My beef with Lord of the Rings

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy the book and movie (to be correct) but what has always confused me is the section where Aragorn summons the dead armies to fight (Paths of the Dead). I don't see the Christian implications in this. I mean the rest of LotR has strong Christian undercurrents, but this passage seems to go against Christian belief (necromancy). I'm curious to hear others views on the subject.

[dragonshimmer]

I've never really paid close attention to the Christian implications in this movie. However, in reference to Paths of the Dead, I wonder if perhaps it's a reference to "and the dead shall rise"? I'm not quite sure, but isn't there a reference to that in Revelations? I'm not quite sure.

And, I'm not saying that that's what I think that could be. I'm quite curious myself, now that you've brought up the issue.

[Zane]

You wait, this will probably be moved into the Book corner or something... i think...

Um, well I don't even understand the Christian undercurrents myself, and so I don't have a clue about the dead guys. Maybe... like Purgatory??? Tolkin was a Catholic... but that would imply works to get to heaven right? Yeah.

Cause they we're noble men but then didn't hold their oath so... I don't know. And I don't know if you wanna take purgatory into this debate, cause the catholic bible has it in there, but the prodestant bible dosn't...
But lets not discuss that.

I really don't know, but thats my best guess this far. I wanna know now aswell

[ShiroiHikari]

well for one, LOTR isn't supposed to be explicitly Christian material. so you can't expect everything in it to coincide with Christianity. it's a work of fantasy.

the reason the men are cursed to walk the earth forever is because they were traitorous. the only person who could lift that curse was Aragorn since he was the heir of Isildur. they fulfilled their duty to Gondor and then were released from the curse. how is this a negative thing other than the fact that they were dead guys? Aragorn didn't -raise- them from the dead, they were already dead. so it's not necromancy.

oh btw, thread moved.

[uc pseudonym]

I would never attempt to make Lord of the Rings work perfectly with Christian values. As ShiroiHikari said, Tolkein said it was not meant to be explicitly Christian, I consider it merely a work of fantasy. Because it is such, vaguely necromantic parts are acceptable.

Though I would point out that the dead armies were not really raised; they remained dead, they were merely tied to the earth because of their oath.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Sorry! I see where you are coming from but I still don't get it. Maybe LotR isn't explicitly Christian, but Tolkien was a Christian and having a good character (Aragorn) fighting the enemy with undead just seems no worse than a bad character using dark supernatural forces for their own ends. They are both evil acts. I'll end here. I'm just curious.

Thankyou!

[termyt]

I don't think there's anything wrong with your curiosity. Tolkien was a Christian and it is reflected in LotR. I don't think Aragorn's use of the cursed is contradictory at all, nor do I think it was evil. The cursed had made a pact that they obey the lord of Gondor, whom they betrayed. As a consequence for breaking their oath, they were tied to Middle Earth and could not rest. They were doomed for all eternity to wander.

Aragorn did not cause their predicament, they caused it themselves by being the traitorous dogs they were. What Aragorn did was in no way evil. (I think you may be confusing the cursed men with other concepts of the walking dead like zombies and vampires and such. Mixing fantasy worlds can be confusing.)

What Aragorn did do was very good, and could have been even considered merciful, save for the profit he reaped from it. He offered them, the cursed, the lost, the damned, a chance at salvation. Aragorn did what only Aragorn could do. He offered the cursed men freedom from their bondage if, after all these years, they finally made good on their pact to defend Gondor.

Not as altruistic as our own Lord's gift of salvation and freedom from sin that we experience. Flat out, our Lord does not need us to do anything, He simply wishes us to. Even still, that is the reflection Tolkien is casting here. Aragorn, lord of Gondor, offered forgiveness and salvation to those who had wronged Gondor if they would only turn from their wickedness and fulfill the pact they had made. That was not an evil use of the evil dead; that was an offering of mercy to the lost.

[uc pseudonym]

Let me clarify that I do think your question was an acceptable one; it merely is not a question I have. Also, I would echo what termyt said in regard to the problem. That is basically how I look at it.

[aule1701]

what !!!
has anybody read the book they are not dead mearly cursed and live in the mountians aragorn goes and gathers them.
the movie decided to go with the undead thing not tolkein
also the book had some christian undertones as well as evromental ones he saw what we are doing to the planet and that was a primary topic in the book

[Sharon Rose]

Aule here has a good point.

