Of another world

[davem]

We started discussing the earlier drafts of LotR here but didn't get too far. Some interesting observations though.

Where I have a problem is with your apparent contention that Bilbo's display of compassion in regard to Gollum is a sign of Christian inspired revision, or that the new 'depth' in later drafts is either.

I don't see this at all - merely that Tolkien realised that far from writing a sequel to TH, aimed at children, he was writing for a more mature audience (even if that 'audience' was mainly himself, Christopher & the Inklings).

I just can't see this 'consciously so in the revision'. I suppose what we've been discussing on the 'Gandalf' thread could be put forward (Gandalf was originally not intended to die in Moria, but Tolkien later decided to have him die & be brought back to life). Also, Tolkien stated: (in Lobdell: 'A Tolkien Compass)

'The fellowship ... left on December 25th, which then had no significance, since the Yule, or its equivalent, was then the last day of the year & the first of the next year. But December 25th (setting out) & March 25th (accomplishment of the quest) were intentionally chosen by me'

'A guide to the names in LotR'

But these seem the most 'blatant' examples. I suppose one could argue that the language of later parts of LotR are quite 'Biblical'. All in all, though. I can't see any really specifically 'Christian' elements or changes introduced. Of course, it depends what Tolkien meant by 'Christian'. Lembas, as he acknowledged to one correspondent, is more than 'applicable' to the Host, Elbereth shares many aspects with the Virgin Mary, etc, but these things seem to me very superficial & someone with no knowledge of the book would not need to know anything about Christianity or make that connection to understand the book. If the Christian element has been absorbed into the story it has been absorbed so effectively that it is unnoticeable to most readers - & my suspicion is that the 'Christian' elements most Christian readers find in it are not ones that Tolkien put in ('Aragorn looks like Jesus').

Focus on self-sacrifice, compassion, humility, mercy, are hardly uniquely 'Christian'. Elbereth could well be an 'image' of the Virgin Mary, but she could also be an 'image' of Isis or Don.

Repeating myself, but its only a belief that Christianity is the Archetype from which all other myths devolve that leads to seeing these aspects of the story as 'Christian' revisions. Actually, they are simply 'mythical'.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Where I have a problem is with your apparent contention that Bilbo's display of compassion in regard to Gollum is a sign of Christian inspired revision

That is why I said that taken by itself, it is not enough.

Originally Posted by davem

or that the new 'depth' in later drafts is either.

You misunderstood me.

Originally Posted by me

it is logical to say that this new deepening is NOT "consciously Christian in the revision", but what Tolkien saw it to be: a more serious and adult story than The Hobbit had been.

Originally Posted by davem

But these seem the most 'blatant' examples.

I intend to bring forth the consciously Christian subtext.

Originally Posted by davem

Focus on self-sacrifice, compassion, humility, mercy, are hardly uniquely 'Christian'. Elbereth could well be an 'image' of the Virgin Mary, but she could also be an 'image' of Isis or Don.

However, Tolkien was not a follower of Isis or Don; he was Christian. I'm basing my research on his contention that his Christian understanding of reality pervades the subtext of LotR.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

However, Tolkien was not a follower of Isis or Don; he was Christian. I'm basing my research on his contention that his Christian understanding of reality pervades the subtext of LotR.

From a Jungian perspective your first point is arguable, however, I'll leave it there.

Look, I accept that Tolkien considered LotR a fundamentally Christian work. I also accept that you, Formendacil, & others do also. The point is that for most readers it isn't that. If Tolkien did 'absorb' the Christian elements into the story he did this so effectively that they are unrecognisable to those who aren't looking for them. He has boiled 'Christianity' down to its bare bones: self-sacrifice, compassion, humility, mercy - concepts which can be found in just about any serious religion & not specifically Christianity. The dates he subtly introduces (Guide to Names), the style (Authorised Version of the Bible) will either not be noticed by most readers or any similarities will be deliberately ignored. If they could not be ignored, if they were necessary for understanding the story, we would be dealing with a form of allegory.

LotR is a great work of Art, Middle-earth is a true Secondary World, because it is self-contained & not dependent on the Primary world for explanation.

I don't doubt that you can find a 'consciously Christian subtext' to LotR. I'm saying that's irrelevant, because most readers will take no notice of it even if you point it out to them. If this 'subtext' is there to find is it uniquely Christian, things absolutely absent from every other religion or philosophy, or will you claim that, while it is a 'Christian' subext the fact that those things can be found in other religions/philosophies/myths are down to the fact that they are all drawn from Christianity?

My point here is that even if you do manage to prove the existence of a 'consciously Christian subtext' in LotR (I could probably do that myself if I felt inclined, as could any reasonably educated person) only Christians are likely to care. If someone proved there was a planet circling a star in the Andromeda galaxy that was made of cream cheese would you care one way or another? I don't why you'd want to do it, other than for intellectual exercise. Do you really think its likely to convert anyone? Its been done so many times in recent years - see my earlier post (no 36)on how many books I have on the Christian themes/symbols in LotR (& I don't have all the ones that have been published by any means) - that I don't see why you shouldn't repeat the excercise, but neither do I see why you'd want to.

I'm basing my research on his contention that his Christian understanding of reality pervades the subtext of LotR.

I'm sure it did, but it doesn't pervade mine. I try to approach the story with as little baggage as possible; if I'm leaving all mine at the door I'm damned if I'm going to carry yours (or his) in with me.

[Lalwendë]

I think davem is right that the subtext is only really of relevance if you want it to be. From my own experience, Tolkien's work caused me to reject the church and find other meaning to life. I still think his work resonates deeply at a pre-Christian level, whether we wish to call that pagan or not. That essence struck me as I read it for the first time, and is possibly one reason why I was immediately taken with it. It rang true, but it was a wholly different true than what I learned in church.

