Queer romance in LOTR (article)

[Radhruin_EU]

It has less to do with orientation and more to do with how Americanised western masculinity is these days. Men in Tolkien’s time were less reserved and less encouraged to be emotionally stunted. Showing the bare minimum of emotional affection between men is automatically seen as anti-masculine, feminine or queer due to this.

I wouldn't say that - the England of Tolkien's heyday was hardly a high water mark for expressiveness either, so to me it looks like he's harking back to olden times when men could be more expressive of their emotions and affections without being considered unmanly. But yes, it seems people may be reading Sam and Frodo as queer because the tenderness they show towards each other goes against what they've been led to expect. I can't say it ever struck me that way but then like Tolkien I'm English and that may make a difference as to how it comes across to me. Others' mileage may vary.

Imho- Sauron and Morgoroths relationship was more representative in the form of an abusive male/male domination relationship.

Sauron chose to follow Melkor and was an all too willing partner in his evils, showing considerable independence and having his own way of doing things. Melkor tended to smash things for the sake of it (like a spoilt child who couldn't have his own way, petulant because Iluvatar had kept the best stuff to himself), whereas Sauron seemed more interested in taking things over and having everyone dancing to his tune. If you want an example of an abusive relationship, Saruman and Wormtongue would be it.

[TearMaker]

It may be good to take a step back and also remember that Tolkien was a student of language and just because this language we are all conversing in now (English) is a world standard, it is far from expressive and in English a single word is used to cover many many situations and can be used to wrongly place interpretation where there was none to begin with.

For example the greek have four main words for expressing love: They are phileo, agape, storge, and eros.

Storge is affectionate love. This love exists naturally between family members and friends, such as the warm, unforced love shown between spouses, or between a parent and a child.

Eros is sexual or passionate love.

Agape love is sacrificial love. This is the most noble and powerful type of love because it is an act of the will.

Phileo love is brotherly love. This type of love is most often shown within close friendships. This is a generous and affectionate love that seeks to make the other person happy with no expectation for the acts of kindness to be returned.


I always thought that the love that Frodo and Sam had was this Phileo because it is a love that is towards someone we have affection for. Very similar to and I believe derived from the biblical story of David and Jonathon.

The sages characterized the relationship between Jonathan and David in the following Mishnah:
“Whenever love depends on some selfish end, when the end passes away, the love passes away; but if it does not depend on some selfish end, it will never pass away. Which love depended on a selfish end? This was the love of Amnon and Tamar. And which did not depend on a selfish end? This was the love of David and Jonathan.

15th Century Rabbi then explains this as:
“Anyone who establishes a friendship for access to power, money, or sexual relations; when these ends are not attainable, the friendship ceases…love that is not dependent on selfish ends is true love of the other person since there is no intended end.”


Now I am not one to say that any interpretation is right or wrong and Tolkien could have been fantasising a relationship that Geoffrey and himself may have had or one that he may have wished to have but from a purely personal point of view as someone that has read Tolkien for over 50 years, I really did label this Frodo and Sam relationship as that rare brotherly friendship (Phileo) that goes beyond anything in the physical realm and is certainly not sexual in any way. The kind of friendship that isn't born out of any want and will give the most and sometimes the ultimate sacrifice.

But, as has been said in previous posts, the mark of a good writer is to leave enough off the page for everyone to take what they need to apply in their own lives.
The fact that decades later we have these discussions is testament to what an amazing writer he was as there truly is no right or wrong answer.

[Halphast]

True enough, Halphast.

Thank you so much for sharing this. It was beautiful and sad and hopeful at the same time. Yes- your grandfather's situation is exactly how I picture Sam.

[Halphast]

I really did label this Frodo and Sam relationship as that rare brotherly friendship (Phileo) that goes beyond anything in the physical realm and is certainly not sexual in any way.

I would make the point that NO relationship in the Lord of the Rings is sexual, apart from children being evidence of the fact that sex occurred- so the way LotR is written, there would be no evidence of Eros in a gay relationship.

The best marriages encompass most or all (if possible?) types of love you listed. We see depictions of Storge, Agape, and Phileo betwen Frodo and Sam. Since there's no depiction of Eros between any of the characters in LotR, people can believe anything they like about Frodo & Sam, and still be true to the story as it's written.

But, as has been said in previous posts, the mark of a good writer is to leave enough off the page for everyone to take what they need to apply in their own lives.
The fact that decades later we have these discussions is testament to what an amazing writer he was as there truly is no right or wrong answer.

This is what it all boils down to- it's a beautiful story and there's room for readers to identify with the characters in their own way.

[Hensibert]

Kids and teenagers play this game and their are 2 sexes male and female in game and in real life.

Intersex people exist, you know.

[Elebraen]

Thank you so much for sharing this. It was beautiful and sad and hopeful at the same time. Yes- your grandfather's situation is exactly how I picture Sam. All the reasons Sam gave for marrying Rose were societal... his family wondering why he hasn't already asked her to marry him... it was expected of him, his whole life. Not that he wasn't happy; he wanted that life of being a husband and father- but he also wanted Frodo... which to me is clear when he immediately leaves for Valinor as soon as Rose passes away.

