# Regarding the supposed allegory



## Talimon (Sep 25, 2002)

While we've all no doubt made our little comparisons between Middle Earth and our own world, I was wondering if anyone knew how people were comparing it to WWII. In the "Forward to the Second Edition", Tolkien writes the following scenario:



> The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possesion of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves.



Now I've gone over this, and quite frankly I cannot see what Tolkien was talking about at all. What does everthing here represent? One scenario I can think of is the ring representing the atom bomb. Assuming Mordor is Nazi Germany (really going into the abstract here), then Saruman might represent the USA, thus finding the missing links in Mordor (Einstein was from Germany). 

Of course this doesn't serve much purpose since Tolkien despised allegory to begin with, but I was wondering if anyone knew what the comparisons amount to.


----------



## pohuist (Sep 25, 2002)

Einstein did not have anything to do with Atom Bomb.

You are forgetting to put into the equation the Soviet Union which developed its own Atom Bomb within a few years if not month from the USA.
Nazi Germany was very close to developing its and only the defeat in the war prevented them from having one by the end of 1945.


----------



## Leto (Sep 26, 2002)

I believe Tolkien meant that if it were an allegory, obviously the 'good guys', Aragorn and the men of Gondor, would have represented England and the US, Sauron and the forces of Mordor would have been the Axis powers, and Aragorn (the US) would have used the ring to overthrow Sauron. Maybe Saruman would have been the USSR, thus shortly afterwards creating his own bomb/ring...creating the 'cold war' scenario, with two super powers vying for control of middle earth. The Hobbits, and the innocent pastoral lands of the Shire would become no more in the militarisation of the 'cold war', as technology and scientific military advancement become the rule of ther day. This is why Tolkien would not use this allegory...he saw the way the world was and had become, and didn't like it. After World War II, there was no return to innocence, no happy ending, as there was in the story.


----------



## Talimon (Sep 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Leto _
> *I believe Tolkien meant that if it were an allegory, obviously the 'good guys', Aragorn and the men of Gondor, would have represented England and the US, Sauron and the forces of Mordor would have been the Axis powers, and Aragorn (the US) would have used the ring to overthrow Sauron. Maybe Saruman would have been the USSR, thus shortly afterwards creating his own bomb/ring...creating the 'cold war' scenario, with two super powers vying for control of middle earth. The Hobbits, and the innocent pastoral lands of the Shire would become no more in the militarisation of the 'cold war', as technology and scientific military advancement become the rule of ther day. This is why Tolkien would not use this allegory...he saw the way the world was and had become, and didn't like it. After World War II, there was no return to innocence, no happy ending, as there was in the story. *



That makes sense... I had never equated the USSR and the Cold War with it, but it makes sense when you think about him saying two powers vying for control. 

And I don't think the book finishes with a "return to innocence". If anything the opposite: What is the Scouring of the Shire all about? While I don't think the tale is supposed to represent the real war state for state and power for power, I do think a lot of Tolkiens experiences from the war made it into the book. I think the Scouring is an excellent example of this.


----------



## Leto (Sep 27, 2002)

There was definately growth, a maturing of the once innocent Shire, and the characters, Sam, Merry and Pippin. But in the end, Sam returns to the comfortable home, with his family...the mallorn trees were growing, the Shire becoming beautiful once again, things were getting back to 'normal'. It would never be the same...but if anything the Shire was better than before for the trials the Hobbits had gone through. Things had come full circle. And in the appendices, we see more of that. Aragorn decrees that no big people are to pass the borders of the Shire without permission, and the land is tended and cared for by Sam for years. Hobbits may have been a little more world-wise, but they did not open up to the world of Men, becoming 'modernized' or 'industrialized'. In fact, the whole of Aragorn's kingdom pretty much rejected the 'industrialization' which was represented by the works of Saruman and Sauron, and returned to the simpler ways of the past. Though the losses suffered were bittersweet...overall, I would say this was a happy ending, with a return to the simpler times of the past.


----------



## Bombadillo (Sep 27, 2002)

I'm sorry to hurt all your feelings, but mee myself think that boromir or saruman would represent te USA, remember their longing for power and ultimate weapons to defeat the enemy? that would make more sence to me, but it is true that they both didn't made it to the end. maytbe thaat were the soldiers who died?


