I agree that what I am sure are areas of profound disagreement on this thread have been discussed in a restrained and amicable manner, which helps to stimulate further debate and indeed stops people from becoming entrenched by the atmosphere of confrontation.
So, in that spirit, I am going to say that my stance has changed slightly. I am willing to accept that the underlying morality of LoTR is a reflection of Tolkien's Christian beliefs. And that, whilst Tolkien avoided allegory, he consciously established a conceptual framework of good and evil behind the story that is entirely consistent with traditional Christianity.
However, I maintain that is a very different thing to drawing explicit Biblical parallels. This exercise seems futile to me, as world mythos contain endless repetitions and variations of magical or heroic episodes, echoes or apparent re-workings of which can be found throughout LoTR. There is nothing 'uniquely' Biblical about his narrative or characters. And I also believe this reading of LoTR does the author a disservice, casting him as a subtle plagiarist or spin doctor, rather than the tremendously attentive creator of an alternate mythology that I believe him to be.
It is also necessary to see Tolkien's application of moral concepts as rooted in his own time and culture, and NOT as timeless propaganda for today's range of evangelical interpretations. I believe the moral tenets are, if they are anything, explicitly chivalric - romantic, nostalgic and idealist - in the vein of Mallory's Arthurian saga. There is plenty of that Arthurian 'courtly love' between squires and kings (Pippin and Theoden), or brothers in arms (Eomer and Aragorn), for one thing. And the sacrifices and risks undertaken by the heroes of LoTR are not 'insured' by their faith in everlasting life, nor do they act with the knowledge that their good deeds have the 'backing' or approval of an omnipotent power. There is a right and wrong, that is all, an essential standard of honourable conduct to which all should aspire.
The story is fairy tale, not moral fable. It is Christian in its underlying tenets but eclectic in its sources and inspirations, and not bound by fundamentalist orthodoxy (hence the rural English pagan elements, the Irish and Norse, the use of magic). In addition, it is elitist in a somewhat English way - everyone knows and has their place, Kings and Princes take their crowns by heredity - and hugely ambitious in its scale.
It is epic narrative, wonderfully executed, yet no more than that. And as such it is probably not Great Literature. But it is a Great Book! I have been reading and re-reading it along with watching the movie over the last couple of months, and have enjoyed it more than anything I've read for years.
But as narrative it is consciously and deliberately archaic and conservative in style (as all epic stories should be). Whilst there is clearly an ingenious cosmology in place, the book does not challenge or broaden the way in which we perceive the world (the real world). If you read Wright's Native Son, for example, from that point on you may have the tools - the words themselves, or the ability to identify situations - with which to empathise and experience what it is to be dispossessed, regardless of your own advantages. And perhaps your future actions may change with that new perception.
Tolkien does not give us any greater insight than we had before reading the book (I'm not talking about axioms like "even the smallest person can change the world" which is basically unarguable). Nor did he intend to do so.
What he intended, he achieved spectacularly. And probably much more. And has given me and countless others great pleasure.
By the way, I'd still love to know what this earlier contentious thread was about. Could you message me in Elvish? I promise not to tell [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Peace
[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]
|