Posted on 12/17/2007 11:09:50 AM PST by Greg F
Where does Tolkien say that The Lord of the Rings is an explicitly Catholic work? You make a claim, but you offer no support for the claim. Please supply a quote from Tolkien where he says the work is explicitly Catholic.
I never anything about knowing exactly his meaning
You said the work is explicitly Catholic and that is not in dispute. It most certainly is in dispute. Please supply a quote from Tolkien to support your claim.
He wants the reader to explore his mythology, even as feigned history-—and for your pride that history is biblical in part.
For my pride that history is biblical in part? Are you saying that feigned history is biblical? If you are saying it is biblical, then you are reducing the story to allegory. Where does Tolkien say that his feigned history is biblical?
Yet in your earlier silly post you claim that if a reader does what Tolkien insists he do, then that is reductionism.
No, that isn't what I said at all. I said that if you reduce the meaning of an author's story to the author's political party or religion or social conditions, you are using psychological reductionism to find the meaning of the story. The object of this method is to find the "true" or the "real" meaning. I maintain that using that method to claim a true meaning, for example that the work is "explicity Catholic" because Tolkien was Catholic, is to misunderstand Tolkien's story and his intention. That is why he addresses the issue in the introduction with these word:
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.Simply because Tolkien was Catholic, it does not follow that the work is explicitly Catholic. And again from the introduction by Tolkien:
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none.Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is not an explicitly Catholic work. As myth, it is open to many interpretations.
I realized something when your first replied...I’m really dealing with a reading disability on your part. I don’t mean to make it personal but this must be truly a part of something so deeply ensconsed in your psyche that this is hopeless. At first you say i engage in reductionism, and now you say that there is nothing explicitly Catholic in Tolkien’s wonderful story. Both cannot be true as Catholicism is Truth and reductionism is...well let’s use your view as an example. You are engaging in a far more insidious form of reductionism, reducing what is to what you insist it to be in your likeness...but Tokien, as i have said, gave you that right and so striker enjoy yourself immensely in your circular responses. Perhaps, as much as Tolkien is Catholic and as he has said a “good story is about Truth” (capitalized in the original), you on the other side of the spectrum resent the possibility of his perspective and resent Truth. And, yet, perhaps there is hope for you have at least found the word reductionism, but have simply misapplied it.
“Then the prophecies of the old songs have turned out to be true, after a fasion?” said Bilbo.
“of course?” said Gandalf. “And why should not they prove true” Surely you don’t disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself...”
My dear stripes...here’s my prophecy for your next response-—you just flat out don’t get it. But, such is the license Tolkien gave you. He’s a genius. Btw—and back to your reading challenges-—I gave you two sources already...you go look it up whatever reductionism you wish to fabricate and knock down, i’m sure others can supply you with something more-—beating up straw men is exhausting work. Nothing i say will be meaningful to you, not my sources and not my simple (and licensed :) ) understanding of Tolkien. And so my good stripes, i bid you to go beat the hell out of another straw man—i feel beaten by your overwhelming reductionisms (if it’s not a word Tolkien my approve of its linguistic orginality—don’t you think striper). There are many to be found in your supercilious posts. And in the mood of the season...you win Striper whatever point you wish to make. :)
A rambling and desultory response makes it very difficult to find a cogent argument. So let me repeat, as Tolkien explains in the introduction to his story, he gave every reader the freedom to interpret The Lord of the Rings as that reader saw fit. But the story is not a Catholic story per se. It is only a Catholic story if a reader chooses to make it one. And that is the difference between myth and allegory. If the story were allegory, then it would reduce to some one meaning, for example "a Catholic story". But it isn't allegory. The story is myth. It means whatever the reader brings to it. That is the nature of myth, and that is what Tolkien wrote.
Stripes you don’t disappoint...the prophecy came true :). You’ve gone from “reductionism” to “well maybe it’s a Catholic story if the reader chooses”. Good for you stripes. First, if you would read carefully you’d avoid the taste of leather-—I said the book has a Catholic perspective.