[ZionPsalmist]

An important point to remeber when looking at LOTR (and any fantasy for that matter) is the fact that the world the writer creates comes this certain "laws" much like our own world. Certain laws tend to be common through all most all fantasy, gravity for example is rarely questioned. "Magic", on the otherhand, is something few people go into detail about. Tolkien created a world where there was "magic" (though he did not wish to call it "magic"), however that magic was not Witchcraft (or any of the subsets such as Divination or Necromancy). "Magic" in Middle-Earth was an art like form used exclusivly by Wizards and Elves (though please note that each of these race's "magic" was used differently). One must understand this to see the truth behind the "magic" holding the army on middle-earth, a "magic" which could have been enacted (not cast) by Gandalf or an ancient Elf. Aragorn enacted no "magic" to gain their aid, but mearly offered them a choice. How they got to be how they are is not Aragorns problem (or doing), therefore even if necromance had been used to place the curse on the men, The True King would never be at fault.

I, personaly, see a great deal of Christian ideas in this part of Tolkien's story. I picture Aragorn much like a Christian witnessing to un-belieavers. The Cursed are like unbelieaver, who, when they accept the choice to fight in the King (of King's) army, move from death (the curse of sin) to life.

[Kireihana]

what !!!
has anybody read the book they are not dead mearly cursed and live in the mountians aragorn goes and gathers them.
the movie decided to go with the undead thing not tolkein
also the book had some christian undertones as well as evromental ones he saw what we are doing to the planet and that was a primary topic in the book

Actually Aule, in the book they are dead. The name "Paths of the Dead" is quite accurate. However, the reason they are dead is because they betrayed the king of Gondor long ago (it was Isildur, correct?) and he cursed them to "living death" (as in they couldn't depart from the world, even though they were dead) until they answered the call of Isildur's heir.

Not on par with the Bible, but like others have said Tolkien wasn't out to write a biblical analogy. C.S. Lewis did that. I don't see how the Paths of the Dead scenario is any worse than Gandalf and Saruman's wizarding, the elf-magic or the many forms of Sauron's evil. So I'm not bothered by it, but I see how your question is justified. Personally I thought the movie's rendition of "the dead" was kind of corny. lol. Still a huge fan, though.

[Jeikobu]

I love LOTR for its Christian background. I have seen so many metaphors.
-There are alot of spoken things in the movie that have Christian values. The one that always springs to my mind first is when Gandalf says "all we have to decide is what to do with the time that has been given to us". Also, in ROTK, when he's talking to Pippin about "whites shores", "silver glass", etc., it's clear he's talking about heaven.
-Gandalf (one of the most major). His "wizardry" is more like a representation of God's power
-Aragorn returning as king is like Jesus returning as king
-The eagles always make me thing of the Bible passages about being lifted up on the wings of eagles, I can't remember what part of the Bible it is, but it's a great passage (among many of course )
-I also like the fight with the Balrog since it's a battle of complete good against compete evil. It's a like spiritual warfare, a strong Christian battlinga principality.
-Sam and Frodo's friendship is also very, very touching. It makes me think of the Scripture passage: "There is no greater love than that one would lay down his life for his friends."
There are many others too, but those really spring to mind.

Smeagol is also a very, very realistic representation of what a demon-possessed person is like.

[Mangafanatic]

Personally, I'm sorta burned out on all the grasping attempts to make every comma of Tolkien's work allegorical. I wish people could just take LOTR as a story. And a great story.

But it's not a word-for-word account of the gospel. I know a great many people who seem to think it is.

As far as the "Calling up of the Dead", I see this as a purely fictional element, utilized for the sake of good story telling. Sorta like Casper the Friendly Ghost. Yes, Casper was a wandering spirit, an idea that directly contradicts scripture, but I just loved those stories about that Orphan Annie of the undead. Personally, I was never sucked into a curiousity votex concerning the "undead", but rather I just enjoy a story about a character who was positive despite the bullying of his evil uncles.

And as Kireihana alluded to, I find much more ground to condemn LOTR on it use of witchcraft that the calling of the undead.

Just my two cents. (And as others have said, Aragorn didn't raise them from the dead. He enlisted their aid.) But every person must decide where their line in the sand is. If Aragorn calling the souls of the dead to help him win a battle is too much for you, it isn't anyone's place to question that. And I certainly won't.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

I'm not trying to say it is an allegory, I'm just curious.
Pray tell where is the witchcraft in LotR other than Sauraman and Sauron use (and they are evil). I thought the undead part was the only controversial part of the book and now that is cleared up I thank everyone and understand that i was wrong.

[Mangafanatic]

Gandalf is a wizard. Unless he's a harmless Glenda-esque"Good Witch", I'm going to assume they say he's a wizard because he practices sorcery. . .

[ZionPsalmist]

According to works of Tolkien (not in story, but writings), the wizards where not human (the race of man) but some higher being. He referms to them in a term a forget, but it is similar to angel. With Gandalf reprisenting "angels" and the other wizards reprisenting "demons." (Tolkien never called them angels or demons, but eluded to them being a tool of the creator, which would relate them to angels and demons in real life.) Their "Magic" is not through studying, but given to them at their creation.

