# Bear with me here.... An Argument of Allegory



## BlackCaptain (Dec 19, 2005)

Hey guys, It seems ages since I've been on here last; I can't expect anyone to remember me, but I used to frequent the boards daily.

Well, my Sacraments "professor" today started making us watch RotK as part of the class, claiming that Tolkien, in his catholicism, actively put the sacraments into his opus (9 Nazgul parallel to the 9 diedems [sp?] of the Beast in Revelation; Aragorns Return paralleled to Jesus' return; Multiple figures of Christ in the movie, etc). 

Now I remember reading somewhere that Tolkien meant for nothing to be allegorical, but I can't remember where. I'd like nothing more than to prove my teacher guilty of this horrendus speculation. That is... unless Tolkien really DID mean to draw all of these parallels?

Can someone discuss for me, or offer a convincing quote, arguing against my teacher? Or is there really some merit to his point?


----------



## Maeglin (Dec 19, 2005)

Tolkien says several times that he meant nothing to be allegorical.

Foreword to Lord of the Rings Collector's Edition:



> As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches; but its main theme was settled from the outset by the ineveitable choice of the Ring as the link between in and _The Hobbit._



That was written by Tolkien himself. 

All that being said, there is no doubt that allegory can be found in abundance throughout the story, but it was not written for tha purpose. I know that there are several other quotes concerning this so let me know if you want/need more and I can find them for you.


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah well, here we go again. Someone trying to shoehorn Christianity into any nook and cranny they can.

Before your prof. tries this, suggest that he reads the words of Tolkien himself. Not the stories but the foreword written by Tolkien to answer this very question. I will not type out the whole thing but here are a few exerpts.



foreword to LotR said:


> As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put dow roots (into the past) and threw out inexpected branches; but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and _The Hobbit_.





foreword to LotR said:


> Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. 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.



and some more from his letters



131 To Milton Waldman said:


> Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.
> *For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world*. (I am speaking, of course, of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days. And I will not repeat what I tried to say in my essay, which you read.)



So while your Prof. has a very small and unstable ground upon which to build his magnificent castle, Tolkien drew upon more than the christian mythology to create LotR. So as he says in his letter it does contain elements of religion but *not* explicitly. There is no One-to-One relationship but one element in LotR can easily be traced back to one or more elements in many mythologies. As for Aragorn's return. This is a theme that is found in most if not all mythologies and has nothing to do with paralleling Christs return. As for many 'Christ-Figures' in the film. Tell your professor to take that up with P. Jackson since the charators in the film bear little if any relation to those of the books other than having the same name.

In fact, the only thing that Tolkien did to the stories "Actively" was to remove all references to religion.

There is only one reference to any religious aspect of LotR. and that is to be found in a letter to a Jesuit Robert Murray, and even there Tolkien states that he did not put in (or if he found some, cut out) references to religion.



142 To Robert Murray said:


> 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. However that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little; and should chiefly be grateful for having been brought up (since I was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and that I owe to my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty resulting from it.


----------



## BlackCaptain (Dec 19, 2005)

Maeglin, after reading what Tolkien defines as "Allegory" (the purposed domination of the author, as oposed to applicability which is the "freedom of the reader"), I have to disagree with you when you say : "there is no doubt that allegory can be found in abundance throughout the story". Tolkien obviously did not intend, as evidenced by the quotes you and Gothmog provided, for there to be any applicability between his Novel and Christianity. I think what you meant to say was: "there is no doubt that connections btwn Xianity and the LotR mythology can be found in abundance throughout the story", which is different from allegory (again, which is intended by the author).

However, I can see how someone could connect Christianity to the Novel. Unfortuneatly for my teacher, Christianity could be connected to about anything if one was to try.

I guess my selling point against him is that he shouldn't be teaching us his personal assumptions and speculation; after all it's "Sacraments" class, which deals only with the speculation of the Catholic Church . I'll point out that what he's trying to teach us is obviously a personal assumption that is not only spoken against by Tolkien, but also founded completely unrelated to "Catholic Sacraments" class.


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 19, 2005)

Glad to be of help. 

Let us know what happens in class.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 19, 2005)

Maeglin and Gothmog have responded more succinctly and more quickly than I can. And their comments can alone address your question: I am simply piling on.

Let us also commend to you Letter 109 to Sir Stanley Unwin, dated 31 July 1947, p.121:


> …do not let Rayner [Unwin, Sir Stanley’s son, who passed away recently] suspect ‘Allegory’. There is a ‘moral’, I suppose, in any tale worth telling. But that is not the same thing. …
> 
> Of course, Allegory and Story converge, meeting somewhere in Truth. So that the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human ‘literature’, that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily can it be read ‘just as a story’; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it. But the two start out from opposite ends. You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you like: an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power. But that is only because all power magical or mechanical does always so work. …


Gothmog has already quoted Letter 131 to Milton Waldman, probably written in 1951 when Tolkien was arguing with Allen & Unwin over the publication of The Silmarillion along with The Lord of the Rings. It is an extremely important and interesting letter for many reasons; for your purposes, consider this on allegory, p.145:


> I dislike Allegory – the conscious and intentional allegory – yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more ‘life’ a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story.) Anyway all this stuff is mainly concerned with Fall, Mortality, and the Machine.


Later, in Letter 153 to Peter Hastings, September 1954, Tolkien basically says that allegory is sometimes unavoidable on page 192:


> I do not mean him [Tom Bombadil] to be an allegory – or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name – but ‘allegory’ is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an ‘allegory’, or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science…


In Letter 163 to W.H. Auden, 7 June 1955, who had written reviews of the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien addresses the inevitability of allegory again on p. 212:


> …what appreciative readers have got out of the work or seen in it has seemed fair enough, even when I do not agree with it. Always excepting … ‘interpretations’ in the mode of simple allegory: that is, the particular and topical. … it is I suppose impossible to write any ‘story’ that is not allegorical in proportion as it ‘comes to life’ …


In Letter 181 to Michael Straight, p.232, editor of _New Republic_, January or February 1956, Tolkien is much more strident:


> Thank you for your letter. I hope that you have _enjoyed The Lord of the Rings? Enjoyed_ is the key-word. For it was written to _amuse_ (in the highest sense): to be readable. There is no ‘allegory’, moral, political, or contemporary in the work at all.


Letter 203 to Herbert Schiro, 17 November 1957, p. 262, is a bit more flexible. (This letter appears to be only a fragment of a longer piece).


> There is _no_ ‘symbolism’ or conscious allegory in my story. … To ask if the Orcs ‘are’ Communists is to me as sensible as asking if Communists are Orcs.
> 
> That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability. There always is…


In April 1959, he returned to the subject of allegory, Letter 215, pp 298-299, to Walter Allen at _New Statesman_. In the notes to Letter 163 to Auden, Tolkien noted that _New Statesman_ had published what he called “deliberately disparaging review” of The Lord of the Rings. There is an elision in the published text of the letter, which probably means that something was removed here in the editing, although Tolkien himself might have left the dots. In the end, this was a draft, and a very terse letter was sent to Walter Allen.


> …I have no didactic purpose, and no allegorical intent. (I do not like allegory (properly so called: most readers appear to confuse it with significance or applicability) but that is a matter too long to deal with here.) But long narratives cannot be made out of nothing; and one cannot rearrange the primary matter in secondary patterns without indicating feelings and opinions about one’s material. .... [elision in the text]


The most famous passage about Tolkien’s views on allegory is from the Foreword to the _Fellowship of the Ring_, already quoted by Gothmog:


> As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical…
> 
> … I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. 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.


I think we can say this about Tolkien and his outlook on allegory: he didn’t like it. I suspect he smelled it in C.S. Lewis’ work on Narnia, and that might have left him cold to Lewis’ very popular series of stories. He is in fact rather aggressive about asserting that there is no allegory in his work. On the other hand, when it is not being demanded of him, he seems to be willing to admit that a bit of allegory might have slipped into the text; in the case of Bombadil, allegory might be deliberate.

There is clearly a good deal of Catholic symbolism that works its way into _Lord of the Rings_. Besides what you have mentioned, there is also a similarity between the Valar and both angels and saints. There might be a strong similarity between Varda (Elbereth Gilthoniel) and the Virgin Mary. In addition, in _Morgoth’s Ring_, in the essay “Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth,” Saelon (later “Saelind,” Andreth the wise-woman who loves and is loved by Finrod’s brother, Aegnor) tells Finrod that Eru Himself will enter into Arda and redeem Men – a clear reference to the Incarnation of the Christ, something neither Finrod nor Andreth can comprehend. 

I think Tolkien reluctantly admits that there is a good deal of allegory, or “applicability” as he might prefer to call it, in his tales. But he is not trying to lead the reader into believing this thing or that, which is what he would call “allegory.” _Depending upon how your professor has positioned his argument, he could be well within reasonable bounds to claim that there is allegory in the material._

However, I caution you that even if your professor has decided that there is clear and deliberate allegory in the Lord of the Rings, you will likely be unable to convince him that matters are otherwise; and arguing your case could possibly damage your grade rather than help it if experience is any guide, particularly if you do this in class and embarrass him. Over the past half century, professors have become the little gods of their own classrooms: even if they are barebutt ignorant and clearly wrong in their assertions, no one can correct them or rein them into line. Whether or nor he has made a reasonable assertion about allegory and “applicability” in Tolkien’s work, then depending upon what kind of person he is, he could become enraged and punish you for daring to question his divine authority to pronounce the One and Only Truth, and no one will be able to help you out of your predicament.

(If this seems deeply cynical of university and college professors, it is, and well-earned.)


----------



## Walter (Dec 19, 2005)

Tolkien pretty much borrowed from all mythologies he knew, one way or the other. 

While the "earlier" Valar of the BoLT resemble the Germanic/Nordic Aesir rather closely (and we find ample parallels to Eddic writings), lateron they become _angeloi_, 'messengers' of the One.

But of course we find also many parallels or references to Greek, Germanic/Norse, Finnish or Celtic mythologies. Thus it could be argued that LotR _is a fundamentally heathen and pagan work; consciously so at first, but unconsciously in the revision..._.

Nonetheless one should be aware that there are quite a few authors and books out there, which argue very much along the line from Tolkien's letter to Robert Murray, the Jesuit, that LotR _is a fundamentally religious and Catholic work_. Some of them are - or border - pure nonsense (IMO) like the books of K. Bruner & J. Ware or M.E. Smith where the authors show little familiarity with Tolkien's legendarium and seem merely hijacking Tolkien and his works for their own agendas. 

Others have more substance and show quite some familiarity with Tolkien's legendarium - like J. Pearce's or B. Pirzer's books - but are (again IMO) purposely and with little subtlety trying to mislead the reader towards an opinion that Tolkien's primary goal was putting as much Catholic theology as possible into the books...

If your teacher should be familiar with these books, BlackCaptain, it could prove difficult for you - and require quite a lot of intense study of Tolkien's legendarium as well as the study of Tolkien's sources and inspirations - to successfully argue your teacher...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 19, 2005)

BlackCaptain said:


> Hey guys, It seems ages since I've been on here last; I can't expect anyone to remember me, but I used to frequent the boards daily.



Welcome back!



> Well, my Sacraments "professor" today started making us watch RotK as part of the class, claiming that Tolkien, in his catholicism, actively put the sacraments into his opus...I remember reading somewhere that Tolkien meant for nothing to be allegorical...I'd like nothing more than to prove my teacher guilty of this horrendus speculation....Can someone discuss for me, or offer a convincing quote, arguing against my teacher? Or is there really some merit to his point?



Your teacher has a strong agenda and seems totally commited to it. Unless he's really looking to see what the students can come up with to countermand his theories, you proceed at your peril.  

Tolkien has said in no uncertain terms that he meant no allegory — despised it in fact, but preferred history, even feigned history. Your teacher will either accept that or reject it. You need to study what Tolkien said about this and marshall your own case. Good luck!

