lord of the rings= Allegory

[the Lorien wanderer]

All right, this isn't exactly an original topic because there's a heated debate going on at the Barrowdowns over it right now...but I'd like to know what you guys think.
A lot of people think that Tolkien's books are highly influenced by the Bible and that the trilogy may be an allegorical representation of the Bible. Then again, many say that thw World War affected him deeply and various characters in LOTR represent communists and capitalists and the like.
What do you think? Did Tolkien draw inspiration from the Bible or the world Wars or any other source? Or did he just tell a wonderful story about a world that existed for him?

[Eruve]

I think he just told a story about a world that existed for him. Sure, he drew on lots of sources throughout his legendarium; not just the Bible, but also Norse mythology, Greek tragedy, Shakespeare, all sorts of things. As for the allegory bit, he expressly denies having written an allegory about WWII in the intro. to Fellowship. As he points out there, the general plotline of the story was set out in his mind a few years before the outset of WWII, so he couldn't have foreseen the parallels that some see between the story and events of the time. While JRRT certainly drew on his personal experience with war, I don't think he was consciously trying to portray the war that was occurring while he was writing LOTR.

[Gilthalion]

He was trying to tell an original story in a framework of a mythology that suited his fancy.

I think he obviously was quite influenced by the Bible. And by war in general. WWI was called "Armageddon" by its generation. The factions of WWII were largely the same as WWI and to whatever extent Tolkien's involvement in WWI influenced his writing, its resonances with WWII would therefore be unavoidable, however unintended. The science fiction and speculation of the day anticipated weapons of great power.

Tolkien was a man of his time, and a deeply religious Christian, and also was steeped in the lore of Northern Europe, in the respective languages of their origin. So his outlook could be expected to be influenced, as Eruve said, from these diverse sources.

Yet these hold much in common and are wielded by Tolkien to reveal truths, beauties, and terrors that reach through our own perceptions and confirm to us some shared sense of Good and of Eternity and of value in our deeds upon this temporal Earth.




Of course, he may have simply wanted to make some money, and used whatever source material was handy. I prefer the former explanation.

[Tobold Hornblower]

Eruve and Gilthalion, you are so right (except for that We´re only in it for the money-bit!) and well put.

Certainly in such a rich production there must occur similarities to existing mythos of other times and cultures, but often such similarities are of an “archetypal” nature. It did not mean that Tolkien was roving scripture, collecting bits and pieces to incorporate in an eclectic and syncretistic way.

Tolkien´s entrance into the world of his making was his love for languages and philology. Inevitably, people also have found similarities from his invented languages to real ones. But not this either diminishes his ingenuity and originality. Has there ever been another author/scholar with Tolkien´s outlook, or was he totally unique?

[LoserKid1]

one thing that struck me when i started to read LOTR is the similarities to the bible... i know tolkien denied any allegories, but it's not hard to beleive that he took elements from the greatest book ever written, and used them in his own novels (like many authors do, of course)

anyone ever consider this one? the dwarves = people of islamic persuasion

just look at all the similarities.

the dwarves were created by aule, one of the "forefathers" of middle earth. in the bible, people of the middle east with religious persuasion other than jewish/christian are descended from ishmael, son of abraham (a forefather in christian religion).

aule vaguely knew that illuvatar had plans for a "firstborn" to inhabit the world that had been forged. but aule grew impatient, and instead of trusting in illuvatar's plan, he forged his own creation; the dwarves. when illuvatar discovered the dwarves, he was of course rather angry and upset with aule. but he did not destroy the dwarves, and he showed kindess to them. even though they were not part of his original plan, he made a place for them in the grand scheme (even if they did have to sleep until the firstborn awoke)

in the bible, god told abraham that though he was very old, his wife would bear a child. abraham was impatient, so he knocked up a slave girl. she had ishmael. although this didn't go along with god's original plan, he showed kindness to both the girl and ishmael, and though their descendents weren't his "people", he cared for them and worked them into his plan.

also, there's the language factor. dwarvish words (khazad, for example) sound very middle-eastern to me. normally, in romantic languages you don't see the k+h a great deal. this one is just sort of a guess on my part, but i think that it is a valid one :)

so... what do you think about my senseless rambling?

[easterlinge]

The history of Arnor actually mirrors the fall of Moorish Spain very closely. You know, a powerful civilized kingdom splits up into petty princedoms that are eventually destroyed.

"'Long they builded us, long they wrought us, but they are gone.' They are gone. They sought the Havens long ago.", Legolas remarked of the ruins lamenting when the Company were travelling through Hollin.

It is said there is a fountain in the shape of twelve lion's heads in the Alhambra. I have heard that the fountains spout water when it is time for Muslims to pray, but otherwise is dry. One of them is broken because someone took it apart to see how it worked.

[easterlinge]

Actually the Dwarves are more like the Jewish people:

1) The 7 Tribes of Dwarves are descended from the Seven Fathers. The 12 Tribes of Israel are descended from the 12 Sons of Jacob.

2) Historically, Dwarves and Jews have suffered many reversals, even losing their homelands more than once. Moria would be the Dwarvish equivalent of lost Zion.

3) Dwarves, like Jews have often been plundered for their wealth.

4) In popular folklore, Jews and Dwarves are often depicted as being rather greedy for gold (read Shakespeare), and a bit tight-fisted with money.

5) Jews and Dwarves do mingle with other races but otherwise keep apart. In medieval times, the Jews had rites and customs that are kept secret from the Europeans. Dwarven rituals are certainly secret. And if Khuzdul (Dwarf Language) sounds a bit like Arabic, remember that Hebrew is closely related to Arabic and sounds much the same.

[JugglingJesusFreak]

*strange looking lurker steps into room*

If you don't mind, I'll put in my two cents, and then vanish again.


Tolkien was a strong Christian. In fact, he helped bring C.S.Lewis to Christ! Tolkien was in WW1. Part of his book was written during WW2. Surely these things affected his story somewhat. In a way, nothing is really original. When "making something up", you take from what you know and have seen and use that. So of course there are similarities. But I doubt that he meant them to be similarities, that's just the way it came out.

LoserKid1, your post was very interesting. I'd never thought of it that way. Also, the dwarves and elves never got along all that well...very interesting.

I have always been struck by how much The Hobbit is like the journey to the promised land. Gandalf=Moses Bard=Christ Smaug=Satan If I had time I'd look up some more of the similarities, but I'd better just vanish into the background again, and go back to my lurking!

Samuel

[Inoldonil]

Are you joking? What are you, some kind of freak? Oh, ... sorry. Don't lurk! Come and stay a while! This is an Entmoot and much is to be decided yet! Let us not be hasty!

[JugglingJesusFreak]

LOL, yes, as a matter of fact, I am a freak...a Juggling Jesus Freak! Yes, I'm sure that I'd have a real fun time here, but I already visit and post on three ezbaords, and I don't think I really have time for another, so I'll just lurk when I get the chance.

[Inoldonil]

Well, the moot will be going on for a long time yet, you may 'lurk' among the trees if you wish. But come out and join in once in a while! There is a lot of room and a lot of time for joining and talking, and talking some more.

