The Lord of the Bible?

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Therefore some balance point in interpretation must be found, and it lies in that charcaters and situations are not meant to represent Biblical characters and situations but that the story, the narrative itself, is in sympathy with Christian ideals. Which it is. Isn't the Bible filled with tales of good vs evil? Of the insignificant winning over the worldly and powerful?

Yes; it (specifically the incarnation, passion, & resurrection) is also referred to by Tolkien as the one true myth to which all other myths pointed. Since he set out to write a myth, it's hard for me to imagine he wasn't both assuming and hoping that the myth he wrote would point to the true one.

And bringing up the word "myth" leads to lmp's point regarding mythic unity, which looks to me like the key to this discussion. Some, likeRaynor, see it; others take tentative stabs at it; and others insist it's not there.

I'm interested in those tempted to take tentative stabs at it. Us old warhorses have thumped this general topic (and some associated topics) to death over the past several years, and we can predict much of what the others will argue.

Let's hear from the rookies.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Yes; it (specifically the incarnation, passion, & resurrection) is also referred to by Tolkien as the one true myth to which all other myths pointed. Since he set out to write a myth, it's hard for me to imagine he wasn't both assuming and hoping that the myth he wrote would point to the true one.

And bringing up the word "myth" leads to lmp's point regarding mythic unity, which looks to me like the key to this discussion. Some, likeRaynor, see it; others take tentative stabs at it; and others insist it's not there.

I'm interested in those tempted to take tentative stabs at it. Us old warhorses have thumped this general topic (and some associated topics) to death over the past several years, and we can predict much of what the others will argue.

Let's hear from the rookies.

I agree in Universal Myth, but precisely that. It doesn't belong to any one religion or faith, but to all. That to me is the point of something Universal.

I also wonder just how far the text points to a 'Christian' myth because I can honestly say it directed me in completely the opposite direction, as a young Christian when I first read the books!

[davem]

I don't know how many times it has to be stressed that just because a novel is (intentionally or accidentally) in sympathy with a particular religious philosophy that does not make it a 'religious' work. That Tolkien may (or may not) have written LotR to conform to the tenets of his Catholic faith does not mean it is a Catholic work. If Tolkien thought so then he thought wrong.

No-one is saying that LotR contradicts Christian belief/teaching at any point. But there are a number of belief systems one could put forward which are not contradicted by anything in LotR. I can't see how a story (or painting or piece of music) which does not refer directly or allegorically to Christianity can be called a Christian story (fundamentally or otherwise). If there is no direct or indirect mention or depiction of Christian/Biblical figures or themes then how it can be 'Christian' is beyond me.

Just because a book is written by a Christian writer does not make it a Christian book, anymore than if a Christian builds a car it is a 'Christian' car, or if he takes out the trash he is putting 'Christian' trash into a 'Christian' trash can.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

I don't know how many times it has to be stressed that just because a novel is (intentionally or accidentally) in sympathy with a particular religious philosophy that does not make it a 'religious' work. That Tolkien may (or may not) have written LotR to conform to the tenets of his Catholic faith does not mean it is a Catholic work. If Tolkien thought so then he thought wrong.

In your opinion. Which, in your opinion, deletes the spiritual aspect of his Catholicism (spirituality being the essence of his faith) from your argument. And in my opinion, that deletion makes no sense. So, in my oinion, your argument makes no sense.

Read Leaf By Niggle lately? Or Tree and Leaf? Or Mythopoeia?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mark

In your opinion. Which, in your opinion, deletes the spiritual aspect of his Catholicism (spirituality being the essence of his faith) from your argument. And in my opinion, that deletion makes no sense. So, in my oinion, your argument makes no sense.

No, Christianity is a religion & the religion of Christianity is absent from the book. Claims for the superiority of Christianity over other traditions without any supporting evidence is just cultural supremicism.

As to where Tolkien's 'spirituality' came from I have to admit I have no evidence as regards where it came from, so I'd just be making something up if I answered that. It could be it was a 'Pagan' spirituality (hence his deep love of nature), or a Christian one. Certainly he believed it came from his Catholic faith. My statement about 'spirituality' in the work was merely a reference to there being a 'spiritual' realm & beings within the story not to the story itself being a 'spiritual' work – which is a matter of opinion/subjective judgement.

Read Leaf By Niggle lately? Or Tree and Leaf? Or Mythopoeia?

Nope – just finished Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy & now finally got around to Gibbon's Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, so I probably won't be reading them again in the foreseeable future.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by raynor

I see this rather often; do you accuse him of hipocrisy?

I rather agree with davem on the issue of the reliability of Tolkien’s Letters as determinants of his intentions with regard to LotR. One does not have to consider Tolkien a hypocrite in order to consider them to be inconclusive as to his intentions in this regard. Fascinating though they are, they were generally written in response to specific questions (and in some cases challenges) raised concerning the book and often consist of ex post facto musings on what he had written. As expressions of authorial intent, his Letters are sometimes inconsistent, both with each other and with other published material. Hardly surprising, given that his own perspective and opinions would naturally have changed over time. It is not a criticism.