In reading over Alcuin's post #6 in this thread, "methinks Tolkien doth protest too much." Or perhaps that's just my personal impression gained from reading a number of Tolkien's anti-allegory statements all gathered together in one place. 

He makes an interesting reference to the notion that the more a story resembles "life," the more it can be "taken" as allegory. Well, what is the line that one steps over, the point where "taken" becomes "actual"? It seems that Tolkien is giving way on the point: that LOTR could be indeed taken as allegory, since it seems to be so lifelike and real in so many ways. So your prof may have something after all, _if_ one is willing to go with the idea that what Tolkien says about allegory is not entirely true, that he had himself convinced on a point that wasn't convincing for others. Then comes the argument: despite what Tolkien _says_ about allegory — objectively speaking, is or is not LOTR allegorical? Tolkien says "no," but _does that make it true?_

Barley

PS:


Alcuin said:


> ...I caution you that even if your professor has decided that there is clear and deliberate allegory in the Lord of the Rings, you will likely be unable to convince him that matters are otherwise; and arguing your case could possibly damage your grade rather than help it if experience is any guide, particularly if you do this in class and embarrass him. Over the past half century, professors have become the little gods of their own classrooms: even if they are barebutt ignorant and clearly wrong in their assertions, no one can correct them or rein them into line. Whether or nor he has made a reasonable assertion about allegory and “applicability” in Tolkien’s work, then depending upon what kind of person he is, he could become enraged and punish you for daring to question his divine authority to pronounce the One and Only Truth, and no one will be able to help you out of your predicament. (If this seems deeply cynical of university and college professors, it is, and well-earned.)



HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! You know whereof you speak, and I can say that we've both been there! An important point well said!!! Never shalt thou worship those who worship themselves...


----------



## wizard2c (Dec 19, 2005)

This is an interesting topic of many discussions.

I found in my library "Finding God in The Lord of the Rings" by Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware...a small paperback. 

I have not read it yet but I note on the back cover a Tolkien quote "God is the Lord, of angels, and of men---and of elves."......J.R.R. Tolkien

Anyone know where that was quoted from...if it were at all. I'll scan thru the book and see what this book has to offer reference-wise.

 

Here's a quote from a chapter called Wise Counsel:
"Do be careful of that Ring, Frodo.
(Gandalf to Frodo - Book 1, Chapter 1)


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 20, 2005)

wizard2c said:


> ... I note on the back cover a Tolkien quote "God is the Lord, of angels, and of men---and of elves."......J.R.R. Tolkien
> 
> Anyone know where that was quoted from...


Tolkien did write this, and I believe he meant it, more strongly and emphatically than anything else he ever wrote. It is from the Epilogue if the essay “On Fairy Stories,” first written as an Andrew Lang lecture in 1938 and later included in a memorial book to Charles Williams, one of the Inklings, upon his death in 1947 at age 58. If we accept Tolkien’s version of events, it was this argument that Hugo Dyson and Tolkien put forward to C.S. Lewis that led to Lewis’ conversion to Christianity. (Humphrey Carpenter, _Tolkien_, pp 146-148)

Tolkien argues vigorously that myth is a reflection of underlying Truth, and that the search for this Truth is an innate characteristic of Mankind. He says that Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus is the True Myth, the penultimate mythic story taking place in the real world and coming true at last, resolving Mankind’s broken relationship with God. I hope that I am not overstepping any boundaries by quoting it liberally with as much context as possible. In my copy of the _Tolkien Reader_ (Ballantine 1966), this is on pages 71-72.


> ...this story has entered History and the primary world; the desire and aspiration of sub-creation has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation. The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man’s history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the “inner consistency of reality.” There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true, and none which so many sceptical men have accepted as true on its own merits. For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation. To reject it leads either to sadness or to wrath.
> 
> It is not difficult to imagine the peculiar excitement and joy that one would feel, if any specially beautiful fairy-story were found to be “primarily” true, its narrative to be history, without thereby necessarily losing the mythical or allegorical significance that it had possessed. It is not difficult, for one is not called upon to try and conceive anything of a quality unknown. The joy would have exactly the same quality, if not the same degree, as the joy which the “turn” in a fairy-story gives: such joy has the very taste of primary truth. (Otherwise its name would not be joy.) It looks forward (or backward: the direction in this regard is unimportant) to the Great Eucatastrophe. The Christian joy, the _Gloria_, is of the same kind; but it is preeminently (infinitely, if our capacity were not finite) high and joyous. But this story is supreme; and it is true. Art has been verified. God is the Lord, of angels, and of men – and of elves. Legend and History have met and fused.


 This concept does show up time and again in Tolkien’s work. I have already mentioned “Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth” in my previous post; here it is, heavily elided, from _Morgoth’s Ring_, pp 320-21:


> ‘Have ye then no hope?’ said Finrod. … _‘Amdir_ we call it, “looking up”. But there is another which is founded deeper. _Estel_ we call it, that is “trust”. … If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the last foundation of _Estel_, which we keep even when we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for His Children’s joy. _Amdir_ you have not, you say. Does no _Estel_ at all abide?’
> ...
> ‘Asleep or awake, they say nothing clearly,’ answered Andreth. ‘How or when shall healing come? To what manner of being shall those who see that time be re-made? And what of us who before it go out into darkness unhealed? To such questions only those of the “Old Hope” (as they call themselves) have any guess of an answer.’
> 
> ...


 That is about as clear a statement of the coming of Christ as can be devised; Finrod and Andreth are unable even to conceive the notion.

This concept is embedded in the arguments set forth by the emissaries from Valinor to Tar-Atanamir in _Akallabêth_ (_Silmarillion_, Del Ray 2002, p.317):


> Indeed the mind of Ilúvatar concerning you is not known to the Valar, ... But this we hold to be true, that your home is not here, neither in the Land of Aman nor anywhere within the Circles of the World. ... The will of Eru may not be gainsaid; and the Valar bid you earnestly not to withhold the trust to which you are called, lest soon it become again a bond by which you are constrained. ... Nonetheless, many ages of Men unborn may pass ere that purpose is made known; and to you it will be revealed and not to the Valar.


 Besides the version in _Silmarillion_, other versions of this story appear in “The Notion Club Papers” and “The Drowning of Anadûnê” in _Sauron Defeated_. Tolkien considered it an important component of his tale. (I do not believe it was originally a component of the tale, however.)

This idea of the redemption or ultimate Fate of Mankind lying outside Arda appears again in Aragorn’s final words to Arwen before he dies (from _Return of the King_, “Appendix A,” “(v) …The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen,” p. 1038 in the one-volume 1994 HarperCollins _Lord of the Rings_):


> In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory. Farewell!


 Tolkien talks about this in his letters: it is a recurrent theme. Walter is right: Tolkien starts out with a world that is nearly or at least partially pagan or heathen, but it quickly converged into a monotheistic world. There is an argument that this is allegory, but if allegory is an effort to direct the mind or the opinions of the reader, Tolkien seems uninterested: he seems to be writing toward concepts with which he himself is comfortable. He is not seeking to comfort or guide his readers, as is Lewis; he is seeking his own comfortable position in which to write. Lewis is beckoning his readers to follow; but Tolkien, sometimes stomping, sometimes tip-toeing, seems less interested in getting the reader to follow him than in getting the story to satisfy his own sense of how it should be. I think that is what Tolkien would call a difference between “allegory” and “significance or applicability,” and as I quoted him earlier in his draft (not sent) to Walter Allen, “long narratives cannot be made out of nothing; and one cannot rearrange the primary matter in secondary patterns without indicating feelings and opinions about one’s material.” 

Tolkien certainly gives away his “feelings and opinions” about his material. Is he dragging the reader along with him? I don’t think so. I suspect that some of the posters in this thread would say that the Old Hope of Men was a farce, a ruse, a fiction; but I suspect Tolkien would argue that it is real, and that his literary work on anticipates or reflects it. After attending opening night for _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ in London, however, one _New York Times_ critic showed considerable agitation: “A beheading would have been nice, but budgets are tight these days.” The _Times_’ film critic, A. O. Scott (“Two Wars of Good and Evil,” _New York Times_, December 9, 2005), was much more generous, though he agrees with Black Captain’s professor that Lord of the Rings is an allegory. (And since it is in the _Times_, it must of course be true.)


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 20, 2005)

When you look at the whole of the legenderium, perhaps it is possible to build a case for Allegory, perhaps there is even Tolkien's view of allegory there. However, BlackCaptain's Prof is not discussing the whole legenderium but LotR only.

This one story is the one that Tolkien has stated did not contain Allegory but perhaps Aplicability. Don't forget also that much of the legenderium was rewritten after the LotR and we cannot know just what parts and in what form JRRT himself would have had the completed work.


----------



## Walter (Dec 20, 2005)

The amount of allegory found in Tolkien's legendarium depends IMO very much on the reader's willingness to "read into the story". But an objective and unbiased examination of the legendarium often shows, that there are quite a few possible and justified ways, to draw parallels and find applicabilities of given parts of the tales with other myths, regardless whether their origin be pagan or Judeo/Christian (also it should be kept in mind, that for many Judeo/Christian myths parallels in other - older and thus "heathen" or "pagan" - mythologies can be found). And a "Christian", or - even more so - a "Catholic" interpretation is but one out of many choices.

That said, I'd like to emphasize Alcuin's point, that Tolkien's essay "On Fairy-stories" provides us with a lot of insight about Tolkien's own bias regarding his legendarium and its relation to the "underlying truths", but his poem _Mythopoeia_ does this even more beautifully. If we look e.g. at this part, we might be able to catch a glimpse of this:



> The heart of man is not compound of lies,
> but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,
> and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,
> man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
> ...



----



Alcuin said:


> That is about as clear a statement of the coming of Christ as can be devised; Finrod and Andreth are unable even to conceive the notion.


This is only valid, if we equal Christ with the One, which seems in more than one way problematic to me. The unity of Christos (the anointed) with God has - to the best of my knowledge - not been established before Nizäa (325 CE). It appears not sufficiently based on Biblical scripture (not even if we look only at the Canon), where we, btw., have more than one Messianic figure.

It could, IMO, as well be applicated to Persian (Zoroastrian) lore where we encounter a final victory of the Good (Ahura Mazda) over the Evil (Angra Mainyu) with a final redemption where Ahura Mazda would appear and judge the living and the dead (including resurrection and immortality and "unmarring" of the world).


----------



## Arvedui (Dec 20, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> When you look at the whole of the legenderium, perhaps it is possible to build a case for Allegory, perhaps there is even Tolkien's view of allegory there. However, BlackCaptain's Prof is not discussing the whole legenderium but LotR only.
> 
> This one story is the one that Tolkien has stated did not contain Allegory but perhaps Aplicability. Don't forget also that much of the legenderium was rewritten after the LotR and we cannot know just what parts and in what form JRRT himself would have had the completed work.


In my opinion, it seems as if those who refer to _The Lord of The Rings_ as allegorical are in fact misinterpreting their own views to be "what Tolkien really meant."
The reader find that something applies to a certain view, according to his/her beliefs or whatever. And because it does, it seem reasonable that Tolkien was allegorical. 
Does that seem like a plausible explanation sa to why so many still talk about LoTR being allegorical?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 20, 2005)

Élhendi said:


> In my opinion, it seems as if those who refer to The Lord of The Rings as allegorical are in fact misinterpreting their own views to be "what Tolkien really meant."
> 
> The reader find that something applies to a certain view, according to his/her beliefs or whatever. And because it does, it seem reasonable that Tolkien was allegorical.
> 
> Does that seem like a plausible explanation as to why so many still talk about LoTR being allegorical?



Let's come at it from a different angle. Let us for the moment _ignore_ Tolkien's vigorous denials of the presence of allegory, and look at LOTR objectively. Then we have two things to do:

1. Come up with a definition of allegory that is satisfactory to all (this might suffice:

• 1. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
• 2. A story, picture, or play employing such representation.)

and then

2. Apply the definition to LOTR _despite_ Tolkien's assertions.

At that point, the decision must be made: Does or does not LOTR contain allegory, and if so, of what sort and to what extent?

