#and what that says about tolkien’s catholicism
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Note
Hi! Apologies for the potential annoyance, but I've heard some people say that Tolkien's work has some racist connotations, specifically in relation to the Orcs and the Elfs. Is this true? How so?
Tolkien and racial politics is interesting, but I think a lot of people's analysis of Tolkien and race is bad. You can compare him to fantasists like Robert E. Howard and H. Rider Haggard and other writers who do actively care about race as it was politically and scientifically conceptualized in the 20th century, and their racism is of a totally different order, and far more explicit, than anything found in Tolkien. And people misread Tolkien's style, because language around race has shifted rapidly in the last 50-75 years, and they take as racialized words like "swarthy" which in context are used to mean things like "a white person with dark hair and a tan" and not "a black person."
Tolkien's not progressive on race, because Tolkien was not politically progressive. The impression I got from his letters is that he was a pretty generic well-educated conservative--disdaining both fascism and communism, not super worked up about homosexuality despite his Catholicism--but also not super interested in the day-to-day of politics either. He doesn't care about representation in his stories, and he's not worried about what people might read into his work, so I think some unconscious biases are definitely in evidence (e.g., in his depiction of the Haradrim). But also a lot of his literary models are from centuries before modern racial categories were constructed. He's definitely not importing nearly as much of the scientific racism and eugenics and other 20th century baggage as many of his contemporaries are in their fiction.
"Tolkien is racist" is certainly not true in the same way as "HP Lovecraft is racist" is. He's also not unproblematic. But a lot of great books are problematic! And I think Tolkien has a lot of good things to say that interact in interesting ways with the parts of his work that are problematic, and give the reader a lot to chew on.
123 notes
·
View notes
Text
I love being a wild card in this fandom.
What I love about Sauron/Mairon x Galadriel is that their dynamic isn’t some basic Light vs. Dark nonsense. Because this is Tolkien, not some Hollywood digested cr*p, as the professor says himself:
Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only a fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right. Not so much because they had flirted with Sauron; as because with or without his assistance they were 'embalmers'. They wanted to have their cake and eat it: to live in the mortal historical Middle-earth because they had become fond of it (and perhaps because they there had the advantages of a superior caste), and so tried to stop its change and history, stop its growth, keep it as a pleasaunce, even largely a desert, where they could be 'artists' – and they were overburdened with sadness and nostalgic regret. Tolkien, Letter 154
This is what I've been telling you guys. The Elves are not hopeless victims of Sauron, nor are they the "heroes" of the story. Tolkien lore is complex, it's not "pure Good vs. pure Evil" like the "lorebros" or the Peter Jackson fanboys claim. Stop believing their nonsense, they don't know what they are talking about. The battle of “good vs. evil”, in Tolkien legendarium, ultimately, happens within each character.
When they first met, Mairon and Galadriel both turned their backs on literal heaven (Valinor) because of their pride: Galadriel wanted the glory of seeking and destroying Sauron for herself; Mairon couldn’t bring himself to face judgement from the Valar. Mairon was the repentant sinner, while Galadriel was on her way to become one.
Galadriel is a literal ticking bomb, ready to explode and turn Dark at any moment, in "Rings of Power". Mairon was drawn to the darkness within her, and not to her “light” (this is another way he self-deceives himself). Her “light” (= Two Trees of Valinor) is merely aesthetic. She doesn’t have that light, and that’s why she’ll use Nenya, and her Mirror and her Phial to harvest purest Light, and become the “Lady of Light”.
In “Rings of Power” there is a clue that Mairon might be blood bound to Morgoth, and, so, he’s always unconsciously seeking his former master, and that’s why he wanted to serve Galadriel. Because he's a Maia, he was created to be a servant to a Vala. The deal, wasn't her becoming his servant, but the other way around.
And we are talking about Sauron, here: his whole character arc is not one of redemption, so he the interest he believes he has on "Light" is not real, it's one of his self-deceptions. And for Sauron to never stop grouping Galadriel’s mind, thousands of years into the future, when he’s already officially the “shadow of Morgoth” it’s because he recognizes her potential for darkness, not her light.
This doesn’t mean that he’s unredeemable, mind you. Tolkien’s work is infused with Christian doctrine (mainly Catholicism), and in this religion one can always find redemption and forgiveness if one actually repents for their sins, and makes amends for them (which will be Galadriel's case). And this is also present in Tolkien lore: no character is unredeemable on his world. But in the legendarium, after refusing to stand trial before the Valar, Sauron never truly repents, and becomes the "a reincarnation of Evil" aka Morgoth come again.
And there is Sauron. In the Silmarillion and Tales of the First Age Sauron was a being of Valinor perverted to the service of the Enemy and becoming his chief captain and servant. He repents in fear when the First Enemy is utterly defeated, but in the end does not do as was commanded, return to the judgement of the gods. He lingers in Middle-earth [Halbrand]. Very slowly, beginning with fair motives: the reorganising and rehabilitation of the ruin of Middle-earth, neglected by the gods', he becomes a reincarnation of Evil, and a thing lusting for Complete Power – and so consumed ever more fiercely with hate (especially of gods and Elves). All through the twilight of the Second Age the Shadow is growing in the East of Middle-earth, spreading its sway more and more over Men – who multiply as the Elves begin to fade. Tolkien Letter 131
Sauron was of course not 'evil' in origin. He was a 'spirit' corrupted by the Prime Dark Lord (the Prime sub-creative Rebel) Morgoth. He was given an opportunity of repentance, when Morgoth was overcome, but could not face the humiliation of recantation, and suing for pardon; and so his temporary turn to good and 'benevolence' ended in a greater relapse, until he became the main representative of Evil of later ages. But at the beginning of the Second Age he was still beautiful to look at, or could still assume a beautiful visible shape – and was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all 'reformers' who want to hurry up with 'reconstruction' and 'reorganization' are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert their will eat them up. The particular branch of the High-Elves concerned, the Noldor or Loremasters, were always on the side of 'science and technology', as we should call it: they wanted to have the knowledge that Sauron genuinely had, and those of Eregion refused the warnings of Gil-galad and Elrond. Tolkien Letter 153
Halbrand was repentant Mairon. Annatar is Mairon falling back into evil.
Galadriel is not yet the “repentant sinner” Tolkien described her to be, in his legendarium, either. In Season 2, she doesn’t own up to her actions, and is still making excuses for them: “I was deceived”; “Sauron used me”; “Under his harp I was played to a melody not of my choosing”, bla bla bla.
She’s still in self-denial about her actions in Season 1: she’s the one who tempted Mairon with promises of power and, pretty much directly, caused him to choose deception over redemption, and condemned Middle-earth to Sauron’s tyranny (this is also somewhat compatible to what Tolkien wrote, because in the lore the Elves are also to blame).
And I’m almost certain she’ll have to f*ck up even harder in order to have a “eye opening” moment. Because one can’t really be a “penitent” (using Tolkien’s words) unless one takes ownership of one's actions, and makes the conscious decision to atone for them.
76 notes
·
View notes
Text
Yes, there are gay characters in Tolkien’s books
There seems to be an entrenched view among Tolkien fans that Tolkien did not write any gay characters, and that by interpreting any of his characters as gay you are going against what he would have wanted. Homophobes obviously believe this very strongly, and have always been hostile towards queer fans and queer interpretations of Tolkien’s works. Many members of the LGBTQ community also believe that they’re contradicting canon when they interpret Tolkien’s characters as gay—the only difference is they don’t mind doing so.
But is it so against canon to interpret any of Tolkien’s characters as gay? The assumption that Tolkien did not write gay characters hinges on his Catholicism, but I’m going to explain why this is flimsy reasoning.
First, it should be noted that Tolkien didn’t leave any writings expressing his views on homosexuality, so there is no evidence one way or another. But it seems relevant that Tolkien was good friends with W.H. Auden and corresponded with him over multiple decades. They first met when Auden listened to one of Tolkien’s lectures at Oxford and was inspired to learn Anglo-Saxon. Auden loved Tolkien’s poetry and prose and defended LOTR from critics at a time when it was seen as an unserious work in an unserious genre. Did Tolkien know Auden was gay? We don’t know for sure. But there’s at least a chance that he did: the secret of Auden’s homosexuality is one he “loosely kept”, according to an article in the Guardian.
So, Tolkien was friends with a gay man whom he may or may not have known was gay. But are there gay characters in Tolkien’s books? Unfortunately for the homophobes, even if you believe that Tolkien opposed homosexuality on principle, that still doesn’t mean no one in Middle-earth is gay. Actually, no one in Middle-earth is Catholic. I mean that literally, in the sense that Catholicism does not exist in the time period Tolkien wrote about, but I also mean it in the sense that Tolkien’s characters need not adhere to the tenets of his religion, even if it’s not named. Why would they?
It shouldn’t be controversial or surprising to point out that writers can, and often do, write characters that live very different lives from their own. Needless to say, Tolkien didn’t condone the actions of the antagonists of his work, but what about the protagonists? Are we to believe that all of them act in an unfailingly Catholic way at all times? In Laws and Customs of the Eldar, it is strongly implied that (especially in their younger years) Elves do have sex for pleasure and not just to beget children, something that is discouraged by Catholicism. That’s just one example.
