J.R.R.'S ANGELS
Subject:  Essay on lord of the rings
Date: Mon, 24 Dec
From:  Corey Johnson
            
Tolkien was not influenced by C. S. Lewis.  It was the other way around.  Tolkien was actually responsible for the conversion of Lewis. 

Tolkiens whole creation is a prehistory of earth.  The fact that Sauron was defeated did not wipe evil out from the face of the earth.  It would still be there in another form.  Elves, Hobbits, and all the other creatures had to die out before the redemption of man could begin.  Men are the only ones on the earth now so Tolkien had to get rid of them.(the other races)  The Elvin race is based on angels.  They are for the most part Good.  You do not read of any Bad elves in Tolkiens work.  They go to the west which is Tolkiens representation of heaven.

Once only men were left the redemption of men could begin.  Tolkien did not have a Christ figure because he did not come to earth in human form yet.  That's a story our own history has already told.

The "gods" you mention were really a higher form of angels.  They all gave obediance to Eru.

Response:  You'll know you're not alone in your opinions if you read many of the comments that follow... Tolkien's pantheon, both in composition and characteristics, are classically Greek, don't you think?  I don't see how that makes them angelic, in the Judeo-Christian sense.  -Greg 

THE BEST DEFENSE IS A GOOD OFFENSE
Subject:  Lord of The Rings
Date:  Sun, 23 Dec 2001
From:  The Innkeeper in Brentwood

I have to say that I take offense to your remarks of the casting.  I love Sean Astin and he is a fine actor but I would not agree that he is the crowning jewel of this film.  The best casting decision was choosing Elijah Wood to play Frodo.  For the past ten years he has been Hollywood's best kept secret as he is one of the best actors out there ( if you don't agree check out his early films such as Avalon or Paradise) and is far and away the best thing about this cast followed by Ian Mckellen and Viggo Mortensen.

The movie is a well done adaptation except for the character of Galadriel.  Though Arwen's role was expanded the essence of her character was not changed. yet Galadriel went from being one the most kind and pure characters to this freaky, strange one who actually seems to scare Frodo more than encourage him.  I did not like her part at all.

For a movie that was anticipated for two years or more I think it held its own.  Though I question some story omissions like the elven bread given by Galadriel and how they show but never mention the signifigance of the elven cloaks, the movie played incredibly close to the book.  Not an easy task for such a long and complicated story.  I cannot wait for the next installment!

Response:  It was kind of funny how Galadriel came off, wasn't it?  Sorry you took offense at my remarks about Mr. Astin.  I guess I just have a tendency to go for the off-beat choice, rather than the obvious pick.  I'm sure Elijah Wood will get plenty of great review without my help.  But remember when Dustin Hoffman got the Oscar for Rainmain?  I thought Cruise's role was much harder to play...  So you can see where I tend to come from.  Are you sure "offended"  was the word you were looking for?  -Greg

Hi Greg! Interesting site. Good points in your movie review, but you are wrong about one thing there. In the books, Aragorn, Gimli, and Leoglas do indeed know that Frodo and Sam have not been captured with Merry and Pippin.  You wrote:

>>For Jackson, it doesn't seem enough that Tolkien's heroes go on motivated by the conviction of things not seen (the definition of faith found in Hebrews 11:1, one with which Tolkien seems utterly content).  Instead, the characters can only go on by knowing precisely where they are headed, and why. ... Likewise, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli do not go in pursuit of the two hobbits having to guess at Sam and Frodo's fate; they know.  I doubt that Tolkien would have been enthused at this change.  <<

Tolkien wrote: (The Two Towers, The Departure of Boromir, about 6 pages in - Aragorn speaking)"This then is the answer, Frodo has gone by boat, and his servant has gone with him.....'I will follow the orcs,' he said at last. 'I would have guided Frodo to Mordor and gone with him to the end; but if I seek him now in the wilderness, I must abandon the captives to torment and death. My heart speaks clearly at last: the fate of the Bearer is in my hands no longer. The company has played it's part. Yet we that remain cannot forsake our companions while we have strength left....'"

I think Jackson did a masterful job! It's the best film of it's kind, and better by far than most films period. The only negative review I've read out of about 20 was by Rodger Ebert - and I think he was alittle misguided anyway. The FELLOWSHIP of the Ring is about the Fellowship, not just the hobbits! The movie is terrifying and haunting. I wept for joy at the beauty of Middle-earth, and grieved the loss of Gandalf and Boromir. I felt the wonder of the Elvin maidens and the evil of the Black Riders and the orcs - the loyalty of Merry and Pippin, and Sam - the kindness of Gandalf - and the struggle with the power of the ring that the characters went thru.

I just finished listening to the soundtrack on cd, and it's nearly exausting simply because of the passion and spiritual power it contains. I don't think I would call the movie quite perfect - but about as close to perfection as it's possible to come! Everything else seems shallow now. Gandalf's speech to Frodo was taken from different parts of the book, and I can't find all of the text, but it was so moving in the film, both when it's actually spoken to Frodo, and at the end when he remember's it and it decides his course of action. That alone had more moral content and power in it than any other scene I can remember.

Yes, he left Tom Bombadil out, and a great many other things, but he did not atleast contradict the books. He did not say he doesn't exist. I think many will be suprised and delighted when they read the books to find Tom and the other characters. I think the changes made still stay true to the characters as they are in the book. 

Will the momentum continue? Good question! I think it will. The second film is basically done, and he has a year to make any changes. That's a long time, and I'm sure he will have time to think about the 3rd movie as well. I just know that the movies were better than any of us expected. - Most of us, anyway. Some people will never be happy. Others just want to ask "How did Gandalf get his staff back?" (After his escape from Saruman). 

I liked your review of the books. Lots of cool insights, and neat how you lined up the artwork from the Hildebrant book with the clips from the movie.  

I think your essay is all wet! Nothing I've ever read or seen has ever suggested that Tolkien felt God was powerless today. He saw his world changing, the countryside disappearing, the horror of WWI, and lived thru WWII. He hated modernism. He saw changes at Oxford. He knew the sorrow of change, and you feel it in his works, a yearning for a place we haven't seen, that we can now only see in his books (until these movies!). He wrote a legend, a Saga. He clearly meant it to be fictional, but gave it the flavor of authenticity. All such tales start out "a long time ago, in a land (or galaxy) far away." He let the glory of the third age fade to explain why we no longer see such glory, and because we yearn for it all the more. I'm sure he knew that the glory would one day return when the king does return. I know Lewis believed this. Lewis creates the same longing in his works, and they helpled me to see their point, that Christianity is a TRUE myth. The other myths and legends were trying to express the truth, and only caught glimmers. There is a struggle between good and evil, and there will be a hero, a divine hero. He will set up a kingdom, and it's glory will not fade, like Camelot or Lothlorien. There will be great evil that comes to power after long centuries, and a great battle, and vast armies, and terrible creatures let lose, etc. (If you hold to a futurist interpretation of Revelation atleast. I don't know that Tolkien necessarily did, since the Catholic church doesn't quite see things that way, but it does seem to come thru in his work, as you've pointed out in you review of the books).

You claim your not simply writing about LOTR in your essay, but you have no review of other works by Tolkien, whether it's directly related to Middle-earth or not. Why don't you post a review of the Silmarillion? I think C.S. Lewis would have been greatly upset with Tolkien if he had thought he was claiming such a thing as you suggest. Instead Lewis encouraged him to keep writing and to publish. They said there were not enough of the kinds of books that they liked, so they would have to write some themselves.

Have you read anything by Joseph Pearce on Tolkien? He has book called "Tolkien - A Celebration". You can find it at Amazon.com In it he points out several of the Christian themes in LOTR. Chapter 8 is called "A Sense of Time in Lord of the Rings", and it explains that one of the main themes in Tolkien's work is man's desire for immortality. I found it very enlightening! I think you might find the following site interesting:      

Harry Potter vs. Gandalf : An in-depth analysis of the literary use of magic in the works of J. K. Rowling, J. R. R. Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis.   A booklet-length essay by Steven D. Greydanus      http://www.decentfilms.com/commentary/magic.html

Check it out!     