This of course raises the issue: What do we do with Tolkien's claims that his works are not allegorical if they indeed fit the definition of it?

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 20, 2005)

First Élhendi,


> Does that seem like a plausible explanation sa to why so many still talk about LoTR being allegorical?


It does indeed. I believe that it is a case of as Tolkien said people mistaking 'Allegory' for 'Aplicabilty'. 

Barli,
While you give a good definition of Allegory, for this to be aplicable to the LotR, or any other work, you have to show that it is the author who is making such a representation. Otherwise it is only the reader putting words into the authors mouth.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 20, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> 1. Come up with a definition of allegory that is satisfactory to all (this might suffice:
> 
> • 1. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
> • 2. A story, picture, or play employing such representation.)


With that definition, you could find allegory in a Microsoft technical manual.

A much better test would be whether Tolkien is engaging in “conscious and intentional allegory,” as he put it. Let’s go back to Tolkien’s discussion of allegory in Letter 181 in early 1956:


> ...I think that fairy story has its own mode of reflecting ‘truth’, different from allegory, or (sustained) satire, or ‘realism’, and in some ways more powerful. But first of all it must succeed just as a tale, excite, please, and even on occasion move, and within its own imagined world be accorded (literary) belief. To succeed in that was my primary object.
> 
> ...if one sets out to address ‘adults’ (mentally adult people anyway), they will not be pleased, excited, or moved unless the whole, or the incidents, seem to be about something worth considering, more e.g. than mere danger and escape: there must be some relevance to the ‘human situation’ (of all periods). So something of the teller’s own reflections and ‘values’ will inevitably get worked in. This is not the same as allegory. We all, in groups or as individuals, exemplify general principles; but we do not represent them. The Hobbits are no more an ‘allegory’ than are (say) the pygmies of the African forest. Gollum is to me just a ‘character’ – an imagined person – who granted the situation acted so and so under opposing strains, as it appears to he probable that he would (there is always an incalculable element in any individual real or imagined: otherwise he/she would not be an individual but a ‘type’.)


 Tolkien’s definition of allegory includes a “conscious and intentional” use of characters or events to represent either general principals or ideals, or other (real, historical) individuals or events. By doing this, the author renders characters in the story as mere archetypes. His view of the situation seems to be that an author can either create a great tale that has “applicability” to real life as a matter of course, or he can create an allegory that may or may not (but in Tolkien’s opinion, probably won’t) be a good tale.

The critical difference is whether Tolkien _put_ allegory into the story, or someone else is _reading_ allegory into the story. If Tolkien put it there, the story really _is_ allegory; if someone else reads it into the story, that’s the reader’s work, not Tolkien’s. I can read allegory into the classified ads of the local newspaper, but that doesn’t mean it was put there a-purpose.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 20, 2005)

If I understand your last post correctly, you are saying that if a person intended no allegory in his writings there are none, no matter how others see it, it's a simply matter of "reader's projection/interpretation." But suppose Tolkien is unconsciously writing allegorically and consciouisly denying it? 

If enough people find allegory in his writings, will you still say it's no more than what the readers are bringing to the writings?

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 20, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> If I understand your last post correctly, you are saying that if a person intended no allegory in his writings there are none, no matter how others see it, it's a simply matter of "reader's projection/interpretation." But suppose Tolkien is unconsciously writing allegorically and consciouisly denying it?
> 
> If enough people find allegory in his writings, will you still say it's no more than what the readers are bringing to the writings?
> 
> Barley


First, correct. If the author did not intend allegory then at best you can get aplicability which allows the reader apply his/her own interpretations to the work. Second, the use of the 'unconscious' (he is lying to everybody including himself) as an argument seems to me to be the last proof that there is no allegory. Why is it so difficult to accept that a devout Catholic could write such a story without it being Allegorical? Or is it necessary that all stories about good and evil have to be Allegorical regardless of the belief system of the author?

What number is 'enough'? How many of this number were there during the process of writing the book? How many of them were privy to Tolkiens thoughts during this time? How many of them knew the intent of Tolkien during the writing?


----------



## BlackCaptain (Dec 20, 2005)

Well what I think is going to happen is that the professor's going to give us a sheet of paper describing the point he's trying to make, and have us write about why he's so right.

I'll have to see what his main goal is in all of this, and judge whether or not it's indeed presumptuous, or rather more like the spin my Latin teacher puts on the situation: "Any writer as actively religious as Tolkien is going to incorporate his/her faith into thier writings, whether intentional or not. I understand Tolkien did not mean to do so, and your teacher may be having you analyze the Christian values that can be salvaged from the story."

Either way you spin it, I don't see why it'd have to be LotR. You could take Huckleberry Finn, written by Mark Twain, a rather unreligious man, and do the same.

Bottom line, I'm gona ask him for a "thesis statement" of sorts, and go from there.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 20, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> First, correct. If the author did not intend allegory then at best you can get aplicability which allows the reader apply his/her own interpretations to the work. Second, the use of the 'unconscious' (he is lying to everybody including himself) as an argument seems to me to be the last proof that there is no allegory. Why is it so difficult to accept that a devout Catholic could write such a story without it being Allegorical? Or is it necessary that all stories about good and evil have to be Allegorical regardless of the belief system of the author?
> 
> What number is 'enough'? How many of this number were there during the process of writing the book? How many of them were privy to Tolkiens thoughts during this time? How many of them knew the intent of Tolkien during the writing?



Ah — sorry, I meant the question for Alcuin to answer. And although he provided an amusing quip (the Microsoft tech manual), he did not provide a definition of allegory better than the standard definition I offered.

Very well, let us then step away from Tolkien _altogether_ for the moment. In general: if any serious student versed in sniffing out the presence of allegory finds it in a body of writing by _any_ author who staunchly maintains that there is none, what then?

And to Black Captain, O Vast Menace of Despair, I have not forgotten you in all the dithereedo we've generated so far! You see what happens when you pose such a juicy question to serious TTFers! In any case, I think the caveat still stands: your professor may have set a baited trap for his students... 

(BTW, you mention Mark Twain as a rather unreligious man. Delving into Twain's religious proclivities is a worthy project in itself, and you would profit by beginning with his _Letters from the Earth,_ a book so damning of religion that his family suppressed its publication for years, fearing that if it ever saw the light of day, it would damage his reputation beyond all hope of repair.)



Alcuin said:


> If Tolkien put it there, the story really is allegory; if someone else reads it into the story, that’s the reader’s work, not Tolkien’s.



I understand this, but I think it's dangerous. It means we are each charged with, in every case of written work by _any_ author, the responsibility of finding out that author's definition of allegory (or any other element claimed to be present or absent for that matter), rather than applying a definition agreed to by one and all whose business it is to study allegory in its various forms. I am leery of a word which changes its meaning and definition with every writer. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

In the end then, I must insist upon a definition of allegory accepted by the general community of writers and scholars, and then apply it to _any_ written body of work, no matter who wrote it, and no matter what they say about their own work. A writer/artist/musician is oftimes so close to his work that he cannot/will not see it objectively. 

If we cannot use words the definitions of which are accepted by one and all, we are at sea in a boat with no rudder.

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 20, 2005)

> I understand this, but I think it's dangerous. It means we are each charged with, in every case of written work by any author, the responsibility of finding out that author's definition of allegory (or any other element claimed to be present or absent for that matter), rather than applying a definition agreed to by one and all whose business it is to study allegory in its various forms. I am leery of a concept which changes its definition with every writer. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
> 
> In the end then, I must insist upon a definition of allegory accepted by the general community of writers and scholars, and then apply it to any written body of work, no matter who wrote it. If we cannot use words the definitions of which are accepted by one and all, we are at sea in a boat with no rudder.


I see. So a statement by the author as to his intent is not enough. It must go to the Witch-Finder-General of books to decide. Problem is, I have read the books many times and I don't believe his opinion. So where does that leave us?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 20, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> I see. So a statement by the author as to his intent is not enough. It must go to the Witch-Finder-General of books to decide. Problem is, I have read the books many times and I don't believe his opinion. So where does that leave us?



It leaves us in a situation wherein an author may be blind to the presence of allegory (or whatever) in his own work. It also leaves us open to the fanged presence and influence of Witch-Finder Generals.  And, it also leaves us open to the possibility of agreeing upon a definition satisfactory to one and all, and applying it objectively. To that end, we might profit by beginning here. 

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 20, 2005)

Ok. from your source


> Allegory recognizes that it is not presenting an everyday experience and is not meant to be realistic in time and/or space; there is something magical or dreamlike about the highly symbolic scene and action about to take place. The audience is openly invited to suspend credulity and receive the deeper meaning unfolding in the presentation.


Judging from this description. All fiction is Allegory.

However, to me this


> The purpose of allegory is to reveal the essence of what is being portrayed. In literature, an allegory is defined as "a narrative in which the agent and action, and sometimes the setting as well, are contrived both to make coherent sense on the 'literal,' or primary level of signification, *and also to signify a second, correlated order of agents, concepts, and events*."


Requires that the author intends this. Unless you can show that the author consciously does so, I cannot see how Allegory can be presumed. In fact to look at the opening of the essay we find


> The literature and pictorial arts of the Middle Ages and Renaissance were almost entirely didactic in nature. That is, they were made with the *intent* to educate their audience in some manner. Plays, poetry, treatises, pageants, sculpture, and painting were all *meant* to convey a message.


So, without the intent of the author to place such meanings in the story, it is not Allegory.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 20, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> Ok. from your source
> Judging from this description. All fiction is Allegory.
> 
> However, to me this...Requires that the author intends this. Unless you can show that the author consciously does so, I cannot see how Allegory can be presumed.



Well, it sounds to me that between what you're saying and what the article is saying, (a) allegory doesn't exist unless the author has consciously intended it, and (b) any kind of writing which conveys a "moral of the story" is allegorical in at least some minimal degree no matter what.

So we come back to the difference between what the author intends and what the reader brings to the writings. We come back to whether or not the author's statement about his works are to be accepted, even if they fly in the face of what most serious readers see in the work. If this is the case, then nothing will ever be settled. "Allegory," then, "is in the eye of the beholder..."

If an author (not necessarily Tolkien) insists that his or her work is allegory-free, _and_ the large body of _serious readers over time_ sense its presence, then I would say that what they assert trumps what the author asserts. The more that time passes, the less what the author asserts counts, as the passing of time allows for more and more objectivity by an ever-larger body of serious students of the author's work. (Of course then we have the "battles" among various schools of thought.) So I go back to what I said in the first place: we need an objective, accepted definition of allegory, objectively applied, no matter the protestations of the author.

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 20, 2005)

> So we come back to the difference between what the author intends and what the reader brings to the writings. We come back to whether or not the author's statement about his works are to be accepted, even if they fly in the face of what most serious readers see in the work. If this is the case, then nothing will ever be settled. "Allegory," then, "is in the eye of the beholder..."


No, Allegory is in the intent of the Author. Applicability is in the eye of the reader.


> If an author (not necessarily Tolkien) insists that his or her work is allegory-free, and the large body of serious readers over time sense its presence, then I would say that what they assert trumps what the author asserts.


Why?


> A writer/artist/musician is oftimes so close to his work that he cannot/will not see it objectively.


And those who seek for Allegory against the stated intent of the author are able to be objective? It is in the interests of such students of literature to find allegory to justify their resarch, so their objectivity is suspect to say the least.


> we need an objective, accepted definition of allegory, objectively applied, no matter the protestations of the author.


Again, Why? What is wrong with simply saying that if the author intends such meanings it is 'Allegory' while if the reader finds such things unintended by the author it is 'Applicability'. After all, Tolkien had a reasonably good grasp of the meanings of words when he wrote in the foreword to LotR


> 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.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 21, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> We come back to whether or not the author’s statement about his works are to be accepted, even if they fly in the face of what most serious readers see in the work. If this is the case, then nothing will ever be settled. "Allegory," then, "is in the eye of the beholder..."