(Please note that I’m not arguing that Tolkien’s Catholicism had no influence on his writings, because he explicitly said that it did. I’m saying that Tolkien’s characters themselves are not Catholic and do not necessarily behave like Catholics. So even if you think that all Catholics believe homosexuality is wrong, it has no bearing on Tolkien’s stories.)
Another line of reasoning goes that homosexuality is too taboo for Tolkien—but I have to wonder if people who believe this have read his books at all. The Silmarillion is full of taboo subjects. Túrin and Niënor marry, not knowing they are brother and sister; they find out the truth, and that she is pregnant, and they both commit suicide. Eöl’s relationship with Aredhel is one that, even if it didn’t start out as controlling and abusive—although I suspect it did—it clearly ended up that way, and depending on your interpretation of the text, he may have raped her. Celegorm attempts to force Lúthien to marry him, which would also involve rape, and there is a passage that implies that Morgoth also intends to rape Lúthien. Neither incest, rape or abuse are too taboo for Tolkien—neither are suicide, torture or mass murder, as the rest of the Silmarillion shows.
I don’t want anyone to take this in bad faith: I’m not saying that being gay is comparable to incest, rape or abuse, and I’m part of the LGBTQ community myself. What I am saying is that Tolkien clearly did not shy away from certain subjects, including sexual taboos, simply because they’re taboo. If you’re going to argue that none of Tolkien’s characters are queer because it wasn’t accepted at the time, that’s very unconvincing given the other subject matter in his books.
There is another reason why I think there are gay characters in Middle-earth, and it has to do with Tolkien’s inspirations. It’s well understood by Tolkien fans that you can see echoes of other mythologies in Tolkien’s works. But which ones? When Lúthien brings Beren back from the Halls of Mandos, there are obvious parallels with the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice—though the genders are reversed, and Lúthien succeeds where Orpheus did not. There are parallels between Túrin and Kullervo. There are numerous examples of this kind of thing throughout the Silmarillion and LOTR. Even the name Middle-earth clearly has its roots in the Norse name Midgard. There are some influences that Tolkien explicitly acknowledged, like the Kalevala and the Völuspá, and some that Tolkien scholars have only theorized about. While there are some scholarly articles on Tolkien and the Aeneid, one thing I have never seen anyone discuss is the parallel between Beleg’s death and the story of Nisus and Euryalus.
In the Aeneid, Nisus and Euryalus are a pair of friends and lovers who are fighting for Aeneas in Latium. Nisus, the older of the two men, is said to be a skilled javelin-thrower and archer. Nisus proposes a night raid on an enemy camp, and Euryalus insists on going with him. During the raid they kill many men in their sleep, collecting some of their armor as loot, as was customary. But when they leave the camp, the glint of light on a helmet taken by Euryalus is seen by a group of enemy horsemen, who capture and kill him before Nisus can stop them. Nisus is distraught and kills many of them in retaliation, ultimately dying beside his lover’s body. (In some versions, it’s a stolen belt, not a helm—but the constant motif is the glint of light that reveals Euryalus to the enemy.)
There are so many similarities with Beleg and Túrin that it cannot be a coincidence. Beleg and Túrin also fight side by side, first on the marches of Doriath and later when Túrin is an outlaw. They are very loyal to each other, and clearly love each other. Like Nisus, Beleg is known to be a great archer. Meanwhile, although it does not feature in Beleg’s death scene, Túrin is associated with a particularly significant helm. There are differences too: Túrin’s captivity is the reason for Beleg’s raid on the Orc-camp, whereas Euryalus is captured after the raid; both Nisus and Euryalus are slain one after the other, whereas only Beleg dies in the raid on the Orc-camp. But there is still the overarching parallel of the night raid, in which the enemy guards are killed silently in their sleep; the raid’s connection with an attempted rescue; the chance moment that leads to the tragic death; the imagery of the flash of light; and the distraught reaction of Nisus and Túrin when they see that Euryalus and Beleg are dead. Tolkien read the Aeneid as a student and so would have been familiar with its contents.
There is also the fact that in some versions of the story Túrin kisses Beleg on the mouth in this scene. Although kissing someone on the mouth has not always been a romantic gesture in all cultures and time periods, the clear parallels to the scene in the Aeneid lead me to think that it is in this case. Whether you see the relationship between Túrin and Beleg as romantic is up to you—all that I’m trying to do is show that it’s a legitimate interpretation.
Ultimately, like I wrote here, I don’t think you need permission from anyone in order to interpret Tolkien’s stories the way you want to. If you want to interpret one of his characters as gay, you don’t need to cite obscure plotlines from the Aeneid to justify it. But I do take issue with the idea—which is so pervasive in the fandom—that Tolkien’s stories must not have gay, or bisexual, or trans people in them, and that any interpretations to that effect are against canon. At the end of the day, Middle-earth is supposed to be our world, and guess what? Queer people exist.
#lotr#tolkien#lord of the rings#silmarillion#my writing#Most of the people I encounter in the Tolkien fandom are either members of the LGBTQ community themselves or supportive of it#but once in a while the homophobes rear their ugly heads#I’ve been wanting to write a post about the Beleg/Turin/Nisus/Euryalus parallel for a while now#Plus I’m a Latin nerd myself and also studied the Aeneid in school!#For the record I call that plot line obscure because it’s obscure nowadays but I don’t think it would have been obscure to Tolkien#like I said in the post#and the parallel really adds to the romantic subtext between Beleg and Turin#I do believe it was intentional
792 notes
·
View notes
Note
Do you have any thoughts about who/what Tom Bombadil might symbolize/represent/evoke in Lord of the Rings in relation to Tolkien's Catholicism? (I am watching Rings of Power and extremely excited to see my boy Tom)
I'm going to be real with you: I don't know.
[IT'S YA BOI]
Tom Bombadil, as you probably know, is an utterly bizarre figure, given that he was first protagonist of some children's stories before he hopped into the Hobbit sequel as Tolkien was writing it. And in it, he isn't just some guy. He's apparently ancient, as in he says he was in Arda (Earth) before the Dark Lord's arrival from "Outside". If the Dark Lord in question is Sauron, then he's pretty damn old. If it's Morgoth, then that means he is as old as the Earth itself.
Which is! By the way! Supported by the text: as the Tolkien Gateway points out, he calls himself "Eldest," and the elves call him "First" and "Oldest and fatherless", and outside Eru (God) and the Valar/Maiar, no one in the Legendarium is "fatherless". He was apparently in Arda before the trees and landscape, which is, uh, basically as the world was being formed in Tolkien. In The Silmarillion, Morgoth is also the first of the Valar to flee to the world after it was created? So, uh... he's literally old as dirt. He also is apparently sinless? Or at the very least, devoid of obvious temptation, because the Ring has no effect on him whatsoever.
Which makes him hard to place from a Catholic perspective. The Valar/Maiar are quite obviously parallels to both pagan deities and angels, in a way that is clear to even casual readers. It's not hard to fit the Valar into that role, knowing the author is Catholic--"Oh, here are angelic figures that ancient men mistook for gods! Okay!" And you can put different events in The Silmarillion into those sorts of ideas. But Bombadil doesn't fit neatly into that kind of slot. Tolkien also wasn't too helpful, as he deliberately did not clarify Bombadil too much, because he thought that the mythic Middle-Earth needed some mysteries kept.
It is tempting to say that Tom's meant to be God Himself, given at one point Gandalf (I think?) says, "He is," reminiscent of God's name in the Bible ("I Am"). But given Tom's married, and Tolkien was devoutly Catholic (he sang Latin in Mass after Vatican II) I don't think this works. Some have suggested that he's an avatar of Tolkien himself, though I don't know where that's coming from.
This Aleteia article has this quote from a letter, but it does not say which letter, so I am not sure how reliable this is:
“I do not mean him to be an allegory – or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name – but ‘allegory’ is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an ‘allegory,’ or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are ‘other’ and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, and wholly unconcerned with ‘doing’ anything with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany, not Cattle-Breeding or Agriculture.”
Said article goes on to compare this to Saint Augustine's approach to knowledge.
This article I found compares him to a Biblical angel in his role in the narrative--though the author makes a point to say that he doesn't think that Bombadil is, in-universe, an angelic being (again, he doesn't appear to be one of the Valar/Maiar), only that he fulfills that narrative function. Which is on to something, I think--Biblical stories, and medieval Catholic legends, often have an angel appear randomly and help out the protagonist only to disappear and never again play a role in that person's life. In LotR, it's enforced, because when Frodo suggests giving the Ring to Tom, Gandalf and Elrond point out that he'd probably forget about the Ring, which is as dangerous as leaving it out in the open.
So I think--and I'm not a scholar on this, so take this with a pinch of salt, friend--I think Tom is something of an odd, medieval pagan figure (that is, an incarnation of the natural world, or an aspect of it, at least) that is being applied in a Christian story. Ancient and medieval legends did this sometimes, like Saint Anthony and the satyr or Sir Orfeo, because these people certainly believed creatures like fairies or satyrs existed, but tried to fit them into the Christian universe. Which is fair, I guess, because there's nothing in the Bible that says these sorts of things don't exist, so there's no reason a guy like Bombadil can't be running around out there, as long as acknowledges what the rest of the order of creation is (which Tom does).
