Can atheists appreciate/understand Lord of the Ring?

[jallanite]

In theory, Christians, in particular Roman Catholics, ought to appreciate The Lord of the Rings more than non-Christians. In fact Tolkien has more arguments and disagreements with obvious Roman Catholics in the book Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien than with anyone else.

The Lord of the Rings is obviously a fictional work. Manwë and Varda never existed, ever. The earth was never flat. Gandalf never existed. Hairy-footed hobbits never existed. Tom Bombadil never existed. Númenor never existed. Ents never existed. None of these things has any connection to Christianity.

But anyone who attempts to read The Lord of the Rings as though it were real is badly misreading it. Tolkien in his essay “On Fairy Stories” makes it clear that fairy tales, attract, to those who find them attractive, by their very unreality. The story The Juniper Tree is, according to Tolkien, an amazing tale. I agree. But it is not in the least realistic. It is not in the least Christian. Nor is it any kind of allegory. It is pure fantasy.

Lotrelf seems to miss that Christian theists are as ready to misread Tolkien as anyone. Anne Marie Gazzolo’s Moments of Grace and Spiritual Warfare in The Lord of the Rings I found to be hideous pious piffle, to take a recent example. And there are other well-known Tolkien fans who I find to my taste to be pure evil.

Tolkien himself very much enjoyed David Lindsey’s A Voyage to Arcturus, a gnostic tale in which the moral is that pain is the sole virtue. In later life Tolkien found at least some of George MacDonald’s fantasy works unreadable and loathed C. S. Lewis’ Narnia books. Like everyone, Tolkien had individual tastes which were not always in synch with his fans. He liked what he liked.

Personally I left the Mythopoeic Society years ago because of my revulsion for its leader, Glen GoodKnight, a purported Christian, and a person whom I grew to loathe for his continual flagrant dishonesty. Eventually the Society, who had previously made him permanent president, realized they could legally get rid of his influence by just removing all presidential duties, and did so. Glen was still president, legally, but had no further duties or responsibilities or role.

Note that Tolkien’s religion was, despite what is often claimed, not so Catholic as is often claimed. Tolkien, in his fantasy, did not claim death was brought on humans as a punishment for eating the forbidden fruit. Tolkien very much disagreed with some of the reforms of Vatican II, notably the replacement of Latin in the church service. In his fantasy he avoids anything like a parish priest.

See http://bustedhalo.com/features/of-go...en-and-hobbits for the statement:

Scholars of Tolkien, including Matthew Dickerson, author of A Hobbit Journey, adds that the Lembas, the thin small cakes that the elves make and eat, have sacramental or even Eucharistic connotations.

Wait a minute. How can lembas have “Eucharistic connotations” when it is supposedly consumed thousands of years before Jesus was born.

Dickerson says that Marian imagery also abounds in Tolkien’s work. “The Vala Elbereth, also called Varda, is certainly a Marian figure. She is a venerated and revered queen, whom the elves of Middle-earth call upon in times of need. Her name alone has power, and when those in need call upon her, help comes.”

The problem is that the same is true when in old legends believers call on pagan goddesses, and Elbereth, again, is supposed to exist thousands of years before the Virgin Mary was even born. And Elbereth has no son.

I am, or was, in personal communication with a fan who similarly believed, and presumably still believes, that Goldberry is really the Virgin Mary.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by jallanite

The Lord of the Rings is obviously a fictional work. Manwë and Varda never existed, ever. The earth was never flat. Gandalf never existed. Hairy-footed hobbits never existed. Númenor never existed. Ents never existed. None of these things has any connection to Christianity.

I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Originally Posted by jallanite

But anyone who attempts to read The Lord of the Rings as though it were real is badly misreading it. Tolkien in his essay “On Fairy Stories” makes it clear that fairy tales, attract, to those who find them attractive, by their very unreality. The story The Juniper Tree is, according to Tolkien, an amazing tale. I agree. But it is not in the least realistic. Nor is it any kind of allegory. It is pure fantasy.

