The Great Tolkien Legendarium Thread

[Glass Half Baked]

Can we put a GPS tracker on the goal posts? Now apparently east can only be reckoned from Mordor, for some reason. I guess it's better than using London as the starting point, but not by much.

[zompist]

Can we put a GPS tracker on the goal posts? Now apparently east can only be reckoned from Mordor, for some reason. I guess it's better than using London as the starting point, but not by much.

Some village is missing its idiot.

[Ares Land]

It indeed seems as if Tolkien didn't have many ideas about what lay beyond the LotR map's edges; it may be because, as you say, he did not understand the cultures of India, China or Africa well enough to do justice to them, or wanted to avoid colonialist stereotypes about those parts of the world. One can quite safely assume that the power of Sauron did extend beyond the map's edge to some degree, but the idea that all the vastness out there was under Sauron's rule seems nonsensical to me. Well, these regions did not matter much to the plot, and the people of the northwest did not know much about them, so Tolkien could leave them unexplored.

Admittedly this is how an ancient Briton or Norseman would think of the world. But Tolkien wasn't an ancient Briton, he was writing in the 1940s. The Conan stories have a para-India and a para-China; Tolkien's pal Lewis had a para-India. On the other hand, maybe it's just as well: at least Tolkien didn't mess around with countries he didn't understand.

I think Tolkien deliberately set out to think as an ancient Britan or Norseman would have and that's the key to the matter.

The 'West is Good' symbolism is intriguing; as far as I can tell it's entirely an original creation. But we get an hint of a possible inspiration in the Letters:

I have often used Westernesse as a translation. This is derived from rare Middle English Westernesse (known to me only in MS. C of King Horn) where the meaning is vague, but may be taken to mean 'Western lands' as distinct from the East inhabited by the Paynim and Saracens.

Tolkien had reactionary views, even for his time. But he was appalled by South Africa, scientific racism, and the very principle of colonialism.

[zompist]

Admittedly this is how an ancient Briton or Norseman would think of the world.

I think Tolkien deliberately set out to think as an ancient Britan or Norseman would have and that's the key to the matter.

Yes... IIRC he was trying, or started out trying, to create a sort of Christianized mythological past for Western Europe. The northwest vs. southeast divide among humans has roots in classical, medieval, and Old Testament stories.

In a sense I'd say he didn't succeed, and his failure is precisely what makes his world interesting. The most compelling parts of the world are its weirdest and most original elements: the elves, the Ents, the scraps of magic, the constant hints in LOTR of a rich but not directly explained ancient past. These have some medieval inspirations (e.g. the fae) but they're basically a wholesale reimagining.

At the same time, LOTR is hardly Christian, barely even monotheistic. God doesn't even appear in the text, only in two obscure references in the appendices. It's very far from the explicit Christianity of Lewis, and from anything Western European. It's an odd but inspired choice, probably responsible for so many people loving Tolkien who would have recoiled at something more recognizably religious.

It ends feeling like a Gnostic or Deist view of the universe, not a Catholic one. I'm not sure he intended to get there, though he certainly would have been aware of Lewis's different approach in the Space Trilogy and therefore probably consciously rejected that.

[zompist]

Looking up Lewis's Space Trilogy, I ran into, of all things, a review by George Orwell of That Hideous Strength. It's overall positive, to be put alongaside Lewis's own approval of Animal Farm. One line struck me as relevant to my point above:

The whole drama of the struggle against evil lies in the fact that one does not have supernatural aid.

That's largely how Tolkien keeps the drama in LOTR. Not there is no supernatural aid, but it's doled out sparingly, and the enemies have far more of it. Tolkien's choices may not be good theology but they are good narrative.

[WeepingElf]

Admittedly this is how an ancient Briton or Norseman would think of the world.

I think Tolkien deliberately set out to think as an ancient Britan or Norseman would have and that's the key to the matter.

Yes... IIRC he was trying, or started out trying, to create a sort of Christianized mythological past for Western Europe. The northwest vs. southeast divide among humans has roots in classical, medieval, and Old Testament stories.

