![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dreamflowerIf anyone's interested, here's a copy of the letter I'm sending that author:
Reverend Fleming Rutledge
c/o Eerdmans Publishing
Publicity Department
2140 Oak Industrial Dr. NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49505
Dear Reverend Rutledge:
I just finished reading your book, The Battle for Middle-earth: Tolkien’s Divine Design in the Lord of the Rings . As one who has read and re-read The Lord of the Rings literally countless times over the last forty years, I am always pleased to read analysis of the books that can inform my reading pleasure, and offer me new insights into my all-time favorite work of fiction.
I very much appreciated your insightful examination of the theological themes of LOTR. Many of them are ones I have known for myself for many years. Indeed, I owe my own faith to J.R.R. Tolkien, for it was in reading his books that I began to see Christianity as something more than the rather drab and boring faith of my parents, and it was his introduction to me, in a literary fashion, of his friend C.S. Lewis that led to my conversion. LOTR has had a profound influence on my entire life, from the age of fifteen on.
I was amazed at the number of actual Biblical quotes that JRRT had used, and at their implications. And while Providence and Mercy, Faith and Hope, Love and Forgiveness, had always seemed to me key to understanding the books, I never realized how deeply embedded they were, nor had I noticed before the many other theological themes which inform Christian discipleship that could be found in them. I will definitely be taking some of your thoughts with me on my next journey to Middle-earth.
However, I feel that in one respect, you completely missed the boat. I was appreciative of the fact that you seemed to be sticking to the actual books, though I found myself puzzled that you failed to even mention a key chapter in the early part of Fellowship of the Ring : “A Conspiracy Unmasked”. This puzzlement turned to unease, when you said that the introduction of the theme of friendship, a key theme, and the one which drew me into the books to begin with, did not take place until Aragorn met the hobbits at The Prancing Pony. And I am afraid that when you suddenly referred to Merry and Pippin as “immature”, “lazy”, “adolescent pranksters” and “callow” my unease became outright distress. Why would you characterize them in this way if you were using only the books as your guide? For that characterization is a complete invention of Peter Jackson for the movies. And when you said that they had the “emotional maturity of thirteen-year-olds”, I was downright outraged.
Perhaps it is because I myself feel a deep affinity for hobbits (rather than Elves or Dúnadain) that I have spent a good deal of my time studying the matter. And the truth of the matter is that the pre-existing and heart-felt friendship of the hobbits is key to understanding the heart of the Fellowship. One need only glance at the Family Trees in Appendix C, to see that Frodo is twelve years older than Sam, fourteen years older than Merry, and twenty-two years older than Pippin. Yet JRRT clearly and unequivocally says that Frodo’s best friends were Merry and Pippin. I’ve given a lot of thought to the matter.
First of all, one needs to realize the age differential between hobbits and Men. Hobbits age at approximately two-thirds the rate of Men. (This is arrived at by using ages of three--or “faunthood” and the age of thirty-three, or coming-of-age, against the human age of two, for toddlerhood and twenty-one for coming of age.) Next, look once more at the Family Trees: when the four hobbits left the Shire, Sam was thirty-eight, Merry was thirty-six and Pippin was twenty-eight, or the equivalent, emotionally and physically of about twenty-two or three for Sam and Merry, and about eighteen for Pippin. Young, to be sure, but definitely not still adolescents.
Frodo was fifty, chronologically, but physically he was still only thirty-three, due to the influence of the Ring. But that still doesn’t negate the actual age difference. Merry and Pippin were his best friends for two reasons--they had a close (as hobbits reckon these things) blood relationship to Frodo, and it is quite clear that he has spent time with them mentoring them and caring for them when they were younger. They have grown up adoring him as if he were their older brother. And in point of fact, Frodo lived under the same roof with Merry, from the time Merry was born until Merry was seven, when Frodo left to live with Bilbo. So one might say they actually were foster-brothers for seven years--and in a society as family oriented as the Shire, it is not a bond easily put aside. The friendship with Sam at this point in time was more that of employer/employee, though it is clear that there was a good deal of mutual respect and affection.
