Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
08-27-2006, 07:22 AM | #41 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I think I learn't a lot from this reply above from Feanor of the Peredhil earlier. My views are exactly the same. If ideas are not allowed to be entertained, then the thread will not be of interest to some, & vice versa. Last edited by Mansun; 08-27-2006 at 07:28 AM. |
|
08-27-2006, 09:43 AM | #42 | |
Laconic Loreman
|
Mansun, if it felt like anyone was ridiculing your opinion I apologize for myself, and the rest, because I'm sure that was not anyone's intent.
I've just been trying to get across davem's point. It isn't the "Lord of the Bible," it isn't "Beowulf of the Rings," it is The Lord of the Ring's, a story of it's own. If you find similarities that's good, but I got the impression that you were saying Tolkien stole and/or borrowed from the Bible. Where I'm disagreeing because someone can certainly not see anything biblical related to the Lord of the Rings, and still be just as 'right' as someone who does. Quote:
__________________
Fenris Penguin
|
|
08-27-2006, 11:17 AM | #43 | ||
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
Quote:
I think it would be a brilliantly fun exercise to explore the literature Tolkien might have drawn from, Bible included. Not the well known ideas that influenced his story, but the underlying inspiration. When I have more time, and that's a thought that makes me laugh sadly, I think it would a terribly exciting study to make. Literature as a form of psychosociology. How the human mind works as an individual entity and in group situations; how society influences art, as well as art's influence on society. Surely I can't be the only person with a distinct fascination pertaining to the study of ideas with very little practical value? It's an interesting experience to see the connections that minds make, both author and reader. Why quash them? I'd rather cosset them, cuddle them, perhaps even nuzzle them, and take notes to see what they grow into. Quote:
__________________
peace
|
||
08-27-2006, 11:57 AM | #44 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
There are two approaches to such things: where it came from & what it was built for. It seems to me that Tolkien's purpose was not to construct a puzzle to be fathomed out, but a work of Art (or if you prefer a story) principally intended to move the reader, to entertain him or her. I can play this game of sources & inspirations well enough - I did it for much of the CbC read through, but found that by the end I had not really gotten very far or gained very much. Increasingly I don't see any value in it. If others do then that's fine for them, & I have no desire to stop them doing that. However I do see the danger that this process of dismantling the story to find out how it came to be will leave you only with a pile of old stones & deprived of sight of the Sea. But each to their own...
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 08-27-2006 at 12:59 PM. |
|
08-27-2006, 12:04 PM | #45 | |
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Quote:
A work of art / literature can't be analysed into pieces that would convey the exactly same meaning. Happily so. To re-write the old phrase: a whole is more than the sum of it's parts, and a work of art is more than the ingredients even the author thought consciously of...
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
|
08-27-2006, 12:14 PM | #46 |
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
Sure. But can you not analyze things without losing the magic? That's not a rhetorical question. Can't you go through something and study it without interest being lost through the findings of the answers? Just because we now know why the sun rises every morning, does that decrease the beauty of dawn? Does knowledge of the origins of lightening take away from the sheer ecstasy that is watching a storm come in and rage above you?
It's like metaphysicists appreciating the finer points of creationism by learning the details of creation. In such concise study, you either fail or succeed to find things, but surely you learn nonetheless.
