I think many of us here on this forum are avid Tolkein readers - not to mention addicted fans. This thread is to discuss the underlying messages in Lord of the Rings and Tolkein's works as a whole. What were the messages in the Lord of the Rings that reflected on Tolkein's beliefs? What morality was presented? How did he portray his Christian worldview?

I think that Tolkein's main strength was his ability to teach lessons using fiction work. The works in the Lord of the Rings have been more far-reaching in my life and caused me to ponder my faith more than any non-fiction book I have read.

But why?

That is what I would like us to consider. Please read through the questions I have presented and give your honest opinion of Tolkein's works, his underlying beliefs and how we can apply his technique to our writing.

In Christ,
Lia

What were the messages in the Lord of the Rings that reflected on Tolkein's beliefs?

I think that the main theme in Tolkien's work is that even the most obscure, seemingly powerless person, can make a huge difference in the world. In a way, that's also a very Biblical theme. God can use anyone to accomplish his will, and Jesus seemed very normal, and average I'm sure, but he accomplished God's will, and saved billions of people from their sin!


How did he portray his Christian worldview?
There is ALWAYS good vs. evil in Tolkien's works, and evil is always defeated somehow in the end. (Even though it sometimes looks like it's much stronger than good.)

I think that good vs. evil worldview is practically the founder of modern Christian fantasy. It seems to be at the basis of all of my fantasy stories--and a seemingly insignificant person is the one that "saves the day".

One thing I wanted to point out in here that I've found very interesting about Tolkien is that he didn't like allegory and would be the first to say that LOTR is NOT allegory. This is what he said about it, and I quote;

One reason I found this statement very interesting is this; even though LOTR is not an allegory, people try to (and almost can,) make it one because he wrote into it so clearly, his Christian beliefs and morals. He has the fallen state of mankind, how evil corrupts even good people, the beauty and power of pure love, Biblical frendship, the destrution of despair, the overwhelming control of lust and much more. But, it's not allegory.

I think it can be considered a fantasy version of the real world, though.

That's a good point, SG. I like how he did that--as I have only one allegory thus far, I'm following along the same line but I'm obviously not as good of a writer as he is.

The novel I'm writing right now is allegory, and honestly, I don't know if I ever want to write another one. In my next stories I want to do what Tolkien did, just write a story that portrays my Faith and points people to The Higher Power. I don't think I'm ever going to do an-all-out allegory again, unless it's a nine page children's book.

Allegory is VERY hard to write.

Tell me about it.

If you do them right, though, they can turn out awesome.

I hope I do that.

It is. That was the whole point. That is what he said in his Letters.

Cool.
I haven't read his Letters yet.

While I greatly value Tolkien's works, I do take issue with a few events in them.

First of all, the Elves essential worship the Valar, who essentially 'Angelic' beings, giving them equal footing with Eru Iluvatar. And, it can be noted, men do refer to the Valar as 'gods'.

Secondly, The Silmarillion describes a few events that are just a little on the fringe. While not necessarily portrayed as 'right', no ever points out their 'wrong-ness' either. Examples being when Nienor (pardon if this is the wrong name) feels from Glaurung through the forest, and several rather vengeful acts throughout the book.

I did wonder about that at first, myself. I heard the Valar being called gods, and that sounded weird. When I asked about it --I forget where or who I asked-- they said that they were supposed to "represent" (although the story wasn't allegory) angels, and it was just that some races consider them gods. Which made sense... although now I wonder how they created the earth (because they were the ones responsible for making the earth, essentially, through their songs and such) if they were angels. Only God, or Illuvatar in Middle Earth, can actually create things.

Yes, they do represent angels. If anything that would only make worshiping them EVEN MORE wrong. (Later chapters of Revelation)

Actually, the Valar didn't create. Essentially, Iluvatar teaches them a song that 'creates' the world, although Melkor/Morgoth is responsible for inventing evil.

Ah, yes. Good point.

Ah, okay. I hope you do not mind if I bring what I have learned from reading JRR Tolkien's works and letters to the table. I hope that it will help to clear up some misunderstandings.

1) The Valar were angels. They, in their praise of Eru brought forth a vision of His intended creation, which they were then given dominion over to mold into the shape of that vision, very similar to Adam and Eve. They were supernatural, of course, and so things were different, but not so different. One rebelled and carried some of them away in his folly, and etc.