[samwise of the shire]

Whether Tolkien liked it or not alot of allegory and personal beliefs showed up in the Lord Of The Rings, so I think it might be cool to get into an in depth discussion of allegory and relegious themes in LOTR. One of them would be Humility and Pride and how it effects the charectars. Any Ideas?
Sam

[Bregalad]

We are all of us products of the culture we grow up in. Our religious beliefs, the country we grow up in, the state of the economy in our formative years; all of these things shape the way we think and the way we write. I certainly think that Tolkien's western (Christian/Catholic) religious beliefs shaped his stories. Perhaps not as blatently as in C. S. Lewis' Narnia series, but still an easily noticed effect. The western religions are all based on dicotomy. Good/bad, light/dark, blessed/evil. And this dicotomy is everywhere in Tolkien's books. Right now there is another thread talking all about everyone's "evil twin". I think we would have had a very different story if TLOR's had been written by a wealthy man in China, for example. There, possitive and negative forces are beyond "good" and "evil". They are two sides of the same coin, equally necessary and equally correct in the great scheme of things. I am certainly not suggesting that this would be a better book, only that it would be very different.
Actually, the elves of Tolkien's world have always reminded me of the "foxes" in Chinese folklore. Very beautiful, very powerful, wiser than man, and very just in their own way; but also harsh when they deemed it necessary, and strict in their dealings with mankind. The foxes are just, but they are not always kind.

[IronParrot]

There's a huge difference between allegory and applicability. Tolkien admitted the latter's presence as a byproduct of an entertaining story (and I would say it's the element that makes LOTR enduring).

Allegory involves extended metaphor on the part of the author...

Applicability is the discussion of how themes can be related to external issues by the reader.

I do have opinions on how good-versus-evil is actually not the primary conflict in LOTR, but I'll save that for another day...

[galadriel]

Tolkien's world definitely had strong religious and moral overtones in it. He wanted the world of Middle-earth to be the same world that we live in today, only thousands of years ago. Being a Catholic, his views of the world today are naturally going to be different than someone who is Buddhist, Jewish, atheist, etc. So, for all intents and purposes, Eru of the Silmarillion is the Christian God, Morgoth is Satan, and the Ainur are angels. The way that Tolkien expresses these characters are unique, but the underlying ideas are nearly identical.

[samwise of the shire]

The way that Tolkien expresses these characters are unique, but the underlying ideas are nearly identical.
Well I would'nt say that the GOOD themes can be found in the Bad Guys, I mean Humility is a MAJOR theme in LOTR but I would NOT add Humility to Sarumans list of characteristics, no offense to Galadriel if it seemed I was making fun of her. You hit the nail on the head Galadriel, I was hoping we could discuss one of those underlying themes you talked about. Any Ideas? I dont want to dominate the disscussion and the way my post was turning up I was doing what I did'nt want to do.
Sam

[galadriel]

Sorry for changing the subject, Samwise; I was replying more to Bregalad's comments than yours. But as for the subject of humility vs. pride:

Humility is definitely not shown in Saruman, that's for sure! He's a perfect example of a guy who started out all right, but let pride get the best of him. The same can be even seen of Sauron: in the beginning he was a Maia, a pupil of Aule, but his pride and lust for power made him join Morgoth's side. Denethor is another example of a character who made this fall. His need to control his own fate, instead of trusting Eru and the Valar to work things out, made him go so far as to commit suicide, nearly bringing Faramir down with him. Tolkien really has a lot to say about the relationship between pride and corruption.

Then, on the flip side, you've got Gandalf-types, stark opposites of Saruman. They understand that humility is the way to go, and that wielding the One Ring to defeat Sauron will just bring forth another Dark Lord. The mission of the Istari, the Wizards, was not to rule over Elves and Men, but to subtly guide them.

Both these attitudes are very central in Tolkien's views of good and evil. Again, we see his personal views in play, since pride is a major biblical component: the Bible is full of people who want to be powerful and not have God telling them what to do. They want to be their own god.

ok, I'll go finish my history homework now. :p Anyone else have ideas about themes in Tolkien???

[Renille]

There is a story in Catholic tradition of how God created the angels as perfect beings. One, named Lucifer, was made more powerful than the rest. To make a long story short, he became jealous of God's power, and turned evil. Lucifer publicly defied God, who sent the next strongest angel, Michael, to throw the evil one out of Heaven. Michael succeeded and became the most powerful and favored angel in God's eyes.

I thought it interesting to find almost the same story in the beginning of the Silmarillion, except with Melkor as Lucifer, Eru as God, and Manwe as Michael. (It was really cool!)

[SilverToungedDevil]

I'm sure that this may have been touched upon in earlier posts but redemption is another strong theme, giving someone a second chance to correct some prior mis-deed. Saruman and Gollum are the first ones that come to mind. Saruman, when Gandalf offered him the chance to renounce the darkness and Sauron and be forgiven," The Voice of Saruman ", instead his pride gets the better of him and Gandalf casts him out the Order and breaks his staff. There is a fair bit of overlap into galadriel's post above. Gollum is giving the chance to redeem himself by aiding Frodo and Sam in the journey to Mount Doom, and like Saruman ( not entirely convinced he fails though ) it is that one choice between giving in to his nature as it is or fighting it and taking some new direction and helping in some new cause that determines his fate. But the opportunity for redemption is presented.
That is roughly what I wanted to say, hopefully other posters will be able to add a bit more . :)

[SilverToungedDevil]

Just as I submitted my last post I realised that the really big theme of the book is that you are never too small to make a difference. That everyone has the potential within them to do great things, that all it takes is a bit of self-belief and self-worth.
As Elrond put it :This is the hour of the Shire-folk, when they arise from their quiet fields and shake the towers and counsels of the Great
I would like to add Boromir to my selection of Saruman and Gollum in my last post, I've just remembered the nature of his death defending Perry and Merry from the Orcs, all after a "madness" took him after he tried to claim the Ring as his own.

[SilverToungedDevil]

Yet another is to do with individual growth, of the nature of the transformation of Strider into Elessar, of Gimli and Legolas relationship developing from a position of racial distrust to being the best of friends, of Pippin ( oops :o , put Perry in the previous post ) and Merry from being care free and child-like to great leaders of their people. There are probably other examples but it is getting late and I'm getting tired ... LOL :D

[IronParrot]

LOL! Perry and Mippin :D

[SilverToungedDevil]

LOL ... a bit of sympathy please ... I was rather cream crackered ... :D :D :D :D :D

[samwise of the shire]

Pride is a MAJOR problem the characters have to deal with and having the Ring exist does'nt seem to help. From what I've read it seems like the Ring took longer to control a humble person(ie:Frodo, Sam, Faramir)then it did a proud person like Saruman. He had never seen the Ring but just STUDYING it perverted him, yet it did not happen to Gandalf who studyed it as much or more then Saruman.
I also like the fact that the Flashier the better theme is NO where to be seen. Aragorn is a lowly ranger and yet he's a king, Gandalf walks around in Grey with a wood staf and he's a wizard and Frodo is a simple Hobbit and yet he saves the world. I think that's cool.
Sam

[Arathorn]

'been mining the search feature for insights and similarities between the ME universe and real-world beliefs (any) and found this one.

I find LoserKid1's and easterlinge's to be quite interesting. I'm trying to think of others after work but do you have imsights of your own?

Thanks.

[markedel]

Tolkien wrote somewhere the dwarves remind of Jews, and Khuzdul sounds an awful lot like Hebrew. I can't compare it to Arabic as I don't speak it.

Tolkien writes all over the place that in Middle Earth, as God is revealed there is no true religion. Only when God isn't revealed is religion needed.

That's why the elves-who will reach paradise don't have religion. Men on the other hand do.