[Ashley]

Well, as far as wizards go, I'm willing to bet Tollkien knew full well what the word "wizard" would imply when he used it to describe Gandalf. Higher being or not, he did not have to call them "wizards", and his chosing of that specific word has caused a lot of controversy.

I think Osaka has a point. LOTR is a great, epic story and yes, it was written by a Christian, so you can pick up on *some* Christian themes. But it isn't an allegory, nor was it meant to be. It's the same as the Matrix--you could pick up some themes like Neo being born again, Neo being the "one", the Savior, able to raise the dead to life, etc. etc. etc. But you've also got some pretty clear "be your own savior" messages and eastern influences that skew things when you try to make it into an allegory. I'm not saying you shouldn't recognize themes that could be Christian, just don't go around claiming them as Christian works when they were not meant to be. Otherwise it obscures things and makes it hard to reconcile them when people pressure you about it--and they WILL pressure you about it because they know you're a Christian.

[Debitt]

"I despise allegory in all its forms" - J.R.R. Tolkein

[Mangafanatic]

"I despise allegory in all its forms" - J.R.R. Tolkein

AH HA! So that's the exact wording on that quote. I've been talking to my parents about LOTR not being an allegory. They're quite devoted to the idea (My dad has gone so far as to say that the reason Frodo and Sam are saved in the end by the eagel lords is because of the verse in the Bible that talks about "rising up on the wings of eagels") I knew he said something to that effect, but I couldn't find it in print.

Many thanks Kokoro Daisuke.

[uc pseudonym]

For the record, Gandalf does explicitly use magic (or sorcery, if we want to take that route about the entire thing). In The Hobbit he tosses fireballs, and when they first run into the Balrog he references spells and counter-spells.

Personally, I'm with the non-allegory crowd.

[Debitt]

Many thanks Kokoro Daisuke.

You are very welcome. Poor Tolkein must be turning in his grave with all this overanalyzing of LOTR.

[Jeikobu]

^That's what my dad said also. I think it's pretty cool myself. ^^

According to works of Tolkien (not in story, but writings), the wizards where not human (the race of man) but some higher being. He referms to them in a term a forget, but it is similar to angel. With Gandalf reprisenting "angels" and the other wizards reprisenting "demons." (Tolkien never called them angels or demons, but eluded to them being a tool of the creator, which would relate them to angels and demons in real life.) Their "Magic" is not through studying, but given to them at their creation.

That's sort of how I view it. I never really thought about it in that detail, but I see Gandalf's power as God's power through a strong believer, and Saruman's power as witchcraft.

[Mangafanatic]

^That's what my dad said also. I think it's pretty cool myself. ^^

That's sort of how I view it. I never really thought about it in that detail, but I see Gandalf's power as God's power through a strong believer, and Saruman's power as witchcraft.

So, how is it that Gandalf gets power from God? People keep telling me that, but I don't see it. . .

[Jeikobu]

It never actually mentions God or anything, but just from the way it's portrayed, and from the way Gandalf's character is, you know his power is not supposed to be real witchcraft. It was written by Tolkien, a Christian, and I can't see why he'd make one the main heroes an actual sorcerer. A theory of mine is maybe he made Gandalf a wizard so he'd have a way to give him great powers, but he still didn't have to portray him like a real wizard. He didn't actually mention God and make it clear about Gandalf's powers being from God, but this way he could slip in Chrisitan metaphors and still make it appeal to non-believers. Just a thought.

[Mangafanatic]

It never actually mentions God or anything, but just from the way it's portrayed, and from the way Gandalf's character is, you know his power is not supposed to be real witchcraft.

Back up for me. Says who?

It was written by Tolkien, a Christian, and I can't see why he'd make one the main heroes an actual sorcerer.

As a writter, I can tell you why he probably did. Because it's a story. The object is to give people an escape from reality. In Tolkien's case, part of doing that is creating an unreal world-- one that happened to have a sorcerer, complete with magic. There's no reason why he shouldn't use magic as a literary device, IMHO.

A theory of mine is maybe he made Gandalf a wizard so he'd have a way to give him great powers, but he still didn't have to portray him like a real wizard.

If he uses magic, what keeps him from being a "real wizard"? No evil laughter or limping minion, perhaps?

He didn't actually mention God and make it clear about Gandalf's powers being from God, but this way he could slip in Chrisitan metaphors and still make it appeal to non-believers. Just a thought.

As I said, Tolkien hated allegories so I somewhat doubt that. But he's dead, so of course I can't ask him.

