Tom's name is 'Bucklandish in form', and suggests that it was given to him by the Hobbits of that region. The resemblance of the -dil ending to the common Elvish -(n)dil, 'friend', is probably no more than coincidence.

Is that what you were looking for?

EDIT: Source:
Encyclopedia of Arda (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda)

[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: InklingElf ]

[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: InklingElf ]

[Arie]

phew! That took long to read but you have enlightened me smilies/biggrin.gif . Atleast now I know Tom Bombadil isn't a Hobbit either! My freind actually thought he was a Hobbit. Muhhaahaha at least now I have proof. Thanks again Inkling smilies/biggrin.gif

[InklingElf]

Arie: You are very welcome smilies/biggrin.gif

[Iarwain]

Bravo!

Such a mystery is the perfection of Middle-Earth. It inspires insatiable curiousity and provides the ideal flaw that is necessary for all mythology. Tom draws attention not only in his personality, but his existence as a whole. He is an enigma that occupies his own little space in a world which is not his, but which he has made his own. He has his own rules that apply to him alone. He has enough significance to attract the reader, but lacks enough plot importance to be seriously considered. He is the perfect flaw.

Iarwain

[InklingElf]

He is the perfect flaw.

I second that smilies/smile.gif

[Ultimatejoe]

Inkling Elf you really MUST provide a citation. That article is straight from The Encyclopedia of Arda (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/t/tombombadil.html) and even if you wrote it for the site you still MUST provide a reference. Further, if you provided a citation in your earlier post regarding the article you still MUST provide a citation on a repost.

The Encyclopedia of Arda (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm) has a lot of misleading, poorly worded, and in some cases incorrect information and any material used from them should have a source to identify it as a SECONDARY source.

[InklingElf]

Ultimatejoe: I stand corrected. I should cite my sources-extremelly sorry. And yes it is from the Encyclopedia of Arda.

Really? I didn't know it wasn't so accurate.
::goes off to last post and edits::

Thank You.

[Arie]

Akk! ::shreiks in fear:: I have to cite my stuff too! Thankyou UltimateJoe smilies/biggrin.gif
---------------------------------------------

New Topic: Loyal Companions

Sam is a very good example. What do you think Frodo would be like if he wasn't there-especially since Gandalf was gone?

[InklingElf]

NOTE OF APOLOGY: As UltimateJoe has earlier said I must cite my sources. (now I know why bibliographies are so important!) To myself and to all in the BD, I pray you will heed my sincerity over this matter.

Please know that despite my earlier mistakes, I have had no intention nor the desire to plageurize other sources (i.e., websites).

With Utmost Sincereity,
InklingElf

[InklingElf]

New Topic: Loyal Companions

Sam is a very good example. What do you think Frodo would be like if he wasn't there-especially since Gandalf was gone?

::breathes::Now shall we get back to our thread?
"So all my plan is spoilt!...It is no good trying to escape you. But I'm glad Sam. I cannot tell you how glad."(Frodo to Sam, BookII, Chapter10 FOTR}

Good topic Arie smilies/wink.gif Personally, I think 2 are better than 1:

Two are better than one, becasue they have a good return for their work: If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up! Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three stands is not quickly broken (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 NIV Bible)

I believe Frodo could've made it on his own (with his strong Hobbit-heart), but then again, 2 are better than 1. Sam is perfect for the role of taking care of Frodo. Without him, Gollum would've overpowered him already, and better yet Shelob would've eaten him already too!

[Ultimatejoe]

I didn't mean to sound like a hardass...

I'm not so sure Frodo could have made it on his own. He had to be prodded, carried and dragged, and in the end he still couldn't complete the quest himself.

Lets not forget, there were three people in the company of the Ring, not two.

[InklingElf]

UltimateJoe: It's alright. I needed reminding anyway smilies/biggrin.gif I'm not so great at bibliographies and citing stuff (neither am I so great at research reports!), so I Thank You.

And you are correct, there were 3 not 2.

Arie: About Gandalf...Well yes, taht's another reason why Frodo wouldn't make it on his own. They were so close to ea. other! I don't think I could help it if I lost Gandalf smilies/eek.gif

[Aredhelaran]

I loved the Lord of the Rings since I first read it (when I was 10). I also love the Chronicles of Narnia, though I like the LOTR more. C.S. Lewis is a writer that I like a lot, and I like Tolkien's writings. Tolkien, I believe, was a Catholic, though his wife was Protestant. To me, it doesn't matter too much which as long you are "born again" (alothough I do disagree with a lot in Catholicism). WHen you see the term, "born again", you can't help butu wonder what some of the people here mean. I believe that it means that you have accepted Jesus as your Saviour and repented. Is that what the other people here mean? Yes, there are 7 books in teh Chronicles of Narnia.

