[Estel the Descender]

(Advanced warning! This is one loooooong essay. Advanced apologies for taking this much space. Furthermore I had intended this work for a thread that has now closed. Anyone interested could try to look it up 'Tolkien and Christianity'. Reading the posts here, it seems that my lengthy post maybe applicable [I hope]).

Is it possible to understand Tolkien's writings in an emotional sense without participating in his own particular set of assumptions about history, redemption, and providence?

I believe that it is indeed possible to understand Tolkien’s work even if one were not a Christian. To say that only Christians can understand and appreciate fully the LotR and the Silmarillion is like saying that only children and not adults can understand and appreciate fairytales. Tolkien wrote:

If fairy-story [sic] as a kind is worth reading at all it is worthy to be written for and read by adults. They will, of course, put more in and get more out than children can.

It is this putting more in and getting more out that seems to be an issue: do Jews and Christians get more and put more in the LotR than non-Jews and non-Christians in the same way that adults put more in and get more out than children? Let us consider another influence first other than the religious element, say, the language element.

It has been said that Quenya was influenced by Finnish (although in truth Finnish was the inspiration for early ‘Qenya’ the real influences of mature Quenya were Latin and Greek). The Grey-elven tongue, however, was heavily influenced by Welsh. For instance, the change from primitive Celtic kw to Welsh p is mirrored directly in the transition from primitive Elvish kw (qu) to Sindarin p. (For example: primitive Elvish ‘alkwa’ [swan] becomes ‘alph’ in Sindarin). Tolkien does not mention in the LotR appendices that he based Sindarin phonology on Welsh, but anyone who is familiar with Welsh or is a native Welsh speaker would have ‘gotten more out’ than someone who is unaware of the relationship of Welsh and Sindarin. Now this does NOT imply that philologists or native Welsh-guys are more intelligent, are more emphatic, have more emotional depth, or are more imaginative in their reading of the LotR than anyone else: a knowledge of Welsh or Finnish is not a prerequisite for reading the book. But they do have the advantage of recognition, that of familiarity. This allows them to get more out of their reading. Now Sindarin is definitely NOT an analogical representation of Welsh, but the influence is there. We do not begrudge the language-guys who do their best to study the Elvish languages: we do not have to be philologists nor should we be aware of the association of Finnish and Welsh to Quenya and Sindarin respectively in order to have a really satisfactory emotional experience with LotR. But neither do we try to stop or discourage these language-lovers from their added pleasure of studying the etymologies of not only the main Elvish languages (Quenya, Sindarin) but also the other languages of Middle-earth and their external histories, where Telerin sounds like Italian and Khuzdul (Dwarven) like Hebrew. They experience far more than anyone because of their specialty.

Now, supposing someone came up to a Welsh Tolkien linguist and said, ‘Sindarin is like Celtic’. The Tolkien linguist would recognise this as a half-truth, but still true, and s/he might let this comment pass. Should that someone follow-up and say, ‘Sindarin is like Irish’, the Tolkien linguist can protest and say to that someone, ‘You are mistaken.’ This does not mean, however, that the Tolkien linguist from Wales is necessarily trying to appropriate the work of Tolkien to support his/her own language and culture. But what’s the difference? Aren’t both Irish and Welsh Celtic languages? Yes there are similarities, but there are big differences too. Of course, non-native speakers can’t tell the difference between Irish and Welsh, or British English and New Zealand English. It takes one who knows Irish to know that Sindarin does not sound like Irish but like Welsh. And it takes an Englishman to know that when a New Zealander speaks in English the latter is using a different accent. But good grief! is all of this wrangling with language really necessary in order to enjoy the sound of Sindarin? Nope. One does not have to know Welsh to acknowledge that Sindarin sounds like it. And nobody has to study Quenya or Sindarin in order to have a satisfying emotional response to the LotR, but those who somehow know a little bit more about the Elvish languages will always ‘get more out and put more in’ than those who don’t. They can recite the poetry out loud, for instance. And as for those lucky souls who happen to know the melody which Tolkien composed for the Namarie, they can sing the entire passage (providing that they can carry a tune!). Learning how to say ‘I love you’ in Sindarin may not give one a greater understanding of the LotR but the comparative appreciation should be deeper.

