‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[mark12_30]

Saucie wrote:

And can someone please explain to me what this "Truth" is that we are supposed to transcendentally be brought to when reading Tolkien's works?

No. Look, or don't look.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

The problem I still have is that while this 'state' may not be logically 'coherent, he ideas & symbols which we find there are consistent. Faeries/Elves throughout all the stories show consistent & recognisable behaviour, Archetypal images are consistent, so I'm still stuck with the idea of it bering simply a source of random images

True - I certainly don't think that they're random images. But that doesn't mean that they have some mystical origin, nor even that they originate in some "pure Faerie", (meta)-physical or psychological. I think that in large part they are the result of mythology. They have been building up, and changing, ever since the first time a human tried to explain a feature of the world with a piece of imaginative fiction. All sorts of things have gone into Faerie - Greek myths, Norse myths, the Bible, the Crusades, etc., etc.

These elements are not logically consistent with one another. But certainly (and I think this may be what is bothering you) there are consistencies of a sort to be found among them. This is where Jung and Campbell become helpful. Of course there are consistencies if you look for them, for we are all humans, and we all live on Earth, and all those things that go into Faerie originate either in true events or in fictions designed by us (and often designed to conform to or even explain real things). There are consistencies in the stories because there are consistencies in their origins. "Archetypes" are a convenient way of naming and categorizing those consistencies. And so it is natural that we find "truth" in these stories - truths about human psychology and human perception.

But Tolkien set out to 're-create' a 'lost tradition', to reconstruct what our ancestors had lost. So was there a point at which he deliberately rejected that idea & decided he would use the traditional images for his own purposes - ie in order to 'reveal to us a far off gleam of the gospel'? Or did he ever really intend to simply 're-create' the ancient mythology of England, was his intention always to write with another purpose in mind?

I think we ought to be careful about metaphors here. Tolkien certainly never really thought that he was re-creating an ancient mythology. He did not expect archaeologists to one day recover the original "Quenta Silmarillion". At most, he was only "re-creating" an ancient mythology in that he was reconstructing (as he thought) certain elements from it, and inventing others that could plausibly fit with it.

But - you seem to allow only two possibilities: 1. Tolkien was re-creating an ancient mythology; 2. Tolkien was preaching to us, trying to convince us of something or change us in some way.

I don't see why these should be the only two options. I'll take a third - Tolkien was simply writing a story.

Why, then, did he draw on ancient legends and mythology? Because that was the sort of story that he liked, and the sort that he wanted to write. Why did he think the story could offer us glimpses of "truth"? Because he thought that all really good stories must approximate "truth".

It's a simple answer, but I think it's the right one. Again, I don't see why he must either be engaged in "a scholarly attempt to give us back exactly what we had lost" or "combatting what they considered the 'vices' of the modern world." Why cannot the intention just be to write a very good story?

The Saucepan Man wrote:

And can someone please explain to me what this "Truth" is that we are supposed to transcendentally be brought to when reading Tolkien's works? It appears to have been eluding me entirely all these years.

Me too! Note that when, in my past two posts or so, I talk about "truth" in stories, I only mean literally "facts about the real world" - so that a story "has truth in it" if it is realistic. But I suspect that something quite different is meant by those who speak of transcendental truth in Tolkien's works - and I'd like to know what it's supposed to be.

Edit: Cross-posting with Mark12_30, who wrote:

No. Look, or don't look.

Well, sorry for asking. But if there's to be a discussion revolving around a certain term, I'd like that term defined. Look where, by the way?

[mark12_30]

'Let you? Make you?’ said the wizard. ‘Haven’t you been listening to all that I have said? You are not thinking of what you are saying.'

[The Saucepan Man]

No. Look, or don't look.

OK, so maybe that was a slightly facetious comment that I made.

But I am genuinely interested in trying to understand what it is that others (and a lot of others judging by this forum and other websites that I have visited) see in Tolkien's works, perhaps what he intended me to see and was even (as davem is suggesting) trying to persuade me to accept, that I am simply not seeing. Until I started posting on this board, I had no inkling (pun intended) of the religious themes within his works, despite having read the Hobbit and LotR on numerous occasions. Having since read numerous threads on the issue here, and having read (most of) the Letters, I can now recognise these themes and have some sort of understanding of Tolkien's beliefs and how they are incorporated within his works. But I am still rather at a loss to understand what this concept of "Truth" is, as it seems to be something that is just not within my experience. Is it the existence of God? The existence of an absolute moral code? A design for the way that we should live our lives? All of these things? Or something completely different?

I hesitate to take this thread any further into the realms of religious debate (in which I am probably wholly unequipped to engage), but I do feel that I need to understand what the concept is that we are talking about here before I can usefully contribute any further. I thought that I understood the concept of "enchantment" (at least intuitively, if not rationally) as it was being discussed. But now I am beginning to wonder if I was talking about something entirely different.

~Confused of London~

Edit: Cross-posting with Aiwendil, whose understanding of "Faerie" or "enchantment" or "shared subconscious", call it what you will, is spot on for me.

[mark12_30]

Saucie, reread your post (#244.)

[The Saucepan Man]

Now just you stop going all cryptic on us, Helen.

This is beginning to feel like an episode of the X-files. The Truth is out there? The Truth is in my post? Dang that elusive Truth.

[mark12_30]

C'mon, SQUINT!! Look harder.

On second thought, don't squint. It's too much like binoculars.

Just keep looking.

[davem]

'Truth' is a difficult concept - is there a difference between Tolkien's 'truth' & Truth' qua Truth, as there is between Tolkien's faerie & the Faerie of Tradition?

On to the TCBSfrom Tolkien & the Great War)

(p14)Tolkien once compared the TCBS to the pre-Raphaelites, probably in response to the Brotherhood's preoccupation with restoring Medieval values in Art.

(p56) Tolkien maintained that the society was 'a great idea which has never become quite articulate'. Its two poles, the moral & the aesthetic, could be complemantary if kept in balance...While the Great Twin Brethren (Tolkien & Wiseman) had discussed the fundamentals of existence, neither of them had done so with Gilson or Smith. As a result, Tolkien declared, the potential these four 'amazing' individuals contained in combination remained unbroached.'

(p105) Gilson proposed that feminism would help by banishing the view that 'woman was just an apparatus for man's pleasure'

Smith declared that, through Art, the four would have to leave the world better than they had found it. Their role would be ' to drive from life, letters, the satge & society that dabbling in & hankering after the unpleasant sides & incidents in life & nature which have captured the larger & worser tastes in Oxford, London & the world ... To re-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty in everyone's breast.

Gilson told Tolkien that, sitting in Routh Road... 'I suddenly saw the TCBS in a blaze of Light as a great Moral reformer ...Engalnd purified of its loathsome moral disease by the TCBS spirit. It is an enormous task & we shall not see it accomplished in our lifetime.

(p 122) Rob Gilson: I like to say & to hear it said & to feel boldly that the glory of beauty & order & joyful contentment in the universe is the presence of God....GB Smith was closely attentive to Tolkien's vision & in some measure shared it....Smith saw no demarcation between holiness & Faerie.

(p136) TCBSianism had come to mean fortitude & courage & alliance. ...But the TCBS had absorbed patriotic duty into its constitution not simply because its members were all patriots. the war mattered because it was being fought 'so England's self draw breath'; so that the inspirations of 'the real days' of peace might survive'...

Gilson: 'I have faith taht the TCBS may for itself - never for the world - than God for this war some day.

Tolkien already believed that the terrros to come might serve him in the visionary work of his life - if he survived.

(p174) Tolkien: 'Regarding, presumably, those same 'idle chatterers', the journalists& their readers whom Smith execrated, he wrote that 'No filter of true sentiment, no ray of feeling for beauty, women, history or their country shall reach them again.'

(p180) Smith (after Rob Gilson's death in battle) 'The group was spiritual in character, 'an influence on the state of being', & as such it transcended mortality; it was 'as permanently inseperable as Thor & his hammer'. the influence, he said, was, 'a tradition, which forty years from now will still be as strong to us (if we are alive, & if we are not) as it is today.

(Tolkien) 'the TCBS may have been all we dreamt - & its work in the end be done by three or two or one survivor ... To this I now pin my hopes..'

(p253) Smith had wanted them to leave the world a better place than when they found it, to 're-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty' through art embodying TCBSian principles.

(p308) 'The 24 year old Tolkien had believed just as strongly in the dream shared by the TCBS, & felt that they 'had been granted some spark of fire ... that was destined to kindle a new light, or, what is the same thing, rekindle an old light in the world

(p309) But The Lord of the Rings, the masterpiece that was published a decade & a half later, stands as the fruition of the TCBSian dream, a light drawn from ancient sources to illumnate a darkening world'.

So right from the start of the Lost Tales, Tolkien is attempting to cast the TCBSian philosophy into artistic form. It culminates in the publication of LotR - at least during his lifetime. So, its not, or was never intended to be, simply a story. Its not an allegory in the strict sense, but the Legendarium could be seen as a mythologisation of TCBSianism vs the 'world'.

If there is an underlying 'truth' it is perhaps the 'truth' that the TCBS believed in - & so we're back to the question of what 'truth' Tolkien is revealing to us in his works - some kind of 'absolute', archetypal TRUTH, or simply what he felt to be true about the world, & we have to ask ourselves how close the two are.

Wherever we come down, its clear that whatever he was doing, he was attempting to do more than simply 'entertain' readers, because the TCBS was born in the hearts & minds of idealistic young men in peacetime & blasted apart on the Somme. Tolkien's mythology came into being during the horrors of mechanised warfare. But we enter it (or most of us do) as the TCBS would have originally, & it represents for us, as it would have for them, before the war, as a place of escape, of beauty, excitement, sadness, so we simply cannot read it as Tolkien would have read it himself when he came back to it to comment on its meaning for him. For us, it will have no 'meaning' beyond itself, & wahtever meaning we find in it for ourselves & our lives in this world, they will not, cannot, be the same as they were for Tolkien, so, our interpretations of it are as valid as his.

