The Lord of the Bible?

[mark12_30]

Saucie-- we've agreed to disagree before, old chap. No hard feelings on my part; I'm hoping there are no hard feelings on yours either. But IMO, this does rehash a lot of the canonicity & eucatastrophe ground.

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Really? I was under the impression that I couldn't care less if LotR is Christian in nature, appearance, or dream. I only ever argued that if I wanted to see that meaning, nobody should have the nerve to say I can't.

I'll take it a step further than that. The owner of this thread asked a simple question, which was this:

Originally Posted by Mansun

Does anyone think Tolkien effectively stole many of his ideas from the Bible? Examples are the Balrog - Satan; Saruman/Grima - Judas; Gandalf the White resurrection; Elrond - Jesus?

If your answer is "Yep, professor's a thief," then state your list of items stolen.

If your answer is, "I wouldn't say stole but I think there are some things that connect," you may have some lengthy explaining to do.

But if your answer is "No, I don't think so, " that doesn't take very long to say.

This looks, to me, like a thread that's been hijacked. If you want to have a debate about whether making these connections is somehow forced or strained or immoral or illegal or what have you-- feel free to start your own thread.

There is plenty that I'd like to say about what I do see. I have no problem with someone else saying "I see nothing." But if you insist that I have no right to see what I see, do you seriously expect me to respect your insistence?

Meanwhile, the original intent of this thread is buried in replays of older threads. If we want to rehash old debates, let's take it back to the old threads.

[The Only Real Estel]

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

Saucie there are millions of readers of a book such as Lord of the Rings. Does that mean that there are millions of different meanings out there? A book that has been written has a meaning. It is the meaning of the author. If no one ever read Rings it would still contain the meaning that Tolkien put into it. Now it does not have meaning to you until you've read it. And as I've said, I'm not dismissing the meaning to the individual reader - you can choose to make it mean whatever you want to you or whatever strikes the proper chord with you. But that doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

True. But why is there no discussion on who was at the Council of Elrond? Because we can all see the author's intention.

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

True. Why? Because we don't know (or at least there's significant debate) the author's intentions on these matters. These are good examples of "ultra-literary" parts of the books; Tolkien didn't exactly specify so there are at least several interpretations. But what would I use to support my side of the Balrog/wing debate for example? My opinion or my interpretation? Only if it was backed up by quotes from the book(s), possibly quotes from the Letters, etc. Why? Because I don't care what my interpretation (or anyone else's) is. If someone says: "My interpretation of the books is that Faramir had blonde hair" & posts a thread about it - what happens? Someone gives a quote from the book (black hair) & the thread is shut down because it is ridiculous. That person is welcome to think whatever they like concerning Faramir's hair - but we can see the author's intention and that is what we are all really hunting for. If we can't see it, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Originally Posted by SpM

...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.

I don't think there's any debate that Tolkien had intentions behind everything in his book. As a reader of the books I want to know what Tolkien's intentions were. Do I have to adopt them as my own? No - it'd be dreadfully boring if you had to accept the author's point of view just because you've read his book. An author may write a book on why solid oak tables are the best. If I prefer metal tables I don't have to change my preference - but that doesn't mean the author's point of the book changed. You can care not a button for the author's meaning & replace his with yours & that's fine.

What I am saying is simply this: That does not change the meaning of Tolkien's (or anyone else's) books. Tolkien himself set the meaning, we as readers can come up with our own but not change his.

We don't go to Balrog/wing threads saying "they have wings for me & they don't for you." Now inevitably we come to different sides of the debate but that's because of "I think Tolkien says they do" & "I think Tolkien says they don't" lines of thinking.

Therefore, if we are trying to decide if the books are 'Christian works;' rather than saying "They're Christian to me & non-Christain to you" (negating the point of discussion) we should try & find what Tolkien intended them to be. This being not quite clear, there will be much debate (as there has been) about it - just like there's debate about Tom Bombadil or the winged/wingless Balrogs.

But "mark" is right - although this is Tolkien-related and also related to finding Christian elements in the books it really is not as much on topic as it should be I don't think.

Then again I'm not a mod...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by TORE

Does that mean that there are millions of different meanings out there?

Yes, although they will overlap to a very significant degree due to our common understanding of the language that he used.

