Strangers in strange lands?

Hi Anthony,

Yes, I considered that, and think it is likely true (though we know nothing about how populated those areas were in earlier times? Populated enough to give Gondor periodic problems.).

That's why I said Elrond's statement would appear strange considered from the perspective of the West of Middle Earth.

As I said in a reply to you above, I am really less interested in Elrond's statement exactly (though I do think it odd), or in its 'historical' accuracy according to the census takers of Middle Earth, than in the overall relationship in Tolkien's mind between Elves and Men.
 
Flammifer said:
Hi Anthony,

I am really less interested in the 'loose thread' of Elrond's comment (though I do think it odd) than I am in the overall relationship between Men and Elves, between Mortality and Immortality, especially in the context of a Tolkien statement that TLOTR could be seen as a study in death and immortality.

I have been trying to figure out what Tolkien meant by this? Why he said it? And, what exactly TLOTR is saying about death and immortality.

My thoughts have been developing through writing a series of posts on this forum, through the responses to those posts, and through the classes. The current hypothesis I am exploring is that Tolkien conceived the Elves as unfallen conscious beings (not all of them), and Men as fallen conscious beings.

So far, this seems like an interesting hypothesis. It does rely for evidence more on 'The Silmarillion' than I would like (not totally trusting that work as canon), but I think there is some evidence from TLOTR. I have not been able to break this hypothesis so far, and it seems to me to be holding as a pretty good supposition.

I think, when reading TLOTR, one has to wonder, what are the differences between Men and Elves? Why is Tolkien so enamored of Elves? Why are Tolkien's Elves so different from the Elves of Medieval Faerie stories (and where are they similar). Why make Elves immortal? Why give Elves a home of their own separate from Middle Earth? Why give Elves a privileged relationship with the Valar? What does all this mean for Men in Tolkien's world?

So far, I find the hypothesis that Elves are unfallen (mostly) to contrast with fallen Men, to be the best idea I have come up with to explain what Tolkien was portraying.

I don't think that I have reached the end of thinking about this though.
Click to expand...
It's not Elrond's comment that I think of as the loose thread; It's the idea that Elves are not (generally) fallen.

What happens in your hypothesis when an 'unfallen' being performs an act of abject evil without realising it, because they don't 'know evil'? Is it simply ignored, or forgiven?

In the texts we have available to study, Elves that commit evil and refuse to repent do suffer consequences; they may even be refused re-embodiment (e.g. Fëanor)

In Christian belief, one cannot live without sin (not even Saints) even if externally one appears to be free of sin, but repentance leads to salvation. I'm just not seeing the difference that leads you to see Elves as fundamentally unfallen and corrupted only on an individual basis.

The Teleri that took part in the first Kinslaying: do you see these as fallen? Where is the line drawn?
 
For context, I think the line to which you initially referred is from Letter 186 to Joanna de Bortadano (April 1956).

The real theme for me is about something much more permanent and difficult [than War]: Death and Immortality: the mystery of the love of the world in the hearts of a race ‘doomed’ to leave and seemingly lose it; the anguish in the hearts of a race ‘doomed’ not to leave it, until its whole evil-aroused story is complete.
 
Also, in Letter 181 to Michael Straight there is a passage which may be applicable to the current discussion.

Of course, in fact exterior to my story, Elves and Men are just different aspects of the Humane, and represent the problem of Death as seen by a finite but willing and self-conscious person. In this mythological world the Elves and Men are in their incarnate forms kindred, but in the relation of their ‘spirits’ to the world in time represent different ‘experiments’, each of which has its own natural trend, and weakness. The Elves represent, as it were, the artistic, aesthetic, and purely scientific aspects of the Humane nature raised to a higher level than is actually seen in Men. That is: they have a devoted love of the physical world, and a desire to observe and understand it for its own sake and as ‘other’ – sc. as a reality derived from God in the same degree as themselves – not as a material for use or as a power-platform. They also possess a ‘subcreational’ or artistic faculty of great excellence. They are therefore ‘immortal’. Not ‘eternally’, but to endure with and within the created world, while its story lasts. When ‘killed’, by the injury or destruction of their incarnate form, they do not escape from time, but remain in the world, either discarnate, or being re-born. This becomes a great burden as the ages lengthen, especially in a world in which there is malice and destruction (I have left out the mythological form which Malice or the Fall of the Angels takes in this fable). Mere change as such is not represented as ‘evil’: it is the unfolding of the story and to refuse this is of course against the design of God. But the Elvish weakness is in these terms naturally to regret the past, and to become unwilling to face change: as if a man were to hate a very long book still going on, and wished to settle down in a favourite chapter. Hence they fell in a measure to Sauron’s deceits: they desired some ‘power’ over things as they are (which is quite distinct from art), to make their particular will to preservation effective: to arrest change, and keep things always fresh and fair. The ‘Three Rings’ were ‘unsullied’, because this object was in a limited way good, it included the healing of the real damages of malice, as well as the mere arrest of change; and the Elves did not desire to dominate other wills, nor to usurp all the world to their particular pleasure. But with the downfall of ‘Power’ their little efforts at preserving the past fell to bits. There was nothing more in Middle-earth for them, but weariness. So Elrond and Galadriel depart. Gandalf is a special case. He was not the maker or original holder of the Ring – but it was surrendered to him by Círdan, to assist him in his task. Gandalf was returning, his labour and errand finished, to his home, the land of the Valar.

