The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

Kalessin · 04-20-2002, 07:06 AM

Estel [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

You have quoted me at length from a relatively early part of the 'Trilogy and Bible' thread. The argument moved on from there and, indeed, without the context of that thread, you are inferring or implying a pejorative undertone which was NOT there. Given that I, and many others, feel strongly about matters of faith, morality and spirituality - both personally and generally, I feel this is doing me a disservice, both unfair and misleading.

As you will see from later entries in that thread and others - at NO TIME have I made any comment that implies any inbuilt criticism or disrespect of Christian writing, overt or otherwise. And I am perfectly happy to acknowledge fully Tolkien's devout Catholicism and the essential Christian sensibility evident in his work.

My argument is, and has always been, that (a) Tolkien did not write LotR as Biblical allegory, and that (b) he did not intend the work to be 'owned' or 'understood' only by one type of reader ie. one that shared his particular faith. I think these are reasonable positions and in no way suggest a negative view of Christianity or Christian artists.

You will also see from that and other threads that I have described the Bible in very powerful terms, and ascribed to it a level of spiritual resonance and profundity - both for me personally and in general - that should make it clear that I have the utmost respect for Christian faith. In addition, in the Trilogy and Bible thread I made a clear distinction between traditional English Catholicism and modern evangelism, and certainly do NOT lump all faiths together. I am disappointed and surprised to have to repeat this in another thread.

The differences between Tolkien and Lewis are key to the "LotR as (not) allegory" argument and I don't understand either why you suggest I think otherwise. You and others have made the point that Lewis' work WAS allegorical while Tolkien, in all his writings, made it clear his work was not intended to be. In fact, in that thread it was suggested (not by me) that the two fell out about this. I am bemused by your references to me here.

Your citing of the differences between Norse or Eastern mythos and the 'triumph' of good in Christianity is fair enough. However, I argued (in the other thread) that there were many similarities and influences in LotR which could be seen in terms of epic narratives or episodes from world mythos, as well as the Bible - this was simply to make the point that 'similarities' (ie. a hero with who saves the day with an act of sacrifice etc.) were not proof of intended allegory.

I am not quite sure what point you are making in the context of the discussion here, but as you have quoted me at length and made an aside to me I feel entitled to respond to those specific comments. The fact that at various points you say you agree with me (out of context) doesn't really help.

Let's come to Mr Underhill's point that you repeated, and also to the central theme of THIS thread. I also don't think that acknowledging Tolkien's Catholicism is an act of appropriation. It's an act of contextual research that may or may not add to one's reading of the book. Tolkien made it explicitly clear he he was happy for people to read LotR as a story, and that it should not be necessary even for them to read the appendices etc. to fully and deeply appreciate and enjoy the book. And in this I concur, although personally I find the contextual discussions interesting. The "appropriation" to which I occasionally refer is nothing to do with academic or contextual understanding. It is to do with association and ownership. If you believe that only Christians (of all denominations) can truly appreciate LotR, or - inversely - that if you appreciate LotR, that somehow proves or validates the ultimate truth of specific Christian tenets ... this is appropriation. Whether applied to Christian art, or by the same principle to Black writing, or whatever, this position is to my mind elitist and in the end 'anti-art'.

I started this thread by offering a critique of the fantasy genre and asking us to reflect on failings in the genre and in comparison to Tolkien. Having scanned back, I can't see any criticisms of either the genre, a particular author, or Tolkien and his works, in this thread that imply a negative connotation to Christian authors or writing. Especially not by me. I don't think anyone thinks that.

OK. I didn't think I'd end up offering another rant in this thread, but there you go [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Peace

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

04-20-2002, 07:06 AM	#103
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Estel [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] You have quoted me at length from a relatively early part of the 'Trilogy and Bible' thread. The argument moved on from there and, indeed, without the context of that thread, you are inferring or implying a pejorative undertone which was NOT there. Given that I, and many others, feel strongly about matters of faith, morality and spirituality - both personally and generally, I feel this is doing me a disservice, both unfair and misleading. As you will see from later entries in that thread and others - at NO TIME have I made any comment that implies any inbuilt criticism or disrespect of Christian writing, overt or otherwise. And I am perfectly happy to acknowledge fully Tolkien's devout Catholicism and the essential Christian sensibility evident in his work. My argument is, and has always been, that (a) Tolkien did not write LotR as Biblical allegory, and that (b) he did not intend the work to be 'owned' or 'understood' only by one type of reader ie. one that shared his particular faith. I think these are reasonable positions and in no way suggest a negative view of Christianity or Christian artists. You will also see from that and other threads that I have described the Bible in very powerful terms, and ascribed to it a level of spiritual resonance and profundity - both for me personally and in general - that should make it clear that I have the utmost respect for Christian faith. In addition, in the Trilogy and Bible thread I made a clear distinction between traditional English Catholicism and modern evangelism, and certainly do NOT lump all faiths together. I am disappointed and surprised to have to repeat this in another thread. The differences between Tolkien and Lewis are key to the "LotR as (not) allegory" argument and I don't understand either why you suggest I think otherwise. You and others have made the point that Lewis' work WAS allegorical while Tolkien, in all his writings, made it clear his work was not intended to be. In fact, in that thread it was suggested (not by me) that the two fell out about this. I am bemused by your references to me here. Your citing of the differences between Norse or Eastern mythos and the 'triumph' of good in Christianity is fair enough. However, I argued (in the other thread) that there were many similarities and influences in LotR which could be seen in terms of epic narratives or episodes from world mythos, as well as the Bible - this was simply to make the point that 'similarities' (ie. a hero with who saves the day with an act of sacrifice etc.) were not proof of intended allegory. I am not quite sure what point you are making in the context of the discussion here, but as you have quoted me at length and made an aside to me I feel entitled to respond to those specific comments. The fact that at various points you say you agree with me (out of context) doesn't really help. Let's come to Mr Underhill's point that you repeated, and also to the central theme of THIS thread. I also don't think that acknowledging Tolkien's Catholicism is an act of appropriation. It's an act of contextual research that may or may not add to one's reading of the book. Tolkien made it explicitly clear he he was happy for people to read LotR as a story, and that it should not be necessary even for them to read the appendices etc. to fully and deeply appreciate and enjoy the book. And in this I concur, although personally I find the contextual discussions interesting. The "appropriation" to which I occasionally refer is nothing to do with academic or contextual understanding. It is to do with association and ownership. If you believe that only Christians (of all denominations) can truly appreciate LotR, or - inversely - that if you appreciate LotR, that somehow proves or validates the ultimate truth of specific Christian tenets ... this is appropriation. Whether applied to Christian art, or by the same principle to Black writing, or whatever, this position is to my mind elitist and in the end 'anti-art'. I started this thread by offering a critique of the fantasy genre and asking us to reflect on failings in the genre and in comparison to Tolkien. Having scanned back, I can't see any criticisms of either the genre, a particular author, or Tolkien and his works, in this thread that imply a negative connotation to Christian authors or writing. Especially not by me. I don't think anyone thinks that. OK. I didn't think I'd end up offering another rant in this thread, but there you go [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Peace [ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]