"What was Tolkien's inspiration for LotR???" Topic
50 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Fantasy Media Message Board
Areas of InterestFantasy
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
thedrake | 24 Sep 2005 5:48 p.m. PST |
Am watching "Fellowship of the Ring" after my daily hurricane cleanup activity and was wondering what inspired him to write it;never read the book,but several friends state the movies are very close to the book. Vaguely remember reading something about the story being inspired somewhat by his experiences in/interpretation of WW1,but am not sure if this is correct—any info on this,please? Thanks, MD |
Cacique Caribe | 24 Sep 2005 6:00 p.m. PST |
I saw a documentary a couple of years ago, where Tolkien was asked that very same question. If I recall correctly, then current events had very little to do with it. He apparently wanted to create an epic and succeeded. His background as a linguist had much to do with it. One of his inspirations was the folklore of Finnland, particularly about magic rings. Not sure how much of that is true, as I am completely ignorant of Finnish history and lore. There are many who have speculated that his story was written just to raise awareness of the potential evils of nuclear power. I think that is over-analyzing though. |
Sans Culottes | 24 Sep 2005 6:02 p.m. PST |
He always denied any parallels with real-world history, though the Great War may have inspired him deeper down. I read somewhere that he wanted to create an English mythology, as he felt there really wasn't any. Unlike the Celts and Norse chaps all we had was Beowulf, which is about a bunch of Danes anyway. If that was his intent then you could argue that he was successful. On the other hand it maybe was just a story to amuse himself and his son. |
KSmyth | 24 Sep 2005 6:11 p.m. PST |
I also understand the creating an English mythology was at the heart of his work. Tolkien was an Oxford medievalist, and had some significant translations to his credit. I can only imagine that his work with Norse, Celtic and Saxon mythos inspired him to create a "unified mythos" that worked for England. Great stuff though. To get a more complete picture, I heartily recommend perusing both volumes of The Lost Tales. K. |
The Gonk | 24 Sep 2005 6:13 p.m. PST |
I thought he wrote up his D&D campaign. ;-) |
doc mcb | 24 Sep 2005 6:16 p.m. PST |
The ring of power is from Plato's REPUBLIC. Professor Wood of Baylor University has written what I believe is the best book on Tolkien and his work. |
doc mcb | 24 Sep 2005 6:18 p.m. PST |
Ralph Wood, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO TOLKIEN From Publishers Weekly Readers and fans of J.R.R. Tolkien have long been aware of the Christian underpinnings of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Still, Tolkien has not been without his religious critics, including those who have read a fascination with paganism into the pre-Christian world of Tolkien's creation. Wood, a professor of theology and literature at Baylor University, responds to those critics with an academically sound retort of "Nonsense!" Acknowledging straight off that Rings is devoid of any traces of "formal religion," Wood offers countless pieces of evidence that support his analysis of the full-fledged, deeply Christian theology of the mythological culture of Middle-earth. And he does so convincingly. Even longtime fans of Rings who have never questioned the books' Christian elements will undoubtedly discover new insights, so rich is Wood's analysis of Tolkien's gospel. But be forewarned: This is not a book for the casual reader. Rather, it is a somewhat scholarly endeavor for those who want a more thorough understanding of the underlying themes that have made The Lord of the Rings novels, as well as Tolkien's other writings, such enduring treasures. Wood teases out those themes-life and death, good and evil, courage and cowardice, mercy and justice and of course, faith, hope, and love-to reveal the faith-filled nature of Tolkien's theocentric and sacramental, albeit fictional, world. Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc. |
doc mcb | 24 Sep 2005 7:07 p.m. PST |
The other points made on the thread, about his work in linguistics and his desire for an English mythology, and his WWI experiences, are all correct at least in part. |
aecurtis | 24 Sep 2005 7:37 p.m. PST |
Jimbo (as everyone knew him) and his buddy Clive were sitting in his rooms in Oxford one night, smoking a blunt, and they had a couple of wacky ideas. Allen "Bless me, what do they teach them in these schools?" |