Which is not to say that he didn't intend us to find TCBSian values in it, & to find them more attractive than what was on offer in the 'primary world'. So, I'd say the book certainly contains deliberate 'meaning', that there is an intention on Tolkien's part that we should find in it waht he wants us to find, & also that he wants us to agree with him - but we never really could, because we're our own people, living our own lives, with our own experiences which we take to Middle Earth with us, & bring back out transformed.

As to Aiwendil's points on the similarity of all myths & legends, well, yes, but that doesn't explain the accounts of the folk of Ireland & Scotland & elsewhere, who calimed to have encountered Fairies, & the figures of Celtic myth, or the fact that people down through the centuries who have believed in those beings & in the 'reality' of the otherworld. To them, it was a 'real' place, independently existing alongside this world. And Tolkien was taking those beliefs & using them to promote his 'truth', so I think it is relevant to ask what his motivation was in his use, & mis-use' (from a 'canonical' perspective) of them. He isn't giving us unalloyed Faerie tradition, but he isn't writing strict (till the end of his life, & in a Middle Earth setting) theology. He's in a sense trying to do both, so we have a sense of 'recognition' - Niggle's feeling when he saw 'his' tree alive, & also a glimpse of the 'Mountains' & a way beyond them, to ...

The Truth?

[mark12_30]

To re-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty in everyone's breast. ... Rob Gilson: I like to say & to hear it said & to feel boldly that the glory of beauty & order & joyful contentment in the universe is the presence of God.

davem, do we have anything written by Gilson that you are aware of?

& so we're back to the question of what 'truth' Tolkien is revealing to us in his works - some kind of 'absolute', archetypal TRUTH, or simply what he felt to be true about the world, & we have to ask ourselves how close the two are.

Where I live in New England, we have "mill-towns." I grew up near one. There are enormous old textile mills made of brick, in which each floor is one gigantic room, and the windows all around are tall and wide, because it was the only light they had.

You can stand oustside in the parking lot and look at the big windows.

You can look through the window to the inside of the Mill.

You can see thorough your window that on the other side of the Mill, there are more windows.

You may even press your face against the near window, and try to see through the far window.

Someday, you may walk all the way around the mill.

[bilbo_baggins]

Somehow this is sounding less and less like Tolkien. Seriously. Where is this discussion headed? To find the Truth, one must look hard, true.

Now, all this talk of whether or not Tolkien was giving us some archetypal truth; that's for the reader of Tolkien's works to decide, not for some community such as we to decide is 'canon'. It just isn't right, to force your ideas of Tolkien's archetypal Truths on others. Let others figure out what Tolkien (or his works) means to them. It can mean different things to different people.

[symestreem]

Can you get in the mill?

[mark12_30]

bilbo-- actualy, it's sounding more like Letters and On Faery Stories than LOTR and Silm. But I'd say it's still Tolkien.

symestream-- When I was a kid, the mills belonged to Digital Equipment Corporation, long before they made it big. I couldn't even see above the windowsills back then. You had to stand back in the streets.

But this?

You tell me.

[The Saucepan Man]

Presumably, though, there were other things to look at, into, beyond or behind than just the mills. And, since there was more than one mill, perhaps there were different things behind each one of them.

[mark12_30]

Indeed. Smith, LOTR, Beowulf, etc.

Just as each of the participants in the (old) eucatastrophe thread had experienced unique, individual eucatastrophes at varying points of the story-- which, IMO, would have been a *very* tall order for Tolkien to have pre-planned each of those one by one.

Which is why rather than constructing an allegory with preplanned (hopefully revelatory and not constricting) constructions, Tolkien wanted to "just tell a story", and let the reader break through where he was Supposed To.

Another way to say it might be, so that the reader is pulled through when he is ready.

[The Saucepan Man]

Tolkien wanted to "just tell a story", and let the reader break through where he was Supposed To.

Precisely. Each reader finds something different in the story (just like there are different things behind each of the mills). And they are "supposed to", because what they find is right for them.

Another way to say it might be, so that the reader is pulled through when he is ready.

So I would put it slightly differently. The reader is "pulled through" to what seems right for him.

[mark12_30]

A small subset of Letter 89 (davem, note the planes) :

(describing, to his son Christopher, his reaction to a real-life event)

And all of a sudden I realized what it was: the very thing that I have been trying to write about and explain -- in that fairy-story essay that I so much wish you had read that I think I shall send it to you. For it I coined the word 'eucatastrophe': the sudden happy turn in a story which pierces you with a joy that brings tears (which I argued it is the highest function of fairy-stories to produce). And I was there led to the view that it produces its peculiar effect because it is a sudden glimpse of Truth, your whole nature chained in material cause and effect, the chain of death, feels a sudden relief was if a major limb out of joint has suddenly snapped back. It percieves-- if the story has literary 'truth' on the second plane (for which see the essay) - that this is indeed how things really do work in the Great World for which our nature is made.

Note that he didn't say producing eucatastrophe is the *only* function of fairy stories. If the story didn't entertain, as has been noted already, you wouldnt' stick with it long enough to receive the eucatastrophe.

Note also that he calls the eucatastrophe a sudden *glimpse* of Truth.

Glimpses are:
--easily missed
--easily doubted
--easily dismissed
--and five people catching a small glimpse of the same large thing would probably give differing reports.

(Five nearsighted hobbits approach an oliphaunt...)

[davem]

Helen

I don't think Gilson published anything - my main source of info is the T&TGW volume which I don't have here. He did write somethings though. I'll post what I find later.

As to 'Truth', I suppose whatever it is, its on the other side of those 'Mountains' that Niggle set off towards, so we on this side can't really know what it is - yet. But unless we believe that, whatever it is, its really there, we won't even set off to find it. I suppose someone could come from over the mountains to tell us about it, & show us the way to get there (or perhaps someone already has ).

Perhaps 'enchantment' is the first step towards this Truth, the thing that lures us in - like Niggle's vision of the Tree which he attempts to set down on canvas, & then his finding of the real Tree is the eucatastrophe of his story, & the eucatastrophic experience, the flash of 'truth' which it reveals, inspires him to go on over the mountains to find the truth itself. So the sequence would be enchantment - eucatastrophe - 'Truth'. Idea just occurs - could it be a kind of 'harmonic' sequence - so 'Truth' reflects 'downwards' into eucatastrophe, which in turn reflects downwards again as enchantment, like 'pure' light shining through lenses (or 'planes'). Enchantment makes opens us up to the possibility of Eucatastrophe, & Eucatastrophe is a sudden flash of 'Truth', of 'joy beyond the walls of the world'.

Which would mean that Tolkien's intention with his Legendarium was to enchant us, & make us at least susceptible to the Eucatastrophic experience, & so inspire us to seek the Truth.

(Sorry, that's all just popped into my head & I don't know if it works - I'm sure someone will let me know if it doesn't )

[mark12_30]

[HerenIstarion]

Hola, Helen, how did you get round "less than ten characters long" rule?

[mark12_30]

Uh... what rule?

Maybe I transcended something.

Back on topic before an axe falls... I was thinking more about the Millegory.

On the far side of the mill, you are once again looking at "our reality", as in our physical world-- but with a changed perspective. (Through a glass, darkly?) You are seeing what is there after having seen what's inside the mill. Going by OnFaeryStories, I'm guessing Tolkien would enjoy that. You're also seeing what the other side of the mill would look like from inside the mill; as if you are looking at the real world from Faeryland... which I guess Tolkien would also appreciate.

As a small example, how many people have a deeper appreciation for trees, having read the trilogy? I do; and I know when it began. On Cerin Amroth, when Frodo touched the bark of the tree, I got a glimpse of what one of my own trees, and Trees in general, Truly is/are-- just a small glimpse, but it began something. And I've been looking at my own trees and other trees differently ever since.

[Aiwendil]

So the thread comes to the point where arguments must take the form of parables. I will not waste my time demanding better definitions for the terms being used or trying to make literal the arguments. I will simply ask two questions.

1. Is everyone sure that an end is not being confused with a means? Think about the sort of relation that obtains between applicability, eucatastrophe, etc. and a good story.

2. If "Truth" means, as I guessed before, something like "God", "heaven", "the divine plan", etc., and if a glimpse of this Truth is a critical part of your theory, where does that leave non-religious readers (like me)? Would you claim that we do not fully appreciate Tolkien? Would you claim that we are subconsciously religious? If not, then how can your theory about the critical importance of the "glimpse of Truth" be valid?

[The Saucepan Man]

OK. In light of all that I have seen from Tolkien’s Letters, the extracts from his essay ‘On Faerie Tales’, davem’s quotes above etc, I am happy to accept that, in his writings, Tolkien intended to expose his readers to his own (“TCBSian”) values and beliefs in the hope that they might find them applicable to their own lives. And I can accept that he sought to do this by offering his readers enchantment, the possibility of what he called “Eucatastrophe” and thereby a glimpse of what he saw as the “Truth”.

The real issue for me is that this simply does not happen for millions of his readers. Indeed, I am willing to bet that the majority of people who have read and enjoyed the Hobbit and LotR (certainly in the UK) have not glimpsed this “Truth” that Tolkien believed in and was trying to show them. They may well have felt the enchantment. They may well also have experienced intense joy and sadness. Yet they have not found this elusive “Truth”. If Tolkien were to address them via one of davem’s “conversations across time”, what would he say to them? Would he tell them that they hadn’t followed his instructions properly? Would he dismiss them as being unready to accept the “Truth” or disinclined to do so? Or would he blame himself for not having given proper instructions?

