[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

what do you mean by 'bloody'? If there is symbolism, why is it 'bloody'?

As in "by the lady". Ignore it. Purely superfluous.

Originally Posted by Lal

...are we all sure how the word 'fundamentally' is used by Tolkien?

Surely the classic definition should suffice.

Originally Posted by Lal

So we know a couple of facts. He was writing to a Catholic priest and so we must remember his 'audience', and that he would be writing to that audience - he would hardly be expected to say "No! Lord of the Rings is a fully heathen work!" if writing to a priest, even if it was a "fully heathen work".

You seem to be implying that Tolkien is engaging in untruth. Are you suggesting that Tolkien is telling a fellow Catholic something he doesn't really think is true, because his audience happens to be Catholic?

Originally Posted by Lal

So we must bear in mind that he would emphasise a point here that may not have been an overarching influence at all.

This is an assertion, of course, for it may well have been an overarching influence.

Originally Posted by Lal

This is also private correspondence. If he had wanted his readers to take his work in that way then he would have made a public statement after the fact;

Perhaps and perhaps not. What seems most likely to me is that this Catholic author is acknowledging something he knows to be true, to a fellow Catholic reader; basically letting him in on a secret that the rest of the reading world need not know. The problem is, we have the Letter before us. Isn't it true that his public statements by and large stated what he didn't want his readers to miscontrue from LotR?

Originally Posted by Lal

...we must be careful.

Quite.

Originally Posted by Lal

Hammond and Scull make the point in their new Companion & Guide that all Tolkien's Letters must be used with extreme caution by fans and scholars alike.

It's a good point.

Originally Posted by Lal

He says he actually consciously edited very little,

Incorrect. The quote is that he consciously planned very little. We have other records that show that he edited to the point of niggling.

Originally Posted by Lal

...we can cast aside any notions that Tolkien sat there with a red pen and a Catechism excising, adding and rewriting to 'Catholicise' his work.

This is a caricature. He probably had little need for a Catechism. And niggling (excising, adding and rewriting) is precisely the kind of thing Tolkien was known to do.

Originally Posted by Lal

If there are Catholic references there, then they are small fry in the grand scheme of the story, and most of them he did not put there on purpose.

Oh, really? Seeing as your assertion runs counter to Tolkien's own statment, care to explain?

Originally Posted by Lal

It seems that if anything, this little bit of 'conscious revision' amounted to removal of references to Earthly religions, possibly an attempt to ensure this could not be mistakenly seen in any way as an allegory, as Tolkien's deep dislike of allegory is well-known.

I agree that this is at least what he meant.

Originally Posted by Lal

Now to 'unconsciously Catholic'. I'm interested in Elempi's ideas that this is to be found in the 'anti-machine' elements of the theme and in the idea that the earth itself is 'sacred', but these are not exlcusively Catholic ideals in any way shape or form

Nevertheless, the historical record shows that Pius X purposely and aggressively set the entire Catholic Church on an anti-modernist footing from 1908 until 1963. So regardless whether these are exclusively Catholic ideals, there is a clearly Catholic impetus for Tolkien's anti-modernism that was extant during the primary years of his adult life and writing.

Originally Posted by Lal

I think it is... morality.

The 'instinctive' stuff you talk about is more of what I would consider "at least" what he probably meant. I disagree that Tolkien "couldn't help it". We have evidence from his Letters and elsewhere that he carefully scrutinized every word of the text of LotR.