The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

[Lalwendë]

Something just occurred to me about religion and fantasy. What about Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials? This is obviously full of religious elements, and features major figures from Christianity, including archangels and God. There is even a representation of the papacy in the form of the magisterium. The one aspect I cannot recall, is any use of the symbol of Christianity, the cross. So, he makes great use of religious icons, but not of the most important symbol of that religion.

I'm not sure if I can think of what this means, but I thought it was worth bringing into the discussion. Of course, some might argue that HDM is not even fantasy (I would argue that it is). But taking the position that it is fantasy, does the inclusion of so many icons actually work? And does the omission of overt use of the symbol of the cross make it work?

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

Say, for example that one is reading or writing a "transitional" fantasy; that is, one that starts in the primary world (at least as evoked in the feigned reality) and moves into a secondary world.

It could work if a Christian from this world entered a non-Christian secondary world. But the secondary world would have to retain its autonomy, & not serve merely to promote the author's Christianity, by having all the characters of the secondary world come to see the 'error of their ways' & convert. The central character's religion could be explored in perhaps profound ways, & maybe his faith would be deepened by his experiences there, but the inhabitants of the secondary world, not living in a world that had known the Incarnation (though perhaps having had some other kind of divine intervention) could not believably 'convert' to a religion which had developed in another 'reality'. Primary & secondary realities would follow their own rules & have their own paths. Otherwise the Secondary reality would become in the end no more than a poor copy of the primary.

This is what occurs in Lawhead's Song of Albion trilogy. The 'Ancient Britain' Lawhead gives us is deeply innaccurate. The ancient Celts were not monothiests but polytheists, & their supreme deity was the Goddess Don or Danu. Basically, Lawhead attempts to present a real cultural/historical period as being something we know it wasn't. My experience all through reading this work was that it was 'wrong' - ie, that Lawhead was lying to me, & lies will break the spell of faerie more effectively than the appearance of primary world religious images would.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

The one aspect I cannot recall, is any use of the symbol of Christianity, the cross. So, he makes great use of religious icons, but not of the most important symbol of that religion.

The absence of the Cross (specifically what it symbolises) is one of the greatest failings of HDM. Pullman plays us false in presenting the work as an attack on 'organised religion' (by which he of course means Christianity) but fails to grapple with the central & supremely profound 'symbol' of that religion - the Cross.

Nowhere in Pullman's universes is the idea of the Incarnation of God dealt with. His 'God' is an external being who never got his hands dirty, or suffered with His children. The Cross is the great symbol of divine love & suffering. Pullman actually creates a false god, an 'Aunt Sally' & proceeds to throw stones at it. The core of Christianity is never presented, let alone dealt with. The Incarnation of God is the one thing, the one idea, that has to be confronted in a work like HDM if it is to claim any validity as Art. Pullman fails to deal with, or rather he runs away from, the blood & the pain & the dirt. Tolkien doesn't, neither does Lewis (nor does Lawhead for all his proselytising).

Now, this is not a matter of whether the Christian story is literally true - the parables of the Prodigal Son & the Good Samaritan are true despite the fact that they are not accounts of actual events in early first centruy Palestine. What Pullman fails to confront & therefore the reason his work fails to grip & hold the reader on the deepest & most profound level, is the idea of the Incarnation. What he does is pretend the idea, not just the event itself never was.
He simply picks out the aspects of Christianity that he can easily trash & proceeds to do so while at the same time pretending (to us & possibly also to himself) that the aspects of Christianity he cannot so trash do not exist. Worst of both worlds, if you like...

[bilbo_baggins]

To add a brief comment to this interesting thread...

You could say that Tolkien's work, mainly the LoTR deal with the Universal religion. It presents, in a manner most persuasive, that the characters must win the battle for the sake of good, which is being trampled on. Whether Tolkien, I, or anyone reading this post believes that one particular religion is the Universal Religion is not a matter that is supposed to be discussed. But the need for it is almost the whole premise from which Tolkien draws his eucatastrophic fantasy. (The other part is wrapping up the mystery of the special ring Bilbo found in tH)

This need for man to have a good side to fight for, and a bad side to possibly succumb to, is the plot of LoTR.

