The Lord of the Bible?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I understand both your opinion and Tolkien's. I'm just ignoring them in favor of my own. Hope you don't mind too much, darling.

[Boromir88]

I understand both your opinion and Tolkien's. I'm just ignoring them in favor of my own. Hope you don't mind too much, darling.

Are you allowed to do that? What I mean is it's perfectly ok to completely disregard Tolkien's opinion, but ignoring davem's that's blasphomy!

But, seriously now I completely understand what you're saying and I agree. Looking further in and 'analyzing' doesn't necessarily destroy the magic of the books. Especially if you have a deep interest in the 'how it came to be.'

Believe it or not, one of the most touching and thought-provoking scenes (for me) in LOTR is with Tolkien's war experience:

Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering bank, a man fell, crashing through the slender trees, nearly on top of them. He came to rest in the fern a few feet away, face downward, green arrow-feathers sticking from his neck below a golden collar. His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of his sword.

It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace-...

Eventhough Tolkien does deny using allegories to the World Wars:

’Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and litttle or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.'

’The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or conclusion.’
~Foreward to LOTR

I can not look at that moment with Sam and say it wasn't Tolkien reflecting on his World War experiences. Now, Tolkien said the 'legendary war' (or the war that he created) in not influenced by the real wars. While this moment with Sam looking at the dead Haradrim soldier has no importance on the main story, the story of the War and the Ring, it's more of just a sidebar, a step away from the action. As I can't look at that passage and not think that Tolkien was being influenced by his war experiences, but this passage with Sam does not play any major part in the storyline itself, it feels more like a 'step away from the story for a brief second.' it's a moment outside of the main plotline...if anyone has any clue as to what I'm saying.

Fea, I think Letter 109 will fit what you are trying to explain quite perfectly:

Of course, Allegory and Story converge, meeting in Truth. So the only perfectly consitent allegory is real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human ’literature’ , that the better and more closely an allegory is the more easily it can be read ’just as a story’; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it. But the two start out from opposite ends.

'The Story' and 'allegory' start out totally opposite, but as that song goes...'They meet in the middle.'

Tolkien strongly resisted his books as being labeled 'allegorical' but because of their very nature and depth provided- better and more closely woven a story is - those searching can - more easily find allegory in it.

It still all boils down to reader applicability. It is our freedom to think 'hey this reminds me of something in life.' I think of it as a story with allegories that anyone can find - or choose not to find- but it is not an 'Allegorical story.' Meaning there was no intentional authorial design to make allegories. Because, intentionally writing in allegories limits the reader's mind, the reader's applicability. It would mean that we all must see 'Elrond as a Jesus figure,' and this was why I think Tolkien strongly resisted his books being 'allegorical.' Because if they were allegorical, the freedom of applicability would be taken away. And it is this very freedom of the reader, that I believe (at least for me), adds to the stories magic. It makes me as a reader be able to identify and connect with the story and form my own 'allegories.'

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Are you allowed to do that? What I mean is it's perfectly ok to completely disregard Tolkien's opinion, but ignoring davem's that's blasphomy!

But, seriously now I completely understand what you're saying and I agree. Looking further in and 'analyzing' doesn't necessarily destroy the magic of the books. Especially if you have a deep interest in the 'how it came to be.'

Believe it or not, one of the most touching and thought-provoking scenes (for me) in LOTR is with Tolkien's war experience:


Eventhough Tolkien does deny using allegories to the World Wars:

I can not look at that moment with Sam and say it wasn't Tolkien reflecting on his World War experiences. Now, Tolkien said the 'legendary war' (or the war that he created) in not influenced by the real wars. While this moment with Sam looking at the dead Haradrim soldier has no importance on the main story, the story of the War and the Ring, it's more of just a sidebar, a step away from the action. As I can't look at that passage and not think that Tolkien was being influenced by his war experiences, but this passage with Sam does not play any major part in the storyline itself, it feels more like a 'step away from the story for a brief second.' it's a moment outside of the main plotline...if anyone has any clue as to what I'm saying.

Fea, I think Letter 109 will fit what you are trying to explain quite perfectly:

'The Story' and 'allegory' start out totally opposite, but as that song goes...'They meet in the middle.'

Tolkien strongly resisted his books as being labeled 'allegorical' but because of their very nature and depth provided- better and more closely woven a story is - those searching can - more easily find allegory in it.

It still all boils down to reader applicability. It is our freedom to think 'hey this reminds me of something in life.' I think of it as a story with allegories that anyone can find - or choose not to find- but it is not an 'Allegorical story.' Meaning there was no intentional authorial design to make allegories. Because, intentionally writing in allegories limits the reader's mind, the reader's applicability. It would mean that we all must see 'Elrond as a Jesus figure,' and this was why I think Tolkien strongly resisted his books being 'allegorical.' Because if they were allegorical, the freedom of applicability would be taken away. And it is this very freedom of the reader, that I believe (at least for me), adds to the stories magic. It makes me as a reader be able to identify and connect with the story and form my own 'allegories.'

I totally agree with the above. It appears to me that comparing the Lord of the Rings to, say the Bible, allows great minds to excercise their creative thinking & in the process open a latreal opportunity to learn new perspectives. But there will always be some who prefer to stay with the mainstream Tolkienology, believing that it is the truest & safest approach, but not as imaginative & it may even close new doors for further thought & discussion. This thread was all about opening new doors for those who want to open them, rather than those who prefer to guard the old ones & keep them locked.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I totally agree with the above. It appears to me that comparing the Lord of the Rings to, say the Bible, allows great minds to excercise their creative thinking & in the process open a latreal opportunity to learn new perspectives. But there will always be some who prefer to stay with the mainstream Tolkienology, believing that it is the truest & safest approach, but not as imaginative & it may even close new doors for further thought & discussion. This thread was all about opening new doors for those who want to open them, rather than those who prefer to guard the old ones & keep them locked.

