From: the_mendicant Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:56:44 GMT Organization: Deja.com Lines: 62 Message-ID: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.251.25 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Dec 28 21:56:44 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x69.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.150.251.25 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDthe_mendicant Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!news.tele.dk!213.56.195.71!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!xfer10.netnews.com!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30721 "I dislike allegory wherever I smell it." -- J. R. R. Tolkien, from the BBC interview at: http://home.sol.no/~mithrin/misc.html Tolkien sneered at the suggestion that his ersatz mythology in general and THE LORD OF THE RINGS in particular were in some sense allegories. I can- not accept that he actually believed that his work had no other meaning than that which was most apparent. Perhaps he did believe (or might have had an inkling) that it was so, but insisted otherwise out of a dislike for the brand of allegory exercised in such works as T. H. White's THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING. Critics have argued that the War of the Ring represents Tolkien's experiences during the First World War, that Middle-earth is essentially a mock-up of Europe. Mordor could be Germany, and why not make Sauron the Kaiser? But this sort of direct allegory is exactly what Tolkien railed against, and it works against his ultimate purpose: to craft a mythology worthy of his beloved homeland. Whether or not Tolkien's experience in WWI *influenced* the writing of TLotR is another matter, and -- obviously from his comments -- it would have been unintentional or (dare I say it?) unconscious. If Tolkien's myth-cycle is to be taken as an allegory, I think it is necessarily an unconscious one. And necessarily so -- to deal in myth is to fiddle with the skeleton keys of the collective unconscious, that primeval storage house of ancestral memories that predates the development of human awareness. Rings, swords, dragons and wizards -- these ancient symbols have amassed copious amounts of associations (the conscious and the unconscious kinds) so as to be veritable stimulants in the imaginative sense. I do not say all this to suggest that Tolkien's work stands for any thing in particular -- be it WWI, Christian theology or that traumatic experience he suffered as a youth as the result on ingrown nose hairs. In fact, I scoff as much as JRRT himself at such suggestions, which serve only to warp or even degrade the grandeur of his creation. But I will say this: Tolkien's work is rife with symbolism, both apparent and concealed, and this is an unavoidable consequence of the medium in which he was immersed. The fact that this symbolism was so utterly unintended suggests the source of its inspiration. -- the_mendicant [gregbenedicto@hotmail.com] Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ###### Lines: 15 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: mcresq@aol.com (Russ) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 28 Dec 2000 22:20:17 GMT References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Message-ID: <20001228172017.04970.00000238@nso-cg.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30723 In article <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, the_mendicant writes: >But I will say this: Tolkien's work is >rife with symbolism, both apparent and concealed, >and this is an unavoidable consequence of the >medium in which he was immersed. The fact that >this symbolism was so utterly unintended suggests >the source of its inspiration. > Right, but that's not allegory. Symbolism, imagery, "applicability" are not allegory. Russ ###### Message-ID: <3A4BBD78.D03A8262@visi.com> From: Gene Ha X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 44 Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:23:53 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.42.58.150 X-Complaints-To: abuse@visi.com X-Trace: ruti.visi.com 978043415 208.42.58.150 (Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:43:35 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:43:35 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!209.98.98.64!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!ruti.visi.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30724 the_mendicant wrote: > "I dislike allegory wherever I smell it." > -- J. R. R. Tolkien, from the BBC interview at: > http://home.sol.no/~mithrin/misc.html > > Tolkien sneered at the suggestion that his ersatz > mythology in general and THE LORD OF THE RINGS in > particular were in some sense allegories. I can- > not accept that he actually believed that his work > had no other meaning than that which was most > apparent. I think the confusing thing is Tolkien's view of history, which he contrasted against allegory. Usually, when I think of history, I exclude supernatural explanations. I don't ask a history professor, "Do you think we won the American Revolution because God liked Washington better than King George?" History is assumed to be profane. The symbolism, foreshadowing, prophecy, and spirituality