In this thread, when I saw “but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain”, it immediately brought to mind many, many descriptions of Jesus being human, able to share in humankind’s emotions and suffering.
For the greater themes in LOTR, I’d say that Tolkien’s theology was that humans are imperfect and weak/sinful, who can only reach higher levels through the unearned gift of God, through Grace as Catholics would generally put it. So that, for instance, even the emotionally strongest and resistant to temptation person, may in the moment of highest stress and fear be swayed to take power for themselves; with only divine intervention saving them in the end. [I can spell it out more if you need it?]
Well, I suppose, but in the Hobbit, he came close to getting snuffed by a bunch of goblins and wolves. So not exactly level 80 in WOW level of mage power.
I don’t have time to re-read LOTR to find the exact quote, but I recall that somebody, probably one of the Hobbits, asked Gandalf pretty much that question and his reply was along the lines of:
“There are many Powers in this world. I am greater than some. I am less than others. Against others I have not yet been tested.”
Suggesting that even powered-up Gandalf could not go head-to-head with somebody, presumably Sauron.
Both, I think. Someone had to be the Head of the Order, with the worldly power that that implied, and Gandalf took over that position from Saruman. But he also gained authority to act somewhat beyond even that.
And yes, Tolkien said that he cordially disliked allegory in all of its forms. But take that with a grain of salt: He’s also the guy who wrote “Leaf by Niggle”, and then labeled it a “fairy story”, right after an essay in which he defines “fairy story” in exacting detail, which matches “Niggle” not in the slightest.
Lewis was really writing a true allegory, in which one thing stands exactly for another thing. Aslan really literally meant to be Jesus in the Narnia books. Exactly Jesus. I agree with Tolkien that this is an artificial, essentially shallow kind of writing. Tolkien was not writing an allegory. He was doing something deeper.
Tolkien’s characters do not “have” religion. There is no religion at all in Tolkien – no rites, no beliefs, no priests, no holy books. It is more accurate to say that they live inside a (northern European) Christian world, a world in which everything Christians hope to believe is literally physically true, and there is no other competing truth. Not the trappings of Christianity–the names, the stories, the history and mythology–but the meaning of it. There are multiple Jesus figures, Mary figures, God the Father figures. There is Eden, the Fall, the Evil Tempter, the Light and the Darkness, the willing sacrifice, the whole shootin’ match. It is all there, but as metaphor, not allegory.
Metaphor is what dreams are made of, and what literature is made of. It’s the main reason why Tolkien’s art, strange though it be, feels timeless and partakes of the holy, and Lewis’s doesn’t, though it is special in its own way.
Well, Gandalf’s actually a Maia, not a Maiar, as was pointed out.
The rest of the ‘not quite true’ was boilerplate disclaimer for any other errors that might get pointed out, since errors often are implied in oversimplifications.
Bolded the point I’m curious about…is that “worldly power” ever described? I get that they have a captain, but do we know of anything specific that Saruman has at his disposal that Gandalf does not?
Authority, such as that of the head of the Order, is somewhat reified in Middle Earth. Thus when Gandalf says to Saruman: “Your staff is broken”, that’s not a “Level 9 Staff-Breaker spell”, that’s just Capital-A Authority.
Long answer: Lewis was not writing a true allegory in Narnia (Lewis did write an allegory - The Pilgrim’s Regress). Aslan in Narnia isn’t allegorically Jesus. He’s actually Jesus under a different name, doing things that Lewis could imagine Jesus really doing under different circumstances than occurred in Galilee, but all the other characters are just people. In a true allegory, everything is a reference to something or someone else, but Edmund isn’t an allegorical representation of betrayal - he’s simply a boy (with various specific personality traits) who messed up. Compare Narnia with “Animal Farm” and the difference is clear - Snowball is Trotsky, Napoleon is Stalin, Boxer the horse is the Stakhanov, etc. Narnia is a fan-fict about Jesus’ other adventures - but it’s not an allegory in the technical sense that Lewis and Tolkien used.
