Okay, after a week of discussing TOR's future, I am interested in discussing something perhaps just as contentious: religion. Let me preface this by saying that, like the good professor, I am quite happily Catholic. And perhaps I am over-reading some things, but the older I get, the more Catholic his work seems. In particular, his notion of evil seems remarkably like Catholic notions of sin.

Consider: evil in the Tolkien-verse is not simply the opposition to good. Rather, it's the corruption of God's good creation. Melkor, created to serve Eru, becomes corrupted by his own pride, and then proceeds to corrupt the good things that Eru had brought into being through the songs of the Ainur. This is textbook Catholic moral theology: sin is first and foremost the improper use of God's good and gracious gifts to humanity. And more: just as the root of Melkor's sin was pride, so in Catholic moral theology pride is the root of all mortal and venial sins. And for Catholic thought, pride is exactly what it is for Melkor: the desire to take God's place. Thus does Melkor try to be a creator, forming orcs and other mockeries of Eru's good creation (although, of course, Tolkien was unsure about the exact origins of the orcs, trolls, etc. But this idea that they were formed out of a desire to emulate Eru's creative power seems to be the major dominant theme in his thinking on the matter).

And there is this whole idea, voiced most clearly by Gandalf, but also evident in the life of such figures as Saruman, that the desire to do good can easily be corrupted into evil. In fact, Tolkien wrote about how even Sauron began with noble motives: he loved order, which in and of itself is a good thing, and thus followed Melkor ultimately into utter darkness because he thought that Melkor was most able to establish a well-ordered Middle-Earth. Again, this is all remarkably Catholic. Catholic thought often describes vice as being but a breath away from viritue. The person who loves deeply and genuinely desires the best for others can quite easily morph into a tyrant who directs all their moves, with the aim of making sure that they make what that person considers the right decisions.

One of the things that really brought all this out for me in TOR was the relationship between fellowship focus and shadow on the one hand, and hope and shadow on the other. It is precisely one of the things from which characters most draw strength that they also most face the peril of darkness. The good of their special fellowship with a particular companion can easily be turned into a path to corruption. Similarly, the more strenously one exerts oneself in the pursuit of good, mechanically symbolized by the expenditure of hope points, the sooner one is more likely to succumb to shadow. And that the sort of corruption into one falls is determined by the path one follows--so that, for instance, the warden becomes the tyrant--that is just so Tolkien. And, as I suggested above, the more I read Tolkien, the more thing that on this and many other matters, it's also remarkably Catholic.

I'm sorry what was the question?

Seriously... this is sensitive stuff I appreciate that.

My own view point first so we know where we stand:

I'm quite happily Atheist.

I did, at one point, call my self christian (never Catholic), I lived in a christian commune for two years... during my more formative years, experimenting and trying to find meaning... I even studied together with clergy... 4 years at the uni. Reading theology and history and psychology of religion. (all the big ones, but mostly christian-oriented.) ... but I got better, and now I'm fully recovered. Thank you very much.

With this in mind I think I might just hurt peoples feeling here... so even if I find discussions around the subject wildly fascinating, I will respectfully bow-out of this one. The medium at hand will only make things worse.

This is stuff better talked about over a beer or three.

/wolf

My initial thoughts are that, while Tolkien's religion was very important to him and there are undoubtably parallels with theological thought in his works, they are very much background and not direct references. CS Lewis, having been influenced to reconsider Christianity through conversation with Tolkien, puts far more direct Christian imagery in to his books than does Tolkien. In my opinion, Tolkien's Catholicism influenced his thinking when writing but direct reference to theology can not be drawn. It is more apt to consider relevant folk-lore.

To me, Tolkien's writing is more about the struggle of hope against despair and the importance of friendship in that struggle. The shadow is the darkness that you allow in to your heart when you give in to despair. There is overt evil in Tolkien's world, but the corruption of good people comes from their loss of hope. For Boromir, lack of hope leads to a lust for the power to deveat the Enemy. For Wormtongue, rejection and the loss of hope leads to betrayal. The friendship bond of Frodo and Sam sustain them to the end of the journey before hope fades.

There is also the theme that evil is self-defeating. Saruman works against Sauron as much as working for him. The Orcs fight among themselves allowing Sam to rescue Frodo.

Middle-earth is well documented as the work of a devoted Catholic, with a lot of Catholic ideas embedded in it. On the other hand there's a ton of stuff out of the Kalevala and Beowulf in it too, which have very little to do with Catholicism. And a great many of it's louder notes resonate with universal human truths. (Edited "myths" to "truths" which is closer to my intent)

Interestingly enough if you study the letters, Tolkien's Catholicism gave him some troubling moments when considering what he had (sub)created.