were all things that Tolkien believed happened in real history. I don't have the book in this city, but a description he and C. S. Lewis came up for the New Testament was "Myth that really happened." So just because something is religiously symbolic did not make it allegory for Mr. Tolkien. He was making a fictional history, not a parallel to some spiritual reality. The allegorical nature of Narnia really annoyed Tolkien, apparently. Gene Ha. -- "Whoever said, 'Brevity is the soul of wit' wasn't being paid by the word." Kyle Baker http://www.visi.com/~geneha/ ###### From: the_mendicant Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 01:52:28 GMT Organization: Deja.com Lines: 30 Message-ID: <92gqor$c9o$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20001228172017.04970.00000238@nso-cg.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.251.69 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Dec 29 01:52:28 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x70.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.150.251.69 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDthe_mendicant Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-kar1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30726 Russ wrote: >Right, but that's not allegory. >Symbolism, imagery, "applicability" are not >allegory. Sort of not. An allegory utilizes symbols in an intentional way. But you're right, I think I should have dropped the allegory term altogether and stuck with symbolism. (Things that you consider after pressing the red button.) In any case, I think that Tolkien considered allegory and symbolism to be one and the same. Both are ways of "reading in" a deeper meaning to his text that he would have objected to. I wonder what Tolkien's views might have been on the work of Joseph Campbell, who was just as passionate about myth but dissected it analytically. -- the_mendicant [gregbenedicto@hotmail.com] Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ###### From: the_mendicant Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:06:29 GMT Organization: Deja.com Lines: 45 Message-ID: <92grj2$csc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A4BBD78.D03A8262@visi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.251.69 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Dec 29 02:06:29 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x54.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.150.251.69 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDthe_mendicant Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!xfer10.netnews.com!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30725 Gene Ha wrote: > I think the confusing thing is Tolkien's view > of history, which he contrasted against allegory. > > Usually, when I think of history, I exclude super- > natural explanations. I don't ask a history > professor, "Do you think we won the American > Revolution because God liked Washington better than > King George?" History is assumed to be profane. > > The symbolism, foreshadowing, prophecy, and > spirituality were all things that Tolkien believed > happened in real history. I don't have the book > in this city, but a description he and C. S. Lewis > came up for the New Testament was "Myth that really > happened." There fell a confused and sustained hush upon the materialist section of the room. > So just because something is religiously symbolic > did not make it allegory for Mr. Tolkien. He was > making a fictional history, not a parallel to some > spiritual reality. So what you're saying is, while Eru and the Ainur are one and the same with God and the Angelic Host of Christian theology, the history in which they are involved is not intended to parallel our own. Sort of "What if God did this instead?" > The allegorical nature of Narnia really annoyed > Tolkien, apparently. I can't imagine what he thought of T. H. White... -- the_mendicant [gregbenedicto@hotmail.com] Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ###### Message-ID: <3A4BF740.779F5294@visi.com> From: Gene Ha X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A4BBD78.D03A8262@visi.com> <92grj2$csc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 45 Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 20:30:24 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.42.58.150 X-Complaints-To: abuse@visi.com X-Trace: ruti.visi.com 978058231 208.42.58.150 (Thu, 28 Dec 2000 20:50:31 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 20:50:31 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!ruti.visi.