Originally Posted by TORE

But that doesn't make it so.

It makes it the only "true" meaning to me.

Originally Posted by TORE

Because we don't know (or at least there's significant debate) the author's intentions on these matters.

Actually, the author claimed that Frodo failed in his Quest. I disagree with him on that.

Originally Posted by TORE

But what would I use to support my side of the Balrog/wing debate for example? My opinion or my interpretation? Only if it was backed up by quotes from the book(s), possibly quotes from the Letters, etc.

I have always held that Durin's Bane had wings because, when I first read the book, that's how I imagined him. I was influenced, of course, by the words used by the author. But was it his intention that the Balrog be winged? Who can say? Irrespective of his intention, I see the Balrog with wings. That is my interpretation, the "meaning" that I give to that passage. I do not insist that others see it in the same way.

Originally Posted by TORE

But "mark" is right - although this is Tolkien-related and also related to finding Christian elements in the books it really is not as much on topic as it should be I don't think.

Well, she is right that we have been through these arguments before (it's an eternal struggle ). But I disagree that it has no relevance to the ongoing debate (if not the original question). If one is claiming (or denying) that LotR is a Christian work, one must define the basis upon which such claim is made. Individual interpretation? Authorial intention? Or something else? If so, what?

[The Only Real Estel]

Myself: "Does that mean that there are millions of different meanings out there?"

Sauce: "Yes, although they will overlap to a very significant degree due to our common understanding of the language that he used."

True, I should have said does that mean there are millions of actual meanings to the book? No. There may be millions of opinions & interpretations out there (nay, billions more like it! ), but one book is incapable of that many meanings.

It makes it the only "true" meaning to me.

False Sauce. Though that may be your opinion (which I can't take from you), even if the author communicates his meaning behind the book in such a way that we could not possibly find it does that mean my interpretation of the meaning is the book's meaning? No. It does make it a very poorly written book, however.

I have always held that Durin's Bane had wings because, when I first read the book, that's how I imagined him. I was influenced, of course, by the words used by the author. But was it his intention that the Balrog be winged? Who can say? Irrespective of his intention, I see the Balrog with wings. That is my interpretation, the "meaning" that I give to that passage. I do not insist that others see it in the same way.

That is fine. Imagination is a wonderful thing.

But that does not mean that Tolkien meant the same thing. Do you suppose Tolkien created the Balrog not knowing if it has wings or not? Of course not. But since this matter is highly debatable it essentially does come down to reader interpretation because it is so difficult to discern the author's.

There is far more information out there (in Tolkien's own words even) on his intentions behind the book & any "Christian meaning" behind it. Plenty that we don't have to rely totally on interpretation.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by TORE

... but one book is incapable of that many meanings.

Why so?

Originally Posted by TORE

... which I can't take from you ...

I am not asking you to.

Originally Posted by TORE

Imagination is a wonderful thing.

Indeed it is. So why not embrace it and allow yourself to find your own meaning within the book, rather than limiting yourself purely by reference to what the author intended?

Originally Posted by TORE

But that does not mean that Tolkien meant the same thing.

I am not saying that it does. I am saying that what Tolkien meant does not necessarily equate to the book's meaning.

Meaning, like truth, is subjective.

[Boromir88]

Just a little comment that may be a bit off track, but I promise I'll stay on topic.

As I read that passage about Frodo, it seems to me that Tolkien is saying the Frodo failed, but that his failure was negated or absolved by divine mercy.~SpM

I beg to differ, and agree with Raynor, the 'as conceived by simple minds,' is I feel a great importance. Tolkien acknowledges that the 'simple-minded' (which he didn't mean to insult anyone) may see Frodo as a failure, because he gave in, he chickened out, he 'ratted.' But, Tolkien never said he believed Frodo failed, but that the simple-minded may see Frodo as a failure. In fact he goes on to explain why he felt like Frodo succeeded.

So, here we have the classic example of the argument of the thread. Tolkien acknowledges that some people may see Frodo not fulfilling his quest as a failure, but he went out and explains as to why he felt like Frodo should not be labelled as a 'failure' and why he deserves all honour.

Which brings to the biggest question does authorial intent matter? And if so, exactly how much should it matter?

