Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lalwendë
Isn't the Bible filled with tales of good vs evil? Of the insignificant winning over the worldly and powerful?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
It is. And so, as Ronald Hutton pointed out in a talk at Tolkien 2005, are fairy stories.
And as far as this 'consciously so in the revison' thing goes, could some of those quoting it as evidence of the essentially Christian nature of the work cite examples from HoM-e?
|
This seems as likely a spot as any to suggest something that I've been mulling over as this thread accumulates.
We have this dichotomy between ancient myths and Legendarium, or paganism and Christianity/Catholicism. And we seem to have groups of readers who respond, on a continuum, but roughly into two sides (although Downers such as
Sauce, Fordim and myself probably constitute a 'third' side.
)
I wonder if we don't need to consider how possibly these aspects could be linked. We have Fairie, we have mythology, we have religion. Were these all as separate for Tolkien as they are for us?
Some time ago--I think it was on the Canonicity thread--I made an observation about Tolkien's OFS. I suggested that Tolkien believed in Chrisitianity because it provided the finest and fullest (for him) experience of that which he found in Fairie. I was expected to be stoned by certain quarters but mainly my point went ignored. I don't think he legitimised Fairie by reference to his faith; he legitimised his faith through fairie. This, at least, is how I read his comments on eucatastrophe.
Recently, a new essay by Tolkien on
Smith of Wootton Major has been published. In it, Tolkien apparently defines Fairie as love--the greatest of that trinity, faith, hope and charity. At least, this is what
Estelyn Telcontar has relayed to me about the essay. And
davem has quoted a passage from it which makes the same comparison (on 'Spun Candy'?). I have not read the essay in its entirely, so I can only make wondering suggestions about what he might mean by this 'love.' (And how love relates to eucatastrophe is another matter.)
What this might suggest is that at some point Tolkien came to understand a common element in his great loves, the pagan mythologies and his faith. After all, his faith commonly said there were great truths in early pagan religions and beliefs and cultural symbols. This is why the Church was able to incorporate pagan symbols into its rich tableau of images--and the Catholic tradition is a very visual tradition, unlike the more austere Protestant forms of faith. (Yes, I realise this argument can be quite successfully deconstructed, but that is aside from my point for the moment.) (And I realise this is my interpretation of one difference between Catholic and Protestant. Literalism provides less opportunity to develop an aesthetic of symbols.)
I'm not in the camp of authorial intention, but it does strike me that there could be a possibility that Tolkien saw a continuum in these topics, saw something inchoate in the early mythologies that he saw working out in his stories. Perhaps something in the act of writing helped him develop this idea, an idea he may not have started out with. This does not explain the absence, for instance, of an Incarnation or a holy Trinity, or a Christ figure fully detailed, but it could account for how elements of the story are so suggestive for certain readers.
A second way of understanding this dichotomy among readers is to think of another author, Graham Greene. I recall some interesting discussions years ago about his
Brighton Rock about where or how does Greene incorporate a religious element. Readers who were Catholic saw it replete with the images, colours and symbols of their faith. Those who were not of course did not. This issue then is, for whom does an author write? Like a gnostic, does an author envision a secret second language for those specially knowledgeable? Or does he simply tell a story using the words and images which form in his imagination and allow those who read to take what meaning they wish, believing that those who seek will find?
But aside from this idea of who Tolkien might have imagined his readers to be, I think there is fruitful discussion to be had concerning what exactly he conceived Fairie to be, mythology to be, and faith to be.