Privateer4hire | 24 Sep 2005 7:43 p.m. PST |
|
sturmkraehe | 24 Sep 2005 8:14 p.m. PST |
The very basics of LOTR came out of a thesis paper written by Tolkein on linguistics. He created an artificial language and called it Elvish. All languages are products of culture and mythos (among other things). Tolkein knew this and created the background for the Elvish culture as a foundation for the language. Breaking down his inspiration into war and religious experience (both of which were definitely parts of his life) is speculative at best when trying to isolate what was responsible for what part of the book. |
axabrax | 24 Sep 2005 8:40 p.m. PST |
Saga of the Volsungs, The Kalevala, Beowulf, and other Northern European myths. |
JLA105 | 24 Sep 2005 9:08 p.m. PST |
Yep, I've heard lots of that 'Christian underpinnings in LoTR' nonsense. No matter how often I read the trilogy, I just don't see it. |
Parzival | 24 Sep 2005 9:25 p.m. PST |
You have to understand first and foremost that Tolkien (and his friend C.S. Lewis) was a classically trained scholar, who emphasized the importance of myth, literature and poetry, particularly pre-modern English poetry, in the development of Western culture and the "educated mind." In addition, both men believed that myth, more than simply being stories to explain things (as is generally taught today), also represented fundamental truths universal to mankind. Tolkien and Lewis essentially believed that the similarities in myth across widely diverse (and often unconnected) cultures represented not a parallel coincidental attempt to explain nature, but a parallel and universal connection with a deeper spiritual reality— a connection inherent to all mankind. Further, Tolkien and Lewis believed this mythic reality found its physical reality and spiritual truth in Christ. Myth— and that includes story telling at many levels, from classic myth to fairy tale to adventure story and so on— for them tapped into the deep internal longing common to all men; a longing whose source and ultimate resolution lay in Christ. As such, Tolkien would indeed not be surprised at all at Christ imagery in his work, as he would expect it to be present whether he intended to include it or not! Note that as a very devout and traditional Catholic, Tolkien did not believe it was either his right nor responsibility to argue publically in favor of Christianity, whether overtly or indirectly; this was the responsibility of the priesthood. Lewis, as a protestant, felt more comfortable being a "lay teacher" of sorts (his works of apologetics were a source of friction between the two, as Tolkien felt Lewis was treading on priestly authority). Thus, while Lewis's Christian imagery is far more overt (though his philosophy is actually more subtle) than Tolkien's, Tolkien too thought of his own work as inherently Christian in character. Do not be confused: TLotR is not an allegory! Tolkien despised the very suggestion that there was any one-to-one correspondence between any part of his work and any other personage or object, whether historical, modern, scientific, spiritual or otherwise. That similarities might be found, he fully expected; but similarity and theme do not an allegorical relationship make. ("What do they teach them in these schools?" indeed!) The inspiration for Middle-Earth and its peoples thus spring from a wide variety of sources: classic Norse and Germanic myth (dwarves and treasure-hoarding dragons and magic— cursed— rings), Judeo-Christian creation myth (and Finnish myth), Celtic mythology (elves and faerie), and Western (chiefly British) codes of morality, honor and ethics. Oddly enough, hobbits seem to be almost completely original. For Tolkien's inspirations, you might read: The Bible (both in King James Version and traditional Catholic version). The Kalevale (Finnish myth) The RIng of the Nibelungen (Germanic myth) The Mabinogian (Welsh myth) Beowulf Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Tolkien edited and translated this piece) Pearl (translated by JRRT) Sir Orfeo (ditto) The Iliad The Odyssey The Aenied Plato Ovid Dante's Divine Comedy The Faerie Queen La Morte d'Arthur Tennyson Geoffrey of Monmouth's The History of the Kings of Britain Chaucer Shakespeare The Ring Orobourous The Princess of Elfland, by Lord Dunsany and more and more and more; the older and more lyrical, the better. (Note: my apologies for any misspellings and over-assumptions
particularly as to Tolkien's reading habits!) |
nazrat | 24 Sep 2005 9:55 p.m. PST |