My grandfather was fortunate in that he had a very understanding and accepting second wife (my grandmother) and sister (who lived next door). I didn't read LOTR until I was 14, and my grandfather was less than pleased with my own shallow understanding of the story. In his opinion, I couldn't understand the depths of emotion and conflicts that were being portrayed there when I couldn't define what the "Black Riders" were to his own satisfaction. And that was probably true. I didn't have any relatable experience at the time to really be able to connect with him there. I got that in my 20's, but he had already passed away. At 14, I was guilty of underage drinking, smoking, and staying out all night with friends, but was more afraid of getting caught and grounded by parents than getting caught and imprisoned by police. Women don't have quite the same experience even still, not as subject to social rejection as the men are. My terror was child custody lawsuits brought against me by my ex on the basis of who I loved. More terrifying to me than spending a few nights "in a cage" or getting physically wounded was losing my own child. Precedence had not yet been set in the courts in my state until the judge set the precedence using my case. Three of those I had to go through, each time more terrifying than the last as my ex tried to build a better case against me so that he could strip me of everything that I loved in his own quest for power and domination over me. He hit me where it would hurt the most "because he loved me". THAT'S perversion.

Frodo was broken by fear and horror, broken down and remade into something altogether different. I totally get that character on a deeply personal level. If I could go back in time, would I change my own course? No. I would do it again on the basis of who I loved and see it all the way to the end just to negate the obstacle of what I perceived to be the greatest perversion of love that currently exists and make it powerless.

But do I think Tolkien was trying to write to that specific audience? I don't think that was his intention. I think he touched on some universal themes that a lot of people have personal experience with that it's easy to put yourself in those shoes and see the truth of your own life story getting mirrored there. Tolkien wrote in such a way that he didn't restrict it if your own life story goes to an extreme, thinking of the Jews in Germany, for example, who I'm sure were just as terrified of getting identified to the gestapo by their own neighbors on the basis of how they worshipped. But is that extreme going to be the case for most people? No. And I would hate to exclude them, as my grandfather excluded me, because their own life experience just never got that intense that they could relate on that level. I would not wish that on anyone. But if you happen to be there, then know that you're not alone there.

[Wolfhelm]

But, as has been said in previous posts, the mark of a good writer is to leave enough off the page for everyone to take what they need to apply in their own lives.
The fact that decades later we have these discussions is testament to what an amazing writer he was as there truly is no right or wrong answer.

Well said, and Tolkien even touched on the subject himself in the text below.

“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.”

JRR Tolkien

[jeffryl]

Well said, and Tolkien even touched on the subject himself in the text below.

“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.”

JRR Tolkien

I agree. People who want to impose their interpretation on us should be feel shame. The reason in our case is they dislike the fact frodon and sam are in love in some interpretation. Probably because they are homophobic.

[subadar]

if a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies out of love does that make him gay? i dont think so.

i smell confirmation bias.

[Radhruin_EU]

I agree. People who want to impose their interpretation on us should be feel shame. The reason in our case is they dislike the fact frodon and sam are in love in some interpretation. Probably because they are homophobic.

If you prefer to read it that way for your own enjoyment, you're more than welcome. But it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so you shouldn't complain if people reject it. And most especially you shouldn't label them as phobic if they do.

In his letters, Tolkien indicates that Sam's relationship to Frodo is that of a good servant who's devoted to his master, to the point of being prepared to give up his own life to save him. To borrow a line from elsewhere, "greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his brother". Tolkien was a deeply religious man, and he said LOTR was a 'fundamentally religious and Catholic work' so essentially it's like that, it's got brotherly love written all over it in letters large and you'd have to blithely ignore that in order to read their relationship as romantic.

[DavidmeetHal]

Probably because they are homophobic.

No need to insult people or pull out the bigot/race card. The topic has gotten a little heated but both sides of the fence have been stating their beliefs in an intelligent manner without insults. Don't ruin it.

[Elebraen]

If you prefer to read it that way for your own enjoyment, you're more than welcome. But it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so you shouldn't complain if people reject it. And most especially you shouldn't label them as phobic if they do.

In his letters, Tolkien indicates that Sam's relationship to Frodo is that of a good servant who's devoted to his master, to the point of being prepared to give up his own life to save him. To borrow a line from elsewhere, "greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his brother". Tolkien was a deeply religious man, and he said LOTR was a 'fundamentally religious and Catholic work' so essentially it's like that, it's got brotherly love written all over it in letters large and you'd have to blithely ignore that in order to read their relationship as romantic.

LOL, he said that in a response letter to a priest, telling the priest exactly what the priest wanted to hear, as though homosexuals and other hiders aren't well practiced in doing that. He also said in his other letters that LOTR has nothing to do with the Christian religion and everything to do with his "please publish me" as yet unpublished Silmarillion, Middle-earth predating Christianity by a huge amount of time like many other major world religions that still exist today. And to hear his synopsis of LOTRO to his own editors and curious fans, he always starts out by describing all of the relevant events of the Silmarillion that led up to the culmination of LOTR, and he never once mentions any particular reference to anything in the Christian religion as being the reason why he wrote the story in the directions that he did. Just like everyone else, you're seeing the mirror of your own life experience reflected by the universal truths upon which all enduring religions are based. If you had any life experience with a different religion, you would naturally be seeing this story a different way.

