Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
10-26-2006, 10:18 PM | #1 |
Maundering Mage
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,648
|
Tolkien lied!
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.
__________________
“I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” |
10-26-2006, 10:35 PM | #2 | |
Wight
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Behind the hills
Posts: 164
|
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:
Quote:
__________________
"If we're still alive in the morning, we'll know that we're not dead."~South Park |
|
10-26-2006, 10:57 PM | #3 | ||||
Laconic Loreman
|
Hey, here we go morm, this is what I'm looking for.
Quote:
Here's some things I've found interesting: Quote:
Quote:
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... Quote:
__________________
Fenris Penguin
|
||||
10-27-2006, 02:01 AM | #4 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
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.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
10-27-2006, 02:25 AM | #5 | |
Alive without breath
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: On A Cold Wind To Valhalla
Posts: 5,912
|
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? Quote:
__________________
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... |
|
10-27-2006, 02:43 AM | #6 | ||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
I think there some interesting Catholic ideas to be found in Tolkien's work though that nobody has ever touched on yet... Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
||
10-27-2006, 03:45 AM | #7 |
Spectre of Decay
|
He didn't lie, he was just confused
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.
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? Last edited by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh; 10-30-2006 at 09:10 AM. Reason: A couple of spelling corrections and one stylistic tweak |
10-27-2006, 08:37 AM | #8 |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Squatter can perhaps find the relevant letter for me, but somewhere Tolkien did explain that LotR was not "intended" as a Christian work when he first wrote it, but that it became a consciously Catholic work in the process of revision....I think that might be the full comment from the letter already cited....get to it Squatter!
So no, of course he didn't lie, he simply meant that the work cannot be read "only" or "solely" as Christian. Simply that for him, as he revised it, it became a work which reflected his own Catholic view of the world. EDIT: Ignore this post. Just read the following by Celuien.
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. Last edited by Fordim Hedgethistle; 10-27-2006 at 08:53 AM. |
10-27-2006, 08:39 AM | #9 | |||
Riveting Ribbiter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Assigned to Mordor
Posts: 1,767
|
Perhaps there doesn't need to be a contradiction at all...
Quote:
Quote:
But does that mean that the intention for writing the story was to convey Christian themes (which would be my definition of a 'Christian work', based on Tolkien's reference to Arthurian legend)? No. It means only that Tolkien's beliefs probably shine through as the basis for the "elements of moral and religious truth" in his writing. As do his many other influences that went into his writing; including northern myth and legend, philology, and a dislike of allegory. Quote:
If it weren't presumptuous, I could give an example with something that I wrote not too long ago, but I'm far from comparing the process of my idle scribblings to the process behind Tolkien's work. So I won't. Conclusion: Tolkien didn't lie about anything. No hidden motives. There are just many facets to a highly complex work and the man behind it.
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff. |
|||
10-27-2006, 09:39 AM | #10 | ||
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
I wanted to take a look at this letter, and I think I've tracked it down. It appears in the second edition of Silm but not the first. It also appears in the published Letters if anyone wants to look at it there. It's a 10,000 word monstor written in 1951 to try and get the Collins publishing house to hurry up on their promise to publish both the Silm and LotR together . This is a well known letter. It's where Tolkien says that he once thought to write some tales in great detail while leaving others as fragments in order to encourage minds wielding paint, and music and drama to come in and complete the outline. (This line is much loved by RPG and fanfiction writers!)
After looking over this letter, I've come to the conclusion that Tolkien is not a liar. He actually means what he says. The most substantive reference to Christianity is in this context: Tolkien was bemoaning the fact that his own country had no truly "English" myth and that he had hoped to be the one to remedy that deficiency by drafting a "body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogenic, to the level of the romantic fairy story". He argues that the Arthurian legend did not provide an adequate English mythology for a number of reasons: Quote:
Is this the passage you meant, Morm??? If this is it, then I think Tolkien's words are a coherent part of a particular argument that he is making throughout the entire letter and not just a knee jerk reaction and possible cover-up of some hidden Christian "agenda". (I am saying this in jest, of course!) Just look later in the letter and you'll see what I mean. Tolkien explicitly refers to his story of Creation. He acknowleges that there is "a fall: a fall of Angels, we should say. Though quite different in form, of course, to that of the Christian myth." Then he goes on to point out that all myths and legends are connected. Certain symbols and truths must invariably reappear, whether or not we are talking in a Christian or some other context: Quote:
