The Fellowship of The Return of the Crappy Little Elves
I'm trying to fill the myth gap in my edumacation. It's harder than I expected, mainly because mythology isn't really its own discipline, and folklore hasn't infiltrated the academy to much extent.
Currently, I'm reading J.R.R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-Earth, by Bradley J. Birzer. I've read The Hobbit and the L.o.t.R. tri-/tri-di-/sestilogy (including introductions and forwards and appendices and suchlike, thank you very much), so, hey, I'm well-enough versed to critique his arguments, right?
What with the current discussion of C.S. Lewis and the Narnian Chronicles, Tolkien's denial of any allegory or the like in his works has been near the surface of my brain. That, plus the inseparability of elves, wizards, and magic, has always made me assume that Middle Earth wasn't exactly monotheistic, let alone Christian. But then, what little I've made out about the Middle Earth origin story – the One creating some assistants who helped him sing the world into existence, and the rebellion and fall of one such who became Sauron's master – quite reminded me of the Gospel of St. John and of the fall of Lucifer. I wasn't quite sure what to make of that. I did wonder, though, how important The Silmarillion was to evaluating the theology of Middle Earth. According to Birzer, it's pretty important. Even more so appears to be "Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth", posthumouslyly published work that evidently makes the connexions quite explicitly. As to whether Tolkien managed to sanctify whatever myths that concerned him (and what they were), I'm not convinced yet; but I'm only halfway through the book. Still, getting me to accept a Christian motivation for Middle Earth is an impressive achievement.
It's even more remarkable because Birzer and I probably disagree on many things — many, many things. Consequently, I am reading his book with probably the unhealthiest degree of skepticism I've deployed against any since grad school. And, sadly, it is being repaid.
There are the gratuitous ideological snipes: "...Tolkien never wanted to leave England, even to escape high taxes..." (p. 22; the only mention of taxes, and without corroborating citations); an implicit assertion that 1950s English academics were "...largely agnostic or atheist..." (p. 46, again without citations); the implied association of "progressive" policies and the legendary decline of society (p. 48); and my personal favorite, an endnote that gives the citation for an unfavorable review of L.o.t.R. — and then provides a reference to the reviewer's "...leftism and minor retreat from it" (p. 145). These principally just disappoint me, as does one of his venial intellectual sins: failure to include all of his cited refs in the lists of sources (but, I dunno; maybe that's how historians do things).
A little more eyebrow-lifting are the various sillinesses and, oh, unique readings of certain situations. I was astonished, for example, to learn that "rather than making him evil or bitter, or filling him with lies, the Ring is finally unable to corrupt Frodo" (p. 59). Now, taking "corruption" to be of the moral sort, as Birzer evidently does (and not simple failure to complete a task), the One Ring was finally unable to corrupt Frodo because it went into the lava of Mt. Doom, not because Frodo was incorruptible. Then we learn that "One of the most important Christian symbols in the mythology comes in the form of invocations, petitions, and prayers to higher powers" [I just typo'd "posers" instead of "powers" — Freudian petticoat?]. I mean, really. Are those three things, alone or in combination, uncommon to all non-Christian religions? There is just no way you'll get to reject the null hypothesis on that one.
And then there are the mortal intellectual sins. There is argument by association. In support of several points, Birzer cites C.S. Lewis but not Tolkien. OK, so Lewis and Tolkien were great friends, but they didn't agree upon everything. If he's going to argue that Tolkien thought something, I want to see evidence of Tolkien's thought, not that of his peers (however intimate). Worse, though, is argument by assertion. There are places where Birzer asserts Tolkien's opinions on certain matters (some of which, held by Tolkien or not, are controversial) without providing any references (T. & the Reformation, p. 43; T. & his hopes for a "legendarium" that he did not consider to be any more than a private hobby until the 1930s, p. 46; T.'s putative argument that "since the events of The Lord of the Rings occur in a pre-Christian world, a natural monotheistic theology exists", p. 62). He even asserts that Tolkien's story "became a myth for the restoration of Christendom itself" (p. 42), although I can't say if he's interpreting Tolkien's opinions, or drawing an independent conclusion. (In the former case, I want citations; in the latter, I want evidence that someone else has made the same interpretation.)