__________________
peace
|
08-27-2006, 12:38 PM | #47 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Well, it may do, I suppose. If you're that way inclined. I don't see the connection. Of course, he must have obtained his paints, & canvas, & brushes somewhere (or made them himself perhaps). And I'm sure there's a really interesting story behind that for Art students, but I think its a whole other story, & nothing to do with the Mona Lisa, except very tangentially. I don't get what you plan to do with this other story about LotR once you get it. It wouldn't be difficult to find Tolkien's sources of inspiration - everything from Northern Myth & Icelandic Sagas & the Bible, to personal experiences of being orphaned & fighting in a war, through Morris' romances, Lonrot's Kalevala, right up to Kipling's Rewards & Fairies & Wyke-Smith's 'Snergs' among much other stuff. If I knew what relevance it would have to you maybe I'd be more sympathetic to your endevour. But if all it is is just a matter of finding out what his sources were then I have to say that for me what he did is of much greater importance than what he used. EDIT In Tolkien Studies volume 2 Dale Nelson wrote a piece attempting to show how Tolkien's descriptions of Mordor were possibly influenced by descriptions of industrial towns in Dicken's Old Curiosity Shop. It is four pages long & is full of 'it may seems unlikely, but's & 'it is possible that's, & in the end tells us that Tolkien may have read said book & may have been influenced by it. In a note to the essay the author states that 'Whatever else Tolkien read by Dickens he must have read the first chapter of The Pickwick Papers (please compare, he begs, Bilbo's speech at the Long Expected Party with Mr Pickwick's oration at the end of the first chapter of PP). So, what this piece in a respected journal of Tolkien studies tells us is that Tolkien might possibly have read some Dickens & he might possibly have been influenced by some descriptions in those books. Of course, he might not have read any Dickens apart from the first chapter of PP in which case the whole piece is a waste of space.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 08-27-2006 at 01:00 PM. |
|
08-27-2006, 02:24 PM | #48 | |
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
Quote:
Think on it: say that paints were terribly hard to come by several hundred years ago for an impoverished dozenth or so child of poor parents. Say that canvases are quite equally difficult to find. Think of how resourceful that person would have to be not only to acquire supplies, but to find the time in which to use them. Think of how close Leonardo may have come to never having painted the Mona Lisa at all. Do you not further your appreciation of the art before you by knowing what went into it and how, without those things, it never could have come to be? Without the benefit of smooth transition, I'd like also to say that at this point, I have more interest in Tolkien than I do in his work. What made him tick. What inspired him. What he wrote and why he wrote it. I'm fascinated with writers in general. They have a certain something to them. A writer whose work I read recently said that nobody becomes an artist unless they have to. I'm interested in why people have to. What underlying reasons Tolkien had for what he wrote. I've been pondering Leaf by Niggle, which I finally read, for days now. Art catches my breath and takes me on wild adventures through realities unguessed. The magic captures me and stays with me. But people are equally enthralling. Delving into what goes through minds is my equivilant to sifting through a pile of jewels with each piece more enchanting than the last. Tolkien was a great writer. But I'm interested in the man, not the image of him. I'm curious about how he thought and why he thought it. If I can learn more about humanity by studying the things humans do, say, and make, cool.
__________________
peace
|
|
08-27-2006, 02:45 PM | #49 | |||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
08-27-2006, 03:30 PM | #50 |
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
I understand both your opinion and Tolkien's. I'm just ignoring them in favor of my own. Hope you don't mind too much, darling.
__________________
peace
|
08-27-2006, 05:24 PM | #51 | ||||
Laconic Loreman
|
Quote:
But, seriously now I completely understand what you're saying and I agree. Looking further in and 'analyzing' doesn't necessarily destroy the magic of the books. Especially if you have a deep interest in the 'how it came to be.' Believe it or not, one of the most touching and thought-provoking scenes (for me) in LOTR is with Tolkien's war experience: Quote:
Quote:
Fea, I think Letter 109 will fit what you are trying to explain quite perfectly: Quote:
Tolkien strongly resisted his books as being labeled 'allegorical' but because of their very nature and depth provided- better and more closely woven a story is - those searching can - more easily find allegory in it. It still all boils down to reader applicability. It is our freedom to think 'hey this reminds me of something in life.' I think of it as a story with allegories that anyone can find - or choose not to find- but it is not an 'Allegorical story.' Meaning there was no intentional authorial design to make allegories. Because, intentionally writing in allegories limits the reader's mind, the reader's applicability. It would mean that we all must see 'Elrond as a Jesus figure,' and this was why I think Tolkien strongly resisted his books being 'allegorical.' Because if they were allegorical, the freedom of applicability would be taken away. And it is this very freedom of the reader, that I believe (at least for me), adds to the stories magic. It makes me as a reader be able to identify and connect with the story and form my own 'allegories.'