"Readers and fans of J.R.R. Tolkien have long been aware of the Christian underpinnings of The Lord of the Rings trilogy." I never have! I think Parzival has it right, that any slight Christian influence is incidental and completely accidental. But I suppose if you are looking to find it you will, just like the WW I stuff, or the anti-industrialization junk too. |
doc mcb | 25 Sep 2005 1:59 a.m. PST |
|
Sir Able Brush | 25 Sep 2005 2:52 a.m. PST |
One key influence is thought to be his admiration fro the british infantryman in the trenches – their ability to keep going. From this came the personalities of the hobbits. |
Krokodil Tears | 25 Sep 2005 3:59 a.m. PST |
I understand Tolkien's inspiration for the forest imagery in LOTR came from his frequent walks in The Hollins, an old wooded area in Weetwood, Leeds. He used to live up the road, at 1, Darnley Road, a large Edwardian turreted house, while he taught at Leeds University. I believe his stories drew on many sources, but I think sturmkraehe is correct. |
Steve Flanagan | 25 Sep 2005 4:00 a.m. PST |
Probably the best account is in Tom Shippey's "The Road To MIddle Earth". Essentially, Tolkien made up a language, then tried to work out what sort of people might use it and what their literature might be like. The next impulse was to create a mythology for England. He was a specialist in Old English at a time when even Beowulf was held in low regard (see his essay "The Monsters and the Critics"). Tolkien's objective was to create something that might fill the space that the Mabinogion did for Wales or the Kelevala (probably misspelt by me there) for Finland. In the actual writing, all sorts of other influences came through, of course: Christianity (which mainly took the form of toning down the divine nature of characters like Gandalf and Galadriel, so as not to offend), the First World War, the contemporary interest in blood and race as defining character, and the sort of attitudes to country and industry that was created by Cobbett's rural rides. |
doc mcb | 25 Sep 2005 4:35 a.m. PST |
There's a recording of JRRT reading parts of his books. The story, also, is that when first confronted with a tape recorder, he began by reciting the Lord's Prayer in Gaelic into it, just in case. |
Griefbringer | 25 Sep 2005 5:56 a.m. PST |
Cacique Caribe: "One of his inspirations was the folklore of Finnland, particularly about magic rings. Not sure how much of that is true, as I am completely ignorant of Finnish history and lore." Being from Finland, I think there is rather little Finnish folklore dealing with magic rings – on that direction Viking and German mythology would be a better direction to search for. However, Tolkien was familiar with the Finnish epic Kalevala, though inspirations from that are more visible in Silmarillion than in Lord of the Rings. The most direct reference I think is in the tale of children of Hurin (Narn-i-hin Hurin) included in the Unfinished Tales – this has been rather heavily inspired by the tragic story of Kullervo. Griefbringer |
T Meier | 25 Sep 2005 6:54 a.m. PST |
"The Ring Orobourous" A good presentation overall, the only nit I have to pick is whether 'The Worm Orobourous' to which I assume you refer had any influence on Tolkien. I'd have said it's more a case of Eddison and Tolkien being influenced by the same things. Do you have any information on which you base this inclusion? |
MiniatureWargaming dot com | 25 Sep 2005 6:55 a.m. PST |
Those who miss the Christian imagery apparently didn't read the part about Gandalf's death and ressurection. I find it very hard to believe that Tolkien didn't know what he was doing with that. At the least, he must have known how it would be interpreted. |
lugal hdan | 25 Sep 2005 7:38 a.m. PST |
Yeah, but then you have Sauron's death and (partial) ressurection as well, so I see it more as a function of beings of Gandalf and Sauron's ilk aren't really possible to kill, at least not permanently. I suppose there are Christian parallels there, but there are "dying gods" in mythological sources as well. |
Cacique Caribe | 25 Sep 2005 7:50 a.m. PST |
Griefbringer, Thanks. Finland-Sirmarillion connection was what I had in mind. |
thedrake | 25 Sep 2005 9:06 a.m. PST |
Very interesting discussion here on Tolkien's possible influences—utterly fascinating to me as I know next to nothing about him or his work.Thank you all so much for enlightening me—looks like I have tons more new stuff to read!! KSMYTH, What are The Lost Tales you mentioned,please???? Thanks, MD |
