Narfforc - Well said!
Now a general plea for complexity addressed to no one in particular....
Why does this scenario have to be "either"/"or"? Tolkien is the last author whom I would accuse of seeing things from only one perspective. That is my concern about a discussion like this. The richness of what Tolkien actually wrote sometimes gets flattened out in the process. There is so much depth and diversity within Tolkien: everything from Norse myth, Christian symbolism, and Arthurian legend to H. Rider Haggard, William Morris, and the rural traditions of Appalachia. Clyde Kilby's term "contrasistency" certainly has meaning. It's impossible to pin Tolien down! This is an author who one minute states that it is best to keep religion out of a subcreated world, and the next minute says that the book is Christian in its revision. Neither statement can be denied, though we may argue endlessly about how much weight to give to each. If we push a one-sided interpretation on the Legendarium in terms of either "Christian" or "non-Christian/pagan", we lessen the complexity of middle-earth .
While I am suspcious of any interpretation that's narrowly focused, I still find it intriguing that so many people approach Tolkien from so many different angles. Why not just accept such studies (or the statements on this thread) for what they are?: an honest expression of what particular people felt when they approached the Legendarium, given their personal background and view of the world. And if a few such people are foolhardy enough to claim they have found the "only way" of reading the Legendarium, we can smile wisely and put that down to the follies of human nature.
Davem -- I'm somewhat familiar with Greg Wright. He's essentially the most "extreme" proponent of the Christian viewpoint from among those writers who've written a "mainline" book--a popular title geared to a particular audience. It would be possible to point to many other Christian critics with a more moderate stance--Clyde Kilby, Jared Lobdell, Joseph Pearce, even Ralph Wood. (I will not bother considering the truly lunatic voices you can find scattered over the internet representing every shade of religious and political opinion.) Still, Wright is one among a large group of "Christian" critics.
From the mid sixties on, I've had a bad habit of reading Tolkien studies, academic and otherwise. I've read a ton of stuff from different perspectives: some trying to push the author into a single mold; others offering hints and connections to a particular viewpoint without claiming to be the one and only Way. I've read about Tolkien the Christian, Tolkien the Anarchist, Tolkien the Anti-Industrialist, Tolkien the Theosophist, Tolkien the Environmentalist, even Tolkien the unwitting spokesman for Jewish and Buddhist thought. Wright and other Christians are not unique in taking a single-minded approach.
Wright is an ordained minister who does judge the worth of Tolkien's writings almost solely in terms of whether or not they agree with his own Christian viewpoint. Wright makes no pretense of speaking for all Christians. He spends a chunk of his book arguing against the ideas of others who are also Christians, particularly the Catholic critic Joseph Pearce. Rather ironically, Wright's central point is very close to the one Davem has made: that other Christian/Catholic writers have gone overboard in viewing the Legendarium as a "Christian document". His stance and yours, Davem, may actually be closer than you think
:
Quote:
|
the powerful relevance of Middle-earth is not found in a distinctinctly Christian world view but a deliberately pre-Christian world view.
|
It's likely neither you or I would be comfortable with the term "pre-Christian" used but what's interesting here is that a Christian world view is denied. Wright would
never call LotR a "Christian book". In that he is different from others on this thread who have eloquently argued that is how they personally see LotR. What all this suggest is that it is very difficult to generalize "Christian versus non-Christian". There is too much variety within both sides of that equation. We are all sitting at a very large table with countless other readers, each with a uniqe perspective, taking part in an endless discussion. Once anyone starts making judgments about who belongs at that table (i.e. who qualifies as a "fan"), we risk losing the richness of that interchange. My impulse is to err on the side of inclusion.