Um, yeah, okay. Koroko Daisuke listed a very important quote on the last page. "I despise allegory in all its forms". The man said it himself.

[Souba]

It never actually mentions God or anything, but just from the way it's portrayed, and from the way Gandalf's character is, you know his power is not supposed to be real witchcraft. It was written by Tolkien, a Christian, and I can't see why he'd make one the main heroes an actual sorcerer. A theory of mine is maybe he made Gandalf a wizard so he'd have a way to give him great powers, but he still didn't have to portray him like a real wizard. He didn't actually mention God and make it clear about Gandalf's powers being from God, but this way he could slip in Christian metaphors and still make it appeal to non-believers. Just a thought.

I totally agree with you Jeikobu. Tolkien even said in one letter that he had not set out out to make a Religous work, but as he went back to edit he began conciuosly making it one. So when I first read Lotr I didn't know a thing about the author, but I kept thinking "this guy must know God." Funny how we can pick up on things like that.
God Bless,
Souba

[Debitt]

As a writer, I have to put in that even though amazing parallels can be drawn between LOTR and the Bible/Christian theology, that doesn't necessarily mean that Tokein went out of his way to put Christian references into the Lord of the Rings. As Christians, God is supposed to permeate throughout our actions, and that is the case with Tolkein. He didn't MEAN to do it, but he did because the Lord was at work in his heart.

I have had many experiences myself when writing my book - I look at it and go "Wow, this reminds me of *insert verse here*" or "Dang, this character has the mentality of a lost soul". That doesn't mean I'm making my fantasy tale an allegory to *insert Biblical incident/story here*. That just means that my beliefs permeate the actions I put the characters through and the decisions that I make while writing.

People overanalyze things so much that they lose sight of what a piece of fantasy literature is supposed to be - an escape from our world where the author can tell a fantastic tale to entertain the reader. My friends and I have a joke that says something along the lines of "Yeah, you're gonna get your book published one day and the people will read it and go 'OHMIGOSH! The pretzel is a symbol for the Cross! The ice cream represents wicked desire!' when they're really just a pretzel and a bowl of ice cream."

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Mangafanatic, the answers to some of your questions can be found in the Silmarillion. Tolkien didn't write LotR to escape reality it was his attempt to create a historic myth for his homeland of England.

[Mangafanatic]

Mangafanatic, the answers to some of your questions can be found in the Silmarillion. Tolkien didn't write LotR to escape reality it was his attempt to create a historic myth for his homeland of England.

A myth is a piece of fiction work. I wasn't saying Tolkien wrote LoTR to escape from reality. I said that the purpose of fiction literature(a.k.a the reason people spend their time reading it) is because it gives them way out of the mundane. It give the reader an escape from reality.

Therefore, Gandalf was given magical powers because wizards are very convince and powerful charactes in phantasy literature. They can drive a story (and that whole magic thing can really come in hand when your characters get in a tough spot.)

I'm quite familiar with the Silmarillion. I haven't read it all (that style of narration CANNOT hold my attention so I couldn't muddle through it. I want to buy the book sometime so I can read it a paragraph at a time over a couple months) People are continually saying "The Lord of the Rings in an allegory because of the Silmarillion. See-- Gandalf is an angel. I mean, it doesn't say he's an angel. But he is an angel because he gets his power from God, because he get his power from the Illuvitar (forgive the slaughtered spelling. I have only phonics to fall back upon.) and the Illuvitar is God. Well, no, it never said the Illuvatar is the Judep-Christian God of our faith, but he is."

Actually, if anything, I think Christians should be more horrified by the Silmarillion than the "sorcery". If we take that book at face value and are convinced that all words in literature that have any elements of phantasy are directly opposed to scripture, the Silmarillion is merely a tale of alternate deities and an alternate account of creation if I'm nt sorely mistaken.

We see the beauty of Lord of the rings for the reason Kokoro said. Tolkien was a Christian and he wrote a story that compelled him. Being a Christian, some elements of that story may unintentionally bear similarities to the story of our lives and the story of Jesus life (beause he lives in us). Furthermore, we see those lessons in it because we view everything in the light of Gods word.

I love the example of the movie: The Matrix. There are almost undeniable seemingly Christian reference and symbols in that movie. When I first saw it, I was floored by the way the characters and events connected with me and the deep and meaningful "spiritual" side of the film. Where the Wachowasky (I know, I spelled this name wrong too!) brothers writing an allegory? Judging by the one very unfortuneate scene in Matrix Reloaded--- probably not. Does that change the things I see in it. No.


For this reason, I say that Tolkien wrote what he wrote, and part of what he wrote was a good, "sorcery-practicing" wizard character.