I don't know about Gondor, but the Numenorians were ruled by priest-kings.

[Elvet]

I think it is more coincidental than anything. All the best stories are about the tension surrounding good and evil. Tolkien did it better than anyone else. His stories reflect a reality that strikes a chord in many of us, and his reality is more tangeble for me than any other religion or history could be.

[Renille]

Well if the dwarves are Jewish or Muslim, then perhaps the elves are "Christian?"

Tolkien did not want his pieces to be allegorical, I know. But since he was a Catholic and was in WWI, maybe these "allegories" were just his past experiences...little pieces of his soul.

[Liviaine]

I think Tolkien's work is influenced by the Bible. Sauron, Morgoth, and the Balrogs are all like Satan, some of the greatest of the Maiar who became evil. Satan was supposedly the most beautiful angel of all but became evil. Gandalf's kind of like the hobbits' guardian angel. I think Tolkien used symbols to represent the Bible.

[FrodoFriend]

I do NOT think that Tolkien used symbols to represent the Bible. He was a Christian, and of course his Christian/Western morality influenced the book; good and bad are depicted in the traditional western way.

However, I don't think Tolkien actively planned or meant to have LotR represent the Bible.

The parallels with the Jews and Dwarves are very interesting though. I doubt Tolkien meant to do that, but since the Jewish "character" already existed in our world, he may have incorporated it as the Dwarves without really thinking about it that way.

[Liviaine]

I don't think that he exactly meant to, but that's one of the things that came to mind while I was reading.

[markedel]

Well Gondor and Arnor (and Numenor) are supposed to be vaguely Egypt like in worldview, if not culture. But myth is never allegory, and LOTR is supposed to be myth. So in that sense I suppose it is biblical.

[Khadrane]

Tolkien was most likely influenced by the Bible, but it was most definitly not a true allegory. Besides Sauron being Satan, I can't find a parallel that completely works.

[Human#3.141592653]

This post is about the dubious nature of the effect of the Good Professor's chirtain background (and if he's catholic, I'm sorry,) on the creation of Middle earth. I'm almost certain that there is another post just liek this one, but I cannot find it for the life of me, so here is this. Enjoy.
In the preface (Pre-face, heh heh) (IE the letter to Milton) the Good Professor said over and over, "It is not an alleroy!"
However, the general idea of a fall and middle earth not being the place a pardise and the idea of those (elves) who live there beigng sent there out of punishment rig too Chirstian (or should I say, western thought; dualism.)
I wounder what the Middle earth would have been like if the good Professor had been indian (as in India, not the Natives of America.)
Any way, feel free to add comments or correct me if I have spoken out of turn, which happens alot.

[emplynx]

I don't think it is an allegory. But I that his christian ideals were definitely implanted in the story. I don't know that he couldn't have not made that happen. I think that all books follow a authors ideals in some way or another. Unconsciencly or consciencely

[Comic Book Guy]

Tolkien disliked Allegory of anykind.

I cordially dislike allegory in all it's manifeststations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect it's presence

The power of suggestion lets you see howa lot of things fit the Lord of the Rings.

[Wayfarer]

Your typing is awful, bu.

But I'll answer your question just the same:

The lord of the rings was not an allegory. It was a straight up, enjoyable fantasy yarn.

However, I think tolkien would agree with me when I say that christianity tends to spill over into every aspect of life-if it doesn't, there's a problem. And so you'll often find that literature by christians has a different flavour-and LOTR is a prime example. If you look at a (christian) author's writings pre- and post-christianity they're usually obviously different.

[Human#3.141592653]

Ok, ok. The peanut gallery says: Allegory sort of no, but you can't help the way you are raised, correct?
Ok, next question: Are the Ainur more of angel type beings or are they more along the lines of demi-gods? My question arises because Demi gods have more personality...they..argh. Ok, having problem expressing my idea, especially with Mirahzi looking over my shoulder and being a butt.
Yes, a butt.
Any way, Demi gods are created by the creator-god, but represent more of the human thing. Like Vishnu, [indian] god of chaos. Or Athena, goddess of knowledge. They have more human characteristic and represent human ideals.
Angles however were te first children of God, in my understsnding of it, and have no semblance of will. They cannot not represent human ideals, for humans do not exis yet. This seems to ring more true for the Ainur.
This is the idea that lead to this post were others may educate me ignorant "Tookish" self.
Um....yeah. One can't remember what else one was goign to say, so here ends the post.

[StrawberryIcecream]

"I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language."
J.R.R. Tolkien

thought this was relevant.

[Eäráng]

Tolkien never liked allegories. He said so himself. We can see that. I'm using small sentences. No, seriously, Tolkien never said that his works were allegory. I believe that he employed the same writing style that "Jack" used for The Chronicles of Narnia books: supposition. If you said that his book had nothing to do with Christianity, he would probably kick you into next Tuesday. That's my theory, though. If it's wrong, you can sue me. Why do I keep using four-word sentences?

[Khadrane]

It was not an allegory. There was perhaps some symbolism, on purpose or by accident I do not know, but an allegory has to be like The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It has to be constant in representing things, if you know what I mean. Although Tolkien's works do seem to represent Christian stuff (like Melkor being a high angel and falling like Satan did) it doesn't do that consistently. That's my opinion.

[Wayfarer]

Are the Ainur more of angel type beings or are they more along the lines of demi-gods?

Ok, before I actually go and answer your question, I have to set you straight on a few things.

The Hindu mythologies have a number of creation stories. The most common one is something along the lines of 'vishnu (or whateverever) split himself in two, and each half split itself in two, and so on and so forth, and eventually the different parts became everything we have here. And so it's sort of central to hindu mythology that everything is God.

The greek gods were basically superhumans, representing different facets of nature. In this sort of mythology, demigods are someone who has one mortal and one divine parent

Lastly, I question why you think angels would have no free will? After all, some angels rebelled and became demons, and rebellion takes free will, doesn't it?

Now, I'll answer your question-Neither.

The Ainur were, like angels, the first race created by God. However, like the greek gods, they identify with different facets of nature. They do not represent human ideals, because they are not human. They are like us in some respects, unlike in others.

[Ñólendil]

I'm confused by the title. "Allegory no no"?

[cassiopeia]

I think it also says at the start of LOTR not to confuse applicability with allegory.

PS is the thead meant to be called "Allegory a no no"?

[Ñólendil]

Or maybe "Allegory or no"?

[Nienna Grey]

It's a well-known fact that Tolkien disliked allegory of any kind but I still believe that it crept into his work, albeit on a subconscious level.

He hated industrialisation but clear examples of this can be seen when Saruman tears up the trees in Isengard so he can build his "factory" or later in the Shire when it is spoilt by Lotho and then by Sharkey.

Also his experiences in the trenches of WW1 would almost certainly have manifested themselves in his writing of the various battle scenes.

[Nariel Starfire]

Okay, maybe Tolkien did say he hated allegory. But if so, why did he enjoy C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia so much? Huh? And Lewis even proofed The LOTR series for him. So he had to have some tolerance for allegory, even if he said he didn't like it. That is all.

[Wayfarer]

Possibly because JRRT and CSL were best friends for much of their lives. I know I manage to tolerate a bunch of stuff from my friends that I would rail against in anyone else.

Incidentally- I think it might be 'allegory-Yes or no?'

[Ñólendil]

It's a well-known fact that Tolkien disliked allegory of any kind but I still believe that it crept into his work, albeit on a subconscious level.