Goldwyrm | 25 Sep 2005 9:33 a.m. PST |
I did a short paper assignment on C.S.Lewis about 10 years ago contrasting his style with Tolkien's. Much of it escapes me now but I also agree with Parzival's points. |
GrimeyGames | 25 Sep 2005 10:39 a.m. PST |
JRR, in my opinion relies heavily on Norse mythology and their epics. One of the tales in the Eddas is of a man burgling a Dragon for a drinking vessel and then the dragon seeks revenge. Trolls in Norse myth are "allergic" to sunlight and turn to stone when exposed to it. These are only 2 examples, but if you read the prose and epics you will find many more. I am sure that TOlkien also relied heavily on other mythologies but I cannot speak to those. As for him stating that real world events had nothing to do with it, I find that hard to believe. I an not going to say that I think that the whole of the story had anything to do with the War but I am sure it lent a little to the fact that the whole of the world was split in to two factions. Course these are opinions as I said in the very beginning. |
aecurtis | 25 Sep 2005 12:04 p.m. PST |
No-one seems to have taken the spliffologic suggestion very seriously. You might want to have a look around for the memoirs of one Caroline ("Kitty") O'Riordan, published recently as "Pipe-weed and Other Tales: The Tolkien You Never Knew". Miss O'Riordan (who departed this world in 1984) was quite the gal-about-town in Oxford in the 1920s, a real flapper. She was at times a barmaid at the Eagle and Child, and at times a chambermaid for various families in the city. She suggests that the Inklings were not the only group occupying Tolkien and Lewis in their spare time after both accepted academic positions in 1925. Kitty describes wild, drug-fueled parties attended by a number of faculty from the colleges, at which various improbable literary projects were proposed. She recalls one in particular at which everyone had a great laugh over Tolkien's invented Elvish language and partial mythology. A fellow whom Kitty can only recall as "Ralph" (hailing from Lancashire) suggested Tolkien's time would be better spent writing children's stories. A discussion of this topic resulted in a sketchy background for what would eventually become the hobbits. As the marihuana (supplied by Kitty) was passed around, the association of the small humanoids with "weed smoking" was made. O'Riordan also claims to be herself the prototype for Lewis's drug-providing Queen in "The Silver Chair", and that Prince Rilian actually represents Lewis himself, eventually able to break free of the pernicious narcotic habit. But she reserves the role of the White Witch for a noted Oxford dominatrix of the time, who went by the name of "Mistress Jadis". Kitty makes no direct connection between the authors and this alternative practitioner, but makes some fairly broad hints. In all, a good read, and a refreshing break from the canon of quasi-religious homages to the fairy tale writers. Allen |
aecurtis | 25 Sep 2005 12:10 p.m. PST |
And if you believe that
? Good lord, folks, the influences on Tolkien's work are probably the best-documented of any modern author, and bets read in the Professor's own words. Readily available online, and it's easy to see what really was influential, and what was not, as he himself was clear on many occasions. It's very easy in retrospect to read all sorts of crap into the mythos (for example WWII, much more than WWI), and as far as I'm concerned, that's where all the Christian themes which people claim to perceive come from. Better to take the man's own statements on the subject. Allen |
aecurtis | 25 Sep 2005 12:10 p.m. PST |
Sorry: "
best read
" Allen |
doc mcb | 25 Sep 2005 12:57 p.m. PST |
It was a conversation Tolkien had had with Lewis and their friend Hugo Dyson in 1931, before Lewis became a Christian—in fact, it was instrumental in his conversion. The men had been talking of mythology, and Lewis happened to say something about how all myths were beautiful lies. No, said Tolkien. [Myths] are not lies. . . . Man is not ultimately a liar. He may pervert his thought into lies, but he comes from God, and it is from God that he draws his ultimate ideals . . . 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 practicing 'mythopeia' 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 true light.1
