Second thoughts. I like what you said about JRR, very well put, and worthy in its own right. But to me that is another of the near misses; though you would never get me in the Catholic church, the short version is : it's his spirituality. The long version is MUCH more difficult to explain.

Interestingly I used to be big on Led Zeppelin, and years later found that when I thought of what I liked about them, they had never recorded it. I can't explain that either.

I wonder if being able to explain these things actually makes for being able to use them?

I hear what you say about his faith informing his writing, but I believe that to be a secondary impulse, although one that became more dominant as years went by. He went to some pains to try and reconcile his mythology to orthodox Catholic belief in later life, but never carried it through (probably because he saw it couldn't be done without rewriting everything).

Yes, there is spirituality in LOTR, but he was wiser than Lewis, and didn't make it obvious - it's everywhere, but down deep, like the magic in Lothlorien. I have always thought the most obviously spiritual passage in LOTR is the conversation of Gimli and Legolas as they walk through Minas Tirith. I'm an unrepentant atheist and ex-Catholic, but it never fails to move me.

When JRRT made his spirituality obvious, in the Ainulindale, it doesn't work very well; we don't need another version of Genesis anymore than we need another version of the Crucifixion with a lion in it.

I still like Led Zeppelin. They're at their best live and unedited on the BBC Sessions ... if I could hear proper I'd buy the new live compilation, too.



- - -
I am very interested in the Universe. I am specialising in the Universe and everything surrounding it. - E. L. Wisty

About reconciling mythology to Catholicism - is that right? I have taken a break from Chris Tolkien to re-read TEA again, as I can stand only so much. Late in the tenth volume (which I was reading) this comes up, but at present I just can't face any more. As an ex-Catholic you would be in a better position to say what was and was not Catholic about his writings.

I know late on he made a serious effort to rejig the basis of his mythology, but it appeared to me (so far) that this was more to do with reconciling Middle Earth to being a credible antecedent to our earth, which was, basically, pointless, from my point of view; but then he had hordes of letters to answer. I suppose he had to make up his mind whether to answer queries on the basis of "it's my world and it runs as I say it runs" or on the basis "I want to pretend it's like our earth". Even answering Simon's (welcome) questions, I found it put an immediate pressure on me to decide about things I had never been bothered about. Perhaps this was what drove Tolkien's late revisions.

Tolkien saw writing as being 'like God' in his view - a 'sub-creator' as he saw it; learning about what it would be like to be God by taking part in creative acts. Or some such; very slight changes of wording can raise hackles, which is not my intent.

As such, he must have had a hard time with liking pagan legend as a FORM and Christ as the reality he perceived; the tension of which produced a world with monotheism and multiple entities with particular subordinate roles. I don't think for a moment that Tolkien was trying to replace or even allegorise Genesis; I think he simply felt that if he was going to create a world, it should be fully explained, and from his point of view, that included a creation myth as a prerequisite, both on grounds of his literary leanings and on account of his religious views.

What we find out about from Ainulindale is not Tolkiens views about religion, but about what he considers beautiful; with which one can of course disagree. But I don't think it has anything to do with his religious views in the sense of propogating them or allegorising them. He hated allegory, not on account of what was being allegorised, but because he didn't like using it as a literary tool and didn't like reading other peoples.

One could have marvellous arguments about what is and is not spirituality, which was not my objective. I agree about the Legolas and Gimli thing - the one about the nature of mankind, from memory. What I was referring to when I used the term was I suppose that I saw in Middle Earth a place and a variety of people and peoples that I thought worthwhile, and which I had been aware of the lack of in my life without being able to articulate it. (At the time I was 14 and in a particularly awful school). Come to think about it, this was probably about the time when I asserted the desire to get out of Sunday school on the basis that if God were real, he definitely wasn't in there.

So basically Tolkien was able to create a world (imaginary!) which I felt was a desirable place to live in, or to put it another way, I wished the real world was more like it than it is. That's why I like Tolkien (JRR!); although the language has it's own charms, I don't think that his philological abilities have much to do with my appreciation of the books; there is simply not enough content, Elvish, Khuzdul, or Adunaic, to satisfy if that is what I were looking for.

As for Lewis, what were his motives? To sneak around the goalposts and push Christianity to the unsuspecting? Or to freshly present what has been made stale by being repeated by rote every Sunday? When taking opinions on religious authors it is hard not to take one's own baggage along for the ride.

