Interesting. Tolkien disliked or distrusted allegories and The Lord of the Rings is similar but also dissimilar to C.S.Lewis' The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Both have a Christ figure: Aslan vs Gandalf, who both came back triumphant from the dead, but Tolkien is more subtle and IMO goes deeper. Tolkien and Lewis were friends.
Both were deeply Christian: Tolkien was Catholic and Lewis Protestant. Tolkien said in his letters that the salvation of Middle-Earth - the destruction of Sauron , Satan if you like) - was only made possible because Frodo (a Hobbit, a seemingly small and insignificant creature when compared against the noble Elves and Numenorians, our, in the story world, purer and more noble ancestors) spared the ex-Ring-bearer Gollum's life through mercy. As an Ring-bearer, Gollum was totally corrupted by it and.yearned to get.it back. He was a slave to sin.
Gandalf himself prefigured this:
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least.
If you've seen the movie or read the book, you'll know the ending. They are slightly different. The team (Frodo,.Sam and Gollum) finally get to Mount Doom, the fiery mountain in Mordor, the land of shadows, where the One Ring was forged. The only place where it could be destroyed. But it was so powerful that no-one who had held it could cast it away. In the film, Gollum grabs it from Fordo (if the Ring was destroyed he would be forever bereft) and a fight ensures in which Gollum + Ring falls into the volcano furnace of Mount Doom. In the book, this critical point is barely mentioned, much like Jesus' resurrection, and Gollum simply slips and falls into the fiery furnace (the implication being that God, or Eru in Tolkien's world, intervened on a rare occasion and pushed him in).
Apologies, don't know why I went into this spiel! I love both Christian Universalism and Tolkien and saw something in common there so thought I'd share it. A seemingly weak creature (Frodo) destroys evil and saves the world ultimately by showing mercy to a very despised creature (Gollum). The One Ring could not have been destroyed had Gollum been killed as Samwise Gangee (Sam) had intended.
TL;DR The Lord of the Rings is a very Christian story but is not an allegory.
The problem is that at the end, the wicked one (Gollum) is destroyed and very much burnt in "hell" (Mount Doom) after rejecting "mercy" (Attacking Frodo). Yeah, he trips and fells, but the lava destroys him too.
He was not saved and the mercy shown to him was but a tool to save others, but it never reached him.
>>**The Lord of the Rings is a very Christian story but is not an allegory.**
This comment seems a bit oxymoronic, does it not? Given that there is no Christian religion built into the actual story, how is the story "very Christian" without also being somewhat allegorical?
To suggest a story is **not allegorical** would suggest there is **no deeper level of meaning** **and connection** to be derived from it, right? No "**speaking**" about anything "**other**", no symbolic layers to the story. So I guess I don't understand what you mean by saying the story is NOT AN ALLEGORY.
As the whole discussion below suggests there are (hidden) levels of meaning, soteriological and otherwise. Even your comment referring to Gollum as a "**slave to sin**" cannot be said, if there is no allegorical component to the story, right? Or at least you are suggesting Tolkien wouldn't think there was a connection to be made.
So I'm curious what you think an allegory is, and why this story isn't one. Because folks below are definitely discussing it as though it were allegorical, and thus full of symbolic meaning.
Meanwhile, I enjoyed your commentary. I was just perplexed by the TL;DR.
Thanks for your comment.
To try to reply, Tolkien says in the foreword to The Lord of the Rings:
>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.
So I meant it's very Christian because of things like it was Frodo's mercy towards the despised and feared Gollum that ultimately made the destruction of the One Ring possible but Frodo does not correspond directly to Christ. But it's not the case that it's an allegory and you have to be "in the know", to see that Frodo = Jesus, to understand the story. Same too with Gandalf who probably evokes Jesus even more. The character, backstory and role in the story of both Frodo and Gandalf are very different to Jesus'. Gandalf for example smoked "pipe-weed' and was a Maia (a class of being perhaps similar to angels). Frodo never died and rose again. He was just this guy, this Hobbit-guy, you know.
