Jlong wrote:
Stu, you obviously have strong negative feelings about Tolkien's Catholicism, but you are greatly oversimplifying the extent to which Tolkien's Catholicism influenced The Lord of the Rings.

To quote Tolkien, "Frodo (Vol. I, p. 208) and Sam both invoke [Elbereth] in moments of extreme peril. The Elves sing hymns to her. (These and other references to religion in The Lord of the Rings are frequently overlooked.)" (emphasis mine)

Tolkien's use of religion is more complex and nuanced than you are suggesting.

I'm not really suggesting anything. I think it would be impossible for a religious person not to have had religion influence their work (just as an atheist will likely have their atheism similarly influence it). Everything we do is influenced by our past (whether we like it or not). Your example of Elves singing hymns is a perfect example of this. He isn't going to have the Elves playing electronica to them, as that would have been outside of his experience (not yet having existed), and would have been contextually a bit odd, even if it had.

I'm thankful that Tolkien was not overt with the religion in his fictional works. And to be honest, if other people want to dwell on any religious themes in the books, and publish essays and books on such, then fair enough -- I don't see value in such works myself, but I'm not going to get my nose bent out of shape at them being published. But equally, Christians need to not get their nose bent out of shape that I think the belief system that arises to them makes no sense, and publishing those books will inevitably lead to people legitimately responding by saying as much.

Pick a fight?I'm on an internet forum! if I wanted to pick a fight I'd pop down the local and start a fight. I've got an opinion and so have others and intellectualizing what is essentially over milking the Tolkien cash cow just makes you look like a tunnel visioned fan boy. John D Rateliff squeezed 2 books out of the Hobbit, and yes David Day does republish stuff but its more like a who's who not some pretentious over analysis of finding god or religion in The Lord of the Rings. I love Tolkien but lets have it straight the books about Tolkien and analyzing his works are basically crap. So no I'm not being antagonistic or picking a fight, that my good man is you looking to be a offended and being over zealous and defensive rather than objective, if you can find god in the Lord of the rings then more power to you son, I just love Tolkiens world and don't need other people to tell me how to read Tolkien with companions etc.

Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.

- Lex Luthor, Superman the movie :)

Peace out

Stu, Totally agree, I like your down to earth approach. I don't get why people get so touchy, unless you are from China then all "literature", and I use that term loosely, is open to criticism even if they are members of this forum. This forum is for Tolkien fans right? I'm hardly likely to post about Tolkien on a car enthusiasts forum am I?

I take no issue with the amount of books about Tolkien but I do avoid most of them. I started out by devouring everything about Tolkien and found I had little in common with many of the views. That's not to say they are any less valid but I just didn't need lots of books talking about religion. I get it, Tolkien's faith was important to him and I see the importance to the mythology but it is not what I am driven by when reading Tolkien.

I regard all the books edited by Hammond & Scull as essential to my Tolkien studies as their approach and subjects runs closely with my own but somebody else may have no interest in his art, or in general biography but they may be hugely interested in his religious views and there are many books out there to satisfy them.

This is why I read and keep all the reviews about books related to Tolkien and the other subjects and writers I am interested in.

John D Rateliff squeezed 2 books out of the Hobbit

What John Rateliff did in his two-volume The History of The Hobbit is basically the same what Christopher Tolkien did in The History of Middle-earth, i.e. bringing into view the evolution of Tolkien's writings, in this case The Hobbit. The reason Christopher did not treat this in HoMe, is that, initially, The Hobbit was not part of the legendarium. Moreover, Rateliff's work was approved by Christopher.

Turning to the general discussion: anyone is free to read Tolkien's works, thoroughly enjoy them as they are and just stop there. Many others (including myself), however, like to turn to secondary literature in order to learn more about Tolkien's writings, their co-text and context. When one then re-reads the primary material, one begins to discover many colourful facets which are at first almost impossible to discern. Compare it to Niggle's Tree: seen from afar, the Tree will appear large and beautiful. But the closer one looks, the more one is able to see the wonderful details that add greatly to the beauty of the Tree.

Of course, not all secondary literature is equally trustworthy or important. And not everyone is interested in, for example, the flora of Middle-earth.

I consider myself an atheist, but this does not mean Tolkien's catholicism repulses me or does not interest me. I will never read a book that offers a theological reading of The Lord of the Rings, but I will most definitely read a well-researched book that discusses Tolkien's religious views and how they have influenced his works (which they undeniably have). Is this necessary to understand his writings? Not at all! Does it enrichen the reading experience? It certainly does (for me at least)!

There are many good, well-researched books on Tolkien's life and writings, but for each of them there are probably five to ten that are just pointless (as Stu said), contain many mistakes or are just plain stupid. Just avoid them.

If there is something I get fed up with, then it's probably the continuous re-publishing of David Day's works, which contain many mistakes and even fictions. The illustrations are not too bad, though...

Paulies,

you've come to a Tolkien fan site and started attacking everyone for being Tolkien fans. That's not acceptable, and if it continues I will have to close your account.