The revisions or projected revisions to which I refer are not (particularly) the rejigging of the cosmology (although that was a related process), but the heart-searching over the nature of his sub-created beings, and especially the Orcs. Did they have souls, and if not, why not? Also, he had some decidedly odd views on sub-creational reality; he never came clean and stated exactly what they were, but they seem to have been on the lines that if a sub-creator made something not real, but God thought it worthy of the honour, it would be taken up into Creation and made real. (The story of Aule and the fathers of the dwarves is an illustration of this process; not to mention Leaf by Niggle - and so is Pinocchio, come to think of it). Now this is a comforting thought for any artist, but it ain't Christian theology or anything like it. There is no sub-creation in Christianity; there is only one Creator, alone and supreme, and all that is is his work alone.

It seems that JRRT's work, especially as to the role of the Valar in general and Morgoth in particular, was criticised by his son John (the priest), and it caused a bit of a crise de conscience for JRRT. It is the obligation and duty of every Catholic (and JRRT was a very traditional and conservative one) to defend and propagate the faith, and at the very least refrain from producing anything inimical to it, and JRRT became worried that his mythology was not in accordance with his faith, and that by publishing it he might be giving encouragement to beliefs not his own. He had a right to be worried; there are New Age pagans all over the world clutching JRRT's works like some kind of sacred text, but few or none have ever been converted to Catholicism from reading them. He never resolved this conflict; in his heart his work was one with his faith, and he was sure that all he did was in accordance with the spirit of the word of God, but the letter of the word of God said different.

I criticise the Ainulindale and the Lion the W & the W not because they allegorise or bowdlerise Genesis and the Gospels - it's not my faith, after all. I criticise them because they are poor art. The Ainulindale is just ridiculous; it reads like some extract from the Book of Mormon, while TLTW&TW is pathetic. It takes a great and glorious story and makes a shabby copy of it, and the tone throughout is so preachy and patronising it makes me cringe. I don't know what Lewis' motives were, but if it were to refresh the Gospel story, he failed. (He seems to have been good enough company so long as you agreed with him, but he was very intolerant of views other than his own, btw).

As for the charm of the language, and JRRT's need to write stories to explain and enrich it, I didn't really mean Quenya etc. I meant English. His philological abilities have everything to do with the enjoyment of the books, because he understood the language he was writing in, and used it to his purpose as few other writers ever have or could. (He had some strange theories about that, too).

I have no conclusion to offer. It would be arrogant of me to offer one even if I had. I have said before, and it is a thing I believe very strongly, that all Art is subjective, all responses to it on some level emotional, and everybody is biased. And so we should be.



- - -
I am very interested in the Universe. I am specialising in the Universe and everything surrounding it. - E. L. Wisty

That's all very interesting.

Did you know the only reason John Tolkien hasn't been done for child abuse (I read) is that he is now too infirm to be worth prosecuting? This is the regular broadsheets or the BBC, I forget which. I do wonder if he has a Crustacean strain in him (on two counts). Perhaps he wasn't the best person to advise his father.

The Orcs are a good question. I felt he just couldn't face the thought of the only likely solution - captured and maimed Elves. The longer one thinks about it, the more it troubles. If he had generated a race that was incapable of redemption, that was no fun; having his supposed God-figure create Elves who then got turned into Orcs, death no save, strikes one as incompetence on the Iluvatar front.

Perhaps JRR should have got up one day, laughed it off, and said "I wrote a great book!" and stopped worrying. Dave Rubach could do with hearing it, if so.

Where are you getting this stuff from? Surely you're not the one other human to have read through Chris Tolkien and done those last 2.5 books? I was convinced he only sold them to people who saw the name 'Tolkien' and then said 'never again' when they gave up (by which I am referring to the 'History of Middle Earth' series). Informative, but grindingly dull.

I think one has to define sub-creation carefully before saying what it is and isn't. You seem to be better primed than me about the details of what took place, but I think we have a different definition. In the context of this chat, I suppose what JRR intended is the definition that counts. What is and is not Christian doctrine is another matter. The only basis for common ground for Christians is the Bible (any offers?) and I wonder what it says about writing books.

As per Catholicism, I hope he was more concerned about Christianity, but cannot be sure! Those going through the system seem to remain Catholic on coming out inasmuch as they remain convinced it is either Rome or nothing; this is a generalisation and I am not seeking to have a go through it. I don't know how many of the pagans you mentioned get converted through LOTR! But Lewis especially, and Tolkien, I know to have been helpful to others who were later to become Christians. I don't think that suggests that he failed, rather that other people found his work different to you did (as you find it different to I do). As you say, everyone is biased, hurrah! If taste were dictated to us it would be very grim.