2) Some of the peoples of Middle Earth worshiped certain of the Valar because they were supernatural and/or because they were evil. Other times they simply honored and obeyed them as their over lords, like kings. Which, in fact, they were of a sort. Morgoth and Sauron of course tried to make out that they were gods, and drew away many because of that folly.

3) The whole story of Turin was one that exemplified powerfully the sin of pride and its consequences. Every sin has terrible consequences, and you can see the debilitating effect of everyone's refusal to think godly. They each had choices, but they failed and wrought devastation. I am not certain what you are referring to exactly, but I see the story of Turin son of Hurin as one of the most Christian of all JRR Tolkien's works.

Did any of that make sense? I am not really trying to convince anyone, just pointing out what I have seen.

Very good Jay. I think when it comes to Tolkien's work we get to critical and don't see what it is he was trying to say. What happened between Nienor and Turin made me uncomfortable and think "what was Tolkien thinking? I thought he was a Christian?". But then I relized the message (if you will) of the story. As Jay said it's a story about the consequences of pride, BIG pride.


I wanted to point out Erk, that the "wrong-ness" of Turin's acctions does come out, just not in the way you described. Think about the terrible consequences, from those you know they were wrong.

I agree with you on all but one point. Characters frequently call call on Elbereth for aid, rather than Iluvatar, and it is important to note that the names of the Valar seem to have a much greater effect on evil than the name of Eru Iluvatar. The Valar are placed on equal grounds with Iluvatar and it was considered fitting.

And we raise up another question, which I haven't looked into. Was Tolkien a Christian?

Yes, Tolkien was a Christian. In fact, it was he who led C.S. Lewis back to Christ.

An interesting question.

The Numenoreans were distinctly monotheistic, although it rarely came into the story. Their actions were affected by it, however. Gandalf refers to the hand of Providence many times, which is Eru. When the Elves and other characters 'called on' Elbereth they were in a sense asking for help from a greater being than themselves (just like one would ask for help from a king or ruler). The good side had faith, not in the Valar, but in Eru, although it was not mentioned.

JRR Tolkien was a Catholic, but from what I can tell he was probably a Christian Catholic. Of course, it is impossible to really tell if someone is saved. But some of his catholicism got into his books, as he himself admitted. But when one reads it carefully, there is no fear of being led astray by it. There is greater danger in being led astray by reading Isaac Asimov's or H.G. Wells's works. That is my view on it.

When you examine the sequence of events that led to the eventual destruction of the Ring, you realize the powerful Christian influence on his writing. Study it, and you will learn a lot that can be very helpful in our own struggles.

"O Elbereth who lit the stars,
from glittering crystal slanting falls with light like jewels
from heaven on high the glory of the starry host.
To lands remote I have looked afar,
and now to thee, Fanuilos,
bright spirit clothed in ever-white,
I here will sing beyond the Sea,
beyond the wide and sundering Sea."

This reminds me of our "pilgrim-type" hymns.

"O Elbereth who lit the stars
from heaven gazing afar
to thee I cry now beneath the shadow of death.
O look toward me, Everwhite!"

Very similar to hymns of distress.

"O Elbereth who lit the stars,
from glittering crystal slanting falls with light like jewels
from heaven on high the glory of the starry host,
She who lit the stars, O! Elbereth!"

That last song appears to be praising Elbereth. Now, I know there are many instances (I.E. "David has slain his thousands...") where biblical characters are praised for their actions, but the theme of such songs is honoring noble deeds, and not to the extent that the Elven verses take praise.

The Numenoreans were monotheistic, something a think Tolkien was very intentional about. The little bit of their religious practices we do read about are very similar to the practices of organized Christianity, I admit. It is also rather disturbing that Sauron's teachings to the Numenoreans reflect rather closely some modern day beliefs. I understand that there is little fear of being taken the wrong direction, my problem is that the book doesn't go the correct direction either. The book does not glorify Christ himself in any way, so I can't reconcile it to my faith. There are other ways I could better spend my reading time, reading something that actually glorifies Christ.

Is it bad if you do like me and overlook the whole Valar thing (it confuses me anyway :P) and just appreciate the good things you can learn from the books? I'm never really influenced by books anyway (other than the Bible, of course), so it doesn't bother me to not pay attention to something like that.

And maybe this is off-topic, but why do some people consider Catholics Christians? I thought they didn't believe in some things that Christians believe in.

