7 ms·

The worldview of Tolkien and Lewis was deeply inspired by their academic understanding of medieval cosmology. Dwarves and other fantasy creatures were not stric

by chevas 8y ago

The worldview of Tolkien and Lewis was deeply inspired by their academic understanding of medieval cosmology. Dwarves and other fantasy creatures were not strictly "made up", but were types meant to reveal the reality of invisible spiritual and celestial creatures within the model of the universe. Disney's treatment of said creatures was barbaric in their minds as it completely missed the theological and philosophical significance they were supposed to communicate.

Trill-I-Am 8y ago
What was the theological and philosophical significance they were supposed to communicate?
- sampo 8y ago
  > What was the theological and philosophical significance they were supposed to communicate? I don't know, but I can think of an analogy: If angels were commonly depicted as cheerful and a bit silly characters in cartoons, perhaps religious people would have the same complaint.
  - gaius 8y ago
    Or how geeks perceive of the way movies depict computers and the people associated with them. By the way movies do get angels wrong, they are described in the Bible as having 6 wings for example. No Christians that I know are angry about that.
    - JorgeGT 8y ago
      > they are described in the Bible as having 6 wings for example. No, a particular high order of angels (Seraphims) have six wings. Your run-of-the-mill, proletarian angels have two wings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelology?oldformat=true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelology?oldformat...
    - wsgeorge 8y ago
      > No Christians that I know are angry about that. They will only be angry if they found those depictions disrespectful/mocking. Perhaps a few will like to point out the inaccuracy. But most Western art has depicted angels with only two wings: even art by the most devout Christians. And, iirc, it is a specific type of angel that had six wings (covered with eyes, etc...)
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  I’ve been (slowly) reading the Silmarillion, so I can try to answer (although I never read Lord of the Rings). From what I can surmise the elves represent preindustrial humans. The Maiar are elemental forces (fire, water, etc). Not sure what the Valar are exactly, lesser gods of mythology I guess. Within that landscape play out all manner of basic lessons, the importance of different crafts, the danger of vengeance, etc. I guess “bippity boppity boo” and the patron saint of class mobility didn’t do it for Tolkien.
  - andrepd 8y ago
    One of the central themes of Tolkien's world is 'decay': The world was perfect at the very start, then Melkor ruined it. The Third Age is merely a faint shadow of the Elder Days, the future is even fainter still, etc. Elves are understood as old beings, part of nature as it were. Abandoning middle-earth, fitting in that pattern of decay, of 'now is a shadow of the past'. Analogy with modern history is, according to Tolkien himself, "completely foreign to my thought". Also, Valar and Maiar are greater and lesser Ainur, primordial spirits. Angels might be the closest thing, not elemental forces.
    - ItsMe000001 8y ago
      I don't see the "decay" theme. You are concentrating on one thing only, overall there is just change, so yes, what was has to go and is replaced. The age of humans replaces what came before in Middle Earth. That "decay" interpretation would just as well to our earth: The old has gone, "decayed". You misinterpret change just as in "Today's youth is the worst generation", a theme that can be traced through history.
      - feanaro 8y ago
        No, I think that was pretty spot-on. This might be of interest: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Arda_Unmarred http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Arda_Unmarred
        deleted 8y ago
- chevas 8y ago
  They believed the universe was ordered and maintained by a celestial hierarchy with the Creator at the top. Places like Middle Earth and Narnia are metaphors of the model. Lewis's "The Discarded Image" is not an easy read, but would help anyone who wants to know more. A more current and more easily understood starting place would be Michael Heiser's "The Unseen Realm", which is squarely theological / Christian in nature, but still thoroughly academic. Heiser's book carries continuity with Lewis's book, but Heiser has done the work to make the material more readable for the masses by footnoting a lot of the references and for the person who really wants to dig in, he's provided supplemental material.
  - colanderman 8y ago
    Tolkein may have believed this, and one could interpret his works in this way, but he is on record as loathing allegory. [1] Any allegory present in his works is therefore likely unintentional. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/411971-i-cordially-dislike-allegory-in-all-its-manifestations-and-always https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/411971-i-cordially-dislike-...
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      Tolkien shared some valuable insights into allegory: ... the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human 'literature', that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily it can be read 'just as a story'; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it https://writingishardwork.com/2013/06/19/tolkien-on-allegory/ https://writingishardwork.com/2013/06/19/tolkien-on-allegory... ... Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. 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. http://askmiddlearth.tumblr.com/post/53933390053/tolkien-and-allegory http://askmiddlearth.tumblr.com/post/53933390053/tolkien-and...
