The Lord of the Bible?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Sure. But can you not analyze things without losing the magic? That's not a rhetorical question. Can't you go through something and study it without interest being lost through the findings of the answers? Just because we now know why the sun rises every morning, does that decrease the beauty of dawn? Does knowledge of the origins of lightening take away from the sheer ecstasy that is watching a storm come in and rage above you?

It's like metaphysicists appreciating the finer points of creationism by learning the details of creation. In such concise study, you either fail or succeed to find things, but surely you learn nonetheless.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Sure. But can you not analyze things without losing the magic? That's not a rhetorical question. Can't you go through something and study it without interest being lost through the findings of the answers? Just because we now know why the sun rises every morning, does that decrease the beauty of dawn? Does knowledge of the origins of lightening take away from the sheer ecstasy that is watching a storm come in and rage above you?.

Does knowing where Leonardo obtained his paints improve your appreciation of the Mona Lisa?

Well, it may do, I suppose.

If you're that way inclined.

I don't see the connection.

Of course, he must have obtained his paints, & canvas, & brushes somewhere (or made them himself perhaps). And I'm sure there's a really interesting story behind that for Art students, but I think its a whole other story, & nothing to do with the Mona Lisa, except very tangentially.

I don't get what you plan to do with this other story about LotR once you get it. It wouldn't be difficult to find Tolkien's sources of inspiration - everything from Northern Myth & Icelandic Sagas & the Bible, to personal experiences of being orphaned & fighting in a war, through Morris' romances, Lonrot's Kalevala, right up to Kipling's Rewards & Fairies & Wyke-Smith's 'Snergs' among much other stuff.

If I knew what relevance it would have to you maybe I'd be more sympathetic to your endevour. But if all it is is just a matter of finding out what his sources were then I have to say that for me what he did is of much greater importance than what he used.

EDIT

In Tolkien Studies volume 2 Dale Nelson wrote a piece attempting to show how Tolkien's descriptions of Mordor were possibly influenced by descriptions of industrial towns in Dicken's Old Curiosity Shop. It is four pages long & is full of 'it may seems unlikely, but's & 'it is possible that's, & in the end tells us that Tolkien may have read said book & may have been influenced by it. In a note to the essay the author states that 'Whatever else Tolkien read by Dickens he must have read the first chapter of The Pickwick Papers (please compare, he begs, Bilbo's speech at the Long Expected Party with Mr Pickwick's oration at the end of the first chapter of PP).

So, what this piece in a respected journal of Tolkien studies tells us is that Tolkien might possibly have read some Dickens & he might possibly have been influenced by some descriptions in those books. Of course, he might not have read any Dickens apart from the first chapter of PP in which case the whole piece is a waste of space.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Does knowing where Leonardo obtained his paints improve your appreciation of the Mona Lisa?

Vastly.

Think on it: say that paints were terribly hard to come by several hundred years ago for an impoverished dozenth or so child of poor parents. Say that canvases are quite equally difficult to find.

Think of how resourceful that person would have to be not only to acquire supplies, but to find the time in which to use them.

Think of how close Leonardo may have come to never having painted the Mona Lisa at all. Do you not further your appreciation of the art before you by knowing what went into it and how, without those things, it never could have come to be?

Without the benefit of smooth transition, I'd like also to say that at this point, I have more interest in Tolkien than I do in his work. What made him tick. What inspired him. What he wrote and why he wrote it. I'm fascinated with writers in general. They have a certain something to them. A writer whose work I read recently said that nobody becomes an artist unless they have to. I'm interested in why people have to. What underlying reasons Tolkien had for what he wrote. I've been pondering Leaf by Niggle, which I finally read, for days now.

Art catches my breath and takes me on wild adventures through realities unguessed. The magic captures me and stays with me.

But people are equally enthralling. Delving into what goes through minds is my equivilant to sifting through a pile of jewels with each piece more enchanting than the last.

Tolkien was a great writer. But I'm interested in the man, not the image of him. I'm curious about how he thought and why he thought it. If I can learn more about humanity by studying the things humans do, say, and make, cool.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Vastly.

Think on it: say that paints were terribly hard to come by several hundred years ago for an impoverished dozenth or so child of poor parents. Say that canvases are quite equally difficult to find.

Think of how resourceful that person would have to be not only to acquire supplies, but to find the time in which to use them.

Think of how close Leonardo may have come to never having painted the Mona Lisa at all. Do you not further your appreciation of the art before you by knowing what went into it and how, without those things, it never could have come to be?

But that's another story, & if you focus on that one you'll miss the picture. The 'story' of Tolkien's sources may be interesting in itself, but it will get in the way of, or overlay, the other story & become something else. Aquisition of raw materials is not something that interests me. Nor, I suspect, was it somthing Leonardo found all that interesting, as rather than leaving us an account of how he got his paints, he actually painted with them.

Without the benefit of smooth transition, I'd like also to say that at this point, I have more interest in Tolkien than I do in his work. What made him tick. What inspired him. What he wrote and why he wrote it. I'm fascinated with writers in general. They have a certain something to them. A writer whose work I read recently said that nobody becomes an artist unless they have to. I'm interested in why people have to. What underlying reasons Tolkien had for what he wrote. I've been pondering Leaf by Niggle, which I finally read, for days now.

Art catches my breath and takes me on wild adventures through realities unguessed. The magic captures me and stays with me.

But people are equally enthralling. Delving into what goes through minds is my equivilant to sifting through a pile of jewels with each piece more enchanting than the last.

Tolkien was a great writer. But I'm interested in the man, not the image of him. I'm curious about how he thought and why he thought it. If I can learn more about humanity by studying the things humans do, say, and make, cool.