I think we'd better continue this discussion by e-mail, as it is getting lengthier by the minute ..... is the address in your profile still crustaceaned?



- - -
I am very interested in the Universe. I am specialising in the Universe and everything surrounding it. - E. L. Wisty

Before you do: Catholic convert wishes to apologise on behalf of Catholic Church for its behaviour in the past. I've been Christian since I was in my late teens and Catholic for more than half that time, so I was spared the ghastliness of the kind of Catholic upbringing that tended to happen at that time. This is why, although I have problems like anyone else, they do not include a massive guilt complex, and for this I'm deeply grateful. I do, however, entirely understand why anyone of my vintage or older who was brought up in the Catholic Church might have a problem with it, so if Dave Rainbow does wish to have a go I'm not going to get defensive.

On the other hand, I should like to redress the balance and say it's not all doom and gloom, or I wouldn't be in it. My local church is a place where there is a lot of love, and the priest is one of the saintliest people I have ever met; although he is extremely busy, he always has time for everyone and is deeply peaceful. There seems to be a general belief that individual Catholic churches are all pretty much of a muchness, but in fact they differ just as much as individual churches in any other denomination. I'm in a good one, and at the end of the day that's why I'm still a Catholic. I'm just very sorry that bad Catholic churches have done so much harm to so many people.



..........................................................................................

That which does not kill us makes us stranger.
(Llewelyn the dragon, Ozy and Millie)

Sarah

I hardly think it is necessary for anyone to apologise for crimes they did not commit, simply because they are members of the same church as the criminals. I'm not about to apologise for the massacre at Amritsar or the Irish potato famine just because I share a nationality with the perpetrators. I wasn't there; I didn't do it; I didn't connive at it and I don't condone it. Let the guilty apologise, not the innocent.

Another reason for taking this discussion elsewhere is that it is tending toward Religion, and this is classed along with Politics as a topic not suited to this forum, lest it provoke dissension and vulgar abuse. I might add in parting that I did not suffer at all from a Catholic upbringing, and have no personal animus against the Church or any member of it. I just didn't believe in it, that's all.



- - -
I am very interested in the Universe. I am specialising in the Universe and everything surrounding it. - E. L. Wisty

Just to say that I was enjoying the discussion immensely, though it goes much further into Tolkien than I've tread before. Much food for thought, thank you!



:--

Do something pretty while you can...

There's a section in one of the earlier 'History of Middle-Earth' books (It must be one of the earlier volumes, as I gave up at about III or IV...) which suggests a different origin for the Orcs: There are hints that they may actually have been developed from the very earliest Humans (who were akin to the Pukel-men), but that this happened at a time when the Elves didn't know that those people had already been "awakened" and so the Elves apparently assumed that the Orcs were twisted descendants of captive Elves instead.

************************************************************

"This was willed where what is willed... can get rather silly."

I have updated my profile with a new e-mail address, and anyone who has been enjoying the chat is welcome to contact me through it if they want to keep it private.

Yes, I agree, religion and politics are heavy for the Fforum. Getting deeper into Tolkien can easily result in this. If one keeps to a discussion of how Tolkiens' religion affected what he wrote, that's not the same as casting opinions on what you think about his beliefs, but it gets harder and harder to reply honestly without the R word getting involved, which is indeed best kept for other places. The point of all this (N3 at any rate) was a good laugh (I hope).

Thanks Dante, it's nice to know the subject is still of interest.

Good point Simon, this comes back to mind; I remember there being a time when I thought I would re-read Chris T and consolidate, but nooses just seem so much more attractive at this point in time. It took me about 15 years to face reading any of it, having bought first editions.

Today I have thought of a very Nextian solution to the Orc problem, which would probably not have pleased Tolkien a lot, but might make for a good laugh. But I'll have to keep that for N4+.

I must say I have been drawn to the idea of doing a more 'inward' N4+; I am not giving much away by saying it was the Valar (or he on whom they call) that rescued Middle Earth from remaining Muddle Earth. For the purposes of the story I have always needed to make ME inaccessible in some way, as otherwise Jurisfiction would take the matter over from 'Dave Earendil' and co. WC must be the worst thing they have ever had to put up with. Also the more Jurisfiction becomes involved the more I pre-empt anything Jasper does in future, and the more likely I am to be out of kilter with his work, which makes it less enjoyable for the Fforum (I am guessing).

Such an 'inward' N4+ would be on the website once I've got the current crop of nuisance out of the way, then those that like it can come and get it, which is a better arrangement.