I'm also tempted to draw some sort of parallel-like line (???) to Melchizedek in the Book of Genesis--a mysterious figure who is oddly helpful at the beginning of the story (Genesis), and also kicked off a lot of speculation. He is also sometimes seen as very old, or having parallels to angelic figures, or even God Himself.
I'm sorry this answer wasn't as helpful as something straightforward, but it's the best I could do.
15 notes
·
View notes
Note
i saw these two people in the tolkien discord server i’m in say this, and while i can see their point (i 100% believe that men should be able to be affectionate without romantic undertones), i just feel like so many people get the wrong idea that samfro shippers merely see them as “gay and cute”
most of us accept all interpretations of their relationship, whether that’s soulmates, queer-platonic, romantic, etc
i was wondering what your opinion on this is??
Great question! SO sorry for the delay in responding. I hope to make my reply worth the wait. Also, this answer will be really long - sorry again - but I have many thoughts on this.
I completely agree that men should be able to be affectionate without it being romantic. Women do not have this problem of fearing open affection due to assumptions about sexuality, and I think it’s a terrible symptom of toxic masculinity for men to forbid themselves from showing affection out of fear of it being misinterpreted. LOTR is full of many beautiful examples of how men can be emotionally vulnerable with each other and how platonic friends can still physically express innocent affection (Aragorn’s kiss to Boromir’s forehead is a great example). Modern society should definitely follow the examples set by these characters.
The thing is, as a straight woman, I did not go into LOTR expecting to see any same-sex romances at all. And the majority of male friendships depicted in the book and films never gave me any sense of romantic undertones. Unlike many fans, I do not ship Legolas and Gimli because I recognize that their relationship is a bridge between Elves and Dwarves, proof that they can get along, that despite their differences, they can still find common ground and respect each other and be friends. This to me is a far more important message than a generic “forbidden romantic love story” that many view their relationship as. Their bond isn’t necessarily about wanting to sleep together, but more about recognizing that they can like and be fond of each other, and not allow their parents or cultures to influence how they view each other. I do not hate the Gigolas ship, of course, and people can feel free to ship them if they want to. But to me, they fall under the category described in the discord that you have shared: their friendly intimacy does not necessarily signify anything romantic. Even their journey into the West together does not have to be a romantic thing; I see it as Gimli not wanting to say goodbye to any more of his friends, after losing Merry, Pippin, and Aragorn, and instead going on one last adventure with his soul-brother Legolas.
Frodo and Sam, however, have always stood out to me as being different from all the other friendships in LOTR. I didn’t even take any pause in the fact that they’re both male. I just saw two people in love. It’s just in how they are written, and in Elijah and Sean’s beautiful performances. I totally agree that ANY interpretation of their relationship is valid. I think it is very wrong for any shipper of these two to insult or declare someone “wrong” to see them as just friends. But it’s the same the other way around. It is unfair for non-shippers to hate on shippers. While the argument regarding Tolkien’s Catholicism is an understandable one, texts and characters do develop lives of their own over time. Texts are meant to be interpreted. Tolkien himself wrote that he did not want to enforce his own beliefs within the story, and instead preferred to leave it open to readers to apply their own views and perspectives to it. He basically was inviting us to make interpretations that deviate from his own. He may not have had sexuality in mind when he wrote this, but if he were alive, I very much doubt he’d be hypocritical enough to criticize people for doing the very thing he encouraged them to do, especially since he was smart enough to know that not every reader of his work was or would be Catholic, and thus may not see certain aspects the way he did.
The main, unchangeable, factual point about Frodo and Sam’s relationship is that they love each other. That’s it. They go from formal master and servant to two people who have been through hell and back together, and in the process, formed a bond that nobody else will ever understand. This point stands, whether their specific feelings for each other are platonic or romantic. To view them as lovers does not take away from or undermine the foundations of how Tolkien shaped their characters and the connection they build.
It also bothers me how those who criticize this ship use the word “gay.” Bear in mind, of course, that I’m not an actual member of the LGBT community, and I’m speaking based on my love for my many LGBT friends and relatives, and the efforts I’ve made to understand and empathize with this community, and to never be among those who hate people based on who they love. But I’ve learned enough by now to know that it is quite ignorant of people to truncate the idea of Frodo and Sam being in love as “they’re gay.” Sam is not gay, as shown by his love for Rosie. To ship Frodo and Sam is not to erase Rosie or pretend Sam doesn’t love her. Sam has the biggest heart of any fictional character I’ve ever seen, and I, like many shippers, don’t find it implausible that he has room enough in that heart to have two great loves.
On that note, I’ll now signify that in the text Frodo and Sam have many moments that no other pair of male characters have, which serve as actual potential evidence of a romance. It says in the text itself that he is “torn in two” between Frodo and Rosie. No other pair of male characters in LOTR has any moment like this. Aragorn does not feel torn between Arwen and his friends, for instance. Sam hesitating to marry Rosie if it means he can’t be near Frodo is a very unique detail that adds weight to this “ship.” Not to mention the way Sam strokes Frodo’s hand in Rivendell and blushes, or calls himself “your Sam,” or has a Romeo-like moment of falsely believing Frodo is dead, or longs for the touch of Frodo’s hand in the Tower of Cirith Ungol. Plus, don’t forget that in another of Tolkien’s writings, Elanor directly compares Sam losing Frodo to Celeborn losing his wife. Also, I and many others have described how Frodo and Sam’s story directly parallels that of two canon lovers, Beren and Lúthien. Again, platonic interpretations of all this are valid, but it’s important to remember that shippers are not making things up. We’re not saying or believing that Frodo and Sam are in love “because they’re cute”. There are many moments between them in the text that support this interpretation, not the least of which is a direct parallel to a canon romantic couple - and without context, many of their exchanges and moments could easily be seen in a romantic light. (Sam watching Frodo sleep and saying “I love him, whether or no,” and declaring his one wish after potentially completing the Quest alone is not to return to the Shire and Rosie, but to return to Frodo’s body and never leave him again … all these things are right there in the text. Merry and Pippin, Legolas and Gimli, Aragorn and Boromir, none of them have any moments like this.)
And Sam’s journey across the Sea does not have nearly as much ambiguity as Gimli’s. Gimli has more to gain by going than staying; to stay would be to be left alone with no family and no more Elves or hobbits around, while to go would be to stand by his best friend, see the woman he loves/deeply admires again (Galadriel), and not face any more goodbyes. He wouldn’t really lose anything by leaving with Legolas, only gain. Sam’s circumstances are completely different. He has many people in the Shire; 13 children and countless grandchildren who could take care of him. He could easily spend his last days peacefully living with Elanor and watching her children grow, as any old hobbit would typically do. To sail West would be to lose and permanently be separated from a countless number of loved ones. And though he was affected by the Ring as a Ring-bearer, he held it for a very brief time, short enough for it to not prevent him from having a normal life after the war. It cannot be easily assumed that the lasting effect of the Ring on him was so powerful that it made him happier to leave his family than to stay with them. Because what would be waiting for him in Valinor? Gimli had two people in Valinor to whom he was very close, Legolas and Galadriel, as opposed to no loved ones back in Middle-earth. But Sam had one person in Valinor to whom he was very close, Frodo, as opposed to dozens of loved ones back in Middle-earth. The fact that he chooses Frodo over his family, to live with Frodo rather than die with and rest beside Rosie, to see Frodo again rather than see his family as much as possible in his remaining days…is a major point worth considering, and another thing that adds a layer of credibility to the idea of shipping them.
So to sum it all up, to say “you just ship Frodo and Sam because you don’t know what friendship is, because you think they’re cute so they must want to sleep together” is a MASSIVE trivialization/oversimplification/misunderstanding and completely ignores the things I’ve just laid out, particularly the distinctions between their relationship and those of other male pairings in LOTR.
Ok, ramble time is over…Boy, I hope that made at least one lick of sense! Haha.
#lotr#jrr tolkien#samfro#lord of the rings#lotr books#frodo x sam#sam x frodo#samfrodo#frodo/sam#frodo baggins#samwise gamgee#rosie cotton#beren and luthien#legolas and gimli#gimli#legolas#asks#ask reply
31 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hi!!! I was at the Tolkien conference today and I loved your paper!!! I was too nervous to ask during the Q&A, but I was wondering how the Catholic belief that you should not grieve the dead because they're in a better place had effected Tolkien's writing about death and grief. Especially in the context of his own life, and how he writes death as something to be celebrated and that it is a gift from the Valar.
Thank you so much!!!!
I'm glad you enjoyed the paper and thank you for asking about it! The paper Grief, Grieving, and Permission to Mourn in the Quenta Silmarillion is on my website (and the SWG), for anyone who is interested.
Whether or not there is a connection between Catholic belief and Tolkien's idea of "the gift of Men," I cannot say. There might be! But I think it's also important that Tolkien's eschatology for Mortals was emphatically not consistent with Catholic doctrine. At first it was. The Book of Lost Tales describes an afterlife for Mortals that Christopher Tolkien identifies as strongly parallel to the Catholic ideas of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. Christopher calls these lingering parallels "disconcerting." (This can be found in his commentary on the chapter Of the Valar and the Building of Valinor in BoLT1.)
