Of another world

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcedent' experience)(2) while LMP seems to be suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals Christian 'Truth'(2), which 'Truth' then conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcendent' experience)(3).

So LMP is introducing an unnecessary stage into the process as far as I can see.

No.

Tolkien said that the purpose of Fairy Story is escape, consolation, and recovery; namely to recover a clear view. Clear view of what? Reality. What he's saying (and I think you agree) is that Fairy Story (mythic story) reveals reality better than, and in a way that, mimetic fiction cannot.

You need to understand that from my point of view there is no unnecessary stage, since Deeper sense of reality and Christian reality are one and the same.

Originally Posted by davem

It seems to me that believers go to such extremes to construct reasons why God doesn't openly reveal His existence because they're afraid He doesn't actually exist.

It occurred to me today that the Christian subtext in LotR and the evidence of God in the world are of the same nature. In both, the "thing itself' is so pervasive and knitted into the very fabric of the sub-creation that we're too used to looking at it and don't see it for what it is. For example, God's reality is in the very fact that the sun shines by day and the stars by night. That the planets continue to spin and revolve and our hearts keep beating. We take all of it so for granted that we don't even consider that God's creative and maintaining will are behind everything continuing to work. It doesn't matter that there's a scientific explanation for all of it rooted in physics and/or biology; those are merely explanation of what we see actually happening. There is no satsifactory explanation for WHY it keeps happening the way it does. Scientists are forced to answer, "Well, that's the law of (fill in the blank)." What's behind the law? God is behind the law. In the same way, Tolkien's faith is deeply ingrained in LotR. I'll being showing this.

The Losses of the Ring show some revealing variation.

1. Isildur cuts off Sauron's finger and the Ring falls to Isildur.
2. The Ring slides off Isildur's finger at the Gladden Fields, betraying him to the murdering arrows of the orcs.
3. Déagol is murdered by Sméagol for its possession.
4. The Ring slides off Gollum's finger uner the mountain.
5. The Ring drops from Bilbo's hands; Gandalf quickly picks it up before Bilbo can retrieve it.
6. Gandalf quickly places the Ring which he places on the hearth.
7. Sam removes the chain from around Frodo's neck, thinking him dead and the errand in need of completion.
8. Sam gives the Ring back to the demanding Frodo.
9. Gollum bites of Frodo's finger and regains the Ring.
10. The Ring and Gollum melt in the fires of Mount Doom.

Gandalf, when explaining the Ring to Frodo in 'Shadows of the Past', says that Bilbo gave up the Ring voluntarily, but the narration in the previous chapter reveals a more complex situation. Bilbo 'accidentally' drops the Ring.

'You have still got the ring in your pocket,' said the wizard.
'Well, so I have!' cried Bilbo. 'And my will and all the other documents too. You had better take it and deliver it for me. That will be safest.'
'No, don't give the ring to me,' said Gandalf. 'Put it on the mantelpiece. It will be safe enough there, till Frodo comes. I shall wait for him.'
Bilbo took out the envelope, but just as he was about to set it by the clock, his hand jerked back, and the packet fell to the floor. Before he could pick it up, the wizard stooped and seizedit and setit in its place. A spasm of anger passed swiftly over the hobbit's face again. Suddenly it gave way to a look of relief and a laugh.

What causes his hand to jerk back? What causes the packet to fall to the floor? Both circumstances are laid before the reader in such a way that we understand Bilbo to be passive; one acted upon rather than causing action. So Gandalf picks up the envelope holding the Ring, and quickly places it on the hearth. Bilbo is about to get mad, but freed of the burden of the Ring, he suddenly feels relief, and laughs - he is himself again at last (or so we hope) - and leaves Bad End lighter of heart than he has been for many years.

So is Gandalf lying to Frodo when he says that Bilbo gave up the Ring voluntarily? No. Bilbo's obvious relief at being rid of it, shows that he would have given it up, if he had been able. He wasn't able. His will had become enslaved to the Ring.

There is only one voluntary relinquishment of the Ring, by Sam.

Three times the Ring is violently removed fromt its holder.

Three times the Ring falls from the hand of its holder.

