LOTR-A spiritual allegory?

[Ardwenna]

I'm almost afraid to post a new topic here. Please be kind. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I heard somewhere that LOTR was a spiritual allegory somewhere along the lines of CS Lewis' series about the Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. I was wondering if anyone else heard this and if so, can direct me to more information about it.

[burrahobbit]

Tolkien says that it isn't so in the preface.

[Legolas]

Tolkien generally disliked allegory and wasn't that fond of Lewis' work in that respect. He thought Lewis' work would stand stronger on its own.

Being able to recognize parallels does not constitute an allegorical work.

[Jurion]

While it is true that Tolkien disliked allegories and did not intend them to be in the books it does not mean that there aren't any to be found in his works. In hindsight there are many allegories to be found in the works.

Tolkien was a catholic and a fervent one too. So it is only logical that you can compare cathlolisism with what happens in the books, for example Gandalf returning from death, which can be seen as a comparision with the ressurection of Jesus Christ.

Another example of allegory is the comparison between the Ring and the atomic bomb. Many people saw this in the books, though Tolkien said it wasn't so.

[Jesse]

According to my mother (the LotR fanatic in my family, next to me,) said that Sauron is like the evil one and Gandalf the White is like Jesus Christ. Now I agree with this theory because Tolkien was a theologian before he wrote the Hobbit. So some ideas and characters in his book could portray Christian characters.

[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: Jesse ]

[burrahobbit]

Yes it does. That's what allegory means. Accidents and similarities don't count as allegory.

edit: Your mom is wrong.

[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: burrahobbit ]

[Jesse]

Burrahobbit,
Can you prove to me that she's wrong?

[burrahobbit]

Tolkien says so on more than one occasion, one of which being the preface to LoTR.

[Jesse]

Burrahobbit,
However, he was a theologian before he wrote the books. Heck, he even converesed with C.S. Lewis dozens of times. Christian ideas COULD have popped into his head while writing the books.

[burrahobbit]

Also, no he wasn't. He was a philologist. All the time.

Tolkien was a dedicated Catholic, to be sure, and his works are steeped with Christian values (except that Jesus is everybody's best friend, because Jesus wouldn't have been around yet when Tolkien's Middle-earth stories took place), but that isn't what makes a work allegorical.

Gandalf isn't Jesus because they have absolutely nothing in common aside from dying and saving. You may not have heard of this, but it seems that Jesus had this habit of talking to tons of people at once about how exactly a person goes about being cool. Maybe I'm not as well read as you guys, but I don't remember Gandalf ever doing that. I only remember him ever doing stuff like that with just one person at a time, like when he told Frodo not to kill Gollum.

I guess I should just go read the books again or something (including the preface, you guys, seriously).

[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: burrahobbit ]

[Lalaith]

He wasn't a theologian. He was a professor of philology and literature. He was certainly a religious man, and he was close friends with CS Lewis, but that is not the same as being a theologian, ie an academic who studies religions.

[burrahobbit]

That's how you make friends in this business, Lalaith. Top notch.

In addition, Sauron is not Satan because Sauron is not in charge of being Evil, Melkor is.

[obloquy]

I think burra makes a good point about the parallel drawn between Gandalf and Christ. Viewing Christ solely as the savior is a self-centered take on Christianity. If his sacrifice was all that was necessary to save everyone, he wouldn't have spent the time he did teaching righteous values and principles for his disciples to follow. That's a bit off-Tolkien, but I really appreciated burra's comments and wanted to expound just a little on it.

[Jesse]

Well, I see I was wrong. My mistake. Thank you, BurraHobbitt, for correcting my mistake and making me realize I was wrong.

[mark12_30]

Ardwenna and Jesse,

There are numerous threads that discuss your question in depth, and I encourage you to explore them. You will find that in spirit, you are not alone, and while the difference between allegory (which Tolkien disliked) and applicability (which he rather expected in a good literary work, including his own) may seem picky to some, it is very important to many people on this board. I encourage you to study the difference. It will make forum activities much easier for you and much more enjoyable. Speaking about applicability gives you room that will be strictly denied you while speaking about allegory.

One last thought: I do not think Gandalf is an allegory of Jesus, nor Frodo, nor Aragorn. But in exegetical terms, I do think they are a type, or foreshadow, of Christ; an incomplete reflection of one or more aspects of his ministry. Think of the many types and foreshadows in the Old Testament, and you'll get the idea.

