Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
09-23-2006, 10:03 AM | #441 | |||
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
I missed this post earlier.
Quote:
(Herein lies another example of Greek "hardening of the categories" that has rendered Christian understanding of its own faith and history frankly moribund.) The more mythical and biblical-story reading has to do with fallen angels mating with humans, the giants (nephilim) that resulted from such unions, and the filling of Canaan with these giant enemies of the Promise ... the sun and moon standing still for a day ... we're talking mythic power treated as history. I italicized "simple negation of good" because it's an interesting point. First, is it an accurate reading of the biblical-mythic story? Second, even if it is (which I don't think), is it really that simple? Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by littlemanpoet; 09-23-2006 at 10:07 AM. |
|||
09-24-2006, 03:33 PM | #442 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Today I happened upon a speech by Gandalf and the thought arose: how are readers to understand Gandalf's meaning here?
The passage occurs in the first interview of Denethor, Gandalf and Pippin. I'll quote first Denethor's observation and then Gandalf's. Quote:
Quote:
I offer this as one example of a passage in LotR which can legitimately sustain two interpretations. Is this a passage which Tolkien niggled at?
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||
09-24-2006, 07:10 PM | #443 | |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Quote:
|
|
09-24-2006, 08:39 PM | #444 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Bethberry wrote:
Quote:
As a matter of fact, I would say that this constitutes one of the few actual pieces of evidence in support of Tolkien's assertion that LotR was "consciously so [Christian] in the revision". The words may puzzle the reader who does not know Gandalf's true nature; in light of the further information found in the appendices and in UT, it seems clear that Gandalf is referring to a kind of stewardship over Middle-earth, in service of Manwe (the King of Arda) or perhaps even Iluvatar. |
|
09-25-2006, 02:39 AM | #445 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
There's a few interpretations you could get from this one. Gandalf could be a steward of Eru, of Manwe, or he could be a steward for Aragorn as Denethor is. you could also say he is a steward for saruman - as he has taken leadership of the Istari by 'default'.
Bearing in mind that the Sil was not published for some years after LotR, the interpretation that Gandalf was also a steward of Gondor would probably have been the main interpretation for a long time as Eru was unknown. However, there is yet another possible interpretation looking at the following: Quote:
Still not sure how much this could be read as Christian (as opposed to Eruist) though, as to get that interpretation we must first of all also accept that Eru is God. Sure he's God of Arda, but is he God? Even if he's Tolkien's interpretation of God (which is a most peculiar one - we've had this discussion many times and that seems to be the most common point agreed on), and therefore an allegorical God, then would all Christians read it that way, or would some indeed be deeply offended?
__________________
Gordon's alive!
Last edited by Lalwendë; 09-25-2006 at 03:03 AM. |
|
09-25-2006, 07:36 AM | #446 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Lalwende wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you ask me, the question "is Eru God?" is only a semantic one. There are other questions one could ask, of course, that are not merely semantic - Are there differences between Eru as presented in the Silmarillion and the Judeo-Christian God as presented in the Torah, or in the New Testament, or in later theology? Does LotR contain more parallels with the Bible than with other myths? And so on. These are, I think, interesting and non-trivial questions. But it seems to me that there is a tendency to conflate them with one another, and with pseudo-questions, via imprecise wording and over-generalization. I suppose I'm beginning to ramble. Anyway, with regard to Gandalf's line about being a steward - what I'm trying to say is that the question of whether Tolkien wrote this thinking of it as a Christian element is distinct from the question of whether it necessarily comes across as a specifically Christian element. Certainly, the line itself does not convey anything specifically Christian. My claim is only that, when we consider the probable meaning of the line (i.e. steward for Eru/Manwe), the time at which the line was added (in the revision), and Tolkien's claim that the work was consciously Christian in the revision, we have at least a single piece of evidence that he was not lying or mistaken when he made that claim. |
||
09-25-2006, 07:52 AM | #447 | |||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Quote:
Whether Saruman fits the kingly role here is debatable and so the interpretation that Gandalf is steward for Saruman would be one of the less likely or probable ones. But as Pippin's musings suggest, readers are being prepared to see Gandalf in a different light. Words travel in groups and the company they keep often is part of the resonance, ambiguity and reflected meaning they shine. Such reflection is the way literary text enrich language. (Also the way comedy routines work, exploiting ambiguity.) There is the immediate context and then the reflected area. There are many reflections which are collocated here. One need not necessarily see them, of course, as with any interpretation. Certainly Aiwendil is correct in pointing us to the Appendices, where Appendix A summarises parts of The Silm and tells readers that there are "Guardians of the World." In fact, readers are told: Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|||
