
I think we're going in circles here. I've already said that as a Christian, Tolkien would have had clear ideas as to what made up an exemplary character or a perfect hero, elements of which are strewn throughout his ensemble of goodies and extremely similar (though never identical) to Christ.Gothmog said:Tolkien did not write the LotR as a 'Christian Allegory' but as a 'Pre-Christian Myth'. The Christ of the Bible (if he were ever to appear in ME) was something for the distant future.
The story is compatible with Christian beliefs of good and evil and many points of aplicability can be seen. However, Tolkien believed that the overt inclusion of the Christian Religion in Mythology was to ruin the Myth.
So there are No 'Christ-Figures' in the LotR though there are many that show 'christ-like' virtues, some more than others. Just as in the 'real world' many people can be found that have these virtues in greater or lesser extent.
It is not a case of Tolkien 'Writing Christ-figures in to the books' but of readers 'Reading them there'. Or as Tolkien would have it. It is not Allegory but Applicability.
I figured that may have been the case, but I can never resist shouting my own opinionGothmog said:Hammersmith, if you read the post by Barly immediately before mine, you can see that my post is in direct answer to his. Perhaps I should have made this more clear.![]()
I don't think that Tolkien dislikes the resurrection of Gandalf (only the presentation of it he admits is a defect).letter #156 to Robert Murray said:I think the way in which Gandalf's return is presented is a defect, and one other critic, as much under the spell as yourself, curiously used the same expression: 'cheating'. That is partly due to the ever-present compulsions of narrative technique. He must return at that point, and such explanations of his survival as are explicitly set out must be given there - but the narrative is urgent, and must not be held up for elaborate discussions involving the whole 'mythological' setting. It is a little impeded even so, though I have severely cut G's account of himself. I might perhaps have made more clear the later remarks in Vol. II (and Vol. III) which refer to or are made by Gandalf, but I have purposely kept all allusions to the highest matters down to mere hints, perceptible only by the most attentive, or kept them under unexplained symbolic forms
I might say much more, but it would only be in (perhaps tedious) elucidation of the 'mythological' ideas in my mind; it would not, I fear, get rid of the fact that the return of G. is as presented in this book a 'defect', and one I was aware of, and probably did not work hard enough to mend
Don't worry about it. I have a similar problemHammersmith said:
Very well put, I like the terms exemplary character or perfect hero much better than the reference to Christ. The Christ we encounter in John is a different one, than in the synoptical gospels, both are different from the descriptions of Christ we find in non-canonical scripture. Also death and resurrection is a common motif in myths, from the first agricultural societies originating probably from the neolithicum up to the Christian tradition...Hammersmith said:I think we're going in circles here. I've already said that as a Christian, Tolkien would have had clear ideas as to what made up an exemplary character or a perfect hero, elements of which are strewn throughout his ensemble of goodies and extremely similar (though never identical) to Christ.