# LOTR as a metaphor for our lives



## Noldor_returned (Dec 29, 2008)

While reading part of tTT last night again, it struck me that LotR could be seen as a metaphor for our own lives. Each character of the Fellowship goes on an individual journey which provides them with what they require for their life. Examples:

Frodo: Wanted adventures, and wanted to preserve the Shire. He is basically the yardstick against which we are measured, as he has the least growth.
Sam: Learnt about his love for the Shire and relationship with Frodo, which later gave him the skills needed as Mayor and to regrow the Shire.
Merry: Became a hero which led to his success in the Shire and gave him a happy life
Pippin: similar to Merry, he had a happy life due to the skills and friendships he made on his journey
Gandalf: Achieved his aim and could live blissfully afterwards
Aragorn: The skills he had perfected on his journey (such as carrying himself as King, commanding/leading others) allowed him to be one of the best Rulers Gondor ever had.
Gimli: His friendship with Legolas and love for Galadriel allowed him to do what no other dwarf had
Now we have Legolas and Boromir, who achieved least. Boromir achieved internal happiness at the last, although Legolas merely got to see a few sights and make a few new friends.

So basically, what I want to hear from you people, is whether you agree/disagree with my theory, and what you think about it. Use any evidence you want as always.


----------



## Mike (Dec 29, 2008)

Nearly all works of fiction can be interpreted as metaphors for life.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Dec 29, 2008)

Yes I know but I think I forgot something I meant to include. The journey we take is the early years of our lives, and part of what I intended to ask was what skills have we developed which will alow us to succeed in life, or already allowed us to do well. Alternatively, what lessons/parallels in LotR have we found that have impacted our lives, for instance is there a certain character who you feel is the same as you, reacts the same? Or is there a moment in the books that seems familiar to one you've been in?


----------



## Prince of Cats (Dec 29, 2008)

What I notice is that you are stating how it was at the beginning, and then how it was at the end.

I think it's all about, and we will reminisce and long about, the _middle_! Not where you end up or where you started but what you did while living. I don't know if calculating change between start and finish is an accurate measure, who knows where you went *inbetween*  Myself looking back at my short life I don't wish I started out, or even ended up someplace different. I wish I could just experience college and high school again, even without knowledge of doing something different.

That said, I like the topic idea Noldor_returned. I'm sincere though about the middle part  We're in the middle right now, too. Looking out the window, there's a big old tree. You _could_ actually go outside and climb that tree, then be in a big old tree for the first time in ... how long? That'd be pretty neat. Then eventually you'd get down, and think about how cool that was (maybe  ) and probably remember it for a real long time


----------



## Bucky (Dec 30, 2008)

It seems folks these days are always finding metaphors in the LOTR's that Tolkien didn't intend to be there......

Is this so much different than in his day when TLOR's was an alegory for World War II? 

Tolkien, however, did say in one of his Letters (sorry, I'm too lazy to look it up at 1AM):

"The LOTR's is essentially a Catholic & Christian work."

....The 'metaphors' (or parables as I prefer to say, ala Jesus) are quite clear and obvious to anyone, like Tolkien, or myself, of Christian faith:

Frodo, taking on the burdens of evil (the Ring) that he did not deserve, as Christ bore our sins.

Gandalf, the emissary from the 'heavenly realm', who dies as a sacrifice for his friends (Tolkien plainly says this too) & is returned in greater power, shining in white (just as Catholic art portrays Christ).

Aragorn, returns as King through 'The Pathes of the Dead', i.e., hell, as Christ did during the 3 days before he rose again.

Sam - represents the self-denying Christian walk of a believer, laying down his own life in service to another (Frodo). Giving him all his food, water & eventually carrying him up the mountain. Sam puts it plainly in the debate to himself, saying he'll go to the mountain & die if that's what must happen, knowing that there's no glory in it for himself, just doing what needs to be done for another's service.

Tolkien states Galadriel is a picture of the Virgin Mary.

The Balrog versus Gandalf: The Balrog, called 'Flame of Udun' (hell in Middle-earth), comes over the chasm of fire, representing hell, Gandalf is the 'servant of the secret fire'. This represents the Holy Spirit, represented in Catholic art as a flame over the heart.......


Additionally, there's the Morgoth/Fall/creation story, which is plainly based on satan's fall in the bible.
Both are angelic beings in the pressence of the one true creator, rebel, drag down other angelic beings with them......

Also, Sauron in Numenor's fall represent's satan too, tempting Ar-Pharazon to 'rebel against the gods'.
Sauron gets the Numenoreans to institute 'satanic worship' in Tolkien's words, to 'Melkor, 'Lord of the Darkness', 'Giver of Freedom' & 'Lord of All'.


----------



## Lady_of_Gondor (Feb 2, 2009)

I think it would be an oversimplification to attribute all of these one to one symbols as intentions of Tolkien as a Catholic. While his work is primarily Christian in nature, it does not operate in the same way that, say, Narnia does for Lewis. 

Tolkien's work is Christian because it deals with themes of good, evil, sacrifice, temptation, love, redemption, eternal life and most importantly, hope through many different characters and many different situations throughout the book. To say that Gandalf represents Christ because he is resurrected, or even that Frodo represents Christ because he bears the ring (evil) may indeed be correct on some level of interpretation. Yet, we must remember that other interpretations are equally valuable in a work whose primary purpose Tolkien claims to be of bring joy and amusement and emotion to the reader in the Forward to LotR.

Be careful not to equate characters too strictly with Christian symbols.

I, for one, have a hard time imagining Galadriel as the Virgin Mary because of her power - a power which Mary never posessed.


----------



## chrysophalax (Feb 2, 2009)

Interesting. I would not have equated all of the above stated qualities as solely Christian. Though I am unacquainted with Islam and Buddhism, as well as Hinduism, surely they, the themes of good,evil, etc. are not alien to these as well as many other, lesser known religions?

