[Gilthalion]

Wooooooh! Lots of touchy people! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

A careful reading of my post reveals that I covered all of these objections. The primary one seems to be: "Other worldviews believe in Good and Evil, too!"

A refresher...

Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, these are things that all people understand, hence the resonance of this work even in the hearts of those who tell others (and themselves) that they do not believe in such things.

For everyone who cites that Tolkien was out to tell a good yarn and hated allegory, there is another who cites Tolkien's admission that the tale was deliberately influenced by his religion.

These established facts are not mutually exclusive.

Why do I think that a religious person (I cited the Orthodox Jew), might have a greater appreciation than a Secular Humanist? And still greater than an avowed Atheist? Obviously, the greater the empathy with the nature of the work, the greater the pleasure. If a person's worldview does not resonate in harmony with the work, then that person will not enjoy it in the same way as the person who thinks more similarly. To be fair, I also pointed out that there are certain religious types who will actually find the least enjoyment of such a work. The bomb wielding religious extremist and Tolkien both thought that God created the universe, but that the civilized Atheist who does not believe this would still appreciate the Silmarillion more, because the Atheist and the author still had more in common.

Kalessin:

It implies that (either) intelligence, emotional depth, empathic ability, imagination and so on are somehow linked to one's personal spiritual beliefs (or simply the tradition one is born into).

The empathy/sympathy/resonance I speak of is not a commentary on the intrinsic capacity for such things that all Humanity is granted. Rather, it is a natural phenomenon that is prima facia. "Birds of a feather flock together."

I don't believe anyone said that only devout Roman Catholics will understand, appreciate, and enjoy Tolkien. But in the realm of literary criticism, it is demonstrable that those whose worldviews were opposed to Tolkien's did not appreciate his work, and vice versa. (Tolkien himself commented on this.) It is no great leap of the imagination to suggest that (all other things being equal) there is a qualitative difference in empathy (and therefore enjoyment) when divergent worldviews are present.

In Art, particularly Theatre, and by extension Storytelling, there needs to be a sufficient empathy with the work for the performance (or reading) to have effect. The greater that empathy/sympathy, the more moving and profound this effect will be. This is not to say that Vortimax the Goth will not enjoy the Greek chorus, but it is more likely that Eurymandas the Greek will enjoy it in ways that Vortimax will not.


To paraphrase another objection:
Can Christianity claim "ownership" of the books and say they are "Christian Books?"

No. I never said they (we) could. My case is that it is as wrong to disregard the strong Judeo-Christian influence on Tolkien's work as it is to disregard the other influences. The end result is a skewed understanding fashioned to satisfy individual desires for validation of their own worldviews. Certainly the subtle pleasures of finding a Biblical subtext (or a Finnish influence) are lost to those who see only well enough to read.

Most especially, the morally transcendant points of the story will just be pretty words to the mind that is confused about Good and Evil, or which denies its reality altogether.

Again, one need not be especially religious in an organized sense (don't get me started on 501(c)3 non-profit country club charity rackets posing as the Church) to empathise deeply and to appreciate Tolkien greatly.

But to argue that there is no qualitative difference in understanding, appreciation, and empathy from one reading to the next (I suppose on the grounds that we are all Humans and should be thought of as homogenous equals), and that these differences are largely due to the independent worldview of the reader, is what I would call "flimsy."

Marileangorifurnimaluim:
You have set up straw dogs to knock down that had nothing to do with my assertion and that stand opposed to the known facts of Tolkien's life.

...a delineation between good and evil in no more uniquely Christian than eyeballs differentiating between black and white. It does not even begin to prove a basic Christian nature of the LotR.

I've already covered the self-evident universality of belief in Good & Evil.

To be a basically Christian work, it must be basically about Jesus Christ. I've read the texts carefully and have not yet even found the name of Tolkien's Lord in them. Straw Dog Argument.

I disagree that religion was the lodestone of Tolkien's life.

If that were the case, then why did he spend all that time mucking about in languages, and making up new ones the bible was not written in, and not studying the bible?

Terrible waste of time and effort that, for one whose life was solely devoted to Christianiity.

As a practicing Buddhist do you work for a living or have any hobbies? Christians are not under orders to merely sit on mountaintops wearing white robes and singing hymns. The fact that Tolkien left a rich legacy of excellent literature is not antithetical to his faith. Tempered sarcasm aside (what happened to cogent and polite?) this is another Straw Dog Argument.

....this hyperbolic elevation of Tolkien's Christian values above all other Obvious interests....is simply a desperate and tiresome attempt by some to claim Tolkien as their own....this is both selfish, arrogant, and the reasoning behind it, flimsy.

Tolkien himself claimed to be a Christian, I see no debate on that fact. As the article I mentioned in my first post noted, most reviewers throw everything but the kitchen sink and Christianity into their essays about the works. What some Christians are seeking is merely the proper acknowledgement of that influence (one cited by Tolkien himself) upon his work.

It's telling that I've yet to find a non-Christian, or less than utterly devout Christian, who says the same.

It tells me that a blind man does not appreciate a sunset in the same way as one who sees. I think that I can reliably report that folk of deep moral conviction will find joy in Tolkien's work that the shallow will not. This is not to say that such readers will not enjoy a "good yarn."

Not to see certain nuances and influences in a great work is understandable.

But if a blind man denies that there is beauty in seeing a sunset, he will only convince the blind.

And I suppose that is tiresome.