The Lord of the Bible?

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

I see a huge difference between borrowing character types and borrowing storylines. Having a Jesus character is not the same as having a Bible story.

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."


The problem with that idea is saying that I should be concerned with logic when making associations.

I think I learn't a lot from this reply above from Feanor of the Peredhil earlier. My views are exactly the same. If ideas are not allowed to be entertained, then the thread will not be of interest to some, & vice versa.

[Boromir88]

Mansun, if it felt like anyone was ridiculing your opinion I apologize for myself, and the rest, because I'm sure that was not anyone's intent.

I've just been trying to get across davem's point. It isn't the "Lord of the Bible," it isn't "Beowulf of the Rings," it is The Lord of the Ring's, a story of it's own. If you find similarities that's good, but I got the impression that you were saying Tolkien stole and/or borrowed from the Bible. Where I'm disagreeing because someone can certainly not see anything biblical related to the Lord of the Rings, and still be just as 'right' as someone who does.

Equally dangerous to free thinking is to say "Elrond is Elrond and should only be seen as Elrond. No outside connections, coincidental or not, should be considered, even if only for amusement."

Fea, you have been saying some wise and truly cogent remarks but this time I'm going to actually have to disagree with you. If someone has no desire to make connections to the 'real' life, or the 'real history,' that's perfectly up to them. If they only look at Elrond as Elrond of Lord of the Rings, I don't see how that is 'dangerous to free thinking.' It makes me wonder how boring this person's life is that he/she couldn't possibly have found a 'connection,' but it's not dangerous to how anyone else thinks of Elrond.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

If someone has no desire to make connections to the 'real' life, or the 'real history,' that's perfectly up to them.

I'll certainly agree with that. Far be it for me to force a connection no matter what the context. My only point is that if people really have no interest in making the connections, why haunt this thread at all? It seems a disappointing waste of time and energy, as well as a rather negative activity for all involved.

I think it would be a brilliantly fun exercise to explore the literature Tolkien might have drawn from, Bible included. Not the well known ideas that influenced his story, but the underlying inspiration. When I have more time, and that's a thought that makes me laugh sadly, I think it would a terribly exciting study to make. Literature as a form of psychosociology. How the human mind works as an individual entity and in group situations; how society influences art, as well as art's influence on society. Surely I can't be the only person with a distinct fascination pertaining to the study of ideas with very little practical value?

It's an interesting experience to see the connections that minds make, both author and reader. Why quash them? I'd rather cosset them, cuddle them, perhaps even nuzzle them, and take notes to see what they grow into.

Originally Posted by davem

All of which gets us precisely nowhere it seems to me.

When you travel, do you always find the quickest route from beginning to end? Do you never drive roads upon which you've never been, simply to see where they go and enjoy the brand new view? Do you never take a walk and think "Maybe today I'll turn left, instead of right, just because I can."? No lovingly pointless meandering for the sheer sake of not having to be anywhere?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

I think it would be a brilliantly fun exercise to explore the literature Tolkien might have drawn from, Bible included. Not the well known ideas that influenced his story, but the underlying inspiration. When I have more time, and that's a thought that makes me laugh sadly, I think it would a terribly exciting study to make. Literature as a form of psychosociology. How the human mind works as an individual entity and in group situations; how society influences art, as well as art's influence on society. Surely I can't be the only person with a distinct fascination pertaining to the study of ideas with very little practical value?

Possibly. Yet Tolkien warns against dismantling the Tower to see where the stones of which it is built originally came from. The Tower was built so that its builder could climb to the top & look out on the Sea.

There are two approaches to such things: where it came from & what it was built for. It seems to me that Tolkien's purpose was not to construct a puzzle to be fathomed out, but a work of Art (or if you prefer a story) principally intended to move the reader, to entertain him or her.

I can play this game of sources & inspirations well enough - I did it for much of the CbC read through, but found that by the end I had not really gotten very far or gained very much. Increasingly I don't see any value in it. If others do then that's fine for them, & I have no desire to stop them doing that. However I do see the danger that this process of dismantling the story to find out how it came to be will leave you only with a pile of old stones & deprived of sight of the Sea.

But each to their own...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

There are two approaches to such things: where it came from & what it was built for. It seems to me that Tolkien's purpose was not to construct a puzzle to be fathomed out, but a work of Art (or if you prefer a story) principally intended to move the reader, to entertain him or her.

Exactly! Thanks Davem. You put it much more nicely than I as I tried to make the same point.

A work of art / literature can't be analysed into pieces that would convey the exactly same meaning. Happily so.

To re-write the old phrase: a whole is more than the sum of it's parts, and a work of art is more than the ingredients even the author thought consciously of...

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Sure. But can you not analyze things without losing the magic? That's not a rhetorical question. Can't you go through something and study it without interest being lost through the findings of the answers? Just because we now know why the sun rises every morning, does that decrease the beauty of dawn? Does knowledge of the origins of lightening take away from the sheer ecstasy that is watching a storm come in and rage above you?

It's like metaphysicists appreciating the finer points of creationism by learning the details of creation. In such concise study, you either fail or succeed to find things, but surely you learn nonetheless.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Sure. But can you not analyze things without losing the magic? That's not a rhetorical question. Can't you go through something and study it without interest being lost through the findings of the answers? Just because we now know why the sun rises every morning, does that decrease the beauty of dawn? Does knowledge of the origins of lightening take away from the sheer ecstasy that is watching a storm come in and rage above you?.

Does knowing where Leonardo obtained his paints improve your appreciation of the Mona Lisa?

Well, it may do, I suppose.

If you're that way inclined.

I don't see the connection.

