The Lord of the Bible?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fea

But what is a story but the artistic conveyance of an idea? And what is an idea conveyed as such but some veiled form of truth that the author finds important enough to share in such a way?

Ah, but it does not follow that what the author intends to convey is indeed the "truth".

Consider Mein Kampf.

Bad example, perhaps, because it was not intended as a work of fiction, but you get the point.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Ah, but it does not follow that what the author intends to convey is indeed the "truth".

It does if you don't consider truth to be objective.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Are you asking if Tolkien intended this? Or are you asking if the work itself can suggest this?

I am asking whether Tolien intended this. As readers, we are entitled to draw our own conclusions ...

There are elements of the perilous realm within Tolkien's writings - Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wight, for example - but overall it is sanitised. In particular, its "rulers" (Tom Bombadil, Alf the Prentice and Galadriel) are largely devoid of the tricksy, mischievous and sometimes immoral characteristics generally found in traditional Faerie beings.

It does if you don't consider truth to be objective.

Precisely.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

There are elements of the perilous realm within Tolkien's writings - Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wight, for example - but overall it is sanitised. In particular, its "rulers" (Tom Bombadil, Alf the Prentice and Galadriel) are largely devoid of the tricksy, mischievous and sometimes immoral characteristics generally found in traditional Faerie beings.

I'd agree with that! I think we've discussed this one before - in the Trickster thread and in davem's Fairie thread, and it did seem that Tolkien's own version of Faerie missed out a lot of the elements that Faerie traditionally has, such as chaos and amorality. If you look at drafts of the Silmarillion in particular, you can see that over time, Tolkien de-Paganised much of what he had originally written.

However, some of the biggest enigmas in his work seem to be hangovers from older versions of Tolkien's work, and trying to understand them, you find a lot of illumination in HoME; Tolkien did not always revise everything either, but left some things as he originally intended. For example, Ungoliant does indeed seem to have existed outside of all the creation in Arda, coming from 'The Void' and being neither good or bad, just being.

If Tolkien did try to sanitise his work, then he did not sanitise all of it! I think as a Catholic he naturally did not veer towards too much sympathy for 'evil' characters, which is possibly why there is no Miltonic Satan figure, but there are still some traces of the amoral and chaotic in the world he created, beings which may well be out of Eru's 'control'.

It's a question that fascinates me, after hearing Ronald Hutton talk about The Pagan Tolkien, and considering his influence on readers who think his work records real English mythology (it doesn't, it misses out all the sex and violence). And its worth considering that possibly a greater influence on Tolkien than his religion was his love of myth, particularly Northern myth, which was very non-Christian (but could be seen as quite Catholic, which is an old and quite visceral religion, built on even older and more visceral religions). Maybe at a later stage in life (in the twenties he was not much of a churchgoer) he became more uncomfortable with how the themes of these tales echoed in his own and did grasp at moments suggested to him which seemed more Christian.

Hmm, maybe even his idea that all myths pointed to 'The Truth' was reaction in itself to his own love for obviously pagan myth whereas he was a Catholic - so he came up with the idea that loving Northern myths was 'OK' for a Christian because they all pointed to 'The Truth' anyway. Self-justification? Or not, given that in Tolkien's day there was nothing at all 'evil' or dangerous about the occult like there is today for some Christians? And by the way, some Christians today are comfortable with both as we have a Spiritualist church here where a workmate, a devout Christian, is learning to be 'a psychic'.

Perhaps we have to learn not to be so 'fundamentalist' about the influence of religion on this work. Tolkien was a believer but not a tub-thumper (as Lewis in some ways was), and he was also incredibly subtle with his poetic language. So maybe we have to accept that there may be a few things that remind us of Biblical/Christian elements, but also accept that they are not put there to give us deeper understanding of the story, beyond basics also shared by other faiths such as pity, forgiveness and tenacity.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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

No, not at all. I am saying that the Letters are generally inconclusive as to his intention. Hence the difficulty in ascertaining his intention. Hence the problems associated with trying to find the meaning within his works by reference to his intention.

Trying to divine authorial intention is all well and good, but it is an imperfect science without knowing the man's mind.

Originally Posted by Raynor

As far as I am concerned, Tolkien statement that the secret fire is the christian Holy Fire makes perfect sense to me; the story does achieve the "inner consistency" required for it to be a veritable, successful, subcreation.

But the imposition of the parallel between the secret fire and the holy fire is not only unnecessary for the success of the story (qua story), but it is wholly at odds with "inner consistency", since it requires the imposition of a concept external to the story. If you wish to find "meaning" within LotR by equating the two, that's fine. But I think that you are wrong to suggest that it is necessary, or even complimentary, to the story's "inner consistency". And why do you refer to the story as a "subcreation"? Surely it is simply a creation.

Originally Posted by Raynor

As far as orcs not being treated (or at least expected to be treated) appropiately, I disagree; Tolkien stated in Myths Transformed that orcs were supposed to be treated with mercy ...

Can you give me any example of this occuring during LotR? Did Eru treat Orcs with mercy? Possibly, once they were dead. But allowing beings to be born within a disfigured body and a brutish, evil-serving society hardly seems merciful to me.

Originally Posted by Raynor

... then again, he identified orcs in Japan, Germany and even England who would behave truly evil

He may well have done. But, in my view, there are few instances, even (or perhaps especially) in war, where one might label a person as truly evil. Mostly, they are just human.

Originally Posted by Raynor

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

In the second version of the foreword to LotR, where Tolkien discusses the difference between allegory and applicability, he disavows the former but readily admits the latter.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'd agree with that! I think we've discussed this one before - in the Trickster thread and in davem's Fairie thread, and it did seem that Tolkien's own version of Faerie missed out a lot of the elements that Faerie traditionally has, such as chaos and amorality. If you look at drafts of the Silmarillion in particular, you can see that over time, Tolkien de-Paganised much of what he had originally written.

Yes, on reflection, I rather think that I meant amoral, rather than immoral.

I agree with you concerning the parallels between Norse mythology and Catholicism. But Norse mythology is quite far removed from the (original) concept of Faerie, is it not?