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30736 the_mendicant wrote: > So what you're saying is, while Eru and the Ainur are > one and the same with God and the Angelic Host of > Christian theology, the history in which they are > involved is not intended to parallel our own. Sort of > "What if God did this instead?" Firstly, let me say my understanding could be flawed. I haven't read the Silmarillion (lout that I am). I've read the Hobbit and LOTR, two bios of Tolkien, and a good pile of criticism. But he was trying to create an alternate history of the Earth, as I understand it. It was set unknown thousands of years ago, but could have really happened (in his view). So he took the mechanics of how he saw the world working. He was a Creationist. He believed there is a divine plan. He believed in God and the angelic host, but thought the specific name applied to them wasn't essential. He believed if we accepted the will of God, good would win out eventually, if not immediately. So all of the moral lessons one can glean from his works aren't supposed to symbolise any specific events on Earth. Either they were those events (the angelic rebellion against God) or were based on the same mechanics he had learned. But they weren't supposed to be allegorical parallels. He really believed the physical world we live in works that way. This was not the physical world pretending to be the moral universe. The physical world really does these things in his view. These aren't my beliefs, BTW. But this is what I think Mr. Tolkien thought. Gene Ha -- "Whoever said, 'Brevity is the soul of wit' wasn't being paid by the word." Kyle Baker http://www.visi.com/~geneha/ ###### From: the softrat Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:04:32 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 28 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30737 On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:56:44 GMT, the_mendicant wrote: >Tolkien sneered at the suggestion that his ersatz >mythology in general and THE LORD OF THE RINGS in >particular were in some sense allegories. I can- >medium in which he was immersed. The fact that >this symbolism was so utterly unintended suggests >the source of its inspiration. Read more of what Tolkien had to say about 'allegory' and 'applicability' in the introductory material to tLotR. Personally I rather agree with him about people's insistence upon seeing 'allegory' and 'symbolism' everywhere. I believe that the good professor was more than educated and skilled enough to know what allegory was. He did not intend allegory. He says so! If the story which grew out of the 'leaf-mould' of his mind, his experiences and education contains tacit or explicit references to his life, work, and thought processes, being human, he could not do anything else. No man can. For true allegory, read _The Chronicles of Narnia_ or _A Pilgrim's Progress_ and leave Tolkien out of it! the softrat mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions? ###### From: the softrat Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:13:21 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A4BBD78.D03A8262@visi.com> <92grj2$csc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 26 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!newsfeed1.online.no!nextra.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30735 On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:06:29 GMT, the_mendicant wrote: > >So what you're saying is, while Eru and the Ainur are >one and the same with God and the Angelic Host of >Christian theology, the history in which they are >involved is not intended to parallel our own. Sort of >"What if God did this instead?" > Yup. Except that Tolkien did not explicitly ask himself this question; C. S. Lewis did. Tolkien merely attempted (successfully, I believe) to stay within the rather generous bounds of Catholic belief, theology, and philosophy. He did explicitly state that all of his 'history' occurs long before the Incarnation of the Savour. There is no 'Jesus' figure in tLotR. (Self-sacrifice does not imply 'Jesus'. There are self-sacrificing figures everywhere in human mythologies including the ancient Greek, Hindu, and Chinese religions. Was Socrates an avatar of Christ?) the softrat mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- "The war isn't the war between the blacks and the whites, the liberals and the conservatives, or the Federation and the Romulans. It's between the clueful and the clueless." (an anonymous poster on cypherpunks list) ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 09:03:26 -0500 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.7f.1c X-Server-Date: 29 Dec 2000 14:03:22 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30744 the_mendicant wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >Tolkien sneered at the suggestion that his ersatz >mythology in general and THE LORD OF THE RINGS in >particular were in some sense allegories. I can- >not accept that he actually believed that his work >had no other meaning than that which was most >apparent. And with good reason: in the foreword to LotR he made a distinction between "allegory" and "applicability": he denied the first (which as author he could well do) but acknowledged the second: "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." -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://oakroadsystems.com Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/ Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm ###### From: "Morgil" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Lines: 21 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: <%g336.281$U85.25796@read2.inet.fi> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:50:03 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.197.14.242 X-Trace: read2.inet.fi 978108603 194.197.14.242 (Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:50:03 EET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:50:03 EET Organization: Sonera corp Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!nntp.teliafi.net!nntp.inet.fi!central.inet.fi!inet.fi!read2.inet.fi.