What did Tolkien really mean ....

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lal

If he had wanted his readers to take his work in that way then he would have made a public statement after the fact; however he did not, and as such we must be careful.

I'm not so sure he would have made a public statement if that is how he wanted his readers to take his work. There is an option which this argument misses.

Perhaps he was content to avoid such dogmatic assertion. Perhaps he was happy to leave a story that allowed readers actively to come to an awareness of that presence or not, according to their own lights. He was not, after all, a hectoring teacher but instead strove to guide his students to experience literature for themselves. The worth of the tale lies not in the end 'meaning' but in the journey itself.

oh, and, allegory and symbolism are not synonymous. One can exist without the other.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet --

I believe this is the thread you were intially referring to: And consciously so in the revision....

I believe that threads in Haudh-en-Ndengin don't normally pull up through a regular search.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet,
Oh, Littlemanpoet, what have you done? I've consciously been avoiding Books on account of too many interesting rpgs and the demands of real life. But you also know I can't resist a discussion on this topic.

Now that I've skimmed back over my posts from our last discussion, I wanted to say something more, partly drawing on that thread and partly on later ideas.

First, I've gone back and forth on this issue for years. I can really only tell you where I stand right now. If you talk to me next week, I may be somewhere totally different. Yet, generally, the more I've read, the more certain I feel that Tolkien's Legendarium and even the LotR were not consciously Christian or Catholic in their origins. There were other factors at work: the impact of the northern traditions, the pull of faerie, Tolkien's sense of loss that England had no stories of its own bound up with its language and its soil, a desire to bring about a moral rejuvenation, and certainly the sheer pull of language. Yet let me be careful to voice a caveat here. The author's religious beliefs naturally have some bearing on his personal frame of reference (as might happen with anyone) and this was bound to leave a few gentle footprints on the Legendarium, and definitely to influence the values he was espousing. Yet overall I see nothing to suggest that Tolkien was consciously attempting to put forward a Catholic or Christian position in his story when he first began his work. Those are two separate things. And I feel it remained that way for many years.

At the same time I sense a shift in Tolkien's attitudes that came about gradually. A tiny change here and another one there....what came out at the end was different than what was initially envisioned. That is why in one place we can have Tolkien saying that he sees the inclusion of the Christian religion as the greatest drawback of the Arthurian corpus yet a number of years later go on himself to highlight the exchange between Finrod and Andreth as part of the history of Arda with its obvious reference to the ultimate incarnation of Eru.

So many people, including Christopher himself, are downright uncomfortable with the Andreth dialogue and other pieces that JRRT wrote in the final years of his life. It seems like a drawing away from his original roots of faerie and northern myth and a pull towards modern "reality", an explicit attempt to incorporate scientific knowledge and a more doctrinaire religious attitude into the Legendarium itself. I feel that, like it or not, that is part of what happened to Tolkien and the Legendarium. No human being stands still, but very few of us are so dedicated to a particular story or subcreated world that we take it inside our soul and carefully develop it for over fifty years. That story is bound to reflect some of the personal changes that Tolkien went through during that long period.

To me the two most "glaring" examples of the religious revisions of the Legendarium were the Andreth dialogue, which has been mentioned above, and the depiction of Galadriel, something that was brought up in the last thread. The Galadriel who initially rebelled against the Valar is so, so different from the Galadriel given to us in the later Letters and in UT itself. The latter was actually written in the final month of Tolkien's life, although Christopher has said that his father wanted to incorporate this changed portrait of Galadriel into the Silm. When Tolkien describes Galadriel as "unstained" and says "she had committed no evil deeds", it's hard for me not to overlook the clear religious implication. Tolkien himself has acknowledged Galadriel's tie to Mary.