 No, because now you’re saying that there is no allegory in _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ unless you please, when clearly there is and intentionally so. And Tolkien seems to be willing to confess that a little allegory will slip through as a matter of course; what he doesn’t want to deal with are the whack jobs in English departments – and he knew some of the whackiest jobs in the world in 1940s and 1950s Oxford, and held them in contempt; and they hated him, too – and “deliberately disparaging” literary critics in publications like _New Statesman_ (Letter 163 to Auden), finding “allegory” the way the Modern Language Association “deconstructs” a piece of literature. 



Gothmog said:


> > So we come back to the difference between what the author intends and what the reader brings to the writings. We come back to whether or not the author's statement about his works are to be accepted, even if they fly in the face of what most serious readers see in the work. If this is the case, then nothing will ever be settled. "Allegory," then, "is in the eye of the beholder..."
> 
> 
> No, Allegory is in the intent of the Author. Applicability is in the eye of the reader.


 Deconstructionism is the apex of forced literary analysis, depriving a piece of literature of all context and meaning and content, replacing it with tripe and nonsense. Were it not for a constant supply of naïve freshmen, Deconstructionists would be relegated to bagging groceries or digging ditches. These wolves prey upon the inexperienced and unwary, safe behind a wall of tenure.



> 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.


 And now, the purposed domination of the English professor. It rather conjures up an image of some smelly hairy old guy still stuck in the 1960s wearing black leather high heels and a tutu terrorizing his English classes with a riding crop while in a drugged delirium, doesn’t it?

I would trust English professors for “objectivity” about as much as an opponent’s lawyer. Both start with the premise that they can support a specific outcome: _Verdict first, trial later,_ as in Alice in Wonderland, and about as logical.


Lewis Carroll said:


> .
> ‘Consider your verdict,’ the King said to the jury.
> 
> ‘Not yet, not yet!’ the Rabbit hastily interrupted. ‘There’s a great deal to come before that!’
> ...


*BlackCaptain*, you can only satisfy the teacher for your grade. If you must lie in order to do that, I am very sorry for you: lie through your teeth. It is a matter of academic survival. When they ask you for money as an alumnus, tell them to go to Perdition, and tell them why.


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 21, 2005)

Alcuin said:


> Deconstructionism is the apex of forced literary analysis, depriving a piece of literature of all context and meaning and content, replacing it with tripe and nonsense. Were it not for a constant supply of naïve freshmen, Deconstructionists would be relegated to bagging groceries or digging ditches. These wolves prey upon the inexperienced and unwary, safe behind a wall of tenure.


Personally, I think they would give better value in bagging groceries and digging ditches than in the perpetuating of such farce. 


I have been giving this matter some more thought. I have to ask some questions, 

Are we such mean-spirited souls that we cannot bare to think that the author could possibly be self-honest enough to be able to tell his own intent? 

Or that we have to rip apart his character calling him either a liar or a self-deluded fool incapable of understanding his own work? 

What is it that makes us so wise that we can understand his work better than he himself?

Is there perhaps some flaw in ourselves that we cannot give to the person who has given us so much pleasure with his book even enough trust to accept that his intent in writing the story is only what he says? Must find something wrong with his work even if it is only to say 'Haha! You are Not perfect after all!!!'

For myself, I prefer to find Allegory where the Author Intentionally put it, and Applicability where he didn't and thereby enjoy the work that took so much of the time and energy of the author. Any definition of Allegory (objective? or otherwise) must begin with the Intent of the Author else it begins with, and is consumed by, the Intent of the Allegory-Finder.


*BlackCaptain* Having gone to school (some years ago now) in the UK I did not realise the possible problems you could face in seeking the truth while still a student. I can only wish you well in your work and if this is the case then take care. for now it may indeed be better to avoid challenging his cherished ideas too much.

At least you can come to TTF to discuss such matters on a level field


----------



## Walter (Dec 21, 2005)

> _You look at trees and label them just so,..._



Above is the opening line of _Mythopoeia_.

But what is _a tree_? Is it tall or not? Does it have leaves or needles? 

What is _a dragon_? Does it have wings? Four feet or two? Claws? Does it breath fire or no?

Can we draw a clear and unambiguous picture of _a tree_ or _a dragon_?

Ever since we have moved on from _mythos_ to _logos_ our words have become 'symbols'. Thenceforth they have lost their clear and un-ambiguous "meanings".



> _Things are said to be named 'equivocally' when, though they have a common name, the definition corresponding with the name differs for each. _



Aristotle (above: _Categories_) was already struggling with 'definitions' and Ogden/Richards (philologists, contemporaries of JRRT in _The Meaning of Meaning_) still did, some 2000 years later...

Thus, I am afraid, we won't be able to settle the issue whether or not the intent of the author is prerequisite to 'label' a work as _allegory_ here and now. The fact that we are able to find quite a few "definitions" which are not entirely congruent could already indicate that. 

Here's a brief passage from an Encyclopædia Britannica article which throws some more light at that issue (my italics):



> _*Allegory* may involve an interpretive process that is separate from the creative process_; that is, the term *allegory* can refer to a specific method of reading a text, in which characters and narrative or descriptive details are taken by the reader as an elaborate metaphor for something outside the literal story.



I think Tolkien was enough of a philologist to realize the ambiguity of this term and tried to overcome it by giving his own definition, respectively by making the distinction between allegory and applicability.

What in the "Athrabeth" may be a clear allegory for the 'coming of Christ' for one reader may be as clear an allegory for the 'coming of Ahura Mazda' for the other, while a third reader prefers to enjoy the entire piece just as yet another tale of Faërie...


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 21, 2005)

Well Walter, it seems to me that such a definition cannot be used to claim Allegory in the story but in the reading. This is nothing to do with the Author or the work. It is entirely due to the interpretation of the reader. It also seems to be a method to prove a verdict regardless of evidence. "I read it so it is there."

Therefore I can only go with the reasonable view that Allegory is in the intent of the Author and Applicability is in the eye of the reader. However, I believe that those who are desperate to find allegory will never take a reasonable view.


----------



## Walter (Dec 21, 2005)

Sorry, Gothmog,

I was still editing and amending my post some, while you already replied to it. The passage below the quote from the Encyclopædia Britannica article may not have been there yet.

What I quoted is not a definition, but a brief passage of a longer article on allegory in the EB.

The crux is, that there is no clear and unambiguous 'definition' of allegory (most definitions avoid the issue anyway). Thus we can either decide to stick to Tolkien's definition (and consequently the distinction between _allegory_ and _applicability_), or accept that it may be labeled allegory as well, based on how the reader perceives it.

The latter (_"I read it so it is there."_), of course, could lead us rather quickly to the question what _is_, and hence to the very questions of existence and reality: Is reality what _is_ inside or outside our brain/mind? 

And ... I very much agree with your last sentence...


----------



## Eriol (Dec 21, 2005)

_There’s so many different worlds
So many different suns
And we have just one world
But we live in different ones_

*Dire Straits, "Brothers in Arms"*...

We live in different worlds. To yearn for a unanimous definition of "allegory" is a dream (and a bad one, by the way).

Edit: Whoa! This thing got posted before I finished with it.

The best that we can do is to try to express our own experiences as clearly as possible, without losing sight that they are our own. Tolkien said there is no allegory -- why doubt it? There is no ambiguity in his words, he took great pains to explain what he meant by allegory. I understand the penchant for finding "unconscious leanings", but it should never contradict the conscious ones. 

Your teacher sees allegory, BlackCaptain? Well, I'd say he is not familiar with Tolkien's words about his own work, but I'd also suppose that he is either quite a vain man, to suppose that his opinion is what matters, even more than Tolkien's, _or_ quite the pious man, to see signs of his faith so ubiquitously. Without knowing him, I don't know which. Perhaps both . The best that you can do is... to try to convey your experience of LotR as clearly as possible, without losing sight that it is your own.

And so the story goes .


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Dec 21, 2005)

*Eri* says:

_"Tolkien said there is no allegory -- why doubt it? There is no ambiguity in his words, he took great pains to explain what he meant by allegory."_

True, and of course ! ... especially when there were readers who, in often absurd and/or most unexpected way, "transferred" particular events and characters to the fictional ones that Master T. had created in his stories! 

Galadriel - Virgin Mary?
Feanor - Hitler?

Oh my!!!!  

Quite understandable why Master T. dedicated so much effort to explain the lack of allegory, or at least intentional such, in his writings.

But ... they say his Legendarium form a mythological cycle. And as most myths, his, too, would teach morals...or at least express them. 
Myths often use allegory to teach/expess morals and to find interpretation of those "truths" of life, the universe and everything else surrounding myth-"producers" and myth- "consumers".

So, my thoughts - Is really Tolkien's mythology free of this type of allegory?

Just my opinion on this most interesting issue!


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 21, 2005)

Walter said:


> What I quoted is not a definition, but a brief passage of a longer article on allegory in the EB.
> 
> The crux is, that there is no clear and unambiguous 'definition' of allegory (most definitions avoid the issue anyway). Thus we can either decide to stick to Tolkien's definition (and consequently the distinction between _allegory_ and _applicability_), or accept that it may be labeled allegory as well, based on how the reader perceives it.
> 
> ...


Ah, so it is more inline with a discussion on the matter similar to this thread. 

Personally, I don't see why there is such a problem with Tolkien's definition. It seems to cover the problem perfectly 

Now, there's an interesting question. However, first we would need to come up with a universally agreed defintion of 'Reality' to work with. Got a spare 2000 or so years for the discussion?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 21, 2005)

What an intellectual firestorm we have blazing! 

Goth, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that as matters of honor, courtesy and trust we should accept what an author says about his work as true — _even_ if the nature of the work strikes the bulk of its readers as otherwise. Do I have you right? 

And Walter: _what fun it would be_ to get started on a definition of Reality — woo hoo! 

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 21, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> What an intellectual firestorm we have blazing!
> 
> Goth, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that as matters of honor, courtesy and trust we should accept what an author says about his work as true — _even_ if the nature of the work strikes the bulk of its readers as otherwise. Do I have you right?
> 
> ...


Yes it is quite a blaze 

Yes you have me exactly right. Because only the Author can know what he intended to put in. Since a reader is quite capable of taking out of a story things that were never put in there (due to differences of experiences between Author and Reader) Allegory should be reserved for what the Author Intentionally put in and and what is not intended by the Author is down to
Applicability to the reader.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Dec 21, 2005)

The poem Mythopoeia, from which Walter has already quoted, regarding the splintered light, is opened by the following line:

"To one [C.S. Lewis] who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though 'breathed through silver'."

which could be a refference to a discussion between Lewis and Tolkien, recounted in "Tolkien: Man and Myth", by Daniel Kennelly:


> "[Myths are] lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver," [said Lewis.]
> 
> "No," said Tolkien. "They are not lies."
> 
> ...


 The above also shows, in my opinion, that if all else fails, we could only discard allegory in LotR only if this work is not a myth.

Moreover, as Tolkien notes in Letter#181 To Michael Straight (drafts):


> Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. _Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees_. That is why I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is pan of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily _a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble_.


 So, at least two more proofs about the presence of allegory.


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 21, 2005)

> The above also shows, in my opinion, *that if all else fails*,


Since you are intent on finding Allegory then you will do so. I prefer to accept that Tolkien knew what he meant both in the writing of the LotR and in the wording of his foreword.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 21, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> The poem Mythopoeia, from which Walter has already quoted, regarding the splintered light, is opened by the following line:
> 
> "To one [C.S. Lewis] who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though 'breathed through silver'."
> 
> ...


 I’m sorry, Thorondor_, I don’t follow your arguments. You seem to have made one assertion, that Tolkien made such-and-such a statement, which is clearly true; and then leapt to another, disconnected assertion that these must imply allegory. It looks as if you are trying to draw two separate arguments to the same end, one about C.S. Lewis and myths, and a second about the importance of the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen. What is your line of logic connecting these the premise to the conclusion in each case?