It is possible for us, as humans, to put ourselves in the shoes of others, so to speak. In understanding any individual and his or her work, this is requisite. The Orthodox Jew will find Tolkien far more understandable than the Secular Humanist, who will understand him still better than the Atheist.

I believe that the proper word should not only be ‘understanding’ but also ‘recognition’. It is, in my opinion, not a matter of having the same appreciation or understanding that influences the emotional response but the familiarity of the theme. But Christians and Jews are not the only ones who can recognise the theme, especially in the Western world where Judeo-Christian morality is a prime foundation. It is no longer a requisite for Westerners, religious or non-religious, to be Christian or Jewish so that the recognition would be possible. A Western-influenced atheist will recognise the themes of the struggle between good and evil better than an Eastern-influenced atheist. This does not mean a difference in ‘intelligence, emotional depth, empathic ability, imagination and so on’ but a difference in culture. And this cultural difference does not imply any sense of ‘superiority’ at all but of nearness and of familiarity.

But then, is there a significant difference between Judeo-Christian morality and other ethical philosophies? There is the assertion:

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.

Yes, good and evil are recognizable in every culture; the Bible (the Judeo-Christian Bible) says so too:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God showed it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead: so they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20

However, there are very different treatments and shades of understanding given to the subject of good and evil. Judeo-Christian (Biblical) morality is about the final triumph of good versus evil. Let us take the modern polytheist (a Hindu or Shinto-jin): their contrast of good and evil is comparable to their contrast between man and woman (Krishna and Kali; Izanagi and Izanami). To Taoists, good and evil are symbiotic, comparable to the positive and negative polarities in electricity and magnetism, the right and left. Destroy one and you destroy the other. Eastern Buddhism (like Zen) believes that everything is ‘virtual reality’, everything is just a ‘holo-deck program’ with the safety protocols permanently engaged: the sooner you realise that good does not really benefit you nor does evil actually harm you or anyone the better. Greco-Roman mythology like Eastern pantheism does not convey a ‘good triumphs over evil. . .’ message, what with Zeus and his various infidelities and all the gods’ petty bickerings. And in Nordic mythology, we find the eventual triumph of evil over good in the so-called ‘Twilight of the Gods’ and the fall of Asgard.

The concept that it is imperative that good should triumph over evil first started with the Jews. And good is definitely good and evil is definitely baaaaaaad.

In my perfectly honest opinion, there isn't really a value, especially since he did not intend for parallels to be drawn. It seems that many people spend a lot of time trying to 'read' a meaning into what an author says without realizing that perhaps the author had no 'hidden meaning' that can only be arrived at by tenuous jumps from what is said to what that person thinks the author meant. Many people miss the fact that most stories are written to be just that: stories. No ulterior motive, no hidden meanings, no allegory.

This is true. But there is a world of difference between the ends [intended meaning] and the means [the foundation, the ingredients]. Christians do not even pretend to say that the LotR was intended to give a hidden, Christian meaning. What they are merely asserting is that the morality of the work is patterned after the Judeo-Christian ethic. There is a big difference in treatment between Judeo-Christian morality and other Western and Eastern morality.

To illustrate the difference in treatment, let us compare Western fantasy with some modern Eastern fantasy: the Final Fantasy series. In Final Fantasy VII, we have the ‘villain’ Sephiroth. Early on he murders one of the main characters in the story. But later it is revealed that he was not really evil in the Judeo-Christian sense but was actually a ‘hero’ who kinda lost it. Well, kinda like Feanor but Sephiroth was undone not by his pride but by his being, well, ‘too pure’. In Final Fantasy VIII, we have the ‘villains’ Seifer Almasy and Edea the Sorceress. They both seriously injure and torture the main character, Squall. But later it is revealed that Edea was actually the one who took care of Squall as a child and was not really evil. Seifer was actually a good and noble knight wannabe who got ‘twisted’. He never gets any real punishment in the end while Edea is reconciled with Squall. I doubt if Feanor would have gotten a similarly lenient (by Western moral standards) treatment. In Final Fantasy IX, Kuja was the ‘villain’ but in the end as he is dying it is revealed that he had some good in him after all and was instrumental in the survival of the ‘heroes’. The early ‘villains’ (or what are called ‘bosses’: Steiner, Beatrix and Amarant end up becoming ‘heroes’ themselves.

