Is Eru God?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by alatar

and people call me special...right before they run the other direction.

Ah. I get special just before a favor is asked of me.

Who can argue with the author?

Not me! And when in doubt, fall back on "Well, the text doesn't explicitly state anything, so who cares?"

Since Tolkien didn't write anywhere the exact words "Okay guys, pay attention now: Eru is God.", it's really no skin off my nose whether he is or isn't. Call me a stubborn block-head that would be unable to see through a brick wall no matter how long a time given for it, but delving through subtlety in search of some Freudian concept of slightly hidden messages doesn't appeal to me unless I'm in it for the sheer hilarity of it all. Tolkien intended to secretly convey to us that the all-powerful Eru is God? No way, are you serious? He's also Santa Claus?!? Seriously though, you can find anything you intend to look for, if you simply know where to look. Gimli and Legolas as well as Sam and Frodo are gay. Elrond is sexist as shown by him not appointing females to the Fellowship. Celebrian was raped. Feanor wasn't nearly as bad as he was made out to be. Elves have ears shaped like maple leaves. Balrogs look like emus.

When you get a bunch of sophists running around with a point in their head that they're intent on, they can prove anything, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that that's what makes this argument so much fun.

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by Fea

When you get a bunch of sophists running around with a point in their head that they're intent on, they can prove anything, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that that's what makes this argument so much fun.

Perfectly stated, if I do say so. If you look at evidence to prove your own point, you can almost always do it. That's what we science folk call the danger of bias. To really get to the truth of the matter, you have to look at the evidence completely objectively, and without bias. This is, rather unfortunately, impossible for anyone who has an opinion (ie all of us) so the chances of ever figuring out what was supposed to be is nigh impossible.

All we have to go on is avgue textual references, the author's statements, and the author's possible motives. The motives have no proof that would hold up to a review board, court of law, etc, the text is vague and could be interpreted any way you want to, so the most concrete evidence we have are the author's statements, and those clearly say that Eru is God.

But you know what they say: "When all else fails, manipulate the data."

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

But you know what they say: "When all else fails, manipulate the data."

75% polled disagree with this statement. The other 35% often forget that when manipulating data, they should make sure their numbers match up.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fea

Seriously though, you can find anything you intend to look for, if you simply know where to look.

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

But you know what they say: "When all else fails, manipulate the data."

Precisely. And I suspect this is pretty much what Tolkien did. I don't think he 'consciously revised' LotR during the writing phase to make it a Catholic work. I think he wrote it, gave it to the world, & was very surprised at accusations of a lack of spirituality, of pagan tendencies, &, most importantly of being 'juvenile'. When some readers & reviewers started to suggest it had a Christian dimension, Tolkien happilly took this up & convinced himself that he had written a 'fundamentally Christian & Catholic work'.

What it is, rather (I would say) is a work that came from his heart, & one that he didn't have much control over - he wrote & re-wrote it, till he found out 'what really happened'. He then attempted to understand it, make sense of it - mainly for himself, but also for the readers who quizzed him on it. I think we're talking something much closer to [i]revisionism[i] than 'revision'.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

And of course I would disagree with that, though at this point I cannot even remember the original poll, let alone the question being asked.

As I said, I consider that these types of poll can be of value, but that there value will depend upon the size and nature of the sample. And you are quite right. I should also have included the range and nature of the choices given as a further factor in determining their value. Taking these factors into account, I think that it can be possible to draw conclusions (albeit sometimes tentative ones) from them.

For example, with specific reference to the poll that I linked to, one can, at the very least, conclude from it that a sizeable majority of those Downers who responded (and therefore had an interest in, and a view on, the issue) were of the opinion that the meaning of LotR was to be found in the reader's experience rather than authorial intention (or any of the other given choices).

Originally Posted by alatar

Who can argue with the author?

A loaded question, if ever I heard one. However, I will content myself with pointing you in the direction of the Canonicity thread and the poll thread that I linked to (if you haven't already read them).

Originally Posted by Fea

Since Tolkien didn't write anywhere the exact words "Okay guys, pay attention now: Eru is God.", it's really no skin off my nose whether he is or isn't.

And even had he done so, it does not follow that we would be obliged to accept it.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

A loaded question, if ever I heard one. However, I will content myself with pointing you in the direction of the Canonicity thread and the poll thread that I linked to (if you haven't already read them).

Apologies, as I was not able to complete the link...my computer's failsafe mechanism kicked in and so it reduced itself to ashes at the mention of the "C" thread.

Luckily I have sack clothe to match.

And note that it's easier to start with the answer and work backwards assembling the evidence to fit, as that way you're sure to reach the conclusion that the evidence points to 100% of the time. As long as no one was watching your backtracking, you can pretend that the evidence speaks for itself.

And Guinevere's post regarding the world light by an invisible lamp is excellent.

[Guinevere]

I finally finished reading the whole 5 pages of posts – another fascinating (but time-consuming) discussion!