I don't see it as 'learning new perspectives' so much as inventing them. No, I must correct myself there - not 'new' perspectives, but old, ancient, decrepit ones. This whole 'Finding God in the Lord of the Rings' approach has been done to death, resurrected, done to death again, resurrected again, etc, etc,etc. It is not new in any way at all. I probably have hallf a dozen books which claim to show the 'Christian' backstory of LotR (& do it very badly in most cases). Its not even interesting anymore.

Ok, let's try another tack.

Gandalf & Elrond were directly & deliberately inspired by Christ. As was Frodo & Aragorn. The Balrog was meant to be a depiction of Satan (unless Grima or Saruman was), Galadriel of the Virgin Mary, Eowyn of St Ursula, Merry of St Francis, Lobelia of St Catherine of Sienna & the fox a subtle allegory of Nebuchadnezzar.

What, exactly, has that to do with the price of fish?

Or maybe its just me. I'm sure Mansun & the other 'great minds' of this forum should be as free as possible to 'excercise their creative thinking & in the process open a latreal opportunity to learn new perspectives.'

I see that I have now joined the ranks of those who 'prefer to stay with the mainstream Tolkienology, believing that it is the truest & safest approach, but not as imaginative & it may even close new doors for further thought & discussion. This thread was all about opening new doors for those who want to open them, rather than those who prefer to guard the old ones & keep them locked.'

Ah, the radicalism of youth, when we all felt the fire in our bellies! But now we are old, & only seek to imprison the young within the cells we have created for them. We are too old & fuddled to keep up with them. They will reveal the TRUTH to us, for it is their destiny.....

(Anybody else read Logan's Run........?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

I don't see it as 'learning new perspectives' so much as inventing them.

Do you have a point? We are not discussing a mysterious and magical text that was brought down from on high within a burst of white light, whose origins are unknown, and that promises to save the world. It wasn't sent over by aliens, it didn't suddenly appear to a hobo in a shack emblazoned with words too hallowed to repeat. We're talking about books. Written by this guy. Tolkien was a great writer, sure, but he was human and his books are merely books, no matter how nicely they are written. Tolkien was happy, got angry, had moments of sadness, of hyperactivity, of hunger, of jealousy; he reproduced with his wife, went to the bathroom. Forgive the blasphemy, but I assume he also burped at least once in his life.

Tolkien was a master wordsmith, but he was still just a guy talking. Making things up. Inventing a world.

If we want to invent perspective with which to view this world, created by this guy, to see if we can learn something, why do you care?

They will reveal the TRUTH to us, for it is their destiny.....

So long as you're aware, m'boy.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Do you have a point? We are not discussing a mysterious and magical text that was brought down from on high within a burst of white light, whose origins are unknown, and that promises to save the world. It wasn't sent over by aliens, it didn't suddenly appear to a hobo in a shack emblazoned with words too hallowed to repeat. We're talking about books. Written by this guy. Tolkien was a great writer, sure, but he was human and his books are merely books, no matter how nicely they are written. Tolkien was happy, got angry, had moments of sadness, of hyperactivity, of hunger, of jealousy; he reproduced with his wife, went to the bathroom. Forgive the blasphemy, but I assume he also burped at least once in his life.

Tolkien was a master wordsmith, but he was still just a guy talking. Making things up. Inventing a world.

If we want to invent perspective with which to view this world, created by this guy, to see if we can learn something, why do you care?

Well, I don't exactly see what this 'revelation' is that you assume yourselves to be on the verge of.

Could it be 'Tolkien was a Christian, who had read the Bible, & its possible to find certain similarities between the language & stories of the Bible & his own sub creation!!!!!!!'?

There - I said it for you. Tolkien was quite probably influenced by (among God knows how many other things) the Bible. You can find (&/or impose) Biblical symbolism & allegories on the Legendarium (& for all I know there may well be a hidden code in there too which reveals when the Day of Judgement will take place).

I'm sure there are even some deliberate nods towards his faith - the dates of the setting out of the Fellowship from Rivendell & of the Fall of Barad Dur & all that.

But that's not new, its not original, & God knows why anyone outside of a few evangelicals on a mission to get us all back to church or some seriously anally retentive fans would actually care what went into the 'leaf mould of the mind' out of which grew Tolkien's particular Tree.

We are all influenced by what we read, experience & believe. You seem deserate to prove that this was allso the case with Tolkien - but I don't think anyone is arguing with that.

One word of warning though. As I said earlier, I've read quite a few of these pieces on how LotR is a deeply Christian work - just glancing at my bookshelf now I can see 'Tolkien in Perspective', 'Tolkien's Oridinary Virtues', Finding God in the Lord of the Rings', Secret Fire, Tolkien Man & Myth & JRR Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth among others, along with a nice thick folder of essays printed off from the Web many of which are by Christians & purport to show Tolkien's work was deeply Christian. Their motivation seems twofold - the first can be summed up as 'See, you like LotR, LotR is a Christian book, so, why not come to church this Sunday?' & the second as 'Wow!!! I've just discovered similarities between characters & events in LotR & the Bible! I must be a genius!'. What they all have in common is that they are completely unconvincing, badly written statements of the glaringly obvious or simply embarrassing: 'Aragorn had a beard & long hair & looked like Jesus...'.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, I don't exactly see what this 'revelation' is that you assume yourselves to be on the verge of.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I don't seek a revelation at all. I'm just in it for the fun of it all. Eru help us, don't you ever just play?