The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

[littlemanpoet]

Tolkien asserted that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy.... or something to that effect (I may not have this worded or remembered quite right).

It certainly works very well in LotR. It was one of his primary criticisms of the works of C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams (fellow "inklings").

Do you agree or disagree that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy?

What were Tolkien's reasons for discluding them? Which reasons were valid back when he wrote? Are they still valid now?

[Son of Númenor]

Tolkien's assertion about emblems of religion having no place in fantasy could be linked to his dislike for allegory. Fantasy, Tolkien deemed, should have the ultimate purpose of lifting its reader to 'eucatastrophe' -- something along the lines of a state of pure revelation and joy. It would be hard for readers of different faiths to attain such a state with overtly Christian (or Muslim, Jewish, etc.) symbolism penetrating the narrative. I for one agree with Professor Tolkien; if Arwen's banner for Aragorn had a cross emblazoned on it, or if Gondor's seven stars were Stars of David, I think I would be automatically inclined to view Middle-earth as an allegorical rather than a purely fantastic world, and its purpose as evangelical rather than eucatastrophic.

[Formendacil]

Well, another thing to note along these lines is Tolkien's assertion that the LotR was Christian, unconsciously so in the making, consciously so the revision.

How could an epic, purported to be set deep in the years B.C., contain Christian symbolism while still maintaining its cohesiveness with real history?

I admit that this doesn't necessary work for other fantasy stories, but it certainly seems to apply to the Lord of the Rings.

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien said LotR was "a fundamentally Catholic work". And by that I see not that it reproduced the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, for that the reader has to turn to other writers, but it reflects certain parts of that faith - perhaps the Valar/Maiar could be seen as versions of saints or angels in a fundamentally ordered, yet very different universe.

LotR does not deny God, so it is not an atheistic or agnostic work. But is it a secular work? Whether Tolkien wanted to exclude symbols of religion or not, they are still to be found in his work. I think this is due in no small part to the fact that many of those symbols, getting away from the obvious ones such as the crucifix or crescent moon, are ingrained within us; archetypes might be the correct term . As just one example we have the semi-Trickster figures recently discussed. Or a link can be drawn between Galadriel and Brigid, with the significance of water common to both. I think religions take powerful or familiar symbols from the world about us (or from worlds that were once about us) and make use of them; it is inevitable that Tolkien would have unwittingly/unconsciously used some the less obvious symbols.

I can see exactly why Tolkien would not want to include the more overt symbols of religion in his work. He was creating his own world and those symbols would not belong there as this world would need its own significant symbols, such as the Star of Earendil. Any overt images would make his work not fantasy but something different.

[Mithalwen]

While I basically agree with Formendacil, I would make a caveat only because of his choice of vocab.... emblems would be incoherent but symbolism does slip in. However only in that certain things have a certain "obvious" symbolism that have been utilised by Christianity but equally also by other belief systems. For example trees have a role in Christian symbolism but are not an exclusively Christian emblem and so it does not jar that The White Tree is symbolic of the rejuvenation of Gondor. Hope this makes sense - I know what I mean but I am not sure I am conveying it.

[alatar]

If Tolkien were to have placed overt 'emblems of religion' in his works, then he would have to contend with many more problems than just creating a massive fantasy world along with great stories that appear therein. Was the coronation of Aragorn BCE or CE? What religion were the Southrons? Did he portray a particular religion accurately in that there are different versions/sects of Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam, etc?

Would people then see his work as a religious screed - just a cart to carry a religious message and therefore having no value to those not interested in (1) that religion, or (2) any religion? As stated, his intent was not to proselytize - at least overtly - but to entertain. This actually may be a more effective evangelizing method in that more readers are drawn to the works, and those so inclined (or hooked) may read more about Tolkien's life, and also may start looking in to his religious philosophy...

One of the many reasons that I enjoy the Tolkien world is that I can see it as 'history.' If you look at the maps, you can see how we could get to the present day Earth (with some mental gymnastics, of course). Also one assumes that information at the LOTR time was less accurately gathered/archived than when using modern technology. I can fit the 'other history' (some not posting to this site may call it reality ) that I learned in with the Tolkien one as JRRT did not 'timestamp' his by using icons or direct references to real history. It's up to me and my imagination (and culture, I assume) to work out the details...like the Numenorians could have been mistaken for the Phoenicians, and obviously Numenor is Atlantis...

Again, he is leaving the possibility open that what went on in the rest of the world still took place, but in his corner of the world, this is how it was.