However, I know that many readers will just not see that in the work. I also know that many readers will not see any deeper meaning, even if they do love the book. I also see it as an incredibly modernist work while others see it as a medieval revival of sorts. I like pondering the scientific explanations of what happens in Tolkien's world, others think it takes away the magic. Fair enough.

What Tolkien intended or did not intend is irrelevant really, as few of us would know the slightest thing about that when we first read his work. All we have to go on are our own impressions of it. And for a Christian to read it and then start to question their faith, demonstrates that even if Tolkien did intend it to have a Christian message, it wasn't ever going to get over to every reader.

My answer is that no one faith has the monopoly on the great things we pinpoint about Christianity - trust, honour, courage, honesty, hope etc etc. (nor does Christianity have the monopoly on the difficult things such as sacrifice, suffering and sin). Those great things are just great things about the very best in humanity, they are Universal, and we respond to them whoever we are and wherever we are going in life and spirit.

As a Christian Tolkien of course reflected what was great about his belief in his life work, but they are not exclusive to his faith; nor did he lay it on with a trowel and tell his readers what to think. He was anything but didactic. You really can read it your own way, because those messages are understood by all good people.

[littlemanpoet]

davem & Lalwendë, I understand your points and appreciate them. There are minor points that I disagree with, but over all I don't. Therefore, I will indeed pursue this course that I've laid out as an appreciation of Tolkien's LotR from a Christian point of view. There are things that I think may not have been said yet, at least not to others here at the Downs. If you wish to take part, feel free. If not, that is your decision and I will of course respect it. .... but it may take a while for me to do all of this seeing as I'm moderating a certain (ahem) game on another part of this forum....

[davem]

The main problem with showing a 'consciously Christian subtext' to LotR is that it is too close (imo) to implying the thing is an allegory. Even if you avoid doing that you're still treating it as a 'secondary' thing, in that you are putting it in service of something else, not treating it as a thing in itself. Effectively you are moving it from work of Art to 'parable'.

Now I can see that it is possible to read it in that way, but that will not actually 'prove' anything that we don't already know. I could construct an 'unconsciously Pagan subtext' to LotR. I could also show it is nothing more than what it appears to be (what Tolkien himself claimed it to be in the Foreword). I daresay I could also 'show' it was a genuine historical document translated by Tolkien & therefore it is 'actually' a factual work with no religious or philosophical subtext. At a push I could probably also show it was a 'received' text communicated psychically to Tolkien by Aliens from the planet Tharg.

I just don't see the point in doing any of those things. A Christian reader will pick up on the Christian subtext (they'd probably pick up on it even if Tolkien hadn't put one in there), a non-Christian won't care even if you do demonstrate it.

My own feelings change in regards to the work. If I'm in the mood I can read it in the way you imply, but I try not to do so, because what that approach does is to treat it as a 'code' to be translated – it doesn't mean what it says, it 'actually' means something else entirely.

What I don't understand is why you feel such a 'need' to prove it’s a Christian work – is it just because this work is so important to you, or do you do this with everything you like? Or are you using LotR to try to gain converts – in which case you are doing something I'm not sure Tolkien would have approved of at all. If the Bible doesn't convince people why do you think showing a Christian subtext to LotR will? Or do you just simply want to prove its there? If that's the reason I'm not sure anyone is going to argue that Tolkien didn't put in a Christian sub-text in there for those who want to find it.

What's far more interesting to me is that so many readers are so profoundly moved & affected by the work without being aware of the Christian sub-text. I suppose you'll argue that that's because they are 'really' responding to the work's Christian sub-text without realising it (like the Athenians worshipping the 'True' God without realising it) & that's why they're moved. Personally I'm not convinced by that, as its rather like me saying that people are moved by hearing The Magic Flute because they are secretly picking up on the 'consciously Freemasonic subtext' & they are Freemasons without realising it (hence 'proving' Freemasonry is 'True'). No. They're moved by The Magic Flute for exactly the same reasons as by LotR – because of what it is, not because of something its concealing.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

They're moved by The Magic Flute for exactly the same reasons as by LotR – because of what it is, not because of something its concealing.

Ah! But we could have a notion of art as strip tease, wherein the power of its tantalising features lies in the adroit way it plays with both concealing and revealing what it is.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Ah! But we could have a notion of art as strip tease, wherein the power of its tantalising features lies in the adroit way it plays with both concealing and revealing what it is.

My feeling is that true Art opens us to a deeper experience of 'life, the universe & everything, But it doesn't do that 'at one remove' (ie by 'concealing' a Christian sub-text which then opens us up to that deeper experience). Introducing a Christian sub-text in the way LMP wishes to do moves us farther away from that depth experience, rather than bringing us closer to it.

In other words, I'm suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcedent' experience)(2) while LMP seems to be suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals Christian 'Truth'(2), which 'Truth' then conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcendent' experience)(3).

So LMP is introducing an unnecessary stage into the process as far as I can see.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Look, I've used tarot in the past & I know it has worked. There are various theories as to why. The 'traditional' theory is the 'Angel of the Tarot' - ie an Angel communicates the truth about the future through the cards. A jungian would call it synchronicity. A fundamentalist Christian would say it was demons attempting to lead me away from God. All I actually know is that for me Tarot worked.

I cannot let this pass without comment . Seemingly it is easier for some to believe in the works of their own hands than for a creator for the universe (Isaiah 2:8). Not sure what davem means by "Tarot worked," but I can think of many ways for it to have provided a satisfactory result yet be completely non-supernatural (i.e. cold reading, vague answers that are interpretted as correct by the mark, etc). Found a link that was a little hard on the eyes and addled with a bit of crude language, but summed it up pretty well. I can provide the link to those so interested. This link is more professional and very informative but not as funny. My point is that we can fill in the gaps with just about anything that is consistent within its own secondary world, but for the most part, there's a simpler more mundane explanation.