It's still bad in the sense that it displeases God, and it's still there regardless of how much you notice it. Say I totally ignore an inappropriate sequence in a book, but then claim the book teaches godly principles. Maybe it does, but it takes a lot of godly principles to outweigh bad content. I try to "set no evil thing before my eyes". (Note: I'm calling it evil based on the fact that we can say with some certainty that it doesn't please God, and therefor displeases Him.)

Very good point.
I should probably be asleep right now, and I'm not going to try to explain my thoughts on this at the moment because I'm half asleep and will sound like a babbling idiot :P

(Sapphira: The Catholic church's doctrine, if you really believe ALL of it, is in my opinion, extremely superstitious, and nearly pagan. However, I know quite a lot of people who go to Catholic churches, and don't actually believe OR understand everything that their church would say it beleives. So I think that some Catholics are Christian and some are not. Just like every other church denomination.)

The Valar are not counted as gods by Tolkien. And as far as I know, he never commends the elves for practically worshipping them. Just because they do it, doesn't mean it's right. At least that's my take on it.


(Although, the dwarves probably SHOULD worship Aule since he made them.)

It's interesting that Tolkien never says how he intended certain characters (the Valar, for one) to be interpreted. In fact, Tolkien often offers his own opinion as if it were a theory and someone else's opinion could be true instead! In fact, Tolkien rarely commends anything. He usually denounces stuff instead. (Orc behavior is quite reflective of certain modern day practices.)



Technically, Aule only formed their bodies. Iluvatar gave the dwarves their souls.

On another note:

I've noticed that Tolkien consider the Silmarillion legends that were told during the time of LoTR, and not necessarily factual, and Christopher Tolkien claims that the Silmarilion was not in its final form when Tolkien died, and is thus even more "myth-like." This seems to contradict the general belief among fans that anything which contradicts a statement in the Silmarilion is un-true. I try to think of them as legends, but it's terribly hard because I read them the first time as if they were a history!

Very perceptive Neil: J.R.R. Tolkien's goal was to create a mythology for England like there was for other nations. He did not create, and did not intend to create, a history at all, but a set of legends and myths. He sub-created them in a manner like unto 'discovering' them.

Really???? I had never even heard of that? Is there a book on Tolkien's...commentary behind his works or something that I could check out?

The History of Middle-Earth by Christopher Tolkien. It contains several volumes of unpublished stories and drafts, as well as Christopher's commentary on his father's works. You may find the first two books a bit difficult, but they are worth reading as they provide the backbone to the English-myth idea.

I will say, though, that the HoME books are rather boring if you are not VERY interested in Middle Earth. I started reading them once, but they weren't interesting to me. I will probably go back and read them again later.
The Silmarillion is interesting, though I would recommend reading it more than once, because it can be confusing the first time.

I remember hearing somewhere that The Silmarillion and HoME contradict each other sometimes, though I don't know if that's true or not.

It has been a while since I have read these books, so if I am mistaken, by all means feel free to correct me

They do contradict at times, but that is because HoME shows different drafts of the story at different period of development. (However, Christopher Tolkien claims that The Silmarillion contradicts itself: Which is only natural if it is a collection of myths.

Has anyone read Smith of Wootton Major? I'd love to discuss it with someone.

Well, Gandalf does call upon Illuvatar for aid, when he's fighting the balrog, "I am a keeper of the Sacred fire." That translates into "I am a servant of Eru Illuvatar." The Valar, Maia, and Illuvatar definitions are all very confusing.

I just had a thought, the Valar are kind of similar to saints. They each have something that are prefer and are good with. They aren't really worshipped, but more admired for their qualities. Elbereth because she helped in the wars with Morgoth I believe, that or because evil fears her name.

The saints are worshiped. Catholics often pray to their saints rather than to God, and some of the Saints are even held to act as intercessors (similar to Christ), and take our prayers before God.

The saints are one of my greatest problems with the Catholic church. They do parallel the Valar, though.

My edition of the Silmarillion has as a preface a letter that Tolkien wrote to someone. In it he says that the Valar are an attempt to capture the splendor and majesty of the gods in other mythologies in a form palatable to someone who believes in "the Holy Trinity" (my paraphrase except for the part in quotes). I really do need to bring the book down to the internet at some point so I can quote pieces of the letter for y'all. For instance, in that letter, he actually uses the word "God" in several references to Iluvatar, and he even expresses his view on magic (which y'all have to read).

I've read that letter. I find the phrase a bit ambiguous, but I think he was trying to say that the Valar should remind Judeo-Christian believers of angels.

Of course, that reinforces that idea that Iluvatar is intended as God.