Just an aside, but I don't think Tolkien is referring only to Silm in these passages. The whole point of his letter is to show the publisher that Silm and LotR are a complete whole that must be published together. His statements apply to the entire Legendarium. If he felt that it was "fatal" to include Christian elements in the Silm, it would be equally fatal to include them in Lord of the Rings. I've been all over the boards on this issue. At different points, I've seen more or less Christianity in the Legendarium. At this juncture I am personally convinced that there is no explicit Christianity in the early Legendarium, just as Tolkien implies in this letter. The reason we have so many interpretive problems with this is that later on the author changed his mind on this and a number of related things. When he speaks of the Christian elements in LotR, it is always in terms of "revisions" and not the original draft. (that was the other letter that Fordim refers to above. I don't have the citation but will try to dig it up. Long ago I said to Littlemanpoet that I'd love to see someone go through HoMe and all the archival material and pinpoint exactly when this change occurred. (I was actually hoping he would do it for me. ) This change was undoubtedly gradual: certain revisions even before 1951, more later on. It almost seems as if Tolkien wantsed to erase some of the faerie elements and spirit and substitute history instead. There must be ways to determine this chronologically. To the best of my knowledge, no one has done such a study. I just do not see Christianity in the early Legendarium--the whole mood of pessimism and fate seems very different than a Christian world. Even Shippey said that one of the reasons Tolkien wrote LotR was to explore how and why good men perservered when they were struggling in a pre-revelation world. There is also no doubt when I read the Athrabeth that something has definitely changed. If Christianity isn't coming through the front door, it's at least slipping in the back! I would love to know more about why this happened. Is it just a middle aged/older man coming closer to his doom and dwelling on questions of ultimate fate? Was it the slow realization that the world was not going to heal despite the fact that two world wars had been fought? I don't know. I just know that somewhere along the road Tolkien changed his mind. Perhaps first there was a revision here and there (certainly pre 1951) or a letter referring to Christian symbolism. In subsequent years Tolkien's whole image of the Legendarium shifted. No longer were the Elves the center of attention. Explicit references were made to Eru taking on a man's form and coming into the world. This is so, so far away from the distant Eru that we began with. So Tolkien isn't a liar, but he was notorious about changing his mind. Kilby called it "contrasistency" Can anybody figure out this particular change that led from elf to man and from universal myth to hints of explicit Catholic doctrine?
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 10-27-2006 at 10:46 AM. |
||
10-27-2006, 09:47 AM | #11 | |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Quote:
As to why this happened...Tolkien himself could never say. My personal favourite letter is the one in which he recalls his own surprise and curiousity when this Strider fellow turned up unexpectedly at the Prancing Pony. Who is he? Why is he so grim? What is his connection to Frodo's ring? Why has Gandalf appointed him as their guardian and guide? Answering these questions is what led Tolkien to write the story that he did (it also added about 10 years to the time he thought it would take him to finish writing it!).
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
|
10-27-2006, 10:22 AM | #12 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Fordim,
And there's another letter even eerier than that one....the draft for Carole Batten-Phelps in 1971. This is the story where Tolkien was visited by a famous MP who had been "struck by the curious way in which many old pictures seemed to have been designed to illustrate The Lord of the Rings long before its time". Tolkien politely declined knowing these pictures at which point this happened: Quote:
That leaves another question unsolved. Were Tolkien's "revisions" (and I mean revisions in the widest sense involving everything from symbolic references to Mary or the host and essays like the Finrod/Andreth debate) so drastic that they completely changed the nature of the Legendarium by making it more Christian and geared to men? Or were these just surface gloss with the basic story and its emphasis on elves and universal myth still lying intact at the heart of things?
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 10-27-2006 at 10:49 AM. |
|
10-27-2006, 11:38 AM | #13 | ||||
Laconic Loreman
|
Fordim, I think this is the Letter you are looking for?
Quote:
The word fundamentally, or 'fundamentals' means the basics, or doing the simple things right. Sort of like in baseball, when someone says he is a 'fundamentally sound player,' he does the basic things right...(using both hands to catch the ball, keeping your weight on your back foot when you swing, as some examples). It's the simple things, the basics. In the UK Lal says that it typically means 'lazily' or 'sloppily.' Looking at this, I think it looks like 'fundamentally religious and Catholic work' means the basics of Christianity are in the story and they are 'absorbed in the symobolism.' There is nothing that comes out and hits you over the head like 'That's obviously Christianity,' kind of like Hookbill's point about the subtetly of the books. (Though, as a side note, I've seen it argued showing the English usage of the word). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Fenris Penguin
|
||||
10-27-2006, 11:54 AM | #14 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Well, more that English people use English in a different way, in fact quite lazily and sloppily. I see the word fundamentally used all the time in serious papers and it means "kinda", "sort of". In much the same way if an English person says "It's a bit cold" they mean "Brrr, I'm freezing and I think I've got Hypothermia" or when Captain Scott left his tent and said "I could be some time" he meant "I'm going out there and I'm going to die".
Of course in the new world we have now, if someone sees the word "fundamental" they have visions of someone in a bomb belt who might just blow you up - they see the word and think it means fundamental in the fanatical sense. The passage in more detail is below. In it you'll see that Tolkien himself says he has put what he says 'clumsily' and it comes across as 'self-important', so he was aware that he had made himself sound a bit pompous, Cardinal Sin to the Englishman: Quote:
EDIT: I'd better say it was Captain Oates who vastly understated his intentions, before me father (or Mithalwen) reads this and beats me about the head with a volume of Scott of the Antarctic or something...
__________________
Gordon's alive!
Last edited by Lalwendë; 10-27-2006 at 12:18 PM. |
|
|
|