Of another world

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

However, Tolkien was not a follower of Isis or Don; he was Christian. I'm basing my research on his contention that his Christian understanding of reality pervades the subtext of LotR.

From a Jungian perspective your first point is arguable, however, I'll leave it there.

Look, I accept that Tolkien considered LotR a fundamentally Christian work. I also accept that you, Formendacil, & others do also. The point is that for most readers it isn't that. If Tolkien did 'absorb' the Christian elements into the story he did this so effectively that they are unrecognisable to those who aren't looking for them. He has boiled 'Christianity' down to its bare bones: self-sacrifice, compassion, humility, mercy - concepts which can be found in just about any serious religion & not specifically Christianity. The dates he subtly introduces (Guide to Names), the style (Authorised Version of the Bible) will either not be noticed by most readers or any similarities will be deliberately ignored. If they could not be ignored, if they were necessary for understanding the story, we would be dealing with a form of allegory.

LotR is a great work of Art, Middle-earth is a true Secondary World, because it is self-contained & not dependent on the Primary world for explanation.

I don't doubt that you can find a 'consciously Christian subtext' to LotR. I'm saying that's irrelevant, because most readers will take no notice of it even if you point it out to them. If this 'subtext' is there to find is it uniquely Christian, things absolutely absent from every other religion or philosophy, or will you claim that, while it is a 'Christian' subext the fact that those things can be found in other religions/philosophies/myths are down to the fact that they are all drawn from Christianity?

My point here is that even if you do manage to prove the existence of a 'consciously Christian subtext' in LotR (I could probably do that myself if I felt inclined, as could any reasonably educated person) only Christians are likely to care. If someone proved there was a planet circling a star in the Andromeda galaxy that was made of cream cheese would you care one way or another? I don't why you'd want to do it, other than for intellectual exercise. Do you really think its likely to convert anyone? Its been done so many times in recent years - see my earlier post (no 36)on how many books I have on the Christian themes/symbols in LotR (& I don't have all the ones that have been published by any means) - that I don't see why you shouldn't repeat the excercise, but neither do I see why you'd want to.

I'm basing my research on his contention that his Christian understanding of reality pervades the subtext of LotR.

I'm sure it did, but it doesn't pervade mine. I try to approach the story with as little baggage as possible; if I'm leaving all mine at the door I'm damned if I'm going to carry yours (or his) in with me.

[Lalwendë]

I think davem is right that the subtext is only really of relevance if you want it to be. From my own experience, Tolkien's work caused me to reject the church and find other meaning to life. I still think his work resonates deeply at a pre-Christian level, whether we wish to call that pagan or not. That essence struck me as I read it for the first time, and is possibly one reason why I was immediately taken with it. It rang true, but it was a wholly different true than what I learned in church.

However, I know that many readers will just not see that in the work. I also know that many readers will not see any deeper meaning, even if they do love the book. I also see it as an incredibly modernist work while others see it as a medieval revival of sorts. I like pondering the scientific explanations of what happens in Tolkien's world, others think it takes away the magic. Fair enough.

What Tolkien intended or did not intend is irrelevant really, as few of us would know the slightest thing about that when we first read his work. All we have to go on are our own impressions of it. And for a Christian to read it and then start to question their faith, demonstrates that even if Tolkien did intend it to have a Christian message, it wasn't ever going to get over to every reader.

My answer is that no one faith has the monopoly on the great things we pinpoint about Christianity - trust, honour, courage, honesty, hope etc etc. (nor does Christianity have the monopoly on the difficult things such as sacrifice, suffering and sin). Those great things are just great things about the very best in humanity, they are Universal, and we respond to them whoever we are and wherever we are going in life and spirit.

As a Christian Tolkien of course reflected what was great about his belief in his life work, but they are not exclusive to his faith; nor did he lay it on with a trowel and tell his readers what to think. He was anything but didactic. You really can read it your own way, because those messages are understood by all good people.

[littlemanpoet]

davem & Lalwendë, I understand your points and appreciate them. There are minor points that I disagree with, but over all I don't. Therefore, I will indeed pursue this course that I've laid out as an appreciation of Tolkien's LotR from a Christian point of view. There are things that I think may not have been said yet, at least not to others here at the Downs. If you wish to take part, feel free. If not, that is your decision and I will of course respect it. .... but it may take a while for me to do all of this seeing as I'm moderating a certain (ahem) game on another part of this forum....