What struck me as more curious with Tolkien's letters was that he saw the Silmarillion and LOTR as a work about Death versus Immortality, and wondered often why mortality, a short human lifespan, would be thought of as a "gift to men", as though he was questioning his own religious beliefs. He didn't seem to think there was a heaven for them, no Valinor for humans, or at least not one that he wrote into his Silmarillion that would give them some sort of rewarding life after death to look forward to. That's a very un-Christian thing to do. Contrast that with perpetual Elven reincarnation where they may die, but they get reborn to repeat exactly who they were in life as long as the world they live in still exists that the Elves have no fear of death. That's a very Hindu type of belief. And if the Elves do go to Valinor, that's like the attainment of perfection that is perpetually preserved that reincarnation is no longer necessary for them. Elves are more concerned with "fading", with becoming irrelevant and unimportant when the children, the humans, grow up and grow past them to take over the world. Does "fading" get to a point where the elves can't be reincarnated?

But in my opinion, although the elves represent Time, the humans represent breadth. And if I was the Maker, I would want to have that mortality so that I could determine whether or not whatever the humans picked up or developed was a good fit for the breadth of the Music. Then I would decide if I wanted to have it permanently preserved in Time that there could be room for hobbits and dwarves in Valinor, a second lifetime for some select humans, so to speak, but not as a human so that the gift of mortality for humans would be preserved.

[Radhruin_EU]

LOL, he said that in a response letter to a priest, telling the priest exactly what the priest wanted to hear, as though homosexuals and other hiders aren't well practiced in doing that. He also said in his other letters that LOTR has nothing to do with the Christian religion and everything to do with his "please publish me" as yet unpublished Silmarillion, Middle-earth predating Christianity by a huge amount of time like many other major world religions that still exist today. And to hear his synopsis of LOTRO to his own editors and curious fans, he always starts out by describing all of the relevant events of the Silmarillion that led up to the culmination of LOTR, and he never once mentions any particular reference to anything in the Christian religion as being the reason why he wrote the story in the directions that he did. Just like everyone else, you're seeing the mirror of your own life experience reflected by the universal truths upon which all enduring religions are based. If you had any life experience with a different religion, you would naturally be seeing this story a different way.

What struck me as more curious with Tolkien's letters was that he saw the Silmarillion and LOTR as a work about Death versus Immortality, and wondered often why mortality, a short human lifespan, would be thought of as a "gift to men", as though he was questioning his own religious beliefs. He didn't seem to think there was a heaven for them, no Valinor for humans, or at least not one that he wrote into his Silmarillion that would give them some sort of rewarding life after death to look forward to. That's a very un-Christian thing to do. Contrast that with perpetual Elven reincarnation where they may die, but they get reborn to repeat exactly who they were in life as long as the world they live in still exists that the Elves have no fear of death. That's a very Hindu type of belief. And if the Elves do go to Valinor, that's like the attainment of perfection that is perpetually preserved that reincarnation is no longer necessary for them. Elves are more concerned with "fading", with becoming irrelevant and unimportant when the children, the humans, grow up and grow past them to take over the world.

But in my opinion, although the elves represent Time, the humans represent breadth. And if I was the Maker, I would want to have that mortality so that I could determine whether or not whatever the humans picked up or developed was a good fit for the breadth of the Music. Then I would decide if I wanted to have it permanently preserved in Time that there could be room for hobbits and dwarves in Valinor, a second lifetime for some select humans, so to speak, but not as a human so that the gift of mortality for humans would be preserved.

Err... no. Starting off with a 'LOL' and then something conspiratorial is no way to be taken seriously. Next, there is a *lot* of recognisable Christian symbolism there; of course he didn't include anything literally Christian in it or obvious allegory (because he didn't go in for that at all) but that's not the point. It reflected his beliefs and his religious thinking and we know that because he said so. I've got no axe to grind there, I'm an atheist! But I've got no problem accepting when something's got specific religious thinking behind it, especially as the author freely admitted it and there's been a lot of scholarship about that very point. Of course it can be read across to other religions (monotheistic ones, at least) but that doesn't change the fact that its author's thinking was powerfully influenced and informed by a specific one and that it shows.

The reason why Men being mortal was a gift was that with that they were able to follow their own fate, whereas the will of Iluvatar 'was as fate' to the Elves (meaning that they ultimately had no meaningful free will) and they were tied to Arda even in death, whereas the spirits of Men went somewhere beyond the world after they died. Hmm, wonder where that could be? Care to hazard a guess as to what he might have been alluding to there but didn't want to come right out and say? He wasn't questioning his own beliefs, he was setting things up in a way that was compatible with them without ramming them down his readers' throats.

[Wolfhelm]

I agree. People who want to impose their interpretation on us should be feel shame. The reason in our case is they dislike the fact frodon and sam are in love in some interpretation. Probably because they are homophobic.

If you think what you've said here is in agreement with the point I was trying to make, then you are greatly mistaken. Of course you are free to interpret "Frodon and Sam's" (as you so eloquently put it) friendship as romantic love, that's your right. However, most people who've responded to this thread, myself included, don't see it that way at all, and to brand us all as homophobes for disagreeing with your view goes completely against what Tolkien was saying in the text I quoted.

[Elebraen]

Care to hazard a guess as to what he might have been alluding to there but didn't want to come right out and say?

You cannot allude to Christian beliefs and not allow for alluding to non-Christian beliefs in the same "guess what Tolkien was alluding to" game that the homosexuals are playing to insert their own preferences of interpretation there.

But to hazard a guess in my own willfully non-Christian and yet spiritual sort of way:

"Somewhere beyond the world after they died.... where could that be?" The Void? That's a very Buddhist point of view.

[Harvain]

Tolkien wrote of true love and not always in the form of Romantic Love.

Love in Tolkien's works had many versions, a love of a friend, a comrade, a Captain, a Lord or Lady or a Hero who would arise during times when such were needed. This doesn't always imply that there was any form of Romantic Elements behind such.