I wonder sometimes were it not so widely known that JRRT was a Catholic, but rather, had he been...oh...wiccan, for example, would there then be all this speculation regarding his motivations? If so,would there then be a rush to lionise him as there has been among people who know of his religious background?


----------



## Úlairi (Feb 2, 2009)

This thread is quickly becoming the famous _Finding God in The Lord of the Rings_ that I've heard so much about. I think Bucky's Christian interpretation is quintessentially correct with the minor exception of the _Akallabêth_ being _The Garden of Eden - The Extended Edition_. I would also contend that it is Judaeo-Christian with the obvious Old Testament references but I'm just being semantic. 

Lady_of_Gondor's point about Galadriel being an allegory for the Virgin Mary is very interesting and I find myself agreeing with her. I believe Tolkien also noted something remotely similar:



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien - _#_320: From a letter to Mrs Ruth Austin_
> 
> *I was particularly interested in your remarks about Galadriel. . . . . I think it is true that I owe much of this character to Christian and Catholic teaching and imagination about Mary, but actually Galadriel was a penitent: in her youth a leader in the rebellion against the Valar (the angelic guardians). At the end of the First Age she proudly refused forgiveness or permission to return. She was pardoned because of her resistance to the final and overwhelming temptation to take the Ring for herself.*


 
Mary was without sin and was therefore never "_a penitent_". Conversely Galadriel sinned but was allowed into _heaven_ (Valimar) because of her overcoming of what I consider to be Tolkien's allegory of sin _per se_ - the One Ring. Galadriel was ultimately triumphant after falling like the other creatures of Middle-earth. 

If we're getting into a deeper conversation of religious references in _The Lord of the Rings _(and other readings) then my interpretation of _The Marring of Arda _by Morgoth (_Morgoth's Ring_) and the subsequent _Tainting of the Hröa_ (or physical body) represents Original Sin in a way.

Lady_of_Gondor, why is there a need to _be careful _in the equation of Christianity to _The Lord of the Rings_? Is this a veiled warning? Tolkien's magnificent work of fiction can be interpreted in a variety of symbolic media including the concepts of karma and the existentialism inherent within an Arda where angelic beings interfere with the decisions of its populace. However there is no need whatsoever to _warn_ someone about what they glean from the text as:



Mike said:


> Nearly all works of fiction can be interpreted as metaphors for life.


 
If Bucky wished to derive theological inferences from the text, like _The Lord of the Rings _that is _his _journey and his own experience. I found _The Lord of the Rings _to be profoundly Christian in interpretation as did Tolkien - just read the _immense _references he makes in _Letters_!!! 

As for character development and the fact that we should be looking to _The Two Towers_ at this point in our lives is quite interesting. We are beginning to discover our own internal strength, courage and power of will. The resistance of temptation or lack thereof. We are all finding our place in Middle-earth. Some of us are back in Hobbiton living merrily tending our farms, having families and the like. Some are in Gondor with the overhanging fear of imminent attack from a dark, foreboding power far greater than our own. Some are in Rohan not knowing who to trust in a dark period of our lives such as King Theoden worn down by the "witchcraft" of false counsel from others thus leading us astray; and perhaps even being led by Gollum through the Emyn Muil. Some, as aforementioned are dealing with great crises and overcoming them and learning the true courage that lies within like Frodo. Others are becoming more and more corrupted by overly observing the state of the world like Saruman through the palantir; or perhaps like Denethor are despairing at it. There are movements disgusted with the rape of planet earth and her natural resources such as Greenpeace and I believe the march of the Ents against Orthanc can be a metaphor for this - even global warming (without getting too political ). Some have broken strong bonds of Fellowship with dear friends and have gone on their separate journeys. Some exist in Harad worshipping false gods and blindly following evil. Some, like Gandalf (and myself) feel as though they have come to a crucial junction point in their existence and desire above all else a _spritual resurrection_ ("_We meet again. At the turn of the tide_.") Some are rebuilding shattered lives like the Men of Esgaroth. My heart desires to see the quest of the Ring succeed and that the world will change for good when there is so much evil. But my internal struggle is a "_symbolic equivalent_" to the quest of the Ring also and I must also strive to cast my Ring into the Crack of Doom. 

There is a myriad of symbolism rife throughout the works of JRR Tolkien and it is this that I fell in love with when I first read it and what makes it possibly the greatest work of fiction ever written. 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Lady_of_Gondor (Feb 3, 2009)

When I say that one should be 'careful' in this type of interpretation, I mean that they should be careful of oversimplifying it. I, for one, have always found the Christian symbols in The Lord of the Rings to be the most compelling and moving. And I would never suggest that there is anything wrong with concentrating on them. But when one says that 'Gandalf represents Christ' or 'Galadriel represents Mary' or even 'Morgoth represents Satan' (the latter being perhaps the most uncontestable example) as if those interpretations were Tolkien's sole interpretations, one doesn't give enough credit to the plurality of the text. 

Tolkien said straightforwardly that he hates allegory in the forward to the second edition of The Lord of the Rings: 



> As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neigher allegorical nor topical...Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations and always have do since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicablility' with 'allegory': but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.



My point is not that those Christian interpretations are invalid or that we should be careful of making them. My point is that although they MAY have been intentioned by Tolkien, many other themes may also have been intentioned, and Tolkien states very clearly in the previous quote that he has no desire to 'purposely dominate' the reader in such a way.

I understand that Tolkien said that this work was primarily a Christian book with Christian themes. And that is one of the reasons I thoroughly enjoy it. However, that does not mean that every character or situation can easily be linked back to the Bible or Christian history without something that doesn't quite fit. In other words, we can see Gandalf as Christ until we consider that he is not one part of God (or Illuvatar). Similarly, we could see Galadriel as Mary until we consider the rebellion that you point out in your previous post.