Allegory cannot creep into any work on a subconscience level. Subconscience means "secretly with thought". Allegory by definition is intended. Things in the Lord of the Rings can apply to our own lives and other things not related to the Lord of the Rings, it depends on your perception, but Tolkien was just writing a story. He didn't even intend any inner meaning. The story is about something ("death and the desire for deathlessness" according to the author), but it does not mean something other than itself. Tolkien was not trying to express (say) something else by the staffs of the Wizards. Gandalf's staff is Gandalf staff. It may be a device to show something about Gandalf or about Wizards, but it isn't supposed to be sight, or warmth or intelligence or anything like that. It's a staff.

And allegory in a story or not is an expression. The author has to express it. When something is "expressly" stated, according to the Online Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, it is being stated "in an express matter: explicitly", or is being stated for "the express purpose: particularly, specifically".

Things that are express are "directly, firmly, and explicitly stated", "exact, precise", (or here we go) "designed for or adapted for its purpose". Allegory is expressive and in a very particular sense. It is an "expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence;"

J. R. R. Tolkien was not expressing anything about human existence by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations in his story. There is thus no allegory in the Lord of the Rings.

It's rediculous that I or anyone else should have to go through all this to proove this point, because it is already proven. J. R. R. Tolkien said this, he said there's no allegory in his story, he went into detail. Because of the definition of the word "allegory", he must be telling the truth. He cannot be mistaken and there's no reason for him to be dishonest or for us to assume he was being dishonest. There's no allegory in the Lord of the Rings.

He hated industrialisation but clear examples of this can be seen when Saruman tears up the trees in Isengard so he can build his "factory" or later in the Shire when it is spoilt by Lotho and then by Sharkey.

Also his experiences in the trenches of WW1 would almost certainly have manifested themselves in his writing of the various battle scenes.

None of this, you may now see, has anything to do with allegory. Because you can not say "Saruman is industrialism" or "Isengard is factories" or "the War of the Ring is World War I".

[Wayfarer]

If I may add to your case, Dylan?

It boils down to this: Things in tolkien's universe are not meant to represent things in our universe,

The scouring of the shire was about the industrial revolution in hobbiton. If you'd rather read about the industrial revolution in england, I hear dickens is pretty good. ]: )

Frodo is emphatically not 'a christ figure'. He's a hobbit from the shire, who due to a rather nasty stroke of luck gets saddled with a heroic quest. That is all.

Tolkien himself called his writings feigned history. That is, you're supposed to treat the Silmarillion and the LOTR the same way you would any other ancient manuscript purporting to record factual happenings. If you wish to read into it, by all means, do! I myself quite enjoy being able to surmise exactly what Elrond is talking about when he chastens Gimli on the problems of making rash oaths. I find pleasure in being able to deduce causes and motivations that aren't visible on the surface. But for heaven's sake, don't go pretending that they're something other than what they are!

[Ñólendil]

Thank you Shannon, that's putting it very well.

[samwiselvr2008]

hey, i know that tolkien did not wont lotr to have to do with the bible, but lets face it, some stuff in it dose have to do with the bible anyways right?

my questions are this:
1. what charicter reminds you of someone out of lotr?
2. what thing that is said in lotr reminds you of something that is said in the Bible?
ex. Gandalf says, "get down on your bally and crawl!
3. what things that happen remind you of things that happen in the Bible?
4. Are there any morals represented here and in the Bible?
i don't know, posably there are some!
5. Any thing else that is simular to the Bible???

Thanks in advans to anyone who answers!!!
:)

[IronParrot]

Tolkien's rejection of allegory was founded on the difference between connections to previous works intended by the author, versus those interpreted by the audience. The second, which he termed "applicability", is acceptable in any case.

So LOTR is not an intentional device for propelling Biblical teachings, but it's no stretch at all to say that Tolkien's Catholic background had an influence on the moral dynamics in his work. That in itself is an openly debatable issue, particularly regarding whether the portrayal of good and evil in LOTR is more absolute or relativistic - the Bible's teachings clearly belonging to the former.

The strongest parallels, I find, are actually found in The Silmarillion and Tolkien's background "creation story" to his mythos, the fall of Melkor, mightiest of the Ainur being an example... (i.e. Lucifer and all)

[Faramir]

I thinkwhen Tolkien said that it wasn't biblical, he might've been trying to keep non-catholics and prejudice people off his back maybe. Who know's? I don't think I'm right, it's just a theory. I think IP had a very good point.

[Comic Book Guy]

LEtters of J.R.R Tolkien #142.

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

[TinuvielChild]

For more in-depth exploration of that theory, samwiselvr2008, go read "J.R.R. Tolkien, Author of the Century" by Tom Shippey.

[Snowdog]

Certainly the man's religion is reflected in his works. And in reading the Silmarillion, that really starts off paralleling Genesis.

[samwiselvr2008]

thank you Snowdog! please stop with the he wonted it/ he did not wont it to have to do with the Bible and answer the questions, PLEASE???

seriosly, i wont your vews on how it relates to the Bible, stop with what Tolkien did and did not wont! i love the guy and his work, but please, answer my questions!

[Sween]

do you reckon with time people will mistake lord of the rings for religion like they did with the bible. ITS A BOOK, ONLY A BOOK THAT SOME LOON CALL JESUS WHO WAS PROBABLY ON DAY RELEASE AND CLAIMED TO BE A SON OF GOD HMMMMM HAHAHAHA PEDDLED.

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

The first similarity I noticed was how the Hobbit is roughly the story of the Hebrews journey to the promise land, the trials they went through there and then the defeat of Satan by Jesus. It doesn't fit exactly, but it is interesting to think of it that way.

But my fav. is one pointed out by a fellow mooter (who's name I can't remember). The creation of the dwarvish and elvish races are very similar to the Hebrews and Arabs. One was the result of impatience with God and the other was God's plan. In time the races came to not like each other very much.

[samwise of the shire]

:( :( :( :( :( Sam just asked a FEW questions about what we thought about the Bible and Tolkien...and she gets jumped on with all this sarcastic, serious descussion junk...why cant we just have FUN once in awhile with stuff like this instead of go "Ohp bible descussion...better get on to it."
Ahm*smooths hair*
1. what charicter reminds you of someone out of lotr?Peter=Sam. I mean those too are so alike it's not even funny. Peter loves to taste his feet and so does Sam*looks down at her muchly sucked toes*looks like THEY'RE not the only ones.
2. what thing that is said in lotr reminds you of something that is said in the Bible? Cant think of one right this moment
ex. Gandalf says, "get down on your bally and crawl!
3. what things that happen remind you of things that happen in the Bible? Ummm Gandalf giving up his life for the fellowship, the fellowship being formed against Sauron and the Ring, The Ring representing a burden(like the cross and sin), and the Ringbearers(or Crossbearers as I like to think of it)getting to be able to pass into the western lands
4. Are there any morals represented here and in the Bible?
i don't know, posably there are some!Ummm humility,servanthood,obedience,love,patience,kidne ss,selfsacrafice,courage,evil,absolutes.
5. Any thing else that is simular to the Bible??? Umm the fact that the Bibe story is based on the theme of Good vs evil, and that an innocent person leaves his home of comfort and leaves to save a world that has no idea his RACE exsists let alone that HE exsists.
A truely awsome reality of the Bible story.
Thanks for bringin' this up Chica,
Sam

[Rána Eressëa]

It can only be parelleled with the Bible if you believe it so. Really, you can parellel anything with anything if it's even just slightly similar. "Oh look - there's a good guy. He's just like Jesus!" :rolleyes:

[samwise of the shire]

But Rana LOTR isn't JUST slightly similar to the Bible. It is very much similar to the Bible.
*crosses fingers and hopes people will start getting back on topic*
Sam

[Rána Eressëa]

Any good guy on a quest can be made similar to the Bible, as I've said. Any vanguishing of evil seems to be associated with it, and I think it's about high time people just took things for what they were and not what they should be.

