Review and Thoughts on Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings: A Catholic Worldview – The Faces of Fantasy

Does fantasy judge reality, or is it the other way around?

Today is Good Friday, the day that Christians recall the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, when He died on the Cross to free all men from sin. On this hallowed day it seems fitting to reflect on the works of one of the greatest Christian fantasy authors of all time: J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Specifically, we will consider another episode from EWTN’s Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings series: The Faces of Fantasy.

This episode begins with a meditation from G.K. Chesterton on whether fairy tales judge reality or reality judges fairy tales. This is supported by a quote from J.R.R. Tolkien’s essay On Fairy-Stories, a very good essay I highly recommend. Which is more real – the ideal, or the physical reality?

There is something to be said for both the ideal and the real: depending on the ideal you are chasing, the reality can be far preferable even if it is imperfect (the “ideal” of communism, for instance – every time it is chased, innocent people die). If someone is chasing a “reality” that can never be, then the ideal of the fairy story is going to offend that person by reminding him that happiness is not found in attempting to bend reality to his will. Happiness is most common when the ideal and the real align, though in this world it will always remain both imperfect and impermanent.

Once again Joseph Pearce leads the meditations in this episode, reminding viewers that Tolkien and G.K. Chesterton note fairy tales are ideals, as they represent what should happen in the real world but which all too often does not happen due to human concupiscence. Pearce, Tolkien, and Chesterton go on to say that fairy tales judge what good things ought to be and encourage one to try to reach those good ideals, however imperfectly. Furthermore, ideals are spiritual things; since humans are creatures with supernatural characters, this means that some part of us is never satisfied with nature. No matter how much we admire it, nature will always leave us wanting.

During the video, Pearce shares a quote from Chesterton regarding the nature of critics (including academic critics). The Apostle of Common Sense, as he is called, observed that he could make the point of his story as clear as a spike, yet those who sought to review his work would go find something else to impale themselves upon. What the blind obstinately do not wish to see, none can point them toward, unfortunately.

Recalling this quote leads Pearce to discuss the “magic” in Tolkien’s legendarium. As he points out, the “magic” really isn’t in Middle-earth; most of the elves’ art is inherent to their race. It is not a power outside themselves that they must call upon spirits to use, nor an occult thing that involves signs, dark rituals, or spells. Pearce uses the elven cloaks as his primary example, pointing out that the elves – by their natural gifts – weave everything they love into the cloth that makes the cloak. It is this gift which allows the cloak to “magically” hide the wearers, not some spell or arcane incantation calling upon a demon for help.

This is important because even very good fantasy tends to take the idea that a hero must recite a spell or invoke a spirit of some kind to see something marvelous done. Going back to making one’s story as plain as a spike, such fantasy tales are not spikes. They are more often meant by the authors (or the publishers) as spearheads intended to wound and kill the reader’s mind or spirit, but it is worth noting that there are plenty of readers out there whom the spear misses. This is likely because the same One Who made sure that Bilbo would find the Ring and pass it on to Frodo also makes sure these readers would not be hurt by such tales.

One can make this case because Pearce points out that it is Bilbo’s moral decision not to kill Gollum out of pity and mercy, which enables him to let go of the Ring later on. This decision of Bilbo’s ultimately spares both him and Frodo the fate of Gollum, since Gollum began his possession of the One Ring by murder. If, like Smeagol, he had killed Gollum for the Ring or just to keep himself safe, Bilbo would have transgressed the moral order and left himself open to the corruption of the One Ring.

In The Hobbit Bilbo is not asked to judge Gollum and then to carry out a sentence on him. Gollum is also not in a position to directly threaten Bilbo when he has him at his mercy. Instead, Bilbo is faced with a killing of convenience or the harder choice of sparing his enemy. By refusing to kill Gollum for his own convenience, Bilbo ensures he has a stronger moral stance from which to resist the Ring’s influence until he passes it on to Frodo, who has learned from his uncle how to be a moral person.

