Snowygerry
Deity
It would lead them to the Grimm brothers - arguably a better place to start investigating "Western psyche" than Tolkien.
The West's Cultural Narcissism: An Examination of Tolkien's Orcs
- Thread starter Crezth
- Start date
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Was Tolkien a Catholic?
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Not so. While certain scenes, such as the desolation around the Morannon and the Dead Marshes, and the general theme of loss in war and the cost of going to battle, undoubtedly owe to Tolkien's World War I experience, the claims of parallels between any particular war and the story are both either so generic as to be meaningless (in that any war could bear those same comparisons) or break down in the face of the actual history.
Moreover, very little was written in the trenches, and most of what was, was written were very early and long abandoned proto-drafts of the Silmarillion. The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings would not be written until much later the thirties, and were initially not written as part of the Silmarillion world - while Tolkien threw in a few gag references to characters and places of his old stories the Hobbit was its own thing. Its only much later, twenty to thirty years after the First World War ended, and while another World War loomed much larger in the imagination, that Tolkien integrated the Third Age and the First into one cohesive whole.
And of course Tolkien himself notes in so many words that the story is not an allegory, at least not at that level (albeit using the example of the Second World War to show what the story would be if it were allegory.
On the whole orcs debate, it is perhaps worth noting Tolkien's letters to his son Christopher serving in South Africa with the RAF contains a large trove of reference that in Tolkien's views, there were orcs on every side of the war : not a particular race or nationality of men, but rather men twisted into cruel hatred of the enemy and admiration of brutality by the horrors of war. He certainly saw them in Germany (and saw enough of Sauron in Hitler to call him so), but he also saw it in the cheering of Allied people at the orgy of destruction that the Allied counterattacks involved, and in the cheering crowd - orc-crowds to him - that greeted the news of this advancing destruction.
Orcs in that light should be understood as those who give themselves over to the horrors of war and hatred and massacres, whether that war began for just causes or not.
Also in that light, any attempt to point at a particular nation and say "here, these are the orcs" is, in and of itself, rather orcish work.
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
Yes, deeply so.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
I think Tolkien's white/black, good/evil, superior/inferior dicotomy has a somewhat racist background even if subconsciously. Tolkien was probably as racist as the average guy of his time, so for the average western progressive generation Z people that means very racist, sexist, homophobe, etc, basically as anything happened before 1999 or so. In any case anyone not liking Tolkien's work can create his own equalitarian, non-sexist, environmental-friendly, democratic imaginary world, but wont have the same appeal probably.
I need to get a banner that says "I miss the laugh react"
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Oh, I would go as far as to say that, at least on issues of race, he was significantly above average for his time - most notably, he was firmly anti-apartheid, and his letters are fairly clear on rejecting racial discrimination in general.
On homophobia, there are very little elements pointing clearly any particular way in his writings (contrast with Lewis who wrote that letters from homosexual are letters one ought to burn), though we do know that he was deeply admirative of (pretty openly gay, and just as openly writing gay themes in her stories) Mary Renault and found the piece of "fan mail" - his words - she wrote him the one that he tressured most.
We can also note with interest that in his discussion on the terminology of love and attraction among Elves (yes, that's a thing), Tolkien limits all physical attraction among elves to a procreative desire (even for heterosexual people), but at the same time note that the elven term for emotional and spiritual intimacy applies equally well to same-gender relationships as opposed-gender ones. There's clear conservative Catholic (sex is exclusively procreative) ideas here, but mixed with an apparent openness to love wherever it may be found. On this score too it seems Tolkien may have been somewhat above average for his time, though it:s harder to say. (There's also a whole line of inquiry in Tolkien possibly having affinities for what we today would call the asexual spectrum, but that's very hard to untangle from Catholic sexual thinking).
Sexist is probably closet to the mark and were Tolkien's conservstive views are more clear. Even so he wrote Galadriel and Eowyn as major and well developped characters, but in both cases part of their story involve accepting a woman's place: honored, certainly (there's a good case that Tolkien viewed the traditional feminine roles as higher in honor than the traditional masculine ones), and important, but devoted to nurturing, healing and growing. His views on the availability of divorces are also markedly conservative, so probably more conservative than most for his time on that score.
Nonetheless, for all his views he was still a man of his time and it influences his writing, and he still drew on themes from a much earlier time, and the views of those time even while he does not share them also influence his writing.
On homophobia, there are very little elements pointing clearly any particular way in his writings (contrast with Lewis who wrote that letters from homosexual are letters one ought to burn), though we do know that he was deeply admirative of (pretty openly gay, and just as openly writing gay themes in her stories) Mary Renault and found the piece of "fan mail" - his words - she wrote him the one that he tressured most.