There's also argument by insinuation. Technically, the "natural monotheistic theology" quotation above is accompanied by a quotation from Tolkien. The passage reads,
Of the final sort I've only found one example thus far, and I hope it's the last. If I'm reading it right, it's either really dumb or really brazen; it appears to be supporting an argument with a quotation that actually says the opposite. Here's the passage; you be the judge:
And what I find personally frustrating is that a coherent discussion of Tolkien's ideas about myth in general is...how shall I put this?...missing.
Still, it has made me think, particularly about the natures of good and evil. Birzer attributes to Tolkien the idea that "the understanding of the nature of 'the good' changes, but the nature of evil remains the same:" (p. 36). First, I gotta pick a nit or two. "The understanding of the nature of" something is not the same as "the nature of" it. So Birzer's technically arguing about the relation of apples to apple pie here. I'm not sure if this is merely poor writing or sleight-of-hand. I suspect something of the latter: trying to weasel in 'change in the nature of the good' in comparison to the static nature of evil, when in fact what Tolkien was really talking about was the understanding of the nature of the good, not that nature itself. (I don't think there's any especially pernicious about this particular example, just a bit of intellectual sneakiness in making the point he wanted to make.) Nevertheless, it has made me think about good, evil, neutrality, their relations, how change in one affects change in the others, and so forth. But, I don't want to get into that now.
Currently, I'm reading J.R.R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-Earth, by Bradley J. Birzer. I've read The Hobbit and the L.o.t.R. tri-/tri-di-/sestilogy (including introductions and forwards and appendices and suchlike, thank you very much), so, hey, I'm well-enough versed to critique his arguments, right?
What with the current discussion of C.S. Lewis and the Narnian Chronicles, Tolkien's denial of any allegory or the like in his works has been near the surface of my brain. That, plus the inseparability of elves, wizards, and magic, has always made me assume that Middle Earth wasn't exactly monotheistic, let alone Christian. But then, what little I've made out about the Middle Earth origin story – the One creating some assistants who helped him sing the world into existence, and the rebellion and fall of one such who became Sauron's master – quite reminded me of the Gospel of St. John and of the fall of Lucifer. I wasn't quite sure what to make of that. I did wonder, though, how important The Silmarillion was to evaluating the theology of Middle Earth. According to Birzer, it's pretty important. Even more so appears to be "Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth", posthumouslyly published work that evidently makes the connexions quite explicitly. As to whether Tolkien managed to sanctify whatever myths that concerned him (and what they were), I'm not convinced yet; but I'm only halfway through the book. Still, getting me to accept a Christian motivation for Middle Earth is an impressive achievement.
It's even more remarkable because Birzer and I probably disagree on many things — many, many things. Consequently, I am reading his book with probably the unhealthiest degree of skepticism I've deployed against any since grad school. And, sadly, it is being repaid.
There are the gratuitous ideological snipes: "...Tolkien never wanted to leave England, even to escape high taxes..." (p. 22; the only mention of taxes, and without corroborating citations); an implicit assertion that 1950s English academics were "...largely agnostic or atheist..." (p. 46, again without citations); the implied association of "progressive" policies and the legendary decline of society (p. 48); and my personal favorite, an endnote that gives the citation for an unfavorable review of L.o.t.R. — and then provides a reference to the reviewer's "...leftism and minor retreat from it" (p. 145). These principally just disappoint me, as does one of his venial intellectual sins: failure to include all of his cited refs in the lists of sources (but, I dunno; maybe that's how historians do things).
A little more eyebrow-lifting are the various sillinesses and, oh, unique readings of certain situations. I was astonished, for example, to learn that "rather than making him evil or bitter, or filling him with lies, the Ring is finally unable to corrupt Frodo" (p. 59). Now, taking "corruption" to be of the moral sort, as Birzer evidently does (and not simple failure to complete a task), the One Ring was finally unable to corrupt Frodo because it went into the lava of Mt. Doom, not because Frodo was incorruptible. Then we learn that "One of the most important Christian symbols in the mythology comes in the form of invocations, petitions, and prayers to higher powers" [I just typo'd "posers" instead of "powers" — Freudian petticoat?]. I mean, really. Are those three things, alone or in combination, uncommon to all non-Christian religions? There is just no way you'll get to reject the null hypothesis on that one.