Of course, he must have obtained his paints, & canvas, & brushes somewhere (or made them himself perhaps). And I'm sure there's a really interesting story behind that for Art students, but I think its a whole other story, & nothing to do with the Mona Lisa, except very tangentially.

I don't get what you plan to do with this other story about LotR once you get it. It wouldn't be difficult to find Tolkien's sources of inspiration - everything from Northern Myth & Icelandic Sagas & the Bible, to personal experiences of being orphaned & fighting in a war, through Morris' romances, Lonrot's Kalevala, right up to Kipling's Rewards & Fairies & Wyke-Smith's 'Snergs' among much other stuff.

If I knew what relevance it would have to you maybe I'd be more sympathetic to your endevour. But if all it is is just a matter of finding out what his sources were then I have to say that for me what he did is of much greater importance than what he used.

EDIT

In Tolkien Studies volume 2 Dale Nelson wrote a piece attempting to show how Tolkien's descriptions of Mordor were possibly influenced by descriptions of industrial towns in Dicken's Old Curiosity Shop. It is four pages long & is full of 'it may seems unlikely, but's & 'it is possible that's, & in the end tells us that Tolkien may have read said book & may have been influenced by it. In a note to the essay the author states that 'Whatever else Tolkien read by Dickens he must have read the first chapter of The Pickwick Papers (please compare, he begs, Bilbo's speech at the Long Expected Party with Mr Pickwick's oration at the end of the first chapter of PP).

So, what this piece in a respected journal of Tolkien studies tells us is that Tolkien might possibly have read some Dickens & he might possibly have been influenced by some descriptions in those books. Of course, he might not have read any Dickens apart from the first chapter of PP in which case the whole piece is a waste of space.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Does knowing where Leonardo obtained his paints improve your appreciation of the Mona Lisa?

Vastly.

Think on it: say that paints were terribly hard to come by several hundred years ago for an impoverished dozenth or so child of poor parents. Say that canvases are quite equally difficult to find.

Think of how resourceful that person would have to be not only to acquire supplies, but to find the time in which to use them.

Think of how close Leonardo may have come to never having painted the Mona Lisa at all. Do you not further your appreciation of the art before you by knowing what went into it and how, without those things, it never could have come to be?

Without the benefit of smooth transition, I'd like also to say that at this point, I have more interest in Tolkien than I do in his work. What made him tick. What inspired him. What he wrote and why he wrote it. I'm fascinated with writers in general. They have a certain something to them. A writer whose work I read recently said that nobody becomes an artist unless they have to. I'm interested in why people have to. What underlying reasons Tolkien had for what he wrote. I've been pondering Leaf by Niggle, which I finally read, for days now.

Art catches my breath and takes me on wild adventures through realities unguessed. The magic captures me and stays with me.

But people are equally enthralling. Delving into what goes through minds is my equivilant to sifting through a pile of jewels with each piece more enchanting than the last.

Tolkien was a great writer. But I'm interested in the man, not the image of him. I'm curious about how he thought and why he thought it. If I can learn more about humanity by studying the things humans do, say, and make, cool.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Vastly.

Think on it: say that paints were terribly hard to come by several hundred years ago for an impoverished dozenth or so child of poor parents. Say that canvases are quite equally difficult to find.

Think of how resourceful that person would have to be not only to acquire supplies, but to find the time in which to use them.

Think of how close Leonardo may have come to never having painted the Mona Lisa at all. Do you not further your appreciation of the art before you by knowing what went into it and how, without those things, it never could have come to be?

But that's another story, & if you focus on that one you'll miss the picture. The 'story' of Tolkien's sources may be interesting in itself, but it will get in the way of, or overlay, the other story & become something else. Aquisition of raw materials is not something that interests me. Nor, I suspect, was it somthing Leonardo found all that interesting, as rather than leaving us an account of how he got his paints, he actually painted with them.

Without the benefit of smooth transition, I'd like also to say that at this point, I have more interest in Tolkien than I do in his work. What made him tick. What inspired him. What he wrote and why he wrote it. I'm fascinated with writers in general. They have a certain something to them. A writer whose work I read recently said that nobody becomes an artist unless they have to. I'm interested in why people have to. What underlying reasons Tolkien had for what he wrote. I've been pondering Leaf by Niggle, which I finally read, for days now.

Art catches my breath and takes me on wild adventures through realities unguessed. The magic captures me and stays with me.

But people are equally enthralling. Delving into what goes through minds is my equivilant to sifting through a pile of jewels with each piece more enchanting than the last.

Tolkien was a great writer. But I'm interested in the man, not the image of him. I'm curious about how he thought and why he thought it. If I can learn more about humanity by studying the things humans do, say, and make, cool.

As Tolkien put it:

He finds it surprising and pleasing that The Lord of the Rings has had such a success. It seems to him that nowadays almost any kind of fiction is mishandled, through not being sufficiently enjoyed. He thinks that there is now a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost.

“It seems to me comparable to a man who having eaten anything, from a salad to a complete and well-planned dinner, uses an emetic, and sends the results for chemical analysis.”

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I understand both your opinion and Tolkien's. I'm just ignoring them in favor of my own. Hope you don't mind too much, darling.

[Boromir88]

I understand both your opinion and Tolkien's. I'm just ignoring them in favor of my own. Hope you don't mind too much, darling.

Are you allowed to do that? What I mean is it's perfectly ok to completely disregard Tolkien's opinion, but ignoring davem's that's blasphomy!

But, seriously now I completely understand what you're saying and I agree. Looking further in and 'analyzing' doesn't necessarily destroy the magic of the books. Especially if you have a deep interest in the 'how it came to be.'

