A Hobbit, A Wardrobe, and a Great War...

[barnhart]

I was more offended by the book where the enemies to be defeated seemed to be Muslim or Persian.

[Jazman]

Jazzman, I enjoy both writers and appreciate the themes they highlight such as the value of courage and the thinness of a de-enchanted modern world view. The temptation I see in them is to map the struggle of good and evil onto people, culture and nation and soon enough it will seem like the right thing is to fight or eliminate your Muslim, secular, corrupt, neighbor rather than love and serve them as Jesus said.

When white supremacists or Christian Nationalists or Christians who think fondly of the crusades read and enjoy the same authors I do, it gives me pause.

I've finished the book and yes, I see your point even clearer now... the author seems to intend his reader to gravitate this way (see bolded part) and seems to suggest that indeed, the Tolkien/Lewis books support a martial spirit...

At one point in the book, the author extols the "medieval virtues" He clearly has a high view of the West... as in Christendom, British imperialism, etc... (and I don't doubt that both Tolkien and Lewis probably held these in high regard as well - in contrast to the industrial/tech and secularist values that swept in and turned their worlds upside down...(the "de-enchanted modern world view" as you put it)
But as an Anabaptist and as someone cognizant of the downsides of 'medieval values' and imperialism I can't lift up one (medieval virtues) and put the other down (disenchanted modernism) as if it's a clear cut good vs evil, black/white situation as the book seems intent on doing... I see the situation being more nuanced and messy than that. As an Anabaptist I see problems, even evil in all of it, in both. Yes, the pre-industrial pastoral English countryside (the 'Shire') of Lewis'/Tolkien's childhood is/was a profound good, but it existed alongside or within the cruelty, the 'medieval chivalry/valor' ie the machine of the British Empire and the 'Shire-world' possibly was maintained/sustained in its idyllic set-apartness, by that empire... in some sense was a product of the unGodly empire. So is the Shire-ness really good? The book doesn't wrestle with that...

I still recommend the book; I'd love if any of you read it and gave your thoughts on it here.

[barnhart]

... As an Anabaptist I see problems, even evil in all of it, in both. Yes, the pre-industrial pastoral English countryside (the 'Shire') of Lewis'/Tolkien's childhood is/was a profound good, but it existed alongside or within the cruelty, the 'medieval chivalry/valor' ie the machine of the British Empire and the 'Shire-world' possibly was maintained/sustained in its idyllic set-apartness, by that empire... in some sense was a product of the unGodly empire. So is the Shire-ness really good? The book doesn't wrestle with that...

This is a keen insight and I wish I could imprint this warning on the entire American church. There is a lot of wood, hay and stubble being produced by those who might well find themselves calling out from among the goats on judgement day, "but we fought to save Western civilization in your name!..."

[JohnH]

I find fascinating people who are enamoured with modern mega-cities (which are, for all intents, analogous to Sodom, and the few believers there in analogous to Lot, or perhaps his wife & daughters) who then express grave concern about a fantasy novel that describes mediaeval life.

[ken_sylvania]

I find fascinating people who are enamoured with modern mega-cities (which are, for all intents, analogous to Sodom, and the few believers there in analogous to Lot, or perhaps his wife & daughters) who then express grave concern about a fantasy novel that describes mediaeval life.

More false implications.....

[Coifi]

Has anyone here read this book? A Hobbit, A Wardrobe, and a Great War: How J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis Rediscovered Faith, Friendship, and Heroism in the Cataclysm of 1914-18

This looks interesting! I'm an avid fan of Tolkien's writing and have found value in reading his biography. It gave me a deeper appreciation of his stories. While I am not totally positive Tolkien would've explicitly shared this view, it is abundantly clear that he understood the deep trauma's of war and that the journey home is not really possible for the soldier (i.e., "The Shire has been saved, but not for me."). As a veteran of WW1 and of the deadliest battle of WW1, I do not doubt that Tolkien is describing his own feelings upon returning to England.

Would you recommend this book to someone who is leaning towards agnostic or unbelief presently, as might it help or hurt their “faith” (or lack of).

I cannot speak to this book, but in terms of Tolkien primary sources, I would recommend his poem Mythopoeia and his essay On Fairy Stories. The poem is the working out of ideas discussed with C.S. Lewis while he was still an atheist. It is a Christian apology in prose to a materialist atheist (or, at least, functioned in that manner in Tolkien and Lewis's relationship). The latter is the best apology for the genre we now call fantasy. I'd recommend it because of its strong argument for beauty and what Tolkien calls the Eucatastrophe - a fundamentally Christian theme.