If his response was that they hadn’t followed the guidance which he had included for them in his text, does that not denigrate their reading experience? It implies that the reader has failed if they do not see in the text exactly what the author intended them to see. It suggests that they have read the book “wrongly” in some way, even though they may have enjoyed it immensely, been incredibly moved by it and perhaps even found it applicable to them in a way that the author did not intend (interpretations such as those by Stormfront and their like aside).

Similarly, if he dismissed them as not being ready, or inclined, to accept the “Truth” that he intended for them to see, does that not also denigrate their reading experience? Perhaps they don’t need to find it. Perhaps they have found their own truth within the text, which is sufficient for them.

And if he blamed himself for not giving adequate guidance, then I think that he would be being unduly harsh on himself. Whatever their faith, beliefs or values, many millions of people derive immense enjoyment from LotR. In their eyes, it is a wonderful book, and they do not need to find this encoded “Truth” to feel this way about it.

No. I do not think that Tolkien would have responded in any of the ways that I have outlined above. I think that, unless he found their interpretation personally repellent (per Stormfront), he would have been happy that these readers had found in it what was right for them (whether that be spiritual guidance, enchantment, applicability, or just plain old enjoyment). To do otherwise would involve undervaluing either their reading experience or his own skill as a story-teller.

Edit: Cross-posted again with Aiwendil who raises the same valid issues that I have sought to raise.

[mark12_30]

Aiwendil

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

So the thread comes to the point where arguments must take the form of parables. I will not waste my time demanding better definitions for the terms being used or trying to make literal the arguments. I will simply ask two questions.

"Must?" I am unaware that (a) I issued any orders (besides "look or don't look" ) or that (b) I would have any *authority* to hijack this thread by doing so. Per forum rules, the thread belongs to Fordim, and he may step in with the gavel (or axe) of his choice and and provide Thread Guidance at any time.

1. Is everyone sure that an end is not being confused with a means? Think about the sort of relation that obtains between applicability, eucatastrophe, etc. and a good story.

Actually, I think the whole process is rather cyclical in nature.

2. If "Truth" means, as I guessed before, something like "God", "heaven", "the divine plan"...

If we insist on strict definitions, now I have to ask you your definitions of those three concepts, as I suspect that they vary widely from mine! And won't that derail this thread!

However, I will (for the sake of peace, which I like, and argument, which I would far rather avoid) state that when I use the word Truth, with a capital T, I refer-- loosely-- to all that is true in a permanent sense. And that both encompasses those three concepts that you listed above

"God", "heaven", "the divine plan"

and extends beyond them into such simple things that include "Trees are more than a source of plywood and paper", "2+2=4", "The Sky is a big place," and "Most people prefer receiving kindness over cruelty." However, one can also argue that these simple truths (trees, sky, arithmetic, kindness) are also part of the Divine Plan and reveal something about the Heart of God. And one can also argue that discovering That is part of the journey into Truth. (So I have been steadfastly dodging this question for several pages now. And now I am going to start dodging it again, before someone down-rates me again for being Too Biblical.)

So: To simplify again, I'll go back to the spirit of "good is good" and say, "Truth is that which is always, eternally, true." And yes, you can blow philosophical holes in that with a 20-gauge. Enjoy.

and if a glimpse of this Truth is a critical part of your theory, where does that leave non-religious readers (like me)?

When pursued, Truth leads to Truth. I think the more relevant question is what are you pursuing? And that is entirely up to you. Free country.


Saucie

The real issue for me is that this simply does not happen for millions of his readers. Indeed, I am willing to bet that the majority of people who have read and enjoyed the Hobbit and LotR (certainly in the UK) have not glimpsed this “Truth” that Tolkien believed in and was trying to show them.

Interesting, Saucie; I have the exact opposite impression. I see fangirls sucked into fandom because Orlie is cute, and then before they know it, choosing to resist peer pressure because "I didn't think Aragorn would do drugs." In fact, I knew a sixteen-year-old girl whose firm decision to remain chaste til marriage (which came twelve years later!) was based on the sudden realization that "That's what Strider and Arwen would do." People look at Sam and Frodo, Gimli and Legolas, Eomer and Aragorn, and see the vaue of True Friendship. People look at Legolas and see the value of Loyalty. Etcetera, etcetera. Even Dominic Moynahan has started a "Save the Trees" program and is raising funds for it. Everywhere I look (well, almost) among LOTR fans, I see people who have been called higher. Some climb a little. Some climb a lot. Most do feel that tug.

So-- in answer to your question, "What would Tolkien say today?" I think he would look at the worldwide phenomenon that his books have started, and see the resultant changes-- large and small-- in people's lives, and turn to his TCBS fellows and say, "By golly, lads, it's happening. The love of real & true beauty, sanity, and cleanliness is being re-established. Appreciation for the glory of beauty & order & joyful contentment is growing. People want these things again. THey get onto their computers and talk about them at all hours, and then they try it later. THeir hearts are changing. They redecorate their silly rooms with elvish motifs, and in doing so, resolve to be kinder, and more gracious, and appreciate the stars more. They learn elvish, and in doing so learn the value of the spoken word. They flag at work, and think, 'Be like Frodo and just keep going.' They grow flowers, and wonder at their beauty, all because of elanor and niphredil. They learn to play instruments because they want to make elvish music.

"It's happening. Let's go have a beer and a pipe; we did it, lads."

At least, I think so.

[Aiwendil]

The Thread is Still Alive

The Saucepan Man wrote:

I think that, unless he found their interpretation personally repellent (per Stormfront), he would have been happy that these readers had found in it what was right for them (whether that be spiritual guidance, enchantment, applicability, or just plain old enjoyment). To do otherwise would involve undervaluing either their reading experience or his own skill as a story-teller.

Yes. This is exactly what I've been trying to get at. If the purpose of his stories was to convince his readers of what he thought was the "Truth" (even if passively, by revealing it to them rather than forcing it on them) then we must assume that he would disagree with all with all interpretations that did not conform to his views and deem all readers' experiences "wrong" save the experience of this particular "Truth" he believed in. And I do not think that that was the case.

Mark12_30 wrote:

Actually, I think the whole process is rather cyclical in nature.

This is an interesting answer - neither the story itself nor insight into Truth is either the cause or the effect; or perhaps each is both. I think I like this answer, if only because it comes very close to what I've been arguing. As a story becomes very good, it becomes more like an allegory; as an allegory becomes very good it becomes more like a story. So the story itself and insight into Truth are in fact the same thing.

But this is not the impression I got from your earlier posts. Perhaps this was just a misunderstanding on my part. It seemed to me that you (and Davem as well) were suggesting that Tolkien's goal was to expose readers to this insight, and that a requirement for achieving this is a fully self-consistent, believable story. I got this impression most of all when you compared Tolkien's works to parables (in connection with self-consistency); for clearly in the case of a parable, the insight is the end and the story is a means. Did you mean to draw a distinction here?

I ought to point out that there is a very big (though perhaps subtle) difference between intending to actually change people's attitudes and beliefs and intending to change the state of literature - which is why I still don't buy the argument that the TCBS intended to convert people to its way of thinking, and that this remained Tolkien's goal later on. I have always understood their goal as a literary one: they were unsatisfied with the state of modern literature and desired to change that. This is more or less the attitude, at any rate, that Tolkien shared some years later with Lewis, when they decided that there were not enough of the sort of book they liked to read, so they would to have to write some themselves (the agreement that resulted in Out of the Silent Planet and The Lost Road). This is not at all the same as writing with the primary purpose of changing people's views about the world, or affording them glimpses of Truth.

If we insist on strict definitions, now I have to ask you your definitions of those three concepts, as I suspect that they vary widely from mine! And won't that derail this thread!

Well, I don't have strict definitions for them - but that's okay; I was merely guessing that you might have intended those concepts, in which case I would ask for your definitions.

And that both encompasses those three concepts that you listed above
and extends beyond them into such simple things that include "Trees are more than a source of plywood and paper", "2+2=4", "The Sky is a big place," and "Most people prefer receiving kindness over cruelty."

It sounds like what you mean by "Truth" is simply "the set of all true propositions". That's certainly a definition I can live with (it's the one I intend when I say "truth"). But if this is the case, I don't see why there's any need to be at all mystical about it. Why talk gravely about Truth being out beyond the mills (if I understand your millegory correctly), or about transcendent glimpses of Truth; why the capital T? For if Truth is just the set of true propositions, then a "glimpse of Truth" must just be the knowledge of the truth or falsehood of certain propositions. In such a case, there is no reason at all that each person should have to discover Truth for himself or herself. Nor is there any such thing as "discovering Truth", since that would mean omniscience.

So either of two things is true: 1. By "Truth" you do in fact mean "the set of all true propositions", and all the earlier mysticism was unnecessary or 2. you mean something else, in which case I still would like to know what it is.

And a further dichotomy: either 1. The definition of "Truth" does not critically depend on anything like God or religion or 2. it does.

Going with option 1 on both questions agrees with my view; choosing 2 in either case means there is still some disagreement, but one that I cannot identify.

I think the more relevant question is what are you pursuing? And that is entirely up to you. Free country.

I've got to admit that I have no idea how the matter of what I am pursuing has anything whatsoever to do with the nature of Tolkien's work.

Sorry if any of that sounds abrasive - it was certainly not intended to. I'm just trying to understand what you (and others) are saying.

[davem]

Aiwendil

When you say:Quote:

'I ought to point out that there is a very big (though perhaps subtle) difference between intending to actually change people's attitudes and beliefs and intending to change the state of literature - which is why I still don't buy the argument that the TCBS intended to convert people to its way of thinking, and that this remained Tolkien's goal later on. I have always understood their goal as a literary one: they were unsatisfied with the state of modern literature and desired to change that.'