Discussion and critique of secondary works about Tolkien is fine, and there is quite a bit of good discussion from others going on here in this thread you started. Your posts, however, are just calling everything "basically crap" and attacking the authors of those books (many of whom are members here).

If you don't like something, you are under no obligation to read it. You are welcome to post here about why you don't like a particular Tolkien related book, or even just that you don't like it, but calling this site an "idiot's village" and "over zealous" about your attacks is not permissible.

Readers are free, of course, to interpret LotR anyway they see fit (or not at all).

My concern, Stu, is with the hasty generalizations made above that are, in fact, suggesting a lot:

"The Catholics love to make a meal out of Tolkien's one statement about it being 'fundamentally Catholic' (or similar). That drives many pointless books, sadly."

"But honestly, your paragraph above [Tolkien's statement] is the entire amount of analysis the subject warrants (purely IMHO, of course!)."

I'm not Catholic, but it seems a bit unfair to lump "the Catholics" into one group as if they all read LotR in the same light or think the same things about the book just as it would be unfair to do the same to any other worldview. There are some Catholic writers, like Pearce, Kreeft, & Birzer, who explore Tolkien's Catholicism in great depth, but there are many non-Catholic writers that do so as well.

To put it another way, if the two leading Tolkien scholars (I do not know their religious affiliations)--Flieger & Shippey--find some value in exploring the religious dimensions of Tolkien's literary canon (Splintered Light is a good example), surely the subject warrants analysis on this matter beyond what you have suggested.

No one is, of course, required to read or even like this type of analysis, but I don't think it should be dismissed outright for the simple reason that "I don't care for it."

I have no hard feelings with anyone on this forum, though I do have very strong feelings about "books about Tolkien." Most of the Tolkien scholars have poured countless hours into the books they've written, and there is very little financial reward for their labors. The truth is, even best-selling writers only make a living while their bestseller is selling, and I can't think of any books about Tolkien that are regular bestsellers.

Jlong wrote:
Readers are free, of course, to interpret LotR anyway they see fit (or not at all).

My concern, Stu, is with the hasty generalizations made above that are, in fact, suggesting a lot:

"The Catholics love to make a meal out of Tolkien's one statement about it being 'fundamentally Catholic' (or similar). That drives many pointless books, sadly."

"But honestly, your paragraph above [Tolkien's statement] is the entire amount of analysis the subject warrants (purely IMHO, of course!)."

I'm not Catholic, but it seems a bit unfair to lump "the Catholics" into one group as if they all read LotR in the same light or think the same things about the book just as it would be unfair to do the same to any other worldview. There are some Catholic writers, like Pearce, Kreeft, & Birzer, who explore Tolkien's Catholicism in great depth, but there are many non-Catholic writers that do so as well.

What you say is undoubtedly fair. I can, of course, only talk from my own perspective (and hence the
"IMHO"). I think it is difficult for atheists like myself to understand the value in such study, as we see no value in religion itself (although can understand the historical reasons why it arose -- and why, once upon a time, it was probably necessary). There is always going to be a massive disconnect here (which is why religion and politics are best left to one side. I have a few religious friends, as NZ South Island is quite religious, and we just never mention it from either perspective. We know our respective viewpoints and do not need to dwell on thew differences).

Lucky I didn't say anything about the dirty knife...

Jlong wrote:
I have no hard feelings with anyone on this forum, though I do have very strong feelings about "books about Tolkien." Most of the Tolkien scholars have poured countless hours into the books they've written, and there is very little financial reward for their labors. The truth is, even best-selling writers only make a living while their bestseller is selling, and I can't think of any books about Tolkien that are regular bestsellers.

I 100% agree with you in terms of the mainstream quality publications from the A-grade authors ( H&S, Shippey, Flieger, Rateliff, &c). I'm very thankful that these authors put the time and effort in to them (often - I suspect - for below minimum wage remuneration, given the hours that must have gone into their creation).

I'm less of a fan of some of the B and C list publications, some of which really just exist to fleece the uninformed or to push an agenda.

Hold on, I have not attacked anyone and moreover never called this site an idiots village. What I said in a separate post was the guy in this video his village misses him, the idiot, link bellow. He says Tolkien burns in hell for being Catholic and his works are Satanic.



I am also Catholic but I never associate TLOTR with being Catholic, Narnia yes but not Middle Earth. I am from Birmingham too like Tolkien and I used to go as a child to the Oratory where Tolkien was raised for a while, its very traditional and you can see how it helped shape his faith in there, its like stepping into the Vatican but i think Tolkiens works are more Norse inspired.
Also, I do like some of the secondary books like David Day, Robert Foster and Tom Shippey, and own books by those authors I don't personally see the point of a readers companion included as part of a box set, I think that should be optional for those who like an analysis or a commentary. What I hate is all the obscure things like finding god in tlotr or a christians journey through middle earth, its sneaky preaching and they are leeching of JRRT's name. I find Humphrey Carpenter's Letters of JRRT invaluable, maybe I should have been more specific.