Two of these times, the Ring is certainly the will at work: leaving Isildur and leaving Gollum. What about when Bilbo drops it? The sense I have is that the Ring causes Bilbo's hand to jerk back; but does the Ring cause itself to be dropped from Bilbo's hand? Does it drop in hopes of being claimed by Gandalf? Perhaps. Was it just an accident? If so, it is an unusual exception to everything we know about the history of the Ring. Or was there another will at work? If so, what will could overpower the Ring's will to remain in the hands of Bilbo? What will could overpower the Ring's potential hold on Gandalf? It's obvious that Gandalf doesn't trust himself. He is exerting all his effort to separate the Ring from Bilbo while putting every effort of will that he can spare to resist the temptation of the Ring himself! It's not Gandalf's power that gets Bilbo to drop the Ring; Gandalf doesn't dare exert his will in that way, or he will himself succumb to the Ring's lure.

So what will is this? What power? The Valar? If so, which of them has the power to overcome the will of the Ring, that even Gandalf and Galadriel fear? None of them. Is this dropping of the Ring just an accident? How many 'accidents' are there in LotR? More specifically, how many 'acidents' seem to tip the precarious scales of 'chance' toward the good of the free peoples, and away from Sauron's advantage ... if 'chance' we call it? What power is this? There is only one power, one answer that fits the narrative. Eru.

[davem]

If you're arguing for a religious sub-text to LotR (TH, The Sil, et al) I don't disagree – as I've said. I don't think any of the examples you've cited would argue against it being a Jewish, Muslim or Hindu sub-text though. You haven't offered evidence for a specifically Christian sub-text imo.

Its impossible to argue against there being a loving Deity behind the events in Middle-earth, but apart from the reference in Athrabeth I can't see Eru bears any relation to Jehovah.

As an aside, on the news today the Government are planning to teach 'Britishness' in schools, in order to bring about a more 'integrated & co-hesive' society. Apparently this will include teaching children about 'tolerance, democracy & equality' as well as the contribution made by all ethnic groups to our culture. Now, I'm sure you'll agree that all those things are uniquely 'British' & cannot be found in any other country in the world

I can't help feeling that you're doing something similar with the examples you've given of 'Christian' themes in LotR.

Of course, one could argue that it is all down to chance, & that M-e is simply the kind of world where odd synchronicities & serendipities just happen – I'm sure many of the inhabitants believe just that, & I'm sure there are some readers who think the same.

However, even if one accepts a 'Christian sub-text' to the story all that proves is that Tolkien was a Christian & the story reflected his worldview. That said, he deliberately 'concealed' any explicit reference to his religion, which means that if you don't want to pick up on the sub-text you can safely ignore it.

The point being, the story can be understood & enjoyed without any knowledge of, or reference to, Christianity. The unique thing about Christianity is the Incarnation, nothing else. There is no actual Incarnation in the Legendarium, only a single reference to the possibility of something like that happening 'one day'. Again, most readers do not pick up on any Christian subtext, though they probably pick up on a religious one. I'm still not sure I see the relevance of it all though. And it certainly doesn't prove anything about the Primary world anyway.

There is no satisfactory explanation for WHY it keeps happening the way it does. Scientists are forced to answer, "Well, that's the law of (fill in the blank)." What's behind the law? God is behind the law.

Well, the scientists are merely being honest there & I can't see how you can criticise them for that. I don't think you can bring God into it as an 'explanation' without more evidence. That's just back to the 'God of the Gaps' again

For example, God's reality is in the very fact that the sun shines by day and the stars by night. That the planets continue to spin and revolve and our hearts keep beating. We take all of it so for granted that we don't even consider that God's creative and maintaining will are behind everything continuing to work.

Only if you want to see it that way. I'm not saying its not exactly like that, but I'm not smart enough (or, to be frank, interested enough) to decide which of the various religious or scientific 'traditions' are True.

[Lalwendë]

Well, what about Sam?

If the ownership of The Ring was being controlled by Eru because it had to be controlled by Eru, then what does this say about Sam, who gave it up willingly? Or more specifically, about his relationship with both Ring and Eru?

[drigel]

However, even if one accepts a 'Christian sub-text' to the story all that proves is that Tolkien was a Christian & the story reflected his worldview. That said, he deliberately 'concealed' any explicit reference to his religion, which means that if you don't want to pick up on the sub-text you can safely ignore it.