Men in Gondor loved their Captain Faramir and would have fought beside him and where he would lead which is shown that those who truly loved and believed in their Captain were able to hold long their marching retreat after the Causeway Forts were taken and all Gondorian Forces were pushed across the Pelennor back towards Minas Tirith even while others were driven by fear, madness or injury and had fled before the others.

Pippen himself upon seeing Faramir who arrived back in Minas Tirith before the battle of the Causeway Forts and the opening of the Siege of Minas Tirith found himself so moved by this Captain of Gondor that he right then and there would have marched to the River and fought against Sauron's soon to be assault.

Other examples being such as the love between Gimli the Dwarf and the Lady Galadriel. For in the Golden Lady of the Wood, Gimli Gloin's son found someone who understood the hurts and loves of the Dwarves in one who he had deemed an enemy of his people. And from this understanding Gimli found that Lady Galadriel was the fairest of all Ladies in Middle Earth and the story shows he was ready to fight Eomer who disagreed but was forgiven as Eomer found Arwen to be the fairest. To which Gimli says that he loves the Morning (Galadriel) while Eomer loves the Evening (Arwen).

This love in both cases is not a romantic love but merely facts to these 2 beings who have each seen what they deem to be the fairest of woman in Middle Earth and especially in Gimli's case a person who could be deemed a friend and likely a key reason why Gimli more than likely was given permission to be in Valinor due to the love of Legolas and the Lady Galadriel not withstanding his deeds in the War of the Ring.

[Elebraen]

Okay, I had to look it up, but this is the all important letter that Tolkien wrote to an editor about his own work, and particularly the part about the Christianity that he consciously and deliberately did not put into it.

131 To Milton Waldman p. 167

"... Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized,
associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be
missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another
and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.

For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all
art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit,
not in the known form of the primary 'real' world. ..."

Did Tolkien include universal truths? Yes. Do religions include universal truths? Yes. Can one conclude that the inclusion of universal truths automatically equates to including one specific religion out of the many different religions that include universal truths? No.

[Elebraen]

He wasn't questioning his own beliefs, he was setting things up in a way that was compatible with them without ramming them down his readers' throats.

Furthermore, and from the same letter

131 To Milton Waldman p. 167

"The cycles begin with a cosmogonical myth: the Music of the Ainur. God and the Valar (or
powers: Englished as gods) are revealed. These latter are as we should say angelic powers, whose
function is to exercise delegated authority in their spheres (of rule and government, not creation,
making or re-making). They are 'divine', that is, were originally 'outside' and existed 'before' the
making of the world. Their power and wisdom is derived from their Knowledge of the
cosmogonical drama, which they perceived first as a drama (that is as in a fashion we perceive a
story composed by some-one else), and later as a 'reality'. On the side of mere narrative device, this
is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods'
of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted – well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes
in the Blessed Trinity."

So I get the impression from this that Tolkien was trying to create a pantheon that the Christians wouldn't reject, not because he couldn't accept a Greek, Roman or Norse pantheon mythology but because they wouldn't.

[Elebraen]

And another quote from one of Tolkien's letters on how he perceived his own most personally moving scenes:

96 To Christopher Tolkien 20 Northmoor Road, Oxford
30 January 1945 (FS 78)

"I am so glad you felt that 'the Ring' is keeping up its standard, and (it seems) achieving that
difficult thing in a long tale: maintaining a difference of quality and atmosphere in events that might
easily become 'samey'. For myself, I was prob. most moved by Sam's disquisition on the seamless
web of story, and by the scene when Frodo goes to sleep on his breast, and the tragedy of Gollum
who at that moment came within a hair of repentance – but for one rough word from Sam. But the
'moving' quality of that is on a different plane to Celebrimbor etc. There are two quit diff. emotions:
one that moves me supremely and I find small difficulty in evoking: the heart-racking sense of the
vanished past (best expressed by Gandalf's words about the Palantir); and the other the more
'ordinary' emotion, triumph, pathos, tragedy of the characters. That I am learning to do, as I get to
know my people, but it is not really so near my heart, and is forced on me by the fundamental
literary dilemma. A story must be told or there'll be no story, yet it is the untold stories that are most
moving. I think you are moved by Celebrimbor because it conveys a sudden sense of endless untold
stories: mountains seen far away, never to be climbed, distant trees (like Niggle's) never to be
approached – or if so only to become 'near trees' (unless in Paradise or N's Parish)."

[Radhruin_EU]

You cannot allude to Christian beliefs and not allow for alluding to non-Christian beliefs in the same "guess what Tolkien was alluding to" game that the homosexuals are playing to insert their own preferences of interpretation there.

But to hazard a guess in my own willfully non-Christian and yet spiritual sort of way:

"Somewhere beyond the world after they died.... where could that be?" The Void? That's a very Buddhist point of view.

Of course you can, you just do it in a subtle way so that Christians can get the hint but it's non-specific enough that non-Christians can find it applicable too. (At least if they're monotheists - LOTR is more vague but the Sil isn't).

Okay, I had to look it up, but this is the all important letter that Tolkien wrote to an editor about his own work, and particularly the part about the Christianity that he consciously and deliberately did not put into it.

It explains why he made no explicit references. That doesn't exclude implicit ones or the use of symbolism.

So I get the impression from this that Tolkien was trying to create a pantheon that the Christians wouldn't reject, not because he couldn't accept a Greek, Roman or Norse pantheon mythology but because they wouldn't.