In another modern Japanese fantasy, Sakura Wars, the main villain used to be one of the heroes. He did not fall because of some Vader-esque attraction to the Dark Side. No, he became the villain precisely because he was ‘too pure’, too ‘Light Side’, a hero who saw the world divided into the forces of good and evil and imbued with the idealism that good should triumph over evil. Because of this ‘imbalance’ (according to Taoist philosophy), he finally snapped and became ‘Aoi-Satan’, ‘Blue Satan’. In another modern Japanese fantasy based on an actual event in Japanese history, known in the West as ‘Ninja Resurrection’ the saintly, noble and unbelievably pure Christian samurai lord, Amakusa Shiro Tokisada becomes the villain not through any fault of his own but because of the treachery of one of his followers. He not only becomes really bad but also absolutely frightening [and I mean reallllly terrifying]. His change (both in history and in fantasy) is not Vader-esque in the sense of being seduced by the Dark Side, nor even like Ebenezer Scrooge and David Copperfield. Initially the unfortunate victims, both Aoi-Satan and Amakusa become malevolent creatures.

Now, contrast that with how Tolkien treated Feanor, Saruman, Sauron, and, most especially, Gollum. Were they ever presented as necessary counterparts to good? Did they have to exist to make good ‘OK’? Yes, Gollum had a part to play, but it was made very clear that his fate, though instrumental and important, was the result of his malice and his betrayal. Even in Gollum’s death, there was no justification nor rationalization from Tolkien.

In Japanese legend, we find a hero named Yo****sune who during the 14th century learned swordplay from a ‘tengu’, which translates as ‘goblin.’ The Japanese, both medieval and modern, do not have a problem with their hero being taught by an orc. Finally, Yo****sune receives the Secret Scroll of Inner Strategy (Heiho Mokuroku Hiden) from the ‘King Goblin’ himself. Compare this with the attitude in the LotR on not using the weapons nor the methods of the ‘enemy’. The Japanese legend does not believe that anything could be evil by itself, but the legends of the Judeo-Christian West, from King Arthur to LotR, show that you could not use an ‘evil’ weapon without being corrupted by it. Incidentally, Yo****sune the hero doesn’t win at all in the end. He is hunted down by his own brother whom he had helped because the older brother grew jealous. Unlike the tragedies of the West where such tragic endings happen because of a ‘fatal flaw’ (Hamlet’s indecision, Othello’s jealousy), Yo****sune’s downfall came about in spite of his virtues. The glorification of defeat is alien to cultures influenced by Judeo-Christianity with its theology of history, redemption, and providence. Even in Japanese recorded history, it was the mass suicide of the 47 ronin (masterless samurai) that evokes the most emotion in the Japanese audience rather than their brilliant campaign of vengeance upon the ‘evil’ Yoshinaka Kira (who it seems was not really evil at all by the Western definition). Most Westerners could not comprehend their actions (let alone appreciate it).

In the Judeo-Christian scheme, good has to finally triumph over evil, even though evil was (and is) allowed to succeed temporarily. Star Wars, for instance, is by nature Judeo-Christian in morality because of its ‘Light Side overcomes the Dark Side’ theme.

It is one thing for Darth Vader to acknowledge his basic evilness, it is another thing when an ‘evil’ Amakusa claims that he is acting out of devotion to the Christian God. Anakin became Vader because he was arrogant, his fear led to anger, his anger led to hate, and his anger led to suffering. Amakusa became the devil because the Tokugawa government was intolerant of the new religion Christianity and thought it best to massacre helpless women and children, whether they were Christian or not. In the West, Amakusa could have become a Batman or a Green Lantern, but in the East he had to become Satan.

True, one does not have to be Japanese, or Asian, or Buddhist in order to enjoy the Final Fantasy series, Chushingura or Sakura Wars. Nor does one have to be a Jew in order to worship the Jewish Jesus. Nor does one have to be a Christian in order to love, enjoy and have a really satisfactory emotional thrill when reading the LotR or the Bible. But a knowledge and awareness of the underlying religious themes can open the player or the reader to a deeper appreciation of the literature just as much as learning Sindarin or Nihongo can help a reader gain a deeper appreciation of ‘A Elbereth Gilthoniel’ or ‘Go Rin no Sho’.

