[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

Surely the classic definition should suffice.

No. The word 'fundamentally' is a strong one, and on it hangs a lot of meaning. we must remember that Tolkien was also an Englishman and we use English differently.

Originally Posted by lmp

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?

No. But he was writing to a particular type of person, writing a personal letter, on a particular topic. In that respect we must consider that this was not intended as a public statement, it was a reply to a personal letter. Tolkien at all times made sure to state publicly things which he wanted readers to know about his work, for example that it was not an allegory. His letters were personal discussions about interpretation and you can often see that thoughts simply spring to his mind as he writes; and he wrote with ink, so letters would be very difficult to go back and correct (unlike nowadays when we have e-mail and 'delete' keys), which is why we so often see caveats made after grand statements. Indeed, in this self same letter we see that happening. So we need to check ourselves when using the Letters.

Originally Posted by lmp

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?

Have we read the introduction to Lord of the Rings, where Tolkien categorically states in a very public way:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

As for any inner meaning or message it has in the intention of the author, none.

Let's look again at what he said the infamous letter:

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little;

1. The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work Tolkien claims it is a 'fundamentally' Catholic work. He does not mean it is a 'rules based' 'fundamental' work, he means at heart it's the work of a Catholic.

2. unconsciously so at first He says it was done 'unconsciously so at first' - meaning he didn't even consider Catholicism as he was writing, and if anything got into his work, it wasn't there by intention.

3. but consciously in the revision He says 'consciously in the revision'. Here we're all at sea as we do not know if he sat there editing with Catholicism in mind, or if he means that he could see this after publication, or at which point in the whole process of writing. We just don't know. But he does tell us more later in the letter.

4. I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world He states that he did make a very conscious effort to remove anything which could 'identify' Real World religions in his text. Why did he do this? Because he recognised that his work was sympathetic to his own religion anyway? Because he didn't want intrusions on a secondary world? Because he thought it might seem offensive to fellow Catholics? Because it was a aesthetic decision as he was so fearful of allegory?

5. the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism He knows that any links to real world religion are 'absorbed' into the story - meaning that the narrative carries any elements which may have found their way down his pen and onto the page. He also knows that amongst all the other symbolism he has chosen he may indeed have included some Catholic imagery.

6. The most important point, the one which gets forgotten. The Context. The Qualifier. However that is very clumsily put and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little; Tolkien's caveat. He says that what he has just written down is quite pompous, he cannot correct it (he does not have a word processor or Tippex!) but he can qualify it. Letters are not Literature, they are personal, and though Tolkien would occasionally throw one away, why do that when a Qualifier can be added? He tells his correspondent that the truth of it is that he actually did very little planning.

We can't argue with what Tolkien says, no matter how much we want something to mean something else. I'm not asserting, merely breaking down what he says, and using the full context of his statement, not just the juicy bit.

The other important point to note is Tolkien's particular distaste for literature with 'messages'. And this increased as he aged. He grew to dislike much of the work he is 'famed' for liking (much of which he wasn't exactly fanatical about anyway), including George MacDonald and GK Chesterton, and his favourites amongst the works of Lewis were his sci-fi tales, he disliked his religious works (possibly also due to Lewis being Anglican?) and Narnia.