Of course LOTR is a fantasy, and I have never met anyone who arose in the morning and went to the local tall hill to worship Eru Ilúvatar. But that is not to say that there cannot exist ideals and characters in the books that could have a particular resonance for a reader, whether they see the works from a Christian perspective, or not. The freedom to interpret a work as one reads is of vital importance, and why would anyone bother to read any work of fiction, if they were told they must limit themselves in what they take from it?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The freedom to interpret a work as one reads is of vital importance, and why would anyone bother to read any work of fiction, if they were told they must limit themselves in what they take from it?

Do you mean that there is no point in reading anything in any fiction if one must in any way limit oneself? I am unaware that I am in any way limiting your freedom. Believe whatever you wish. And allow me the same privilege to disbelieve in Bilbo Baggins, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, and Peter Pan.

I strongly believe that one should not take Ents, or Hobbits, or Elves as factual. Why should this bother you? Is it ok to believe that Goldberry is really the Virgin Mary?

Believe whatever you wish. I have no power to limit your beliefs.

[Nogrod]

Even if I agree with the contents of your burst Jallanite, I would suggest we'd do well to steer this discussion back to those dimensions we can have an enlightened exchange of ideas on. I mean this atheism / theism and real / not real - POV gets us nowhere but into arguments which heat up unnecessarily...

I was kind of intrigued by the idea that if you were a devout Catholic, would you then enjoy or "understand" the work more deeply?

The former of course means something like an old time Catholic aka. agreeing with and believing in most of the prof's world-view from which he wrote his work - unlike many modern-day "true-Christians" who have all these frivolous ideas that they have the "fundamentals" of Christianity right when they have ultra-liberal and over-individualistic beliefs which people of the past, like the prof. or people in the Middle-ages, would have abhorred!

But would fex. Formendacil have a deeper understanding of the books as he is both a theologian and a firm Catholic?


In literary-studies the POV of the author has been held to be the key to understanding any work for a long time - with some marked counter-trends of course (which should not be passed with just a shrug as they have good points)... but just taken at the face-value it looks "natural" to say that you understand a work when you understand what the author was trying to say.

And if the author has a deeply religious world-view - even if he tries to keep that at bay or thinks he's looking at things from a wider perspective, from something like a shared human mythological POV in the first place - wouldn't that apply then? That someone sharing some of the basic metaphysical views with Tolkien would be more deeply moved or would feel the story more "deeply" in comparison to someone who only "knows" the theological and mythical aspects referred to in the books, even iof that was a result of decades of intensive humanistic studies?

So does sharing beliefs with the author add something to the experience, or to the understanding of a work?

To me that is a perplexing question as I have always thought I have a deep understanding of Tolkien's world just because I know a lot of different religions (and their theological schisms & their history), myths, general history of ideas & philosophy etc. But would it be different if I also believed in those things?

[jallanite]

I’m not sure what a devout Catholic is any more. But devout Catholics are under no compulsion or necessity to believe in Valar, Elves, Númenoreans, Hobbits, Trolls, Balrogs, or Tom Tombadil. Indeed the default pure Catholic position seems to me to be not to believe in any of them.

This is where Lotrelf’s position seems to me to be odd. Why should Christians have a better understanding of Tolkien than non-Christians, when much of The Lord of the Rings tells of things not believed by either Christians or non-Christians very much or at all? The events in the story are supposed to have occurred ages before the Virgin May or Jesus Christ were born or prophesied.

And that also is recognized by the author as nonsense. The religion practiced by Men and Hobbits is deliberately kept vague. No-one goes regularly to church or to temple.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by jallanite

devout Catholics are under no compulsion or necessity to believe in Valar, Elves, Númenoreans, Hobbits, Trolls, Balrogs, or Tom Tombadil. Indeed the default pure Catholic position seems to me to be not to believe in any of them.

Of course. And I can't see sense in anyone trying to argue that they should.

But if you think of concepts like providence, grace, forgiveness... it's not hard to find these key-concepts of Christianity embedded in the books as some of it's central motives.

Because I have read about them I can see them in the books and even grasp something of how they work there, but if I also believed in them (if they were part of my metaphysical identity), would I then also "feel" them more deeply (or at least differently) while reading the books?

[Tar-Verimuchli]

This is my first post on an interesting topic. I'm about as hard/strong/positive atheist as is possible and I have no problem understanding or appreciating Tolkien. There seems an obvious difference between understanding an ideology and believing it. Most atheists in my experience have a pretty good understanding of the dominant faith in their culture as they really need to understand it to reject it rather than take a neutral agnostic position. Besides, there are obvious differences, e.g. God moves in mysterious ways but Eru mainly uses eagles.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Tar-Verimuchli

God moves in mysterious ways but Eru mainly uses eagles.