But we do not even have to go outside Western culture to see the difference between a Judeo-Christian inspired morality found in LotR and the truly pagan Dungeons and Dragons (D&D): let us talk about magic! Let us

address Maril's point that some Christians consider Tolkien immoral because of the element of 'magic'.

In D&D, there are three classifications of good and evil: lawful, neutral, and chaotic. Let us say the classifications of good: lawful good – Galahad; neutral good – Morpheus (Sandman); and chaotic good – Wolverine. That of evil: lawful evil – Silver Age Lex Luthor; neutral evil – Jaws; chaotic evil – Freddie Kruger. The main point in every gaming session is a quest for treasure, experience, and action. In the D&D universe, and its derivatives, the quest ant the side quests are just as important, if not more so, than the plot. In Warcraft III, orcs are not the evil race they are in LotR but a race of shamans. But if we look at LotR, there is only lawful good and chaotic evil, there is no neutral ground. This is Judeo-Christian worldview. (Anyone wonder where George Bush got the ‘You are either with us or you are with the terrorists’ talk? He is an Evangelical Christian [a United Methodist]).

(Note: to those of you who cannot follow my examples because you may not be acquainted with Sandman or Wolverine, or Warcraft III, if Gilthoniel is correct, I would have to apologise; but if he isn’t, I shouldn’t, because anybody should appreciate anything even if they are not familiar with it as well as those who are, right?)

Now what does the above got to do with magic? A lot. Magic, as you will observe in the Tolkien mythos, is peculiar only to the Valar, the Maiar (including the Istari), Elves and Dwarves. Humans do not have any magic at all and the hobbits have ‘little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly’. Modern Western fantasy has copied this concept a little, but the consequences of having what is not meant to be is not stressed in these fantasies. Why not use a tool formerly evil for good? In the modern quests, unless the game-master is either acquainted with Tolkien or is a Christian, the concept of using the enemy’s weapon against him is acceptable. But not so in the Tolkien mythos.

Furthermore, the story of the One Ring is that of the corruption of so-called ‘good magic’. The three greatest rings of the elves were used for healing and protection. And yet the intrinsically evil Master Ring could control them. The solution: destroy the One even though its destruction would also mean the eventual death of Lothlorien and Rivendell. In other words, better that good magic is destroyed forever rather than allow evil magic to survive. This ideal runs counter to, well, the ‘Harry Potter magic’ where the existence of the evil (by Judeo-Christian standards) House of Slytherin is allowed in Hogwarts. That Dumbledore retains such an unsavory character as Snape, keeps such potentially dangerous stuff (the screaming mandrakes for instance) and the Mirror of Erised, did it ever enter the mind of Dumbledore to destroy it rather than hide it deep somewhere? That the Council of Elrond thought it best that they would rather have the fading and eventual extinction of all good magic including Lorien than allow the Enemy to obtain the One Ring.

You must realise that Tolkien’s treatment of magic is not unheard of. There is Merlin who is a wizard and yet supports the Christian King Arthur. There are countless astrologers and such who were commissioned by 14th to 16th century European monarchs, the most famous of which was Nostradamus. These ‘magicians’ were able to escape persecution by subscribing to official Roman Catholic doctrine: the heretics were those who suffered more than witches under the Roman Catholic Church. Witches were primarily persecuted by the various Protestant churches, the most infamous of which were the Salem Witch trials. All those "Christians [who] consider Tolkien immoral because of the element of 'magic'" are primarily Protestant, Fundamental Protestant. The use of magic by Tolkien reflects the ‘traditional’ Roman Catholic view of magic as briefly described above as opposed to ‘official’ dogma which condemns it. Protestants treat the subject differently, as can be observed by reading The Magician’s Nephew and That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis. Nevertheless, both Tolkien and Lewis were against the ‘magicians’ they encountered in Oxford. For them, the desire for mortals in our world to learn magic is comparable to the desire of the Numenoreans to reach the Undying Lands. Again, this is NOT to say that those Numenoreans are allegories or symbols of those Oxford magicians. In Lewis’ novel, That Hideous Strength, there is the character based on Tolkien named Ransom who persuades the revived Merlin to renounce his magic and ‘save his soul’. The concept of the destruction of the One Ring is similar to this (NOT SYMBOLIC NOR ALLEGORICAL).