Here's a start of what's already here on this forum... There's more, if you search.


and consciously so in the revision


Frodo's Sacrifice

the elucidation of truth

Tolkien and catholic saints

eucatastrophe

the wrong kind of details: wonder

[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Legolas]

Sharing similar roles does not make one character a direct representation of the other.

Eru is not Allah or Yahweh; Aragorn is not He-Man; Gandalf is not Optimus Prime, or Merlin; Mandos is not Thanatos; Morgoth is not Skeletor, or Hades, or Lucifer, or Emperor Palpatine; Eowyn is not She-ra; Ulmo is not Poseidon; Eonwe is not Gabriel, or Michael; Frodo is not Willow; Sauron is not Darth Vader or the anti-chirst; Tilion is not Phoebe; and so on...

The reason that Tolkien's works are compared with the Bible so often is that each tells the (near-)complete story of world. Mainly how it was created, how evil came about, how it was defeated, etc.

You can compare them (for what reason, I don't know), but to say one was the basis of the other is not accurate.

I dislike Allegory – the conscious and intentional allegory – yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story.)

There is no 'allegory', moral, political, or contemporary in the work at all.

It is a 'fairy-story', but one written – according to the belief I once expressed in an extended essay 'On Fairy-stories' that they are the proper audience – for adults. Because I think that fairy story has its own mode of reflecting 'truth', different from allegory, or (sustained) satire, or 'realism', and in some ways more powerful. But first of all it must succeed just as a tale, excite, please, and even on occasion move, and within its own imagined world be accorded (literary) belief. To succeed in that was my primary object.

But since I have deliberately written a tale, which is built on or out of certain 'religious' ideas, but is not an allegory of them (or anything else), and does not mention them overtly, still less preach them, I will not now depart from that mode, and venture on theological disquisition for which I am not fitted. But I might say that if the tale is 'about' anything (other than itself), it is not as seems widely supposed about 'power'. Power-seeking is only the motive-power that sets events going, and is relatively unimportant, I think. It is mainly concerned with Death, and Immortality; and the 'escapes': serial longevity, and hoarding memory.

There is no 'symbolism' or conscious allegory in my story.

That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability. There always is. And since I have not made the struggle wholly unequivocal: sloth and stupidity among hobbits, pride and [illegible] among Elves, grudge and greed in Dwarf-hearts, and folly and wickedness among the 'Kings of Men', and treachery and power-lust even among the 'Wizards', there is I suppose applicability in my story to present times. But I should say, if asked, the tale is not really about Power and Dominion: that only sets the wheels going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness. Which is hardly more than to say it is a tale written by a Man!

So something of the teller's own reflections and 'values' will inevitably get worked in. This is not the same as allegory. We all, in groups or as individuals, exemplify general principles; but we do not represent them. The Hobbits are no more an 'allegory' than are (say) the pygmies of the African forest. Gollum is to me just a 'character' – an imagined person – who granted the situation acted so and so under opposing strains, as it appears to he probable that he would (there is always an incalculable element in any individual real or imagined: otherwise he/she would not be an individual but a 'type'.)

The last two quotes (especially the part that I italicized) are particularly good in helping you understand why his work is not an allegory.

While characters, events, and ideas may exemplify some you have seen elsewhere, they do not represent them, and are not intended to. Hope these quotes help!

[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: Legolas ]

[Lalaith]

To burrahobbit:
He he. Simultanous postings are a bugger, aren't they.

[Iargwath]

Fragment of Foreward to Lord of the Rings.

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical refrence. But i cordially dislike allegory in all its manefestations, and i always have done so since i grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

And another essential quote

By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead. Or to take a less grieveous matter: it has been supposed by some that 'The Scouring of the Shire' reflects the situation in England at the time when i was finishing my tale. It does not. It is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset, though in the event modified by the character of Sauruman as developed in the story without, need I say, any allegorical significance or contemporary political refrence whatsoever.

Quotes from Tollkien's Foreward to Lord of the Rings

As you can see, Tolkien feels very strongly on the topic of allegory regarding his work. If you have the Extended Fellowship of the Ring DVD set, i reccomend watching the 'The Tolkien Doccumentary' on the first disc of the Appendecies, in full. It states many points about his [Tolkien's] views on 'allegory' in his works. Also as Burrahobbit suggested, read the Foreward to Lord of the Rings in full to get a better understanding.