[Comic Book Guy]

I.Q Test, question No.10

Bible=LOTR=WW2.

So does the bible=WW2?

[Rána Eressëa]

Since there's so many bloodshedding wars in the Bible as well - I'd say yeah. Since when was there an evil One Ring to control everyone in the Bible? There isn't. Just as there's no guns and heavy artillery in it was well. But still there is the same message of good fighting against evil - so what's your difference?

Just think about it. Who's the main good guy set on getting rid of Hilter in WW2? There's your "Jesus" figure. The Germans? Ironically, there's your Jews (Romans as well).

If you look hard enough, almost anything can be parelleled - it's just gotta have your main, or even small, similarities surfaced and compared.

[galadriel]

Since Middle-earth is supposed to be today's world, just a long, long time ago, of course Tolkien's beliefs about the nature of the universe and God today would apply to Middle-earth as well. So Eru is the Christian God, and the Ainur are angels (but not the winged seraphim sort). Tolkien doesn't say this blatantly, but I'm sure that's what he intended.

You could make other connections - lembas is communion, Gandalf died like Jesus, etc etc - but who knows if Tolkien intended these things. If he did, they surely weren't supposed to be the main focus. And after all, lots of stories have common themes, characters, and plots. I once had a conversation with a friend about the significant similarities between "Macbeth" and "The Lion King"!

But it is fun to make connections, so, forgetting that Tolkien is rolling in his grave, muttering "Applicability, not allegory!", I'll go away and stop being such a bore. :p

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally posted by galadriel
But it is fun to make connections, so, forgetting that Tolkien is rolling in his grave, muttering "Applicability, not allegory!", I'll go away and stop being such a bore. :p

Agreed, it is. There aren't very many good threads anymore, so at least give me some fun ones to reply to. :D I'm not saying stop with it - I'm just saying admit that it's you who sees the similarities through simple compare and contrast methods, and not that it's "meant" to be that way.

[Starr Polish]

But if
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

then it was 'meant' to be that way.

[Rána Eressëa]

Oh, bugger. Never tell a person who believes in fate that something isn't "meant" to be. ;)

[Starr Polish]

Mwahaha! When insomniac Christians attack!

[samwiselvr2008]

okay, so it is ME that sees the conections, but other people do allso!

[barrelrider110]

JRR Tolkien vigorously insisted that Lord of the Rings was not an allegory. Sorry my good fellow, but the more I read LoTR, the more I keep thinking that you've not been honest with us readers. What do you think, was Tolkien a liar?

[Comic Book Guy]

This has been done lots of times before, read this (http://www.tolkientrail.com/entmoot/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5100) thread.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Liviaine
I think Tolkien's work is influenced by the Bible. Sauron, Morgoth, and the Balrogs are all like Satan, some of the greatest of the Maiar who became evil. Satan was supposedly the most beautiful angel of all but became evil. Gandalf's kind of like the hobbits' guardian angel. I think Tolkien used symbols to represent the Bible.

Snowdog:
Certainly the man's religion is reflected in his works. And in reading the Silmarillion, that really starts off paralleling Genesis.

Like any good myth, there are the good guys, the bad guys, a journey or two, and a quest of sorts. Plus some soul searching, and character development.

You could take ANY myth, and say that it has tones similar to the bible. Tolkien's middle earth is supposed to be a kind of mythology/history for England. Sure it has parallels to the bible, but then, the Bible is not entirely original either; there are many such "genesis" stories that mirror and PRE-DATE the Bible. Hymns to Ra and Aten respectively sound suspiciously like the Lords Prayer... and yet were written thousands of years earlier. My rather rambling point? There are common themes in mythology; these are reflected both in Tolkien and the Bible. This does not, however, infer that Lord of the Rings is a reflection of the Bible.

[osszie]

ye gods........look at the similarity........the ring = the temptation of the devil.............all the power you desire..but the cost is your soul

[Luthien Tinuviel]

Well, I don't think LOTR is really a spin off the Bible, per se... I believe he was influenced by the Bible, yes, but I don't believe he sat down and said, "well, hey, lets deliberately make Gandalf and Aragorn represent Christ", and we'll make the Istari be angels, etc... I think it all happened becuz Tolkien had a certain worldview, and it came out in his writings... So is it a coicindence that Gandalf and Aragorn resemble Christ, and that the Istari are the otherworldly (not quite the word I'm looking for) messengers who are the servants of Illuvatar? No, I don't think so.

[Luthien Tinuviel]

Originally posted by barrelrider110
JRR Tolkien vigorously insisted that Lord of the Rings was not an allegory. Sorry my good fellow, but the more I read LoTR, the more I keep thinking that you've not been honest with us readers. What do you think, was Tolkien a liar?

Yes, he lied straight to our faces. ;) No, like I said in the post right above, (sorry, posting twice in a row, I know, I'm bad) he didn't "make" LOTR an allegory, and I know he said it wasn't, but when you do have a certain outlook on life, it WILL permeate almost everything you do, and writing is certainly one of those things.

[samwiselvr2008]

How dose Aragorn resemble Christ?

[Cirdan]

Things tend to become more similar the more you remove the details. It is very convenient to say Gandalf was like Christ because he died and came back. Beren and Luthien came back, there are more than one Istari and none is ever designated as the offspring of Eru. The is a tendency by the religious to see god everywhere by just allowing the eyes to blur a bit. Why can't a story just be a good story?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
1) Like any good myth, there are the good guys, the bad guys, a journey or two, and a quest of sorts. Plus some soul searching, and character development.

2) You could take ANY myth, and say that it has tones similar to the bible. Tolkien's middle earth is supposed to be a kind of mythology/history for England.
3) There are common themes in mythology; these are reflected both in Tolkien and the Bible.
4) This does not, however, infer that Lord of the Rings is a reflection of the Bible.

1) Most definitely agree. But also, Tolkien has explicitly stated that Eru was God, that Morgoth was Satan, and many other things. As he was a devout (and in a way, mystical) Catholic, when he wrote a story which was set in our world long ago, he included elements which he believed were very real and existent in it.
2) You know, it's funny that you say that (albeit over a half a year ago ;)), because that is really what Tolkien believed. His philosophy on Myth was very fascinating. Of course, he believed that Myth was a means of writing which could be used to express certain Truths which cannot be seen (at least well, maybe at all) in other forms of literature. But the more "mystical" side of his belief is in my opinion more fascinating. I can't really describe it too well, but the best I can say is that he believed that, as Myth was the best means for expressing certain Truths, God used the writers of olden myths to speak such truths, and to spread them, whether or not the stories themselves were true, a bit like parables, I suppose. He believed the Gospel story to be the Ultimate Myth and expression of myth Truth, and of course the "True Myth." That really isn't a very good description, but I can't really put it any better. :(
3) Most definitely. Though Tolkien's works are more Christian than any other myth I've read.
4) MOST DEFINITELY NOT. The Lord of the Rings is in No Way a "rewriting" of the Bible. In fact, it is set in a part of the world where there is little (or no? :confused: ) mention in the Bible, not to mention that it is set a very long time ago; it is pre-Christ, pre-Moses, even pre-Abraham, I believe. The Lord of the Rings is, by no means, an "allegory". It is a Christian myth for another part of the world. They are Christian stories, but by no means allegorical, though parallels can be drawn from them, no doubt "accidental" things which slipped in (for instance, I believe I remember reading an essay about Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn being like the Prophet, Priest, and King aspects of Christ. Of course, they aren't allegorical of these, but the similarities are quite interesting.)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Why can't a story just be a good story?