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30738 Stan Brown kirjoitti viestissä ... >"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." It would be interesting to know what Tolkien thought about the last poem of Kalevala, which is a story of a young girl named Marjatta, who gets pregnant by eating a berry, and gives birth to a boy who is baptised as the king of Karelia. Väinämöinen sentences the baby to the death, but the two weeks old infant questions his authority, and insulted Väinämöinen leaves his people. Morgil ###### From: the_mendicant Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:35:14 GMT Organization: Deja.com Lines: 25 Message-ID: <92j3j2$43n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.251.62 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Dec 29 22:35:14 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x73.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.150.251.62 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDthe_mendicant Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30748 Stan Brown wrote: > in the foreword to LotR he made a distinction > between "allegory" and "applicability": he > denied the first (which as author he could well > do) but acknowledged the second: I wonder how Tolkien defined "applicability" and if this term embraces the concepts of Jungian symbolism? I'm afraid my use of the term "allegory" in the original post on this thread is somewhat clumsy. I was trying to bend the meaning of the word to embrace a kind of unintentional pattern of symbols that enters into all forms of myth of its own accord. "Symbolism" is far too general for my purposes in this case. -- the_mendicant [gregbenedicto@hotmail.com] Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ###### From: "Androg" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:36:02 +1100 Lines: 18 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: delta.tavultesoft.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: delta.tavultesoft.com Message-ID: <3a4d1275@casper.southcom.com.au> X-Trace: 29 Dec 2000 22:38:45 GMT, delta.tavultesoft.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nnrp.telstra.net!news.syd.connect.com.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.labyrinth.net.au!casper.southcom.com.au!delta.tavultesoft.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30760 the_mendicant wrote in message news:92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > > If Tolkien's myth-cycle is to be taken as an > allegory, I think it is necessarily an unconscious > one. An unconscious allegory is rather oxymoronic, don't you think? -- Androg "Fela bith on Westwegum werum uncuthra, wundra and wihta, wlitescene land, eardgeard elfa, and esa bliss." ###### From: the_mendicant Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:11:57 GMT Organization: Deja.com Lines: 85 Message-ID: <92j5np$5j6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.251.62 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Dec 29 23:11:57 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x67.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.150.251.62 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDthe_mendicant Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news.tele.dk!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30749 the softrat wrote: > Read more of what Tolkien had to say about > 'allegory' and 'applicability' in the > introductory material to tLotR. Yes, he doesn't approve of the former but recognizes the inevitability of the latter. > Personally I rather agree with him about > people's insistence upon seeing 'allegory' > and 'symbolism' everywhere. My attempt in the original post on this thread was to contort the meaning of the term "allegory" to embrace not only the idea of an intentional pattern of symbolism but an unintentional one, as well, for lack of a better word. I do *not* consider Tolkien's work to be intentionally allegoric, as I stated earlier. In the strictest defintion of the word, his work is not allegorical at all. So be it. But there IS symbolism, and to dabble in a fictional mythology, esp. one that is based on actual myth-cycles, makes this fact unavoidable. Whether we choose to acknowledge them or not, we are steeped in symbolism. Literary criticism has, to a certain degree, given symbolism a bad rap. People see attempts at text analysis as purely contrived efforts -- "you see what you want to see" and so forth. And to a certain degree this skepticism is warranted, because not every critic knows his ass from a hole in the ground. But I'm not speaking of symbolism in the coffee shop sense, I am speaking of the language of the unconscious that pervades all the creations of mankind. When we make, for example, a work of art, it is not solely the conscious mind that is at the controls, though it might believe otherwise. In actuality, the unconscious is typically calling all the shots. Impulses, instincts, imagination -- these are the realm of the "darkmind" that exists within us all. And it is not content to sit back and just watch, for it speaks to us in dreams and it expresses itself through symbols -- 'glyphs' so ancient and so much a part of us that they can be instantly recognized but not often realized on a conscious level. So, attempts at allegory-hunting in the work of Tolkien may be, as you suggest, fruitless, but symbolism is omnipresent within the work of man, esp. mythology -- the most ancient symbolic tradition. > I believe that the good professor was more > than educated and skilled enough to know what > allegory was. No question about that. He was highly educated. > He did not intend allegory. He says so! Right. No argument. > If the story which grew out of the 'leaf-mould' > of his mind, his experiences and education contains > tacit or explicit references to his life, work, and > thought processes, being human, he could not do > anything else. No man can. Right. And this is the essence of symbolic expression that I spoke of above. -- the_mendicant [gregbenedicto@hotmail.com] Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ###### From: meneldil@my-deja.com (Meneldil) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: 30 Dec 2000 00:54:23 GMT Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, NR47TJ, UK Lines: 17 Message-ID: <92jbnv$lb0$5@cpca14.uea.ac.uk> References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <%g336.281$U85.25796@read2.inet.fi> NNTP-Posting-Host: lib_0200_6114.cpc.uea.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: cpca14.uea.ac.uk 978137663 21856 139.222.126.114 (30 Dec 2000 00:54:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uea.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Dec 2000 00:54:23 GMT X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.9 (Released Version) (x86 32bit) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!btnet-peer1!btnet-peer0!btnet-peer!btnet!news.vas-net.net!server2.netnews.ja.net!news.uea.ac.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30755 In article <%g336.281$U85.25796@read2.inet.fi>, rimlos@hotmail.com says... > >It would be interesting to know what Tolkien thought about the last >poem of Kalevala, which is a story of a young girl named Marjatta, >who gets pregnant by eating a berry, and gives birth to a boy who >is baptised as the king of Karelia. Väinämöinen sentences the >baby to the death, but the two weeks old infant questions his >authority, and insulted Väinämöinen leaves his people. > Hmm. It may just have been in the translation I read, but I thought Väinämöinen says when he leaves that though ages may pass and days may come and go, he may be needed yet, and he may return with the Sampo (spelling?), the harp of joy, and effectively bring back a golden age? If that is in the original, how would it fit into a Christ-allegory? ###### From: the_mendicant Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:49:31 GMT Organization: Deja.com Lines: 49 Message-ID: <92jeva$cej$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a4d1275@casper.southcom.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.251.26 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Dec 30 01:49:31 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x64.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.150.251.26 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDthe_mendicant Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30754 Androg wrote: > An unconscious allegory is rather > oxymoronic, don't you think? In retrospect -- yes. But it didn't seem quite as a contradictory when I was writing it. Is intention a necessary part of allegory? In the strictest sense of the word, yes. But I was (mis-)using the term to apply to both a conscious, directed use of symbolism and an unconscious, free-flowing pattern of symbols. A 'subliminal gestalt', perhaps? In any case, my point was that Tolkien's fictional corpus lends itself to symbolic interpretation, as it draws from the well- spring of all symbolism -- myth. And no amount of conscious denial on the old man's part could escape this fact. Of course, if "applicability" embraces the ideas of Jungian symbolism, then Tolkien did not deny what I am saying at all. But I am not sure if he agreed with me to this extent, as Jungian analysis would undermine his belief (someone recently brought this into play) that the stories in the Bible "really happened" (or something like that). Perhaps by "applic- ability" he means to say that the reader has the freedom to identify with certain characters and events in THE LORD OF THE RINGS, and that through this process these elements might gain greater significance. The myth becomes "applicable" to the reader's life, as opposed to an allegory of a specific set of events in history and/or literature. But this is just speculation. Perhaps JRRT clarified this point elsewhere? -- the_mendicant [gregbenedicto@hotmail.com] Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ###### From: Hallaril Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: 30 Dec 2000 02:46:04 GMT Organization: University of Helsinki Lines: 15 Message-ID: <92ji9c$asd$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <%g336.281$U85.25796@read2.inet.fi> NNTP-Posting-Host: kruuna.helsinki.fi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 978144364 11149 128.214.205.14 (30 Dec 2000 02:46:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.helsinki.fi NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Dec 2000 02:46:04 GMT User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.8 (sun4u)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30762 Morgil wrote: > It would be interesting to know what Tolkien thought about the last > poem of Kalevala, which is a story of a young girl named Marjatta, > who gets pregnant by eating a berry, and gives birth to a boy who > is baptised as the king of Karelia. Väinämöinen sentences the > baby to the death, but the two weeks old infant questions his > authority, and insulted Väinämöinen leaves his people. And that is exactly what happened. Except that his legacy still exists. Nowadays even Juhannus has some position in the church. Hallaril ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:26:52 -0500 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <92j3j2$43n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.6f.9b X-Server-Date: 30 Dec 2000 17:27:54 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!news.tele.dk!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30773 the_mendicant wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >I wonder how Tolkien defined "applicability" and >if this term embraces the concepts of Jungian >symbolism? Read the Foreword again, and I think it will be clear from context. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://oakroadsystems.com Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/ Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm ###### From: bnh@chem.ucla.edu (Bruce N. Hietbrink) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:12:24 -0800 Organization: UCLA Chemistry Lines: 140 Message-ID: References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a4d1275@casper.southcom.com.au> <92jeva$cej$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-houkd.chem.ucla.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!awabi.library.ucla.edu!164.67.43.25!news.ucla.edu!mac-houkd.chem.ucla.edu!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30817 In article <92jeva$cej$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, the_mendicant wrote: > Androg wrote: > > > An unconscious allegory is rather > > oxymoronic, don't you think? > > In retrospect -- yes. But it didn't seem > quite as a contradictory when I was writing > it. Is intention a necessary part of > allegory? In the strictest sense of the > word, yes. Remember that when Tolkien used the term "allegory" he was referring to a specific, strictly defined literary genre, not the general sense of symbolism. >But I was (mis-)using the term > to apply to both a conscious, directed use > of symbolism and an unconscious, free-flowing > pattern of symbols. A 'subliminal gestalt', > perhaps? That is certainly present. > > But this is just speculation. Perhaps JRRT > clarified this point elsewhere? I don't know about "clarified," but he did write quite a bit. References follow: References from _Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien_ on the question of allegory and symbolism in his writing. From letter 109 "But in spite of this, 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 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 it can 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. You cannot write a story about an apparently simple magic ring without that bursting in, if you really take the ring seriously, and make things happen that would happen if such a thing existed." From letter 131: "I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purpose 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 story.) Anyway all this stuff is mainly concerned with Fall, Mortality, and the Machine. . . . After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of 'truth', and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear. There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them." From letter 142: "LoTR is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work." From letter 163 ". . . 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, or course, any 'interpretations' in the mode of simple allegory: that is, the particular and topical. In a larger sense, it is I suppose impossible to write any 'story' that is ot allegoryical 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. Anyway most people that have enjoyed LOTR have been affected primarily by it as an exciting story; and that is how it was written. Though one does not, of course, escape from the question 'what is it about?' by that back door." From letter 181: "fairy story has its own mode of reflecting 'truth', different from allegory, or (sustained) satire, or 'realism', and in some ways more powerful." From letter 186 "Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power (exerted for Domination). Nuclear physics can be used for that purpose. But they need not be. They need not be used at all. If there is any contemporary reference in my story at all it is to what seems to me the most widespread assumption of our time: that if a thing can be done, it must be done. This seems to me wholly false. The greatest examples of the action of the spirit and of reason are in abnegation. "I do not think that even Power or Domination is the real centre of my story. It provides the theme of a War, about something dark