[The Saucepan Man]

OK, a bit of catching up to do. But I’ll try my best.

Helen

However, I will (for the sake of peace, which I like, and argument, which I would far rather avoid) state that when I use the word Truth, with a capital T, I refer-- loosely-- to all that is true in a permanent sense.

Well, that’s fine when we are talking about facts which can be objectively proved (like 2+2=4). My problem with the word in the sense that it is being used here is that it also encompasses concepts which cannot be proved, and which different people will view differently. Of those who believe in a God, for example, different people have different conceptions of what God is and how he (or she or they) should be worshipped. Morality too changes over time and will vary from one society to another, and also from one individual to another. I differ, for example, from a sizeable minority (if not a majority) of my fellow citizens in the UK in believing that it is wrong to take someone’s life in consequence of their commission of a serious crime such as murder.

I do agree that there are values (moral or otherwise) that a majority of people will happily subscribe to (although it does not follow that they are necessarily divine in origin). But no one will have precisely the same set of values. They will differ (often slightly, sometimes considerably) from person to person. And that’s why I have difficulty in accepting that there is a single, capitalised “Truth”. I would prefer to say that there are absolute truths (those which can be objectively proved), truths which the majority can subscribe to (for example, much of what we might describe as morality), minority truths (subscribed to by only a section of society, such as beliefs unique to a particular religion) and individual truths (one’s own personal and unique beliefs). Any one person’s “truth” is a mix of all of these things and, looked at in this way, no one person (Tolkien included) has a monopoly on the “truth” such that it should be regarded as a single, capitalised concept. As Saraphim said:

This elusive, mysteriously capitalized noun is different for everyone, and no one person will find or see it in the same way, for the obvious reason that everyone is different themselves.

But that, to me, says that it cannot be a capitalised noun as if it were the same for everybody if only they would realise it. Rather, every person’s “truth” is individual to them, although they will share aspects of it with others, some with a minority, some with a majority and some (absolute, quantifiable truths) with everybody.

Interesting, Saucie; I have the exact opposite impression.

I don’t dispute that Tolkien’s works have the various effects that you have stated. Nor would I disagree that aspects of what Tolkien would describe as his “truth” (the value of friendship and the ennoblement of the humble, for example) will resonate, to varying degrees, with all that read and enjoy his tales. That is why they (we) enjoy them so much. But I would disagree (and, as Bêthberry says, this is perhaps where we reach an impasse) that the majority of people who read the books find their lives changed by them in any profound way. And, while (if it is the case that he was, at least in part, seeking to promote his own truths within his writings, the case for which I now see as compelling) this might cause Tolkien some personal disappointment, I think that he would recognise that not every “truth” which he subscribed to will resonate with everyone and content himself with people finding their own “truths” within his works.

davem

So, before we can ask 'the Book or the Reader' we must understand what Tolkien was attempting to do with the book, whether he had any message that he wanted to communicate.

But if this is how we approach it, then the answer will always be “the Book” because the individual’s own interpretation will be secondary to what the author was trying to achieve. Save to the extent that they are explicit or implicit in his text, however, I do not see the author’s intentions as automatically having any bearing on the reader’s enjoyment of the book. They will only be relevant to the reader if the reader wants them to be. But, if he or she does not want them to be, then (as I keep saying) that cannot devalue their own personal experience of the book. Nor can it, by itself, make them “wrong” in any way in their approach to the book.

So as far as Tolkien is concerned: I won't rule out his opinion just because he happens to be dead, because thats undemocratic.

Nor will I. But, I won’t force anyone to accept it, as that too would be undemocratic.

As to whether we pick up on his values, or simply choose our own & take from his writings only what confirms our existing beliefs - well, clearly many do, & that doesn't make them 'wrong', but Helen has shown that many readers, who know nothing of that philosophy do pick up on it & are affected by it to the extent that they change their own moral stance as a result of reading it.

Yes, there are clearly many readers who are affected in this way. But, as I said, I would not put them in the majority. And, as you say, those who aren’t so affected cannot be categorised as “wrong”.

I would speculate that we are responding in that way because that world feels 'right', whereas this world feels 'wrong', that world feels 'true', while there is a sense of 'falseness' about this one - but where does that sense come from?