Believe it or not, one of the most touching and thought-provoking scenes (for me) in LOTR is with Tolkien's war experience:

Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering bank, a man fell, crashing through the slender trees, nearly on top of them. He came to rest in the fern a few feet away, face downward, green arrow-feathers sticking from his neck below a golden collar. His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of his sword.

It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace-...

Eventhough Tolkien does deny using allegories to the World Wars:

’Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and litttle or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.'

’The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or conclusion.’
~Foreward to LOTR

I can not look at that moment with Sam and say it wasn't Tolkien reflecting on his World War experiences. Now, Tolkien said the 'legendary war' (or the war that he created) in not influenced by the real wars. While this moment with Sam looking at the dead Haradrim soldier has no importance on the main story, the story of the War and the Ring, it's more of just a sidebar, a step away from the action. As I can't look at that passage and not think that Tolkien was being influenced by his war experiences, but this passage with Sam does not play any major part in the storyline itself, it feels more like a 'step away from the story for a brief second.' it's a moment outside of the main plotline...if anyone has any clue as to what I'm saying.

Fea, I think Letter 109 will fit what you are trying to explain quite perfectly:

Of course, Allegory and Story converge, meeting in Truth. So the only perfectly consitent allegory is real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human ’literature’ , that the better and more closely an allegory is the more easily it can be read ’just as a story’; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it. But the two start out from opposite ends.

'The Story' and 'allegory' start out totally opposite, but as that song goes...'They meet in the middle.'

Tolkien strongly resisted his books as being labeled 'allegorical' but because of their very nature and depth provided- better and more closely woven a story is - those searching can - more easily find allegory in it.

It still all boils down to reader applicability. It is our freedom to think 'hey this reminds me of something in life.' I think of it as a story with allegories that anyone can find - or choose not to find- but it is not an 'Allegorical story.' Meaning there was no intentional authorial design to make allegories. Because, intentionally writing in allegories limits the reader's mind, the reader's applicability. It would mean that we all must see 'Elrond as a Jesus figure,' and this was why I think Tolkien strongly resisted his books being 'allegorical.' Because if they were allegorical, the freedom of applicability would be taken away. And it is this very freedom of the reader, that I believe (at least for me), adds to the stories magic. It makes me as a reader be able to identify and connect with the story and form my own 'allegories.'

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Are you allowed to do that? What I mean is it's perfectly ok to completely disregard Tolkien's opinion, but ignoring davem's that's blasphomy!

But, seriously now I completely understand what you're saying and I agree. Looking further in and 'analyzing' doesn't necessarily destroy the magic of the books. Especially if you have a deep interest in the 'how it came to be.'

Believe it or not, one of the most touching and thought-provoking scenes (for me) in LOTR is with Tolkien's war experience:


Eventhough Tolkien does deny using allegories to the World Wars:

I can not look at that moment with Sam and say it wasn't Tolkien reflecting on his World War experiences. Now, Tolkien said the 'legendary war' (or the war that he created) in not influenced by the real wars. While this moment with Sam looking at the dead Haradrim soldier has no importance on the main story, the story of the War and the Ring, it's more of just a sidebar, a step away from the action. As I can't look at that passage and not think that Tolkien was being influenced by his war experiences, but this passage with Sam does not play any major part in the storyline itself, it feels more like a 'step away from the story for a brief second.' it's a moment outside of the main plotline...if anyone has any clue as to what I'm saying.

Fea, I think Letter 109 will fit what you are trying to explain quite perfectly:

'The Story' and 'allegory' start out totally opposite, but as that song goes...'They meet in the middle.'

Tolkien strongly resisted his books as being labeled 'allegorical' but because of their very nature and depth provided- better and more closely woven a story is - those searching can - more easily find allegory in it.

It still all boils down to reader applicability. It is our freedom to think 'hey this reminds me of something in life.' I think of it as a story with allegories that anyone can find - or choose not to find- but it is not an 'Allegorical story.' Meaning there was no intentional authorial design to make allegories. Because, intentionally writing in allegories limits the reader's mind, the reader's applicability. It would mean that we all must see 'Elrond as a Jesus figure,' and this was why I think Tolkien strongly resisted his books being 'allegorical.' Because if they were allegorical, the freedom of applicability would be taken away. And it is this very freedom of the reader, that I believe (at least for me), adds to the stories magic. It makes me as a reader be able to identify and connect with the story and form my own 'allegories.'

I totally agree with the above. It appears to me that comparing the Lord of the Rings to, say the Bible, allows great minds to excercise their creative thinking & in the process open a latreal opportunity to learn new perspectives. But there will always be some who prefer to stay with the mainstream Tolkienology, believing that it is the truest & safest approach, but not as imaginative & it may even close new doors for further thought & discussion. This thread was all about opening new doors for those who want to open them, rather than those who prefer to guard the old ones & keep them locked.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I totally agree with the above. It appears to me that comparing the Lord of the Rings to, say the Bible, allows great minds to excercise their creative thinking & in the process open a latreal opportunity to learn new perspectives. But there will always be some who prefer to stay with the mainstream Tolkienology, believing that it is the truest & safest approach, but not as imaginative & it may even close new doors for further thought & discussion. This thread was all about opening new doors for those who want to open them, rather than those who prefer to guard the old ones & keep them locked.

I don't see it as 'learning new perspectives' so much as inventing them. No, I must correct myself there - not 'new' perspectives, but old, ancient, decrepit ones. This whole 'Finding God in the Lord of the Rings' approach has been done to death, resurrected, done to death again, resurrected again, etc, etc,etc. It is not new in any way at all. I probably have hallf a dozen books which claim to show the 'Christian' backstory of LotR (& do it very badly in most cases). Its not even interesting anymore.

