The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

The emblems of religion belong, and not only that, but are necessary for the survival of a realistic story.

The emblems of religion help the story's character seem more life-like as they attempt to fill the gap in their soul. The aching desire to fulfill one's dreams cannot be separated from reality. So, therefore, to keep a story to its truest sense, one must at least have emblems of religion.

I would have to agree with you here. Think that I may have said this earlier in the thread. We have common ground in believing that the story would not have seemed as real as it does if religion - in whatever form - were totally absent. Specifying one particular religion or sect would have pinned the story too close to reality, and so Tolkien played it just right.

Again the scene in which Sam remarks about the star light really resonates with me as it makes me realize that all of this, even the earth on which I stand, will one day pass away, yet there will always be something somewhere to continue the fight against darkness. The stars shown down when I wasn't here and they will still be shining when I'm gone, and somehow that makes it all okay.

[littlemanpoet]

Occam's razor means that we should accept the simplest solution that accounts for all known data, then question the solution as soon as new data becomes known. Of course, Occam was a Nominalist. Tolkien was a Universalist, I'm thinking. At any rate, have fun locking horns.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Occam's razor means that we should accept the simplest solution that accounts for all known data, then question the solution as soon as new data becomes known. Of course, Occam was a Nominalist. Tolkien was a Universalist, I'm thinking. At any rate, have fun locking horns.

Thought that Tolkien was devout Roman Catholic (Christian), and did not think that universalism was part of that doctrine. In another thread we've considered the fate of orcs, which, seemingly, are excluded from grace, but that's a different topic. My point, however, is that Tolkien may not have even given orc afterlife a thought, but if so, then would orcs not negate the universalism that you propose? And what of Black Numenoreans?

And how did you know that I had horns?

[bilbo_baggins]

To jump off the nitch that I got stuck on, I will assume that the reality we all try to agree to does actually exist. So, onward...

Hmm.

I just thought that we have been mentioning the emblems of religion in Tolkien's work without truly defining the emblems.

What are the emblems? Is it the inherent goodness in the moral ethics shown in the behaviour of Hobbits in their Shire? Or is it references to Illuvatar and the Undying Lands? What are emblems that need to stay and/or go? What is necessary and what is not?

Even though I for one enjoy the idea of having an Illuvatar, Tolkien seems to downplay his existence and even the existence of the Valar in the Trilogy and the Hobbit, which are more widely read. Even in the Silmarillion, which has much to do with the Valar, Illuvatar does not have much of an active role aside from the Ainundale. So it would seem that Eru is not an emblem that need stay.

Of course, the Maiar of Middle Earth, like the wizards, balrogs, and Tom Bombadil (he is a Maia, isn't he?) are very necessary, and could correlate to angels/demons in classic religion. They help to impart a special link of reality, though heightened sense of reality, into the story. So, in my opinion they can stay.

Comments?

b_b

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

Thought that Tolkien was devout Roman Catholic (Christian), and did not think that universalism was part of that doctrine.

You're thinking of theological universalism, which is the assertion that "everybody makes it heaven in the end". The opposite of this is "limited grace".

I meant philosophical universalism, which is the assertion that that there is a "correspondence of our intellectual concepts to things existing outside our intellect."

Actually, I mis-stated in my last post. It is my opinion that Tolkien was a Realist in terms of the "problem of universals"; Occam was a Nominalist. There. That's better. For more on this, check
this out.

What are the emblems?

Good question, bilbo_baggins. There are actually two emblems in LotR: (1) when Faramir and his men stand and face the west at Henneth Annún. It's a religious act/observation. (2) when Frodo, Sam, or someone else calls upon Elbereth Gilthoniel for aid (equivalent to praying to the Virgin Mary).

Actually, Tolkien only downplays the existence of Iluvatar in LotR. In some Letter I just read in the last day or so, Tolkien says that the "historical situation" per se of the Third Age was such that there were no religious practices; there was religious practice on Númenor in the 2nd age.

Tolkien is pretty clear that the Valar (including Maiar) are created angels. He is far less clear regarding Tom Bombadil, on purpose, according to the Letters.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

You're thinking of theological universalism, which is the assertion that "everybody makes it heaven in the end". The opposite of this is "limited grace".

I meant philosophical universalism, which is the assertion that that there is a "correspondence of our intellectual concepts to things existing outside our intellect."

Actually, I mis-stated in my last post. It is my opinion that Tolkien was a Realist in terms of the "problem of universals"; Occam was a Nominalist. There. That's better. For more on this, check
this out.

Thanks for the information - my brain is already starting to hurt . And as I can't remember ever having philosophy, and as this thread has been tending to discuss religion, when I saw 'universalism,' one thought came to mind.

And emblems or no, it's always been clear to me in LOTR who were the 'good' and exactly what 'goodness' stood for/meant. The trilogy is filled with moral content that is not overtly specific to one religion. I never associated - even loosely - any of the content with angels or the Virgin Mary.

[Lathriel]

Whatever religion is in a book,or traces of religion one thing they all have in common is that the good side defeats evil. And in general the good side favours freedom of speech, tolerance towards other countries,(or regions) and different cultures.

[bilbo_baggins]

Yes, Lathriel, in most cases, emblems of religion in books are advocates of free speech and tolerance of other regions. But to me, Tolkiens works don't seem like they favor any regions or other ideas of speech. Take Denethors doomsaying for example. It didn't hold very well with Gandalf and the Hobbits. And it seemed as though no one really liked Mordor, Harad, or Rhun.

"I never associated - even loosely - any of the content with angels or the Virgin Mary" (quote) - alatar

I can understand that, alatar, knowing your stated background. But do you see the implicit inference that Tolkien has made? He has shown such a need for the existence of spirits you must suspend your disbelief for a moment. (Even if I think your belief wrong, it must be temporarily suspended anyway )

The Vala and Maia are, in Tolkien's world, real. And they aren't native to Middle-Earth. I think an analogous statement from the real world would be "Not of this world."

Does anyone here remember seeing Bethberry's sig?

b_b

[Lathriel]

I also didn't realize there was a connection between angels and the Maiar. When I read fantasy books I usually read right over any religious connections unless they are very obvious (An extreme example Philip Pullman's Dark materials)
My family is not very religious and most of the things that I have learned from the bibel come from my grandmother who became protestant later in life. So this is a very interesting discussion for me.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

And it seemed as though no one really liked Mordor, Harad, or Rhun.

One wonders why that could have been... And actually, though I don't remember the exact text, but doesn't either Sam or Frodo show a little sympathy to the Haradrim (or whichever army they see) as one them wonders if the person were truly evil or just conscripted or lied to or something?

