'Read the book, read the book, read the book'

in English

Exclusiv interview with Dr. Thomas Howard about "The Lord of the Rings"

Dr. Thomas Howard, Professor for Catholic Literature, has taught in numerousuniversities in the US and is currently lecturing at the "International Theological Institute"in Gaming (Austria) on J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. He is author of several books, notably"Evangelical is not enough," which is autobiographical and describes his conversion and journey into theCatholic Church. Howard took special interest in the "Inklings", the circle of authors basedin Oxford, to which also J.R.R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis belonged.

KATH.NET: How would you put the content of the Lord of the Rings in anutshell?

HOWARD: It is, of course, a very long book. It could most properly be calleda Saga which is in the tradition of Germanic and Nordicmythology. In a brief sketch, the story is about an evil ring, made by anevil power who has rebelled against the most high God,even though we hear almost nothing at all about this most high God. Thisring has been in the possession of various characters. Itfinally comes into the possession of some small creatures, named 'hobbits'who are very good and peaceful little creatures. It turnsout that the hobbit Frodo has been chosen to return the ring to the mountainof fire, where the evil power lives.The entire three volumes are the story of that journey with Frodo and histhree hobbit companions, the good wizard Gandalf, the manAragon, who turns out to be the returning king, some elves, a dwarf andseveral others who form the company of the ring. They havemany adventures - very beautiful but also terrible ones. Eventually thegroup is split up. Now Frodo and his little companion Samcarry on alone, straight into Mordor - the evil land, where the dark powerlives. The others have to go on their way to fight thegreat, tremendous battle of the good city called Minastirith, which the evilpower is trying to defeat and overcome. So, for a whilethe plot seems to split, but then it comes together again and. shall I tellthe end?

KATH.NET: Yes, please!

HOWARD: Well, I'll tell you only this: From some very very overpoweringadventures the good does triumph: Peace, goodness, righteousness andjustice are restored, but there is also very real loss for some of thecharacters. I think Tolkien may be one of the greatestcharacters in history in creating both terror and beauty.

KATH.NET: What was Tolkien's intention when he wrote the book?

HOWARD: His purpose was to write a good story. When one reads it, of course,one recognizes a lot in it that would be analogous to ourworld - our real world, which Tolkien called the 'primary world' - and hecreated a secondary world, called 'Middle Earth'. Hispurpose really was to write a good adventure story in the old tradition ofGermanic and Nordic myth.His purpose was not to write a story that would cloak and then revealChristian themes, but because he was a Catholic, hisimagination was filled with what any Catholic would understand to be truegoodness, true beauty, but also the nature of evil, andthat's why his story looks like that.

KATH.NET: What is the reason for teaching Tolkien at a theologicalinstitute?

HOWARD: Tolkien would probably say: 'This is a horrible idea, please don'tteach it at a theological institute. I was writing a story.' Buton the other hand, no one can read it without again and again and againrecognizing that even though it seems to be a very differentworld with different kinds of creatures in it - elves, dwarfs, trolls,. -nevertheless goodness is absolutely recognizable. It isexactly the same in that world as it is in ours, and evil does exactly thesame things there as it does here, except more visibly,more vividly. Here, a man can be evil and you'd never know it by looking athim. There, someone who gives himself over to evil doesbegin to look evil. So, even though Tolkien would say: 'Don't pretend thatit is theology', he himself said once: 'Well, of course,my whole imagination is a Catholic imagination, everything I write iscompletely determined by the fact that I am a Catholic.'

KATH.NET: Could you name some particular instances where Tolkien's Catholic backgroundappears in the book?

HOWARD: For one thing, the ring, which is completely evil, does exactly thesame thing as evil does in our world. Of course, we don't havemagic rings, but what evil does there is to eat away, or suck away anddestroy the good beauty of any creature that has been made byGod. For example, the central bad character is a little 'hobbit-like'creature called Gollum. He has possessed the ring for manyyears and it has eaten him up, he is just a little, malicious, vicious,angry, selfish, shrivelled up little creature. AnyChristian, any Catholic will see that this is exactly what evil does: itsucks away the beauty that God created when he made oursoul, and dries it out. And also the fact that the heavy burden of thefight against evil is carried mainly by these small hobbits. The others - very strongcharacters - can help, but the hobbits have to do it. And so it seems asthough by weakness evil is overthrown. Well, in our story,of course, the Saviour became weak. He didn't lead any armies, he becamelike a servant, he allowed himself to be scourged andcrucified - and apparently defeated by the power of the Caesar and the RomanEmpire. And yet, lo and behold, we find that this isthe way the evil powers are overthrown.And there would be lots of other examples: There is a very magnificent,beautiful elf-queen, for instance, who is not a picture ofallegory of the blessed Mother, and yet there is no question: A Christianwho is familiar with the exalted figure of Mary in ourstory would recognize that in this elfin queen there is very much of thesame holiness and purity and obedience to the divine will.