In a sense I'd say he didn't succeed, and his failure is precisely what makes his world interesting. The most compelling parts of the world are its weirdest and most original elements: the elves, the Ents, the scraps of magic, the constant hints in LOTR of a rich but not directly explained ancient past. These have some medieval inspirations (e.g. the fae) but they're basically a wholesale reimagining.

At the same time, LOTR is hardly Christian, barely even monotheistic. God doesn't even appear in the text, only in two obscure references in the appendices. It's very far from the explicit Christianity of Lewis, and from anything Western European. It's an odd but inspired choice, probably responsible for so many people loving Tolkien who would have recoiled at something more recognizably religious.

It ends feeling like a Gnostic or Deist view of the universe, not a Catholic one. I'm not sure he intended to get there, though he certainly would have been aware of Lewis's different approach in the Space Trilogy and therefore probably consciously rejected that.

Yes. Tolkien explicitly stated that he wanted to create "a mythology for England". Middle-earth is not an alien world, it is an antediluvian world - a mythical distant past of our world before it was reshaped and its old civilizations were wiped out by a cataclysm (the devout Catholic Tolkien was, he probably thought of the Biblical Deluge here). He did not really fully attain that goal, but nevertheless created an original, rich and engaging fantasy world.

Tolkien's Elves seem to owe very much to the Irish Tuatha Dé Danann; while the Old Norse and Old English traditions know álfar/ælfe, they tell very little about them, and leave much room for imagination, while the Irish tradition is richer in this regard. The hobbits are an original creation of Tolkien, but a late addition to the legendarium; they started as a children's story only loosely connected to it, and do not feature at all in the Quenta Silmarillion. And what regards LotR being hardly Christian, Tolkien was in a dilemma: he was a devout Christian, so he did not want to create something "pagan", but the story is set in a time long before the Incarnation of Christ (even before the Deluge, see above), so it could not be Christian either.

[WeepingElf]

Looking up Lewis's Space Trilogy, I ran into, of all things, a review by George Orwell of That Hideous Strength. It's overall positive, to be put alongaside Lewis's own approval of Animal Farm. One line struck me as relevant to my point above:

The whole drama of the struggle against evil lies in the fact that one does not have supernatural aid.

That's largely how Tolkien keeps the drama in LOTR. Not there is no supernatural aid, but it's doled out sparingly, and the enemies have far more of it. Tolkien's choices may not be good theology but they are good narrative.

I didn't like That Hideous Strength precisely because it relies on the intervention of supernatural forces to end the technocratic tyranny.

[Ares Land]

At the same time, LOTR is hardly Christian, barely even monotheistic. God doesn't even appear in the text, only in two obscure references in the appendices. It's very far from the explicit Christianity of Lewis, and from anything Western European. It's an odd but inspired choice, probably responsible for so many people loving Tolkien who would have recoiled at something more recognizably religious.

It ends feeling like a Gnostic or Deist view of the universe, not a Catholic one. I'm not sure he intended to get there, though he certainly would have been aware of Lewis's different approach in the Space Trilogy and therefore probably consciously rejected that.

This thread got me to rereading Tolkien's Letters.

So there are intentional or semi-intentional hints of Catholicism in LotR. They're certainly way too subtle for me!
One is hints of devotion to Mary in A Elbereth Gilthoniel or the hobbit's devotion to Galadriel. Another is lembas which parallels the eucharist. The general sense of nostalgia is nostalgia for Eden before the Fall (which in Tolkien's view we're supposed to feel quite keenly.)
Honestly, the only bit of Christianity that feels obvious is mercy as an overarching theme (and even there, it's good morality.)

I liked the Narnia books as a child, but as an adult I'm afraid they leave me a little cold. They're more overtly intended as Christian apologetics, aren't they? Surprisingly, I did like Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters. Neither one succeeded in converting me, but I was glad to have an honest inside view of Christianity. I hear mixed things about the Space Trilogy, is it worth reading?

That's largely how Tolkien keeps the drama in LOTR. Not there is no supernatural aid, but it's doled out sparingly, and the enemies have far more of it. Tolkien's choices may not be good theology but they are good narrative.

Yes, it's great narrative. That's pretty much the formula for any Stephen King book too (King is a LOTR fan, and it's probably where he got the trick.)