I can understand that, alatar, knowing your stated background. But do you see the implicit inference that Tolkien has made? He has shown such a need for the existence of spirits you must suspend your disbelief for a moment. (Even if I think your belief wrong, it must be temporarily suspended anyway)

I'm not sure exactly about the "need' for spirits but I accept them as an integral part of his (and seemingly our) world. Is there a human culture that does not show 'some' acknowledgement to a spirit world, whether the spirits be personal or impersonal 'forces?'

And you might be surprised regarding my stated background. My point is that, though I am somewhat knowledgeable (at least in my mind ) in many religions and having a more-than-general understanding of Christianity, I did not see the Virgin Mary as Elbereth Gilthoniel.

The Vala and Maia are, in Tolkien's world, real. And they aren't native to Middle-Earth. I think an analogous statement from the real world would be "Not of this world."

To me what doesn't map out exactly is whereas the Elves had direct contact with the Valar and Maia - and even saw them as cousins - we do not have the same intermediary group. In Tolkien's world one has Iluvatar, Valar, Maia, Elves then humans. In a Christian world (which is what I assume we are discussing) one has the triune God, the arch-angels and angels then humans. And when humans encountered the Maia (at least in the case of the Istari), they did not see them as 'messengers of God' nor as spirit beings. Any thoughts?

[bilbo_baggins]

Originally Posted by alatar

To me what doesn't map out exactly is whereas the Elves had direct contact with the Valar and Maia - and even saw them as cousins - we do not have the same intermediary group. In Tolkien's world one has Iluvatar, Valar, Maia, Elves then humans. In a Christian world (which is what I assume we are discussing) one has the triune God, the arch-angels and angels then humans. And when humans encountered the Maia (at least in the case of the Istari), they did not see them as 'messengers of God' nor as spirit beings. Any thoughts?

To reply,

I wonder whether or not Tolkien wanted his world to map out exactly. ?? Is his world supposed to be completely as realistic as some hold our world to be? The intermediary groups need not have corrolaries in the 'real' (is it real?) world.

And though it seems that men did not hold the Istari in highest regard, those few like Aragorn or Legolas or Elrond did bow and give him some trifle of obeisance did they not?

And, since we do seem to be discussing, there are mentions of intermediary beings. Can you not recall, if you are as knowledgeable as you seem to be in Christian and para-Christian history and ancient theologies, the angelic men of the Nephilim? The Giants of Gaza? Goliath, and the sons of Anak? Thats a little of the track of this discussion, though.

b_b

[alatar]

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

I wonder whether or not Tolkien wanted his world to map out exactly. ?? Is his world supposed to be completely as realistic as some hold our world to be? The intermediary groups need not have corrolaries in the 'real' (is it real?) world.

His writings aren't history?

And though it seems that men did not hold the Istari in highest regard, those few like Aragorn or Legolas or Elrond did bow and give him some trifle of obeisance did they not?

Surely. And less lofty citizens such as B. Butterbur held them in esteem too. But there seems to me a difference in reverence. And don't angels declare themselves as messengers of God whereas the Istari were not to be as open about their purpose (though Gandalf dropped a hint to Denethor). Plus the Valar sent the Istari, not Iluvatar. But I quibble.

And, since we do seem to be discussing, there are mentions of intermediary beings. Can you not recall, if you are as knowledgeable as you seem to be in Christian and para-Christian history and ancient theologies, the angelic men of the Nephilim? The Giants of Gaza? Goliath, and the sons of Anak? Thats a little of the track of this discussion, though.

Interesting. But I would first ask if we've ever found any giant bones of course. Then I would ask how these beings came into...well...being.

Are we to assume that angelic beings can mate with humans? How would that be, as angels do not have physicality? I would assume that fallen angels would not have this ability at the least. If they did, then how would one be able to tell the difference between a fallen angel that took on a body and the risen Christ?

Here is a good argument regarding the same.

Tolkien, via Iluvatar, permitted Maia-elf-human hybrids.

[bilbo_baggins]

Originally Posted by alatar

His writings aren't history?

Well, Tolkien did say that he was trying to write something emulating history, but his works seem to be more of a mythology and legendary background. I could go on to discuss with some fervor about how his works actually seem to disagree with the Christian view of world history that he fervently believed in. I therefore tend to think he was trying to write a piece of entertainment and not actually something that was seriously trying to explain history. Sort of a joke if you will...

Originally Posted by alatar

Surely. And less lofty citizens such as B. Butterbur held them in esteem too. But there seems to me a difference in reverence. And don't angels declare themselves as messengers of God whereas the Istari were not to be as open about their purpose (though Gandalf dropped a hint to Denethor). Plus the Valar sent the Istari, not Iluvatar. But I quibble.

Yes, you are quibbiling, but I have to beg your ear here as well. Yes, in many cases, with Mary, for example, the angel declares itself a messenger, but how do you know that the person sitting beside you on the bus isn't an angel? Perhaps the people you see walking down the street have a spiritual purpose in their comings and goings. But I digress into theology again.

Originally Posted by alatar

Interesting. But I would first ask if we've ever found any giant bones of course. Then I would ask how these beings came into...well...being.

Are we to assume that angelic beings can mate with humans? How would that be, as angels do not have physicality? I would assume that fallen angels would not have this ability at the least. If they did, then how would one be able to tell the difference between a fallen angel that took on a body and the risen Christ?

Tolkien, via Iluvatar, permitted Maia-elf-human hybrids.

Interesting discussion. 'Applause'.

I do have to bring up the fact that 'bones of unusual size' have been found in the Middle East, but they are not complete evidence I admit. Instead I rely on the tales and legends that speak of them, and tell of how they still live among some of us. And yes, since I believe that they were descendants of angels that descended, rather than fell, that angels can take physicality of some sort.

And one would be able to tell the difference between any angel (not just a fallen one) and the risen Christ (or His Holy Spirit for that matter) because His presence would begin to fill the space in your human soul which is expressed in man's desire for spirituality. Or will we have to disagree that that exists as well?


One must needs realize that without traces, or emblems, of religion, such as Faramir and co. facing the West, that tie back into this world, the entire necessity of the struggle dies. Even in this world, if we lose the emblems of religion, the need for us to be on the side of 'good' dissappears. If it has no meaning why should we not join with Saruman and Sauron? At least then we can enjoy power and opulence as long we are his faithful servants. He would enjoy good people with high rank like Gimli or Aragorn, Legolas or Gandalf.

The emblems of religion keep the good side, the right side, the thing we fight for.

b_b

[alatar]

Thanks for the reply - I'm glad that we can have this discussion in a gentlepersonly fashion (I wasn't sure what your reply would be as I never know how closely to the bone I'm cutting).