“The LotR exists, apart from what Tolkien said at one time or another it was supposed to mean. It was largely a product of the realm of fantasy in the unconscious: that was the ultimate source. Therefore, what Tolkien later consciously thought about it is interesting, but not authoritative as to the work’s meaning”~Norman Cantor

That's Cantor's take on it, but let's see what Tolkien talks about:

“I do not ‘know all the answers’. Much of my own book puzzles me; and in any case much of it was written so long ago (anything up to 20 years) that I read it now as if it were from a strange hand.’~Letter 211

I think that many confuse ’applicability’ with ’allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."~Interview with BBC Radio, 1971

Then on the other side:

"But if we speak of a Cauldron, we must not wholly forget the Cooks. There are many things in the Cauldron, but the Cooks do not dip in the ladle quite blindly. Their selection is important. The gods are after all gods, and it is a matter of some moment what stories are told of them"~Tolkien's essay on Faerie Stories.

It appears Tolkien is contradicting himself. He talks about his dislike of allegory (allegory is a 'domination of the author'), the 'freedom of applicability' that is with the readers, reading the book for enjoyment. Then at other times he tells us his intentions with his books, and I am intrigued by the parallel he draws with 'cooks.'

How about we view this quote:

'But if we speak of a Cauldron, we must not wholly forget the Cooks. There are many things in the Cauldron, but the Cooks do not dip in the ladle quite blindly. Their selection is important.

And alter it a bit to this:

'But if we speak of a book, we must not wholly forget the author. There are many things in the book, but the author does not write a story blindly. His/her selection is important.'

Puts an interesting spin on things? It seems like there is some conflict, we have the applicability of the reader vs. the intent of the author. But, I don't see a conflict, there is a delicate balance between the two.

I think Tolkien brings up a very interesting parallel, authors don't write, just to write. They don't write 'blindly.' One of the biggest fuels for authors is purpose. What is their purpose? They're writing for a reason, they're not writing for absolutely no purpose at all. So, the author shouldn't just be cast aside and say 'ahh forget the old coot, who cares about him, I will believe what I want.' Which, of course anyone can believe whatever they want, but I'm afraid that means you've missed the author's purpose.

Then comes in the reader applicability, and the reader's freedom. After Tolkien's books were released, he mentions taking a deep interest in seeing how they develop, which is probably why Tolkien in Letter's and elsewhere starts talking about his intentions. It's after the fact, after his stories were published, and taking an interest in how the public viewed his works, is when and why we start seeing what he intended his works mean.

Which brings us back to the delicate balance between the author and the reader. The author is the mastermind behind his books, and above anyone else knows what his books are about, and what his purpose is, or what his purpose was. The reader will read the book and apply their own meaning when reading, and this meaning may conflict with the author's intentions. But, 'intentions' is the key, there's this tone of acceptance...It's like "That is not what I had intended, but I can certainly understand how you see it that way."

I call it a delicate balance, because if there is too much "authorial intent" it falls into 'domination of the author,' which I feel that Tolkien didn't want to do. He didn't want to 'dominate' over his readers. However, if there is too much freedom of the reader, the entire reason and purpose of the author is cast aside. As Roland Barthes notes in "The Death of the Author":

We know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the {Authorial} myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.”

Not all stories are as unique as this one, but with Tolkien it was a balancing act. The cooks are just as important as the cauldron...Tolkien did not just blindly write, there was a reason and a purpose. Then there is the reader's applicability, but too much freedom and the author is left behind in the dust, and the true meaning, the true purpose is lost.

[davem]

This has turned into yet another Canonicity argument. For myself, I accept that Tolkien has greater insight into his invented world & the 'meaning' of his stories than anyone else. However..

This is not a discussion on Canonicity. It is not an argument about who knows more about Middle-earth, the creator or the audience? It is not even an argument about whether Tolkien believed LotR was a 'Chritian' work - clearly he did (or at least that it conformed to Christianity).

This is a discussion on whether there are similarities between LotR & people/events in the Bible. My argument all along has been that, beyond a general 'mood' or 'tone' of style, language & morality, there is no one-to-one correspondence. Said 'mood' or 'tone' is not, however, uniquely or specifically 'Christian/Biblical' enough, in & of itself, to constitute a 'Christian' work - unless negatively: its not a 'not-Christian' work (ie it doesn't actually contradict anything in the Bible).

