Finding the Lord, in 'Lord of the Rings'

[hospitaller]

Amen to that Robyn!

Campbell comes in just behind Lewis, Tolkien and Umberto Eco in my "most admired" list. Got details wrong at times, but sure had some dingers of insights!

[Paul]

Here's a nice article on Lord of the Rings:

http://www.decentfilms.com/commentar...ndfantasy.html

"Tolkien the Catholic, The Lord of the Rings, and Peter Jackson’s film trilogy"

And here's the spoiler warning from the article:

"Note: This article refers to important, even climactic plot points in J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings necessary to this overview of the spiritual significance of Tolkien’s work. If you haven’t read the books and wish to be able to do so (or to watch the films) without knowing in advance what will happen, please do so before reading this article."

[Patroclus]

Paul:

I think that if the Lord is not found in a movie, the movie is not worth watching

But, do you require explicity? What about books that are decidedly heathen? Can such books reflect the nature of God?

I like to see God and the mysteries of grace reflected in the movies and TV shows I watch. Anything that is truly beautiful will in some way reflect He who is Beauty.

As somebody who claims to like Tolkien, you have overlooked the blaring inclusiveness in your statement to which Tolkien refers in his essay "On Fairie Story." Tolkien calls all artists "sub-creators" in that they, like God, create worlds in artistic media. If, then, all authors reflect the nature of God, at the very least in his creative act (which includes beauty), how can you not find God in a creative work?

I think LOTR was based on Christianity. Tolkien was a Catholic and he was friends with CS Lewis ... I think he was influential in CS Lewis' personal conversion, but was unable to persuade him to becoming a Catholic rather than remaining an Anglican. There's supposed to be more Christian imagery in the special extended DVD releases -- at least for the 1st one .. probably the 2nd too. [/QUOTE]

[Paul]

Today @ 08:42 PM post located here
Patroclus:



But, do you require explicity? What about books that are decidedly heathen? Can such books reflect the nature of God?

Hey Patroclus. Good to see a Pentecostal here

If by explicitly you mean God being explicitly spoken of in English, no. In medieval times there were some stories written which IIRC did not include the word "God" in the story but God was there as the main character or protaganist just as He is in the bible. In many of Jesus' parables the word "God" is not present but nevertheless the parables are windows to God or reflect Him in some way.

Even when the author does not explicitly intend to make his book reflect God, his book may do so nevertheless and thus God may use his book for His own purposes. When we look at what the high priest Caiphus said we see that he did not intend to glorify God but as the scriptures say because he was high priest that year God prophesied through him making his words reflect His work on the Cross.

So I would not be so ready to dismiss a book or film as "heathen." If it is straight out of Hell then there would be nothing to be gained from reading it except practical benefits related to apologetics or evangelization.

As somebody who claims to like Tolkien, you have overlooked the blaring inclusiveness in your statement to which Tolkien refers in his essay "On Fairie Story." Tolkien calls all artists "sub-creators" in that they, like God, create worlds in artistic media. If, then, all authors reflect the nature of God, at the very least in his creative act (which includes beauty), how can you not find God in a creative work?

I don't see where I disagree with Tolkien but I didn't claim to like his thoughts on this subject, only that I liked LOTR. I would use the word "co-creators" rather than sub-creators. Creative activity is beautiful because only God can truly create. We only create insofar as we do so in union with Him. So we call baby-making procreation, not simply "creation" since it is not done by us alone or apart from God. If Satan were to write a novel, that novel would not be beautiful because what flows from him would not be reflective of the eternal generation or begetting of the Son in or with the Holy Spirit. God's creative activity is an extension of that begetting as well as of the spiration of the Holy Spirit. The final cause or ultimate purpose of creation is the glory of God. But God is infinitely glorious so He cannot add to His glory. But this glory can be expressed and shared with creatures. So the invisible glory of God, the triune reality, is, as St Paul says, expressed in creation. So we are only truly co-creating insofar as we express that same invisible glory.

[Patroclus]

...Pentecostal in beliefs only . I actually attend a Lutheran church. Anyway, I too find it nice to see people who share a similar belief system. As I was educated at an AG college, I am not used to being in the minority of thought.

I don't see where I disagree with Tolkien but I didn't claim to like his thoughts on this subject, only that I liked LOTR. I would use the word "co-creators" rather than sub-creators. Creative activity is beautiful because only God can truly create. We only create insofar as we do so in union with Him.

No offense, but I think you are wrestling with symantics.



The translation is "This is not a pipe." Margritte is working off the Platonic philosophy of forms, especially concerning art. Plato argues that the world in which we live is composed of types. Each type derives its source from an ultimate source in the ethers that is often called an "archtype." A Christian neo=platonist can interpret this as an entity deriving existence from God through the creative act so that the most real of all life is the source of life: God. To produce a work of art, such as a painting of a pipe, is to make a sub-type of a type. The sub-type is less real than the type since the sub-type derives its existence from the creative work of artist and the reflection of the type.

