lord of the rings= Allegory

[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? ) 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. 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'.

[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. 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. I am very upset over this........ 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....

[Elvengirl]

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

[Gwaimir Windgem]

[azalea]

That is...an indescribably...stupid interpretation. 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.
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!

[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.