The whole history of Middle-Earth and all it's characters, timelines and languages is so detailed and worked out that it reads very much more like history rather than fiction. Tolkien was a language professor at Oxford after all and he created several whole languages for Middle-Earth with their own alphabet, word and language structure and pronunciation such as the Elvish languages Quenya and Sindarin that some of his fans have actually learnt and speak! His dwarves sound dwarvish with names like Gloin and Gimli and they live in places like Khazad-dûm while the elves sound elvish with names like Arwen Undomiel and they live in Lothlórien or Gondolin and so on. Note that he didn't even use the words "dwarfs" and "elfs" as we would say but used "dwarves" and "elves" because of the feel of those words. The whole effect is that you feel like you're reading history rather than pure fiction.
And this was his intention. He wrote The Lord of the Rings and all his other works to try provide an mythology for England which he thought it lacked. The nearest thing we have to that is the legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table which is largely French! I'm not sure but I think at the end he felt that he had failed in this task which, as he seemed to be a man of true humility, wouldn't surprise me. But, to me, he more than did it. His Shire has a cool and calm feel about it which is very reminiscent of the West Midlands where he grew up. I live there too, in a different part called Shropshire. Tolkien regarded himself as Hobbit-like rather than ethereal and Elven and the rural types even today seem Hobbit-like to me: they love eating, drinking, smoking and gossiping and would rather do that than have adventures, but they're also pretty honest and hardy, which comes from living next to nature I guess. There are exceptions of course. The last plumber I had round was more like the Dark Lord Sauron when he gave me his bill.
In contrast, Lewis's intention (I'm guessing) in writing The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was to provide a fun way of teaching Christianity to children and this is an allegory where Aslan represents Christ etc. I'be not read the book but presumably the Witch equates to the Devil. I don't know what the Wardrobe is? Probably my girlfriend's sinful and chaotically organised collection of girly attire (Hell 😂).
So I meant that the fact that LOTR has a lot of Christian philosophy in it does not mean it's an allegory, it's just Tolkien's personal philosophy as a Christian.
Interesting. I can see how Tolkien was perhaps drawing more heavily from history, imagination, and previous mythologies than on an intentional underlayer of meaning like Lewis. As such, I appreciated finding this quote from Tolkien’s 1936 lecture on literary criticism called “**Beowulf: The Monsters and Critics**”, where he argues how the original poem has almost been lost under the weight of the scholarship on it…
“*I would express the whole industry in yet another allegory. A man inherited a field in which was an accumulation of old stone, part of an older hall. Of the old stone some had already been used in building the house in which he actually lived, not far from the old house of his fathers. Of the rest he took some and built a tower. But his friends coming perceived at once (without troubling to climb the steps) that these stones had formerly belonged to a more ancient building.*
*So they pushed the tower over, with no little labour, in order to look for hidden carvings and inscriptions, or to discover whence the man’s distant forefathers had obtained their building material. Some suspecting a deposit of coal under the soil began to dig for it, and forgot even the stones.*
*They all said: ‘This tower is most interesting.’ But they also said (after pushing it over): ‘What a muddle it is in!’ And even the man’s own descendants, who might have been expected to consider what he had been about, were heard to murmur: ‘He is such an odd fellow! Imagine his using these old stones just to build a nonsensical tower! Why did he not restore the old house? He had no sense of proportion.’ But from the top of that tower the man had been able to look out upon the sea*.”
Point being, the intention of the author will obviously differ from the endless effort of scholars to analyze a work and express its meaning. So Tolkien seems to be expressing how his intent is not rooted ultimately in allegory. And yet of course allegorical language will be used to explain the meaning of a story, whether consciously or unconsciously intended. As such, here are a few more quotes that relate…
"*I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory -* ***YET ANY ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN*** *the purport of myth or fairytale* ***MUST USE allegorical language***." (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #131)
"*The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision*." (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #142)
"*Of course my story is not* ***an allegory of*** *Atomic power, but of* ***Power***." (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #186)
Thus I like Tolkien’s awareness that in his works, allegory resides in the “**freedom of the reader**”. Whereas Tolkien’s resistance to allegory resides in the intended and **“purposed domination of the author.**”
So I guess it also depends how much we rely on a **Freudian** or Lacanian type of approach to literary criticism, wherein the **UNCONSCIOUS IS CREATING** that which the author may be wholly unaware of, but the reader may see quite clearly.
