Spengler on Tolkien

"... and a greater hope than that of the work of our hands and the hone of our swords must avail us"... sure... there is a spiritual need for something greater than the mythical works of human hands: Bible, LOTR, Narnia etc... Tolkien and Lewis don't provide anything unshifting and certain... since they worked with a familiarity of the Bible which is of course an anthology of myths... myths that will always have shifting and uncertain interpretations... I see the greatest hope arising from the idea of the Reality of God... not from myths about God...
...
faith hope love joy peace to all...

Just want to thank Rod for the 1 1/2 years I have been visiting his blog, however you have been leaning towards the anti-Bush , pro choice position and I will find it depressing when you finally leave the Orthodox church and march on Washington with your BUSH=HITLER sign.So I won't be back, I am off to other blogs. Good Luck & God Bless

Ben, those were my thoughts as well.

GIAH, attacks no one, states his opinion and so far is allowed to post. Maybe what's disconcerting is what the message is.

"Anonymous", where in my post could "attack" be construed, and which part of "narrowness of vision" fails to convey my intended meaning? I join Ben and the others in rejecting the Lewis-Tolkien comparisons. Even if one were to replace Narnia with his Out of the Silent Planet trilogy, there would still be major gaps preventing it. Besides, most critics (I have found) find it difficult to distinguish between good writing that plays to the strengths of the author, and writing that the author intends for some specific purpose or as part of some agenda. I enjoy deconstructing artists as much as the next person, but I think the artist's own words about his intent should carry a bit more weight than someone looking to make a name for himself with mindreading that draws conclusions others would like to believe. I'm not even an ex-Christian, never having been even mildly indoctrinated in any version of it; yet, I found Lewis' final chapter in "The Last Battle" to be uplifting, and one of the finest pieces of writing I've ever encountered, for adults or children. Let that be our benchmark.

Giah, Your plaint is a worthy one. I suggest you look at it from a broader perspective, and at least browse the works of any of the major fantasy writers of the last 30-40 years. My favorites (in no particular order) are Poul Anderson, Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan and Patricia McKillip. There are many others of good quality. They all follow the Campbellian path of partaking of the "universal" themes of ethics, morality, and the human condition. In my experience, clarity comes to each of us according to our natures, and based on the amount of effort we put into the quest. "Myth about Myth", as you put it, is in my view one of the primary requirements of civilization.

one more "BIG IDEA" to add to the mix: Myth does not have to be true to have a powerful effect on persons... it only has to be believed to be true... a good example of this is all the Religions of the world... LOTR and Narnia are relatively insignificant since no one believes they are true stories...
...
faith hope love joy peace to all...

I wouldn't classify Tolkien's work in general as tragedy but as elegy (although The Children of Hurin) is definitely a tragedy, and an excellent one at that. In the Old English poem, "The Wanderer" (which has echoes in some of the Rohan-related verse in LoTR), the narrator recognizes the transience of the world and sees in God the only permanent hope. That theme is found throughout Tolkien's corpus (including Hurin's endurance in the face of Morgoth). I think that Spengler does perceive the idea at the core of Tolkien's work - "In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien returned to this theme of faith in a higher power rather than in one's own force of arms. It is not the valor of the small remnant of free peoples that overcomes Sauron (Morgoth's successor) but rather the improbable mission of the Ringbearer that will overcome the Darkness that threatens Middle-earth." The beautiful creation myth of the Ainulindale, the tragedies of the Silmarillion, the Fall of Numenor, and the Lord of the Rings are all illustrations of our continued failure to say "not my will, but thine be done," and of the fact that, as Tolkien wrote to his son, "evil labours with vast powers and perpetual success -- in vain; preparing always only the soil for unexpected good to sprout in."

Let me say at the outset that C.S. Lewis was my favorite writer as a child (my brother's favorite, as I've said elsewhere, was Kurt Vonnegut) but as I get older, I find Tolkien to be the more sophisticated moralist.
His understanding of evil, particularly, feels a lot more on target, and also a lot more compassionate and mature. Take the contrast between the deaths of Theoden and Denethor, for instance, or the creation of Gollum. "What a pity Bilbo did not stab the vile creature while he had the chance." "Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand." etc. You get the idea.

I think the difference in how each author portrayed evil is not in the depth of understanding, but in how each chose to express it in their writings. It seems to me that Lewis wrote as if the battle were always and constantly being engaged...in the heat of it, so to speak; while Tolkien also wrote of the times in-between, when both sides had fallen back for regrouping, and weren't always actively engaging. Early on, Lewis certainly had epic inner battles going on, and this may have shaped the way he wrote about moral issues.

At times, Lewis seems like a scold to me. And, this seems rather childish. I mean, I have tremendous admiration for Lewis and for some of his fiction (as well as nonfiction) particularly "Perelandra" and "Till We Have Faces."
But, in his disdain for some of his protaganists there is something akin to self-hatred. Mark and Jane Studdock in "That Hideous Strength" come to mind. I enjoyed the book tremendously, but felt he looked down his protaganists in a way that was not good for his literature, or for that matter, for his life.

I should really take the time to read some of Lewis nonfiction and apologetics but his Narnia chronicles were so god-awful, I'm afraid it tainted my view of his writing.

Thanks, Zak. I had another thought about the famous "Pity and Mercy" speech. Gandalf isn't scolding or lecturing Frodo in this speech. Instead, he is speaking a deep truth about the way the world works. "Not even the very wise can see all ends."
When I think of Lewis at his preachiest, I think he is lecturing and scolding his characters, or looking down on them, in a way that I find very off-putting. (Of course, there is a lot more to C.S. Lewis than that. But, I definitely prefer Tolkien as the more subtle and superior moralist.)