But we do have to be careful here. It seems to me there are two types of revisions going on. One is the actual revisions on paper such as the two instances cited above: Tolkien sat down and wrote something to be added to the Legendarium. Perhaps just as critical, however, were those revisions that occurred not on paper but in Tolkien's own mind. It wasn't the words that changed, but his understanding of the meaning behind those words. Lembas, for instance, had always been in LotR....suddenly, in the Letters, lembas becomes an echo of the Eucharist.

Sometimes Tolkien seems genuinely surprised when he sensed more meaning in his words than he had thought was there in the first place. I especially recall that very well known letter written just two years before Tolkien died when a member of parliament visited him. One thing led to another and the gentlemen asked: "Of course, you don't suppose , do you, that you wrote all that book yourself?" My jaw always drops open a little when I read Tolkien's reply:

Poor Gandalf! I was too well acquainted with G. to expose myself rashly, or to ask what he meant. I think I said, "No, I don't suppose so any longer. I have never been able to suppose so. An alarming conclusion for an old philologist to draw concerning his private amusement. But not one that should puff any one up who considers the imperfections of "chosen instruments" and indeed what sometimes seems their lamentable unfitness for the purpose..."

Tolkien then went on to add that readers had approached him and, in first encountering the story, had felt the dim dawning of religious feeling.

So what are we to make of this? Any discussion of the Christian or Catholic revisions of LotR and the Legendarium must consider the contents of this rather strange letter. It seems to me we have three choices. Maybe Tolkien was lying: he said and wrote something that he didn't believe just to impress the M.P. or the person (Miss Batten-Phelps) to whom he sent the letter. Or perhaps in the last two years of his life, Tolkien was sadly deluded: he lacked the mental capacity or stability to interpret what was actually going on. To put it bluntly, he simply didn't understand the meaning of what he wrote in that letter. Or we can go with alternative three: that, after a lifetime of devotion to the Legendarium and less than two years before his death, Tolkien had come to believe that he had been chosen as an instrument by God to convey the story of Arda to those around him and that this story contained some profound religious truths that had an immediate impact on at least a few of his readers. Of the three options listed, I prefer this one. Morever, I don't think anyone begins thinking something like this overnight. It has to be a gradual thing.

It's not important whether you or I believe that Tolkien was God's instrument. What is important is that he felt this way by the end of his life. That's a pretty remarkable thing for anyone to say. That belief had to have influenced the development of the Legendarium in all its drafts and revisions, a fact that's buttressed by scattered evidence like the Andreth dialogue and the change in Galadriel. Someone (not me for sure!) is going to have to spend a very long time going through the drafts and nailing all this down, but I believe it's there. I'm sure it will be very fuzzy; the chronology won't be nice and tidy. Tolkien's mind can be called many things but "nice and tidy" isn't one of them.

You are right, too, to raise the issue of Tolkien's view of the machine and nature. It could be another piece of the puzzle, especially if we could somehow find out the particular lessons that Tolkien was taught as part of his religious instruction. I could cite historical examples of this kind of attitude towards the machine, but I don't know anything about Tolkien's exposure to such ideas. And overall I do not know enough about 20th century Catholic thought pre and post Vatican II to be able to address much of this with any confidence. It's also interesting to note that Tolkien expressed at least some reservations in his letters about the changes in the Catholic Church on account of Vatican 2.

Sorry this is so looong...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

Surely the classic definition should suffice.

No. The word 'fundamentally' is a strong one, and on it hangs a lot of meaning. we must remember that Tolkien was also an Englishman and we use English differently.

Originally Posted by lmp

You seem to be implying that Tolkien is engaging in untruth. Are you suggesting that Tolkien is telling a fellow Catholic something he doesn't really think is true, because his audience happens to be Catholic?

No. But he was writing to a particular type of person, writing a personal letter, on a particular topic. In that respect we must consider that this was not intended as a public statement, it was a reply to a personal letter. Tolkien at all times made sure to state publicly things which he wanted readers to know about his work, for example that it was not an allegory. His letters were personal discussions about interpretation and you can often see that thoughts simply spring to his mind as he writes; and he wrote with ink, so letters would be very difficult to go back and correct (unlike nowadays when we have e-mail and 'delete' keys), which is why we so often see caveats made after grand statements. Indeed, in this self same letter we see that happening. So we need to check ourselves when using the Letters.