Indeed that, to me, is one of the main difficulties associated with defining the meaning of a book by reference to authorial intent.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why? Does contradict any part of the story?

Davem’s point, and I rather agree with him here, is that Tolkien’s statement equating the Secret Fire with the Holy Spirit is irrelevant to the story itself. It is only relevant if you are either looking for Christian associations within the text or seeking to determine authorial intent. I have no problem with you doing either, as long as you do not seek to impose your conclusion on me by insisting that the Secret Fire must necessarily be equated with the Holy Spirit in order to properly understand the book, that this is part of the "correct" meaning of the book.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't see why he can't use terms of his mythology to reffer to real life situations, esspecially if his terms are widely known and understood.

One of the few points of discomfort that I find within Tolkien’s Letters is his use of the word “Orcs” to refer to real life people. In the context of LotR, Orcs are presented as (irredeemably?) evil beings and no moral issue is raised concerning their slaughter (unlike, for example, with the dead Haradrim solider). Are treecutters and motorcycle riders really to be considered in the same way? Tolkien is free to do so, but this does not form any part of my understanding of LotR’s meaning. Orcs have no real life equivalent as far as I am concerned.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Not in form, but that is something we agreed from the begining: Tolkien is not writing allegorically.

Indeed. Ergo, he is not seeking to impose his intentions upon his readers. He invites readers to find applicability within LotR. That puts the reader firmly in the position of being free to find his or her own the meaning within the book. If that excludes any Christian associations, whether Tolkien intended them or not, then who is anyone to object when Tolkien himself specifically endorsed such freedom of interpretation?

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Yes; it (specifically the incarnation, passion, & resurrection) is also referred to by Tolkien as the one true myth to which all other myths pointed. Since he set out to write a myth, it's hard for me to imagine he wasn't both assuming and hoping that the myth he wrote would point to the true one.

And bringing up the word "myth" leads to lmp's point regarding mythic unity, which looks to me like the key to this discussion. Some, likeRaynor, see it; others take tentative stabs at it; and others insist it's not there.

I am no rookie (either on this site or in this kind of a discussion ), but this is precisely the kind of statement that I was referring to earlier – the assumption that the Christian interpretation of LotR is objectively the “correct” one. The implication being that, if we are one of those who cannot see it, we are approaching LotR “incorrectly”. That is a proposition which I reject entirely. Indeed, I do not necessarily accept the proposition that there is a universal myth at all (or at least one that is external to the human psyche).

TORE, you define the meaning of a book by reference to the intention of its author. My position is that this definition cannot be sufficient, because it is focussed only on the author and takes no account of the reader. The primary purpose of a novel such as LotR is to be read by a reader. After it has been written, it only has meaning when it is read. Accordingly, I find it difficult to see how a book’s meaning to the individual reader can be so easily dismissed.

As a reader, I can look at what the author intended to say, to the extent that this can be determined (and, as I have said, there are major difficulties involved with doing that), but that will only tell me what the book’s meaning was to the author. It may influence my own understanding of, and reaction to, the book, but it will not determine it.

For me, this is of vital importance in this debate as to whether LotR is a religious book. The author may have intended it as such (and I believe that, at some point, he did) but that does not determine its meaning to me. Some readers may consider it as such, but that does not determine its meaning to me. While the intentions of the author and the interpretations of other readers may be interesting to me, and may even influence my own understanding of the book, they still do not define its meaning as far as I am concerned.

Originally Posted by TORE

First, it will destroy the meaning of the book - no book could possibly have as many different meanings to it as we would come up with. Secondly, it would make conversation ridiculous. Why should we discuss the meaning of a book based soly on our interpretation of it? 'Misunderstanding' of the text is then in possible, because I have my interpretation & you cannot touch it. We are all right, so what’s the point of discussion?

No, your propositions here do not follow at all from my definition of “meaning” by reference to individual readerly reaction and interpretation. There are many areas in which most peoples’ understanding of a book (and authorial intention) will coincide. When Tolkien tells us who was present at the Council of Elrond, we all understand that in the same way. It was Tolkien’s intention that those individuals be present, it is your understanding that they were present and it is my understanding that they were present. Because of our understanding of the language that Tolkien used, we all react to it and understand it in the same way. Our individual “meanings” coincide. So that allows us to discuss it on the same basis. But, when we consider, for example, whether Orcs were irredeemably evil or whether Frodo succeeded in his Quest (or indeed whether Tom Bombadil was a Maia or Balrogs have wings ), we will have different reactions and opinions (and these may well differ from the author’s intention). That does not forestall discussion but, rather, encourages it. Many of the discussions on this forum would have never taken place (or would have been a lot shorter) were it not for the fact that we all have different reactions to, and interpretations of, the book and are prepared to assert them as part of our understanding of its meaning. Through those discussions, our understanding of the book, it meaning to us as individuals, may change in certain respects. But the overall understanding, and therefore the meaning, remains unique to the individual.

