[The Saucepan Man]

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

Davem said earlier:

LotR is what it is. Your personal interpretation of it is something else. The two things are, & must be, different.

True, as far as it goes. But what is LotR, taken in a vacuum as it were, without the individual’s reaction to it? It is simply a collection of pages with words printed upon them. Those words can mean nothing without a reader to read them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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