And then there are the mortal intellectual sins. There is argument by association. In support of several points, Birzer cites C.S. Lewis but not Tolkien. OK, so Lewis and Tolkien were great friends, but they didn't agree upon everything. If he's going to argue that Tolkien thought something, I want to see evidence of Tolkien's thought, not that of his peers (however intimate). Worse, though, is argument by assertion. There are places where Birzer asserts Tolkien's opinions on certain matters (some of which, held by Tolkien or not, are controversial) without providing any references (T. & the Reformation, p. 43; T. & his hopes for a "legendarium" that he did not consider to be any more than a private hobby until the 1930s, p. 46; T.'s putative argument that "since the events of The Lord of the Rings occur in a pre-Christian world, a natural monotheistic theology exists", p. 62). He even asserts that Tolkien's story "became a myth for the restoration of Christendom itself" (p. 42), although I can't say if he's interpreting Tolkien's opinions, or drawing an independent conclusion. (In the former case, I want citations; in the latter, I want evidence that someone else has made the same interpretation.)
There's also argument by insinuation. Technically, the "natural monotheistic theology" quotation above is accompanied by a quotation from Tolkien. The passage reads,
Tolkien also argued that since the events of The Lord of the Rings occur in a pre-Christian world, a natural monotheistic theology exists. 'All this is 'mythical', and not any kind of new religion or vision,' he cautioned. (p. 62)Tolkien's comment is decontextualized; unless we look up the original, we have only Birzer's word that Tolkien made it in the same context for which Birzer quotes it. This is not an isolated incident — four pages later, Birzer does it again:
As a true subcreator, Tolkien desired to glorify God's work. Not only did he see The Lord of the Rings as his way of glorifying and praising God, but he also hoped it would help redeem the world. Indeed, Tolkien viewed its potential influence with great hope. "I feel as if an ever darkening sky over our present world hadsuddenlydently pierced, the clouds rolled back, and an almost forgotten sunlight had poured down again," he wrote in 1971.
Of the final sort I've only found one example thus far, and I hope it's the last. If I'm reading it right, it's either really dumb or really brazen; it appears to be supporting an argument with a quotation that actually says the opposite. Here's the passage; you be the judge:
When the Sauron-allied Númenoreans attempted to invade the Blessed Realm at the end of the Second Age and become gods themselves [really?], Ilúvatar destroyed their island and made Arda round, preventing further contact with the Blessed Realm. As Tolkien once told Lewis, "the Earth might owe its importance in the eyes of God solely to the principle of the one lost sheep as against the ninety-nine." In other words, no matter how foul the vast majority of humanity might become, God still protects his [sic] faithful.I actually interpret the quotation as saying that the importance of the Earth to God has to do with one miscreant ruining things for the rest. But that's just, you know, me.
And what I find personally frustrating is that a coherent discussion of Tolkien's ideas about myth in general is...how shall I put this?...missing.
Still, it has made me think, particularly about the natures of good and evil. Birzer attributes to Tolkien the idea that "the understanding of the nature of 'the good' changes, but the nature of evil remains the same:" (p. 36). First, I gotta pick a nit or two. "The understanding of the nature of" something is not the same as "the nature of" it. So Birzer's technically arguing about the relation of apples to apple pie here. I'm not sure if this is merely poor writing or sleight-of-hand. I suspect something of the latter: trying to weasel in 'change in the nature of the good' in comparison to the static nature of evil, when in fact what Tolkien was really talking about was the understanding of the nature of the good, not that nature itself. (I don't think there's any especially pernicious about this particular example, just a bit of intellectual sneakiness in making the point he wanted to make.) Nevertheless, it has made me think about good, evil, neutrality, their relations, how change in one affects change in the others, and so forth. But, I don't want to get into that now.
posted by Dr. Bubbles at 16:05
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home