[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

You ask, in response to the biblical (and other) parallels that have been drawn: “So what?”

It seems to me that an appropriate response might be: “Simply because”.

Why, on a Tolkien-based forum such as this, should those who see particular parallels in LotR not share and discuss them with others who are interested in hearing of and discussing them? There does not have to be a reason sufficient to satisfy you (or Jonathan Glenn) for them to do so. Perhaps they feel that it will enhance their own understanding of the book. Perhaps it is simply for the pleasure of sharing their own understanding and learning of others’ experiences (although that doesn't mean that they all have to agree).

Well, it depends whether this is a 'serious' debate or not. If this thread is a serious analysis of possible Biblical influences on Tolkien's work then 'so what' questions have to be asked. One can draw parallels till the cows come home, all true, most more or less relevant, some just silly. Of course, Christians will want to compare their thoughts about LotR & good for them. But

This is an open debate, on a public forum, about Tolkien. And that's when everyone has to be careful. If you introduce a subject onto a public forum (cast your pearls before swine as t'were) you have to be prepared to have your points challenged. You also have to be very careful to distinguish between what Tolkien said, believed & intended & what you yourself believe & intend. If you say 'This reminds me of 'x', that's fine. If you say 'Tolkien intended ''x'', or 'This is Tolkien's inspiration for "y"' Then I'm going to ask you for quotes & references. So, its not a ''free for all" here Statements about Tolkien himself must be factual - & I think you'll find those are the only statements I've challenged. If I repeat myself on this thread I'm sorry but my feeling is tha claims made about Tolkien & his work have to be supportable - we can interpret the work in any way we choose, but we can't just make up things about the man himself.

Now as to the 'rep' thing. You'll notice that while I gave the text of the rep comments & pointed out the first was unsigned I didn't give the name of the person who gave out the second. There was a point to giving them.

Point. Both were criticising me for being 'disrespectful' about the Bible - & I'd picked up that that feeling was prevalent among some members. I then made the point that if I had said the same things in a Tolkien & Shakespeare thread no-one would have taken my comments as being 'disrespectful' to Shakespeare, but as an 'attack' on the way Shakespeare was being used.

I will add, though, that while I also have found some posters' comments on various threads here over the years 'offensive', I have never given out any negative rep to anyone & never will. As far as those comments go they should have been posted on the thread, because the question of 'disrespect' could have been cleared up that much sooner.

Originally Posted by LMP

Who said anything about desperation? It seems to me, davem, that you're the one characterizing Christians in this way. I'm not desperate about it at all. I'm eager to share what I've discovered. And if you want a "so what" answer to that, it goes like this: understanding something I didn't before is its own pleasure; beyond that, I gain wisdom. Life becomes richer. That's what I'm eager for.

Ok, not 'desperation' then. I appreciate you are 'eager' to share your Christian understanding of Tolkien's work. But I'm not sure you've shown it is a Christian work in & of itself, so what you're actually sharing is your faith, & I'm sure you could share with me your Christian understanding of everything from LotR to light bulbs, but I'm not sure that, while it would tell me a lot about Christianity, it would tell me much about the book or the bulbs.

n the Prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, section four, paragraph seven, we read,
"...Bilbo was tempted to slay [Gollum] with his sword. But pity stayed him...."
First, this is precisely the same way it is presented in the revised "The Hobbit, Riddles in the Dark". Note the passive tense. It does not say 'Bilbo took pity on him', but 'pity stayed him'. Pity is thus something acting upon Bilbo rather than he doing the pitying. What is this pity? Does it have a source? If not, we are left with an unanswerable conundrum, or else not the best writing (passive tense instead of active). If this pity does have a source, what is it? Or are we dealing with a 'who'?
The question is too early to answer yet; we don't have enough information, and must read further to see if any answers are forthcoming.

Well, it may be in the passive tense, but one also has to say that its a bit flowery (or poetically expressed if you will) & I don't think it can be used to support the kind of metaphysical speculations you're making. But let's say Tolkien is referring to Eru's direct intervention there (though I note that in the original version of TH Bilbo's hand did not need to be 'stayed'. Bilbo's hand only needed to be 'stayed' once Tolkien had revised the story - & I note that it has been argued that this revision was part of the 'consciously so' Christianisation of the story. Which would mean that while it was a 'pagan' story pity may have been absent, but it wasn't necessary. When it became a 'Christian story' Bilbo has to be stopped from murdering Gollum. ....I'll leave that one there)

Even if we accept that this 'pity' has an external origin in Eru. I don't see that, while a parallel may be drawn between Eru & God that it is necessary to know about, or believe in the latter to understand the former or to appreciate the moment or its implications.

Point being, there is never a point in the Legendarium where Tolkien refers us elsewhere (to the Bible, the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala,) for an 'explanation' of something in the story. He explains who every character, from Eru down, is. There is no need to draw on external sources to be able to understand what's going oin in the story. Eru behaves in a loving, compassionate way, he is all knowing & all powerful & so is God (if you're a believer) but Eru is perfectly understandable as a character without reference to, or knowledge of, God. God may intervene to stay one's hand, Eru intervenes to stay Bilbo's hand. That does'nt make them the same being. A reader of LotR who knew absolutely nothing of the Bible would not find themselves flummoxed by anything in the Legendarium.

it does not therefore follow that the reader's mind somehow magically turns the book into something other than what the author intended, regardless if it sits in one reader's hands or another.

No it doesn't - but we're talking about the angle a reader comes from. As a Christian you will read LotR & find it full of Christian themes & images. I don't, because I'm not a Christian. We could both look at the same sunset & percieve it in diferent ways, because you see the Christian God behind everything, his hand in everything, & I don't. Its a bit like the old joke about the vicar walking down the road & stopping at a particularly beautiful garden. The householder is leaning on the gate & the vicar says 'Well, what a beatiful garden you have. Isn't it amazing what God & man can do together?' To which the man replies, 'I don't know about that - you should have seen the state of it when he had it on his own...'