LOTR and Christianity...

[fasheezy]

oh man, i think you guys should give it a chance. these movies are absolutely great. the author of the novels was a Christian, so there is a lot of Christian symbolism in them. it's great!!! don't just think of it as an action movie, it's the furthest thing from.

[qmrq]

oh man, i think you guys should give it a chance. these movies are absolutely great. the author of the novels was a Christian, so there is a lot of Christian symbolism in them. it's great!!! don't just think of it as an action movie, it's the furthest thing from.
I have to disagree. Tolkien has said quite a few times that there is no theme to his story at all, that it has no deeper meaning, and exists only to tell an interesting story.

[Korlon]

I have to disagree. Tolkien has said quite a few times that there is no theme to his story at all, that it has no deeper meaning, and exists only to tell an interesting story.

Unfortunately, anyone who tries hard enough can find almost any sort of symbolism in almost anything they look at.

[Jason Dunn]

I have to disagree. Tolkien has said quite a few times that there is no theme to his story at all, that it has no deeper meaning, and exists only to tell an interesting story.

I'd have to disagree with your disagreement. Read this article, particularly the text at the end:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/12_17/pages/rings.html

I think "no theme" is a big strong, even if the references are not blatant.

Anyway, it's mostly a moot point since Tolkien isn't here to answer for himself. ;-)

[qmrq]

Tolkien does not need to be around, he has already answered question!

From <u>The Fellowship of the Ring</u>:
&lt;blockquote>
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.&lt;/blockquote>

[Jason Dunn]

Tolkien does not need to be around, he has already answered question!

I'd argue that regardless of whether or not Tolkien consciously injected the story with Christian undertones, it's there nonetheless, and denying it won't make it go away. It's almost impossible for a writer to craft a story without leaving his personal mark on it, whether he wants to or not.

[AZMark]

Good vs. Evil

Christians vs. Devil

Hitler vs. World

It's all in there, sure it was what was on JRR's mind at the time. But why he wrote it, was not to make you think, is was to make you loose yourself.

[David Prahl]

Good vs. Evil

Christians vs. Devil

Hitler vs. World


Palm vs. Pocket PC

"The great eye of Pa1mOne sees you...but only you, since he can't multitask. And you can't hear him, because he lacks native support for MP3s."

[PetiteFlower]

Brad, just be warned that you're not going to know what's going on, since you haven't seen the first 2 movies. They didn't do a recap at the beginning of the second movie and I wouldn't expect one for this either, they will go right into the action!

But, you can still appreciate the awesome acting and the breathtaking visuals(both natural and digital)

As for symbolism.....well you can see anything in anything if you look hard enough. I find it very hard to believe that Tolkein intended this to be a "christian story" when the world that he created had no god/s at all(all the gods of this world were dead long before the start of the LOTR tale). He may have been a christian himself, I don't doubt that, but I really don't think he intended to insert that belief into a world that it didn't really belong in(HE created the world without religion after all).

As far as I have seen, the biggest life experience he had that contributed to his writings was the time he spent at war; there is a lot of portrayal of the horrors of war and how even in victory, no one really wins. I wouldn't call him a pacifist, but he was certainly not glorifying battle and he was trying to show it realistically and from many points of view.

Anyway please, as a personal favor, don't tell me what happens! I haven't seen it yet, I might not get to for a couple of days, and I purposely did NOT finish reading the book before now! I finished TT before the last movie came out and I was SO disappointed by one of the major character changes they made (Faramir anyone?) that I just don't want to repeat that experience, I'll finish the book after I've seen the movie :) So if you want to talk about the plot, please start a new thread and put SPOILERS in the subject :)

Thanks! :ladysman:

[MaximumPDA]

Another review, here is a quote:


Click to read the review, its satire..

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1203/rotk.html

They have other interesting reviews for movies like the Matrix, funny stuff. What's real scary and sobering is that there are real people out there that do think like this. The whole site is just scary funny, talk about your zealots, sheesh!! It's actaully good for big laugh, check it out.

--Bill

[Jason Dunn]

That was a pretty ugly post Bill. :?

[MaximumPDA]

I dont know about ugly, but i pulled it anyway. The whole site is spoof, I found it a few months back looking for a game review and there was a link to that site and at first I didnt realize the whole site was satirical and thought these people were really whacked.


EDIT: OK, I re -read the quote and it was a little off color, sorry :oops: I am de sensitized to that stuff and forget that it may be a bit much for most folk.

[Steven Cedrone]

MHO: Like Freud said: "Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar."

Enjoy the movie...

If we are going to continue this discussion here, please do not post offensive comments/links...

Steven Cedrone
Community Moderator

[JustinGTP]

I just enjoyed the novels for what they were, a good book. J.R Tolkien is an excellent writer, I enjoyed The Hobbit as well.

Its good to see that some people look more behind the words and see symbolism etc - you may understand it better.

I just dont know if I can stand how long these movies are. When you watch the movie, its 3 1/2 hours long and you tend to want to watch it all at once, but with a book, you can drag it out. Well, it could go both ways!

-Justin :D :)

[sublime]

Tolkien does not need to be around, he has already answered question!

From <u>The Fellowship of the Ring</u>:
&lt;blockquote>
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.&lt;/blockquote>

And who's to say that the author is telling the truth? Mark Twain in "Huckleberry Finn" made it explicit that his book had no deeper meaning, but the book is JAM PACKED with scholarly goodies. Yet Twain tells people looking for these scholarly goodies that "persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot."

This leads to an important point: the author's intention is not that important - maybe not important at all. It is what we readers glean from the book that has any merit (so long as we can back it up).