09-25-2006, 08:27 AM | #448 | |||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
However, the relationship between Gandalf and Aragorn is a special one, and Gandalf does act on Aragorn's behalf, and very much acts as his personal adviser; note how Aragorn does defer to the wiser Gandalf and allow him to make decisions, very much what a Steward would do. Quote:
Quote:
Had some more thoughts on this recently and the gist of them went thus: Tolkien may have wished to have a Monotheistic God in the manner of the Christian God (who we can't even define anyway as there are Unitarians as well as Trinitarians in the real world, and a Pantheistic range of Gods in Arda) in his cosmology, and he may even have referred to Eru as He (capitalised) in his letters, and drawn upon comparisons of God and Eru, even going as far as saying Eru is 'The One' (what? Neo?); but the very nature of God and how he is interpreted by each individual is far too numinous for us to be able to say with absolute certainty that Eru is God. The very most we could ever say is Eru is Tolkien's God. Even breaking this down further, Tolkien may have hoped that his readers would perceive Eru as being in nature something like the God he knew, hence using terminology similar to Christianity to emphasise this fact. As someone who writes, if I wanted to create a cosmology where there was a Monotheistic, omnipotent God in the nature of 'our' God, then I too would employ the familiar literary devices of He and The One and Almighty. Whose God anyway? Eru is most defintely not the God I have known even as a Christian, nor the god that I know now. Eru is a construct in a book, a writer's creation, and in his nature is something entirely different. From my Christian youth one thing I remember being taught is that there was only one book to find the real God in and that's The Bible. Consider this - if we are going to say that Eru is God, with absolute certainty, does this not then suggest that Tolkien's work, stories about Eru and his world, is the Word of God and we might as well study that in church instead of the Bible if we so desire? I think Tolkien would have found this prospect slightly frightening himself! There's something very clever and very deliberate behind all of this fudging in my opinion, and Tolkien put it there. He despised allegory and did not want to write one. Likewise he was squeamish about creating a world with a God which was wholly different to the God he loved as a devout man. If he had the God in there then this would be allegorical, not only that, but also potentially blasphemous. But he could have something which might remind some of us of God, and he could cleverly construct this to make it convincing; he could also construct enough around this 'Eru' figure he made up to make it look like something new. And hey, what an opportunity to explore all his own, personal feelings about God?
__________________
Gordon's alive!
Last edited by Lalwendë; 09-25-2006 at 08:46 AM. Reason: himself not myself - doh! |
|||
09-25-2006, 09:22 AM | #449 | ||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Bethberry wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Lalwende wrote: Quote:
There is a character in the Torah called God. There is a character in the Koran called God. In a sense, they seem to refer to the same entity. It is sensible for Jews and Muslims to discuss God, and even perhaps argue about God; they basically mean the same thing when they say "God", even if they have different beliefs about that thing. Consider the question "Is Allah God?" from the point of view of a Jew or a Christian. The question might be understood in several different ways, and thus elicit several different answers. The Jew might understand the question to mean "Is 'Allah' the word Muslims use for God?", in which case he or she will answer "yes". Or the question might be understood as "Does Allah of the Koran present a true picture of God?" in which case the answer will presumably be "no". I'm sorry if I seem to be belaboring the point. What I'm getting at is that a question like "Is Eru God?" is vague and could in fact mean several different things. Some of those possible meanings will bear an affirmative answer (e.g. "Is Eru the God of Arda?"), some will bear a negative (e.g. "Is the presentation of Eru identical in every way to the presentation of God in the New Testament?"), and some will be debatable ("Is Eru fundamentally very similar to the God presented in the New Testament?"). Last edited by Aiwendil; 12-17-2006 at 08:08 PM. |
||||
09-25-2006, 10:12 AM | #450 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
There is also, for some Christians, the Book of Life. Quote:
Besides, it is much more interesting coming from you than from Christopher.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||
09-25-2006, 10:54 AM | #451 | |||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
There was a fantastic talk on Stewardship and its function in real history (including with regard to the Scots) at Birmingham last year, but I think Esty was not there, and I cannot remember all the detail, so your last hope on that one is to recall davem for more information...