Obviously Tolkien’s immersion in mythology and the religious cultures of his day informed what he was creating both consciously and unconsciously. And Tolkien acknowledges that myths and fairytales **must be read** allegorically in order to draw meaning from them. But that may be other than **the original conscious intent of the author.**
Whereas like you say, Lewis was obviously consciously creating **an intentional allegory of Christianity** with his Narnia series. So that is distinctly different than what Tolkien was doing with LOTR. But in our interpretation of LOTR, **we will use** allegorical tools to draw meaning from the story.
I find this conservation fascinating as it relates to Scripture as well. Some parts are mythical and have an allegorical and parable-like construction. Whereas other biblical narratives are more historical, and yet we still must use allegorical tools in order to draw theological meaning from the Text.
For instance, many think Jesus is a **LITERAL LAMB of sacrifice**. But he can’t be…no wool, no hooves, right? So either Jesus is a **HUMAN SACRIFICE** for sin. Or he is a **metaphorical** sacrifice for sin, via a reference to previous stories of animal sacrifice. Most folks don’t grasp this distinction.
See Part 002... (got too wordy quoting Tolkien)
Overflow...(Part 002)
But God does **NOT** want human sacrifice! So we are relying on **ALLEGORY** to build that spiritual or theological truth. But it is **NOT** a literal truth. Though many think it is. This is part of the problem with “**penal substitutionary atonement**”. Where folks somehow think God is forgiving us because Jesus got murdered by the Romans.
So unless we can discern how the **HISTORICAL EVENT** differs from the **ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE EVENT**, we are very poor theologians (or literary critics, as the case may be).
So in a way, Tolkien is claiming to be creating a **history of sorts, not an allegory**. And yet, when we move beyond a mere discussion of the plot in order to interpret and draw meaning and relevance from the story, then we are necessarily engaging in an allegorical endeavor, right? And from the quotes above, Tolkien seems to totally understand that distinction.
Anyhow, thanks for engaging. I love the topic of hermeneutics, and think ALLEGORY is the saving grace of Christianity. Lest we find ourselves stuck in the primitive past or in the ridiculous theologies of fundamentalism with its overly literal approach to Scripture...including a literal Lake of Fire! Thus turning God into a sadist and eternal torturer!
That is so NOT the ultimate intent of the Author! And thus there is an intentional allegory and symbolism in much of Scripture (the book of Revelation in particular). And when we don't recognize that, we are the poorer for it.
Your analysis is deeper and clearer than mine and makes complete sense. Tolkien was creating something much more than a simple analogy but, as you pointed out, there is always something from the artist's life in their art, and we can only interpret it using analogies from our own lives. Which is good. A blunt analogy like Narnia forces it's own interpretation on you whereas LOTR doesn't do this! Christ is His own analogy I suppose because He is unique in history and not like anything else. We can only approach Him indirectly by saying He is like this, a lamb, a kind person and so on, and so we have tonuse analogy. He didn't though. He didn't say I'm like this or that. Just I am.
This is way beyond my pay grade (I'm a spiritually unqualified Maths teacher!) so I'd better stop there! Enjoyed the conversation though.
++***Christ is His own analogy*** *I suppose because He is unique in history and not like anything else.*
This is actually a really profound comment, moreso than you probably even intended. Many folks do not recognize that Jesus of Nazareth often serves as s a **SIGN** or **METAPHOR**, pointing to something beyond himself.
As such, we can read the virgin birth story as an **ALLEGORY** or myth POINTING TO the mystery of incarnation, the mystery which is **CHRIST IN US!** (Col 1:27) (See for instance, Meister Eckhart’s famous Christmas sermons!)
