And Eru Smiled

[Lalwendë]

Eru is not God, Eru is Eru. He is a literary creation, which has some similarities to the God of certain sectors of Christianity, but not all. Eru, and the greater cosmological structure of Middle Earth, also have similarities to the God or Gods of other religions and beliefs. Eru ought not to be 'claimed' by followers of one faith, but if they wish to see the similarities then obviously they are perfectly entitled to! I think that referring to Eru as He much as we would refer to God as He does not help, either (and likewise, some Christians may indeed find that blasphemous).

Yes, Tolkien was a Catholic, but he also did not want to write an allegory, so if we can happily say that Eru is the same as God, then equally we could say that Sauron is Hitler, and so forth. In my opinion, such debates may be interesting, but I'm not sure how useful they would be as one 'given' about Tolkien's work is that it was not allegorical.

I believe Tolkien's Christian faith was visible in the morality of the world he created, but remember that these morals are not exclusive to Christianity, they are universal morals, whatever our beliefs. This is why people from all cultural and religious backgrounds can enjoy and appreciate Tolkien's work. When he said that the symbols of religion had no place in fantasy, I think this could be what he was getting at - that a newly created secondary world had to be concrete within itself, and that symbols which could be divisive in the real world had no place in a created world. I think he was also aware that his work should not be misappropriated, bearing in mind that he wrote at a time when Nordic myth was being misappropriated by political groups.

I don't have a faith, but I follow broadly unitarian principles in that all faiths have equal merit and deserve equal respect. Coming from this angle I see that while LotR was written by a Catholic, it is no more about Catholicism than about any other faith. Likewise, if you wish to see such similarities in Tolkien's work then you are perfectly free to do so, and indeed, such discussion is interesting, but it is important to bear in mind that LotR is not an allegory. I'm hoping here that we can all be careful when aligning Tolkien's work with our own faiths.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

The issue (as I see it) is: does Eru stand or fall as a figure in His own right, or does He need a knowledge of the Christian God to be understandable?

The answers (as I see them) are yes and no.

[littlemanpoet]

I'll try and be a good boy, H-I.

Just to pick a nit, I said "striking resemblance", not "is the same as".

Tolkien referred to Eru in the masculine pronoun when he used it at all. I am following his precedent, with no intent to offend.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

yes and no

You elf.

As to wither/either, davem, I really didn't know what word you were shooting for.

I'm not even sure how this applies to the discussion, but it strikes me that there is much more held in common by Tolkien's readers than not. Of course, there are bound to be slight variations which reveal themselves in discussions like these. But the fact that there can be such a site and that we can actually hold (semi-)intelligent discussions at all, demonstrates the commonality as being far greater than the differences. This, I imagine, would hold just as much for Eru as any other character in the Legendarium.

[davem]

I can't help wondering whether a Muslim reader would have much of a problem with Eru - quite possibly seeing in 'Him' a certain 'applicability' with Allah. Perhaps the only problem they would encounter would be with the possibility of Eru's incarnation prophesied in the Athrabeth. I don't think a Hindu would have difficulty even with that.

Even an athiest, if they weren't too 'militant' could accept Eru within Middle earth, because Eru is a given within that world. There are some 'blatant' Christian references for those with eyes to see - the Fellowship setting off from Rivendell on Dec 25th, the Dark Tower falling on March 25th, but it is not necessary to know that those dates have primary world references to appreciate the story. Even when such symbolism is present it can be ignored or missed even by Christian readers.

If Tolkien's readers share any belief or worldview I suspect it is along the lines of what Lewis referred to as 'natural law' - something he finds in all religions (even pre-Christian ones). As Tolkien stated, the 'religion' has been absorbed into the story. By that 'absorption' it becomes something different. Originally, as John Garth has shown, the orcs of the mythology were closely associated with the Germans of WW1.

Applicability is all we can expect because of the absorption of the religious dimension into the story - it is not present in its primary world form. But even then the process will be different in each case - I may apply the account of the Dead Marshes to Tolkien's WW1 experiences, but my 'application' will be 'accademic', because I never experienced seeing dead soldiers rotting in the foxholes of nomansland, whereas for Tolkien or another verteran, it would be much more visceral. My 'application' would be optional, the veteran's would quite possibly be overwhelming & unavoidable. Yet other readers would not make such a connection at all. For them the Dead Marshes would simply be what they are stated to be in the book. Whose experience of reading the book would be 'better' or 'deeper'? Impossible to answer, though I would say that the latter's reading would be 'purer' because it would be an experience onlyof the secondary world. Such a reader, I would say, would be more likely to be 'enchanted' - because rather than having to leave their 'baggage' at the door, they would have no baggage at all.