__________________
Fenris Penguin
Last edited by Boromir88; 08-27-2006 at 05:28 PM. |
||||
08-28-2006, 12:19 AM | #52 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Last edited by Mansun; 08-28-2006 at 12:24 AM. |
|
08-28-2006, 01:42 AM | #53 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Ok, let's try another tack. Gandalf & Elrond were directly & deliberately inspired by Christ. As was Frodo & Aragorn. The Balrog was meant to be a depiction of Satan (unless Grima or Saruman was), Galadriel of the Virgin Mary, Eowyn of St Ursula, Merry of St Francis, Lobelia of St Catherine of Sienna & the fox a subtle allegory of Nebuchadnezzar. What, exactly, has that to do with the price of fish? Or maybe its just me. I'm sure Mansun & the other 'great minds' of this forum should be as free as possible to 'excercise their creative thinking & in the process open a latreal opportunity to learn new perspectives.' I see that I have now joined the ranks of those who 'prefer to stay with the mainstream Tolkienology, believing that it is the truest & safest approach, but not as imaginative & it may even close new doors for further thought & discussion. This thread was all about opening new doors for those who want to open them, rather than those who prefer to guard the old ones & keep them locked.' Ah, the radicalism of youth, when we all felt the fire in our bellies! But now we are old, & only seek to imprison the young within the cells we have created for them. We are too old & fuddled to keep up with them. They will reveal the TRUTH to us, for it is their destiny..... (Anybody else read Logan's Run........? |
|
08-28-2006, 08:21 AM | #54 | ||
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
Quote:
Tolkien was a master wordsmith, but he was still just a guy talking. Making things up. Inventing a world. If we want to invent perspective with which to view this world, created by this guy, to see if we can learn something, why do you care? Quote:
__________________
peace
|
||
08-28-2006, 08:52 AM | #55 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Could it be 'Tolkien was a Christian, who had read the Bible, & its possible to find certain similarities between the language & stories of the Bible & his own sub creation!!!!!!!'? There - I said it for you. Tolkien was quite probably influenced by (among God knows how many other things) the Bible. You can find (&/or impose) Biblical symbolism & allegories on the Legendarium (& for all I know there may well be a hidden code in there too which reveals when the Day of Judgement will take place). I'm sure there are even some deliberate nods towards his faith - the dates of the setting out of the Fellowship from Rivendell & of the Fall of Barad Dur & all that. But that's not new, its not original, & God knows why anyone outside of a few evangelicals on a mission to get us all back to church or some seriously anally retentive fans would actually care what went into the 'leaf mould of the mind' out of which grew Tolkien's particular Tree. We are all influenced by what we read, experience & believe. You seem deserate to prove that this was allso the case with Tolkien - but I don't think anyone is arguing with that. One word of warning though. As I said earlier, I've read quite a few of these pieces on how LotR is a deeply Christian work - just glancing at my bookshelf now I can see 'Tolkien in Perspective', 'Tolkien's Oridinary Virtues', Finding God in the Lord of the Rings', Secret Fire, Tolkien Man & Myth & JRR Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth among others, along with a nice thick folder of essays printed off from the Web many of which are by Christians & purport to show Tolkien's work was deeply Christian. Their motivation seems twofold - the first can be summed up as 'See, you like LotR, LotR is a Christian book, so, why not come to church this Sunday?' & the second as 'Wow!!! I've just discovered similarities between characters & events in LotR & the Bible! I must be a genius!'. What they all have in common is that they are completely unconvincing, badly written statements of the glaringly obvious or simply embarrassing: 'Aragorn had a beard & long hair & looked like Jesus...'. |
|
08-28-2006, 09:02 AM | #56 | |
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
Quote:
__________________
peace
|
|
08-28-2006, 09:49 AM | #57 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Well after thinking of a lengthy explanation I've abandoned it. There was no need for it.