Originally Posted by lmp

Perhaps and perhaps not. What seems most likely to me is that this Catholic author is acknowledging something he knows to be true, to a fellow Catholic reader; basically letting him in on a secret that the rest of the reading world need not know. The problem is, we have the Letter before us. Isn't it true that his public statements by and large stated what he didn't want his readers to miscontrue from LotR?

Have we read the introduction to Lord of the Rings, where Tolkien categorically states in a very public way:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

As for any inner meaning or message it has in the intention of the author, none.

Let's look again at what he said the infamous letter:

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little;

1. The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work Tolkien claims it is a 'fundamentally' Catholic work. He does not mean it is a 'rules based' 'fundamental' work, he means at heart it's the work of a Catholic.

2. unconsciously so at first He says it was done 'unconsciously so at first' - meaning he didn't even consider Catholicism as he was writing, and if anything got into his work, it wasn't there by intention.

3. but consciously in the revision He says 'consciously in the revision'. Here we're all at sea as we do not know if he sat there editing with Catholicism in mind, or if he means that he could see this after publication, or at which point in the whole process of writing. We just don't know. But he does tell us more later in the letter.

4. I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world He states that he did make a very conscious effort to remove anything which could 'identify' Real World religions in his text. Why did he do this? Because he recognised that his work was sympathetic to his own religion anyway? Because he didn't want intrusions on a secondary world? Because he thought it might seem offensive to fellow Catholics? Because it was a aesthetic decision as he was so fearful of allegory?

5. the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism He knows that any links to real world religion are 'absorbed' into the story - meaning that the narrative carries any elements which may have found their way down his pen and onto the page. He also knows that amongst all the other symbolism he has chosen he may indeed have included some Catholic imagery.

6. The most important point, the one which gets forgotten. The Context. The Qualifier. However that is very clumsily put and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little; Tolkien's caveat. He says that what he has just written down is quite pompous, he cannot correct it (he does not have a word processor or Tippex!) but he can qualify it. Letters are not Literature, they are personal, and though Tolkien would occasionally throw one away, why do that when a Qualifier can be added? He tells his correspondent that the truth of it is that he actually did very little planning.

We can't argue with what Tolkien says, no matter how much we want something to mean something else. I'm not asserting, merely breaking down what he says, and using the full context of his statement, not just the juicy bit.

The other important point to note is Tolkien's particular distaste for literature with 'messages'. And this increased as he aged. He grew to dislike much of the work he is 'famed' for liking (much of which he wasn't exactly fanatical about anyway), including George MacDonald and GK Chesterton, and his favourites amongst the works of Lewis were his sci-fi tales, he disliked his religious works (possibly also due to Lewis being Anglican?) and Narnia.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK -- being terribly reductive and probably simplistic here...but couldn't Tolkien simply have been acknowledging the difference between the creating-writer who pens a first draft and the editing-writer who takes that great shambles and renders it "finished" insofar as he makes sure that it "makes sense" (i.e. is internally coherent, presents a unified story and vision of its characters and action).

The creating-writer (in this model) simply goes with the story and gets it down. The editing-writer is one who shapes that material -- and given that Tolkien was Catholic and his work engages with moral issues it makes sense that this act of re-vision would be undertaken from that perspective.

Maybe the Professor was just being honest: "As I was revising the story I was conscious of the fact that I was a Catholic man who was reshaping it and rendering it coherent."

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

OK -- being terribly reductive and probably simplistic here...but couldn't Tolkien simply have been acknowledging the difference between the creating-writer who pens a first draft and the editing-writer who takes that great shambles and renders it "finished" insofar as he makes sure that it "makes sense" (i.e. is internally coherent, presents a unified story and vision of its characters and action).