[InklingElf]

Aredhelaran: Wonderful to have you at the BD and this thread!

"born-again"

When you are born again, you are evangelical based (which I am) smilies/wink.gif .

And what of the Chronicles of Narnia? If you read page 3 [I believe?], you can read much about it. Until then, you may tell me your interest (or question) about The Chronicles of Narnia,or you may anser the topic Arie posted:

New Topic: Loyal Companions

Sam is a very good example. What do you think Frodo would be like if he wasn't there-especially since Gandalf was gone?

Or, make another topic. Either way is welcome smilies/biggrin.gif.

[Arie]

Happy V-Day! Sorry I haven't been here in awhile, hi to everyone you have posted lately.

Just a little not to UltimateJoe: (i didn't get to say this earlier because I was at school) You judged InklingElf a little too harshly and too early. I believe her when she says she does not claim anything she has taken from other sites. I know this because she is my friend (I know her in real life) and believe me I even had to help her with her research report (lots of drafts!), but she's cool, smart and shouldn't be judged when you've just met her for the first time.

Well I'm in school again so I cant stay long i'll be back.

[InklingElf]

please Arie, I thank you but we must move on from this topic (it's alright smilies/wink.gif )

And to start anew, I've decided to create a second thread to this one, with rules etc. I will post when I've created it.

[InklingElf]

This is the end. But at every end there is a beginning. You may post if you like on the second version of this thread:Tolkien,Lewis &Theology version II (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002954#000000)

[Bekah]

InklingElf...why is this the end of this thread? Why can't you continue it instead of having a new thread for the same topic.

Sorry, I'm just a little bewildered here. It might help me if I read through pages 2-4 (I've read page 1.)

I've got to go to tea, but I warn you, I'm not sure Estelyn is happy about your new thread.

~ Elentari II

[InklingElf]

Yes, alright. Estelyn did say it was quite unusual for me to ask for this tpoic to be closed. (What a waste of cyberspace!) I will and am considering your comment. It was a mistake to make another...Thanks Bekah.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

With InklingElf's permission, I deleted the second thread in favor of keeping discussion going on this one. If there are any problems with off-topic or unfriendly posts, please contact me by PM.

[InklingElf]

I am indebted to you Estelyn! Thank You very much smilies/smile.gif .

[InklingElf]

Onward.

What if it happened? What if his stories came true? According to Tolkien it has:
"I would venture to say that approaching the Chrsitian story from this direction, it has long been my feeling (a joyous feeling) that God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospels contain a fairy-sotry, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories...But this story has entered History and the primary world; the desire and aspiration of subcreation has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation."

Lewis put it this way:
"The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact...It happens-at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences...By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle."

Two great authors have stated their opinion. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

[greyhavener]

I agree. In fact I think much of the Old Testament can be taken in much the same way. An account of an event, a true myth (in the sense Tolkien or Lewis meant it), a prophesy or foreshadowing, a revelation, a truth that can all be found in one story. Perhaps myth is simply a creative manifestation of some ancient truth that our hearts remember "through a glass darkly".

[InklingElf]

In fact I think much of the Old Testament can be taken in much the same way. An account of an event, a true myth (in the sense Tolkien or Lewis meant it), a prophesy or foreshadowing, a revelation, a truth that can all be found in one story. Perhaps myth is simply a creative manifestation of some ancient truth that our hearts remember "through a glass darkly".

Well said.

[aldalindil]

This is my first post. I just want to say that this is a great forum! A friend of mine referred to me.

I totally agree InklingElf. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact-And by becoming fact it doesn't cease to be a myth (quoting Lewis).

Great topic!

[Bekah]

Welcome, Aldalindil!

I have to add something. Yes, Edith was Protestant. But Tolkien couldn't and wouldn't marry her unless she 'converted' to the Catholic faith.

I'd talk more, only I have to go back to school.

Love,

~ Elentari II

[aldalindil]

Thank you Bekah. I know that, but can you expound? I understand you're at school right now. I'll wait.

[Bekah]

Arggh! I feel guilty. But I have to go to school (again) soon, but meanwhile 'Tolkien: Man and Myth' by Joseph Pearce is a really good bio of him, and it'll answer your question. Gotta go!

And I will answer when I can.

Love,

~ Elentari II

[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: Bekah ]

[InklingElf]

Welcome aldalindil smilies/biggrin.gif .

Bekah: You've read it already? I'm still hopeful for a copy 'cause the last time I went to the book store-the shelves were wiped out!

BTW: School is hectic for me too.

[Bekah]

Well, I haven't finished it, but I got it for Christmas. Yay!!!! smilies/smile.gif

Love,

~ Elentari II

[InklingElf]

Well I know it's about Tolkien and all, but can you give me your synopsis? I trust your judgement smilies/smile.gif .