[davem]

The main problem with showing a 'consciously Christian subtext' to LotR is that it is too close (imo) to implying the thing is an allegory. Even if you avoid doing that you're still treating it as a 'secondary' thing, in that you are putting it in service of something else, not treating it as a thing in itself. Effectively you are moving it from work of Art to 'parable'.

Now I can see that it is possible to read it in that way, but that will not actually 'prove' anything that we don't already know. I could construct an 'unconsciously Pagan subtext' to LotR. I could also show it is nothing more than what it appears to be (what Tolkien himself claimed it to be in the Foreword). I daresay I could also 'show' it was a genuine historical document translated by Tolkien & therefore it is 'actually' a factual work with no religious or philosophical subtext. At a push I could probably also show it was a 'received' text communicated psychically to Tolkien by Aliens from the planet Tharg.

I just don't see the point in doing any of those things. A Christian reader will pick up on the Christian subtext (they'd probably pick up on it even if Tolkien hadn't put one in there), a non-Christian won't care even if you do demonstrate it.

My own feelings change in regards to the work. If I'm in the mood I can read it in the way you imply, but I try not to do so, because what that approach does is to treat it as a 'code' to be translated – it doesn't mean what it says, it 'actually' means something else entirely.

What I don't understand is why you feel such a 'need' to prove it’s a Christian work – is it just because this work is so important to you, or do you do this with everything you like? Or are you using LotR to try to gain converts – in which case you are doing something I'm not sure Tolkien would have approved of at all. If the Bible doesn't convince people why do you think showing a Christian subtext to LotR will? Or do you just simply want to prove its there? If that's the reason I'm not sure anyone is going to argue that Tolkien didn't put in a Christian sub-text in there for those who want to find it.

What's far more interesting to me is that so many readers are so profoundly moved & affected by the work without being aware of the Christian sub-text. I suppose you'll argue that that's because they are 'really' responding to the work's Christian sub-text without realising it (like the Athenians worshipping the 'True' God without realising it) & that's why they're moved. Personally I'm not convinced by that, as its rather like me saying that people are moved by hearing The Magic Flute because they are secretly picking up on the 'consciously Freemasonic subtext' & they are Freemasons without realising it (hence 'proving' Freemasonry is 'True'). No. They're moved by The Magic Flute for exactly the same reasons as by LotR – because of what it is, not because of something its concealing.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

They're moved by The Magic Flute for exactly the same reasons as by LotR – because of what it is, not because of something its concealing.

Ah! But we could have a notion of art as strip tease, wherein the power of its tantalising features lies in the adroit way it plays with both concealing and revealing what it is.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Ah! But we could have a notion of art as strip tease, wherein the power of its tantalising features lies in the adroit way it plays with both concealing and revealing what it is.

My feeling is that true Art opens us to a deeper experience of 'life, the universe & everything, But it doesn't do that 'at one remove' (ie by 'concealing' a Christian sub-text which then opens us up to that deeper experience). Introducing a Christian sub-text in the way LMP wishes to do moves us farther away from that depth experience, rather than bringing us closer to it.

In other words, I'm suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcedent' experience)(2) while LMP seems to be suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals Christian 'Truth'(2), which 'Truth' then conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcendent' experience)(3).

So LMP is introducing an unnecessary stage into the process as far as I can see.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcedent' experience)(2) while LMP seems to be suggesting LotR(1) conceals/reveals Christian 'Truth'(2), which 'Truth' then conceals/reveals that Deeper sense of 'reality' (Eucatastrophic experience leading to 'transcendent' experience)(3).

So LMP is introducing an unnecessary stage into the process as far as I can see.

No.

Tolkien said that the purpose of Fairy Story is escape, consolation, and recovery; namely to recover a clear view. Clear view of what? Reality. What he's saying (and I think you agree) is that Fairy Story (mythic story) reveals reality better than, and in a way that, mimetic fiction cannot.

You need to understand that from my point of view there is no unnecessary stage, since Deeper sense of reality and Christian reality are one and the same.

Originally Posted by davem

It seems to me that believers go to such extremes to construct reasons why God doesn't openly reveal His existence because they're afraid He doesn't actually exist.