As Tolkien put it:

He finds it surprising and pleasing that The Lord of the Rings has had such a success. It seems to him that nowadays almost any kind of fiction is mishandled, through not being sufficiently enjoyed. He thinks that there is now a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost.

“It seems to me comparable to a man who having eaten anything, from a salad to a complete and well-planned dinner, uses an emetic, and sends the results for chemical analysis.”

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I understand both your opinion and Tolkien's. I'm just ignoring them in favor of my own. Hope you don't mind too much, darling.

[Boromir88]

I understand both your opinion and Tolkien's. I'm just ignoring them in favor of my own. Hope you don't mind too much, darling.

Are you allowed to do that? What I mean is it's perfectly ok to completely disregard Tolkien's opinion, but ignoring davem's that's blasphomy!

But, seriously now I completely understand what you're saying and I agree. Looking further in and 'analyzing' doesn't necessarily destroy the magic of the books. Especially if you have a deep interest in the 'how it came to be.'

Believe it or not, one of the most touching and thought-provoking scenes (for me) in LOTR is with Tolkien's war experience:

Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering bank, a man fell, crashing through the slender trees, nearly on top of them. He came to rest in the fern a few feet away, face downward, green arrow-feathers sticking from his neck below a golden collar. His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of his sword.

It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace-...

Eventhough Tolkien does deny using allegories to the World Wars:

’Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and litttle or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.'

’The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or conclusion.’
~Foreward to LOTR

I can not look at that moment with Sam and say it wasn't Tolkien reflecting on his World War experiences. Now, Tolkien said the 'legendary war' (or the war that he created) in not influenced by the real wars. While this moment with Sam looking at the dead Haradrim soldier has no importance on the main story, the story of the War and the Ring, it's more of just a sidebar, a step away from the action. As I can't look at that passage and not think that Tolkien was being influenced by his war experiences, but this passage with Sam does not play any major part in the storyline itself, it feels more like a 'step away from the story for a brief second.' it's a moment outside of the main plotline...if anyone has any clue as to what I'm saying.

Fea, I think Letter 109 will fit what you are trying to explain quite perfectly:

Of course, Allegory and Story converge, meeting in Truth. So the only perfectly consitent allegory is real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human ’literature’ , that the better and more closely an allegory is the more easily it can be read ’just as a story’; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it. But the two start out from opposite ends.

'The Story' and 'allegory' start out totally opposite, but as that song goes...'They meet in the middle.'

Tolkien strongly resisted his books as being labeled 'allegorical' but because of their very nature and depth provided- better and more closely woven a story is - those searching can - more easily find allegory in it.

It still all boils down to reader applicability. It is our freedom to think 'hey this reminds me of something in life.' I think of it as a story with allegories that anyone can find - or choose not to find- but it is not an 'Allegorical story.' Meaning there was no intentional authorial design to make allegories. Because, intentionally writing in allegories limits the reader's mind, the reader's applicability. It would mean that we all must see 'Elrond as a Jesus figure,' and this was why I think Tolkien strongly resisted his books being 'allegorical.' Because if they were allegorical, the freedom of applicability would be taken away. And it is this very freedom of the reader, that I believe (at least for me), adds to the stories magic. It makes me as a reader be able to identify and connect with the story and form my own 'allegories.'

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Are you allowed to do that? What I mean is it's perfectly ok to completely disregard Tolkien's opinion, but ignoring davem's that's blasphomy!

But, seriously now I completely understand what you're saying and I agree. Looking further in and 'analyzing' doesn't necessarily destroy the magic of the books. Especially if you have a deep interest in the 'how it came to be.'

Believe it or not, one of the most touching and thought-provoking scenes (for me) in LOTR is with Tolkien's war experience:


Eventhough Tolkien does deny using allegories to the World Wars:

I can not look at that moment with Sam and say it wasn't Tolkien reflecting on his World War experiences. Now, Tolkien said the 'legendary war' (or the war that he created) in not influenced by the real wars. While this moment with Sam looking at the dead Haradrim soldier has no importance on the main story, the story of the War and the Ring, it's more of just a sidebar, a step away from the action. As I can't look at that passage and not think that Tolkien was being influenced by his war experiences, but this passage with Sam does not play any major part in the storyline itself, it feels more like a 'step away from the story for a brief second.' it's a moment outside of the main plotline...if anyone has any clue as to what I'm saying.

Fea, I think Letter 109 will fit what you are trying to explain quite perfectly:

'The Story' and 'allegory' start out totally opposite, but as that song goes...'They meet in the middle.'

Tolkien strongly resisted his books as being labeled 'allegorical' but because of their very nature and depth provided- better and more closely woven a story is - those searching can - more easily find allegory in it.

It still all boils down to reader applicability. It is our freedom to think 'hey this reminds me of something in life.' I think of it as a story with allegories that anyone can find - or choose not to find- but it is not an 'Allegorical story.' Meaning there was no intentional authorial design to make allegories. Because, intentionally writing in allegories limits the reader's mind, the reader's applicability. It would mean that we all must see 'Elrond as a Jesus figure,' and this was why I think Tolkien strongly resisted his books being 'allegorical.' Because if they were allegorical, the freedom of applicability would be taken away. And it is this very freedom of the reader, that I believe (at least for me), adds to the stories magic. It makes me as a reader be able to identify and connect with the story and form my own 'allegories.'

I totally agree with the above. It appears to me that comparing the Lord of the Rings to, say the Bible, allows great minds to excercise their creative thinking & in the process open a latreal opportunity to learn new perspectives. But there will always be some who prefer to stay with the mainstream Tolkienology, believing that it is the truest & safest approach, but not as imaginative & it may even close new doors for further thought & discussion. This thread was all about opening new doors for those who want to open them, rather than those who prefer to guard the old ones & keep them locked.