It is. It's just a good, Christian story. :p Seriously, though, I know what you mean (though I've seen people who are much into "inreading" shy far from anything of the kind re: LOTR and Christianity). I personally am NOT at all into looking everywhere for allegory, symbolism, etc. and don't really like it much when others do it. But at least we're not as bad as Brenda Partidge:

WARNING! The below may very well overshoot the PG-13 rating. If necessary, mods may see fit to edit some or all of it, or to use 'spoliers'.
Shelob's lair, reached by entering a hole and journeying along tunnels, may also be seen to represent the female sexual orifice. At the entrance Frodo and Sam have to force themselves through the bushy, clutching growths (the pubic hair) ... These growths turn out to be cobwebs which enmesh the victim but Frodo, with the obvious phallic symbolism of the sword, pierces the web ... The diction used to describe the tearing of the web, 'rent' and 'veil', is traditionally associated with the tearing of the hymen.
Galadriel's phial ... also represents a phallus more potent than their swords...
Despite the phial's powers, Frodo as a man is ultimately overpowered by the female Shelob; paralysed by her venom he lies helpless waiting ti be sacrificed at her will. He is rescued only through the valiant struggle of his male companion, Sam.
The description of Sam's battle with Shelob is not only a life and death struggly of man and monster, good against evil but also represents a violent sexual struggle between man and woman. Shelob's 'soft squelching body' is a metaphor for the female genitals swollen and moist in sexual arousal ... Her impenetrable skin hangs in folds like the layers of the laia...
So Sam valiantly stabs at the monster, pitifully helpless as she rears over him ... the male organ puny compared with the vast, evil smelling mass of the female is described in euphemistic sexual terms as his 'little impudence'...
And so Sam and Shelob interlocked climax in an orgasm with the male phallus thrusting hard inflicting great pain and a deadly blow deep into the female sexual organ ... In the aftermath of the climax as the erection subsides the male, though victor, is again seen as frail and overwhelmed by the female's bulk.
Shelob then crawls away in agony as Sam in a final gesture as Sam in a final gesture holds up the phallus, once more asserting male supremacy, brandishing the phallus, male symbol of power...
The imagery portraying the gesture appears at first sight to be more overtly religious, representing the Christian victory over paganism. However, as we have seen before, in The Lord of the Rings sexual implications are shrouded in religious symbolism ... Once again Tolkien interprets myth in such a way as to reveal his inner fear or abhorrence of female sexuality, but his attitude is reinforced by the prejudices inherent in religious symbolism itself.

[cassiopeia]

Gwaimir, I read that essay only a few weeks ago in a book of essays of LOTR (many which were most critical) . When I was reading it, I will half-laughing, half trying not be sick. Even with my mind how it is, I never EVER read it in that kind of context. Shelob's webs as pubic hair? That's going a bit far, I think. Certainly it's an interesting interpretation, but I don't think you can say that Tolkien delibrately wrote it to mean something sexual.
And I really don't think Sam would see it that way, either.

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
When I was reading it, I will half-laughing, half trying not be sick. Even with my mind how it is, I never EVER read it in that kind of context. Shelob's webs as pubic hair? That's going a bit far, I think. Certainly it's an interesting interpretation, but I don't think you can say that Tolkien delibrately wrote it to mean something sexual.
And I really don't think Sam would see it that way, either.
I agree. I don't think Tolkien would have gone to so much trouble in expressing his 'fear of female sexuality' in such a subtle manner (Or so it seems to me). I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly didn't notice that 'side' to that part of the story. (Makes you kinda wonder about the author of that essay though)

[Elvengirl]

Awww, that's just sick. :mad: Who thinks that way? Why take an awesome part of a book (one of my favorites) and just completely ruin it? Some people just can't look things for what they actually are, they have to come up with all this implication garbage. :mad: I am very upset over this........:mad: very dissappointed...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yep. Sounds to me like a completely mad red-eyed radical trying to find ways to make every male author evil and a woman-hater. Tolkien wrote about women in his Letters, and from what I read he had an exceptionally good view of them for his day and age; I think this can also be seen in his Laws and Customs of the Eldar, though I'm not sure....:confused:

[Elvengirl]

You know what? I'm going to have to read those Letters.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

:D

[azalea]

:eek: That is...an indescribably...stupid interpretation.:rolleyes: I think I will try to put spoilers over it, since it's pretty explicit (never thought I'd be saying that about Shelob!) It is fascinating to see how people can find symbolism in anything to justify their paranoia and further their own aganda.

[samwiselvr2008]

I use to think that it was so awsome that you could make LOTR into something Christian (I even started a thread on it) but know I think that it's going to far, when you mix those 2 genres together (if religion is considerd a genre, is it? and what genre would it be in?) then your creating problems, why do you think that some Christians say that Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings is evel? They do it because they can't understand the difrence imbatween fantacy and religion, there oppasites! To the Christian's mind (or any other religion), Christianity is the TRUETH and as much as we all hate to admit this (and please understand what I'm saying, I just came from the "how to tell if your obsessed with Lord of the Rings" thread, where everyone likes to play around saying how they are so obsessed that they think that it's real ect., I'm saying this in a "wold vew" way) that Lord of the Rings in FANTACY! It was pute in that genre for a reasone, and I don't think that it should be mixed up with oppasite genres. It's one thing to compare fantacy to fantacy and religion to religion, but when you compare the 2 opasits, it just makes problems, that are better avouded. I even bout a shirt from a Christian book store to prove my point, and it says "The Lord of Kings" on the back it has a poem that says "one king to rule them all..." and gose through the two lines of that poem, which I can't remember how it says it all on the shirt, so I won't try to post it here. I wear it to school, and every one may not understand, infact, maybe no one gets it, but I'm not wearing this shirt to represent God, or Lord of the Rings, even though it dose, I'm wearing it to make a point, and that is that if you compare the two genres, then you have to change elements of one of them. The poem and the "tital" on the shirt were diffrent from the one of Lord of the Rings, (the shirt was lord of the rings themed, incase you haven't figured that out) and you couldn't have only pute the LOTR stuff on the shirt + represent God, but you couldn't corectly represent LOTR and God at the same time eather, there was no way around it, you just couldn't represent both without changing at least one. No one at school knows that that is why I am really wearing the shirt, but maybe they'll figure it out some day.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

why do you think that some Christians say that Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings is evel? They do it because they can't understand the difrence imbatween fantacy and religion, there oppasites!

