> But isn't it another idealogical exaggeration in a different direction? Yeah, probably! It's just.. an interesting angle, really! I'll quote from the second

> But isn't it another idealogical exaggeration in a different direction? Yeah, probably! It's just.. an interesting angle, really! I'll quote from the second foreword to LotR[1] (written in 1966) (excerpt somewhere from the middle), because I like it and it's somewhat relevant to all this (tl;dr: just read the second paragraph) As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, "The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in the war that began in 1939 or its sequels modified it. 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-dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession 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. 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. (I've been listening to the LotR audiobook during my walks in the woods etc. recently. Recommend+++.) edit p.s.: it wasn't me who downvoted you. fwiw, while your tone was somewhat condescending, i thought your comment did add to the discussion. [1]: e.g. http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?16713-LOTR-The-second-edition-Foreword-by-Tolkien http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?16713-LOTR-The...