The Lord of the Bible?

[narfforc]

There is nothing uniquely Christian in LotR, and furthermore I believe there is nothing unique in the bible. Other religions/cult/sects have all the same stories but with different names. The Creation, Virgin Birth, Ressurection, Miracles, Demons and lots of old wise men with white beards, occur all over the Religiuos/Mythologies. Being the Son of a God is also widespread. Good fighting Evil is not a Christian monopoly. Pointing to LotR and saying: This is a Christian work is wrong, what it does have are principles portrayed in the bible, and those very same principles occur in other religions. I am not religious, I do not need a book or Ten Commandments to tell me how to be a good person, I am one, and I have hundreds of commandments of my own. What I read in LotR is Good fighting Evil, and that is mirrored in all sorts of things non-religious. Gandalf fighting The Balrog in Moria smacks of Frey fighting Surt at Ragnorak, Shadowfax compares to Skinfaxi, now the Vikings would be really upset by people calling LotR Christian. I agree that as Tolkien was a Christian some of his beliefs have filtered into the book, however because he was Christian does not make him holier than the next guy, if I had wrote the book and said the same things, how could you then call it a Christian work.

[Boromir88]

This has turned into yet another Canonicity argument.

Sorry if you've missed the point of my last post.

It is not an argument about who knows more about Middle-earth, the creator or the audience?

Oh, but that's what it appears the argument was all about. Should we accept what Tolkien interpretted and intended for his own books, or should the readers freely apply their own meanings even if it is in contradiction to what Tolkien 'intended?' That has been the whole argument since post number 2 it seems.

It very much so centers around the author's intent vs. the reader's freedom. Did the author want to make this a Christian work or didn't he? And if he did, should the reader accept and agree with this interpretation? What makes a Christian Work?

I'm pointing out that all though what Tolkien had 'intended' for his stories may not be taken as authoritative. His purpose should not be utterly cast aside because the reader chooses to believe whatever he feels like. If Tolkien comes out and tells us certain instances which have a religious element, and religion is within the symbolism of Middle-earth, than it's the reader who must accept that Tolkien was trying to say something, and not just throw it off to the side.

If Tolkien comes out and says that a particular moment in his books was like a scene from the Bible, than his meaning should not be cast off as foolishness. The reader may not see it the same way as Tolkien, but I think the reader must accept what the author had wanted to portray, and his intentions should not be thrown out the door.

Where I get irritated is when people start telling me exactly what that something more is, & that the key to understanding LotR is to read the Bible

That is simply what I've been trying to argue all along. I don't think we can just toss out and ignore religion (specifically a Christian one), because it was something that was important to the author of the story. And something that can be found in the story. It's perfectly ok for the reader not to see eye to eye with Tolkien, or agree with what he thought about after writing the stories, but he should not be forgotten. The author is also an important factor in the story, like cooks are when making food. What they use, and why they use it, because there is a purpose for each item, should not be ignored.

It was not the author's purpose to dominate over his readers and say 'this is how it is.' But, the reason for creating the stories, and the purpose behind it (whether there's a christian one or not, I don't know) should not be ignored because the reader chooses to.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

On this background I'd like to add to ... that the reader is not entirely free in his/her meaning of LotR or any book. A meaning or opinion needs to satisfy coherence and conclusiveness in order to not be, well, meaningless.

Of course the reader is entirely free in his meaning of the book. Whether he will find anyone that agrees with him is another matter. If someone seeks to assert that LotR is all about a rebellion by the evil Free Peoples of the West against a good Sauron, then he is entirely free to do so. If he genuinely believes that, then it is the "right" meaning for him. But most of us would disagree, on the basis that we are heavily influenced by the meaning that the author intended to convey (and so the words, imagery etc that he chose).

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I would disagree on this on the basis of Gandalf's words to Denethor: "As for me, I pity even his slaves"

Whatever individual characters may have said, there is not one example of Orcs being shown pity or mercy, in contrast to the Haradrim and the Dunlandings. The closest we get to an approximation of sympathy for Orcs is in the individual characterisations, such as Ugluk, Shagrat and Gorbag. We can possibly understand their desires and motivations here, even if we do not agree with them. But, in essence, Orcs are there to serve evil and be slaughtered by the "good guys". Treecutters, bikers, and even thugs and criminals in the real world are a different kettle of fish entirely.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

It was not the author's purpose to dominate over his readers and say 'this is how it is.' But, the reason for creating the stories, and the purpose behind it (whether there's a christian one or not, I don't know) should not be ignored because the reader chooses to.

Why not? Most of us pay great heed to what the author intended through our reading of the words on the page and our interpretation of them. We accept the events portrayed, the descriptions, the motivations of the characters as depicted because of our mutual understanding and acceptance of the language Tolkien used and the manner in which this is to be interpreted (although, even there, there is scope for differing interpretation). But why should we accept that LotR is a Christian work just because the author tells us it is (if indeed that is what he has told us) if it is not necessary for our appreciation of the story? And, if you were to tell me that it is necessary to my appreciation of the story, I would reply that, as far as I am concerned, it is not.