The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[davem]

It seems to me that natural disasters are more profoundly moving simply because they are both inevitable & unavoidable. Unlike acts of an angry God, who can be pacified by obeying his rules, a nature cannot. They bring home to us our essential transitoriness - whatever we do, however moral our behaviour. From that point of view they require courage of us, simply to live & look the 'Dragon' in the face. Avoiding the wrath of an angry deity merely requires us to do as we're told.

To read LotR from a 'secular' perspective makes the display of courage far more moving. Imagine there is no eternal reward, that Frodo is giving up everything for others knowing that there is nothing beyond the life he is sacrificing, no healing in the West, because going into the West is simply to die. Not Tolkien's intention, certainly, but still a possible reading - does that make it more or less affecting?

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by davem

It seems to me that natural disasters are more profoundly moving simply because they are both inevitable & unavoidable. Unlike acts of an angry God, who can be pacified by obeying his rules, a nature cannot. They bring home to us our essential transitoriness - whatever we do, however moral our behaviour. From that point of view they require courage of us, simply to live & look the 'Dragon' in the face. Avoiding the wrath of an angry deity merely requires us to do as we're told.

It seems to me that you are talking about your own interactions with the unfoldment of reality in the real world, not Tolkien's Legendarium.

To read LotR from a 'secular' perspective makes the display of courage far more moving. Imagine there is no eternal reward, that Frodo is giving up everything for others knowing that there is nothing beyond the life he is sacrificing, no healing in the West, because going into the West is simply to die. Not Tolkien's intention, certainly, but still a possible reading - does that make it more or less affecting?

Are you suggesting that the 'secular' (whatever that means - horrible metaphor in my opinion) viewpoint is one which the reader should consciously adopt in reading Tolkien? Or just that you enjoy doing so?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

It seems to me that you are talking about your own interactions with the unfoldment of reality in the real world, not Tolkien's Legendarium.

I was - but that was what was being questioned.

Are you suggesting that the 'secular' (whatever that means - horrible metaphor in my opinion) viewpoint is one which the reader should consciously adopt in reading Tolkien? Or just that you enjoy doing so?

The latter. There are different ways of approaching the text, without stepping outside it. One could read it, for instance, by missing out books 3 & 5, & just following Frodo's story, without the more 'action-packed' books. I'm sure that would produce a different effect on the reader. One can read it as a 'secular' work, assigning the references to the Valar as merely 'beliefs' held by various characters. My tendency is to read it fully accepting such things as 'facts' of that world, however, taking LotR as a stand alone work such a reading is entirely possible & we will get something entirely different from it.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by davem

The latter. There are different ways of approaching the text, without stepping outside it. One could read it, for instance, by missing out books 3 & 5, & just following Frodo's story, without the more 'action-packed' books. I'm sure that would produce a different effect on the reader. One can read it as a 'secular' work, assigning the references to the Valar as merely 'beliefs' held by various characters. My tendency is to read it fully accepting such things as 'facts' of that world, however, taking LotR as a stand alone work such a reading is entirely possible & we will get something entirely different from it.

My tendency is to do the same, but the problem is that the beliefs which motivate the protagonists are entirely un-compelling without Deity. It becomes a book about bodily functions - still beautiful though.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

My tendency is to do the same, but the problem is that the beliefs which motivate the protagonists are entirely un-compelling without Deity. It becomes a book about bodily functions - still beautiful though.

I don't find that. Faith is moving in & of itself - whatever one places one's faith in it will inevitably be something bigger than oneself.* Frodo never expresses any belief in a deity. He simply does what he does for those he loves (someone has to give up the things they care about in order that others may keep them) That seems to be his only motivation. Hence, he is very much a hero for the secular 20th century. I relate to him much more strongly than I do to the believers who act out of their faith in 'Higher' things. Look the Dragon in the eye, & do what's right because its right, even if there's nothing beyond our 'bodily functions'.

*Remember Serenity: Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: "ah, h*ll shepherd, I ain't looking for help from on high..."
Shepherd Book: "Why when I talk about faith do you always assume I'm talking about god? "

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

My tendency is to do the same, but the problem is that the beliefs which motivate the protagonists are entirely un-compelling without Deity. It becomes a book about bodily functions - still beautiful though.

How come Lord of the Rings was so popular between 1954 and 1977 then?

Are you suggesting that the 'secular' (whatever that means - horrible metaphor in my opinion) viewpoint is one which the reader should consciously adopt in reading Tolkien? Or just that you enjoy doing so?

Most readers probably do read Tolkien's work in that way or at the very least from different belief perspectives, as the majority of readers will not be active Christians, and of the Christian readers very few will probably pick up on any Christian element until they are told about it. They might at a push think "hmm, that reminds a bit of this..." but they will need external influence to start forging links, and who doesn't read a text, any text, and see links to all manner of things?

Originally Posted by davem

To read LotR from a 'secular' perspective makes the display of courage far more moving. Imagine there is no eternal reward, that Frodo is giving up everything for others knowing that there is nothing beyond the life he is sacrificing, no healing in the West, because going into the West is simply to die. Not Tolkien's intention, certainly, but still a possible reading - does that make it more or less affecting?

The odd thing about Frodo going into the West is that he probably did die, and possibly much more quickly than if he had stayed in The Shire (laying aside the possibility that he may well have committed suicide had he not got any healing). Valinor is no place for a mortal:

'The Doom of the World,' they said, 'One alone can change who made it. And were you so to voyage that escaping all deceits and snares you came indeed to Aman, the Blessed Realm, little would it profit you. For it is not the land of Manwe that makes its people deathless, but the Deathless that dwell therein have hallowed the land; and there you would but wither and grow weary the sooner, as moths in a light too strong and steadfast.'

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

To read LotR from a 'secular' perspective makes the display of courage far more moving [than punishment avoidance]. Imagine there is no eternal reward, that Frodo is giving up everything for others knowing that there is nothing beyond the life he is sacrificing, no healing in the West, because going into the West is simply to die. Not Tolkien's intention, certainly, but still a possible reading - does that make it more or less affecting?

Note: "than punishment avoidance" is my phrase to summarize davem's previous point; I think it's accurate.

This is indeed more affecting than mere motivation to avoid God's punishment. However, a yet deeper motivation in Frodo is depicted in LotR: love of the Shire. This is significant.

That which davem describes is the Northern ideal; the Norse idea, I suppose you could say: sacrificing all even though there's nothing to be gained by it, because it's the right thing to do, the honorable thing. Yet Frodo's motivation was not mere honor, but love. Again, that is significant, and is a way through which Tolkien trumped the Northern ideal with something even higher.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That which davem describes is the Northern ideal; the Norse idea, I suppose you could say: sacrificing all even though there's nothing to be gained by it, because it's the right thing to do, the honorable thing. Yet Frodo's motivation was not mere honor, but love. Again, that is significant, and is a way through which Tolkien trumped the Northern ideal with something even higher.

Yes, his actions are selfless. Which is the point. Long before the end of the Quest Frodo has no hopes of returning home, or of achieving anything for himself at all. It strikes me that whatever happens after the Grey Havens is outside the story, which ends with Frodo leaving the 'world'. Whether he 'dies' & ceases or dies & passes to another 'state' is not something the story takes up - rightly in my opinion, as it would make the whole of LotR just 'part' of a story of which the end is missing & it would thus feel 'unfinished' , rather than a 'complete whole'.