Hey, I've seen that bumper sticker!

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by jallanite

In theory, Christians, in particular Roman Catholics, ought to appreciate The Lord of the Rings more than non-Christians. In fact Tolkien has more arguments and disagreements with obvious Roman Catholics in the book Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien than with anyone else.

The Lord of the Rings is obviously a fictional work. Manw�0Š5 and Varda never existed, ever. The earth was never flat. Gandalf never existed. Hairy-footed hobbits never existed. Tom Bombadil never existed. N¨²menor never existed. Ents never existed. None of these things has any connection to Christianity.

But anyone who attempts to read The Lord of the Rings as though it were real is badly misreading it. Tolkien in his essay ¡°On Fairy Stories¡± makes it clear that fairy tales, attract, to those who find them attractive, by their very unreality. The story The Juniper Tree is, according to Tolkien, an amazing tale. I agree. But it is not in the least realistic. It is not in the least Christian. Nor is it any kind of allegory. It is pure fantasy.

No character of Professor's books exist in real life. Reality in not derived from fiction, fiction comes from reality. The ideals Professor represents are those that exist in real life. No Hobbit existed in real life, no dwarf, no wizard, no one. But their ideals do. There are still people like Frodo and Gandalf. It does not mean they exist in real life; it simply means these characters' ideals are real. Numenor's did not exist, indeed, but they exist because of reality. I didn't talk about if these characters are real or ever existed; it's all about their ideals and spirituality. And spirituality does not belong to any religion.

Lotrelf seems to miss that Christian theists are as ready to misread Tolkien as anyone. Anne Marie Gazzolo¡¯s Moments of Grace and Spiritual Warfare in The Lord of the Rings I found to be hideous pious piffle, to take a recent example. And there are other well-known Tolkien fans who I find to my taste[...]

It's not just about one religion. Not only Christians readers have read the books. I'm Hindu if we go by the religion, and many other Hindus do not get Hindu Mythology at all. Again, something not concerning any religion but one's spirituality. Many Christians have read our Epics, and they understood them better than many Hindus. As for the book you mentioned above, I've read some of her essays and disagreed with many points she made. I haven't read any other book except two of Professor's LotR & TH. No other book concerning LotR, TH or The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales. So how other authors interprete the text is something out of my understanding. Though I'd agree with you that it is easy to misinterprete the text because of the complexity and literary details. Probably those believers take things far too literally and see everything connected to One? This is what I found in Anne Marrie Gazzolo's essays.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

No Hobbit existed in real life, no dwarf, no wizard, no one. But their ideals do. ... I didn't talk about if these characters are real or ever existed; it's all about their ideals and spirituality. And spirituality does not belong to any religion.

I’m sorry, but if the hobbits, dwarves, and wizards don’t exist, then neither can their ideals, except as fictions by Tolkien.

Also, I rather dislike the term spirituality. It has so many different and conflicting meanings. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality . However I think I get what you mean. Basically I have encountered numerous cases of supposed Tolkien fans who are morally garbage, though others who are very much not. I have not found that a supposed belief in Christianity matters much.

I know and respect some people who greatly dislike Tolkien and want nothing ever again to do with some who claim the opposite. And I admit I may be misled in arriving at some of these evaluations. Basically you have probably found by now in this forum that being a professed Christian confers no status.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Tolkien himself addressed the issue of shared experience between the author and reader, albeit on a different subject.

It is also false , though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences.

Now, I realise that for Tolkien his religious beliefs genuinely were an important part of his life, and someone who shares them might find a deeper connection to those elements in his work that were inspired by or related to his Catholicism. It is after all one thing to understand a belief system and quite a different thing to accept it as truth and live by its tenets; but that would only be like a soldier finding a deeper resonance in those parts of Tolkien's writings that arose from his military service, or a linguist responding to his philological jokes. The only person who has ever understood Tolkien's work the way he did was J.R.R. Tolkien, and even he changed his mind a number of times, as his letters demonstrate. Any attempt to suggest that our own experiences somehow give us a greater insight than other readers will only look like an attempt to possess Tolkien and his work and make them a part of our own agendas, which is unhelpful for criticism and tiresome to see.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I’m sorry, but if the hobbits, dwarves, and wizards don’t exist, then neither can their ideals, except as fictions by Tolkien.