Ok, let's try another tack.

Gandalf & Elrond were directly & deliberately inspired by Christ. As was Frodo & Aragorn. The Balrog was meant to be a depiction of Satan (unless Grima or Saruman was), Galadriel of the Virgin Mary, Eowyn of St Ursula, Merry of St Francis, Lobelia of St Catherine of Sienna & the fox a subtle allegory of Nebuchadnezzar.

What, exactly, has that to do with the price of fish?

Or maybe its just me. I'm sure Mansun & the other 'great minds' of this forum should be as free as possible to 'excercise their creative thinking & in the process open a latreal opportunity to learn new perspectives.'

I see that I have now joined the ranks of those who 'prefer to stay with the mainstream Tolkienology, believing that it is the truest & safest approach, but not as imaginative & it may even close new doors for further thought & discussion. This thread was all about opening new doors for those who want to open them, rather than those who prefer to guard the old ones & keep them locked.'

Ah, the radicalism of youth, when we all felt the fire in our bellies! But now we are old, & only seek to imprison the young within the cells we have created for them. We are too old & fuddled to keep up with them. They will reveal the TRUTH to us, for it is their destiny.....

(Anybody else read Logan's Run........?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

I don't see it as 'learning new perspectives' so much as inventing them.

Do you have a point? We are not discussing a mysterious and magical text that was brought down from on high within a burst of white light, whose origins are unknown, and that promises to save the world. It wasn't sent over by aliens, it didn't suddenly appear to a hobo in a shack emblazoned with words too hallowed to repeat. We're talking about books. Written by this guy. Tolkien was a great writer, sure, but he was human and his books are merely books, no matter how nicely they are written. Tolkien was happy, got angry, had moments of sadness, of hyperactivity, of hunger, of jealousy; he reproduced with his wife, went to the bathroom. Forgive the blasphemy, but I assume he also burped at least once in his life.

Tolkien was a master wordsmith, but he was still just a guy talking. Making things up. Inventing a world.

If we want to invent perspective with which to view this world, created by this guy, to see if we can learn something, why do you care?

They will reveal the TRUTH to us, for it is their destiny.....

So long as you're aware, m'boy.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Do you have a point? We are not discussing a mysterious and magical text that was brought down from on high within a burst of white light, whose origins are unknown, and that promises to save the world. It wasn't sent over by aliens, it didn't suddenly appear to a hobo in a shack emblazoned with words too hallowed to repeat. We're talking about books. Written by this guy. Tolkien was a great writer, sure, but he was human and his books are merely books, no matter how nicely they are written. Tolkien was happy, got angry, had moments of sadness, of hyperactivity, of hunger, of jealousy; he reproduced with his wife, went to the bathroom. Forgive the blasphemy, but I assume he also burped at least once in his life.

Tolkien was a master wordsmith, but he was still just a guy talking. Making things up. Inventing a world.

If we want to invent perspective with which to view this world, created by this guy, to see if we can learn something, why do you care?

Well, I don't exactly see what this 'revelation' is that you assume yourselves to be on the verge of.

Could it be 'Tolkien was a Christian, who had read the Bible, & its possible to find certain similarities between the language & stories of the Bible & his own sub creation!!!!!!!'?

There - I said it for you. Tolkien was quite probably influenced by (among God knows how many other things) the Bible. You can find (&/or impose) Biblical symbolism & allegories on the Legendarium (& for all I know there may well be a hidden code in there too which reveals when the Day of Judgement will take place).

I'm sure there are even some deliberate nods towards his faith - the dates of the setting out of the Fellowship from Rivendell & of the Fall of Barad Dur & all that.

But that's not new, its not original, & God knows why anyone outside of a few evangelicals on a mission to get us all back to church or some seriously anally retentive fans would actually care what went into the 'leaf mould of the mind' out of which grew Tolkien's particular Tree.

We are all influenced by what we read, experience & believe. You seem deserate to prove that this was allso the case with Tolkien - but I don't think anyone is arguing with that.

One word of warning though. As I said earlier, I've read quite a few of these pieces on how LotR is a deeply Christian work - just glancing at my bookshelf now I can see 'Tolkien in Perspective', 'Tolkien's Oridinary Virtues', Finding God in the Lord of the Rings', Secret Fire, Tolkien Man & Myth & JRR Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth among others, along with a nice thick folder of essays printed off from the Web many of which are by Christians & purport to show Tolkien's work was deeply Christian. Their motivation seems twofold - the first can be summed up as 'See, you like LotR, LotR is a Christian book, so, why not come to church this Sunday?' & the second as 'Wow!!! I've just discovered similarities between characters & events in LotR & the Bible! I must be a genius!'. What they all have in common is that they are completely unconvincing, badly written statements of the glaringly obvious or simply embarrassing: 'Aragorn had a beard & long hair & looked like Jesus...'.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, I don't exactly see what this 'revelation' is that you assume yourselves to be on the verge of.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I don't seek a revelation at all. I'm just in it for the fun of it all. Eru help us, don't you ever just play?

[Lalwendë]

Well after thinking of a lengthy explanation I've abandoned it. There was no need for it.

I think that the objections of some readers to the 'explorations' of others ultimately boil down to resistance towards attaching any kind of 'agenda' to LotR.

[Lalaith]

Their motivation seems twofold

Third possible motivation: there are some Christian churches today which limit the reading and knowledge of their members, and seem actively to discourage them from reading or enjoying anything not directly Bible-related. Fantasy literature in particular is regarded with great suspicion, or even banned.
I think that these attempts to "prove" the biblical and Christian provenance of LotR is a way for some people to read and enjoy the work without feeling sinful.