There is no canon evidence whatsoever that Merry and Pippin were “pranksters”, though given their youthful high spirits, it’s possible. But the only hobbit called the “terror of Buckland” or accused of stealing vegetables was Frodo himself! (“A Shortcut to Mushrooms”)
Certainly, in their trek across the Shire in “Three’s Company”, Pippin displays a good bit of insouciance and cheekiness. Still, it’s nothing out of line for a person of his age and station. And he takes Frodo’s occasional rebukes in perfect good cheer. This is all the more remarkable when you realize that Pippin knew all along this was more than a mere move to Buckland. In other words, his singing and joking were probably bravado, to cover up his own trepidation at what was soon to come. He displayed good sense when they were lost, and it was he who was able to help Frodo overcome his long-felt fear of Farmer Maggot. He is often accused of being garrulous and impulsive, but he kept the secret of the Conspiracy right up until the revelation.
Pippin is still five years short of his coming-of-age, though he is by no means a child. He is what would be considered late adolescence, on the cusp of adulthood.
Merry, on the other hand, is a young adult already. He has already displayed uncommon maturity for his age when you realize that he was only nineteen when he helped Frodo deal with the aftermath of Bilbo’s party, which shows me he was a child with good sense of responsibility already. Frodo also entrusted him with the task of purchasing and furnishing the house in Buckland, a task he dealt with efficiently and carefully. He is the only son of the Master of Buckland, which means he has been raised to responsibility.
Now, he takes on another. He has already provisioned them for a journey he is by no means certain that Frodo will agree to them joining. Furthermore, as he reveals to Frodo, he has known all along about the Ring, and kept it a secret for over seventeen years! It was fear and worry for Frodo, and a premonition of danger to his cousin that led to the younger hobbits forming the Conspiracy even before Gandalf has returned with proof of the Ring’s evil!
As to “heedlessly” going along: “You can trust us to stick with you through thick and thin--to the bitter end. And you can trust us to keep any secret of yours--closer than you keep it yourself. But you cannot trust us to let you face trouble alone, and go off without a word. We are your friends, Frodo. Anyway: there it is. We know most of what Gandalf has told you. We know a good deal about the Ring. We are horribly afraid--but we are coming with you or following you like hounds.” This does not sound terribly “heedless” to me.
You speak often of the fact that laughter has a special meaning in LOTR. Consider Frodo’s response: “ ‘You are a set of deceitful scoundrels’ he said, turning to the others, ‘but bless you!’ he laughed, getting up and waving his arms, ‘I give in. I will take Gildor’s advice. If the danger were not so dark, I should dance for joy. Even so, I cannot help but feeling happy; happier than I have felt for a long time. I had dreaded this evening.’”
Once they set off and leave the Shire, all four hobbits are now on an equal footing! Even Frodo is a total innocent about just how much danger they are going to face, and in what forms.
I will only mention one thing from the Tom Bombadil chapters--when Frodo dreams of Gandalf at Isengard, Merry and Pippin also have prescient dreams. Consider these factors: dreams are a gift of the Vala, Lórien, who was Gandalf’s special patron in the West, when he was still the Maia Ólorin--and these come not only to Frodo, but to his cousins as well. Your theme of being destined to things is ratified here for all three of them.
And then there is the Barrow-wight incident. Frodo was able to overcome the wight’s influence by the outside intervention of Providence, true--and I could not agree more--but the means Providence used was Frodo’s love for his friends. He would not save himself at their expense.
I will also mention this, to the accusation of “laziness”--in The Prancing Pony, after the ponies are stolen, and Strider asks the hobbits how much they are prepared to carry on their backs, it is the youngest, Pippin who responds “As much as we must.”
I will say that I very much agreed with your analysis of why they were allowed to go on the journey, and appreciated the comparison to the disciples James and John.
There is not much to say about them until Moria, and I will not argue over whether Pippin’s stone actually woke the Balrog, as there is almost as much disagreement over that as there is whether Balrogs have wings. Suffice it to say, that if a little stone going plunk would have wakened it, it would have been far more likely to waken at the racket made when the Watcher in the Water caused the collapse of the West Gate.