The creating-writer (in this model) simply goes with the story and gets it down. The editing-writer is one who shapes that material -- and given that Tolkien was Catholic and his work engages with moral issues it makes sense that this act of re-vision would be undertaken from that perspective.

Maybe the Professor was just being honest: "As I was revising the story I was conscious of the fact that I was a Catholic man who was reshaping it and rendering it coherent."

Bearing in mind his dislike of allegory and 'message' Literature, you're probably correct. It likely does boil down to something as simple as the following: Tolkien taking up his text in the editing process and making sure references to Earthly religions were excised, and him making sure that the story itself was sympathetic to his own moral systems (e.g. you can imagine him making sure Aragorn behaved with perfect manners towards Eowyn, who obviously fancied him, a 'taken' man. And Love to Tolkien was a lifelong choice, something most definitely influenced by his Catholicism - though it might have also been personal!).

[mark12_30]

What Child and Fordie said.

What Child said: after having writen three novels and two rpg's, I reread them and frequently think, "My God, I remember writing that part-- but I didn't plan on it coming together like that." There is the sense of looking over your shoulder, and up.

And (regarding what Fordie said) if I now were to go back and edit them-- as I have half done with TFW, but never finished -- much would change. I would niggle (always did.) And I would seek to convey something somewhat different than I had initially sought to convey. Why? Because of the things that I see in it now that I didn't plan when I wrote it; because of that sense of looking over my shoulder, that has changed the way I myself see the story. It has two authors, now.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Perhaps [Tolkien] was happy to leave a story that allowed readers actively to come to an awareness of that presence or not, according to their own lights.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Bb

The worth of the tale lies not in the end 'meaning' but in the journey itself.

Well, I don't know that I would say it in quite such a dogmatic 'not this but that' way.

Originally Posted by Bb

oh, and, allegory and symbolism are not synonymous. One can exist without the other.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Child

I believe this is the thread you were intially referring to:

Yes. I was unable to find it. I dare say that index needs work.

Originally Posted by Child

after a lifetime of devotion to the Legendarium and less than two years before his death, Tolkien had come to believe that he had been chosen as an instrument by God to convey the story of Arda to those around him and that this story contained some profound religious truths that had an immediate impact on at least a few of his readers. Of the three options listed, I prefer this one.

Yes. For Tolkien, a Catholic, to acknowledge himself as an instrument of God is not hubris, not arrogance; rather, deepest humility. Believers in the Judeo-Christian God who are honest about their beliefs recognize that God is the ultimate Author, and uses believers, and unbelievers as well, to forward God's purpose.

Originally Posted by Lal

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work Tolkien claims it is a 'fundamentally' Catholic work. He does not mean it is a 'rules based' 'fundamental' work, he means at heart it's the work of a Catholic.

fundamental:1a: serving as an original or generating source; 1b: serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function.

There are other definitions that deal with change or science, or Religious Fundamentalism, but those are different things than what Tolkien is talking about. If Tolkien had meant that LotR is fundamentally the work of a Catholic, he would have stated it so. Instead he wrote that LotR is a fundamentally religious and Catholic work. Using the above, most general and (ahem) basic definition of the word, what Tolkien is thus saying (knowing how to use English correctly) is that Catholicism serves as an original or generating source; OR serves as a basis supporting LotR's existence OR determines LotR's essential structure or function. One of these three.

Originally Posted by Lal

Here we're all at sea as we do not know if he sat there editing with Catholicism in mind, or if he means that he could see this after publication, or at which point in the whole process of writing. We just don't know. But he does tell us more later in the letter.

I agree with Fordim and Helen that Tolkien is most likely talking about the pre-publication revision process.

However that is very clumsily put and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little

This is humility, and downright self-effacing. Which is not to say that he's being untruthful; rather, he's downplaying any implication or inference that he is some kind of genius master planner who could pull off this major "trick". Which actually falls in line with the quote Child reminded us of earlier.