In essense, the artist cannot create without the creative work of God already in place - some system for pipe must be in place before an artist can produce a pipe. However, the created work has been corrupted by sin, so a reflection of that is just as much a sub-type of a perverted type.

This would be problematic if it weren't for the fact that all imperfection, all perversion, has within it the potentiality for redemption as much as the impotentiality for redemption. In other words, art that reflects the fallen state of man is teeming with a message of hope by its very presense without even necessarily being self-aware (in much the same way, a sinner has the potential of redemption, and it would be wrong of us to discard the sinner for lack of immediate redemption).

I'll see what you do with this before I respond again.

So we call baby-making procreation, not simply "creation" since it is not done by us alone or apart from God. If Satan were to write a novel, that novel would not be beautiful because what flows from him would not be reflective of the eternal generation or begetting of the Son in or with the Holy Spirit. God's creative activity is an extension of that begetting as well as of the spiration of the Holy Spirit. The final cause or ultimate purpose of creation is the glory of God. But God is infinitely glorious so He cannot add to His glory. But this glory can be expressed and shared with creatures. So the invisible glory of God, the triune reality, is, as St Paul says, expressed in creation. So we are only truly co-creating insofar as we express that same invisible glory.[/quote]

[Gilgaron]

I don't think I see too many parallels, particularly after reading The Silmarillion. Illuvatar isn't participatory in middle earth's creation in a similar manner to Yahweh and earth in Genesis. Although perhaps I approached the text from the wrong position to see similarities you fellows may find there.

[Patroclus]

Gilgaron:

I don't think I see too many parallels, particularly after reading The Silmarillion. Illuvatar isn't participatory in middle earth's creation in a similar manner to Yahweh and earth in Genesis. Although perhaps I approached the text from the wrong position to see similarities you fellows may find there.

I am at my folk's house for Christmas, so please forgive the fact that I do not have exact quote from The Silmarillion for you. What you need to understand is that there is a certain amount of self-contained theology throughout the Middle Earth myth. One of the doctrines, if you will, is the doctrine of emination. The concept is that all of creration eminates from Illuvitar. Illuvitar creates the Valar, and the Valar, in turn, sing the creative song of earth. Once, the narrator states that all of creation is ultimately from Illuvitar, so that the immediate act of creation can be explained as a creation by proxy.

Furthermore, the name most prominent in the creation account is Elohim, the plural pronoun for God. Hence, "let us make man in our image." I don't recall The Name appearing in the creation account.

[Undomiel]

Err, if the man who wrote it said that it was laced with his theology and that his theology was "christianity," what are you folks arguing about?

[Patroclus]

Undomiel:

Err, if the man who wrote it said that it was laced with his theology and that his theology was "christianity," what are you folks arguing about?

Well, even if he claims that it is laced with his theology, it is absolutely responsible to examine the voracity of such a claim. We have to ask ourselves what significance is there in examining the statements of the author. Also, for those who like to find their version of God in literature, many people want to see if they agree.

[Undomiel]

Oddly enough, many years before I knew the man was a christian, I had read his LotR triology and The Hobbit and immediately thought of the similarities to the bible and christianity. How odd that it should be a matter of debate now, when it has been shown that he said himself , that it was deliberately christian in nature.

I like the statement, "Christ was the corn king." C.S. Lewis' thoughts on this must've been very similar to mine. I have this suspicion that many of our belief systems stem from the same exact place and have only been modified with time and distance from each other.

[Patroclus]

when it has been shown that he said himself , that it was deliberately christian in nature.

Unless you want to read his introduction to his third edition in which he states that the book is not meant to have any similarity to real life or religion.

Furthermore, what does it matter what the author has to say?

[Undomiel]

Furthermore, what does it matter what the author has to say?

Well let's say for example, I paint a picture of a basket of fruit with christian symbol in the middle of it and you ask me what my painting means. If I tell you this painting means "X, Y, and Z", are you going to say, "No, that's not what it means. It means this!" It reminds me of an interview I read with George Lucas, in which he complains about a Star Wars fan arguing with him about what his stories meant. He was irritated. lol

[Patroclus]

Undomiel:

Well let's say for example, I paint a picture of a basket of fruit with christian symbol in the middle of it and you ask me what my painting means. If I tell you this painting means "X, Y, and Z", are you going to say, "No, that's not what it means. It means this!" It reminds me of an interview I read with George Lucas, in which he complains about a Star Wars fan arguing with him about what his stories meant. He was irritated. lol

Here is a joke to illustrate my point:

A couple was having dinner with the husband's parents. After dinner, the couple is sitting in bed when the wife turns to her husband and says, "Honey, I need to confess something."

"What is that," her husband replies.

"Well, I made a horrible Freudian slip with your mother."

"Oh," he says. "It can't be that bad."

