Can atheists appreciate/understand Lord of the Ring?

[Formendacil]

My initial inclination was to ignore this topic and given its inflammability, perhaps that would have been the better choice, but I've been ruminating on it and have been driven from my tree-like state into movement.

As with some prior posters, my reaction to the bare question "can atheists appreciate/understand The Lord of the Rings?" was "well, obviously they can." A lack of belief doesn't not mean the inability to understand a belief or to appreciate the artistry of something created under a belief. If it did, there were would have been a sharp decline in the appreciation of Bach and Michelangelo (to name but two) in the past century--or, to name some non-Christian religious art that has seen *increased* interest from those not sharing the faith of the original artists, in ancient Egyptian art in the past two centuries.

My second thought was that asking the question seems to fly a bit in the face of Tolkien-as-anti-allegorist. Although Christian apologists have flocked to The Lord of the Rings as their standard, Tolkien was much more ambivalent about the specificity of his faith in the work than, say, C.S. Lewis--let alone most of these apologists. The whole point of applicability-vs-allegory seems, to me, to be that the work can be appreciated as a story-in-itself by anyone.

That said, speaking out of my own intensely subjective experience as a Catholic sharing Tolkien's faith, this question isn't completely pointless, even if (first language barrier being in play?) it has to be sifted a little to get there. As I said, there is no bar to the capacity of an atheist or non-Catholic generally to comprehend or appreciate what Tolkien is doing, nor is The Lord of the Rings itself designed to be exclusive to non-Catholic/non-religious readers--yet, perhaps, I would be willing to admit that there's a certain intuitiveness that comes to sharing the perspective of the original author.

Of course, born a century later in the New World and lacking Tolkien's strong classical education--to say nothing of linguistic virtuosity--I do not dare say anything that remotely suggests I can read his mind, but certain analogies or impressions come to me automatically that I think do not come to others. When Tolkien says that The Lord of the Rings was an unconsciously Catholic work in the writing and conscious in the revision, I feel like I have a sense of what he is saying, and when he compares the eucatastrophes of his work to The Eucatastrophe of the Resurrection, it's not as though "ah, that's what he's going for" clicks on in my head, because it's already natural to my sense of storytelling (derived from my metaphysics of reality) that is how stories work.

I would add, too, that this is not the sort of intuitivity that is limited to shared religious belief. As I noted before, I do not share all of Tolkien's formative elements. I am not a philogist at all (though, thanks to Tolkien, I have frequently wished I were), but it is apparent to me that when a philogist reads Tolkien they *get* that side of him--this is, at its heart I think, why Shippey is such a good and instructive commentator on Tolkien: because there is one major element of Tolkien that comes to him with such naturalness.

This is not to say that any intuitivity is *needed*--all the connections that a linguist or a Catholic or an Englishman would make intuitively can be made with study by a non-linguist, a non-Catholic, a foreigner. Can be made and have been made. And if this extra effort (however minor or major it may be in individual cases) is required, Tolkien's storytelling is such that he invites the effort and encourages the exploration. The mark of a good professor, I suppose, as well as a good storyteller.

[Lotrelf]

Ugh! I'm just wondering if I need to defend myself here! The question wasn't asked to hurt anyone's feelings, beliefs, ideas be it believers or non-believers, theists or atheists, spiritual or non-spiritual. It was a general query.
The question rose in my mind because LotR's characters are Spiritual and has lots of stuff that connects this book to real life beliefs too. Atheists tend to ignore this all. Recently I came across someone who reads the books and is non-believer and asked him to read LotR. He just denied saying it is "crap" (see? Arrogance!). There are many people who I met on Facebook and are non-believers and atheists. I personally haven't seen anyone who is as good as being mentioned here.
By understanding I meant to point out the religious (or spiritual) beliefs that are in the book. And if everyone understands and loves the book like that, it's a good thing, and very much proud too.
P.S.: Now PLEASE don't take anything in a wrong way. I meant no harm to anyone.

[Inziladun]

Don't worry, Lotrelf. It is a valid topic. It's just that, like some other issues, threads touching on religion tend to have a polarizing effect on people depending on one's personal beliefs.

I personally am a Christ-follower, so what I take from these books is highly unlikely to match that of an atheist. But I reiterate that I believe Tolkien's works have immense value for any who take the time to read them, while opening their minds to the experience.

[Mithalwen]

It is a valid topic but it could have been phrased better without the assumptions... an observation not an attack nb. It is a very complex though since individual readers of Tolkien are going to be at different points on various spectrums that may have a factor in their understanding and appreciationof different aspects of Tolkien's work.

Then belief and understanding are not the same.Nor perhaps are understanding and knowledge -the distinction the French make between savoir and connaître. I haven't lost my knowledge and understanding of religion with my loss of faith.

Yes things will be more obvious or resonate if they chime with one's own experience Having roots in the same part of England may help my appreciation, or. y fascination with language but does that count for more than a Finn or Norse scholar's familiarity with the Kalevala and Eddas? Maybe the mathmagicians could work out a formula to decide if a sincere but otherwise ignorant believer has a deeper appreciation than a learned atheist, but it does rather head towards a method acting approach to literary appreciation. It is rather insulting to the human powers of imagination and empathy to think you have to be like the author or stories have to be "relatable". Stories let us try on another's life, another worldview, lead us to find out more and perhaps thereby increase in understanding and compassion.

Not forgetting of course that as our lives may affect our understanding of books, books may affect our understanding of our lives. I don't quite have a "What would Elrond do?" wristband but I discovered Mordor takes many forms.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

It is a valid topic but it could have been phrased better without the assumptions... an observation not an attack nb. It is a very complex though since individual readers of Tolkien are going to be at different points on various spectrums that may have a factor in their understanding and appreciationof different aspects of Tolkien's work.