I voted yes, not only because for Tolkien Eru meant God, but because he pretty much reflects my own conception of God. In fact, reading Tolkien’s works was rather like a revelation to me!!

I must admit that my own faith is rather vague – that is, I have a deep longing to believe in God, and with my feelings I do believe, but as soon as I start thinking rationally, I start doubting. There’s just too much injustice and suffering in the world to believe in a God that is omnipotent AND loving. It doesn’t need the direct experience of suffering – just read history (“a long defeat” indeed!) or listen to the news every day –it could lead one to despair! For years I just tried to evade thinking too much about that. It was reading Tolkien’s works and letters that caused me to reflect on my own belief again.

I feel rather like one man who wrote to Tolkien about his experience with LotR:
letter #328

…I had a letter from a man, who classified himself as “an unbeliever, or at best a man of belatedly and dimly dawning religious feeling….. but you”, he said, “create a world in which some sort of faith seems to be everywhere without a visible source, like light from an invisible lamp.” (……) If sanctity inhabits his work or as a pervading light illumines it then it does not come from him but through him. And neither of you would perceive it in these terms unless it was with you also. Otherwise you would see and feel nothing,

I think just because LotR is NOT overtly Christian , or religious at all, its morals appeal to so many different people.
As Tolkien said himself in letter 142

The religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

And in letter 156

…I have purposely kept allusions to the highest matters down to mere hints, perceptible only by the most attentive, or kept them under unexplained symbolic forms.

posted by Mr.Underhill
It's interesting to me that he found, or sensed, that the best way to talk about the truths that he held so dear was to not talk about them, if you take my meaning. To portray the underlying truth without the trapping, or in a different trapping.

posted by Davem
If it can (& often is) read & enjoyed by readers who do not percieve any Christian elements in it (even ones familiar with the tenets of that faith) then Christianity is obviously not something that underlies the story.

That way, Tolkien gives the reader the freedom to interpret it in his own way. (Many might be put off by overt Christianity, including myself!) Just because the allusions are so subtle and so general, they are working , and can be accepted by everyone.

from Letter131

I believe that legends and myths are largely made of “truth” and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode.

Tolkien managed to merge these ancient truths with his Christian faith, and the result is very convincing (for me at least) . Also historically: the ancient pagan deities were very often turned into catholic saints!


On the whole I find the end of LotR a well-balanced mixture of sadness and hope. Hope without guarantees perhaps, but the book “lifts up my heart”. I get the comforting impression that a merciful providence is behind everything.

Now the Silmarillion is quite different. So sombre and pessimistic, everything seems doomed from the start. At first I found it really hard to believe that such tragic and hopeless stories like the one about Túrin were written by the same author… But the more I read in it – and especially after reading U.T., I grew more and more fond of it.
It seems to me that Tolkien's works, especially the Silmarillion, are partly his own way of pondering over those questions that engage us all: about death and immortality, good and evil, free will and providence and the meaning of suffering and injustice in the world.
And I think Davem has hit upon a truth (for me anyway) when he wrote:

Recently I've begun to wonder whether what we get from LotR is not 'satisfaction' a having our spiritual questions answered or our confusions & dilemmas resolved, but rather a 'confirmation' of our own doubts & uncertainties

I guess that’s why I sympathize with the Númenoreans saying
“For of us is required a blind trust, and a hope without assurance, knowing not what lies before us in a little while.”
And with king Meneldur asking “If either way may lead to evil, of what worth is choice ?”

Eru is inscrutable indeed (as is God in my eyes at least), yet there is some attempt at a justification

“"Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Ëa, and evil yet be good to have been."
(Manwë to the other Valar)
"...and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater"
(Haldir to the Fellowship)

And something similarly hopeful is expressed in letter #64 (1944).

All things and deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their "causes" and "effects" . No man can estimate what is really happening at the present sub specie aeternitatis.
All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labours with vast power and perpetual success - in vain : preparing only the soil for unexpected good to sprout in.

Davem, quoting Roa_Aoife
But you know what they say: "When all else fails, manipulate the data."

Precisely. And I suspect this is pretty much what Tolkien did.

Honestly, I’m surprised to hear you talking in such a way about Tolkien ! And I don’t think I would have liked the lecture of this Mr.Hutton (was that his name?) in Birmingham.

Davem:
What it is, rather (I would say) is a work that came from his heart, & one that he didn't have much control over - he wrote & re-wrote it, till he found out 'what really happened'. He then attempted to understand it, make sense of it - mainly for himself, but also for the readers who quizzed him on it.

That's more like it!

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

Precisely. And I suspect this is pretty much what Tolkien did. I don't think he 'consciously revised' LotR during the writing phase to make it a Catholic work. I think he wrote it, gave it to the world, & was very surprised at accusations of a lack of spirituality, of pagan tendencies, &, most importantly of being 'juvenile'. When some readers & reviewers started to suggest it had a Christian dimension, Tolkien happilly took this up & convinced himself that he had written a 'fundamentally Christian & Catholic work'.

