The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

[Bêthberry]

I would like for now to move away from the questions of intentionality and return to the intial framing of the topic from littlemanpoet and Son of Númenor's first reply.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tolkien asserted that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy.... or something to that effect (I may not have this worded or remembered quite right).

It certainly works very well in LotR. It was one of his primary criticisms of the works of C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams (fellow "inklings").

Do you agree or disagree that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy?

What were Tolkien's reasons for discluding them? Which reasons were valid back when he wrote? Are they still valid now?

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

Tolkien's assertion about emblems of religion having no place in fantasy could be linked to his dislike for allegory. Fantasy, Tolkien deemed, should have the ultimate purpose of lifting its reader to 'eucatastrophe' -- something along the lines of a state of pure revelation and joy. It would be hard for readers of different faiths to attain such a state with overtly Christian (or Muslim, Jewish, etc.) symbolism penetrating the narrative. I for one agree with Professor Tolkien; if Arwen's banner for Aragorn had a cross emblazoned on it, or if Gondor's seven stars were Stars of David, I think I would be automatically inclined to view Middle-earth as an allegorical rather than a purely fantastic world, and its purpose as evangelical rather than eucatastrophic.

I am going to consider these posts in light of a particular chapter, the 'Journey to the Cross-Roads" chapter of Book IV.

I have in the Chapter by Chapter discussion explained my reading about this chapter but I think that I can also apply my thoughts fruitfully here. I am also going to take lmp's "emblems" and use the concept more widely, to include symbolism of a particular sort. I hope this would not be taking his thoughts too broadly for what he initially intended.

In this chapter, Tolkien gives little dialogue, with the main action being the hurried and harried trek of Sam, Frodo and Gollem from the respite of Henneth Annûn towards the fateful steps of Cirith Ungol. Despite their fears, they are undiscovered and nothing happens, not even the dreadful pull of dark Mordor upon Frodo and the Ring, which begins the next chapter.

What this does is highlight the description Tolkiens offers of the geography and the terrain. It is brought to the fore as the primary topic of the chapter. That description depends very much upon darkness and upon a day that does not dawn but subsists witha sickly brownish smudge and then darkness. Some of the detail may in fact have derived from Tolkien's experience in the trenches of World War I, when the incessant guns and smoke cast a grey pallor over the sky.

Yet the predominant words are darkness and evil. Evil is repeated several times, to the point that even the road is called evil. Clearly the imagery is building towards the culmination of Minas Morgul as hell. However, because the description is so dominant in this chapter, it seems--at least to me--that Tolkien has here moved to close to allegory. All the imagery pertains so closely to that of the traditional iconography of hell that I move out of the fantasy world of Middle earth and into the primary world of Tolkien's faith. I think Son of Númenor's point about evangelical versus eucatastrophic pertains particularly well to this chapter, unlike most of the rest of LotR.

In its most extreme example, this occurs in the statement that a road can be evil. This is at least the fourth use of that word in as many pages.

He [Gollem] would not rest on the ground so near the evil road ...

The basis for this statement, and the rest of the description of Mordor as a land of incarnate evil lies in the theological concept that evil can be incarnate in a person or being. This is a philosophical or theological position and one which not every reader will ascribe to. Those who don't will, I suggest, have difficulty with this chapter because it highlights the description. Rather than being suggestive, as Tolkien I think wisely argues elsewhere, it becomes literal fact.

Coupled with this particular use of darkness, black and evil is the obvious symbolic import of the setting sun shining on the vandalised head of the statue of the king, with the even more symbolic portent of the ring of white flowers.

I think Tolkien was at least partly aware of the difficulty in writing this chapter, given his very interesting decision to give Sam a meaningful dream. I would argue, then, that this chapter demonstrates the validity of Tolkien's argument against allegory and against explicit religious symbols in fantasy. It destroys the artistry of the sub-created world by depending too much upon the iconography of the artist's primary world. Tolkien bore the truth of his idea in his own writing.