----------



## DGoeij (Sep 27, 2002)

I really think you are right with the allegory between the Ring and the Atom bomb, both put fear in the hearth of your enemy and give you immense power. The 'seizing and using against the bad guys' seems to give that away and occupation of Mordor (nazi germany was occupied by both US and USSR, both countries leared immenseley from german scientists) and Saruman striving with the other Ring lord (Cold war). 
I've always looked at the actual war, between 1939 and 1945, and forgot to look beyond it.

Einsteins studies and his theories were the foundation for the creation of the atom bomb. I'm not sure if he had anything to do with the actual building of it.


----------



## Lantarion (Sep 27, 2002)

No, of course not. I wrote a report about this several years ago, but I can remember nothing of it now! Even the two main scientists working on the bomb were very reluctant to have anything to do with it.. The play called _Copenhagen_ deals with the moral issues of the two scientists, I read the script; it is very good. 
Anyway: I'm no historian, but I would have to agree with Leto. It's a good thing Tolkien did not write it allegorically, because it would have progressed too far on its own to even have it published..
I can also see Bombadillo's point about 'Boromir=USA'; but we must remember that Boromir repented in the end, and forsook the proud ideas of conquest and imperialization via the Ring; this is not something I could see the US doing in this scenario, if I may say so! 

Why is it that the most common proposed allegory for the LotR is to the Second World War? Couldn't similar wars and battles be found much further back, in days more like those of the Third Age (I'm obviously thinking the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages here)? Again, I am not a history professor, nor do I posess any descent command of knowledge about the time 1000-1500 AD: but maybe somebody who does could start a thread dealing with the LotR and a significant (or not) war in earlier times? It would give me a good excuse to read up on some history.


----------



## DGoeij (Sep 27, 2002)

Professor Tolkien wrote the foreword Talimon posted because people thought there was an allegory to WWII. Mostly simply because it was written over that period. And published in 1955, people then still had some fresh memories of WWII. Christopher was as a RAF-officer in South-Africa (IIRC) and recieved his dad's progress in the story by mail.


----------



## Minas (Sep 27, 2002)

*Tolkien fought in WW1*

Dont ask me for my source but I remember reading somewhere that the Hobbits were Tolkiens memory of the Trench fighters of WW1. The war had a devastating effect on many and Tolkien was no exception. Didn't he injure himself to get some time back in England. Surely WWI would be a better scenario. The US would then be the Rohirrim arriving late to the war as usual.
I'm sure sure others will disagree.


----------



## Talimon (Sep 27, 2002)

> I can also see Bombadillo's point about 'Boromir=USA'; but we must remember that Boromir repented in the end, and forsook the proud ideas of conquest and imperialization via the Ring; this is not something I could see the US doing in this scenario, if I may say so!



Sorry, but if we are going to talk about conquest and imperialization then by all means lets just put Britain out the picture... I mean seriously, is it humanly possible for us to find a more unselfish, unimperialistic, colony-free country in the world?

_end sarcasm_

I don't mean to start a fight here over which country's sins are more condemnable, I just think it's a little thin to say Boromir/Saruman=USA, especially if you are using the words "conquest" and "imperialization" in your arguement. I think Tolkien was reffering as much to the state of affairs in the UK (if not more) as he was to any other Western country.


----------



## DGoeij (Sep 28, 2002)

Conquest and Imperialization were, especially in those days, more fitted to the European nations. And since J.R.R. Tolkien was a citizen of Great Britain, I can hardly imagine him thinking of the USA. It was only some time after WWII that the USA got really involved in affairs in all the corners of the earth. LOTR was long published by then.


----------



## Lantarion (Sep 28, 2002)

Yes, you are right.
So if Tolkien had written some characters as metaphorical figures for greed/imperialism, then he would have been referring to his own home country's evil deeds? I am aware that Britain was the main imperialist nation in the world at one point, scuttling all over India, Australasia, Indonesia, Africa, etc., but I was referring only to Bombadillo's USA-simile. 
Thanks for the sarcasm Talimon, it made my day.


----------



## DGoeij (Sep 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *Thanks for the sarcasm Talimon, it made my day.  *



Careful with the Trans-Atlantic humour, people. Both sides seem to be a little touchy recently. How could that be? 

And Indonesia was a Dutch colony, thank you very much. Ok, we lost it to the English once, to the Japanese during WWII and finally to the Indonesians themselves. But we really sqeezed the place to the limits.


