Keeping Our Oaths
Throughout The Lord of the Rings, J. R. R. Tolkien emphasized the importance of honor, loyalty, and integrity when it comes to keeping one’s oaths. Through Gimli, we see a character that understands oaths, bonds, and promises. I like to call this walking the talk. I’ve written about this before in Walk The Talk! There is an incredible exchange between Gimli and Elrond that goes like this: “Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,” said Gimli. “Maybe,” said Elrond, “but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall.” “Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,” said Gimli. “Or break it,” said Elrond. “Look not too far ahead!” Gimli is vowing to walk the talk.
Gimli’s unwavering commitment to his promises, through his oaths to his companions, illustrates that true bravery involves steadfastness and trustworthiness. Tolkien used Gimli’s character to show that upholding our oaths and promises is essential for maintaining personal integrity and fostering genuine bonds of friendship, trust, and respect. Do we do what we say we are going to do? It doesn’t seem people take this as serious as in the past. We need to get back to honoring our commitments. Always!
For example, I am excited to be going to lunch with a mentor from early in my career next week. What if the day before I get another opportunity and I decide to call my former mentor and cancel? This would not only disappoint him, it would be breaking an oath and be disrespectful. I realize things come up, but we need to do what we say we are going to do. In order to be trusted, we must walk the talk. Breaking a promise, commitment, or oath is a very serious thing and contaminates our relationships; eating away at trust.
Ultimately, Tolkien, through The Lord of the Rings, brilliantly suggested that keeping one’s vows reflects moral strength and contributes to the larger good, reinforcing the idea that honor is a vital virtue in both individual character and collective unity.
Navigating The Power of Temptation: Lessons on Humility, Self-Awareness, and Self-Control
One of the themes that J. R. R. Tolkien made applicable to us in both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings was that power and possessions can take control over us. You can read more about this applicability in Applicability: Tolkien’s View on the Organic Meaning of Stories. One such example for us to learn from is at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring (Book 1), when Gandalf told Bilbo Baggins he should give the ring that had the power to make him invisible to Frodo Baggins. “Gandalf stood up. He spoke sternly. ‘You will be a fool if you do, Bilbo,’ he said. ‘You make that clearer with every word you say. It has got far too much hold on you. Let it go! And then you can go yourself, and be free’” (p. 34). Gandalf recognized what the power and possession of the ring was doing to Bilbo.
In this conversation it was like Bilbo became a different person. Bilbo replied, “‘But you won’t get it [the ring]. I won’t give my Precious away, I tell you.’ His hand strayed to the hilt of his small sword” (p. 34). The key word here is “precious.” This is what the evil creature Gollum. Gollum had talked baby talk to the ring calling it “My precious.” Now Bilbo sounded just like him. This was such a stark reminder how we can sometimes fall into the trap of letting power gained and possessions take over and turn us into a different person.
We’ve all seen this happen, or let it happen to us. I know I have. It was good that Gandalf was there to have the difficult conversation with his friend. From Bilbo’s reluctance to give up the Ring and Gollum’s obsession with “precious,” we can learn about the dangerous allure of temptation, particularly power and possessions, can grip even the most unsuspecting or well-meaning individuals.
Bilbo’s initial hesitation highlights how powerful the Ring’s influence is, subtly pulling him into its web and blurring his judgment. Similarly, Gollum’s obsession demonstrates how attachment to such a corrupting object can consume one’s identity and morality.
These scenes in The Fellowship of the Ring remind us to be mindful of attachments or desires that may seem harmless at first but can ultimately lead to loss of self-control and wellbeing. It also speaks to the importance of recognizing the corrupting power of temptation early and choosing the path of humility, self-awareness, and restraint. These leadership attributes are vital both in stories like Tolkien’s and in our own lives.
Tolkien As A Learner
“Those who had asked for more information about hobbits eventually got it, but they had to wait a long time; for the composition of The Lord of the Rings went on at intervals during the years 1936 to 1949, a period in which I had many duties that I did not neglect, and many other interests as a learner and teacher that often absorbed me.” I love this statement by J. R. R. Tolkien in the foreword of the second edition of The Fellowship of the Ring. Tolkien was indicating that those interested in hobbits, and by extension, his broader Middle-earth universe, had to be patient as he took time to develop these stories. This suggests he valued meticulous storytelling and was willing to take the necessary time to craft his world thoroughly.
I am inspired by Tolkien calling himself a learner. Specifically saying, “…interests as a learner” suggests that Tolkien viewed himself as someone who was continually growing and developing, both as a writer and as a person. As a person who considers himself a long-life learner and advocates continuous learning for all, it really resonated with me that he would include that statement in the foreword.
Tolkien’s statement reflects his humility, openness to new ideas, and a recognition that mastery is an ongoing journey rather than a final destination. This attitude indicates that Tolkien valued learning from his experiences, feedback, and the process of creating his stories, which in turn demonstrates his dedication to improvement and a humble respect for the craft of writing.
Applicability: Tolkien’s View on the Organic Meaning of Stories
Studying J. R. R. Tolkien has been very interesting and has caused me to do a great deal of deep thought and research. Tolkien repeatedly said he did not like or appreciate allegory. This really caused me to pause because I always saw his connection to Christianity as allegorical. But as I studied more about it I learned Tolkien was drawing on his own experiences and making his stories applicable, not allegorical. In the foreword of the second edition of The Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkien made it crystal clear for me, saying, “I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” He was right. I had been confused.
Tolkien’s comment in the foreword highlights a key distinction between ‘applicability’ and ‘allegory’ in literature. When he says that ‘applicability’ resides in the freedom of the reader, he means that readers can take different themes, lessons, or messages from his work and interpret them in ways that resonate personally with their own experiences. If you’ve read any of Tolkien’s work, you know it does just that. This allows for a diverse range of understandings and connections.
Conversely, ‘allegory’ involves the author’s deliberate intention to embed specific meanings or messages that serve a particular purpose or point of view. When an author uses allegory, they are guiding the reader toward a predetermined interpretation, which can sometimes feel like a form of control or “domination” over how the story is understood.
Tolkien went on to say, “An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous.” Our experiences matter and are part of our stories.
Tolkien emphasized that his stories are open to interpretation. He wanted us to realize that the meanings are applicable in various ways to different readers. He did not want readers of his works to be constrained by rigid allegorical constrictions that attempt to dictate how they must be understood. This perspective respects our imaginative freedom and the organic way stories can hold different meanings for different people.
leave a comment