[Lindolirian]

The solemn ceremonies on Meneltarma seem to exemplify what ever religious events might take place in Arda. It was a very sacred event, in which no one was permitted to speak (except the King), all wore pure white ceremonial robes and the emissaries of Manwë never failed to appear (that is until the practices were abandoned). Also the Standing Silence, on the surface, is a tribute to the memory of Numenor, but could easily be construed as a memorial to those sacred thanksgivings to Iluvatar. These are some examples of emblems of religion but Tolkien did, however, keep religion and worship in the background in his stories rather than as a driving force as it was in the history of our world.

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, everyone, for your well considered replies. It's been enjoyable reading.

I for one agree with Professor Tolkien; if Arwen's banner for Aragorn had a cross emblazoned on it, or if Gondor's seven stars were Stars of David, I think I would be automatically inclined to view Middle-earth as an allegorical rather than a purely fantastic world, and its purpose as evangelical rather than eucatastrophic.

Well said, Son of Númenor. I think that this was in part Tolkien's criticism of C.S. Lewis's Narnia Chronicles.

How could an epic, purported to be set deep in the years B.C., contain Christian symbolism while still maintaining its cohesiveness with real history?

Formendacil, there is much in Tolkien's Letters that deals directly with this (I looked it up in the index under "Religion".) From Letter 156, discussing Gandalf's return:

...I have purposely kept all allusions to the highest matters down to mere hints, perceptible only by the most attentive, or kept them under unexplained symbolic forms. So God and the 'angelic' gods, the Lords or Powers of the West, only peep through in such places as Gandalf's conversation with Frodo: 'behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker's; or in Faramir's Númenórean grace at dinner.

Elsewhere in the Letters he refers to Númenór as the one place where religious practice was clearly portrayed. As a note to the same Letter 156, Tolkien writes,

The Elves often called on Varda-Elbereth, the Queen of the Blessed Realm, their especial friend; and so does Frodo.

Note that Frodo is the most Elvish of the hobbits. There is an obvious connection between Varda, and Mary the Mother of God.

So the answer to your question, Formendacil, is "very carefully". But there it is: Tolkien pulled it off.

...it is inevitable that Tolkien would have unwittingly/unconsciously used some the less obvious symbols.

I'm sure, Lalwendë, that you must be right. Still, I never cease to be astounded, in reading the Letters, how much is in LotR that Tolkien was quite conscious about including, not least of all, archetypes.

...trees have a role in Christian symbolism but are not an exclusively Christian emblem and so it does not jar that The White Tree is symbolic of the rejuvenation of Gondor.

In reading that book that mentioned the Trickster, Mithalwen, I discovered that the Tree of Life is a common theme throughout mythologies ranging from the Mayan to the Oriental to the Semitic to the northwestern European. I guess that makes it a pretty powerful archetype. Tolkien did love trees, and understood archetypes.

As stated, his intent was not to proselytize - at least overtly - but to entertain. This actually may be a more effective evangelizing method in that more readers are drawn to the works, and those so inclined (or hooked) may read more about Tolkien's life, and also may start looking in to his religious philosophy...

Alatar, you are coming quite close to persuading me.

I would think that putting a religious symbol would wrench the reader from the suspended state of disbelief back into this world.

Thanks, Imladris, for including this concept from a writer's point of view. I certainly appreciate all that has been offered from the valuable readers' points of view, but this was particularly what I needed to be reminded of. Thanks again, Immy.

I think that is why Till We have Faces is more mythic than say, The Chronicles of Narnia I don't recall any religious symbol (such as Aslan), yet it was by far more powerful than Chronicles of Narnia.

I am in agreement, Imladris.

Just to clear up the issue of belief in myths, early folk of every culture did actually believe their myths. It was the growth of abstract thought in each culture (or a more effective religion) that caused doubt regarding the myths; as in, "hey, the world doesn't really work like that; I've found a more empiric explanation; the myth must be wrong". For example, Plato didn't believe the myths were true, but believed they should be taught for their moral value.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

Still, I never cease to be astounded, in reading the Letters, how much is in LotR that Tolkien was quite conscious about including, not least of all, archetypes.

Well, there are 'archetypal images & symbols in Tolkien's work, but I wonder how many were deliberately used, or how conscious Tolkien was of waht he was doing while he was doing it. The letters show he was aware of the symbolism of the work, but often I get the sense that he was only aware of it after the fact - ie, when he had gone back to the books as a reader & critic himself. It seems plain that what he writes in some of the letters is in response to reader's enquiries & its almost as if he is discovering the 'meaning' of the stories & images only then.