In the spirit of the season stripes, I’ll cede to you the ground you so desperately wish to occupy. You now have the lonely desolate desert of whathever your argument du jour is. And here’s your silly and untenable position:
That Tolkien, a devout and orthodox Catholic for whom the Blessed Sacrament was very much at the heart of his devotional life, who practiced a deep veneration of the Blessed Mother, who fought and survived the Great War, who was a member of the Christian literary revival and of the “inklings”, and whose view of his Catholic/Christian morality is predominant in his writings, is the ground you have won and can now defend all your days as you reside in blissful ignorance. Thus, stipes (as prophesized), you have gone full circle to your original accusation of reductionism—your own reductionism. So to you Tokien’s masterpiece could have been written by a buddhist...you have now engaged in existentialist blather.
Finally, let me once again, in the spirit of the season, attempt to teach you something and to ask you to listen to something other than your own ignorance or anti-catholic slant of life-—I’ll tease you again with Tolkien’s own words as written to a priest friend of his:
“Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision...For the religious elelment is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”
Stipes, you don’t even have a fundamental understanding of key terms in this exchange such as perspective, symbolism, allegory, etc. When you again respond, pardon my delay until after Christmas. I would cite the critical works such as “The Passion according to Tolkien” but part of your resistance to learning is your resistance to the notion of Tolkien’s Catholicism or perhaps a resistance to me personally. You are fortunate not to be graded. :) Take care and talk later.
Tolkien specifically rejected all analogies to his work. I believe that is a wise course to take w/ his fiction.
I learned a lot from the comments on this thread so I think it was a worthwhile thing to post my view of the symbolism. Tolkein rejected analogy, but someone said that he preferred to work at the level of “myth” which he viewed as more powerful and interesting (and given the success of his work and it’s longetivity I’d say he picked better than the rickety artificial constructions of other authors . . . “Moby Dick” seems to work the same way).
You can give the story any perspective you want according to what you bring to the story. That is exactly what Tolkien said. He made a distinction between allogory and myth. You are confusing the two.
And here’s your silly and untenable position:
That is not a valid argument. You are once again engaging in a fallacy. You do not have a valid argument.
your own ignorance or anti-catholic slant of life
Once again, you are engaging in a fallacy. Name-calling is not a valid argument.
So to you Tokien’s masterpiece could have been written by a buddhist...you have now engaged in existentialist blather.
Once again you are engaging in a fallacy.
part of your resistance to learning is your resistance to the notion of Tolkien’s Catholicism or perhaps a resistance to me personally.
I have gone out of my way to quote Tolkien himself about the way to approach his story. All you have is the opinion of other people about Tolkien. I have asked you quote Tolkien himself about the meaning of his story. But you have not done so.
If you can respond with a valid argument, well reasoned and without fallacies, without name-calling, then please do so.
Stripes-—you’re pulling my leg i hope. I gave you Tolkien’s own words and i’ll repeat them again: “Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision...For the religious elelment is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”
Stipes, would it be name calling or fallacy to observe if your anti-catholicism poisoned your lenses. But, i’ll leave you more from our shared acquantence with this cherished author—in his words of course, not that you could be bothered by that :)
In responding to a point by one such as you stripes who suggest to Tolkien that myths, though beautiful, are ultimately just lies, JRRT said: “Not merely the abstract thoughts of man but also his imaginative inventions must originate with God, and in consequence reflect something of eternal truth. In making a myth, in practising ‘mythopoeia’ and peopling the world with elves and dragons and goblins, a story-teller...is actually fulfilling God’s purpose, and reflecting a splintered fragment of the the true light.”
I know stripes your response to JRRT will be “fallacy” and reductionism. But that is the genius of JRRT—that even those set about to destroy Truth, like Hollywood and yourself, served Truth by enjoying JRRT’s wonderful masterpiece about good and evil, morality, hope, faith and self sacrifice. As i look back on your posts however i have become suspicious that you have watched the movie and have never read the book, much like you have never read my responses to you. I’m afraid then that JRRT’s own words will have no passion for you. Best of fallacies to you striper.
