[Bêthberry]

I'm like the White Rabbit, always late to the debate. Sorry, RL kept me mostly absent from the net yesterday.

Let me start by saying that I have neg repped a post up here, not because I object to the ideas but because I object to the gratuitous attempt to insult other people's ideas. To take up the point of Tolkien's experience of the Mass and see if it appears anywhere in the text (something I did not do) is legitimate, but it does not require one quote refutations of the Mass, particularly those that rather arrogantly assume their own superiority--they can have no bearing on Tolkien's experience and so really are irrelevant to the discussion. It's not like Tolkien would have thought, hey, these folks are right, so I'll just omit it from the story. I smell someone who wishes to bait us rather than engage in legitimate discussion, which is what Skip has done. And if this is an unfair characterisation of TMT, then I would of course apologise. But communities have standards of respect and tone and that's important here on the Downs. And for the record, I'm not Catholic.

I also want to make a short reply to something Inzil commented on:

Originally Posted by Inzil

I think that goes back to what Pitch said, about Ilúvatar speaking to the heart. Otherwise, "right" behaviour cannot help being subjective.

I think that raising the issue of subjectivity is not helpful, for several reasons, metaphysically, epistemologically, logically because "subjective" is not necessarily always defined as the opposite of "objective." For instance, I can have a headache, which is felt only by me and so thus could be said to be subjective, but that does not make the headache any less real. Also, it is possible to say that, given there is widespread agreement between people and cultures about what is a good person and what is morally problematic, that such "subjective" explanations become in effect an objective standard without resort to a deity. I don't want to ramble at length other than to say that I think the objective/subjective road is not an authoritative one.

Originally Posted by Skip

In any case, if you say that LotR is inbued with an orthopraxy, that the right behaviour is what matters, not one's allegiance or creed - and here I would agree - I will argue that it is not the same kind of orthopraxy that these real world religious leaders have preached throughout history. In Islam or Judaism the right behaviour may be what's most important, but what constitutes the right behaviour is decided by the clerics (or, allegedly, God, through the clerics).

I offerred orthopraxy as an example of one way of thinking about spirituality which might be applicable to LotR. It is a term which I think offers something valuable. To analyse it in other religions would be, I think, outside the scope of this thread (and of the Downs), so I'll just say I agree with your first sentence here. I meant simply that the term and its understanding is not some post-modern or new age fandangle.

Originally Posted by Skip

In Middle Earth, apparently, there are no clerics and there are no holy books. There are some instances and suggestions of deities or demi-deities communicating directly with people or characters, but these are exceptions surely. Who then is to decide what is right or wrong? The people are rather left to decide among themselves, aren't they?

Originally Posted by blantyr

The story telling tradition would deal with Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son, with David slaying Goliath, with water being turned to wine. The priestly tradition dealt with rules, with keeping holy the lord's day, not eating pork, and not coveting one's neighbor's wife. There was conjecture that the story telling tradition was more rural and informal, while the priestly tradition was more urban and concerned with consolidation of authority.

This might illustrate the nature of 'organized religion,' such as it is, in Tolkien's works. There is an abundance of tales which present moral decisions and show the implications of making the incorrect choice. There is no priest class deriving rules from these stories and trying to make sure the rules are followed.

This reminds me of a point which Christopher Tolkien made about his father's work--a point also discussed at length by the scholar Tom Shippey. I'm not sure how applicable it is to this discussion, but it might be. It is the point about the 'impression of depth', of time and ages past and ofthe power of suggestion.

Originally Posted by JRRT, letter dated 20 Sept 1963

Part of the attraction of The L.R. is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist.

Originally Posted by JRRT, letter quote by CT, BoLT foreward, p. 3

A story must be told or there'll be no story, yet it is the untold stories that are the most moving. I think you are moved by Celebrimbor because it conveys a sudden sense of endless untold stories: mountains seen far away, never to be climbed, distant trees (like Niggle's) never to be approached. . .

What I am wondering about--and it is just a suggestion as I am still mulling it over--is whether this is a crucial aesthetic motive for Tolkien's attitude towards religion in LotR. I am like Skip in that I greatly appreciate the lack of allegory or explicit references to religion in LotR--that is one reason why I don't enjoy C.S. Lewis' Narnia (I don't like being hit on the head). I suppose it's in the nature of the fan dance just to suggest and this is the power of any religious element in LotR. To formalise it would be to destroy this attraction of glimpse which some can see.

So, having been interrupted by two telephone calls while writing this, I must close.