I, for one, understood the books to be about overachieving; we root for the underdogs with their undersized bodies and oversized hearts. We could read this rooting for the underdog as an author's attempt to explain/capture the human spirit. We must be more than just flesh and blood. There has to be something else to us, and that something else we shall call "spirit." By doing what our bodies cannot do we prove the existence of such a substance - at least, in the author's eyes, that is.

[crass]

Someone posted that according to the author himself, LOTR has no deep hidden meanings so I guess that covers it. On the other hand, I had watched a documentary concerning the author some time ago which had some valid points. Tolkien lived in the era of industrialisation and he was against this change. There was indeed a great debate back then. I think this is also clearly depicted in the series where trees are being cut and the polluting smoke of the evil factories produce weapons. Even if he did not consciously intended it, I think that our personal beliefs are always there whenever we produce an idea or a story.

[pewter_tankard]

This leads to an important point: the author's intention is not that important - maybe not important at all. It is what we readers glean from the book that has any merit (so long as we can back it up).

There are two approaches to literary criticism that seem appropriate here.

The first is that, although Tolkien denies that there is an underlying message to the books (and I believe that he means this), JRRT was a man of his time. The final chapters of the third book deal with the halflings returning home to find that everything has changed. It's been well documented that JRRT loved the traditions of the English countryside and felt uncomfortable with the growth of heavy industry and its consequences on the modern world. It isn't hard to spot parallels with the chapter entitled "The Scouring of the Shire". However, I don't believe that Tolkien ever wrote this chapter to explicitly make this point, rather it was a side-effect of his beliefs. Christians can see some Christian overtones in the work, but I don't believe them to be intentional on the part of the author. I'd strongly recommend that anyone interested in this reads "The Inklings" by Humphrey Carpenter. This is a factual book about the group of Oxford intellectuals who met to share their artistic ideas and world views. The two most famous members of the group were JRRT and C. S. Lewis, both of whom converted to Christianity in their adult lives. However, it's interesting to note that JRRT and CSL argued over overt Christian messages in fiction. JRRT took the view that fiction was fiction. CSL's views are, of course, well known (see the Chronicles of Narnia: Azlan = Jesus etc.). JRRT's only stated intention to his family regarding LOTR was that England didn't really have any great folk tales of its own when compared to, for example, Germany or Scandanavia, so JRRT wanted to create a fictional folk tale of old England which brought together the themes which Tolkien held dear. If you look hard into the book, you can see Viking myth, Arthurian legends, Nordic runes, languages fed by JRRT's huge knowledge of philology and so much more...

The other point to make is that sometimes this attitude of "Oh... the author didn't mean that, so don't criticise him" goes too far. The Tolkien family has come in for some recent criticism of their attitudes toward some Tolkien fans. This attitude appears to be that any criticism of JRRT's works is unfounded, particularly as JRRT had said that there is no hidden meanings to his works. I find this a bit hard to take. You're right in saying that, as readers, we have the right to take our own beliefs and attitudes into the work (this is far less true with a film - usually it is the director's attitudes which are most important) and come out with our own views.

Phil

[Vulcan]

Its just a movie......

[pewter_tankard]

Its just a movie......

Urmmm... I'm fairly sure that it was a book first. :?

[Vulcan]

Yes wise guy it was......My point was its just a story....don't attach anything to it or seek a hidden meaning.

[pewter_tankard]

My point was its just a story....don't attach anything to it or seek a hidden meaning.

Well that b*gg*rs up anybody studying lit crit.

If a book makes you think, why can't you talk about it? I'd agree with you if somebody tried to start a topic on the hidden parallels between Hindu mysticism and the works of Dr Suess (actually... that makes me think... :wink: ), but most books which are in any way complex deserve a little comment.

Some people enjoy playing PC/console games (I know you do - I've been reading your interesting posts on the Mozilla Firebird thread) and some people enjoy reading and discussing books. I wouldn't tell you that you were wasting your time. Please return the favour.

Good health to you

Phil

[Mojo Jojo]

I think everyone is looking at this in one direction, everyone is focusing on the book (or movie) and forgetting the basic point of what it means to be in this world.

That is life is a perception of the one viewing it.

In this case, the book or movie is interacting with the reader or viewer. Each of us that encounter something in life use what we know and think to interpert or describe that object. One can say that a person who has deep connections to christianity views this story and sees things they are familar with and believe in and uses that knowldge to help understand the book.

If you remove the person who believes in christianity and replace them with someone who grew up during or war or participated in one, their understanding of the story corrolate with their own feelings and thoughts.

You can replace that viewer with any combinations and get a different outcome. Neither is right nor wrong.

Language and understanding are based on building blocks. Take the definition of 'Apple' "the fleshy usually rounded and red, yellow, or green edible pome fruit of a tree - Merriam Webster". Most people know what an apple is, but when we define it we use other words... in this instance what is red, what is yellow, what is edible, what is round?

As children we learn the basics and take them as 'truths'. If I point to an object and say that it is red, the person learning connects 'red' with their perception of an object. This is how color blind people can know what color red is even if they can't see the color as others see it, the shade of color they perceive is connected with a description.

So taking these thoughts and expanding them across the life time of an individual we get back to the topic in this thread. What I take from a book is different from what you might take from a book. I might make connections that are relivent in my life that have no connection for you.

This book (or movie) is made for entertainment and not a definition or 'truth' (unless you need to define how to destroy a ring of ultimate evil in a land of hobbits, dwarves, elves, and dragons :wink: )

[pewter_tankard]

I think everyone is looking at this in one direction, everyone is focusing on the book (or movie) and forgetting the basic point of what it means to be in this world.