It seems happily enough people of all creeds or lack thereof can enjoy the heck out of it.









NB: If this discussion veers even an eigth of an inch towards a discussion of the relative merits of Catholicism, especially with the atmosphere hereabouts being somewhat charged this week, I'll shut it faster than Bilbo shutting the door at Bag End upon spying an approaching Sackville-Baggins.

Roger that.

/wolf

I agree with Jon, Tolkien's writing is more about what it means to be human than directly talking about religious beliefs.

Of course Tolkien would draw upon his own experiences and beliefs when writing (as all good writers do) but his work has a universal resonance that almost anyone can enjoy.

I think I can safely say that pride is a fault in all humans and is not just tied up in the beliefs of Catholics alone, I think most major religions tackle it in some shape or form.

I'm happy to say I find Tolkien's work perfectly secular.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Tolkien claimed he never based his stories on his faith, no more than he based it on his experiences in WWI. I believe after the books were first published many people claimed that he was writing about his experiences as a soldier. He just felt he was writing a story. Equally, I wouldn't necessarily say the stories are Catholic, so much as Christian in general, as I frequently draw parallels, and I myself am not Catholic.

So... yeah

Thing is, with this as with so much else, when it comes to interpreting art, be it paintings, music, books etc or anything else. It is very, not to say extremely easy to find support for your own preconceptions.

That is why critics of literature often seem to know more about an authors work than the author himself does. They have dug into it and looked under the veneer to find all these hidden parallels and connections, whereas the author himself most likely just wrote a book to tell a good story.

And yes... this goes for the "big book" as well IMHO.

"seek and you will find" - Matt 7:7

/wolf

Good point Ghostwolf.

It is too easy to over analyse things. I draw attention to the first four letters of that word.

I don't mean that in an offensive way to anyone here. I just have a bugbear with critics.

Of late I keep coming back, over and over, to recommending The Letters (ISBN 0-618-05699-8), if you do fancy learning more about what Tolkien thought of his own work. I always thought it would be a very dry read, but I have to say it was far from it.

Exactly this. There will be Christian influences in the writing because Tolkien was Catholic. He was also a professor of Anglo/Saxon literature and English language. Personally, I see more influence from his academic interests than his personal belief in his writings. That said, there is a definite moral undertone to the story. This could, however, be the time/era of writing and the age of the author.

I agree with GhostWolf. I think the primary concern of the Professor was to tell a good tale. Perfectionist that he was, it took him a while.

Okay, I should clarify. Absolutely, The Hobbit and LOTR is first and foremost a work of the imagination. As a Catholic, though, it fascinates me that it was a work of a a Catholic imagination. And I certainly respect that you don't have to be Catholic to appreciate these stories. But I do find that much of the story reveals the hand of a man immersed in Catholic life, and find that reading his works enrich my own life as a Catholic Christian. I apologize if anyone is offended by my effort to initiate intelligent conversation about a set of writings that we all here love.

I, for one, am not offended at all. I find discussion of comparative theology extremely interesting and will bore anyone to death with it given half a chance. I am especially interested in early Christianity.

Dito.

/wolf

If you start quoting Augustine on me I'll break your neck...

/wolf

And in his letters, Tolkien describes LOTR as a "Catholic work." He states that it was unconsciously so I the early drafts, but consciously in the final revisions. Curiously, he also states that is why he avoided dealing with religion directly. I suspect that reflects in part his hatred of allegory. The point is: in saying LOTR is a Catholic work, I'm saying nothing that the good professor did not himself say.

Again, that the work springs from a Catholic mind is of interest to this fan who also happens to be Catholic, but that does not mean that non-Catholic Christians, or atheists, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Jains, Tengrists, can't all enjoy the books. It just means that there are aspects of it that are perhaps better understood in light of the author's Catholic formation.

As a good Catholic, I ought not say this, but I've never loved St. Augustine's work.

I appreciate and share those obsessions.

You know I'm completely agreeing with you, right? And that's why I'm urging people to read the letters.

LOL - is that allowed? Not that I disagree. I lean toward the position of Origen and Clement on that particular issue myself.

The mythology of the Lord of the Rings is one that could very well stand among other Nordic mythologies. And it is so on purpose, designed by Tolkien. That Tolkien had catholic beliefs affected the shape if his work as much as the fact that he was southafrican, linguist, etc. That is, his religion was only one of his "traits".