For some here it seems that the fact that a) Tolkien was a Christian & his 'moral value system' was inspired by his faith (but see Shippey on Tolkien's Northern theory of courage - Tolkien's 'moral value system' was not uniquely Christian, & definitely not pacifistic) & b) the work is generally in conformity with Christian belief, is enough to justify calling it a Christian work, & therefore to start looking for parallells between events & people in LotR & the Bible.

For others, such a 'negative' correspondence does not justify such 'parallell-seeking' because LotR is about as much (& as little) in conformit with the Bible as it is with WWII. One can say that 'To me Saruman is a Judas figure', but one can also say 'To me Saruman is a Hitler figure'. & no-one has any problem (well, I don't anyway). However..

This is equivalent to saying Tolkien was an Englishman, writing during the 1940's when Hitler's armies were on the verge of over-running his country & destroying everything he loved, so his hopes & fears must automatically have gone into his work, & therefore he could not help but write a story which had an underlying WWII theme, & that an analysis of, say, the similarities between Hitler & Saruman will give us an insight in to both Saruman's character & Hitler's as well. Personally, I think that the Characters & motivations, the origins, & most importantly the desires, of Saruman, Judas & Hitler are so different as to cancel out any percieved similarities between them.

I'm still not sure whether the 'pro-Christian interpretation' side are just looking for a chat along the lines of 'Ooh! 'x' (Saruman/Frodo/other character) is a bit like 'y'(Judas/Jesus/other biblical figure) isn't he? Which is all fine as far as I'm concerned - I just don't think that kind of thing belongs in Books - which is intended for serious & rigorous debate - but rather in Novices & Newcomers. If it is to remain in Books then the participants should expect to be challenged on their statements & be asked to offer some justification for them.

[mark12_30]

davem: you seem frustrated that you have to keep repeating yourself. There's a simple solution: just type "ibid" and let it go.

If you really think this discussion belongs in N&N then take it up with the mods.

[davem]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

davem: you seem frustrated that you have to keep repeating yourself. There's a simple solution: just type "ibid" and let it go.

If you really think this discussion belongs in N&N then take it up with the mods.

It seems no-one, for all their demanding the right to do it, can actually provide any direct correspondences between LotR & the Bible, or indicate out how, or in what way, LotR is a 'Christian' work.

I think its now perfectly clear that either LotR is not a 'Christian' work in any real sense, or that no-one on the Downs at present can show it is.

I'm happy to leave the whole thing here - unless someone asks me for a response on any point.

[davem]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

This looks, to me, like a thread that's been hijacked. If you want to have a debate about whether making these connections is somehow forced or strained or immoral or illegal or what have you-- feel free to start your own thread.

But no 'connections' have actually been made between LotR & the Bible/Christianity. A few have been put forward, but there has been no agreement about them even among Christian posters. The best that has been put forward so far is the Secret Fire/Holy Spirit thing, & the best that can be said in support of it is that the two are rather alike & the concepts don't directly contradict each other.

LotR & the Bible don't directly contradict each other. Is that it?
It seems to me that the 'pro-Christian interpretation' camp want the rest of us to accept that there are specifically Christian elements to the story without any supporting evidence other than Tolkien saying in odd letters & interviews that there are. If they are there, what are they? What is specifically & uniquely Christian in the story, & in what way is it necessary to percieve those 'elements' as Christian in order to fully appreciate the story?

This is not an attack on the freedom of Christian readers to compare notes but more a request to know what 'notes' they are actually comparing.

I could argue that there are similarities between Gandalf & that old bloke I see at the bus stop every morning because they both have two arms & grey hair, but I wouldn't expect anyone to take the point seriously. Surely a thread about similarities between the Bible & LotR has to have more going for it than such vague 'similarities' if it is to justify taking up space here.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

But no 'connections' have actually been made between LotR & the Bible/Christianity. A few have been put forward, but there has been no agreement about them even among Christian posters.

I do have comments on what has been put forward. But it's been difficult to get a word in edgewise for the past two and a half pages.

Originally Posted by davem

This is not an attack on the freedom of Christian readers to compare notes but more a request to know what 'notes' they are actually comparing.