That is life is a perception of the one viewing it.

If you remove the person who believes in christianity and replace them with someone who grew up during or war or participated in one, their understanding of the story corrolate with their own feelings and thoughts.

You can replace that viewer with any combinations and get a different outcome. Neither is right nor wrong.

Quite right. Everyone is entitled to their opinions providing they don't hurt anyone else. The extreme cases are those affected by books like Catcher in the Rye who claim in court that the fictional work "instructs" them in some way. Everyone has their own limits on what is right and wrong, but some limits are more clear-cut than others.

Language and understanding are based on building blocks. Take the definition of 'Apple' "the fleshy usually rounded and red, yellow, or green edible pome fruit of a tree - Merriam Webster".

Alternatively 'Apple' is "the only hope for desktop computing and the medium through which I make a living - Steve Jobs" :wink:

This book (or movie) is made for entertainment and not a definition or 'truth' (unless you need to define how to destroy a ring of ultimate evil in a land of hobbits, dwarves, elves, and dragons :wink: )

Nowadays somebody would just have written the FAQ for how to search for a weapon of mass destruction whilst living in a fantasy land (wait... hold on... is this fiction?).

[fasheezy]

I would have to say that Mojo Jojo has a valid point. You bring what you know/experienced to the table when you interpret anything, it can't really be objective.

As for the people who keep saying things like, "if you look hard enough you'll find what you're looking for" or something to that effect, I can't agree there. You don't need to sit there and scrutinize the movie for hours on end to see the religious implications of the movie. It's pretty blatantly apparent if you have some knowledge of Christianity and you certainly don't have to be one in order to see the symbolism.

Did not mean to spark a huge debate over this movie. But whoever hasn't watched LOTR should totally find time to b/c this movie is off the chain, which is a good thing for all you older folks.

[Thinkingmandavid]

When I go to see a movie, I go to see a movie. I am not attempting to ad any significance to it, but if I get something, then great.

Jason Dunn wrote
I'd argue that regardless of whether or not Tolkien consciously injected the story with Christian undertones, it's there nonetheless, and denying it won't make it go away. It's almost impossible for a writer to craft a story without leaving his personal mark on it, whether he wants to or not.

I agree with this post. This is the part that if I get something out of it great, but it does not mean the write meant for there to be any more to the book than what he said. It is quite possible tha some authors may not realize what 'themes' may be in a book until it is already published and read. It is not a bad thing, it is what it is.

David Prahl wrote
Palm vs. Pocket PC

"The great eye of Pa1mOne sees you...but only you, since he can't multitask. And you can't hear him, because he lacks native support for MP3s."

I agree with that :mrgreen: I would add my own signature but it might bug someone :)

Maximumpda posted a web link
Is this for real or is it just sarcasm. I laughed at some of the stuff that was written. If they are for real, then that is some extremism. If for fun, I am sure someone will be offended.

[Janak Parekh]

Maximumpda posted a web link
Is this for real or is it just sarcasm. I laughed at some of the stuff that was written. If they are for real, then that is some extremism. If for fun, I am sure someone will be offended.
Landover Baptist is most definitely sarcasm.

--janak

[PetiteFlower]

The first is that, although Tolkien denies that there is an underlying message to the books (and I believe that he means this), JRRT was a man of his time. *snip*

You said more elaborately the same thing I was trying to say :) His values/beliefs/experiences INFLUENCED his work, because well how could they not? But he wasn't TRYING to make the work have any overt message or allegory. There were themes, but I think what he really wanted was for the readers to draw their own conclusions and think about what it meant to them, and each get something different out of it. To say that it was written as a "christian novel" or that he purposely injected "christian symbolism" into it is just incorrect, not to mention a serious oversimplification of the many meanings of this complex piece of work.

[darrylb]

The first is that, although Tolkien denies that there is an underlying message to the books (and I believe that he means this), JRRT was a man of his time. *snip*

You said more elaborately the same thing I was trying to say :) His values/beliefs/experiences INFLUENCED his work, because well how could they not? But he wasn't TRYING to make the work have any overt message or allegory. There were themes, but I think what he really wanted was for the readers to draw their own conclusions and think about what it meant to them, and each get something different out of it. To say that it was written as a "christian novel" or that he purposely injected "christian symbolism" into it is just incorrect, not to mention a serious oversimplification of the many meanings of this complex piece of work.

Besides, I understand Tolkein was converted after the return of the king was completed, through his friendship with CS Lewis. That said, some of his work was done after his conversion - the Silmarillion for instance.

[Jereboam]

First I would like to say that I am a serious LOTR fan and see no overt Christian influences in the books - which is something I am reasonably sensitive to, being a confirmed atheist. I have read and re-read most of his novels from early childhood.

Secondly - I would like to relate a story from school. I was in an English literature class, and we were reading some novel, honestly can't remember which, but we were busy discussing the symbolism and hidden meanings behind the author describing in his prose the blue sky that graced the day.

At which point I interrupted the teacher (a real fanatic) and asked whether he might not just be saying, simply, that the sky was blue?

I got punished for being "smart" and the view that books should really just be read and enjoyed rather than analysed the hell out of was reinforced. Discussed - surely. Used as a learning tool? Of course.

But dissected and the author's actual intentions second-guessed by self-important "teachers"? I disagree and thoroughly dislike this approach.

Symbolism can often be extracted and used where it is not present or at least, used in a way not originally intended. Witness the Christian hijacking of many pagan symbols, and the Nazi warping of Hindu and mythical symbolism, and the perverting of philosophy through the ages to support political or other machinations. Sorry to clump two disparate groups in the same sentence, nothing but the first two good examples that came to mind, no link intended...