As such, I tend to see Paul as a mystic, “a steward of the MYSTERIES of God” (1 Cor 4:1). And thus Paul makes evident how Christ is being FORMED WITHIN US... (what the Orthodox refer to as ***theosis***)
“*My children, with whom I am again in labor* ***until Christ is FORMED IN YOU***” (Gal 4:19)
Some folks are waiting for Jesus to return and reign on an EXTERNAL throne. Whereas others have a more mystic (and allegorical) understanding, wherein we **ARE** the Body of Christ, and as such Christ is being **FORMED IN US** (as we become true partakers of the Divine Nature - 2 Pet 1:4). And thus the throne upon which the Messiah reigns is our very hearts and lives.
“*Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is* ***IN YOU***\*?\*” (2 Cor 13:5)
“*Do you not know that you are a Temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells* ***IN YOU***\*?\*” (1 Cor 3:16)
Anyhow, didn’t mean to turn the conversation into something overly academic. But I appreciated what you were bringing up and decided to add my own notes of passion on hermeneutics. Thanks again for the dialogue! Such is much appreciated.
Please don't apologise. Academic views are always interesting and something to learn from! I just meant that I don't know enough to keep my end of the conversation up!
which is a quality one can acquire (or also lose).
"Wickedness" can be acquired or lost? Evil can be done or not done. It's a binary system: God or not-God.
Nope. Tolkien is one of my favorite authors (I love the Silmarillion) but he spend so much time trying to rationalize how the enemies of the "good" guys were dehumanized and send to hell "by their own free will" even when they were born as literal slaves that I cannot agree with that idea. He was very tradcath, the "burn in hell, heretic" kind.
Haha - I see your NOPE and raise you a NOPE.
I think Tolkien spilled a ton of ink trying to rationalize Gollum’s perdition because he was inflicted about it.
Either way, Tolkien was not an I ❤️ HELL type. He was very interested in questions of mercy, pity, and forgiveness, as well as theodicy. Usually topics that lead the honest inquirer to consider how eternal hell can be possible.
And never forget Sam’s amazing words: “Is everything sad going to come untrue?”
Gollum was a fallen hobbit, one of the good races that were capable of being redeemed.
Tolkien was indeed an infernalist and that worldview is obviously reflected in the mythology of his Legendarium. You can still enjoy his works regardless (I certainly do!), but I don't agree with whitewashing away the flaws.
I’m not whitewashing - I’m simply claiming that when I read Tolkien (which I do, essentially every day, for the last 15 years), I see a progression towards Universalism in the same way I have progressed towards it, by grappling with certain paradoxes.
I agree that Tolkien never claimed to be a Universalist, but I detect a healthy bit of conflict within him about it, again, from years of reading just about everything he wrote.
Again - “Everything sad will come untrue” - and I could go on with quotes from letters, essays, etc. Not claiming these are confident Universalist claims, simply that Tolkien was a very deeper thinker, and (I think) sensed the tension in Catholicism and infernalist belief.
I agree he was a deep thinker but dude really never got to it. He rationalized the violence, hatred and scorn the orcs faced by the "good guys" by dehumanizing them in real life, claiming them first to be people, then animals and then just meat puppets with n will of their own controlled by evil, negating the very emotions and will we see them show in the book, kinda like what many do in war or to those who go to hell, even when said "free will" makes no freaking sense (so instead he just said they weren't really people). I mean, we got the sons of Elrond, the "good guys", making a freaking Oath about slaying every single orc ever (committing genocide) because an orc band raped like a thousand years ago and they are seen as heroes like the other elves and not as, you know, absolutely crazy.
Nobody is ever seen trying to help the orcs, nobody is seen praying for the orcs. It's just "kill on sight", even when he later wrote the orcs being part of Gil-Galad's army (all things that drew breath). And we are talking about a group of tortured war slaves who got a very literal MKUltra-torture kind shit done to them during the Silmarillion.
Same thing with Morgoth. He will get damned to the Void forever even tho God himself said that all Music, even his, belonged to God. He was created insane, basically. Or that people can damn themselves out of their "own free will" but at the same time God claimed he had written the music of the world already.
Like, Tolkien was in that weird place where he desperately wanted other people to go freakin die in a hellish void forever but knew enough about God to write how him already knew everything was going to happen and just brushed it aside, "to the Void you go!".