It is not a problem to make Christian connections. The problem is when we assume them to be concrete and fully-intentioned by the author.


----------



## Úlairi (Feb 3, 2009)

Lady_of_Gondor said:


> When I say that one should be 'careful' in this type of interpretation, I mean that they should be careful of oversimplifying it. I, for one, have always found the Christian symbols in The Lord of the Rings to be the most compelling and moving. And I would never suggest that there is anything wrong with concentrating on them. But when one says that 'Gandalf represents Christ' or 'Galadriel represents Mary' or even 'Morgoth represents Satan' (the latter being perhaps the most uncontestable example) as if those interpretations were Tolkien's sole interpretations, one doesn't give enough credit to the plurality of the text.


 
That is indeed reasonable enough, however, as I am about to discuss below, despite the fact that Tolkien may _dislike_ it; allegory whether intentional or unintentional is still allegory.



Lady_of_Gondor said:


> Tolkien said straightforwardly that he hates allegory in the forward to the second edition of The Lord of the Rings:


 
Yes, I'm aware of this quote also. Tolkien did say many times that he hated allegory. However he does indeed acknowledge that allegory relativistically arises from the person as:



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien - _#_71: To Christopher Tolkien (airgraph)_
> 
> *For 'romance' has grown out of 'allegory', and its wars are still derived from the 'inner war' of allegory in which good is on one side and various modes of badness on the other. In real (exterior) life men are on both sides...*


 
Allegory is simply interpretive or perhaps more so _self-interpretive _(from the author's perspective). All the "allegory" existent in _The Lord of the Rings _is obviously a derivative from Tolkien's own inner struggle between good and evil. He admits that he has _romanticized_ it. I do (to an extent) agree that allegory is _purposed domination by the author_ but we are still creatures of opinion and such opinion will always permeate any creative pursuit.

Tolkien here actually distinguished his _interpretation_ of Allegory:



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #131__: To Milton Waldman_
> 
> *I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorial language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable as just a story.)*


 
So there does indeed exist (according to Tolkien himself) unintentional allegory as opposed to deliberate, conscious and intentional allegory. However, Tolkien set out create a Myth of his own and it was necessary to imbue his Legendarium with more 'life' and was thus aware that his books would be more open to allegorical interpretation. So, whether intentional or not, Tolkien knew that allegory still did indeed reside within his own fairy-story; despite the inherent _freedom of the reader_. However, saying this, Tolkien covered his own tracks with the following quote:



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #144__: To Naomi Mitchison_
> 
> *There is of course a clash between 'literary' technique, and the fascination of elaborating in detail an imaginary mythical Age (mythical, not allegorical: my mind does not work allegorically). ... Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).*


 
Obviously Tolkien wishes to distinguish between the two but, as stated above, the more life he writes into his story the more he is invariably going to introduce _unintentional allegory_. He even admits that Tom Bombadil is indeed a deliberate allegory. Interesting for someone who claims to _dislike_ it. 

As for Tom (hey dol! Merry dol!):



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #153__: To Peter Hastings (draft)_
> 
> *...he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science...*


 
Need more be said?

This excerpt, to me, describes perfectly that despite dislike for intentional allegory Tolkien truly acknowledges the unintentional allegory rife throughout any work of fiction (particularly one as _life-like_ as _The Lord of the Rings_ ):



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #163__: To W. H. Auden_
> 
> *In a larger sense, it is I suppose impossible to write any 'story' that is not allegorical in proportion as it 'comes to life': since each of us is an allegory, embodying in a particular tale and clothed in the garments of time and place, universal truth and everlasting life.*


 
Allegory will always be introduced by any author into a work of imaginative fiction. However, coming back to the quote you used there is one line in particular that is conspicuous: _applicability is within the freedom of the reader_. What if that _applicability_ is simply a derivative (or interpretation) of allegory inherent within the story? Tolkien might just be splitting hairs a little too much here... *That's right TTF, come get me.* 



Lady_of_Gondor said:


> My point is not that those Christian interpretations are invalid or that we should be careful of making them. My point is that although they MAY have been intentioned by Tolkien, many other themes may also have been intentioned, and Tolkien states very clearly in the previous quote that he has no desire to 'purposely dominate' the reader in such a way.


 
Well, if we're arguing the side of _applicability_ there is no need to worry as the reader is _free_! We can all have differing opinions on the works of Tolkien (and other works of literature); but wait a second... isn't that the entire reason we're here?  Yes, I do agree Bucky came over a little strong in _his interpretation_ but some metaphors (like your reference to Morgoth) are far too blatant to pass off as a person's own _applicability_. I find it very hard to resolve (in my own mind) that when Tolkien sat down at his desk and wrote:



> _The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - Mount Doom_
> 
> *'Come, Mr. Frodo!' he cried. 'I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you and it as well. ...'*


 
As soon as I read this Simon of Cyrene _unintentionally_ jumped right into the very forefront of my mind. Sure that is my interpretation and a_pplicability_ but the thought itself was virtually involuntary and derived solely from the text. Whether Tolkien intended it or not I felt like he had hit me over the head with a Christian sledgehammer. I didn't just feel _purposefully dominated_ by Tolkien here - I felt _mind-raped_!!!  What else was there left to interpret apart from the deep friendship between Frodo and Sam??? 



Lady_of_Gondor said:


> I understand that Tolkien said that this work was primarily a Christian book with Christian themes. And that is one of the reasons I thoroughly enjoy it. However, that does not mean that every character or situation can easily be linked back to the Bible or Christian history without something that doesn't quite fit. In other words, we can see Gandalf as Christ until we consider that he is not one part of God (or Illuvatar). Similarly, we could see Galadriel as Mary until we consider the rebellion that you point out in your previous post.
> 
> It is not a problem to make Christian connections. The problem is when we assume them to be concrete and fully-intentioned by the author.