In the published Silmarillion ("Of the Beginning of Days"), there is some degree of uncertainty still, among the Elves, about exactly what "leaving the Circles of the World" actually means: "It is one with this gift of freedom that the children of Men dwell only a short space in the world alive, and are not bound to it, and depart soon whither the Elves know not." This has always struck me as a very Elven perspective: They know that they are bound to the world and will receive no reprieve from it and will grow weary in its confines. It's a typical manifestation of the aphorism that "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." To Mortals, who are subjected to this mysterious leaving of the world—often prematurely, from their perspective—this doesn't seem a great deal. We see this in the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, where we actually get the Mortal perspective, and later in the unease of the Númenóreans about their fate. (Conveniently, any Mortals who don't go along with the Elven perspective are "confounded" by Melkor. Mmmm, right.)
But, importantly I think, these Mortals are not going on to a reward in their afterlife, like the Catholic conception of Heaven. They don't know what lies beyond the Circles of the World, and neither do the Elves. The Elves just think, whatever it is, it must be better than their own fate. It actually reminds me more of the Hindu concepts of samsara and moksha: release from the travail of constant rebirth, constant life. From the Elven perspective, Mortals just get to take off for the weekend; Elves are stuck always on the graveyard shift.
Now do I think that the Elven conception of Mortals getting the better death might explain why only six of sixty-four named Mortal characters in the Quenta Silmarillion are grieved or mourned. It is very possible that an Elven narrator saw these deaths as going off to something better ... but we know clearly that Mortals don't see it that way, so why Pengolodh doesn't report more frequently on the grief of Mortals for their lost friends and family remains an open question that I think is probably explained by bias: not so much political bias in this case but the bias of a long-lived being to the perceived ephemerality (and inconsequence) of shorter-lived beings.
Elven grief really has no parallels with Catholicism that I can see at all. While one can make the argument that death is the natural outcome for both Tolkien's Mortals and in Catholic belief, it is not the natural outcome for Elves, and "death" is an unnatural and certainly painful separation for them.
Finally, as for grief more generally, I think there are also two different things happening in how Primary World humans experience grief. I am not Christian and so cannot speak to Christian or specifically Catholic teachings around what is or is not appropriate in terms of grief, beyond what I can observe of the people around me in a culturally Christian country. But I wonder if "the Catholic belief that you should not grieve the dead because they're in a better place" is a different thing from grieving someone because you ... simply miss them. Even if you believe that you will be reunited in the afterlife with them at some point. But again, for Mortals in Tolkien's world, even this is confounded by the fact that there is no certainty of this; there are much larger questions for them than for faithful Christians around what happens when they die.
30 notes
·
View notes
Note
In Elrond v. the Valar, if Elrond is successfull in going against the Valar (which I hope he is), do you have any plans for Elrond then getting to see his sons, his parents and the Feanorians again? I obviously don't know all the things you plan on having Elrond challenge the Valar on, but I think it'd be great if he could get those imprisoned releasted, those doomed to horrid fates saved (cough Earendil) and travel between Aman and Middle Earth made possible so people can visit each other. Or hell, if Elrond manages to change things for the better in Aman, maybe the twins might come join him after all. But really, very excited for the idea of this fic, as I've been feeling very anti Valar lately.
Thank you for your ask! This actually gives me a great opportunity to dig deeper into my feelings on the Valar xD I'm going to put it under a cut because it got long.
The short answer is, I have no idea. I started this fic (I've rambled about it here) as a vent fic where Elrond gets to yell at the Valar, without really thinking about ever posting it. I was writing those towers we built and getting very angry at the Valar, and for some reason in the first months of my presence in the fandom I only saw very pro-Valar (or, at worst, "the Valar made a few mistakes but mean well, it's fine") takes. I'm fine with fics that go with that, but I think it's a point where my atheism butts heads with Tolkien's catholicism in a major way.
I really love fics where my favourite elves re-embody/sail and reunite in Aman in the Fourth Age and find ways to heal from their traumas, so naturally I wanted to write some (and also some angst such as those towers) but I found myself constantly stuck on what to do with the Valar. It's easy to just kind of ignore them when writing about LOTR events or even, to some extent, about First Age Beleriand. They're not there. They exist in a more material way than most gods but they're still remote, except for Morgoth and Sauron.
It's different in Aman. I went through a whole spectrum of questions/opinions such as "Aman is the Valar's domain and thus if the elves want to live there they have to play by their rules", but it just keeps falling apart whenever I think about it a little harder.
The sticking points for me are this: Númenor's Downfall, and "if thralldom it be, then you cannot escape it". The problem with the Valar, as a group, is that they are gods. They are both gods and rulers, and thus their rule is in the simplest sense of the word a tyranny. They are all-powerful. There is no recourse against them. They have no oversight (I'll get to Eru in a moment), no checks and balance, and they experience no consequence for their actions.
They have a prison system that you are put in by dying, so without trial, and are only released from if you are deemed to no longer be dangerous to society by some nebulous standards. There is also no recourse and no appeal, at least none within a recognizable system of law.
They claim all of Arda as their kingdom, but they abandon anyone who doesn't cater to them to whatever fate. They say the Noldor are free to leave Aman but completely shun them when they do, punishing them (the Doom) again without trial, and definitely not trial by peers. (Also even their way of "recompensing" people who do goodTM is dubious *cough* Eärendil *cough*).
And, even more crucially, they can decide to wipe out an entire people on a whim, again with no consequence.
Here we come to Eru, briefly: Eru is much easier to deal with for me because he is in nature remote. He is all-powerful but more in the way the laws of physics are all-powerful, if that makes any sense. He's not good or evil and he doesn't deal in the individual. See: Númenor (I tend to go with the headcanon that Eru didn't directly order the destruction of Númenor, but ultimately it doesn't matter, because it was the Valar who did it). That's also why he's not a useful oversight for the Valar: if the Valar decided to just wipe out all the elves, Eru would probably just make more elves and have them wake up at some other lake. And anyway, Manwë is the only one who can even communicate with Eru, so the Children can't exactly send complaints.
So we have a tyranny. Or at minimum, we have some kind of oppressive/unfair government, at its root (whatever the result is on the surface). How do we change that?
In real life, a fair government is one where the people in power switch regularly, and only the system remains (preferably with separation of powers and fair laws). It's subject to constant change. Even an absolute monarchy, the king dies eventually and, in theory, can also be overthrown. But a world ruled by gods? They are immortal and unchanging. There is no way to overthrow them. They literally have all the power.
This is where I get stuck in Elrond v. the Valar, and to some extent in those towers as well. It can't end in a revolution. The elves cannot do anything to change their situation that isn't the will of the Valar. The only change that can possibly happen, is for them to somehow convince the Valar to see their side, and/or sow enough dissention among the Valar that they no longer agree with each other.
So that's where I'm going, more or less. There is no fully happy ending there. Elrond will have to make his point, pray hope for meaningful change, without ever being able to trust it, because I don't think there's any way he can trust the Valar again after Númenor.
(It is, in the end, very much like real-life. We can only hope that the people who have power over us will hold themselves to the standards that they promised, and they generally don't. Even when there are recourses, they only work so far. Which is probably why the Valar make me so angry – they are an excellent stand-in for all these powers in our lives that betray us again and again.)
I'm trying to spin a lot of it around the concept of self-determination, which is something that I believe the Valar do not understand. The only one of them who ever exercised it was... Melkor. I am not having thoughts about Melkor redemptions. The Valar are made to be exactly what they are, and they don't change, so they don't recognize the Children's right to make mistakes, to learn, and to choose their own path.
I think we can get to a place where the Valar might understand that they need to defer the making of laws and judgment and generally governance to the people themselves. But the changes would take a huge amount of time and more than one fight (far more than I can do in one fic, in any case). So, is there a happy ending for Elrond and his family? I don't know. Release for those in Mandos, for Eärendil (whose fate always breaks my heart)? A mostly peaceful, bittersweet ending? Maybe.
I also cannot guarantee that it doesn't include a long stay in Mandos for Elrond.
#silmarillion#tolkien#tolkien meta#elrond#valar#anti valar#sort of?#the ramblings got really long sorry#elrond vs the valar#echo's writing thoughts#silmarillion meta#maybe one day i will find a way to write fourth age stories without this getting in the way#but it is not this day
34 notes
·
View notes
Text
People think Tolkien was racist. I did a lot of deep diving and… no. White people wrote about white people back then… and still do… and his stuff is based on Norse and English mythology.
Can’t get any “whiter” than Norse and English mythology and he is white, so… If you want to call anyone racist, it’s those who created those tales and myths he based things on… as if he would know that in the 1930s when the internet and political correctness didn’t exist… get over yourselves and do some research and think about the historical context and the kinds of things he was inspired by within his own heritage. Please.
His works are so heavily influenced by these mythologies that it’s difficult to say he made these things up out of his own head and any blame for any form of “racism” would be chalked up to the original mythologies. Of course, he realistically didn’t think or even recognize anything of the sort! It was the 1930s and he was in WWI!!
Strange how MANY who love DND still make this argument even when DND takes SO much from Tolkien and much of the same lore that he used for his own inspiration! I don’t see people faulting DND fans.
