Posted on 12/17/2007 11:09:50 AM PST by Greg F
I watched the movie versions of Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings" over the last three days and tried to sort out the symbolism in Christian terms. Here's what I came up with, would love the insights of any regarding.
Hobbits: Your home and hearth Christians. Humble and happy, not seeking power and acclaim to the same extent as others, perhaps, and content with small things.
Elves: Angels. They are superhuman in their understanding and abilities and they can choose to leave middle earth unlike the other races.
Orcs: Demons. They are a race of elves abused, corrupted and changed by Sauron.
Men: Men.
Dwarves: ?
Sauron: Satan.
Gandolf: The Holy Spirit (?). Gandolf can be seen as a Christ figure, but most often he is advising men, hobbits and elves, and acting through them. That said, he does act directly as well, and at the end of the movie he sails away with the elves (does this end correspond to the book?). If he were a Christ figure I think his actions would be much more definitive. He would be the actor that saves and no army would stand before him.
The Ghost Army: Tolkien was a Catholic. Souls in purgatory given a chance at redemption.
The Ring of Power: Temptation. Only the humble Christian (Hobbit) can withstand the temptation. The lords and kings cannot.
Awfully hard to resist a bigoted shot isn’t it.
Check out these series of lectures by Joseph Pearce on Tolkien and LOTR?
They are really excellent with tons of information on Tolkien and his viewing of his work as a fundamentally Catholic work and the deep symbolism throughout.
http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/gheens/Lecture%201_Pearce.mp3
http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/gheens/Lecture%202_Pearce.mp3
http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/gheens/Lecture%203.1_Forum.mp3
http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/gheens/Lecture%203.2_Forum.mp3
These Pearce lectures were given at a Baptist Seminary on Tolkien and his Catholicism.
I recently read “Tolkoien: A Celebration” and many said much the same as Lewis. And yet, given Tokien’s wonderfully profound orthodoxy to the Faith, the myth is, from a Catholic perspective, really mystical in a theological sense of the word. Like parables, there is so much to be learned from Tolkien’s masterpiece; but unlike the parables, I’m not sure that Tolkien foresaw all that could be learned-—and yet that was his genius in letting us years later continue to enjoy his works. Through the movie he taught Catholicism to so many, without them even knowing it :).
I remember some old man in the woods that got a slight mention in the trilogy, but it’s been decades since I read the books.
Tom Bombadil, but it seems unlikely that he would be Iluvatar. I like to think that he is Tolkien himself, and Goldberry is his wife.
Tom Bombadil, but it seems unlikely that he would be Iluvatar. I like to think that he is Tolkien himself, and Goldberry is his wife.
If Tolkien, we're talking a whole nother kind of creator, are we not?
That’s a real good point about Tolkien. When someone why he asked why a man of his stature (he was one of the best linguist of the twentieth century) wasted time with all of these “fairy stories”, he responded, “Because I was made in the image of God”
He truly believed that God created us in his own image, and that meant that mankind had all the aspects of God built into him. One of those aspect is “Creator”. So Tolkien viewed fiction, world building, invention, myth making, fairy stories, etc. as expressions of the “Creator” in all of us. Man was driven to create, because the Creator made us in his own image.
Interesting aspect of Tolkien’s beliefs & the works it motivated him to write.
But Frodo succumbed to temptation, as all Christians do. Were we able to resist temptation, then Christ would not have needed to come into this world to rescue us from sin.
Well, you can certainly read the story in that way if you choose to. Tolkien left the reader free to interpret as it pleases. As he said in the preface to the second edition:
The Lord of the Rings has been read by man people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them...As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots and threw out unexpected branches...I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. 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.
An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous. It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences.I put the sections I thought relevant in bold. Tolkien left the reader and critic free to interpret the tale as they please. However, if the tale is mystical for you, then the mystical is unknowable and incomprehensible by definition. What we do know is the wonderful story Tolkien wrote. He created a great work of the imagination.
PING.
Ecclesiastes
OR, THE PREACHER
All Is Vanity
1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
3 What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun?
4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full: unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
8 All things are full of labor; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
Thank you for the link.
Thanks for the links; I’ll watch them later.
Amen.
Actually as i stated many of the academics in Tolkien—A Celebration read the book that way. Indeed, that reading is not inconsistent at all with what they have to say about the subject. The book could not have been written in the way it was without that Tolkien’s Catholic perspective. But thank you for your license to read it as others have :) Oh -—see eg Sean McGrath, The Passion According to Tolkien.
I quoted what Tokien said himself:
the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous.You are making "guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous". The license you talk about is exactly the freedom that Tokien meant to give to the reader of his work. You are quite welcome to think you know more about Tolkien's intentions and motivation than he did. But I see a lot of literary criticism like that coming out of academy today. The idea is that the author really didn't know what he was talking about when he spoke about his own work. But we in the early 21st century know all about psychological reductionism, so all we have to do is find the authors political party, religion, social conditions, etc., and then we interpret the work in those terms, as if the author were only a passive conduit pipe of forces beyond himself. This sort of quellenforschung has become the stalest of cliches. I find little of this approach convincing, but rather an indulgence in self-flattery.
Actually, the “literary criticisms” referenced by you are not from “today” but many are from his contemporaries. I too have read what you quoted and see no contradiction to what his contemporaries have commented upon or what i have said. Again, the main point of his contemporaries is that it is the work of a Catholic perspective-—that perspective btw is not a matter of “guesswork” as you have posited-—indeed, it is for certain. Other than that point, your comments about “reductionism” (psychological, political party, etc) are misplaced for you are not addressing the very simple point which many have made. Again, thank you for allowing me my “license” but others obviously more qualified than i have already taken such license to understand the Catholic perspective of Tolkien.
I quoted Tolkien himself. Let me quote Tolkien again, and this comes from his preface to The Lord of the Rings:
the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous.What do you not understand about the words "inadequate" and "ambiguous"?
Tolkien makes the point specifically about the difference between allegory and myth. Again this is what Tolkien said, again in the preface to the The Lord of the Rings:
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots and threw out unexpected branches...I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. 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.What is it you do not understand about the words "none", "freedon", and "domination"? Tolkien states very clearly that he is not imposing any meaning on the story, and he specifically wrote a myth, not allegory, so that the reader is free to interpret as that reader wants.
You claim to know exactly what Tolkien's meaning was. Please produce a specific quote from Tolkien.
Such hostility in your churlish and pendantic challenge. I am not defining “process” nor are my citations...they looked at perspective, not process...are you truly that dense. Furthermore, Tolkien’s dislike of allegory is precisely my point and others-—it narrows a message-—that is a message he leaves the reader to explore and to discern what one might get out of it. That the work is explicitly Catholic is not in dispute—except by you. Finally, you set up straw men and beat the puss out of them. I never anything about knowing exactly his meaning-—but it does have meaning—which is the very fun of his work.
Again, as Tolkien says he dislikes allegory because it gives the story his intent he then says, if you would for goodness sake read more carefully what he and i are saying—”I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers.” He wants the reader to explore his mythology, even as feigned history-—and for your pride that history is biblical in part. Yet in your earlier silly post you claim that if a reader does what Tolkien insists he do, then that is reductionism. Give it a rest or give it a read but you need not be so pompous over something the author told me to enjoy as i see fit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.