I think that the objections of some readers to the 'explorations' of others ultimately boil down to resistance towards attaching any kind of 'agenda' to LotR.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
08-28-2006, 09:57 AM | #58 | |
Blithe Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
|
Quote:
I think that these attempts to "prove" the biblical and Christian provenance of LotR is a way for some people to read and enjoy the work without feeling sinful.
__________________
Out went the candle, and we were left darkling |
|
08-28-2006, 10:22 AM | #59 |
Blithe Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
|
Clarification of the above: it was not intended as an attack on Christianity in general, but a comment on certain strands within it....strands I have been made aware of primarily from encountering young people here on the Downs who have had their reading heavily restricted by their churches, schools and pastors.
__________________
Out went the candle, and we were left darkling |
08-28-2006, 10:54 AM | #60 | |
Raffish Rapscallion
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Far from the 'Downs, it seems :-(
Posts: 2,835
|
Well, I hate to bring this up but, there could possibly be a (*gasp*) fourth "possible motivation." (*cue the evil conspirator music* )
Perhaps, and I know this might be a stretch here, but perhaps some of these books brought up by davem & others that were written by Christians on some of the parallels in Tolkien's world to Christianity (which can be drawn without trying too hard, whether Tolkien intended them or not) are books written towards (although not expressly for) Christians who enjoy Tolkien and would enjoy the parallels as well? But then there would be no hidden agendas or other exciting things to talk about it would be...just a book with parallels someone saw in it. At any rate I think Lal says it quite well: Quote:
|
|
08-28-2006, 12:24 PM | #61 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
As to the point that those Christians are just enjoying the parallels between LotR & the Bible. I don't have any problem with that. I do, however, find that those 'paralllels' are invariably forced & don't really stand up to any scrutiny. It always seems to be a case of 'This episode/character in LotR is like/makes me think of..' (at which point they go off on some tangent & start talking about Isaiah or the Virgin Mary). Now, I accept that in some of the Letters Tolkien himself had a tendency to do that very thing but perhaps he ought to have had more sense - some of the 'interpretations' he comes up with are so tenuous or so odd that they make your head spin: for example, when he claims that the events at the Sammath Naur are a playing out of the lines in the Lord's Prayer ('Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us') he is definitely pushing it. To try to force that kind of analogy, to try to turn one of the most powerful moments in literature into material for scriptural exegesis (or more likely a very embarrassing sermon) is to treat the story (& the reader) with contempt. This kind of simple 'one-to-one' analogy never, it seems to me, rises above the confused or embarrassing. |
|
08-28-2006, 07:20 PM | #62 | |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Or a fifth .... (related to the fourth) .....
Recognition. ....of something dynamic and powerful at a level most books don't reach. The story of LotR strikes a chord that rings with the very tembre of creation itself as it is. Thus, it's a recognition of Reality. .... and Christians but not only Christians are drawn to this story like no other in the entire century during which it was written. Those who believe as did its author find themselves saying, "I know this! I recognize it! It's in harmony with the very warp and weft of what I know! I want to celebrate it by sharing it with my friends." Quote:
Last edited by littlemanpoet; 08-28-2006 at 07:27 PM. |
|
08-28-2006, 11:52 PM | #63 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
However much the Lord's Prayer meant to Tolkien it cannot be made to apply to every particular circumstance - & certainly not that one. He was doing exactly the kind of thing he himself condemned in the quote from the interview I gave a few posts back & in his statements there he clearly felt contempt for the very approach he himself took to his own work in that & other letters & comments: He thinks that there is now a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost. “It seems to me comparable to a man who having eaten anything, from a salad to a complete and well-planned dinner, uses an emetic, and sends the results for chemical analysis.” He would have been better leaving interpretation to the reader (if they want to interpret it at all) rather than using his work to promote his religion - which simply cheapens it. |
|
08-29-2006, 12:12 AM | #64 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
It is always good to have someone who challenges the ideas of others to balance the argument. But there also comes a point where one asks if a particular thread is for them? I myself am not a devout Christian as yet, but I find the LOTR & the Bible to be the two most inspirational texts ever written. Therefore I, & many others, would find the prospect of comparing & contrasting the texts with each other to be interesting, educational & even developing a more magical understanding than before. Though this will not be the case for all, as they may not be drawn by the idea from the start. Last edited by Mansun; 08-29-2006 at 12:19 AM. |
|
08-29-2006, 02:17 AM | #65 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
08-29-2006, 05:43 AM | #66 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Ok. You look at a particularly impressive cloud formation & 'see' a castle. That's fine. However, if you then go on to claim there is something specifically 'castle-like' about that cloud, that it is necessary to know about castles in order to understand/appreciate that cloud, that that cloud can tell you anything about castles, or that only someone with a knowledge of castles can understand what that cloud really is, I will argue with you, because I think we would no longer be dealing with a matter of personal opinion but a wrong opinion (& frankly a silly opinion). To claim that only someone who believes that cloud castles are a real possibility has any valid opinion on clouds is not logical & to think that believing in cloud castles means you will have a deeper experience of that cloud than someone who doesn't believe in them is a bit smug (as well as wrong).