OR are you idiotic enough to look at the movie versions of orcs, for example, and decide that was racist? Because, last I saw in the novels, the orcs and Uruk-hai don’t have black skin and the Uruk-hai don’t have “dreads” or whatever. The films aren’t Tolkien’s literal vision. They’re Jackson’s and the people who did the designs!
If you knew LOTR better you’d also know that the orcs are “spiritually” corrupted elves. Much like fallen angels, if you will. Tolkien was heavily influenced by Catholicism as well.
The ideas of light/dark good/evil is quite innate to humans in general as literal darkness can be a source of danger because not only can humans not see in the dark, at nighttime, there are predators that can attack and harm humans. It’s quite common sense to understand why humans would believe that darkness would be associated with evil. Whereas light comes from the sun and we need the sun to survive and we can see and be alert during the day as well. The sun is what drives away those predators that would do harm in the night. Again, it’s quite common sensical and far reaching nonsense to think the ideas of light/dark and good/evil are somehow inherently racist…
Sure, the stories between the good and bad are somewhat two dimensional in some aspects, but his forms of races clashing against one another is from MYTHOLOGY and folklore that has existed for centuries! While it may seem shortsighted to us today, it wasn’t really a thought on anyone’s radar that it was highly offensive enough to be called racist.
Again, get over yourself and don’t be stupid. You have a brain. Use it.
Don’t listen to hearsay. The internet is FULL of idiots!
Sorry, end of rant. I didn’t want to be mean, but I’m sick and tired of people taking political correctness too far. Sure, the idea of Tolkien being racist became a contention in the 90s, but it died out for a reason. Sensationalism. That’s all it’s been.
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
about / masterpost
(if you're looking for my previous pinned, Tolkien meta about the Ainulindalë creation myth and legendarium, it's available in the link)
hi!! since i've been posting more than fandom stuff, this is for potential/new followers or just people who are interested.
this isn't exhaustive and if you've landed here from a particular post you can just ask/DM me and i'll be more than happy to answer.
a bit about myself: you can call me Thry. i'm spanish, male, i self-id as queer/LGTBIQ bc of several reasons, and i'm a roman catholic of hebrew tradition. aside from a fandom blog i may post about several other interests like history, fantasy, literature, languages, theology...
i'll also often get into social issues and all sorts of politics, so i've tried to summarize my views and what you can expect. longer detail below the cut, along with what hebrew catholicism is about.
POLITICS
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY:
-i first and foremost support universal-hearted democracy over autocracy, theocracy, and authoritarian dictatorships, that is forms of tyranny. some call these values 'secular humanism', although they predate liberal ideas of the enlightenment in a few traditions.
-i believe in principles over parties and political identities. i'm not a contrarian, nor a radical individualist, but i am radically individual and tired of external projections of incompatibility where i don't see it. "Y person can't be X" - someone saying that doesn't make it true.
-i think right-wing and left-wing are breaking down in most countries. i think identity politics are harmful and purely geared towards performative activism & electioneering. this benefits the political class and opportunists, not broader society.
-i believe western political philosophy overall has developed better societies due to individual liberties and self-expression values, although the enlightenment was crippled without the abolition of slavery, women's liberation, and other intersectional issues like those of neurodiversity, psychosexual diversity, etc.
-i believe fundamentally in western values, arisen from western tradition AND innovation. i also regard non-western intellectual traditions with respect. i reject cultural relativism as such, but i think we learn more when we don't see one tradition as all-good and others as all-bad which is simplistic and misguided.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY:
-all economic systems, which are epochal human realities, have flaws that artificially cause inequality and human suffering. i believe this can be ameliorated by reform. i don't think current understandings are exhaustive, so we should remain critical of 'theories of all' where science doesn't allow for actually accurate predictions.
-i agree with the marxian intuition that material conditions and the labor relations they enable, lie behind the cultural narratives and people's views on power and labor relations. in any given moment in history, people's worldview is shaped by what kind of society they can and do live in. economic changes lead to ideological ones. but ideals still matter and we should imagine better alternatives.
-i believe in workers' rights, unions and a right of peoples to revolt against tyranny, including ethnic communities, but also recognize not all revolutions result in better constitutions. all political revolutions so far, no matter the theory, created new hierarchies. statelessness is the abyss, so we should always tread lightly.
-i don't think any amount of social justice rhetoric can justify anti-egalitarianism, obscurantism, censorship, dehumanization or sadism. i'm anti-marxist / anti-leftist yet also agree with the marxian criticism of 'progressivism' as transversal - seeing the issues of collectives in the binary template of bourgeois/proletariat, advocating for identity politics - as fundamentally misguided and fruitless. the sectarian nature of many creates echo chambers and hate cults.
-i have some right-wing intuitions. i believe in the value of tradition, national and religious identity, and hierarchies of competence. i believe in the rights to life, liberty, property, self-defense, bodily autonomy, free speech and freedom to develop one's personality.
-i see national, religious rights as the rights of individuals to associate, but individuals should be protected from communities of coertion that place ideas over people. any person has more inherent dignity than being a vehicle of others' customs. i reject every form of chauvinism, racial or cultural. every community is entirely human. "nothing human is alien to me"
-i believe in inalienable rights. i oppose the capital punishment, brutality, torture, atrocity, and the exercise of collective punishment. i support accountability, rehabilitation, restorative justice, deradicalization, and (mental, holistic) healthcare. i center "victims" as survivors, an active party in their own healing, and reject all mental health stigmas. as long as there is life, there is hope.
GEOPOLITICS AND FOREIGN POLICY:
-warfare is the moral nadir of humanity and is itself a crime which disproportionately destroys young men physically and countless lives and hopes for the interest of a few, who often are safe from it. as far as i'm concerned, all wars are civil wars whether we're there yet emotionally or not. that does not mean i support equidistance between every two causes. diplomacy is not always a solution, or even option. i'm hawkish within reason, not a radical pacifist.
-i don't believe a "multipolar world" is necessarily better if the poles are tyrannical governments just because they're led by non-western imperialists who are "whitewashing" their intent with anti-colonial rhetoric. i support israel in its wars against iranian-funded jihadism and international antizionism. i support a free and european ukraine, democratic hong kong and taiwan, political self-determination.
-antisemitism is one of the most pervasive, insidious and oldest forms of discrimination in the world and the west. meanwhile, half the west is reactionary to LGBTIQ values and half the world remains traditionally violent towards LGBTIQ humanity, despite this being the highest point in human history in terms of individual rights.
-because of that, i think that together with anti-LGBTIQ discrimination, tolerance for antisemitism has become a litmus test in the XXI century for both illiberal and anti-western factions. these forces -reactionarism and antizionist antisemitism- are two sides of a same internal threat to the western world, susceptible to lobbying by foreign agents, like pro-russian and pro-iranian forces, for example.
-these interests will often result in the radicalization of young men to become ultranationalists, christofascists, revolutionary leftists, even jihadists (preying on western muslims), via disinformation / interference. far-right politics have become a proxy of political masculinism for a reason.
-understanding gender roles' impact on men, men's issues, male disposability, misandry, is key to deradicalization as much as fighting political propaganda that preys on young men to use them for organized violence. i no longer identify as a feminist, but i align with sex-positive, queer-friendly and egalitarian feminists. i also align with the defense of men's interests intrinsically and not because it serves any political goal. males are half of humanity and have all its dignity.
-i affirm jewish indigeneity. i'm a jewish ally from a place of recognition of jewish humanity, not political interest nor religion. i oppose all forms of antisemitism (white nationalist, christofascist, christian, secular, international, leftist, soviet, progressive, antizionist, islamic...) i support all the jewish people, observant or not, zionist or not, israeli or diaspora, as jews. as free and living jews. on "white jews": askhenazi indigeneity is intrinsic to jewish indigeneity.
-I/P: jews should have both individual rights, and also the right to a self-determined, secure national existence in their ancestral homeland. any caveat is an unacceptable double-standard and creates a two-tiered vision of human dignity i cannot see a compromise with in the future. never again is now.
PD: i don't think of myself in any particular terms, even less as a "centrist", rather than politically houseless. 'extreme' and 'moderate' are not principles, but distances from whatever is the overton window, so neither is inherently virtuous.
i hold some social views seen as progressive in the US and as transversal or demochristian in the EU; i also identify with many right-leaning positions, including some not present in Europe like the right to bear arms. i used to be an anticlerical leftist.
i can criticize right-wingers, leftists and centrists in the same breath with no dissonance at all. i don't think other cultures are exempt from western criticism either. if a certain political space is plagued by antisemitism, i'm not there.
RELIGION AND THEOLOGY
I'm a gentile Hebrew-speaking and Hebrew-tradition Catholic. What that does mean in our communities:
Roman Catholicism in Israel & Hispanic countries where there is a strong presence of the Bnei Anusim / Conversos / Meshumadim, and a particular if minoritary tradition. Hebrew language and liturgy is associated with the St James Vicariate in Jerusalem.
Relation of spiritual kinship between coreligionaries, jewish & non-jewish, as Catholics. Towards other Israeli/Palestinian Christians, same as any other believers, I support ecumenism. No specific relation or association with other Jews although most Hebrew Catholics are part of the Israeli national community.
