I am not sure that simply requiring a Divine healing in itself substantiates that the essence of the fall or falls in Tolkein's world mirrors that in Christianity. However, the ability to perceive the spiritual foundations of Tolkien's work from a position of awareness of, understanding of and respect for (if not absolute faith in) Christian cosmogony - an assumption that Tolkien could have made with reasonable confidence given the culture of his time - is perfectly logical.
It is perhaps a point of debate as to whether the maturity of the spiritual foundation posited, equating as it does with what I assume to be the increasingly conscious Christianising revisions and expansions by the author, is necessarily appertaining to the quality of Tolkien's acknowledged masterpiece. From the critical perspective, the creation of Lord of the Rings, its vision, scope and narrative flow, is an act of integrity created by an author at the height of his powers. It is this one work which gives potency to all his other writings, a somewhat arbitrary relationship perhaps, but one which the author was certainly aware of.
It is perhaps inevitable, and certainly not without precedent, that conscientious authors themselves retain neither the sentimental attachment to, or great reverence for, the art for which they are most popularly renowned. The next or ongoing creation is what matters.
However, as readers and reluctant critics (in the widest sense) we can consider this work the fulcrum of Tolkien's mythos - and it's zenith - if we choose.
Is it arguable that, of Tolkien's canon, nothing is either sufficently complete, rounded or equivalent in scale and quality to compare with Lord of the Rings? I ask the question in order to frame the following argument : that the spiritual foundation behind Lord of the Rings, as a complete and published work, is as powerful and valid as anything in his work.
In terms of the life's work of an artist, "maturity" might typically be manifested in terms of technical skill as much as imaginative force, perhaps often in literature as economy, and the subtlety that comes from human wisdom. Yet the world of art is graced as much by brief passionate moments (followed by long mediocrity) as it is by late flowering ... ugh, those mixed metaphors will come back to haunt me [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].
I am not suggesting that a real human being and real works of literature all fall neatly into these generalisations (or stereotypes). But it is possible to argue from a critical perspective that the revisions, or works in the nature of a revision of an interconnected mythos, can be qualitatively compared to the earlier work. Like all of us, the author was changed by time. But it is Lord of the Rings that stands as testament to the author. Was it flawed in some way? Of course, and the author would nodoubt have been painfully aware of many shortcomings, mostly invisible to the reader. But is it definitive - in terms of narrative power AND spiritual foundation (I can't think of any other summary term, sorry)? This is my contention.
In that context, it is the differences between the spiritual foundation definitively expressed here, and the posited maturity of subsequent revisions or additions to the canon, that can be debated. I wonder if the evident universality of Lord of the Rings is compromised, and what the implications might be? Perhaps it is what the author meant or wanted all along - if so, the work was initially a triumph of eclecticism, depth and ambiguity. Intuitively I tend to to think that art, and human beings, contain more contradictions than we are sometimes willing to acknowledge.
As such, Tolkien's notion of applicability seems to me one the most appealing aspects of the work. I wonder whether an increasingly rigid theological framework changes that.
Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Kalessin
|