Trilogy and Bible?

[Kalessin]

Hi Estel

Thanks for a detailed and thought-provoking contribution [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I can see that much of your argument was geared towards the issues raised in the now closed Tolkien and Christianity thread (Gilthalion, I think lamented might be better than 'lamentable' [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). However, many of the points have relevance across the discussion.

To say that only Christians can understand and appreciate fully the LotR and the Silmarillion is like saying that only children and not adults can understand and appreciate fairytales

This was, in effect, the thrust of my argument in the other thread. Whilst one can acknowledge both Tolkien's faith and the morality evident in his works, the reader's chosen faith (or tradition by birth/culture) are not the only (or inevitable) factors that will allow him/her to fully and deeply appreciate and identify with the narrative and themes. A whole range of 'personal and cultural resonances' should be considered, as illustrated in your later example of different levels of appreciation for linguistic subtleties.

What they are merely asserting is that the morality of the work is patterned after the Judeo-Christian ethic. There is a big difference in treatment between Judeo-Christian morality and other Western and Eastern morality

This is clearly the case, and not at all controversial or threatening. To deny the nature of the moral sensibility in Tolkien is unhelpful, but it must be placed in the perspective of Tolkien's intentions and the actuality of the text. As you say, the conceptual framework is utterly familiar to Western society regardless of any individual's explicit level of adherence to one particular denomination or other.

... better that good magic is destroyed forever rather than allow evil magic to survive. This ideal runs counter to, well, the ‘Harry Potter magic’ where the existence of the evil (by Judeo-Christian standards) House of Slytherin is allowed in Hogwarts.

This, along with your accompanying narrative, is an excellent analysis. It is, I guess, understandable that the term 'magic should be "used, abused and confused", and cover a multitude of sins, but Tolkien had a very clear and specific idea of what magic was in Middle Earth, and articulated this in his contextual writing.

When you consider the cultural differences in 'acceptance' of magic (in whatever form) between America and Britain, one should also consider the long tradition of Christian Spiritualism in England (dating back hundreds of years), where (for example) clairvoyancy and psychic healing were intertwined with a somewhat eccentric interpretation of Christianity. Freemasonry and the continued existence (and recent resurgence) of Spiritualist Churches in Britain are related and evidential.

An interesting side issue occurred to me when you mentioned Merlin. Tolkien wrote (in the letter to Milton Waldman that prefaces my copy of The Silmarillion) that he disliked Malory's Arthurian saga - one of the primary reasons being that it was explicitly linked to the Christian faith. This was a reflection of his aspiration for an English 'fairy tale' or epic narrative in the great tradition that he so admired - that it should be 'true' and consistent, not with our wordly religions or history, but within itself. Estel, I think you've made this point before as part of your argument against the various 'Biblical allegory' theories.

The moral foundations of an author or artist is significant in any work of art

Well, I agree with you, but as you will see from the end of my Are There Any Valid Criticisms? rant, there are some who do not. If you have the time, please visit this other thread and help me out! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Why does everyone become touchy when it is the Christian’s turn to rejoice in the accomplishments of one of their own? Nor should we deny gays their satisfaction that many really good authors and composers are one of them. What? Are we to be all closet gays, closet blacks, closet philologists, closet Christians?

They shouldn’t be offended if Jews or Christians will ‘get more out of’ the LoTR the same way that Buddhists ‘get more out of’ the Buddhist Sutras, the way Japanese Zen Martial Artists ‘get more out of’ the Go Rin no Sho, the way Japanese affecionados ‘get more out of’ Final Fantasy, or even the way American blacks would ‘get more out of’ the TV program Roots. Why all the fuss in the first place? Why try so hard to show that Gilthalion was wrong when he said that a seeing person will appreciate the sunset more than a blind person? It is interesting to note that a seeing person can be taught to appreciate the other qualities of sunset that the blind appreciates ...

Wow - good rant! There's a lot there, and I think most of it relates to me [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] (am I being vain?) ...

I DON'T feel offended that Tolkien was a devout Catholic whose faith is present within his writing. I don't think anything I've said, at any rate, could be construed in that way. I celebrate his creative triumph, his gift to us all. It has enriched mine and countless lives in many small and large ways. I would describe Oscar Wilde, Charlie Parker, Shakespeare, Turner and many others with the same admiration, enthusiasm and celebration.

Neither am I offended if a Christian happens to get more of LotR than a non-Christian. I just don't think that is always, or necessarily, the case. To suggest that a practising Christian WILL AUTOMATICALLY get more out of Tolkien than any other individual, regardless of any other factors, strikes me as a statement of appropriation. Importantly, I would say exactly the same if someone says a black reader WILL AUTOMATICALLY get more out of Maya Angelou. My argument with Gilthalion was NOT about being offended, or denying Tolkien's faith or the moral sensibility in his books. It was about an axiomatic statement which does imply a kind of superiority or at least elitism. As I said in the other thread, even if it is 'often' the case, I would challenge this assertion if it is framed as an axiom, regardless of the religious or cultural context. There are (small-p) philistines in all faiths and walks of life and it seems nonsensical to assert they will somehow 'get more out of' Tolkien than people with imagination, intelligence and an open mind, simply because they have a clearly labelled kind of personal spiritual experience. And if the church-going philistines or Jimmy Swaggarts of this world are not "real" Christians, I want to know who is the judge, how can we judge the hearts and minds of others, and why we should feel the need to make such assertions.

Finally, the 'effort' in addressing Gilthalion's "blind man at sunset" was no more than an uncontroversial piece of philosophical reasoning in support of the above argument. I'm not convinced that a seeing person can be taught to hear or experience with other senses in the way a blind person can, and in the end I suppose it's unprovable. I simply felt that the analogy suggested by inference that non-practising Christians were somehow "the blind" when it came to appreciating Tolkien (or possibly anything). Whilst any individual is free to believe that they, individually or as part of a grouping of any sort, are more insightful, blessed or perceptive than anyone else, if they assert it in a public discussion forum by means of a flawed axiom or analogy I don't see anything wrong with challenging that. We should all challenge our own assumptions (particularly those that makes us feel superior), and continually test ourselves against the aspirations or axioms we hold dear, rather than boldly commenting on the supposed failings of others - perhaps there is an echo of Christian teaching in that approach too ...

What puzzles me is that people here say that BOTH the Chronicles and the LotR are inferior to Harry Potter and will in time 'wither and fade'

Unbelievable! I am tempted to break my own rules and comment on the failings of others, but instead I can only say that I see Harry Potter as a decently written lark with some very accessible elements, a very modern, eclectic approach to our inherited culture of myth and archetype, and a rather bland and sanitised reflection of humanity. It's fine, it's OK, but I would consider LotR among the great works of the 20th century (no, not the greatest). It reminds of the famous Presidential debate, which I will paraphrase - "Senator, I know Tolkien ... and Rawling is no Tolkien" [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Compliments again on a very interesting and well-articulated piece - keep 'em coming [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Peace

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]