Are you implying that strength, weakness, mercy, relationships, pride, honour, misunderstanding, despair, rage, madness, and humanity do not exist?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Are you implying that strength, weakness, mercy, relationships, pride, honour, misunderstanding, despair, rage, madness, and humanity do not exist?

Not in the least. I am implying only that fiction is fiction, nothing more

Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged also shows “strength, weakness, mercy, relationships, pride, honour, misunderstanding, despair, rage, madness, and humanity”. So do many other works.

I apologize that I have apparently written so poorly that you have misunderstood me so badly. Tolkien did not attempt to set up a cult around his book, unlike Ayn Rand. Such things, especially when set up by a third party, often go badly. See, for example, http://virtualstoa.net/2002/01/24/8983057/ . I have had very bad experiences with Tolkien fans in the past. Most Tolkien fans are fine. You I find exceptionally fine. But some are liars and thieves and very much not worth dealing with. As with any group, atheists or believers.

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

I don't understand what's there to dislike in the term "spirituality".

It is used by hypocrites in bad ways and the word has been ruined for me.

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

I also said how a non-believer with a glance declared the books "crap".

What does that show? A non-believer doesn’t like a book you like. *Sigh!*

In Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, in letter 177, Tolkien writes:

I also thought [the poet W. H.] Auden rather bad – he cannot at any rate read verse, having a poor rhythmical sense; and deplored his making the book [The Lord of the Rings] ‘a test of literary taste’. You cannot do that with any work – and if you could you only infuriate.

In the Foreward to the Second Edition to The Lord of the Rings Tolkien writes:

Some who have read the book [The Lord of the Rings], or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.

In Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, in letter 294 Tolkien writes, unusually, about his normal reading. Tolkien mentions mainly “the S.F. of Isaac Azimov”, a mistyping for sf author Isaac Asimov, a popular atheist of Jewish birth who was also a fan of Tolkien’s work. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov . Tolkien then mentions the books of Mary Renault, especially The King Must Die and The Bull From the Sea. Mary Renault was known throughout her life as an openly gay writer. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Renault . I think she was also an atheist but am not sure. In any case Tolkien proudly relates that a couple of days ago he had unexpectedly received a card of appreciation from her which he calls “perhaps the piece of ‘Fan-mail’ that gives me most pleasure.”

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

The only person who has ever understood Tolkien's work the way he did was J.R.R. Tolkien, and even he changed his mind a number of times, as his letters demonstrate. Any attempt to suggest that our own experiences somehow give us a greater insight than other readers will only look like an attempt to possess Tolkien and his work and make them a part of our own agendas, which is unhelpful for criticism and tiresome to see.

Totally agreed. People usually surprise you when you get to know them.

[jallanite]

Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings has often been banned, especially in religious schools, because the authorities wish to protect their charges from unreal tales of wizards and elves (and sex) and so forth. For a charmingly told account with a happy ending of how Lindale’s copy of The Fellowship of the Ring was confiscated by a teacher, see:

Originally Posted by Lindale

Once upon a time in a strict all girls Catholic school where even Harry Potter was infamous, a little girl called Lindale who would have her tenth birthday in two weeks saw in the Sunday paper a comparison of JRRT and the forbidden Rowling. She hounded her father, who never really was able to resist her when she was pouting, and three days before her birthday she had a copy of TH, bought at an insane price in the expensive bookstore because the local bookstore currently had none in stock.

The following Christmas, Lindale asked for her usual Harry Potter (number four, I think) and for the complete Lord of the Rings. She got so excited about her Christmas presents, she didn't really think that shoving FotR in her school bag might catch the nuns' attention. When a teacher of home economics saw the poor little girl reading a book that advocated wizards, she confiscated the book. Lindale already had a record of reading HP. She was in bad trouble.