Of course, perception is a product of environment, and is at once both one of the best and worst things about us humans. We all see things differently and long may we continue to do so.

Just enjoy the books folks...that's what JRR wanted us to do.

J'bm

[sublime]

Jereboam,

Scholarship and analysis of books has been given a bad rap by those who do not participate in it. Not all of it results in far fetched ideas, nor should you assume that because you do not see eye to eye with a scholar (in this case, your teacher) that he is a fanatic, second-guessing and self-important. Don't play it down because you don't understand it. It shows ignorance on your part.

There is no objective truth to literature, and for readers who only think in terms of objective truth, scholarship is bogus and books should only be read at face value. Scholars acknowledge this, and do not claim to find universal truths to books, but analyze at a subjective level aspects of the book they find interesting. For subjectivists (if that is a word), "analyzing the hell out of" a book is their means of enjoyment.

...so don't knock it.

[pewter_tankard]

Secondly - I would like to relate a story from school. I was in an English literature class, and we were reading some novel, honestly can't remember which, but we were busy discussing the symbolism and hidden meanings behind the author describing in his prose the blue sky that graced the day.

At which point I interrupted the teacher (a real fanatic) and asked whether he might not just be saying, simply, that the sky was blue?

As the song goes, it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it...

I remember the first time I read Titus Groan by Mervyn Peake and being shocked by the way in which he'd take four and a half pages to take the reader down a short corridor. The descriptions of the carvings in that corridor and the feelings it brought out were *so* dense. Makes reading Charles Dickens look easy :wink:

Just enjoy the books folks...that's what JRR wanted us to do.

...and you can't say fairer than that. All copies of LOTR published today contain the foreword written by JRRT some years after the first editions were published. In that foreword, he makes reference to certain people writing in to point out the inaccuracies (y'see... nerds aren't a new phenomenon). You get the feeling that he's grateful for the chance to fix some of the more glaring inaccuracies but he's not going to get fixated on fixing every little problem (the differences in phases of the moon being the biggest problem he claimed he wasn't going to fix).

Like everything else, it's a balance. If we see some "big picture" that we feel we need to talk about in any work of fiction, then why not go ahead and do it, particularly if you can find like-minded fellows? However, if you just devote your life to finding that Frodo couldn't have been in the Dead Marshes by the time the moon had reached... blah... blah... blah... then, as the poet put it, "Get a life!"

Phil

[Jereboam]

I play it down because I have a viewpoint, in that I find such extreme scholarship often ridiculous, like scholarship for its own sake. Oh, of course, I am predicating my own argument upon an extreme example and am presenting an (ostensibly) extreme viewpoint, but such was only to reinforce my opinion that in many instances books are written by the author for the pure enjoyment of his readers and no hidden meaning was intended whatsoever, or should be inferred.

So it is very far from ignorance and I'll thank you to be civil. Having said that...

Many books are rife with symbolism and more layers of meaning than an onion, and it can be very interesting to drag these hidden thoughts and buried opinions out into the light for people to see...there is also much historical information that can be extracted from literature to support or confirm our theories or ideas about how people used to live...for example, an excellent source for learning about ye olde England is Chaucer with his tales which paint a remarkably vivid picture of daily lives and interactions, albeit highly subjective and single-source.

However, finding meaning where there is none can be a dangerous exercise, if not just plain silly.

And I will continue to "knock" those things that I disagree with or find contentious while I still have breath in my body.

Tolkein's books, in my opinion, are books that should definitely be left alone to simply read and enjoy. If you wish to disembowel them searching for hidden meanings, so be it. I just think that is a shame.

But as you said, we all enjoy things in different ways. ;)

J'bm

[pewter_tankard]

So it is very far from ignorance and I'll thank you to be civil.

I thought I was being civil. Hearty apologies if I gave you any other impression. I was mostly agreeing with your position.

I'm not being too English again, am I? Probably. If I want books that I just read and enjoy (as you so aptly put it), I always reach for P. G. Wodehouse. In fact, PGW probably put it best when he said "there are only two ways of writing a novel. One is mine, making the thing a sort of musical comedy without music, and ignoring real life altogether; the other is going down deep into life and not caring a damn."

And I will continue to "knock" those things that I disagree with or find contentious while I still have breath in my body.

..and the world would be a far less interesting place if we didn't do this.

Mind you, regarding the "while I still have breath" bit, science can do some wonderful things... Perhaps in a few years time, we'll be able to post items to bulletin boards post mortem. What a terrifying thought!

I think I need a nice cup of tea and a good book.

Phil

[Jereboam]

Sorry, pewter_tankard, we posted simultaneously...the reply is mostly meant for sublime, the previous poster...oops, should really use quotes!

Mervyn Peake is heavy stuff and I must say that I gave up. I tried and it just wasn't fun reading.

And not seeing the wood for the trees (or the moon for the phases) is a good way to put it...paying such close attention to detail often denies a greater enjoyment. IMHO.

I think I need a nice cup of tea and a good book.

And biccies. I am a self-confessed dunker.

J'bm

[sublime]

Jereboam,

And what is "extreme" scholarship, as opposed to "regular" scholarship? I tell you, the only thing I can consider extreme in scholarship are claims that are not sufficiently supported with textual evidence. For example, if I were to claim that LOTR is really about the author's leather fetish and that his style imitates the process of preparing macaroni and cheese (out of the box, not from scratch), then my argument would be extreme ONLY if I could not back it up.

