Amen!

A cogent analysis. I read both Tolkien and Lewis, and the differences you highlight seem quite correct in their form.

Yes, Lewis certainly 'hits his readers over the head' with his message, but I don't necessarily find anything wrong with that. In all honesty, I have run across people here and there who say that there's nothing Christian in Narnia. That's kind of a showstopper. However, if Lewis's overt theme can be (and is) denied by some, how much more can Tolkien's less obvious but more pervasive theme be denied?

In some ways, Tolkien and Lewis 'inherited' (a bit inaccurate, but a close enough approximation) different areas of Chesterton's work. Lewis has the clarity of thought that pervades Chesterton's works, while Tolkien has the sense of beauty and wonder that pervades Chesterton's works. Both authors contain elements of both items, but they each focus and refine a different item.

Great stuff, Fr. Dwight. I'd love to see it explored in more depth. I particularly liked your contrast of Lewis's haphazard approach to myth-making with Tolkien's "ground-up" approach.

From my own reading on the Inklings, I'm inclined to agree with every one of your observations. I'd list the reasons for Tolkien's coldness towards Narnia in descending order of significance:

1. The above-mentioned contrast between Tolkien's lovingly meticulous and airtight process of "sub-creation" and Lewis's more cavalier approach. (I recall reading that Tolkien remarked, "It just won't do," upon first reading LWW.) To be fair to Lewis, he did work hard at back-filling his myth as the series went on (something that even Tolkien had to do a little of -- with the changes to the second edition of The Hobbit, for instance); even if he never approached the satisfying completeness of Middle-Earth, his Narnia did become more properly epic as the books went on.

2. The transparent allegorical and symbolic Christian elements in the Narnia books. I'm sure that to Tolkien it smacked, as you suggest, of a hamfisted didacticism. That Aslan turned out later to be, not a symbol of Christ, but Christ himself, was probably too little, too late.

3. Let it not go unsaid: a bit of dudgeon on the part of the somewhat sensitive Professor Tolkien, both over his personal fallout with Lewis and the greater initial marketplace success of Narnia compared to Middle Earth.

Interestingly, I think a case could be made that, despite Narnia's greater fame, Lewis's Space Trilogy represents his best fiction, and a more original (the borrowing of Numanor/Numenor aside) myth.

I have enjoyed both writers and appreciated their contribution to great literature. I was fascinated with the analysis and find it quite compelling.

And I may add i also find the Space trilogy to be a more striking work with deeper tones which resonate within the soul.

What is wonderful about both series is that I have been able to have serious and profound conversations with my children about the books and about each author's exploration of the human person and of human nature. More than simply the adventure, there is the development of the relationships among the characters in both stories. These relationships provide great opportunities for parents to teach their children about life.

Fr. Longenecker's article will provide some interesting conversation around the table as well.

see Planet Narnia by Michael Ward. Fascinating point of view that I find to be a compelling elucidation of the pattern of Narnia. Perhaps Prof. Tolkein would have been more understanding if he would have been told.

The theme is discussed at great length here:

http://tinyurl.com/684qp3

I wonder if part of Father Longenecker’s reaction could be connected to the intended audiences of these two works. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings seems to me to be a work promarily meant for an adult audience. Does that mean kids should not or could not read it? Of course not. But it might mean that J.R.R. was at liberty to introduce a level of complexity and deeper meaning than Lewis simply because he was intentionally writing for an older audience. Might this not be where the cathedral comes from?

In many ways, I think The Hobbit is the Tolkien work most readily comparable to The Narnian Chronicles. Even in this instance, his mythological underpinnings provide an incredibly rich backdrop for the story, but its scope seems smaller and more straightforward to me, much like Lewis’ Chronicle work.

As for more mature Lewis material, I think the suggestion of both Todd and John Jakubczyk is a good one. When I compare The Chronicles of Narnia with The Lord of the Rings, it’s easy to see that Tolkien’s work is larger, more majestic, and more cathedral-like. But when I compare The Lord of the Rings with That Hideous Strength? Then the difference becomes less obvious. Now we’re talking about two full-grown works, and Lewis’ effort deserves to at least be part of the “incarnational” discussion.

And when I put Tolkien’s opus side-by-side with Till We Have Faces? Then it’s Lewis all the way. Much like Father Longenecker’s description of his Middle Earth adoration, I find “my heart engaged and my spirit lifted” by that work in a way that I have rarely experienced when reading literature. I find it as profound, as insightful, and as engaging as anything I have ever read.

This reaction makes me wonder if the differences Father identifies might not have more to do with the intended purposes of the two works than it does with the religious affiliations of their authors. Perhaps his bathtub Eureka! has more to do with taste, style, and purpose than it does with the art gallery vs. the cathedral; with admiration vs. adoration.

Or perhaps I’m just more Protestant than I thought…

I agree with much of what Rev. Longenecker says here, and with Joseph Susanka's further qualification about the different intended audiences. I think there's no question that Middle Earth is far more subtle and incarnational than Narnia.

Personally, though, I do see a real value to the straightforward, obvious "analogy" approach, as well: I love the fact that Aslan presents Christ to me in a way that is familiar in some ways, but startlingly fresh in others. Hearing the Gospel stories can often unfortunately make me less attuned to the great mysteries underneath; (I'm ashamed to admit I have to stop myself from skimming certain parts of the Gospel and thinking, "Yeah, yeah -- I know this part.") There are several scenes throughout the Chronicles were I suddenly find myself face-to-face with some aspect of Christ in a way that gets underneath that familiarity and they never fail to move me very deeply.

I would say that both Tolkein's and Lewis's approaches have their distinct purpose as well as a distinct audience.

I dearly love children's literature in all its forms. For me, the weakness in most children's writing is that it talks down to them. The good stuff aimed at children does what Lewis accomplished: good stories that children can very much enjoy.