Interesting opinions. Lewis' writing style never engaged me, even as a kid. I have mined many great quotes out of his writing, but never enjoyed the work itself. John Derbyshire at NR said Lewis reminded him too much of the doughy pedantic school-masters he grew up with.
Lewis was a great apologist, but there's something in that.

I found Narnia first, during that period of my young life when science fiction was all good (we're talking a deep love of Tom Swift... cue the barfing). I devoured the seven books, then immediately bought all three when I learned about OotSP. OotSP was okay. Perelandra was boring. That Hideous Strength was unremittingly depressing*. I wondered if it was a different C.S. Lewis who wrote them. I had to force myself to read Screwtape, though I'm very glad I did. * Ironically, the Unbeliever trilogy by Stephen R. Donaldson is imo some of the best fantasy ever written... and I cannot force myself to reread it. I own all six The Land books in hardback. Donaldson just doesn't give me enough room to like him, the author, as well as his characters. The Mirror of Her Dreams and A Man Rides Through are very good. But I will read nothing else by him. Emotional burnout, methinks.

Point taken, Franklin. However, I read an article a year or two ago (it might have been linked to from theOneRing website) which suggested that the rivalry between Lewis and Tolkien was occasionally a bit nastier than those who think fondly of the Inklings would like to believe. (Sibling rivalry often gets very nasty, and the two men were certainly brothers in a friendship sense as well as a Christian sense.) I offer my comments above as someone who spent much of my childhood searching for the Wardrobe to find my way into Narnia, and who probably read the entire series about 50 times (literally).
(I had a bad case of repetition compulsion when I was a child. Sometimes, to be honest, I still do. Before I read "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince," I had to go back and "OOTP" and then after I read it I went back and read the entire series.)

I think their rivalry was very much on both of their minds. I've had dreams of sitting at the table or standing at the bar of the pub where the Inklings met. I have to be careful to not quote from those dreams (not that I've done so here). :) Welcome to the club. Besides the Potter series, I'm also awaiting the next installment of The Sword of Truth (Terry Goodkind) and The Wheel of Time (a very ill Robert Jordan, for whom some of us work to send him good thoughts for his own sake, as well as for his series being completed). My reread count is a bit more than would be indicated by the number of books in each series. If you enjoy the repetitions, I see no reason to think of it as a "bad case". :)

As to your dreams, Franklin, I hope to make a pilgrimage to "The Bird and Baby" someday (if it still exists) and I wish that for you and the others here as well. Then we all can have a pint and imagine the fascinating and challenging conversations.

Kim, how is that the message of the Silmarillion when it is only through the intervention of the Valar that Morgoth is overthrown and exiled from the world?

Sorry to interrupt and be off point. I sent Rod an email about this. I am not sure of the full details in the snippet below, but it seems like a crunchy concern. It may be an exaggeration, but it is worth looking into. I am going to look into it in more detail. Judge for yourselves and follow the links to the FDA posting page. Be aware there is a time limit on public input hence the breach of protocol on my part. My apologies if this is bad form, but if true it's a little more mordor in our lives. Please read below: When it comes to health freedom, this is the FDA's end game. A new FDA "guidance" document, published on the FDA's website, reveals plans to reclassify virtually all vitamins, supplements, herbs and even vegetable juices as FDA-regulated drugs. Massage oils and massage rocks will be classified as "medical devices" and require FDA approval. The document is called Docket No. 2006D-0480. Draft Guidance for Industry on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.

I forgot to add: if that's a little more Mordor in our lives, I think we have misplaced our priorities. By all means, be informed and take part in the comment process; there is no function of citizenship more important than providing input (and perhaps bringing some sanity) to our bureaucracies. Just don't make assumptions... Zak, the Noldor returned to Middle Earth (Arda) against the express will of the Valar -- hence, they were called the Exiles. As I recall, it was pity for the younger races, men and dwarves, that prompted the final intervention and capture of Morgoth. We may quibble with how Kim put it, but I think she has it right: direct intervention does more harm than good. People need to earn their freedom (hint: yes, I have certain current events in mind). :)

Franklin, I never thought of the Valar as a parallel for American foreign policy. :-) Is that what Kim meant?
I just don't see "the gods" (Valar)experiencing folly by intervening in the affairs of mortals. Unless it was folly to lead the Elves to Valinor in the first place. I think it was as emissary of both men and elves the Earendil was able to contact the Valar. And I think extrapolating from a cosmic struggle against evil (which as Tolkien portrays goes in as much in the heart of each person as between armies) to any sort of geopolitical conflict is dangerous. I guess now I'm thinking of current events. :-)

Which is in contrast to Lewis's shotgun blast of Christian theology mixed with fantasy creatures.

Mordorization, I like that...er...no I don't...I mean I do but not in the bad sense.

Till We Have Faces, by C. S. Lewis... I wish I could give free copies to anyone here who hasn't read it and would be willing to. That is great literature. I'd like to see more people, non-Christian as well as Christian, discover that book. It really is a major British novel of the 20th century. It should be read by people who might, say, read Greene's The Power and the Glory without necessarily being interested in Roman Catholicism. Would others who have read it agree? It's full of Christian meaning but it is not A Christian Novel. It's about love....

No, I wasn't comparing Silmarillion or any of Tolkein's work to American foreign policy unless you look at it as a common historical thread from the Pax Romanum to the White Man's Burden.
With the Valar's "help" half of Middle Earth was destroyed. Thanks for nothin'.
Before we turn this into a fanboy site, a word about the FDA plans. This is so sensible that I cannot believe the Bush regime is doing it. The only explanation I have is they are trying to shake down the magic weight loss and pecker enhancement pill lobbyists. Kim M

Major, Till We have Faces is excellent. There are few books that I enjoyed reading more.