and threatening enough to seem at that time of supreme importance, but that is mainly 'a setting' for characters to show themselves. The real theme for me is about something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality: the mystery of the love of the world in the hearts of a race 'doomed' to leave and seemingly lose it; the anguish in the hearts of a race 'doomed' not to leave it, until its whole evil-aroused story is complete." From letter 203 "There is no 'symbolism' or conscious allegory in my story. Allegory of the sort 'five wizards=five sense' is wholly foreign to my way of thinking. There were five wizards and that is just a unique part of history. To ask if 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. And since I have not made the struggle wholly unequivoal: sloth and stupidity among hobbits, pride and [illegible] among elves, grudge and greed in Dwarf-hearts, and folly and wickedness among the 'Kings of Men,' and treachery and power-lust even among the 'Wizards', there is I suppose applicability in my story to present times. But I should say, if asked, the tale is not really about Power and Dominion: that only sets the wheels going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness. Which is hardly more than to say it is a tale written by a Man!" ###### From: bnh@chem.ucla.edu (Bruce N. Hietbrink) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:22:33 -0800 Organization: UCLA Chemistry Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <92j5np$5j6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-houkd.chem.ucla.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!awabi.library.ucla.edu!164.67.43.25!news.ucla.edu!mac-houkd.chem.ucla.edu!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30818 In article <92j5np$5j6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, the_mendicant wrote: > My attempt in the original post on this > thread was to contort the meaning of the > term "allegory" to embrace not only the idea > of an intentional pattern of symbolism but > an unintentional one, as well, for lack of > a better word. This is the source of the problem with trying to discuss symbolism with those who simply quote "I dislike allegory" and feel the topic is closed. "Allegory" as strictly described is what Tolkien meant by the term (think _Pilgrim's Progress_ or _Animal Farm_). Education of the last few decades broadens this term into the realm of applicability and symbolism, so that some divide the whole literary world into allegory and mere story, with no middle ground (e.g. myth). LOTR does not fit the strictly defined literary genre of allegory, but it does fall under the broad scope of allegory as the term is more often (mis)used. >In the strictest defintion > of the word, his work is not allegorical > at all. So be it. But there IS symbolism, > and to dabble in a fictional mythology, esp. > one that is based on actual myth-cycles, makes > this fact unavoidable. Oh, in addition to the quotes I put in my previous post, here's one from Tolkien's friend Lewis: "The allegorist leaves the given--his own passions--to talk of that which is confessedly less real, which is a fiction. The symbolist leaves the given to find that which is more real. To put the difference in another way, for the symbolist it is we who are the allegory." CS Lewis in _The Allegory of Love_ Bruce ###### From: the_mendicant Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:55:03 GMT Organization: Deja.com Lines: 66 Message-ID: <92oo1m$377$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a4d1275@casper.southcom.com.au> <92jeva$cej$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.251.55 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 01 01:55:03 2001 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x68.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.150.251.55 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDthe_mendicant Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30806 That last was a fascinating post, and despite some shadows still clinging here and there, it illuminates many of the questions brought forth in this thread. Bruce N. Hietbrink wrote: > Remember that when Tolkien used the term "allegory" > he was referring to a specific, strictly defined > literary genre, not the general sense of symbolism. In fact, I did not know this for certain. > References from _Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien_ > on the question of allegory and symbolism in his writing. > From letter 142: > "LoTR is of course a fundamentally religious and > Catholic work." Some have argued [Olszanski's essay, "Evil and the Evil One in Tolkien's Theology" comes to mind] that the mythos Tolkien crafted bears more resemblance to the dualistic struggle of Zoroastrianism than the monism of Christianity. Not to say that Eru's dominion is ever in any danger -- but there is an "outside" of Eru (or an "absence" of Eru): the Void where Melkor schemed and dreamed. As Olszanski points out (far better than I could) this conflict of Inside/Outside is the ultimate mechanism behind all struggles in Arda. The Void made possible Melkor's dissent and his eventual transformation into Morgoth; Morgoth polluted the world with his essence in order to gain power over it. So there is a duality within