The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 05-17-2002, 07:26 PM

littlemanpoet [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

whilst I feel rather boring having to agree with you most of the time [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] , I think this is a salient point.

Both the 'snapshot' metaphor and the whole Bible - Trilogy analogy are problematic, for a whole number of reasons.

On a structural level, the Bible was written (or recorded, or transcribed, whatever) by a multitude of hands from a multitude of sources, across a long period of time. In addition, we are familiar with one major translation, which address some (not all) of the range of source data. Tolkien was one man who wrote over the span of one lifetime.

On a causal level, The Bible was or is clearly NOT intended for the purposes that Tolkien intended for his works - and vice versa. Whilst for many the Bible may contain gripping narrative, a sense of adventure, and so on, that is clearly not the limit of what it is meant to be. And whilst Tolkien's work may for many seem spiritually uplifting and insightful, or resonate with eternal truths, he explicitly articulates its essential nature as a 'story'.

Possibly the key area of analogy, although highly contentious ( ... please don't close the thread BW ... ) is in Tolkien's idea that ALL the great myths had or were in some way essences of 'truth'. He therefore attempted to create a mythos that contained a priori integrity (truth). Note that in other threads I have argued that his cosmology breaks down under standard philosophical enquiry. It has been argued that the Bible is a collation of myth as a vessel for the 'truth' ... this interpretation allows some notorious rationalist Anglicans, for example, to view transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the Creation and so on as metaphorical rather than literal, and thus to reconcile the Bible with at least some of the 'sacred cows' of empirical science.

On this level - an invented purposeful myth providing a framework for abstract (or ethical) 'truth' - one could argue for the analogy. But this seems to me a very challenging assertion, and one of which Tolkien would almost certainly NOT have approved!

If you discount that, the nature of the cosmologies and their 'sub-creation' become a difficult analogy. We're not talking about competing RPG scenarios here [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

However, I have argued (on another thread) that the Christian model is a useful and probably appropriate one with which to appreciate aspects of Tolkien's mythos (especially The Silmarillion), including the fact that the contradictions - between the Creator's omnipotence and the free will of His creations, or the sub-creative Fall of Melkor (ie. the beginning of Evil) arising from infinite perfection - are not resolved in a rational or philosophical way. Tolkien himself acknowledged these themes.

Thanks for another excellent contribution, LMP [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

05-17-2002, 07:26 PM	#184
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	littlemanpoet [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] whilst I feel rather boring having to agree with you most of the time [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] , I think this is a salient point. Both the 'snapshot' metaphor and the whole Bible - Trilogy analogy are problematic, for a whole number of reasons. On a structural level, the Bible was written (or recorded, or transcribed, whatever) by a multitude of hands from a multitude of sources, across a long period of time. In addition, we are familiar with one major translation, which address some (not all) of the range of source data. Tolkien was one man who wrote over the span of one lifetime. On a causal level, The Bible was or is clearly NOT intended for the purposes that Tolkien intended for his works - and vice versa. Whilst for many the Bible may contain gripping narrative, a sense of adventure, and so on, that is clearly not the limit of what it is meant to be. And whilst Tolkien's work may for many seem spiritually uplifting and insightful, or resonate with eternal truths, he explicitly articulates its essential nature as a 'story'. Possibly the key area of analogy, although highly contentious ( ... please don't close the thread BW ... ) is in Tolkien's idea that ALL the great myths had or were in some way essences of 'truth'. He therefore attempted to create a mythos that contained a priori integrity (truth). Note that in other threads I have argued that his cosmology breaks down under standard philosophical enquiry. It has been argued that the Bible is a collation of myth as a vessel for the 'truth' ... this interpretation allows some notorious rationalist Anglicans, for example, to view transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the Creation and so on as metaphorical rather than literal, and thus to reconcile the Bible with at least some of the 'sacred cows' of empirical science. On this level - an invented purposeful myth providing a framework for abstract (or ethical) 'truth' - one could argue for the analogy. But this seems to me a very challenging assertion, and one of which Tolkien would almost certainly NOT have approved! If you discount that, the nature of the cosmologies and their 'sub-creation' become a difficult analogy. We're not talking about competing RPG scenarios here [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] However, I have argued (on another thread) that the Christian model is a useful and probably appropriate one with which to appreciate aspects of Tolkien's mythos (especially The Silmarillion), including the fact that the contradictions - between the Creator's omnipotence and the free will of His creations, or the sub-creative Fall of Melkor (ie. the beginning of Evil) arising from infinite perfection - are not resolved in a rational or philosophical way. Tolkien himself acknowledged these themes. Thanks for another excellent contribution, LMP [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Peace [ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]