K
KyrieEleison17
Guest
And I feel compelled in conscience to say this also: the link you gave is obsessively Jew-focused even given the theme. I mean obsessive. I read it and at so many points am thinking, “This has nothing to do with LotR but with a singular Israeli’s obsession with Jews and everything remotely Jewish”. The subject constantly evaporates from being about LotR to being about Jews.*
Again, the writer of this article did enough research to produce some fairly good quotes. He failed to find the personal testimony on Tolkien’s part about detesting allegory (IMO wrongly). He also failed to identify Tolkien’s character regardless, which is the sort of man who loved mystery and aura and mythology, and would consequently love to point out random accidents to excite interest or pondering. This is not cheap salesmanship. It’s the whole point of his work: to ponder. Tolkien must have been aware that after centuries of scholarship, e.g., no one can anchor the likes of Homer and Shakespeare (again for examples) into one philosophy or religious creed or statement. In this respect they differ from the likes of Milton who obviously, though intelligently because he had the same understanding, was notwithstanding an obvious Protestant in his sentiments. He was, in that regard, no enigma.
Anyways, I digress. But trying to nationalize Tolkien’s work one way or another is a failure. Yet as a tribute to England -albeit vaguely- and the English language in his own way is beyond doubt.
A friend of mine once tried to convince me that Dune was really about Israel and the Jews and their hoped-for Messiah. He had a much, much better case than imagining that LotR’s Dwarves (or anyone else) is about the Jews or even religion (their own or anyone else’s).
Tolkien obviously wanted to instill certain basic moral principles. That’s obvious. What is equally obvious is that -as his overarching concept suggests- he wanted to transcend race and religion. To whatever ultimate end or point? I wont pretend to know and, in my opinion, he probably didn’t want it to be so definite. He wanted, IMO, to make a story that was a story but one that generated excited interest and debate without being a deliberate paradox. In that, I think, he marvellously succeeded.
*That all being said, I think the author’s writing is very, very good regardless. He certainly isn’t predictable or boring in his word selection; but again, his central focus is so repetitive (as I above explained) as to be boring near to the point of mental death!
