Tolkien lied!

[mormegil]

Okay, while this could go on the ‘Lord of the Bible’ thread I really feel that I want this to go a different direction than that thread was intended. In reading through part of the letter Tolkien wrote to Milton Waldman that is found at the beginning of the Silmarillion (at least in my copy) it struck me at how emphatic Tolkien was in expressing that his work is not a Christian work. He said this here and elsewhere repeatedly. Also it is well known and documented that his work is not an allegory.

My question is: Did he lie?

He is so insistent that it is not a Christian work that it makes me wonder if he is trying to cover up his tracks, so to speak. This type of behavior is rather common among the guilty. They continue to talk about the behavior and are emphatic that this would never be them. How many proud people profess to being humble? When guilty, for whatever reason, people tend to deny the behavior with even great vehemence. I can see this in Tolkien’s work.

Being a religious person myself I can say that it is difficult to separate myself from the primary world when I go into the secondary world. I constantly draw comparisons and analogies. My thought processes and my whole being are, in great part, based upon my religious beliefs. It is safe to say that it is at the core of my being and removing wholly or entirely is virtually impossible. Now beliefs can slowly be changed or eroded over time, or there are radical changes in ones beliefs from time to time; such a changed occurred in me when I was 18. The problem as I see it is that Tolkien during his adult life never had such a drastic life change, so far as I am aware. So this means that his faith system was always with him and in my experience it’s not entirely possible to separate that with every day living and thinking. While I fully agree that he drew from northern myth and other sources intentionally I believe that he couldn’t help but include many parallels either intentionally or unintentionally but I believe he knew that they were there and didn’t want them there, however he couldn’t fully remove it either as it was at his core. He just wanted us to know that ‘it wasn’t there’ so don’t go looking for it.

Did he ‘lie’ intentionally or unintentionally? Did he even lie? Why would he be so adamant about not wanting this to be a Christian work? I’m realizing that it might be important to define what Tolkien meant by ‘Christian work’. I would like to know what you all think in this regard as it may change my opinion. I don’t mean that it’s a Christian document but rather a story with many Christian principles and parallels. The problem with that definition is that it’s fairly narrow minded to say Christian principles when there are many other religious systems that hold many similar principles. Anyway any clarification would be helpful.

[Laitoste]

Okay, I'm supposed to be doing a lab write-up right now, so I can't spend as much time on this as I'd like, but I want to address something quickly:

Why would he be so adamant about not wanting this to be a Christian work?

Probably because he didn't want it to be pigeonholed. Once you say, "The Lord of the Rings is a Christian book, a Christian allegory, with Christian themes" rather than, say, themes universal to humankind (or at least Western Civilization), people will tend to ONLY see it as such. They stop thinking about it, they stop trying to make other connections, and we all know that there certainly are other, possibly stronger connections to make. And if people aren't going to think about your text, what's the point in publishing it?

[Boromir88]

Hey, here we go morm, this is what I'm looking for.

Also it is well known and documented that his work is not an allegory.

Tolkien does deny using allegories several times, but what he does accept is that there can be allegories found in his stories. This does seem a bit contradictory on the surface, but I don't think so.

Here's some things I've found interesting:

I think that many confuse ’applicability’ with ’allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."~Interview with BBC Radio, 1971

Tolkien does come to admit that if you are looking for an allegory (which most readers are) you can definitely find them...and also that allegory and story converge into 'truth.' And as C.S. Lewis says in Tolkien's obituary:

’There is no allegory. These things were not devised to reflect any particular situation in the real world. It was the other way round; real events began, horribly, to conform to the pattern he had freely invented.’

You'll find this to be a case for a lot of stories of this era. Indeed the 'minds' behind the nukes and other inventions were avid sci-fi and fantasy readers that read the stories of people like Asimov.

Literature has always had a strong effect on society. It reflects upon the thoughts and feelings of the time period. Maybe one of the most recent examples is the growth the Industrial Revolution caused and the growing fear that soon the world would be run by 'mechanics and robots.' People often forget that early writers is what inspired these ideas. It wasn't always necessarily (though is the case at times) that writers were going off events that were taking place at that time in the history. Sometimes as CS Lewis remarks, the writers get their ideas out long before the actual events, and readers of these authors became inspired by the stories they wrote.

While Tolkien does go on to accept that allegory can be found to the times surrounding England and the World at this period, he actually wrote about things either long before, or events that would later shape around and come to be from the books. As Tolkien remarks about the assumption that the Ring is a representation of the 'Nuclear Bombs.' The story of the Ring came out long before the invention of the H-bomb.

Going back to the first quote on Tolkien talking about applicability and allegory, which I think is very important in this matter. He wanted his readers to have applicability, he wanted his readers to have freedom. Coming out and saying 'my story is an allegory' greatly limits this as that would be the purposed domination of the author as Tolkien felt...and I don't think he wanted that. I find this comment by Donald Swann interesting...

