What did Tolkien really mean ....

[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"?