From One Fan to Another,     
Paul     

Response:  Thanks for your attentiveness and thoroughness, Paul!  Just a couple thoughts going your way...  First, don't you think it's a bit different for Aragorn, et al to have to figure out from clues (hence my choice of term "guess") what happened with Frodo and Sam, than for Aragorn to actually have a conversation with Frodo about it?  Granted, the difference isn't huge, but it seems to me as part of a pattern of changes...  Second, your discussion of the yearning for glory in Tolkien and Lewis, and the effect it had on you, was very nicely put.  Having come to faith, do you still experience that sense of longing, or as time passes, do you feel that sense of longing more and more fulfilled?  The answer to this question is part of my thinking on what Tolkien was trying to express...  And third, yes, I think maybe some words specifically about the Silmarillion might be appropriate.  But then folks might want a review of The Book of Lost Tales, and the History of Middle Earth.  Can you wait for the book to come out?  ;>/   -Greg

A CALL TO ACTION
Subject:  lotr
Date:  Fri, 21 Dec 2001
From:  Pauline Sexton
             
My paperback copies of the trilogy (printed 1965) are in tatters - the last book is gone, the other two are missing the covers, The Two Towers is missing the last 20 pages.   These books have been read and re-read - by my brother and me, back in the 60's when we first discovered "The Hobbit" and then devoured the trilogy,  then by two of my children.   We have all been in heightened anticipation of the movies release.   My daughter saw it 12:01am Wednesday,  I saw it in the afternoon, my brother takes his entire family (who have all read it) this Sat and my son is trying to find the time to see it (and I'll go with him to see it again.)    Needless to say - I loved it.   How beautiful - it was like a love story being re-told by the lover.  Peter Jackson's hand was charged with creative joy and reverence.   I know about all the necessary changes, and omissions - and of course the lack of song and poetry - did add to the continuing seriousness and heavy ness of the trek - but the characterizations were perfect.   My only criticism and hope is that Samwise will develop in more depth and that he will emerge in the film the way he did in the book - as a simple, loyal and faithful hobbit - who by his very acts of self sacrifice and dedication to a a noble and good task grew in strength (physically and morally) and truly became his name - Wise.   I just re-read "The Fellowship"  in preparation for the movies release - and I was struck with the powerful and wonderful spiritual truths - tucked into the text.   The obvious pivot of choice - around which all revolves.   The choices of the most insignificant and least valued ones (Hobbits) were like stones being dislodged on a cliff and causing a great avalanche (this image comes from "The Two Towers.")   The willingness to do something because it is the right thing to do - even though it will require great sacrifice.   The learning to trust oneself - and to trust one's gifts and one's calling - to give away and give up, instead of grasp and grab and keep.    Well I could go on and on..... now of course it will be torture to wait another year (or two) for the other films -  can we start a petition to Peter Jackson - to advance the release dates?    Hobbits of the world - Unite!   We have power!

Pauline Sexton

Response:  You never know what's possible, Pauline.  Remember what the fan base was able to do for Star Trek...  -Greg
            
EDGING INTO CHIP'S CORNER
Subject:  LotR forum posting - Incomplete analysis notes
Date:  Thu, 20 Dec 2001
From:  Josh Beaulieu

Hi
I'm not a lifelong Tolkien fan, in fact I just finished Fellowship for the 1st time last night after seeing the movie two days ago.  But here are my thoughts, I felt like writing them down last night.  In reading previous posts, I most agree with Chip's analysis way back on page 3.

