The Lord of the Bible?

[Boromir88]

Just a little comment that may be a bit off track, but I promise I'll stay on topic.

As I read that passage about Frodo, it seems to me that Tolkien is saying the Frodo failed, but that his failure was negated or absolved by divine mercy.~SpM

I beg to differ, and agree with Raynor, the 'as conceived by simple minds,' is I feel a great importance. Tolkien acknowledges that the 'simple-minded' (which he didn't mean to insult anyone) may see Frodo as a failure, because he gave in, he chickened out, he 'ratted.' But, Tolkien never said he believed Frodo failed, but that the simple-minded may see Frodo as a failure. In fact he goes on to explain why he felt like Frodo succeeded.

So, here we have the classic example of the argument of the thread. Tolkien acknowledges that some people may see Frodo not fulfilling his quest as a failure, but he went out and explains as to why he felt like Frodo should not be labelled as a 'failure' and why he deserves all honour.

Which brings to the biggest question does authorial intent matter? And if so, exactly how much should it matter?

“The LotR exists, apart from what Tolkien said at one time or another it was supposed to mean. It was largely a product of the realm of fantasy in the unconscious: that was the ultimate source. Therefore, what Tolkien later consciously thought about it is interesting, but not authoritative as to the work’s meaning”~Norman Cantor

That's Cantor's take on it, but let's see what Tolkien talks about:

“I do not ‘know all the answers’. Much of my own book puzzles me; and in any case much of it was written so long ago (anything up to 20 years) that I read it now as if it were from a strange hand.’~Letter 211

I think that many confuse ’applicability’ with ’allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."~Interview with BBC Radio, 1971

Then on the other side:

"But if we speak of a Cauldron, we must not wholly forget the Cooks. There are many things in the Cauldron, but the Cooks do not dip in the ladle quite blindly. Their selection is important. The gods are after all gods, and it is a matter of some moment what stories are told of them"~Tolkien's essay on Faerie Stories.

It appears Tolkien is contradicting himself. He talks about his dislike of allegory (allegory is a 'domination of the author'), the 'freedom of applicability' that is with the readers, reading the book for enjoyment. Then at other times he tells us his intentions with his books, and I am intrigued by the parallel he draws with 'cooks.'

How about we view this quote:

'But if we speak of a Cauldron, we must not wholly forget the Cooks. There are many things in the Cauldron, but the Cooks do not dip in the ladle quite blindly. Their selection is important.

And alter it a bit to this:

'But if we speak of a book, we must not wholly forget the author. There are many things in the book, but the author does not write a story blindly. His/her selection is important.'

Puts an interesting spin on things? It seems like there is some conflict, we have the applicability of the reader vs. the intent of the author. But, I don't see a conflict, there is a delicate balance between the two.

I think Tolkien brings up a very interesting parallel, authors don't write, just to write. They don't write 'blindly.' One of the biggest fuels for authors is purpose. What is their purpose? They're writing for a reason, they're not writing for absolutely no purpose at all. So, the author shouldn't just be cast aside and say 'ahh forget the old coot, who cares about him, I will believe what I want.' Which, of course anyone can believe whatever they want, but I'm afraid that means you've missed the author's purpose.

Then comes in the reader applicability, and the reader's freedom. After Tolkien's books were released, he mentions taking a deep interest in seeing how they develop, which is probably why Tolkien in Letter's and elsewhere starts talking about his intentions. It's after the fact, after his stories were published, and taking an interest in how the public viewed his works, is when and why we start seeing what he intended his works mean.

Which brings us back to the delicate balance between the author and the reader. The author is the mastermind behind his books, and above anyone else knows what his books are about, and what his purpose is, or what his purpose was. The reader will read the book and apply their own meaning when reading, and this meaning may conflict with the author's intentions. But, 'intentions' is the key, there's this tone of acceptance...It's like "That is not what I had intended, but I can certainly understand how you see it that way."

I call it a delicate balance, because if there is too much "authorial intent" it falls into 'domination of the author,' which I feel that Tolkien didn't want to do. He didn't want to 'dominate' over his readers. However, if there is too much freedom of the reader, the entire reason and purpose of the author is cast aside. As Roland Barthes notes in "The Death of the Author":

We know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the {Authorial} myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.”

Not all stories are as unique as this one, but with Tolkien it was a balancing act. The cooks are just as important as the cauldron...Tolkien did not just blindly write, there was a reason and a purpose. Then there is the reader's applicability, but too much freedom and the author is left behind in the dust, and the true meaning, the true purpose is lost.