As I said, it's been difficult to get a word in edgewise.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

You mentioned that they are sometimes at odd with each other or the work - yet this occured due to the changes that happened to the work in progress. At some points in time, he had certain "feelings" about how the work would proceed, which didn't make it in the final form; that isn't, per se, an inconsistency. Moreover, even if such inconsistencies exist in some cases, that is no reason to call those letters in question as inconclusive to showing his mind at that moment; even more, even if so, the "hystorical" type of inconclusiveness of some letters (due to the changing aspect of his work), if it exists, shouldn't be extended to other letters, in which he expressely states his intent - that would be guilt by association, a logical fallacy.

The Letters are good evidence of Tolkien's intent at the time each was written. If, however, one is seeking to divine the "meaning" of LotR by reference to authorial intent, I would regard them as persuasive (to the extent that they do not conflict with other material) but, overall, insuffuficient to allow any firm conclusion to be drawn.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why is it wrong to suggest such a thing?

Because it implies that those who do not percevie or accept such a connection have an inferior appreciation of the book.

Originally Posted by Raynor

As about creation and subcreation, I use this term because this is the supreme artistic achievement for Tolkien - a successful writer is a veritable sub-creator, whose Art reflects God's Truth.

As I suspected. It implies the existence of a Creator and thus bases the dicussion on a premise which not all accept.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Is the life of orcs one of continuous unhappiness (at least to them)? I doubt it; they certainly derive pleasure from their fetishism with machines, or with whatever cruel art or deeds - no single race in Arda experiences only pleasure or only pain. The orcs may not even be held culpable for what they did, if they are indeed gifted with souls and not just (reduced to) beasts.

You didn't provide any example of an orc being shown mercy. But that doesn't matter, because it's actually OK being an Orc. You get to play with cool machinery and be brutish and cruel and everything, and you don't get to feel guilty. You may not even be held responsible for what you do. Boy, Eru sure is a loving and merciful God to allow them to live such a life of Reilly.

As I read that passage about Frodo, it seems to me that Tolkien is saying the Frodo failed, but that his failure was negated or absolved by divine mercy. To my mind, Frodo didn't fail at all. He did all that was required of him (as stated in the second passage you quote which, funnily enough, appears to contradict the first ).

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by me

One reader's platitude may be another's way of life. That it is a mere platitude for one does in no wise lessen its centrality for the other.

Originally Posted by davem

I suppose that means it's all subjective then, a matter of opinion?

You may of course suppose it if you wish, but it isn't the only logical possibility. An alternate logical possibility is that one may be correct and the other incorrect. Considering the topic at hand, the latter is the more likely.

While LotR is clearly Universal, it is a severe contortion to deny that there are specificially Christian themes just because such themes can also be found in Buddhism; this is so because Tolkien was Christian, not Buddhist.

Tolkien's use of Northern myth does not confound the Christian themes in LotR, because northern mythic themes have been transformed to fit a Christian world view. More on that later.

Those of us who have been born into, and nurtured on, Western civilization, have a very difficult job of deciphering what in our brain content is actually Christian-based and what isn't. So much of western culture is received from Christianity that to argue that it can't be found is like an ocean fish insisting that the water's not really salty; it's so used to the salt it can't tell when water's NOT salty.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

While LotR is clearly Universal, it is a severe contortion to deny that there are specificially Christian themes just because such themes can also be found in Buddhism; this is so because Tolkien was Christian, not Buddhist.

No. If the themes which underlie LotR are universal then it is not a 'Christian' work. To be a 'Christian' work it would have to have underlying themes which are uniquely Christian. To claim that the 'universal' themes are somehow 'Christian' because they are in a story by a Christian author (ie the themes are Christian because a Christian set them out) is like claiming that if a Christian tells me its raining outside then the statement 'Its pouring down out there' is a 'Christian' statement. If a work contains themes that are 'universal' they are just that - universal - wherever the author got his knowledge of them from.

Tolkien's use of Northern myth does not confound the Christian themes in LotR, because northern mythic themes have been transformed to fit a Christian world view. More on that later.

I could argue that Tolkien actually transformed his Christianity to fit a Northern mythic worldview (& I suspect I'd be more correct in that).

Those of us who have been born into, and nurtured on, Western civilization, have a very difficult job of deciphering what in our brain content is actually Christian-based and what isn't. So much of western culture is received from Christianity that to argue that it can't be found is like an ocean fish insisting that the water's not really salty; it's so used to the salt it can't tell when water's NOT salty.