N4 can scarcely avoid talking about whether the population of ME want to be in a book or a highly unusual reality; what the Valar think they are playing at; why it was that Earendil preferred to be human but then became Elvish for Elwing's sake; after all his son (Elrond) must be puzzled about it; what Jim Slip thinks about being in a world he despises; but most of all, how Avalon's prophecy of decent lingerie for all fiction is going to be brought about (I am quite clear about that, but of course I'm not telling. Drat! Simon has almost certainly guessed already).

Plus then there would be Furrella Princess of Shades in the 25th century; cats being impossible to deal with; and the painful truth about what the Elder Days COULD have been like if JRR hadn't given up on some very, VERY bad ideas.

Dave _
I have my suspicions about the lingerie (Now there's phrase which I never expected to write... :-) but will keep quite about them in the fforum. Maybe I'll send an e-mail to you on this subject so that when I say "Knew it all along" after you publish the relevant chapter you'll be able to tell the others whether or not I'm just bluffing.

Aren't cats (almost) ALWAYS impossible to deal with?

************************************************************

"This was willed where what is willed... can get rather silly."

1) I thought you were going to say that. You may end up as a conspirator, who knows? I appreciate the manner of your response.

2) Of course, it is a matter of pride for them.

In Sarah's Concordance (list of words in the Bible and where to find them, don't drop it on your foot) one page is headed :-

UNDERSTANDING - UNDERGARMENTS

Lingerie sites get everywhere.

<<< 550 brierleyjon IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER

Thanks for the e-mail, Jon; this is what I got when I replied. Three schools of thought exist :-

1) My BT broadband connection has managed to confuse even Hotmail (unlikely, Sarah seems to be exempt).

2) I don't understand e-mail at all (quite possible but not necessarily anything to do with the problem)

3) You're blocking receipt? Please advise.

Dang stupid aol e-mail ... why there isn't an option to accept all senders in the address book I don't know. That account is friends only, on account of too much spam, and I *thought* I'd added your address as a friend. Clearly I haven't. I'll try and fix it.



- - -
I am very interested in the Universe. I am specialising in the Universe and everything surrounding it. - E. L. Wisty

Damn and blast all computers. May Castor and Pollux blow them to Bermuda!

I can't fix the thing because our internet connection is as flaky as a lorry full of Cadbury's Flakes. Kindly reply to jon.brierley@omnibus-systems.co.uk which is my work address and I don't care who knows it.

*stomps off the chocolate machine in a strop*



- - -
I am very interested in the Universe. I am specialising in the Universe and everything surrounding it. - E. L. Wisty

Dear Kaz

Sarah has given me permission to be scatty due to extreme overwork, so I'm sorry if I repeat anything I've said to you before; I get confused as Dante signs herself 'caz' elsewhere and it's more than I can take in my enfeebled state.

JWHT Crustacean was devised as a result of indignance regarding 'The Two Towers' film, which wasn't even about the right two towers (don't get me started), being sick to death of Chris Tolkien's manner of presenting his father's 'laundry lists', and having read a book by that nice Mr Fforde. This led to an unprecedented (for me) piece of performance artistry in which I temporarily adopted the persona of Chris Crustacean at a Leeds meet of those enamoured both of Mr Fforde, and, well noodles.

Sarah then went on to use a variety of my characters (and her own) in 'The Bodyswappers', which I enjoyed but which also left me exasperated. In the end I had to have a go myself, and ultimately found that Chris C was too fixed in the Bodyswappers to serve the purpose for which he had been created; this led to the creation of William C.

Bodyswappers has been part rescued from old Fforum threads by Sarah at my suggestion, and if you (or anyone else) want a copy of JWHT Crustacean's opening appearance, e-mail me or drop a note in 'About the Nextarillion', created by Simon, but being used by me as the official answering point for all things crabby.

I'll answer now as William C
In poetry 'that should not be';
In Muddle Earth to take a leak you
Must go for a 'Call of Cthulhu'.

All will be revealed in N4+



Post Edited (07-03-03 15:21)

You have a chocolate machine at work? "Envy, envy, envy..."

************************************************************

"This was willed where what is willed... can get rather silly."

It sells crisps too.

I have now managed to add Dave R to my list of permitted senders, but anyone can mail to the address in my profile. (The spammers haven't found that one yet).



- - -
I am very interested in the Universe. I am specialising in the Universe and everything surrounding it. - E. L. Wisty

I sometimes suspect that I *am* a chocolate machine. Went shopping in Morrison's today and discovered Rolo muffins ! Chocolate muffins with chocolate chips and a soft, toffee filling - 99p for 4. Mmmmmmm.