1. Tolkien did not intend to depict a Christ character but the parallels are worth note.  Aragorn is from Royal lineage.  Aragorn is the coming king.  Gandalf's 'resurrection' after 3 days.  
2. The mini-themes of suffering and self-sacrifice, as borne by Frodo.
3. Good vs. evil IS humility vs. pride.  The ring is the lust for power; The ring is the desire to become God; The ring is pride.  Humility is embodied in the resistance of the ring's power, the resistance of evil; Thus the desire to become as God (ie pride) is evil in the purest sense - this is clearly spelled.  LotR is an amplified but fundamentally accurate embodiment of how we are in a perpetual battle - by exclusive means of pride - being pulled away from Truth / Obedience to God and drawn to Falsehood / Sin.  This is the ultimate cause of the Judeo-Christian Human Condition, which is rooted in Adam and Eve's desire to know good and evil; desire to have the mind of God; desire to be God. 
4. LotR is beautifully masked with names, references, and symbols from ancient mythology - but these are just that: a mask, a wrapping.  Its heart and only main theme are emphatically Judeo-Christian, with less Judeo and more Christian.
5. The presence of conscience / Holy Spirit and the use of self-sacrifice are 2 very intriguing topics, however I haven't thought about this enough to comment on it yet.

Peace,
Josh

Langley, Canada

Response:  Thanks for weighing in, Josh.  When you come up with some more ideas on point 5, get back to us.  That would be pretty interesting.  -Greg

WHAT'S UP WITH THE WIZARDS?
Subject:  a question please on LOTR
Date:  Thu, 20 Dec 2001
From:  Mauranna
             
I've been reading reviews of Lord of the Rings and read about the wizard and magic.  I believe the 'wizard' is on the supposedly 'good' side and what side is the magic on?  Do both indulge in it?  Does the wizard? (therefore, the 'good guys').  I'm trying to figure out why so many people are so excited about it.  All the passionate excitement is kind of odd to me.  What spirits are involked in their magic?  I'm 99% sure its magic not miracles done in Jesus' name...so what's going on with people?...I'm talking about the Christians that should know better.  (Is there something about the story/movie/book I'm not seeing?)

Thanks,
Mauranna

Response:  As to the nature of wizardry in Tolkien's work, see point # 2 in Adam's posting below.  As to how people are reacting:  it's hard to say why, really.  Why do people smoke when they should know better?  Why do people throw money away gambling when they should know better?  Why do folks with fishies on their cars speed when they should know better?  Tolkien's world is one in which "knowing better" is not the basis for analyzing behavior, and characters don't really ask questions like these.  Perhaps that is its appeal.  -Greg

GOOD CENTS
Subject:  "Lord Of The Rings" Comment
Date:  20 Dec 2001
From:  Adam Williams

I read your review of the Lord of the rings and allot of the bulletin board posts and just wanted to add a few cents of my own.

1.  I keep seeing people say that Tolkien wasn't trying to construct a mythology.  But in the letter included in the introduction to the Silmarillion he pretty much states that is what he means to do.  But not necessarily a "religious" mythology.  Mythology is important in that it reflects ideas and morals of a society,  it is actually less important that those societies believe those stories to be literally true.  Mythology enables debate about good and evil, courage and temptation by
providing a vocabulary.  Mythology and Religion are neighbors, not co-habitants.  As long as that is understood I think they each ennoble each other.  Would Tolkien's images and language have been so beautiful if he himself hadn't held deep and devote beliefs?  I know that for myself,  Tolkien hit a chord that I knew was ABOUT truth.  It just "smelled" so real.  I went on from that to read C.S Lewis and become a Christian.  Not everything needs to be obvious and boldly stated.  As someone who had terrible experiences with "religious" people and who saw no legitimate Christian witness in my life,  the subtly of myth was probably the only way to broach the topic.

2.  There is no "witch craft" per se in Tolkien.  Never in the Lord Of The Rings does a mortal man cast a spell.  Galdalf and Saruman are Istari (Maia), not human.  Look in the Silmarillion or the unfinished tales.  The elves are not human.  Sauron is a Maia corrupted by Melkor (A Valar and Tolkien's equivalent of the Devil,  vanquished to the abyss by the time the LOTR events happen).  So all the "wizards" are "angels".  Tolkien's "magic" is cast out of the power inherent to a creature.  This is clearly stated in the introduction to the Silmarillion and several times in the "Unfinished Tales".  Also no one in the LOTR worships the Valar.  and the Valar are beholden to Eru Illuvatar (He who is alone).  How this is any less "Christian" that the writing of C.S. Lewis is simply something I don't understand.