I would love to read some of that letter, Seer!

I'll type it up and pm it to you sometime. My conscience won't twinge me about copyright violations that way because I'm only sharing the entire letter with one person.

Okay, sounds good!

That's what I figured they were.

I am wondering what everybody's theories on the origin of Hobbits are. As we know, there are only three races in the Silmarillion, Elves, Men, and Dwarves. Are the Hobbits of one of these races or are they a new race?

(Note: Orcs, trolls, and the assorted monsters are not their own races, each is a corruption of something that already existed.)

Didn't it say someplace that Hobbits were somewhat man-like and somewhat elf-like?

I always assumed that they were some kind of short people; or perhaps with a little elvish blood in them. (Slightly pointed ears, as I recall... I so need to re-read LotR and the Sil.)

Tolkien talks about this some in the prologue to FotR. They began sometime in the First Age, but no one really knows how because the elves don't record the history of any species other than their own and occasionally that of men. They are indeed much closer to men than elves, and as they started out around 4 feet and are steadily getting smaller and smaller, probably they branched off from some race of Men and through lots and lots of time became their own race. They might've branched off from the Swarthy Men, they seem pretty alike, at least in stature and broad-ness.

Or, someone turned in a report to Eru blank, and on it he wrote "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." Then he thought "Hey, I can make some of those!" So he did.
And thus Eru gave unto them his favor, and declareth unto all "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." And there was much rejoicing, (Monty Python "Yay") though the Valar were mightily annoyed because "Thy did not tell us!"

One of the two.
I had way too much fun writing that.

Here's another question; what do you guys think Tom Bombadil is? I tend to be on the side of some sort of nature spirit, rather than a Maia. Thoughts?

That was... hilarious.

I don't think so. Tolkien wasn't into 'nature spirits' last I recall.

I think that Tolkien himself didn't really know; so he left it open to guesswork.

Tom Bombadil doesn't seem to be a Maia...unless he's something similar to Thingol's wife, who gave up some of her Maia characteristics. There were specifics, but as I think I said earlier in the thread, I am so rusty in Middle-earth...

That's true, though there is Goldberry, who is the "River Daughter." But yeah, most likely he didn't know, and it does add to the coolness of him to be something totally different from anything we know.

Tom is very much a Maia. He's actually like Ungoliant; he entered Arda separate from the Valar or Morgoth.

I'm sort of against the Men kind explanation, because like the Dwarves and Elves, the Hobbits fade and vanish (according to the forward to LoTR) as men grow stronger in the world.

I lean toward a dwarf and a man getting married somewhere in the distant past. However, there is something to be said about the speech of the Rohirim being similar to the Hobbits.

Yeah, both languages were a dialect of the same language, so the hobbits could understand some words but not all.

I've been doing research!

I really don't think it's likely that Tom is a Maia, because wasn't he called "Eldest" "First" and "Last?" It's hard to see how those words would possibly apply to a Maia. The way they talk about him at the Council of Elrond makes it sound like he appeared with the earth, and will end when the earth ends. That sounds a lot like some sort of nature spirit to me. Of course, it would be totally creating a new race, but it's really not that too far off. Tolkien even called him "the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside." And remember, Galdor at the CoE says "Power to defy our Enemy is not in him, unless such power is in the earth itself."

Also, Tom was never tempted by the ring, he never showed any interest in it at all, really. Every other Maia we see that comes in contact with the ring feels a strong pull toward it; even Gandalf couldn't trust himself with it. If Maia feel the pull of the ring, and Tom is a Maia, then it makes no sense for anyone to even consider giving Tom the ring. But the problem they see is Tom not caring enough.

Another thing, there is that line "I do call it the wind. But that does not make what you say untrue. There are many evil and unfriendly things in the world that have little love for those that go on two legs, and yet are not in league with Sauron, but have purposes of their own. Some have been in this world longer than he." This begs the question, what are these things? Sauron came to ME really early, yet there were things before him? What? Also, it is the wind and some "evil, unfriendly thing? How can something be both?

Also, nature spirits were actually talked about by Tolkien. In the Book of Lost Tales, we see "the sprites of trees and woods, of dale and forest and mountain-side, or those that sing amid the grass at morning and chant among the standing corn at eve. These are... brownies, fays, pixies, leprawns, and what else are they not called, for their number is very great... they were born before the world and are older than its oldest..." That all shows nature spirits weren't out of the realm of possibility, and though Tolkien never specifically mentions them in canon, it's very, very possible that Tolkien intended Tom to be a nature spirit. And "older than its oldest" sounds a lot like "Eldest" and "First."