If nothing else, this discussion has convinced me to buy The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien!
 
Hi JJ48,

Thanks very much for finding those two letters.

Very interesting.

I have read Tolkien's letters, and all the other 'lore' stuff, at least once, but have not really studied them much. Partly because I am dubious about how 'canon' they are. We know that Tolkien changed his conceptions frequently. I believe that he was trying to understand what TLOTR meant just as much as we are, and his opinion at any one time was just as tentative as ours is. Mainly I have tried to concentrate on TLOTR as a work of art. Though, I am often seduced by the Silmarillion, (which I love, even though I don't really consider it 'canon' since who knows how Tolkien might have changed it had he ever thought it ready for publication?)

I read this letter as certainly not refuting the hypothesis that Elves, unlike Men, are not fallen. (In fact, I think it somewhat supports it, though rather indirectly). It may, I think, add other elements to that hypothesis. But I will have to think about that before I know what to make of it.

A few things I think about on first consideration are:

1. If Gandalf is a special case, because he, 'was not the maker or original holder of the ring', then should not this also apply to Elrond, who also was not the maker nor original holder of the ring. (He having got his from Gil-Galad)? I think this re-inforces my supposition that Galadriel is the main representative of 'fallen' Elves who we encounter in TLOTR.

2. "The Elvish weakness is in these terms naturally to regret the past, and to become unwilling to face change:". Do we really see this? To some extent in Lothlorien. In Rivendell? Perhaps some, but not so obvious. I think this is a Galadriel problem. Maybe a problem to some extent for all the Elves in Middle Earth. But, is it a problem for the Elves in Elvenhome? There they can be 'sub-creational' and 'artistic' to their hearts content. Nor will there be much change, as change does not usually appear to be a feature of Valinor. However, I'm not sure that I agree with Tolkien's thoughts in this letter that the desire to 'arrest change' is actually the main motivation behind Feanor or Galadriel (who I see as chief representatives of 'fallen' Elves, along with Feanor's sons). I speculate that their main motivation is to make their 'sub-creations' real rather than artistic. Galadriel wants to make a real realm of wonder and delight in a way that she cannot do in Valinor, but can in Lothlorien in Middle Earth. She does not just want to make a work of art about it. Feanor wants to make real jewels that capture the light of the two trees, rather than just an artistic representation of such jewels. Both want to be 'real' creators, rather than just sub-creators (very similar to the rebellion of Melkor). And, they succeed, and come to love their creations and horde them and don't want to give them up or see them change. I think that impulse (the same impulse that Aule and Yavanna have in relation to creating Dwarves and Ents), is what sets both Feanor and Galadriel on the road to 'falling' (into the knowledge of good and evil). I don't think it is the actual cause of their fall, but it is the impulse behind it.
 
Last edited:
Flammifer said:
1. If Gandalf is a special case, because he, 'was not the maker or original holder of the ring', then should not this also apply to Elrond, who also was not the maker nor original holder of the ring. (He having got his from Gil-Galad)? I think this re-inforces my supposition that Galadriel is the main representative of 'fallen' Elves who we encounter in TLOTR.
Click to expand...

I don't think this takes into consideration the full quote. While Tolkien mentions Gandalf's ring, the following sentence makes clear the primary distinction between Gandalf and the others, which is that Gandalf is returning home after a job well-done, while the others are leaving their homes because they can no longer keep them homely. Gandalf's ring was given to him in order to achieve a purpose, and he achieved that purpose. Elrond inherited his ring, not for a specific purpose, but merely so that it might continue until it eventually failed.

