Skip to main content

Frodo's burden

An excerpt from J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings:
[Frodo] said nothing, indeed he hardly spoke at all; he did not complain, but walked like one who carries a load, the weight of which is ever increasing; and he dragged along, slower and slower, so that Sam had often to beg Gollum to wait and not to leave their master behind. In fact with every step towards the gates of Mordor Frodo felt the Ring on its chain about his neck grow more burdensome. He was now beginning to feel it as an actual weight dragging him earthwards. But far more was he troubled by the Eye: so he called it to himself. It was that more than the drag of the Ring that made him cower and stoop as he walked. The Eye: that horrible growing sense of a hostile will that strove with great power to pierce all shadows of cloud, and earth, and flesh, and to see you: to pin you under its deadly gaze, naked, immovable. So thin, so frail and thin, the veils were become that still warded it off. Frodo knew just where the present habitation and heart of that will now was: as certain as a man can tell the direction of the sun with his eyes shut. He was facing it, and its potency beat upon his brow.
There have been many interpretations of the Lord of the Rings over the years, ranging from the interesting to the inane. For the most part, Tolkien offered little help to his readers and critics. But in 1953, four years after the work was written, and only eight months before the first edition appeared, he did write the following to Father Murray, who was a family friend:
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision... [I am] grateful for having been brought up (since I was eight) in a faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know.
Joseph Pearce, in Tolkien: Man and Myth, compares the above passage from The Lord of the Rings to Christ carrying the cross to Calvary and this is a reading that the letter to Murray supports. Other obvious evidence of Catholicity in The Lord of the Rings include Lembas bread as eucharististic bread, and Galadriel as a Marian character. Consider too how much the story is dependent on self sacrifice: Gandalf, Aaragorn, Frodo and Sam all sacrifice themselves for others and are reborn as a result. Boromir also repents and sacrifices himself for others. The race of men are frequently spoken of as weak and broken, unlike the elves. Critic Charles Moseley describes the metaphysics of Tolkien's created world thus:
Neither propaganda nor allegory, at its root lies the Christian model of a world loved into being by a Creator, whose creatures have the free will to turn away from the harmony of that love to seek their own will and desires, rather than seeking to give themselves in love to others. This world is one of cause and consequence, where everything matters, however seemingly insignificant: action plucks on action, and the end of this self love is the reduction of freedom, the imprisonment of the self, and the inability to give or receive the love that is the only thing desired...
I think Tolkien's message is clearly visible in the recent film trilogy, despite the indifference of many major players like Peter Jackson, and even the outright hostility of some actors, such as Viggo Mortensen. I think the film's tremendous success is due to the fact that the metaphysics Moseley describes were not purged from it. It is all too easy to think of films with good casts and big budgets that have been empty shells and box office bombs. God in Tolkien's fantasy world has not yet revealed himself and that gives the story its shallow pagan appearance. It is time that Tolkien's sources were recognized, however. This story and, by extention, this film, are an excellent means of demonstrating the timeless appeal of truth.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi