Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tolkien did not write an allegory, he wrote a story inspired and influenced by the world around him. That does not mean it was a critique of that world.

This is not hard...

That disctintion only exists in your mind.

 Testify wrote:
That disctintion only exists in your mind.

... man

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure I'm right and Testify doesn't understand what an allegory is.

 Albatross wrote:
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on any potential reading of the text.

1: I was referring to the author.
2: Yes, it does, actually. One's interpretation of what they experience is heavily influenced by past experiences.

 Amaya wrote:
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure I'm right and Testify doesn't understand what an allegory is.

I do. You're using semantics to argue and I don't know why.

Allegory is a fairly simple thing. It's why I find Tolkien's words in the quote I mentioned so odd. He's rejecting allegory as something he doesn't like, while admitting that he uses experiences and ideas that readers will find familiar i.e. applicable to tell the story... Which is an allegory...

Unintentional/Intentional is somewhat irrelevant towards determining the meaning of a text. It's only relevant when discussing the author, but a text is its own entity, related by separate.

he wrote a story inspired and influenced by the world around him

Yeah. It's called being allegorical.

I think what Tolkien was rejecting were interpretations of text that were not his intent or maybe not the point of his work, and to an extent I can agree as the Orcs maybe being an allegory of the urban working class, isn't really relevant to the main themes of the Lord of the Rings at all.

That's not what an allegory is.

An allegory is something that is intended to have a hidden meaning, often moral or political, and refers to the use of symbols which are intended to reinforce an interpretation that leads to that hidden meaning.

Tolkien desired no hidden meaning-- he wanted to tell a good story, rather than push an idea or moral.

 Melissia wrote:
That's not what an allegory is.

An allegory is something that is intended to have a hidden meaning, often moral or political, and refers to the use of symbols which are intended to reinforce an interpretation that leads to that hidden meaning.

Tolkien desired no hidden meaning-- he wanted to tell a good story, rather than push an idea or moral.

That's just one more specific use of allegory. In it's most basic form an allegory is just a metaphor given the form of a character or plot device to symbolize something.

C.S. Lewis, like Tolkien, rejected allegory, but the Jesus-Allegory-Lion is quite obviously a Jesus-Allegory-Lion, so I'm wondering if its not really allegory Lewis and Tolkien rejected as much as some specific usage of allegory that may have been predominant in their time to the point they rejected the term in its entirety?

 LordofHats wrote:
That's just one more specific use of allegory. In it's most basic form an allegory is just a metaphor given the form of a character or plot device to symbolize something.

I don't agree with that definition.

That definition is pretty much what you get when you break allegory down to its simplist form (though a pro at this sort of thing would word it more concisely). Allegory is a very broad thing.

 LordofHats wrote:
That definition is pretty much what you get when you break allegory down to its simplist form

That's like claiming that quarks are water, because they are most of what you get when you break down water in to its simplest form.

 Melissia wrote:
That's like claiming that quarks are water, because they are most of what you get when you break down water in to its simplest form.

Well, we are all just atoms in the end

But I wouldn't take it that far. Allegory is a metaphor. Breaking it down to the point that it ceases to be a metaphor makes talking about it pointless in the same way we can't discuss water if we break it down so much it is just quarks.

Now that I think of it, maybe what Tolkien and Lewis rejected was overt allegory? Lots of people in literature criticize purposeful allegory as being unnatural to a story, often producing convoluted plots or one dimensional characters because the author is too focused on symbolism. So maybe what Tolkien meant by applicability is that he didn't write Lord of the Rings with an allegorical intention in mind, and thus to him there is no allegory? I want to say C.S. Lewis said something along these lines about the Chronicles of Narnia, but I can't seem to find the quote I'm thinking of anywhere.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That's like claiming that quarks are water, because they are most of what you get when you break down water in to its simplest form.

Well, we are all just atoms in the end

But I wouldn't take it that far. Allegory is a metaphor.

Allegory is a specific kind of metaphor. Claiming that all allegories are metaphors is like saying "Cats are mammals". Well yes. But not all mammals are cats, so acting like all mammals are cats is illogical. There are specific traits that cats have that separate them from other mammals. Just like there are specific things that separate allegory from other kinds of metaphors.

Allegory is a specific kind of metaphor. Claiming that all allegories are metaphors

So your saying allegory is a specific kind of metaphor, but not all allegory is metaphor? That's doesn't make sense at all...

All allegories are at their core a metaphor. Just like hyperbole. It's a figure of speech, existing within character(s) or object(s).

The problem here is that Tolkien seems to have some peculiar notion for what allegory is, and he doesn't like it so he chooses to use applicability instead. Apparently TV Tropes has a page on 'Applicability' but it's not really clearing this up for me. I'm seeing the distinction the page draws, but it's just a tautology game between overt allegory and non-overt. I think Tolkien just didn't want to use the word allegory cause its implications distract from what he was trying to explain.

al·le·go·ry/ˈaləˌgôrē/
Noun:
A story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
The genre to which such works belong.

There is no hidden meaning in Lord of the Rings. CoN fits the bill in that the entire series is a allegory in support of Christianity. It is very obvious to most readers that it is, but never explicity spelled out as such.

Lots of allegories have no hidden meaning, moral, political or otherwise. Apollo's chariot (EDIT: Story of) is one of the most basic allegories (for the sun) and there's no hidden meaning about it, nor is it moral or political.

Dictionary definitions are not written to be all inclusive meanings for a term, and people should stop treating them like they are.

And this when the notsureifserious.jpg is used...