Just to clear up the issue of belief in myths, early folk of every culture did actually believe their myths. It was the growth of abstract thought in each culture (or a more effective religion) that caused doubt regarding the myths; as in, "hey, the world doesn't really work like that; I've found a more empiric explanation; the myth must be wrong". For example, Plato didn't believe the myths were true, but believed they should be taught for their moral value.

I'm not sure its as simple as that. There were many reasons for a change in religious belief. Its quite clear that in the 'Dark Ages' the change over from Paganism to Christianity wasn't due to individuals taking such a rational approach. Missionaries 'targetted' the Royal courts because they knew that once they had converted the ruler the people would follow - either out of allegiance or fear of the consequences of not doing so. The 'Pagan' religions were quite as complex & capable of explaining the nature of the world & the human experience as Christianity. The 'explanation' offered by Christianity was hardly more 'empiric' than the ones offered by the Druids, Stoics, Epicureans, Manichaeans. In short, Christianity came to dominate over Paganism not because it offered a 'better' account of the world, but because, after Constantine, it became increasingly dangerous not to be a Christian.

Anyway, to the point of the thread - I think Tolkien was right. The emblems of religion do not belong in fantasy... but 'spiritual' emblems & symbols will inevitably be present. They will be used either intentionally or unconsciously because they are the stuff of Faerie Tale, Legend & Myth. If used deliberately the result will usually feel 'false' - as with the Narnia books, or the fantasies of a Christian proseletizer like Stephen Lawhead. We will feel 'preached at' & look elsewhere. If (as I feel happened in Tolkien's case) the story 'arises' from a place 'external' to the writer's consciousness (either the Collective Unconscious, realm of the Archtypes, or somewhere more mysterious) then the result will feel 'real', because the archetypal/spiritual symbols will 'behave' & 'interact (if you understand me) 'naturally' - ie according to their nature.

Ok, I have to qualify that last statement. Tolkien did 'manipulate' the pure archetypes/symbols that appeared in his works, but certainly not to the degree that the other two writers I mentioned did. I think the difference was that with Tolkien the story with its symbols arose first & he merely 'adapted' it to the extent that he felt necessary such that it would not offend his own religious & moral sensibilities, wheras Lewis & Lawhead (the later in particular) seem to have decided that they would make use of archetypal/spiritual symbols in order to proseletize. They are using the symbols, not letting them 'come through'.

The result of this is that those symbols fail to work on us on any deep level, because the 'symbols' have become merely 'signs', the parable merely 'allegory'. What I mean by that is that symbols are (as Jung pointed out) alive with meaning, which cannot be fully or cmpletely expressed. They are effectively like 'windows' onto a deeper reality (or a deeper experience of this reality), whereas 'signs' merely 'signify' something specific - A=B. Thus 'Aslan is Christ disguised in such a way as to make him understandable to children. Gandalf, on the other hand - & especially in LotR, where we are not given an account of his back story - is a figure of mystery. Aslan is a 'sign', Gandalf is a 'symbol'.

So, I see two reasons for Tolkien being right here. One, that (as has been stated) overt use of the emblems of any current or known religious tradition would pull us out of the secondary world into the primary one & 'break the spell', & two, that such overt usage would turn the 'emblems' used from symbols to signs, & make the work into an obvious allegory, rather than a 'parable'.

Or something like that.......

[littlemanpoet]

Just for the sake of discussion, I'm preparing to plasy "Lewis and Lawhead Advocate"; I'm not ready yet.

But there is one point of contention that I'd like to pursue right now.

I'm not sure its as simple as that.

Missionaries 'targetted' the Royal courts because they knew that once they had converted the ruler the people would follow - either out of allegiance or fear of the consequences of not doing so. The 'Pagan' religions were quite as complex & capable of explaining the nature of the world & the human experience as Christianity. The 'explanation' offered by Christianity was hardly more 'empiric' than the ones offered by the Druids, Stoics, Epicureans, Manichaeans. In short, Christianity came to dominate over Paganism not because it offered a 'better' account of the world, but because, after Constantine, it became increasingly dangerous not to be a Christian.

Nor is it quite as simple as that.