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

Well, Tolkien did say that he was trying to write something emulating history, but his works seem to be more of a mythology and legendary background. I could go on to discuss with some fervor about how his works actually seem to disagree with the Christian view of world history that he fervently believed in. I therefore tend to think he was trying to write a piece of entertainment and not actually something that was seriously trying to explain history. Sort of a joke if you will...

I tried to get my smilies in quickly but maybe not quick enough, but anyway I'm in total agreement - though I still like to pretend that it's the 'real' history.

Yes, you are quibbiling, but I have to beg your ear here as well. Yes, in many cases, with Mary, for example, the angel declares itself a messenger, but how do you know that the person sitting beside you on the bus isn't an angel? Perhaps the people you see walking down the street have a spiritual purpose in their comings and goings. But I digress into theology again.

Can't argue with you here - I think that it's put nicely in Isaiah 55:8-10 regarding God's ways and purposes.

I do have to bring up the fact that 'bones of unusual size' have been found in the Middle East, but they are not complete evidence I admit. Instead I rely on the tales and legends that speak of them, and tell of how they still live among some of us. And yes, since I believe that they were descendants of angels that descended, rather than fell, that angels can take physicality of some sort.

If you are referring to a photo of people digging around some huge bones, well, that's a hoax. And I would disagree regarding angels (spirits) taking physical form. I believe that in the cases in the Bible when they do, this was done by God, not the angel (unless the angel is an Old Testament Christophony). Demons would not have the ability to create a body that would allow for mating unless this were sanctioned by God.

Another thought is that Tolkien, as stated, permitted the mingling of Maia, Eldar and Edain 'blood.' The assumption is that they are all of one species (or Tolkien didn't consider biology). What was he trying to say regarding these pairings? Was he trying to show that some have the blood of a divine? Thoughts?

One must needs realize that without traces, or emblems, of religion, such as Faramir and co. facing the West, that tie back into this world, the entire necessity of the struggle dies. Even in this world, if we lose the emblems of religion, the need for us to be on the side of 'good' dissappears. If it has no meaning why should we not join with Saruman and Sauron? At least then we can enjoy power and opulence as long we are his faithful servants. He would enjoy good people with high rank like Gimli or Aragorn, Legolas or Gandalf.

The emblems of religion keep the good side, the right side, the thing we fight for.

So what you are saying is that the emblems are just manifestations/signposts/markers for the side to which our soul gravitates? (not sure that what I just wrote makes sense even to me ). What I am trying to say is that Faramir et al have souls, and these can choose the West or the East, and one of the outward demonstrable ways of choosing West is observing the Standing Silence?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'm reading Patrick Curry's Defending Middle-Earth and found some passages there which apply to this topic. He feels that there is no obvious use of one religion and its symbols (despite what Tolkien said about consciously revising it to be consistent with Catholic belief) because it is not limited to one specific set of doctrines. Here is one thought that I find particularly interesting:

The Lord of the Rings transcends any strictly monotheistic reading. Instead, it manifests an extraordinary ethico-religious richness and complexity which derives from the blending of Christian, pagan, and humanist ingredients. It is all of these, and no single one of them.

He also quotes Tolkien himself, from one of his Letters:

Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary "real" world.

That would definitely preclude outward signs of a specific religion.

It is his combination of mythological and religious elements that I find so fascinating in Middle-earth. The idea that the old "gods" are angelic beings works for me without requiring too much "willing suspension of belief". Yet there can be no usage of the most important icon of Christian faith, the cross, for example, since there is no incarnation of God himself there. He did try to include that possibility in his later writing, especially the Athrabeth.

[Lalwendë]

I want to pick up on a few interesting points here. Firstly, I see that the Valar and Maiar can be viewed as somehow corresponding to angels, though this is not something which comes through strongly to me. Maybe how we view them is to do with what we have learned in our own spiritual lives? I was brought up Protestant and such figures did not feature strongly in worship, whereas in the Catholic church (some relatives were strict Catholics), the angels do take on an almost mythical status (the saints could possibly be seen as corresponding to Elves?).

I have said it before, but I shall say it again, the Valar and Maiar can just as easily be recognised in figures from other religions/beliefs as they can from Christianity. They are strongly reminiscent of the various Pagan gods and goddesses, especially in how the Valar correspond to various aspects of the natural world. It is important to note that many of these were Universal figures, common to many cultures, and eventually absorbed into Christianity. Thinking of the Valar and Maiar in this way also solves another problem, and that is with figures such as Gandalf. Yes, he is not a mere mortal, but likewise, he is not a god. And I am sure Tolkien was keen to make sure we realised this, as part of what makes Saruman bad is that he attempts to behave in a god-like fashion. Gandalf is instead somewhat like Merlin, an intercessor between the Gods and men. He is very much real and can be killed, yet he is somehow 'apart'.

This is why I think that looking at Tolkien's work through the eyes of one belief/religion only is risky. There is much within from many religions, and so to interpret it against the tenets of only one religion can be troublesome.

Even if we use Christianity as our measuring stick then we can run into problems. Eru is clearly not a Trinity figure, so which branch of Christianity can we apply to him? He is definitely not a Catholic or Protestant God, is he a Unitarian God? And there is one immense difference. In Arda there has been no Christ, no redeemer. Those within Arda must atone for their own sins. It is not a Christian world, but nor is it anything else we have here in our world.

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

Eru is clearly not a Trinity figure

Is he not? Certainly if so it is not explicit. But then Christianity interprets the God of the Old Testament as a trinity, and this is certainly not explicit there (for indeed, Judaism interprets the same texts with a unitary God). Without a precise theological statement, one could view Iluvatar either way, I think.

But note that in the "Athrabeth" we do have what seems like a reference to a Messianic incarnation of Eru. Add to this the possible interpretation of the "Secret Fire" as something like Christianity's Holy Spirit and I think you do have a trinity.

[HerenIstarion]

Trinity in ME = Eru + Flame Imperishable + Incarnation hinted at as far-future event in Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth.

Backing up Aiwendil here. Or maybe pushing it a little bit further.

Symbols of [real/modern] religion(s) would not fit on the 'anachronism' basis, though. (On assumption ME is our world in some other [imagined] time)

Tolkien let slip some things, though. The colours, per instance. Blue and gold are colours of Heaven in Christian art. The serpent on Southorn or Harad banner, for another. Little things like that.

[Lalwendë]

Without a precise theological statement, one could view Iluvatar either way, I think.

How I see it is that if we can view him either way, then we can only go on what evidence we have, and that is that Eru is One. However, the idea of the Secret Fire being a possible link to the concept of the Holy Spirit is a good one - perhaps a theological concept expressed through an elemental one, which I like.