|
08-29-2006, 07:07 AM | #67 |
Spectre of Decay
|
Know your subject, then theorise.
I'm going to break in here, and hopefully prevent a riot.
Personally I found the biblical parallels quoted in the first post to be unconvincing, and for the reasons given in Hookbill's response. That does not mean that there are no biblical parallels in LotR, just that those particular examples could have been thought out more carefully. My reading of the book has never suggested a character or plot element that has obviously been lifted directly from the Bible, but Tolkien knew more about the Bible and theology than any of us, and without a similar knowledge both of the Bible and of Roman Catholic theology, modern and medieval, all of our theories are likely to run astray. I find it unlikely that Tolkien would re-use stories from the Bible, and he certainly wasn't trying to write an allegory. He was frequently troubled by thoughts that his legends veered away from Catholic orthodoxy, and to make any obvious connections would seem to increase that danger. That is not to say that there are not Christian teachings embedded in LotR, such as the importance of mercy, the existence of an individual choice between right and wrong and the centrality of love and self-sacrifice, but these are not biblical characters or events, rather ideas which are expressed in Christian writings. Similarly, if one were to say that a character was a representation of Christ, it would not be enough simply to point to wisdom or self-sacrifice: those characteristics can be found everywhere in world literature. Certainly it's not enough to say that a character preaches (Elrond does not, to my mind, preach at all), or that he narrates stories from history: that character would need to share important characteristics, such as accepting punishment for the crimes of others, rising from the dead or being the son of a deity; preferably all three. If there is a character who clearly fits a Christian model it is Morgoth. He is the most powerful and beautiful of the Valar, yet his pride in those gifts leads him to reject the authority of his creator . Thenceforth he is renamed to show his new role as the enemy of good, which is embodied in the Creator, Eru. In its essentials this is the story of Satan, who is also renamed from Lucifer ('Light-bearing One') to Satan ('Adversary'). However, this parallel is so obvious that most of us take it for granted; and its source is not the Bible, but a mass of apocryphal literature that was particularly popular in the Middle Ages. The Anglo-Saxon poem Genesis B, translated from contemporary Old Saxon, records this story in verse; and if Tolkien was not intimately familiar with it then I should be very surprised. Setting aside davem's objections, we should all be aware when looking at Tolkien's sources and his use of them, that he knew and understood many things more completely than do we. His upbringing, education and experiences were far removed from the present-day norm, and he grew up in a society that is now virtually unrecognisable. Nobody seems to look at Thucydides, for example, for Tolkienian parallels, and yet Tolkien once won a school prize for his knowledge of the Greek historian, whom he read in Classical Greek and who was on the syllabus at King Edward's. Tolkien's influences can be sought in the Latin and Greek authors so beloved of nineteenth-century educators, in the Germanic legends with which he was professionally concerned, in the literature of his time, in his religion and in his own experiences and imagination: to pick out these threads requires a frightening amount of study, not only of Tolkien but also of all these areas. My education is not up to the task, and it's difficult nowadays to find anyone who does have the necessary grasp even of the essentials (who has read the Aenead in Latin? Tolkien had, before the age of eighteen. My point is that when discussing something as central to Tolkien's life as Roman Catholicism, particularly when trying to spot it in his works, we ought first to find out as much about Roman Catholicism and Tolkien's works as possible. If we want to find Biblical parallels, we should at least know the entire Bible, since Tolkien certainly did. The same caveat applies to mythological and literary parallels: know the sources, know the literature, know Tolkien and think carefully. Tolkien was a subtle and learned man: he cannot be dissected with a hammer.