Back in the day a fellow lab rat talked about going to see a psychic. She'd seen the psychic at a party and the psychic was presumably the real deal. I was skeptical ( ) and suggested that before she blew the $30 for the reading that she ask one question of the psychic. "I have placed an object significant to me in a room in my house. What is it and where is it? Write out the specific room and the exact object on a piece of paper in front of both of us. I will not utter another sound and will not look at either you or the paper until you are finished. Any attempt to get me to speak or move will invalidate the test. I cannot give you $30 and expect to hear of my future until you've completed this simple task."

Of course the woman did not pre-test the psychic and handed over the money ("I see that you are getting ripped off..."). She told me of the revelations and stated that the psychic told her things that she just couldn't have known otherwise. I showed that I could do the same thing, but she knew that I was 'cold reading' and so that wasn't the same. And I noted that months later, regardless of the pretzel-logic used, none of the future came true.

Why don't we seek to test? It's been posited that if I tried to sell you a flask that would forever flow wine, ale or tea, you would tell me to take a hike. If, however, I said that the same flask could help your stereo speakers sound better by simply sitting atop them, or when spun tell the future, or if strapped to your wrist would help any pains that you might have that I might be able to become rich. In this thread we've considered some things that are beyond the ken of science/testing. Does God exist? Did He enter history? There's just no way to test these things. But tarot?

Ar-Pharazôn, the brash wise king who humbled Sauron, could not resist the Call of the Ban. Wise fool, with a little test he could have averted disaster. The Valar, in their silliness, set up the Ban to protect men from entering Aman, something that was just not permitted and would actually be hazardous for men. What were they thinking? Like in Eden, if you tell us not to go somewhere or do something, you just know what's going to happen. YHWH should have known better; Manwë was a poor leader - but that's not my point. Here we have the unknown, the Banned seas. Ar-Pharazôn had access to knowledge that the Ban might actually be for mankind's protection, and so should have sent a small party to see just what would happen to those who placed their feet upon Aman's jeweled shores ("Good idea, Sauron, and so maybe *you* should lead the way..."). A palantir may have come in handy. Sure, he would have technically broken the Ban, and most likely would have been destroyed, but if the Valar would have truly been wise, then they would have permitted the test so that, once and for all, it would have been observed that Aman was fatal to humans.

Yes, I know that in a few lifetimes that even those who had seen would have forgotten, but better to have permitted a test than to leave a big gap which attracts all kind of fantasies and horrors.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Please correct me if I have the wrong interpretation, but it seems to me that people are understanding 'miracle' merely as something which violates the natural order or principle of the material, physical universe.

However, if 'miracle' is understood as something that occurs other than what was expected, the concept of miracle can be related to Tolkien's idea of eucatastrophe. Think for a bit about the destruction of the Ring. Was Frodo's desire not to throw the Ring into Mount Doom a violation of natural principles or expectations? No, most readers understand that by that time he had come completely under its influence. Is Gollem's jump and the violence of his act to take the Ring a violation of our expectations? No, not at all. Competely what we would expect of him at that point in the story.

Miracle is a pretty big word. If you think about it, it's even bigger in Middle Earth. Why? We have a world where Balrogs have dragons for pets, and eagles fight with angels. The threshold for something to be a miracle, therefore, is much much higher than it is in our more bland world.

And just how eucatastrophic did Sauron think Gollum's fall to be? Isn't that word/idea slanted to the side of the good? Was the Fall of Fingolfin another eucatastrophe, but from the other point of view?

[davem]

Alatar, Tarot works. I've studied it & used it, therefore I know it works. Sorry if accepting this would shake the foundations of your Weltanshauung. Actually, I'm not concerned whether you or anyone else believes in tarot, astrology, I ching, Faeries, or anything else, because I'm not out to convert anybody to anything. That was absolutely not the point I was making. The point was I tried Tarot with an open-minded attitude & it worked. That does not prove any particular theory about tarot. It is simply a 'fact'. I can't explain how or why it works. I don't 'believe' anything about it other than that it worked when I used it.

You apparently have a belief system that requires Tarot not to work. I don't even have a belief system that requires it to work. It just worked.

The wider point was the way we accept or reject things based on our underlying weltanschauung rather than approaching life in as unbiassed open-minded way. I'm not even saying it will work if I use it again, just that when I used it it worked.

Ok. true story. I once saw a UFO. I was watching what I thought was an aircraft moving through the night sky. It travelled in a straight line & then suddenly moved at a right-angle (it didn't 'turn', just stopped & moved on at 90 degrees). It then carried on for a while & instanly turned at a right-angle again.

I have no idea what it was. Maybe it was a space-craft. Maybe it was an atmospheric phenomenon. Maybe it was an angel. Maybe I was deluded. The point is I have no idea what it was, but I experienced it & have no explanation to offer. I could have adopted any of those theories & explained it away. I'm not prepared to do that though. It just happened. I've met faeries & an angel & I've seen 'across time' at a stone circle. But I don't hold any complex theories to account for those experiences, because I'm not interested in doing so.

What fascinates me is the way people adopt complex belief systems (whether religious or materialistic) which will not permit certain things to actually exist, so that they have to construct all kinds of convoluted reasons as to why they're 'fake', or have to account for them in terms of 'Fallen Angels' mating with humans &/or animals or other equally outlandish 'theories'.

I'm sure you could put together a fascinating 'explanation' as to why my experiences happened (if only that I'm a bit of a looney or a liar), but I'm not interested, because your theory would merely be your attempt to fit my experiences into your reality. I'm not interested in putting together my own explanation so I definitely have no interest in anyone else's.