I can only repeat some of the quotes from T&TGW that I gave earlier:

When we have statements like 'the four would have to leave the world better than they had found it', ' To re-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty in everyone's breast.', 'I suddenly saw the TCBS in a blaze of Light as a great Moral reformer', ''The group was spiritual in character, 'an influence on the state of being', 'Smith had wanted them to leave the world a better place than when they found it, to 're-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty through art embodying TCBSian principles.' , ''had been granted some spark of fire ... that was destined to kindle a new light, or, what is the same thing, rekindle an old light in the world'

We can't simply reduce that to an attempt to reform literature. Its clear they were attempting a much greater kind of 'reform' - the reform of society as a whole. It is an attempt at moral reform of society. They are seeking to 'influence the state of being' of society.

Of course, Tolkien can later tell Milton Waldman that his 'crest has long since fallen' in the context of creating a 'mythology for England', & we can also take him perhaps to imply it had 'fallen' in other ways too, but we must accept that his motivations were originally greater than the mere reform of literature.

So, before we can ask 'the Book or the Reader' we must understand what Tolkien was attempting to do with the book, whether he had any message that he wanted to communicate. I think its clear that, in the beginning at least, he had a clear intention of moral reform of society, & that in Lost Tales at least he was attempting to set out his moral philosophy in mythological form. We can reject his moral philosophy & reject his values, but we can't deny their existence, & claim he wasn't doing what he has clearly stated he was doing.

As to whether we pick up on his values, or simply choose our own & take from his writings only what confirms our existing beliefs - well, clearly many do, & that doesn't make them 'wrong', but Helen has shown that many readers, who know nothing of that philosophy do pick up on it & are affected by it to the extent that they change their own moral stance as a result of reading it. Obviously, if Tolkien would not approve of the use & interpretation of his work by Stormfront, that implies he would approve of other interpretations of his work, which means he had some intention to affect his readers thinking.

He wanted to change people, to change society, because he thought it was 'wrong' & he had a sense of what was 'right' - so we come back to 'Truth'. Tolkien had a sense of what this 'Truth' was, & he was attempting to communicate that, & has succeeded with many readers. Within Middle Earth this Truth exists, God exists, so while we are wandering there, or if we are constructing fan fiction, we have to accept those things as givens. If a 'good' character in a Middle Earth fanfic was an athiest, that would simply be 'wrong', because Eru is 'real' within Middle Earth, & the 'Truth' is a fact. None of which 'proves' that God exists in this world, or that 'Truth' is a fact here in the primary world. But then we have to ask why we respond so strongly to those ideas - God, Truth - in that world, why the sense of 'rightness'? What, exactly, moves us, if not some sense, conscious or unconscious, some 'memory' or sense of 'recognition', why is Middle Earth so attractive?

I would speculate that we are responding in that way because that world feels 'right', whereas this world feels 'wrong', that world feels 'true', while there is a sense of 'falseness' about this one - but where does that sense come from? Why, as Lewis asked, would we feel such a strong need for something that doesn't exist? We only feel hungry because food exists, feel sexual desire because sex exists - if those things didn't exist we wouldn't feel desire for them, & their absence wouldn't feel like a lack, wouldn't be painful. So how can we explain the need for meaning, truth, if those things don't exist, & why do we feel that sense of contentment within Middle Earth, where those things are supplied, because they're supplied?

Yet, of course, Middle Earth mustn't be an allegory, mustn't exist simply as a means to supply what's lacking here, it mustn't exist for this world. It must exist for itself, & the characters do what they do for their own reasons, which relate solely to their own world, so we can choose to take from that world what we will. But we have to ask ourselves honestly what we are responding to in that world, what needs it is supplying, & why we respond as we do it, & why we choose to take what we do from it.

Why would someone who has rejected the spiritual dimension of life in this world choose to willingly frequent a world where the spiritual dimension is so much to the fore? Why would someone who is an absolute materialist, & finds spiritual, magical, supernatural beauty, goodness (&supernatural evil) to be nothing but silly superstition want to spend time in a world where those things, along with God, & Truth, are 'facts'. Surely, someone with that worldview would find Middle Earth stupid, offensive & wrong?

I'd have to ask both you & SpM why you are drawn to Middle Earth - is it for 'everything else' you find there, except those things? But you could find all that you claim to want, & nothing you find to be 'wrong' in a thousand other secondary worlds - yet, back you keep going to Middle Earth. Its almost like its supplying a need you have which you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge feeling.

I can't see how you can make this absolute break with what you find in Middle Earth & this world, to the extent that you won't even acknowledge the possibility that you are responding to something 'there' that you're missing 'here'. If you feel the poignancy of Frodo's departure, if you cry with pride & awe when Eowyn faces the Lord of the Nazgul, if you respond to the bravery of Beren & Luthien, & the Ofermod displayed by Turin, & are stunned by the Noldor drawing their swords in the light of the first dawn, what are you responding to & why are you responding at all, if not because on some level it feels 'right', & therefore 'true'? Some part of you is responding to something. The 'Book' is eliciting a response from you which as a 'materialistic athiest' you shouldn't feel.

But none of that is to try & convert you to anything. I have no interest in trying to convert anyone to anything, & I can honestly say that I've never posted anything on these boards with that intention. I wouldn't be able to - as I'm not a committed believer in any particular religion, though I admit I lean more towards some than to others, but I've studied many of them & learned from most of them.

I don't know how far this is off topic - the question, The Book or the Reader does seem to require that we at least state where we as individual readers are coming from, & in what way the book affects us, in order that we can say why we come down on one side or the other in the question.

This post is way too long, as usual.

[Bêthberry]

Hmm. I 've been out of this for some time but would like to raise just a couple of points in terms of how to advance the discussion, as Barrow Wight would say.

Helen and SpM,

Sauce suggested that most or many readers in England do not find the spiritual element which Helen and davem claim exists in the books. In response, Helen said that, on the contrary, she finds many young girls who are indeed given to think along traditional lines of moral behaviour after reading the book.

So, what happens next in this kind or form of argument?

Helen, did you mean to imply that your experience disproves or invalidates Sauce's? Does Sauce's invalidate yours? (I don't think he would say it does.) What I mean by this is, if we have two contradictory experiences, how do we validate one over the other? Or do we have to? How do we advance the discussion? Surely both responses exist as legitimate responses. The point then is not to discount either one but to recognise that both exist. What is then the next step?

davem,

In your long post, you made this statement,

So, before we can ask 'the Book or the Reader' we must understand what Tolkien was attempting to do with the book, whether he had any message that he wanted to communicate.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting something about how to go about reading here. I would question this idea of "before we can ask". Just where do we understand or apply what Tolkien was attempting to do with the book? The book surely must be self-explanatory at some level if it is to be successful as a story. If we have to go to biography, letters, etc, before we read the books themselves, that is validating non-fiction over fiction, discursive prose over story, as much as if we 'apply' it retroactively after the fact of reading. And surely the point also becomes one of whether the book in fact does what the collateral prose says it was 'intended' to do. I mean, do we have to start, as readers, saying, "I must find a message here", before we start to read? Do we really have to read with a priori notions? Or do we have to 'interpret' with a priori notions to lay back on top of our reading experience? In short, you have not convinced me we 'must understand' what Tolkien intended; you have rather demonstrated that in discussion with his school chums he thought certain things. It does not mean that the stories were consciously written with those thoughts in mind. And, especially because Tolkien clearly revised and revised--"consciously so in the revision"--we are still left with what inspired him in the first draft. What is in the texts themselves? (have we been over this before?)

The Book or the Reader does seem to require that we at least state where we as individual readers are coming from, & in what way the book affects us, in order that we can say why we come down on one side or the other in the question.

I am going to go back to my second post here to suggest that there was a tradition regarding literature which Tolkien could have been aware of, a tradition where the writer consciously aimed to make his work one where meaning is held in the eye of the beholder--and this tradition was one which developed within the context of Christian exegesis. Tolkien, after all, did not write political tracts in his zeal to reform society morally. He did not join political organisations and marches. He wrote stories, believing in the value and worth of story telling and story reading. And stories are never definitive. Middle earth does not end. Tolkien says this in On Fairy Stories. The stories never end, but lead out. This is why I object to those who say, this spiritual truth is in the book and this is what the book is about. If he had wanted to make this truth explicit, he would have. He choose not to, but to use veiled allusions. Why did he do this?

This takes me back to Child's post, written before the May 1 party, where she argues that what we do is go beyond this magical first reading to consider its validity and in doing so reject such interpretations as that of the White Supremacists or Germaine Greer. I am going, for the sake of discussion, to go out on a limb here and say that both of those positions actually help enlarge an appreciation of Tolkien.

Clearly, Greer writes as she has always written, to be flamboyant. But what she responds to so strongly is the idea of an 'other' who is solely evil It is very easy to attack 'enemies' when, particularly under the duress of war and attack, we ascribe to them an incarnate evil. Stormfront equally wants to read within its own validating priorities. What the existence of these two positions does, I would suggest, is help us discuss--reaffirm--the moral vision in LOTR. I read a review recently of Wagner (Atom Egoyen's production here in Toronto) which suggested that Tolkien wanted to recover the glorious tradition of heroic, northern narrative from the stains of the Nazi tradition. (I am well aware of how Tolkien denied any conscious, deliberate debt to Wagner.) I would suggest that the very existence of interpretations which we feel are 'wrong' in fact work to help us clarify points about the texts which we might not really react to, given the very different perspectives which we bring to the table. This is why, I would argue, the terms 'right' and 'wrong' are beside the point. Even out of error, greater understanding can arise. It is like Frodo learning from Gandalf not to kill Gollem. Something good still might come out of all this.