Anyway, I hope to relate some more of what I've learned in regard to 1908 - 1963 Catholicism and how it compares to LotR, but it'll have to wait for another day.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Lalwende:

He says 'consciously in the revision'. Here we're all at sea as we do not know if he sat there editing with Catholicism in mind, or if he means that he could see this after publication, or at which point in the whole process of writing. We just don't know. But he does tell us more later in the letter.

Littlemanpoet:

I agree with Fordim and Helen that Tolkien is most likely talking about the pre-publication revision process.

Lalwende and Littlemanpoet

Just a brief comment on the whole question of "when". I don't feel that these two options---pre-publication revision or identifying an additional layer of meaning after publication---are necessarily exclusive. I see this whole process as occurring very slowly over a long period of time, almost like water dripping onto a rock and gradually making an indentation. I do think it's easier to document pre-publication revision with some precision than to try and determine at which point Tolkien began seeing new meanings in already existing works.

There is, however, a very intriguing quotation in the "Religion" entry of the new Reader's Guide that does allude to the fact that Tolkien sometimes came to read in new religious meanings even after publication. This reference actually came from the January 1980 edition of the Minas Tirith Evening Star. In 1979, Professor George Sayer, Humphrey Carpenter and Clyde Kilby were pooling their remembrances of Tolkien and the question of Christian influence on Lord of the Rings arose. The meeting took place at Wheaton College where Kilby was professor and curator of the nascent Marion Wade collection. In this article Professor Sayer stated that Tolkien

very much objected to the view that he wrote his books as Christian propaganda or anything like that. He wrote them as stories. He would sometimes pull a bunch of American letters or reviews towards him and say, "You know, they're now telling me that..." and then he would say some of the things they'd told him about The Lord of the Rings He'd say, "You know, I never thought of that. I thought I was writing it as pure story." He came gradually to believe some of the things that, well, you were telling him.

The italics are mine. When I read this, I couldn't help but laugh. Sayer's reference to "you" in "you were telling him" undoubtedly refers to Clyde Kilby who was hosting their meeting at Wheaton College. Kilby was a devoted Christian (also interested in the writings of Lewis) and, as we know, had worked with Tolkien for one summer helping him with Silm. I have an image of Kilby spending long hours shmoozing with Tolkien about the "Christian" aspects of Lord of the Rings. We know, for instance, that the two men discussed the fact that Tolkien considered the "Secret Fire" to be the Holy Spirit. I can see Tolkien scratching his head a bit over some of the interpretations that Kilby put forward, and then going to pick up his mail and finding similar comments from other readers in the U.S.

Interesting that this kind of thing should be coming from readers in the U. S. There are cultural differences in play here, I think. Certainly, while there are believers and nonbeliever on both sides of the Atlantic, religion plays a different role in society as a whole in the United States than it does in most European countries.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

fundamental:1a: serving as an original or generating source; 1b: serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function.

There are other definitions that deal with change or science, or Religious Fundamentalism, but those are different things than what Tolkien is talking about. If Tolkien had meant that LotR is fundamentally the work of a Catholic, he would have stated it so. Instead he wrote that LotR is a fundamentally religious and Catholic work. Using the above, most general and (ahem) basic definition of the word, what Tolkien is thus saying (knowing how to use English correctly) is that Catholicism serves as an original or generating source; OR serves as a basis supporting LotR's existence OR determines LotR's essential structure or function. One of these three.

Tolkien meant none of these things. I'm afraid both Tolkien's work and Tolkien himself simply cannot be boiled down in reductionist theories. He was a Catholic, but he was also a lot of other things, and to attempt to say that Catholicism was the source of Lord of the Rings, was the basis for its existence or is the root of its purpose or function is simply wrong. A lot of things went into Lord of the Rings: Norse mythology, Anglo-Saxon literature, adventure, horror, WWI, his childhood in Sarehole, his love of language, desires to dedicate something to his country (and by extension, his pride in being English), love of story, etc etc etc.