 Amaya wrote:

There you go

It's a very simple concept. Suppose orcs are an allegory for the urban working class. There's no real meaning (necessarily, maybe there is, but its not required) behind that allegory. It's simply a symbolic representation of one thing within another. It is not a requirement of allegory to having hidden meaning, let alone political or moral. That's just a very common form (probably most common these days), hence why it gets a dictionary definition, seeing as the writers of a dictionary aren't going to write an essay deconstructing a literary device.

EDIT: This is why the use of applicability confuses me. Tolkien is saying he's using allegorical symbols with no formal meaning, while claiming he's not using allegory at all, which is just weird.

But Tolkien never meant Orcs to be representative of the urban working class, nor did he mean for his tale to be any kind of larger allegory for WWI, WWII, or the industrial revolution, as various people have erroneously claimed at different times. People have repeatedly made the claim that LotR is an allegorical story, which it is not.

 Mannahnin wrote:
But Tolkien never meant Orcs to be representative of the urban working class, nor did he mean for his tale to be any kind of larger allegory for WWI, WWII, or the industrial revolution, as various people have erroneously claimed at different times.

I never intended for my milk to spill out of my cereal bowl but it did. Just cause there is not an intention for something doesn't mean it isn't there. Of course I also said suppose. I don't really care if orcs are representative of bunnies in a flower field. I'm more playing around with the quote from a page or two ago trying to figure that out than anything. It just seems like a tautology to me.

 LordofHats wrote:
But I wouldn't take it that far. Allegory is a metaphor.

Allegory isn't interchangeable with metaphor. If it were we wouldn't bother having two different words.

Think of Orwell's Animal Farm, which really is allegory. In Animal Farm knowing that Mr Jones represented the old aristocracy gives meaning to his broadly drawn drunken coward. We are meant to see Mr Jones and realise certain things about the Russian aristocracy.

No such direct, one for one parallels exist in Tolkien's or Lewis' work. Aslan is directly based on Jesus, but the intent is not to say 'I'll make this talking lion so people will understand Jesus better'. Instead Lewis is saying 'well as a Christian I believe Jesus would exist in very world, and so if there were a world of talking animals he'd be a lion that'd act like this'.

 Mannahnin wrote:
But Tolkien never meant Orcs to be representative of the urban working class

I think it's more or less impossible to have this opinion having a)experienced urban England and b)read the Lord of the Rings.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
"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, and 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 one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.""
J.R.R .Tolkien ~ From the forward of the second edition of Lord of the Rings ( pub Allen & Unwin 1965)

I'll also point out that while I've never seen the above quote before, the last two sentences are, curious. Tolkien is rejecting the idea of allegory but accepting that he may have written things to be in a sense allegorical? I'm confused by the way he is using applicability.

No, he's saying that he prefers history, which is something in which a reader may find meaning applicable to their own life, as opposed to having a hidden meaning pawned off on them by the author.

Aslan makes me wish Jesus was real. If life was like Narnia it would be so much simpler (and cooler).

 Testify wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
But Tolkien never meant Orcs to be representative of the urban working class

I think it's more or less impossible to have this opinion having a)experienced urban England and b)read the Lord of the Rings.

I don't mean any offense by this, but to me that statement comes off a good deal more racist than anything I've read in Tolkien.

 sebster wrote:
Allegory isn't interchangeable with metaphor. If it were we wouldn't bother having two different words.

Oh so that's what Mel meant. Amend that statement to "Allegory is a type of metaphor." Poor wording, my bad.

No such direct, one for one parallels exist in Tolkien's or Lewis' work. Aslan is directly based on Jesus, but the intent is not to say 'I'll make this talking lion so people will understand Jesus better'. Instead Lewis is saying 'well as a Christian I believe Jesus would exist in very world, and so if there were a world of talking animals he'd be a lion that'd act like this'.

That's the difference between overt and non-overt allegory (note I say 'overt' that cause I don't know what the technical term is). One Tolkien and Lewis both rejected, while the other Tolkien seems to call 'applicability.'

Aslan makes me wish Jesus was real. If life was like Narnia it would be so much simpler (and cooler).

I think we could all use a spunky rodent side kick whose handy in a bar brawl

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
But Tolkien never meant Orcs to be representative of the urban working class

I think it's more or less impossible to have this opinion having a)experienced urban England and b)read the Lord of the Rings.

I don't mean any offense by this, but to me that statement comes off a good deal more racist than anything I've read in Tolkien.

What? How?

I meant by the mannerisms and culture of the orks. We get this most strongly in the chapter where Frodo is captured by the orks and Sam over-hears them talking about "the lads" and having "a fix".
Compare this to the dialogue of the elves, or the hobbits, or the men.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
But Tolkien never meant Orcs to be representative of the urban working class, nor did he mean for his tale to be any kind of larger allegory for WWI, WWII, or the industrial revolution, as various people have erroneously claimed at different times.

I never intended for my milk to spill out of my cereal bowl but it did. Just cause there is not an intention for something doesn't mean it isn't there.

But an allegory is a device used by an author to express an idea in an indirect way. If (like in Orwell's Animal Farm) an allegory is in play, by understanding the symbols being used, you can make inferences and draw conclusions about the relationships between the characters and situations, and their likely conclusions, based on the things you know they represent in the real world. Tolkien had no such intent in his work, and you can't draw conclusions about (for example) the past relationship between Galdalf and Saruman based on knowing what real-world countries, historical figures, political parties, or philosophical schools of thought (for a few examples) each actually represents.

It might have been Tolkien's intention, but once finished the text is its own entity. If something exists within it it exists. An allegory can take form without the author realizing it. Whether that matters will depend on your philosophy of literary criticism

I tend not to care about something if its not intended, myself, but like I said. I'm working that quote out more than anything. Tolkien wrote an essay on fantasy writing. I'm looking for a PDF copy to hopefully shed light on the issue.