all life on Arda -- the conflict between the Morgoth-element (contained, to a greater or lesser degree, in all matter) and that which is pure and untainted. The evil in men must stem from a willingness to give-in to the Morgoth-element and thus allow their souls to be tainted by the materials from which they are composed. Eru/Iluvatar seems identical to the Deity of the Deists or the Gnostics, the God who creates the clockwork universe and then retreats into that Other Place to watch what unfolds. Very different from the omnipresent and decidedly "active" God of Catholicism. > From letter 186 > "Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but > of Power (exerted for Domination). Nuclear physics can be > used for that purpose. But they need not be. They need > not be used at all. If there is any contemporary reference in > my story at all it is to what seems to me the most widespread > assumption of our time: that if a thing can be done, it must > be done. This seems to me wholly false. The greatest examples > of the action of the spirit and of reason are in abnegation. I wish that more people thought like this. -- the_mendicant [gregbenedicto@hotmail.com] Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ###### From: bnh@chem.ucla.edu (Bruce N. Hietbrink) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 17:59:55 -0800 Organization: UCLA Chemistry Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-houkd.chem.ucla.edu Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!awabi.library.ucla.edu!164.67.43.25!news.ucla.edu!mac-houkd.chem.ucla.edu!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30820 In article , the softrat wrote: For true allegory, > read _The Chronicles of Narnia_ or _A Pilgrim's Progress_ and leave > Tolkien out of it! Softy, I'd argue with you on your classification of Narnia as true allegory. It is, as you correctly indicated in another post "Sort of 'What if God did this instead?'" It is certanly a dressing up of Christian theology in talking animal clothes, but the characters and plots are allowed a life of their own, and not only symbolic stand-ins for the real things. Aslan is not simply a symbol for Christ but rather Christ imagined set in a different world. For the sake of the argument, I'll grant that _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_, and maybe even _The Last Battle_ could fall under the term allegory, but that leaves 5 books in which the characters are not merely there for symbolisms sake. E.g. where is the one-to-one matching of plot point to theological point in a book like _Prince Caspian_? In _Pilgrim's Progress_, on the other hand, no character has a life outside of their symbolism. Ugh. I'm trying to read this right now, but just cannot get myself to read more than a page every few weeks (I've got several other books going at the same time). Talk about heavy handed. I'm just at the point where characters named Christian and Faithful meet up with a character named Talkative. Guess what? He's all talk! Man, I was floored! Bruce ###### Message-ID: <3A50C142.20780547@visi.com> From: Gene Ha X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Tolkien's Allegory References: <92gcup$17s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a4d1275@casper.southcom.com.au> <92jeva$cej$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 40 Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 11:41:22 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.42.58.9 X-Complaints-To: abuse@visi.com X-Trace: ruti.visi.com 978373193 208.42.58.9 (Mon, 01 Jan 2001 12:19:53 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 12:19:53 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!tungurahua!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!ruti.visi.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:30837 "Bruce N. Hietbrink" wrote: > From letter 186 > " . . . . If there is any contemporary reference in > my story at all it is to what seems to me the most widespread > assumption of our time: that if a thing can be done, it must > be done. This seems to me wholly false. The greatest examples > of the action of the spirit and of reason are in abnegation. Thanks for posting this bit. I had gleaned this idea from Tolkien's writings, but it's a pleasure to see it written out simply and clearly. This idea has greatly influenced my philosophy. I work in super hero comics, and everyone in this genre seems to assume that you must do anything you can for the greater good. This has turned into a horrible "greater good" argument, condoning horrors, torture, assassination, and worse. "Gee, I had to destroy that city of 12 million. . . ." It's also changed my view of American politics and history. I no longer think the greatest presidents were those who overreached the most. (Actual criteria used by US historians: which presidents increased the powers of the presidency). > " But I should say, if asked, the tale is > not really about Power and Dominion: that only sets the > wheels going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness. > Which is hardly more than to say it is a tale written by a > Man!" Fascinating. Thanks again, Bruce. Gene Ha. -- "Whoever said, 'Brevity is the soul of wit' wasn't being paid by the word." Kyle Baker http://www.visi.com/~geneha/