Flammifer said:
2. "The Elvish weakness is in these terms naturally to regret the past, and to become unwilling to face change:". Do we really see this? To some extent in Lothlorien. In Rivendell? Perhaps some, but not so obvious. I think this is a Galadriel problem. Maybe a problem to some extent for all the Elves in Middle Earth. But, is it a problem for the Elves in Elvenhome? There they can be 'sub-creational' and 'artistic' to their hearts content. Nor will there be much change, as change does not usually appear to be a feature of Valinor. However, I'm not sure that I agree with Tolkien's thoughts in this letter that the desire to 'arrest change' is actually the main motivation behind Feanor or Galadriel (who I see as chief representatives of 'fallen' Elves, along with Feanor's sons). I speculate that their main motivation is to make their 'sub-creations' real rather than artistic. Galadriel wants to make a real realm of wonder and delight in a way that she cannot do in Valinor, but can in Lothlorien in Middle Earth. She does not just want to make a work of art about it. Feanor wants to make real jewels that capture the light of the two trees, rather than just an artistic representation of such jewels. Both want to be 'real' creators, rather than just sub-creators (very similar to the rebellion of Melkor). And, they succeed, and come to love their creations and horde them and don't want to give them up or see them change. I think that impulse (the same impulse that Aule and Yavanna have in relation to creating Dwarves and Ents), is what sets both Feanor and Galadriel on the road to 'falling' (into the knowledge of good and evil). I don't think it is the actual cause of their fall, but it is the impulse behind it.
Click to expand...

To claim that anyone, even Feanor, became a real creator rather than a sub-creator is to misunderstand the distinction between creation and sub-creation. Even Aulë did not create living beings, but only fashion a likeness in imitation of the real Children. It is by Iluvatar that the Dwarves are given life and become true creatures. Though, speaking of Aulë, it is interesting that Tolkien himself viewed this action as a sort of Fall:

Even the ‘good’ Valar as inhabiting the World could at least err; as the Great Valar did in their dealings with the Elves; or as the lesser of their kind (as the Istari or wizards) could in various ways become self-seeking. Aulë, for instance, one of the Great, in a sense ‘fell’; for he so desired to see the Children, that he became impatient and tried to anticipate the will of the Creator. Being the greatest of all craftsmen he tried to make children according to his imperfect knowledge of their kind. When he had made thirteen, God spoke to him in anger, but not without pity: for Aulë had done this thing not out of evil desire to have slaves and subjects of his own, but out of impatient love, desiring children to talk to and teach, sharing with them the praise of Ilúvatar and his great love of the materials of which the world is made. (Letter 212)
 
Hi JJ48,

On your first point, I agree that the cases of Gandalf and Elrond are different. I, however, was more commenting on the contrast between Elrond and Galadriel, who, I think, might have been overly conflated in the original passage.

On your second point, I agree that neither Feanor nor Galadriel became 'real' creators. However, I think that was their impulse, or desire, just as it was for Melkor, Aule and Yavanna. Like all of those, they did not truly succeed, but they did become 'realer' creators than most sub-creators.
 
Flammifer said:
My hypothesis is that unfallen Elves (like Feanor) do not have a conscience. They do not 'know' evil, so they cannot recognize it within themselves.
Click to expand...
  • Feanor does evil without recognizing it; he hates Morgoth with a passion, but doesn't even see that he is in some ways similar. So he is "unfallen".
  • Galadriel (in the chapter "The Fountain of Galadriel") recognizes the evil in herself, and masters it. So she's a "fallen Elf".
Wow. Christian (or at least Christian-influenced) theology is so weird and confusing! :confused:
I can see what you're getting at, though. I wonder what JRRT would say about it. . . There is a lot about Elves that seems innocent, childish, and unfallen - from tra la la lally to believing they can run lightly over drifts of snow -- oh, wait: they really can do that!

Some questions to consider:
What is the process by which an unfallen Elf develops a conscience and becomes fallen? What is the initiating factor?
What about the Avari? They refused the summons of the Valar and stayed in ME. Fallen or unfallen?
Can an unfallen being wage war, even against a soulless cannon-fodder enemy like Orcs (sort of) are?
 
Hi Jim,

Great questions. I have thought about all of them. Here are some current thoughts.