What it doesn't mean:
Messianic Judaism (these accusations are fighting words)
Any heretical/schismatic movement away from the Vatican
"Christian Zionism", "Hebrew Christian movement", religious philosemitism with eschatological undertones, or anything associated with Evangelicals or Protestants
"Cultural appropriation" or claiming a Jewish identity
Proselytism towards Jews
What it does mean individually:
Hebrew Catholicism is a spiritual movement, not a single set of 'rules' or a denomination. All rites are Catholic. Observance of Mosaic traditions occurs as cultural and family heritage and NOT as religious observance of Judaism, to different degrees. It is entirely optional but welcome and cherished by all members as Christians make no ethnic or national distinctions.
It represents a historical reversal of the de-hebraization of ethnic Sephardim who have come to sincere belief. This is about heritage, mixed families, fraternity, faith, etc; and about the right to have a national and religious identity at spiritual ease and in social harmony. It may include things like dietary restrictions, holidays, prayers, etc.
I speak some Hebrew and participate/observe some cultural traditions, respectfully, mostly through the study of religious texts. I do not respect people who oppose mixed marriages, families or conciliatory transcultural existence and values.
I know and recognize the anthropological ethnoreligious nature of Judaism, and believe that Judaism should be recognized as centric to Jewishness, worldwide. I also respect the ethnic Jewish identity in those Jews that for secular or other reasons dissociate Jewishness from Judaism, and still see themselves as Jews.
Christians in Israel constitute the infrequent situation of a majority Jewish society with a religious minority in a need of legal protections. I support anti-discrimination efforts for Jews who identify as Christian, as they still face legal and social challenges for their faith, including Shoah survivors who were Jewish enough for the enemies of life and shouldn't be a second thought in a national homeland. I stand with the broader pro-reform and interfaith spirit of solidarity in modern hilonim, not the vision of kahanists, hostile Haredi, (Judeo-)Christophobes, etc.
If you want a more detailed read of my views on Christianity, Judeo-Christian relations, Hebrew Catholicism, theology in general:
On Judeo-Christian relations (polemic against Supersessionism) - I consider Supersessionism one of two doctrines the Church has to seriously address theologically in the spirit of reconciliation, the other being Jewish Deicide, already rebuked decades ago.
On the spirituality of evil in society (somewhat related: destructive v constructive activism as the main pitfall of social justice rhetoric)
On bodily autonomy, religious identity, communities of coertion and heritage (regarding baptism and circumcision)
I may add more eventually
One last comment for people who read this - I don't apologize for voicing my mind and I take what anyone has to say seriously. I don't block people and I don't do 'DNI's.
I try not to be judgmental. Even if something is wrong or comes from unwellness a person is saying it for a reason. The reason is not always obvious at first glance, but it may be sth legitimate and worth being heard. I'm the kind of person who wants to know rather than not.
If you treat people like they're disposable just bc it's inconsequential to you, I'd rather you just go your own way, cos you're gonna find me irksome. I don't understand why someone who clearly doesn't like another person would go their way to like their posts or interact with them, which happens more than you'd expect. Be principled, or at least, be coherent.
For anyone else if you're unsure but open minded about things that's no problem at all, I try to be open minded too. Pls don't be shy if you wanna reach out and talk about anything!
1 note
·
View note
Note
Uhh, re that meme about Tolkien and Catholicism you reblogged: (https://www.tumblr.com/ominouspositivity-or-else/761273299406831616?source=share), I don't know if you read it in-depth and just wanted to do a self-depreciating joke, but if you take into account the other things OP has posted, they're kind of vehemently anti-Catholic¹ so it's probably meant as a nasty bit of mockery.
¹Especially regarding Tolkien's identity since it's a Silmarillion blog... Paraphrased quote from one post would be: "Wish Catholics understood that when Tolkien said he was Catholic HE LIED ta-dahhhh" which imo is very appropriative in a way no one would have accepted if it was about any other religion. Oh and they support the devil-analogue, idk if it bothers you, but it's probably related.
look, i didn't mean it as a self depricating joke. I will gladly make self depricating jokes about catholicism, because in an effort to see myself and my church as we really are, it means knowing where we fail, too.
I meant it as an art joke. To say that someone can only appreciate art if they are of a certain creed or religion is foolish. Tolkien's work is art, and therefore anyone is welcome to try to understand or appreciate it. Catholic or noncatholic, and being catholic isn't a key element to the enjoyment or even necessarily understanding of his work. It's a key element, perhaps, and it can provide a cultural backing, but I think the work is still excellent without any need for it to stand on Catholic roots. It's good in its own right. Although, perhaps I should ask my professor, Dr. M, whose specialty is in Tolkien, if the non-Catholics are allowed to enjoy it, or if that's cultural appropriation.
As an English literature major attending a seriously Catholic College, i hear a lot of opinions like the one expressed by the crow in that meme on the daily. I reblogged it because I thought it was a valid sentiment from someone who clearly likes Tolkien, and isn't Catholic.
I don't vet blogs for more than a single post. I reblog things from all kinds of people. If you simply scroll through my blog, you will see that the opinions of people on anything other than the post i reblog don't really matter to me. I don't know if you're new here or not, anon, but looking at blogs for more in depth analyses of opinions isn't really how tumblr works unless people are really insane abut things.
I am not interested in their literature opinions beyond that single meme, and genuinely I really don't care what they have to say beyond that. Enjoy whatever literature you like. Embrace Catholic art. You're allowed and entitled to your own opinions, even if your perceptions are a little screwed.
Thank you for your time and effort in critiquing my blogging choices, but this blog is mine and I do what I like with it. Your input has been considered and disregarded.
#thanks for the ask!#i like that meme send post#this is everyone's reminder to avoid the intentional fallacy
0 notes
Note
I know prof said that he doesn't like allegories (in morgoth/sauron is not satan thingy) but here's a question i have: in catholic canon self-slaying is a sin and anyone who does that wind's up in "Satan's army" because that means you get no tine to repent, going off of that and connecting it to m&m (if we go by the version that maglor threw himself to the see as in later letters) wat does it mean for them? (Also the "losing the chance to repent" part in the verse is very interesting to me cuz that implies that they could HAVE a chance at it even after all...that)
I....... am not at all familiar with this tradition (my knowledge of Christianity isn’t the best and of Catholicism is negligible) so I’m definitely not the right person to answer this. I would usually try and work through what I think about it, but this particular question combines something I’m not very good at headcanoning about (metaphysics my beloathed <3) with the possibility of offending people by discussing matters related to religious beliefs that exist in the real world. So maybe someone in the notes has interesting thoughts on this, but I will stay in my lane and not offer any half-baked ideas that I might have.
I will say, though, that Tolkien’s views on how Arda relates to our world - including religion - clearly changed a lot over time, so even Tolkien himself might’ve had conflicting thoughts about this kind of deep question. I’m not saying he definitely did, but I think this is a complex issue that only gets more complex if you get his letters and HoME involved.
54 notes
·
View notes
Note
reading tolkien takes me ridiculous amounts of time and I'm trying to work out why exactly is that. his work just rings a bit hollow to me, beautifull story, beautiful world, beautiful words but while I read it, I feel like I'm watching the story and especially the character through glass. LOTR is a story driven story, right? or it is just me not vibing with it as much as I'd like to. cuz I truly want to! the history, the world building makes my heart soar but then I crashland while the characters come into the picture. (Tolkien's allergy towards "human" characters, those that have their own faults and make mistakes does not help at all...) I wonder if it's just me or other people have even a bit similar problems with Tolkien's writing
I think that's an entirely valid opinion to have and not at all an uncommon or unusual experience with Tolkien's works.
My own experience is one of those ones where I love the world, I love the potential, the broad outlines he's given us of characters, but the execution of the story itself? I've a few critiques I'd make if I were in a writing workshop with him. (Stop letting your Catholicism scuttle and undermine how you demonstrate the message of the story. Unless you specifically do want it to be that death is the only form of redemption possible, fuck basic kindness and the power of friendship and love. I somehow don’t think that’s what you’re aiming for.)
It does come down to the fact that Tolkien is doing a specific thing with LOTR, and Middle Earth more broadly. He's got this language he's created, this history he's developed for it, and now he's got a world to make for it and those are ultimately the fundamental details he cared most about. It's where his linguist, academic side really shows through.
Not that he didn't care about his characters, he absolutely did (as is abundantly clear in letters, in writings outside the trilogy). But Tolkien was writing, in many ways, a mash-up of Arthurian legend, Anglo-Saxon epic, and classic fairy tale. All these modes of story telling are ones meant to convey things in a more allegorical format. They're not, traditionally, character driven/deep interiority forms of writing/story telling.
To get a great depth of connection to a character requires a lot more work on the side of the reader than in, let's say, something written by Ursula K. Le Guin or NK Jemison. Even things like Lies of Loch Lamora and hell, Discworld (which started its life as a spoof of works like Tolkien's), have more character-driven-ness than LOTR and I think most of us are more used to that than these more traditional, if at times archaic, modes of story telling.
Because, as you said, LOTR is story-driven, not character-driven. The characters exist as vessels for the story, which can - and in the case of Tolkien does - give them a distant feeling. (Obviously, everyone is different and there are plenty of people who would vehemently disagree with me, and that's fine. To each their own/we all get different things out of different books.)