Then belief and understanding are not the same.Nor perhaps are understanding and knowledge -the distinction the French make between savoir and connaître. I haven't lost my knowledge and understanding of religion with my loss of faith.

Yes things will be more obvious or resonate if they chime with one's own experience Having roots in the same part of England may help my appreciation, or. y fascination with language but does that count for more than a Finn or Norse scholar's familiarity with the Kalevala and Eddas? Maybe the mathmagicians could work out a formula to decide if a sincere but otherwise ignorant believer has a deeper appreciation than a learned atheist, but it does rather head towards a method acting approach to literary appreciation. It is rather insulting to the human powers of imagination and empathy to think you have to be like the author or stories have to be "relatable". Stories let us try on another's life, another worldview, lead us to find out more and perhaps thereby increase in understanding and compassion.

Not forgetting of course that as our lives may affect our understanding of books, books may affect our understanding of our lives. I don't quite have a "What would Elrond do?" wristband but I discovered Mordor takes many forms.

What irked me originally was the fallacious assumption that an atheist cannot comprehend Tolkien's symbology. People aren't born atheist, any more than they are born Catholic (ignoring Monty Python's song implying you're Catholic the moment dad did his duty with mum). It is based on your experience and most often on your familial background.

I was raised a Catholic -- yes, laughably, the Dark Elf was even an altar boy and an acolyte up to age 11 -- and I went to Catholic school. I understand Catholic dogma, and as a medievalist I have researched the Church and its doctrines moreso than many adherents who wash up and go to mass on Sunday, whether they need to or not.

I understand Tolkien's applicability and his Catholicism, but I reject Catholic doctrines in a real-life worldview; after all, isn't it the running joke that most atheists were once Catholics? I reject the Catholic worldview in reality, just as I reject the idea of a benevolent deity floating about benignly in the ether spraying his blessings about while mankind commits genocide. That, however, does not mean I cannot appreciate the deftness by which Tolkien built his subcreation.

On the contrary, and as I stated before, his is a synthesis of varying mythos that is transformative and unique in all of literature. His creation outdoes the biblical version in beauty and awe. It is great as a myth goes, just as there are great myths in the Eddas and Sagas, the Grecian works of Homer and Plato, the Mabingion, the Finnish Kalavela and the bible. And to really understand Tolkien, you must have a grasp of all these to truly appreciate his Middle-earth. But you don't have to accept Elves or Trolls as being real to appreciate it, any more than you have to accept Eru as the monotheistic god of Christianity.

[wilwarin538]

I was raised a Christian, and read the books for the first time when I still was and I remember especially with the Ainulindale feeling very 'connected' to what Tolkien wrote, and it really held a lot of deep meaning for me. Similarly, when I read the Narnia books, those really touched me and I saw Christian symbolism everywhere and I enjoyed them all the more because of it.

For the past three years, after quite the journey, I am an atheist (might shock a few people!), and though I think of these books in a different way I don't think I necessarily appreciate them any less. As I now view the Bible as an impressive work of (fictional) literature and still appreciate it for it's literary value, I hold that same appreciation towards Tolkien's and Lewis' works.

I love Tolkien's books just as much as I did before. I do think that my intensive knowledge of Christianity has made the symbolism more obvious than someone without that knowledge, but not to the point where I wouldn't have appreciated or understood the books otherwise. With Narnia the symbolism is way more blatant, I remember seeing the first film with a non-religious friend who didn't pick up on any of the symbolism, but it didn't stop them from enjoying it and understanding the plot (though it does sort of make it less enjoyable now for me, because it's just so blatant it brings up bad feelings, LotR is certainly not near that point).

Basically, I think there are religious aspects to Tolkien, but it isn't actually necessary for someone to be religious to understand or appreciate those aspects, and as someone who has had both mind sets when reading them it did not at all diminish my love or appreciation of the books, I perhaps wasn't "spiritually" connected to them anymore, but the religious aspects of the books didn't turn me off at all, because they aren't really blatant enough in my opinion, but rather very subtle.

So yeah, my complete turn-around in perspective did not at all change the way I see LotR, I love it just as much, if not more.

[Nerwen]

Amazing. A thread like this hasn't turned into a flame war within half-a-dozen posts? Truly an internet first!

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

It is a valid topic but it could have been phrased better without the assumptions... an observation not an attack nb.

I understand what you mean. The reason for my first post got posted they way it did is partially because English is not my first language. Yes, English is given a place in Indian Constitution like many other Indian languages; but not many, in my area, think it is good to speak English. Another reason is that I have never met a Christian. I don't know what their beliefs are or what terms they use. Had I known this my post would have been better.
This is another my "defence" post. Thanks for enduring.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

I understand what you mean. The reason for my first post got posted they way it did is partially because English is not my first language. Yes, English is given a place in Indian Constitution like many other Indian languages; but not many, in my area, think it is good to speak English. Another reason is that I have never met a Christian. I don't know what their beliefs are or what terms they use. Had I known this my post would have been better.
This is another my "defence" post. Thanks for enduring.

Ah well there is quite a range of Christian belief, and also a range of unbelief. I would call my self agnostic rather than atheist and still regard myself as culturally Christian. But then a UK anglican upbringing is fairly low key as such things go and perhaps less likely to inspire rebellion. So iam in a different situation to Morth and both of us are different to someone who had no religious element to their upbringing and these days that is increasingly common.