KATH.NET: Many non-Christians read the book and will watch the movie. Do youthink it can have positive effects upon them as well?

HOWARD: On the one hand, Tolkien would be the very first to say: 'I don'texpect my story to make anybody say: 'Oh, I'd better become aCatholic' and convert right away.' On the other hand, even Tolkien wouldhave to say that someone seeing this movie or reading thestory will at least become familiar with a kind of world in which evil lookslike this, goodness looks like this, and here is howthe struggle is carried on. And they will encounter in that story somethingthat they will never encounter in modern culture - intelevision, rock music, magazines, and generally in modern relativistic,virtually atheistic anti-life culture - the culture ofdeath. And if they see and absorb the movie they will see something about trueheroism and courage that recognizes evil as what itis - that evil really is evil and that it is not just, as the modern agesays, the 'shadow-side' of the good. That is new age andvery popular. No, evil is an anti-good force and it is not natural and it isdestructive. People will also see goodness and heroism in characters, they will see a kind of purityin the elves that one would never encounter in the modern world. One could say it willplough the field or prepare the land in somebody's imagination, so that hemight then say: 'Oh, Catholicism sounds just like that.'

KATH.NET: What are the advantages of a fairy story as opposed to a plainlyscientific approach?

HOWARD: The great advantage of a fairy story is that it picks us up andtakes us away from our immediate 'Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday-concerns'and all the popular talk in the modern world - the so-called dialogue. Ittakes us into another world which has its own laws andatmosphere, which is what Catholics would believe that our world is reallylike, which has become darkened by modern scepticism andunbelief. It takes you by surprise. I think that's the great thing: Your philosophicalor intellectual defences are not up. You arenot arguing: Is there a God, or isn't there a God, is there a moral order.?You are taken completely away from that and carriedalong in this beautiful, beautiful and terrifying and overwhelminglypowerful narrative, which just plants visions and imaginationsin your mind and in your inner being, so that with the strategy of 'onceupon a time' you are in a completely different context thanif you were in a theological or philosophical argument. It surprises us withwhat's true.

KATH.NET: Would you recommend to read the book before watching the movie?

HOWARD: I would recommend: Read the book, read the book, read the book - even if younever see the movie, or if you are planning to see themovie: read the book first, because the matter out of which the narrative ismade is words, and Tolkien is a master of words. In thesame way as Michelangelo was a master of paint or of marble or that J.S.Bach and Mozart where masters of music. You could describethose pieces of art very beautifully, but you must see the thing itself.There is no question that when you move one form of artover into another, you lose a great deal. For example, Chartres-Cathedral, you could make a perfect model of it out ofpaper . but itwouldn't be Chartres. You have to go to Chartres and see it and be there.And I think that that's exactly analogous: A film can neverreally come near to what Tolkien created. It may be a wonderful film, but itwill not be the original thing. I think that the bestthe film can do is to try to echo the original.The other thing is that when you read the book the main characters have amagnificence, a perfection and beauty that can only existin you imagination. On the screen the main character suddenly becomes JohnJones, or whoever the character is.

KATH.NET: Are there any comparable works in modern literature?

HOWARD: No. There have been many attempts to do the same thing. Many havetried to write great trilogies and Sagas, but again it's likeMozart: You can't write Mozart's music - nobody else can do it. The closestone could come to it would be the fairy tales of C.S.Lewis. He was living in the same time as Tolkien and they were friends andthey liked each other's works, but Lewis was doingsomething much smaller. he wrote seven little books called 'The Chroniclesof Narnia'. Tolkien would say - and Lewis would agree -that Lewis' books are much more allegorical, that is to say, it is mucheasier to make comparisons. The lion in Lewis' story isexactly like Christ in our story. But allegory is not as deep and profound amethod as what Tolkien did, which is at best a methodof analogy, that is to say, we over here in our world can recognize what isgoing on the other world but there is no one-for-one-correspondence. There isn't anybody in thestory who equal Jesus Christ in our world. But to answer the question, I think that nobodyelse has done what Tolkien has done - anymore than there is a second Mozart or asecond J.S. Bach.

Picture: (c) Warner Bros