- posterboy 8y ago
  I'm going to quickly produce an animated feature film to show you. Hold my drink. Well, tbh, if you've seen Dwarf Fortress or read Terry Prattchett, then one of the first things that comes to mind is work ethic and moral. The ethic is highly puritan and greedy, the moral is upright but loose. I'd say that's somewhat faithfully represented, except that the sense of a wider community is missing, they don't live in a mountain and of course Disney didn't do war machines jugging liters of bear and hoarding gold for the sake of it. One might argue those features were exaggerated in folk lore to begin with. Wikipedia should have some more [1], but I can't get past the Etymology section. An ancient mythology about short spirits not withstanding, it's rather obvious that German Zwerg was related to work, Werk, PIE wérǵ- [2]. Now if I look at the indo-arian cognates, I can't deny that those look similar to warrior, related to PIE wers-[3]. That leaves the initial d unexplained. My best guess is that's pejorative, because we- as in very, venerable etc. is too positive, but which short root the d came from I wouldn't know. I guess so far that's nothing new and where previous attempts called it quits. By the way, guess the Zerg from Starcraft are an analogy to Zwerg, and then some. kekeke [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(mythology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(mythology) [2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/w%C3%A9r%C7%B5om https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Eur... [3] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/warrior https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/warrior
  - Freak_NL 8y ago
    > […] it's rather obvious that German Zwerg was related to work […] Is it? A quick glance at the Wiktionary reference and the etymology section in the Dwerg-article on the German Wikipedia doesn't yield any concrete evidence to support that statement. 'Rather obvious' seems overly optimistic — I would go with 'dubious' at best. For all we know some travelling story teller made the word up on the spot because it had the right dwarfish feel.
    - posterboy 8y ago
      While I talk hugely about language gone by, I have actually no idea what "rather" means. Take "rather obvious" as "I can't be the only one who'd consider this for a bit". > For all we know No, absolutely not. Rhymes are very important to old folk lore. And to language acquisition in general. And, in a metaphoric sense, to pattern matching over all. Of course it is possible that the word was obscured from the get go lest it would appear derived. But I don't think it's onomatopoetic, if that's what you mean (I guess you didn't, though). Thinking about that, it's likely though that the word had to be pronounced by children, requiring easier phonemes, so perhaps no th. That gives a lot of leeway to speculate about an original root. Anther thought is that "swarz" (black) should be considered, because mines are inherently dirty, and as a kind of derogative. I agree though, expecting a single root would be too easy. A rhyme compressed into one word would easily obscure the term. A very sad thought related to small people working in mines is child labor.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  Think about the Bible when reading the Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, it’s well worthwhile reading it again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24865379 http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24865379
Noos 8y ago
I'm not sure of the validity of this. Those fantasy creatures if anything tend not to have any real theology or philosophy behind them in practice. Elves steal babies and leave changelings, but why? There is no real explanation. Elves can be told from humans in some traditions because their backs are hollow. Why? Again no real codified theology or philosophy of elves; if anything, they often vary so much and tales are so sparse its hard to tell. Tolkien and Lewis were part of a cohort that really enjoyed a form of pagan Germanish/norse Romanticism. Novalis was a big influence, and Lewis was quite open about his love for the Eddas. Both of them also were devout Christians, and I feel this response is more of them attempting to baptize the things that they love in a Christian sense. Christian philosophy tends to find in many things God working in them to bring people to awareness of Him, and ultimately to a saving reconciliation through Christ. But that tends to impute characteristics that go beyond the actual intents of the works as written, sort of a metatextual thing which can be valid in a sense (lewis's love of romanticism probably did awaken him to Christianity) but otherwise isn't, since each person would approach the work differently. As for barbaric, ugh. Tolkien bowdlerized the old myths as much as anyone, with his happy little Hobbitses enjoying their baccy and his noble, stately ageless elves. In the old myths elves stole babies, made milk curdle, inflicted sickness through elf-shot, and much more. Tolkien to be blunt is a huge snob. He loves his happy little common people so long as they are the right type, little red-nosed burghers who live on their green farms and enjoy good pipeweed. If they are the wrong type, if they happen to work in factories instead, well there are your orcs and goblins. It's no coincidence the Trolls in the hobbit speak cockney. he dislikes Disney because Disney is vulgar in the old sense, low culture, but seems to forget that a belief in elves or fairies was pure low culture, until romanticism made the elites interested in it. Chesterton says you need to be a common bumpkin (like himself) to really deal with them.