The story about C.S. Lewis and whether myths are lies or partially concealed (because they are partially and imperfectly understood) truths is also recounted in Humphrey Carter’s biography of Tolkien, pp 146-148, and are part of the story of Lewis’ conversion to Christianity. From the published recollections of this conversation and from their other works on the subject, nor Tolkien nor Lewis nor Hugo Dyson, who was a third participant, would seem inclined to call myths “allegories.” Quite the opposite.


----------



## Walter (Dec 21, 2005)

Sorry for a somewhat off-topic post, but ...



Thorondor_ said:


> The poem Mythopoeia, from which Walter has already quoted, regarding the splintered light, is opened by the following line:
> 
> "To one [C.S. Lewis] who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though 'breathed through silver'."
> 
> ...


Could it be that there is a mistake?

I think that Daniel Kennelly is the one who wrote a review of Joseph Pearce's _Tolkien - Man and Myth_. The abovequoted text is indeed from Pearce's book (p.57f), even if the closing paragraph (the part I omitted) has the text in slightly altered wording.

But, anyhow, it is indeed a curious passage which serves to demonstrate how some authors are - purposely or inadvertently - leading the reader astray with their books:

Pearce's text has a footnote where the source for the passage is given: Carpenter's Tolkien biography p.151.

In Carpenter's book we find - on p. 151 - indeed a similar episode recounted, but Carpenter in a footnote explains:



> The account of this conversation is based on Tolkien's poem 'Mythopoeia', to which he also gave the titles 'Misomythos' and 'Philomyth to Misomyth'. One manuscript is marked 'For C.S.L.'.



which means, that the dialogue is made up, based on the poem. Which is not entirely unimportant, IMO, and it would've been nice of Mr. Pearce to be diligent enough in his approach as not to forget mentioning this.

As a sidenote: A similar account can also be found in Carpenter's _The Inklings_, p.43.


----------



## BlackCaptain (Dec 21, 2005)

I guess the project is just to "Find sacraments within the Lord of the Rings" (Lembas bread = Eucharist, Aragorn and the Dead Mean of Dunharrow = Reconciliation, and him making them fight for him is thier pennance, etc).

Now all I have to do is make him say "Tolkien put these in his books", and the tearing apart can begin.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 21, 2005)

BlackCaptain said:


> …Now all I have to do is make him say "Tolkien put these in his books", and the tearing apart can begin.


Yeah, basically. Tolkien would, I think, readily admit that the elements of his book came from things he knew about in life; I think he would also readily deny that he was using them to represent something else. To paraphrase Dr. Freud, sometimes a sword is just a sword.

* Good luck, BlackCaptain.*



Walter said:


> Could it be that there is a mistake?
> 
> I think that Daniel Kennelly is the one who wrote a review of Joseph Pearce’s Tolkien - Man and Myth. The abovequoted text is indeed from Pearce’s book (p.57f), even if the closing paragraph (the part I omitted) has the text in slightly altered wording.
> …
> ...


I can’t find my copy of Pearce, but my copy of Carpenter’s _Tolkien_ (George Allen & Unwin, 1977) definitely has both the main quotation and the footnote on p.147. The quote in the main text is 


> _ But_, said Lewis, _myths are lies, even though lies breathed through silver._ 1
> _ No_, said Tolkien, _they are not._


 and the footnote referenced says, _in toto_, 


> 1 The account of this conversation is based on Tolkien’s poem ‘Mythopoeia’, to which he also gave the titles ‘Misomythos’ and ‘Philomyth to Misomyth’. One manuscript is marked ‘For C.S.L.’.


 For the record, Philomyth would be “Lover of Myths,” Tolkien, and Misomyth would be “Hater of Myths,” Lewis.

Walter, I take the footnote to mean that the italicized text in the quote was taken from “Mythopoeia,” not that the entire story of the walk in the rain was a fabrication, much less the substance of its conversation. I am not quite certain what you are saying: that the italicized quote is “poetic,” or that the whole story is “poetic” in a loose and sloppy (at best; dishonest would be more accurate) fashion. I am not disturbed if the italicized quotation is “poetic”; I must take issue if you are claiming that the whole story was created out of whole cloth, but I trust that is not the case.

Both Tolkien and Lewis might have remembered the exact quotes a little poetically, if that is your position. I believe Lewis’ poem on the conversation from _Rehabilitations _begins, 


> We were talking of dragons, | Tolkien and I
> In a Berkshire bar. | The big workman
> Who had sat silent | and sucked his pipe
> All the evening, | from his empty mug
> ...


 I am afraid I do not know if that is the entire poem or not. However, Tolkien wrote to one Walter Hooper in Letter 300 dated 20 February 1968 that, in regards to this discussion of dragons, “The occasion is entirely fictitious,” and proceeds to blame Lewis’ recollection on cryptic comments made another professor. _Myths are lies, even though lies breathed through silver,_ may be “poetic” as well. (Regardless, the identity of “the big workman” is unclear: it might be Tolkien but rather seems to refer to another unknown or unnamed person in the public house.)

In the end, memory is an odd thing. I would find it unusual if, with all their conversations about Narnia and Middle-earth, not to mention the admixture of Charles Williams and his Arthurian romances, the subject of dragons were not broached at least once or twice over beer at the Eagle and Child.

_(Have we really spent two days debating this?)_


----------



## Walter (Dec 22, 2005)

Alcuin,

my copy of Carpenter's _Tolkien_ is from 1995 and thus probably more in sync with Pearce's page reference.

As for the footnote I take it, that this part of the account regarding the conversation of Dyson, Lewis and Tolkien is what the footnote relates to (for this is part of the content of _Mythopoeia_):



> _But_, said Lewis, _myths are lies, even though lies breathed through
> silver._1
> _No_, said Tolkien, _they are not_.
> And, indicating the great trees of Magdalen Grove as their
> ...



In his _Inklings_, where we find a very similar account, Carpenter gives Mythopoeia and a Letter from Lewis to Greeves from 22 September 1931 (which I unfortunately do not have) as the sources for the account of this conversation. 

----

My main point in this issue - sorry, if that didn't come across - was, that this is one of the many examples why IMO Pearce's book (which I mentioned already in a previous post in this thread) should be considered "tertiary literature" at best, because he is relying mostly on other - secondary - sources. Moreover he takes great liberties in arranging and emphasizing the information from his sources - while at the same time ignoring these parts which don't suit him well - to drive his point home...


----------



## Walter (Dec 22, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> Now, there's an interesting question. However, first we would need to come up with a universally agreed defintion of 'Reality' to work with. Got a spare 2000 or so years for the discussion?



Do you really think we could find a consensus in such little time? 

A few months ago - when I read Shimon Malin's book _Why Nature Loves to Hide_ - I came across a curious quote from Einstein: "Only the theory decides what we can observe". It is evidently from a dispute between Heisenberg and Einstein, published in Heisenberg's _Der Teil und das Ganze_, and I must not have noticed it when I had read that book some 25 years ago. If we would take this quote literally (which I prefer not to, since it should IMO rather be: "Only the theory decides how we interprete our observations") this would turn our - scientifical - view of the world and reality upside down...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 22, 2005)

Whew!

Methinks that in the end, the subject of "Is There Allegory in LOTR?" will end up in the same drawer as "Do Balrogs Have Wings?" and "How Many Angels Dance on the Head of a Pin?"... 

At least we have _some_ things clear now:

For Gothmog (and probably for others here), a statement from an artist about the nature of his or her work should be taken as definitive and accepted as such, and the reactions from others should be taken simply as what they bring to the work and project upon it. _And it is this very projection upon which so many flimflam artists and frauds depend for the "legitimacy" of their works._ Quite literally _anything_ can be called art — all that is necessary is that someone of "authority" _says_ it is — and therein lies the hornet's nest of _dupery_ prevelant in every field of art. Further, it happens at times that with the passage of time and increase of education, an "artist" will be revealed for the fraud that he is, and his works fall into the disrepute they deserved from the first. So much chicanery depends for its success upon the naïvete and ignorance of the viewers of the time and period, and their knee-jerk readiness to fool even themselves, all-too readily believing the artistic drivel and rubbish coming from a chicanorous "artist" in their desperate need to pose, posture and be seen as _connoisseurs._

In the world of music, I have read in various books about composers, instances in which a composer has come to a different point of view about his music when interpreted by a certain conductor or artist: "I never thought of it that way before, that's a legitimate approach — even better than what I first thought of myself." This much of a shift is rare, but it's happened. And many times a composer (Berlioz and Brahms for instance) will insist that something be changed even after publication.

For me, I believe that with the passage of time and history, the insight of serious _aficionados_ of any work of art or body of art can be legitimate, and under certain circumstances even trump or at least add more elements of value to what the artist himself or herself has said about it.

Painting and sculpture are notorious for this kind of thing: 

I once saw at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art a collection of car parts taken from several accidents that had been fastened together and mounted on a pedestal. This was "art," and took its legitimacy from its supposedly being a comment on modern life. (Which brings up the question: To what extent is the artist responsible for creating art the meaning of which is self-evident, and what is the responsability of the viewer to educate himself about the artist and what that artist "is about"?)

Another "piece of art" at this museum on display at the same time was a structure called "House of Mirrors." It was indeed a small house constructed of mirrors: walls, ceiling and floor. There was a sign inviting us to actually walk through it, and would we please leave our shoes outside, thank you.

So I walked in behind a couple of pretty girls. Well, it was fun: the mirrors did their job, and we saw endless myriads of ourselves and each other as we walked through the maze. 

As we proceeded through, the ceiling began to slant lower and lower until we were forced to angle our heads down, and we ended up looking at the mirrors that formed the floor. It was then that I found myself looking right up the dresses of the girls ahead of me! It was then that the mystery of all the laughter coming from the House became clear, and why there were so many little boys lining up (over and over again BTW) behind women and girls! But is this art???

When I was at university working on my master's degree in music, I came across a score in the library the notes of which were bullet holes from a machine gun(!), and this was the basis from which the music was developed — IMO, an obvious case of the worst sort of artistic chicanery. There was another score consisting of a background of a blank score page, and several cellophane overlays with different-colored dots. Lay the sheets one way, and you play this, lay them another way and you play that... 

There was also the case of a painting (I saw this on a PBS special) which was produced via _tricycle_ (the more senior members among us may resonate to the term "velocopede"). He had rigged little paint cans of various colors to be mounted over the tires, and which leaked streams of paint.

The "artist"  then put the canvas on the floor and rode around on the tricycle leaving paint tracks, and this was supposed to be taken as serious art. Pardon me while I knock back a shot of Pepto Bismol. The reason I need the Bismol is that _so many people accepted what the artist said._

And I once saw a short film in an art house: A man was on a pier, and he had a big piece of plywood, say 10x10 feet lying on the pier, and he was walking around throwing splotches of paint on it in a completely random fashion. Then he took a power saw and cut up the wood into a number of separate pieces that were something like 2x3 feet. Then he stopped and sat down.

In a few seconds a pontoon plane landed and shored up to the dock. The pilot got out and walked around looking at the paintings, selecting some, leaving out others. He put what he wanted into the plane, dug a big wad of bills out of his pocket, and gave some to the "painter." They shook hands, the pilot got back in his plane and took off, while the other man collected the other pieces and walked off the pier. Not a word was said from start to finish. Slow fade to black.

Of course Tolkien had what these others didn't: _integrity_ and seriousness of purpose. So while I am inclined to take Gothmog's view as far as Tolkien is concerned, I am absolutely _not_ so inclined with very many others.

That is why I insist that — as far as possible — accepted objective standards developed over time out of the art in question — be applied to a work, standards agreed-upon by serious people, if only to separate the wheat from the chaff, the genuine from the fraudulent, which abounds aplenty.

For me there is one gold standard by which a work of art — be it in painting, music, sculpture, dance, photography, cinema, writing — is shown to be worthy, and that is that _it holds up over the passage of time, and whose appeal is universal: speaking to one and all, transcending its own period and culture._ The longer it's around, and the longer it gives upliftment to the many no matter their culture of origin, the more obviously it's a masterpiece.