Lewis also records the conversation, writing that the two men showed him that the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened. . . . The Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things.'2 That was the key I was looking for. Tolkien did not see himself as retelling a fairy tale, but as communicating fundamental truths based on the story of a real person—the only God, as Sayers wrote, who has a date in history. (Perhaps their minds were just a little bit more alike than Tolkien realized!) |
Parzival | 25 Sep 2005 1:01 p.m. PST |
""The Ring Orobourous" A good presentation overall, the only nit I have to pick is whether 'The Worm Orobourous' to which I assume you refer had any influence on Tolkien. I'd have said it's more a case of Eddison and Tolkien being influenced by the same things. Do you have any information on which you base this inclusion?" I recall reading (many years ago) of Tolkien's appreciation for The Worm Orobourous, but I can't recall the circumstances or the chronology of his reading vs. his own writing, save that Worm was (IIRC) published first. |
doc mcb | 25 Sep 2005 1:03 p.m. PST |
Mythopoeia The heart of man is not compound of lies,
but draws some wisdom from the only Wise, and still recalls him. Though now long estranged, man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed. Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship one he owned, his world-dominion by creative act: not his to worship the great Artefact, man, sub-creator, the refracted light through whom is splintered from a single White to many hues, and endlessly combined in living shapes that move from mind to mind. Though all the crannies of the world we filled with elves and goblins, though we dared to build gods and their houses out of dark and light, and sow the seed of dragons, 'twas our right (used or misused). The right has not decayed. We make still by the law in which we're made. |
Parzival | 25 Sep 2005 1:27 p.m. PST |
And for the completely clueless, aecurtis's post on the drug/dominatrix bit was indeed a complete hoax (nicely done, BTW). I can see the world of the gullible taking that and running with it
|
aecurtis | 25 Sep 2005 1:29 p.m. PST |
Tolkien wrote: "I have read all that E. R. Eddison wrote." "I . . . think of him as the greatest and most convincing writer of 'invented worlds' that I have read." The EB cites Eddidon's influence on Tolkien: link After reading "Ourobouros", C.S. Lewis invited Eddison to visit the Inklings and read from his works in progress, and maintained correspondence with him until Eddison's death in 1945. Allen |
aecurtis | 25 Sep 2005 1:30 p.m. PST |
Parsival, I certainly hope no-one is that clueless. But thanks! Allen |
aecurtis | 25 Sep 2005 1:31 p.m. PST |
Sorry: Parzival. Bad fingers, bad fingers! Allen |
Parzival | 25 Sep 2005 1:33 p.m. PST |
Bravo to doc mcb! Yes, Tolkien included Christian imagery on purpose; he was too well aware of both his faith and literature not to know what was Christian and what was not. Yet, as doc mcb points out, Tolkien would have felt that certain imagery and connections would have been present without his explicit intent, though nothing he wrote was ever intended as allegory. Again, similarity is not equality, but similarity can be purposeful. Tolkien wrote practically nothing by accident— except perhaps the great opening line: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." That at least, came out of nowhere save inspiration (in its classic sense)
and the rest of the tale grew from it. So yes, Christianity was present in The Lord of the Rings from the beginning, both by intent and by inspiration (never accident). "Underpinning," no, except that Tolkien felt all myths were underpinned by Christianity, the "One True Myth,", because Christianity lay at the core of everything— made, written, spoken, dreamed, thought, wished
or marred, hated, cursed, feared, denied or defied; the former from God and Christ, the latter twisted and falsified by Satan (who like Morgoth and Sauron cannot make, only mar). To Tolkien, there would have been no other possibility. He would have been as offended by someone saying that Christianity in anything was accidental or coincidental, as by someone asserting it came as direct, perfect parallels. God made man, man made myth, but without God's making and God's inspiration, myth could not be made. |
Parzival | 25 Sep 2005 1:51 p.m. PST |
"Tolkien wrote: "I have read all that E. R. Eddison wrote." "I . . . think of him as the greatest and most convincing writer of 'invented worlds' that I have read." Of interesting note is that Aragorn's identifying ring is a serpent; I can't recall if it's eating itself or not ("the Worm Ourobouros, that eateth its own tail"), but it may be a nod to Eddison.