Brooke mentions "a Catholic imagination", "the hand of a man immersed in Catholic life", and "life as a Catholic Christian", as if that particular detail of the person would be the most important one, or the one that defines everything the person's imagination can produce.
The fact is that not every person gives the same importance to religion. Some of them are happy just by celebrating Christmas once a year by buying stuff from a store, and others spend their lives as nuns and monks. Tolkien? I don't know. But for me, coming from a country with long catholic tradition, I can't see any of the most recognizable "punchlines" of catholicism having permeated the mythology of Arda.

Of course, you can see here and there general christian values. Behaving well with your neighbor, not killing, seeking peace, forgiving the repented, honor your kindred, etc. All those values, that today we take for granted even among atheists, have fundamentally gone beyond being mere principles of christianism and have turned into general accepted religion-independent ethics in the western world.
In Tolkien stories, the good people have those values, while the evil ones don't.
Other than that, few more things you can draw between Catholicism and this mythology.
Iluvatar is the one god, true. But the ainur are part of him. They aren't created like the Free Peoples. Instead, they just come out from Eru's mind, each being or representing one part of Eru's will. Manwe is the lordly and concerned part. Melkor is the pride, cunning and ambitious traits. Yavanna is the love for all things that grow. Orome the anger. Mandos the judging and gloomy. Nienna the compassion. And so on and on.
In some sense, this is both a monotheistic and polytheistic mythology. Because there is only one creator divinity, but this divinity manifests itself as many ainur, as the ainur are just part of Iluvatar, but at the same time they have (or they think they have) their own minds.

Unlike the judeochristian god, Eru didn't create everything that was good and it was later worsened by a "satan" of sorts.
Eru dictated the ainur to sing the Music, as a metaphor of the destiny of the world. The music from the ainur represented the things to come, even divided in different "tracks" that correspond the different ages of the world. If you carefully re-read that part of the silmarillion, you will see that the Music is interrupted at several parts, with every portion of the music basically outlining with "sound" the events that were to come later in the book. Even the mood of Iluvatar after every stop matches his mood at the end of each corresponding age.
The "fight of wills" that the Music is, between the different ainur (including Melkor from the begining) repeats later when the ainur are sent to the real world and they start giving shape to it.
Tolkien says that even when Melkor destroyed mountains or raised seas, while believing that he was bending the works of others to his own will, in the end, he was just contributing to the shaping of the world nonetheless, and unconsciously doing the will of Eru, that was precisely that.

Later in the story, most of the peoples of Arda don't worship any deity, at least in a religious way. There are no "holy men", there are no temples, no commandments, no holy writings to follow, no religious ceremonies, nothing of that. Except for Sauron making his underlings worship him, or later in Numenor making the numenorians worship Morgoth, there is no god in these stories that demands faith from his followers, that commands them to do holy wars, or to live according to some listing of sacred rules. There is not promise of heaven for the faithful, hell for the infidels. Valinor is a real place that can be reached by ship in the first and second age, and in the Third age with the granted permission.
The ultimate wish of Eru is giving the First Born and the Second Born (and by addition the dwarves, hobbits and ents) the chance to be free and not to be bent by any deity that compels them to act to his will. To be the Free Peoples.
Melkor, and later Sauron, instead wants to rule over the peoples of Middle Earth.

I truly can't see many parallelisms between all of this and the judeochristian beliefs. If anything, the opposite, as the judeochristian god demands the faithful to follow his commandments, while Lucifer encourages men and women not to.

You pretty much nailed it. I have a minor quibble with most of the peoples of Arda don't worship any deity and I truly can't see many parallelisms between all of this and the judeochristian beliefs.

It would be fair to say the elder races and the learned know and believe without a doubt there is one true god.

Isn't this belief a form of worship?

Oh, yeah, I see that. I was trying to build off of your point. Apologies if it came off otherwise.

Interesting comment, in that I did not suggest that this one detail defines everything that Tolkien produced. But given that Tolkien himself described it as a Catholic work, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask, "In what sense is it a Catholic work?"

Now, given that Tolkien disdained allegory, I'm not surprised that it is difficult to find one for one parallels between Catholic thought and Middle Earth. No, Eru is not identical to God worshipped by the Catholic church. But wait: you mention the Ainur, and how they work Eru's will. Not unlike, say, angels in Catholic thought. And there are a hierarchy of Ainur, not unlike among the angels. Still, do I think Tolkien sat down and said, "Well, the God of Arda must have angels. I'll call them Ainur"? Probably not. But angels are a vibrant part of Catholic teaching, even more so in the pre-Vatican II era, so it is hardly surprising to see things much like angels showing up in Arda. And it seems a remarkable coincidence that Melkor is a fallen Ainur, and not just any Ainur, but the highest of all. Sound like anyone we know?