And that can be interpreted as a patriotic (like sailors facing the flag and saluting when leaving a ship) rather than religious (they are facing Numenor, not heaven, after all).
They faced (and I’m going from memory here, as I lack access to the text) “Numenor that was, Elvenhome that is, and Valinor which will ever be”.
So I’d say there’s a bit of the Divine in that.
Maybe he had no more spells to cast, and was about to be eaten. We don’t know. Maybe he had nothing to fear, and knew the eagles were on the way (having summoned them?). Maybe he was about to use his nuke-spell, which wastes everything in a 1-league area, burning Thorin’s company beyond recognition.
IMO, he’s always holding his powers in reserve, only using them when there’s no hope otherwise. Or when it’s most dramatic.
Yes, and that’s exactly why I hate Tolkien’s definition. There are very few if any allegories that are that 1 to 1. You mention Animal Farm: most of the characters do not have a direct analog. Even Animal Farm has several characters who don’t have any direct analogues. They just collectively represent the people of Russia.
Lewis’s Narnia doesn’t have a 1:1 relation, but each story is far more directly part of the Christian journey or mythology than anything Tolkien wrote. I can map most of the books easily: can map most of Lewis’s books to a part of the Christian mythology or journey, e.g. Wardrobe: Jesus on the cross, and his resurrection and beating the Devil. Caspian: Christian salvation after Jesus has been gone a while. Dawn Treader has a journey from salvation (Eustace) to going to heaven (Reepicheep) by remaining faithful. Silver Chair is an illustration of having a calling, the characters losing their way and forgetting, like happens on the Christian journey, but with God still working it out. (It also tells how even skeptics can be good Christians.) And Magician’s Nephew and Last Battle are clearly the creation story and the Last Judgement. Only A Horse and His Boy is hard for me to place.
Edmund is,BTW, an allegory for betrayal. He is also his own person, but he’s still someone being misled by the tempter who offers him a more likely seeming treasure. There’s even a direct use of gluttony with the Turkish Delight. Yes, he’s also his own character, but it would be a bad story if he weren’t. Allegory doesn’t require stilted storytelling, even if A Pilgrim’s Progress would lead you to think otherwise.
Lewis’s Narnia is so much more allegorical than Tolkien, and their use of “true allegory” feels more like “no true Scotsman” to me than actually describing anything that actually exists.
Narnia is more allegorical than Middle-Earth, but “Leaf by Niggle” is more allegorical than Narnia. Whether the latter is allegorical enough to be “true allegory”, I’ll let the Good Professors debate, but it’s at least as allegorical as Pilgrim’s Progress.
I think this is emphatically true. Quibbling over the purity and completeness of an allegory is a foolish exercise.
To me it’s much simpler, it’s about the author’s intent. If the goal of the story or the allegories contained within are clearly intended to provide commentary on some real-world issue or idea, then it’s obviously an allegory. If the author is writing a fiction intended to entertain first and foremost and similarities to real-world ideas are just part of the inspiration, then it’s probably not truly an allegory.
There are really no “new” ideas. Everything echos something that came before, every writer is living in and experiencing the world as they create, every reader comes in with their own biases and will project them onto the story. That’s just the way it is. A story having some common elements with, say, religion does not make it allegorical. A story written that retells or reframes a religious idea and with the goal of teaching it to a new audience or commenting on it would be allegory.
By that measure, Lewis is trying to inject the stories of the Bible into the youth of the time by repackaging it in a more enjoyable and up to date format (a spoonful of sugar). Tolkein isn’t, he’s just building a fantasy world that shares a lot of the same basic principles with the real one…sailing, mining, serfdom, war, prejudice, greed and of course, religion. He’s not trying to teach religion or to comment on Christianity through allegory.
Tolkien wasn’t really trying to re-tell Bible stories. If anything, he was trying to tell stories that captured the flavor of the old pagan myths. But, he felt obligated to tell them in a setting that did not overtly contradict Christian theology.