Quote:
And is also why, ultimately, I like to stick to thinking of Eru as Eru (or Illuvatar, depending on the text...) and examining what he does from within the context of the secondary world, otherwise it all gets far too thorny. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|||
09-25-2006, 08:07 PM | #452 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Boring but Necessary Preliminaries (feel free to skip):
The Question: "Does this text adequately reflect that which Christians understand about reality"?
Exhibit #3: Bilbo Surrenders the Ring I won't quote this section at length; it is that section in chapter one that starts with "You have still got the Ring in your pocket", and ends with "Well that's that." 1. Bilbo is at this point trying to cooperate, but he needs Gandalf to guide him through the most basic steps in regard to the Ring. Bilbo is not being difficult (at least not on purpose) anymore. Either the Ring's power is causing him to forget that he has it in his pocket, or a long habit of possession holds sway; whichever the case, Bilbo's stated choice to give up the Ring to Frodo is quickly compromised. 2. Bilbo uses what seems now to him to be the wise course, to turn over the responsibility for the Ring to Gandalf; but he refuses it, knowing full well what a danger the Ring is in his hands (even if we only guess this as of yet). He directs Bilbo to leave it on the mantelpiece for Frodo. 3. This next sequence is telling.
4. Bilbo's complex reaction to this quick sequence deserves a study unto itself.
Conclusions: It is critical that we recognize and acknowledge that Bilbo being freed from the Ring, is, here again, a passive event. Gandalf had to free him; he couldn't do it on his own. Once freed, Bilbo is finally happy again, ready and quite relieved to leave the Ring behind. Bilbo is finally himself again. |
10-01-2006, 06:51 PM | #453 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Exhibit #4: Frodo is Seen
While Gandalf is gone for the most part of the next seventeen years, Frodo is seen. Just once he is "fingering something in his pocket" when Lobelia Sackville-Baggins is about. He is not recorded as becoming invisible. We do not read that Frodo uses the Ring or is not seen where he is expected to be seen. This implies that Frodo heeds Gandalf's advice and shows wisdom. What's more, he behaves in a very unhobbit-like manner, constantly wandering about the Shire's wilds and talking with Dwarves and Elves when he gets a chance. This makes him a bad hobbit, maybe, but not a bad person. The point is, he remains free from the Ring. Lack of use results in lack of addiction, and therefore the Ring holds little if any sway over him. His heart is his own. He stewards the Ring and does not possess it. This is critical. Tolkien does not specifically use the word "steward" in this part of the story, but what he does say indicates that Frodo is not behaving like a possessor of the Ring. The only alternative, short of dropping it on the side of the road, is stewardship. This word and theme will come back often in the story; it is an important element. Frodo stewards the Ring, which places him in an appropriate relationship to a thing. "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Frodo's heart is not with the Ring, but with the Shire. The Ring's power does leave him well-preserved, but that may be the effect of having it near. The important thing is that Frodo is not under the Ring's influence, and that is a very good thing, especially considering what Gandalf has to tell him soon. |
10-11-2006, 05:08 PM | #454 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I would like to thank the people who contributed to this thread so intensely & helped to achieve so many views & viewers.
|
10-12-2006, 08:53 AM | #455 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Uh, I have more 'exhibits', but it seems the call for them has died down. Anyway....
|
10-12-2006, 08:57 AM | #456 |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Littlemanpoet,
I've been reading and enjoying the posts. However, with a cramped schedule, I haven't had anything to add or question. But I did want you to know you have a reader.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. |
10-12-2006, 09:28 AM | #457 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
lmp, I disagree with your point that Bilbo couldn't give the ring away on his own:
Quote:
|
|
10-13-2006, 10:04 PM | #458 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Thanks, Child.