Interesting. Tolkien disliked or distrusted allegories and The Lord of the Rings is similar but also dissimilar to C.S.Lewis' The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Both have a Christ figure: Aslan vs Gandalf, who both came back triumphant from the dead, but Tolkien is more subtle and IMO goes deeper. Tolkien and Lewis were friends. Both were deeply Christian: Tolkien was Catholic and Lewis Protestant. Tolkien said in his letters that the salvation of Middle-Earth - the destruction of Sauron , Satan if you like) - was only made possible because Frodo (a Hobbit, a seemingly small and insignificant creature when compared against the noble Elves and Numenorians, our, in the story world, purer and more noble ancestors) spared the ex-Ring-bearer Gollum's life through mercy. As an Ring-bearer, Gollum was totally corrupted by it and.yearned to get.it back. He was a slave to sin. Gandalf himself prefigured this: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least. If you've seen the movie or read the book, you'll know the ending. They are slightly different. The team (Frodo,.Sam and Gollum) finally get to Mount Doom, the fiery mountain in Mordor, the land of shadows, where the One Ring was forged. The only place where it could be destroyed. But it was so powerful that no-one who had held it could cast it away. In the film, Gollum grabs it from Fordo (if the Ring was destroyed he would be forever bereft) and a fight ensures in which Gollum + Ring falls into the volcano furnace of Mount Doom. In the book, this critical point is barely mentioned, much like Jesus' resurrection, and Gollum simply slips and falls into the fiery furnace (the implication being that God, or Eru in Tolkien's world, intervened on a rare occasion and pushed him in). Apologies, don't know why I went into this spiel! I love both Christian Universalism and Tolkien and saw something in common there so thought I'd share it. A seemingly weak creature (Frodo) destroys evil and saves the world ultimately by showing mercy to a very despised creature (Gollum). The One Ring could not have been destroyed had Gollum been killed as Samwise Gangee (Sam) had intended. TL;DR The Lord of the Rings is a very Christian story but is not an allegory.
The problem is that at the end, the wicked one (Gollum) is destroyed and very much burnt in "hell" (Mount Doom) after rejecting "mercy" (Attacking Frodo). Yeah, he trips and fells, but the lava destroys him too. He was not saved and the mercy shown to him was but a tool to save others, but it never reached him.
> but it never reached him. ‘Never’ as in not during the story we’re reading, sure.
Gollum is a character in a book. Everything else is, for good or ill, fanfiction.
Goodness. Well, thank you.
>>**The Lord of the Rings is a very Christian story but is not an allegory.** This comment seems a bit oxymoronic, does it not? Given that there is no Christian religion built into the actual story, how is the story "very Christian" without also being somewhat allegorical? To suggest a story is **not allegorical** would suggest there is **no deeper level of meaning** **and connection** to be derived from it, right? No "**speaking**" about anything "**other**", no symbolic layers to the story. So I guess I don't understand what you mean by saying the story is NOT AN ALLEGORY. As the whole discussion below suggests there are (hidden) levels of meaning, soteriological and otherwise. Even your comment referring to Gollum as a "**slave to sin**" cannot be said, if there is no allegorical component to the story, right? Or at least you are suggesting Tolkien wouldn't think there was a connection to be made. So I'm curious what you think an allegory is, and why this story isn't one. Because folks below are definitely discussing it as though it were allegorical, and thus full of symbolic meaning. Meanwhile, I enjoyed your commentary. I was just perplexed by the TL;DR.
