Religion's Influence on aSoIaF

[BastardlyRock]

I wanted to lay out what we knew about GRRM’s stance on religion and how that’s permeated ASOIAF. To a lesser extent I thought I’d use LoTR as a point of comparison, particularly in how Tolkien’s religious background played a role in his own writing, albeit in almost the opposite way as GRRM.

This started off in my mind based on GRRM’s take on religion (and religion in LotR) found here:

“I suppose I’m a lapsed Catholic. You would consider me an atheist or agnostic. I find religion and spirituality fascinating. I would like to believe this isn’t the end and there’s something more, but I can’t convince the rational part of me that that makes any sense whatsoever. That’s what Tolkien left out — there’s no priesthood, there’s no temples; nobody is worshiping anything in Rings.”

And this got me to thinking how interesting it was that Tolien was devoutly religious, yet there was a definite absence of deity worship, priests and temples in LotR, while GRRM is openly not religious and his work is inundated with religious iconography and symbolism, such that it downright drives the plot at times. Especially now that it would appear the final two (three?) books are moving into a Holy War in conjunction with the Battle for the Dawn and a second Dance of the Dragons, religion’s role in the books would appear more important than ever.

But then I looked at how religion actually did work its way into LotR, and in a big way drove the story entirely. Of course, Tolkien himself has already pointed this out:

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

Recently in another thread (Jon being revived among salt and smoke) there was talk of bringing characters back from the dead, and this act in both GRRM and Tolkien’s worlds plays a huge part in regards to the spirituality of their respective stories. On Gandalf GRRM has said:

"Tolkien made the wrong choice when he brought Gandalf back. Screw Gandalf. He had a great death and the characters should have had to go on without him."

Ironic then that GRRM has brought so many of his own characters back to life, but here I’ll elaborate on Lady Stoneheart. Couldn’t the same quote be flipped on Cat? The primary (and most significant) difference here is that Cat comes back fundamentally changed, driven presumably only by revenge and hatred. Gandalf, on the other hand, was made stronger and more pure by death, finding a renewed confidence in him by the other characters. The parallels here to Christ’s own resurrection in Christianity are obvious.

But beyond this you have at the core of LotR a battle between the light and the dark, good and evil, temptation and sin versus righteousness and salvation. It’s harder to argue these themes in ASOIAF, especially given GRRM’s stance here:

"I think the battle between Good and Evil is waged within the individual human hearts. We all have good in us and we all have evil in us, and we may do a wonderful good act on Tuesday and a horrible, selfish, bad act on Wednesday, and to me, that’s the great human drama of fiction."

In shaping his world around these thoughts it’s almost impossible to picture a character like Jaime in LotR, and likewise a character like Aragorn in ASOIAF. What’s also commendable is GRRM’s ability to infuse religious principals into his characters and their propensity to use that for both good and evil. While Cat seems intrinsically driven by her devotion to her faith (as well as living truthfully to her family words, the two of which go hand-in-hand here) Martin has also crafted a world where the following can (sadly) ring true to our own world as well:

“Give me priests who are fat and corrupt and cynical,” he told Haldon, “the sort who like to sit on soft satin cushions, nibble sweetmeats, and diddle little boys. It’s the ones who believe in gods that make the trouble.” – Tyrion

Is it safe to say GRRM has been able to give us this world because of where he comes from religiously? Would his world have been essentially different if he, like Tolkien, were a devout Catholic?

Is it fair to say Tolkien’s approach was a cop-out? That by drawing the line so clearly between good and evil and never muddying the waters it was much simpler story-telling? I don’t think GRRM would hold to that notion, but I am appreciative for his desire to do things differently in his own universe. What do you think? Am I way off here? Are there any glaring points I missed? Or does religious background not play into the two as much as I’ve inferred?

[BastardlyRock]

Man, not even one single view in nearly an hour! That must be some kind of record -- maybe I should have titled this "Why Stannis Rules and Dany Sucks" ;)

[Bright Blue Eyes]

It's not religion on it's own, it's culture. LotR was written in the thirties/fourties, with the initial genesis being written even before WWI, Religion was holy, displaying criticism would get you in big trouble.

ASoIaF originated in the nineties and the new millenium, when it's quite the opposite, especially in the social groups open to fantasy.

[BastardlyRock]

Good point, I hadn't thought about that -- though I have to maintain that had Tolkien written LotR today it would be fairly unchanged, providing her were still Catholic.

[LordStoneheart]

All in all a good post, but I'd like to put forth that Lady Stoneheart was most definitely a response to Gandalf the White. Basically saying "this is how bring back a character from the dead." I think it's just an opinion of his that plenty are bound to take issue with (just like the Aragorn-taxes statement) but I happen to agree. Resurrection of Gandalf seemed to be too easy, especially since in the first book his presence/ existent drove the first book, and he was a great help in the other two. My Lady is the opposite. She's changed, and anyone but me would say for the worse. She's still fighting for the cause that most were routing for (anti-Lannister, and now Bolton and Frey) but the way she is doing it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

But that's not religion...