[littlemanpoet]

Bêthberry, reading your post was the first time I ever cognated Minas Morgul as hell. Are you certain that it's Tolkien allegorizing and not you? Is there somewhere in Tolkien's Letters that he refers to Minas Morgul or Mordor as his depiction of hell? The only adjective Tolkien uses for the vale of Minas Morgul in the Letters, that I could find, was "dreadful". I'll give you that MM is hellish, but that's as far as I can go.

I admit that I cannot come at this from the same space as some of you (I almost said "objectivity" instead of "space", but who are we kidding? None of us are really objective about this topic), because I was born in, raised in, and still practice, the same faith as Tolkien; so some things are apparently "home" to me that are alien to other readers.

That said, I find it interesting that you admitted that Tolkien's vision of Minas Morgul seemed to have come from his experience in WW1; in my recent reading of the chapter, I had the same thought. So did you cognate Minas Morgul as hell in your very first reading, Bêthberry? Did others of you? If you did, then this section did function for you as a disenchanting emblem of religion. I suspect that Tolkien had no such intention, but wrote this out of who he was just as much as every other part of LotR. A writer with integrity cannot be blamed for that which his readers bring to his work. Not that I think anybody's accusing Tolkien of lack of integrity; I'm just trying to point some things out; with limited success, I'm sure.

[davem]

Isn't this simply the nature of Faerie - both good & evil are incarnate in that world rather than simply moral concepts. LotR isn't a 'realistic' novel, but a fairy story - which is why its so relevant (& why so many 'realistic' novels are not).

[Lalwendë]

It's an interesting idea, Bethberry, and now I'll have to read that chapter over again to see if I can see what you see. But for me, something else always stood out as emblematic of Hell, and that is Moria. The Balrog too reminds me of Satan, certainly of the pictures of Satan that my Catholic grandmother conjoured up in my mind, that he was very much a real being who could be 'battled' rather than a concept.

This is why I think that while there are emblems of religion in the text, as it simply cannot be helped, these symbols are in some cases universal, it is very much dependent upon a reader's own beliefs and understandings as to what they pick up on. From my own understanding of Christ and God, I simply cannot see that Eru is or could be a trinity figure, while others can. For my own part, I see emblems of the old religions throughout the text while others do not see these.

[alatar]

Never saw Minas Morgul as Hell - surely a dreadful place, but if there were a Hell in the story, then I think that it would be located somewhat closer to Barad Dur. Does not the concept of Hell require not just a 'yucky' place but also active torment? The experience of Gollum and whatever was done to his fingers comes to mind.

And in regards to emblems such as Hell (as described) and the serpent on the flag etc; aren't there certain (possibly cultural) images that are typically used to signify 'bad?'

My boy, just this past week, found a small snake. Initially he just observed the same and told Mom, who of course thought that he was fibbing (it's a bit early in the season). When she finally saw that it was real, they all took off running (son, daughters, cousins) as Mom was screaming in her retreat. Anyway, my assumption is that if these children weren't born with an innate fear/respect for snakes, well, they surely have one now. I cannot think that if I were to draw a serpent flag for my children that they would equate it (especially now) with 'the good guys.'

Same goes with anything regarding darkness - I think that it's instinctual to be wary of the same.

Religions, whether created or revealed, surely include these same basics.

[The Saucepan Man]

I have, as with most threads these days, been observing this one in the background with interest.

Generally, I ascribe to the view that Tolkien did not include overt emblems of his (or any other) religion since that would have risked prejudicing the credibility of the fantasy world that he had created, by jolting the reader back into the real world. Additionally, given his interest in the motifs of mythology and legend, he could not include these alongside overt Catholic symbolism without compromising both.

But something that Bêthberry said got me thinking:

The basis for this statement, and the rest of the description of Mordor as a land of incarnate evil lies in the theological concept that evil can be incarnate in a person or being. This is a philosophical or theological position and one which not every reader will ascribe to. Those who don't will, I suggest, have difficulty with this chapter because it highlights the description.

The concept of both living beings and objects being capable of being imbued with good or evil is a concept present in both the myths and legends which Tolkien drew upon and in his religion. So he is able to work with the concept without compromising either influence.