1. How do unfallen Elves fall? I think we see this process most clearly through Feanor and his sons. The process, it seems to me, starts with corruption from an external source. Melkor, in this case. Melkor subtly and cunningly works on the thoughts of those Elves to tempt them to act in less and less 'good' and more and more 'evil' ways. The process is gradual. The slide into evil is incremental. The Elves don't notice it. They do not have the knowledge of good and evil, and do not have a conscience, so they don't realize that their actions are getting closer and closer to the line. Finally, they do something that they have to recognize (rationally, not through conscience) as bad. But, due to the corruption, they rationalize it. It is only once they (if they) start to analyze their rationalizations, that they realize that Evil has taken hold inside themselves. Has become a part of them. That is the Fall, (and the birth of conscience). Of course, now the sinful emotions of pride, arrogance and despair, can cause them to ignore their conscience, and continue in evil. Though they also have the capacity to repent of evil and turn to good. (Feanor's sons come close to repenting of evil, but fail in the end.) Galadriel is the other interesting example. She is not corrupted by Melkor (at least not directly). She is a rebel (somewhat like Melkor, Aule and Yavanna). She is bored in Valinor. She wants adventure, and power, and to create and rule her own lands in Middle Earth. At some point, she realizes that in the course of this rebellion, she has 'fallen', and become aware of evil within herself. She is also the Elf who successfully resists sin, turns towards the good, abandons her ambitions, refuses the Ring, and voluntarily will diminish, go into the West, and remain Galadriel.

2. The Avari are difficult. My hypothesis is that Elves are unfallen. So, the Avari are unfallen. (Legolas being a good example). Not that the Avari cannot fall. If Orcs are corrupted Elves, then many Avari have fallen over the ages.

3. The unfallen Elves (in my hypothesis) can certainly wage war. They do, in the War of Wrath. I suspect that Tolkien, who fought in one war, and who's son was in another, did not believe that killing in a 'just war' was evil or a sin.
 
Hi JJ48,

Great question. The same question, of course as, "Does Satan have a conscience"?

I don't think that in either case we know for sure. Is the 'fall from heaven' the same as 'the fall of Man' (or 'the fall of Elves')?

However, my supposition would be that yes, Morgoth has a conscience. He totally ignores it of course. But it does not ignore him. It is due to his conscience that he lives in perpetual Hell. Total speculation, but it could be that the song of Luthien, in the nethermost hall of Angbad, spoke to the shriveled and long buried conscience of Morgoth, and, it, knowing that it long had lost all power to change the thoughts and actions of Morgoth, yet had the power still to cast him into deep slumber, so that Beren could cut the Silmaril from his crown, and he and Luthien could escape from those dreadful halls.
 
Hi JJ48.

I don't think they do (well, the ones that did not side with Melkor). I think they are unfallen. I think the best evidence that the Valar do not have 'the knowledge of good and evil' is the statement about Manwe, from the Silmarillion, when Manwe released Melkor from prison, "It seemed to Manwe that the evil of Melkor was cured.. For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it."

Manwe was 'free from evil'. I think that is pretty explicit that Manwe is unfallen, and does not have 'the knowledge of good and evil'. The Vala who understands evil best seems to be Mandos, but I think his understanding is rational, and analytical (from various experiences in his Halls), rather than internal.

So, no, I don't think the Valar/Maiar have consciences.
 
Though, Aulë transgressed by creating the dwarves and, when confronted by Iluvatar, seemed to understand that he had done wrong. To me, that sounds like something similar to a conscience.
 
Aule is apprehensive that what he is doing might be 'wrong'. That's why he does it in secret, fearing that the other Valar might blame his work. Then Iluvatar confronts him and accuses him of 'doing wrong', and Aule realizes that he has done wrong and tries to appease Iluvatar.

Doing 'wrong' is not the same as doing Evil. A dog who trashes the house, when you are away, knows to some degree that it is 'doing wrong'. When you come back and call the dog in a stern tone, it knows it has done wrong, and seeks to appease you, and looks guilty.

But the dog has not done Evil.

The dog and Aule both know that they are doing wrong, in that their master won't like it. And, confronted by the master, they can look guilty and seek to appease.

But, disobedience is not a sin, and not evil (though it can lead to evil, and does in the case of Melkor). And, in any case, neither Aule nor the dog are really being 'disobedient', since Iluvatar did not presumably specifically tell Aule not to create Dwarves, just like you probably did not specifically tell the dog not to trash the house while you were away.

So, Aule knowing he has done wrong, and feeling guilty, is not the same as Aule knowing evil, and having a conscience.
 