I would contest that there are many who regard Middle-earth as “true” and their own world as somehow “false”. By definition, Middle-earth is a fictional world, and therefore false, whereas we are confronted every day (often in unpleasant ways) with the reality of our own world. Middle-earth may seem real while we are engrossed in the story, in consequence of the story-teller’s skill and its internal consistency, but it remains a fiction when we put it down. I do of course agree that there are values enshrined within his works which will (to varying degrees) resonate with his readers, and which they may find applicable to their own lives. Of course that’s the case. Otherwise we readers would not enjoy the stories so much. But that’s a very long way from saying that every reader will necessarily accept every value enshrined within Tolkien’s works as true to their own life whether they realise it or not. We do not have to believe in the existence of God in our own world to accept the existence of the fictional character of Eru in Tolkien’s writings.

Why would someone who has rejected the spiritual dimension of life in this world choose to willingly frequent a world where the spiritual dimension is so much to the fore?

To follow your argument to its extreme, we could not appreciate Tolkien’s works unless we recognised Eru as our own God and accepted the creation story as laid out in the Silmarillion as fact. At the very least, we would (as Child points out) have to subscribe to Tolkien’s own religious beliefs in order to enjoy his stories. Yet, there are very few who read and enjoy his works (even among Christians) who subscribe to his particular set of beliefs.

Why would someone who is an absolute materialist, & finds spiritual, magical, supernatural beauty, goodness (&supernatural evil) to be nothing but silly superstition want to spend time in a world where those things, along with God, & Truth, are 'facts'. Surely, someone with that worldview would find Middle Earth stupid, offensive & wrong?

I'd have to ask both you & SpM why you are drawn to Middle Earth

I have never said that there is no spiritual aspect to my beliefs. There is much within Tolkien’s writings that accord with my own personal “truth”. And, just because I may not accept magical and supernatural concepts as true in my world, it does not follow that I find them silly and offensive. Moreover, even were I an atheist, I do not see why I should not enjoy Tolkien’s stories. As Bêthberry and Child point out, the fact that someone is an atheist does not preclude them from having moral values, from perceiving the difference between good and evil or from valuing qualities such as friendship, loyalty, courage and heroism. And it does not prevent them from recognising and appreciating such concepts within Tolkien’s works.

I didn't intend to suggest that. I would ask what their standard is, by which they measure such things - isn't it from some innate sense of right & wrong, of false & 'True'? They hold to some 'ideal' of how things should be, & compare things as they are to that 'ideal'.

There are, as Aiwendil points out, a great many reasons why people should respond to the kinds of values that we are talking about that do not involve any belief (or an specific form of belief) in the existence of God in our world.

Child

I have no doubt that part of Tolkien's desire to write was to bring about improvement, and not just in a literary sense. But I do not think that this was the only motive he had.

I am certainly persuaded that Tolkien desired to promote his own beliefs through his writing. And, as I hope is clear from what I have said, I believe that he has succeeded in touching a great many people who have found many of those beliefs to correspond to their own values, regardless of any particular belief-system that they may adhere to. And I accept that there are no doubt some (albeit I believe that they are in the minority) whose beliefs and values have changed in some significant way as a result of reading his works. But I would certainly agree that this desire to promote his beliefs was not his only motivation. The interests and experiences that you list all had a significant influence on his writing, in addition to his religious beliefs. And he was influenced also by his publishers and his readership. Had the Hobbit not been published and led to an outcry for a sequel, it is quite likely that LotR would never have been written, at least not in the form that we know it. In writing it, he must have been influenced by the recognition that it would have to “past muster” with the requirements of his publishers and the desires of those readers who had responded so favourably to the Hobbit. To a degree, therefore, he was writing it to satisfy them, although of course it had to satisfy him also.

Lyta

I think that many people get worried that they are “not getting it” when they read something that, nevertheless, moves them in a way that is different from those around them.

I am not sure that this concerns the majority of readers, who simply get on with reading the book and responding to it in whatever way feels right. My concern, though, is that if we say that there is a “Truth” in Tolkien’s works and that if you cannot see it then you are not reading it correctly or you are not ready for the “Truth”, then we will engender just such a worry in people. And that is something which I would not like to see. (It may be different for martial arts, as the teachings that they involve have a very specific purpose. Literature, to me, is a very different kettle of fish.)

Well, if the posts of others were long, then this one is ridiculously so. If you are still with me, I apologise.