And what is pure as opposed to impure enjoyment of the reader? Simply reading at face value? Putting no thought whatsoever into what you are reading, only mindlessly absorbing everything the author tells you to? Hopefully that cannot be, or else readers would be mindless slaves, obeying the commands of the latest author they have read.

You MUST think when you read a book. Scholarship trains you to think more. And I tell you, the more I think about a book, the more "extreme" I get in scholarship, the more I enjoy it. The author's intention is irrelevant. Shall I requote the opening of "Huckleberry Finn"? Were we to follow the author's intention of simply reading the book at mindless face-value, scholars would not be rewarded with the many goodies they find buried in the text. Virginia Woolf, in a letter to her sister, states that in her (arguably) greatest work "To the Lighthouse" there is no symbolism to the Lighthouse. It is only a lighthouse. The book's main focus is a journey to this lighthouse, and yet, it has no meaning? Bullisht

However, finding meaning where there is none can be a dangerous exercise, if not just plain silly.

And who is this great authoritative voice who decides whether a book has meaning or not? Who is the one who wards off scholars and says "move along now, nothing to see here"? Authors cannot be trusted, so who gives this command? I should like to meet him.

[Pat Logsdon]

Virginia Woolf, in a letter to her sister, states that in her (arguably) greatest work "To the Lighthouse" there is no symbolism to the Lighthouse. It is only a lighthouse. The book's main focus is a journey to this lighthouse, and yet, it has no meaning? Bullisht
I think an important point here is that it had no meaning for the AUTHOR. You are always free to come up with your own (unintended) reasons or hidden meanings for whatever you want. Just remember that they are YOUR reasons and meanings.

And who is this great authoritative voice who decides whether a book has meaning or not? Who is the one who wards off scholars and says "move along now, nothing to see here"? Authors cannot be trusted, so who gives this command? I should like to meet him.
Hilarious! "Authors cannot be trusted". Er - who can, then? It seems to me that this is just an excuse to justify finding whatever meaning you want. The author is the ultimate authority on the work. If he or she indicates that there is no meaning, there is no meaning, no matter how badly you want to believe that it's there. If you want to argue that the meaning is there due to events going on during the time the author was writing it, things going on in the author's personal life, etc., etc., that is INCIDENTAL, and any meaning you derive from that is going to be INCIDENTAL and unintended by the author.

And no fair using Mark Twain as an example of how authors can't be trusted - the man made a living being both very funny and very sarcastic. He enjoyed messing with people, and did it very well. I think that almost any other author is rather more serious, especially when it comes to people assigning value to things in their work that just aren't there.

[dh]

And who is this great authoritative voice who decides whether a book has meaning or not? Who is the one who wards off scholars and says "move along now, nothing to see here"? Authors cannot be trusted, so who gives this command? I should like to meet him.
Tolkien wrote many times that TLOTR was intended to be a good long story and that nothing should be read into it. Of course, anyone is influenced by the times they live in and anyone living through both the World Wars is likely to have a perception of the difference between good and bad.

I have read the three books many times and I don't see any religious overtones at all. If I do read anything into the book it is that someone has to stand up to a bully who is gradually taking over the world. Since Tolkien had seen this happen, this should not be a surprise.

I look on the books as just a bloody good yarn, as Mr. Tolkien intended.

And for a really tough read, try the two volumes of The Decline of the West, by Oswald Spengler. I've started volume one a few times but never made much progress. Maybe Martin and the Softmaker guys would know if they are easier to read in the original German.

[sublime]

Virginia Woolf (I should have made this more clear) wrote that she never considered herself a symbolic writer, and thus did not write about the lighthouse in a symbolic manner. Tolkien here does not consider himself a meaningful writer, and thus wrote about Middle Earth in a meaningless manner.

If that is the case, Surgical Snack, then I suggest you make up your mind, because in the former case there is no meaning for the author, while in the latter there is no meaning for the world. I would agree with the first claim: if Tolkien found no meaning in his work, then, for him, there is no meaning to his work. But we cannot say that his opinion shall be my opinion, as you agreed with in the case of Virginia Woolf.

So now who can be trusted to have the final say on objective truth to the book? No one. Not the author, and not the reader. There was a time in criticism where scholars would rip the covers off a book and read it regardless of its sources - the most pertinent one in this discussion being author's intent.

Criticism has evolved to what is now called Reader Response Criticism, in which the author puts something into a text, the reader puts his own conditions into the text, and gleans the final result. What many of you are suggesting is that the reader put nothing of his own thoughts, nothing of his past experiences and education into a text and simply swallow everything the author feeds. Too bad. I am not a guinea pig, and shall not read like one.

this is just an excuse to justify finding whatever meaning you want.

There again we see the misconceptions of scholarship. One would assume from the depiction of scholars in this thread that they sit hunched over their desk with a book and a flickering candlelight, scribbling furiously on cheap paper about how such and such author justifies the Bush campaign, or justifies the holocaust, or justifies a new crusade. Scholars are not conspirators. They only think about the books they read, and will not be made a tool of the author.

So it boils down to this: read and don't think like some authors intend, or read and think like your individuality commands. I'll take the second option.

[Pat Logsdon]

Virginia Woolf (I should have made this more clear) wrote that she never considered herself a symbolic writer, and thus did not write about the lighthouse in a symbolic manner. Tolkien here does not consider himself a meaningful writer, and thus wrote about Middle Earth in a meaningless manner.