Furthermore, there is a greater cultural sympathy for magic in Great Britain than in the United States (this is not to say that there are no Britishers who are against the magic element or that there are no Americans who like magic). The Americans have no equivalent of Merlin in their legends, and have sometimes been openly hostile to the concept of magic (note Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court [not the watered down, Disneyfied versions]). It is no wonder that most of the condemnation of magic in books come from Christian denominations based in the U.S. which are more or less Protestant.

So both authors, Lewis and Tolkien, do use magic in their books, but they never leave out the message ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ when they do. The idea is that it is better to be a non-magical person and able to resist evil (like Samwise) than a Gandalf who could not even hazard to touch the One Ring. As Tolkien stated, ]‘The magic of Faerie is not an end in itself. . .’ The majority of those ‘fantasy literature’ nowadays make magic not only the means but also the ends: everything revolves around magic. From Quidditch to Magical chess, the emphasis on magic could go overboard: doesn’t anyone in Hogwarts play normal, non-magical volleyball, basketball, baseball, or even cricket? But NOOOOO, all their games have to be magical, all their food has to be magical, everything has to be magical. Anything Muggle is not allowed, like cars. There’s just too much magic. Heck! Even Gandalf and Saruman enjoyed some normal, down-to-Middle-Earth pipeweed and ate normal non-magical food prepared by normal, non-magical means.

The Orthodox Jew will find Tolkien far more understandable than the Secular Humanist, who will understand him still better than the Atheist .

As I said, I think the word should not only be ‘understandable’ but also more recognizable. But even then, I am not so sure that the baldfaced pantheism in the LotR would appeal to an Orthodox Jew as much as the Chronicles of Narnia or even New Testament would. But let’s face it, the LotR can help lead one to theism just as George Macdonald’s fairy tale Phantastes, A Faerie Romance helped lead C.S. Lewis to theism, even if the fairy tale in question had nothing to do with Christianity. But just what kind of theism: monotheism (Judeo-Christianity) or polytheism (Hinduism, Shintoism)? Even Lewis was faced with those choices in the beginning:

There was no temptation to confuse the scenes of the tale [Phantastes] with the light that rested upon them, or to suppose that they were put forward as realities, or even to dream that if they had been realities and I could reach the woods where Anodos journeyed I should thereby come a step nearer to my desire. Yet, at the same time, never had the wind of Joy blowing through any story been less separable from the story itself. . . I had not the faintest notion what I had let myself in for buying Phantastes. . . . A. . . man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. . . . Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. . . . There were really only two answers possible: either in Hinduism or in Christianity. . . (Surprised by Joy by C.S. Lewis)

Note: ‘There was no temptation to confuse the scenes of the tale with the light that rested upon them, or to suppose that they were put forward as realities,’ the tale was not an allegory nor a symbolism of anything. And yet ‘at the same time, never had the wind of Joy blowing through any story been less separable from the story itself’. As Tolkien himself said in his essay On Fairy-Stories regarding morality in ‘fairy-stories’:

The Stories of Beatrix Potter lie near the borders of Faerie, but outside it, I [Tolkien] think, for the most part. Their nearness is due largely to their strong moral element: by which I mean their inherent morality, not any allegorical significatio. [emphasis mine]

The moral foundations of an author or artist is significant in any work of art. Of course, Tolkien tells us in the same essay

Of course, I do not deny, for I feel strongly, the fascination of the desire to unravel the intricately knotted and ramified history of the branches on the Tree of Tales. It is closely connected with the philologists’ study of the tangled skein of Language, of which I know some some small pieces. . . In Dasent’s words I would say: "We must be satisfied with the soup that is set before us, and not desire to see the bones of the ox out of which it has been boiled." . . . By "the soup" I mean the story as it is served up by its author or teller, and by "the bones" its sources and material---even when (by rare luck) those can be with certainty discovered. But I do not, of course, forbid criticism of the soup as soup. . . Most debates depend on an attempt (by one or both sides) at over-simplification; I do not suppose that this debate is an exception. The history of fairy-stories is probably more complex than the physical history of the human race, and as complex as the history of human language.