I do think you gave Pippin far too little credit during their Orc-captivity--you failed to mention his acting on faith to leave the Elven brooch in the hope that Aragorn might find it, or the fact that he had that bit of insight given to him. I was very surprised at that omission.
As to their actions and the conclusions you drew from them in the rest of your analysis, I find very little to disagree with except for your overstatement of their immaturity. They did mature and grow a great deal over the course of the War--but they were not nearly so callow to begin with as you indicate. I especially liked your analysis of the father/son relationships between Théoden and Merry, and between Gandalf and Pippin, (though I had always previously thought of Gandalf’s role as more “grandfatherly”, I do not suppose there is that much difference).
I am also surprised you failed to make use of the very lovely part in “The Black Gate Opens”, when the troll falls on Pippin:
“ ‘So it ends as I guessed it would,’ his thought said, even as it fluttered away; and it laughed a little within him ere it fled, almost gay it seemed to be casting off at last all doubt and care and fear.’”
I cannot imagine that this succor in his dire circumstances was anything but Grace.
I am aware, though I do not understand it, that many people fail to appreciate what a singularly amazing race hobbits are, or to enjoy the traits that make them so delightful. Some people find the first few chapters of Shire life tiresome; I could have done with several more of them myself. We learn from the Prologue that it was in fact, their inherent trait of compassion (or Pity) as JRRT put it, that drew Gandalf’s attention to them. He had a deep and lasting friendship with Gerontius, the Old Took, of whom Frodo, Merry and Pippin are all direct descendants. Like you, I do not think there are any Accidents in Middle-earth. I do not think it would be stretching things to imagine that the Creator made hobbits with the express purpose of bringing forth five individuals: Bilbo, Frodo, Samwise, Meriadoc, and Peregrin.
I hope that you are not offended that I have pointed these things out to you; if I had not found your book otherwise so absorbing, I would not have bothered.
Sincerely yours,
************
I don't know if she'll read it or not, but I can hope so.
Reverend Fleming Rutledge
c/o Eerdmans Publishing
Publicity Department
2140 Oak Industrial Dr. NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49505
Dear Reverend Rutledge:
I just finished reading your book, The Battle for Middle-earth: Tolkien’s Divine Design in the Lord of the Rings . As one who has read and re-read The Lord of the Rings literally countless times over the last forty years, I am always pleased to read analysis of the books that can inform my reading pleasure, and offer me new insights into my all-time favorite work of fiction.
I very much appreciated your insightful examination of the theological themes of LOTR. Many of them are ones I have known for myself for many years. Indeed, I owe my own faith to J.R.R. Tolkien, for it was in reading his books that I began to see Christianity as something more than the rather drab and boring faith of my parents, and it was his introduction to me, in a literary fashion, of his friend C.S. Lewis that led to my conversion. LOTR has had a profound influence on my entire life, from the age of fifteen on.
I was amazed at the number of actual Biblical quotes that JRRT had used, and at their implications. And while Providence and Mercy, Faith and Hope, Love and Forgiveness, had always seemed to me key to understanding the books, I never realized how deeply embedded they were, nor had I noticed before the many other theological themes which inform Christian discipleship that could be found in them. I will definitely be taking some of your thoughts with me on my next journey to Middle-earth.
However, I feel that in one respect, you completely missed the boat. I was appreciative of the fact that you seemed to be sticking to the actual books, though I found myself puzzled that you failed to even mention a key chapter in the early part of Fellowship of the Ring : “A Conspiracy Unmasked”. This puzzlement turned to unease, when you said that the introduction of the theme of friendship, a key theme, and the one which drew me into the books to begin with, did not take place until Aragorn met the hobbits at The Prancing Pony. And I am afraid that when you suddenly referred to Merry and Pippin as “immature”, “lazy”, “adolescent pranksters” and “callow” my unease became outright distress. Why would you characterize them in this way if you were using only the books as your guide? For that characterization is a complete invention of Peter Jackson for the movies. And when you said that they had the “emotional maturity of thirteen-year-olds”, I was downright outraged.