Raynor, you make a good point since Gandalf is Tolkien's truth teller. This statement of Gandalf's about Bilbo "giving it up in the end of his own accord" is interesting, and serves as an excellent example (imho) of Tolkien's realistic combining of that ever present dilemma of human existence, the interplay between free will and providence. Both are real (again imho) and it is impossible to tease them apart from each other. Gandalf is speaking to one of the two realities at the point, and being Tolkien's truth teller, is uselessly gainsaid. However, read the narrative carefully and you will still see that Bilbo needed all the help Gandalf could provide to summon the will, or should I say, be given the strength of will, to resist the allure of the Ring. Gandalf is also correct that he would break the mind of Bilbo or Frodo, for he is merely finite. But it is arguable that a more subtle Power may be at work here, that knows hobbits from their inner workings due to the fact of having invented them in the first place (and I mean this as a reference to Tolkien only in pun), which I choose to call providence; or perhaps it might best be called "chance, if chance you call it". |
10-20-2006, 06:52 PM | #459 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Exhibit #5: Sam Believes
Toward the beginning of Shadows of the Past, Sam Gamgee's character is established by comparison to Ted Sandyman. The section we're looking at is that which begins with "Sam Gamgee was sitting in one corner near the fire.....", and ends with "He walked home under the early stars through Hobbiton and up the Hill, whistling softly and thoughtfully." Sam is trying to have a conversation about "queer tales". Ted will have none of it. First he refuses to even listen on the grounds that they're just hearth stories and children's tales thus not worth listening to (we are put in mind of On Faerie Stories in which Tolkien criticizes this view). Sam insists that there's truth in them, such as dragon stories. But Ted will have none of that either, for he'd heard of them when younger (maybe from Bilbo?) but "there's no call to believe in them now". Sam lets him have his point but brings up tree men - giants - that have been seen on the North Moors. Namely Hal has seen them. Ted suggests that Hal's either a liar or "seeing things that ain't there", et. al., hallucinating. Sam provides more detail: "big as an elm and walking seven yards to a stride". Ted bets it was an elm tree, and stationary. This is worth quoting: 'Then I bet it wasn't an inch. What he saw was an elm tree, as like as not.' 'But this one was walking, I tell you; and there ain't no elm tree on the North Moors.' 'Then Hal can't have seen one,' said Ted. There was some laughing and clapping: the audience seemed to think that Ted had scored a point. By this point our sympathy is with Sam (if it wasn't before) because Ted is arguing with such bad logic (if any at all) that it's downright confounding for poor Sam. To make sure the reader doesn't miss what has just happened, Tolkien includes authorial commentary that Ted actually had scored no point at all. In fact, Ted had actually made Sam's point for him; but Ted and the hobbits are so sure that there 'ain't no such things as tree men' even if there ain't no such things as elms on the North Moors. But it would take more intellectual ability than Sam can muster to untangle Ted's confoundment, so Sam insists on what can't be denied: queer folk crossing the Shire or being kept out of it. On this Ted makes no interruption or denial. Then Sam speaks elegaically of Elves; Ted merely laughs, saing it has nothing to do with hobbits, and asserts that no hobbits have seen Elves moving through the Shire. Not this is telling. Ted denies the existence of dragons (which the reader knows is wrong), then denies the existence of Ents (which the reader knows nothing about yet), then all but denies the passage of Elves through the Shire, implying that Elves don't exist either! Why is Ted so adamant? How can he be so certain? Well, it's because such things are not part of the normal experience of hobbits; therefore they can't exist. This is bad logic, obviously, and begins to sound like the attitude of a philosophical naturalist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries: 'if you can't perceive it with your senses, it can't be real'. So both Sam's and Ted's characters are being laid out for the reader. Tolkien will draw our attention back to Ted toward the end of the entire story, where Ted's bankrupt attitude toward the things Sam believes results in moral bankruptcy, working with Sharkey's ruffians. Nevermind Ted's illogic; his stubborn cussedness undermines Sam's efforts to put forward his case effectively. Sam's response to Ted's doubts on Elves is to bring in his trump cards: Bilbo and Frodo for whom Sam already has deep respect and a high opinion (and as we learn later(in A Conspiracy Unmasked) , Sam already knows about the Ring). Ted dismisses them as 'cracked and becoming cracked'. With this final dismissal of Sam's arsenal of evidence, Ted leaves noisily. Sam soon leaves too, quietly and thoughtful. The pairing makes Ted's noisy leavetaking the more glaring for its failure of thoughtfulness. What do we make of this exchange? Sam believes in dragons, tree men, Elves, and Bilbo and Frodo, and has reason to; supporting evidence. Ted refuses to believe, contrary to the evidence, and does not even care to consider the evidence. He simply doesn't want such things to be part of his life at all, without examination. What difference this makes will unfold as we take a look at more of the story. |
10-13-2007, 08:23 AM | #460 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
The thread was based on the idea that if the Bible had not been written, the LOTR may not have even existed. It is the inspiration of all that is good about it. Last edited by Mansun; 10-13-2007 at 08:28 AM. |
|
10-13-2007, 11:28 AM | #461 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|
09-18-2008, 02:36 PM | #462 |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
With much trepidation I post in this ill-favoured thread of threads, yet not sure where else to post this little giblet.