by chevas 8y ago

Trill-I-Am 8y ago

What was the theological and philosophical significance they were supposed to communicate?

sampo 8y ago
> What was the theological and philosophical significance they were supposed to communicate? I don't know, but I can think of an analogy: If angels were commonly depicted as cheerful and a bit silly characters in cartoons, perhaps religious people would have the same complaint.
- gaius 8y ago
  Or how geeks perceive of the way movies depict computers and the people associated with them. By the way movies do get angels wrong, they are described in the Bible as having 6 wings for example. No Christians that I know are angry about that.
  - JorgeGT 8y ago
    > they are described in the Bible as having 6 wings for example. No, a particular high order of angels (Seraphims) have six wings. Your run-of-the-mill, proletarian angels have two wings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelology?oldformat=true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelology?oldformat...
  - wsgeorge 8y ago
    > No Christians that I know are angry about that. They will only be angry if they found those depictions disrespectful/mocking. Perhaps a few will like to point out the inaccuracy. But most Western art has depicted angels with only two wings: even art by the most devout Christians. And, iirc, it is a specific type of angel that had six wings (covered with eyes, etc...)
erikpukinskis 8y ago
I’ve been (slowly) reading the Silmarillion, so I can try to answer (although I never read Lord of the Rings). From what I can surmise the elves represent preindustrial humans. The Maiar are elemental forces (fire, water, etc). Not sure what the Valar are exactly, lesser gods of mythology I guess. Within that landscape play out all manner of basic lessons, the importance of different crafts, the danger of vengeance, etc. I guess “bippity boppity boo” and the patron saint of class mobility didn’t do it for Tolkien.
- andrepd 8y ago
  One of the central themes of Tolkien's world is 'decay': The world was perfect at the very start, then Melkor ruined it. The Third Age is merely a faint shadow of the Elder Days, the future is even fainter still, etc. Elves are understood as old beings, part of nature as it were. Abandoning middle-earth, fitting in that pattern of decay, of 'now is a shadow of the past'. Analogy with modern history is, according to Tolkien himself, "completely foreign to my thought". Also, Valar and Maiar are greater and lesser Ainur, primordial spirits. Angels might be the closest thing, not elemental forces.
  - ItsMe000001 8y ago
    I don't see the "decay" theme. You are concentrating on one thing only, overall there is just change, so yes, what was has to go and is replaced. The age of humans replaces what came before in Middle Earth. That "decay" interpretation would just as well to our earth: The old has gone, "decayed". You misinterpret change just as in "Today's youth is the worst generation", a theme that can be traced through history.
    - feanaro 8y ago
      No, I think that was pretty spot-on. This might be of interest: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Arda_Unmarred http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Arda_Unmarred
      - deleted 8y ago
chevas 8y ago
They believed the universe was ordered and maintained by a celestial hierarchy with the Creator at the top. Places like Middle Earth and Narnia are metaphors of the model. Lewis's "The Discarded Image" is not an easy read, but would help anyone who wants to know more. A more current and more easily understood starting place would be Michael Heiser's "The Unseen Realm", which is squarely theological / Christian in nature, but still thoroughly academic. Heiser's book carries continuity with Lewis's book, but Heiser has done the work to make the material more readable for the masses by footnoting a lot of the references and for the person who really wants to dig in, he's provided supplemental material.
- colanderman 8y ago
  Tolkein may have believed this, and one could interpret his works in this way, but he is on record as loathing allegory. [1] Any allegory present in his works is therefore likely unintentional. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/411971-i-cordially-dislike-allegory-in-all-its-manifestations-and-always https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/411971-i-cordially-dislike-...
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    Tolkien shared some valuable insights into allegory: ... the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human 'literature', that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily it can be read 'just as a story'; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it https://writingishardwork.com/2013/06/19/tolkien-on-allegory/ https://writingishardwork.com/2013/06/19/tolkien-on-allegory... ... Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. 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. http://askmiddlearth.tumblr.com/post/53933390053/tolkien-and-allegory http://askmiddlearth.tumblr.com/post/53933390053/tolkien-and...
posterboy 8y ago
I'm going to quickly produce an animated feature film to show you. Hold my drink. Well, tbh, if you've seen Dwarf Fortress or read Terry Prattchett, then one of the first things that comes to mind is work ethic and moral. The ethic is highly puritan and greedy, the moral is upright but loose. I'd say that's somewhat faithfully represented, except that the sense of a wider community is missing, they don't live in a mountain and of course Disney didn't do war machines jugging liters of bear and hoarding gold for the sake of it. One might argue those features were exaggerated in folk lore to begin with. Wikipedia should have some more [1], but I can't get past the Etymology section. An ancient mythology about short spirits not withstanding, it's rather obvious that German Zwerg was related to work, Werk, PIE wérǵ- [2]. Now if I look at the indo-arian cognates, I can't deny that those look similar to warrior, related to PIE wers-[3]. That leaves the initial d unexplained. My best guess is that's pejorative, because we- as in very, venerable etc. is too positive, but which short root the d came from I wouldn't know. I guess so far that's nothing new and where previous attempts called it quits. By the way, guess the Zerg from Starcraft are an analogy to Zwerg, and then some. kekeke [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(mythology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(mythology) [2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/w%C3%A9r%C7%B5om https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Eur... [3] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/warrior https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/warrior
- Freak_NL 8y ago
  > […] it's rather obvious that German Zwerg was related to work […] Is it? A quick glance at the Wiktionary reference and the etymology section in the Dwerg-article on the German Wikipedia doesn't yield any concrete evidence to support that statement. 'Rather obvious' seems overly optimistic — I would go with 'dubious' at best. For all we know some travelling story teller made the word up on the spot because it had the right dwarfish feel.
  - posterboy 8y ago
    While I talk hugely about language gone by, I have actually no idea what "rather" means. Take "rather obvious" as "I can't be the only one who'd consider this for a bit". > For all we know No, absolutely not. Rhymes are very important to old folk lore. And to language acquisition in general. And, in a metaphoric sense, to pattern matching over all. Of course it is possible that the word was obscured from the get go lest it would appear derived. But I don't think it's onomatopoetic, if that's what you mean (I guess you didn't, though). Thinking about that, it's likely though that the word had to be pronounced by children, requiring easier phonemes, so perhaps no th. That gives a lot of leeway to speculate about an original root. Anther thought is that "swarz" (black) should be considered, because mines are inherently dirty, and as a kind of derogative. I agree though, expecting a single root would be too easy. A rhyme compressed into one word would easily obscure the term. A very sad thought related to small people working in mines is child labor.
lostlogin 8y ago
Think about the Bible when reading the Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, it’s well worthwhile reading it again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24865379 http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24865379