As there are differing concepts within Christianity of the nature of God, I find it interesting that the Catholic nature of God does not come through so clearly as it might be expected to, considering Tolkien's strong faith. We have to interpret the nature of Eru, while in Catholicism, the nature of God is central. Eru could as easily be One, as in other branches of Christianity, and indeed, in other religions.

Although, to further muddy the waters, what was Gandalf's true nature following his return to Middle Earth? Could he have been seen as a Messianic figure?

What's quite odd about this whole discussion is that as lmp said:

Tolkien asserted that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy

And yet, here we all are, looking for them. Would we look for them if we knew nothing of Tolkien's faith? Does it necessarily follow that because he personally was a Catholic that he would put his own religion in his work? If he made the statement that emblems of religion did not belong, then wouldn't he have taken great care that they were not there in the text? So when we find them it could be either that we want to find them, or maybe that such emblems of religion are unavoidable as they are shared across cultures and beliefs, and even across time.

[HerenIstarion]

Eru could as easily be One, as in other branches of Christianity

There is no branch of Christianity I'm aware of which does not accept the concept of Trinity

The concept of Christ's nature is where views may differ (Was He human or God by nature, or both. Most part of Christians believe that both)

And yet, here we all are, looking for them.

Not them exactly, I surmise. Slips of the tongue (conscious in the revision, no doubt ), as mentioned, mainly.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by HI

There is no branch of Christianity I'm aware of which does not accept the concept of Trinity

The concept of Christ's nature is where views may differ (Was He human or God by nature, or both. Most part of Christians believe that both)

Unitarians reject the Nicean Creed; this has been a tradition among some Christians (and a heresy) since the 4th century, as the Trinity was seen as something 'added' to Christianity by theologians who were in favour of strengthening the position of Christ as a divine entity. Prior to this, the Trinity was just one of many ideas. Interestingly, not all Unitarians would identify themselves as Christian with a big 'c', or even at all, and it is not a central creed or dogma that the Nicean Creed be rejected, as each person seeks their answers from whatever sacred texts/beliefs that seem appropriate. This embraces the concept of Christ as a prophet or teacher, but not an incarnation of God - a belief which many Christians share whether unitarian or trinitarian.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Prior to this, the Trinity was just one of many ideas.

Really?

I am somewhat skeptical. Quote me one early Christian father who didn't believe in the Trinity who was NOT condemned as a heretic.

Furthermore, remembering the mystery of Unity and Trinity, remember that while Catholics believe in a three-person God, they are still believing in "The One" God. While Eru is specifically referred to as "The One", where does it say that He is One Person? For all that we know, He could be Three Persons.

[Lalwendë]

Yet this was how Christianity did develop in its early years, until 325 when the Nicene Creed (which I spelled incorrectly ) established the 'nature of God' as a Trinity. After then, yes, many will have been murdered as heretics. There's a good link here which explains some of the early history, though there's vast amounts of early Christian history on the net which goes into this more deeply.

Since this afternoon, I've discovered that other Christian faiths which are unitarian (small u) include Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and certain Pentecostal churches. The essential difference between trinitarians and unitarians is that while the former worship Christ as a deity, as an aspect of God, the latter do not, but he is just as important. Both still worship God, he just feels a bit different.

Well, my position is still that we don't know that Eru is Three or One. I would say that for Eru to be a trinity then we would have to have seen a Messiah on Arda in order for that to happen. There may be a Messiah at some point in the future, but there hasn't been one as far as we know (unless maybe we start pondering Gandalf... ), so Eru is still One in terms of the timeframe of Arda we know about. In terms of our world I'm sure people did not start to become Christians before Christ appeared? That there has not yet been a Messiah could even hint that Arda is a Judaic world, though as I don't know enough about that, I'm not going to nail my colours to the mast on that opinion!

Maybe this is why Tolkien didn't want to see emblems of religion in fantasy! He knew we'd start arguing!

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

There may be a Messiah at some point in the future, but there hasn't been one as far as we know (unless maybe we start pondering Gandalf... )

Of course, while Gandalf may be a kind of Messianic figure, he is emphatically not a "person" of God.

so Eru is still One in terms of the timeframe of Arda we know about. In terms of our world I'm sure people did not start to become Christians before Christ appeared?

Yes, but once that's conflating two issues. Christian theology (excluding the unitarian sects you mentioned) holds that God was always a trinity, even before there were any Christians.

That there has not yet been a Messiah could even hint that Arda is a Judaic world, though as I don't know enough about that, I'm not going to nail my colours to the mast on that opinion!

I think that the "Athrabeth" is rather strong evidence that Tolkien considered, at least at one time, the incarnation of God to be a definite part of Arda's future. Of course, there is also a Messianic tradition in Judaism.

[bilbo_baggins]

You leave a thread for one day, and everyone decides to reply to it.... Now I look like a nobody.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Of course, while Gandalf may be a kind of Messianic figure, he is emphatically not a "person" of God.

May I ask what you mean by a "person" of God? Technically Gandalf is of the Valar, which are of Eru, so Gandalf is of Eru, indirectly. He isn't of the God in this world of course, because as has been shown so vigorously, Tolkien's world is not an actual picture of ours.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Of course, there is also a Messianic tradition in Judaism.

And Judaism holds that the Messiah has yet to come, so it could correlate to LoTR rather more easily than mainstream Christianity.

To beg a question that I don't think has come up is if all the emblems of religion that come up in the books (like the colors and facing the west, and even mentions of afterlife) are intentional? Some are, when he revises to make sure he does not include overtly heretical thoughts, but are all the connections made because he wanted them in? Or perhaps he couldn't have them out?

And, yes, I'm baiting.

b_b, Esq.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

but are all the connections made because he wanted them in? Or perhaps he couldn't have them out?

Some are [because he wanted them in], some were unconscious. Per isntance, serpented banner of the enemy might have been intentional, the colour of the banner (though in accordance with the whole picture) might have been accidental. But one can never be sure. Why is it Samurai Jack wears white, whilst Aku is the darkness itself? Conventions?

Some other interesting things to take a look at:

Green as representation of Evil (by Joy)
Tolkien spirituality... a hint of buddhism? (by THE Ka)
The Role of Fate in Middle Earth (by Mithadan)
The Downfall of Númenor (by Mithadan)
Was Eru a Sadist? (by Bombadil)
Ten Commandments for Middle Earth (by Aerandir Carnesir)
Is there any hope of Redemption? (by The SaucepanMan)
Descent into Hell!!! Rarrr!...Well, sort of... (by Lush)
Science and Faith in Middle Earth (by Fordim Hedgethistle)
Forever? (by Son of Númenor)
Nebulous "It" and Absolutes (by Dininziliel)
Finrod, Andreth, and the coming of Eru (by Angry Hill Troll)
Seven Deadly Sins in Middle Earth (by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh)
The Yin and the Yang of it (by Kaiserin)
Inherent Evil (by Lord of Angmar)
Inherent Evil (by mhoram)
The Gift of Men and Atrabeth (by Voronwe)
The Ring and the Cross (by Manwe Sulimo)
Tolkien - Evolutionist or Creationalist? (by Lotessa)
Hope and Hopelessness (by Estelyn Telcontar)

[Bêthberry]

I would like for now to move away from the questions of intentionality and return to the intial framing of the topic from littlemanpoet and Son of Númenor's first reply.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tolkien asserted that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy.... or something to that effect (I may not have this worded or remembered quite right).