So thanks for the corroboration, Allen! Yes indeed. (And thanks for correcting my spelling
what a horrid word to have to recall perfectly. Throw that out at a spelling bee and watch the kids squirm!) |
rmaker | 25 Sep 2005 6:29 p.m. PST |
hdanhotep wrote: "you have Sauron's death and (partial) ressurection as well" No. Sauron wasn't killed, he 'fell', Isildur cut his finger off to get the Ring, but Sauron survived and his power grew again, though he lost his fair appearance. The parallel is obvious. |
doc mcb | 25 Sep 2005 7:04 p.m. PST |
In one of his letters Tolkien commented that Radagast the Brown, the environmentalist wizard, had fallen through becoming so enamored of the creatures of Middle Earth that he lost sight of his purpose, to oppose Sauron and his works. Not that loving creation is a bad thing — Tolkien of all people knew it to be a good thing — but that Radagast's PURPOSE was a higher thing, and the turning from the Higher to the merely Good was evil. That is, of course, a thorouoghly Chrsitian understanding. |
aecurtis | 25 Sep 2005 8:11 p.m. PST |
"No. Sauron wasn't killed, he 'fell', Isildur cut his finger off to get the Ring, but Sauron survived and his power grew again, though he lost his fair appearance. The parallel is obvious." If you're going to draw parallels, at least do it using the same story as the rest of us! Sauron lost his corporeal form (and his fair appearance) with the fall of Numenor. He fled to Mordor in ethereal form. He was able to animate his armor to conceal his now-abhorrent appearance for the battle of the Last Alliance, but when the Ring was struck from his hand, the ability of his will to retain that form was also struck a critical blow. I fail to see any parallel, intentional or otherwise, between the "Satan" construct of later Christianity and the Melkor/Morgoth and Sauron characters. But then Judaism retains the original view of Satan from the Tanakh—and doubtless the same as that of the first Christians—and does not add the dualistic trappings which later Christianity used to terrify and control its oft-unwilling flock. To Jews, Satan is a useful agent of G*d, not the Enemy. Establishing a counter-Deity comes from Zoroastrianism and Manicheanism, as much as Christians loathe to admit it. I'm a little puzzled by Parzival's reference to the "Judeo-Christian" (a meaningless term) creation myth evidenced in the "Ainulindale". Tolkien's creation story is heartachingly beautiful, but bears no resemblance to that of Bereshit (Genesis, for those unable to read Torah). The role of Melkor in the pollution of Arda is far from that of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, even if one mistakenly equates the serpent with "Satan". Their actions to spoil the Creator's intent are both overtly and subtly different. "Judeo-Christian"? Quite the contrary: the role of the Ainur in completing and maintaining their individual aspects of Arda is that of a classical pagan pantheon. The inclusion of an overall Creator as the ultimate agent of Creation—while practical, specific tasks and responsibilities are left to lesser gods to accomplish, often imperfectly—is a concept quite familiar to a plurality of the religious population of the modern world. It is also a familiar concept to a good Catholic such as Tolkien, whose Church almost instantly binned Judaic monotheism after its inception, and started handed out those duties previously handled by pagan deities to the various saints. But for those whose Christian leanings reject appeals to intercessory agencies, how can you possibly reconcile the Ainur pantheon (who are the only beings with which the children of Arda may communicate) with the Holy Trinity—whatever denominational take you may have on it? What comparison can you possibly draw between the Fall of Man and the various failures of the Elves: to respond to the call to come to Eressea; the dawdling along the way; the seduction of Melkor; the Kinslaying; the seduction of Sauron; and so forth? If anything, the tale of the Elves more resembles the repetitive failure of the Hebrews to obey G*d's instructions, but that is a very superficial resemblance. In Tolkien, Man never is offered a defining moment in connection with Creation, either to fail or succeed. In the first Ages, Man is hardly even in the story, except as an occasional aid and support of the First-born, and to produce the first two human halves of the three great joining of Men and Elves. Those are tales of pagan heroes, not saints and martyrs—much less Adam, Cain, and Abraham. And the fall and return of Gandalf as a parallel of the death and resurrection of Christ? How arrogant and self-absorbed must Christians be, to claim this? The sacrificial god-hero-king, killed and resurrected renewed for the good of those he serves, is millennia older than Christianity, and common to almost all peoples of the world. Tolkien was assuredly able to tap into the deepest myths and archetypes of humanity. But to see Christianity in it? One must have to put on some awfully restrictive blinders to see that. A 100-series course in comparative religion or the history of philosophy would clear things up for many, I think. Allen |
Parzival | 25 Sep 2005 10:29 p.m. PST |
Whether others approve of the Christian faith or not, Tolkien was a devout practicioner of it, to his very core. (Indeed, the man was largely responsible for the conversion of C.S. Lewis! It's rather hard to be more Christian in your world view than that.) Christians aren't claiming anything when claiming Tolkien as one of their own that he didn't acknowledge and proclaim himself. As Tolkien would have said (and did say, repeatedly), the dying god-hero-king is an archetype because it is fundamentally the story of Christ! That is what Tolkien believed. He believed that the reason so many cultures had such myths was because God— the Christian God— inspired those myths, whether the cultures were aware of it or not. Christ was existant at Creation, and His Story is fundamental to it. Others may not believe that, but that is not the issue here. Tolkien believed it, and that is all that matters when discussing what Tolkien wrote and why he wrote it! Tolkien would have thoroughly rejected Frazier's assertions in The Golden Bough, or any other assertions that placed accident over Divine Intent. Tolkien wrote a Christian book because Tolkien was a Christian. Others may reject Christianity's validity based on comparative religion courses, but Tolkien most assuredly did not and would not. Secondly, as I have said before, Tolkien was NOT WRITING AN ALLEGORY. He did not INTEND for there to be any one-to-one relationship between Judeo-Christian Creation myth, Eden, the Fall, etc, and the stories in the Silmarillion or anything else, and I was not asserting that he did. But he did intend for there to be SIMILARITIES. Thus, no, no Trinity appears in the Silmarrillion. And while Morgoth may not be Satan, he is certainly Satanic in the Miltonian sense. He rebels, attempts to take over and mold Creation to his liking, but Eru Illuvator is superior to him, and incorporates corrections into Morgoth's marring that point to the ultimate triumph of Eru (a triumph which is not completed with the defeat of Sauron). This is pure Milton, and inherently Christian. The assertion that Eru creates the world out of nothing other than His Own Will, is also rather uniquely Judeo-Christian. Most pagan myths have the world created from another physical source, whether it be a giant's body, a turtle's back or a giant egg (presumably from a cosmic chicken). Tolkien rejects these ideas in favor of an expanded Genesis 1 style creation, to which he adds his own fanciful (and I agree quite beautiful) elements. Further, the Fall of Man does occur "in the margins," as it were: When the elves encounter men for the first time, the Silmarillion hints that something unclear and evil has happened concerning men, though the elves do not know what it is. No, there is no serpent or Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, or anything of the sort in Tolkien. He did not intend that, and therefore did not include it. (Why would he? The Bible tells that tale, and he was not attempting to rewrite it.) Nor, for that matter, is Gandalf (or Aragorn, or anyone else) Christ. Their tales may in different ways be similar, and that is certainly intentional on many