Plus, Goldberry. River Daughter. If there are no nature spirits, how could a woman be the daughter of a river? It could always be the daughter of someone who lives by the river, but there's something obviously magical about her.

Actually, Eldest and First apply very well to Maia because they were the first created beings, as well as the first beings to enter Arda. And while last doesn't seem fitting for a Maia, I don't see how it is any more fitting to Tom.

Remember Ungoliant? According to the Silmarillion, Ungoliant entered the world before the other Ainur, and become bound to it and changed by it. That explanation, if also applied to Tom, seems to satisfy the discussion at the Council.

Tolkien's reference to Tom as the "spirit" of a local British area is very simple. In Tolkien's mind, Tom embodied the way Tolkien perceived Oxford and Berkshire. Just like the Hobbits embodied the simplicity of an ideal English life.

And one must also remember that Sauron always was the most powerful Maia. It's doubtful that Tom was ever a very powerful Maia, especially since he entered the world before the Maia and was changed by Arda (if my theory is correct), and it seems clear that, if Sauron had conquered all other foes, defeating Bombadill would be simple enough.



Let's be clear: If Tom is an Ainur, he is not, in the strict sense, a Maia. The Maia is an order created when the Ainur entered Arda en-masse. My theory is that Tom entered separately, like Ungoliant. That creates a distinction between Tom and the Maia.

In addition to this, one must take into account the description of the Seven Wizards in The Unfinished Tales. Tolkien explains that Gandalf, Saruman, and the rest, became less like Maia and more like the Children of Iluvatar during their stay in Middle Earth. Their power, and their memory of Valinor, were extremely diminished. This made them so weak compared to Sauron, and so like men and elves when compared with the Maia, that it makes sense they are easily tempted.

Tom, on the other hand, would be pure Maia, more like Melian. While her powers would naturally be weaker when not used in conjunction with her own kind, Melian was (at the time of the Silmarillion) more powerful the Sauron and able to restrain Morgoth from her realm for thousands of years. That's far more powerful than Gandalf. Tom would be powerful along these lines. (Although, he was more likely a follower of Yavanna in the Music, and therefore his power is over growing things, not in war or defense.)

These distinctions being made between the the Maia and Tom, and between the Wizards and Tom, it seems very likely that if Tom were an Ainur, he would be able immune to the power of the Ring.

I'd also like to note that, for what it's worth, Tom knows what the Ring is. He just doesn't care. Remember the Ungoliant became so completely obsessed with the consumption of light that it became her sole meaning. Likewise, Tom, in his near solitude with the River Daughter, has likely become so strongly tied to his "purpose" that little else interests him.



Remember Ungoliant? She was in Arda even before Morgoth. The presence of other beings, in the world before the Ainur entered en masse, seems to support my claim that Tom is one of these beings. This is not, however, to dispute the fact that Caradhras had a spirit, many of the forces and objects of Middle Earth (notable trees) have spirits. One must remember that (aside from the Ents) the physical forms of the spirits are...mountains, trees, and water. None (even Ents appear like Trees) take the form of Children of Iluvatar. But Tom does? Is Tom one of these elemental spirits? He certainly doesn't behave like one.



Note: The Book of Lost Tales is not considered historic canon for Middle Earth. In fact, many times Lost Tales contradicts LoTR. If the Silmarillion mentioned these spirits, I'd be more inclined to think he decided to keep them, but things being what they are, I believe they were scrapped.



Christopher Tolkien published a book of Middle Earth poetry (I don't remember what it's called) which has the story of Tom meeting Goldberry. There are several interesting things:

Tom already appears to be quite old when he finds her, and the geography is definitely that of Middle Earth or Beleriand. So, we know for sure he finds her during the time that the Elves are awaking. (Note that we don't know for sure exactly when that happened.)

The poem actually mentions Goldberry's father (if memory serves) who is describe with qualities that really remind me of the Elves. Also, it is revealed that she is called the River Daughter because he finds her, alone, as a child, in the river. To Tom, the river is like a mother or father to Goldberry. Goldberry doesn't appear to have any other relationship with water (aside from that an Elf might) and so, doesn't appear to be a elemental.

It is my conclusion that Goldberry is a daughter of the first Elves, many of whom disappeared even before the Valar found the Elves.

But I'd rather talk about Hobbits.