[Lalaith]

Clarification of the above: it was not intended as an attack on Christianity in general, but a comment on certain strands within it....strands I have been made aware of primarily from encountering young people here on the Downs who have had their reading heavily restricted by their churches, schools and pastors.

[The Only Real Estel]

Well, I hate to bring this up but, there could possibly be a (*gasp*) fourth "possible motivation." (*cue the evil conspirator music* )

Perhaps, and I know this might be a stretch here, but perhaps some of these books brought up by davem & others that were written by Christians on some of the parallels in Tolkien's world to Christianity (which can be drawn without trying too hard, whether Tolkien intended them or not) are books written towards (although not expressly for) Christians who enjoy Tolkien and would enjoy the parallels as well?

But then there would be no hidden agendas or other exciting things to talk about it would be...just a book with parallels someone saw in it.

At any rate I think Lal says it quite well:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Well after thinking of a lengthy explanation I've abandoned it. There was no need for it.

I think that the objections of some readers to the 'explorations' of others ultimately boil down to resistance towards attaching any kind of 'agenda' to LotR.

Fortunately I don't think that any 'Downers are trying to attach any agenda to it...lets hope it stays that way.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Third possible motivation: there are some Christian churches today which limit the reading and knowledge of their members, and seem actively to discourage them from reading or enjoying anything not directly Bible-related. Fantasy literature in particular is regarded with great suspicion, or even banned.
I think that these attempts to "prove" the biblical and Christian provenance of LotR is a way for some people to read and enjoy the work without feeling sinful.

So we're back to the whole issue of 'meaning' then. LotR has to be shown not only to have a meaning, but a specifically Christian (probably a specifically fundamentalist Evangelical) one. If it cannot be shown to be a Christian allegory, or at least 'orthodox' it must be 'evil', & banned?

As to the point that those Christians are just enjoying the parallels between LotR & the Bible. I don't have any problem with that. I do, however, find that those 'paralllels' are invariably forced & don't really stand up to any scrutiny. It always seems to be a case of 'This episode/character in LotR is like/makes me think of..' (at which point they go off on some tangent & start talking about Isaiah or the Virgin Mary).

Now, I accept that in some of the Letters Tolkien himself had a tendency to do that very thing but perhaps he ought to have had more sense - some of the 'interpretations' he comes up with are so tenuous or so odd that they make your head spin: for example, when he claims that the events at the Sammath Naur are a playing out of the lines in the Lord's Prayer ('Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us') he is definitely pushing it. To try to force that kind of analogy, to try to turn one of the most powerful moments in literature into material for scriptural exegesis (or more likely a very embarrassing sermon) is to treat the story (& the reader) with contempt.

This kind of simple 'one-to-one' analogy never, it seems to me, rises above the confused or embarrassing.

[littlemanpoet]

Or a fifth .... (related to the fourth) .....

Recognition.

....of something dynamic and powerful at a level most books don't reach. The story of LotR strikes a chord that rings with the very tembre of creation itself as it is. Thus, it's a recognition

of Reality.

.... and Christians but not only Christians are drawn to this story like no other in the entire century during which it was written. Those who believe as did its author find themselves saying, "I know this! I recognize it! It's in harmony with the very warp and weft of what I know! I want to celebrate it by sharing it with my friends."

Originally Posted by davem

...for example, when he claims that the events at the Sammath Naur are a playing out of the lines in the Lord's Prayer ('Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us') he is definitely pushing it. To try to force that kind of analogy, to try to turn one of the most powerful moments in literature into material for scriptural exegesis (or more likely a very embarrassing sermon) is to treat the story (& the reader) with contempt.

davem, you should be ashamed for doing the very thing you are complaining about. If Tolkien made such a statement, it would behoove us to understand that those words from the Lord's Prayer apparently meant that much to him. To so criticize his most dearly held beliefs is to treat him with contempt. Do please attempt to see this from Tolkien's point of view.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

davem, you should be ashamed for doing the very thing you are complaining about. If Tolkien made such a statement, it would behoove us to understand that those words from the Lord's Prayer apparently meant that much to him. To so criticize his most dearly held beliefs is to treat him with contempt. Do please attempt to see this from Tolkien's point of view.

Even the artist may fail to fully appreciate or value the art they have created. Tolkien's attempts to impose a Christian interpretation on his work are as much of a failure as the attempts of others.

However much the Lord's Prayer meant to Tolkien it cannot be made to apply to every particular circumstance - & certainly not that one. He was doing exactly the kind of thing he himself condemned in the quote from the interview I gave a few posts back & in his statements there he clearly felt contempt for the very approach he himself took to his own work in that & other letters & comments: He thinks that there is now a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost.

“It seems to me comparable to a man who having eaten anything, from a salad to a complete and well-planned dinner, uses an emetic, and sends the results for chemical analysis.”

He would have been better leaving interpretation to the reader (if they want to interpret it at all) rather than using his work to promote his religion - which simply cheapens it.

Originally Posted by davem

Even the artist may fail to fully appreciate or value the art they have created. Tolkien's attempts to impose a Christian interpretation on his work are as much of a failure as the attempts of others.

However much the Lord's Prayer meant to Tolkien it cannot be made to apply to every particular circumstance - & certainly not that one. He was doing exactly the kind of thing he himself condemned in the quote from the interview I gave a few posts back & in his statements there he clearly felt contempt for the very approach he himself took to his own work in that & other letters & comments: He thinks that there is now a tendency both to believe and teach in schools and colleges that “enjoyment” is an illiterate reaction; that if you are a serious reader, you should take the construction to pieces; find and analyse sources, dissect it into symbols, and debase it into allegory. Any idea of actually reading the book for fun is lost.

