Of another world - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

littlemanpoet · 05-07-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

Where I have a problem is with your apparent contention that Bilbo's display of compassion in regard to Gollum is a sign of Christian inspired revision

That is why I said that taken by itself, it is not enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

or that the new 'depth' in later drafts is either.

You misunderstood me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

it is logical to say that this new deepening is NOT "consciously Christian in the revision", but what Tolkien saw it to be: a more serious and adult story than The Hobbit had been.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

But these seem the most 'blatant' examples.

I intend to bring forth the consciously Christian subtext.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

Focus on self-sacrifice, compassion, humility, mercy, are hardly uniquely 'Christian'. Elbereth could well be an 'image' of the Virgin Mary, but she could also be an 'image' of Isis or Don.

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.

davem · 05-07-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 05-07-2006, 04:13 PM

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 · 05-07-2006, 07:53 PM

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 · 05-08-2006, 07:23 AM

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 · 05-08-2006, 07:37 AM

Quote:

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 · 05-08-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

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.

05-07-2006, 04:13 PM	#3
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	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. __________________ Gordon's alive!

05-08-2006, 07:23 AM	#5
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	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. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

05-07-2006, 07:53 PM	#4
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	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....