MITH: Tolkien did not have some irrational phobia of allegory. What Tolkien had was a cordial distaste for a very specific kind of allegory, i.e., the kind of allegory where there is only one possible meaning or interpretation of a figure, event, place, artifact, etc.
That is correct. The priest did oversimplify; but he literally did not have time to present an in-depth study on every single one of his assertions. He was preaching, not writing a nuanced and scholarly critique.
Secondly, his oversimplification is only collateral to his thesis. It forms part of a multi-layered predication/introduction of the subject.
Thirdly, Tolkien himself said, "I dislike allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language." (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #131)
Thus Tolkien admits to using allegorical language to convey meaning through the structure of mythology. Essentially he has combined a personally fabricated mythology - complete with a full-spectrum creation account and even “indigenous languages” - with allegory. To use his own word, this method is “tricksy.” It’s myth, it’s allegory, but not conventional myth or 1:1 allegory. And all the Catholic fans just want to say, “It’s Catholic.”
Tolkien deftly synthesized allegory and mythology; and I think this is how he packed his punch, how he got a “big bang” (pun intended) out of his buck. And this is exactly why there is in his work a great potential for danger to Catholics. I’d go so far as to say that in synthesizing allegory, fantasy, and mythology – and in such a potent, well written, fascinating, verisimilar and all-encompassing conceptualization – he wields a kind of magic of his own, a power to cast real spells, to produce walking dream states in the unwary minds of men.
There’s nothing simple about any of this. Yet we know that God is simple.
Thus far, part 2 of my reply to you.
MITH: Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia is a good example of this—Aslan is simply Christ, full stop. There’s nothing more or less to interpreting the character. In Tolkien’s view, fiction is better rendered not without allegory, but where the allegory has a more generalized character—for instance, he described LotR is a “fundamentally religious and Catholic work” and that it was also an allegory of power (Letters 142 & 186).
Another thought comes to my mind. We know that the principal doctrine of the modernists is evolution. I haven’t discussed Paula’s criticisms of Tolkien yet. I plan to do that when replying to Hansel. Yet she discovers numerous examples of modernism and evolutionism, not only in Tolkien’s canon, but also in his own comments.
Consider this idea of 1:1 allegory versus Tolkien’s concept of allegory, which you qualify as “more generalized.” May we replace "more generalized" with the word ‘ambiguous?’
Ambiguous - capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways.
Allegory - a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning.
Can we agree that an entire phalanx of self-nominated Catholics (read: grifters) affirm that Vatican II is “a fundamentally religious and Catholic work?”
Can we agree that the principal vector, i.e., linguistic structure, of the modernists is ambiguity (if not pure myth?)
What does ambiguity cause? It causes division, because as many minds as apply themselves to the interpretation of ambiguous language, as many interpretations appear.
And what does division cause? It causes distraction. And what does distraction cause? It causes dissipation. And what does dissipation cause? It causes sin and vice.
Tolkien fabricates a mythological creation story and a false cosmogony/hierarchy of being. It screams gnosticism; and is unequivocally opposed to Genesis and Catholic Dogma. Such a thing causes the same kinds of alarms that went off after the false council. How does Tolkien reply, even in advance, to his critics? The same way the false Vatican II hierarchy responds to the alarms of Catholics. Novelty and ambiguity - and a penchant for maneuvering out of being pinned down.
Certainly the Tolkien epic has created some division among Catholics; for instance when educated men and women try to warn people about it. Notice that the question never gets resolved. Just like the entire question of Vatican II never gets resolved.
Catholic linguistic structure is characterized by semantic and logical precision. Meaning is “yes, yes, no, no” - a kind of 1:1 system of signification. You will say, “Good grief, Tolkien wrote fiction! He wasn't defining dogma!”
And I would say, “Yes, and why then does anyone call LOTR “a fundamentally religious and Catholic work?”
I would say this also. There’s a wonderful collection of truly Catholic, and even non-Catholic fiction out there that doesn’t create division. Why do people argue about Tolkien’s books, but not those of other Catholic authors? Generally speaking, when Catholics argue with each other, it’s about integral truth. I believe that the divisive nature of Tolkien's work, alone, is a red flag.
The Silmarillion is blasphemous and out of bounds. Calling it fiction does not rehabilitate or justify it. And LOTR emanates from it, as pus from an infection. Gorgeous captivating pus, but pus nevertheless.
Topic: Rethinking Tolkien (Read 7931 times)