"I used to feel that the Tolkien dimension was almost a danger. I then went against this, and decided I would enter it at any time I chose, but with this golden rule...that I must be able to emerge, shut the book, and get up from the chair. If I can't, I will earn the disappproval of the author. He was an upright man in the real world, and had no intention of casting a spell on anyone. I told him once of a young man who thought he was Frodo. "I've ruined their lives," he said disconsolately."~Donald Swann, co-author with Tolkien of The Road goes Ever On

Now I think this delves into a seperate topic alltogether but can be of some use here. Tolkien wrote these books for our own enjoyment, for the enjoyment of the reader. To sit down for a while and go into 'another world' (and it goes into another discussion as 'staying in that world to where it's an obsession...the inability to walk away' is just unhealthy...) Anyway, these stories were meant for the readers enjoyment, and expresses that he felt the enjoyment would be ruined if it was broken down and dissected to find 'allegory.' Therefor, I don't think Tolkien was lying when he expressed dislike for allegory...he would just be more of a favorite of applicability of the readers to apply their own allegories if they so desired.

[Lalwendë]

Some biographical info - in as far as we can know what he thought - his Catholicism was obviously important to him, stemming from his mother's conversion to the faith; his faith was inextricably linked to the love of his mother and grew from there. During the 20s there is plenty of evidence to show that Tolkien's attendance of Mass declined somewhat, and in his writings you can see him struggling to reconcile the effects of war with his faith. This ultimately is what contributes to his fatalistic outlook and maybe to the creation of Eru, who is not always the kindest God! One later influence on him was the shift to Vatican 2 - something I don't know the ins and outs of - but anyway, he did not like it, preferring the old Mass.

We must note that though Tolkien was devout, devout does not necessarily equal evangelistic; to Tolkien his faith was central to his life, but it was not the only thing in his life. He was also thoroughly English and it simply is not done for someone of his class to be overly showy about his faith, especially an Oxford academic. Oxford is home to the High Church, a following in the CofE which uses a lot of catholic ritual; it is solemn and mystic like Roman Catholicism, but like most things in English culture, it is also subtle. It's worth looking up the Oxford Movement to get a sense of the culture in Oxford which remains to this day. Note that Tolkien felt that Lewis's tendency to proselytisation after his conversion had affected his chances of securing the English Chair at Oxford.

Remember as well where we get our quotes from. Tolkien, a Catholic, wrote to a Catholic priest about how his work was 'fundamentally Catholic'. This might be expected. And in writing to a literary scholar, he might say quite the opposite. Even Tolkien said different things to different audiences/correspondents.

Tolkien did not in any way shape or form lie about his work. He was a great writer and a subtle one. He did not approve of the Narnia series with their allegories, even though these are very subtle (and scholars are now bemoaning the fact that Lewis has sadly ended up pigeonholed as in reality, his allegories are much subtler than marketing would have us believe!) so its always worth considering that when considering his own works. If Tolkien didn't like it in the work of Lewis, would he have liked it in his own work?

Finally, does Tolkien say that LotR is a Christian work? Doesn't he say it is a Catholic work? That's a whole different kettle of fish.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Well, Tolkien was human. Humans do lie from time to time.

It is possible that Tolkien had an ulterior motive in stating specifically that it was not allegorical. I don't think he wanted people to go into his work with the thoughts 'I wonder what he was intending to do' or 'what deeper meaning was there here?' As he states in the forward, he just wanted to write a story that people would enjoy reading, and judging by the very existence of this website, I'd say he's had a bit of success in that department.

If he did put some references to Christianity in his work, its possible he wanted them to be more subtle than in, say, Lewis' work. Narnia is so blatantly Christian when compared to The Lord of the Rings that sometimes people forget that Tolkien was actually Christian himself. I just don't think Tolkien wanted to be seen as writing Christian literature because in most cases that would limit his audience. Granted, Narnia is read by none Christians and many can enjoy it without looking into Lewis' motives in writing his tale. I think the same can be said for The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien being Christian would have - one would hope - agreed with the moral teachings of Jesus and the writers of the Bible, it stands to reason then that his work might reflect this.

I think my point is that, if Tolkien did put Christian allegory in his work, it was probably not intended to be a major thing. I personally am satisfied that he wanted to write a story for people to enjoy, the search for deeper meaning is what he didn't want, really.

There is a line in The Screwtape Letters which I think the principal follows. When Screwtape is talking about learned people looking at historical text, he says that they 'look at it's context, which writers inspired it, what was the writers state of mind when writing it [...] the one question they never ask is "Is it true?"'. I think we can apply this to Middle Earth. Not asking , 'is it true?', of course, but 'is it an enjoyable story?'

Perhaps?

Originally Posted by lal

That's a whole different kettle of fish.

I'm sure there are laws against putting fish in kettles.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Hookbill

I think the same can be said for The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien being Christian would have - one would hope - agreed with the moral teachings of Jesus and the writers of the Bible, it stands to reason then that his work might reflect this.