'Cold Reading' is simply an attempt to show you're cleverer than someone else - they're just so dumb that they can't see what's glaringly obvious to you. The fact that you can fake something doesn't in any way prove that every instance of that thing is a fake. People fake everything from dollar bills to Rembrandts - does that prove that all dollar bills & Rembrandts are fakes?

[alatar]

My apologies, davem if you took my post as another of the 'the poster's deluded' kind.

My point is that there are things that we can test. Your UFO experience is not one of those. It happened and may never occur ever again. We'll never know, and, as you, I really don't care what persons believe about it.

Your tarot experience is another thing entire. You may be done with it, but it shows that you believe that 'something worked.' I assume that your future was foretold? How does that work? Is there a 'future' out there that can be read? Does the future already exist?

Did the reader provide some clairvoyantly-acquired information? If so, in what medium does that information travel?

Whatever. I just thought it interesting that you discount the existence of a god yet seemingly accept a magical universe. And don't worry about my world view; if you say it works, then that's good enough for me. Just like others have belief systems that work for them (and me ), we all exist, as I think you said, in our own secondary worlds. In my world, if I cannot test it, then it's not that interesting...unless I'm discussing it on a web forum. Sometimes the explanation is not angels nor devils, quantum mechanical vibrations or auras, but that we do not yet know.

Gaps indeed.

And regarding cold reading: in the example that I gave I was not showing how much better/smarter I was (I have a lot to learn and always try to keep that in mind), but that there is a simpler explanation for 'psychic abilities.' Same with faith healers. The point here is that scientists are as blind as the rest of us, and we may be expert at some things, but there are areas in which we are wide open to the fake.

Because we want to believe so much, we do not see clearly. I do it too (though am too proud to ever admit it).

Humans create paintings and dollar bills. Some are legit; some not, and some so cleverly made that it's hard to tell the difference. All are made by people just like you and me. So why do we seek to limit the abilities of humans (benign and otherwise)? Why cannot psychic abilities simply be someone adept at reading people and telling them what they want to hear? Nope. Too mundane. Have to add the supernatural to really sell it.

Maybe Ar-Pharazôn knew, down deep, that Sauron was playing him for the fool and that crossing the Ban would be his downfall. But did his pride take hold, driving out his rationality, making him believe even his own lies?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

What fascinates me is the way people adopt complex belief systems (whether religious or materialistic) which will not permit certain things to actually exist, so that they have to construct all kinds of convoluted reasons as to why they're 'fake', or have to account for them in terms of 'Fallen Angels' mating with humans &/or animals or other equally outlandish 'theories'.

This is why I am not part of an organised religion. I wish to experience the world and learn about it, including its mysteries, and come to my own conclusions.

I am skilled in Tarot reading, it is one of the many 'tools' I have used to examine myself and the world around me. The cards are not random images but Universal images, and to really read them you need to go into the layers of meaning, the numbers, the symbols, the representations from many religions (including Christianity). A reading will as often as not turn up cards which cannot be fully interpreted as these things have not yet happened; a 'cold reading' could not account for these or make up theories as to what they might be. Those things may not even happen if we choose to follow advice given or not.

I love science and love trying to explain things with scientific theories. But even if science could explain why Tarot works as it does, it still would not take away the fact that as an experienced reader, it gives me a kind of insight I cannot get elsewhere. Even if it is 'merely' a meditative tool, it is a very effective one. I suppose the fact that I use this is partly why I do not deride anyone for their faith; a lot of us follow seemingly illogical paths.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Did the reader provide some clairvoyantly-acquired information? If so, in what medium does that information travel?

I'm afraid I was that 'reader'. I read for myself & gained a deal of insight into myself - which is the main purpose of Tarot.

Whatever. I just thought it interesting that you discount the existence of a god yet seemingly accept a magical universe. And don't worry about my world view; if you say it works, then that's good enough for me. Just like others have belief systems that work for them (and me ), we all exist, as I think you said, in our own secondary worlds.

I neither accept nor reject a 'magical universe' (or of a God either). I have had 'experiences' which are part of my universe (magical or not).

So why do we seek to limit the abilities of humans (benign and otherwise)? Why cannot psychic abilities simply be someone adept at reading people and telling them what they want to hear? Nope. Too mundane. Have to add the supernatural to really sell it.

I don't see why they shouldn't be. But neither do I see proof that are. I'm really not all that interested in explaining things away. Its boring for one thing. I'd rather live in a universe that includes Elves & Fairies, Tarot & Astrology, but that's just me. I want mystery, the unknown. That's my main problem with restrictive 'religions' & belief systems. I like the idea of turning a corner & meeting an angel, or laying out cards & learning something I didn't know. I have no desire either to have them 'explained' to me by a religious or or explained away by a scientist, because what both are saying is that I can only have them on (if at all) their terms.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

I don't see why they shouldn't be. But neither do I see proof that are. I'm really not all that interested in explaining things away. Its boring for one thing. I'd rather live in a universe that includes Elves & Fairies, Tarot & Astrology, but that's just me. I want mystery, the unknown. That's my main problem with restrictive 'religions' & belief systems. I like the idea of turning a corner & meeting an angel, or laying out cards & learning something I didn't know. I have no desire either to have them 'explained' to me by a religious or or explained away by a scientist, because what both are saying is that I can only have them on (if at all) their terms.

Guess that I'm just bitter . So many times in my youth I wanted to 'believe' (aliens, Bigfoot, life-after-death, magic, etc), yet time and time again when I would look a little closer - obviously a character flaw - the facade would fall flat.

Maybe that's why I like LotR so much. For a time, when reading, viewing or listening, I can actually suspend disbelief and walk in that secondary world where magic exists as the world is so well constructed that I don't see the seams. Intentionally.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Guess that I'm just bitter . So many times in my youth I wanted to 'believe' (aliens, Bigfoot, life-after-death, magic, etc), yet time and time again when I would look a little closer - obviously a character flaw - the facade would fall flat.