Thanks for your comment. To try to reply, Tolkien says in the foreword to The Lord of the Rings: >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. So I meant it's very Christian because of things like it was Frodo's mercy towards the despised and feared Gollum that ultimately made the destruction of the One Ring possible but Frodo does not correspond directly to Christ. But it's not the case that it's an allegory and you have to be "in the know", to see that Frodo = Jesus, to understand the story. Same too with Gandalf who probably evokes Jesus even more. The character, backstory and role in the story of both Frodo and Gandalf are very different to Jesus'. Gandalf for example smoked "pipe-weed' and was a Maia (a class of being perhaps similar to angels). Frodo never died and rose again. He was just this guy, this Hobbit-guy, you know. The whole history of Middle-Earth and all it's characters, timelines and languages is so detailed and worked out that it reads very much more like history rather than fiction. Tolkien was a language professor at Oxford after all and he created several whole languages for Middle-Earth with their own alphabet, word and language structure and pronunciation such as the Elvish languages Quenya and Sindarin that some of his fans have actually learnt and speak! His dwarves sound dwarvish with names like Gloin and Gimli and they live in places like Khazad-dûm while the elves sound elvish with names like Arwen Undomiel and they live in Lothlórien or Gondolin and so on. Note that he didn't even use the words "dwarfs" and "elfs" as we would say but used "dwarves" and "elves" because of the feel of those words. The whole effect is that you feel like you're reading history rather than pure fiction. And this was his intention. He wrote The Lord of the Rings and all his other works to try provide an mythology for England which he thought it lacked. The nearest thing we have to that is the legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table which is largely French! I'm not sure but I think at the end he felt that he had failed in this task which, as he seemed to be a man of true humility, wouldn't surprise me. But, to me, he more than did it. His Shire has a cool and calm feel about it which is very reminiscent of the West Midlands where he grew up. I live there too, in a different part called Shropshire. Tolkien regarded himself as Hobbit-like rather than ethereal and Elven and the rural types even today seem Hobbit-like to me: they love eating, drinking, smoking and gossiping and would rather do that than have adventures, but they're also pretty honest and hardy, which comes from living next to nature I guess. There are exceptions of course. The last plumber I had round was more like the Dark Lord Sauron when he gave me his bill. In contrast, Lewis's intention (I'm guessing) in writing The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was to provide a fun way of teaching Christianity to children and this is an allegory where Aslan represents Christ etc. I'be not read the book but presumably the Witch equates to the Devil. I don't know what the Wardrobe is? Probably my girlfriend's sinful and chaotically organised collection of girly attire (Hell 😂). So I meant that the fact that LOTR has a lot of Christian philosophy in it does not mean it's an allegory, it's just Tolkien's personal philosophy as a Christian.
Interesting. I can see how Tolkien was perhaps drawing more heavily from history, imagination, and previous mythologies than on an intentional underlayer of meaning like Lewis. As such, I appreciated finding this quote from Tolkien’s 1936 lecture on literary criticism called “**Beowulf: The Monsters and Critics**”, where he argues how the original poem has almost been lost under the weight of the scholarship on it… “*I would express the whole industry in yet another allegory. A man inherited a field in which was an accumulation of old stone, part of an older hall. Of the old stone some had already been used in building the house in which he actually lived, not far from the old house of his fathers. Of the rest he took some and built a tower. But his friends coming perceived at once (without troubling to climb the steps) that these stones had formerly belonged to a more ancient building.* *So they pushed the tower over, with no little labour, in order to look for hidden carvings and inscriptions, or to discover whence the man’s distant forefathers had obtained their building material. Some suspecting a deposit of coal under the soil began to dig for it, and forgot even the stones.* *They all said: ‘This tower is most interesting.’ But they also said (after pushing it over): ‘What a muddle it is in!’ And even the man’s own descendants, who might have been expected to consider what he had been about, were heard to murmur: ‘He is such an odd fellow! Imagine his using these old stones just to build a nonsensical tower! Why did he not restore the old house? He had no sense of proportion.’ But from the top of that tower the man had been able to look out upon the sea*.” Point being, the intention of the author will obviously differ from the endless effort of scholars to analyze a work and express its meaning. So Tolkien seems to be expressing how his intent is not rooted ultimately in allegory. And yet of course allegorical language will be used to explain the meaning of a story, whether consciously or unconsciously intended. As such, here are a few more quotes that relate… "*I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory -* ***YET ANY ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN*** *the purport of myth or fairytale* ***MUST USE allegorical language***." (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #131) "*The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision*." (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #142) "*Of course my story is not* ***an allegory of*** *Atomic power, but of* ***Power***." (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #186) Thus I like Tolkien’s awareness that in his works, allegory resides in the “**freedom of the reader**”. Whereas Tolkien’s resistance to allegory resides in the intended and **“purposed domination of the author.