As I don't have a yearning for religion, why would I have a yearning for a religion substitute? I don't think there's an empty religion-shaped space in me that wants filling. I suppose only people who've been religious in the past have that empty space.
I have my own morality that suits me well enough. Yes, LOTR has some moral content, but so do many other works of fiction. I think that no two moralities are ever exactly the same, and the morality of Tolkien or any author is unlikely to match mine, although there's usually a fair amount of common ground.
I can think of one thing I've lacked in my life: a job that I could throw myself into with real enthusiasm. I don't hate my work, but I'd have retired from working at any age if I'd inherited a fortune. There are things I like to do, but they don't tend to earn me money. I don't think I'm unusual in this.
One could easily tell an evolutionary psychology story supporting the idea that such myth making helped or was part of something that enhanced group cohesion among hunter gatherers.
It is challenged by a position I associate with Nietzsche, the idea that sin and evil were innovations of Judaism and Christianity, that the ancient Romans and Greeks looked at things with a fundamental difference. The ancients had religion, but supposedly took a different perspective on its relation to violations of social mores. A perhaps oversimplified interpretation of that would mean that if you got away with braking some rule, that meant you were favored by some god, or actually accomplishing something on their behalf, and if you annoyed the gods, they would see to it that you regretted it.
I don’t know enough about the ancients to speculate about where they derived meaning, or whether they count as a counterexample to your thesis.
Hayek speculated that we are stuck with intuitions that are still appropriate to small tribes, which make us uncomfortable with the sort of arms length interactions required by large populations and a dispersed and decentralized web of production. This dualism gives us trouble.
“If we were to apply the unmodified, uncurbed, rules of the micro-cosmos (i.e., of the small band or troop, or of, say, our families) to the macro-cosmos (our wider civilisation), as our instincts and sentimental yearnings often make us wish to do, we would destroy it. Yet if we were always to apply the rules of the extended order to our more intimate groupings, we would crush them. So we must learn to live in two sorts of world at once. To apply the name ‘society’ to both, or even to either, is hardly of any use, and can be most misleading”
There is a story, told by both Tolkien and Lewis, which appears to be of Lewis saying to Tolkien that the Gospels were a fairy tale, and Tolkien asking Lewis, "Is there any fairy tale that would give you more joy if you learned that it was actually true?"—which led to Lewis becoming Christian (as he was not at that time). I have reflected, more than once, that if I were asked that same question, my answer would be, "Actually, yes: The Lord of the Rings and the rest of the legendarium." Even in the movies, flawed though they were, when Aragorn was described as having "the splendor of the kings of Men in glory undimmed before the breaking of the world," it gave me chills. Though I suspect that Tolkien would have been appalled to find his (sub-) creation so regarded.
I'm not sure I have a theory to explain the appeal of art. But I wonder if a definition that Tolkien surely knew, "An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace," might be relevant? Perhaps art is a way of giving us visible (or audible, or narratable) images of value.
That’s an interesting question, which I’ve never thought about before. I find the situation hard to imagine, but I think my immediate reaction would be that my world had changed for the worse. Because I’ve been playing the game of life for 69 years now, and I thought I knew more or less how it worked, but in this hypothetical situation I’d suddenly find I was playing a completely different game with new rules, and it’s not even clear what the rules are. I don’t think any religion has a clear and authoritative statement of how it works and what its rules are, which is why each religion has divided into many different sects with somewhat different beliefs.
Furthermore, if God really exists, then I’m at the mercy of some superpowerful being whom I distrust and may well end up disliking. This is not a good situation to be in. I’m already at the mercy of politicians whom I distrust and don’t usually like, but at least they’re not superpowerful and immortal!
You’re a more hardcore libertarian than I am, I’d have thought you’d like this situation even less than I do.
I don't think I'm looking for a sense of meaning, because I don't think life has any meaning. In the context of the universe, humans are a tiny, insignificant, and meaningless phenomenon. I suppose it may be nice to think that your life has meaning, that it will go on forever, that God loves you, and so on, but I can't help regarding it as a delusion.