So for you now all the Dollar bills are fake, even the ones you haven't examined?

Remember how you felt when you thought they were 'real'? Its that feeling that matters.

I'm not sure any of the things you mentioned have been 'disproven', merely that they haven't been 'proved' (ie no gap has been found in the current scientific model to fit them into).

Personally, I like the idea of all of them, but refuse to believe in any of them. Or disbelieve in any of them come to that.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

So for you now all the Dollar bills are fake, even the ones you haven't examined?

If you come across any US dollar bills, I would happily examine them (and, mostly likely, report them to be fake...though we might find me suddenly a little too happy to be explained by chance.)

Remember how you felt when you thought they were 'real'? Its that feeling that matters.

I do, and thankfully my children/life stil provide me with that feeling. I need not look too far to find that sense of wonder. On the other hand, I remember all too well the feelings of betrayal when 'I'd been had.' It's a balancing act, to be sure.

Some might say that I've been betrayed not by God or the spiritual world but by their earthly exemplars, but, alas, here we are. You can even see this in my comments in the SbS, as PJ did not make the movies as I saw them (imagine that ).

Again I think that's why the books work so well; I can gloss over the errors, everything is how I would have it, and in the end, there's something in which to believe.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcedent' experience)(2) while LMP seems to be suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals Christian 'Truth'(2), which 'Truth' then conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcendent' experience)(3).

So LMP is introducing an unnecessary stage into the process as far as I can see.

No.

Tolkien said that the purpose of Fairy Story is escape, consolation, and recovery; namely to recover a clear view. Clear view of what? Reality. What he's saying (and I think you agree) is that Fairy Story (mythic story) reveals reality better than, and in a way that, mimetic fiction cannot.

You need to understand that from my point of view there is no unnecessary stage, since Deeper sense of reality and Christian reality are one and the same.

Originally Posted by davem

It seems to me that believers go to such extremes to construct reasons why God doesn't openly reveal His existence because they're afraid He doesn't actually exist.

It occurred to me today that the Christian subtext in LotR and the evidence of God in the world are of the same nature. In both, the "thing itself' is so pervasive and knitted into the very fabric of the sub-creation that we're too used to looking at it and don't see it for what it is. For example, God's reality is in the very fact that the sun shines by day and the stars by night. That the planets continue to spin and revolve and our hearts keep beating. We take all of it so for granted that we don't even consider that God's creative and maintaining will are behind everything continuing to work. It doesn't matter that there's a scientific explanation for all of it rooted in physics and/or biology; those are merely explanation of what we see actually happening. There is no satsifactory explanation for WHY it keeps happening the way it does. Scientists are forced to answer, "Well, that's the law of (fill in the blank)." What's behind the law? God is behind the law. In the same way, Tolkien's faith is deeply ingrained in LotR. I'll being showing this.

The Losses of the Ring show some revealing variation.

1. Isildur cuts off Sauron's finger and the Ring falls to Isildur.
2. The Ring slides off Isildur's finger at the Gladden Fields, betraying him to the murdering arrows of the orcs.
3. Déagol is murdered by Sméagol for its possession.
4. The Ring slides off Gollum's finger uner the mountain.
5. The Ring drops from Bilbo's hands; Gandalf quickly picks it up before Bilbo can retrieve it.
6. Gandalf quickly places the Ring which he places on the hearth.
7. Sam removes the chain from around Frodo's neck, thinking him dead and the errand in need of completion.
8. Sam gives the Ring back to the demanding Frodo.
9. Gollum bites of Frodo's finger and regains the Ring.
10. The Ring and Gollum melt in the fires of Mount Doom.

Gandalf, when explaining the Ring to Frodo in 'Shadows of the Past', says that Bilbo gave up the Ring voluntarily, but the narration in the previous chapter reveals a more complex situation. Bilbo 'accidentally' drops the Ring.

'You have still got the ring in your pocket,' said the wizard.
'Well, so I have!' cried Bilbo. 'And my will and all the other documents too. You had better take it and deliver it for me. That will be safest.'
'No, don't give the ring to me,' said Gandalf. 'Put it on the mantelpiece. It will be safe enough there, till Frodo comes. I shall wait for him.'
Bilbo took out the envelope, but just as he was about to set it by the clock, his hand jerked back, and the packet fell to the floor. Before he could pick it up, the wizard stooped and seizedit and setit in its place. A spasm of anger passed swiftly over the hobbit's face again. Suddenly it gave way to a look of relief and a laugh.

What causes his hand to jerk back? What causes the packet to fall to the floor? Both circumstances are laid before the reader in such a way that we understand Bilbo to be passive; one acted upon rather than causing action. So Gandalf picks up the envelope holding the Ring, and quickly places it on the hearth. Bilbo is about to get mad, but freed of the burden of the Ring, he suddenly feels relief, and laughs - he is himself again at last (or so we hope) - and leaves Bad End lighter of heart than he has been for many years.

So is Gandalf lying to Frodo when he says that Bilbo gave up the Ring voluntarily? No. Bilbo's obvious relief at being rid of it, shows that he would have given it up, if he had been able. He wasn't able. His will had become enslaved to the Ring.

There is only one voluntary relinquishment of the Ring, by Sam.

Three times the Ring is violently removed fromt its holder.

Three times the Ring falls from the hand of its holder.