Sorry, but I can recognise Christian propaganda when I hear it. I know enough of pre-Christian North-Western European culture to know that, once again, the truth is the other way about. Christianity was very much an add-on. Western culture has its origin in the Roman Empire. Our laws & institutions, our cultural values, are classical/pagan (not a little Viking/Saxon) not Middle-eastern. You can't construct an entire culture from a crucifixion & resurrection.

All of which is a side issue.

The point is. LotR is not a Christian work. It is a work by a Christian, which does not contradict Christian teaching - which, I suspect, is all Tolkien meant by saying it is 'fundamentally' a Catholic work - simply that it is a work which is more or less in line with his faith.

Could you tell us (I ask yet again) what these 'specifically, uniquely' Christian aspects of LotR are, the things which make it a Christian story, rather than just a story by a Christian?

[The Only Real Estel]

Originally Posted by SpM

Why So?

Because, for one reason, it's nowhere close to logical. Let’s look at it logically: the law of non-contradiction - "A is not non-A." How could non-A = A? It can't. By the same token a book can not have that many meanings - do you have any idea how many of those meanings would be contradictory? It is not logical to assume what you're suggesting.

Originally Posted by Spm

I am not asking you to.

Good, because I would never try!

Originally Posted by SpM

Indeed it is. So why not embrace it and allow yourself to find your own meaning within the book, rather than limiting yourself purely by reference to what the author intended?

First off - you are making a straw man out of my position Saucepan. You are misrepresenting (intentionally or not) me to be anti-imagination & that is not the case.

Imagination is fine & should be encouraged. You can imagine the size of Aragorn's nose - & many other much more exciting things - because there is no way we can know Tolkien's ideas behind these things. Of course I'm sure he had it in his head what his characters look like - but he purposefully didn't write down every detail so that we could imagine them. When the author's intent can not be discerned imagination is a perfectly acceptable recourse. I cannot accept that Tolkien's intent behind the 'Christian aspects' of his books is not attainable given the amount of verbage out there from him on this subject. And when the author's intention can be discerned, imagination does not trump it.

To say that it does is ridiculous. You can imagine the orcs to be little, furry pink teletubbies if you wish & no one can stop you from that but when you do that you're not reading "The Lord of the Rings" but "The Lord of the Rings - As Imagined by The Saucepan Man." You cannot disregard the author's clear intentions in favor of imagination.

Your imagination does not override the author's meaning behind the book Sauce. And neither does mine or anyone else’s. I've given many examples - you believing the author to mean something doesn't mean he did. You are saying that any human beings intentions are subjective to the interpretations of others and that is not true. If it were, I could simply 'interpret' that you have been agreeing with me all along and I would be right (though you most certainly haven't been ). You would also interpret the opposite to be true and you would be right. Surely you can see that this isn't logical, can't you?

Why would you bother to write a book that will simply be stripped of any meaning whatsoever and have the reader's interpretation (no matter how educated) be substituted? The reason for you writing has now entirely gone by the wayside.

What you are talking about is Deconstructionism - disregarding the author's original intent and making everything relative.

Originally Posted by SpM

Meaning, like truth, is subjective.

Well first - that is highly debatable but that would be getting off topic so we won't go there. Second, that is a very weak analogy because you are attempting to prove that meaning is subjective by comparing it to truth - which you are assuming is subjective but you cannot prove that it is. Not to mention that the issue of truth being brought up at all is really a red herring. It's entirely inconclusive to this debate and you brought it up solely to "prove" that meaning is subjective by comparing it to truth when you should in fact be proving why meaning is subjective...

At any rate it's getting close to the 'agree to disagree' point. Firstly, I've stated & attempted to prove my position as logical & clearly as I can but it seems that you simply continue to fall back on circular reasoning to prove yours. And secondly (and more importantly), as mark pointed out, it's difficult for her or anyone else to get a word in edgewise & our little debate here (though on-topic as you have pointed out) is probably one of primary reasons for that.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by TSpM

If, however, one is seeking to divine the "meaning" of LotR by reference to authorial intent, I would regard them as persuasive (to the extent that they do not conflict with other material) but, overall, insuffuficient to allow any firm conclusion to be drawn.