And so it is with the proposition that LotR is a fundamentally religious book, or that Aragorn or Frodo or Gandalf is a Christ-figure. The author may or may not have intended either or both of these propositions to be part of its meaning. Other readers may or may not consider either or both of them to be part of its meaning. But it remains the case that neither of these propositions are part of its meaning as far as I am concerned.

Originally Posted by TORE

As I said - it can 'mean' many things to many different people. But that doesn't change the author's initial intention.

No it doesn’t. But what relevance is the author’s intention to me (other, perhaps than biographically) if it does not coincide with, or influence, my own understanding of the book’s meaning? To me, while authorial intention (and the opinions of other readers) may be interesting and even influential, it is my own understanding of the book that is the most important, indeed the only "true" meaning.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

To the 'It's only fiction!' camp, I direct to you part of a quote from the movie V for Vendetta.

Originally Posted by Evey Hammond

My father was a writer. You would've liked him. He used to say that artists use lies to tell the truth...

Lies exist solely to direct meaning. They are merely a separate form of truth, whatever truth is, not the opposition to it. Have you never experienced a situation in which you learn far more by how a person tries not to react to an experience than by how he does? Do you ever listen to what people make a conscious effort not to say? Take the time to listen to the quality of the silence? Every word holds within it secret meaning, if you take a moment to truly listen.

You ask why is fiction written; for any reason but to tell a story? Surely not. To direct meaning as such seems manipulative; dirty. The magic is lost for it. But what is a story but the artistic conveyance of an idea? And what is an idea conveyed as such but some veiled form of truth that the author finds important enough to share in such a way?

It is only fiction. Yes, it is fiction, but surely it is more than only.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

It precisely 'refutes the religious aspect' (if I follow you). It does not 'refute' the spiritual aspect though. There is a spiritual aspect to the world & stories, & to the characters. What there isn't, it seems to me, is any 'religious' aspect - Tolkien specifically denies the presence of organised religion.

I disagree; I don't see in Tolkien the separation between myth, religion and spirituality - all of them are united. He has no problem in calling various Christian themes as myths and no problem either in calling myths a path to the Truth (thus, Imo, equivalating them, to a large extent, to religion). I will reinforce my previous quote from letter #89 that the gospels are the greatest Fairy-story

Originally Posted by Epilogue, On fairy-stories

The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels—peculiarly artistic, beautiful, and moving: “mythical” in their perfect, self-contained significance; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe.... This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the “inner consistency of reality.” There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true, and none which so many sceptical men have accepted as true on its own merits. For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation. To reject it leads either to sadness or to wrath.

More importantly:

Originally Posted by He had been inside his language, Part Four, Tollkien biograpjy by H. Carpenter

Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall.

Of what fall does Tolkien talk about that myths takes us beyond? It seems to me, beyond doubt, that it is the Christian Fall, one thing which we cannot ignore when considering the core of his mythology.

One does not have to consider Tolkien a hypocrite in order to consider them to be inconclusive as to his intentions in this regard.

So, if you are not saying that he is a hypocrite, then you are saying that someone else than the author is more trustworthy to identify his intention??

I have no problem with you doing either, as long as you do not seek to impose your conclusion on me by insisting that the Secret Fire must necessarily be equated with the Holy Spirit in order to properly understand the book, that this is part of the "correct" meaning of the book.

This is a debate, nobody can "impose" anything. As far as I am concerned, Tolkien statement that the secret fire is the christian Holy Fire makes perfect sense to me; the story does achieve the "inner consistency" required for it to be a veritable, successful, subcreation.

In the context of LotR, Orcs are presented as (irredeemably?) evil beings and no moral issue is raised concerning their slaughter (unlike, for example, with the dead Haradrim solider). Are treecutters and motorcycle riders really to be considered in the same way? Tolkien is free to do so, but this does not form any part of my understanding of LotR’s meaning. Orcs have no real life equivalent as far as I am concerned.

I really think that the treecutting business reffers to the New Shadow, where kids following a satanist cult start cutting down trees without any reason - them showing "most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good ". I don't know about the motorcycle riders being orcs, but fetishism of machines is a mark of evil to him, that is the least I can say. As far as orcs not being treated (or at least expected to be treated) appropiately, I disagree; Tolkien stated in Myths Transformed that orcs were supposed to be treated with mercy, [though it didn't always happen so during wars - then again, he identified orcs in Japan, Germany and even England who would behave truly evil].

He invites readers to find applicability within LotR.

Err, I am not aware of such a statement; sure, he dislikes forced suspension of disbelief, but what he strives to achieve is to successfully reflect the Truth (the Christian one, I add) - that being the mark of a veritable fairy-story.