Two of these times, the Ring is certainly the will at work: leaving Isildur and leaving Gollum. What about when Bilbo drops it? The sense I have is that the Ring causes Bilbo's hand to jerk back; but does the Ring cause itself to be dropped from Bilbo's hand? Does it drop in hopes of being claimed by Gandalf? Perhaps. Was it just an accident? If so, it is an unusual exception to everything we know about the history of the Ring. Or was there another will at work? If so, what will could overpower the Ring's will to remain in the hands of Bilbo? What will could overpower the Ring's potential hold on Gandalf? It's obvious that Gandalf doesn't trust himself. He is exerting all his effort to separate the Ring from Bilbo while putting every effort of will that he can spare to resist the temptation of the Ring himself! It's not Gandalf's power that gets Bilbo to drop the Ring; Gandalf doesn't dare exert his will in that way, or he will himself succumb to the Ring's lure.

So what will is this? What power? The Valar? If so, which of them has the power to overcome the will of the Ring, that even Gandalf and Galadriel fear? None of them. Is this dropping of the Ring just an accident? How many 'accidents' are there in LotR? More specifically, how many 'acidents' seem to tip the precarious scales of 'chance' toward the good of the free peoples, and away from Sauron's advantage ... if 'chance' we call it? What power is this? There is only one power, one answer that fits the narrative. Eru.

[davem]

If you're arguing for a religious sub-text to LotR (TH, The Sil, et al) I don't disagree – as I've said. I don't think any of the examples you've cited would argue against it being a Jewish, Muslim or Hindu sub-text though. You haven't offered evidence for a specifically Christian sub-text imo.

Its impossible to argue against there being a loving Deity behind the events in Middle-earth, but apart from the reference in Athrabeth I can't see Eru bears any relation to Jehovah.

As an aside, on the news today the Government are planning to teach 'Britishness' in schools, in order to bring about a more 'integrated & co-hesive' society. Apparently this will include teaching children about 'tolerance, democracy & equality' as well as the contribution made by all ethnic groups to our culture. Now, I'm sure you'll agree that all those things are uniquely 'British' & cannot be found in any other country in the world

I can't help feeling that you're doing something similar with the examples you've given of 'Christian' themes in LotR.

Of course, one could argue that it is all down to chance, & that M-e is simply the kind of world where odd synchronicities & serendipities just happen – I'm sure many of the inhabitants believe just that, & I'm sure there are some readers who think the same.

However, even if one accepts a 'Christian sub-text' to the story all that proves is that Tolkien was a Christian & the story reflected his worldview. That said, he deliberately 'concealed' any explicit reference to his religion, which means that if you don't want to pick up on the sub-text you can safely ignore it.

The point being, the story can be understood & enjoyed without any knowledge of, or reference to, Christianity. The unique thing about Christianity is the Incarnation, nothing else. There is no actual Incarnation in the Legendarium, only a single reference to the possibility of something like that happening 'one day'. Again, most readers do not pick up on any Christian subtext, though they probably pick up on a religious one. I'm still not sure I see the relevance of it all though. And it certainly doesn't prove anything about the Primary world anyway.

There is no satisfactory explanation for WHY it keeps happening the way it does. Scientists are forced to answer, "Well, that's the law of (fill in the blank)." What's behind the law? God is behind the law.

Well, the scientists are merely being honest there & I can't see how you can criticise them for that. I don't think you can bring God into it as an 'explanation' without more evidence. That's just back to the 'God of the Gaps' again

For example, God's reality is in the very fact that the sun shines by day and the stars by night. That the planets continue to spin and revolve and our hearts keep beating. We take all of it so for granted that we don't even consider that God's creative and maintaining will are behind everything continuing to work.

Only if you want to see it that way. I'm not saying its not exactly like that, but I'm not smart enough (or, to be frank, interested enough) to decide which of the various religious or scientific 'traditions' are True.

[Lalwendë]

Well, what about Sam?

If the ownership of The Ring was being controlled by Eru because it had to be controlled by Eru, then what does this say about Sam, who gave it up willingly? Or more specifically, about his relationship with both Ring and Eru?

[drigel]

However, even if one accepts a 'Christian sub-text' to the story all that proves is that Tolkien was a Christian & the story reflected his worldview. That said, he deliberately 'concealed' any explicit reference to his religion, which means that if you don't want to pick up on the sub-text you can safely ignore it.

As I read this thread, I appreciate more and more the influence CSL had upon Tolkien. Perhaps seeing the success (in terms of the goals of CSL as author, rather than in the business sense) of Lewis' works set upon JRRT a stronger sense of mission in his own work. The application of the Christian concept not as a preachy lesson to be learned, but adding a layer of depth and meaning to the Ea universe, and also enforcing a validity to Fairy that otherwise would not be there (and not attempted before in literature). Not saying it was necessary or needed, but perhaps in the authors mind, a slight elevation in scope was a good thing.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

.. even if one accepts a 'Christian sub-text' to the story all that proves is that Tolkien was a Christian & the story reflected his worldview. That said, he deliberately 'concealed' any explicit reference to his religion, which means that if you don't want to pick up on the sub-text you can safely ignore it.

This is so.

Originally Posted by davem

The unique thing about Christianity is the Incarnation, nothing else.

Oh really? As if the incarnation itself is no big deal...

Originally Posted by davem

Well, the scientists are merely being honest there & I can't see how you can criticise them for that.

How did you see my words as criticism? I wasn't pejoratizing them, just stating the way things are. Or do you presume that since I'm a Christian, I must be anti-science?

I'm not ... interested enough ... to decide which of the various religious or scientific 'traditions' are True.

Bull's eye.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Well, what about Sam? ... If the ownership of The Ring was being controlled by Eru because it had to be controlled by Eru, then what does this say about Sam, who gave it up willingly? Or more specifically, about his relationship with both Ring and Eru?