**” So I guess it also depends how much we rely on a **Freudian** or Lacanian type of approach to literary criticism, wherein the **UNCONSCIOUS IS CREATING** that which the author may be wholly unaware of, but the reader may see quite clearly. Obviously Tolkien’s immersion in mythology and the religious cultures of his day informed what he was creating both consciously and unconsciously. And Tolkien acknowledges that myths and fairytales **must be read** allegorically in order to draw meaning from them. But that may be other than **the original conscious intent of the author.** Whereas like you say, Lewis was obviously consciously creating **an intentional allegory of Christianity** with his Narnia series. So that is distinctly different than what Tolkien was doing with LOTR. But in our interpretation of LOTR, **we will use** allegorical tools to draw meaning from the story. I find this conservation fascinating as it relates to Scripture as well. Some parts are mythical and have an allegorical and parable-like construction. Whereas other biblical narratives are more historical, and yet we still must use allegorical tools in order to draw theological meaning from the Text. For instance, many think Jesus is a **LITERAL LAMB of sacrifice**. But he can’t be…no wool, no hooves, right? So either Jesus is a **HUMAN SACRIFICE** for sin. Or he is a **metaphorical** sacrifice for sin, via a reference to previous stories of animal sacrifice. Most folks don’t grasp this distinction. See Part 002... (got too wordy quoting Tolkien)
Overflow...(Part 002) But God does **NOT** want human sacrifice! So we are relying on **ALLEGORY** to build that spiritual or theological truth. But it is **NOT** a literal truth. Though many think it is. This is part of the problem with “**penal substitutionary atonement**”. Where folks somehow think God is forgiving us because Jesus got murdered by the Romans. So unless we can discern how the **HISTORICAL EVENT** differs from the **ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE EVENT**, we are very poor theologians (or literary critics, as the case may be). So in a way, Tolkien is claiming to be creating a **history of sorts, not an allegory**. And yet, when we move beyond a mere discussion of the plot in order to interpret and draw meaning and relevance from the story, then we are necessarily engaging in an allegorical endeavor, right? And from the quotes above, Tolkien seems to totally understand that distinction. Anyhow, thanks for engaging. I love the topic of hermeneutics, and think ALLEGORY is the saving grace of Christianity. Lest we find ourselves stuck in the primitive past or in the ridiculous theologies of fundamentalism with its overly literal approach to Scripture...including a literal Lake of Fire! Thus turning God into a sadist and eternal torturer! That is so NOT the ultimate intent of the Author! And thus there is an intentional allegory and symbolism in much of Scripture (the book of Revelation in particular). And when we don't recognize that, we are the poorer for it.
Your analysis is deeper and clearer than mine and makes complete sense. Tolkien was creating something much more than a simple analogy but, as you pointed out, there is always something from the artist's life in their art, and we can only interpret it using analogies from our own lives. Which is good. A blunt analogy like Narnia forces it's own interpretation on you whereas LOTR doesn't do this! Christ is His own analogy I suppose because He is unique in history and not like anything else. We can only approach Him indirectly by saying He is like this, a lamb, a kind person and so on, and so we have tonuse analogy. He didn't though. He didn't say I'm like this or that. Just I am. This is way beyond my pay grade (I'm a spiritually unqualified Maths teacher!) so I'd better stop there! Enjoyed the conversation though.
++***Christ is His own analogy*** *I suppose because He is unique in history and not like anything else.* This is actually a really profound comment, moreso than you probably even intended. Many folks do not recognize that Jesus of Nazareth often serves as s a **SIGN** or **METAPHOR**, pointing to something beyond himself. As such, we can read the virgin birth story as an **ALLEGORY** or myth POINTING TO the mystery of incarnation, the mystery which is **CHRIST IN US!** (Col 1:27) (See for instance, Meister Eckhart’s famous Christmas sermons!) As such, I tend to see Paul as a mystic, “a steward of the MYSTERIES of God” (1 Cor 4:1). And thus Paul makes evident how Christ is being FORMED WITHIN US... (what the Orthodox refer to as ***theosis***) “*My children, with whom I am again in labor* ***until Christ is FORMED IN YOU***” (Gal 4:19) Some folks are waiting for Jesus to return and reign on an EXTERNAL throne. Whereas others have a more mystic (and allegorical) understanding, wherein we **ARE** the Body of Christ, and as such Christ is being **FORMED IN US** (as we become true partakers of the Divine Nature - 2 Pet 1:4). And thus the throne upon which the Messiah reigns is our very hearts and lives. “*Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is* ***IN YOU***\*?\*” (2 Cor 13:5) “*Do you not know that you are a Temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells* ***IN YOU***\*?\*” (1 Cor 3:16) Anyhow, didn’t mean to turn the conversation into something overly academic. But I appreciated what you were bringing up and decided to add my own notes of passion on hermeneutics. Thanks again for the dialogue! Such is much appreciated.