[davem]

This has turned into yet another Canonicity argument. For myself, I accept that Tolkien has greater insight into his invented world & the 'meaning' of his stories than anyone else. However..

This is not a discussion on Canonicity. It is not an argument about who knows more about Middle-earth, the creator or the audience? It is not even an argument about whether Tolkien believed LotR was a 'Chritian' work - clearly he did (or at least that it conformed to Christianity).

This is a discussion on whether there are similarities between LotR & people/events in the Bible. My argument all along has been that, beyond a general 'mood' or 'tone' of style, language & morality, there is no one-to-one correspondence. Said 'mood' or 'tone' is not, however, uniquely or specifically 'Christian/Biblical' enough, in & of itself, to constitute a 'Christian' work - unless negatively: its not a 'not-Christian' work (ie it doesn't actually contradict anything in the Bible).

For some here it seems that the fact that a) Tolkien was a Christian & his 'moral value system' was inspired by his faith (but see Shippey on Tolkien's Northern theory of courage - Tolkien's 'moral value system' was not uniquely Christian, & definitely not pacifistic) & b) the work is generally in conformity with Christian belief, is enough to justify calling it a Christian work, & therefore to start looking for parallells between events & people in LotR & the Bible.

For others, such a 'negative' correspondence does not justify such 'parallell-seeking' because LotR is about as much (& as little) in conformit with the Bible as it is with WWII. One can say that 'To me Saruman is a Judas figure', but one can also say 'To me Saruman is a Hitler figure'. & no-one has any problem (well, I don't anyway). However..

This is equivalent to saying Tolkien was an Englishman, writing during the 1940's when Hitler's armies were on the verge of over-running his country & destroying everything he loved, so his hopes & fears must automatically have gone into his work, & therefore he could not help but write a story which had an underlying WWII theme, & that an analysis of, say, the similarities between Hitler & Saruman will give us an insight in to both Saruman's character & Hitler's as well. Personally, I think that the Characters & motivations, the origins, & most importantly the desires, of Saruman, Judas & Hitler are so different as to cancel out any percieved similarities between them.

I'm still not sure whether the 'pro-Christian interpretation' side are just looking for a chat along the lines of 'Ooh! 'x' (Saruman/Frodo/other character) is a bit like 'y'(Judas/Jesus/other biblical figure) isn't he? Which is all fine as far as I'm concerned - I just don't think that kind of thing belongs in Books - which is intended for serious & rigorous debate - but rather in Novices & Newcomers. If it is to remain in Books then the participants should expect to be challenged on their statements & be asked to offer some justification for them.

[mark12_30]

davem: you seem frustrated that you have to keep repeating yourself. There's a simple solution: just type "ibid" and let it go.

If you really think this discussion belongs in N&N then take it up with the mods.

[davem]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

davem: you seem frustrated that you have to keep repeating yourself. There's a simple solution: just type "ibid" and let it go.

If you really think this discussion belongs in N&N then take it up with the mods.

It seems no-one, for all their demanding the right to do it, can actually provide any direct correspondences between LotR & the Bible, or indicate out how, or in what way, LotR is a 'Christian' work.

I think its now perfectly clear that either LotR is not a 'Christian' work in any real sense, or that no-one on the Downs at present can show it is.

I'm happy to leave the whole thing here - unless someone asks me for a response on any point.

[The Saucepan Man]

TORE, the discussion between you and I can be boild down to our different definition of the word “meaning” in the question: “What is the meaning of LotR? I define “meaning” as the meaning of the story to the individual reader, as influenced by what the author meant to convey. You define it as what the author meant by the story, as supplemented by the reader’s imagination.

I do not deny that the author “meant” something by the story, although I would argue that it is impossible to ever settle on an accurate and complete picture of what that might be, and I am not sure that Tolkien himself would bhave been ablke to do so either (hence my debate with Raynor over the Letters). You do not deny (it would appear) that the story can have different meanings to different individual readers.

The essence of our difference is that, when we consider whether there is one single, objective meaning to LotR, your position is that there is and that it is the meaning that the author intended to convey, while my position is that there is no single, objective meaning. The book can, as far as any individual reader is concerned, only carry the meaning that that reader attributes to it.

And to pick up the assertion that I am disregarding the author’s intent, as supplemented by the point which Boromir88 makes, I am doing no such thing. Of course individual meaning does not disregard the author. The author selects words, imagery, symbolism specifically to convey a particular meaning. In most cases (such as in the “factual” events depicted, certain elements of the descriptions give etc) we will all pick up on that intended meaning and incoporate it as part of our own meaning. Hence there will be broad, if not unanimous, consensus on many points. A skilfull author, such as Tolkien, may be able to convey much more of his intended meaning to a greater number of readers.

My point is that each individual reader will still find his or her own “meaning” within LotR. That’s fine by me and I am more than happy to listen to, and discuss, the opinions of others. Where a strong case is put forward for a particular “meaning” , for example on the basis of the text itself and/or extraneous material indicating authorial intention, I am generally quite happy to absorb it within my own understanding of the book, provided that it does not conflict with my own individual intepretation or even, occasionally, if it does - if it makes more sense within the context of my overall understanding of the book.

Where I draw the line is the insistence that I should accept as “fact” the individual understaning of others, or even of the author, where it does not, and will not, fit with my own understanding of the book.

I should probably concede the “Frodo issue”. I had thought that there was a definitive statement by Tolkien that Frodo had failed. I may be wrong. I do not have the Letters to hand. It does not alter the fact that there are statements made by Tolkien, published since I first read the book, which do not accord with my understanding of the book and which I do not feel bound to accept. The example that I usually give is the assertion that, under a certain set of circumstances, Gollum would willingly have sacrificed himself and the Ring by throwing himself into Mount Doom with it. I do not accept (within the context of my understanding of the character) that he would ever have done so under any circumstances.

That sets out my position. I do not expect everyone to agree with it. But it is pretty much immutable, as far as I am concerned.

So why is that relevant to the topic at hand?

If someone is to assert that Gandalf is a Christ figure, Sauron is a Lucifer figure or Saruman is a Judas figure or that the Secret Fire equates with the Holy Ghost, or whatever, then that may well be very interesting as an academic discussion point. But it is an individual interpretation, and not one which I feel obligation (morally, academically or otherwise) to accept. Even had Tolkien himself stated that it was his intention that these parallels be drawn by his readers, I would not accept them. They are not necessary to my understanding and appreciation of the story.

And what really draws me from my slumber and perks my interest, such that I feel the need to set out on the dangerous course of articulating my position (as above) once more, is when I am (expressly or implicitly) told that I must accept LotR as a fundamentally religious and Catholic story simply because Tolkien himself was a Catholic and because he said that it was his intention (unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision) that it be so.

Hence, when it is said that the story undeniably reflects a fundamental and universal “Truth”, I object. I feel perfectly entitled to challenge that, at least until some adequate explanation of what this “truth-with-a-capital-T” is. If it is said to be the essence of the “one true (Christian) myth” or the existence of God or whatever, then I cannot accept that either as I do not accept that the Chrisitian myth, as set out in the Bible for example, is true or that God (at least in the sense depicted within Christianity and, indeed, most major religions) exists.

If you want to believe that, as part of your understanding of LotR, I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem when I am told that this “Truth” (whatever it may be) is undeniable and that, if I do not accept it as part of my understanding of the “meaning” of LotR, then I have an inferior appreciation of the book to those who do or that I am otherwise somehow “wrong” in my reaction to it.

Finally, on the side-issue of Orcs (and in response to Raynor), I would suggest that it is a basic premise of the book that it is “right” to treat Orcs without kindness or mercy (contrast the treatment, for example, of the Haradrim and Dunlendings). I have no problem with that, as a feature of the fictional fantasy world. But I do object to any parallel being drawn (as Tolkien did) between Orcs, portrayed as such, with trecutters and bikers.

PS If these points are not considered relevant to the ongoing debate, then feel free to ignore them and carry on. I will be happy of the opportunity not to have to keep repeating myself.

[Macalaure]

First of all, this is a very interesting debate to follow, though it still seems to come down to what we accept as a definition of the term 'Christian work'. I agree so far with the arguments, though not on all occasions with the tone, of davem.

I have just a little to add to the side issues of this discussion.


