Estel, good to hear you [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
This is an excellent post and you have highlighted what I believe to be the core issues, that I will attempt to summarise thus -
1. Undoubtedly art reflects the artist, and the intent and act of creation is not solely willed and conscious, therefore allowing that all the sensibilities of the artist as a human being will be to some extent a presence in the work ...
but Tolkien himself disliked the diminishing of (his) art that categorising it by a simple, superficial portrait of the creator implies(examples - Orwell = committed leftwing, QED all Orwell's work is leftwing propaganda, Joyce = repressed Catholic, QED all Joyce's work is repressed Catholic psychobabble, PG Wodehouse = nazi sympathiser, QED all Wodehouse's work etc.), and saw preciseley the danger of personality cult or caricature and so on that almost inevitably result. Hence his, and my, contention that art does not
solely embody the artist, but equally stands in embodiment in and of itself.
2. A reader can
confer 'allegory' to a work for their own purposes, just as many other personal interpretations are part of their own valid experience. Yet Tolkien himself (as your Lembas example illustrates), acknowledged that once readers became self-conscious in this kind of interpretation and began to analyse narrative for symbolism that met their own expectations, all the elements of the work would be reduced to a technical context, and regardless of narrative importance the reader would simply be concerned (in a somewhat postmodern way) with the mechanics of (their own inferred) literary device.
3. We, I, you, Tolkien - are
contradictory and complex beings ... we change our minds, our view of self shifts, we re-invent our persona and artefacts, we make mistakes, we are inconsistent and unpredictable, we rise above our own expectations, and so on. Your list of irreconcilable comments by Tolkien simply demonstrates that, and his work itself does too - was LotR revised from a specific religious agenda, or in response to other pressures, and if it was consciously 'revised' in Christianity, was the earlier manuscript deeply flawed by the omissions (obviously not, since much of the crucial narrative and characterisation maintained). Tolkien was a devout Catholic when he wrote the first edition - had his Catholicism changed by the time he came to revise? It is NOT the Bible, it is a human book by a human author and not the verbatim dictated words of God (unless through divine determinism you posit that all actions are willed by God - and even if you do, is there no difference between the inspiration of the Gospels and Tolkien's own subcreation?) ...
we should acknowledge, cherish and celebrate the humanity, the contradictions, the subtelty and variety of form, meanings and message in LotR, that is it's true and lasting triumph.
Estel, I hope, or think, our areas of agreement are fundamental and any disagreements technical (I am not talking about personal religious convictions here [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]), and I say that with respect for your thoughtful and valuable contributions here and elsewhere, from which I quote -
Quote:
|
The LotR cannot be used as a Christian tome even though it has Christian elements in it.
|
I agree, and wonder why no-one else has said it so straighforwardly before (apart from me, as you know I am incapable of succinctness [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]).
Peace.
Kalessin
[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]