NationStates Jolt Archive

"Of course!" said Gandalf. "And why should they not prove true? Surely you don't disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself? You don't really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You are a very fine person, Mr Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!"
-Gandalf in The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien.

Thoughts? Do you think Tolkien has a point? Or his he spouting theistic nonsense? What do you think his point is? Do you agree with that point? Disagree?......

"Of course!" said Gandalf. "And why should they not prove true? Surely you don't disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself? You don't really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You are a very fine person, Mr Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!"
-Gandalf in The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien.

Thoughts? Do you think Tolkien has a point? Or his he spouting theistic nonsense? Agree? Disagree?......

The validity in prophesy in a world with magic rings, elves, and talking trees does not in any way reflect on the validity of prophesy in reality.

In other words it's fiction, and what is true in fiction is by definition of no necessary indication of what is true in the real world.

"Of course!" said Gandalf. "And why should they not prove true? Surely you don't disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself? You don't really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You are a very fine person, Mr Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!"
-Gandalf in The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien.

Thoughts? Do you think Tolkien has a point? Or his he spouting theistic nonsense? Agree? Disagree?......Tolkien has a point. Afterall, he knew the outcome of his story.

I think Tolkien was a brilliant linguist and novelist, whose work I greatly admire.

I'm not sure how I can "agree" or "disagree" with a passage from a novel, though.

OP:

When you can show me one orc, one hobbit, one magic ring and two magic wizards, I will believe in magical prophesy.

Haven't any of you taken a literature course? Weren't you taught how to pick apart literature for ideas? I found an idea and I'm asking what you think of that idea.

If you can't get past the veil of magic in stories to see their point, I pity you.

Haven't any of you taken a literature course? Weren't you taught how to pick apart literature for ideas? I found an idea and I'm asking what you think of that idea.

If you can't get past the veil of magic in stories to see their point, I pity you.

I think you're the one that needs to go back to reading comprehention.

What exactly are you asking? the idea of prophesy? Sure, there's an idea of prophesy....what about it?

The reason prophesy MIGHT work in Tolkein reality is in no way relevant to this reality. It's not about the "veil of magic", the entire story of lord of the rings IS MAGIC, it's high fantasy, magic based fiction.

The entire world is built upon the idea of "magic makes it work". If you want us to look beyond the idea of magic may I suggest you pick a work OTHER than Lord of the Rings?

The analogy is flawed by your fault, not ours.

Prophecy in stories works due to narrative imperative; the story needs it, thus it happens.
Prophecy in reality works due to retconning; we forget the prophecies that didn't come true, and make up/adapt ones for things that did happen.

Haven't any of you taken a literature course? Weren't you taught how to pick apart literature for ideas? I found an idea and I'm asking what you think of that idea.

If you can't get past the veil of magic in stories to see their point, I pity you.

A person can see points about, say, human nature in magical fantasy stories - but in these cases the setting is arbitrary and incidental.

You're proposing something altogether different. In your proposal, the fantasy setting is 'the point,' which is baldfaced nonsense.

I think you're the one that needs to go back to reading comprehention.

What exactly are you asking? the idea of prophesy? Sure, there's an idea of prophesy....what about it?

The reason prophesy MIGHT work in Tolkein reality is in no way relevant to this reality. It's not about the "veil of magic", the entire story of lord of the rings IS MAGIC, it's high fantasy, magic based fiction.

The entire world is built upon the idea of "magic makes it work". If you want us to look beyond the idea of magic may I suggest you pick a work OTHER than Lord of the Rings?

The analogy is flawed by your fault, not ours.

If you truly read Tolkien's works, you would see that he uses magic as a symbolism for the spiritual part of our world.

This is what comes of people not reading for thinking, but reading for pleasure. Tolkien's whole work is based on the idea that myth is an explanation. It may be a confused or veiled, but it is still there to explain truth about the real world.

Whether or not you agree that there is prophecy in this world, you must agree that there are attitudes concerning it (as you have evidenced). And that is what Tolkien's point is: that people dismiss prophecy because they think that because they brought it about, it is totally of themselves.

I'm gonna try something nobody seems to have done yet in this thread. I'm going to actually ANSWER the question in the spirit in which it was posed.

Tolkien has a very rational perspective on the idea of prophecy. In real life, it's almost impossible to understand a prophecy unil after it's been fulfilled due to the level of symbolism involved, so it's rare that someone would feel conflicted as Bilbo Baggins did when he doubted. He doubted because he may have felt the prophecy was self-fulfilling.

We don't usually deal with that particular issue (prophetic self-fulfilment) in real life but if we did, I would hope that Tolkien's ideas would be helpful.

If you truly read Tolkien's works, you would see that he uses magic as a symbolism for the spiritual part of our world.

Says who?