Well, thanks for hearing my rants.  I just found your website and am certain I will be returning,  nice work.

Response:  Thanks for your comments.  They'll help some other folks out.  I'm happy that the spirituality that's in fictional works has benefitted you.  St. Francis of Assisi, I believe, is supposed to have written: "Preach the Gospel; when necessary, use words."  As with most things human, there is both wisdom and danger there...  Listen to the Voice that guides.  God bless!  -Greg

A CRY OF DESPERATION
Subject:  Question
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001
From: Shygirl  

So Gandalf isnt dead in the next movies?  Please awnser!!  i need to know!!
                                   
Shyra

Response:  I'm sure you can find someone to answer this question for you.  I, however, cannot be bought for any price...  Try reading the books.  The publishers will be glad you did!  -Greg

ERRORS TO BE ADDRESSED
Subject:  Rings essay
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001
From: Kyle and Amy

While much of this essay was both well-informed and well-written, there are a few crucial errors in it that need to be addressed.      

First and foremost, issue must be taken with the line wondering if CS Lewis' "intense Christian spirituality somehow 'rubbed off' of Tolkien" and found its way into his work.  It is a fairly widely known fact, and one I am surprised the author did not possess, that Tolkien was himself certainly a man of God, and was in fact one of the people who led Lewis to Christ!  Far from being merely an associate of Lewis who may have perhaps been influenced for the better by his proximity to him, Tolkien was rather a spiritual mentor of Lewis.  It is easy to see how this fact may have been lost on later generations, as Tolkien's writing is not as clearly Christian in form or function as is Lewis', but the fact remains nonetheless.    

The second major error in the essay in in the author's attempt to find a parallel between each of the characters in Tolkien's mythology and in the Christian reality as set forth in Holy Scripture.  Of course there is no such complete set of parallels, because Tolkien did not intend it that way!  Tolkien is on record as saying that he "detested allegory" as a form of writing.  The Silmarillion, Lord of the Rings, and The Hobbit are not meant as allegory, and to take them as such is to dangerously miss the meaning intended by their author. 

Where Mr. Wright's otherwise excellent essay falls down is at the point where he calls Tolkien's work an "impoverished" Christianity, simply because he was looking for strict Biblical parallels in a truly excellent story that was only meant to convey Christian themes, not to follow in lockstep the events and orders in the Bible.    

Tolkien made no bones about weaving non-Judeo-Christian mythologies from various other cultures into his work.  I think, however, that he would be shocked at the thought that people would think his work pagan, or at the least "un-Christian" because it contains "magical" imagery or because it does not closely follow the spiritual hierarchy of God's Word.  It was never meant to!  There was never meant to be a Christ-figure in the book (although some have tried to view Gandalf, Aragorn or even Frodo as such), but Tolkien certainly did make a point of showcasing the Christian theme of redemption through sacrifice.  He never tried to recreate the Holy Trinity or God's evil adversaries exactly, but he surely did let readers know that there is a very real struggle in middle-earth (and in our world) between the holy forces of good and the forces of darkness.    

In closing, I would encourage Mr. White to re-read and re-examine the work of JRR Tolkien.  But this time, not looking so much for what "-isms" and "-ologies" may or may not be seen in his work, and not trying to find parallels and symbols that were never intended by the author.  Instead, take it for what it is; a beautiful work by a man of God, and a piece of writing that vividly and poignantly expresses the tension and long struggle between the darkness and sorrow that Christians face here on earth, and the bright hope we possess in the knowledge of the Return of our King, Christ Jesus.

