341–349 of 349 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What podcast is that? I'm just reading the books for the first time.
Not sure which one the OP had in mind but if you're into more theatrical audiobooks / podcasts check out "An Unexpected Journey" by "Samwise Gamgee" on Spotify. Absolutely top-tier audiobook of both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe accepting definitive statements from primary sources will improve your knowledge on this topic?
Tolkien's statement there, I take as a nod towards universal spirit.. basically accepting some validity in the Christian mythos, kindly, into his own unique realms.. but as said "only later" ..well after the invention and initial drawing. This confirms, not contradicts, my own statement about Christianity "absorbing" all other mythos As If It Were Actually Christian. The acknowledgement from Tolkien is kind and gener…
Tolkien's direct statements carry a fair bit of weight with me. His private writings were extensive, consistent, and deeply introspective.
It's as you say: primary sources aren't everything. But they're not nothing. In Tolkien's case, they're really something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
with much study over time, I have come to see one of the resiliant aspects of Christianity is an eagerness to consume all myth and lore and recast it as some story from the desert lands. There is no Adam and no Old Testament g*d in Tolkien, despite thousands of hours of Sunday school and preachers and AA meetings encouraging us to look more superficially at old stories and just resign ourselves to "yes, actually this…
Tolkien's words on Lord of the Rings: > The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. https://en.wikipe…
And what are the Valar? In the mythos, they are sub-creators. In Christianity God alone is the creator: angels have no part in creation.
The article draws similarity between the resurrection of Jesus and of Gandalf: but in Christianity, Jesus is literally one of the three persons of God, while Gandalf is a Maia, one of the lesser Ainur.
There are a lot of parallels drawn in that article, and I will not go through every one, but as far as I can see they are all contrived. The closest parallel is that of the rebellion of Morgoth - but there is no real equivalent of Sauron in Christianity.
It is also worth thinking about one thing that is missing. The fall of Adam would have taken place long before most of the sections of the Silmarillion, and yet there is no hint of this foundational event.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tom Bombadil is quite clearly what Tolkein referred to as a "subcreation echo" of biblical Adam. Oldest, fatherless, unaffected by original sin and thus not tempted or influenced in the least by the ring, literally living his life as uncontested master of a lush garden. He is Adam, if Adam had contented himself with a Gold Berry instead of that apple...
I get that Tolkien was a staunch Catholic, but he was also a preeminent philologist trained in a way that few people today are. He was deeply familiar with all forms of human myth. To blindly assume that all characters in LotR must have a Biblical corollary is lazy. Tom Bombadil "rapes" Goldberry (in the ancient sense of the word[1]) in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil that comports nicely with other myth cycles and no…
Why do you deem my post "blind assumption", when it contained quite a bit beyond that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I skipped Tom Bombadil—even on my rereading of the cycle. Completely irrelevant to the story and entirely Tolkien the Old English professor marking time. Absolutely nothing is lost from the quality of story by dropping him, and ignoring him makes the whole series more accessible. Then again, I’m not one of those folks who considers Tolkien sacrosanct. I generally think that he’s a bit like George Lucas: a pretty good…
How would you know when you skipped it?
A good editor would have had it shortened or eliminated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually I have a better theory: R2 actually hates all humans for having enslaved robots, and through mailicious compliance ensures all those he is in direct contact with get the worst possible outcomes.
That would imply a whole lot of foresight, though. Related: one of the coolest monsters I've seen in recent fantasy is Cthaeh from the Kingkiller Chronicles. He's an evil, omniscient being with near-perfect foresight, but he's stuck in a tree. Speaking with him is terribly dangerous because whatever he says to you is guided by a.) his perfect knowledge of all possible futures, and b.) his desire to maximize harm. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get that Tolkien was a staunch Catholic, but he was also a preeminent philologist trained in a way that few people today are. He was deeply familiar with all forms of human myth. To blindly assume that all characters in LotR must have a Biblical corollary is lazy. Tom Bombadil "rapes" Goldberry (in the ancient sense of the word[1]) in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil that comports nicely with other myth cycles and no…
>To blindly assume that all characters in LotR must have a Biblical corollary is lazy. Why do you deem my post "blind assumption", when it contained quite a bit beyond that?
If you enjoyed this, you might also enjoy the same writer's take on R2D2 being the central character of Star Wara: https://km-515.livejournal.com/746.html
WOW. Yeah, pretty clear that the article's author likes doing "interesting" / dark / fringe / conspiratorial takes on popular stories. Next up: Little Red Riding Hood was actually a time-traveling deep cover Mossad agent gone rogue.
[EDIT:] Highly recommended! [/EDIT]