Yes, I found that very interesting. Tolkien states that Sam is the real hero of the story. He is the only one who gives it up freely. He is the only one for whom loyalty to, and love for, another are strong enough to overcome the temptation of the Ring. It's a powerful moment. The Ring wielded all the will it had to muster against Sam; Tolkien makes that clear, but Sam resists successfully. Plain horse sense? Is Sam just too mundane? Too humble of a gardener? Lacking in imagination such that the Ring's lure can only be deemed ludicrous? Nope. This Hobbit has grown. There's all kinds of transcendence going on here. The Elves already in the Shire started changing this Hobbit, and he gains wisdom. The Elves in LotR, are bestowers of wisdom and grace, and Sam readily receives. Because he loves and listens to the Elves, and listens to them and understands them (in his own way), he receives what he is able through them, of the mind of Eru, wisdom enough to now his own weakness, his own smallness, his right place in the scheme of things. That was wordy. Sorry.

Drigel, I believe that it was needed. And necessary. .... at least for the sake of mythic unities recovered. But that's another thread.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

However, even if one accepts a 'Christian sub-text' to the story all that proves is that Tolkien was a Christian & the story reflected his worldview. That said, he deliberately 'concealed' any explicit reference to his religion, which means that if you don't want to pick up on the sub-text you can safely ignore it.

Dearie, dearie me! Is davem arguing for a readerly interpretation here?

It is quite possible that Tolkien the author preferred a certain kind of reading, one which allowed, encouraged, demanded a personal responsiblity on the part of the reader. This is part of his famous rejection of allegory. His Christian message would be meaningless if forced upon readers, so he, as a sub-creator, created a readerly situation analogous to that which the Creator--in Tolkien's eyes-- allows, where the onus is on personal responsibility for how one makes sense of the world.

Whether this means "safely ignore" or merely "ignore" is up for grabs.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Dearie, dearie me! Is davem arguing for a readerly interpretation here?

It is quite possible that Tolkien the author preferred a certain kind of reading, one which allowed, encouraged, demanded a personal responsiblity on the part of the reader. This is part of his famous rejection of allegory. His Christian message would be meaningless if forced upon readers, so he, as a sub-creator, created a readerly situation analogous to that which the Creator--in Tolkien's eyes-- allows, where the onus is on personal responsibility for how one makes sense of the world.

Whether this means "safely ignore" or merely "ignore" is up for grabs.

Davem is arguing, as he always has, for reading the story with as little 'baggage' as possible, simply entering the world & allowing it to affect you, move you, & possibly even change you.

If we must choose a certain kind of reading, or interpretation, then out of courtesy we should go with the author's. However I think any 'baggage' (whether of the author or the reader) will get in the way of the direct experience of the story. If Tolkien had wanted to write a work of Christian Apologetics I'm sure he would have done so. This is not to say we are bound to accept the author's interpretation if if causes us 'pain' of any kind, merely that we should acknowledge it as more 'correct' than our own.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It is quite possible that Tolkien the author preferred a certain kind of reading, one which allowed, encouraged, demanded a personal responsiblity on the part of the reader. This is part of his famous rejection of allegory. His Christian message would be meaningless if forced upon readers, so he, as a sub-creator, created a readerly situation analogous to that which the Creator--in Tolkien's eyes-- allows, where the onus is on personal responsibility for how one makes sense of the world.

Wow. I could not have said it better.

Originally Posted by davem

Davem is arguing, as he always has, for reading the story with as little 'baggage' as possible, simply entering the world & allowing it to affect you, move you, & possibly even change you.

... as long as that change does not include any logical results of a Christian subtext?

There are layers and layers of subtext in LotR. How could there not be, considering all the linguistic, cultural, mythic, historical, and other substrata he has layered into it? What I am saying is that the deepest subtext is the Christian one, only one deeper than the theist. In that deepest of subtexts lie principles of reality and of the Spirit that are simply not perceivable by those who choose not to believe Christian teaching. It is this deepest substratum that Christians find so satisfying about LotR. This in no way denies the satisfactions to be enjoyed at the theist, mythic, linguistic, historical, cultural, story, and other strata of LotR. I appreciate that you are at least no longer denying that the Christian subtext is, or at least might be, there.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Wow. I could not have said it better.

... as long as that change does not include any logical results of a Christian subtext?

There are layers and layers of subtext in LotR. How could there not be, considering all the linguistic, cultural, mythic, historical, and other substrata he has layered into it? What I am saying is that the deepest subtext is the Christian one, only one deeper than the theist. In that deepest of subtexts lie principles of reality and of the Spirit that are simply not perceivable by those who choose not to believe Christian teaching. It is this deepest substratum that Christians find so satisfying about LotR. This in no way denies the satisfactions to be enjoyed at the theist, mythic, linguistic, historical, cultural, story, and other strata of LotR. I appreciate that you are at least no longer denying that the Christian subtext is, or at least might be, there.

I accept a theist subtext, but as any reference to Incarnation is absent from the subtext, I don't see how it's specifically Christian.This is why I can't accept your position that there is something non-Christians miss. Apart from the fact that not picking up on it, they couldn't actually 'miss' it, I think you're bringing your Chiristian baggage into Middle earth with you & 'finding' it there because you've brought it.

What exactly is this specifically Christian meaning you're seeing there? All the examples you've offered so far have certainly shown a religious subtext, but not a specifically Christian one. There is no Incarnation in LotR, hence, it is not Christian as far as I can see. Mercy, compassion, self-sacrifice, the presence of a Loving Creator & 'Angelic' Guardians are not unique to Christianity.

I can see specificly Catholic reerences/symbols in there - Lembas, Elbereth, & such, but all those things are well enough accounted for in the context of the Secondary World that a primary world explanation is surplus to requirements. I don't believe bringing Christianity into M-e does anything but break the spell & pull you out of the Secondary world back into the Primary.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

What exactly is this specifically Christian meaning you're seeing there?

Originally Posted by davem

There is no Incarnation in LotR, hence, it is not Christian as far as I can see. Mercy, compassion, self-sacrifice, the presence of a Loving Creator & 'Angelic' Guardians are not unique to Christianity.