It certainly works very well in LotR. It was one of his primary criticisms of the works of C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams (fellow "inklings").

Do you agree or disagree that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy?

What were Tolkien's reasons for discluding them? Which reasons were valid back when he wrote? Are they still valid now?

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

Tolkien's assertion about emblems of religion having no place in fantasy could be linked to his dislike for allegory. Fantasy, Tolkien deemed, should have the ultimate purpose of lifting its reader to 'eucatastrophe' -- something along the lines of a state of pure revelation and joy. It would be hard for readers of different faiths to attain such a state with overtly Christian (or Muslim, Jewish, etc.) symbolism penetrating the narrative. I for one agree with Professor Tolkien; if Arwen's banner for Aragorn had a cross emblazoned on it, or if Gondor's seven stars were Stars of David, I think I would be automatically inclined to view Middle-earth as an allegorical rather than a purely fantastic world, and its purpose as evangelical rather than eucatastrophic.

I am going to consider these posts in light of a particular chapter, the 'Journey to the Cross-Roads" chapter of Book IV.

I have in the Chapter by Chapter discussion explained my reading about this chapter but I think that I can also apply my thoughts fruitfully here. I am also going to take lmp's "emblems" and use the concept more widely, to include symbolism of a particular sort. I hope this would not be taking his thoughts too broadly for what he initially intended.

In this chapter, Tolkien gives little dialogue, with the main action being the hurried and harried trek of Sam, Frodo and Gollem from the respite of Henneth Annûn towards the fateful steps of Cirith Ungol. Despite their fears, they are undiscovered and nothing happens, not even the dreadful pull of dark Mordor upon Frodo and the Ring, which begins the next chapter.

What this does is highlight the description Tolkiens offers of the geography and the terrain. It is brought to the fore as the primary topic of the chapter. That description depends very much upon darkness and upon a day that does not dawn but subsists witha sickly brownish smudge and then darkness. Some of the detail may in fact have derived from Tolkien's experience in the trenches of World War I, when the incessant guns and smoke cast a grey pallor over the sky.

Yet the predominant words are darkness and evil. Evil is repeated several times, to the point that even the road is called evil. Clearly the imagery is building towards the culmination of Minas Morgul as hell. However, because the description is so dominant in this chapter, it seems--at least to me--that Tolkien has here moved to close to allegory. All the imagery pertains so closely to that of the traditional iconography of hell that I move out of the fantasy world of Middle earth and into the primary world of Tolkien's faith. I think Son of Númenor's point about evangelical versus eucatastrophic pertains particularly well to this chapter, unlike most of the rest of LotR.

In its most extreme example, this occurs in the statement that a road can be evil. This is at least the fourth use of that word in as many pages.

He [Gollem] would not rest on the ground so near the evil road ...

The basis for this statement, and the rest of the description of Mordor as a land of incarnate evil lies in the theological concept that evil can be incarnate in a person or being. This is a philosophical or theological position and one which not every reader will ascribe to. Those who don't will, I suggest, have difficulty with this chapter because it highlights the description. Rather than being suggestive, as Tolkien I think wisely argues elsewhere, it becomes literal fact.

Coupled with this particular use of darkness, black and evil is the obvious symbolic import of the setting sun shining on the vandalised head of the statue of the king, with the even more symbolic portent of the ring of white flowers.

I think Tolkien was at least partly aware of the difficulty in writing this chapter, given his very interesting decision to give Sam a meaningful dream. I would argue, then, that this chapter demonstrates the validity of Tolkien's argument against allegory and against explicit religious symbols in fantasy. It destroys the artistry of the sub-created world by depending too much upon the iconography of the artist's primary world. Tolkien bore the truth of his idea in his own writing.

[littlemanpoet]

Bêthberry, reading your post was the first time I ever cognated Minas Morgul as hell. Are you certain that it's Tolkien allegorizing and not you? Is there somewhere in Tolkien's Letters that he refers to Minas Morgul or Mordor as his depiction of hell? The only adjective Tolkien uses for the vale of Minas Morgul in the Letters, that I could find, was "dreadful". I'll give you that MM is hellish, but that's as far as I can go.

I admit that I cannot come at this from the same space as some of you (I almost said "objectivity" instead of "space", but who are we kidding? None of us are really objective about this topic), because I was born in, raised in, and still practice, the same faith as Tolkien; so some things are apparently "home" to me that are alien to other readers.

That said, I find it interesting that you admitted that Tolkien's vision of Minas Morgul seemed to have come from his experience in WW1; in my recent reading of the chapter, I had the same thought. So did you cognate Minas Morgul as hell in your very first reading, Bêthberry? Did others of you? If you did, then this section did function for you as a disenchanting emblem of religion. I suspect that Tolkien had no such intention, but wrote this out of who he was just as much as every other part of LotR. A writer with integrity cannot be blamed for that which his readers bring to his work. Not that I think anybody's accusing Tolkien of lack of integrity; I'm just trying to point some things out; with limited success, I'm sure.

[davem]

Isn't this simply the nature of Faerie - both good & evil are incarnate in that world rather than simply moral concepts. LotR isn't a 'realistic' novel, but a fairy story - which is why its so relevant (& why so many 'realistic' novels are not).

[Lalwendë]

It's an interesting idea, Bethberry, and now I'll have to read that chapter over again to see if I can see what you see. But for me, something else always stood out as emblematic of Hell, and that is Moria. The Balrog too reminds me of Satan, certainly of the pictures of Satan that my Catholic grandmother conjoured up in my mind, that he was very much a real being who could be 'battled' rather than a concept.

This is why I think that while there are emblems of religion in the text, as it simply cannot be helped, these symbols are in some cases universal, it is very much dependent upon a reader's own beliefs and understandings as to what they pick up on. From my own understanding of Christ and God, I simply cannot see that Eru is or could be a trinity figure, while others can. For my own part, I see emblems of the old religions throughout the text while others do not see these.