On the other hand, it's certainly possible to have a sense of purpose. Since I was a child, I've wanted to write novels. If I were a good storyteller, I could find my purpose in writing successful novels: that would give me satisfaction. The problem is that I'm not a natural storyteller, and I lack various attributes that a good novelist should have, such as being observant and curious and having a good memory and a good understanding of other people. It's often said that the way to become a novelist is to work hard at it over a long period of time; but I've never done that, either. I'm too pragmatic to put in so much work for a very uncertain reward.
I like photography; as an amateur photographer, I think I'm quite good but not very good. I doubt that I'd achieve much success as a professional photographer, and I doubt that I'd enjoy trying. If I could somehow make a living from the photos I take for pleasure, that would be nice, but it seems most unlikely.
Of course I could get a sense of purpose by finding a way to make many people happier than they are. But that's like becoming a successful novelist: it seems beyond my capabilities.
Defeatism is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you think you won't achieve anything, you won't. The problem is that the opposite attitude (victoryism??) is a lottery: if you imagine a horde of people who have an irrational belief in themselves and dedicate their lives to a purpose, I suppose that one of them will succeed and the rest will fail. I've always been too pragmatic to buy myself into that lottery. As a result, I end up neither a success nor a failure: I have a good enough life, but I somewhat regret lacking purpose.
I don't think purpose has anything to do with religion: it's just the quest for some achievement that would give me a sense of satisfaction. What gives me satisfaction is entirely subjective, like what foods I happen to enjoy eating.
'The Lays of Fingal', 18th century, had a comparable boom to Tolkein's and gave the gaels of Wales, Ireland, and Scotland a mythology of their own. The author was a scoundrel who faked his scholarship, but he could tell short versified stories of True Love and heroes whose souls thirsted for battle in scenes set in days past where de white women at.
Their white arms moved slow to bend the bow and hunt the roe. Their white arms bent at the harp. Their white wrists were bound with a thong when they were kidna[[ed and ravished by a critter with burning red eyes and a misty form who later appeared in Dracula. The thong was cut from their white wrists by the king when he rescued them.
Hot stuff. Classy too. Napoleon had classy naked lady paintings done, when he was landing armies in Ireland and considering Scotland. Probably thought Gaels were nothing but Gauls misspelled.
No religious spirit in this, just patriotism and white race stuff. And I'd say the same of Tolkein's books. Tolkein was religious, and honest, and his world is created by a god and threatened by an outside god and protected by wizard angels. Yes. But Tolkein's elves are the Fair Folk and the books are set where de white women at. And hobbits are the deserving English poor, Men are Englishmen, and Elves are English aristocrats before they are anything religious.
I’m always struck by the contrast between LOTR and the Narnia books. Also I think today LOTR can seem old fashioned. But as you say, adult fantasy literature is pretty much based on it.
I read Tolkeins at age 18 growing up in India. It was enjoyable but I wasn't bowled over or anything that extreme. A friend introduced it to me, calling it "a fairytale for adults". That made me buy the series.
Your analysis about it filling a hole created by disappearance of religion reminded me of this quote :
"When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything." --G.K. Chesterton
The relative popularity of different works of fiction seems to me impossible to account for. People’s tastes vary, and the total popularity of a story is derived from many people whose tastes are all different, and who like or dislike the story for different reasons.
I like “The Lord of the Rings” and have read it repeatedly over the years, but I don’t worship it, it’s not my favourite story, it’s just one good story among others, and I read it as I read any other story. I regard the Good versus Evil theme as rather a disadvantage; in general, I prefer stories in which both sides of the conflict have rational motivations that one can understand.
As I’ve never been religious in my whole life, I have no yearning for religion in any form. I’ve got along perfectly well without it; I have no need or desire for it.
The success of the Harry Potter stories puzzles me more than the success of “The Lord of the Rings”. I could understand them being somewhat successful; but why so vastly successful? It’s a mystery.
I reluctantly read The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy in the early 70's. It seemed to be on the required reading list for conversation around a campfire at the place and time I found myself in. Other titles on that list were "A Seperate Reality" by Carlos Castenadas, and Herman Hesse's "Steppenwolf" and "Siddhartha"
The Rings only bored me. Carlos was fun at the time. But I only really retained an appreciation for Hesse though. Love "The Glass Bead Game" and "A Journey to the East".