I am writing in a hurry, for which many apologies, but I did want to add one final point. davem, you seem to suggest--and I have seen it stated elsewhere here in discussion on the Barrow Downs--that materialists have no moral or ethical basis, cannot differentiate good and evil, cannot ascribe to the belief in beauty and spirituality. I don't want to answer here for either SaucepanMan or Aiwendil, but I do want to suggest, humbly, that this is an unproven assumption. Speaking as someone who has lived lo these many years with an athiest, let me say that he makes manhood an honourable estate, as honourable as anything Aragorn is said to represent. There! I think I 've just made the same kind of argument which I was questioning Helen for making. My point, davem, is that materialism does not, by its very nature, automatically mean people cannot appreciate the concepts of heroic ideal or endeavour, sacrifice, self-discipline, pity, beauty, or fail to recognise good and evil.

[Saraphim]

First off I just want to give props to mark12_30 for an excellent mill-metaphor.

Anyway.

Yet, of course, Middle Earth mustn't be an allegory, mustn't exist simply as a means to supply what's lacking here, it mustn't exist for this world. It must exist for itself, & the characters do what they do for their own reasons, which relate solely to their own world, so we can choose to take from that world what we will. But we have to ask ourselves honestly what we are responding to in that world, what needs it is supplying, & why we respond as we do it, & why we choose to take what we do from it.

In response to what I have read here and elsewhere on this thread, my opinion is that Tolkien's works have Truth in them. This elusive, mysteriously capitalized noun is different for everyone, and no one person will find or see it in the same way, for the obvious reason that everyone is different themselves.

If one has a depressing outlook on life, one will see sadness and destruction in The Lord of the Rings. It becomes something of a tragedy, when you look at the disparity of the elves to leave Middle-Earth, Arwen's immortal choice, the deaths of so many characters who may have lived in peace, and Sam's torn heart.

But if one reads it in a more chipper attidude, one sees growth, new replacing old, rest for those who have long since grown weary, and sacrifice for others.

Take this for example:

Yet the lies that Melkor, the mighty and accursed, Morgoth Bauglir, the Power of Terror and of Hate, sowed in the Hearts of Elves and Men are a seed that does not die and cannot be destroyed; and ever and anon it sprouts anew, and will bear dark fruit even unto the latest days.

That's from the Silmarillion, the Voyage of Earendil. The truth I see in it is that every person has a seed inside that spreads hate and fear through our minds. We cannot get rid of it, and we must struggle with it in order to quell it. The 'dark fruit' it refers to is what happens when that seed grows and multiplies, infecting those around it with fear, hate, ect.

Perhaps no one else sees this the way I do. Or perhaps you all do. Or perhaps I'm grossly misinformed and I've wasted my time.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

We are using terms like "spiritual" and "materialist" without real discussion of what these mean. I must agree with Bethberry. You seem to equate "belief in God" with spiritual, and lack of belief with "materialist". You imply these are two sharply defined, discreet camps, and that the former must necessarily be indifferent or hostile to the words, characters, and images that Tolkien evokes.

First, I feel this is a narrow view of 'spiritual'. There are spiritual paths that do not emphasize the role of the deity. How does one classify a Buddhist, for example, who devotes his life to following the Eightfold Path to enlightenment, which surely is a spiritual journey? Although the Buddha himself was a theist, his teachings are essentially non-theistic. The existence or non-existence of God is not a central issue here, but is left up to the individual.

Similarly, where does this definition leave those who seek to follow goodness because they regard it as the basis of natural law? Emphasis on deity is not central to their lives in the same way as it would be for a Christian. But are they not concerned with many of the same moral issues that Tolkien raises?

It would be possible to dredge up definitions of 'spiritual' that would get us around this impasse. Here, for example, is one:

The spiritual is a perception of the commonality of mindfulness in the world that shifts the boundaries between self and other, producing a sense of the union of purposes of self and other in confronting the existential questions of life, and providing a mediation of the challenge-response interaction between self and other, one and many, that underlies existential questions.

But there is another valid question: exactly where do we draw the line in saying a person can or cannot appreciate LotR, depending on the particular state of his or her belief. Perhaps belief in a deity is not enough. Would we need to say that it is necessary to be a Christian, or perhaps a Catholic to appreciate the themes of the book?

This can not be. People from many different backgrounds obviously have a love and appreciation of the writings. Conversely, I can point to friends who are devout Christians, and yet do not feel the magic in the book. Given this, perhaps it would be wiser to leave terms like "spiritual" and "materialist" completely out of the mix. They are imprecise, and have a different meaning for each of us.

It seems to me that the bottom line lies here. Tolkien's writings are filled with themes of goodness, self-sacrifice, and the need to stand up against evil. If a person respects those moral qualities and feels they should stand at the core of life, they are more likely to respond to the characters and story that Tolkien has sketched out. (Please note that I say "more likely" and not that they will respond.) If they do not cherish such themes, they will likely walk away from the book, because it would make no sense for a small Hobbit to give up everything and take on the chore of Ringbearer. Isn't this moral sense more important in determining our response to Tolkien's writings, rather than belief or disbelief in God per se? And I say this as someone for whom belief is personally important.

Davem - I have no doubt that part of Tolkien's desire to write was to bring about improvement, and not just in a literary sense. But I do not think that this was the only motive he had. The thing that strikes me about the man was how very complex his motivations were. In writing Hobbit and LotR, desire to improve the world was there, but so were a host of other influences: love of philology and ancient myths, the father who told bedtime stories to his children, the man who invented languages. The list could go on and on. And Tolkien's views of myth and its relation to theology changed drastically throughout his own life. (That, I think, would make an interesting thread.)

Moreover, a middle-age man does not look at things exactly the same way as he did when he was a young soldier returning from war. The influence and desire to reform the world is still there, but it would most likely be tempered by the more sober realization that change is hard to come by. My guess is that Tolkien was writing for himself rather than for his publishers, or even with the goal of reforming anyone. He was writing because he felt impelled to write, and his values and beliefs do shine through his words, not with the intentional design to convert anyone to a particular religious belief, but because those were the things that he himself held dear. And though he certainly desired a Christian or Catholic revival within Britain, he would have been too humble to claim such a goal openly for himself, at least by the time when he came to write LotR.

As someone who is neither a Catholic or Christian, I feel very comfortable in the pages of Tolkien. And I do see points where a Light shines through. I would perhaps regard that lLght one way, Mark 12_30 another, LMP or Aiwendil still another, and a committed Catholic like Joseph Pearce would see something else. We each bring our own background and experiences to the book, just as Tolkien indicated in his own preface where he discusses applicability. But those differences in perspective do not make any of us 'wrong'.

Tolkien had this amazing gift to go beyond our differences in culture and belief and show us things of goodness that all humans share. He depicted goodness and light in such a way that ,whatever our personal philosophies, each of us can sense the decency and goodness that should stand at the core of our world, and how very difficult it is to achieve that goal. In a world where we spend most of our time agruing over differences (which is surely not what any religion or philosophy asks us to do) , that gift is no small thing.

**************************

Bethberry,

Yes, you are right. Something may be gained from a discussion of views like Greer and the neo-Nazis. (Poor Germain Greer! I've never liked her, but it seems cruel to put her in the same boat as those other folk.)

Yet, I am likely to learn considerably more by reading someone like Flieger or Shippey, whose perception and views on Middle-earth are far more acute.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Addendum to my last post...

I would prefer the term "Light" rather than "Truth" when discussing LotR.

As far as I know, Tolkien never discusses "Truth" in regard to Middle-earth (with a big or little "T"). But there are many allusions to "Light" in the text. I think this term would be far more in keeping with the Middle-earth that JRRT presented to us. "Truth" implies a single correct body of knowledge, while "Light" does not carry that same meaning. It may also involve the reader's perception, an illumination or way of looking at everyday things that makes us see them in a new way.

[Aiwendil]

I'll venture a quick response now, though I'm still interested to see Helen's answers to the questions I raised in my previous post.

We can't simply reduce that to an attempt to reform literature. Its clear they were attempting a much greater kind of 'reform' - the reform of society as a whole. It is an attempt at moral reform of society. They are seeking to 'influence the state of being' of society.

Okay; I suppose I'll concede that this may have been a goal. However:

1. Among the quotes you provided (and in other instances elsewhere) a desire is expressed to effect what is clearly a literary change rather than a social one. E.g., "Tolkien once compared the TCBS to the pre-Raphaelites, probably in response to the Brotherhood's preoccupation with restoring Medieval values in Art" (my emphasis). It is sometimes hard to tell whether in a given instance it is a real societal change that is sought or merely an artistic one. It is also sometimes difficult to distinguish Gilson's, Smith's, and Wiseman's views from Tolkien's.

2. Tolkien's opinion seems likely to have changed - we have statements in the Letters to the effect that he never expected any of his Silmarillion-related work to be enjoyed by anyone but himself (and Lewis); we also have his statement that the mythology grew out of his desire to provide a historical context for the languages he was inventing. And we have his agreement with Lewis that there was not enough fiction of the sort they liked to read, hence they would have to write it.

3. Even supposing something as extreme as that Tolkien thought that the value of literature consisted in its moral effect on the reader, Tolkien need not necessarily have been correct.

I believe it's in "On Faery Stories" that Tolkien discusses the phrase "the green sun". At first glance, this appears to be nonsensical. But no, Tolkien says; the phrase is a perfectly good one - so long as its user provides a thoroughly consistent context within which the phrase is to be believed. In other words, it's not strictly the realism of a work of fiction that matters; it's the believability; the internal consistency.

Tolkien had a sense of what this 'Truth' was, & he was attempting to communicate that, & has succeeded with many readers. Within Middle Earth this Truth exists, God exists,

It sounds, then, like you would, in answer to one of the two questions I posed in my previous post, say that "Truth" does depend critically on the concept of God. I just think we should be clear about this.

It also sounds like you firmly hold that the purpose of Tolkien's work was to communicate this "Truth" to his readers. Is this what you mean? If so, it really begins to sound as if (in your opinion) Tolkien intended to convert people with his work. If not - then what do you suppose the purpose was?