 
And essentially I agree with you (and most of what you have stated above); and as mentioned above - this is the entire reason we're here on TTF. To have *wonderful discussions* such as these. However, I have noticed your (semantically thoughtful and intrinsically correct) usage of the phrase: _fully-intentioned_. Tolkien may have disliked or even hated allegory; but he admitted that Bombadil was intentional so it stands to reason that there may perhaps be many of these _pseudo-unintentional _allegories rife throughout the works of Tolkien.

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Lady_of_Gondor (Feb 4, 2009)

I would like to thank you, Ulairi, for such a thoughtful post. I have not read all of the Letters of Tolkien as I have up to the present concentrated mostly on LOTR and the Silmarillion. But, you have made a very good case for the stickiness of the subject of allegory, especially within the genre of Romance.

I would, however, pose one question regarding Tolkien's intentions with Tom Bombadill which you may or may not be able to answer.

I never interpreted Tom Bombadill as a representation of Natural Science. Even though Tolkien admits that he intentioned Tom to represent this, is he actually concerned with whether or not the reader can find this interpretation in the same way that C.S. Lewis was concerned that the reader should understand Aslan to represent Jesus Christ? To me, it would seem he is not so concerned with that or else he would have made the reference more obvious.

Apart from what Tolkien actually says on the matter, at University as a literature student, I learned that allegory was a mathematical equation of character or situation in fiction to character or situation in real life. So for me, it seems that many fictional stories may get caught up in a good deal of symbolism and even what you call 'unintentional allegory', but most cannot be considered a true allegory if the relationship between the fiction and real life situation is not almost 100 percent corresponding.

So, that is why I would have to agree that Morgoth must be allegory because it would be difficult to interpret his fall from the Valar and subsequent attempts to win the good folks of Beleriand to his side and destroy Arda as anything but a thinly veiled picture of Satan's fall from the Angelic community, especially when we consider that Tolkien makes sure to point out that Morgoth was the most beloved of all the Valar by Illuvatar.

But as for Tom Bombadill, the example Tolkien actually gives of intentioned allegory, I have more difficulty seeing the connection as you quote it from his letter. So that leads me to wonder if allegory is actually a question of intention after all. Your post suggests it is not. And as I turn this over in my mind, I would have to say I'd agree. 

I'm not sure I can define it as purposed domination of the reader because clearly, when Tolkien intended to purposely dominate me (if that is what he was doing) with Bombadill, I was not dominated, whereas I felt an inherent connection between Satan and Morgoth that may not have been intentioned (though, I suspect it was).

*My prose is a bit sticky in this section, but I don't have much time to revise and the ideas are complicated. Please bear with me.*


----------



## chrysophalax (Feb 4, 2009)

"There is nothing new under the sun." So it says in Proverbs. 

Whether or not JRRT intended Morgoth to be the his version of Lucifer or Gandalf, his Christ, to name but a few possible resemblances, in my mind it makes little defference to the story itself. 

Call me shallow, but the thing that drew me and draws me still to his works, are the relationships between his characters and the overall flow in word useage. It could be have been a blantant re-working of any previously written work of classical literature as far as I'm concerned, but the fact that he actually went on to create his own mythos, languages and all, _that_ was the cherry on the cake for me.

As some will no doubt agree, I'm not the best at analysing literature, because frankly, picking it apart, bone,flesh and marrow, seems more like work and holds little enjoyment for me.

One thing I can say, however, is that his works have influenced me to the point where I constantly seek out books with storylines as in-depth and character-rich as his...not the easiest task, I can assure you! In short, he spoiled me, which is why I now try in my own clumsy way to write what I can't find, at least for my own amusement. My former Lit. teachers would be shocked!

As to Tom Bombadil...ah, the many discussions *** arguements Yay and I have had over him! For me, he has always been the embodiment of Nature itself, unaffected by mere good or evil. He just Is.


----------



## Illuin (Feb 4, 2009)

> Originally posted by chrysophalax
> _There is nothing new under the sun." So it says in Proverbs._


 

Ahem.....That’s Ecclesiastes





Right author though .


----------



## chrysophalax (Feb 4, 2009)

Gee thanks,Illuin.

This is why I stick to the RPGs, as I shall do from now on. I'm done.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 6, 2009)

Lady_of_Gondor said:


> I, for one, have a hard time imagining Galadriel as the Virgin Mary because of her power - a power which Mary never posessed.



*Well, I for one happen to agree here too & just mentioned it because Tolkien states it explictedly in one of his Letters......

Yet, here we get to the crux of the issue:

Lady of Gondor, you say that Mary never posessed 'power' that could equate her to Galadriel. 
Well, I read scripture & see that too. However, if one is a devout Catholic & even moreso nowadays than in Tolkien's day when there is talk of making Mary 'co-redeemer', there are obviously going to be some Catholics who think Mary had tremendous power......

So, I guess it depends on each individual's (Tolkien included, lol) own inherent 'baggage' they bring into the interpretation.......

Now perhaps I shouldn't have said these are 'parables' for Christ - then again, why not?
It IS a Christian & Catholic work..... 

And to me (amongst others) these things are plain.*


----------



## Illuin (Feb 6, 2009)

> Originally posted by Bucky
> _Now perhaps I shouldn't have said these are 'parables' for Christ - then again, why not?_
> _It IS a Christian & Catholic work..... _
> 
> _And to me (amongst others) these things are plain._


 
****NOTE: IMHO, this thread should really be moved to the Religion and Middle-Earth thread (at least from post #5 onward); as it has veered off course from the original posters intentions.*

That being said; until it is moved, I might as well throw in my little list I have been jotting down over the years. Personally, the parallels/comparisons (not necessarily allegories) are about as plain as day to me. I’m sure some were not intended by Tolkien; but if you know your Bible, and you know Tolkien’s work, I personally can’t fathom how they could possibly be missed. Unless one approaches this in complete, pre-conceived denial, you don’t have to stretch the gray matter too far to see the connections. Knowing Tolkien’s background only serves to reaffirm the obvious in my opinion. Here’s are a few parallels I have noticed over the years. 