As I read this thread, I appreciate more and more the influence CSL had upon Tolkien. Perhaps seeing the success (in terms of the goals of CSL as author, rather than in the business sense) of Lewis' works set upon JRRT a stronger sense of mission in his own work. The application of the Christian concept not as a preachy lesson to be learned, but adding a layer of depth and meaning to the Ea universe, and also enforcing a validity to Fairy that otherwise would not be there (and not attempted before in literature). Not saying it was necessary or needed, but perhaps in the authors mind, a slight elevation in scope was a good thing.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

.. even if one accepts a 'Christian sub-text' to the story all that proves is that Tolkien was a Christian & the story reflected his worldview. That said, he deliberately 'concealed' any explicit reference to his religion, which means that if you don't want to pick up on the sub-text you can safely ignore it.

This is so.

Originally Posted by davem

The unique thing about Christianity is the Incarnation, nothing else.

Oh really? As if the incarnation itself is no big deal...

Originally Posted by davem

Well, the scientists are merely being honest there & I can't see how you can criticise them for that.

How did you see my words as criticism? I wasn't pejoratizing them, just stating the way things are. Or do you presume that since I'm a Christian, I must be anti-science?

I'm not ... interested enough ... to decide which of the various religious or scientific 'traditions' are True.

Bull's eye.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Well, what about Sam? ... If the ownership of The Ring was being controlled by Eru because it had to be controlled by Eru, then what does this say about Sam, who gave it up willingly? Or more specifically, about his relationship with both Ring and Eru?

Yes, I found that very interesting. Tolkien states that Sam is the real hero of the story. He is the only one who gives it up freely. He is the only one for whom loyalty to, and love for, another are strong enough to overcome the temptation of the Ring. It's a powerful moment. The Ring wielded all the will it had to muster against Sam; Tolkien makes that clear, but Sam resists successfully. Plain horse sense? Is Sam just too mundane? Too humble of a gardener? Lacking in imagination such that the Ring's lure can only be deemed ludicrous? Nope. This Hobbit has grown. There's all kinds of transcendence going on here. The Elves already in the Shire started changing this Hobbit, and he gains wisdom. The Elves in LotR, are bestowers of wisdom and grace, and Sam readily receives. Because he loves and listens to the Elves, and listens to them and understands them (in his own way), he receives what he is able through them, of the mind of Eru, wisdom enough to now his own weakness, his own smallness, his right place in the scheme of things. That was wordy. Sorry.

Drigel, I believe that it was needed. And necessary. .... at least for the sake of mythic unities recovered. But that's another thread.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

However, even if one accepts a 'Christian sub-text' to the story all that proves is that Tolkien was a Christian & the story reflected his worldview. That said, he deliberately 'concealed' any explicit reference to his religion, which means that if you don't want to pick up on the sub-text you can safely ignore it.

Dearie, dearie me! Is davem arguing for a readerly interpretation here?

It is quite possible that Tolkien the author preferred a certain kind of reading, one which allowed, encouraged, demanded a personal responsiblity on the part of the reader. This is part of his famous rejection of allegory. His Christian message would be meaningless if forced upon readers, so he, as a sub-creator, created a readerly situation analogous to that which the Creator--in Tolkien's eyes-- allows, where the onus is on personal responsibility for how one makes sense of the world.

Whether this means "safely ignore" or merely "ignore" is up for grabs.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Dearie, dearie me! Is davem arguing for a readerly interpretation here?

It is quite possible that Tolkien the author preferred a certain kind of reading, one which allowed, encouraged, demanded a personal responsiblity on the part of the reader. This is part of his famous rejection of allegory. His Christian message would be meaningless if forced upon readers, so he, as a sub-creator, created a readerly situation analogous to that which the Creator--in Tolkien's eyes-- allows, where the onus is on personal responsibility for how one makes sense of the world.

Whether this means "safely ignore" or merely "ignore" is up for grabs.

Davem is arguing, as he always has, for reading the story with as little 'baggage' as possible, simply entering the world & allowing it to affect you, move you, & possibly even change you.