Now, I think that Tolkien would have disagreed with you quite strongly there. I really wish I could express the thoughts in my mind, but with me, mind-words transition=suck. :( I would recommend you read Tolkien: Man and Myth, a positively fascinating biography. :)

[samwiselvr2008]

Maybe... I did check out a biography on Tolkien the other day, I don't know the name though, but I still nead to read it. I still think that they shouldn't be compared though, but I'm really stubborn, so maybe that's why!;) Maybe I'll understand it like others some day, but I don't yet. I don't know if this is treu or not, because I wasn't alive back in those days, but could it posably be that things were diffrent back then when Tolkien wrote/said all of comparison stuff? I meen, HP wasn't writen then, and all of that, and that's when all of this "antireligion" stuff really started going where I live, before then, they were just books. But like I said before, I'm really stubborn, so maybe it's just me.

[azalea]

So is what you're saying that because on the one hand we blast those who say "LotR is evil, look at this symbolism," we can't have it the other way and say "LotR is a Christian work, look at the symbolism?" Interesting. I haven't read any bio on Tolkien, so don't feel equipped to make a statement about it, but there are the two facts we all know, the first can be used to support the "it is" argument, the second could support the "it isn't" argument:
1) Tolkien was a devout Christian.
2) Tolkien detested allegory.

Edit: Oops, I forgot to finish what I was saying.:rolleyes:
I was going to say that because of the first point, it makes much more sense to see Christian overtones in his work than "occultist." However, because of the second, I think that HE at least would argue that there is no "religious symbolism," but there is a quote from Letters (at least one) where he talks about it being a fundamentally Christian work. (This quote has been posted in several threads). However, his definition is probably a lot different from what other people would think of, because he was nitpicky with his terminology, as you might imagine.:)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I would reply to that by saying that LOTR is not a Christian work because of the symbolism. The symbolism is there because it is a Christian work. Tolkien intentionally made it fit into Christianity, but the "symbolism" (which I think parallelism would be a better term to describe it) I think just sort of "leaked" unconsciously in. Someone once said about Tolkien that if faith is a central part of your life, you don't have to write about it; it shines through on every page.

[Anglorfin]

I remember reading one of Tolkien's letters where he addresses the "leakage" of allegory into his works. He explains it in much the same way that we are looking at it. In the end he realizes it is inevitable that some allegorical pieces would slip into the overall theme of his story, but that the idea of allegory is in no way the main idea or reason behind the creation of the story.

The most important fact is that Tolkien DID NOT write the stories with allegory on the mind, so he is not guilty of being a hypocrite. And it is my belief that whoever goes so far as to analyze something so deep beyond the surface of a good story is doing it purely for shock value.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Anglorfin
I remember reading one of Tolkien's letters where he addresses the "leakage" of allegory into his works. He explains it in much the same way that we are looking at it. In the end he realizes it is inevitable that some allegorical pieces would slip into the overall theme of his story, but that the idea of allegory is in no way the main idea or reason behind the creation of the story.


I wouldn't say "allegory" or even "symbolism". "Parallels" seem to me more fitting; less indicative of conscious effort. :)

[cassiopeia]

Well, allegory means (say) that the Ring equals a nuclear bomb, or that Sauron equals Hitler; which requires a conscious effort.
The article Gwaimir posted above seems to be saying that the fight with Shelob was allegorical, which it utterly wrong.
Tolkien: hmm, I need something to represent a phallus, oh, yes how about a phial! Something to represent female organs...I know, tunnels! :D

[azalea]

I think she might be saying that it was unconcious symbolism, which reveals some of his subconcious thoughts. I think that it's a stretch (putting it mildly, actually it's absolute bunk) to think that scene is representative of his views on male/ female relationships. I in no way see how anyone could take a scene like that and see what she saw in it. She was just trying to find things to support a feminist agenda, apparently.

[Anglorfin]

I am curious to see whether or not she did any research into Tolkien's life or read anything else that he has written. (even though the answer is obviously no)

[Melko Belcha]

I don't have anything to add on the topic, but I have to say something about that article that Gwaimir posted.

I am a sick minded pervert, I admit it, I could offend a sailor. But I have never thought of anything like that article. That is just really sad. I cannot believe someone even took the time to think about something like that. That is just trying to hard to find something in the story that dose not exist.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Anglorfin
I am curious to see whether or not she did any research into Tolkien's life or read anything else that he has written. (even though the answer is obviously no)

An obvious and resounding NO.

MB: Yes, quite sad, isn't it? Absolutely mad.

[Elvengirl]

Well, I personally think no one in their right mind could read Shelob and come up with what that woman did. It's just digusting to think that there are people in this world who are so perverted so as to take a great man's piece of work and utterly degrade it so.

[barrelrider110]

i think that the drama of shelob's lair owes more to the professor's fear of spiders rather than whatever female issues he might have had. frankly i found the article laughable.

one of the most wondrous and interesting aspects of the lord of the rings, the thing that keeps messageboards like this so alive, is that LotR is rather like a rorschach-- people see the same thing and interpret it in vastly different ways.

[azalea]

Originally posted by barrelrider110

one of the most wondrous and interesting aspects of the lord of the rings, the thing that keeps messageboards like this so alive, is that LotR is rather like a rorschach-- people see the same thing and interpret it in vastly different ways.

Very well put.:)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by barrelrider110
i think that the drama of shelob's lair owes more to the professor's fear of spiders rather than whatever female issues he might have had. frankly i found the article laughable.


The Professor didn't fear spiders, as he said in his Letters. He was reportedly bitten by one as a child, but he had no memory of it. He rescued spiders he found in the bath. :)

[GrayMouser]

Fools rush in....

While I think Brenda Partridge's interpretation is over the top, I've always (Okay, maybe not always, the first time I read it was when I was 13; for a long time anyway) seen Shelob as a representation of the smothering female-type, as is Ungoliant, and seen the struggle in the tunnel in -generally, not Partridge's specific- sexual terms.

I think she is totally wrong in calling the light of Galadriel "phallic"; what is happening here is a conflict between two ideals of the female- the Madonna and the (to put it delicately) carnal -but she is absolutely right in identifying Shelob with the devouring female principle so often found in mythology.

This does not refer to Tolkien's relations with women anymore than Grendel's mother tells us about the author of Beowulf's relations with his own mother- it taps into deeper currents.

It is also not sick or disgusting, anymore than equivalent passages in other works of mythology or story are disgusting- it simply means that Tolkien was a grown-up, writing about grown-up themes.

(For an interesting support to this idea , check out the "Schlob" figure in "Bored of the Rings"- in satire veritas)

[azalea]

That's interesting, and definately more plausible than the other, but do you think Tolkien really intentionally wrote the scene to be the way you suggest, when he so explicitly spoke of his dislike of allegory time and again?
Also, why must the "carnal" be disgusting and evil? I know what you mean by the two ideals, but why must a sexual woman be portrayed as a loathsome, evil creature? Most Christian women get married and have sex with their husbands -- IMO, that is the plan. To me, a woman can enjoy carnal pleasures with her husband and still be a virtuous Christian -- does that make any sense, anyone? I know what you mean, but it would disappoint me if Tolkien intended for carnal to equal evil/ ugly.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I highly doubt he did; I've never heard that he considered marital sex to be a sin, except in Tolkien: Man and Myth, it mentioned how some people claimed that; if I remember correctly, it disproved it, but I don't remember how, and I haven't seen it for some time. :(

[olsonm]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I highly doubt he did; I've never heard that he considered marital sex to be a sin, except in Tolkien: Man and Myth, it mentioned how some people claimed that; if I remember correctly, it disproved it, but I don't remember how, and I haven't seen it for some time. :( Here it is. :)

The sheer fantasy of [this] innuendo is best exposed by quoting Tolkien himself. In a letter to C.S. Lewis, Tolkien wrote: 'Christian marriage is not a prohibition of sexual intercourse, but the correct way of sexual temperance - in fact probably the best way of getting the most satisfying sexual pleasure, as alcoholic temperance is the best way of enjoying beer and wine.'