This ties into the fact that the magic which does exist in The Lord of the Rings is inherently about abusing the natural world as well as (and more importantly) other people. Saruman, Sauron, et cetera, use power to dominate others as well as nature. Now some might find that a strange accusation for Tolkien to make, since Christians are told in Genesis to “fill the earth and subdue it.” Doesn’t that mean to dominate it?

A quick search answers this question by going into the original Hebrew here. There are two words which could mean “subdue” in Hebrew: kavash and radah. Kavash is the word closest to the English “subdue,” but radah is more expressive and means “benevolent ruling” that allows the ruler to “walk among” his subjects and “learn from” them. In Genesis, therefore, man is told to benevolently rule the world with a light touch and not to brutally dominate it.

Here is where we come back to magic, something Pearce connects to Scientism and Medieval alchemy, both of which seek to oppress or dominate the world and those in it. These practices do so in the same vein as Saruman when he makes his white cloak one of many colors; they break the world, and the people in it, to refashion them to fit the image or inverse ideal that they desire. In other words, they break the much better reality to fit the remaining pieces into their idea or personal ideal of what reality ought to be.

Through Saruman, Tolkien shows how once one starts down the path rendering reality in one’s own image, that person only succeeds in making it a caricature of true life. All the characters who seek domination, who desire to make their wills supreme, need to destroy what (or who) already is to “make” that thing (or person) fit into their personal, twisted, and selfish ideal. This is something God does not do with any of the characters in the trilogy, nor does He do it in reality.

God does not make Bilbo spare Gollum. He ensures that Bilbo is the one to find the Ring, but it is still up to Bilbo to either choose to let Gollum live or to kill him. Likewise, as Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt discuss in their book The Hobbit Party: The Vision of Freedom Tolkien Got, and the West Forgot in the finale for The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo ends up struggling between a mysterious Voice (hinted to be Gandalf) and Sauron’s will. Since he is wearing the Ring, Frodo is exposed to Sauron, and the Voice seeks to prevent the Hobbit from being dominated by the Dark Lord.

The two fight over him when he has the Ring on his finger. Granted, the Voice is trying to protect Frodo, but the constant striving between him and Sauron means that Frodo cannot make any choice on his own. That is, he cannot make any choice of his own until – for a very brief moment – the Voice and the Eye stop fighting over him. Only then can Frodo make a decision, and he decides to take off the Ring.

Dominating the wills of others means forcing their will to bow to yours. We see this very much in fandom these days, with the most explosive moment that many remember occurring in Star Wars’ fandom over Episode VIII. If you had any kind of disagreement with the film, any reason to criticize it, you must be forced to agree and like it...or else you were a Bad Person who must be Pushed Out and Kept Out.

This has been repeated ad nauseum in other fandoms, and it is ongoing in The Lord of the Rings fandom. Notably, though, Amazon’s “fan-breaker” series Rings of Power really isn’t making much of a dent in pushing people out – certainly not compared to The Last Jedi. The linked Forbes piece notes that most viewers of RoP are apathetic, which is worse for the company than having hate-watchers make videos decrying the series, since hate-watching at least generates views and puts money on the table. Rings of Power isn’t even managing that in its second season, with The Teen Magazine taking it to task over it’s depiction of evil and Sauron no less.

On this Good Friday, let us remember what Christ freely gave us and freely asks of us. He does not demand, and He most certainly does not dominate. Can we, truly, say the same? Perhaps we should strive to dominate less and to have more radah. Perhaps – even if we are not believers – we ought to say thanks to Him Who gave us the freedom to choose as we wish, even when it is to our detriment.

After all, the alternative really is not worth contemplating, is it? Most of us do not like being forced against our will to do something. Viewing The Faces of Fantasy episode and remembering today’s most solemn feast, maybe we can find a little time to whisper: “Thank you.” It can’t hurt, can it?