The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 02-20-2002, 04:11 PM

Thanks Mr Underhill (and others for taking up my points) ...

However, I would add that elves and talking (and walking) trees are just two examples of traditional, gently pagan (but pagan nonetheless) English folklore - that illustrate cultural influences in Tolkien's writing as quintessential as his Christian faith.

I am not arguing that as a (small c) conservative Christian, Tolkien would not basically have applied a moral sensibility in his storytelling. But I believe that the moral sensibility apparent in LoTR is not simply an explicit replication of Biblical tenets. For one thing, there are the other aspects of his personality and background that suffuse the work (as above); and in addition, as an academic with an interest in mythologies you can clearly see in LoTR an attempt to evoke the essence of other epic myths - Beowulf is one example, and in his construction of language and concepts such as the Grey Havens, there is what seems like an explicit acknowledgement of the Irish myth cycles of Cuchulain, the Tuatha de Danaan and so on.

And I come back to my original point. To say that his exploration of a cataclysmic struggle is - by virtue of its themes and a basic moral code in which honour, loyalty, truth and justice are the highest values - a kind of "baby" Bible, is reductio ad absurdam. And it kind of defeats the object of the book itself, or of literature in general.

Now I also have to raise a slightly more contentious issue. Is this attempt to establish an explicit Biblical connection in some way related to the popularity of LoTR - or that in recent years it has been devoured by generations of western readers who have found the mystic iconography and epic morality MORE appealing and accessible than the Bible itself?

I just throw this up speculatively ...

I hate to say it, but LoTR is not considered the pinnacle of artistic achievement. It is not Nabokov, Joyce, Orwell, it is not Gabriel Garcia Marquez, not Dylan Thomas, DH Lawrence or Steinbeck. I'm sure if you understand my point you can think of many others. Or, more prosaically, the film adaptation is wonderful but it is not The Shawshank Redemption, Casablanca or The Seventh Seal.

I would say that it is in a line of epic storytelling that is generally more populist, nostalgic and artistically cautious. It is not the sort of book that changes the world. Unlike the Bible.

So, in conclusion, I don't feel obliged to weigh my reading and re-reading of this entertaining book down with such responsibilities and subtexts, and again I come back to this point that the more you turn LoTR into some artifice or literal essence of the Bible, the less you need to read it. "Oh it's by Tolkien, he was a Christian, it's kinda like the Bible, 'cos he was a Christian you see, and it's about good and evil and it's kinda Biblical ..." Okay. Got it. No need to read it, then, because the Bible itself is brimming with such conviction, immediacy and spiritual force that it doesn't need or deserve to be soft-sold. It stands on its own, as it should.

Anyway, I've gone on at inordinate length, so I'll end with this ... I could, of course, be quite wrong [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

02-20-2002, 04:11 PM	#96
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Thanks Mr Underhill (and others for taking up my points) ... However, I would add that elves and talking (and walking) trees are just two examples of traditional, gently pagan (but pagan nonetheless) English folklore - that illustrate cultural influences in Tolkien's writing as quintessential as his Christian faith. I am not arguing that as a (small c) conservative Christian, Tolkien would not basically have applied a moral sensibility in his storytelling. But I believe that the moral sensibility apparent in LoTR is not simply an explicit replication of Biblical tenets. For one thing, there are the other aspects of his personality and background that suffuse the work (as above); and in addition, as an academic with an interest in mythologies you can clearly see in LoTR an attempt to evoke the essence of other epic myths - Beowulf is one example, and in his construction of language and concepts such as the Grey Havens, there is what seems like an explicit acknowledgement of the Irish myth cycles of Cuchulain, the Tuatha de Danaan and so on. And I come back to my original point. To say that his exploration of a cataclysmic struggle is - by virtue of its themes and a basic moral code in which honour, loyalty, truth and justice are the highest values - a kind of "baby" Bible, is reductio ad absurdam. And it kind of defeats the object of the book itself, or of literature in general. Now I also have to raise a slightly more contentious issue. Is this attempt to establish an explicit Biblical connection in some way related to the popularity of LoTR - or that in recent years it has been devoured by generations of western readers who have found the mystic iconography and epic morality MORE appealing and accessible than the Bible itself? I just throw this up speculatively ... I hate to say it, but LoTR is not considered the pinnacle of artistic achievement. It is not Nabokov, Joyce, Orwell, it is not Gabriel Garcia Marquez, not Dylan Thomas, DH Lawrence or Steinbeck. I'm sure if you understand my point you can think of many others. Or, more prosaically, the film adaptation is wonderful but it is not The Shawshank Redemption, Casablanca or The Seventh Seal. I would say that it is in a line of epic storytelling that is generally more populist, nostalgic and artistically cautious. It is not the sort of book that changes the world. Unlike the Bible. So, in conclusion, I don't feel obliged to weigh my reading and re-reading of this entertaining book down with such responsibilities and subtexts, and again I come back to this point that the more you turn LoTR into some artifice or literal essence of the Bible, the less you need to read it. "Oh it's by Tolkien, he was a Christian, it's kinda like the Bible, 'cos he was a Christian you see, and it's about good and evil and it's kinda Biblical ..." Okay. Got it. No need to read it, then, because the Bible itself is brimming with such conviction, immediacy and spiritual force that it doesn't need or deserve to be soft-sold. It stands on its own, as it should. Anyway, I've gone on at inordinate length, so I'll end with this ... I could, of course, be quite wrong [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]