J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of "The Hobbit", would seem to disagree: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

To which I replied.
"Cordially..."

I wonder if you were planning on responding in turn. Certainly you don't owe me a response, and you may still yet be crafting on, doing research or what have you. You may also, it seems to me, have decided that this line of dialogue is not longer useful to pursue, but in any case I would like you to know that I am curious what you think.

One of my biggest frustrations in these sorts of discussions is arguments from false-premises, both from myself and others. When someone else can point out my errors, it's a painful but edifying process.

Maybe you'll find an error I've made in my case here, if so I should be glad to know it.

Yes thanks.

We should keep in mind that due to cultural sensitivities, books may be considered unacceptable in one era while morally acceptable

I thought that the Catholic Church preserved universal values that are unchanged down the centuries. That's certainly what they tell us about morality. No succumbing to changing fashion etc.

Cordially, I would like to state that before using phrases like "of course" and "fundamentally ... Catholic" one might want to read the author in question.

I could be over reacting, but as you're defending the claim that The Hobbit is an allegory of the gospels, implying something similar of LotR, and you're attempting to point to a shifting revisionist stance on the part of the author, let me make something clear to you that should be clear to anyone who didn't read a first edition.

In his foreword to the 2nd edition, perhaps accurately describable as a conscious revision, Tolkien has this to say:

The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them.
...
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches; but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit.
...
But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

I have loved Tolkien's works since I first read them many moons ago, and watching you or anyone else try to cast him in your mold, when he explicitly and eloquently rejected the similar treatment by his contemporaries, is, to me, disgusting. It's even worse than listening to Barron try to name-drop Hitchens into his rhetorical camp. It's the same species of "purposed domination" exhibited by the Mormons in posthumously 'baptizing' people.

Tolkiens passion and employment pulled him deep into the worlds of myth and legend of myriad cultures. He was an avowed expert in the linguistic and cultural roots of these stories, most of which are pagan, ancient, and pre-Christian.

He explicitly and compellingly defended the idea of sub-creation as an intrinsically good act in a way that mere allegory was not.

It's a shame you decided to lie about, or were wholly ignorant of, something so fundamental to Tolkien's labor of love, and so readily disprovable upon reading.

http://www.serendipityrancher.com/tt-fellowshipf.htm
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Sub-creation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eru_Il%C3%BAvatar#Tolkien_on_Eru

*Edit for style and grammar*

Beautifully done.

"Oh, you don't believe me, here is not one source, but 5."

Thanks for not being bad at this.

Dave,

"Which is about the nicest thing I can think of to say about Catholics, personally."

This cant possibly help discourse.

>>If you bothered to read what they wrote, you know that some of them consider you personally to be a tool of Satan and a secret neo-pagan.

>>Which is about the nicest thing I can think of to say about Catholics, personally.

Thanks for reminding me about Matthew 5:11-12. You made my week!! :-)

"Viva Cristo Rey!!"
Deacon Harbey Santiago

Harbey wrote to me:
>I've been in this game long enough to know that one who spends so much time writing stuff like that in a web site, is just looking for someone to argue…

Oh, Harbey, I really do not think most of those guys want to argue with you at all!

If you bothered to read what they wrote, you know that some of them consider you personally to be a tool of Satan and a secret neo-pagan.

Which is about the nicest thing I can think of to say about Catholics, personally.

However, if you do bother to read through the list, some of them do make some intelligent points: Lewis does not, for example, quote Scripture very heavily and does seem at many places willing to directly contradict Scripture and traditional teaching.

Which, of course, I love him for.

But, I can see why real Christians don’t.

In any case, my point was simply that lots and lots of evangelical Christians are quite certain that Lewis is not a Christian and that they have some credible reasons for saying so.

And, I am willing to extend the same compliment to Lewis myself.

Dave

I am not sure how Catholic college students majored in literature or philosophy before the Index was abolished.

Well, certainly French lit would have been difficult :)