Perhaps it is because I myself feel a deep affinity for hobbits (rather than Elves or Dúnadain) that I have spent a good deal of my time studying the matter. And the truth of the matter is that the pre-existing and heart-felt friendship of the hobbits is key to understanding the heart of the Fellowship. One need only glance at the Family Trees in Appendix C, to see that Frodo is twelve years older than Sam, fourteen years older than Merry, and twenty-two years older than Pippin. Yet JRRT clearly and unequivocally says that Frodo’s best friends were Merry and Pippin. I’ve given a lot of thought to the matter.
First of all, one needs to realize the age differential between hobbits and Men. Hobbits age at approximately two-thirds the rate of Men. (This is arrived at by using ages of three--or “faunthood” and the age of thirty-three, or coming-of-age, against the human age of two, for toddlerhood and twenty-one for coming of age.) Next, look once more at the Family Trees: when the four hobbits left the Shire, Sam was thirty-eight, Merry was thirty-six and Pippin was twenty-eight, or the equivalent, emotionally and physically of about twenty-two or three for Sam and Merry, and about eighteen for Pippin. Young, to be sure, but definitely not still adolescents.
Frodo was fifty, chronologically, but physically he was still only thirty-three, due to the influence of the Ring. But that still doesn’t negate the actual age difference. Merry and Pippin were his best friends for two reasons--they had a close (as hobbits reckon these things) blood relationship to Frodo, and it is quite clear that he has spent time with them mentoring them and caring for them when they were younger. They have grown up adoring him as if he were their older brother. And in point of fact, Frodo lived under the same roof with Merry, from the time Merry was born until Merry was seven, when Frodo left to live with Bilbo. So one might say they actually were foster-brothers for seven years--and in a society as family oriented as the Shire, it is not a bond easily put aside. The friendship with Sam at this point in time was more that of employer/employee, though it is clear that there was a good deal of mutual respect and affection.
There is no canon evidence whatsoever that Merry and Pippin were “pranksters”, though given their youthful high spirits, it’s possible. But the only hobbit called the “terror of Buckland” or accused of stealing vegetables was Frodo himself! (“A Shortcut to Mushrooms”)
Certainly, in their trek across the Shire in “Three’s Company”, Pippin displays a good bit of insouciance and cheekiness. Still, it’s nothing out of line for a person of his age and station. And he takes Frodo’s occasional rebukes in perfect good cheer. This is all the more remarkable when you realize that Pippin knew all along this was more than a mere move to Buckland. In other words, his singing and joking were probably bravado, to cover up his own trepidation at what was soon to come. He displayed good sense when they were lost, and it was he who was able to help Frodo overcome his long-felt fear of Farmer Maggot. He is often accused of being garrulous and impulsive, but he kept the secret of the Conspiracy right up until the revelation.
Pippin is still five years short of his coming-of-age, though he is by no means a child. He is what would be considered late adolescence, on the cusp of adulthood.
Merry, on the other hand, is a young adult already. He has already displayed uncommon maturity for his age when you realize that he was only nineteen when he helped Frodo deal with the aftermath of Bilbo’s party, which shows me he was a child with good sense of responsibility already. Frodo also entrusted him with the task of purchasing and furnishing the house in Buckland, a task he dealt with efficiently and carefully. He is the only son of the Master of Buckland, which means he has been raised to responsibility.
Now, he takes on another. He has already provisioned them for a journey he is by no means certain that Frodo will agree to them joining. Furthermore, as he reveals to Frodo, he has known all along about the Ring, and kept it a secret for over seventeen years! It was fear and worry for Frodo, and a premonition of danger to his cousin that led to the younger hobbits forming the Conspiracy even before Gandalf has returned with proof of the Ring’s evil!