Unfortunately there is a growing amount of 'scholarship' coming out of this one misquoted quote, and we cannot even consider taking seriously scholarship which is based on one statement; had it been a repeated theme then maybe, but Tolkien does not repeat this idea and even refutes it, yes even in this letter. If people wish to use it to apply their own experience of reading then fine, but it is doing poor old Tolkien a disservice to be so reductionist as to say that his work is simply Catholic and to deny everything else. As Tolkien himself says in this letter, he cut out references to Earthly religion, as there was no need for them in a text which was anyway sympathetic to his own ideals.

A quote from a random dictionary gives us no direction into what Tolkien meant by using the word 'fundamentally'. I suspect Tolkien did not have that dictionary to hand when he was writing to Father Murray.

Why are we trying to 'force' Tolkien's work into a corner? Tolkien himself said it does not have a 'meaning'. Can we not accept that and just enjoy it? I'd hate to see Tolkien 'ruined' by the kind of simplistic reductionism that has now seen poor old Lewis be made a literary laughing stock. Far more productive would be to look in a level headed way at how his Catholicism is apparent from the text as I tried to do (and I'd been hoping for a specifically Catholic examination), but as soon as anyone tries to take apart what he was actually saying we are challenged by the hegemony of Faith.

So, what about my suggestion that his Catholic morality is clear from the text, as shown in his treatment of Love and relationships?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Tolkien meant none of these things. I'm afraid both Tolkien's work and Tolkien himself simply cannot be boiled down in reductionist theories. He was a Catholic, but he was also a lot of other things, and to attempt to say that Catholicism was the source of Lord of the Rings, was the basis for its existence or is the root of its purpose or function is simply wrong.

Lalwende,

Although I might express it differently, there is great truth in what you say. To reduce LotR to one simple equation is misleading: that just wasn't the nature of the man. One moment Tolkien says it is preferable to omit any reference to "real" religion in a fantasy world, and some years later he writes a piece like the Athrabeth. To bring the incarnation into the Legendarium was a long way from his earlier reference in the letters when he complained about the Arthurian legends and expressed the view that "real religion" should be kept out of any subcreated faerie world. But that duality isn't surprising. On almost any topic we discuss, it's possible to bring up conflicting ideas put forward by Tolkien himself.....what Kilby labelled "contrasistency".

The quote from the Guide that I gave in the last post clearly states that Tolkien did not appreciate his work being regarded as "Christian propaganda or anything like that." But at the same time, it's hard for me to deny that the "Catholic influence" grew in importance over the years and became a major component of his work and thinking, at least towards the end.

How else can we understand or interpret Tolkien's stated belief that he was an "instrument of God"? Was that Catholic influence expressed strictly in terms of general moral standards or was it wider than that? What about the author's own admission in the Guide as recorded by Carpenter, Sayer and Kilby that his view of his work and its meaning changed somewhat over the years in terms of religious meaning? I personally feel moral standards are one part of the equation we're discussing but that more explicit references are also involved.

To me the central terms aren't "either/or". Rather they are "when" and "how much". I vacilate back and forth on this in terms of that balance, but I think Catholic influence is definitely there and it extends beyond a simple reckoning in terms of moral standards. It seems to have increased over the years. If we were to ask each person who has contributed to this thread to pinpoint "how much" and "when", we'd probably get wildly different answers, but we'd all be on some kind of continuum.

Lal and Littlemanpoet -- Would you both feel more comfortable with that mental image of a continuum rather than "either/or"?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Just a brief comment on the whole question of "when". I don't feel that these two options---pre-publication revision or identifying an additional layer of meaning after publication---are necessarily exclusive.

It depends on whether we're talking about The Lord of the Rings or The Silmarillion & HoME, etc.