Some time ago Fea wrote

The problem with that idea is saying that I should be concerned with logic when making associations.

and Mansun agreed on this. On this background I'd like to add to

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

My point is that each individual reader will still find his or her own “meaning” within LotR. That’s fine by me and I am more than happy to listen to, and discuss, the opinions of others. Where a strong case is put forward for a particular “meaning” , for example on the basis of the text itself and/or extraneous material indicating authorial intention, I am generally quite happy to absorb it within my own understanding of the book, provided that it does not conflict with my own individual intepretation or even, occasionally, if it does - if it makes more sense within the context of my overall understanding of the book.

that the reader is not entirely free in his/her meaning of LotR or any book. A meaning or opinion needs to satisfy coherence and conclusiveness in order to not be, well, meaningless.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I would suggest that it is a basic premise of the book that it is “right” to treat Orcs without kindness or mercy

I would disagree on this on the basis of Gandalf's words to Denethor: "As for me, I pity even his slaves"
It is not absolutely clear who he refers to with 'slaves'. I picture all the tiny, miserable snagas, but it could well also only refer to the men under Sauron's knout.
If we agree on the former, then orcs are to be pitied - at least in theory.

[davem]

Ok, so I got dragged back in...

As far as I'm aware Tolkien hardly ever at made any one-to one connections between his fictional world & the Bible, merely stating on various occasions that something in his writings was 'like' a Biblical event, or in his opinion 'played out' a certain Christian truth (he did refer to Satan as Sauron occasionally, so it seems the two were interchangeable in his mind. As were Orcs & men with chainsaws - personally I think both analogies are flawed & certainly don't stand up to scrutiny). Certainly he was pleased when correspondents drew analogies with Christianity, but one suspects that was because so many readers & critics denied there was any Christian meaning there at all.

Out of respect for the author I think we should refrain from stating 'what Tolkien believed' about this or that. He rejected any allegorical interpretation, & only reluctantly accepted applicability because it was inevitable readers would find their own meanings & interpret the work in their own way. The repeated pleas on his part for people not to interpret the thing, or allegorise it in any way were perfectly understandable in that he did not want a particular interpretation or 'meaning' to be imposed on it, & he himself to be held responsible for a particular 'teaching' or ideological stance. I suspect he would have been appalled by all the books & essays out there which purport to reveal the truth behind LotR.

Now, as someone who is open to the possibility of 'Truth' & suspects that Tolkien was perfectly correct when he agreed that he had 'broken through the veil' I have no problem at all with the idea that a work like LotR can give us a glimpse of something 'more' (or even 'Something More'). Where I get irritated is when people start telling me exactly what that something more is, & that the key to understanding LotR is to read the Bible (or the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita, etc, etc).

Originally Posted by Macalure

I agree so far with the arguments, though not on all occasions with the tone, of davem.

'He only does it to annoy
Because he knows it teases'
Lewis Carroll

[Raynor]

Who is to say what are the necessary elements of a story in order to be Christian? Why isn't the intent and the general impression sufficient?

Let's take a zen koan (esspecially one with no significant relevance to oriental geography, culture or religion). Now, we may view this as just another fine story; we may even laugh, I know I did several good times. Now if we know the source and intent of these stories, does anyone have any problem to call them zen stories, even though they may be understood in an infinite number of ways? Even if they may have some (excuse me) lower function, such as to teach, perhaps, morality, good manners, or maybe even to relax, isn't their purpose, actually, to link back to the [zen/buddhist] Truth? Why do we have problems then with Tolkien's work, if, just the same, we know the source, the intent, and the best possible destination to which the author wishes us the story takes us?

If someone wants to convey a message and we understand something else, isn't this understanding, irregardless of how coherent, in fact, an error of communication? How could such an understanding be the prevalent one? Maybe the "tools" used, maybe the "environment" in which we perceived the messaged have distort it. For all of us who admire this work, can Tolkien make an excellent work, and still transmit the wrong message, not the one he intended? Can he be gloriously wrong?

[narfforc]

There is nothing uniquely Christian in LotR, and furthermore I believe there is nothing unique in the bible. Other religions/cult/sects have all the same stories but with different names. The Creation, Virgin Birth, Ressurection, Miracles, Demons and lots of old wise men with white beards, occur all over the Religiuos/Mythologies. Being the Son of a God is also widespread. Good fighting Evil is not a Christian monopoly. Pointing to LotR and saying: This is a Christian work is wrong, what it does have are principles portrayed in the bible, and those very same principles occur in other religions. I am not religious, I do not need a book or Ten Commandments to tell me how to be a good person, I am one, and I have hundreds of commandments of my own. What I read in LotR is Good fighting Evil, and that is mirrored in all sorts of things non-religious. Gandalf fighting The Balrog in Moria smacks of Frey fighting Surt at Ragnorak, Shadowfax compares to Skinfaxi, now the Vikings would be really upset by people calling LotR Christian. I agree that as Tolkien was a Christian some of his beliefs have filtered into the book, however because he was Christian does not make him holier than the next guy, if I had wrote the book and said the same things, how could you then call it a Christian work.

