[davem]

Aiwendil

When you say:Quote:

'I ought to point out that there is a very big (though perhaps subtle) difference between intending to actually change people's attitudes and beliefs and intending to change the state of literature - which is why I still don't buy the argument that the TCBS intended to convert people to its way of thinking, and that this remained Tolkien's goal later on. I have always understood their goal as a literary one: they were unsatisfied with the state of modern literature and desired to change that.'

I can only repeat some of the quotes from T&TGW that I gave earlier:

When we have statements like 'the four would have to leave the world better than they had found it', ' To re-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty in everyone's breast.', 'I suddenly saw the TCBS in a blaze of Light as a great Moral reformer', ''The group was spiritual in character, 'an influence on the state of being', 'Smith had wanted them to leave the world a better place than when they found it, to 're-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty through art embodying TCBSian principles.' , ''had been granted some spark of fire ... that was destined to kindle a new light, or, what is the same thing, rekindle an old light in the world'

We can't simply reduce that to an attempt to reform literature. Its clear they were attempting a much greater kind of 'reform' - the reform of society as a whole. It is an attempt at moral reform of society. They are seeking to 'influence the state of being' of society.

Of course, Tolkien can later tell Milton Waldman that his 'crest has long since fallen' in the context of creating a 'mythology for England', & we can also take him perhaps to imply it had 'fallen' in other ways too, but we must accept that his motivations were originally greater than the mere reform of literature.

So, before we can ask 'the Book or the Reader' we must understand what Tolkien was attempting to do with the book, whether he had any message that he wanted to communicate. I think its clear that, in the beginning at least, he had a clear intention of moral reform of society, & that in Lost Tales at least he was attempting to set out his moral philosophy in mythological form. We can reject his moral philosophy & reject his values, but we can't deny their existence, & claim he wasn't doing what he has clearly stated he was doing.

As to whether we pick up on his values, or simply choose our own & take from his writings only what confirms our existing beliefs - well, clearly many do, & that doesn't make them 'wrong', but Helen has shown that many readers, who know nothing of that philosophy do pick up on it & are affected by it to the extent that they change their own moral stance as a result of reading it. Obviously, if Tolkien would not approve of the use & interpretation of his work by Stormfront, that implies he would approve of other interpretations of his work, which means he had some intention to affect his readers thinking.

He wanted to change people, to change society, because he thought it was 'wrong' & he had a sense of what was 'right' - so we come back to 'Truth'. Tolkien had a sense of what this 'Truth' was, & he was attempting to communicate that, & has succeeded with many readers. Within Middle Earth this Truth exists, God exists, so while we are wandering there, or if we are constructing fan fiction, we have to accept those things as givens. If a 'good' character in a Middle Earth fanfic was an athiest, that would simply be 'wrong', because Eru is 'real' within Middle Earth, & the 'Truth' is a fact. None of which 'proves' that God exists in this world, or that 'Truth' is a fact here in the primary world. But then we have to ask why we respond so strongly to those ideas - God, Truth - in that world, why the sense of 'rightness'? What, exactly, moves us, if not some sense, conscious or unconscious, some 'memory' or sense of 'recognition', why is Middle Earth so attractive?

I would speculate that we are responding in that way because that world feels 'right', whereas this world feels 'wrong', that world feels 'true', while there is a sense of 'falseness' about this one - but where does that sense come from? Why, as Lewis asked, would we feel such a strong need for something that doesn't exist? We only feel hungry because food exists, feel sexual desire because sex exists - if those things didn't exist we wouldn't feel desire for them, & their absence wouldn't feel like a lack, wouldn't be painful. So how can we explain the need for meaning, truth, if those things don't exist, & why do we feel that sense of contentment within Middle Earth, where those things are supplied, because they're supplied?

Yet, of course, Middle Earth mustn't be an allegory, mustn't exist simply as a means to supply what's lacking here, it mustn't exist for this world. It must exist for itself, & the characters do what they do for their own reasons, which relate solely to their own world, so we can choose to take from that world what we will. But we have to ask ourselves honestly what we are responding to in that world, what needs it is supplying, & why we respond as we do it, & why we choose to take what we do from it.

Why would someone who has rejected the spiritual dimension of life in this world choose to willingly frequent a world where the spiritual dimension is so much to the fore? Why would someone who is an absolute materialist, & finds spiritual, magical, supernatural beauty, goodness (&supernatural evil) to be nothing but silly superstition want to spend time in a world where those things, along with God, & Truth, are 'facts'. Surely, someone with that worldview would find Middle Earth stupid, offensive & wrong?

I'd have to ask both you & SpM why you are drawn to Middle Earth - is it for 'everything else' you find there, except those things? But you could find all that you claim to want, & nothing you find to be 'wrong' in a thousand other secondary worlds - yet, back you keep going to Middle Earth. Its almost like its supplying a need you have which you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge feeling.

I can't see how you can make this absolute break with what you find in Middle Earth & this world, to the extent that you won't even acknowledge the possibility that you are responding to something 'there' that you're missing 'here'. If you feel the poignancy of Frodo's departure, if you cry with pride & awe when Eowyn faces the Lord of the Nazgul, if you respond to the bravery of Beren & Luthien, & the Ofermod displayed by Turin, & are stunned by the Noldor drawing their swords in the light of the first dawn, what are you responding to & why are you responding at all, if not because on some level it feels 'right', & therefore 'true'? Some part of you is responding to something. The 'Book' is eliciting a response from you which as a 'materialistic athiest' you shouldn't feel.

But none of that is to try & convert you to anything. I have no interest in trying to convert anyone to anything, & I can honestly say that I've never posted anything on these boards with that intention. I wouldn't be able to - as I'm not a committed believer in any particular religion, though I admit I lean more towards some than to others, but I've studied many of them & learned from most of them.

I don't know how far this is off topic - the question, The Book or the Reader does seem to require that we at least state where we as individual readers are coming from, & in what way the book affects us, in order that we can say why we come down on one side or the other in the question.

This post is way too long, as usual.