And what is the source? In what work, or essay did Tolkien say that? It certainly contradicts what he says in the introduction to the second edition. That is what I quoted already. From what work, essay, or article did Tolkien write the words you quoted?
Stipes, would it be name calling or fallacy to observe if your anti-catholicism poisoned your lenses. But, i’ll leave you more from our shared acquantence with this cherished author—in his words of course, not that you could be bothered by that :)
Yes, that most certainly is a fallacy. You are misrepresenting my argument because you are letting you emotions overtake your reason. I quoted Tolkien from the introduction of the second edition. You can easily verify the quote yourself. If the quote you cite is indeed from Tolkien's pen, then he didn't write mythology, but rather allegory. That clear distinction between the two is exactly what my posts are about. And because I my argument makes that clear distinction, you react as if I am attacking your religion. Please, lets have more reason and less emotion.
. As i look back on your posts however i have become suspicious that you have watched the movie and have never read the book
Yes, I have read the book. That is where my quotes come from, the introduction of the second edition. I have read the Hobbit as well. I also have a glossory of Middle English that Tolkien compiled. It comes in very handy when reading works in Middle English. I have also read Humphrey Carpenter's biography of Tolkien.
I would like to know the name of the work you quote from.
. I’m afraid then that JRRT’s own words will have no passion for you. Best of fallacies to you striper.
I quoted Tolkien's words from the introduction. Here is what Tolkien says in that introduction about his story:
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none.I am taking Tolkien at his word. If he has contracted himself in another essay, then let's acknowledge the contradiction. And yes, I am familiar with Tolkien's idea of works of the imagination as subcreation. But that applies to all works of the imagination, including the Iliad and the Aeneid and the Edda, those Old Norse poems that Tolkien was so fond of.
What I am asking for is the source of your quotes, that is the name of the article, essay, or book.
Stripes-—you are entertaining. You have gone from accusing many of the posts of “reductionism”, to your own weird and estranged reductionism, to your own stamp of existentialism, to maybe Tolkien is Catholic and proud of it, to maybe it could be read from a Catholic perspective, to show me the source of anything i have said (even though i have cited sources as have many other posts), to even accusing me of a fallacy when simply re-stating what you have said, to your own delightful semantic and sylogistic logjam.
So, you now insist on a source when i have given you a quote...i’ve given cites to you in earlier posts as have several others it appears so let’s not be lazy here striper and do some homework besides repeating yourself. Besides, as evidence by your lack of reading anything carefully which i have said or cited, what good is a source to you. See, your bias doesn’t allow you to read carefully even as to that which you have quoted and highlighted. You read but do not comprehend.
As i said, rather as he said-—you could read it as you wish unhampered by allegory or author intent...and that you have done. That does not change the Catholic perspective of the author or the perspective of the mythology of the book, it simply gives you the liberty to “reduce” its meaning to your naive existential comprehension-—sort of like putting LOTR on a par with Star Trek. You have exercised that license ceaselessly (which i don’t mind) and you seem embittered that i exercise my license in the fullest sense of mythology—to help recognize in the story the Truth.
JRRT states that his intent is not to provide you with the meaning because to do so would be to do what he despises-—write an allegory. He hopes, and in your case must cease to hope, that the myth is recognized as a story of Truth and virtue, of good and evil-—and in that sense it is a true story not allegorical. You learn from a good teacher that which is the subject of his teaching and not necessarily what the teacher interprets about the subject. JRRT is a good teacher for most. So enjoy the book you claim to have read and disregard the subject of the mythology as you insist on doing. I am not trying to persuade you otherwise.
“I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament. There you will find romance, glory, honor, fidelity, and the true wau of all your loves on earth and more that that.” JRRT
I know-—you want a source for that too Striper :)
That is correct. If you are quoting, I need a source.