If that is the case, Surgical Snack, then I suggest you make up your mind, because in the former case there is no meaning for the author, while in the latter there is no meaning for the world. I would agree with the first claim: if Tolkien found no meaning in his work, then, for him, there is no meaning to his work. But we cannot say that his opinion shall be my opinion, as you agreed with in the case of Virginia Woolf.
I think that you are splitting the hairs of a bald man here. :wink: In both cases, meaning is assigned to something the author did not intend.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and welcome to read anything you wish into whatever you read. I take issue, however, when people aggressively attempt to put words in the creator's mouth. To me, that's like having Van Gogh and a "Van Gogh Expert" in a room for a conference, and everyone listens to the expert (and ignores Van Gogh) because the "expert" is telling them what they want to hear.

If the author says there's no meaning, well - that's boring, isn't it? It's much more exciting to force parallels.

So now who can be trusted to have the final say on objective truth to the book? No one. Not the author, and not the reader. There was a time in criticism where scholars would rip the covers off a book and read it regardless of its sources - the most pertinent one in this discussion being author's intent.
See, this is the problem, and it's very annoying. I'm a writer. I spend months or years creating a world, constructing timelines, hooking events into a plotline and assigning motivations to characters. I write a book that I think is fun and interesting, and makes people think a little bit about some themes I've put in there; maybe something about how it's important to fight for what you believe in, maybe something about how the smallest person can make the biggest difference ( :wink: ), something like that. As a writer, I write for both my enjoyment, and the enjoyment of the reader.

That's where I think we differ. I mean for books I write to be enjoyed, at something very close to face value. If I put meaning in the book, you'll know it right away, or I haven't done my job correctly. If you need to tear a book to pieces to enjoy it...well, I'm sorry to hear that. I think you're missing out on a lot.

Criticism has evolved to what is now called Reader Response Criticism, in which the author puts something into a text, the reader puts his own conditions into the text, and gleans the final result. What many of you are suggesting is that the reader put nothing of his own thoughts, nothing of his past experiences and education into a text and simply swallow everything the author feeds. Too bad. I am not a guinea pig, and shall not read like one.
Why do you have to be a guinea pig? Are authors experimenting on you? What's the point? Read however you want. They're just telling stories.

Scholars are not conspirators. They only think about the books they read, and will not be made a tool of the author.
Um - ok. Tools? A tool is something that is used. How can an author use you? There's no interaction except the story that he or she has put together for your enjoyment.

Obviously, books like "Steal This Book" and "1984" are thinly disguised propaganda, and should be treated as such, as they have very strong, and very clear messages that have immediate social relevance and impact. I have no problem with people talking about the meaning in these books, since the author obviously intended for that to happen.

Fantasy novels are a completely different animal. They're just books. They are set in times and places that are obviously removed from our own. Enjoy them as you see fit, but expect resistance when you aggressively try to assign meaning to something that's simply not there.

Were we to follow the author's intention of simply reading the book at mindless face-value, scholars would not be rewarded with the many goodies they find buried in the text.
I think this statement makes my point better than anything I could say. If I'm the author, and I didn't put any goodies in there for you to find, of what value are the "goodies" you come up with?

[sublime]

My professor told me (though she was not a good professor) that the creators of "Brother, Where art Thou" were shocked when they heard that their movie was steeped in Odyssean parallels. They claim to never have read the Odyssey before, and yet, anyone who has read the book and watched their movie cannot help but be plowed over by the numerous and seemingly blatant parallels. Other authors have similarly been shocked to find that their writing is overwhelmingly influenced by something or another.

Forget about putting words into the mouth of the creator. Think of it as taking words out of the mouth of the creation. You are like a parent who does not like the lifestyle of his child, and attempts to force him to conform. Too bad. The child has a life of his own and will live as his environment chooses, not as his parent desires. This is a debate of nature vs. nurture, and, in these days, nature's rule is antiquated and obsolete, while nurture holds to be the dominating force in development.

I rambled on too much. Nature vs. Nurture, Parent vs. Child, Creator vs. Creation, all result in the victory of the latter.

[famousdavis]

What an interesting thread! I've only tapped into the very first part and the very last part of this thread, and have enjoyed the postulating quite a lot.

This thread has some pretty interesting parallels to the world of non-literary art, doesn't it?

Have you ever been at an art museum, looked at some of the more contemporary art, and were mystified at how anyone could rever something so seemingly pathetic?

In Washington D.C., at one of the Smithsonian museums, my wife and I viewed an utterly huge canvas painted entirely in one shade of black. That's it. A larger-than-life canvas covered in light-aborbing black.

What was the meaning of THAT?! How could you call that "art"? By what stretch of the imagination could anyone elevate something so ... unimaginative ... and call it "art"???

I'm not an artist, nor an educated art enthusiast. What I have concluded, though, is that irrespective of the powers-that-be that proclaim a black-covered canvas to be "art" worthy of hanging in the halls of the Smithsonian, the worth of the piece comes from not from the artist but from the one viewing/experiencing the work of art.

I have little time for art museums, but when I am at one, I enjoy taking maybe 15-20 minutes and plop myself in front of a painting and just stare at it. Yeah, I try to evaluate the work of art the way I was taught in college, but more than that, I apply my own imagination and experiences and try to interpret the piece for myself. It's certainly amusing to find out how some artist interpreted his/her own works of art, but I care less about that and more for what I am personally getting out of the piece.

Applied to this thread, I find it somewhat irrelevant whether JRR meant for his LOTR works to be interpreted symbolically or not. Whether symbolism exists or not is not definitively decided upon any author. The fun is finding things -- intended or not -- that help to give a piece of writing greater depth, greater meaning, a more rewarding and absorbing experience to the reader.