[alatar]

Never saw Minas Morgul as Hell - surely a dreadful place, but if there were a Hell in the story, then I think that it would be located somewhat closer to Barad Dur. Does not the concept of Hell require not just a 'yucky' place but also active torment? The experience of Gollum and whatever was done to his fingers comes to mind.

And in regards to emblems such as Hell (as described) and the serpent on the flag etc; aren't there certain (possibly cultural) images that are typically used to signify 'bad?'

My boy, just this past week, found a small snake. Initially he just observed the same and told Mom, who of course thought that he was fibbing (it's a bit early in the season). When she finally saw that it was real, they all took off running (son, daughters, cousins) as Mom was screaming in her retreat. Anyway, my assumption is that if these children weren't born with an innate fear/respect for snakes, well, they surely have one now. I cannot think that if I were to draw a serpent flag for my children that they would equate it (especially now) with 'the good guys.'

Same goes with anything regarding darkness - I think that it's instinctual to be wary of the same.

Religions, whether created or revealed, surely include these same basics.

[The Saucepan Man]

I have, as with most threads these days, been observing this one in the background with interest.

Generally, I ascribe to the view that Tolkien did not include overt emblems of his (or any other) religion since that would have risked prejudicing the credibility of the fantasy world that he had created, by jolting the reader back into the real world. Additionally, given his interest in the motifs of mythology and legend, he could not include these alongside overt Catholic symbolism without compromising both.

But something that Bêthberry said got me thinking:

The basis for this statement, and the rest of the description of Mordor as a land of incarnate evil lies in the theological concept that evil can be incarnate in a person or being. This is a philosophical or theological position and one which not every reader will ascribe to. Those who don't will, I suggest, have difficulty with this chapter because it highlights the description.

The concept of both living beings and objects being capable of being imbued with good or evil is a concept present in both the myths and legends which Tolkien drew upon and in his religion. So he is able to work with the concept without compromising either influence.

But Bêthberry questions whether those who do not ascribe to this concept are able to accept its presence in a work of fantasy literature such as LotR without it destroying (or at least affecting) the fictional world's "reality" for them. Now, while I am by no means an atheist, I do not have strong religious beliefs and religion does not take a central role in my life. And I certainly do not ascribe to the view that, in "real life", people or objects can be inherently evil. Yet I have no difficulty in accepting this concept in LotR. To me, it is consistent with the world that Tolkien has created and made credible.

Yet I wonder whether I would have the same reaction if I was to read the book for the first time now, rather than when I was young (and impressionable ). And I wonder too how acceptable (in terms of credibility), Tolkien's works are to complete non-believers.

Certainly, had Tolkien's works included overt Christian symbolism and been evangelical in nature, this would have put me off them (certainly now, if not when I first read them).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

Now, while I am by no means an atheist, I do not have strong religious beliefs and religion does not take a central role in my life. And I certainly do not ascribe to the view that, in "real life", people or objects can be inherently evil. Yet I have no difficulty in accepting this concept in LotR. To me, it is consistent with the world that Tolkien has created and made credible.

This sums up where I am coming from; I don't subscribe to any particular belief, but I am also no atheist. And I too don't agree with the idea of inherent evil. So why can I accept this?

Possibly it has, quite literally, to do with 'suspension of belief'? Not only do we have to let go of our own world to some extent to get into Tolkien's created world, but we also have to let go of our own beliefs. Within the work are ideas and symbols that might or might not be ascribed to all kinds of beliefs, and while it is in no way wrong to search for and identify these, it's also important to realise that this is a secondary world with a different moral structure.

What intrigues me about it is to consider whether I myself would cope in Arda, and I have to come to the conclusion that I would not. For one, I would have some misgivings about whether the Orcs really were inherently evil, because at heart I'm a liberal (small L politically ).

I'm not sure if age might always have something to do with it, as when I first read the books I was beginning to develop keen political opinions which I think would have rejected a lot of the moral stances found within Arda. But maybe experience might have something to do with it. Yet I know someone who used to be a staunch marxist who read LotR not all that long ago and was not offended.

Originally Posted by alatar

And in regards to emblems such as Hell (as described) and the serpent on the flag etc; aren't there certain (possibly cultural) images that are typically used to signify 'bad?'

Some time ago I watched a documentary which explored the human emotion of disgust; it is just as instinctive a reaction to us as fear, love, hate etc. Apparently disgust is inbuilt as a natural reaction to those things which are bad for us, which may explain why most of us are not fond of flying insects or food which smells rotten. A serpent may cause many to react with natural disgust which is why it is often shown as a symbol of evil. Conversely, many will deliberately over-ride this natural reaction and take a conscious interest in serpents; this may be why those who wish to convey their power choose such emblems as a way of conveying how masterful over such trifles as emotions they are.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Never saw Minas Morgul as Hell - surely a dreadful place, but if there were a Hell in the story, then I think that it would be located somewhat closer to Barad Dur.

Well, heck, alatar, hell is an expansive place. Dante's has several levels and Milton's has a capital city (Pandemonium).

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Are you certain that it's Tolkien allegorizing and not you? Is there somewhere in Tolkien's Letters that he refers to Minas Morgul or Mordor as his depiction of hell? The only adjective Tolkien uses for the vale of Minas Morgul in the Letters, that I could find, was "dreadful". I'll give you that MM is hellish, but that's as far as I can go.

I admit that I cannot come at this from the same space as some of you (I almost said "objectivity" instead of "space", but who are we kidding? None of us are really objective about this topic), because I was born in, raised in, and still practice, the same faith as Tolkien; so some things are apparently "home" to me that are alien to other readers.

That said, I find it interesting that you admitted that Tolkien's vision of Minas Morgul seemed to have come from his experience in WW1; in my recent reading of the chapter, I had the same thought. So did you cognate Minas Morgul as hell in your very first reading, Bêthberry? Did others of you? If you did, then this section did function for you as a disenchanting emblem of religion. I suspect that Tolkien had no such intention, but wrote this out of who he was just as much as every other part of LotR.

Well, I can certainly see why you did not participate in Fordim's Canonicity thread, lmp. My point here was to consider Tolkien's comment and relate it to his work rather than to Lewis's as is often done. For much of LotR, I think Tolkien handles his allusions to his faith very much in keeping with his avowed intention. For me, he creates a secondary world of great awe and splendor, with the delight being that his allusions ask for readers such as yourself and myself to intuit that fuller meaning. I think this is a crucial aspect of Tolkien's art, that he choose deliberately to veil some things. In doing so, he places certain demands on his readers. He expects them to become very active readers, seeking out patterns, consistencies, putting things together. To my mind, he is an author who holds out greater rewards for readers who are creative rather than passive.