But stripers you don’t deserve a source. You haven’t read the sources i have given you and besides your resentment has now descended into challenging my credibility-—that is a sure symptom of a recognition by you of your own, dare i say, “fallacy” :). So you’ve gone from accusations of reductionism, to self proclaimed existentialism, to self contradictions and now, the last vestige for your state of denial, accusing me of making up quotes. To that stripers it’s best to simply cut you off. If you are interested, i’ve given you ample sources or, you can be a better student and do your own homework :). Otherwise, stripers i consider my time wasted in giving you homework you won’t do and sources you won’t read. Besides, consider this a favor for you-—you can now occupy in peace that desert high ground i gave you for Christmas a few posts back, and claim your victory (that “victory” Tolkien also gave you when he allowed you to interpret LOTR as nothing more than a star trek adventure) by pointing out that i refused to give you a source or two. That should about wrap things up on this subject don’t you think...or should i make another prophecy :). It’s been interesting stripers, real interesting....
Thank you for the source. That is what I have been asking for. This manifestly contradicts his quote in the introduction to the second edition. He wouldn't be the first writer to contradict himself. If this quote about "a Catholic work" is Tolkien's final opinion, then I can only conclude that the work is allegory by the intention of the author and not myth after all. "A fundamentally religious and Catholic work" (from the letter) cannot be a work which has no "inner meaning or 'message'". (from the introduction).
Yes, it is a good idea to read the letters. He wrote that letter in 1953 (according to your citation), and the first volume of his story (The Fellowship of the Ring) came out in 1954, with the other two volumes following within two years. So the revising he is talking about in the letter was done for the first edition.
But some publisher in the United States put out an unauthorized edition for which Tolkien got no royalties. So he did another revision for a second edition. He also wrote a new foreward. That second addition came out in 1965 or 1966. The quote I cited is from the revised second addition, at least 12 years after the letter. Did Tolkien change his mind about the story after 12 years? Did it take him 12 years more to come to a new realization that the story had no inner message at all? Which is his final opinion on the nature of his story? It is also human to contradict yourself.
You won’t find the way out of your self imposed limitation of the mythology by accusing Tolkien of inconsistency...though in all seriousness it is a worthwhile endeavor to acquire and read the letters. I have read some and they are endearing and humanizing— so enjoy. The problem is that you chose in your early post to highlight and subtract the total of what JRRT said about his work. JRRT despised allegory. The myth is its own reality about truth, much like a parable-—it presents a metaphysical reality. The myth according to Tolkien need not ascribe any meaning of the author for it possesses its own meaning(s) for you to glean. In a 1958 letter JRRT said: “Theologically (if the term in not too grandiose) I imagine the picture [of reality in Middle-earth] to be less dissonant from what some (including myself) believe to be the truth. But since I have deliberately written a tale, which is built on or out of certain ‘religious’ ideas, but is not an allegory of them (or anything else), and does not mention them overtly, still less preach them, I will not now depart from that mode, and venture on theological disquisition for which I am not fitted.” LOTR is simply “consonant with his vision of reality in Christianity.”
And since you ignore the “applicabilty” (JRRT’s word) of the myth, a Tolkien literary scholar, (an interview of Joseph Pearce—who you have indirectly labeled as engaging in “reductionism”) provides you with the explanation of what you now address as a contradiction by JRRT. Please read the pertinent part of this interview carefully. In so doing, then read the letters you requested at the library and you will enjoy them all the more instead of reading them to seek justification for your contention that now JRRT is contradicting himself. Here follows:
Pearce:...Tolkien insisted that the fact that he was “a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic,” was the most important and “really significant” element in his work.
Q: There have been criticisms of some fantasy stories because of their allegedly pagan orientation. Do you see Tolkien´s works as being part of this genre or is it different?
Pearce: Tolkien spoke of myths and fairy stories, rather than “fantasy.” He was a lifelong practicing, and very devout, Catholic who believed that mythology was a means of conveying certain transcendent truths which are almost inexpressible within the factual confines of a “realistic” novel.