----------



## Bombadillo (Sep 29, 2002)

yes whe dutch are a bit too nasty for our little land of no meaning. 
but i'ts true, boromir drew back BEFORE it was too late.
America wouldn't do that, they would drew back when it WAS too late.
but the USA is not really in this story, america always leuve before putting everything in order, so they would have to fight the same country again (afghanistan, maybe iraq, vietnam, chili, etc etc) 
but this is only good for the US War economy (yay JSF  )
sorry to hurt americans here, if you are offended... its not personal, i just don't like bush (yes this is an understatement)


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 2, 2002)

The reasons America didn't draw out of Viatnam, from what I read, l were mostly pride. We hadn't lost a war yet (we'd compromised a lot in Korea but not really lost) and it was hard to give up. Plus we didn't really understand the area or the politics...

However, I think it would be just a tad bit ungrateful to call the US Sauramen if we were making a WWII comparision considering that we did have a little to do with getting Hitler off Europes back. 

America hasn't been perfect, but while some of our moves are imperialistic I find that they are more idealistic. We weren't going into Viatnam to colonize but because we had this idea that it was our job to ensure EVERYONE democracy (even if some of them didn't want it). Unfortunately this isn't really realistic and if you go anywhere to have war for any reason you are going to get into trouble. I don't really think that putting other countires back into order is our business. After WWII we gave half of them to Russia in some very bad dealing which didn't turn out to well for those countries for quite some time... The ones we kept we gave up after some help and leaving them alone was very good for them (I don't know how long aid continued, of course).

Sauramen/Stalin would be my obvious pick... though he started out as an enemy and went to an ally before returning to an enemy where Sauramen went from an ally to an enemy before going to a threat. 

Russia wasn't really as much of a Sauramen until after the war, and I really believe there was no allegory intended.

I always wondered what would've happened if America hadn't used the A-bomb on Japan... I think we would've won, but how much longer would it have been? I read a statistic once that tried to justify the use by saying that the amount of soldiers on both sides who would've been lost in trying to take Japan any other way would've been ten or more times more. I'd buy that if we had only hit military targets, but I don't think there is any justification of civilian ones.


----------



## Leto (Oct 2, 2002)

of course there was no allegory, so the comparisons won't hold up. If there was an allegory, the story would have been different. (that's what Tolkien said) 

In regards to WWII and Japan...we would have had to invade Japan and basically capture it, destroying their military, in order to make them surrender. That would have taken many many lives of soldiers and civilians...because knowing the Japanese mindset, the 'civilians' would not have sat by and watched the invasion, people would have fought bitterly for their homeland. We didn't have technology like we do now, laser guided bombs and missiles that can strike pin point targets from hundreds of miles away. You dropped lots of bombs over the target, and hoped some of them hit something important. I don't think it was right to target so many civilians, either...but once they had resolved to use the bomb, they had to make sure it hit the target, and that everyone in Japan, especially the leadership, saw what it could do. Maybe they should have blown up a couple small south pacific islands under Japanese control...but that might not have ensured Japanese surrender. We didn't have a whole lot of those bombs at the time...if Japan had called the bluff, we still would have had to invade the mainland. It was a choosing between two great evils, and I don't envy the people who had to make the decision...


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Oct 3, 2002)

In the preface to the Silmarillion both Christopher Tolkien and a letter written by JRR Tolkien state that JRR neither liked nor intended his work to be allegorical.

I guess my question is are we asking if LOTR could be considered an allegory or are we drawing comparisions and analogies from it and applying them to our world.

The answer to the former question is decidedly no, but as this thread points out you bring up exceptional points as to the latter...


----------



## Talimon (Oct 7, 2002)

All I was wondering is what the allegory was the Tolkien was mentioning. In other words, what allegory did readers at the time see. I am personally with Tolkien on this one, since I can't see too much allegory. But apparently some people saw it, and I was wondering what they saw.


----------



## Leto (Oct 7, 2002)

I think they saw what they wanted to, and overlooked all the discrepancies because they decided to see an allegory. It's obvious with honest critical thinking that there isn't an allegory to WW II, or WW I, or any other major world event in recent history.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 7, 2002)

Especially considering the time frame. 

It was natural that people, emerging from a world war, would find paralels between their struggle with a great evil to M.E.'s struggle against a great evil. Also, since Tolkien's war experience undoubtably had a great impact on how he wrote battles (though his was in WWI, not II. The LotR was practically finished by II) there would be a few things similar, the general horror instead of the mideival glory we see in Scott or general confusion found in ... dang... I can't remember who wrote the red badge of courage. Well, that guy's work. 