Eru Ilúvatar - יַהֲוֶה Yah(a)veh Elohim.
[*]Valar - Archangels
[*]Maiar - Angels
[*]Morgoth/satan
[*]Fëanor/Cain - i.e. Kinslaying then banished from paradise/slaying of Abel then banished from paradise
[*]Great March of the Elves/The Exodus
[*]Thingol/David -Thingol sending Beren to his death/David sending Uriah to his death - because of a woman (Lúthien/Bathsheba)
[*]Númenor/The Flood - i.e. Eru/God bringing destruction - survivors Noah and his family/Elendil and his family
[*]Númenor/Tower of Babel - Building an idolatrous Tower/Sauron’s Tower - language change
[*]Annatar/Antichrist - i.e. proclaiming to be a savior, but intent is to enslave and dominate
[*]Sauron/satan
[*]Gandalf’s temptation by the Ring/Christ’s Temptation by the devil - tempted with earthly power
[*]Gandalf's defeat of the Balrog/Christ's defeat of Satan (whip around the ankle/bruise the heel as per Genesis 3:15).
[*]Gandalf the White resurrected /the Risen Christ - his voyage to the West/the Ascension.
[*]Gandalf not recognized by Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas after resurrection/Christ not recognized by disciples after Resurrection
[*]Ring/Forbidden Fruit (sin)
[*]Frodo the Ring (sin) bearer/Christ the Sin Bearer - voyage to the West/the Ascension
[*]Sam/Believers walk of faith i.e. carrying the Cross (Sam carrying Frodo on Mt. Doom) as Simon did at the hill Golgotha"
[*]Sam/Christ The Servant - i.e. meek who inherits the Earth (or Shire), voyage to the West/the Ascension
[*]The Ford/Red Sea - i.e. pursuers violently swept away by waters
[*]Galadriel/Mary
[*]Inconsequential Celeborn/Joseph
[*]Gollum/Judas - i.e. betrayed his master to Shelob because of the Ring/betrayed his Master to Caiaphas because of the Money
[*]Minas Tirith/Jerusalem
[*]Battle of Pelennor Fields/Armageddon - i.e. Minas Tirith 7 gates symbolic of 7 "seals".
[*]Aragorn/Christ - i.e. foster/adoptive father, hiding child from enemy. Entering and then leaving "the City" on the day they are hailed as King and Messiah. Transfigurations of Aragorn/Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration
[*]Aragorn/Second Coming of Christ - i.e. King of Kings - brings the Dead with him when he returns - has healing powers
[*]Battle at the Black Gate/"little season" at end of Millennium i.e. satan’s/Sauron's final defeat
[*]Scouring of the Shire/Cleansing of the Temple


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 7, 2009)

I feel that much of this is a perspective thing. Those with a stronger religious background would pick out more similarities than those who have less. I think that the experience of the reader determines what they recognise each aspect as. 

For me, Bombadil was a representation of life's little mysteries which will never be solved, and his relationship with nature was more of a romanticist characteristic, as was his individualism. In fact I think this was the most Romantic (by romantic I don't mean Romeo <3's Juliet) part seen in LOTR, as it showed a character acting as an individual, with a strong relationship with nature for his own benefit and who is not affected by the evil/good of the world.

Also, as a student leader I found the leaders in the text interesting. Aragorn, Gandalf, Imrahil, Faramir, Eomer and Elrond all had an impact on me. Whether or not people see them as religious symbols, I saw them as the epitome of leadership. I think that I first entered leadership because of them, seeing the loyalty and power they commanded, used for positive effects. I wanted to emulate this, and believed that if I could act as they did, I would be able to be a positive influence on the world, or at least on my surrounds. So far it seems, I have been moderately successful with this, even if it has only been in inspiring others to take up leadership positions. As Aragorn inspired others such as the Dunedain and performed deeds during his kingship such as allowing Ithilien to flourish, I feel that I too have achieved something similar. A friend of mine told me late last year that he wanted to succeed at leadership because of what he saw me do with my position, and I too have tried to bring in projects which have been for the benefit of not only my school or local community but for my state.

What I started saying was that because everyone has different experiences, their perspective is different too, and any messages from LOTR come differently to them. Some people might find meaning in Pippin's addiction to Longbottom Leaf, whereas I do not. On the other hand, some people might not find meaning in the leadership traits whereas I do.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 7, 2009)

Noldor_returned said:


> I feel that much of this is a perspective thing. Those with a stronger religious background would pick out more similarities than those who have less. I think that the experience of the reader determines what they recognise each aspect as.



*Well, this is true....

However, one cannot deny the intent of the author, who was indeed a Christian & described TLOR as 'esentially a Christian & Catholic work.'

Therefore, somebody who is an atheiest might say TLOR, having no organized religion or worship, therefore proves that Tolkien was writing from a point of view that there should be no Christian inspiration in the story.....

This would, of course, be wrong because Tolkien himself says so.
Therefore, not all views brought in from our own experiences are neccessarily accurate.


Illuin, those are some interesting thoughts you have....

A few, perhaps stretching things a bit in my opinion: Minas Tirith/Jerusalem (explain perhaps?), Thingol/David too as one was to protect his daughter & the other was to get rid of a husband, but I get the gist of what you are saying: Both send the unwanted customer off to death in 'hopeless battle'. Also, while I get the point on the Pelannor Fields & Annatar, I wonder if Tolkien as a Catholic even believed in the whole Revelation/Second Coming story as we have heard it.....