As I don't have a yearning for religion, why would I have a yearning for a religion substitute? I don't think there's an empty religion-shaped space in me that wants filling. I suppose only people who've been religious in the past have that empty space.
I have my own morality that suits me well enough. Yes, LOTR has some moral content, but so do many other works of fiction. I think that no two moralities are ever exactly the same, and the morality of Tolkien or any author is unlikely to match mine, although there's usually a fair amount of common ground.
I can think of one thing I've lacked in my life: a job that I could throw myself into with real enthusiasm. I don't hate my work, but I'd have retired from working at any age if I'd inherited a fortune. There are things I like to do, but they don't tend to earn me money. I don't think I'm unusual in this.
Interesting hypothesis.
One could easily tell an evolutionary psychology story supporting the idea that such myth making helped or was part of something that enhanced group cohesion among hunter gatherers.
It is challenged by a position I associate with Nietzsche, the idea that sin and evil were innovations of Judaism and Christianity, that the ancient Romans and Greeks looked at things with a fundamental difference. The ancients had religion, but supposedly took a different perspective on its relation to violations of social mores. A perhaps oversimplified interpretation of that would mean that if you got away with braking some rule, that meant you were favored by some god, or actually accomplishing something on their behalf, and if you annoyed the gods, they would see to it that you regretted it.
I don’t know enough about the ancients to speculate about where they derived meaning, or whether they count as a counterexample to your thesis.
Hayek speculated that we are stuck with intuitions that are still appropriate to small tribes, which make us uncomfortable with the sort of arms length interactions required by large populations and a dispersed and decentralized web of production. This dualism gives us trouble.
“If we were to apply the unmodified, uncurbed, rules of the micro-cosmos (i.e., of the small band or troop, or of, say, our families) to the macro-cosmos (our wider civilisation), as our instincts and sentimental yearnings often make us wish to do, we would destroy it. Yet if we were always to apply the rules of the extended order to our more intimate groupings, we would crush them. So we must learn to live in two sorts of world at once. To apply the name ‘society’ to both, or even to either, is hardly of any use, and can be most misleading”
There is a story, told by both Tolkien and Lewis, which appears to be of Lewis saying to Tolkien that the Gospels were a fairy tale, and Tolkien asking Lewis, "Is there any fairy tale that would give you more joy if you learned that it was actually true?"—which led to Lewis becoming Christian (as he was not at that time). I have reflected, more than once, that if I were asked that same question, my answer would be, "Actually, yes: The Lord of the Rings and the rest of the legendarium." Even in the movies, flawed though they were, when Aragorn was described as having "the splendor of the kings of Men in glory undimmed before the breaking of the world," it gave me chills. Though I suspect that Tolkien would have been appalled to find his (sub-) creation so regarded.
I'm not sure I have a theory to explain the appeal of art. But I wonder if a definition that Tolkien surely knew, "An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace," might be relevant? Perhaps art is a way of giving us visible (or audible, or narratable) images of value.
That’s an interesting question, which I’ve never thought about before. I find the situation hard to imagine, but I think my immediate reaction would be that my world had changed for the worse. Because I’ve been playing the game of life for 69 years now, and I thought I knew more or less how it worked, but in this hypothetical situation I’d suddenly find I was playing a completely different game with new rules, and it’s not even clear what the rules are. I don’t think any religion has a clear and authoritative statement of how it works and what its rules are, which is why each religion has divided into many different sects with somewhat different beliefs.
Furthermore, if God really exists, then I’m at the mercy of some superpowerful being whom I distrust and may well end up disliking. This is not a good situation to be in. I’m already at the mercy of politicians whom I distrust and don’t usually like, but at least they’re not superpowerful and immortal!
You’re a more hardcore libertarian than I am, I’d have thought you’d like this situation even less than I do.
I don't think I'm looking for a sense of meaning, because I don't think life has any meaning. In the context of the universe, humans are a tiny, insignificant, and meaningless phenomenon. I suppose it may be nice to think that your life has meaning, that it will go on forever, that God loves you, and so on, but I can't help regarding it as a delusion.
