The Ring and the Cross

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Wait, 1984 -- wasn't that a disco tune by David Bowie?

Indeed it was.

Anyway, as for the original question, I think what's been said about reading too much into stuff. Tolkien himself warns people that there is no clear allegory or anything in his books. Repeatedly. Or that it should not be read like that. Or that it should not be read just like that, anyway. It was not his main point, or in fact, not his point at all. This is still what I believe is the main and relevant comment:

Originally Posted by J.R.R.Tolkien, Letter 142

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like "religion", to cults or practices, in the Imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

In any case, if anybody wanted to operate with this, it is necessary to take it in the context: he was writing this letter, if I am not mistaken, to a Catholic priest and it is basically an "answer" to a specific question, i.e., they were talking about this topic. It was not Tolkien's initiative to start about it. Anyway, the "unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision" is the fundamental part, in my opinion. Quite simple: you are a Catholic (or whatever), you write a book, thinking of it simply as of a book. And then you reread it and since you are taking a bit of distance from it, maybe you realise (maybe not, but it most likely still is there, even if you don't realise it yourself) that it contains the kind of elements, underlining worldview, morality etc. as the one you uphold yourself.

I agree with the writer of the second article in that I prefer Tolkien to, say, Lewis or others exactly because of that he does not press any message in there forcibly, intentionally, with the wish to put it there (and that being a Christian myself). And yet, it is there - "unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision" (I believe that's the best formulation he could have used. That man is just amazing).

A note as an illustration: after I became a Christian, it took me like two years to realise that there are any parallels (okay, I haven't been reading LotR during that time, otherwise I would have probably find out on my own and sooner, but still, LotR has been a large part of my life for years, and still I didn't think of it immediately after I started getting myself more familiar with Christianity), only after I have heard "Tolkien was a Catholic", then I was like "oh yes, now this and this and that makes a lot of sense!" Yes, when you are conscious of both LotR and Christianity*, you start to see the parallels there and I believe they are undeniable. Some of them, like the fact that Frodo's journey-suffering-road is Christ-like, are pretty much clear as much as they can be. I have also read about others which start to seem a bit far-fetched, but whatever, there are at least some for certain. But they are not, well, intended to be necessarily read there.

*I believe (now taking into account my personal experience) that it may very well be determined by what position you are in, as a reader: like, I believe any Christian who sees Frodo says "now this is clear!", whereas as long as I haven't been a Christian, I didn't look at Frodo and think "ha, Christ-like figure". That was given by my unfamiliarity with Christ, though, not with Frodo. So yes, I believe that if people don't see the Christian parallels, or not see them so clearly, it is because they are not Christians, in the same way that people don't see references to, say, old Germanic mythology if they haven't read it. And of course, Tolkien was a Christian, so he saw it, simple as that.