Tolkien, Faery, and Myth

[vison]

For goodness' sake, Voronwë, stop with the apologizing. Quote away. It's probably the only way I'll ever get familiar with those writers. No doubt it's good for me.

River makes a very good point about how tame Tolkien's gods are. Nothing like good ol' randy Zeus, nothing like the shrew Hera. I guess Tolkien thought gods ought to be like Melian or Oromë, and not very naughty. He arranged their, and the Elves', sex lives very carefully and sanitarily and that arrangement does really make me sad. Not for the Elves but for Tolkien and everyone of his generation, and many before or since. He couldn't help being a man of his time, of course. No one can.

His Evil is Evil, with no admixture of lovableness. He created the Evil ones, and they reflected or represented his ideas or wishes about Evil. That's why the Orcs drive me crazy. They are not "organic", but simple cannon fodder than no one needed to feel bad about slaughtering. Either that, or they are ruined Elves, and deciding one way or the other on that seemed to drive Tolkien crazy, so there you are. It's almost impossible to imagine female orcs, or orc families of any sort, except for the two arguing in the tower while Frodo sang above.

Sauron's "fall" is the most realistic "fall" of them all. Not godlike, just an overly ambitious power behind the throne. A sort of SuperGrima Wormtongue. Then there's Melkor, and he never attained the stature of Lucifer, not to me.

The part about Tolkien that irks me a bit, if I dwell on it and I mostly don't dwell on it, is that on the one hand he bemoans how the modern world has made Faery into a place where Tinkerbell flits about, but on the other hand he never mentions how his Church was mostly responsible for the attempted absolute erasure of the old gods and their stories. What we think of as "Faery" is the remnants of the old religion, and the old peoples, that our (western European) ancestors wiped out or marginalized.

The Church didn't mess too much with the Greek or Roman gods, of course, as it did with the other gods that lived in the woods and streams of the northwest of the old world. Those are the myths that went underground, were transformed into childrens' tales.

It's this sort of discussion that ungilds the lily for me. I have to take it whole, or not take it at all. It's so lovely, so perfect in its way, and I don't let the outer world into it, if I can help it.

[Pearly Di]

Lewis fangirl though I be, he is didactic.

The least preachy of all his adult fictional works is Till we have faces. A very, very fine book, a beautifully realised fantasy. He devoted it to his wife, Joy Davidman.

Tolkien's understanding of the primary world was broad enough that the values that get filtered through his writings are so universal that they appeal to Christians and non-Christians alike. So much so that the redeeming hope of a final victory that Tolkien writes about in the Second Prophecy, and which was so strongly influenced by his Christian beliefs, can be so appealing to a non-Christian like myself.

I think that's all part of his genius.

As Prim said, the Christian influence is more of a coloration than an actual structure. A writer brings what they know into their writing. Tolkien wasn't telling a Christian story. He was simply a Christian telling a story.

Very, very perceptive, River.

Elements of his religion found their way in - to me, the most profound influence is how tame his pantheon is when compared with all the other divine beings that get personally involved in the mortal world. The closest he ever gets to the good old maiden-ravishing tendencies of the old gods is Melian and Thingol...and in that case it's a female angel and a male elf and the whole thing is entirely consensual and the elf isn't even mortal to start with. Not very similar at all really, except for the bit where a divine being falls in love with a not-divine being.

There's also the bit about Morgoth lusting after Lúthien. And the Dark Elf who went after Aredhel. Whose name escapes me, but he was one cool dude. Disturbing, but I have a soft spot for disturbing characters.

River makes a very good point about how tame Tolkien's gods are. Nothing like good ol' randy Zeus, nothing like the shrew Hera. I guess Tolkien thought gods ought to be like Melian or Oromë, and not very naughty. He arranged their, and the Elves', sex lives very carefully and sanitarily and that arrangement does really make me sad. Not for the Elves but for Tolkien and everyone of his generation, and many before or since. He couldn't help being a man of his time, of course. No one can.

I totally agree about the Valar being kind of tame but, in all honesty ...
would sex have improved LotR that much?

It rears its head in The Silmarillion. Quite a dark sexuality too. Túrin and Nienor/ Niniel, anyone?

That's why the Orcs drive me crazy. They are not "organic", but simple cannon fodder than no one needed to feel bad about slaughtering. Either that, or they are ruined Elves, and deciding one way or the other on that seemed to drive Tolkien crazy, so there you are.

Yes, his treatment of the Orcs is an inconsistent blip in an otherwise perfectly realised imaginary world. But I can live with it.

The other blip is his deliberate refusal to construct any sense of organised religion in his imaginary, pre-Christian, pagan Middle-earth.

Of course this absence does not hurt his story. Or his imaginary world. For Tolkien, the story of LotR is its 'theology' and he has no need to bash the reader over the head with the story's morality or spirituality ... unlike Lewis.