“It seems to me comparable to a man who having eaten anything, from a salad to a complete and well-planned dinner, uses an emetic, and sends the results for chemical analysis.”

He would have been better leaving interpretation to the reader (if they want to interpret it at all) rather than using his work to promote his religion - which simply cheapens it.

It is always good to have someone who challenges the ideas of others to balance the argument. But there also comes a point where one asks if a particular thread is for them?

I myself am not a devout Christian as yet, but I find the LOTR & the Bible to be the two most inspirational texts ever written. Therefore I, & many others, would find the prospect of comparing & contrasting the texts with each other to be interesting, educational & even developing a more magical understanding than before. Though this will not be the case for all, as they may not be drawn by the idea from the start.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mansun

It is always good to have someone who challenges the ideas of others to balance the argument. But there also comes a point where one asks if a particular thread is for them?

It's actually essential to have the critic in the corner who is separate from the main thrust of discussion if there's to be any hope of finding more than merely subjective guesses. All Books threads apart from mirth and RPG type ones will have a little critical pixie or two to pop up throughout and argue the opposite. That's part of the fun.

[davem]

Ok. You look at a particularly impressive cloud formation & 'see' a castle. That's fine. However, if you then go on to claim there is something specifically 'castle-like' about that cloud, that it is necessary to know about castles in order to understand/appreciate that cloud, that that cloud can tell you anything about castles, or that only someone with a knowledge of castles can understand what that cloud really is, I will argue with you, because I think we would no longer be dealing with a matter of personal opinion but a wrong opinion (& frankly a silly opinion). To claim that only someone who believes that cloud castles are a real possibility has any valid opinion on clouds is not logical & to think that believing in cloud castles means you will have a deeper experience of that cloud than someone who doesn't believe in them is a bit smug (as well as wrong).

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I'm going to break in here, and hopefully prevent a riot.

Personally I found the biblical parallels quoted in the first post to be unconvincing, and for the reasons given in Hookbill's response. That does not mean that there are no biblical parallels in LotR, just that those particular examples could have been thought out more carefully. My reading of the book has never suggested a character or plot element that has obviously been lifted directly from the Bible, but Tolkien knew more about the Bible and theology than any of us, and without a similar knowledge both of the Bible and of Roman Catholic theology, modern and medieval, all of our theories are likely to run astray.

I find it unlikely that Tolkien would re-use stories from the Bible, and he certainly wasn't trying to write an allegory. He was frequently troubled by thoughts that his legends veered away from Catholic orthodoxy, and to make any obvious connections would seem to increase that danger. That is not to say that there are not Christian teachings embedded in LotR, such as the importance of mercy, the existence of an individual choice between right and wrong and the centrality of love and self-sacrifice, but these are not biblical characters or events, rather ideas which are expressed in Christian writings. Similarly, if one were to say that a character was a representation of Christ, it would not be enough simply to point to wisdom or self-sacrifice: those characteristics can be found everywhere in world literature. Certainly it's not enough to say that a character preaches (Elrond does not, to my mind, preach at all), or that he narrates stories from history: that character would need to share important characteristics, such as accepting punishment for the crimes of others, rising from the dead or being the son of a deity; preferably all three.

If there is a character who clearly fits a Christian model it is Morgoth. He is the most powerful and beautiful of the Valar, yet his pride in those gifts leads him to reject the authority of his creator . Thenceforth he is renamed to show his new role as the enemy of good, which is embodied in the Creator, Eru. In its essentials this is the story of Satan, who is also renamed from Lucifer ('Light-bearing One') to Satan ('Adversary'). However, this parallel is so obvious that most of us take it for granted; and its source is not the Bible, but a mass of apocryphal literature that was particularly popular in the Middle Ages. The Anglo-Saxon poem Genesis B, translated from contemporary Old Saxon, records this story in verse; and if Tolkien was not intimately familiar with it then I should be very surprised.

Setting aside davem's objections, we should all be aware when looking at Tolkien's sources and his use of them, that he knew and understood many things more completely than do we. His upbringing, education and experiences were far removed from the present-day norm, and he grew up in a society that is now virtually unrecognisable. Nobody seems to look at Thucydides, for example, for Tolkienian parallels, and yet Tolkien once won a school prize for his knowledge of the Greek historian, whom he read in Classical Greek and who was on the syllabus at King Edward's. Tolkien's influences can be sought in the Latin and Greek authors so beloved of nineteenth-century educators, in the Germanic legends with which he was professionally concerned, in the literature of his time, in his religion and in his own experiences and imagination: to pick out these threads requires a frightening amount of study, not only of Tolkien but also of all these areas. My education is not up to the task, and it's difficult nowadays to find anyone who does have the necessary grasp even of the essentials (who has read the Aenead in Latin? Tolkien had, before the age of eighteen.

My point is that when discussing something as central to Tolkien's life as Roman Catholicism, particularly when trying to spot it in his works, we ought first to find out as much about Roman Catholicism and Tolkien's works as possible. If we want to find Biblical parallels, we should at least know the entire Bible, since Tolkien certainly did. The same caveat applies to mythological and literary parallels: know the sources, know the literature, know Tolkien and think carefully. Tolkien was a subtle and learned man: he cannot be dissected with a hammer.

[davem]

Or we could just read & enjoy the story as a story, stop trying to second guess, impose meanings, foist our own belief systems on the work & generally try & make it serve our own purposes…

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

Even the artist may fail to fully appreciate or value the art they have created.