To that end, this chapter of the Cross Roads disappointed me because it destroyed that secondary world. The imagery, symbols, descriptions, became too obvious. Do I discount Tolkien as a superb writer for that? Hardly. I cannot think of one writer who does not at times fall from the hight of his or her talent. Authors are, after all, human, and humans are on this long defeat.

Like you, I have recently been reading about Tolkien's World War I experiences and that likely helped me on this reading place some of the characteristics of the felt experience here. Yet I don't think they are intended to suggest that experience, to lead readers to say, yes, this was what it was like in the trenches. The experience supplied "information" which, together with Tolkien's literary and religious experience, went into the cauldron here to describe this long march.

Why did I refer these descriptions to Hell? Because--and this was even as a child--I understand the evil in LotR as an absence of goodness, a complete and utter separation from those things which Galadriel, Aragorn, Elrond, Frodo, Sam stand for. Anyone who grew up reading Victorian literature as I did knows Tophet and Moloch's Valley of Hinnon, and Milton and Dante too. The cultural milieu is inescapable--even if one wanted to. While the Catholic Encyclopedia discusses hell as a place of punishment for those who have chosen to reject God, Pope John Paul II discussed hell more in terms of estrangement from God. It is this concept which informs my reading. That it differs from yours should not be the grounds for innuendo about the lack of integrity in other readings.

Originally Posted by davem

Isn't this simply the nature of Faerie - both good & evil are incarnate in that world rather than simply moral concepts. LotR isn't a 'realistic' novel, but a fairy story - which is why its so relevant (& why so many 'realistic' novels are not).

I clearly was not clear in my explanation! My point here was not to deny the role of good and evil in Faerie but to suggest that, for me, because of the way this chapter is written (and came to be written) this particular part of LotR destroyed the secondary world for me by bringing the references from the primary world too directly to mind. I don't have this response to other chapters we have already discussed; I don't object to good and evil in Lothlorien or Moria. My point is I guess an aesthetic one rather than a narrative one. This is why I found Son of Númenor's distinction between evangelical and eucatastrophic so interesting. SoNo generated an explanation from Tolkien's own ideas. And it was that creativity which prompted my reply here.

EDIT: cross posted with SpM and Lal!

[Mithalwen]

To put a slightly contrary point (surprise, suprise ), I was a believer when I first read the books and am now am definitely not (and this has not affected my love of the books btw), however I think it may be possible for people to be inherently evil (for want of a better word).

A couple of years ago, I attended some lectures and workshops given by an eminent criminal psychologist and while in many of the cases examined you could argue nature v. nurture indefinitely the cases I found most disturbing were those where the criminal behaviour could have biological factors. One is the vastly disproportionate number of men in prison who have two y chromosomes against the general population. While some argue that the slightly freaky appearance this gives leads to alienation and so an increased likelihood of becoming criminally antisocial, I don't think the genetic factor can be discounted completely : there is that more common genetic defect that vastly increases your chances of winding up in gaol, the Xy combo .... Men with an extra y chromosome are statistically more likely to become violent killers, women with an extra x chromosome are merely extra girly girls who on no account should be allowed to drive cars ( I might as well offend absolutely everyone while I am at it) .... I think there could be something in it.

Scarier were these kids with abnormal brainwaves - they were unbelievably violent and destructive so much so that even family members feared for their safety, and family pets were killed without seeming malice or remorse.

All this, if it is ever proved has great repercussions - morally and legally can people be punished for things which are not their fault? But the wider community has to be protected and if someone is biologically destined to kill do you let them walk the streets until they do?

All this is a long way of saying that the concept of evil is not exclusive to religion.
*confusing self now*

[Formendacil]

I can believe that there is an influencing factor in that criminals have a greater tendency towards having an extra X chromosome (in men). However, I cannot believe that this necessarily makes them criminal. An extra chromosome means a different physical makeup, which make them uncomfortable in society. Is the fact that more of them tend to go into crime a sign that such men are inherently criminal, or that such men tend to feel unaccepted in normal society, and thus tend to leave it? Either way, I'm not sold.

And then with regards to brainwaves, I will admit to know next to nil on the subject, but I wonder. Are the brainwaves present AFTER the evil sets in (and thus as an effect of it), or are they there BEFORE (and thus the cause)?

If you apply the same reasoning to the orks, one wonders: the orks seem inherently evil. Is this a result of their "culture", which forces them into evil, which modifies their brain so that they are "conditioned" to be evil? Or is it something that they are born with, making them automatically evil?

I also find it interesting that Hell is being read into Minas Morgul...

SpM and Lalwende have both admitted to being not-exactly-active religious-wise, and some others, such as alatar, are self-confessed as not coming from the same religious stock as the good professor.

Now I am a Catholic. Anyone looking at my current signature should be able to read this and say "duh! you're Catholic". What's more, I am a well-educated in the Catholic faith, and actually believe everything taught in it. So I believe that single priests are good, male-only priests are fine, that Hell actually exists, and no, contraception is wrong. In other words, exactly the same religion that Tolkien himself professed, quite strongly, throughout his entire life.

Now, I am not trying to inflame anybody with my firm Catholicism. I am simply setting up for my point, which is this: I find it rather amazing that I, whose religious background is the same as the author's, did not read this religious application into Minas Morgul.

Yes, it was more than a decade from Tolkien's death until my birth. Yes, it was a lot longer from his childhood until mine. Yes, I have not got the EXTENSIVE training that he had in pagan mythology. All the same, Catholic beliefs have not changed in 50 years. Some of the Disciplines have, some of the emphasis has, but none of the basic doctrines. So how is it that Tolkien, who consciously revised The Lord of the Rings as a Catholic work, didn't raise any flags in my mind in this chapter? Ever.

It's something to think about, don't you agree?

[davem]

Thinking about it, doesn't LotR start to become more & more loaded with 'symbolism' from this point on? Mordor is depicted as Hell on earth, with, at its heart, a place of supernatural fire, Minas Tirith is referred to in terms which make it seem a physical 'echo' of the Heavenly City, the Eagle's song, as Shippey has pointed out bears striking similarities to the psalms of the King James Bible both in style & wording - 'Sing ye people of the Tower of Guard...The Black Gate is thrown down, & your King has passed through & he is victorious. And he shall come again & dwell among you all the days of your lives'...etc. We also have (Shippey again) the fact that the Fall of Sauron takes place on March 25th - the old date of Easter, etc, etc. Not to mention Frodo's passing into the West, which may or may not symbolise his death, depending on how you choose to read it....