But Bêthberry questions whether those who do not ascribe to this concept are able to accept its presence in a work of fantasy literature such as LotR without it destroying (or at least affecting) the fictional world's "reality" for them. Now, while I am by no means an atheist, I do not have strong religious beliefs and religion does not take a central role in my life. And I certainly do not ascribe to the view that, in "real life", people or objects can be inherently evil. Yet I have no difficulty in accepting this concept in LotR. To me, it is consistent with the world that Tolkien has created and made credible.

Yet I wonder whether I would have the same reaction if I was to read the book for the first time now, rather than when I was young (and impressionable ). And I wonder too how acceptable (in terms of credibility), Tolkien's works are to complete non-believers.

Certainly, had Tolkien's works included overt Christian symbolism and been evangelical in nature, this would have put me off them (certainly now, if not when I first read them).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

Now, while I am by no means an atheist, I do not have strong religious beliefs and religion does not take a central role in my life. And I certainly do not ascribe to the view that, in "real life", people or objects can be inherently evil. Yet I have no difficulty in accepting this concept in LotR. To me, it is consistent with the world that Tolkien has created and made credible.

This sums up where I am coming from; I don't subscribe to any particular belief, but I am also no atheist. And I too don't agree with the idea of inherent evil. So why can I accept this?

Possibly it has, quite literally, to do with 'suspension of belief'? Not only do we have to let go of our own world to some extent to get into Tolkien's created world, but we also have to let go of our own beliefs. Within the work are ideas and symbols that might or might not be ascribed to all kinds of beliefs, and while it is in no way wrong to search for and identify these, it's also important to realise that this is a secondary world with a different moral structure.

What intrigues me about it is to consider whether I myself would cope in Arda, and I have to come to the conclusion that I would not. For one, I would have some misgivings about whether the Orcs really were inherently evil, because at heart I'm a liberal (small L politically ).

I'm not sure if age might always have something to do with it, as when I first read the books I was beginning to develop keen political opinions which I think would have rejected a lot of the moral stances found within Arda. But maybe experience might have something to do with it. Yet I know someone who used to be a staunch marxist who read LotR not all that long ago and was not offended.

Originally Posted by alatar

And in regards to emblems such as Hell (as described) and the serpent on the flag etc; aren't there certain (possibly cultural) images that are typically used to signify 'bad?'

Some time ago I watched a documentary which explored the human emotion of disgust; it is just as instinctive a reaction to us as fear, love, hate etc. Apparently disgust is inbuilt as a natural reaction to those things which are bad for us, which may explain why most of us are not fond of flying insects or food which smells rotten. A serpent may cause many to react with natural disgust which is why it is often shown as a symbol of evil. Conversely, many will deliberately over-ride this natural reaction and take a conscious interest in serpents; this may be why those who wish to convey their power choose such emblems as a way of conveying how masterful over such trifles as emotions they are.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Never saw Minas Morgul as Hell - surely a dreadful place, but if there were a Hell in the story, then I think that it would be located somewhat closer to Barad Dur.

Well, heck, alatar, hell is an expansive place. Dante's has several levels and Milton's has a capital city (Pandemonium).

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Are you certain that it's Tolkien allegorizing and not you? Is there somewhere in Tolkien's Letters that he refers to Minas Morgul or Mordor as his depiction of hell? The only adjective Tolkien uses for the vale of Minas Morgul in the Letters, that I could find, was "dreadful". I'll give you that MM is hellish, but that's as far as I can go.

I admit that I cannot come at this from the same space as some of you (I almost said "objectivity" instead of "space", but who are we kidding? None of us are really objective about this topic), because I was born in, raised in, and still practice, the same faith as Tolkien; so some things are apparently "home" to me that are alien to other readers.

That said, I find it interesting that you admitted that Tolkien's vision of Minas Morgul seemed to have come from his experience in WW1; in my recent reading of the chapter, I had the same thought. So did you cognate Minas Morgul as hell in your very first reading, Bêthberry? Did others of you? If you did, then this section did function for you as a disenchanting emblem of religion. I suspect that Tolkien had no such intention, but wrote this out of who he was just as much as every other part of LotR.

