The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 02-21-2002, 10:12 PM

Non-conformist? Hm ...

If you think the nature of any relationship between Lord of The Rings and The Bible is an interesting subject, please read all the posts on this thread. There are a range of well-reasoned arguments (and well-mannered disagreements), and direct references to Tolkien's expressed intentions, his religious ethic, the other influences in his writing, the nature of morality by inference or allegory, to which I have added my own critique of his work in this context.

There are some really stimulating and well-written entries from all sides of the debate.

I would be really interested in your thoughts about the issue, as I have concerns about 'appropriation' ... which basically means taking works of art, or actions, or people, out of their time and framing them in a new context, in order to give validity or appeal to a particular agenda. For example, in this way the Nazis appropriated the philosophy of Neitzche and the music of Wagner to shopfront their ideology. Equally, some new age groups have appropriated (cherry-picked and blended) ancient belief systems and rituals (such as Native American) into a fuzzy lifestyle choice. Or again, poststructural feminists have appropriated cultural or religious rituals and edicts as explicit parables of oppression. And there are many more examples.

Now, there is some merit in the disciplined analysis of any cultural artefacts, and a role for postmodernism. But there is also the danger of propaganda, which is my concern - that is to say, where the primary purpose is establishing and legitimising an intolerant paradigm. Sadly, art and religion have been notorious bedfellows throughout history in this regard.

I'm not making any particular accusations in this case, only saying that the more absolute, explicit and inflexible the linkage and the interpretation, the more I worry. The end result is normally "ownership" and exclusive authority, whilst I believe that Lord of the Rings is a wonderful gift, and should be allowed to maintain it's gentle universality. Buying and liking the book should NOT mean that you are (or should be) signed up to a particular worldview.

By the way, if you do read the thread you'll notice I can't say anything in less than 3 million words. Bit like JRRT maybe (that's my excuse) [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

02-21-2002, 10:12 PM	#104
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Non-conformist? Hm ... If you think the nature of any relationship between Lord of The Rings and The Bible is an interesting subject, please read all the posts on this thread. There are a range of well-reasoned arguments (and well-mannered disagreements), and direct references to Tolkien's expressed intentions, his religious ethic, the other influences in his writing, the nature of morality by inference or allegory, to which I have added my own critique of his work in this context. There are some really stimulating and well-written entries from all sides of the debate. I would be really interested in your thoughts about the issue, as I have concerns about 'appropriation' ... which basically means taking works of art, or actions, or people, out of their time and framing them in a new context, in order to give validity or appeal to a particular agenda. For example, in this way the Nazis appropriated the philosophy of Neitzche and the music of Wagner to shopfront their ideology. Equally, some new age groups have appropriated (cherry-picked and blended) ancient belief systems and rituals (such as Native American) into a fuzzy lifestyle choice. Or again, poststructural feminists have appropriated cultural or religious rituals and edicts as explicit parables of oppression. And there are many more examples. Now, there is some merit in the disciplined analysis of any cultural artefacts, and a role for postmodernism. But there is also the danger of propaganda, which is my concern - that is to say, where the primary purpose is establishing and legitimising an intolerant paradigm. Sadly, art and religion have been notorious bedfellows throughout history in this regard. I'm not making any particular accusations in this case, only saying that the more absolute, explicit and inflexible the linkage and the interpretation, the more I worry. The end result is normally "ownership" and exclusive authority, whilst I believe that Lord of the Rings is a wonderful gift, and should be allowed to maintain it's gentle universality. Buying and liking the book should NOT mean that you are (or should be) signed up to a particular worldview. By the way, if you do read the thread you'll notice I can't say anything in less than 3 million words. Bit like JRRT maybe (that's my excuse) [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]