In many of the instances of mass conversion, missionaries cut down the sacred oaks of a given folk; think "Tree of Life" here; or a sacred grove, pool, what have you. When the missionaries were not struck down dead on the spot by the tribes' gods/goddesses, the folk became convinced that this new religion was more powerful than their old one. That's empirical. Now, we moderns may look back at that and be convinced that the missionaries were just as superstitious to think that God was protecting them from being killed by the "demons" that the folk worshipped. Maybe we'd be right to think that, but maybe not. Many things that happen today cannot be explained by our natural laws.

Thanks, davem, for your succinct summary of the two main threads of argument in support of Tolkien's strategy of keeping overt religious emblems out of LotR.

[davem]

This may seem off-topic, but give me time...

Originally Posted by LmP

Many things that happen today cannot be explained by our natural laws.

Indeed. But many things happen today, & always have happened, which cannot be accounted for by Christianity (or by pre-Christian philosophies), because that's not the point of Christianity. As I understand it, Christianity was not meant to be a substitute for science & explain the way the universe works.

As for your example, I have to make the point that, apart from the missionaries' acts of cutting down the trees being a vicious & mean minded act of vandalism (one might even liken it to the behaviour of orcs!) it was not simply designed to show that their God was more powerful than the spirits of the Land the people had 'worshipped' from the first-time, but rather to break the people's spirit.

Basically, what the 'missionaries' did in 'Dark Age' Europe was no different to what White European's did to the native peoples of Australia & the Americas. You do away with a people's Tradition by shattering their world view, not by peacably offering a superior one. And this can be shown by the fact that as the 'missionaries' power (ie the power of the authoritarian Church) failed those peoples have returned to their old ways. This was simply inevitable because a people's native beliefs & worldview is not the product of rational analysis, only lasting until a 'better' one comes along, but grows out of their relationship/psycho-spiritual with their native Land & the spirits of that Land.

This brings us back to Tolkien's point. The 'emblems of religion' are manifestations of specific cultures & their understanding of the Divine. So, to use the emblems of primary world religions in a secondary world setting would quite simply 'shatter' the secondary 'reality' the author has attempted to create. This is because the peoples of the secondary world would have developed their own traditions which would be unique to them, & not simply some 'disguised' (ie allegorised) version of primary world traditions.

Lewis & Lawhead don't convince (me, at least) in that they do precisely that. Certainly Lawhead's 'Song of Albion' & his 'Arthurian' cycle deliberately twist & misrepresent British Tradition to the extent that only someone with absolutely no knowledge of that Tradition could take them in any way seriously.

Finally, none of the above should be taken as an attack on Christianity as a spiritual path, only on the 'political' church instigated by Constantine.

[Lathriel]

I don't think religion belongs in fantasy unless it is used deliberatly by the author in order to make a point about society. For example to state the overly obvious, Pullman with his trilogy His dark materials.

Otherwise I think authors should not include religion,or if they do want to include some sort of religion they should make up one of their own.

As for Tolkien, some symbols in LOTR could be seen as religious but they could also come from the myths or legends Tolkien was so crazy about. Indeed myths/legends are really close to religion because some of the missionaries (in the dark ages)would combine pagan beliefs with christian ones just so that they could get more people interested and thus convert more of them. So some symbols have stayed the same or their meaning is closely related.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Many things that happen today cannot be explained by our natural laws.

One word - "Yet." Note that I do not intend to insult or to be impolite, but just want to share my thoughts.

Originally Posted by Lathriel

Otherwise I think authors should not include religion,or if they do want to include some sort of religion they should make up one of their own.

I think that there are some...for lack of a better word...archetypes that can safely be used as they transcend specific religions/cultures. The "flood of Noah" would be one such example. Many cultures not considered "children of Abraham" have a story regarding a large flood in their history/mythology/belief system. Tolkien added one with Numenor, whether inadvertently or not. It might be safe to choose from the species memories, and I wonder if the archetypes that work well as described above are these.

[littlemanpoet]

One word - "Yet."

You may not know that you've challenged me onto one of my favorite hobby horses.

I usually think scientifically. I appreciate the scientific method and all that has resulted from its use. I do not, however, expect the processes of scientific thought (observation, setting up experiments, hypothesis, deduction, induction, empirical evidence tabulated) to reveal all mysteries, just give it enough time. The realm of science is the material world. It is "at sea" in terms of the soul, the spirit, and other such unquantifiable entities. Or do you doubt the existence of the soul or spirit because science can't verify them?

I wonder if the archetypes that work well as described above are these.

If the popularity and staying power of Tolkien is any indication, I think the answer to your question is a resounding "YES".