"I am afraid it is," she continued. "You had gotten up to use the restroom. I meant to say to your mother, 'please pass the rolls,' but instead, I said, 'You ruined my life!'"

The reason these kind of instances are called "Freudian slips" is because Freud says that such parapraxes actually betray an unconscious truth. In literature, because of the parapraxis, and because authors may be lying, or just forget (Hemmingway and Faulkner, respectively, were notorious for this), we can never prove what an author's intent, especially if the author claims a particular intent. Such a claim of intent is called the intentional fallacy. The best we can do is work from a hypothesis that the author is both fully correct and fully aware of his or her intent.

[Undomiel]

Today @ 07:44 AM post located here
Patroclus:



Here is a joke to illustrate my point:

A couple was having dinner with the husband's parents. After dinner, the couple is sitting in bed when the wife turns to her husband and says, "Honey, I need to confess something."

"What is that," her husband replies.

"Well, I made a horrible Freudian slip with your mother."

"Oh," he says. "It can't be that bad."

"I am afraid it is," she continued. "You had gotten up to use the restroom. I meant to say to your mother, 'please pass the rolls,' but instead, I said, 'You ruined my life!'"

The reason these kind of instances are called "Freudian slips" is because Freud says that such parapraxes actually betray an unconscious truth. In literature, because of the parapraxis, and because authors may be lying, or just forget (Hemmingway and Faulkner, respectively, were notorious for this), we can never prove what an author's intent, especially if the author claims a particular intent. Such a claim of intent is called the intentional fallacy. The best we can do is work from a hypothesis that the author is both fully correct and fully aware of his or her intent.

Pat,

Okay, what's to stop this type of analyzation from proving artists in general mean something other than what the artist is trying to portray? Let's take for example, the "artwork" of an egg in a jar of urine. The artist says - this art is about sex. And someone else comes along and says, no it isn't, and applies some lengthy psychoanalytical treatise on it. What the heck. If the artist says it's about sex, it's about sex. I suppose we could find other meanings in it as well, but to say it has nothing to do with what the artist says it does, is rather egotistical. "I SHALL NOW PROCEED TO TELL YOU WHAT YOU MEAN! YOU WILL HAVE NO THOUGHT THAT IS IN CONFLICT TO MY OWN AND FROM HENCEFORTH, ALL YOUR MEANINGS WILL BE FIRST SYPHONED THREW MY MOST EXCELLENT INTELLECTUAL, PSYCHOANALYTICAL UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR MIND AND ITS COMPLEX WORKINGS. WHAT YOUR ART REALLY SAYS IS YOU WANT TO MAKE LOVE TO A TREE FROG."

*toothy grin, rub goatee* :thinking:

[Patroclus]

Undomiel:

Pat,

Okay, what's to stop this type of analyzation from proving artists in general mean something other than what the artist is trying to portray?

Nothing will stop that, not even your fervent belief in the validity of your own claim. People already engage in criticism that you would choke on. I am not saying that the author does not have an intent. All I am saying is that one can never prove the intent of an author. Hemmingway and Faulkner are just two good examples why one cannot prove intent. Furthermore, there are countless pieces of literature for which an author is unkown. What, then, do we do with works like Beowulf? All we know about Shakespeare fits into half a page, the rest of his life is speculation. Even his life is open to interpretation. Furthermore, many writers, such as myself, do not want to give away all the details of their work. Personally, I like people to find the hidden nuggets in my prose and poetry. If I told you everything you could know about my poem (assuming that I could) I woulld be robbing you of the joy of finding it.

Let's take for example, the "artwork" of an egg in a jar of urine. The artist says - this art is about sex. And someone else comes along and says, no it isn't, and applies some lengthy psychoanalytical treatise on it. What the heck. If the artist says it's about sex, it's about sex.

What if the author is lying? What if the artist will nto talk to you. or anybody, about the text?

I suppose we could find other meanings in it as well, but to say it has nothing to do with what the artist says it does, is rather egotistical.

Newsflash: The entire study of literature is egotystical and self-gratifying. The intellectual endeavors of critics, by percentages, rarely have any impact other than making themselves look smart to their peers. This comes even when discussing what the author "meant" when writing thus and such book.

"I SHALL NOW PROCEED TO TELL YOU WHAT YOU MEAN! YOU WILL HAVE NO THOUGHT THAT IS IN CONFLICT TO MY OWN AND FROM HENCEFORTH, ALL YOUR MEANINGS WILL BE FIRST SYPHONED THREW MY MOST EXCELLENT INTELLECTUAL, PSYCHOANALYTICAL UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR MIND AND ITS COMPLEX WORKINGS. WHAT YOUR ART REALLY SAYS IS YOU WANT TO MAKE LOVE TO A TREE FROG."

For most critics, because of this idea of the intentional fallacy, the labor of criticism is to discern meaning from the text, not the author.

*toothy grin, rub goatee* :thinking: [/QUOTE]