But that would mean to disregard also all of the other Tolkien's statement about myths, Art and Truth.

It implies the existence of a Creator and thus bases the dicussion on a premise which not all accept.

Is there a single hallucinating author who pretends to have writing premises who all will accept?? If you are arguing for this, of if you are arguing from the _position_ of atheism, then our disscussion is at a deadpoint; continuing it would mean to talk about something else.

Because it implies that those who do not percevie or accept such a connection have an inferior appreciation of the book.

According to Tolkien, the highest function of the myth is to bring us into the [Christian] Truth. Can this be achieved in the case of someone who is not actually Christian? I will ask again, beyond what Fall will such a myth take you? Is it possible that such a myth can lead you to a Truth and beyond a Fall that are both not Christian? Of what kind are they? And is there any other Artistic achievement which is superior to, nay, equal, such a function of myth? These are, to me, rethoric questions, but I will be delighted with such a discussion.

You didn't provide any example of an orc being shown mercy.

Point taken; I will ask you in turn: can you provide a single example of an unnecessarily unkind act towards an orc?

As I read that passage about Frodo, it seems to me that Tolkien is saying the Frodo failed, but that his failure was negated or absolved by divine mercy.

I disagree; the quote states that saying that Frodo failed is a sign of shallow judgement and one which is not in accordance with morality.

as stated in the second passage you quote which, funnily enough, appears to contradict the first

I disagree again; the essence of both passages is that one (Frodo) should do the most one can.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Raynor

If you are arguing for this, of if you are arguing from the _position_ of atheism, then our discussion is at a dead point; continuing it would mean to talk about something else.

If atheism is the trouble, I can continue his argument for him. I am not atheist.

Originally Posted by davem

Sorry, but I can recognise Christian propaganda when I hear it.

If Christianity is the trouble, I can continue his argument for him. I am not Christian.

This entire discussion smacks of, not intolerance for religion, but intolerance for opinion based upon its own congenital biases.

If it is believed that a Christian cannot argue without his words being tainted with Christian bias, or that an atheist cannot argue without his words being tainted with an atheist bias, or that a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Taoist, a Wiccan, a Hindu cannot view the world without a strictly idealistic bend, surely it is a logical conclusion that a man cannot write prolifically without his works being imbued with the same biases from which he, as a person, suffers?

If we cannot agree that objectivity is a possibility within debate, how can we possibly be arrogant enough to believe that objectivity is possible within a novel? Every experience you've had, every day you've lived, every breath you've taken becomes a part of you. A writer, though he may take what he believes and turn it upon its head for the sake of a story, has still written something that has come from the very beginning: him. A writer may be a writer, but everything created by him is created in his own image. This writer was not simply a Christian writing a book with secret Christian meaning. He was John Tolkien, and he wrote because he was a writer. If we are to take him at face value when he states that the book was not consciously a Christian book, it must be accepted that if there are Christian biases within it, they are there by accident.

But to say that they do not exist at all is the very same level of folly as to claim that they are blatantly apparent.

If it begins to appear that your opponent in your debate cannot seem to admit that he may have something to learn, perhaps it is best to step back and view one's own words thus far; it may be time to take one's own advice.

Now onward.

I would like to view the Bible through the lens of The Lord of the Rings. I want to learn more about all religions, but it seems easiest to start with the religion of my parents, the religion of most of my friends, the religion I grew up submersed, be it conscious or not, within.

Saruman has been labelled as a sort of a Judas figure within the story. This interests me. Who was Judas, who was Saruman, and what attributes do they share? Why has this connection been made?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

To be a 'Christian' work it would have to have underlying themes which are uniquely Christian

Why uniquely? This work doesn't set out to present the definition of Christianity, against whatever other beliefs or perspectives; as I presented three quotes so far, the author presents Christianity in its essence. Because, as I stated previously:

"Again, it seems to me that the main difference between us is that for you a Christian work is one in which there are refferences to only what is absolutely unique in Christianity - if the work would evolve solely around that, it would be rather barren."

Originally Posted by Feanor

If atheism is the trouble, I can continue his argument for him. I am not atheist.