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? Last edited by The Squatter of Amon Rűdh; 08-29-2006 at 10:59 AM. |
08-29-2006, 07:16 AM | #68 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Or we could just read & enjoy the story as a story, stop trying to second guess, impose meanings, foist our own belief systems on the work & generally try & make it serve our own purposes…
|
08-29-2006, 07:22 AM | #69 | ||||||
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps he felt contempt for forced understanding, but that doesn't necessarily stop him nor does it cheapen or disqualify the thought. Surely you've done things that you don't entirely agree with. A touch of hypocrisy in the Master? Surely not. Surely he wasn't human? And besides, it's not like he was promoting his religion as an entity so much as promoting the ideals of it. Does having a definate side of "good guys" cheapen a story because there's less of a threat of betrayal? Quote:
Quote:
__________________
peace
|
||||||
08-29-2006, 07:39 AM | #70 | |||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
08-29-2006, 07:46 AM | #71 | |
Spectre of Decay
|
More tool analogies
Quote:
It's a peculiarity of the last forty years to teach pupils that they don't need to know anything to come up with valid theories. If my free thought leads me to think that Gandalf was lifted from The Dukes of Hazzard, my knowledge that The Hobbit was out decades before the T.V. series ought to tell me that I'm wrong. It's no different with any other sort of parallel: if you don't know the subject then your theories can only be good by sheer luck. Knowing the area guides theories and makes them less likely to be rubbish. davem: as for Tolkien's comments on the Paternoster being reflected in the scene at the Sammath Naur, Frodo has forgiven the trespasses of another (Gollum), hence he does not suffer the full penalty for his own failure: Frodo is shown mercy just as he in turn showed mercy to Gollum, which seems a fair interpretation of those lines. Admittedly I doubt that was at the forefront of Tolkien's mind as he wrote the scene.
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? Last edited by The Squatter of Amon Rűdh; 08-29-2006 at 07:53 AM. |
|
08-29-2006, 07:53 AM | #72 | |
Alive without breath
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: On A Cold Wind To Valhalla
Posts: 5,912
|
Quote:
It is folly, I think, to assume that Tolkien had any ulterior motive. Perhaps there are hints towards Christ. Perhaps there are some similarities. Who can say? I think that trying to look too deeply down this road can lead to us walking in circles for a long while. I will not deny that there are some Characters that have some kind of Christ like attributions. Just as Christians are supposed to show forth Christ like behaviour (the term Christian being, of course, an insult to the early church meaning 'Christ like' to describe the behaviour of the early church) this was probably a little more common in Tolkien's day than today and would not have been regarded as anything unusual. You could look at it a different and more ambiguous way... The Bible says that "God is Good" so, when in a book there is a character who does something good do you say they are an allegory for God? Personally, I wouldn't. But... hay ho... I don't know...
__________________
I think that if you want facts, then The Downer Newspaper is probably the place to go. I know! I read it once. THE PHANTOM AND ALIEN: The Legend of the Golden Bus Ticket... |
|
08-29-2006, 08:40 AM | #73 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
|
|
08-29-2006, 09:07 AM | #74 | |||
Laconic Loreman
|
Quote:
I think we all must distinguish between Tolkien the omniscient narrator, Tolkien the recorder, and Tolkien the observer. All of which we can get a good dose of (especially in Letters). Of course lmp, I would bet that Tolkien knows his works better than anyone else would. When he is making these allegories to the 'Lord's Prayer,' or there is one instant when he thinks the Numenoreans are most like the Egyptians, it's important to realize that often times he's taking a step back from the story and reflecting upon his own experiences when reading. So, it's only natural that a man such as Tolkien I think would make a connection the the Lord's Prayer as he did. I didn't see that, and I probably would have never noticed that connection until someone told me: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Fenris Penguin
Last edited by Boromir88; 08-29-2006 at 09:11 AM. |
|||
08-29-2006, 09:11 AM | #75 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
One reader's platitude may be another's way of life. That it is a mere platitude for one does in no wise lessen its centrality for the other.