As to “heedlessly” going along: “You can trust us to stick with you through thick and thin--to the bitter end. And you can trust us to keep any secret of yours--closer than you keep it yourself. But you cannot trust us to let you face trouble alone, and go off without a word. We are your friends, Frodo. Anyway: there it is. We know most of what Gandalf has told you. We know a good deal about the Ring. We are horribly afraid--but we are coming with you or following you like hounds.” This does not sound terribly “heedless” to me.
You speak often of the fact that laughter has a special meaning in LOTR. Consider Frodo’s response: “ ‘You are a set of deceitful scoundrels’ he said, turning to the others, ‘but bless you!’ he laughed, getting up and waving his arms, ‘I give in. I will take Gildor’s advice. If the danger were not so dark, I should dance for joy. Even so, I cannot help but feeling happy; happier than I have felt for a long time. I had dreaded this evening.’”
Once they set off and leave the Shire, all four hobbits are now on an equal footing! Even Frodo is a total innocent about just how much danger they are going to face, and in what forms.
I will only mention one thing from the Tom Bombadil chapters--when Frodo dreams of Gandalf at Isengard, Merry and Pippin also have prescient dreams. Consider these factors: dreams are a gift of the Vala, Lórien, who was Gandalf’s special patron in the West, when he was still the Maia Ólorin--and these come not only to Frodo, but to his cousins as well. Your theme of being destined to things is ratified here for all three of them.
And then there is the Barrow-wight incident. Frodo was able to overcome the wight’s influence by the outside intervention of Providence, true--and I could not agree more--but the means Providence used was Frodo’s love for his friends. He would not save himself at their expense.
I will also mention this, to the accusation of “laziness”--in The Prancing Pony, after the ponies are stolen, and Strider asks the hobbits how much they are prepared to carry on their backs, it is the youngest, Pippin who responds “As much as we must.”
I will say that I very much agreed with your analysis of why they were allowed to go on the journey, and appreciated the comparison to the disciples James and John.
There is not much to say about them until Moria, and I will not argue over whether Pippin’s stone actually woke the Balrog, as there is almost as much disagreement over that as there is whether Balrogs have wings. Suffice it to say, that if a little stone going plunk would have wakened it, it would have been far more likely to waken at the racket made when the Watcher in the Water caused the collapse of the West Gate.
I do think you gave Pippin far too little credit during their Orc-captivity--you failed to mention his acting on faith to leave the Elven brooch in the hope that Aragorn might find it, or the fact that he had that bit of insight given to him. I was very surprised at that omission.
As to their actions and the conclusions you drew from them in the rest of your analysis, I find very little to disagree with except for your overstatement of their immaturity. They did mature and grow a great deal over the course of the War--but they were not nearly so callow to begin with as you indicate. I especially liked your analysis of the father/son relationships between Théoden and Merry, and between Gandalf and Pippin, (though I had always previously thought of Gandalf’s role as more “grandfatherly”, I do not suppose there is that much difference).
I am also surprised you failed to make use of the very lovely part in “The Black Gate Opens”, when the troll falls on Pippin:
“ ‘So it ends as I guessed it would,’ his thought said, even as it fluttered away; and it laughed a little within him ere it fled, almost gay it seemed to be casting off at last all doubt and care and fear.’”
I cannot imagine that this succor in his dire circumstances was anything but Grace.
I am aware, though I do not understand it, that many people fail to appreciate what a singularly amazing race hobbits are, or to enjoy the traits that make them so delightful. Some people find the first few chapters of Shire life tiresome; I could have done with several more of them myself. We learn from the Prologue that it was in fact, their inherent trait of compassion (or Pity) as JRRT put it, that drew Gandalf’s attention to them. He had a deep and lasting friendship with Gerontius, the Old Took, of whom Frodo, Merry and Pippin are all direct descendants. Like you, I do not think there are any Accidents in Middle-earth. I do not think it would be stretching things to imagine that the Creator made hobbits with the express purpose of bringing forth five individuals: Bilbo, Frodo, Samwise, Meriadoc, and Peregrin.
I hope that you are not offended that I have pointed these things out to you; if I had not found your book otherwise so absorbing, I would not have bothered.
Sincerely yours,
************
I don't know if she'll read it or not, but I can hope so.