My reason for singling out atheism is that it excludes from the start the very existence of the [Christian] Truth; if there is no such common base, how can the relation between Truth, Art and myth be discussed? It would be, first and foremost, a matter of proselytism, which breaks all the boundaries of this discussion (and my taste). The function of Tolkien's myths, to link back to the Truth, would, theoretically, not function.

[davem]

I can see that a book which is written by a Christian & which generally conforms to the Christian faith can be called a 'Christian' book. At the same time I think it is essentially a meaningless label if it is to be applied to a story which actually contains nothing specifically Christian at all & is only generally in conformity with the mood of the faith (as it is in conformity with many other faiths & with secular humanism to a great degree).

In what way (other than authorial hope - one can't even say authorial intention as most of it was not invented consciously at all) can it be said to be 'Christian'? Is any book which is generally in conformity with Christianity to be called a Christian book. or only books written by Christian authors?

So, lets put forward a 'supposal'. Suppose you read a book which is in conformity with Christianity & as far as you are aware it was written by a Christian. Is it a Christian book? If LotR is a Christian book due to its general conformity with Christian faith (despite absence of specific Christian symbols & themes) then you would have to say this book was also a Christian book, wouldn't you?

But what, after accepting it as a Christian book, you later found out the author was not actually a Christian? Would the book then cease to be a Christian book?

Or suppose we found letters from Tolkien denouncing Christianity & saying it was all nonsense & he'd been faking all along. Would LotR suddenly stop being a Christian book?

So, the question is, is there something specifically Christian about the story itself which would make it a Christian story whether or not its author was Christian?

As to Fea's question:

Saruman has been labelled as a sort of a Judas figure within the story. This interests me. Who was Judas, who was Saruman, and what attributes do they share? Why has this connection been made?

It seems to me that there is no similarity at all, other than that both are traitors. If there is a Judas figure in LotR it is rather Boromir. Yet the similarity is extremely vague & there are few real similarities. I have no idea what (of value) one would learn by doing such a comparison, either about Saruman (or Boromir) or Judas.

(BTW, my point re 'Christian propaganda' was specifically in response to LMP's claim that Christianity had somehow produced Western civilisation all on its ownsome. I'm reminded of a radio programme I heard by some American evangelical who said he was so grateful to St Paul for spreading the Gospel, because his own ancestors were from Scotland & before the emergence of Christianity all the Scots were running around naked in the forests. He clearly believed that just two thousand years ago Europeans were grunting neanderthals eating raw meat (a la the start of Kubrick's 2001). In fact the Celts, as is well known, were a highly advanced society, well respected for their learning even as far as Greece & Rome.)

[Nogrod]

Every intelligible discussion, every succesful exhange of ideas, every rational argumentation calls for a shared ground from which to make a point. The old Greeks and St. Thomas Aquinas in his time already made the point. I'm not the one to argue against their judgement here. The western culture and thought relies on those principles.

The question then becomes, where do we draw the limits of intelligible discussion? Some people like to narrow the categories "I will not take the arguments of the theists / atheists as they are profoundly misguided and unintelligible to me". After that the disagreements are solved with a sword (or rockets / smart bombs). As a reaction to this, there has developed a stance that everyone has her/his point of view and that's it. Call it subjectivism if you like.

But there's a void in here.

Subjectivism makes any meaningful discussion pointless.

But the thrive for "objectiviness" on behalf of some particular cultural principles or ideologies (atheist, lutheran, evangelical, catholic, orthodox, Shia, Sunni, ...) leads easily to narrow-mindedness and "the agreement of us" against the others. In the worst case to outward racism and hate, as we have seen too clearly nowadays.

Let's find the common ground from something more basic than ideologies centering around mere religious beliefs?


Just to tease (leaping across a few associative bridges): why should we ask the question what the author meant while writing? Why should we care? For many people of the 21st century Shakespeare's Macbeth is a story that so greatly depicts the horrors of totalitarian states and the problems our century has raised in front of (and with a thrive for) absolute rule and power. Shakespeare could not have thought of these as he lived in the 17th century (if there was the person "Shakespeare" to begin with). Are we wrong about his works now?

Is an author an omnipotent being, able to create meaning into the world like God which we should either understand or fail? Are you a God of your utterances? If all the other people take your utterances in a way X while you yourself have tried to explain them as Y, who is correct: all the others or you alone? (Be honest here!) Can we make a question of someone being right concerning meaning in the first place?