I also think based on the religion quotes within the book and his own words outside of them, it's clear there are no gods in the series, only influential people who do things in their gods' names. The only gods I might consider real are the Old Gods, and since Bloodraven is obviously dying it's clear these are not immortal omnicient gods... then again, some of the other corpses come to life and watch Bran in the cave... Gods, that chapter is chilling.

This may not sit well with the more devout readers, but my take from his work is that sometimes people can and will do things "for the greater good" in the name of their beliefs, but can still be very morally questionable.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Good point, I hadn't thought about that -- though I have to maintain that had Tolkien written LotR today it would be fairly unchanged, providing her were still Catholic.

Not at all. LotR is very deeply rooted in the culture of Tolkien's youth and the experiences he made in WWI. The Shire is basically rural England with the Baggins being a member of the upper middle class like Tolkien was - like it was in the Victorian Age and the following decades. But that's done by almost a hundred years now. His skeptiscism against industrialization and a couple other issues... it's all very Victorian, completely unrelated to religion.

[BastardlyRock]

This may not sit well with the more devout readers, but my take from his work is that sometimes people can and will do things "for the greater good" in the name of their beliefs, but can still be very morally questionable.

I would agree entirely. And for the record, I've yet to make up my mind whether your lady's change was for the better or not :D

Not at all. LotR is very deeply rooted in the culture of Tolkien's youth and the experiences he made in WWI. The Shire is basically rural England with the Baggins being a member of the upper middle class like Tolkien was - like it was in the Victorian Age and the following decades. But that's done by almost a hundred years now. His skeptiscism against industrialization and a couple other issues... it's all very Victorian, completely unrelated to religion.

True, and I understand that, but coming from a more deeper meaning/symbolic struggle angle I don't know that Tolkien would have changed the essence of his story being good vs. evil. Especially on the scale that we see it, whereas GRRM's struggle focuses heavily on the good vs. the evil inside each individual. While Tokien crafted good and evil characters, GRRM crafted characters capable of both good and evil. That's (to me) an essential difference between the two authors' series and I don't see Tolkien having written it differently just because he lived in a different era, providing he were still Catholic, as evidenced by his quote that LotR is fundamentally a Catholic work.

[LordStoneheart]

Definitely for the worse, yet I love her stil

[Mithras]

I don't agree with GRRM about Gandalf. What came back was not the good old Gandalf.

[LordStoneheart]

I don't agree with GRRM about Gandalf. What came back was not the good old Gandalf.

He was more powerful though, which I think is his main problem. But then again, Jesus.

[Dolorous Gabe]

All in all a good post, but I'd like to put forth that Lady Stoneheart was most definitely a response to Gandalf the White. Basically saying "this is how bring back a character from the dead." I think it's just an opinion of his that plenty are bound to take issue with (just like the Aragorn-taxes statement) but I happen to agree. Resurrection of Gandalf seemed to be too easy, especially since in the first book his presence/ existent drove the first book, and he was a great help in the other two. My Lady is the opposite. She's changed, and anyone but me would say for the worse. She's still fighting for the cause that most were routing for (anti-Lannister, and now Bolton and Frey) but the way she is doing it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

But that's not religion...

I also think based on the religion quotes within the book and his own words outside of them, it's clear there are no gods in the series, only influential people who do things in their gods' names. The only gods I might consider real are the Old Gods, and since Bloodraven is obviously dying it's clear these are not immortal omnicient gods... then again, some of the other corpses come to life and watch Bran in the cave... Gods, that chapter is chilling.

This may not sit well with the more devout readers, but my take from his work is that sometimes people can and will do things "for the greater good" in the name of their beliefs, but can still be very morally questionable.

I really don't want to seem creepy; but I almost always agree with everything you write, I also wanted to call myself Lord Stoneheart at first when I joined the forum, and I just love your signature. :leaving:

I think GRRM is extremely clever at taking into account how religion affects the evolution of societal norms and practices in building his world.

I love LOTR but really only on the surface level as an epic adventure story (and perhaps as an analogous lament for a time before the industrial revolution) and I've never really seen the religious side to it. I do find ASOIAF a much more philosophically interesting work though.

[LordStoneheart]

I really don't want to seem creepy; but I almost always agree with everything you write, I also wanted to call myself Lord Stoneheart at first when I joined the forum, and I just love your signature. :leaving:

:blushing:

Why, thank you. I'm flattered.

And honestly, comparing the two can lead to some interesting dialogue but I think they're just far too different to really think one is better. Different themes, different times. I love both.