Response:  In my essay, I am not trying to find allegories:  I am making it clear that allegories are not present, and cannot properly, in a literary sense, be explicated.  The conclusion to be drawn is that Middle Earth is no Narnia.  Okay, that's pretty obvious.  And presence of allegory is not what makes a fictional work "Christian," if anything does, and I don't make that claim in any way, shape or form.  The world view for which Tolkien's myth accounts (the world view which he saw all around him, though he did not embrace it) is one which is spiritually impoverished.  Does that help?  I'm not trying to insult Tolkien, his faith, or Catholicism.  A question, though:  Do you think Sam Gamgee is infused with "bright hope" at the end of the novel?  Or does he feel like he's lost something? -Greg

REDUX REDUX
Subject:  Rings review
Date:  Wed, 19 Dec 2001
From: Doug

I enjoyed your review.  Regarding your speculation that C.S. Lewis had a Christian influence on Tolkien, I believe that the reverse was true. Tolkien was a devout Catholic. He was instrumental in C.S. Lewis' conversion to Christianity, and the two men were very good friends.

Best regards
Doug Milligan

Response:  Duly noted.  Thanks for reading!  -Greg

HEAVENS TO BETSY
Subject: What!?
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001
From: Colin  

Oh dear...

The essay somehow avoided mentioning that the put-up story is an old convention in English Literature, reaching, at least, back to Defoe. Indeed, most early novels (Defoe, Swift, Richardson) the author is presented as an 'editor', gathering sheets and letters together and presenting them to the public. Tolkein, as many other authors have done in the 20th century, simply employs this now rather academic joke.

Indeed, the whole mythology, made so much of by the author of this essay, could also be an extended, elaborate academic joke. Simply an extended application of a whole mixed heap of mythology, not to a grand and revolutionary opera, such as Wagner had done, but to a novel. Could it be so difficult to view the books, the excessiveness of detail, the appendices, as one grand, large and quite happy joke?

One last point, the author writes the following:

" for Tolkein, our spiritual past does not primarily lie (sic) in Christian models"
&
" If Tolkein's Christianity informs his work, then, (sic) it is an impoverished Christianity. It is a Modernist Christianity etc.

I do know that HollywoodJesus works out of the Reformed persuasion, but painting a devout Catholic such as Tolkein in such terms is disturbing, especially one who was in many ways a Traditional Catholic ( demuring about liturgical changes and whatnot).

It seems the author of the essay takes the whole thing much too seriously, unable to see the books as one fat arbitrary laugh of an academic who would otherwise have been teaching unwilling freshmen Anglo-Saxon ( studying the language was required in the English degree at Oxford until quite recently).

Colin

Response:  A historical perspective is important, indeed.  One step further back in literary history you find Thomas More indulging in the same schtick, and so on back in time to Solomon, who wrote, "There is nothing new under the sun."  But don't you find it a little incredible that a brilliant mind such as Tolkien's would devote over fifty years of his life to a scholarly joke?  I may take things a bit too seriously; but you may overestimate the satisfaction that academics receive from a wink and a nudge.  Defoe, Swift and More, among others, were writing veiled social criticism that could have cost them their lives (and did, in More's case); it wasn't just for humor's sake.  And by the way, when taking issue with one's grammar, it's best to spell a Very Famous Person's name correctly.  Twice.  ;>)  -Greg

THE THRESHOLD OF A DREAM
Subject: Tolkien
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001
From: Greg Willis

I just finished reading your well-written and knowledeable essay on Tolkien's mythology.  There were a couple of things that caused me to stratch my head a bit.  Because I don't claim to know too much about the subject, I wanted to write to perhaps gain some clarity. 

First, Wright entertains the concept that Tolkien may have a degree of Christianity within him, partly due to the influence of C.S. Lewis.  It was my understanding from reading various biographical information about Lewis that it was actually Tolkien who had the greater spiritual influence on Lewis!  In  Lewis' autobiography, Surprised By Joy, he credits Tolkien (in part) for his conversion to Christianity. 

Second, the idea of Tolkien's Christianity being modern and pragmatic must take into account the "spirit of the times" of Tolkien's upbringing.  Tolkien was a fanatical anti-modernist in his disdain of machinery - he was still riding horse and buggy in the 1930s.  I have always interpretted
Gandalf's speech in The Return of the Kings (for example) as more of a personal critique of the direction of modern humanity in Tolkien's view, rather than a shallow form of Christianity. 