Well, I can certainly see why you did not participate in Fordim's Canonicity thread, lmp. My point here was to consider Tolkien's comment and relate it to his work rather than to Lewis's as is often done. For much of LotR, I think Tolkien handles his allusions to his faith very much in keeping with his avowed intention. For me, he creates a secondary world of great awe and splendor, with the delight being that his allusions ask for readers such as yourself and myself to intuit that fuller meaning. I think this is a crucial aspect of Tolkien's art, that he choose deliberately to veil some things. In doing so, he places certain demands on his readers. He expects them to become very active readers, seeking out patterns, consistencies, putting things together. To my mind, he is an author who holds out greater rewards for readers who are creative rather than passive.

To that end, this chapter of the Cross Roads disappointed me because it destroyed that secondary world. The imagery, symbols, descriptions, became too obvious. Do I discount Tolkien as a superb writer for that? Hardly. I cannot think of one writer who does not at times fall from the hight of his or her talent. Authors are, after all, human, and humans are on this long defeat.

Like you, I have recently been reading about Tolkien's World War I experiences and that likely helped me on this reading place some of the characteristics of the felt experience here. Yet I don't think they are intended to suggest that experience, to lead readers to say, yes, this was what it was like in the trenches. The experience supplied "information" which, together with Tolkien's literary and religious experience, went into the cauldron here to describe this long march.

Why did I refer these descriptions to Hell? Because--and this was even as a child--I understand the evil in LotR as an absence of goodness, a complete and utter separation from those things which Galadriel, Aragorn, Elrond, Frodo, Sam stand for. Anyone who grew up reading Victorian literature as I did knows Tophet and Moloch's Valley of Hinnon, and Milton and Dante too. The cultural milieu is inescapable--even if one wanted to. While the Catholic Encyclopedia discusses hell as a place of punishment for those who have chosen to reject God, Pope John Paul II discussed hell more in terms of estrangement from God. It is this concept which informs my reading. That it differs from yours should not be the grounds for innuendo about the lack of integrity in other readings.

Originally Posted by davem

Isn't this simply the nature of Faerie - both good & evil are incarnate in that world rather than simply moral concepts. LotR isn't a 'realistic' novel, but a fairy story - which is why its so relevant (& why so many 'realistic' novels are not).

I clearly was not clear in my explanation! My point here was not to deny the role of good and evil in Faerie but to suggest that, for me, because of the way this chapter is written (and came to be written) this particular part of LotR destroyed the secondary world for me by bringing the references from the primary world too directly to mind. I don't have this response to other chapters we have already discussed; I don't object to good and evil in Lothlorien or Moria. My point is I guess an aesthetic one rather than a narrative one. This is why I found Son of Númenor's distinction between evangelical and eucatastrophic so interesting. SoNo generated an explanation from Tolkien's own ideas. And it was that creativity which prompted my reply here.

EDIT: cross posted with SpM and Lal!

[Mithalwen]

To put a slightly contrary point (surprise, suprise ), I was a believer when I first read the books and am now am definitely not (and this has not affected my love of the books btw), however I think it may be possible for people to be inherently evil (for want of a better word).

A couple of years ago, I attended some lectures and workshops given by an eminent criminal psychologist and while in many of the cases examined you could argue nature v. nurture indefinitely the cases I found most disturbing were those where the criminal behaviour could have biological factors. One is the vastly disproportionate number of men in prison who have two y chromosomes against the general population. While some argue that the slightly freaky appearance this gives leads to alienation and so an increased likelihood of becoming criminally antisocial, I don't think the genetic factor can be discounted completely : there is that more common genetic defect that vastly increases your chances of winding up in gaol, the Xy combo .... Men with an extra y chromosome are statistically more likely to become violent killers, women with an extra x chromosome are merely extra girly girls who on no account should be allowed to drive cars ( I might as well offend absolutely everyone while I am at it) .... I think there could be something in it.

Scarier were these kids with abnormal brainwaves - they were unbelievably violent and destructive so much so that even family members feared for their safety, and family pets were killed without seeming malice or remorse.

All this, if it is ever proved has great repercussions - morally and legally can people be punished for things which are not their fault? But the wider community has to be protected and if someone is biologically destined to kill do you let them walk the streets until they do?

All this is a long way of saying that the concept of evil is not exclusive to religion.
*confusing self now*