[Raphael]

Looking up Lewis's Space Trilogy, I ran into, of all things, a review by George Orwell of That Hideous Strength. It's overall positive, to be put alongaside Lewis's own approval of Animal Farm. One line struck me as relevant to my point above:

The whole drama of the struggle against evil lies in the fact that one does not have supernatural aid.

That's largely how Tolkien keeps the drama in LOTR. Not there is no supernatural aid, but it's doled out sparingly, and the enemies have far more of it. Tolkien's choices may not be good theology but they are good narrative.

Ugh. That review reminded me again that, whenever Lewis wrote or talked about scientists, he assumed as a matter of course, not even in need of being demonstrated in any way, that they were all completely amoral, with no sense of right and wrong whatsoever. That was, of course, a clear violation of whatever number the commandment against bearing false witness has in Lewis' preferred numbering scheme. But then again, that generally seems to be the commandment religious conservatives usually worry the least about.

[WeepingElf]

At the same time, LOTR is hardly Christian, barely even monotheistic. God doesn't even appear in the text, only in two obscure references in the appendices. It's very far from the explicit Christianity of Lewis, and from anything Western European. It's an odd but inspired choice, probably responsible for so many people loving Tolkien who would have recoiled at something more recognizably religious.

It ends feeling like a Gnostic or Deist view of the universe, not a Catholic one. I'm not sure he intended to get there, though he certainly would have been aware of Lewis's different approach in the Space Trilogy and therefore probably consciously rejected that.

This thread got me to rereading Tolkien's Letters.

So there are intentional or semi-intentional hints of Catholicism in LotR. They're certainly way too subtle for me!
One is hints of devotion to Mary in A Elbereth Gilthoniel or the hobbit's devotion to Galadriel. Another is lembas which parallels the eucharist. The general sense of nostalgia is nostalgia for Eden before the Fall (which in Tolkien's view we're supposed to feel quite keenly.)
Honestly, the only bit of Christianity that feels obvious is mercy as an overarching theme (and even there, it's good morality.)

Yes, all these can be read as Christian symbols, and you are probably correct in assuming that they are. Yet, they are subtle enough not to be stumbling blocks for less religious people.

I liked the Narnia books as a child, but as an adult I'm afraid they leave me a little cold. They're more overtly intended as Christian apologetics, aren't they? Surprisingly, I did like Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters. Neither one succeeded in converting me, but I was glad to have an honest inside view of Christianity. I hear mixed things about the Space Trilogy, is it worth reading?

I didn't read the Narnia books, but what I have read about them doesn't make me want to read them My impression of Lewis is that he tried to shove his religious stance down the reader's throat with a poker (I don't remember where I found this imagery), and I agree with Tolkien in disliking such an approach. As for the Space Trilogy, the first novel, Out of the Silent Planet, is an agreeable but not outstanding planetary romance (probably more philosophical than most others), the second novel, Perelandra, is extremely boring as hardly anything happens in it, and the third novel, That Hideous Strength, is terrible; what I liked least about it is that it relies on a supernatural intervention to end the technocratic tyranny.

[Ares Land]

Ugh. That review reminded me again that, whenever Lewis wrote or talked about scientists, he assumed as a matter of course, not even in need of being demonstrated in any way, that they were all completely amoral, with no sense of right and wrong whatsoever. That was, of course, a clear violation of whatever number the commandment against bearing false witness has in Lewis' preferred numbering scheme. But then again, that generally seems to be the commandment religious conservatives usually worry the least about.

I haven't read the books in question, so I might be saying something stupid...

But isn't that in the spirit of his times? The depiction of science and progress as amoral, destructive forces seems very common in works of that period.
I don't mean to imply that it was correct. But following mass industrialization (thoughtless in many ways) and two mechanized destructive wars, it feels understandable.

[Ares Land]

I didn't read the Narnia books, but what I have read about them doesn't make me want to read them My impression of Lewis is that he tried to shove his religious stance down the reader's throat with a poker (I don't remember where I found this imagery), and I agree with Tolkien in disliking such an approach.