But the absence of pre-Christian religion does not make the various Middle-earth cultures particularly realistic.

I am not arguing that they need to be, by the way. The Hobbits are already a total anachronism anyway. I'm just making an observation. And I like Middle-earth just as it is.

It's so lovely, so perfect in its way, and I don't let the outer world into it, if I can help it.

I can understand that.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

That's why the Orcs drive me crazy. They are not "organic", but simple cannon fodder than no one needed to feel bad about slaughtering. Either that, or they are ruined Elves, and deciding one way or the other on that seemed to drive Tolkien crazy, so there you are. It's almost impossible to imagine female orcs, or orc families of any sort, except for the two arguing in the tower while Frodo sang above.

I feared to comment on orcs as that direction can so easily osgiliate any discussion but the theme is Faerie after all. Orcs are as much a part of faerie as anything.
I don't have a problem with orcs. I know lots of readers do and I know the Prof had problems too but then he was trying to fit them into his story from an evolutionary/ historical approach and couldn't solve it.
I look on them in two ways. One is to ask if we ask ourselves about dragon babies. In brief, they are a mythological representation of the brutal aspects of humanity just as Sauron is a mythological representation of political power. Tolkien defended the monsters in Beowulf for representing the outside threat to humanity. Orcs fill a similar function.
But the other approach I take is almost the complete opposite. What indeed about the orc babies? And here I think Tolkien is consistently misunderstood by a lot of us. He attempted to create societies and modes of thinking that were internally consistent. We mistake him if we feel that any one society is utopian within that world. All are the results of the influences on them. So the noble elves and the noble Aragorn would have come upon an orc colony and indeed killed the babies. Given their history it would have been natural to them. Tolkien doesn't say the brutality of the struggles in Middle-earth are right, merely that they happened. There are plenty of clues to this all through LOTR. The Rohirrim are asked to stop hunting the Druadan like beasts. Can you imagine what that involved? After the Pelennor not one soldier of Mordor survived west of the Anduin. Can you imagine what that involved?
I can actually imagine a redemption of an orc. I concede it would be difficult, akin to taming an animal to behave against its innate nature but still possible. Such a redemption has no place within the story of LOTR but the orcs as described by him makes it possible.
In my humble opinion of course.

[vison]

Oh, I'm not agitating for "sex" in LOTR!!! Or anywhere else in Tolkien's writings, for that matter. People reproduced off the stage and that was just peachy fine with me.

No, no. What I meant was, it is Tolkien's own view/thoughts/wishes/opinions/convictions about sex that made me sad for Tolkien. And most people in the past, who lived in Christian societies.

As for not having any organized religion, I simply took it that it showed that, you know, people could lead perfectly good lives without it.

edited after reading Tosh's post.

The orcs are never going to be satisfactory to me. I just ignore it, most of the time.

As for C. S. Lewis, I was never able to read any of his books. I tried, since both my kids had to read them in school. But I couldn't. I suspect you have to read those books as kids to develop a liking for them.

[Holbytla]

Well not all of Lewis is the same though either.

[Primula Baggins]

"Perelandra" has some unforgettable beauty in it.

[vison]

Maybe it does. But once burned, twice shy, I guess.

There are a lot of books out there I 'should' read, but time is running out.

[Pearly Di]

Oh, I'm not agitating for "sex" in LOTR!!! Or anywhere else in Tolkien's writings, for that matter.

No, no. What I meant was, it is Tolkien's own view/thoughts/wishes/opinions/convictions about sex that made me sad for Tolkien. And most people in the past, who lived in Christian societies.

I'm not touching this one.

I don't have a problem with orcs. I know lots of readers do and I know the Prof had problems too but then he was trying to fit them into his story from an evolutionary/ historical approach and couldn't solve it.

Bless him. No, that approach doesn't work with LotR.

I don't really have a moral/ethical problem with the Orcs either. It becomes a problem if one starts treating Middle-earth as serious 'imaginary' history, IMO. I prefer to keep LotR in the realm of the fantastical, where it belongs. As magnificent myth. Therefore I regard the Orcs as representations of creatures from the underworld, traditional demon-types. Because every fairy tale has those.

Prim, I like Perelandra too.

[Frelga]

I can actually imagine a redemption of an orc. I concede it would be difficult, akin to taming an animal to behave against its innate nature but still possible. Such a redemption has no place within the story of LOTR but the orcs as described by him makes it possible.
In my humble opinion of course.

And that of some dozens of fanfic writers.

Some of whom do an excellent job of it.