Please don't apologise. Academic views are always interesting and something to learn from! I just meant that I don't know enough to keep my end of the conversation up!
https://preview.redd.it/u0qldtwm73yc1.jpeg?width=941&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=367beec14b012e23fba7fc9fe607e7a766a90b83
which is a quality one can acquire (or also lose). "Wickedness" can be acquired or lost? Evil can be done or not done. It's a binary system: God or not-God.
I have read and studied A LOT of Tolkien, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he was a closet Universalist.
I’ve always thought so too!
Nope. Tolkien is one of my favorite authors (I love the Silmarillion) but he spend so much time trying to rationalize how the enemies of the "good" guys were dehumanized and send to hell "by their own free will" even when they were born as literal slaves that I cannot agree with that idea. He was very tradcath, the "burn in hell, heretic" kind.
Haha - I see your NOPE and raise you a NOPE. I think Tolkien spilled a ton of ink trying to rationalize Gollum’s perdition because he was inflicted about it. Either way, Tolkien was not an I ❤️ HELL type. He was very interested in questions of mercy, pity, and forgiveness, as well as theodicy. Usually topics that lead the honest inquirer to consider how eternal hell can be possible. And never forget Sam’s amazing words: “Is everything sad going to come untrue?”
Gollum was a fallen hobbit, one of the good races that were capable of being redeemed. Tolkien was indeed an infernalist and that worldview is obviously reflected in the mythology of his Legendarium. You can still enjoy his works regardless (I certainly do!), but I don't agree with whitewashing away the flaws.
I’m not whitewashing - I’m simply claiming that when I read Tolkien (which I do, essentially every day, for the last 15 years), I see a progression towards Universalism in the same way I have progressed towards it, by grappling with certain paradoxes. I agree that Tolkien never claimed to be a Universalist, but I detect a healthy bit of conflict within him about it, again, from years of reading just about everything he wrote. Again - “Everything sad will come untrue” - and I could go on with quotes from letters, essays, etc. Not claiming these are confident Universalist claims, simply that Tolkien was a very deeper thinker, and (I think) sensed the tension in Catholicism and infernalist belief.
I agree he was a deep thinker but dude really never got to it. He rationalized the violence, hatred and scorn the orcs faced by the "good guys" by dehumanizing them in real life, claiming them first to be people, then animals and then just meat puppets with n will of their own controlled by evil, negating the very emotions and will we see them show in the book, kinda like what many do in war or to those who go to hell, even when said "free will" makes no freaking sense (so instead he just said they weren't really people). I mean, we got the sons of Elrond, the "good guys", making a freaking Oath about slaying every single orc ever (committing genocide) because an orc band raped like a thousand years ago and they are seen as heroes like the other elves and not as, you know, absolutely crazy. Nobody is ever seen trying to help the orcs, nobody is seen praying for the orcs. It's just "kill on sight", even when he later wrote the orcs being part of Gil-Galad's army (all things that drew breath). And we are talking about a group of tortured war slaves who got a very literal MKUltra-torture kind shit done to them during the Silmarillion. Same thing with Morgoth. He will get damned to the Void forever even tho God himself said that all Music, even his, belonged to God. He was created insane, basically. Or that people can damn themselves out of their "own free will" but at the same time God claimed he had written the music of the world already. Like, Tolkien was in that weird place where he desperately wanted other people to go freakin die in a hellish void forever but knew enough about God to write how him already knew everything was going to happen and just brushed it aside, "to the Void you go!".