|
08-29-2006, 09:29 AM | #76 |
Fading Fëanorion
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: into the flood again
Posts: 2,911
|
I was just writing about the same that Boro just did, so I'm making this short.
It is understood that Tolkien disliked allegory and looks for applicability. In this light, Tolkien's interpretation of his scene at Sammath Naur is the way he applies the scene to himself. This does not mean that his interpretation is the only valid one. If it was, it would get us dangerously close to allegory. The parallel between the scene and the Lord's prayer has never occurred to me before, but now that it is mentioned and explained, I see it. Very nice, though I still don't like the idea of divine intervention causing Gollum's death. However, this is just Tolkien's application, not an imposed and uncontestable explanation, and noboby is forced to follow it. Edit: To say this view reduces the scene is a little hard, in my mind. Last edited by Macalaure; 08-29-2006 at 09:35 AM. |
08-29-2006, 09:39 AM | #77 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
|
|
08-29-2006, 09:40 AM | #78 |
Byronic Brand
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The 1590s
Posts: 2,778
|
To skip back along way to Lalwende's quest for the Miltonic Satan in Tolkien-whom she found closest to Saruman-the character that leapt to mind for me was Galadriel.
Certainly Galadriel and Saruman, for all their enmity, have much in common. Indeed, I always thought their mutual loathing came from recognition of a kindred spirit; Galadriel liked Gandalf because he was a good deal more straightforward than she, and so reassuring. Maybe. Saruman tempts for his own evil purposes. Fair enough. Galadriel is odder in that she tempts for the greater good. I am vaguely reminded of Gnostic and Cathar heresies, and the so called Gospel of Judas, which hinted that Satan/Judas was consciously fulfilling God's will in their treachery. A bit like certain theories I've seen about Melkor. Galadriel fits more swiftly than Saruman for me because she is physically as well as mentally tempting. I get a kind of image of the Massolino fresco of the Serpent with the head of a golden-haired woman...
__________________
Among the friendly dead, being bad at games did not seem to matter -Il Lupo Fenriso Last edited by Anguirel; 09-06-2006 at 05:03 AM. |
08-29-2006, 09:43 AM | #79 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
Tolkien told us that LotR was not an allegory. Therefore we can find all the metaphors we like in x y or z character or situation, but he didn't intend it that way. So if we do find these metaphors or symbols or whatever, we're not necessarily getting closer to understanding the text as intended, only our own response to it. It's intellectual navel gazing - loadsa fun but then someone might well come along and ask us what the hell we're looking at. Temper this with the knowledge that Tolkien was indeed a Christian, in fact a devout Catholic, a very particular type of Christian. So of course put together with the other 1,001 influences on his mind, his faith would influence his work. I've just been talking about Catholicism/Gothic elsewhere. I think the key point is that LotR has a Christian spirit; note that this 'spirit' is not an exclusively Christian one - how could it be for people of so many faiths (and none) to all join in enjoying this book? So it can't be co-opted by one group of society - sorry if anyone was planning on doing that - not that you were. The book's a good one for Christians as of course some of the themes support a lot of Christian tenets (but do they all??? Now there's a discussion), but it also supports non-Christian ones too. And that is a very good thing as far as I'm concerned, and only further demonstrates Tolkien's sense of humanity
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
08-29-2006, 09:46 AM | #80 | |
Fading Fëanorion
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: into the flood again
Posts: 2,911
|
Completely off topic, but now that it is brought up...
Quote:
|
|
|
|