I suspect that Tolkien may have felt when using myth, that children should be exposed to it on an adult level. The child will take from the story the surface at first, but as they mature, each time they experience the myth, they will gain a deeper understanding of the layers of meaning.

The differences are on the basic level of audience expectations on the part of the author. Lewis expected his books to be read by children, Tolkein expected his books to be read by everyone.

From the article I linked to above:

... This is exacerbated by Lewis's treatment, or rather neglect, of Eucharist parallels in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

For a Catholic like Tolkien, any notion of a Passion narrative without the Last Supper and the institution of the Eucharist becomes maimed--crippled by significant theological problems. And if, as in Lewis's stated mythopoeic goal, Aslan was intended to accomplish in Narnia what he did on Earth, it would follow that the Last Supper would be as important to parallel as the Crucifixion. Yet in Narnia, while the sacrifice of Aslan is presented, there is no parallel to the Last Supper, nor anything resembling the institution of the Eucharist.

***
The absence of Eucharistic theology is particularly evident near the very end of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, when Aslan slips quietly away and Mr. Beaver says wistfully:

He'll be coming and going [...]. One day you'll see him and another you won't. He doesn't like being tied down--and of course he has other countries to attend to. It's quite all right. He'll often drop in. Only you mustn't press him. He's wild you know. Not like a tame lion. (Lewis LW & W 180)

— Someone

Whether he would have been able to articulate why it bothered him, this moment would undoubtedly have struck Tolkien as being inaccurate as to the character of Christ and the reality he experienced as a Catholic. For him to agree with it in a mythopoeic sense, Tolkien would have had to forget Christ's telling the apostles "Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age" (Matt. 28:20). This would have been impossible, for Tolkien would have understood this quote in reference to the Blessed Sacrament, which he cherished as the focus of his life and faith.

As he put it in a letter to his son Michael:

I fell in love with the Blessed Sacrament from the beginning--and by the mercy of God never have fallen out again [...]. Not for me the Hound of Heaven, but the never-ceasing silent appeal of the Tabernacle, and the sense of starving hunger. (Tolkien, Letters 340)

— Someone

The notion of a Christ who comes and goes, sometimes disappearing from life, and leaving no religion or sacraments through which to encounter Him, was therefore quite foreign and repugnant to Tolkien...

Perhaps that, more than anything else, is why Tolkien felt revulsion (I don't think that's too strong a word) toward Narnia.

I am not a scholar, and can only comment as an avid and longtime reader of both Lewis and Tolkien. I became a Christian at age 10 because of the Narnia Chronicles. That, I believe, is the precise reason Lewis wrote those books. The saving of souls motivated him greatly, I believe. I've also heard that many have been led to the Catholic Church because of his writings. Lewis's mixing of mythic traditions never bothered me (either as a child or an adult) because it was so delicious to think of all those wonderful traditions blending into a definitive cosmic Christian truth. I think Lewis wrote with the voice of his childhood, and that is why his books so deeply touch children.

I do not think that evangelizing was a major motivator for Tolkien. Wasn't his major motivation the desire to create heroic myth for the British people? I have not read LOTR as a Catholic, so I am sure I will be discovering a different depth there and will find new treasures that point to the truths of the Catholic faith.

I guess what I'm trying to articulate is that it is difficult to quantify or judge the quality of both authors' works (through contrasting their literary styles and preferences) when they were springing from such different foundations (not only Protestant and Catholic, but more importantly, mythmaking versus evangelizing). The similarities are superficial, like two different kinds of ice cream. They both include some of the same basic ingredients, but the Pralines and Cream is very different than Double Chocolate Fudge. I can only guess what Heaven's perspective is regarding the literary merits of both authors. It must depend on the ultimate purpose of each work, I suppose.

Thanks, Jay. That is really superb. I'm not sure I'm with the author all the way on the "heterodoxy" of Narnia (I'm more inclined to think Lewis was merely sloppy -- that, for example, he hadn't fully worked out all the implications of having Aslan represent Christ directly rather than allegorically; indeed if in the beginning this had even occurred to him at all). But that well-written piece shed light on many other areas related to Lewis's theology and Tolkien's disappointment with it.

I'd anticipated the author's point about Lewis's underwhelming conception of the body, something I've found evident in Mere Christianity and other works. However I was edified by the way he unpacked the point and connected it to other theological eccentricities of Lewis's, and how these bore on his writing. Great stuff!

Tolkien was much more scholarly, and not as accessible as Lewis. Much like Chesterton, who was not a particularly learned scholar of religion but was a wonderful proponent of Christianity. Tolkien derided Lewis' "everyman" approach to Theology, but you can see Chesterton's influence on Lewis, especially in his books on religion.

Hello,

I have really enjoyed the posts above. I would like to say that Till We Have Faces is really the only work of Lewis' that is comparable with The Lord of the Rings. The Narnia books were read to me as a child before I could read them myself, and I re-read them over and over. They are stories for children but they are nonetheless noble and full of truth. For eaxample, after my confirmation as a Catholic i happened to re-read The Last Battle and found in it a perfect illustration of the semantic games being played over the last few decades in the Episcopal Church. (To paraphrase: "We use different words; but we really all mean the same thing.") These stories are still a comfort and joy to me (and now, to my children.)

Till We Have Faces , which is my favorite of Lewis' books, is a different kind of story. It is an epic tale with a courageous but flawed protagonist(Orual), and it would be a tragedy if the God of Love were not merciful. It is also the story of a person learning the truth about herself and those around her. Of course there is much more one could say, but suffice it to say that one can compare two epics but the Narnia books are not, in my opinion, the same kind of work.

Let's just be thankful that we have all of these awesome books to enjoy and share!