There are some very good ones there: Numenor & The Flood - I recall doing a post on another site about that but had totally forgotten it until you mentioned it.
Gandalf not being recognized by his 'followers' - excellent!
Ford of Bruinen/Red Sea, yes, agreed.
Celeborn/Joseph, yes, Celeborn is perceived that way, but Galadriel herself calls him the 'Wisest of the Elves in Middle-earth & a giver of gifts beyond the power of kings.', so SHE thinks much of him & defers to him as king & ruler of Lorien.

*


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 8, 2009)

Bucky said:


> *However, one cannot deny the intent of the author, who was indeed a Christian & described TLOR as 'esentially a Christian & Catholic work.'*
> 
> *Therefore, somebody who is an atheiest might say TLOR, having no organized religion or worship, therefore proves that Tolkien was writing from a point of view that there should be no Christian inspiration in the story.....*
> 
> ...


 
I would instead say that an atheist would not recognise the religious symbols, intended or no. Sure, they aren't denying Tolkien's faith and its resulting influence, but an atheist would instead take personal meaning even if Tolkien wanted them to see Aragorn as a "Jesus" figure. They might instead see Aragorn as someone like a more successful version of Napoleon. Napoleon led France to a better society (IMO) and became a great leader, one of the greatest of all times. He too after defeat entered exile only to return to almost reclaim his position. Aragorn, similarly knew that he could not win the Battle of the Pelennor despite his leadership capabilities, and instead secured extra aid to help him win. Yes it is a loose analogy, but there are similarities which an atheist might pick up on more than they would religious allusion.

As for no organised religion? I beg to differ, as throughout LOTR comments are made by both elves and men about the Valar, Eru and a few other events such as the final battle.

And I beg to differ also on your comment that "...*not all views brought in from our own experiences are neccessarily accurate*..." because that would be stating that opinions are wrong. An atheist, once again for example, would have little experience of religious concepts but that does not mean their views on a character or event are wrong or right, nor does it mean a Christian/person of other beliefs seeing religious connections is right or wrong. All it means is that because people have had different experiences, what they see in LOTR is accurate for them. Like I said in my lats post, I found the leadership qualities expressed highly valuable, but somebody else would not see the same value in them as me. Does that make me wrong, or them? No, it means neither.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 8, 2009)

Noldor_returned said:


> I would instead say that an atheist would not recognise the religious symbols, intended or no.



*Agreed.*



Noldor_returned said:


> As for no organised religion? I beg to differ, as throughout LOTR comments are made by both elves and men about the Valar, Eru and a few other events such as the final battle.



*
These are referrences to the entities, not to organizied religion, which Tolkien explictedly states in one of his Letters (too tired to look up now) that he has puposely avoided in TLOR.*




Noldor_returned said:


> And I beg to differ also on your comment that "...*not all views brought in from our own experiences are neccessarily accurate*..." because that would be stating that opinions are wrong. An atheist, once again for example, would have little experience of religious concepts but that does not mean their views on a character or event are wrong or right, nor does it mean a Christian/person of other beliefs seeing religious connections is right or wrong. All it means is that because people have had different experiences, what they see in LOTR is accurate for them. Like I said in my lats post, I found the leadership qualities expressed highly valuable, but somebody else would not see the same value in them as me. Does that make me wrong, or them? No, it means neither.



*Well, again, 'accurate' in the terms of my statement is based on the intent of the author, not the reader's interpretation.

For example, Tolkien has plainly stated in black & white in one of his Letters (#142) that when asked about comparisons of Galadriel to the Virgin Mary 'I know exactly what you mean...by references to Our Lady.'

So, one might read about Galadriel & think to them, it's a model of Mata Harre.
Would that be accurate? 
No.......

You can say it has value to them, fine......
But to the author, which is what I am saying, that was not what he was writing as HIS inspiration.


Later, in Letter #142 (since it's right here, lol) Tolkien writes:

'TLOR is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously at first, consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all referrences to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the storyline and symbolism.' *


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 8, 2009)

Yes I see what you mean. But what the original question was is what messages do you take out of LOTR? I didn't ask what Tolkien wanted and did, I asked whether any parts of LOTR mirror your own life or if any have influenced a decision in your life. I wanted to know if the journey you are on through life corresponds with any of the charcter's journeys.

If as a religious person, you see these symbols as an answer to my question, then fair enough.

*



"...Well, again, 'accurate' in the terms of my statement is based on the intent of the author, not the reader's interpretation..."

Click to expand...

* 
What I wanted though was your interpretation...

*



"...So, one might read about Galadriel & think to them, it's a model of Mata Harre.
Would that be accurate? 
No......."

Click to expand...

*
Yes it would actually be accurate, because Tolkien himself did not say Galadriel was his version of the Virgin Mary. The quote you gave only says that he could see how people would draw that connection; it does not prove that he intentionally created Galadriel for this purpose. So if somebody else saw Galadriel as a different figure Tolkien could very well give the same comment, "...I know exactly what you mean..." If a person thought Galadriel had similarities to Mata Harre or Eleanor Roosevelt or anybody then they would be right, because it is thier opinion. These are just examples of course, but do you get what I mean?


----------



## Bucky (Feb 8, 2009)

Yes, I see what you mean.....

I never bought the Galadriel/Mary thing myself, but I am decidedly _not_ into the whole Catholic 'Mary Worship' thingy myself, whereas the guy who wrote that was a Bishop if I remember correctly.

......just goes to back up your point I guess.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 9, 2009)

Yeah I guess lol...but please don't tell my that you have nothing left to say...I was really getting into our discussion. Maybe I should ask something else of you?