The war of the rings could easily be considered a world war, and since it was the second war against Sauron (who would be the obvious paralel to Hitler and Germany) they could also draw the link there. 

All epic fights have common threads, and you can draw numerous links.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Oct 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> * general confusion found in ... dang... I can't remember who wrote the red badge of courage. Well, that guy's work.
> *



Crane. I believe it was Stephen Crane. 
But I agree with Elgee.
Allegory was very popular. Look at George Orwell's animal farm and it's obvious parallels to the Russian Revolution. It was popular and prevalent. Even Lewis Carroll wrote allegory. While there's a great bone of contention as to the intention of Alice in Wonderland, many hold that it does have its allegorical moments, and many of his other works are most certainly allegory. 
The point is that people emerging from the war in a time when many writers, especially English ones, were leaning towards allegory would look at Tolkien in this way. 
No matter how much he insists it's pure fantasy.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 7, 2002)

Plus it was just _too real_ to be fantasy, right? We all know the feeling. This is a real place. These are real people. It can't be a story...

Ah Crane... Crane... Crane... Crane...

I heard somewhere that the Wizard of Oz was an allegory protesting the use of paper money, but I think that is a tad bit far fetched. George Macdonald and C.S. Lewis (one an influence on Tolkien the other a friend) both were allegorical writers. The Pearl, which he transalated, is an allegory... A lot of things are allegory. Even if they aren't most writers have some bone to pick or point to make. Tolkien was just interested in the fantasy, the history, and the reality of a place he discovered in his own mind.

It was so real that we wanted it to be part of our world instead of realizing that it was its own world. A world of the mind.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Oct 7, 2002)

I completely agree.

I also think it has to do with the fact that fantasy tales such as Tolkiens at the time were classed with Alice in Wonderland and Wizard of Oz, which many people considered "children's tales" and back then one of the only "respectable" reasons to write "children's tales" was if they were allegorical...

But Tolkien was just going against the grain and I don't think people understood that.
He was a linguist, and amazing...and it's not just the message...it's the whole package...the whole world he created.


----------



## Lantarion (Oct 8, 2002)

> _Last posted by HLGStrider_
> The Pearl, which he transalated, is an allegory...


Wasn't 'The Pearl' John Steinbeck's short story? I recently read it; the plot isn't very wel-founded IMO, so I found it to be a story of theme.. But yes, there are numerous metaphors in there, mostly dealing with colonialization.
As I may have already said, I can't really imagine reading a book or story without considering possible metaphors/allegories/etc., because if a story has no theme whatsoever then it can either be considered a mythological classic (ie. The Silmarillion, the LotR) or an escapist story. I can find many metaphors in Tolkien's works, but because he said that there is no intended allegory, I can only take it as what it is, (ie. a legend/myth, which is boiled down to Good vs. Evil) and be happy with it.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 8, 2002)

The Pearl I was speaking about was the poem by an unknown writer which Tolkien translated, along with Sir Gwain and the Green Knight and Sir Orpheo. It's pretty good, though I found the Pearl confusing. Sir Orpheo was my favorite.


----------



## Rangerdave (Oct 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> *However, I think it would be just a tad bit ungrateful to call the US Sauramen if we were making a WWII comparision considering that we did have a little to do with getting Hitler off Europes back.
> 
> Sauramen/Stalin would be my obvious pick... though he started out as an enemy and went to an ally before returning to an enemy where Sauramen went from an ally to an enemy before going to a threat.
> *



Actually, we had very little to do with getting Hitler off Europe's back compared to the Russians. Here are some stats from the boring historian in me. 
First, of the entire population of the US military, only 37% were ever deployed overseas; of those that were, only 29% were deployed anywhere in the European theater. 
Second, of the total German military forces available, more than two thirds were engaged on the Eastern front fighting the Russian's _People's Army._ This means that the entire western allied force (US, UK, Canada, et al) were all fighting only one third of the German war machine. 
Given these statistics, I find it unfair to equate the Soviet Union to Saruman. I would think that a better anaology would be to make Saruman Italy, Loosely allied with the main enemy and first defeated. 


> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> I always wondered what would've happened if America hadn't used the A-bomb on Japan... I think we would've won, but how much longer would it have been? I read a statistic once that tried to justify the use by saying that the amount of soldiers on both sides who would've been lost in trying to take Japan any other way would've been ten or more times more. I'd buy that if we had only hit military targets, but I don't think there is any justification of civilian ones.