Both are useful to the agnostic wrestler as they are, in one way or another, dealing with the fundamental problem of death, suffering, and trauma. Importantly, Tolkien's approach is not within a psychoanalytical, scientific model. Meaning in death and trauma is a spiritual issue and not something resolved through the dialectic. As a war vet, Tolkien has a very developed sense of this and, critically, what it means to be a Christian while facing them (as we all do to varying degrees).

Yes, the pre-industrial pastoral English countryside (the 'Shire') of Lewis'/Tolkien's childhood is/was a profound good, but it existed alongside or within the cruelty, the 'medieval chivalry/valor' ie the machine of the British Empire and the 'Shire-world' possibly was maintained/sustained in its idyllic set-apartness, by that empire... in some sense was a product of the unGodly empire. So is the Shire-ness really good? The book doesn't wrestle with that...

I love this question and I think it is, in part, answered within LOTR itself. The Shire is explicitly under the protection of the Rangers of the North until the War of the Ring. The Rangers do this without recognitions from the Shirefolk, though it is a hard task. So the Shire and its people are an untested, innocent people. In the narrative of the text, this is certainly a good thing as it inspires heroic deeds and comforts the afflicted during their trials. Knowing that "back there" there is good worth fighting for is a powerfully good thing.

This is what I like about Tolkien. War is bad, but people do heroic and laudable things in war; but also, it would be better if people valued food and song more than gold and silver.

[barnhart]

This is what I like about Tolkien. War is bad, but people do heroic and laudable things in war; but also, it would be better if people valued food and song more than gold and silver.

I enjoy Tolkien but that synopsis, although reasonably accurate, leaves me cold. Why maximize human autonomy in matters of life and death where Jesus repeatedly asked us to trust him and minimize the role for redemption and repentance in daily things like food and money. Surely we need courageous, motivated people to actively live daily lives of humility and divine purpose more than we need them in war. I don't want to throw too much cold water as I have never written any books but maybe there is room for a similar series where the heroic nature of daily service and humility is recognized.

[joshuabgood]

People tell "laudable" stories about war, to provide justification of what they know is hell, to some how make it all make sense. And all these "laudable stories" of course need "demons" and "orcs" or "the enemy" to make them laudable.

And yet in the end, the hard truth is, it doesn't make sense. All you have is dead people, dying in vain, killing other people. And perchance 60 years later you sit down and have a drink with the machine gunner on the other side, whose friends you killed, and who killed your friends. The enemy, after all, is a person just like you.

[Coifi]

This is what I like about Tolkien. War is bad, but people do heroic and laudable things in war; but also, it would be better if people valued food and song more than gold and silver.

I enjoy Tolkien but that synopsis, although reasonably accurate, leaves me cold. Why maximize human autonomy in matters of life and death where Jesus repeatedly asked us to trust him and minimize the role for redemption and repentance in daily things like food and money. Surely we need courageous, motivated people to actively live daily lives of humility and divine purpose more than we need them in war. I don't want to throw too much cold water as I have never written any books but maybe there is room for a similar series where the heroic nature of daily service and humility is recognized.

Of course! Courageous and holy behavior should imbue all levels of human existence, but telling a story where the stakes are life and death are most gripping. Certainly, those stories are not opposed to heroics of a "small" variety, though (if I can even speak in such terms). In fact, the Scouring of the Shire is essentially arguing that the heroics "out there" enable the "small" heroics. Gandalf points says that hobbits' participation in the War of the Ring was preparing them to lead the fight back home.

So I certainly don't think such grand tales and heroics minimize the labors of the everyday hero. As a practical example, we in the Orthodox Church will venerate Saints like Sts. Boris and Glebb that heroically and sacrificially refused to fight their brothers in war AND St. Olga of Kwethluck who lived a quite life as the wife of a priest in remote Alaska. Both heroics are worthy of honor and veneration. One is not lesser or greater than the other.

[barnhart]

... In fact, the Scouring of the Shire is essentially arguing that the heroics "out there" enable the "small" heroics. Gandalf points says that hobbits' participation in the War of the Ring was preparing them to lead the fight back home.

You have lain your finger exactly on the point I actively disbelieve. Churchill is sometimes credited with a statement that "good people sleep soundly because rough men do violence on they behalf." I think the message of the incarnation, resurrection and ascension is roughly the opposite of this solteriology of violence.

In the world Jesus left coersive power, death and disease are all disarmed and rendered impotent by the sacrificial love of Jesus. We simply do not need rough men to do violence on our behalf because Jesus has that well in hand and he does not need heroically violent people to carry it out. He may use them but that is only because they have chosen that path, if they had chosen differently he would accomplish his plans another, better way.