December 7, 2008

The Silmarillion and a Pre-redemption World

I received an interesting comment from a reader on my last post:

"I have just one little criticism; for Tolkien's about to be about redemption is a nice thought but I don't think thats what it is about. Tolkien's writings are more about the "deeper reality". He tries (and very effectively) to portray the battle of the spiritual world though fiction. The LOTR is a perfect example of how he illustrates the "deeper reality" through his "fictional" writing. But in fact his "fiction" is closer to reality than books that are about "reality." The idea that his writing is about redemption is thoughtful and hopeful, but not really logical."

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Quin. I do believe that Tolkien meant to portray the battle of the spiritual world though fiction, and that he did it very well. That is one of the reasons that I love his books. But I also think that Tolkien meant his fictional world, in which, it must be noted, he purposefully created numerous parallels to the 'real state of things,' to be a pre-redemption world, as I think is made quite plain by the quote that I posted and by other similar allusions. And I will take the liberty of pointing out that I did back up my opinion with a logical quote, whereas you did not support your opinion with any evidence.

I will note that Tolkien made it very clear that he was not trying to write an allegory. To Milton Waldman he writes, "I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language." Tolkien's works were not allegories, and therefore can not be expected to carry a specific meaning or symbolism for everything.

Nevertheless, Tolkien does not try to deny that certain aspects of his book represented and were meant to represent, if indirectly, certain Biblical truths. In his letter to Milton Waldman he makes it quite clear that the Ainulandile and the Valaquenta are a fictional picture of the Creation of the World and the Fall of the Evil One. The End of the First Age was the story of the fall of the Elves, who, are the central characters in the Silmarillion.

Tolkien goes on to say:
"In the cosmogony there is a Fall: a fall of Angels we should say. Though quite different in form, of course, to that of Christian myth. These tales are ‘new’, they are not directly derived from other myths and legends, but they must inevitably contain a large measure of ancient wide-spread motives or elements. After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of ‘truth’, and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear. There cannot be any ‘story’ without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them."

Towards the End of the Second Age, we observe that the Fall of Numenor, or the Fall of Men, is in all probablity another allusion to the Fall in the Garden of Eden. There are similar allusions throughout his books, such as the quote I posted, and, while they can certainly not be pinned down as allegory, I think that their original sources can be tracked. What I am trying to say is that I think that it is sufficiently obvious to both of us that the Fall of the Elves and Men in the Silmarillion was a fictional allusion to the Fall of Adam, and thus, the entire race of 'real' men. It is equally obvious, to me at least, that Finrod's words to Andreth were a fictional allusion to the future coming of Christ. Assuming that that supposition is correct, it is only logical to conclude that Tolkien meant his fictional world to be pre-redemption. As I said in my comments on the quote from Morgoth's Ring, I posted that quote because I think it may be helpful in realizing that Tolkien had purposefully created a pre-redemption world, and because it was not a key theme in his books does not mean that he was trying to avoid it.

As an afterthought, I do encourage Tolkien fans to read his letter to Milton Waldman. It is very interesting and offers valuable insights into the motives behind Tolkien's works, and the nature of those works.

5 comments:

  1. Dear Raora;

    Thankyou again for your insightful post. Very thoughtful, as usual. I wish we could have a face to face conversation, since we're both sort of 'thinking' people and probably quite similar. Can I get Tolkien's letter to Waldman on the internet, since I don't own a copy?

    Many thanks,

    ~Meg-Anne

    P.S. If you are confused by the use of Meg, see my last comment which you might not have read yet. Bye!

    ReplyDelete
  2. HAHAHA, easy "Raora". Don't get your cloak in a knot lol. I wasn't insulting your opinion or ideas. I was simply stating my opinion. Understand, I'm not trying to discredit your ideas but a single "logical" quote does not change the entirety of Tolkien's works. Maybe some of his writing was about redemption or "pre-redemption," and maybe I misread your article but to claim that all of Tolkien's work is about redemption is quit an assumption and one that neither of us can prove since neither of us knew him personally. And no number of "logical quotes" from you or I can prove it unless it is Tolkien himself saying "yes it is about redemption". I'm not attacking your work, I think its very smart and very impressive, but don't get so defensive.

    -Quin

    P.S. Relax : ) lol

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Quin,
    Thanks for coming back! Actually, I was not at all offended or insulted by your last comment. It is often hard to determine how someone is expressing herself when you are reading what they said online, instead of talking to them face to face. I am actually very glad that you took the time to share your thoughts on that topic! I think that you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. In my post 'What Is Hope' I said, 'Some people say that because Tolkien's books do not focus on the r edemption of humankind , like much of C.S Lewis's do, they are not worth reading.' I will clarify that statement now, and we may find that we actually agree with each other.

    I did not mean to say that Tolkien's work is about redemption. On the contrary, it is quite clear, to me at least, that it is not. I was trying to explain why it is not, why one must not condemn it simply because it is not, and, at the same time, point out that Tolkien does seem to make an allusion to the topic of redemption, without actually introducing it into his book. Would you read the following section again?

    'For, as it seems to me, even if He in Himself were to enter in, He must still remain also as He is: the Author without. And yet, Andreth, to speak with humility, I cannot conceive how else this healing could be achieved. Since Eru will surely not suffer Melkor to turn the world to his own will and to triumph in the end. Yet there is no power conceivable greater than Melkor save Eru only. Therefore Eru, if He will not relinquish his work to Melkor, who must else proceed to mastery, then Eru must come in to conquer him. More: even if Melkor (or the Morgoth that he has become) could in any way be thrown down or thrust from Arda, still his Shadow would remain, and the evil that he has wrote and sown as a seed would wax and multiply. And if any remedy for this is to be found, ere all is ended, any new light to oppose the shadow, or any medicine for the wounds: then it must, I deem, come from without.’

    If you think that quote cannot be interpreted as an allusion to redemption, than you and I simply have different opinions,and that's fine too.

    Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts!

    Namarie,
    Raora

    P.S. The 'logical quote I referred to was Tolkien's not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello again,
    Your previous comment did clear things up a lot and I want to apologize if my comment sounded insulting or overly blunt. I did not mean it that way at all though I do mean to make my opinion clear. I think now, due to what you have said in the previous comment, I agree with you far more, though maybe not wholly. I am glad you took the time to clarify. I have just a little advice ; ) . I am forced by my father (you know how he is ; )) to write at least fourth year college level argumentative essays once a week, so just for the sake of creating a better argument Ill give you a tip. When you use quotes like the one you did, you can't really claim that it is a "logical quote" since it came from a fictional book and not from an actual interview with Tolkien. Though most writers portray the opinions and perspectives through their writing, it cannot be considered evidence unless you have personally spoken with the author. Had it been from an interview or a journal entry rather than a fictional book, your argument would hold more weight but as is, it is "unprovable". It is a sound argument just not provable. Please don't take this as criticism or any further dispute, just advice from one scholar to another ; )

    See ya soon
    -Quin

    ReplyDelete
  5. shannon,
    got a new blog. check it out www.surfwaxandsun.blogspot.com

    -Quin

    ReplyDelete