Noos 8y ago

I'm not sure of the validity of this. Those fantasy creatures if anything tend not to have any real theology or philosophy behind them in practice. Elves steal babies and leave changelings, but why? There is no real explanation. Elves can be told from humans in some traditions because their backs are hollow. Why? Again no real codified theology or philosophy of elves; if anything, they often vary so much and tales are so sparse its hard to tell. Tolkien and Lewis were part of a cohort that really enjoyed a form of pagan Germanish/norse Romanticism. Novalis was a big influence, and Lewis was quite open about his love for the Eddas. Both of them also were devout Christians, and I feel this response is more of them attempting to baptize the things that they love in a Christian sense. Christian philosophy tends to find in many things God working in them to bring people to awareness of Him, and ultimately to a saving reconciliation through Christ. But that tends to impute characteristics that go beyond the actual intents of the works as written, sort of a metatextual thing which can be valid in a sense (lewis's love of romanticism probably did awaken him to Christianity) but otherwise isn't, since each person would approach the work differently. As for barbaric, ugh. Tolkien bowdlerized the old myths as much as anyone, with his happy little Hobbitses enjoying their baccy and his noble, stately ageless elves. In the old myths elves stole babies, made milk curdle, inflicted sickness through elf-shot, and much more. Tolkien to be blunt is a huge snob. He loves his happy little common people so long as they are the right type, little red-nosed burghers who live on their green farms and enjoy good pipeweed. If they are the wrong type, if they happen to work in factories instead, well there are your orcs and goblins. It's no coincidence the Trolls in the hobbit speak cockney. he dislikes Disney because Disney is vulgar in the old sense, low culture, but seems to forget that a belief in elves or fairies was pure low culture, until romanticism made the elites interested in it. Chesterton says you need to be a common bumpkin (like himself) to really deal with them.