But the real Catholic ethos, I think, comes out in the notion of both shadow and freedom from shadow. The corruption that comes over the characters is in my mind almost identical to Catholic notions of sinfulness. In traditional Catholic thought, it is not the act per se that is the fundamental problem. Rather, it is the desire that led to the act. Merely abstaining from ill deeds is not sufficient. Rather, one must purge oneself of the desBire to commit ill deeds. And that is classic Tolkien. Evil is a result, more than anything, of the lust for power. And the Free People are free precisely because they are not driven by such lust.

And note that Tolkien is hardly antinomian. Freedom is not the absence of law. Rather the opposite. It's the establishment of good law. That's why LOTR climaxes with the return of the king. He will now establish good law throughout the land.

Is this a Catholic work in the same way as the Catechism of the Catholic Church? No. But do I have reason to think Tolkien was wrong in saying it was deeply Catholic? Do I understand his work better than he does? Probably not.

I'm not anti-Augustinian, necessarily. I just find Augustine just interminably boring to read.

I appreciate both Clement and Origen, and perhaps even more Ireneaus. The second century Fathers in general fascinate me (although, in fairness, Origen is third century, and I have to say that I really don't love his contemporary, Tertullian).

It would be difficult for anyone to disagree with these thoughts. There will always be multiple interpretations and arguments to follow any work. The difference between Tolkien and the "big book" however, would be that Tolkien never claimed to write a divinely inspired text, as the authors of the "big book" have. His purpose was story, not theology, as you have pointed out. As such, I believe there are many who can appreciate Tolkien's stories without regard to religious background, whereas a portion of the same may not appreciate the "big book" as much. By the way, The Lord of the Rings is a pretty big book itself!

Part of the reason I love Tolkien, I have to admit though, is the moral direction of his stories. I love heroic adventures and the defeat of evil. I love the portrait of close friendship and the importance of fellowship that he stresses. I also love the fact that he is a Christian displaying imagination. He is not alone in this, but he certainly was a pioneer and inspiration for many to follow.

And in case it is important to anyone, I am the pastor of a Christian church myself.

First off I should say that on my Birth Certificate it says Protestant, however, I consider myself a man of faith, and not of religion.

Now, writer's are going to write about what they know; in my opinion the events of his life affected Tolkien, probably, more then he actually knew, though he did not strictly base the novels on any of them. He writes battle scenes like the veteran he is, and the over all importance of Good v. Evil and of friendship (be thy brother's keeper and look after thine neighbour) are all important lessons taught in the bible. But, they were also pillars of literature for thousands of years before the Christian era.

"They have dug into it and looked under the veneer to find all these hidden parallels and connections, whereas the author himself most likely just wrote a book to tell a good story."

Just so. I have always thought that the deconstruction of the literary works in High School English classes takes away from the enjoyment of the work in question. As you say I think in most cases the writer wasn't really trying to "say" anything, except tell a ripping good story. But, saying that then doesn't get you very good grades.

Certainly, I would never want to take away from the fact that these are good stories. But my suspicion is that you don't write the second and third best-selling Englsh novels of all time unless that good story connects with readers on a much more profound level than just story. And as a Catholic Christian, LOTR, the Hobbit, etc., remind me that you can be quite happily Catholic and yet have a wonderful imagination, capable of producing exceptional works of art.

But how could the book become bestseller in non-catholic countries too if it needed a catholic background to it?

I think especially for the Lotr and Hobbit the books are very very secular. There are no angels intervening and the characters are only left with theirselves. They don't pray, they don't actually practise religion. I fail to see how Lotr has any connection to Catholicism and Christianity in general and Silmarillion's theology seems a lot more polytheistic than monotheistic since the knowledge of Eru is very very limited (if there are any knowledge about him) beyond the mortal races and even Elves and the most "holy" beings they encounter or think are Valar and Valar are a perfect example of a polytheistic pantheon.

I think one can see some buried details or hidden meanings in any work if one looks too hard.

I would also add, it does not have to be a choice between understanding LOTR, etc., as story, and understanding that there is also more going on. I can appreciate the books both as literature, and as containing some sort of implicit philosophy, one not necessarily fully realized by the author, but one which is grounded very much in his Catholic experience.