Oh, they're really not that bad! (OK, I heard the last one really is bad, but I never read that one or at least I don't remember it.)
They can't be said to force a religious stance. The one thing is that the very direct Aslan/Jesus analogy really hurt suspension of disbelief, at least for me. (As an adult. The allegory was completely lost on me as a kid)

[Raphael]

The depiction of science and progress as amoral, destructive forces seems very common in works of that period.
I don't mean to imply that it was correct. But following mass industrialization (thoughtless in many ways) and two mechanized destructive wars, it feels understandable.

Even so, an insightful writer should know better than to assume that people whose actions have bad effects must, therefore, be amoral. He never seems to have gotten the idea that scientists might not be deeply wicked people, or even that he might have to present arguments for his assumptions about them.

[WeepingElf]

The depiction of science and progress as amoral, destructive forces seems very common in works of that period.
I don't mean to imply that it was correct. But following mass industrialization (thoughtless in many ways) and two mechanized destructive wars, it feels understandable.

Even so, an insightful writer should know better than to assume that people whose actions have bad effects must, therefore, be amoral. He never seems to have gotten the idea that scientists might not be deeply wicked people, or even that he might have to present arguments for his assumptions about them.

My takeaway from That Hideous Strength was that according to the author, modern science was by principle irredeemably wicked and evil, without exception. And that is a notion I cannot endure. Science can be wicked, but not always is. It created a lot of wicked things, but it also created a lot of things which made our lives better.

[Raphael]

The depiction of science and progress as amoral, destructive forces seems very common in works of that period.
I don't mean to imply that it was correct. But following mass industrialization (thoughtless in many ways) and two mechanized destructive wars, it feels understandable.

Even so, an insightful writer should know better than to assume that people whose actions have bad effects must, therefore, be amoral. He never seems to have gotten the idea that scientists might not be deeply wicked people, or even that he might have to present arguments for his assumptions about them.

My takeaway from That Hideous Strength was that according to the author, modern science was by principle irredeemably wicked and evil, without exception. And that is a notion I cannot endure. Science can be wicked, but not always is. It created a lot of wicked things, but it also created a lot of things which made our lives better.

And, again, depending on how you count, it's a clear violation of either the 8th or 9th Commandment.

[WeepingElf]

Even so, an insightful writer should know better than to assume that people whose actions have bad effects must, therefore, be amoral. He never seems to have gotten the idea that scientists might not be deeply wicked people, or even that he might have to present arguments for his assumptions about them.

My takeaway from That Hideous Strength was that according to the author, modern science was by principle irredeemably wicked and evil, without exception. And that is a notion I cannot endure. Science can be wicked, but not always is. It created a lot of wicked things, but it also created a lot of things which made our lives better.

And, again, depending on how you count, it's a clear violation of either the 8th or 9th Commandment.

So you'd accuse Lewis of lying?

[xxx]

Tolkien is, however, particularly anti-progress,
and anti-scientist seen as cold-hearted wizards,
which to know things, break them...

[Raphael]

So you'd accuse Lewis of lying?

Let's put it this way: he said bad things about people he didn't like without taking proper care to check whether those things were actually true. The negligent homicide/Fahrlässige Tötung version of lying, in a way.

[alice]

Tolkien was in a dilemma

Tolkien himself would have preferred "on the horns of a dilemma", but you can be forgiven for not knowing this obscure English prepositional phrase

Tolkien is, however, particularly anti-progress,
and anti-scientist seen as cold-hearted wizards,
which to know things, break them...

More specifically, wanton thoughtless destruction in the name of progress. Which is why a claim I once read on an official Objectivist website, that Atlas Shrugged should be considered a sequel to LotR, is utterly ridiculous.

[Raphael]

More specifically, wanton thoughtless destruction in the name of progress. Which is why a claim I once read on an official Objectivist website, that Atlas Shrugged should be considered a sequel to LotR, is utterly ridiculous.

I guess that was a stereotypical USAnian geeky teenage boy, or geeky former teenage boy, who assumed that

1) Lord of the Rings is Good,

2) Atlas Shrugged is Good, too,

and therefore

3) Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged, being both Good, therefore clearly have to be the same thing.

Which is, of course, not exactly a particularly mature or intelligent understanding of how the world works.