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

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

Still, I never cease to be astounded, in reading the Letters, how much is in LotR that Tolkien was quite conscious about including, not least of all, archetypes.

Well, there are 'archetypal images & symbols in Tolkien's work, but I wonder how many were deliberately used, or how conscious Tolkien was of waht he was doing while he was doing it. The letters show he was aware of the symbolism of the work, but often I get the sense that he was only aware of it after the fact - ie, when he had gone back to the books as a reader & critic himself. It seems plain that what he writes in some of the letters is in response to reader's enquiries & its almost as if he is discovering the 'meaning' of the stories & images only then.

Just to clear up the issue of belief in myths, early folk of every culture did actually believe their myths. It was the growth of abstract thought in each culture (or a more effective religion) that caused doubt regarding the myths; as in, "hey, the world doesn't really work like that; I've found a more empiric explanation; the myth must be wrong". For example, Plato didn't believe the myths were true, but believed they should be taught for their moral value.

I'm not sure its as simple as that. There were many reasons for a change in religious belief. Its quite clear that in the 'Dark Ages' the change over from Paganism to Christianity wasn't due to individuals taking such a rational approach. Missionaries 'targetted' the Royal courts because they knew that once they had converted the ruler the people would follow - either out of allegiance or fear of the consequences of not doing so. The 'Pagan' religions were quite as complex & capable of explaining the nature of the world & the human experience as Christianity. The 'explanation' offered by Christianity was hardly more 'empiric' than the ones offered by the Druids, Stoics, Epicureans, Manichaeans. In short, Christianity came to dominate over Paganism not because it offered a 'better' account of the world, but because, after Constantine, it became increasingly dangerous not to be a Christian.

Anyway, to the point of the thread - I think Tolkien was right. The emblems of religion do not belong in fantasy... but 'spiritual' emblems & symbols will inevitably be present. They will be used either intentionally or unconsciously because they are the stuff of Faerie Tale, Legend & Myth. If used deliberately the result will usually feel 'false' - as with the Narnia books, or the fantasies of a Christian proseletizer like Stephen Lawhead. We will feel 'preached at' & look elsewhere. If (as I feel happened in Tolkien's case) the story 'arises' from a place 'external' to the writer's consciousness (either the Collective Unconscious, realm of the Archtypes, or somewhere more mysterious) then the result will feel 'real', because the archetypal/spiritual symbols will 'behave' & 'interact (if you understand me) 'naturally' - ie according to their nature.

Ok, I have to qualify that last statement. Tolkien did 'manipulate' the pure archetypes/symbols that appeared in his works, but certainly not to the degree that the other two writers I mentioned did. I think the difference was that with Tolkien the story with its symbols arose first & he merely 'adapted' it to the extent that he felt necessary such that it would not offend his own religious & moral sensibilities, wheras Lewis & Lawhead (the later in particular) seem to have decided that they would make use of archetypal/spiritual symbols in order to proseletize. They are using the symbols, not letting them 'come through'.

The result of this is that those symbols fail to work on us on any deep level, because the 'symbols' have become merely 'signs', the parable merely 'allegory'. What I mean by that is that symbols are (as Jung pointed out) alive with meaning, which cannot be fully or cmpletely expressed. They are effectively like 'windows' onto a deeper reality (or a deeper experience of this reality), whereas 'signs' merely 'signify' something specific - A=B. Thus 'Aslan is Christ disguised in such a way as to make him understandable to children. Gandalf, on the other hand - & especially in LotR, where we are not given an account of his back story - is a figure of mystery. Aslan is a 'sign', Gandalf is a 'symbol'.

So, I see two reasons for Tolkien being right here. One, that (as has been stated) overt use of the emblems of any current or known religious tradition would pull us out of the secondary world into the primary one & 'break the spell', & two, that such overt usage would turn the 'emblems' used from symbols to signs, & make the work into an obvious allegory, rather than a 'parable'.

Or something like that.......