ETA:
That said, I believe I have mentioned a Russian "apocrypha" novel, The Last Ringbearer. It is a continuation and partial retelling of LOTR as a spy thriller, with Elves that are more Pratchettian than Tolkien's. And the key to the story is that Orcs and Trolls are all ordinary humans, ethnically different from the West and demonized by Western propaganda. And that gives the story a particular poignancy that is absent from Tolkien.

[River]

There's also the bit about Morgoth lusting after Lúthien. And the Dark Elf who went after Aredhel. Whose name escapes me, but he was one cool dude. Disturbing, but I have a soft spot for disturbing characters.

Eöl.

The freaky thing about Morgoth and Lúthien is I have a feeling that Lúthien knew what kind of effect she would have on Morgoth. She was counting on him lusting for her, counting on that lust making him weak.

River makes a very good point about how tame Tolkien's gods are. Nothing like good ol' randy Zeus, nothing like the shrew Hera. I guess Tolkien thought gods ought to be like Melian or Oromë, and not very naughty. He arranged their, and the Elves', sex lives very carefully and sanitarily and that arrangement does really make me sad. Not for the Elves but for Tolkien and everyone of his generation, and many before or since. He couldn't help being a man of his time, of course. No one can.

I totally agree about the Valar being kind of tame but, in all honesty ...
would sex have improved LotR that much?

It rears its head in The Silmarillion. Quite a dark sexuality too. Túrin and Nienor/ Niniel, anyone?

This brings up an interesting point though. When sexuality appears in Tolkien's works, it usually is a dark and troublesome thing. But that's true in the fairy tales and myths as well.

Honestly, the general lack of sex in LOTR and the Sil is something I find kind of unique and refreshing.

[Aelfwine]

it is Tolkien's own view/thoughts/wishes/opinions/convictions about sex that made me sad for Tolkien.

What, pray tell, were "Tolkien's own view/thoughts/wishes/opinions/convictions about sex", and what about them makes you sad for him?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

it is Tolkien's own view/thoughts/wishes/opinions/convictions about sex that made me sad for Tolkien.

What, pray tell, were "Tolkien's own view/thoughts/wishes/opinions/convictions about sex", and what about them makes you sad for him?

I was wondering that myself. As well as the additional question: "how do you know what Tolkien's own view/thoughts/wishes/opinions/convictions about sex are, since you have made a point of saying how you avoid learning about Tolkien the Man because it decreases your appreciation of his work (or so I understood your comments.

[vison]

Well, no time for it today, unfortunately. But I think it might be sufficient to say that he was a devout and practicing Roman Catholic. I infer the rest from his descriptions of the reproductive habits of the Elves.

When I have time, I'll go on and on. And you'll be sorry you asked.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I can't speak for Aelfwine, but I'm never sorry I asked. Sharing ideas is almost always a good thing.

[solicitr]

But I think it might be sufficient to say that he was a devout and practicing Roman Catholic

Meaning, what? That he was therefore a narrowminded censorious repressed prude? Come on, we're waiting to hear your prejudices.

[vison]

But I think it might be sufficient to say that he was a devout and practicing Roman Catholic

Meaning, what? That he was therefore a narrowminded censorious reopressed prude? Come, on, we're waiting to hear you prejudices.

Are you? Well, kiddo, since it's you?

Not a bloody chance.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's ridiculous, vison. If you make a provocative statement like that (which does seem to be generalizing about Roman Catholics), you should explain it.

[vison]

That's ridiculous, vison. If you make a provocative statement like that (which does seem to be generalizing about Roman Catholics), you should explain it.

Oh, I will, Voronwë. Never fear. But I am amused that you and that solictr guy just assume that I am going to be mean and nasty. In fact, I intend to be honest.

I will not respond to solictr. Not now, nor at any other time. If he wants civility he has to practice it. I am not fond of being patronized and insulted.

You, on the other hand, deserve a civil response and when I have the time and the energy to form one, you'll get it.

Hey, PB. No worries, eh?

[Aelfwine]

I am not fond of being patronized and insulted.

"Patronize: verb. 1 treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority."

It is Tolkien's own view/thoughts/wishes/opinions/convictions about sex that made me sad for Tolkien.

I think it might be sufficient to say that he was a devout and practicing Roman Catholic.

Compare and contrast.

[Aelfwine]

Since "Vison" appeals to Tolkien's Catholicism vis a vis his views on sex, let me succinctly relate what the Catholic Church teaches about sex:

1) It is a gift from God (and thus by definition good).
2) It is ordered towards two intimately bound and inseparable ends: procreation and spousal unity, both of which are expressions of profound love by the spouses for each other and for God.
3) Sex is the means by which human being become partners with God in His perpetual act of Creation.

Now, obviously, many people will disagree with those teachings (and the corollaries that follow from them). But why the fact that Tolkien (quite apparently) agreed with them should make anyone sad, and least of all sad for Tolkien, is not at all apparent to me.