Since you don't see Galadriel as a holy person, do you see her as anybody? A mother figure, a guardian or merely an elf who holds immense power. Or are there any other characters to which you particularly relate?


----------



## Úlairi (Feb 10, 2009)

Bucky said:


> *These are referrences to the entities, not to organizied religion, which Tolkien explictedly states in one of his Letters (too tired to look up now) that he has puposely avoided in TLOR.*



To use the old-school *Bucky bold print*, I *completely disagree*. Sauron (and Morgoth also) created a system of worship (organized religion) where *they both* were gods to the subservient. Sauron even perpetuated *Melkor-worship* after his destruction...

*Cheers,

Úlairi.
*


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 10, 2009)

Úlairi said:


> To use the old-school *Bucky bold print*, I *completely disagree*. Sauron (and Morgoth also) created a system of worship (organized religion) where *they both* were gods to the subservient. Sauron even perpetuated *Melkor-worship* after his destruction...
> 
> *Cheers,*
> 
> *Úlairi.*


 
The reason I didn't say anything about this is because you are both right. Yes Ulairi Sauron and Melkor/Morgoth both had followings of organised religion, but Bucky only provided a point that Tolkien did not include it in LOTR. The organised religion you are referencing does not come from LOTR, but Silmarillion and UT. So you are both right, technically.


----------



## Illuin (Feb 12, 2009)

> Originally posted by Bucky
> 
> _Also, while I get the point on the Pelannor Fields & Annatar, I wonder if Tolkien as a Catholic even believed in the whole Revelation/Second Coming story as we have heard it_


 

I'm quite certain he believed in his own allegorical interpretation of Revelation:




> *Letter 96 - To Christopher Tolkien*
> 
> _Of course, I suppose that, subject to the permission of God, the whole human race (as each individual) is free not to rise again but to go to perdition and carry out the Fall to its bitter bottom (as each individual can singulariter). And at certain periods, the present is notably one, that seems not only a likely event but imminent. Still I think there will be a 'millennium', the prophesied thousand-year rule of the Saints, i.e. those who have for all their imperfections never finally bowed heart and will to the world or the evil spirit (in modern but not universal terms: mechanism, 'scientific' materialism, Socialism in either of its factions now at war)._


 
Gotta love those father/son letters .


----------



## Firawyn (Feb 12, 2009)

Hello! I’ve been MIA of late, but popped in and saw this topic. I found in interesting so I thought I’d give my two cents. I’ve read through this entire thread, and picked out a few points you have made that I’d like to comment on, so I’ve quoted them and organized it by member who said it – meaning that this makes it slightly out of order, but I hope it makes some sense to you. 



To NR -



> …LotR could be seen as a metaphor for our own lives


 
In my study of poetry I’ve found that one of the beauties of metaphors is that they can be found in almost anything. Yes, there certainly are metaphors in LOTR, many that could pertain to our own lives. However, I could just as easily make a metaphor from “The Cat and the Hat”, or a rock on the ground. Metaphors pertaining to our existence are not limited to works of literature. 



> …what skills have we developed which will allow us to succeed in life, or already allowed us to do well.


 
To answer your question, which I do agree is quite a good question, I say this: In my own life I have had trail after trial after trial, and while a part of my wishes that I could have had a more boring childhood into young adulthood, looking back now I realize that I wouldn’t change a thing because I have learned so much, and become a stronger person for it. Towards lessons learned or parallels to LOTR, I have always identified with Eowyn and Faramir (my username is a blend of those two characters!) Eowyn because she had so much responsibility thrust on her, and I’ve always looked to her as an example of how to handle unwanted responsibility: for example, when to take that responsibility (like it or not!), and when to trust my heart and rebel a little. Faramir was the character whose father never saw any worth in his son, and how he dealt with that was damn near admirable. I’ve spent my entire life with parents who, in one way or another, I was never good enough for. Faramir has been an example to me, reminding me to be the best me, and not force myself to be what my parents thought that I should be. 



> I feel that much of this is a perspective thing. Those with a stronger religious background would pick out more similarities than those who have less. I think that the experience of the reader determines what they recognize each aspect as.


 
True! I will touch on this a bit more later.


To Chrys - 



> I wonder sometimes were it not so widely known that JRRT was a Catholic, but rather, had he been...oh...wiccan, for example, would there then be all this speculation regarding his motivations?


 
Good point! In my opinion, it is human nature to pick apart other people’s motivations. Tolkien could have been a bum on the street and people would said that Sam and Frodo wandering Emyn Muil was a symbol of his life on the streets. 

To Ulairi (*takes deep breath*) -




> Some of us are back in Hobbiton living merrily tending our farms, having families and the like. Some are in Gondor with the overhanging fear of imminent attack from a dark, foreboding power far greater than our own. Some are in Rohan not knowing who to trust in a dark period of our lives such as King Theoden worn down by the "witchcraft" of false counsel from others thus leading us astray; and perhaps even being led by Gollum through the Emyn Muil.


 
This was very well said. I don’t really have any comments to add, just that it was well said and I agree.



> …despite the fact that Tolkien may _dislike_ it; allegory whether intentional or unintentional is still allegory.


 
While this is indeed true, a man’s intentions will rule his actions. When Tolkien wrote his books, he did so without the intention of making them allegorical. I’ve seen countless TTF discussions that are griping about who Tolkien was not clear about was “this” or “that” really meant – which is, frankly, stupid because Tolkien never intended it to start with. I feel that Tolkien’s _intentions_ should be respected.



> As soon as I read this (_'Come, Mr. Frodo!' he cried. 'I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you and it as well. ...'_ ) Simon of Cyrene _unintentionally_ jumped right into the very forefront of my mind. Sure that is my interpretation and a_pplicability_ but the thought itself was virtually involuntary and derived solely from the text. Whether Tolkien intended it or not I felt like he had hit me over the head with a Christian sledgehammer.