The statistic you speak of if from a report by George Catlett Marshall, and is now considered to be a fabrication to ensure the droping of the bomb. Marshall wanted to use the A-bomb, not only to end the war with Japan, but to keep Stalin out of the Pacific conflict. In this way, he could make sure that Russia would have no claim on any occupied territories. 
By the time the decission to drop the bomb was maid, the Japanese war machine had died, Certainly an invasion would have cost hundreds possibly thousands of American lives, but an invasion was not necessary. Japan had no capitol ships left to her navy, and no fuel to supply her air forces. The surrender of Japan could have been brought about by simply blockading the island and waiting for them to starve. I leave it up to you to decide what is worse, killing thousands in two bomb blasts or allowing millions to starve to appease the mililtary pride.

RD


----------



## Snaga (Oct 9, 2002)

I read somewhere that the US refused a Japanese surrendur, so they could use the A bomb, in order to scare the Russians. I dont know if thats true tho.

I expect most people will be rushing in to refute that. Go ahead, if you wish. I havent researched it myself, so I'm not standing behind the allegation.

I throw it in because it illustrates that everyone instantly assumes that their country is the good guys in this supposed (and disavowed) allegory. Noone of course would want to be Mordor. In fact, history is rarely as clear about who is good and who is bad, and consequently Lord of the Rings is too simplistic to make a good allegory.

Even in WWII, where the evil of the Nazi regime is indisputable, it is actually of little help in understanding it to just say the Nazis were evil, end of story. It is clearly not at all helpful to equate characterise an entire nation as evil. The point about dark periods of history is to avoid repetition, and understanding is therefore all important. Unpleasant as it is, extreme fascistic groupings exist in most countries and need to be stopped from growing in influence. Recognising this is not helped by a simplistic view of good and evil.

Luckily, thats not what Lord of the Rings was trying to do!


----------



## DGoeij (Oct 9, 2002)

The Italian comparison is interesting. Both Saruman and the Duce joined up with a mightier force to gain power of their own. And both, they underestimated their oppponents.
Also the end of the Italian dictator is much the same as that of Saruman, being killed in a small town, after having fled their capitals.

As a side note, indeed the Sovjet Army destroyed most of the German army, but with help. Those famous rocket-launchers the Sovjets used in great numbers, were mostly carried by Studebaker trucks. The amount of material the combined navies of the US and Great Britain shipped to Murmansk, is not something to forget lightly.


----------



## Lantarion (Oct 9, 2002)

*cough*backtothetopic*cough*


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Oct 9, 2002)

**Steers the convo back to Tolkien**

As far as the allegory in LotR goes I'd have to agree with Snaga. Surprise, surprise! Predictable, no?
But in the vein of complete seriousness he makes a good point when he says that the clear lines drawn around Good and Evil in LotR makes the comparison to ANY war difficult. In any war you have different factions fighting for what they believed in.

While the struggle with Hitler in Word War II is not relevant to Tolkien as he was writing the stories before war broke out it can still be used to illustrate my point.

Hitler was, I would wager to say, evil, and perhaps a bit mad as well. But he honestly and truly believed that he was doing the right thing, that his Arian race was the wave of the future and that killing 6 million Jews was justified. Were he to have used the word "holocaust" to describe his actions he wouldn't have attached the negative connotations we attach today when we hear the word. He would have seen it in the true definition of the word which is a fiery offering to one's god. He believed he was doing right, and I am fairly certain, though I have no proof, he would not have called himself evil.

Now in regards to Sauron on the other hand I hold no such delusions. To Sauron the power he craved was not for any cause that he justified with irritional prejudices and racial bigotry. It was a pure desire to rule over all and to control all of existence. He throve on the evil, he fed on it, fueled his furnace if you will. He did it because he was evil, deliciously so.

If you were to ask him, in a meek and timid girly voice: "Mr. Sauron, sir, are you evil?" he would have boomed in a disembodied voice, "YES! MUAHAHAHAHAAHA! DELICIOUSLY SO!!!"

His minions may have fought because they believed in their master and their cause, just as in WWII, but Hitler was not so cut and dry evil as Sauron was. Hitler wanted power, but not for the same reasons.