I would speculate that we are responding in that way because that world feels 'right', whereas this world feels 'wrong', that world feels 'true', while there is a sense of 'falseness' about this one - but where does that sense come from? Why, as Lewis asked, would we feel such a strong need for something that doesn't exist? We only feel hungry because food exists, feel sexual desire because sex exists - if those things didn't exist we wouldn't feel desire for them, & their absence wouldn't feel like a lack, wouldn't be painful. So how can we explain the need for meaning, truth, if those things don't exist, & why do we feel that sense of contentment within Middle Earth, where those things are supplied, because they're supplied?

I'll try to respond to this without letting this turn into a theological debate.

Basically, there are two flaws in that reasoning. First, it's a case of reasoning by analogy, which is at best a sort of induction (rather than deduction), which cannot prove anything. Second, it transmutes psychological evidence into a metaphysical conclusion (this is an error that comes up all the time - on both sides - in debates about free will, for example). Psychological evidence alone can never prove a metaphysical point.

But I really want to avoid a theological debate in this thread, so maybe we should cut this off there.

It must exist for itself, & the characters do what they do for their own reasons, which relate solely to their own world, so we can choose to take from that world what we will. But we have to ask ourselves honestly what we are responding to in that world, what needs it is supplying, & why we respond as we do it, & why we choose to take what we do from it.

Here it sounds like you hold that to communicate Truth was not the purpose of Tolkien's work. Does this not contradict your thesis about TCBS's goals?

Why would someone who is an absolute materialist, & finds spiritual, magical, supernatural beauty, goodness (&supernatural evil) to be nothing but silly superstition want to spend time in a world where those things, along with God, & Truth, are 'facts'.

I do not consider spiritualism, magic, supernatural beauty, goodness, or evil to be "silly superstitions".

I consider good and evil to be either absolute rational concepts or human inventions of great societal importance (for my views on moral philosophy see 'The Lord of the Rings' and Philosophy).

I consider beauty (not the supernatural bit) to be a real thing and a concept of great relevance for human psychology and sociology, as well as for art.

I consider magic, spirits, and the supernatural to be non-existent - but not "silly".

I'd have to ask both you & SpM why you are drawn to Middle Earth - is it for 'everything else' you find there, except those things?

You mean for everything but Eru, magic, spirits, etc.? Certainly not (though of course I cannot speak for SpM).

If you feel the poignancy of Frodo's departure, if you cry with pride & awe when Eowyn faces the Lord of the Nazgul, if you respond to the bravery of Beren & Luthien, & the Ofermod displayed by Turin, & are stunned by the Noldor drawing their swords in the light of the first dawn, what are you responding to & why are you responding at all, if not because on some level it feels 'right', & therefore 'true'?

I don't see any reason that those things ought not to affect a person just because that person thinks that they are not "true". I'm sure there are complex psychological (which is to say neurological) reasons that those things are appealing. I do not see why a belief that certain things are "true" (though I must say that I am particularly hard pressed to guess what "true" actually means in this instance) should be a prerequisite for enjoying literature concerning those things. If it were, then wouldn't all those people that like Tolkien dislike the work of any author with a different idea about what "Truth" is. What I mean is that - if the reason I like Tolkien is that I am subconsciously aware that Tolkien's work is "true", why do I also like Isaac Asimov? Or Arthur C. Clarke? Or Douglas Adams? They each had a very different understanding of the "truth".

But I suppose you will still say that my enjoyment or appreciation of Tolkien's work is a result of some subliminal understanding of its transendent Truth; in which case we have come to an impasse. For when you assert something about my subconscious mind, how am I to argue save by denying it? Bethberry makes a good point about the personal evidence provided by Mark12_30 and The Saucepan Man:

So, what happens next in this kind or form of argument?

And I think more or less the same thing can be asked here.

Sorry that this became another longish one.

[davem]

Bethberry
Quote:
davem, you seem to suggest--and I have seen it stated elsewhere here in discussion on the Barrow Downs--that materialists have no moral or ethical basis, cannot differentiate good and evil, cannot ascribe to the belief in beauty and spirituality.

I didn't intend to suggest that. I would ask what their standard is, by which they measure such things - isn't it from some innate sense of right & wrong, of false & 'True'? They hold to some 'ideal' of how things should be, & compare things as they are to that 'ideal'.

I don't think it is possible to define 'Truth' precisely, because we haven't reached the that 'state'. If there's anything in my idea of a 'harmonic' relationship between enchantment, eucatastrophe & Truth, that enchantment is the same thing as eucatastrophe but on a 'lower' level, & that Truth is the 'highest' harmonic, then enchantment is what we feel when we are initially exposed to 'Truth', we move forward in stages. I have to admit that I'm adapting some qabalistic concepts here into literary theory. Or perhaps we can bring in the idea of the three tier universe which we find in the Divine Comedy - Heaven/Truth 'reflecting' down through Purgatory/Eucatastrophe to 'Hell'/enchantment - by which I mean ones first experience of a 'mythological' otherworld - not a 'good' or pleasant enchantment, but an overwhelmingly powerful one. I would speculate that the form 'enchantment' takes, what exactly enchants us, & how, is down to the individual.

There is no requirement that 'enchantment' be pleasant or morally 'good' to be effective. Even in Hell, Dante encounters beauty & sadness & loss, but at the end he passes into the eucatastrophic experience of Purgatory, beyond which he encounters 'Truth', the Love that moves the Sun & the other Stars'.

In LotR we are exposed to enchantment, & opened up to the experience of Eucatastrophe, which in turn points us towards something else, the highest 'harmonic', or Truth. We are taken from the earth, the world of everyday materiality, to the 'Lunar' world, the world of Dream & fantasy - as with Astolpho's visit to the Moon in Orlando Furioso, which is Faery, the world of enchantment. We move on to the Solar world, of light, closer to the Truth, the source of the moonlight, which is the eucatatastrophic experience, & finally onto the 'stellar' world of 'Heaven'.

But to leave Dante & the medieval visionaries & return to Tolkien (as he would probably have wished, knowing his feelings on both Dante & Ariosto).

We don't have to know Tolkien's intentions for his stories to work on us - they can work on us in the way he intended even if we aren't aware of them. When we read his reasons & his explanations for what he wrote, we are as likely to respond by thinking 'Of course! that explains what I felt!' as we are to respond 'Why, that's not it at all! I never felt that!' I would say that the former response is more common.

Aiwendil, when you quote me:

It must exist for itself, & the characters do what they do for their own reasons, which relate solely to their own world, so we can choose to take from that world what we will. But we have to ask ourselves honestly what we are responding to in that world, what needs it is supplying, & why we respond as we do it, & why we choose to take what we do from it.

& respond:

Here it sounds like you hold that to communicate Truth was not the purpose of Tolkien's work. Does this not contradict your thesis about TCBS's goals?

I don't think I am. For the enchantment to work, the secondary world must be self contained, if it is not to come across as allegory & the spell fail to be cast effectively. Only in that 'enchanted' state can we fully experience eucatastrophe, when as Helen says, our guard is down. And the eucatasatrophic experience reveals something beyond itself. So, its impossible for me, Helen, or anyone to give you a precise, scientifically provable definition of 'Truth' here in the Primary world, because you're two stages away from it. I can explain 'enchantment', perhaps, or offer you the means to experience it - reading a particular book might help you experience enchantment. If that works, & you are sufficiently enchanted, you will be opened up to the eucatastrophic experience, which in turn will enable you to glimpse, far off, something else, but you can't see that 'something else' directly from here - its on the other side of the Mountains, yet you can see the 'Light' of it reflected through different forms/experiences.

Niggle cannot concieve of what lies over the Mountains from his shed. But in there he has a glimpse of a Tree, & sets out to paint it. He becomes enchanted. Then, when he
suddenly sees the REAL Tree (REAL, though not of this world - actually MORE real than any tree in this world) he experiences eucatastrophe, a glimpse that there is another kind of reality. Both the Workhouse & his time in Niggle's Parish are equivalent to Purgatory, but his glimpse of the Mountains leads him on to what lies beyond them. The point is, whatever lies beyond them can only be known once he has crossed over, not before. Niggle in his shed, painting his picture, could not know, let alone define whats on the other side. All he can know at that time is the Tree
he is trying to paint. Before he was enchanted by his vision he simply could not know or experience eucatastrophe, let alone give you or anyone else (including himself) a precise definition of it - he may not even have believed in it. But through enchantment he is able to be opened up to the eucatastrophic experience of the real Tree, & the Mountains beyond, which is what inspires him to seek out the way over them.

I can't explain it - we see 'as in a glass, darkly'. Meister Eckhart wrote that 'if we could see even a flower as it has its being in God, this would be greater than the whole world'.

I'm not interested in converting anyone to anything. I'm not a Christian, or a follower of any specific belief or religion, but I've always had a sense of there being 'something' more, which for the sake of convenience, I'll call Truth, because its more 'real' than this 'primary' world as far as I'm concerned. There's a great danger in overvaluing our rational, scienific world & dismissing the past, & 'primitive' beliefs. As someone once pointed out, we talk a lot about the 'ignorant past', but we're currently living in what our decendents will think of as the 'ignorant past'. People have always, at least up to recent times, believed in some ultimate Truth, some organising principle to the universe - they've even believed in fairies, & enchantment - even if they couldn't produce scientific evidence for them. I hold to what Chesterton called the Democracy of the Dead: 'Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the Democracy of the Dead. Democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; Tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death.'