On the other hand, it's certainly possible to have a sense of purpose. Since I was a child, I've wanted to write novels. If I were a good storyteller, I could find my purpose in writing successful novels: that would give me satisfaction. The problem is that I'm not a natural storyteller, and I lack various attributes that a good novelist should have, such as being observant and curious and having a good memory and a good understanding of other people. It's often said that the way to become a novelist is to work hard at it over a long period of time; but I've never done that, either. I'm too pragmatic to put in so much work for a very uncertain reward.
I like photography; as an amateur photographer, I think I'm quite good but not very good. I doubt that I'd achieve much success as a professional photographer, and I doubt that I'd enjoy trying. If I could somehow make a living from the photos I take for pleasure, that would be nice, but it seems most unlikely.
Of course I could get a sense of purpose by finding a way to make many people happier than they are. But that's like becoming a successful novelist: it seems beyond my capabilities.
Defeatism is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you think you won't achieve anything, you won't. The problem is that the opposite attitude (victoryism??) is a lottery: if you imagine a horde of people who have an irrational belief in themselves and dedicate their lives to a purpose, I suppose that one of them will succeed and the rest will fail. I've always been too pragmatic to buy myself into that lottery. As a result, I end up neither a success nor a failure: I have a good enough life, but I somewhat regret lacking purpose.
I don't think purpose has anything to do with religion: it's just the quest for some achievement that would give me a sense of satisfaction. What gives me satisfaction is entirely subjective, like what foods I happen to enjoy eating.
'The Lays of Fingal', 18th century, had a comparable boom to Tolkein's and gave the gaels of Wales, Ireland, and Scotland a mythology of their own. The author was a scoundrel who faked his scholarship, but he could tell short versified stories of True Love and heroes whose souls thirsted for battle in scenes set in days past where de white women at.
Their white arms moved slow to bend the bow and hunt the roe. Their white arms bent at the harp. Their white wrists were bound with a thong when they were kidna[[ed and ravished by a critter with burning red eyes and a misty form who later appeared in Dracula. The thong was cut from their white wrists by the king when he rescued them.
Hot stuff. Classy too. Napoleon had classy naked lady paintings done, when he was landing armies in Ireland and considering Scotland. Probably thought Gaels were nothing but Gauls misspelled.
No religious spirit in this, just patriotism and white race stuff. And I'd say the same of Tolkein's books. Tolkein was religious, and honest, and his world is created by a god and threatened by an outside god and protected by wizard angels. Yes. But Tolkein's elves are the Fair Folk and the books are set where de white women at. And hobbits are the deserving English poor, Men are Englishmen, and Elves are English aristocrats before they are anything religious.
I’m always struck by the contrast between LOTR and the Narnia books. Also I think today LOTR can seem old fashioned. But as you say, adult fantasy literature is pretty much based on it.
Beautiful essay.
I read Tolkeins at age 18 growing up in India. It was enjoyable but I wasn't bowled over or anything that extreme. A friend introduced it to me, calling it "a fairytale for adults". That made me buy the series.
Your analysis about it filling a hole created by disappearance of religion reminded me of this quote :
"When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything." --G.K. Chesterton
The relative popularity of different works of fiction seems to me impossible to account for. People’s tastes vary, and the total popularity of a story is derived from many people whose tastes are all different, and who like or dislike the story for different reasons.
I like “The Lord of the Rings” and have read it repeatedly over the years, but I don’t worship it, it’s not my favourite story, it’s just one good story among others, and I read it as I read any other story. I regard the Good versus Evil theme as rather a disadvantage; in general, I prefer stories in which both sides of the conflict have rational motivations that one can understand.
As I’ve never been religious in my whole life, I have no yearning for religion in any form. I’ve got along perfectly well without it; I have no need or desire for it.
The success of the Harry Potter stories puzzles me more than the success of “The Lord of the Rings”. I could understand them being somewhat successful; but why so vastly successful? It’s a mystery.
I reluctantly read The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy in the early 70's. It seemed to be on the required reading list for conversation around a campfire at the place and time I found myself in. Other titles on that list were "A Seperate Reality" by Carlos Castenadas, and Herman Hesse's "Steppenwolf" and "Siddhartha"
The Rings only bored me. Carlos was fun at the time. But I only really retained an appreciation for Hesse though. Love "The Glass Bead Game" and "A Journey to the East".