It occurred to me today that the Christian subtext in LotR and the evidence of God in the world are of the same nature. In both, the "thing itself' is so pervasive and knitted into the very fabric of the sub-creation that we're too used to looking at it and don't see it for what it is. For example, God's reality is in the very fact that the sun shines by day and the stars by night. That the planets continue to spin and revolve and our hearts keep beating. We take all of it so for granted that we don't even consider that God's creative and maintaining will are behind everything continuing to work. It doesn't matter that there's a scientific explanation for all of it rooted in physics and/or biology; those are merely explanation of what we see actually happening. There is no satsifactory explanation for WHY it keeps happening the way it does. Scientists are forced to answer, "Well, that's the law of (fill in the blank)." What's behind the law? God is behind the law. In the same way, Tolkien's faith is deeply ingrained in LotR. I'll being showing this.

The Losses of the Ring show some revealing variation.

1. Isildur cuts off Sauron's finger and the Ring falls to Isildur.
2. The Ring slides off Isildur's finger at the Gladden Fields, betraying him to the murdering arrows of the orcs.
3. Déagol is murdered by Sméagol for its possession.
4. The Ring slides off Gollum's finger uner the mountain.
5. The Ring drops from Bilbo's hands; Gandalf quickly picks it up before Bilbo can retrieve it.
6. Gandalf quickly places the Ring which he places on the hearth.
7. Sam removes the chain from around Frodo's neck, thinking him dead and the errand in need of completion.
8. Sam gives the Ring back to the demanding Frodo.
9. Gollum bites of Frodo's finger and regains the Ring.
10. The Ring and Gollum melt in the fires of Mount Doom.

Gandalf, when explaining the Ring to Frodo in 'Shadows of the Past', says that Bilbo gave up the Ring voluntarily, but the narration in the previous chapter reveals a more complex situation. Bilbo 'accidentally' drops the Ring.

'You have still got the ring in your pocket,' said the wizard.
'Well, so I have!' cried Bilbo. 'And my will and all the other documents too. You had better take it and deliver it for me. That will be safest.'
'No, don't give the ring to me,' said Gandalf. 'Put it on the mantelpiece. It will be safe enough there, till Frodo comes. I shall wait for him.'
Bilbo took out the envelope, but just as he was about to set it by the clock, his hand jerked back, and the packet fell to the floor. Before he could pick it up, the wizard stooped and seizedit and setit in its place. A spasm of anger passed swiftly over the hobbit's face again. Suddenly it gave way to a look of relief and a laugh.

What causes his hand to jerk back? What causes the packet to fall to the floor? Both circumstances are laid before the reader in such a way that we understand Bilbo to be passive; one acted upon rather than causing action. So Gandalf picks up the envelope holding the Ring, and quickly places it on the hearth. Bilbo is about to get mad, but freed of the burden of the Ring, he suddenly feels relief, and laughs - he is himself again at last (or so we hope) - and leaves Bad End lighter of heart than he has been for many years.

So is Gandalf lying to Frodo when he says that Bilbo gave up the Ring voluntarily? No. Bilbo's obvious relief at being rid of it, shows that he would have given it up, if he had been able. He wasn't able. His will had become enslaved to the Ring.

There is only one voluntary relinquishment of the Ring, by Sam.

Three times the Ring is violently removed fromt its holder.

Three times the Ring falls from the hand of its holder.

Two of these times, the Ring is certainly the will at work: leaving Isildur and leaving Gollum. What about when Bilbo drops it? The sense I have is that the Ring causes Bilbo's hand to jerk back; but does the Ring cause itself to be dropped from Bilbo's hand? Does it drop in hopes of being claimed by Gandalf? Perhaps. Was it just an accident? If so, it is an unusual exception to everything we know about the history of the Ring. Or was there another will at work? If so, what will could overpower the Ring's will to remain in the hands of Bilbo? What will could overpower the Ring's potential hold on Gandalf? It's obvious that Gandalf doesn't trust himself. He is exerting all his effort to separate the Ring from Bilbo while putting every effort of will that he can spare to resist the temptation of the Ring himself! It's not Gandalf's power that gets Bilbo to drop the Ring; Gandalf doesn't dare exert his will in that way, or he will himself succumb to the Ring's lure.

So what will is this? What power? The Valar? If so, which of them has the power to overcome the will of the Ring, that even Gandalf and Galadriel fear? None of them. Is this dropping of the Ring just an accident? How many 'accidents' are there in LotR? More specifically, how many 'acidents' seem to tip the precarious scales of 'chance' toward the good of the free peoples, and away from Sauron's advantage ... if 'chance' we call it? What power is this? There is only one power, one answer that fits the narrative. Eru.