[ January 28, 2003: Message edited by: Iargwath ]

[Jurion]

I don't know if all these posts were comments on my post somewhere in this thread as well. I know that Tolkien didn't intend the book to be an allegory or contain any. But this does not stop people from seeing any allegories in his works. That's why I gave the examples above, to show allegories that people saw in the books.

I personally don't see allegories in LotR or any other work by Tolkien concerning Middle Earth.

[Ardwenna]

Thank you Mark, for posting those links. I appreciate that you took the time to do so.

Thank you all for the responses as well. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I have one more question, I'm not sure if it's on topic or not, but I noticed that some material was posted from some letters Mr Tolkien wrote. Are those in a published form somewhere? Can you buy those at a book store?

[Legolas]

Yes. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

[annuncolloion]

Lord of the Rings does have some spiritual parallels, but Tolkien did NOT intend the book (or any of his books on ME) to be allegories. However, if you read The Silmarilien, you can see a lot of parallels

Iluvatar - God
The Valar - The Angels
Melkor - Lucifer
changed to Morgoth - like Lucifer becomes Satan after his fall

I know it was not meant as an allegory, but it is very interesting to look at it in that light.

[The Saucepan Man]

But the Valar also bear similarities to pantheons of Gods, such as those worshipped by the Vikings and the Romans, with each having their own particular sphere of control (Manwe:Air, Ulmo:Water, Yavanna:Nature etc).

[annuncolloion]

Which also goes to support my point. I just listed the similarities to Christian religion. It can apply to many religions showing that Tolkien didn't mean it to happen but it did. Heck, If you tried hard enough you could probably find allegory in a can of peas [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Legolas]

Tolkien basically said "Gandalf is not Jesus" in a passage I've just noticed. (!)

Letter No. 181:

There is no 'embodiment' of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology. Gandalf is a 'created' person; though possibly a spirit that existed before in the physical world. His function as a 'wizard' is an angelos or messenger from the Valar or Rulers: to assist the rational creatures of Middle-earth to resist Sauron, a power too great for them unaided.
[...]
Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees.

[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: Legolas ]

[DaughterofVana]

Viewing Christ solely as the savior is a self-centered take on Christianity. If his sacrifice was all that was necessary to save everyone, he wouldn't have spent the time he did teaching righteous values and principles for his disciples to follow.

I say, since the one faction got an off-topic post, I'll be darned if I don't get the opportunity to make one!

"I am the way and the truth and the life--no one comes to the Father except through me." -John 14:6.

But no matter what our views are, they don't really have a place on this forum outside the scope of LOTR. I may only be a Wight but I know that already. Anybody who wants to discuss it further should PM or e-mail. You wanna find out more? Read "Mere Christianity." That says it a lot better than I ever could.

Bottom line is, Tolkien did not set out to make an Allagory going for or against any sort of religon: Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhisim, the worship of the all-mighty acorn, anything. He felt, as Legolas and Iargwath already mentioned, that his work should stand alone without all the metaphor baggage. That was what killed "Animal Farm" for me; that a pig is not a pig, especially when he is named Napoleon.

I believe that CS Lewis is another matter. His books, as people probably already know, are heavily metaphorical on the grounds that they were being used in an evangilitical sense. He purposely made Aslan a lion for a very specific reason, and made HIM return from the dead for a more substantial reason than Tolkien did Gandalf. Their audiences were different. Gandalf, no matter how much we would like him to, does NOT represent Christ. And even though Tolkien says that himself, I have another reason I would like to hold up to critique. I don't think that good old JR, being the good Catholic that he was, would really WANT to make a character strictly resembling Christ, because Gandalf is falliable (meaning human-like) and Christ is not. And, since his focus was a more literary audience, he could not have Gandalf symbolize Christ without giving him ALL the same attributes, not just a few choice ones. If a person is trying for a metaphor, especially towards the (some say reputable) "Son of God," I think that Tolkien would have made sure that Gandalf would, even metaphorically, turn water into wine, walk on water, etc, etc, etc. He was too much of a religous man to be slacking in that area, and too gifted of an author to fail at it if he tried in the first place.

-'Vana

[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]