In William Young's book, The Shack,, the main character, Mack, gets to meet with the triune Christian god in person. He is at first taken aback as God the Father is in the form of an African woman. He - Mack - notes that he was expecting God to look more like "Gandalf."
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
09-18-2008, 04:18 PM | #463 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Facing the world's troubles with Christ's hope!
Posts: 1,635
|
Great literature according to Aristotle, did not explicitly draw attention to the themes that one sought to explain. Rather, they were subtley concealed within the text so that the reader, through reason, could draw them out.
Such themes abound in LOTR. Simple examples include the character of Gandalf. He is a pure spiritual being - an Istari - who choses to become incarnate in order to combat evil. If this does not in part reflect a Christocentric theme what does. Also, in his fight with the Balrog in Moria, Gandalf dies, but returns to earth, no longer as Gandalf the Grey, but rather Gandalf the White. His powers are increased and all are awed in the revelation of his glory in Fangorn forest. Can one not envision the parallel to the glorified Christ after the Resurrection. Then there is the Lembas - the Elf bread - which sustains the members of the Fellowship through their journeys. What more specific example of the Catholic view of the Eucharist does one need. One final example is the date chosen for the destruction of the Ring - March 25th. In the Catholic liturgical calendar, this is the date of the feast of the Incarnation - the date when Christ became incarnate in the womb of Mary and the saga of the Redemption of Man began. What other event can one identify more closely with the Christian understanding of the destruction of evil than this. But the overall key to Tolkein's LOTR is not that it is a specifically Christian work, but rather a work of myth that is infused with a Christian spirit. Let me explain another way. We each have are everyday activities. We go to work, take care of our families and tend to social duties. These are rather mundane secualar activities for the most part and seem far removed from God and Church. But that is the drama of the Christian life - to take the ordinary, and transform it into a work done for God. Much as Christ lived an ordinary life as son and carpenter, transforming this life into the extraordinary, so Tolkein harkens us to this image. The image that all human activities, from the drama of Helm's Deep, to the simple daily lives of hobbits, can be transformed into something truly dramatic in Christ. This is the meaning of a Sanctifying Myth and also the meaning of our lives as Christians (Catholics and Protestants)- to sanctify the ordinary.
__________________
I heard the bells on Christmas Day. Their old, familiar carols play. And wild and sweet the words repeatof peace on earth, good-will to men! ~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow |
09-18-2008, 05:15 PM | #464 | |
Shade with a Blade
|
Quote:
Mack had evidently seen all the right Renaissance art. The idea of long gray hair and beard denoting wisdom might come down to us from Greco-Roman images of classical philosophers, which the Renaissance artists used as sources. Of course, there are also plenty of references in the Old Testament to gray hair as a symbol of wisdom. Tolkien may have drawn on either of these traditions as he created Gandalf, the ultimate wizard - literally, the ultimate "wise man." I expect, if it's either, that it's the former. Or, gray=wise could just be a universal archetype.
__________________
Stories and songs. Last edited by Gwathagor; 09-18-2008 at 05:20 PM. |
|
09-18-2008, 05:19 PM | #465 |
Shade with a Blade
|
He did. Tolkien said that all of its 600,000 words were carefully, carefully chosen.
__________________
Stories and songs. |
09-19-2008, 03:38 AM | #466 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
It doesn't surprise me when characters in books (or indeed real people) say their image of God is like Gandalf - he's a kindly, wise old man, which is what people would quite like God to be (even though an African woman is as good as any guess); and the image of Gandalf is pervasive now - indeed I think Tolkien chose a Jungian archetype in the first place because you could make a right long list of 'folk who remind you of Gandalf'. I wonder if their image was of Ian McKellen as Gandalf though? I always knew Lancastrians were the chosen ones
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
09-19-2008, 08:42 AM | #467 | ||
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm always hearing that "that Tolkien guy had something to do with that Christian apologist C.S. Lewis."
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
||
09-19-2008, 01:29 PM | #468 | |
Curmudgeonly Wordwraith
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ensconced in curmudgeonly pursuits
Posts: 2,509
|
Quote:
__________________
And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision. |
|
|
|