For many years people said that Arthur Miller's The Crucible, which was about th e Salem Witch Trials was a metaphore for MaCarthyism red scare against communists.

GENERATIONS of students were taught this, thousands of english teachers examined the metaphore, pointing out where Miller had used allagory to discuss the red scare and the communist "witch hunts". Tens of thousands of people grew up knowing, FOR SURE, that The Crucible was a metaphore for the Red Scare.

Two years ago Miller got on NPR and said "no, not at all, it's just a story about the Salem Witch Trials".

For DECADES people were SURE that this piece was some critical work of metaphor and example.

Nope, just a story.

...
The analogy is flawed by your fault, not ours.

It's not flawed, Tolkien intended the book to be read the way Edwards quoted it here. And specifically that quote as well. Tolkien intended the books to be entertainment AND inspirational, just like he thought ancient writings were for other cultures. There are messages in his writings, just like C.S. Lewis, they practiced putting their Christian theology to work in their fictional stories.

And that is what Tolkien's point is: that people dismiss prophecy because they think that because they brought it about, it is totally of themselves.I'd hope most people would dismiss prophecy because they don't come through above chance-level. A million things are prophesied, but they only remember the one that came through.

Also; I prophesy there will be more posts in this thread.
Easy to predict the obvious. And if this kills the thread, who'd remember?

It's not flawed, Tolkien intended the book to be read the way Edwards quoted it here. And specifically that quote as well. Tolkien intended the books to be entertainment AND inspirational, just like he thought ancient writings were for other cultures. There are messages in his writings, just like C.S. Lewis, they practiced putting their Christian theology to work in their fictional stories.

once again.

Says who? Show me tolkein saying as such.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Haven't any of you taken a literature course? Weren't you taught how to pick apart literature for ideas? I found an idea and I'm asking what you think of that idea.

If you can't get past the veil of magic in stories to see their point, I pity you.Meh. I find Small Gods a much more insightful critique of religion than that particular phrase in the Lord of the Rings. For one, you can't really tell if religion is something Tolkein was addressing.

Also; I prophesy there will be more posts in this thread.

.....

I am the prophesized one!

Says who?

For many years people said that Arthur Miller's The Crucible, which was about th e Salem Witch Trials was a metaphore for MaCarthyism red scare against communists.

GENERATIONS of students were taught this, thousands of english teachers examined the metaphore, pointing out where Miller had used allagory to discuss the red scare and the communist "witch hunts". Tens of thousands of people grew up knowing, FOR SURE, that The Crucible was a metaphore for the Red Scare.

Two years ago Miller got on NPR and said "no, not at all, it's just a story about the Salem Witch Trials".

For DECADES people were SURE that this piece was some critical work of metaphor and example.

Nope, just a story.

Why don't you read more of Tolkien's works, or even his letters. He never intended it to be an allegory (as Lewis intended his Chronicles of Narnia to be, though not purely). But Tolkien did want it to be read as mythology: with a Point and points.

Why don't you read more of Tolkien's works, or even his letters. He never intended it to be an allegory (as Lewis intended his Chronicles of Narnia to be, though not purely). But Tolkien did want it to be read as mythology: with a Point and points.

You made the claim here, not me.

Why don't you do your duty and substantiate your own point rather than passing the burden to your readers. Weak intellectualism that.

You made the claim here, not me.

Why don't you do your duty and substantiate your own point rather than passing the burden to your readers. Weak intellectualism that.

I don't have my books with me (they're all at my home, with the exception of LotR and the Hobbit) and I dare not to begin to search for quotes on the Internet, because most will probably be out of context or altered.

And isn't it besides the point anyway.

The question raised is whether bringing about a prophecy with effort dismisses the prophecy. And it doesn't.
But neither does that make it a true prophecy just because it's fullfilled.

Why don't you read more of Tolkien's works, or even his letters. He never intended it to be an allegory (as Lewis intended his Chronicles of Narnia to be, though not purely). But Tolkien did want it to be read as mythology: with a Point and points.

Even as mythology, it isnt illustrative of the natural world.

Classical mythology held lightning bolts to be tossed down by zeus or jupiter, this doesnt tell us anything about real lightning bolts.

once again.

Says who? Show me tolkein saying as such.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision”
---J.R.R. Tolkien The Letters, 172

“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision”
---J.R.R. Tolkien The Letters, 172

Thank you.

It's not flawed, Tolkien intended the book to be read the way Edwards quoted it here. And specifically that quote as well. Tolkien intended the books to be entertainment AND inspirational, just like he thought ancient writings were for other cultures. There are messages in his writings, just like C.S. Lewis, they practiced putting their Christian theology to work in their fictional stories.

Tolkein is on record as having said, many times, that his books were not allegory or anything of the sort.
He may have intended an inspirational quality, but he was not using Christian theology, no matter his personal faith.