I disagree that a dog knows it is doing wrong. The dog certainly knows when its owner is upset, but doesn't necessarily even link that mood to a specific action it's done unless you train it. Dogs are completely reliant on training to know what to do.

In contrast, Men, Elves, Maiar, and Valar have Reason. They should be expected to be able to use what they do know about Ilúvatar and His decrees to figure out if actions are Good, even when they haven't been given explicit commands. Aulë's actions (and Ilúvatar's words) show that he knew he was transgressing in a way that a dog doesn't.

As for disobedience not being sin; as I pointed out before, sin in Christianity is defined as disobeying God. Again, how are you defining sin otherwise? For that matter, how are you defining Good and Evil if Ilúvatar is not the standard?
 
Excellent question, as I am trying to define good and evil (in the Biblical context) as truths within Archetypical stories, rather than defined in relation to an embodied God. So, I guess I am defining evil and sin as something like, 'intentional acts which hurt others or ourselves (physically or psychologically), and (to some extent) the dark emotions which tempt or provoke us to those actions.'

In other words, I am trying for a definition of sin that does not require a deity to define it.

Now, of course, in Tolkien's Arda (or mostly outside of Arda) there is a God, and a variety of Angels, but we don't have a very clear idea as to what Eru regards as sin.

The Christian definition of sin is also not very clear. St. Augustine defined it as, "a word, deed, or desire in opposition to the eternal law of God".

I think I would agree with that (especially if defining 'God' as symbolic of Human nature and the created world), but I don't think we know what the eternal law of God is exactly.

I am certainly not a Biblical literalist, nor fundamentalist. I think that the books of the Old Testament are a collection of stories told orally by generations of men, refined until they became archetypal stories that contain true things, then written down and edited and assembled by other wise men at various times, and certainly not dictated by God.

So, which statements attributed to God can be interpreted as 'the eternal law of God' is dubious. Is any given statement attributed to God advice? instruction? a wish? a hope? a command? a law? eternal? Very hard to say, and also contradictory at many points across the Old Testament.

The other Christian definition of sin that I am aware of is, 'an act of offense against God by despising His persons, and Biblical law, and by injuring others'. Which does not help much, as it comes back to the question of what is Biblical law?

Let's take an example from the story of Adam and Eve: 'And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it, you will certainly die."' Is that a law, or a command, or an instruction, or just advice (if you eat it you will certainly die). Is it eternal?

I read it as an archetypal story explaining that when men evolved consciousness, they gained a knowledge of good and evil. When they became conscious, they also became aware (unlike, or differently from animals) that they would certainly die. I don't need any God, or any disobedience, to read that 'truth' into the story.

So, then, I wonder, 'what is evil'? Well, once conscious, Men can plan to hurt or increase the suffering of others to gain future objectives. That is evil. Men can also hurt themselves or others out of despair, rage, envy, nihilism, due to their 'sinful' perspective on the prospect of a short and suffering life, ending in inevitable death. That is evil.

I regard the Adam and Eve story as 'true' in describing the 'fall' of Man into consciousness and the knowledge of good and evil. Unlike the church, however, I don't regard the 'fall' of Man as 'original sin'. Man had no volition in acquiring consciousness. Evolution did it. The consequence of gaining a knowledge of good and evil was just an inevitability. Man has to learn to live with it. God is not necessary to explain it.

I hope that is at all clear? Defining metaphysical concepts like sin and evil (especially if eschewing the easy appeal to divine authority) is difficult. Stories do it better than articulation.
 
The biggest problem that I have with the idea of ‘fallen’ meaning 'having the knowledge of good and evil' rather than merely the capacity for (or, more accurately the motivation to do) evil is that it gives psychopathy a free pass.

An example: If I kill someone and feel no remorse does that make my action more or less evil?
If the only thing preventing me from casually murdering others is the potential negative social consequences then am I not still 'fallen'?
If personal, experiential knowledge of evil is required and rational knowledge of evil is insufficient does that mean that those without any trace of empathy are 'unfallen'? This perspective does not sit well with me.

Equally, I have a problem with the idea that having a conscience is evidence of having 'fallen'.

I think Manwë being 'free from evil' and unable to comprehend it doesn't strip him of a conscience. He is empathetic in a way Melkor never is but instead lacks the motivation to harm others (evil) and therefore fails to understand that motivation. When it is shown that the actions of the Valar have lead to harm he is not unmoved as one without conscience would be. When the Trees are destroyed he is moved even though the loss is to the community, not himself. When Yavanna's concern for her 'children' is expressed his response is not 'not my problem' but is along the lines of 'I can see why you are worried and I think Ents will be Ok'.