We can also note with interest that in his discussion on the terminology of love and attraction among Elves (yes, that's a thing), Tolkien limits all physical attraction among elves to a procreative desire (even for heterosexual people), but at the same time note that the elven term for emotional and spiritual intimacy applies equally well to same-gender relationships as opposed-gender ones. There's clear conservative Catholic (sex is exclusively procreative) ideas here, but mixed with an apparent openness to love wherever it may be found. On this score too it seems Tolkien may have been somewhat above average for his time, though it:s harder to say. (There's also a whole line of inquiry in Tolkien possibly having affinities for what we today would call the asexual spectrum, but that's very hard to untangle from Catholic sexual thinking).
Sexist is probably closet to the mark and were Tolkien's conservstive views are more clear. Even so he wrote Galadriel and Eowyn as major and well developped characters, but in both cases part of their story involve accepting a woman's place: honored, certainly (there's a good case that Tolkien viewed the traditional feminine roles as higher in honor than the traditional masculine ones), and important, but devoted to nurturing, healing and growing. His views on the availability of divorces are also markedly conservative, so probably more conservative than most for his time on that score.
Nonetheless, for all his views he was still a man of his time and it influences his writing, and he still drew on themes from a much earlier time, and the views of those time even while he does not share them also influence his writing.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,480
I'd really hesitate to say Tolkien has a good/evil dichotomy going on, particularly in the Silmarillion.
The 'heroes', the Noldor of Beleriand, are all kin-slayers who rebelled against god and spent a lot of time in Beleriand killing their kin.
Elu Thingol, one of the firstborn elves and who saw the light of the trees, died in darkness as a pathetic grasping creature who traded the love of his daughter for a magic lightbulb.
The Ring works upon everyone; everyone can be seduced by it.* Everyone has that weakness in them, the desire for power to put the world right as they see fit.
*Except for Tom Bombadil. "Take off that golden ring, your hand's more fair without it!"
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Maybe because Tom Bombadil has already the world as he sees fit because he is an incarnation of Eru, and therefore he created the world. That is my opinion at least. I think Tom Bombadil nature is the most controversial topic among Tolkien fans.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Second most. The most controversial discussion involves wings.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
I am not familiar with that one.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,166
Though almost no one in LotR is married, so he mostly skirts this issue. Sam will eventually marry Rose, and we're glad for him, and on paper Galadriel is married to Celeborn. Neither Legolas nor Gimli marries. ditto Boromir. Bilbo's a life-long bachelor. Frodo, the same. Theoden loses his wife in childbirth and never remarries. There's no Mrs. Grey. Bambodil has Goldberry, I guess, but one's having to dip down into the minor characters to get an image of a married couple.
Let me guess! Let me guess!
Spoiler :
This same principle, though, could apply just as well to the Dwarves = Jews analogy. And maybe reconcile RobAnybody's point with that of the others here. Tolkien may well not initially, consciously have modeled the Dwarves on the Jews, But all authors inevitably draw on existing models when they write, and he may well later have come to realize that Dwarven history broadly resembles Jewish.
Last edited:
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Ah, THAT one. I think it is even a worse killjoy than this one:
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Oh, no, that one is mostly used to mock the more casual viewers, particularly the film-only one, who call it a plot hole.
(The damning reason against Eagles being Gollum. The Ring, at the heart of Orodruin, is too powerful to let its bearer willingly destroy it, and only Gollum's presence give the Powers That Be an opportunity to work around that. Since Gollum is stuck in Moria at the start of the Quest, any wanton Eagle use leave him here to starve to death. Which Gandalf at least had inkling off - he knew intuitionally both that Gollum had a role left to play and that the Fellowship should pass through Moria).
No, the wings debate is a matter of shadows and flames.
(The damning reason against Eagles being Gollum. The Ring, at the heart of Orodruin, is too powerful to let its bearer willingly destroy it, and only Gollum's presence give the Powers That Be an opportunity to work around that. Since Gollum is stuck in Moria at the start of the Quest, any wanton Eagle use leave him here to starve to death. Which Gandalf at least had inkling off - he knew intuitionally both that Gollum had a role left to play and that the Fellowship should pass through Moria).
No, the wings debate is a matter of shadows and flames.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,480
(To clarify for others, as if I didn't know what you were talking about I would be confused. Had to read your post multiple times to figure out exactly what you were saying.)
In the book, Frodo is unable to actually destroy the Ring by throwing it into Mount Doom. In outside letters and comments, Tolkien said that such was the power of the place, nobody would have been able to willingly part with the Ring there. The Ring was only destroyed because Gollum, after taking the Ring from Frodo, took a step too far and fell into the fire. If Gollum wasn't there, if the Fellowship had never traveled through Moria, if Bilbo hadn't pitied Gollum, Sauron would have regained the Ring.
As beings of shadows and flame, I consider balrogs to possess literal or metaphorical wings as they choose.
Similar threads