I find what seems to render this entire discussion implaccably muddy, to be rather unfortunate. It is as if every attempt to gain clarity is greeted with an additional stirring of the depths of the muddy waters so that frankly nothing at all can be said with certainty. Such uncertainty may be a most comfortable environment in which to convey one's own relative opinions, but does little to shed light on what can be known with certainty. The only way to deal with such 'stirrings of the depths' is to take each argument one by one and treat it as logically as possible. I hope I have time for that. I don't right now. But it must come before I present any evidence from the documents at my disposal.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Child

Lal and Littlemanpoet -- Would you both feel more comfortable with that mental image of a continuum rather than "either/or"?

I don't need either.

Seriously. Of course we can find elements of Tolkien's faith is his work, that is probably inevitable, but there questions about how much was there intentionally (from everything Tolkien has said about it, any specifically Catholic images or ideals can be counted on our fingers), questions about whether they were there to 'teach' us anything (Tolkien keeps telling us "No" to this one), and there are questions about whether such images and ideals take primacy to everything else.

Nothing can be said with certainty or clarity about the 'meaning' of Lord of the Rings, because as Tolkien told us time and time again, there isn't one. Tolkien wrote "Lord of the Rings is not 'about' anything apart from itself". If we want an objective opinion, then Tolkien gives us one. Of course, we might think objective opinion is something other than what the author intended, but then that other cannot be objective opinion, it can only be relative and personal.

There's nothing wrong of course with a bit of applicability, but there are limits to it. We must be sensible. The lesson of what has happened to Lewis is interesting. He was indeed making a Christian message but it was being made in a more subtle way than the hype would now have us believe; the applicability has overtaken the Author and now Lewis is being unfairly viewed as an outright evangelist by modern readers, many of whom would say that this is sinister. I've got Pullman in mind now, who does like 'messages'; he identifies Lewis as deeply troubling, but failed to find the same in Tolkien. Long may that last, if the message that gets into the heads of the general public is one that makes them avoid Tolkien!

I have to ask, why when we can indeed have a worthy discussion about the Catholicism that can be found in Tolkien's work, does it have to be to prove some bigger point? Tolkien also loved Norse myth but the presence of it can be explored without trying to prove it was Tolkien's overarching aim. Of course, an Odinist may come onto a website and claim just that. But that is the difficulty when people with strong personal convictions get onto discussing matters such as this. There always seems to be an overarching agenda to be proven. So instead of yet another highly subjective discussion, another push-me-pull-you which will inevitably result in someone causing someone else 'offence', and we know nobody will agree on, can't we instead objectively examine what is specifically Catholic in Tolkien's work as promised? What it might be?

[Aaron]

Hi, I'm an old member with a brand new name and I'd like to cash in my two cents on this issue. Being a Protestant one may beleive that I would see a Christian message within LOTR but this is not the case.
Christian teaching borders on pacifism and one of the messages of LOTR appears to be the righteous undoing of injustice, this is not to suggest that people of my faith are weak or servile but it merely appears that with heroes such as Aragorn and Boromir The Lord of The Rings appears to be based more on Arthurian concepts of chivalry then Catholic dogma.

[mark12_30]

Long ago, in the midst of a contentious thread -- maybe it was canonicity-- a very wise mod once told me, "Take the eucatastrophe and run."

We can indeed discuss exhaustively what Tolkien MEANT or did not MEAN, or examine what might be specifically Catholic in his works, but I doubt we will ever come to an agreement on it.

IMO, he *meant* an eucatastrophe. At least one. Preferably one per thread of the tapestry. However, a eucatastrophe is beyond his own doing; by its very definition, it is a glimpse "beyond"-- one which the author has almost no control over. He can provide the painting of the tree, but he cannot provide the Beyond that will be seen thru the painting; his very goal is for the painting to be seen through. And for that to happen, the reader can't be tangled up in some allegorical "meaning". If he is so distracted from the secondary reality by the primary reality, he'll never get to the Beyond.

Now, where did I put that eucatastrophe? Ah, there it is; I'm off.