 I can give an example of a similar situation, to make a point.  When I was reading the scene where the Fellowship is heading to Moria, and free Bill the Pony, for Bill’s own good, and Sam was upset because he loved Bill, I instantly thought about two years ago when I made the decision to find my dog (beautiful Shi-tzu named Ewok) a new home, because I had just been kicked out of my parents house and knew that my life was going to be seriously unstable and crazy for some time, and that it was in his best interest to be in a home where he would be given the love and attention and care that he deserved, therefore I found him a new home. I let him go. I HATED to do it, because I loved that little dog so much, but because it was what was best for him, I did it. My POINT is that religious allegory is not the only kind of allegory that can be drawn from LOTR or any of Tolkien’s work. 


To Lady of Gondor -



> My point is not that those Christian interpretations are invalid or that we should be careful of making them. My point is that although they MAY have been intentioned by Tolkien, many other themes may also have been intentioned, and Tolkien states very clearly in the previous quote that he has no desire to 'purposely dominate' the reader in such a way.


 
Tolkien had a wide collection of knowledge to draw from. His war service, his background in mythologies and histories of the world, his general life experiences, his teaching, and his religious beliefs - among others. I agree with you that we should be careful to assume that when we see potential for an allegory, that it is a Christian allegory. 



> I never interpreted Tom Bombadill as a representation of Natural Science. Even though Tolkien admits that he intentioned Tom to represent this, is he actually concerned with whether or not the reader can find this interpretation in the same way that C.S. Lewis was concerned that the reader should understand Aslan to represent Jesus Christ? To me, it would seem he is not so concerned with that or else he would have made the reference more obvious.


 
I knew Lewis and The Chronicles of Narnia were going to come up! I was a student of the CON long before I discovered Tolkien. Lewis, as you said, purposely made CON to be a Christian allegory. He not only made this obvious in his stories, but he backed it up when asked. Tolkien, on the other hand, did not intend his works to be allegorical, and therefore, as I’ve already agreed, we should be careful to assume that any potential allegory in Tolkien’s books were/are Christian allegories. 


To Bucky -



> Therefore, somebody who is an atheiest might say TLOR, having no organized religion or worship, therefore proves that Tolkien was writing from a point of view that there should be no Christian inspiration in the story.....


 
I would argue that this is a very narrow view of “organized religion”. Religion, basically, is an established set of lifestyles and customs that include some for of “god” or “gods”. Off the top of my head, I think of Rohan, and how there were references to going to the halls of their fathers, indicating some sort of afterlife, indicating some sort of god or gods that are masters of said afterlife. Many of Middle Earth’s cultures have similar indications of organized religions. A large percentage of any culture’s customs stem from belief systems (aka religion!) passed down from their forefathers. This includes Christianity. 


Well, that’s all from me, for now. I think this catches me up to the present point of this thread anyhow. 

Fir-


----------



## Úlairi (Feb 21, 2009)

Stumbled across this quite by accident today. Whaddya think? Quite interesting.

Is Tolkien Edifying?

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Noldor_returned (Feb 22, 2009)

Some good points, but that person obviously has their own agenda.


> _What does Tolkien lead to?_
> A fascination with Tolkien can lead to a fascination with darker fantasy. Many have graduated from Tolkien to darker authors like Terry Goodkind. Ultimately, this can lead to the occult. As one person wrote, "But the allusions could easily stir a child's curiosity about occultism -- perhaps enough for that child to one day dabble in it."
> An example of this is the personal web page that said, "I practice mild occultism and I am in most cases a good Christian... My Favorite Authors are... J.R.R. Tolkien."
> Rather than be fascinated by the make-believe heroes of fantasy, I prefer to be inspired by the true heroes of World War II.​


 
That person was writing from a theological point of view and may not even enjoy Tolkien. They want to spread the word, not let any black magic exist. Fair enough, but still...there is a lot of religious bias in that.


----------



## Mike (Feb 22, 2009)

Wonderful. Once upon a time, Christian priests practiced "natural magic" with the sanction of the church. And now, some would tell us, even reading Tolkien, with a hint of magic in the page, can somehow lead to occult black magic and lure you into paganism.


----------



## Úlairi (Feb 23, 2009)

Sorry, what was that? I'm just so tired out from the Black Mass I just got back from...






*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## chrysophalax (Feb 23, 2009)

Argh! *struggles not to rip face off*

How can people be so narrow minded and whatever-phobic you would call that? You find this among some people who've read, not only Tolkien, but Lewis, Rowling and nearly any other author that's even mentioned the word magic(k). Whenever they find the slightest hint of something other than the purely banal, _surely_ it will ultimately lead to human sacrifice or somesuch nonsense.

Honestly, why read fiction or even something considered holy, the Bible, for instance? Won't the mention of the witch of Endor, the pagan groves of the "heathen" nations in close proximity to Judea, or the god Baal, somehow potentially negatively affect "innocents"? If to even acknowledge, however remotely, such things existed and/or still exist, what does that mean? "Quick, Mabel, where's the ducking stool?"  Come on, lighten up!

As far as I know, most people don't believe in magick in any form anyway, and those that do and use it in their lives aren't Criss Angel types, ok? They live very quietly and peacefully, far more peacefully than those who would criticise them, I might add!


----------



## Firawyn (Feb 24, 2009)

Calm down Chrys, you're not alone. I'm right there with you! 

Besides...I beleive in Narnia, so likewise I beleive in magic!


----------



## cssmith12 (Jan 20, 2010)

Tolkien implemented alot of his personal experiences from life into his writing which made it seem that much more realistic to all of us. The shire is really like the land of joy and jolly that everyone wants to be a part of while Mordor is the evil land for in life there is always that ever lurking doom. So I think that LOTR iis a good metaphore to life.


----------