"Yes. It's sad in some ways, but for me this is where the data points."
-alatar

To make a brief response to alatar, on this hobby-horse, you might just question where the data that is pointing comes from. How do you know your eyes can see everything there is to see? How do you know that your ears hear all there is to hear? How do you know anything? You have faith in your scientific data, but that faith is a large leap from nihilism to Scientology (the *theory* that the Scientific theory is correct).

Sorry about jumping a few tracks there.

That's all

b_b

[alatar]

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

To make a brief response to alatar, on this hobby-horse, you might just question where the data that is pointing comes from. How do you know your eyes can see everything there is to see? How do you know that your ears hear all there is to hear? How do you know anything? You have faith in your scientific data, but that faith is a large leap from nihilism to Scientology (the *theory* that the Scientific theory is correct).

The theory that the 'theory of science' is correct is open to debate, and scientists continually question whether they are fooling themselves. As humans it's hard/impossible to be 100% objective or remove oneself from the environment/nature to truly observe a thing. As stated, Heisenberg (and Einstein) knew this.

Being a scientist/skeptic makes you a bit suspicious and you start questioning everything.

It seems to me that the first commandment of some religions is 'thou shall not question.' Purported evidence is anecdotal, untestable and unreliable. There are just places you don't go, don't ponder, etc. One might say that having incontrovertible evidence would take away the need for faith, but I would counter that if my eternal existance hinged on that evidence then a benevolent Creator would be a little more forgiving and obvious.

At least Tolkien's 'religion' makes sense to me.

Yes, it's true that I have faith in science. When I want to know the date of the next solar eclipse, I consult NASA, not entrails. If NASA is using entrails, that's fine as long as they are 100% accurate (with error rate).

I know what works for me - the evidence supports what I see, hear and know.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[bilbo_baggins]

Originally Posted by alatar

I know what works for me - the evidence supports what I see, hear and know.

That is where you confuse me, alatar. You say the evidence supports what you see hear and know yet the evidence comes from so much assumption that you see hear and know correctly. How do you know that know?

As I am willing to allow a little of my own thought creep into the possibility that I see something on a computer screen, which I assume does exist, I am putting a lot of faith into something that doesn't demand my faith. Why do you put faith in yourself?

Throughout history, if you can believe that it happened, it has never been proven that another sentient mind can exist. You cannot prove even the fact that your eyes present evidence to you, not to mention that another creature like yourself exists, not to even dream of mentioning that the Tolkien books we cherish so much are actually printed pieces of Literature.

[QUOTE=alatar] It seems to me that the first commandment of some religions is 'thou shall not question.' [\QUOTE]

So glossing over the fact, briefly, that you can allow things to seem like something to you, you have just stated that religion is something akin to a unquestioning, unseeking, irrefutable dogma forced by some heirarchy.

In some cases you are true. But I do hope you realize that the major religions do no such thing. They ask you to make assumptions just like the ones you do to allow yourself to believe science works. They ask you only to make an exploratory step.



To retrieve the theme of the thread, I for one believe that Tolkien uses his religious emblems/symbols to allow the reader to make a 'jump of assumption', just as one does to allow eucatastrophe to set in. The jump I speak of, however, lets the reader think there is something worth fighting for. Remeber Sam and Frodo in TTT? Frodo is despondent and believes that there is no point. Sam cheers him up. We should make an assumption and let Tolkien take us away.

b_b

[alatar]

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

That is where you confuse me, alatar. You say the evidence supports what you see hear and know yet the evidence comes from so much assumption that you see hear and know correctly. How do you know that know?

I'm also a pragmatist, and so avoid the wondering whether I am a butterfly imagining that I'm a human posting to a Tolkien-lover's forum. Time is short...

And granted, I do make assumptions and accept certain data/evidence by faith - again, time is short and I'm not exactly sure how one goes about verifying that water really is comprised of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms.

