CuriousG
Gondolin
Aug 10 2020, 2:57pm
Views: 3454
|
|
Axioms and affectionate scrutiny
|
|
|
"Affectionate scrutiny" is what Brethil used to call it: we examine Tolkien in detail not to find fault with him, but because we love his work so much, so we want to immerse ourselves more in all its nooks and crannies. There are plenty of fantasies I've read where I didn't care to learn any more about the world's underpinnings or resolve any lingering questions--I'd say just about every fantasy I've read except Tolkien, actually. Tolkien made his world just real enough that some logic does seem to apply, so why not apply it?
If I contrast his Middle-earth legendarium with something like Roverandom (which I quickly forgot and wouldn't re-read), I'd say he wrote about Middle-earth for at least 3 reasons:
1. He wanted to tell an entertaining story.
2. He felt emotionally connected to it. (Think of all the orphaned characters, and Luthien dancing for Beren, for starters.)
3. Consciously or not, he wanted to persuade readers to share his values.
After reading Tolkien, you know that preserving nature against rapacious industrialism is important. That's easy to point out and is axiomatic.
A bigger underlying message that finds its way into his axioms is a religious response to the secular question: "If God exists and prayer works, why is there so much evil in the world?" The religious response is that God exists and works in hidden ways.
I think that's the axiom you run into repeatedly when you question his works. If Fingolfin can fight Morgoth and make him limp for the rest of his life, and Thorondor can leave lasting scars on his face, why can't Tulkas knock on Angband's gate and demand one-to-one combat and really finish him off? If Beren and Luthien, just the two of them, can infiltrate Angband, put Morgoth to sleep, and retrieve a Silmaril, why can't the Valar do something similar?
If Sauron can be killed by Elendil and Gil-Galad and the Ring cut from his finger, why don't the Valar send an army to do the job right instead of sending those deliberately hobbled Istari to work through others?
We could go on and on. While Tolkien seems to answer those questions with "look what happened to Beleriand when the gods intervene--they don't want to destroy the Earth in another battle," my response would be, "Who says they *must* release all those destructive powers? Can't they control themselves? Morgoth didn't destroy Beleriand when he fought Fingolfin; that showed self-control." The only person who makes it all-or-nothing is Tolkien with his built-in assumptions.
I think he wants us to see the Hand of Providence at work: Frodo was chose by providence and can only complete the quest because of it; Frodo & Sam receive inspiration at times by providence; the Eagles only arrive at the Black Gate because of providence. Why doesn't Providence do more? Because it's mysterious, and mortals can't figure it out or assign rules to its behavior.
Whether you're made a convert or not, I think that Tolkien's pervasive faith has to be considered along with his diligent logic and richly detailed world in questioning why things do or don't happen. That certainly doesn't come across in the movies, which is why it's more common for movie-first people to ask the Eagle question. But in the books, you're immersed in Tolkien's axioms and philosophy, and if you don't buy into them at some level, you read something else.
(This post was edited by CuriousG on Aug 10 2020, 2:57pm)
|