points, but there is not an allegorical correspondence— more an "echo," as it were. (And for Tolkien that echo would have been of Christ, as Tolkien believed all such myths were just such echoes. In the Tolkien world view, Christ is the archetype, not the example of it.) Again, I, for one, am NOT trying to make a one-to-one correspondence. But I am asserting as fact what is fact: That Tolkien was a Christian, and his writing contained what in his view were profoundly Christian themes, and he would not have argued with that assessment. Proponents of other faiths (or even no faiths) may not like those facts about an author or work they love, but that does not change the facts themselves. On the other hand, Tolkien was not out to rewrite the Bible, or to retell it. He wrote a story he loved to share with the world, and that was his intent. At the same time, he did intend for their to be echoes of Christianity within it. Perfect correlation, no. Hints like the shadows of embers playing on a wall, yes. None of that can be waved away. |
Jacko27 | 26 Sep 2005 3:48 a.m. PST |
I cant remember if this is correct but I thought that Tolkien wrote the Hobbit first as a story for his children-setting it in his own created Middle Earth universe in which he could explore his own linguistic experiments-lots of songs,ballads of the type that were used to record history prior to formal written language |
Patules | 26 Sep 2005 6:07 a.m. PST |
"Am watching "Fellowship of the Ring" after my daily hurricane cleanup activity and was wondering what inspired him to write it;never read the book,but several friends state the movies are very close to the book." This makes me question your friends' memories. Jackson's adaptation is terrible. Actually, films 'loosely based on Tolkien's book' would be more accurate. Ralph Bakshi's much attacked rendering is superior to Pete's. (In fact the only reason Pete's first film was good was because of his use of Bakshi's as a 'guideline'. Except, genius that he is, Pete chose to ignore many of the vital aspects of the story). He had a far better understanding of his source material. Doing a Google search will show you many disagree with this, but reading the reasons for their disgust it soon becomes apparent that they are the type who smirk at rotoscoping and 'viking' Boromir
|
doc mcb | 26 Sep 2005 6:11 a.m. PST |
Parzival has it. Allen, forgive my presumption about motives, but you seem to be bothered that something you like — LOTR — might be based on something you evidently don't like — Christianity. All the other points, about war and entertaining his son and philology and so forth, are part of the answer, but Tolkien's work (his professional work as well as his fiction) was based on his Christian theory of mythopoia. It seems to me that you are letting your knowledge of comparative religion — you aren't the only one on this thread who has studied it — prevent you from seeing that Tolkien's theory of myth incorporates your objection. John |
John the OFM | 26 Sep 2005 8:33 a.m. PST |
As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". |
nazrat | 27 Sep 2005 9:20 p.m. PST |
"Ralph Bakshi's much attacked rendering is superior to Pete's. " There had to be ONE person who believed this— the exception that proves the rule! 8)= |
Area23 | 28 Sep 2005 4:31 a.m. PST |
On Orcs; Tolkien's descriptions of orcs have many astonishing similarities with the first (greek-) descriptions of the Huns. Which were obviously descriptions based on hearsay and rumor and 4th century world perception. The whole dark threat from the East from Sauron can be seen as parallels with the Hunnic invasion and later Mongol and Muslim invasions. The 'good guys' are obviously largely based on Byzantine and Ostrogoth culture, and a nice mix of Rus, late roman Britain. Pellenor fields for example has historical equivalents in Atilla's last battle he lost against an allied force of Franks and Bourgondians in southern France, i.i.r.c. Curiously on the other hand, in the Icelandic Edda, based on older germanic Saga's Etzel, probably Atilla, was described as a rather nice chap. And real Evil seems to have been quite relative in ancient Germanic culture. |
|