Ch. 4 Tolkien: Man and Myth; Joseph Pearce (italics in original)

[barrelrider110]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
The Professor didn't fear spiders, as he said in his Letters. He was reportedly bitten by one as a child, but he had no memory of it. He rescued spiders he found in the bath. :)
That's interesting--considering his choice of creature for Ungoliant and shelob--penultimate villians-- and his description of them as vile and wicked, not to mention the spiders in the Hobbit. Sorry, but if it looks like an elephant, sounds like and elephant, and feels like an elephant, I'm not going to call it a zebra.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Are you questioning the word of the Master? :eek: ;)

[Helix]

How could LotR be an allegory when Tolkien himself hated allegory? He even disliked C.S. Lewis's writings because they were so allegorical. He said that LotR was just a story. If certain events in the book resemble events in the Bible or his life, it was because those events had an impact on him.

Do I make any sense? I hope so, but somehow I doubt it..... :rolleyes:

[barrelrider110]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Are you questioning the word of the Master? :eek: ;)

Yup! :D

No, not really. I don't doubt that Tolkien denied being arachnophobic. But when you use adjectives like vile and malicious (paraphrasing a bit) to describe these creatures, so ubiquitous in Tolkien's works, I tend to think that to him (and most everybody) spiders are loathsome and repugnant animals. What would be the source of that antipathy? Fear.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Erm...I didn't mean I was the Master. I meant the Master of Middle-earth. :p

But really, he made spiders as some villians...spiders make great villians. And while I say that, allow me to also say that I love spiders, and consider them fascinating creatures. However, they are also great villian figures. That he had spider-villians does not mean that he feared spiders.

[Sheeana]

And just because he wrote in a letter once, doesn't mean he didn't secretly fear spiders. :p

*Kicks Gwaimir for being so pedantic.* Ah! I feel much better now. :) :p

[Gwaimir Windgem]

But it's a good indicator. :p

EDIT: Oh yeah, and

-kicks BoP for kicking him- :p

[Sheeana]

Not necessarily. He could be a pathological liar. OR he could have some gender issue about admitting that he's scared of spiders. *Kicks Gwaimir in the family jewel region.* Muahahahaha! :p

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yeah, but I said INDICATOR. :p

Wait a second....gender issue? :eek:

-crawls helplessly away-

[olsonm]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Not necessarily. He could be a pathological liar. OR he could have some gender issue about admitting that he's scared of spiders. *Kicks Gwaimir in the family jewel region.* Muahahahaha! :p *OR* you could be projecting your own deep-seated terror of arachnids onto our dear professor. *also kicks Gwaimir in the family jewels* 0:-)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

-wishes he weren't so popular- :( ;)

[Sheeana]

Well, I guess I *could* be implementing my deep seated fear of wetas onto the dear, dear old man, but not spiders. Me loves spiders! (--except for that time when I was on the toilet, but we won't talk about that.) *anxious look*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

-thinly veiled snicker- ;)

[GrayMouser]

I'm not sure if I've posted on this on this forum, but it's a pet subject of mine, (it also ties into that whole "Tolkien and racism" thing) so here goes again:

There is a strong resemblance between Middle-Earth at the end of the Third Age and Europe in the "Dark Ages".

Arnor is the fallen Western half of the Roman Empire; civilisation and order have been destroyed, depopulation has occurred, the forests have come back and all that's left are a few isolated outposts of culture and light- Rivendell, Lorien in LoTR; the monasteries in Western Europe.

The Orcs don't represent "coloured" races as has sometimes been claimed, but are the basic outlaw/tribal/wild men that could come sweeping out of the forests at any time.

Okay, here we have to indulge the good Professor in a little bit of old-fashioned English (NOT British) schizophrenia: the same peoples whose culture and languages he devoted his life to ( Germanic/Scandinavian ) were also the peoples crushing the Empire and Christianity.

Gondor represents Byzantium; after the split, it expanded to great heights but is currently under threat from the Power of the East and South; it has become decadent, looking only to the past.

The Wain-riders are the Huns/Magyars/Mongols; nomadic invaders from the East;

the new foes, stocky, bearded and hairy, bearing axes like Dwarves, could be the Slavs.

The Southrons, swarthy scimitar-wielding men, are obviously the Arabs.

And of course in this period all of Christendom was threatened by a foe from the South and East which was regarded as a blasphemous heretical sect, whose power constantly threatened to overwhelm the West- Islam.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

"The Orcs don't represent "coloured" races as has sometimes been claimed, but are the basic outlaw/tribal/wild men that could come sweeping out of the forests at any time."

Tolkien said that that a certain type of individual was from what his Orcs were developed, individuals he saw everyday in modern (1950's) life.

He also said that the restoration of Aragorn as King would be similar to a rebirth of the Holy Roman Empire, thus making Gondor more like the "western" empire. Also, as I noticed you use a lot of directional comparisons, I would point out that Arnor is to the north of Gondor, not the West (or East, for that matter).

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
"The Orcs don't represent "coloured" races as has sometimes been claimed, but are the basic outlaw/tribal/wild men that could come sweeping out of the forests at any time."

Tolkien said that that a certain type of individual was from what his Orcs were developed, individuals he saw everyday in modern (1950's) life.



Really? Tolkien looked around at 1950s Britain and saw scimitar wielding eaters of human flesh ready to sweep out of the mountains and wreak havoc and destruction on every settled habitat? That would explain a lot....

Unless you are saying the Orcs are an allegory of the Teddy Boys?

And I thought they were supposed to be based on 'ruffians' he had observed while in the trenches back in 1915.

Obviously the Orcs draw from a number of sources, certainly among them the outlaws/ marauding tribes that existed in the deep forests beyond the small clusters of houses that led a precarious existence after the fall of the Empire; the wicked creatures who, according to the Hobbits, "had never heard of the King"

As for the directional thing, roughly and close enough.

North, West = Good
East, South= Bad

Given that Tolkien's professional life was devoted to this time period and that his professional publications were all about this time period, it doesn't seem all that outrageous of an assumption to make that this period may have influenced his book.

I think one of the reasons that LoTR is so great is that works on more levels than one. It's also about the corrupting effects of power; it's also rife with Christian symbolism; it's also about the opposition between the natural and the mechanical/industrial; it's also about the folly of pursuing stasis; it's also about WWII; it's also about the grim worldview of the North; and IMHO it's also based to some extent on Dark Age Europe.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I must say, I disagree about North = Good. As Tolkien said when someone referred to the North as a sacred direction for him, the North was in olden days the seat of the Devil, from which the harsh, cold winds blew, not sacred, or good, I think.

[Sheeana]

I haven't got any of my books in front of me, but wasn't Morgoth working evil things in the North at one stage? Or am I recalling from BoLT?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Indeed. He was referring to the Devil in his mythology, hence, Morgoth. :)

[GrayMouser]

Yeah, and of course in Norse mythology the Far North was the home of the Frost Giants- the Scandinavians certainly knew from which directions the chilly winds blew.

The North, as well as being the source of the Nordic mythology that Tolkien loved, was also the source of those Viking raiders that were trying their best to wipe out Culture and Christianity.

As the old Anglo-Saxon prayer goes 'From the fury of the Northmen, Dear Lord deliver us".