An Unholy Trinity?
1. There are posts on this thread that attempt to identify absolute links between the writings of Tolkien and parts or all of the Bible - citing characters, dialogue or scenes that apparently mirror Bible text.
2. There are also arguments that whilst Tolkien's books were not directly allegorical in intention, his Christian beliefs somehow suffuse the works with an explicitly Biblical morality.
3. There are also the hand-in-hand assertions that the Harry Potter books ARE allegorical (intentionally or otherwise) in their legitimising of immoral behaviour - including specifically the practicing of witchcraft - and that they represent a form of 'moral relativism' antithetical to Biblical truths.
I hope that I have summarised these various arguments reasonably. And let me add my respect for all those engaged in the search for spiritual truths.
However, with apologies for my diplomatic insensibility, all three of these arguments are just plain wrong. A number of eloquent counter-arguments have already been made, to which I add my own, as follows : -
1. To think an "invented mythology" such as Middle Earth deliberately mirrors an episodic 'true' history like the Old Testament or the Gospels is nonsensical. If you think Tolkien's Gandalf IS a Jesus-figure (or any similar allusion) then either the Bible is entirely fictional and we are talking plagiarism, or the stories of Middle Earth are simply a re-writing that actually mystifies the tenets of the Bible. After reading Tolkien have any of us felt like praying to Gandalf? Or somehow that Jesus' life can be given more meaning to us because he is embodied in the exciting (and not at all turn-the-other-cheek) personality of Aragorn? That's a NO on both counts, by the way. And if you think the Bible is itself allegory and metaphor, then any mirroring in LoTR becomes a sort of third-generation pastiche that does no justice to the original.
2. The 'essential Christianity' of Tolkien argument is no different to the 'essential Blackness' of any Black writer, or the 'essential Feminism' of any Female writer. Anything by Maya Angelou therefore becomes a piece of Black Women's writing first - and poetry second. This is a spurious, postmodern, cultural studies-style approach that deconstructs every artistic object into political and cultural reference points. And as far as Tolkien's Christianity itself goes, Anglican sensibility in pre- and post-war England was very - I mean VERY - different from any current American church movement. You can't have the Christian overlay on LoTR (intentional or otherwise) without all the other cultural aspects. In the end you may as well not bother reading the book.
3. Hmm, the evil Harry Potter ... well, let's see. There is Gandalf who wields the Secret Fire in his wooden staff, or directs the river to become a torrent with foaming horse-shapes that drives away ringwraiths, and the Galadriel who speaks inside people's minds and sees the future in a magic mirror - the distinction between these characters and the levitating wizards of Harry Potter seems minimal in terms of 'promoting witchcraft'. But there is certainly a modernity in Harry Potter in its interpretation of childhood as a time of insecurities and difficult choices. And yes, there is a "soft landing" in that perhaps no-one is all bad ... but again, Gollum for example is also an explicitly ambiguous figure in LoTR (as is Boromir), so the absolute good vs. evil analysis is selective and arbitrary. The fact is that in Biblical terms human beings are not qualified to make absolute judgements of right or wrong. Only God can do that. There is therefore plenty of moral relativism in every 'moral' artifice (literary or otherwise) including LoTR. Aragorn tricks Sauron to distract him from discovering Frodo ; Boromir and Frodo succumb to temptation ... and so on. I reckon the only real problem with Harry Potter is that it's so banal.
The end (for me, anyway). But compliments to all who have contributed to this lively, stimulating and impassioned debate.
|