The line between Good and Evil blurs when the evil just might believe their innocence. In most movies and books that sucessfully depict a battle between good and evil, we see a bad guy that clearly has no remorse (Ex. Harry Potter) and a good guy sent to vanquish him. 
It's the stories where the bad guys have ulterior motives, or a reason to continue their evil, or believe themselves to be doing right that I find more easily adapt themselves to allegory (George Orwell's Animal Farm, or even The Matrix) because the line is blurred, and it's a more human emotion.

The End.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 10, 2002)

During the war I did say that the soviets were an ally, RD, in fact I knew those statistics. The German flying aces and Russian flying aces have kills up into the hundred while Americans rarely broke twenty. Why? Because the Russians and Germans were killing each other like flies... Though Italy is a better comparison, I just thought I'd defend myself a bit. I meant after the war where, if you want to see it in the WWII alegory with America and England as good guys, the Russians were the cold war enemies. 
Back on topic...

It is human to justify what you are doing in someway because humans have consciences and therefore know that there is a right and wrong... therefore you have to make you, or your side, right, and the other side wrong to make yourself happy. Hitler was fairly convinced that he was either a deity or supremely appointed by one. Very unbalanced man... 

Is there anything left to be said on this topic?


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Oct 10, 2002)

This quote from the Preface to The Sillymarillion I think may be in order:

From the letters of JRR Tolkien:



> "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 it weill be acceptable just as a story.) "



He then goes on to talk about Fall, Mortality, and Machine. Namely the fall of the elves, their immortality and that the mortality of men, the drive for power, and how those all relate to the machine: magic. He draws parallels between the use of magic as a tool to gain power and our use of actual machines to do the same. He brings up such things to show that they are fundamentall "real" and that such "realness" lends itself to assumed allegory simply because of the nature of the reader and the nature of the world at large.

He basically says, "I don't like allegory and I don't do it on purpose. But my story is real, and lifelike, and people recognize that it is real and so naturally, without intending, try to draw parallels between my "real" imaginary world, and their real REAL world."

The End.

Can we talk about Spinach now? Or War? Or Boys?


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 10, 2002)

I want to talk about crochetting!!!

I think we have said everything relevant... unless someone wants to rant... rant anyone?


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Oct 10, 2002)

Crochetting is gross...
Can we talk about Airplanes?


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 10, 2002)

I like crochetting... make pretty blankets for all my friends!!!


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Oct 10, 2002)

You're too cute...be TOUGH!


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 11, 2002)

You'd be surprised how far cute can get you in this life...


----------



## Snaga (Oct 11, 2002)

Actually, Hitler was about as cut-and-dry evil as you are likely to get. I guess Sauron, as a Maia would get a theoretical points victory over Hitler for evilness. But being an orc I'm fond of Sauron. And it helps that he's fictional Not being a genocidal neo-nazi, there aren't words for the loathing I have for Hitler and all his followers.

My point was: Mordor = evil place full of evil people/creatures, Germany = place under the thumb of an appalling dictator for 12 years, not supported by a majority when they came to power.

And moreover: Gondor and allies = bastion of 'good' in an fairly uncomplicated sense, with war aim of survival. Britain and US and allies rather less pure in some of their actions and priorities (eg destruction of Dresden with phosphorous bombs).

OK... that's all.

(If you want me to rant I HATE airplaines (sickbag, please) spinach (yuck) crochet (yuck) cute fluffy animals (kill!) boys (maim!) ... what else did you mention... War? Oooo nice! I like war! )


----------



## Walter (Oct 11, 2002)

This is an interesting thread, I just wonder if it wouldn't be better suited for another section of this forum...

As to the topic itself: Tolkien was writing the LotR after having been involved to some degree in WW1 and throughout WW2, so it doesn't surprise me at all to find some similarities, even if they are not meant as allegories...

However, I'd like to comment on a few previous posts:



> Einstein did not have anything to do with Atom Bomb.


Einstein was AFAIK never more or less directly involved with the developing of the H-bomb, however - as DGoeij mentioned - he had laid out (with describing the physical relation between mass and energy) some of the basic principles for it.



> Didn't he injure himself to get some time back in England.


Tolkien did not injure himself during WWI, he was sent back from France suffering from "pyrexia of unknown origin" ("trench fever", causing high temperature and some discomfort) on Nov. 8th 1916. And he managed - or was destined - to stay sick or reconvalescent and in England as long as the WWI lasted.




> I leave it up to you to decide what is worse, killing thousands in two bomb blasts or allowing millions to starve to appease the mililtary pride.