(Hey Blackie — you see what you started???  )

Barley


----------



## Thorondor_ (Dec 22, 2005)

@Alcuin

Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of allegory; concerning the first quote I gave, my interpretation was that the Tolkien myth could only be an allegory for the higher truth, since it could never dirrectly transmit it.

Concerning the second quote I provided, I wasn't reffering to the tale of Arwen and Aragorn, though they were mentioned in the paragraph; I tried to "refute" (I know, blasphemy) Tolkien's assertion in the introduction of LotR, ("as for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical"). As it is apparent from the letters, there is a message (or even messages - at least concerning the meaning of Gandalf's situation or the "ennoblement of the humble"). Sorry if I blundered.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 22, 2005)

Walter said:


> A few months ago - when I read Shimon Malin's book Why Nature Loves to Hide - I came across a curious quote from Einstein: "Only the theory decides what we can observe".


That may be a reaction to phenomenology, which emerged in the late 1920s and early 1930s as an attempt to explain how science was making such strange conclusions about the universe. Without the context, it is not immediately clear from your quotation whether Einstein is saying whether he believes theory determines interpretation, or whether theory determines whether or not we deign to notice an event (i.e., without a sufficient theoretical framework, we ignore or disregard things we do not expect to see). Certainly the first reading would be the more comfortable of the two, as you suggest; the second is an extremely disturbing concept. (Otherwise, how would we ever notice anything? Surely it is better to misinterpret what we see and keep alive the hope that we might notice the inconsistency over time rather than to fail to notice the event at all.)

As for notion that “Mythopoeia” indicates allegory in Tolkien’s work, I still cannot see the link. I think you can argue that there exists some Divine Allegory come to Life in the world of Man, but even that would seem outside the scope of the poem, a really long stretch. And while it might not have been outside the scope of the original conversation on a rainy night in the 1930s, it does not seem to have been part of it. The crux of the matter from “Mythopoeia” seems to me:


> Man, sub-creator, the refracted light
> through whom is splintered from a single White
> to many hues, and endlessly combined
> in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
> ...


 That does not seem an assertion of allegory, but more akin to some of the old laws of protoscience (alchemy, in this case): “Like from like,” and “It is below as it is above.” These are two very different concepts, allegory and imitation of a natural law or pattern.



Thorondor_ said:


> …my interpretation was that the Tolkien myth could only be an allegory for the higher truth, since it could never dirrectly transmit it.


 I think agree with Tolkien: allegory is a deliberate form, not an accidental one. *An author who claimed he “accidentally” wrote an allegory might as well claim he “accidentally” painted his house red or “accidentally” robbed a bank.* Writing allegory isn’t something in which you can engage without being immediately and completely aware of it: it is a premeditated act on the part of the author that normally requires considerable effort and contemplation. _Animal Farm_ is allegory, and purposefully so; _1984_ is not.



Thorondor_ said:


> Concerning the second quote I provided, I wasn't reffering to the tale of Arwen and Aragorn, though they were mentioned in the paragraph; I tried to "refute" (I know, blasphemy) Tolkien's assertion in the introduction of LotR, ("as for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical"). As it is apparent from the letters, there is a message (or even messages - at least concerning the meaning of Gandalf's situation or the "ennoblement of the humble"). Sorry if I blundered.


 I can’t find the message Tolkien is transmitting to his readers. You can draw lessons from the story, but you can draw lessons from both real history and real (historical, as in Greek) mythology as well. I respect your position and Barley’s (and anyone else who finds the story rife with allegory), but I strongly disagree. Lewis used allegory in the Narnia cycle, and although the story is well-written and apparently compelling for many people, its allegory prevents my developing any sympathy for it: I have never been able to complete even one of the books. Lewis’ other material I generally enjoy: I found _Screwtape Letters_ a howling delight, and _Mere Christianity_ a quieter pleasure.

Can you elucidate how Gandalf’s situation or the “ennoblement of the humble” are “messages” rather than “themes” or “motifs”? Or is it your position that every work of fiction – other than perhaps Joyce’s stream-of-consciousness – is somehow allegorical because all themes and motifs must have allegorical references or antecedents? 



Barliman Butterbur said:


> For me there is one gold standard by which a work of art — be it in painting, music, sculpture, dance, photography, cinema, writing — is shown to be worthy, and that is that it holds up over the passage of time, and whose appeal is universal: speaking to one and all, transcending its own period and culture. The longer it's around, and the longer it gives upliftment to the many no matter their culture of origin, the more obviously it's a masterpiece.


 I agree with Barliman. It must be art. But is it allegory? And like good art, do we recognize allegory when we see it? Or like bad art – or chicanery – is allegory sprinkled about everywhere, satiating bad taste or luring the gullible?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Dec 22, 2005)

> allegory is a deliberate form, not an accidental one. *An author who claimed he “accidentally” wrote an allegory might as well claim he “accidentally” painted his house red or “accidentally” robbed a bank*


 Tolkien seems to be less cathegorical than you in this respect:


Letter#131 to Milton Waldman said:


> I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language.


 Therefore, there is (or at least could be) such a thing as non-intentional allegory; and the rest of this quote goes along the lines of my above idea (i.e. "myth could only be an allegory for the higher truth, since it could never dirrectly transmit it").
Moreover, reffering to comments on Lotr:


Letter#163 said:


> In a larger sense,* it is I suppose impossible to write any 'story' that is not allegorical in proportion as it 'comes to life'*; since each of us is an allegory, embodying in a particular tale and clothed in the garments of time and place, universal truth and everlasting life


 And he also makes the following comment concerning Tom:


Letter#153 said:


> *I do not mean him to be an allegory* - or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name - *but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions*: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind


----------



## BlackCaptain (Dec 23, 2005)

So.... I went up to him "I don't mean to be a smart guy, but have you ever read that tolkien completely disliked any type of allegory?"

Then he looks at me and says "I don't mean to be smart, either, but if you read you would know that he said his work originally started out as JUST a story, but he later admited that he put in christian refferences"

  Anyone know what to say to this??


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 23, 2005)

I would ask him for some references or quotes.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 23, 2005)

BlackCaptain said:


> So.... I went up to him "I don't mean to be a smart guy, but have you ever read that tolkien completely disliked any type of allegory?"
> 
> Then he looks at me and says "I don't mean to be smart, either, but if you read you would know that he said his work originally started out as JUST a story, but he later admited that he put in christian refferences"
> 
> Anyone know what to say to this??



Well, it sounds like you're dealing with a pompous ass who's structured this whole thing to show he's right no matter what.

I think it would have been better had you showed him copies of Tolkien's statements about allegory and kept totally straight, rather than give him an opening line that allowed him to be sarcastic and arrogant with you.

How far are you prepared to prod this guy? I'd say: first, do your very best: know what you want to say, make your assertions in your paper clearly, and be _sure_ to back them up with easily accessible references and sources so that you know your assertions are fully supported by your research.

If you know you're right and he marks you down because he hates students, especially ones who are smart and know what they're talking about, be prepared to take the situation to your parents. Lay it out to them about any unfairness that's going on, and you and your parents be prepared to take the matter to his superior(s). If he disparages either you or your work out of spite, don't be afraid to take the fight right to his doorstep, and take it all the way. 

Barley


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Dec 24, 2005)

*Thorondor* quoted Master T.'s words from his publishe letter #131, namely:


> I dislike Allegory – the conscious and intentional allegory – yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language.


However, I think that the next couple of lines right after the quoted, are also very essential in trying to better understand his own understanding and interpretaion of "allegory" and its use in fiction.



> (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story. )



Holding tightly to Tolkien's words expressing his dislike of allegory, many of his readers and especially those, who find delight in studying him, "condemn" the presence of any allegory whatsoever in his writings.

Taking into consideration, however, what a notorious '_Man of antithesis'_ he was, one should perhaps try to understand what it is in his writings that "suspects" the presence of allegory.
As we have a saying around here : _"Where there's a smoke, there must be a fire"_ 

Or .... could it be a _metaphor_ instead? Some sort of an "extended" metaphor?

One of my favourite sources -- the Wikipedia, provides an excellent IMO article on this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor


What is interesting to point out, perhaps, is that this source, just as others, emphasizes on the intra-reference between '_metaphor_' and _'allegory'_, namely:



> allegory: An extended metaphor in which a story is told to illustrate an important attribute of the subject.



And still using the same source, namely at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory , one reads:


> An allegory (from Greek αλλος, allos, "other", and αγορευειν, agoreuein, "to speak in public") is a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than and in addition to the literal. Through allegory a subject of a higher spiritual order is described in terms of that of a lower which is made out to resemble it in properties and circumstances, the principal subject being so kept out of view that we are left to construe the drift of it from the resemblance of the secondary to the primary subject.



This I find in Tolkien's writings.

And reading Tolkien, as well as about him, I have this "suspicion" that Master T. seems to have distinguished between various types of allegory, within the scope of the 'deliberate' / 'intentional', too.


----------



## Walter (Dec 24, 2005)

Well, some of us find allegory in Tolkien's writing others not? What does that teach us? Is there a way to settle the issue?



Of course there is...



We gotta make a Poll!!!!!   


(After all the Balrogwings issue has been settled that way...)

*Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Buon Natale (Bon Nadâl, Bon Natali), God Jul, Feliz Navidad, Chestita Koleda, Vesele bozicne praznike, Happy Sol Invictus*

and for those who already celebrated the Yuletide (maybe with a Yule-log) or the Winter-solstice: I hope you had a good and peaceful time...


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Dec 24, 2005)

Hello again, BlackCaptain! I too have been away for a long, long time (until very recently). Welcome back.

Everyone posting before me seems to have covered every conceiveable quote against your ignomious professor, so I will refrain from repeating him, but would rather suggest that, if you haven't already, you interrupt class in a grand display of your knowledge of Tolkien and shoot him down in front of the whole class, and in so showing your superiority. I don't know what kind of teacher he/she is, but it could either be entirely ignored/dismissed, or be miraculously glorious. And by that I mean he might admit he was wrong or he might give you detention for interrupting class. Either would be glorious in my opinion, but then, I'm a senior, and we're supposed to think that way.

Either way, however, if your professor's intention is to watch the movies in class, I'd not only let him, but suggest you all watch the Extended Edition, claiming it has lots of Allegory from Christianity that the normal left out. Maybe after that you can show him up, but watching the movies would be a marvelous waste of time, and you should take full advantage of that. Also, if by telling him before hand makes you not watch it, the rest of your class may just crucify you.

EDIT: Woops... Didn't realize there was a second page... Well, as has been suggested, tell him to prove it, and not make baseless statements that make him look foolish. I mean, I could say President Bush is a good President, but as no evidence exists to support it, I'd just be a fool to say so. 

As to if he actually grades you down for being right, never, ever, ever stop fighting him for it. If he's an ass, expose him in all his assholish glory for all to see. I simply can't abide people who can't accept when they're wrong, and you shouldn't suffer for his narrow-minded idiocy.

Of course, if he sees your evidence, he might just change his mind, in which case he's a nice guy. Or he might just accept that your view is different and not penalize you for having it, which is equally good. But if he marks you down, let the dogs of war be unleashed.


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 25, 2005)

Barley

Ok. Sorry that it has taken me so long to answer your post.

To start with, I agree with you as to the need for a standard for what is *Art*, some of the things put in galleries is simply rubbish that any sensible person would throw out. However, the equivalent in writing terms would be taking a more or less random collection of words and claiming them to be a story.

I also agree that 


> For me, I believe that with the passage of time and history, the insight of serious aficionados of any work of art or body of art can be legitimate,


But only as 'Secondary Creation', that is what THEY see or read into the work. It is not for any but the artist to say what the artist intended. So it is for this reason that I say that Allegory must include the Intent of the Artist while without this intent any valid insight by others is Applicability.

You say about


> In the world of music, I have read in various books about composers, instances in which a composer has come to a different point of view about his music when interpreted by a certain conductor or artist: "I never thought of it that way before, that's a legitimate approach — even better than what I first thought of myself."