During lunchbreak Lindale was very scared; her Christmas present was gone! She tried not to remember Gollum back in TH screaming about his birthday present. Struggling with whatever wits she had, she headed to the telephone booths and called her mother

...and thus began the bothersome affair of this little girl's book, which included her father threatening the teacher and some of the nuns. And then Lindale thought, whatever trouble that book has caused! It must be good. When she got her book back, weeks later and with a formal apology, Lindale read it very carefully.

And that is how Lindale learned of JRRT, read TH and LotR, and learned about the Inquisition too.

Two years later Lindale hounded her aging father for a copy of Sil and UT. And a little over three months ago she had a tantrum again, claiming she was the last girl without a CoH. Predictably, that spoiled brat has all Tolkien books her father and she could find.

Such tales of confiscating are not so usual nowadays. But see:

1. http://banninggandalf.weebly.com/satanism.html
2. http://www.donaanacountyhistsoc.org/...%20banning.pdf
3. http://bannedbooks.world.edu/2011/03...s-jrr-tolkien/

But there are still claims on the web that The Lord of the Rings should be not be read, at least by Christians:

1. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/201...lkien-was.html
2. http://www.ericbarger.com/lotr.c.c.2.htm
3. http://bookofjeremiah1eighteenninete...n-front-of-god

Note that I personally do not agree with any of these posts. But even if any of them were totally correct, there is nothing illegal with any person stating his or her own religious feelings about The Lord of the Rings or about anything they wish. If they wish to make a fool of themself they are at liberty to do so.

I was not able to find any sites in which arrogant atheists suggested that banning The Lord of the Rings would be a good thing. I did find three supposed illuminati sites whose supposed findings are, in my opinion, as bogus as that on the Christian sites I found:

1. http://www.illuminati-news.com/tolkien-occult.htm
2. http://www.illuminati-news.com/0/tolkien%281%29.htm
3. http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/spiri...kien-lewis.htm

I suppose that the writers of all six articles would believe that they are all being spiritual.

[Morthoron]

From http://bookofjeremiah1eighteenninete...n-front-of-god:

In Tolkien’s fables, Dorwinion is the kingdom of the dwarves. It is really the word “Darwinian”. So Tolkien had this idea that even Christ was inferior, because he was a Hebrew man.

Oh, this fellow is a hoot!

It is also notable that Gollum, the most despised creature in Tolkien’s imagination, was not only enslaved to seeking the master-ring, but was also the only person/creature in Tolkien’s fable described as catching fishes.
In the Bible, God/Christ has eyes that go throughout all the earth (II Chronicles 16:9).

Ummm...bzuh?

There is no resurrection in Tolkien’s fable world. Humanity in his fables are doomed to only have existence in the natural world, without hope of joining the divine. Tolkien’s overall theme is one of enjoy-the-moment (“hobbits”, his idea of forever childhood), but hopeless melancholy about the long-term view of human existence (his description of grown adult men).

It seems he pulls more out of his posterior than just scraps of toilet paper.

The whole “Lord of the Rings” is a perverted fable where, in Tolkien’s foolish imaginations, the gods of his pagan religion triumphs over his distorted portrayal of Christ (the Lord of the churches).

For this poor buffoon, religion is not the opiate of the masses, rather it is a lobotomy.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I¡¯m sorry, but if the hobbits, dwarves, and wizards don¡¯t exist, then neither can their ideals, except as fictions by Tolkien.

Why? Why their ideals can't exist in real life? Haven't you seen people like the characters in LotR? I'd be very suprised if you say "No". At many points I identify with these characters, have seen others too. How can their ideals and thoughts be alien to you?

Also, I rather dislike the term spirituality. It has so many different and conflicting meanings. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality . However I think I get what you mean. Basically I have encountered numerous cases of supposed Tolkien fans who are morally garbage, though others who are very much not. I have not found that a supposed belief in Christianity matters much.

I know and respect some people who greatly dislike Tolkien and want nothing ever again to do with some who claim the opposite. And I admit I may be misled in arriving at some of these evaluations. Basically you have probably found by now in this forum that being a professed Christian confers no status.

I don't understand what's there to dislike in the term "spirituality". It might have different meanings--there should be. And yes, I understood from the start that to understand LotR you don't to be Christian, but morally good. I also said how a non-believer with a glance declared the books "crap". It was all because *my experience* and was true. Though I'm proved wrong here, and am glad for that.