But the artist, as the creator, has the most sincere understanding of the work having seen it through from the smallest bud of inspiration to the many rewrites, the many cross-outs, the many deletions, all the way to what you see before you.

Tolkien's attempts to impose a Christian interpretation on his work are as much of a failure as the attempts of others.

You've no idea how hard I'm snickering right now. If Tolkien says his works are vaguely Christian, you'd think he'd know.

in his statements there he clearly felt contempt for the very approach he himself took to his own work in that & other letters & comments:

He would have been better leaving interpretation to the reader (if they want to interpret it at all) rather than using his work to promote his religion - which simply cheapens it.

Davem, dear, are we now discussing what Tolkien would have wanted believed of his work, or what you would prefer? Do you think that the Christian applicability cheapens the story? If the parallels being drawn here weren't Christian, would there be such outcry?

Perhaps he felt contempt for forced understanding, but that doesn't necessarily stop him nor does it cheapen or disqualify the thought. Surely you've done things that you don't entirely agree with. A touch of hypocrisy in the Master? Surely not. Surely he wasn't human?

And besides, it's not like he was promoting his religion as an entity so much as promoting the ideals of it. Does having a definate side of "good guys" cheapen a story because there's less of a threat of betrayal?

To claim that only someone who believes that cloud castles are a real possibility has any valid opinion on clouds is not logical

You would stand beneath my castles in the sky and kick out the foundations based on your own logic? How arrogant.

Originally Posted by Squatter

Tolkien was a subtle and learned man: he cannot be dissected with a hammer.

What about the scalpel of free thought?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

But the artist, as the creator, has the most sincere understanding of the work having seen it through from the smallest bud of inspiration to the many rewrites, the many cross-outs, the many deletions, all the way to what you see before you.


You've no idea how hard I'm snickering right now. If Tolkien says his works are vaguely Christian, you'd think he'd know.

I'm sure he believed (ie convinced himself ) they were. Which means nothing as far as the works themselves are concerned. They are certainly 'vaguely Christian' but they are also 'vaguely' many other things.

Davem, dear, are we now discussing what Tolkien would have wanted believed of his work, or what you would prefer? Do you think that the Christian applicability cheapens the story? If the parallels being drawn here weren't Christian, would there be such outcry?

There would be from me. I'd be just as critical of a LotR=WWII approach, or a Ring=Atom Bomb approach - or even LotR is a 'pro-pagan' work. So maybe all the Christians can get down from their crosses - no-one's brought nails....

You would stand beneath my castles in the sky and kick out the foundations based on your own logic? How arrogant.

Now, if its a 'real' castle I'm not going to be able to bring it down with a few kicks, am I?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

What about the scalpel of free thought?

Only when it's guided by knowledge and skill. You wouldn't put a scalpel into a child's hands, would you?

It's a peculiarity of the last forty years to teach pupils that they don't need to know anything to come up with valid theories. If my free thought leads me to think that Gandalf was lifted from The Dukes of Hazzard, my knowledge that The Hobbit was out decades before the T.V. series ought to tell me that I'm wrong. It's no different with any other sort of parallel: if you don't know the subject then your theories can only be good by sheer luck. Knowing the area guides theories and makes them less likely to be rubbish.

davem: as for Tolkien's comments on the Paternoster being reflected in the scene at the Sammath Naur, Frodo has forgiven the trespasses of another (Gollum), hence he does not suffer the full penalty for his own failure: Frodo is shown mercy just as he in turn showed mercy to Gollum, which seems a fair interpretation of those lines. Admittedly I doubt that was at the forefront of Tolkien's mind as he wrote the scene.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by davem

Or we could just read & enjoy the story as a story, stop trying to second guess, impose meanings, foist our own belief systems on the work & generally try & make it serve our own purposes…

I'm inclined to agree here with Mr Dave. Reading Tolkien's forward alone tells us that looking for deeper meanings or messages wasn't the intension in creating the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion, but merely to create a history for his languages and an entertaining story.

It is folly, I think, to assume that Tolkien had any ulterior motive. Perhaps there are hints towards Christ. Perhaps there are some similarities. Who can say? I think that trying to look too deeply down this road can lead to us walking in circles for a long while.

I will not deny that there are some Characters that have some kind of Christ like attributions. Just as Christians are supposed to show forth Christ like behaviour (the term Christian being, of course, an insult to the early church meaning 'Christ like' to describe the behaviour of the early church) this was probably a little more common in Tolkien's day than today and would not have been regarded as anything unusual.

You could look at it a different and more ambiguous way... The Bible says that "God is Good" so, when in a book there is a character who does something good do you say they are an allegory for God? Personally, I wouldn't.
But... hay ho... I don't know...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Squatter

davem: as for Tolkien's comments on the Paternoster being reflected in the scene at the Sammath Naur, Frodo has forgiven the trespasses of another (Gollum), hence he does not suffer the full penalty for his own failure: Frodo is shown mercy just as he in turn showed mercy to Gollum, which seems a fair interpretation of those lines. Admittedly I doubt that was at the forefront of Tolkien's mind as he wrote the scene.

Well I'm quite familiar with Christianity & those particular lines never sprung to my mind when I was reading it. I can see they may have been in Tolkiens – either at the time of writing or later when he came to analyse them. However from a reading of LotR alone there is no sense that Eru has intervened to 'save' (ie forgive) Frodo, nor to 'damn' Gollum. The whole episode can be read as a working out of wyrd or just a simple fluke. Even when one knows about Eru there is no reason to bring in the Lord's Prayer as an explanation ( a reduction of a supremely powerful episode to a platitude imo), as there is little evidence in the text that Eru is exactly the same deity with the same values & patterns of behaviour as Jehovah. Seeing Eru as Jehovah is another imposition of Christianity on the story. Tolkien may not have distinguished between them (he probably did not) but from the text itself I don't see enough evidence to support the identification.

