4 ms·

Well...I've read some intellectual biographies of Tolkien, and a common complaint is that it's hard to pin down his views on much of anything outside of literat

by wrp 3y ago

Well...I've read some intellectual biographies of Tolkien, and a common complaint is that it's hard to pin down his views on much of anything outside of literature. He wasn't a systematic thinker, but tended to write what sounded good at the moment without much regard for consistency with what had been written before. He had to do a lot of later editing to remove logical conflicts in his stories. Remember that the impetus for his fiction was to create a world in which his created languages could live. So, positing a coherent ideological message in his story is a bit of a stretch. Also, Tolkien's wasn't one to focus much on real world social and political issues. I think the most notable example of him writing about politics is in a wartime letter to his son, when Nazi antics forced politics into his normally narrow interests. All that said, no good postmodernist would object to modern readers finding meanings in literature that weren't consciously in the author's mind.

clbrmbr 3y ago
> positing a coherent ideological message in his story is a bit of a stretch. Also, Tolkien's wasn't one to focus much on real world social and political issues. Maybe this is why I love LoTR so much. It’s just a story!
RugnirViking 3y ago
he famously got quite annoyed by people asking him about metaphors or whatever. "I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence." He very much did not want to talk about it and presumably intentionally avoided writing it.
- morelisp 3y ago
  Not writing allegory (a very specific kind of comparison) doesn't mean nothing in the book is a metaphor. It's willful ignorance to pretend LotR has no ideology or non-narrative (moral, epistemic, metaphysical, etc.) content. Tolkien just doesn't want people to say "... and so the orcs are the Germans."
- TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
  He very definitely did write at least one very clear allegory in his short story "Leaf by Niggle".
- wolverine876 3y ago
  His objection wasn't to "metaphors or whatever", but specifically to the technique of allegory. He was a professional expert in literature; it meant something very clear and specific to him (as did the word 'metaphor'). The full quote is, "Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author. Elsewhere: "... 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 ..."
wolverine876 3y ago
> He wasn't a systematic thinker, but tended to write what sounded good at the moment without much regard for consistency with what had been written before. He had to do a lot of later editing to remove logical conflicts in his stories. Remember that the impetus for his fiction was to create a world in which his created languages could live. What is the basis of that? It doesn't match what I've read Tolkien saying. Tolkien knew exactly what he was doing, was a leading scholar in the field of myth, and thought very deeply about it. If you want to understand, read his essay On Fairy-stories. > no good postmodernist would object to modern readers finding meanings in literature that weren't consciously in the author's mind. What does that means specifically? Who are you referring to? What is the basis of that? What does it have to do with this discussion?

by wrp 3y ago

clbrmbr 3y ago

> positing a coherent ideological message in his story is a bit of a stretch. Also, Tolkien's wasn't one to focus much on real world social and political issues. Maybe this is why I love LoTR so much. It’s just a story!

RugnirViking 3y ago

he famously got quite annoyed by people asking him about metaphors or whatever. "I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence." He very much did not want to talk about it and presumably intentionally avoided writing it.

morelisp 3y ago
Not writing allegory (a very specific kind of comparison) doesn't mean nothing in the book is a metaphor. It's willful ignorance to pretend LotR has no ideology or non-narrative (moral, epistemic, metaphysical, etc.) content. Tolkien just doesn't want people to say "... and so the orcs are the Germans."
TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
He very definitely did write at least one very clear allegory in his short story "Leaf by Niggle".
wolverine876 3y ago
His objection wasn't to "metaphors or whatever", but specifically to the technique of allegory. He was a professional expert in literature; it meant something very clear and specific to him (as did the word 'metaphor'). The full quote is, "Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author. Elsewhere: "... 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 ..."

wolverine876 3y ago

> He wasn't a systematic thinker, but tended to write what sounded good at the moment without much regard for consistency with what had been written before. He had to do a lot of later editing to remove logical conflicts in his stories. Remember that the impetus for his fiction was to create a world in which his created languages could live. What is the basis of that? It doesn't match what I've read Tolkien saying. Tolkien knew exactly what he was doing, was a leading scholar in the field of myth, and thought very deeply about it. If you want to understand, read his essay On Fairy-stories. > no good postmodernist would object to modern readers finding meanings in literature that weren't consciously in the author's mind. What does that means specifically? Who are you referring to? What is the basis of that? What does it have to do with this discussion?