Flammifer, I see what you are trying to do by removing an embodied God from the discussion, but I don't think it is a useful approach to discussions of Middle-Earth.
 
I don't think that works. Why is hurting or increasing suffering of others defined as "evil"? By what standard are you calling it thus? Put another way, suppose the Orcs thought serving Morgoth was "good" and opposing him was "evil", deserving of death. What basis do we have for saying they're wrong? Mere personal preference?

I guess the deeper point I'm driving at, in regards to this relating to the text, is, "How did Tolkien understand these issues?" You've said that you're trying to grasp how Tolkien understood these issues, but your starting points sound completely alien to those I imagine Tolkien had (unless early 20th-century Catholic theology is far more different from Protestant (Grace Brethren) theology than I thought). Maybe you know something about Tolkien that I don't, in which case, by all means show me his starting point. But from what I see right now, it's much as if I were wanting to understand how Lovecraft understood his mythos, and decided to approach them starting from a Conservative Christian worldview. I could probably find a reading that worked, but it wouldn't be at all how Lovecraft understood it.

This is why I said at one point that it sounds like you're trying to force a reading onto the text rather than drawing a reading from the text. Again, I could be wrong about Tolkien's starting point, but I would need to see quite a bit to convince me.
 
Hi Anthony,

I think you may be confusing several things.

1. Basically the idea of being 'fallen' does mean having the knowledge of good and evil. Why do you think the story basically defines 'fallen' as 'eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". That's what causes the 'fall'. Simple as that.

2. If you kill someone, this might be an accident or it might be impelled by malice or for gain, or it might be for self defence or in just cause. In the first and third cases it is regrettable, or necessary, but not evil. In the second case it is evil. Whether you feel remorse or not does not make it more or less evil.

3. Negative social consequences implies harming others. If you don't kill someone because your conscience tells you it will cause negative social consequences and will harm others, it means that you have a conscience and are fallen.

4. Knowing what other people might like, and being concerned about other people (empathy), seems to me to be possible without the knowledge of good and evil. Animals know what other animals like and are concerned about them. Conscious, but unfallen beings should be much better than animals at this. Manwe is certainly empathetic towards Melkor. He knows that Melkor wants to be let out of prison. He sympathizes. However, Manwe is overly empathetic, and not suspicious enough. He does not understand evil (because he is unfallen). He has no internal conception of how Melkor can be eaten up by malice, yet conceal it behind a screen of lies. If he had the knowledge of good and evil within himself, he would be less naive.

5. 'Conscience' is not the capacity to feel bad when bad things happen. Of course, Manwe is devastated when bad things happen. Conscience is the voice within you that says, "what you are about to do is wrong, bad, evil". That comes from the knowledge of good and evil. It comes before you do whatever you planned to do. It also helps you recognize that you did wrong after you do it anyway.

6. Removing an embodied God from the discussion, should not alter the truth of literature. Great fiction tells us something true. Truer than we can achieve through articulation, or through observed fact (because great stories distill countless observed facts into condensed archetypes). Putting a personified God into those stories used to help the story to convey the truth at one point in history. Now, however, it seems to me, that insisting on a personified God in those stories (whether a personified God is actually 'true' or not) gets in the way of modern people seeing the 'truth' in the archetypical stories. This is not so true of Tolkien putting a personified God into his stories, because the modern reader treats the story as 'fiction' or 'literature', and Tolkiens Eru, (because 'fictional') does not upset the modern reader. In fact, this might help the modern reader 'recover' the concept of a personified God, as Tolkien intimates in 'On Fairy Stories'. On the other hand, insisting on a personified God in readings of the Bible stories just alienates a lot of people. Take out the personified God, and people are much more open to the archetypal 'truths' in the story. That's the main reason why I do it. And I do think it is a useful approach to discussions of Middle Earth. We know that Tolkien was a Catholic. He has said that TLOTR is a heavily Catholic work. Now, Catholics, of course, are not fundamentalists, and do not believe in literal interpretations of the Bible. But, if we want to compare and contrast TLOTR to the Bible (which must have been one of Tolkien's key influences) then we will alienate a lot of modern readers unless we can read the Bible stories in an archetypal way, and remove the necessity for an embodied God from them. I don't think that is particulary non-Catholic. I don't think the Catholics really insist on an embodied God until we get to New Testament stuff in the Bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top