The withdrawal from the intimate portrait of people that LOTR does is what allows Tolkien to world build so successfully. Doing all that development, while being deep inside someone's head, is hard! It's something GRRM has run into (and I suspect one of many reasons why he's never going to finish ASOIF).
So, yeah, I wouldn't say you're alone in finding connecting with the characters hard and finding the books a bit difficult to sink into the way we would with another series. Tolkien does require the reader to work harder than other writers and, at the same time, he's writing a specific kind of series and it's just not character-first.
My very long way to say, I don't think you're alone and you're right in thinking it's a by-product of how Tolkien has structured his narrative (i.e., story driven entirely which leads to less rich and fleshed out characters, because every approach to a novel has its pros and cons).
Thank you for the message/ask! <3 <3
#like I write super deep interior third person POV#which yes you can world build with that but it's completely different to how Tolkien was doing it#and the effect is different - the purpose is different etc.#he was truly a linguist of anglo-saxon english writing a fantasy world and it shows in what he wanted to do with his world and his writing#which was make it as fleshed out as he could manage - so it would be like studying the history of our own world#sacrifices are made when taking this approach#lotr#ask#reply#lord of the rings
19 notes
·
View notes
Note
so i've seen a lot of people here on tumblr say that Elves are a inherently morally superior race, what do you think about that? it doesn't ring quite right with me but i don't know what would *disclaim* it, idk. sorry
BRO.... LISTEN... it's one of my most hated aspects of fandom. Like this whole 'elven society is a utopia, not like those dirty humans and all their dumb shit' is.. on SO many levels both canonically wrong and also thoroughly playing into the incredibly warped (and racist!) morality system in lotr.
So, the book AND the film (though the film seems content to completely paint elves as perfect and is likely the most to blame for this idea) describe elves as good, blessed, wise etc etc. Many characters, when experiencing elves, feel like they’re in a trance of their beauty and are amazed and dazzled by their presence. But! Elves in Middle Earth have... essentially the same moral record as humans do! They infight, they make mistakes, they do callous things ect. Gildor abandons Frodo to his road despite him knowing more than enough to understand he is in mortal danger. Haldir singles out Gimli as the only untrusted one in the fellowship and threatens to kill him if he tries to leave, despite Gimli being entirely courteous. Galadriel and Celeborn essentially usurped the ruling of Lorinand, changing it’s name and changing the languages spoken there to suit their perceptions and desires. And this is not to mention everything that happened in the First Age. Elves are in no way perfect creatures! But, they are somewhat treated that way so, why?
Well it is this concept of racial divinity, or as I like to say 'the elves are biologically catholic'. Because the place you have to put yourself in is one of good = 'faithful', ie in a religious sense. The morality Tolkien is talking about is catholic morality, which is where we get 'Denethor was prideful because he thought he could see into the future (ie looked at the situation and made a rational calculation) and also suicide is prideful, you're taking away gods hand in your fate' and also 'don't have sex except for when you want children and are in love' and also 'everyone has their place and their appointed task and it is for the good of everyone that they play this task' I could go on but you get the idea.
Basically, the morality Tolkien is talking about is not what we would now consider to be the height of morality, unless you do believe in this sort of thing. So it is better described as Catholicism than morality, hence, Elves (who have biological imperatives that enforce, for example, sex only for procreation and are married the moment they have sex etc) are biologically catholic. And everything they do is blessed, unless! An elf is ‘corrupted’. There is actually a section in NoME which says that elves are monogamous, have sex only with love and children in mind ect UNLESS they are ‘corrupted’. This was where my joke ‘only evil elves can have gay sex’ comes from. So you can see how this version of morality is already pretty uncomfortable to play into right?
But this is also seen in the concepts of 'Men of darkness' vs 'Middle men' vs 'high men'. These are not moral designations, in middle earth you are born into them and you cannot change to which you belong, but they have intensely moral implications. (Whole societies are implied to gradually be able to change their designation over time, but one individual cannot and these changes must happen in the presence or absence of ‘holiness’. So Gondor ‘became like middle men of the twilight’ without the presence of divinely ordained kings and then became ‘high’ again once Aragorn became king.)
The men of darkness are polygamist for a start, they ‘worship sauron’ and are forever classed as evil, Aragorn ‘subjugates the south’ which we are all supposed to agree is a good idea. Faramir says that middle men are too enamoured with battle, noble in their own way but not high minded. 'Righteous Pagan' is the term often thrown around, especially by catholic tolkien scholars. And the High Men come from Numenor, build great empires, are the cleverest and most advanced and live the longest. But! Numenoreans are in no way morally superior, they had a slave trade, they deforested Middle Earth, they colonised middle earth after Numenor’s destruction. The thing that sets them apart is that they are ‘faithful’, for a long time they had great friendship with the elves and they all believed in Eru’s divine right as the one true god over all creation. They also lived closer to ‘heaven’, so much so that they could see Tol Eressea from Numenor some days.
I could get into all the complex narratives surrounding righteousness and the dethroning of god and uncorrupted vs corrupted earth etc and how that is related in Numenor’s rise and fall, but we don’t need to go into that for now. The point is believing in and being faithful to ‘god’ (eru) is good and not believing in him is a corruption and makes you bad. But elves are essentially born with the inherent knowledge that Eru exists, many of them have met his servants and seen his work on the world and they all know he IS the ‘one true god’. Whether or not they agree with his servants is neither here nor there, Feanor made his oath TO Eru, as if he believed the Valar were separate from him. An elf is corrupted if they defy Eru’s will, but that is rare and never comes alongside the idea that Eru doesn’t exist or is in some way an imposter to the throne of Arda. Elves are biologically catholic! And that means they are good, regardless of their actual actions.
This is most blatantly expressed in one of Tolkien’s letters (letter 183 if you’re curious), which states; In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. The Eldar and the Númenóreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants;† if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world. So even if in desperation 'the West' had bred or hired hordes of orcs and had cruelly ravaged the lands of other Men as allies of Sauron, or merely to prevent them from aiding him, their Cause would have remained indefeasibly right.
So, in essentials, Elves and Numenoreans could be entirely cruel and brutal, but so long as they are still fighting for Eru’s divine right, it would all still be ‘in the right’. Which is why, in the story, we have this seeming contradiction of Elves being revered as perfect, whilst displaying a great deal of imperfect behaviours. It’s because morality is not what is being discussed (ie kindness to others, not tolerating unjust violence, respect for all and such) it is divine perfection. Elven society is necessarily homophobic, it is misogynistic, it is racist, it is everything a human society can be and more, especially because these views are so baked into their culture that they appear to be biologically and spiritually enforced. And it definitely is spiritually enforced too! Finwe needs to request Manwe’s permission to wed again, which pretty much confirms that these aspects are divinely demanded.
Now, of course, fandom can do what they like in terms of changing and ignoring these aspects to suit the natural wish for the main supposedly ‘good’ characters to actually be good as we understand it. But simply deciding that the elves are biologically ‘moral’ instead of biologically ‘catholic’ is doing nothing to subvert these issues and is in fact playing directly into very racist ideas whilst sweeping their roots within the text under the rug entirely. You cannot BE biologically moral, one race cannot be more inherently moral than another race and humans are not all stupid, cruel and inferior as a rule. I hope it’s clear why deciding that a race can be morally superior over another is racist ideology, especially when that supposedly morally superior race is also ‘the most beautiful’ in the eyes of a white writer.
106 notes
·
View notes
Text
I find it a little silly that the takeaway from “X isn’t an allegory for Y” is “YOU’RE JUST UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE SOCIOPOLITICAL COMMENTARY ON AMERICAN IMPERIALISM AND FASCISM IN STAR WARS YOU BIG DUMB PATHETIC IDIOT!”—not least because the sociopolitical commentary on Imperialism & Fascism (including American) is one of my favorite aspects of Star Wars
like yes, thank you, I’m super aware Lucas drew in part from his feelings about the Vietnam War to make socio-political commentary about Imperialism & Democracy in America. I never said he didn’t. That is not the same thing as “Star Wars is literally a 1:1 allegory for Vietnam”.
Nothing linked here in any way refutes what I said. As I already mentioned in a previous addition to this post, simply taking inspiration or making commentary on something is not the same as allegory. People make this mistake with Tolkien all the time too, acting like the fact his Catholicism & experience fighting in WWI informed his writing means Lord of the Rings is an allegory for Christianity or the World Wars where “the ring = the atomic bomb” or sin or whatever. Tolkien responded to this misconception by explaining there is a difference between allegory & applicability.
Lucas borrowed broadly from a wide array of sources, from Samurai films to science fiction serials like Buck Rogers to Dune to Joseph Campbell to WWI dogfights and WWII Nazi stormtroopers to the American Revolution to the Vietnam War. Even the sources you linked say this: “Star Wars’ original trilogy had many inspirations”. That doesn’t make Star Wars “an allegory for WWII” or “just a Dune rip off”, and it doesn’t make it “an allegory for Vietnam”.