I think my point is that, if Tolkien did put Christian allegory in his work, it was probably not intended to be a major thing. I personally am satisfied that he wanted to write a story for people to enjoy, the search for deeper meaning is what he didn't want, really.

I agree. Most people could not (nor would wish to) avoid writing something which was in basic agreement with their own values. It doesn't mean they have a 'message' though. If you want to compare two writers, one who is subtle and one who has a definite 'message' you couldn't go far wrong with comparing Tolkien and Pullman; the former tells a story (which Pullman in fact denounces for having no 'message') the latter adds obvious lessons to his story. But the key is what you say, Hookbill, that to try and pin Tolkien's work down instantly limits its appeal.

I think there some interesting Catholic ideas to be found in Tolkien's work though that nobody has ever touched on yet...

Originally Posted by Hookbill

I'm sure there are laws against putting fish in kettles.

Someone wants to tell that Rick Stein then...

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Let's not forget in all of this that presumably the letter to Milton Waldman concerns the Silmarillion, whereas his statements about "a fundamentally Catholic work" refer to LR. I don't know which of the letters we're talking about here, since my copy of the Sil doesn't include it, but surely just because Tolkien thought that LR was strongly influenced by Catholicism doesn't mean that the Silmarillion (which was never completed) must necessarily admit the same interpretation.

I think that the comments above about not wanting to be pigeonholed and not wanting to push readers into particular beliefs are spot on. Something can be 'fundamentally Catholic' without transmitting a fundamentally Catholic message; the Catholicism might be buried deep in the foundations, underpinning the work's moral structure but not intended to guide the reader in any particular direction, without intending to deliver a fundamentally Catholic message.

When it comes to allegory it's worth considering what an allegory is: the portrayal of one thing in the guise of another. Where an allegory is clearly intended, such as in Tolkien's tower analogy or, for example, Animal Farm, there is always a direct and consistent correlation between the real world and the allegorical portrayal. Tolkien wanted to scotch the idea that LR contains any such thing and it doesn't. No allegorical interpretation can be applied consistently to the narrative, just as no one message can be derived from it. When Tolkien spoke of applicability he meant just that: people might apply events in the book to real life and thereby inform their decisions. The two work in entirely opposing directions: with allegory the events come first and the writer comments on them; with applicability, the writing comes first and then is applied to the events as they occur. The fact that anyone can find almost any message in LR is a result of the supreme applicability of its themes, particularly those relating to conduct and morality. The danger arises when someone thinks that because a theme seems so strong and so right it must be the overall point of the work. In every case I've seen it isn't, and that's what Tolkien meant.

Whilst you might see this in LR, the Silmarillion is much more complicated and heterogeneous a work, and any statements about its influences would have to take account of the whole span of its development and each influence at each stage thereof. The idea that it has any consistent theme other than the struggles of the Noldor and Edain seems to be reaching too far. Perhaps that is what Tolkien intended, but then again the letter in question may have been one of those in which Tolkein talks about LR, in which case the Sil is not pertinent. The fact that Tolkien intended to publish both works together should not be taken as a statement that the two expound upon common themes: for Tolkien, the Silmarillion forms a backdrop to LR, and the two are more valuable when taken together, but they are not parts of the same work.

What I suppose I mean is that Tolkien could, entirely truthfully, claim one influence or intention for one part of his work whilst still denying it for another. Again he was not immune to the human trait of wanting to please his correspondants, so of course he would play up its religious aspects to the religious or its philological aspects to academics. That means neither that any one statement of his can be taken to define an entire work nor that none of his statements can be trusted. The danger is that someone will latch on to one thing that Tolkien said and think that it is some sort of magic key for unlocking the Middle-earth Code. We all want to think that we are privy to something that only we and the author understand, but usually either everyone else knows about it too or it turns out to exist only in one person's head. A classic example of this was the member of another forum who claimed to have found the Entwives, and made several cryptic statements about it, statements so cryptic as to be meaningless. Nobody has found the Entwives and nobody will find them, because Tolkien hadn't hidden them. Now, he may contradict himself about that subject, as he often does about a number of things, but people contradict themselves all the time and I have no doubt that he always believed what he was saying when he said it. When two statements from Tolkien disagree, I tend to start by seeing which of them fits most closely with observable trends in his wider body of work. After that you get into the murk of canonicity discussion, which has always bored me rigid. I'm not a great fan of angels on pin-heads.

I've rambled across a lot of ground here, but hopefully I've managed to pull this into some semblance of order. I suppose my point is that Tolkien didn't lie to his correspondants: he just didn't expect his letters to enter the public domain, and so made unguarded statements in them that he wouldn't have made in a preface. We need to be careful with them, but we shouldn't cease to trust them. In many cases they both turn out to be true in a way, and we just need to apply a little subtlety in our understanding of them.