[Boromir88]

It's actually essential to have the critic in the corner who is separate from the main thrust of discussion if there's to be any hope of finding more than merely subjective guesses. All Books threads apart from mirth and RPG type ones will have a little critical pixie or two to pop up throughout and argue the opposite. That's part of the fun.~Lalwende

Well what would be more fun is everyone just agreeing with me.

I think we all must distinguish between Tolkien the omniscient narrator, Tolkien the recorder, and Tolkien the observer. All of which we can get a good dose of (especially in Letters). Of course lmp, I would bet that Tolkien knows his works better than anyone else would. When he is making these allegories to the 'Lord's Prayer,' or there is one instant when he thinks the Numenoreans are most like the Egyptians, it's important to realize that often times he's taking a step back from the story and reflecting upon his own experiences when reading. So, it's only natural that a man such as Tolkien I think would make a connection the the Lord's Prayer as he did.

I didn't see that, and I probably would have never noticed that connection until someone told me:

Tolkien may not have distinguished between them (he probably did not) but from the text itself I don't see enough evidence to support the identification.~davem

And that's the key, when Tolkien goes back he himself, because of the person he is and what influenced him, may be able to find allegories of the Lord's Prayer. But, someone like me when reading the scene in Mount Doom, I thought nothing of it. I think it's important that Tolkien all the way up there in his late ages stressed the importance of the reader:

Of course the L.R. does not belong to me. It has been brought forth and must now go its appointed way in the world, though naturally I take a deep interest in its fortunes , as a person would of a child.~Letter # 328

So, lmp, this is no knock to Tolkien, but what he thought of, what he found for his own 'allegories' really doesn't effect what I find and what I experience when reading his books.

[littlemanpoet]

One reader's platitude may be another's way of life. That it is a mere platitude for one does in no wise lessen its centrality for the other.

[Macalaure]

I was just writing about the same that Boro just did, so I'm making this short.

It is understood that Tolkien disliked allegory and looks for applicability.
In this light, Tolkien's interpretation of his scene at Sammath Naur is the way he applies the scene to himself. This does not mean that his interpretation is the only valid one. If it was, it would get us dangerously close to allegory.

The parallel between the scene and the Lord's prayer has never occurred to me before, but now that it is mentioned and explained, I see it. Very nice, though I still don't like the idea of divine intervention causing Gollum's death.

However, this is just Tolkien's application, not an imposed and uncontestable explanation, and noboby is forced to follow it. Edit: To say this view reduces the scene is a little hard, in my mind.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

One reader's platitude may be another's way of life. That it is a mere platitude for one does in no wise lessen its centrality for the other.

I suppose that means its all subjective then, a matter of opinion?

[Anguirel]

To skip back along way to Lalwende's quest for the Miltonic Satan in Tolkien-whom she found closest to Saruman-the character that leapt to mind for me was Galadriel.

Certainly Galadriel and Saruman, for all their enmity, have much in common. Indeed, I always thought their mutual loathing came from recognition of a kindred spirit; Galadriel liked Gandalf because he was a good deal more straightforward than she, and so reassuring. Maybe.

Saruman tempts for his own evil purposes. Fair enough. Galadriel is odder in that she tempts for the greater good. I am vaguely reminded of Gnostic and Cathar heresies, and the so called Gospel of Judas, which hinted that Satan/Judas was consciously fulfilling God's will in their treachery. A bit like certain theories I've seen about Melkor.

Galadriel fits more swiftly than Saruman for me because she is physically as well as mentally tempting. I get a kind of image of the Massolino fresco of the Serpent with the head of a golden-haired woman...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

I'm inclined to agree here with Mr Dave. Reading Tolkien's forward alone tells us that looking for deeper meanings or messages wasn't the intension in creating the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion, but merely to create a history for his languages and an entertaining story.

It is folly, I think, to assume that Tolkien had any ulterior motive. Perhaps there are hints towards Christ. Perhaps there are some similarities. Who can say? I think that trying to look too deeply down this road can lead to us walking in circles for a long while.

Listen to what Hookbill says, he's speaking sense!

Tolkien told us that LotR was not an allegory. Therefore we can find all the metaphors we like in x y or z character or situation, but he didn't intend it that way. So if we do find these metaphors or symbols or whatever, we're not necessarily getting closer to understanding the text as intended, only our own response to it. It's intellectual navel gazing - loadsa fun but then someone might well come along and ask us what the hell we're looking at.

Temper this with the knowledge that Tolkien was indeed a Christian, in fact a devout Catholic, a very particular type of Christian. So of course put together with the other 1,001 influences on his mind, his faith would influence his work. I've just been talking about Catholicism/Gothic elsewhere.

I think the key point is that LotR has a Christian spirit; note that this 'spirit' is not an exclusively Christian one - how could it be for people of so many faiths (and none) to all join in enjoying this book? So it can't be co-opted by one group of society - sorry if anyone was planning on doing that - not that you were.

The book's a good one for Christians as of course some of the themes support a lot of Christian tenets (but do they all??? Now there's a discussion), but it also supports non-Christian ones too. And that is a very good thing as far as I'm concerned, and only further demonstrates Tolkien's sense of humanity

[Macalaure]

Indeed, I always thought their mutual loathing came from recognition of a kindred spirit;

Interesting. I always thought that Galadriel's loathing for Feanor had the exact same origin. Only that it wasn't mutual and Feanor seemingly was looking for a like mind in the beginning. When rejected, he leaves Galadriel back in Araman like everybody else.