It's not a pantheon, though; the Valar aren't gods. They're servants of Eru Iluvatar, the one true God (and I put it that way because conceptually Eru *is* God, Tolkien just gave him a pseudonym). Tolkien was a devout Catholic and wanted to keep things compatible with his own beliefs, and so we get a definitively monotheistic milieu but where there's something reminiscent of a pantheon to explain why Men would believe in such a thing. The Valar could be mistaken for gods by Men and worshipped as such but they didn't want or expect that. The Elves revered the Valar but didn't regard them as gods and directly referenced Eru only on the most solemn occasions. The Dunedain honoured the Valar while worshipping Eru (in a special sort of way, outdoors so Tolkien could avoid them having a temple or a sacred enclosure or grove, and where it was the king who offered prayers to Eru on behalf of the people so there was no need for a priesthood either). So this is Tolkien trying to have his cake and eat it too, but what it leaves is a highly visible and otherwise unaccountable gap where societies like that would typically have some sort of sacred space plus rites and a priesthood to perform them. The only temple we ever see is the evil one that Sauron got the Numenoreans to build and dedicate to Melkor.

[Elebraen]

It explains why he made no explicit references. That doesn't exclude implicit ones or the use of symbolism.

Letter 131 - Tolkien: "In the cosmogony there is a fall: a fall of Angels we should say. Though quite different in form,
of course, to that of Christian myth. These tales are 'new', they are not directly derived from other
myths and legends, but they must inevitably contain a large measure of ancient wide-spread motives
or elements. After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of 'truth', and indeed
present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes
of this kind were discovered and must always reappear. There cannot be any 'story' without a fall –
all stories are ultimately about the fall – at least not for human minds as we know them and have
them.
So, proceeding, the Elves have a fall, before their 'history' can become storial. ..."

All enduring mythologies and religions contain universal truths, or they do not endure beyond the lifespan of their own creators, a bunch of BS having zero value to anyone else. And the BS within the given mythology still has zero value, too, as we pull out the few grains of universal truths that are worth keeping. Tolkien created his own mythology. That's a fact. But as a reader, you can't relate to a language that is foreign to you that he uses translations that you will understand. If Tolkien had said instead, "a fall of Eldar we should say," a much more accurate language translation, what the heck would that mean to you, the foreigner in a new world who can't speak the language to even know what an Eldar is to be able to care? As a writer, Tolkien has to give you points that you can connect to if he wants to make himself fully understood. Most of England spoke the Christian language that his translations were designed for including them in his own idea for an English mythology, but he could easily and frequently did live in the language of his own mythology creation without them. But if you refuse to take the man at his own word, then all his own words are rendered meaningless and there's no point in quoting him because you will never choose to believe that he means exactly what he said. In the above Tolkien quote, that Christian translation would imply that Angels = Elves. He is taking your mind away from the familiar world that you knew, and into the unfamiliar world you're going to get to know, a very nice transition that leaves Christianity behind and sets you free from having to think in that straightjacket of religious rules and regulations and worries about excommunication, and frees you from that incredibly frightening form of social rejection that Catholics like to terrorize each other with that you might want to hide this newfound freedom of thought from your local inquiring priest.

Letter 131 - Tolkien: " The main body of the tale, the Silmarillion proper, is about the fall of the most
gifted kindred of the Elves, their exile from Valinor (a kind of Paradise, the home of the Gods) in
the furthest West, their re-entry into Middle-earth, the land of their birth but long under the rule of
the Enemy, and their strife with him, the power of Evil still visibly incarnate."

Okay, Gods, plural, which was actually referring to the Valar, not to the Creator of the Valar. One Creator, many created Valar, considered divine (and Englished as gods) in that they were made before the world was made while it was still just an architect's sketch, like a monotheistic sort of polytheism. That one brush stroke is so broad that is can include every enduring religion and mythology in the world in its own applicability, and I fail to understand why you would want to narrow that down to a specific one, and as a self-proclaimed atheist no less who supposedly doesn't adhere to any of them even while you're trying to force somebody else [Tolkien] to adhere to his own privately professed one. If I should try to force you to adhere to your own professed beliefs in like manner so that you could never deviate in your own thoughts or deeds from atheism, would you reject that? Or would you welcome that? You've gotten into Tolkien's underwear and discovered that he's Catholic, and you decided to focus your own attention on that, but there was a lot more to the man than what was in his own underwear, and in Tolkien's own public profession, he seemed to be focusing on everything else but what was in his own underwear.

As far as religion goes, at least in my own understanding of this world and the world beyond this one, religion is only good for what's in your own underwear. It doesn't apply, nor should it ever get applied, to the rest of your development. Not to your mind. Not to your heart. Not to your spirit. Your underwear has a specific purpose for begetting, for refreshing the life vibrancy (life energy) of this world and the world beyond, and as long as the begetting is still getting done (the inherited responsibility for your own family legacy lines, not for everyone else's), then the rest of you is free to be exactly who you are in the way you want to live and in the way you want to love with your own life. It's encouraged even, happy begetters having much higher life energy quality and longevity value than the unhappy begetters.