Have I then wasted my time by trying to identify the ingredients of the soup cooked up by Tolkien? It is true, one does not have to be a cook in order to distinguish good food from food that isn’t good. Nor does one have to be a linguist to study French, Welsh, Telerin or Doriathrin: one does not have to learn Elvish to appreciate the beauty of the words in Namarie or A Elbereth Gilthoniel. One does not have to be a lover of maps, an archer, or a swordsman to like Bilbo, Legolas, or Eowyn. But a cook will find more significance in another cook’s soup. A person who knows how to read (and speak) Elvish will find more significance in the Gate Inscriptions, the Title page inscriptions of the Silmarillion and the LotR. A map reader like Karen Wynn Fonstad will get more out of the books, any archer will be amazed at the skill of Bard and Legolas, and a swordsman will marvel at Aragorn’s ability to take on numerous opponents and not get hurt and still know that what he did is entirely possible in real life.

Tolkien continues in the same essay:

But if we speak of a Cauldron, we must not wholly forget the Cooks. There are many things in the Cauldron, but the cooks do not dip in the ladle quite blindly. Their selection is important. . . Small wonder that spell means both a story told, and a formula of power over living men. [emphasis mine]

The ingredients are essential. As I have said earlier, there are many things in the LotR that is simply ‘not kosher’ to Jews and Protestants (like me). For instance, I don’t like ketchup or mayonnaise, but should I get a cheeseburger at MacDonalds and, lo and behold, it has those ingredients. I do not make a fuss: I just eat it, I do not think of the unwanted ingredients, and then I enjoy my meal. A person who does love ketchup and mayonnaise will enjoy a Big Mac better than me, but does not mean that I cannot enjoy the sandwich unless I love all the ingredients. It just means that I do not appreciate the taste of mayonnaise the same way as other people do. I do not want to learn to like mayonnaise nor do I begrudge a mayonnaise-lover who says that I am missing out a lot.

If an Orthodox Jew reads the part about Bilbo dreaming about bacon and eggs, if he has never tasted bacon before, then the one who has tasted bacon can more fully participate in the narrative. (I cannot tell you how many times I stopped reading The Hobbit just to fry a pair of eggs and several strips of bacon). I however cannot comprehend why anyone would want to eat a rabbit. For crying out loud, a rabbit’s a rodent! Tolkien might as well wrote about how Sam cooked a dog or a rat or a monkey. I, who never has tasted a rabbit before, miss out to someone who has indeed tasted (and liked) stewed rabbit. But do I let that bother me? No. How about all that drinking and smoking? To many American Protestants, drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco is near sin (teetotalism after all was for a time legislated during the Prohibition era in the U.S.). To many European Christians, e.g., Tolkien, Lewis, Casper Ten Boom, it is no big deal. If I was not aware that it is okay for many Christians in Europe to smoke and drink, I would have been surprised to find out that Lewis was Protestant, let alone being Christian.

The same goes with fairy-tales, i.e, fantasy, I may be uncomfortable with magic in LotR as I am uncomfortable with okra in my soup, but I do not fuss and refuse the LotR or the soup. I understand that the ‘soup’ calls for that ingredient in the recipe. To remove the magic in LotR is like removing the Fairy Godmother in Ever After. To remove the Christian element in LotR is like changing the ending in Andersen’s Little Mermaid. [The mermaid after all is NOT a symbol or allegory of anything]. Disneyfication and demythologizing should be avoided. The Judeo-Christian moral ethic is just as important an ingredient as the language element: it [the morality] is the seasoning that flavors the soup. I doubt it if an Orthodox Jew would be tempted to eat bacon because of LotR. I am definitely not tempted to smoke tobacco and am in no danger of wanting to eat a rabbit (it’s a rodent)! Neither should all that magic tempt anyone who knows that magic is not good for him/her, and still enjoy the story.

LOTR will live for ever while the Chronicles of Nania [sic] will wither and fade. These two points are just some of many that you make so tellingly.