The Foreword to my, fairly recent edition, is almost entirely an attack by Tolkein on his books being read as allegory.

Thank you.

Even if it means something else to a christian reader, its points are not generally applicable to the real world.

A christian might think "I already believe in prophesy, and this book mirrors here what I already believe."

This is different from "I like lord of the rings, its a good book, there is prophesy in the book, so there is prophesy in real life"

OP:

When you can show me one orc, one hobbit, one magic ring and two magic wizards, I will believe in magical prophesy.

Several other people made this error.. Just because *you* know the works of Tolkein contains a fantasy land of magic doesn't mean you should filter your answer through that, since it plainly isn't apparent (or relevant to the quoted material/question). The question simply is:

Does a prophesy (and therefore the prophet) become null and void, simply because you helped to bring the prophesied results to fruition?

The answer is also a relatively clear "no". Let's assume you believe the prophesies of Nostradamus (far too many "Christian" threads on here - and even though I think that's where the OP is coming from, let's not muddy the waters). So, Nostradamus... Apparently he predicted the holocaust - does this give you or any Nazi prison guard the correct substantiation that the Nostradamus was a load of baloney, because someone(s) brought the prophesy to fruition? Clearly not.

Apparently he also prophesied the moon-landings? Do you think Neil Armstrong could stand up there and go "Well, Nostradamus is a load of old pie crust, because I made this happen?" - clearly not. Nostradamus would only be a fool and a failure as a prophet if he'd said Buzz would walk on the moon first..

Because of the relatively clear no, the only other interesting this to consider is whether Notradamus was a duff prophet because although he predicts Buzz walking on the moon first, Neil bops Buzz and takes the honour. Discuss...

"I like lord of the rings, its a good book, there is prophesy in the book, so there is prophesy in real life"

That is not what I am saying.

Tolkein is on record as having said, many times, that his books were not allegory or anything of the sort.
He may have intended an inspirational quality, but he was not using Christian theology, no matter his personal faith.

The Foreword to my, fairly recent edition, is almost entirely an attack by Tolkein on his books being read as allegory.

Allegory = everything represents something = not Tolkien

Myth = everything is a discussion of truth, sometimes clearly, sometimes murkily = exactly what Tolkien wanted

Tolkein is on record as having said, many times, that his books were not allegory or anything of the sort.
He may have intended an inspirational quality, but he was not using Christian theology, no matter his personal faith.

The Foreword to my, fairly recent edition, is almost entirely an attack by Tolkein on his books being read as allegory.

I never said they were allegory. I said they were meant to be entertainment and inspirational. With truths of Tolkiens world view-religion. It is not an, either or, situation.

“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision”
---J.R.R. Tolkien The Letters, 172

I'm not sure this actually supports your point. Anyone with more than two functioning brain cells is aware that Tolkien's religious beliefs impacted his writing - it's impossible to read, say, the description of Gandalf's struggle with the Balrog and rebirth as Gandalf the White without noting the similarities to the Christian resurrection story. This does not, however, indicate that Tolkien was attempting to win converts to Catholicism, that he intended discussion of the workings of Middle Earth to be applied literally to the real world, or that the silly, oversimplified idea that "magic = relgious spiritualism" has anything whatsoever to do with Tolkien's own opinions on his work.

With truths of Tolkiens world view-religion.

Tolkien's entire world view is "religion"? What a colossally silly thing to say.

Obviously there are meanings to Tolkien's works beyond that of the literal text - the same is true of every novel worth its salt ever written. To suggest that the alpha and omega of the possible textual analyses is "yay Catholicism" is bizarre, inaccurate, and, as I said, colossally silly.

Several other people made this error.. Just because *you* know the works of Tolkein contains a fantasy land of magic doesn't mean you should filter your answer through that, since it plainly isn't apparent (or relevant to the quoted material/question). The question simply is:

Does a prophesy (and therefore the prophet) become null and void, simply because you helped to bring the prophesied results to fruition?

The answer is also a relatively clear "no". Let's assume you believe the prophesies of Nostradamus (far too many "Christian" threads on here - and even though I think that's where the OP is coming from, let's not muddy the waters). So, Nostradamus... Apparently he predicted the holocaust - does this give you or any Nazi prison guard the correct substantiation that the Nostradamus was a load of baloney, because someone(s) brought the prophesy to fruition? Clearly not.

Apparently he also prophesied the moon-landings? Do you think Neil Armstrong could stand up there and go "Well, Nostradamus is a load of old pie crust, because I made this happen?" - clearly not. Nostradamus would only be a fool and a failure as a prophet if he'd said Buzz would walk on the moon first..

Because of the relatively clear no, the only other interesting this to consider is whether Notradamus was a duff prophet because although he predicts Buzz walking on the moon first, Neil bops Buzz and takes the honour. Discuss...