But does this very valid point about Interpretation change the original in any respect? No it does not, the original is still as it was with its original value and therefore someone else can look at the original and from the same starting point come up with a completely different interpretation.

So when you say


> That is why I insist that — as far as possible — accepted objective standards developed over time out of the art in question — be applied to a work, standards agreed-upon by serious people, if only to separate the wheat from the chaff, the genuine from the fraudulent, which abounds aplenty.
> 
> For me there is one gold standard by which a work of art — be it in painting, music, sculpture, dance, photography, cinema, writing — is shown to be worthy, and that is that it holds up over the passage of time, and whose appeal is universal: speaking to one and all, transcending its own period and culture. The longer it's around, and the longer it gives upliftment to the many no matter their culture of origin, the more obviously it's a masterpiece.


In what way does your insistence on this (which I agree with) prevent us accepting a statement of intent from the artist to define if a work is allegory or not? Is it necessary that Art be Allegory?

To me, it can be Allegorical art, non-Allegorical art, Allegorical rubbish or non-Allegorical rubbish.

I say that Allegory is according to the intent of the artist while Art is something that could well do with the use of, in your words


> accepted objective standards developed over time out of the art in question


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 25, 2005)

I understand you, G: If a writer maintains there is no allegory in his work, then there is none, and we should accept that, and call any tendency for others to find allegory "applicability," a synonym for projection, for bringing their own values to the work in question. All I'm saying is that the possibility still remains (and I'm not talking about Tolkien necessarily) that a writer could, despite his protestations write allegorically _and not see it,_ and others _do_ see it — not as a projection, but as a demonstrable fact — especially as time passes and objectivity increases.

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 26, 2005)

Here we have an insurmountable difference of view. To me unless there is intent on the part of the author it is not allegory while to you allegory does not need intent.

So I have difficuly in seeing how


> the possibility still remains (and I'm not talking about Tolkien necessarily) that a writer could, despite his protestations write allegorically and not see it, and others do see it — not as a projection, but as a demonstrable fact — especially as time passes and objectivity increases.


Can show Intent on the part of the Author.


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Dec 26, 2005)

I think what Barliman is saying is that the author can intend to write allegorically and simply not realize it, like a subconscious intent he acts on without knowing he's doing it. In such a case, it agrees with your definition, Gothmog, and with Barliman's idea that it could happen despite the author's conscious intent. But maybe conscious intent is all you care about here, and maybe this isn't what Barliman thinks at all, but I think I agree with him if it is.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 26, 2005)

Khôr’nagan said:


> I think what Barliman is saying is that the author can intend to write allegorically and simply not realize it, like a subconscious intent he acts on without knowing he's doing it. In such a case, it agrees with your definition, Gothmog, and with Barliman's idea that it could happen despite the author's conscious intent. But maybe conscious intent is all you care about here, and maybe this isn't what Barliman thinks at all, but I think I agree with him if it is.



Thankfully "insurmountable differences of view" do not destroy friendships! 

What I am saying is that there is a theoretical possibility of an author consciously intending _not_ to write allegorically but does so unawares anyhow. Of course this brings up other elements: does he have a definition of what allegory is? If so what is it? Does he, because of that definition believe he's not writing allegorically? Why is he trying to avoid allegory? What do others see in the writing that they say is allegorical?

This is why I keep saying that there needs to be an agreed-upon definition of the term which can be objectively applied to anyone's writings, no matter what they say of their own works.

I understand Gothmog's view: One "ought" to take what the author says about his own work as the prime source, the premiere authority — if the author doesn't know the ins and outs of his own works, then what are we to do, simply be at sixes and sevens? 

On the other hand, may we not apply the magnifying glass of dispassionate and sympathetic analysis _despite_ what an author may or may not say or know about his writings? 

All I'm saying is that many a penetrating and accurate analysis has been done on the bodies of works of many writers from Shakespeare to Schopenhauer and beyond. It's done all the time, as countless college English lit students will attest. And sometimes, like as not, depending on the work in question, they find allegory despite everything — the author's assertions become trumped by what Academic Lights find over the course of time.

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 26, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Thankfully "insurmountable differences of view" do not destroy friendships!


Very true  but they do make for interesting discussions 



> On the other hand, may we not apply the magnifying glass of dispassionate and sympathetic analysis _despite_ what an author may or may not say or know about his writings?
> 
> All I'm saying is that many a penetrating and accurate analysis has been done on the bodies of works of many writers from Shakespeare to Schopenhauer and beyond. It's done all the time, as countless college English lit students will attest. And sometimes, like as not, depending on the work in question, they find allegory despite everything — the author's assertions become trumped by what Academic Lights find over the course of time.
> 
> Barley


First of all, I am very dubious of using the 'unconscious' to explain any allegory that one may wish to find. After all the Author is not the only one with 'unconscious'. 

Of course we can apply 'the magnifying glass of dispassionate and sympathetic analysis'. However, this can only be done to the 'Secondary Creation' of the Interpretation of the work.

In all of these 'penetrating and accurate' analyses, how many were conducted by truly independent and objective persons? That is, persons not involved in reading and interpreting the primary work? By reading the work the one conducting the analysis is already becoming involved in the process of secondary creation and therefore will be analysing his/her own additions along with the primary work.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 26, 2005)

I have spoke me piece and I stands by it!

That being the case, as there seems to be no possibility of agreement between us on the point, at _this_ point, I bow to you **deep bow with a flourish of a feathered cap** and withdraw from the field and the discussion! 

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 26, 2005)

Well Barley, it has been an interesting discussion. However, like you I feel that we will not get any closer to agreement on this one point.

I do wish to thank you for making me think more about my views on this matter and for making the discussion itself very enjoyable. 

Also as you have said 'I have spoke me piece and I stands by it!' So too have I, and unless I find out something to alter my viewpoint, I will also withdraw.

*Deep bow in return*

Until the next discussion my friend


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 26, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> ...I do wish to thank you for making me think more about my views on this matter...



An excellent and important point! I have found that over the years here at TTF, the practice of engaging in ongoing discussions has allowed me to be clearer _even to myself_ about what I think about various issues, and has as a consequence enabled me to express myself about them much more clearly than otherwise.

So thank _you!_ 

Barley


----------



## BlackCaptain (Dec 27, 2005)

To put a stamp on this man's stupidity, he would use as evidence the fact that Aragorn (Whom he called "Aragon" in class [ no 'R] )was wed to Arwen, and Sam to Rosie Cotton.

As if Marriage was only part of Christian Culture . . .   

: : : Just prior to the Bell ringing, dismissing us from class : : : 
"OK, gentlemen, when we get back from Christmas Break be looking for Matrimony"
"Between who?", asks a classmate
"Aragon and Arwen, and Sam and Rosie."
: : : : : :

Just knowing that he's trying to justify his argument with THIS is enough evidence for me to send him to the pits of Utumno.


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 27, 2005)

Thoughts of Straws and Clutching come to mind.


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Dec 27, 2005)

As with anyone who believes something quite blatantly incorrect, your teacher is just taking what to him is perfectly good evidence to justify himself. To him, his reasoning is entirely logical and correct. Unfortunately for him, thinking 2 plus 2 equals 5 doesn't change the entire mathematical system.

What you have to do is take every singal example of Tolkien stating there is no allegory and put it all into one paper, then refute every one of his claims of allegorical examples one by one in the most detail and with citing the most sources you possibly can, as well as every definition of allegory you can find from reputable sources (just in case he doesn't know better), and you should give it to him and say "Mr. So And So, I do not agree with you in that Tolkien used Allegory in The Lord of the Rings. To this end, I have compiled a paper in defense of my belief so that you may read the evidence I have presented and consider whether or not you may be mistaken." If he says no, you can either go along with the project or take it further, going above his head and saying your teacher is assigning projects that don't make sense or what-not. If it were up to me, I'd write a paper at least 20 pages long in my defense, but that's just because I'm really, really stubborn and am very argumentative, and I would never rest until I made him admit he was wrong.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 27, 2005)

And to Khorny's recommendations I would add: pass out copies of the finished paper to your parents and every person in class, as well as your teacher's superior, probably the Department Head. 

Barley


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Dec 27, 2005)

YES!!!! That's even better!

As they say in _Galaxy Quest_:  Never Give Up, Never Surrender!!!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 27, 2005)

Khôr’nagan said:


> YES!!!! That's even better!
> 
> As they say in _Galaxy Quest_:  Never Give Up, Never Surrender!!!



Ah, but Winston Churchill said it first! 

Barley


----------



## Arvedui (Jan 2, 2006)

The easiest way of settling this:
If the works of JRRT only applies to Christians, then there is a high probability of Allegory.
But if the works also applies to other religions, then Applicability is the word.
Could someone please call in the Hindus and the Muslims?

Or is it too simple?


----------



## Walter (Jan 2, 2006)

Élhendi said:


> The easiest way of settling this:
> If the works of JRRT only applies to Christians, then there is a high probability of Allegory.
> But if the works also applies to other religions, then Applicability is the word.
> Could someone please call in the Hindus and the Muslims?
> ...


Thus spake Zarathustra... 

Seriously, a look at Zoroastrianism - as I've tried to hint at in a previous post - would provide us with with quite a few more applicabilities...


----------



## Eriol (Jan 2, 2006)

I think that the success of the Narnia movie among non-Christians implies that it is not as simple, Élhendi . The movie is based on a blatantly allegorical story and it has kept most of the allegories in the plot, very obviously for those who know C.S. Lewis' intentions. 

In other words, even if the Muslims and Hindus say that the work does not apply to their religion, I'd still take Tolkien's words about it seriously and say that the work is not allegorical. In this debate I am a Gothmogian  -- if the author (a) knows what allegory is about and (b) denies that it is there, then the matter is settled, for me at least.

(Most of the cases of "inadvertent allegory" would require a denial of (a), but this can't be the case with Tolkien).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 2, 2006)

Élhendi said:


> The easiest way of settling this:
> If the works of JRRT only applies to Christians, then there is a high probability of Allegory.
> But if the works also applies to other religions, then Applicability is the word.
> Could someone please call in the Hindus and the Muslims?
> ...



I haven't seen the movie yet, but when I have, I'll come back and give you a review from the point of view of a (now appallingly wayward) Hindu!   Contact Inderjit for the Muslim take! 

Without having seen the movie, I can say this as one having had experience with the Hindu _Weltanschauung_:

• All manner of creatures (including the kind that Lewis writes about) exist in various dimensions.
• All actions done for personal ends are _karma_ and therefore lead to further consequences; all actions done for the sake of God are _dharma_ (and therefore free of karma).
• In Hindusim, _everything_ is Hinduism, including everything that exists and does not exist, including all religious beliefs. Everything that exists and does not exist _is God._ So everything that Lewis is writing about as Christian allegory and simply as story is perfectly acceptable to Hinduism as facets of itself.

Barley

PS: I recently posted my 2200th post; now I'm at 2194? What gives???


----------



## BlackCaptain (Jan 3, 2006)

> "_The Lord of The Rings_ is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision". Elsewhere he states "I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic" (ibid.). In 1958 he wrote that _The Lord of the Rings_ is "a tale, which is built on or out of certain ‘religious’ ideas, but is not an allegory of them."


 
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/JRRTOLK.HTM

What of these? I seem convinced now, actualy . . . Although some of the stuff my teacher was saying seems way out of line, it seems like he's got every reason to take that path, after reading the article.



> Galadriel bestows upon the Fellowship seven mystical gifts, which are surely analogous to the seven sacraments, and as such are real signs of grace, and not mere symbols (and hence this is a specifically Catholic feature of the book).


 


> or Frodo’s willingness both to serve and to carry his burden. Or, in the provision of lembas, can we not see the Eucharist. Before the Fellowship depart from Lorien they have a final supper where the mystical elvish bread lembas is shared, and they all drink from a common cup. Given Tolkien’s remark that "I fell in love with the Blessed Sacrament from the beginning and by the mercy of God never have fallen out again" some comparison with the Last Supper is inevitable. And it would be strange if Tolkien’s tryst with the saving bread was not somewhere replicated in his great saga.