River Jordan: I respect your openness about your Christian faith, but like C.S.Lewis, it tramels your viewpoint. Your comment about God as central to Tolkien's literary work, and the added comment of Carpenter's view of a 'deeply religious man' omits the point that it is the concept of the fall that is central, and that has many pre-Christian antecedents. Moreover, religious does not simply equate with Christian anymore than does, Jew, Hindu, Muslim et. al.

What I find concerning in the posts of many Chrisitians like yourself is either an ignorance of or a wilful attempt to avoid admitting that much of the Christian myth is pre-Christian in origin.

Luineeldaiel for example, seems unaware of the fact that the concept of the king as healer has a lengthy pre-Christian existence.(If I am doing her an injustice in stating this, I apologise, but she does not qualify her point.)

You have already been taken to task by others more qualified than I regarding your contention about the author's true meaning, which appears to show a complete lack of knowledge of Tolkien's theory of applicability in which the freedom of the reader is positively contrasted with the purposed domination of the author - the main difference between Tolkien and Lewis as writers.

"It takes away from the literature itself to continually focus on parallel's that aren't there."

Which brings me back to my earlier point, what value added is gained by trying to find parallels between Tolkien's writings and the Bible?

The Christians I know never tried to find parallels: all they want is that someone acknowledge the Christian background, the Christian foundation of LotR as I have discussed above. And the contention that 'much of the Christian myth is pre-Christian in origin'. We Christians never denied that: Jesus when he was an infant was visited by non-Jews, pagans, because their myths, not that of the Jews, spoke of his coming. And 'the Chronicles of Nania [sic] will wither and fade'. I don't know about the place from where you come from, but up until the LotR movie people from where I come from preferred the Chronicles over the long LotR. Heck! only me and my twin used to read the LotR. What puzzles me is that people here say that BOTH the Chronicles and the LotR are inferior to Harry Potter and will in time 'wither and fade'.

At any rate, non-Christians (note to the reader: please take this in the broadest sense, that is, all those who don’t worship Jesus Christ as God) and those who are disillusioned by Christianity must not be taken aback when Christians rejoice that a fellow Christian writes successful secular (non-allegorical) prose fantasy. I mean, gays and lesbians can rejoice when one of their own becomes that well read (like they were really happy to find out that Oscar Wilde and Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky were gay and famous, and woe to the Christian who gets offended that their favorite author or composer is being ‘appropriated’ by the gay community), so can Buddhists and Muslims. Why does everyone become touchy when it is the Christian’s turn to rejoice in the accomplishments of one of their own? Nor should we deny gays their satisfaction that many really good authors and composers are one of them. What? Are we to be all closet gays, closet blacks, closet philologists, closet Christians?

They shouldn’t be offended if Jews or Christians will ‘get more out of’ the LoTR the same way that Buddhists ‘get more out of’ the Buddhist Sutras, the way Japanese Zen Martial Artists ‘get more out of’ the Go Rin no Sho, the way Japanese affecionados ‘get more out of’ Final Fantasy, or even the way American blacks would ‘get more out of’ the TV program Roots. Why all the fuss in the first place? Why try so hard to show that Gilthalion was wrong when he said that a seeing person will appreciate the sunset more than a blind person? It is interesting to note that a seeing person can be taught to appreciate the other qualities of sunset that the blind appreciates, while a blind person, unless he or she should see, is limited only to those other qualities; the blind will never learn to ‘see’ color unless he or she stops being blind. But then again, maybe Gilthalion, as he himself admits, ‘shouldn't have used the blind man analogy’.

What is to you, myth, is to me truth. I believe the truth did not awaken with Christ, it culminated in Him.

Tolkien said pretty much the same thing:

The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe [meaning: happy ending] of Man's history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the "inner consistency of reality." . . . To reject it leads either to sadness or to wrath. . .

. . . The Christian joy, the Gloria, is of the same kind; but it is pre-eminently (infinitely, if our capacity were not so finite) high and joyous. But this story is supreme; and it is true. Art has been verified. God is the Lord, of angels, and of men---and of elves. Legend and History have met and fused.

Epilogue: On Fairy-Stories by J.R.R. Tolkien

Gloriait is true

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]