I sense Tolkien's yearning for a more "natural" (and supernatural) man here.  Tolkien does seem want to live in an earlier age of simplicity, friendship and spiritual awareness.  He see modern man as distracted and preoccupied in it's own self-sufficiency.

While I completely agree with you that there is nothing overtly Christian in Tolkien's mythology, there are many hints of a deeply spiritual and Christ-loving author.  Just the overall idea of the world being saved in a such a ridiculous and shocking way (by a clueless hobbit) shows an
understanding of the wondor of Incarnation and Redemption.  In addition, Tolkien (and Lewis) believed that one of the strongest ways to relate to God (to be like God) was to create.  By creating such an elaborate world and giving it stories and myths, Tolkien was doing something in the nature of God, and he believed this was transferrable to humans.  Furthermore, he believed that Truth was revealed best in stories and myths - that is, there are Truths that are are best understood within the context of the story, rather than being explained in linear fashion.  This can be clearly seen in Jesus' parables.

Anway, I've started to ramble.  Any response would be highly appreciated.

I've got a lot to learn...

In His Love,

Greg

Response:  Thanks for your notes.  The yearning for a time gone by is, yes, precisely, at the core of what Tolkien expresses.  The glimpses of the Incarnation and Redemption that you find, or the hand of Providence that I see, do indeed reflect the soul of the writer.  What I find problematic is that this is all seen nostalgically as a thing of the past!  I look at the world around me and see these things everwhere.  I think there's a bit of revisionism going on with Tolkien's views on technology, though (it's not just you, Greg; this has been an ongoing theme).  If Tolkien were a Luddite, he would have said so, so let's not go overboard on this.  Anybody with a Geiger Counter could see where things were headed by 1948, but that didn't turn folks into the Unabomber.  With love back atcha... -Greg

WHY BOTHER?
Subject: Lord of the Rings Essay
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001
From:  Paul Tanes 

J.R.R. Tolkien was obviously a Christian and the values of his religion greatly influenced his work. His works should be revered by the Church becuase it reinforces Christian beliefs and tells a great tale of strife between good and evil.  If he were of any other religion I'm sure the books
would somehow reflect the beliefs of that religion. Enjoy the story. Why bother with comparing references from the Bible to the LOTR. And since you have I have to say the Elves should not be compared to Angels. The Maiar would more closely resemble them. Of which Gandalf, Saruman, Radaghast, Sauron, and even the Balrog were all Maian (from the Silmarillon and the Unfinished Tales).

Paul

Response:  We bother to do the things we find interesting.  Others need not find it interesting.  And when they don't, it's not incumbent upon them to bother to remark.  Why bother to comment on something you don't find worth the bother?  Because you find it interesting.  I'm glad you found it interesting, if a waste of time.  -Greg

IT SLICES IT DICES IT EVEN MAKES MOVIES
Subject:  My take on Tolkien
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001
From:  Stan & Sue Short  

Hello. I would like to say that I love your website.  I happened upon it as a link from a Tolkien site and I think it's fabulous!  I have been a Christian and a "Lord of the Rings" fan for several years.  Although his use of Christian images and themes aren't as glaringly obvious as in C.S. Lewis', "Narnia" books, they are there none the less.  My favorite image is when Gandalf the Grey rejoins the party as Gandalf the White -- what a marvelous resurrection image!  As much as I enjoy Tolkien's books, however, I don't think I will go see the film.  I am afraid of how the secular film industry will treat the spiritual themes.  I recently saw a TV special on Tolkien which suggested that since he and C.S. Lewis had such a close friendship, they must have been gay lovers together.  How crazy can you be?  At any rate, keep up the good work at your website.

A Friend in Christ from Ohio

Response:  I understand your concerns.  Peter Jackson's treatment of the novel seems pretty reverent.  I didn't find his presentation of the spiritual themes perfunctory or degrading.  If you liked the books, I think you'll enjoy the movie. -Greg
.