It may be significant that this 'turn' in the narrative takes place after the encounter with Faramir - in fact it could be argued that this 'turn' occurs at the moment in Henneth Annun where the Rangers turn to face West before eating. Something is 'invoked' there which seems to become active in the story, which take an increasingly symbolic turn from then on, moving away from the 'pagan' to the 'Christian', from 'myth' to 'Religion'. Its almost like we experience 'Incarnation' from this point, as things which up to this point have been merely history & legend become real & present. Sam's discussion of Story seems to refer to this, when he talks about the Star Glass containing the Light of the Silmaril borne by Earendel. We've gone from 'myth' to 'reality' all of a sudden. The 'Holy' Light of the Silmaril, the Light of the Two Trees, suddenly blazes forth in fact from the hand of Frodo the Hobbit. He holds forth the Light of the Trees in the Darkness of Cirith Ungol, & once again we're back to 'primary world' religious emblems - 'The Light Shines in the Darkness, & the Darkness has not overcome it.'

Yet, if Middle-earth was this world in ancient times, & if, as Tolkien believed, Christianity is True, why would such things not be present in some form in Middle-earth? What I'm getting at is, the forms, the 'outward signs' of Religion certainly do not belong in Faerie (or in the historical period before they came into being) but the 'facts' those forms & emblems refer to, if they are True must exist there, if Faerie itself is at all True.

(Davem takes refuge in his sig, in case he's just contradicted himself....)

[littlemanpoet]

The Eagles' words being reminiscent of King James English may have more to do with the state of early 17th century English than biblicality of language; I wonder what the Psalms would sound like if they were translated verbatim from Davidic Hebrew to modern English, or to King James English?

In Letter #210, Tolkien critiques the abortive Zimmerman screenplay of the late 50's. One interesting statement made by Tolkien in this context is:

In the book lembas has two functions. It is a 'machine' or device for making credible the long marches with little provision, in a world which as I have said 'miles are miles'. But that is realtively unimportant. It also has a much larger significance, of what one might hesitatingly call a 'religious' kind (my bold). This becomes later apparent, especially in the chapter 'Mount Doom' (III 213 and subsequently.

There is a footnote to 'III 213', which runs like so:

The lembas had a virtue without which they would long ago have lain down to die ...... It fed the will, and it gave strength to endure, and to master sinew and limb beyondn the measure of mortal kind.

The word "religious" is used in the first quote, and perhaps explained in the second. Is lembas a religious emblem, or not?

I especially appreciate the reference to "veiled", as one or more of you have used it, for our discussion has served to reveal to me that emblems of religion (Catholic and ancient mythic) seem to be scattered all over LotR, but veiled. Which raises my original question perhaps in a fresh way. Is it perhaps a matter of craft rather than either/or?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I can believe that there is an influencing factor in that criminals have a greater tendency towards having an extra X chromosome (in men). However, I cannot believe that this necessarily makes them criminal. An extra chromosome means a different physical makeup, which make them uncomfortable in society. Is the fact that more of them tend to go into crime a sign that such men are inherently criminal, or that such men tend to feel unaccepted in normal society, and thus tend to leave it? Either way, I'm not sold.

And then with regards to brainwaves, I will admit to know next to nil on the subject, but I wonder. Are the brainwaves present AFTER the evil sets in (and thus as an effect of it), or are they there BEFORE (and thus the cause)?

I did actually mention the alienation thing in my post. As for the brainwaves it may be the result of oxygen starvation at birth. The more I learn about psychology, the more you realise how much we are affected by the biology and chemistry of our brain. While the casue and effect is debatable it does add a different slant if there is a possibility of evil having a bio-chemical aspect.

While I am evidently not catholic, I have studied the reformation, worked in Catholic schools, have Catholic friends, read both Vatican 2 and The New Catholic Catchechism (I was helping someone with some research), and I would say that there have been some changes since Vatican 2 which may or may not be significant....

Also as a point of fact Tolkien was baptised Anglican....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Thinking about it, doesn't LotR start to become more & more loaded with 'symbolism' from this point on?

And from this point on, Tolkien's writing style changes, becoming more heavy and ponderous, or biblical, as it has been termed. He is here beginning to move on from the struggles of the journey to the struggles of the great deeds, battles and sieges. More symbolism could well be a natural result of trying to write in such a high flown style; there is more use of hyperbole and ever grander descriptions are needed as the days get darker and the battles harder. It is a way of emphasising the importance of what all the characters are engaged in. Tolkien had to show that the battle with Shelob was worse than the battle with the Balrog, that the Battle of the Pelennor Fields was worse than the battle of Helms Deep. He was building up the momentum by making the language more dense and noble.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Yet the predominant words are darkness and evil. Evil is repeated several times, to the point that even the road is called evil. Clearly the imagery is building towards the culmination of Minas Morgul as hell.

Thinking again about whether a place can be inherently evil, a 'Hell', I thought of Auschwitz, if its right to use this as a comparison I do not know, so I apologise if that does offend anybody. The place remains of course as a memorial and reminder, but when operative, was it the place that was evil or what the place was used for? What was done there was more evil than anything we might imagine, and even now, the symbols of the train tracks which go nowhere else and the chimneys are incredibly powerful symbols of evil. But is it the place itself that is evil, or what was done there that is evil? What I am saying is that a deed can be an evil deed, or an intention can be an evil intention, but can a place be evil? Even if we say that by being in such a place it might inspire a person to commit evil acts, is that the fault of the place or something within the person?

I'm not sure I know the answer to that one, but if I did then I could definitely agree or disagree that Minas Morgul was Hell. As it is, it may or may not appear so to us as readers; and the fact that we can each interpret that vision ourselves actually makes it effective writing. Remembering that it is the Tower of the Moon, it ought also to have shifting characteristics, and it seems to have these if we can all read it differently.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

All this, if it is ever proved has great repercussions - morally and legally can people be punished for things which are not their fault? But the wider community has to be protected and if someone is biologically destined to kill do you let them walk the streets until they do?

Scientists are always trying to explain evil deeds, and the nature/nurture debate always rears its head. Someone may have certain hormonal or mental disabilities which statistically may make them more likely to commit crimes, but statistics are also often misleading and contradictory. The hormonal imbalances which are seen in x percentage of criminals may seem to be the cause of their crimes, but it may instead be lack of proper medical and social care which leads people to be disaffected and hence commit crimes.

The law does take this into account. If a criminal is found to have acted under diminished responsibility then they are charged and dealt with accordingly. We can't do much more than that, as where does it stop if we start looking at probabilities?

But what is evil anyway? We automatically label a murderer as evil, but what about the greedy chief executive who siphons assets until the company goes bust and all the workforce are sacked and plunged into poverty? Or the company which buys cheap produce from third world countries where the workers are treated badly?

Evil of course is more defined in the moral structure of Arda, but even there it pays to be careful and not too presumptious about a person. Gollum is plainly untrustworthy and unstable, but Gandalf knows that he is also not entirely evil; he shows that inherent evil is not quite so easy to define as we might think.