Imbalanced interpretation of a work of art or writing is surely at risk, then, isn't it? I might find symbolism to exist where no one else finds it. I might find "deep meaning" where none was ever intended by the author or artist.

Does that really matter, though? If so, why?

If a writing or work of art is truly worthy, the inherent quality of the artwork or writing will -- IMHO -- surface consistently among those who immerse themselves into it.

Finally, in my naivete, I do chuckle at the established art world that can so revere a black-painted canvas -- something even my three-year-old can do very nearly as well as what's hanging in the Smithsonian. The Emperor's New Clothes are still sold in bulk, even today.

[Jereboam]

Well, sublime, you've certainly confused the hell out of me with that last post!

Surely environment = nature, and parent = nurture, yet you say in the same sentence that environment is the overruling factor but then go on to say that nature is obsolete? Isn't that contradictory?

And who is this great authoritative voice who decides whether a book has meaning or not? Who is the one who wards off scholars and says "move along now, nothing to see here"? Authors cannot be trusted, so who gives this command? I should like to meet him.

You meet him every morning in the mirror, and although I utterly disagree with what you say about authors not to be trusted (it's their book for chrissake!) and I think you have just supported the very heart of my argument against pushy scholars shoveling their own interpretations of literature on hitherto unsullied young (and old, and everything in between) minds the world over.

And the Odyssean parallels that you mention bring to mind the classic example of monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare! The world is chaotic (in the random sense rather than the literal, although often enough literally too) and such similarities are almost certain to occur, and if not chaotically then through a process of distillation, the seeping of common tales through society.

It's much more exciting to force parallels.

Beautifully said, Surgical Snack.

famousdavis, I can only agree with you. Modern art is sometimes thoroughly undeserving of the description. That's a whole other thread though.

In terms of books, particularly fantasy works, like The Lord of the Rings, I very much see them as a skeleton of words, descriptive enough for we the readers to apply our own imagination to create the flesh, to bring to life a world within our own minds. Of course, then, different people will imagine different things, and drape the literary body with the cloth of their own experiences.

But for so-called scholars to teach others (for I did reference a learning environment originally) that their or the common interpretation is what the author intended, unless they personally knew said author or are said author, is unbelievable arrogance and runs exactly counter to the principles of freedom of thought that you are supposedly espousing. Rather, the students of these scholars, then, are the mindless ones and are swallowing what the scholar feeds, and are those very guinea pigs.

J'bm

Edit: Although the debate is sharp and rightly so, I am enjoying it immensely! ;)

[sublime]

Read the rest of my comment. Parent = nature. 100 years ago, the parent was the nurturing force. Look at modern families now and you will be lucky to find parents the dominant conditioning force in a child's life. It's sad, but a whole other discussion.

Authors are not to be trusted, as can be seen in the examples of Twain, Woolf, and the creators of "Brother, Where art Thou."

I won't get into a discussion about what is art. I have my own definition of it, but doubt we have room for it in this thread.

Scholars never teach the intentions of the author. Scholars only profess their interpretation of the work. This is a HUGE difference. It is 1) not objective, but subjective, and 2) not related to the author, but his work. You may debate this last point, as biographical readings of works do study the author, but ultimately relate the influence of the author's biography to his work. The work is central, not the author.

THE WORK IS CENTRAL, NOT THE AUTHOR.

It is then the pupil who agrees or disagrees with the professor's opinion. This is far from mindless swallowing, since I and many others have many times pondered upon and discarded scholarly interpretations of texts (most often the Freudian ones).

THE WORK IS CENTRAL, NOT THE AUTHOR.

yeah

[Pat Logsdon]

My professor told me (though she was not a good professor) that the creators of "Brother, Where art Thou" were shocked when they heard that their movie was steeped in Odyssean parallels. They claim to never have read the Odyssey before, and yet, anyone who has read the book and watched their movie cannot help but be plowed over by the numerous and seemingly blatant parallels. Other authors have similarly been shocked to find that their writing is overwhelmingly influenced by something or another.
With all due respect, so what? We live in a universe of finite objects - some of them are bound to be similar. Objects within the same category will have even more similarities.

If "scholars" are so busy trying to figure out all of the TOTALLY IRRELEVANT Odyssean parallels (which the author didn't even remotely intend), aren't you missing what they DID intend? Isn't that a bit arrogant on your part?

Forget about putting words into the mouth of the creator. Think of it as taking words out of the mouth of the creation. You are like a parent who does not like the lifestyle of his child, and attempts to force him to conform. Too bad. The child has a life of his own and will live as his environment chooses, not as his parent desires.
I think this is totally ludicrous. I agree that books have different meanings for different people, but they have pretty strict boundaries: a beginning, a middle and an end. As an author, I set those boundaries, I create the characters, I know their backstory (stuff that readers never see), and I know their motivation. I move them around on the board for awhile, magic happens, and then the story ends, and it goes out to to the public. If the creation speaks, it should be with the voice I gave it - not yours.

This is a debate of nature vs. nurture, and, in these days, nature's rule is antiquated and obsolete, while nurture holds to be the dominating force in development.

I rambled on too much. Nature vs. Nurture, Parent vs. Child, Creator vs. Creation, all result in the victory of the latter.
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand the point of this statement in this discussion. My creation will be victorious over me? Eh? So the values that "scholars" apply to my creation will supercede my own?

[Pat Logsdon]

for so-called scholars to teach others (for I did reference a learning environment originally) that their or the common interpretation is what the author intended, unless they personally knew said author or are said author, is unbelievable arrogance and runs exactly counter to the principles of freedom of thought that you are supposedly espousing. Rather, the students of these scholars, then, are the mindless ones and are swallowing what the scholar feeds, and are those very guinea pigs.
Very well put!