In order to understand Tolkien´s “philosophy of myth” it is useful to commence with a maxim of G.K. Chesterton: “not facts first, truth first.” Tolkien and Chesterton were both intent on differentiating between facts, which are purely physical, and truth, which is metaphysical.
Thus a myth or a fairy story can convey love and hate, selfishness and self-sacrifice, loyalty and betrayal, good and evil — all of which are metaphysical realities, that is, true, even if conveyed in a mythological or fairyland setting.
There is no need for Christians to worry about the role of “story” as a conveyer of truth. After all, Christ was the greatest storyteller of all. His parables might not be factual but they are always truthful.
Take, for instance, the parable of the prodigal son. Probably, Christ was not referring to one particular son, nor one particular forgiving father, nor one particular envious brother. The power of the story does not reside in its being factual but in its being truthful.
It doesn´t matter that the prodigal son might never have existed as an actual person; he exists in each of us. We are all, at one time or another, a prodigal son, a forgiving father or an envious brother. It is “applicable” to all of us. It is the story´s truth, not its facts, that matter.
This was Tolkien´s point. Furthermore, there is more truth in “The Lord of the Rings” than in many examples of fictional realism....
Q: Do you think this was Tolkien´s intention?
Pearce: There is no doubt that “The Lord of the Rings” is a profoundly Christian myth, but that is not the same as saying that it is an allegory.
Tolkien disliked allegory because he saw it as a rather crude literary form. In an allegory, the writer begins with the point he wishes to make and then makes up a story to make his point. The story is really little more than a means of illustrating the moral.
Tolkien believed that a myth should not be allegorical but that it should be “applicable.” In other words, the truth that emerges in the story can be applied to the truth that emerges in life.
There is, therefore, a good deal of truth in “The Lord of the Rings” even though its author never set out intentionally to introduce it allegorically. This is, perhaps, a subtle distinction but one which Tolkien believed was important.
Let me clarify. I am not reading the letters. sandyeggo is reading them. It seems that is the person who first posted the quote from the letter.
Again, my argument concerns the difference between allegory and myth. As to the total of what JRRT said, I quoted from his introduction to the LOTR. Whatever else he said about that work, certainly the introduction is relevant. That is what most people will read, and it is the most readily available summary in his own words. He says not one word about religion or Catholic or Christian in that introduction.
It is very interesting how other people interpret Tokien, but I quoted what Tolkien himself said. Here is what Tolkien says in the introduction:
The Lord of the Rings has been read by many 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 motive and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his had at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply more them...
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical...
But 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.The Dark Lord Sauron forged one Ring of power to bind them all. Some readers of LOTR would prefer to impose one interpretation on all other readers. Tolkien, whatever his personal convictions, was extremely generours and magnanimous to give the reader his freedom to interpret the story according to that reader's own key, rather than dominate and bind the reader with one ring of meaning. I think that generosity is the mark of a truly great author.
stripes—i respond for the sake of clarification. You have restated your “argument” as a search for your understanding of allegory versus myth. Enjoy your quest, though it should not take long...at least for most folks. In the meantime, your original ridiculous comment which lead to my several in vain responses to cure your ills was that the observation (made by several including JRRT) that LOTR was written by a Catholic with a Catholic perspective was “reductionism”. You then followed up with several differentiations on that original silliness. Now, you commend JRRT for his generosity in allowing you your very own interpretation. And, as i and many other commentators cited for your benefit have said, JRRT allows you to read LOTR for the pure literary event it is, or for the shallow interpretations you insist on giving it but which you insist others must give it. Repeatedly i have said to you, that is your right. One of many reminders— “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.’” But you keep searching for JRRT’s differentiation of myth and allegory and -—I’m sure JRRT is smiling at your most “magnanimous” recognition of the license of interpretation you choose. He is a great author (as i told you earlier and for the same reason you stated)-—you should try giving him tribute and perhaps reading it from a Christian perspective of your choice just for shucks and grins. Let me know striper when you figure out what your newest and latest argument is on this allegory and myth digression. talk later
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.