If you actually pay attention & listen to what he actually said in context, it’s very clear that when he mentions Vietnam it is as an influence as part of a much broader social commentary about Empire—including but not limited to American Imperialism. In exactly the same interview that George Lucas makes this comparison to the Vietnam War—in the exact same breath that he compares his Rebels to guerrilla fighters in Vietnam—he is also comparing his Rebels to American Revolutionaries fighting the British Empire:
youtube
Likewise with Palpatine & Nixon, yes Lucas has said Nixon was a big inspiration for Palpatine (namely his attitude that “it’s not illegal if the president does it”), but he’s also listed Julius Caesar, Hitler, and Bonaparte as well. There are some details that fit Nixon, but some that fit Hitler or other people a lot better. It’s not 1:1. Because, again, it’s not an allegory for Vietnam, it just draws inspiration from it—along with dozens & dozens of other sources.
Just taking a sound bite about one of many influences and running with it to overextend it & make the entire story a 1-for-1 code for that singular thing is exactly the “piss on the poor” shallow, fake-deep media comprehension I’m criticizing here. So I’m not altogether surprised that, when I push back against this shallow reading, the exact same people read “Star Wars is not an allegory for the Vietnam War” and somehow hear “George Lucas didn’t take any inspiration from the Vietnam War at all & Star Wars has nothing to say about American Imperialism”
So thank you for demonstrating exactly what I’m criticizing and for your super well-adjusted & proportionate response to my post ✌️
“Star Wars is an allegory for the Vietnam War” and “Firefly is an allegory for the Confederate Lost Cause” are two weirdly popular fandom myths I wish would just die already
#wild. is this how you usually talk to random people?#if you’re gonna come out swinging with that level of vitriolic disdain calling people ‘pathetic’ & ‘idiots’#please actually make sure you can read the words they wrote#piss on the poor website#star wars
79 notes
·
View notes
Note
I was talking to a friend about prophecies in LOTR, and she made some reference about Tolkien using Catholic word choice (something along those lines?) and that’s how he made the prophecy work (like switching things around?) I was just like “yeah, totally” because I was too embarrassed to ask. Can you explain this please? I am not Catholic, but I love reading LOTR series and would like to understand more. Thanks!
Hi there!
I'm not entirely sure, if this is a Catholic thing. I always thought that Tolkien's catholicism is visible in how he handles redemption arcs and the subject of pity, remorse, sin and salvation.
I think one of the most important things about LotR is that Frodo, the hero, fails. He fails because he is a fragile human being who cannot resist the pull of the Ring forever. At the same time, the task itself is fulfilled, and this happens because Bilbo and Frodo both at a much earlier point chose pity. The Bagginses (and to a certain extent Sam's) pity for Gollum is the one crucial lynchpin that makes a good ending possible. It's not a reward for their persistence, it's a gift that comes unexpectedly from one of their good deeds.
The prophecies and visions in LotR are not necessarily catholic I'd say, only in the sense that it is difficult to interprete them correctly and that they can mean something completely different than what seems to be obvious.
Some prophecies are straigth forward. "From ashes the fire will rise" (or something like that) is a prophecy of Aragorn's rise to kingship and there is not much room to wriggle around that. Other prophecies are more ambiguous. Aragorn has to choose the "Paths of the Dead" to bring help to Gondor and this is ambiguous and a bit ominous, but there is a solution where he doesn't have to die. Finding the right meaning helps our heroes to move forward. Using the "paths of the Dead" but as Isildur's heir is the solution that enables Aragorn to use the terrible ghosts to his advantage.
Then there are visions that show truth but can only be understood at the right moment. Sam sees Frodo lying as if sleeping of the path of Cirith Ungol but only when this really happens does Sam understand that Frodo was "dead" in his vision. Frodo is not really dead, but the important thing is that this "understanding" makes Sam take the ring - that doesn't fall into the Orcs' hands as a result.
Sometimes prophecies and visions can be misleading as well (and this is a trope that is older than catholicism). Denethor has a vision of the ships from Umbar sailing towards Minas Tirith and despairs because he doesn't know that Aragorn and help is on the ships. The people of Laketown have a prophecy about the river and the lake turning to gold when the King under the Mountain returns, and this prophecy gets fulfilled in a gruesome way when Smaug the dragon attacks their town and the river runs golden because of the fire that rains on the town.
So, Tolkien loved to play with prophecies and use them in different ways and not straight forward. We know that he thought that the prophecy in MacBeth and the solution about the forest coming down to tear MacBeth from his throne was a bit lame. He invented Ents to have a realy walking and vengeful forest!
If you had asked me, what I think gives Catholic vibes in Tolkien I would not have named the prophecies, to be honest. All in all, the catholicism is clearly there, but it's more about the low and deep currents than about the surface if you get what I mean.
People fail and they can be forgiven. Middle Earth is beautiful but it is not perfect. In the long run good acts pay off in ways we might not forsee. Boromir regrets his failure and saves Pippin and Merry. Merry saves Eowyn and Pippin saves Faramir. Boromir's sacrifice was not in vain. Bilbo pities Gollum and lets him live, so does Frodo and later Sam. Gollums - a tortured soul - betrays Frodo but in the end it is Gollum who saves the world because Frodo, the hero, failed.
It is never explicit. Gandalf says that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring but not by Sauron. By whom? The Valar? Illuvater himself? This question is never answered.
Thanks for the ask! It is a very interesting subject!
25 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Mother’s Choice
Hi, i want to talk about the theme of maternal abandonment via death in Tolkien’s works.
I’m certain someone else has already written meta on this subject, but I couldn’t find it, so, hey, two cakes. If you’ve already written one, sorry, I’m not ripping you off, I just also have thoughts.
Specifically, I want to talk about mothers who in some way exercise their right to choose death, and offer a brief thesis on why I think that is. We see this as a repeated theme in Tolkien’s works, so, first, a crumb of context.
Tolkien’s father died when he was quite young; the last time Tolkien saw him, he would have been three years old. His mother raised him and his younger brother, Hilary, back in England (they were born in South Africa). Mabel, his mother, was a Type 1 Diabetic. She also converted to Roman Catholicism, which becomes important to the story. They moved back in with her parents after the death of her husband, but her parents were Baptists, and she refused to renounce Catholicism. She taught her children at home, struggled to make ends meet, and died of complications of diabetes in 1904, when Tolkien was 12. After this, Tolkien and his brother were raised in an orphanage.
Of her, Tolkien said, “My own dear mother was a martyr indeed, and it is not to everybody that God grants so easy a way to his great gifts as he did to Hilary and myself, giving us a mother who killed herself with labour and trouble to ensure us keeping the faith.”
He does not say that she died of a disease. He does not say she was killed by lack of charity (her family stopped all financial assistance to them when she would not convert). He says she “killed herself,” specifically to ensure that her children were raised in faith.
Let’s take a look at Míriel, Elwing, Aredhel, and Celebrían.
Míriel þerinde
Míriel is the first wife of Finwë, and the mother of Fëanor. She is an acclaimed crafter, weaver, and needleworker, and passed a love of beautiful things on to her son, who loved her dearly, though he did not share her gentle and patient temperament.
Famously, Míriel chooses to die. Giving life to Fëanáro saps her life’s essence, and she holds on until he is just barely an adult, then passes away and refuses to return, too weary of life. Her son is raised by his father, who himself is consumed by grief, and eventually by a stepmother he despises.
Elwing
Elwing, daughter of Dior and Nimloth, does not exactly die. She does, however, choose to throw herself off of a cliff clutching the Silmaril, rather than let it be taken by the Sons of Fëanor. She is then turned into a bird by Ulmo and spirited away across the sea, but as far as we know, never sees her young sons, Elrond and Elros, again (or at least not until the Dagor Dagarath). I could go deeply into Elwing’s choices here, but suffice to say: she chooses the Silmaril’s protection, and her belief that it keeps her people safe in a world falling to ruin, over staying with her children. It’s important to note that she had no idea she would survive. She did not call upon Ulmo. She simply jumped, and believed that she was going to her death, and her sons were raised by their kidnappers.
Aredhel
Aredhel is the only daughter of Fingolfin (and a particularly dear character to me). She is a free and unbridled spirit, until she is captured by Eöl and taken as his wife. Eventually, she escapes Eöl with her son, Maeglin, and returns home to Gondolin, only to be followed by Eöl. He throws a poisoned spear at Maeglin, and Aredhel throws herself in front of it--choosing death, in essence, and leaving her son without her, in a city where he is a stranger.
Celebrían
Celebrían is the daughter of Galadriel and Celeborn, and the wife of Elrond. Much like Elwing, Elrond’s mother, she does not specifically die. She is attacked and tortured by orcs, and despite all of Elrond’s skill in healing (famed throughout Middle-Earth), no ease could be found from her torment, and she sets sail for Valinor, leaving her daughter and two sons behind.
Over and over, we see the same theme: mothers choosing death or permanent separation from their children, but not in a way that holds them to blame for it. (Lúthien could technically also count here but I’m not including her and I’m right not to.)
I just think it’s fascinating that multiple times, we see mothers dying--but in a way that always makes it clear that they have agency, they’re not just being killed to advance pain for a male character. It’s tragic and horrible that they die, and damn I wish Aredhel’s story had ended so differently, but I think it’s important to note that Tolkien was giving them what he thought of as the most possible dignity and power in their deaths, from what he saw at a very young age.
272 notes
·
View notes