So as far as Tolkien is concerned: I won't rule out his opinion just because he happens to be dead, because thats undemocratic. He may not be right, but he has a right not to be ignored, & the same goes for Rob Gilson & GB Smith. Universal Sufferage, guys! The Legendarium was Tolkien's manifesto, & it means what he intended it to mean, & while we may take from it what we will, or reject it all entirely, we can't claim it means nothing at all, & was not intended to do what the writer has stated clearly it was meant to do. I just can't see how anyone can seperate the story from its meaning, or claim it means whatever they choose it to mean. Tolkien is the only one who can claim the Humpty Dumpty role here -'when I use a word it means precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less'

(Well, I''m trying for the longest ever post without being boring - I think I'm on track with the first part)

[Lyta_Underhill]

Aiwendil’s 2nd question post 261:

If "Truth" means, as I guessed before, something like "God", "heaven", "the divine plan", etc., and if a glimpse of this Truth is a critical part of your theory, where does that leave non-religious readers (like me)?

Forgive me for jumping in here from the wild blue yonder once again, but, as I promised, I am trying to catch up! Per Aiwendil’s question number 2 quoted above, I do not believe that there is one single Truth that is the be all and end all of all inquiry into “true” things. When I read Tolkien’s works, I see myriad truths, all pointing to his authorly attempts to communicate his own aesthetic. This, I would agree with Aiwendil and SpM’s assessments of good storytelling, along with a peculiarly individual atmospheric that owes its effects to Tolkien’s storytelling skill and thus, by extension, to his translation of all that drives him, his own “truths,” or the TCBSian ethic, as davem related earlier.


SpM post 262:

It implies that the reader has failed if they do not see in the text exactly what the author intended them to see. It suggests that they have read the book “wrongly” in some way, even though they may have enjoyed it immensely, been incredibly moved by it and perhaps even found it applicable to them in a way that the author did not intend

I think that many people get worried that they are “not getting it” when they read something that, nevertheless, moves them in a way that is different from those around them. This doesn’t IMO, mean that the person’s reading is necessarily inferior. The fact that the reader stepped onto the path and allowed Tolkien to lead them through Middle Earth on a perilous journey, speaks to enrichment beyond what they would have had had they not plunged in (i.e., a 'rousing good story'). At the risk of speaking in parables, I’ll relate something in my own life that I believe might have applicability to this question:

For two years (sadly I’ve fallen off), I practiced martial arts with a group, and there was a ritual at the beginning of every training session. We would sit upon our knees and utter “Shiken haramitsu daikomyo!” clap twice, then bow to the ground and clap once again. (The translation from the Japanese is roughly “May the light of ten thousand suns enter into me with my next breath.” ) It is a plea for enlightenment, and there is a meaning to the ritual of claps thereafter that, I was assured, was simple and plain for those to see who would. I studied the entire two years without EVER getting it, nor have I gotten it since. My husband got it right away, and, at my request, has never told it to me. If anyone here knows it, I also request you don’t tell me. I do not labor under the misconception that this simple truth is something that I MUST learn, but it is something that will be revealed to me if I end up needing it someday, or if a proper ray of light hits my slow brain. As Helen said earlier, "Look, or don't look."

The mistake, I think that some people make, is that once they hear there is a truth that is buried in a text or situation, they either MUST find it or dismiss it utterly. For me, it is sufficient to accept there are many truths that are beyond me or simply not applicable to me. Those that are applicable and are reflected properly into my eyes and brain by Tolkien’s works, enrich me beyond my capability of speech, but this is the sign of a good work. Every time I return to it, I see beauties and truths reflected through his words, and I know there are more to be seen if I look properly. Some others on this thread have expressed the desire NOT to know everything, so I think they know what I am trying, stumblingly so, to get across in my ramblings.

That all having been said, I am almost caught up now, but I figured it was better to speak than have to wait until late tonight or tomorrow, when I’ll get the time to read the rest of it; but rest assured, I will catch up! Until then,

Cheers!
Lyta

[The Saucepan Man]

OK, a bit of catching up to do. But I’ll try my best.

Helen

However, I will (for the sake of peace, which I like, and argument, which I would far rather avoid) state that when I use the word Truth, with a capital T, I refer-- loosely-- to all that is true in a permanent sense.

Well, that’s fine when we are talking about facts which can be objectively proved (like 2+2=4). My problem with the word in the sense that it is being used here is that it also encompasses concepts which cannot be proved, and which different people will view differently. Of those who believe in a God, for example, different people have different conceptions of what God is and how he (or she or they) should be worshipped. Morality too changes over time and will vary from one society to another, and also from one individual to another. I differ, for example, from a sizeable minority (if not a majority) of my fellow citizens in the UK in believing that it is wrong to take someone’s life in consequence of their commission of a serious crime such as murder.

I do agree that there are values (moral or otherwise) that a majority of people will happily subscribe to (although it does not follow that they are necessarily divine in origin). But no one will have precisely the same set of values. They will differ (often slightly, sometimes considerably) from person to person. And that’s why I have difficulty in accepting that there is a single, capitalised “Truth”. I would prefer to say that there are absolute truths (those which can be objectively proved), truths which the majority can subscribe to (for example, much of what we might describe as morality), minority truths (subscribed to by only a section of society, such as beliefs unique to a particular religion) and individual truths (one’s own personal and unique beliefs). Any one person’s “truth” is a mix of all of these things and, looked at in this way, no one person (Tolkien included) has a monopoly on the “truth” such that it should be regarded as a single, capitalised concept. As Saraphim said:

This elusive, mysteriously capitalized noun is different for everyone, and no one person will find or see it in the same way, for the obvious reason that everyone is different themselves.

But that, to me, says that it cannot be a capitalised noun as if it were the same for everybody if only they would realise it. Rather, every person’s “truth” is individual to them, although they will share aspects of it with others, some with a minority, some with a majority and some (absolute, quantifiable truths) with everybody.

Interesting, Saucie; I have the exact opposite impression.

I don’t dispute that Tolkien’s works have the various effects that you have stated. Nor would I disagree that aspects of what Tolkien would describe as his “truth” (the value of friendship and the ennoblement of the humble, for example) will resonate, to varying degrees, with all that read and enjoy his tales. That is why they (we) enjoy them so much. But I would disagree (and, as Bêthberry says, this is perhaps where we reach an impasse) that the majority of people who read the books find their lives changed by them in any profound way. And, while (if it is the case that he was, at least in part, seeking to promote his own truths within his writings, the case for which I now see as compelling) this might cause Tolkien some personal disappointment, I think that he would recognise that not every “truth” which he subscribed to will resonate with everyone and content himself with people finding their own “truths” within his works.

davem

So, before we can ask 'the Book or the Reader' we must understand what Tolkien was attempting to do with the book, whether he had any message that he wanted to communicate.

But if this is how we approach it, then the answer will always be “the Book” because the individual’s own interpretation will be secondary to what the author was trying to achieve. Save to the extent that they are explicit or implicit in his text, however, I do not see the author’s intentions as automatically having any bearing on the reader’s enjoyment of the book. They will only be relevant to the reader if the reader wants them to be. But, if he or she does not want them to be, then (as I keep saying) that cannot devalue their own personal experience of the book. Nor can it, by itself, make them “wrong” in any way in their approach to the book.

So as far as Tolkien is concerned: I won't rule out his opinion just because he happens to be dead, because thats undemocratic.

Nor will I. But, I won’t force anyone to accept it, as that too would be undemocratic.

As to whether we pick up on his values, or simply choose our own & take from his writings only what confirms our existing beliefs - well, clearly many do, & that doesn't make them 'wrong', but Helen has shown that many readers, who know nothing of that philosophy do pick up on it & are affected by it to the extent that they change their own moral stance as a result of reading it.

Yes, there are clearly many readers who are affected in this way. But, as I said, I would not put them in the majority. And, as you say, those who aren’t so affected cannot be categorised as “wrong”.

I would speculate that we are responding in that way because that world feels 'right', whereas this world feels 'wrong', that world feels 'true', while there is a sense of 'falseness' about this one - but where does that sense come from?

I would contest that there are many who regard Middle-earth as “true” and their own world as somehow “false”. By definition, Middle-earth is a fictional world, and therefore false, whereas we are confronted every day (often in unpleasant ways) with the reality of our own world. Middle-earth may seem real while we are engrossed in the story, in consequence of the story-teller’s skill and its internal consistency, but it remains a fiction when we put it down. I do of course agree that there are values enshrined within his works which will (to varying degrees) resonate with his readers, and which they may find applicable to their own lives. Of course that’s the case. Otherwise we readers would not enjoy the stories so much. But that’s a very long way from saying that every reader will necessarily accept every value enshrined within Tolkien’s works as true to their own life whether they realise it or not. We do not have to believe in the existence of God in our own world to accept the existence of the fictional character of Eru in Tolkien’s writings.

Why would someone who has rejected the spiritual dimension of life in this world choose to willingly frequent a world where the spiritual dimension is so much to the fore?

To follow your argument to its extreme, we could not appreciate Tolkien’s works unless we recognised Eru as our own God and accepted the creation story as laid out in the Silmarillion as fact. At the very least, we would (as Child points out) have to subscribe to Tolkien’s own religious beliefs in order to enjoy his stories. Yet, there are very few who read and enjoy his works (even among Christians) who subscribe to his particular set of beliefs.

Why would someone who is an absolute materialist, & finds spiritual, magical, supernatural beauty, goodness (&supernatural evil) to be nothing but silly superstition want to spend time in a world where those things, along with God, & Truth, are 'facts'. Surely, someone with that worldview would find Middle Earth stupid, offensive & wrong?

I'd have to ask both you & SpM why you are drawn to Middle Earth

I have never said that there is no spiritual aspect to my beliefs. There is much within Tolkien’s writings that accord with my own personal “truth”. And, just because I may not accept magical and supernatural concepts as true in my world, it does not follow that I find them silly and offensive. Moreover, even were I an atheist, I do not see why I should not enjoy Tolkien’s stories. As Bêthberry and Child point out, the fact that someone is an atheist does not preclude them from having moral values, from perceiving the difference between good and evil or from valuing qualities such as friendship, loyalty, courage and heroism. And it does not prevent them from recognising and appreciating such concepts within Tolkien’s works.