I think the best way to look at this is the way the Pope described Jk Rowlings Harry Potter as being excellent examples of Christian literature. Why? Because they detail the struggle (and eventual victory) of good people against an ultimate evil. However, I highly doubt that given the audiance she was aiming at the Rowling had put too much religious background thought into the stories. She was just trying to tell a good fanatasy story.

There are undoubtedly religious underpinnings in Tolkien's work. But, they are on the most basic of levels; being the best person you can be, looking after family and friends, self sacrifice, fighting the evil in every day life. These are all concepts used by most fiction writers today.

The thing is being a good person with the virtues you described are not in the monopoly of religion or christianity. I don't want to argue about theology and morality here but they're the most basic things that makes a person good one. In fact not a good one but a NORMAL one since humanity already thinks about those virtues as a default characteristics of a person.

Saying Harry Potter is a Christian book doesn't have any meaning. You can also say it's a great Islamic book since Islam also says "you should not kill" or "don't lie".

You can't just say every moral and good character represents a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Whateverreligion. All of the religions teaches good morales and examples good people. There are no religions says "You shall steal and murder!". I think Harry Potter is one of the most secular fantastic literature in the world.

Farinal, I just felt I should point out, there is a Christian author in America by the name of Ted Dekker who writes, primarily, thrillers and fantasies. Now, his books have frequently been on the New York Times Bestseller list, and he says he is not writing Christian fiction, yet the things dealt with in his books are often very much about light and dark, good and evil, etc. The characters rarely pray, something you pointed out about LotR, but the books still share a Christian message. Does that make them a very secular book also?

I'm just a bit intrigued as to your logic

Good and evil are not Christian exclusive themes. This duality has been around since the dawn of humanity. With that logic you can say pretty much every fantastic fiction ever written are of Christian origin.

I assume that you mean that he also writes about Christian topics as well fiction and fantasy genre. Otherwise then I am a little confused by your point.

But, as to the rest of what you said that is exactly my point. The story concept of Good v Evil has been a staple in stories since the first story tellers entertained our ancestors as they sat around the fire.

I understand they are not just Christian morals. But I realise I wasn't very clear. What I mean is, quite often there are things in his books that link to stories in the bible, or God, etc, without being explicit. But he is not writing Christian fiction. Then again, I'm not sure C.S Lewis was either, but Narnia has a lot of bible stories in. I was just wondering why a book not mentioning God explicitly makes it secular :S

I guess it is a good thing if you can find some resemblance and similarities between the good guys of a novel and your religion but Harry Potter is like the MOST secular popular fantastic literature. I even think the book has some subtle and soft anti-religion themes.

Let's put that asied and return to Tolkien. Exactly which part of the Lord of the Rings makes you think of Catholicism? And why Catholicism in particular and not Christianity?

I understand what you mean, but I don't understand why you say that.
Maybe I'm missing some cultural grieving that I have not experimented during my life. But it's almost like if you would seek to prove yourself that a catholic person can think on or imagine stuff that doesn't directly involve names and events from the bible.
Of course you can, as much as a left-handed person can write a stupendous story about right-handed people doing things right.
Maybe it would have been more shocking if LotR would have been written by the Pope and we couldn't find any subtext or allegories digging deep into the bible. But I'm quite sure Tolkien was not the Pope, and thankfully he didn't consider necessary to embed any evident christian or catholic references here and there in his work.

If anything, the clearest reference to his beliefs inserted on the text is, for me, the elvish name of the Race of Men. The Edain, singular Adan, that matches the name of the first man as told by the Genesis. At least in spanish, language that was taught to Tolkien by the catholic priest Francisco Xavier Morgan, a catholic priest that supported economically him and his mother after their conversion to catholicism.

I would argue that this difference is only meaningful to someone who believes in it.

Since I have a secular standpoint here my counter would be that put in a historical context the stories in the Bible are not much different than any other heroic or divine saga of the time. Most stories written or told at that time involved god(s) and mortals and you have to jump pretty far into the future (from there) to find secular tales that did not try to convey the will of the god(s).

So to me this difference is mostly due to time and evolution of story-telling traditions.

They tell stories to remember things that they deem important, about their background, about events that transpired, that helped shape the culture and the traditions. They tell stories to remember who they are and why they are this way. It backs up their religion, giving them tools to remember and explain... and also to some degree, to give them an alibi. "This is why we are the greatest people of all."

All this is fine. It's human. We see it in all cultures. Stories about gods and humans and interaction between them. Whether or not the author claims this is true doesn't really change the story. Maybe the intent, or the reason for telling is different, but that just reflects what stories were like at the time.

/wolf