What it is, rather (I would say) is a work that came from his heart, & one that he didn't have much control over - he wrote & re-wrote it, till he found out 'what really happened'. He then attempted to understand it, make sense of it - mainly for himself, but also for the readers who quizzed him on it. I think we're talking something much closer to [i]revisionism[i] than 'revision'.

So you are saying then that Tolkien was lying?

I'm not saying that your theory is entirely discreditable, but it does make Tolkien's statement that it was CONSCIOUSLY Catholic in the revision to be either a misstatment, or- to take the facts in the most simply presented way, to be a lie.

Lies, as far as we are shown, are very much not in keeping with Tolkien's style (he was quite often blunt in his letters, as I'm sure you are aware), and it's very much not in keeping with his Catholic faith, which we know he was fanatical about.

There are definitely some thing about what you are saying that seem to ring true, Davem, but your theory is directly at odds with what Tolkien said, and I'm loathe to directly contradict a clear statement made by Tolkien himself.

Of course, the people on this forum would probably STILL give Balrogs wings even if Tolkien had deposited the same statement "Balrogs do not have wings" in the bank every year of his life, to be produced at the time of his death as the final authority in the Balrog wing debate. For some reasom, people seem to have a problem dealing with direct statements as meaning exactly what they say.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I'm not saying that your theory is entirely discreditable, but it does make Tolkien's statement that it was CONSCIOUSLY Catholic in the revision to be either a misstatment, or- to take the facts in the most simply presented way, to be a lie.

It certainly wasn't a 'lie' - it just wasn't a fact. CT has shown that his father's memory (in letters written/statements made many years after the fact) was not 100% - cf the statement that he 'halted for a year by Balin's Tomb'. His other statement in the Foreword, that it has 'no inner meaning in the author's intention', that it is 'merely' entertainment, clashes with statements in the letters where he as much as says that LotR is an intentionally Christian work & the 'similarities' between Mary/Galadriel Lembas/The Host were deliberate.

I think Tolkien had convinced himself that LotR was made 'consciously Catholic' in the revision - but (if you've read HoM-e) can you tell me where the evidence is for that?

As I said, I think Tolkien spent years after the publication of LotR attempting to understand it & make it fit with his beliefs. He constructed a Catholic interpretation of the story - which many of his readers (though not all) have accepted.

I don't know where the Legendarium came from - his constant references to 'finding out what really happened' rather than 'inventing' are clearly true & I think it was only the critical & readerly responses & challenges that made him actually start analysing it for meaning & conformity to his faith.

One point Hutton made in his talk: Tolkien's claim that LotR was about 'the elevation of the humble' & that this somehow confirmed its Christianity. Fairy stories were the 'literature' of ordinary folk, & their heroes tend to be ordinary, humble heroes - ie a 'humble flittle man elevated to the status of 'hero' is not a uniquely Christian theme. Tolkien supplied that interpretation of his Hobbit heroes & then claimed that tsuch things made it a specifically Christian story.

Not 'lying', then, but not exactly stating the 'facts'.

[Lalwendë]

The full quote is, if I am not mistaken:

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.

So Tolkien here says that this 'revision' consisted of excising any references to religious ritual. He does not say that he altered the rest as it was 'absorbed into the story'. I have to say, it was absorbed so well and with such subtlety that I entirely fail to see many of these references as specifically 'Catholic'.

davem used the example of 'the elevation of the humble' as being something Tolkien used to 'prove' the Christian credentials of his work - while it is actually a far more universal factor. This is just one of many examples throughout the Legendarium which can have mulitple meanings and interpretations. Symbolism such as sacrifice is not exclusive to Christianity, it is Universal. I'd wholeheartedly agree with Tolkien that his work is fundamentally religious, but in a truly Universal way.

I think that his infamous statement/soundbite can be re-interpreted as it is Tricksy. A 'fundamentally' religious and Catholic work may be said to have its roots in those things; the origins of the work were both from the 'religious' i.e. sacred but not necessarily Catholic (bearing in mind Tolkien was steeped in knowledge of Pagan literature, both European and Classical) and from the 'Catholic' i.e. his own idiosyncratic and intensely personal interpretation of Catholicism.

Tolkien seems to be saying that at first he did have reference to rites and rituals in his work (unconsciously, as though he could not help but do this) but that in order to make his work coherent as a representation of a Secondary World he had to ensure that such references were excised. The things which happen in his works follow his own (as a Catholic) moral standards (How could they not reflect his views on what is right and wrong behaviour? Are there many writers who would produce something which they found morally repugnant?) and he wrote of these 'unconsciously' at first.

When it came to revision of what he had written, he bore in mind (consciously) his own Primary World faith and ensured he had excised explicit references to this. Note that what was left was not Catholic, but 'religious', a very different kettle of fish.

His statement, if viewed as proof positive that he did revise his work to make it more Catholic actually does not make sense. If looked at that way then he seems to be saying "Well, I started off unable to do anything but write a Catholic work. Then I had to edit my work and realised it had to be a Catholic work so I removed all the Catholic references."