[Galadriel55]

I will try to be concise, answering the questions without going off on tangents.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Do you think it is reasonable to approach an author, from an academic point of view, with a religious world view already in mind?

I think it is impossible to approach anything without a religious world view already in mind. Suspension of disbelief has been mentioned already on this thread, and it works both ways. One can accept that there is/are god(s) - or the like - in a story even if they do not believe in God in RL. And one can also accept that there isn't a God, or not exactly the God that they believe in, in a story - while still believing in RL. It works both ways.

And if you think of it that way, atheism is also a kind of religion. And so is science. So whatever world view you have, whether it's Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant or Muslim or Hindu or atheist, when reading something from an academic point of view, you may either agree or disagree with it depending on its world view - and at that point, if you disagree, either continue stubbornly disagreeing because you're standing on two different foundations or accept (for the time being and for the sake of getting something out of it) the writing's view.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Secondly, how do you think your faith or lack of it informs your reading of Tolkien? For example, are you more disposed to feel that Eucatastrophe should define Tolkien’s stories, and are wont to explain away its absence, as in The Children of Hurin?

I do not appreciate it when people don't read books simply because they are built on a different foundation. For me, my faith is the least thing that matters when reading a book. I do not read books to tell me that the author has the same world view as I do; I read them to enjoy. If I disagree with something, I accept it as fact and true within the book.

If there is a eucatastrophe - good. That means it's there, and deal with it. No eucatastrophe - good. That means - guess what? - you have to deal with it too. I think that nothing defines an author's stories more than his stories do. That might sound stupid, but there's a point. Religion(s), personal experiences, ideals, and etc. may influence an author and his writing, and may even to some extent define him, but only his writing defines his writing. You can say that there is eucatastrophe in Tolkien - but you can't say that Tolkien is eucatastrophe. That just wouldn't be true, like with the example of COH that you bring up. So can you put together all of Tolkien's works and define them? Not if you want to measure how much Tolkien believed in eucatastrophies himself. What he believed in has an affect, but does not define the product.

The eucatastrophe is just an example, but this works for any aspect of any work. I think it's not right to define all the works of an author, especially someone who wrote as diversely as Tolkien, with one term or concept, because in most cases it will not be wholly true. The works are fact, within the works. You cannot disagree with fact. And the best way to explain such a complicated "fact" is to, well, say it.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

One might say, but of course Tolkien’s work is not explicitly Christian. In what way, then, is it Christian at all? If it lacks the Christian outlook on moral truth (that moral goodness is that which is pleasing to and sanctioned by God, and badness is “sin”) then how is Christianity manifested?

Tolkien's work is not Christian. If you want a Christian work, go read the Bible. If you want to read Tolkien, you read Tolkien, not Christianity.

Tolkien's works cannot be defined as Christian, just like they cannot be defined as eucatastrophic. They have a Christian influence - certainly. But Christianity is not the only influence.

So while Tolkien's works are not, as you put it, explicitly Christian, there are elements of Christianily in them. An influence doesn't have to show 100% in order for it to be present.


Huh, seems like I failed epicly to be concise.