But it's not a love relationship if you can't figure out a way to make love with somebody without your begetter equipment that the underwear stays home, in the Shire, where it belongs, and the rest of yourself can travel beyond the Shire and explore freely. Homosexuality is an irrelevant label if you're not bringing your own begetter equipment along, and so is Catholicism. When somebody tells me that they are a strict adherent to their own religion, I respect that as being their own lifemaking responsibility. Frankly, they're not free to engage and explore beyond their own legacy line responsibilities that I leave them alone with it. They know where to find me when they're free if they're interested in engaging with me. But what difference is my private underwear religion going to make to you, my own Sam and Rosie of arranged marriages, a place where outsiders to my own family legacy lines can never enter nor ever truly understand? Publicly, Tolkien offered what he is willing to share about himself, and he didn't include his own underwear in that. I can accept and appreciate that. The people who can't appreciate that generally don't have any family legacy line responsibilities either, religion being mostly lip service to them, not an actual way of life, not a destiny that they are being groomed and educated to fulfill from the time that they're children. These are the children who are not restricted from having knowledge of the world beyond. Frodo was Bilbo's heir. Frodo was groomed and educated to fulfill that family legacy line position out of the many different cousins that could have. Tolkien is revealing a part of the world that most people will never see. Frodo spent 17 years fulfilling his own religious responsibility with his own begetter equipment (the specific underwear religion unnamed) before he was able to leave the Shire and explore freely beyond it for his own life's refreshment. At 50 years old, I reached menopause. I love menopause! At 33 years old, Sam got to inherit the specific underwear religion, and like an apprentice, Sam was in training that he stuck to Frodo like glue, getting groomed and educated for his own family legacy line destiny before he settled down with Rosie and did some begetting (the specific underwear religion unnamed). Frodo was Bilbo's chosen heir. Sam was Frodo's chosen heir. You can't go to Valinor (nor travel beyond the Shire) without making an heir to take your place on the family legacy lines. The Creator, if you will, will let your body rot away to nothingness, a black-cloaked skeletal figure with begetter equipment, until you make an heir to take your place on the family legacy lines. What you get as a teaser is that brief but incredibly valuable glimpse of the life that waits for you beyond the Shire once all of your legacy line begetting responsibilities have been fulfilled, a reward worth working towards until you forget why you ever agreed to do this. Outside of the Shire, the last thing you're going to be interested in for your interpersonal relationships is your own underwear. (Thus the reason my grandmother married an openly homosexual man who was not the least bit interested in her underwear).

So, at least for me, you need to define more clearly. Are we talking about the symbolism that's involved in personally recognizing what's in your own underwear, your private begetting religion and the marriage arrangements that are made with it? Or are we talking about everything else that you're still free to make love with and have lovemaking relationships with beyond your own underwear? Because I can assure you that I do not see the world, nor even Tolkien's world, the same way that most other people do. And there are certain begetting relationships that are gender exclusive where a heterosexual begetting relationship cannot be used for what needs to be made for the life energy refreshment requirements there. Specifically, a man's prostate (gender exclusive) and a woman's ovaries (gender exclusive), where to gender cross them because you want to force a heterosexual relationship upon them would make a natural Melkor conflict of grotesque gender deformities on a size and scale that would destroy the family legacy lines altogether, just to put it into a language that you can easily understand. Not that I would miss you, but it's the point. A stomach? That's not gender exclusive that a heterosexual begetting relationship is fine. What is necessary for the lifemakers and for the family legacy lines determines what the relationship rules are going to be for that specific religion. The religion does not determine what the relationship rules are going to be for the lifemakers. The people who are lifemakers develop their own religions when they're establishing their own family legacy lines, what are called Elders in my world, not Eldars. And they are building their own Kingdom designs, on the scale of a Rivendell or Lothlorien that there can be many adherents to that specific underwear religion, but it is not a set of family legacy line rules that will ever apply or can ever be applied outside of that Elder's city that the religious disagreements that exist between Rivendell and Lothlorien are pointless and irrelevant. They both have underwear, and that's a universal truth.

[Radhruin_EU]

But if you refuse to take the man at his own word

I am taking the man art his own word, though. What we have here isn't a straight 'mythology for England' as that would have been thoroughly pagan in character, but a Christianised one where you've got one true God (in all but name) and his assorted 'angelic' servants, with a pseudo-pantheon of those to cover that mythological role. He liked pagan myth but couldn't help but adapt and present it in a way that' wouldn't offend either his own beliefs or those of other Christians. It's a sort of mythological Bowdlerism, where the Valar don't really behave in the way pagan gods were generally portrayed. At that level it's all very anodyne, without any of the earthy goings-on you'll find in genuine myth. How you imagine this as "leaving Christianity behind" is beyond me - you cannot escape it here because Tolkien refused to leave it behind himself in writing all this.

While I'm an atheist I was brought up Catholic (I never believed, I essentially don't have a religious bone in my body, but I had no choice when I was a kid but to play along to keep my father and his side of the family happy) and so I've been thoroughly exposed to Roman Catholicism by way of my failed indoctrination. That's useful here as it lends me some insight into that world-view. When I first read that letter Tolkien wrote where he said that LOTR was 'Christian and Catholic' at its core I was unsurprised, having surmised as much myself years before and having read the Silmarillion in the meantime (Tolkien's origin myth doesn't come across as pagan, it's got distinctly Judaeo-Christian overtones with Eru alone possessing the true power of creation and speaking the word that creates the world). What you seem to be engaging in here is wishful thinking, where you'd like to think it's something other than it is, but in doing that you then lack explanations as to why it is the specific way it is (starting with who and what Eru represents and going on from there).