If we must choose a certain kind of reading, or interpretation, then out of courtesy we should go with the author's. However I think any 'baggage' (whether of the author or the reader) will get in the way of the direct experience of the story. If Tolkien had wanted to write a work of Christian Apologetics I'm sure he would have done so. This is not to say we are bound to accept the author's interpretation if if causes us 'pain' of any kind, merely that we should acknowledge it as more 'correct' than our own.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It is quite possible that Tolkien the author preferred a certain kind of reading, one which allowed, encouraged, demanded a personal responsiblity on the part of the reader. This is part of his famous rejection of allegory. His Christian message would be meaningless if forced upon readers, so he, as a sub-creator, created a readerly situation analogous to that which the Creator--in Tolkien's eyes-- allows, where the onus is on personal responsibility for how one makes sense of the world.

Wow. I could not have said it better.

Originally Posted by davem

Davem is arguing, as he always has, for reading the story with as little 'baggage' as possible, simply entering the world & allowing it to affect you, move you, & possibly even change you.

... as long as that change does not include any logical results of a Christian subtext?

There are layers and layers of subtext in LotR. How could there not be, considering all the linguistic, cultural, mythic, historical, and other substrata he has layered into it? What I am saying is that the deepest subtext is the Christian one, only one deeper than the theist. In that deepest of subtexts lie principles of reality and of the Spirit that are simply not perceivable by those who choose not to believe Christian teaching. It is this deepest substratum that Christians find so satisfying about LotR. This in no way denies the satisfactions to be enjoyed at the theist, mythic, linguistic, historical, cultural, story, and other strata of LotR. I appreciate that you are at least no longer denying that the Christian subtext is, or at least might be, there.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Wow. I could not have said it better.

... as long as that change does not include any logical results of a Christian subtext?

There are layers and layers of subtext in LotR. How could there not be, considering all the linguistic, cultural, mythic, historical, and other substrata he has layered into it? What I am saying is that the deepest subtext is the Christian one, only one deeper than the theist. In that deepest of subtexts lie principles of reality and of the Spirit that are simply not perceivable by those who choose not to believe Christian teaching. It is this deepest substratum that Christians find so satisfying about LotR. This in no way denies the satisfactions to be enjoyed at the theist, mythic, linguistic, historical, cultural, story, and other strata of LotR. I appreciate that you are at least no longer denying that the Christian subtext is, or at least might be, there.

I accept a theist subtext, but as any reference to Incarnation is absent from the subtext, I don't see how it's specifically Christian.This is why I can't accept your position that there is something non-Christians miss. Apart from the fact that not picking up on it, they couldn't actually 'miss' it, I think you're bringing your Chiristian baggage into Middle earth with you & 'finding' it there because you've brought it.

What exactly is this specifically Christian meaning you're seeing there? All the examples you've offered so far have certainly shown a religious subtext, but not a specifically Christian one. There is no Incarnation in LotR, hence, it is not Christian as far as I can see. Mercy, compassion, self-sacrifice, the presence of a Loving Creator & 'Angelic' Guardians are not unique to Christianity.

I can see specificly Catholic reerences/symbols in there - Lembas, Elbereth, & such, but all those things are well enough accounted for in the context of the Secondary World that a primary world explanation is surplus to requirements. I don't believe bringing Christianity into M-e does anything but break the spell & pull you out of the Secondary world back into the Primary.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

What exactly is this specifically Christian meaning you're seeing there?

Originally Posted by davem

There is no Incarnation in LotR, hence, it is not Christian as far as I can see. Mercy, compassion, self-sacrifice, the presence of a Loving Creator & 'Angelic' Guardians are not unique to Christianity.

Originally Posted by davem

I can see specificly Catholic reerences/symbols in there - Lembas, Elbereth, & such, but all those things are well enough accounted for in the context of the Secondary World that a primary world explanation is surplus to requirements.

These statements succinctly give me the questions I will focus on answering, as I have the time.


Incarnation is not the only distinguishing characteristic of Chrstianity, but I'll get into that more later as well.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Incarnation is not the only distinguishing characteristic of Christianity, but I'll get into that more later as well.

Incarnation & Resurrection: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor. 15:14).

Everything else boils down to Love God & Love your neighbour as yourself - which is about as far from unique in religious terms as I can think of.