Nostradamus "predicted" the holocaust and moon landings now did he? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Whackjob convention day at NSG, 'apparently.'

Tolkien's entire world view is "religion"? What a colossally silly thing to say.

Obviously there are meanings to Tolkien's works beyond that of the literal text - the same is true of every novel worth its salt ever written. To suggest that the alpha and omega of the possible textual analyses is "yay Catholicism" is bizarre, inaccurate, and, as I said, colossally silly.

That's what his life (and every Christian's life) is about, though. Not necessarily "Yay Catholicism!" but definately "Yay Christ!" and he is going to scream for Christ according to his denominationa beliefs. That is the Alpha and Omega of a Christian's life.

That's what his life (and every Christian's life) is about, though. Not necessarily "Yay Catholicism!" but definately "Yay Christ!" and he is going to scream for Christ according to his denominationa beliefs. That is the Alpha and Omega of a Christian's life.

To me, that's awfully insulting to Christians. One's religious beliefs are obviously an important part of one's life, but to suggest that they are inherently overwhelmingly more important than everything else seems awfully disrespectful of all the other things that make a person who he or she is. Tolkien was a Catholic, and that's certainly one of his defining qualities - but he was also a lover of language, an Englishman, a soldier, a father, a teacher, and so on and so forth. I have no doubt all of these things profoundly influenced his work.

To me, that's awfully insulting to Christians. One's religious beliefs are obviously an important part of one's life, but to suggest that they are inherently overwhelmingly more important than everything else seems awfully disrespectful of all the other things that make a person who he or she is. Tolkien was a Catholic, and that's certainly one of his defining qualities - but he was also a lover of language, an Englishman, a soldier, a father, a teacher, and so on and so forth. I have no doubt all of these things profoundly influenced his work.

Of course they influenced it, but they paled in comparison to the importance of his relationship with Jesus Christ. The same with every other Christian. If they are truly Christian and are not merely claiming the label to themselves (for whatever reason), their religion will be their life, not just part of it. There are other things which are part of their life, but it is not the whole. The religion is the whole which envelopes alll other parts.

I don't take anything religious from Tolkien because I am not religious.

Or his he spouting theistic nonsense?

why does it have to always be thiestic when the supernatural come in to play?

Nostradamus "predicted" the holocaust and moon landings now did he? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Whackjob convention day at NSG, 'apparently.'

Don't ask me. Frankly, I don't believe Notradamus could have predicted what he would have for supper.. These examples were extracted from my (hazy) education. Sue me. If he didn't change the name to Mickey and we'll call him an imaginary prophet who lived in the time of Alexander The Great.. It really doesn't detract from my point.

:rolleyes: My sympathies Edwardis. You've come up against the thick-headed pedanticness that pervades all of NSG. Come on people, stop arguing pointless nonsense and answer his question. Or, if that's tricky, allow me to rephrase it.

"Would you agree with the statement:

It is reasonable to 'disbelieve [in] prophecies, because you have a hand in bringing them about yourself? do you suppose that, were you to have many improbable adventures and escapes, that all said adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit, assuming that many prophecies had been made prior to the events predicting the outcome of said adventures?'"

And to answer the question, I think that it is something of a natural human reaction to insist upon the role of the self in the events of ones life. However, this doesn't at all discredit prophecies - someone has to fulfill them after all.


Oh and sorry to everyone I insulted with this thread, but come on, you were being at least a little pedantic, and you all knew perfectly well what he meant :p :D

:rolleyes: My sympathies Edwardis. You've come up against the thick-headed pedanticness that pervades all of NSG. Come on people, stop arguing pointless nonsense and answer his question. Or, if that's tricky, allow me to rephrase it.

"Would you agree with the statement:

It is reasonable to 'disbelieve [in] prophecies, because you have a hand in bringing them about yourself? do you suppose that, were you to have many improbable adventures and escapes, that all said adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit, assuming that many prophecies had been made prior to the events predicting the outcome of said adventures?'"

And to answer the question, I think that it is something of a natural human reaction to insist upon the role of the self in the events of ones life. However, this doesn't at all discredit prophecies - someone has to fulfill them after all.


Oh and sorry to everyone I insulted with this thread, but come on, you were being at least a little pedantic, and you all knew perfectly well what he meant :p :D

It seems nevertheless to beg the question: "Assuming a fantasy world where prophesies are real, is a prophecy not real because an agent had a hand in making the prophesy come to pass?"

Analagous to "In a fantasy world where ducks lay eggs of precious metals, would it be surprising for a duck to lay a golden egg?"

why does it have to always be thiestic when the supernatural come in to play?

It doesn't need to do so. I was just spouting off examples. Feel free to give your opinion.