Originally Posted by davem

I can see specificly Catholic reerences/symbols in there - Lembas, Elbereth, & such, but all those things are well enough accounted for in the context of the Secondary World that a primary world explanation is surplus to requirements.

These statements succinctly give me the questions I will focus on answering, as I have the time.


Incarnation is not the only distinguishing characteristic of Chrstianity, but I'll get into that more later as well.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Incarnation is not the only distinguishing characteristic of Christianity, but I'll get into that more later as well.

Incarnation & Resurrection: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor. 15:14).

Everything else boils down to Love God & Love your neighbour as yourself - which is about as far from unique in religious terms as I can think of.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Incarnation & Resurrection: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor. 15:14).

Everything else boils down to Love God & Love your neighbour as yourself - which is about as far from unique in religious terms as I can think of.

There's more to it. I'll get into it as I have time. It's largely but not only implications of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. Largely but not only.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Please remember to keep your posts in the context of Tolkien's works - this is not a general theological discussion!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Please remember to keep your posts in the context of Tolkien's works - this is not a general theological discussion!

Sorry, Esty, but it actually became a theological discussion a long time back. However, we've decided that its relevant in the context of what we know of Inklings discussions. The point is exploring how 'Christian' a work the Legendarium is - hence we have to decide what constitutes 'Christian' (as opposed to 'religious') in this context, & how relevant that is. This effectively requires us to discuss general theology.

My position is that what is uniquely 'Christian' is the Incarnation, Crucifixion & Resurrection of Christ (& I suppose the idea of a 'personal relationship with the Creator) & that anything else in Christianity is shared with other religions like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, & philosphies like humanism, Platonism, et al. As none of those four things is present in the Ledgendarium generally or LotR specifically I can't see how it can be called a 'Christian' work.

Obviously the nature of Christianity has to be established before we can determine whether LotR is a specifically 'Christian' work.

[littlemanpoet]

I'm with davem on this, Estelyn. Granted, this is one of those 'touchy' subjects, but I think this discussion has been by and large handled equitably and with reasonable etiquette throughout. And posts that follow will of course include things Tolkien, as much as it makes sense (which should be a lot).

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

Though you may simply be stating what others have said, I agree that it's a bit convoluted and makes God seem less omnipotent as He must rely on human agents to execute peoples so that His plan will succeed.

Originally Posted by me

This is a very important point. By allowing humans free will, God has necessarily placed limits upon his own omnipotence. This is rather frightening concept that most Christians don't want to try to get their minds around, but when you look at it, it's pretty obvious. What is also necessary to conclude from it, is that God is an exceedingly brilliant craftsGod (can't exactly say craftsman although we could about Jesus I suppose), in that he still works all of human free will with all of its mix of good and evil and chaos into his ultimate plan for the good of those that love him and keep his word.

Correction

I was wrong. No entity in the universe is freer than God. Allowing free will to humans didn't change that at all. God is not bound by our choices. In fact, any of the oaths and promises He swore to in Scripture, do nothing more than agree with God's character anyway, so God is not altering a thing by having spoken those oaths or made those promises. God is free. God is bound by nothing other than God's own character.

Passive tense in LotR

For a clue into the Christian sub-text in LotR, take note Tolkien's use of the passive tense. Try to decipher what agent is active in these passive tense phrases. What person, entity, power, or what-have-you is acting upon the hobbits, men, elves, whomever? 'Twould make a most interesting study.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

For a clue into the Christian sub-text in LotR, take note Tolkien's use of the passive tense. Try to decipher what agent is active in these passive tense phrases. What person, entity, power, or what-have-you is acting upon the hobbits, men, elves, whomever?

Can't see how this proves a 'Christian' subtext. It implies the presence of a personal God, though not a specifically Christian one. Of course, it could be taken as a reference to Fate or Wyrd.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Can't see how this proves a 'Christian' subtext. It implies the presence of a personal God, though not a specifically Christian one. Of course, it could be taken as a reference to Fate or Wyrd.

I'm satisfied that the implication of a personal God is inferred, for starters. The nature of these actions upon the individuals in the story may reveal more than that. And yes, of course, it could be taken as a reference to Fate or Wyrd; Tolkien consciously designed it that way in the revision.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

I'm satisfied that the implication of a personal God is inferred, for starters.

Its certainly inferred by many readers, the question is whether its implied by the author. If Tolkien revised the work to remove any direct reference to religion I can only assume that it was because he wanted to remove the implication ('allegory') & leave open the possibility of inference ('applicability') by the individual reader.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

If Tolkien revised the work to remove any direct reference to religion I can only assume that it was because he wanted to remove the implication ('allegory') & leave open the possibility of inference ('applicability') by the individual reader.

We must distinguish between the two parts of what you have said:

... he wanted to....

1) remove the implication [of Christian/Theist sub-text]
2) leave open the possibility of inference by the individual reader

I agree with #2, but disagree with #1. Such an assumption would run counter to Tolkien's own words, since he did say that the work is consciously Catholic in the revision. Attempts have been made on this thread to construe Tolkien's own words as other than a clear reading shows him to have meant on this point, but tortuously ... to borrow an adjective.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

1) remove the implication [of Christian/Theist sub-text]

Well, Christianity may = Theism, but Theism does not necessarilly = Christianity.

You still haven't proven that LotR is a specifically Christian work.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

You still haven't proven that LotR is a specifically Christian work.

It will depend on whether you are looking for unfalsifiable, beyond a shadow of a doubt, or sheer weight of evidence. I can provide the latter, but the two others will always leave wiggle room. Therefore I'll do my best at providing weight of evidence. It'll take lots of time. And a lot of posts. Not that that has stopped me so far.....