 
Frodo's taking up of the sin of the world (Ring) and taking it with him, to his OWN destruction.

Can anyone prove this argument wrong, now, with that first quote provided? It seems like Tolkien was inconsistent, saying how much he hates allegory, but then admiting to putting symbolism in. But it's not like Tolkien to be inconsistent, so I'm not sure what to think.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 4, 2006)

BlackCaptain said:


> http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/JRRTOLK.HTM
> Can anyone prove this argument wrong, now, with that first quote provided?



• Don't be bowled over by authority. Your author has his own agenda.
• Don't be bowled over simply by "credentials."
• Don't be bowled over by the fact that the article appears on the web and "looks important" and the language reads with "authority."
• Remember that there have been _thousands_ of articles written about Tolkien that are thoroughly supported by research, many of which are at loggerheads with each other.
• You have just as much right to your views as anyone, and the more you can support what you say, the more solid they will be, despite other scholarly works to the contrary, and other people who make other intense assertions. The more one believes in something, the more passionate will be the output — no matter which side of the argument is being put forward.

Barley


----------



## Arvedui (Jan 4, 2006)

BlackCaptain, that article is nothing more than one person's opinion. No matter what other people might have put into words here and there, they cannot be free from the *fact* that the author himself specifically denies that there is any allegory in _The Lord of the Rings._


----------



## Walter (Jan 4, 2006)

As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, it might become difficult to argue your teacher, Black Captain, if you're not well read in Tolkien and myths. This goes even more so if you want to take it up with such evidently well read and narrowly focused people like this David Alten (who is, btw., very much arguing along the lines of Joseph Pearce, IMO). 

Anyway, here are some thoughts regarding your quotes from the article:



> Tolkien tell us that:
> 
> "The Lord of The Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision". Elsewhere he states "I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic" (ibid.).



Now the first sentence is from a letter to Father Robert Murray, a Jesuit and friend of the Tolkien family (it is even said that Tolkien played a certain role in Murray becoming a Jesuit). But it is interesting to note that in the passage from this article the first sentence is taken out of context - as is done by most of those who want to hijack LotR as an entirely Catholic or Christian allegory.



> 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._ However that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little; and should chiefly be grateful for having been brought up (since I was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and that I owe to my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty resulting from it.
> 
> From: Letters #142 (my italics)



Now, if we take Tolkien's statements above seriously and he has _"...not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion'..."_ why would anyone still be able to find such references abound? If Tolkien so disliked allegories would he purposely draw such parallels and then deny that?



> Galadriel bestows upon the Fellowship seven mystical gifts, which are surely analogous to the seven sacraments, and as such are real signs of grace, and not mere symbols (and hence this is a specifically Catholic feature of the book).



The number seven occurs quite frequently in LotR (seven stars, seven stones, seven rings, seven kings, etc., etc.) as well as in many myths. Seven was the number of the known celestial bodies in the early civilizations of the near east and has ever since become the number of days in a week, giving the days their names. And consequently - since these celestial bodies were considered deities - we often encounter seven deities or seven pairs of deities (the Valar make no exception to that) in myths.

Also what are the parallels between the seven gifts and the seven sacraments? Is there anything that holds water? I doubt it.



> Gandalf or Aragorn (and even possibly Frodo) may be seen as Christ-like: with Aragorn the king entering his kingdom, the return of whom everyone is expecting; the apparent "resurrection" of Gandalf when he dies on the Bridge of Khazad-Dum after the fight with the Balrog; or Boromir’s surrender of his life for his friends in order to save his companions (made all the more remarkable because of his earlier attempt to seize the ring by force and by his subsequent repentance); or Frodo’s willingness both to serve and to carry his burden.



Here the author seems to mix up a hero with a 'Christ like'-figure. Quests where the hero has to carry a heavy burden even to the point of self sacrification for a greater good are a common motif in myths and heroic tales with hundreds if not thousands of examples. Death and resurrection is not unique to Christian tradition either. It is the basic underlying myth of all agricultural societies (out of death comes new life, the seed 'dies', is 'buried' in mother earth and becomes 'resurrected' as a new plant in spring) and found in other myths (the sun-deity dies each evening and is resurrected next morning, the moon dies once in a month and is resurrected). Joseph Campbell in his _The hero with a thousand faces_ maintains that every hero has to 'die' - by giving up his ego - in order to fulfil the quest and is then 'resurrected' with a new consciousness at a higher level.



> Or, in the provision of lembas, can we not see the Eucharist. Before the Fellowship depart from Lorien they have a final supper where the mystical elvish bread lembas is shared, and they all drink from a common cup.



We can, but we must not. That is the 'applicability' Tolkien readily admits. Self-sacrification or sacrification of a god-king is found in rites from primitive cultures as well as in agricultural societies. The flesh of the sacrificed king was either eaten or spread over the fields (depending whether it were hunter/gatherer/pastoral or agricultural societies). In Greece, for example, this was practiced up to the 2nd millennium BCE. Later someone else was made king just for this 'ceremony' - and the actual king continued to rule afterwards - and again later animals were sacrificed (hence the sacrificial lamb) or the sacrification became an entirely symbolic ritual with no 'casualties'. In the OT it is Abraham sacrificing - or willing to sacrifice - his only son and and in the NT it was Christ sacrificing himself again. Thus Christianity merely 'inherited' or 'borrowed' that ritual from other - older - cultures and whether one decides to see this final supper in Lórien as an allusion to the Eucharist (or another such ritual) or whether one sees it as an ordinary meal (sharing bread and drinking from one cup also wasn't invented by Christianity) is up to the reader. Applicabilty, not allegory, again....

Only if one purposely reads such things into the story, the allegory is there, if one doesn't it's applicability.

----

But I suppose you will have to take up some reading, and make your homework, if you still intend to argue your teacher and people like this David Alten, Black Captain...


----------



## Ingwë (Jan 4, 2006)

Allegory, allegory. I will post a few quotes about allegory here (from the Letters)


The darkness of the present days has had some effect on it. Though it is not an '*allegory*'. (Letter 34)
Do not let Rayner suspect '*Allegory*'. There is a 'moral', I suppose, in any tale worth telling. But that is not the same thing. Even the struggle between darkness and light (as he calls it, not me) is for me just a particular phase of history, one example of its pattern, perhaps, but not The Pattern; and the actors are individuals – they each, of course, contain universals, or they would not live at all, but they never represent them as such. 
Of course, *Allegory* and Story converge, meeting somewhere in Truth. So that the only perfectly consistent *allegory* is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an *allegory*
But an equally basic passion of mine ab initio was for myth (not *allegory*!) and for fairy-story, and above all for heroic legend on the brink of fairy-tale and history, of which there is far too little in the world (accessible to me) for my appetite
Thank you for your letter. I hope that you have enjoyed The Lord of the Rings? Enjoyed is the key-word. For it was written to amuse (in the highest sense): to be readable. There is no '*allegory*', moral, political, or contemporary in the work at all. 
It is a 'fairy-story', but one written – according to the belief I once expressed in an extended essay 'On Fairy-stories' that they are the proper audience – for adults. Because I think that fairy story has its own mode of reflecting 'truth', different from *allegory*, or (sustained) satire, or 'realism', and in some ways more powerful. But first of all it must succeed just as a tale, excite, please, and even on occasion move, and within its own imagined world be accorded (literary) belief. To succeed in that was my primary object. (Letter 181)
There is no 'symbolism' or conscious *allegory* in my story. *Allegory* of the sort 'five wizards = five senses' is wholly foreign to my way of thinking. There were five wizards and that is just a unique part of history. To ask if the Orcs 'are' Communists is to me as sensible as asking if Communists are Orcs. 
That there is no *allegory* does not, of course, say there is no applicability. There always is. (Letter 203)
The situation was conceived long before the Russian revolution. Such *allegory* is entirely foreign to my thought. The placing of Mordor in the east was due to simple narrative and geographical necessity, within my 'mythology'. The original stronghold of Evil was (as traditionally) in the North; but as that had been destroyed, and was indeed under the sea, there had to be a new stronghold, far removed from the Valar (Letter 229)
http://www2.rinennor.org/search.php?q=allegory&r=30&b=4&d=50  Tolkien doesn't like allegory. That's all (at least I think that's all  )
BlackCaptain, did you talk to you teacher?


----------



## Eriol (Jan 4, 2006)

BlackCaptain said:


> Can anyone prove this argument wrong, now, with that first quote provided? It seems like Tolkien was inconsistent, saying how much he hates allegory, but then admiting to putting symbolism in. But it's not like Tolkien to be inconsistent, so I'm not sure what to think.



I don't see any inconsistency, BC. I agree with Tolkien's evaluation of his own Christianity being clear in his works, but this does not imply the use of allegory. The point is that Tolkien had a very clear notion of what allegory is; he was using the word according to that notion (which is, by the way, fundamentally correct -- wider definitions bring with them, as we have seen, several conflicts of interpretation). 

According to Tolkien's usage of the word "allegory", not only we must agree that he took any hint of it out of the book, but we also must agree that there is absolutely no way in which allegory could have "sneaked back in" unconsciously. 

So, while your teacher certainly has some valid points about Catholic features in the work, the bone of contention here seems to be the definition of allegory. Ask your teacher about it. Research some definitions on the net. And compare them with the Tolkien usage (there are lots of info in this thread about it, as well as in the Introduction to LotR). 

It is always possible, in a discussion, that both sides are right even when they disagree . Different definitions of the same word is the easiest way to achieve that.


----------



## BlackCaptain (Jan 4, 2006)

Right . . . I understand it as his opinion. But nothing can discredit TOLKIEN'S own opinion when he says:

"The Lord of The Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision"

Unless this is a fake quote?? But I think I remember reading it somewhere anyways, so I'm not sure.


----------



## Walter (Jan 4, 2006)

BlackCaptain said:


> Right . . . I understand it as his opinion. But nothing can discredit TOLKIEN'S own opinion when he says:
> 
> "The Lord of The Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision"
> 
> Unless this is a fake quote?? But I think I remember reading it somewhere anyways, so I'm not sure.


You didn't bother to read the posts in this thread, now did you?


----------



## Eriol (Jan 4, 2006)

BlackCaptain said:


> Right . . . I understand it as his opinion. But nothing can discredit TOLKIEN'S own opinion when he says:
> 
> "The Lord of The Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision"
> 
> Unless this is a fake quote?? But I think I remember reading it somewhere anyways, so I'm not sure.



This opinion of Tolkien's does not contradict with the other opinion of Tolkien's -- that there is no allegory in his works. 

The good ole' thread "Finding God in the Lord of the Rings" has _thousands_ of words about this matter. If you are willing to delve into it, you'll probably see every possible opinion about it represented there .


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 26, 2007)

Well I think it is time to possibly dust off this thread. 

I was looking through The Lays of Beleriand and found an interesting comment made by C.S.Lewis after he read The Gest of Beren and Luthien. Considering that Lewis himself wrote allegory, I think that it certainly gives an important view on the question of Allegory in Tolkien's works.


> I sat up late last night and have read the Gest as far as to where Beren and his gnomish allies defeat the patrol of orcs above the sources of the Narog and disguise themselves in the reaf [Old English: 'garments, weapons, taken from the slain']. I can quite honestly say that it is ages since I have had an evening of such delight: and the personal interest of reading a friend's work had very little to do with it. I should have enjoyed it hust as well as if I'd picked it up in a bookshop, by an unknown author. The two things that come out clearly are the sense of reality in the background and the mythical value: *the essence of a myth being that it should have no taint of allegory to the maker and yet should suggest incipient allegories to the reader*,



So if Lewis could see that Tolkien (as 'the maker') wrote with "no taint of allegory" I say that his works (except where expressly stated by Tolkien) are not Allegory but have as Tolkien says 'Applicability'. The Allergory found in there by readers is put there by the reader himself.


----------