From letter #131:

"The cycles begin with a cosmogonical myth: the Music of the Ainur. God and the Valar (or
powers: Englished as gods) are revealed. These latter are as we should say angelic powers, whose
function is to exercise delegated authority in their spheres (of rule and government, not creation,
making or re-making). They are 'divine', that is, were originally 'outside' and existed 'before' the
making of the world. Their power and wisdom is derived from their Knowledge of the
cosmogonical drama, which they perceived first as a drama (that is as in a fashion we perceive a
story composed by some-one else), and later as a 'reality'. On the side of mere narrative device, this
is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods'
of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted – well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes
in the Blessed Trinity."

So the Valar are 'as we should say angelic powers' (i.e. not actually gods), subordinate to God and wielding delegated authority rather than it being all their own, reminiscent of the 'gods' of ancient myth in terms of beauty, power and majesty (but not behaviour, as I noted earlier!), so that he can have something of the air of ancient myth without leaving the comfort zone of his own belief system.

As an example of where Tolkien may have shown his hand, there is some rather suspicious symbolism in terms of the role of Elbereth as the favourite Valar of the Elves, where she appears in a role that's rather reminiscent of the one the Virgin Mary has in Catholicism. The object of special devotion in song and prayer, revered but not worshipped, having some of the attributes of a divinity by proxy without actually being one, being referred as a queen (Mary is sometimes styled as 'Queen of Heaven' and depicted as enthroned and/or crowned), being a symbol of purity and most tellingly of all, commonly being called upon through prayer to intercede. 'A Elbereth Gilthoniel' in LOTR is written as a prayer which Sam and Frodo use to call on Elbereth, having apparently been divinely inspired to do so as the words came to them unbidden and Sam in particular had no idea what he was saying.

Another intriguing snippet can be found in Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth (a philosophical discussion contrasting the views of the Eldar and the Edain) which hints that while Eru is 'the One' his hidden inner nature may be more complex and that comes across as a nod to the Trinity. It's hinted that 'the One will himself enter in to Arda, and heal Men and all the Marring from the beginning to the end' and it's pretty obvious what that's getting at since the discussion includes the concept of Eru entering into his own creation while simultaneously remaining outside it as an eternal being. Eru entering into the world is referred to as the Hope, and that's a far from subtle reference given that Jesus was seen as 'the Hope of the World'. The Secret Fire that is 'with' Eru (rather than something separate from him, which was why Melkor couldn't find it) has been suggested to be a take on the Holy Spirit. Regardless, those would be allusions to exclusively Christian concepts.

As I mentioned earlier a lot of scholarly attention has been applied to Tolkien's work over the years and others can plainly see this subtext so it's not just me imagining things.

[Elebraen]

As I mentioned earlier a lot of scholarly attention has been applied to Tolkien's work over the years and others can plainly see this subtext so it's not just me imagining things.

And again I say, you're just looking in his begetting underwear, and there's a lot more to it than just that. He may have been raised in the Christian religion, but he did not write it. Christianity was not his own original concept, therefore he would get no credit for merely repeating it. What he is getting credit for is his own original concept. THAT is something that has actual value to this world and beyond it.

You're going to find the same universal truths in all enduring religions because they're all made of the same vital organ body parts, to continue with the earlier simplified analogy, but not in the same development organization of them. Thus, the written mythology changes. You can't pull the Virgin Mary and say that's who Galadriel is because the Virgin Mary came much earlier in the Christian development story, about the same place in the organization of time of where Bilbo would be, a male bachelor. And although you wouldn't think it makes a difference in the telling of the story, the same universal truth characters but located in different places in the timing of development and with different intensity levels, it actually makes a huge difference when the reorganized story is actually told that original concepts can be made this way, and the final product will look and feel completely different. If you tried to live this LOTR story from a Christian navigation point of view, you're own begetting maps would be way off the mark and nothing would be begotten. -- Uh, that's a nostril, son. -- And then it really does fall into the realm of pure fantasy, pure imagination, because nothing of material substance can be grown if the begetting mark has been completely missed. So whether you think this story is pure imagination or whether you think there's a lot more substance of reality to it depends on whether or not you were able to hit the begetting mark. Christianity is the "tried and true" that a lot of people rely upon it, but those navigation maps aren't any good outside of that religion, just as the maps of your own native country aren't any good when you're traveling outside of your own native country. You're either given or you're making brand new maps.

[Radhruin_EU]

And again I say, you're just looking in his begetting underwear, and there's a lot more to it than just that. He may have been raised in the Christian religion, but he did not write it. Christianity was not his own original concept, therefore he would get no credit for merely repeating it. What he is getting credit for is his own original concept. THAT is something that has actual value to this world and beyond it.

When did I say that was all there was to it? It was a strong influence on his work because he was devout. and you can see he cared enough that he couldn't leave ii at the door and felt compelled to build aspects of it into his work. In LOTR it's in the form of symbolism so it's not obtrusive and by and large it's more universal in its applicability, but there's no mistaking where the religious influence is actually from. And the Silmarillion is very clearly influenced by Abrahamic religion, right from the get-go.