Do I get that right? In other words, RD, you are telling us, that dropping the H-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was actually an act of humanity? This is giving me the creeps...


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 11, 2002)

I don't think he was saying it was an act of humanity as he did say it was an almost impossible choice and he was glad he didn't have to make it. It was a choice not unlike someone deciding to weild the One Ring to get rid of Sauron... though as RD pointed out Japan was pretty much sunk already. We were just speeding things up and maybe sending a message to the Russians who had already gotten a firm foot hold in Europe. I bet Truman was scared to death of them doing the same in Asia.

Snaga hates boys??? I don't get that...

What's with all the Crochette haters...?

Oh, Snaga, about a few posts ago when you had that thing about the US refusing a surrender... I heard a similar but different story on Paul Harvey once. It was that they meant to surrender, but when they sent the message it was mistranslated and we thought they were insulting us or something... or was it in a press conference... something like that.


----------



## Snaga (Oct 11, 2002)

Snaga is prepared to hate almost anything. Thats just me being orcish. Don't worry about it!

On the alleged Japanese surrender, I'll have to check out that story properly. Thanks for the lead


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Oct 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by snaga1 _
> *
> (If you want me to rant I HATE airplaines (sickbag, please) spinach (yuck) crochet (yuck) cute fluffy animals (kill!) boys (maim!) ... what else did you mention... War? Oooo nice! I like war! ) *



You HATE airplanes? How are you supposed to visit me if you refuse to fly?!   And you said "maim" that made me laugh.  Hehe...
What about me? Do you hate me?


----------



## Snaga (Oct 14, 2002)

I could take a boat. OK its along way through the Panama canal and all, but I could stop off along the way. Is Ipanema near Panama? I've been hearing about some girl from there that I want to check out.

I'll hate you if you want me to. I could hate you with my English accent: you might like that. Try imagine a Stephen Fry sound-alike saying something like 'I despise you. I hate you so much I can hardly bear it. I find you deeply annoying.' Did that work for you?

Other things I hate: Croquet (thwack); Doilies (rip); Rose wine (blarg); Brussel sprouts (stomp); Crime show presenters (disembowell); Farmers (shoot) .....

Excuse me.... this is getting out of hand....


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Oct 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by snaga1 _
> *
> 
> I'll hate you if you want me to. I could hate you with my English accent: you might like that. Try imagine a Stephen Fry sound-alike saying something like 'I despise you. I hate you so much I can hardly bear it. I find you deeply annoying.' Did that work for you?
> *



Actually yes...that was delightful!  
As far as the "stomp" "rip" "crush" goes that was marvellously entertaining. 

And I think you should just bite the bullet and fly over...because I NEED some good accent right now!


----------



## Lantarion (Oct 15, 2002)

Do you think it would be rude if I said "Shut up" right about now?!

Back to the topic, everybody. (Geez, it's like being a sheepdog for an hour each day..!)


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Oct 15, 2002)

But we all agreed that we'd exhausted the topic and partook in the general consensus that we wanted to talk about rubbish...


----------



## Walter (Oct 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *Do you think it would be rude if I said "Shut up" right about now?!
> 
> Back to the topic, everybody. (Geez, it's like being a sheepdog for an hour each day..!)
> *


 Well, regarding the supposed allegory....







...does it feel more sheepish or more doggish???? 


Sorry, but I just couldn't resist that one...


----------



## Grond (Oct 16, 2002)

Since you find my post offensive, I have deleted it.


----------



## Lantarion (Oct 16, 2002)

Walter, OMGLOL.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Oct 16, 2002)

What post, Grond?


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 17, 2002)

Obviously the offensive one he deleted...

though I admit he has me intrigued as well.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Oct 17, 2002)

I guess we'll never know.

Back to allegory!!

I was thinking...Tolkien was Christian, wasn't he?
Has anyone noticed any Christian parallels in Tolkien?


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 17, 2002)

You mean besides the basic fight between good and evil, one person saving a lot of people, the idea of a king returning... Etc.

A lot have been brought up in the past. It was undenyable that Tolkien was influenced by his religion, but I think the paralells are too universal to try and prove.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Oct 18, 2002)

Hehe. You're right...I was thinking more specifically, but I realize that like Immanuel Kant, his fundamentl precepts are based on his religion and that it's hard to extricate the two, even when there doesn't seem to be religion present.


----------