Coming from a Christian upbringing, I have looked for evidence that confirms some of the more miraculous claims, and have (1) not found any and (2) have found more secular explanations regarding them. Occam's razor says that I should choose the simpler explanation, and so I do.

Looking deeper, I have tried to figure out 'how it all works.' In Tolkien's world it would seem that you just show up, choose sides (unless you're an orc, but that's a whole other thread ), and live your life accordingly. Be good, honest and merciful and you will go one way. It probably helps to acknowledge Iluvatar now and again, but if memory serves, no one in LOTR stops to do this. Our world is not so plain and simple.

As I am willing to allow a little of my own thought creep into the possibility that I see something on a computer screen, which I assume does exist, I am putting a lot of faith into something that doesn't demand my faith. Why do you put faith in yourself?

I do, but I also know that (1) I am probably fooling myself and (2) that I can be fooled just like anyone else. So there's always questions...

So glossing over the fact, briefly, that you can allow things to seem like something to you, you have just stated that religion is something akin to a unquestioning, unseeking, irrefutable dogma forced by some heirarchy.

I can easily believe that my experiences are limited and therefore somewhat skewed, yet at some point (an assumption) I think you are discouraged from noticing that the emperor has no clothes.

In some cases you are true. But I do hope you realize that the major religions do no such thing. They ask you to make assumptions just like the ones you do to allow yourself to believe science works. They ask you only to make an exploratory step.

I have seen it otherwise, but again my experience may be limited.

To retrieve the theme of the thread, I for one believe that Tolkien uses his religious emblems/symbols to allow the reader to make a 'jump of assumption', just as one does to allow eucatastrophe to set in. The jump I speak of, however, lets the reader think there is something worth fighting for. Remeber Sam and Frodo in TTT? Frodo is despondent and believes that there is no point. Sam cheers him up. We should make an assumption and let Tolkien take us away.

I found Tolkien's allusions great as you needn't be a member of any religion to appreciate his works. When Sam talks about the stars being out of reach of the darkness (or something like that), I feel as he does and I assume as any religious person reading the same.

[bilbo_baggins]

[QUOTE=alatar]I'm also a pragmatist, and so avoid the wondering whether I am a butterfly imagining that I'm a human posting to a Tolkien-lover's forum. Time is short...

And granted, I do make assumptions and accept certain data/evidence by faith - again, time is short and I'm not exactly sure how one goes about verifying that water really is comprised of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms. [\QUOTE]

Why is time short? As one of your admired scientists proclaimed, "Time is relative, and no man can understand it."

Truly, you make a comment and assume that Time is short. But why? Is it not of the utmost importance that your very view on whether time is short be reconciled to yourself? Do you really believe that everything one has told you concerning findings is accurate?

You mock me when you depict yourself an imagining butterfly. Who is to say you really exist? Do you reconcile yourself to the fate that your eyes see something, and therefore you are there? Or hear yourself speaking, and therefore you must be able to communicate? Do you find a piece of evidence as Chicken Little did, and proclaim with all self-sincerity that the sky is falling? Or that there is no God?

All thought and all reason points to the simple fact that an outside intelligence acts and makes us assume that we ourselves exist, and not only that, but that our fellow man exists. And that Time is slipping by. That there is learning that has been made by great men of olden days.

So, not to attempt to strike an enemy that seems fallen, but could very well be standing, I will say this.

For man to have survived the trials of life, and survived the five or six thousand years we all agree have occured, then there must have been someway to have foreknowledge of what paths to take, and what trains of thought to wander, and what ideas to defend. How did our ancestors make themselves self-aware if not by God? How did they assume that their neighbors were real if someone didn't tell them. I can recall to mind a little girl asking her father if the animals in the zoo were really there. Or a little boy asking why the sky is blue.

The questions of the ancients had answers and ours do too.

A world cannot exist without such answers, and so Tolkien included them in his work. LoTR was really just a great big answer to historical legend.

b_b