You're going to find the same universal truths in all enduring religions because they're all made of the same vital organ body parts, to continue with the earlier simplified analogy, but not in the same development organization of them. Thus, the written mythology changes. You can't pull the Virgin Mary and say that's who Galadriel is because the Virgin Mary came much earlier in the Christian development story, about the same place in the organization of time of where Bilbo would be, a male bachelor. And although you wouldn't think it makes a difference in the telling of the story, the same universal truth characters but located in different places in the timing of development and with different intensity levels, it actually makes a huge difference when the reorganized story is actually told that original concepts can be made this way, and the final product will look and feel completely different. If you tried to live this LOTR story from a Christian navigation point of view, you're own begetting maps would be way off the mark and nothing would be begotten. -- Uh, that's a nostril, son. -- And then it really does fall into the realm of pure fantasy, pure imagination, because nothing of material substance can be grown if the begetting mark has been completely missed. So whether you think this story is pure imagination or whether you think there's a lot more substance of reality to it depends on whether or not you were able to hit the begetting mark. Christianity is the "tried and true" that a lot of people rely upon it, but those navigation maps aren't any good outside of that religion, just as the maps of your own native country aren't any good when you're traveling outside of your own native country. You're either given or you're making brand new maps.

I said earlier that what we've got here is a Christianised constructed mythology, rather than a purely Christian one. There's a difference. Of course you can't navigate it from a purely Christian point of view because it draws on various Northern European mythologies as well. But one thing's for sure, you can't truly understand Tolkien without taking due account of that specifically Christian religious influence.

If Tolkien had simply wanted to express universal truths he wouldn't have needed to Christianise it at all. But no, he needed it to be compatible with his own beliefs as well.

[Elebraen]

Tolkien was "consonant" with Christian beliefs only in that he was not being "discordant" with them, as in actively trying to be anti-Christian or atheist.

But I will give you relevant quotes and dates and pages and a link to the book that I've been using this whole time to find out what he was thinking. I won't repeat the quotes that were already put up.

Here's the link. It's an online PDF file, so that you could actually read the whole book if you wanted to.
THE LETTERS OF J. R. R. TOLKIEN

165 To the Houghton Mifflin Co. July 1955 p. 233
"I am in any case myself a Christian; but the 'Third Age' was not a Christian world."

212 Draft of a continuation of the above letter (not sent) October 1958 p. 301
"I suppose a difference between this Myth and what may be perhaps called Christian mythology
is this. In the latter the Fall of Man is subsequent to and a consequence (though not a necessary
consequence) of the 'Fall of the Angels' : a rebellion of created free-will at a higher level than Man;
but it is not clearly held (and in many versions is not held at all) that this affected the 'World' in its
nature: evil was brought in from outside, by Satan. In this Myth the rebellion of created free-will
precedes creation of the World (Eä); and Eä has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions,
discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken."

269 From a letter to W. H. Auden 12 May 1965 p 378
I don't feel under any obligation to make my story fit
with formalized Christian theology, though I actually intended it to be consonant with Christian
thought and belief, which is asserted somewhere, Book Five, page 190, where Frodo asserts that
the orcs are not evil in origin.

284 To W. H. Auden 23 February 1966 p 395
[Auden told Tolkien that he had agreed to write a short book about him, in collaboration with Peter H. Salus,
for a seres entitled Christian Perspectives; he hoped this did not meet with Tolkien's disapproval.]
I regret very much to hear that you have contracted to write a book about me. It does meet with
my strong disapproval. I regard such things as premature impertinences; and unless undertaken by
an intimate friend, or with consultation of the subject (for which I have at present no time), I cannot
believe that they have a usefulness to justify the distaste and irritation given to the victim. I wish at
any rate that any book could wait until I produce the Silmarillion.

297 Drafts for a letter to 'Mr Rang' Aug. 1967 p 411
"As for the 'land of Mor?ah' (note stress): that has no connexion (even 'externally') whatsoever.
Internally there is no conceivable connexion between the mining of Dwarves, and the story of
Abraham. I utterly repudiate any such significances and symbolisms. My mind does not work that
way; and (in my view) you are led astray by a purely fortuitous similarity, more obvious in spelling
than speech, which cannot be justified from the real intended significance of my story....
The use of éarendel in A-S Christian symbolism as the herald of the rise of the true Sun in Christ is completely alien to my use.
The Fall of Man is in the past and off stage; the Redemption of Man in the far future."

320 From a letter to Mrs Ruth Austin 25 January 1971 p 442
"I was particularly interested in your remarks about Galadriel. .... I think it is true that I owe
much of this character to Christian and Catholic teaching and imagination about Mary, but actually
Galadriel was a penitent: in her youth a leader in the rebellion against the Valar (the angelic
guardians). At the end of the First Age she proudly refused forgiveness or permission to return. She
was pardoned because of her resistance to the final and overwhelming temptation to take the Ring
for herself."


So what have we got here? Denial, denial, orcs are not considered irredeemable for the sake of our Christian consonance, strong disapproval, utter repudiation concerning a connection to Abraham and such symbolisms, and an explanation about Galadriel's actual character, which was not a very devout or pretty picture of a woman at all let alone the Virgin Mary.

"My mind does not work that way..." I should think that a man who is Christian would have found a huge Christian audience if he had claimed, at any time, that his book was inspired by Christianity, however remote. There's a huge publishing market for that kind of inspirational book and he certainly would have had no reason to hide that about himself, considering himself to be one of them. But instead, he never even considered that as his own target audience, nor did his own publishers that it got published as high fantasy instead. And Tolkien spent many letters correcting the people who kept wanting to find their own Christian symbolism in it, fighting against them, a decidedly uphill, stress filled battle just in the sheer numbers of them who are going to stand directly opposed to him when they tell him what he was really writing about, lol.

I do have a written mythology of my own, but just for these reasons, it is never getting published, rofl. Three courtroom appearances fighting with a Catholic over the custody of my own self-possession was plenty. Those were my three days in hell.