Edit: Although the debate is sharp and rightly so, I am enjoying it immensely! ;)
Me too! It's always nice to spar a bit with the opposition, as long as the knives are kept sheathed. :mrgreen:

[Pat Logsdon]

Authors are not to be trusted, as can be seen in the examples of Twain, Woolf, and the creators of "Brother, Where art Thou."
This is a bit insulting. Your use of the word "trust" implies that you feel betrayed when your expectations about a work are not met. Following that line of reasoning, the problem is therefore not with the work, it's with your expectations.

Scholars never teach the intentions of the author. Scholars only profess their interpretation of the work.
No, but they're often guilty of totally disregarding the intentions of the author, to their own benefit, and to the detriment of the work.

THE WORK IS CENTRAL, NOT THE AUTHOR.
Ok, fine, I agree with that. But the author is kind of important to the equation, seeing as how he or she sort of, you know, created the whole thing...wouldn't you agree? :wink:

It is then the pupil who agrees or disagrees with the professor's opinion. This is far from mindless swallowing, since I and many others have many times pondered upon and discarded scholarly interpretations of texts (most often the Freudian ones).
A scholarly interpretation of the Lord of the Rings (or ANY other book) is totally useless to me and 99.5% of the general public, and is in fact DETRIMENTAL to my enjoyment of said book.

I believe that to fully enjoy a book as it was intended, one must establish a loose connection with the author, and allow oneself to slip into the world that they've created.

If you're hovering over the top of that world with a highlighter, looking for something that matches your agenda, you've totally missed the point.

[Jereboam]

Surgical Snack, a little off-topic, but do you use any authoring/outlining software for writing? I'm really looking for something to hold my hand through a possible first novel...not quitting my day job or anything but quite fancy having a go.

J'bm

[Wiggin]

Very interesting thread... but let's step back and breath for a moment, shall we?!

A piece of literature, once published, is then available to the rest of the world to interpret, enjoy, analyze, spin, apply, critique, attack, defend, (and a long list of other verbs). Some people read to experience a good yarn, others to expand their horizons, others to escape a less-than-satifactory reality, others to... (you fill in the blank)!

If some readers (be they the silent masses or the loud "experts") find Christian symbolism in JRRT's work, good for them, and may they use it to their benefit. If others see no Christian symbolism at all, good for them as well.

It seems to me, IMHO, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the author "intended" with his creation. Each reader will react to literature in a very personal way. What say we avoid trying to force people's reaction to be similar to our own...allow each reader the luxury to be the ultimate judge of their own literary experience!

[sublime]

Amen, Brother Wiggin. Preach on!

My use of the word "trust" has nothing to do with disappointment, so don't try to weaken my points by showing me to be disgruntled and bitter. I meant that I shall trust what I glean from the book and not what the author tells me to glean from it.

author didn't even remotely intend

what they did intend

intentions of the author

book as it was intended

We shall bicker back and forth endlessly. You want total control over your creation, but shall not have it, nor shall your reader give it to you. It's your creation, your pen moving, your magic, your yada yada yada, but it is no longer yours the moment it hits the printing press. Your intentions do not matter, and you are trying desperately to regain a hold of something no longer yours.

It's sad, I agree, but true nonetheless.

[Pat Logsdon]

You want total control over your creation, but shall not have it, nor shall your reader give it to you. It's your creation, your pen moving, your magic, your yada yada yada, but it is no longer yours the moment it hits the printing press. Your intentions do not matter, and you are trying desperately to regain a hold of something no longer yours.
Not true, actually (the part about me wanting total control) and if I seemed harsh, I apologize - that was not my intent. I'm just enjoying the argument.

Honestly, I don't really care what happens once my work goes out, for two reasons. One, it's not high literature, and I doubt that someone will critique it. Second, when I'm done with it, I'm done with it. No desperation.

My whole reason for participating in this discussion is that I can't stand when people read stuff into someone else's creation that was not intended. That's all. I'd be very annoyed if someone started spewing stuff about how there are tons of Zoroastrianist parallels in a novel about Elf Detectives or something, when it's fairly obvious that such a thing never existed.

In addition to all of that, I also don't have much patience for "professional critics". I think they could probably be doing something better with their time and energy. I also disagree with the whole critique approach - I think books should be escapism, a refuge from daily life, not something to build a career or a thesis on. :mrgreen: They should entertain.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject.

[Pat Logsdon]

Surgical Snack, a little off-topic, but do you use any authoring/outlining software for writing? I'm really looking for something to hold my hand through a possible first novel...not quitting my day job or anything but quite fancy having a go.
Nope. Fountain pen and a composition book. :mrgreen: Nothing glamorous, I'm afraid.

You can find good tips and a supportive community here (http://fmwriters.com/) and here (http://www.nanowrimo.org/).

[sublime]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Lets

[famousdavis]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Lets

Ah, shucks. :(

[DrtyBlvd]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Lets

Ah, shucks. :(

:lol: Don't despair :!:

The entertainment will return once they've all rested / dunked / read, under a new topic relating to Art. And whether it is. :)

[Pat Logsdon]

The entertainment will return once they've all rested / dunked / read, under a new topic relating to Art. And whether it is. :)

It's not! Unless the artist says it is! :wink: :mrgreen:

[Jereboam]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Lets

Ah, shucks. :(

:lol: Don't despair :!:

The entertainment will return once they've all rested / dunked / read, under a new topic relating to Art. And whether it is. :)

rofl

Ready, steady....dunk.

J'bm