I didn't intend to suggest that. I would ask what their standard is, by which they measure such things - isn't it from some innate sense of right & wrong, of false & 'True'? They hold to some 'ideal' of how things should be, & compare things as they are to that 'ideal'.

There are, as Aiwendil points out, a great many reasons why people should respond to the kinds of values that we are talking about that do not involve any belief (or an specific form of belief) in the existence of God in our world.

Child

I have no doubt that part of Tolkien's desire to write was to bring about improvement, and not just in a literary sense. But I do not think that this was the only motive he had.

I am certainly persuaded that Tolkien desired to promote his own beliefs through his writing. And, as I hope is clear from what I have said, I believe that he has succeeded in touching a great many people who have found many of those beliefs to correspond to their own values, regardless of any particular belief-system that they may adhere to. And I accept that there are no doubt some (albeit I believe that they are in the minority) whose beliefs and values have changed in some significant way as a result of reading his works. But I would certainly agree that this desire to promote his beliefs was not his only motivation. The interests and experiences that you list all had a significant influence on his writing, in addition to his religious beliefs. And he was influenced also by his publishers and his readership. Had the Hobbit not been published and led to an outcry for a sequel, it is quite likely that LotR would never have been written, at least not in the form that we know it. In writing it, he must have been influenced by the recognition that it would have to “past muster” with the requirements of his publishers and the desires of those readers who had responded so favourably to the Hobbit. To a degree, therefore, he was writing it to satisfy them, although of course it had to satisfy him also.

Lyta

I think that many people get worried that they are “not getting it” when they read something that, nevertheless, moves them in a way that is different from those around them.

I am not sure that this concerns the majority of readers, who simply get on with reading the book and responding to it in whatever way feels right. My concern, though, is that if we say that there is a “Truth” in Tolkien’s works and that if you cannot see it then you are not reading it correctly or you are not ready for the “Truth”, then we will engender just such a worry in people. And that is something which I would not like to see. (It may be different for martial arts, as the teachings that they involve have a very specific purpose. Literature, to me, is a very different kettle of fish.)

Well, if the posts of others were long, then this one is ridiculously so. If you are still with me, I apologise.

[davem]

'Truth' seems to have become an issue - is there such a thing as an objective standard, or value?

Lewis wrote a book on the subject - The Abolition of Man - Quote (refering to Coleridge's response to two people, a woman who said it was 'pretty' & a man who said it was 'sublime'.)

'The reason why Coleridge agreed with the tourist who called the cataract sublime & disagreed with the one who called it pretty was of couse that he believed inanimate nature to be such that certain responses could be more 'just' or 'ordinate' or 'appropriate' to it than others. And he believed (correctly) that the tourists thought the same. The man who described the cataract as sublime was not intending simply to describe his own emotions about it: he was also claiming that the object was one which merited those emotions. But for this claim there would be nothing to agree or disagree about. To disagree with This is pretty if those words simply described the lady's feelings, would be absurd: if she had said I feel sick Coleridge would hardly have replied No; I feel quite well.

He goes on:

The chinese also speak of a great thing (the greatest thing) called the Tao. It is the reality beyond all ppredicates, the abyss that was before the Creator Himself. it is Nature, it is the Way, it is the Road. It is the way in which the Universe goes on, the Way in which things everlastingly emerge, stilly & tranquilly, into Space & Time. It is also the Way in which every man should tread in imitation of that cosmic & supercosmic progression, conforming all activities to that great exemplar.... It is the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true & others really false, to the kind of theing the universe is, & the kind of things we are...And because our approvals & disapprovals are thus recognitions of objective value or responses to an objective order, therefore emotional states can be in harmony with reason... or out of harmoony with reason. No emotion is, in itself, a judgement; in that sense all emotions & sentiments are alogical. But they can be reasonable or unreasonable as they conform to Reason or fail to conform.

This thing which I have called for convenience Tao & which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgements. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained.

But you cannot go on 'explaining away' forever: you will find you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on 'seeing through' things forever. the whole point of seeing through somethiing is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.'

I still feel that you & Aiwendil are wanting 'Truth' reduced to a set of 'facts' which you can analyse & 'see through', rather than accepting that is the 'source' of 'facts' as well as everything else. We cannot see through the Mountains to what's beyond. We have to climb over them in order to see what's there.

Forget 'Truth' if you want & call it Tao as Lewis does. I can't help feeling that you are running scared of a belief - that if you were to accept that 'Truth' is 'real' then you would have to put down your Tolkien, pick up a Bible & head off to Church. Its not like that. Its simply about there being more going on that you can see, or that some 'scientific' theory can explain.

If you experience what Tolkien called 'enchantment' through his works, & because of that experience what he calls 'Eucatastrophe', you are glimpsing 'something', which can't be quantified & reduced to logical statements, only felt - a 'fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the Walls of the World, poignant as grief'....In such stories when the sudden 'turn' comes we get a piercing glimpse of joy, & heart's desire, that for a moment passes outside the frame, rends indeed the very web of story, & lets a gleam come through.'

So, if you don't like 'Truth', & don't want to follow Lewis's use of Tao, call it 'Joy'.

'And all the Host laughed & wept, & in the midst of their merriment & tears the clear voice of the minstrel rose like silver & gold, & all men were hushed. And he sang to them, now in the Elven-tongue, now in the speech of the West, until their hearts, wounded with sweet words, overflowed, & their joy was like swords, & they passed in thought out to regions where pain & delight flow together & tears are the very wine of blessedness.'

Ain't that the 'Truth'?

[HerenIstarion]

davem for president! Or, another 'well said' for you (pity I can't rate it, as 20 persons haven't passed me yet)

But I sense your own opinion changed, davem, and I believe to the more right direction (me still holding there are more/less right interpretations out there). To quote HP's Gryffindor students:

'davem is our King (Queen?),
davem is our King,
He (she?) didn't let the Falsehood in,
davem is our King

Excuse this disgraceful bit of foolery on my part, but you came close to what I believe to be true but am not able to express as punctually as you do, probably due to pitiable lack of language-mastery

I can't help feeling that you are running scared of a belief - that if you were to accept that 'Truth' is 'real' then you would have to put down your Tolkien, pick up a Bible & head off to Church.

Now I can't help feeling that was a bit unfair, though

[The Saucepan Man]

I still feel that you & Aiwendil are wanting 'Truth' reduced to a set of 'facts' which you can analyse & 'see through', rather than accepting that is the 'source' of 'facts' as well as everything else.

On the contrary, I accept that truth cannot be reduced to a set of facts. The very essence of what I am saying is that truth is often intensely personal and cannot be analysed and objectively judged “right” or “wrong”. What I am resisting is the reduction of these individual truths to a single “Truth” which we all must subscribe to whether we like it or not. I, for one, would not like to live in a world where there was only one “correct” set of values, beliefs and interpretations (which we either see or we don't see) since, in its purest form (when all "see the light"), that world would require us all to think alike. If, for example, there were “correct” and “incorrect” emotional reactions, as the article by Lewis which you quote suggests, then I would dread the day when we all found the “correct” response. The world would be a very dull place indeed if we were all responding emotionally to things in the same way.

I can't help feeling that you are running scared of a belief - that if you were to accept that 'Truth' is 'real' then you would have to put down your Tolkien, pick up a Bible & head off to Church.

I am not at all scared of belief. I have my own beliefs, with which I am comfortable. They are no doubt very similar to yours and many others posting here in very many ways. But they are personal to me, and I do not expect others to accept them as the “Truth”, or even their truth. They are simply my truth.

But really, I do think that my personal beliefs have very little to do with the issues under discussion, save to illustrate that we all respond differently (to a greater or lesser degree) to Tolkien’s works, something which I firmly believe we should be entitled to do without being told that we are somehow missing something.

[HerenIstarion]

by SpM

What I am resisting is the reduction of these individual truths to a single “Truth” which we all must subscribe to whether we like it or not

Dangerous ground, that. Should we judge the truth of the maxim of 'murder (not war killing, or accident, but deliberate murder) is bad' on the ground that murderer him/herself, perhaps, has different code of conduct which carries along his/her personal truth of "murder is good"?

[mark12_30]

Heren Istarion wrote:

Now I can't help feeling that was a bit unfair, though

H-I, I'm trying to figure out why, and to whom.

Given one of davem's previous statements:

I'm not interested in converting anyone to anything. I'm not a Christian, or a follower of any specific belief or religion

compared with this

I can't help feeling that you are running scared of a belief - that if you were to accept that 'Truth' is 'real' then you would have to put down your Tolkien, pick up a Bible & head off to Church.

...I'm not sure what davem is getting at. But a little red flag does go up, for me, since using that phrasing would have landed me in a cauldron, and so I instinctively re-phrase it. It looks to me (correct me if I'm wrong, davem) that what davem is getting at, is that if one is faced with accepting or rejecting Something (such as, but not limited to, "there is such a thing as absolute truth", ) one visceral reaction often seen in various individuals is essentially, if I choose to accept "this" then I must change (either a set of behaviors or a way of life) and I do not wish to change.

davem, would you agree or disagree with this rewording?

[HerenIstarion]

Heren Istarion wrote:

H-I, I'm trying to figure out why, and to whom.

To Aiwendil and Saucepan Man. The statement was speculative (and in personal way at that), we can not judge what both of them fear or anticipate, unless they explicitly tell us so. And though Aiwendil admitted being an atheist, but that does not lead to that he fears to believe if argued into it by means of reason (he seems the type for such a way to me - now me being speculating in personal way, hum), but it does not follow he is scared. Nor are we their analysts, neither them our patients. Would not it be equally unfair of them to tell us that we were afraid to admit the harsh 'reality' of Godless world and were trying to find sort of a blindfold in religion to sooth our fear?

I hope that no one gets offended by this particular entry of mine, though

[mark12_30]

OK, point taken.