[Boromir88]

This has turned into yet another Canonicity argument.

Sorry if you've missed the point of my last post.

It is not an argument about who knows more about Middle-earth, the creator or the audience?

Oh, but that's what it appears the argument was all about. Should we accept what Tolkien interpretted and intended for his own books, or should the readers freely apply their own meanings even if it is in contradiction to what Tolkien 'intended?' That has been the whole argument since post number 2 it seems.

It very much so centers around the author's intent vs. the reader's freedom. Did the author want to make this a Christian work or didn't he? And if he did, should the reader accept and agree with this interpretation? What makes a Christian Work?

I'm pointing out that all though what Tolkien had 'intended' for his stories may not be taken as authoritative. His purpose should not be utterly cast aside because the reader chooses to believe whatever he feels like. If Tolkien comes out and tells us certain instances which have a religious element, and religion is within the symbolism of Middle-earth, than it's the reader who must accept that Tolkien was trying to say something, and not just throw it off to the side.

If Tolkien comes out and says that a particular moment in his books was like a scene from the Bible, than his meaning should not be cast off as foolishness. The reader may not see it the same way as Tolkien, but I think the reader must accept what the author had wanted to portray, and his intentions should not be thrown out the door.

Where I get irritated is when people start telling me exactly what that something more is, & that the key to understanding LotR is to read the Bible

That is simply what I've been trying to argue all along. I don't think we can just toss out and ignore religion (specifically a Christian one), because it was something that was important to the author of the story. And something that can be found in the story. It's perfectly ok for the reader not to see eye to eye with Tolkien, or agree with what he thought about after writing the stories, but he should not be forgotten. The author is also an important factor in the story, like cooks are when making food. What they use, and why they use it, because there is a purpose for each item, should not be ignored.

It was not the author's purpose to dominate over his readers and say 'this is how it is.' But, the reason for creating the stories, and the purpose behind it (whether there's a christian one or not, I don't know) should not be ignored because the reader chooses to.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

On this background I'd like to add to ... that the reader is not entirely free in his/her meaning of LotR or any book. A meaning or opinion needs to satisfy coherence and conclusiveness in order to not be, well, meaningless.

Of course the reader is entirely free in his meaning of the book. Whether he will find anyone that agrees with him is another matter. If someone seeks to assert that LotR is all about a rebellion by the evil Free Peoples of the West against a good Sauron, then he is entirely free to do so. If he genuinely believes that, then it is the "right" meaning for him. But most of us would disagree, on the basis that we are heavily influenced by the meaning that the author intended to convey (and so the words, imagery etc that he chose).

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I would disagree on this on the basis of Gandalf's words to Denethor: "As for me, I pity even his slaves"

Whatever individual characters may have said, there is not one example of Orcs being shown pity or mercy, in contrast to the Haradrim and the Dunlandings. The closest we get to an approximation of sympathy for Orcs is in the individual characterisations, such as Ugluk, Shagrat and Gorbag. We can possibly understand their desires and motivations here, even if we do not agree with them. But, in essence, Orcs are there to serve evil and be slaughtered by the "good guys". Treecutters, bikers, and even thugs and criminals in the real world are a different kettle of fish entirely.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

It was not the author's purpose to dominate over his readers and say 'this is how it is.' But, the reason for creating the stories, and the purpose behind it (whether there's a christian one or not, I don't know) should not be ignored because the reader chooses to.

Why not? Most of us pay great heed to what the author intended through our reading of the words on the page and our interpretation of them. We accept the events portrayed, the descriptions, the motivations of the characters as depicted because of our mutual understanding and acceptance of the language Tolkien used and the manner in which this is to be interpreted (although, even there, there is scope for differing interpretation). But why should we accept that LotR is a Christian work just because the author tells us it is (if indeed that is what he has told us) if it is not necessary for our appreciation of the story? And, if you were to tell me that it is necessary to my appreciation of the story, I would reply that, as far as I am concerned, it is not.