4 ms·

"If The Lord of the Rings is about the rise of fascism and the trauma of the second world war," Which it isn't, as Tolkien makes clear in the foreward.

revscat 11y ago
I'm not sure I agree with Tolkien on this front. Yes, I know: I'm disagreeing with an author's assessment of his own work. But authors are necessarily a part of their environment. It is -- literally -- inescapable. The good Professor was directly involved in the first World War, and the second was at his doorstep. His aversion to modernity could have led to him simply denying a a conscious connection between those real world epics and those created by his own mind. But the works themselves put doubt to his claim. If we take him only at his word, and stop there, then that is the end of it. But if we recognize the imperfect ways we self-assess, well...
- ende 11y ago
  What Tolkien was largely dismissing is the notion that his world was a direct allegory. He readily acknowledges that the comraderie and sacrifice he experienced in the trenches of WWI manifests itself in Frodo and his companions, as well as the doomed but defiant determination of the people of England/Gondor in the face of assured destruction, etc. So there are themes that bind the two worlds but he was adamantntly dismissive of any direct mappings (ie Germany as Mordoe or whatever). Really LotR is about mortality and power.
  - johnchristopher 11y ago
    I am pretty sure there is a passage in the Carter's biography where he clearly states that people drawing parallels between Sauron and Hitler or the West vs the East are idiots.
  - ajslater 11y ago
    I believe Tolkien directly said it was about mortality, and that power was a sideshow to move the plot along. The power of the ring is primarily to delay the inevitable and it corrupts all who cannot accept that.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  > I'm not sure I agree with Tolkien on this front. Yes, I know: I'm disagreeing with an author's assessment of his own work. It hardly takes more than a smidgen of familiarity with the author's history to see it's deeply rooted in the experience of the first world war, not the second. As Tolkien notes, the themes flat out don't make sense for the second.
  - camperman 11y ago
    Yep. And he points out that the Lord of The Rings as a concept and plot was finished well before WWII even started.
- Retric 11y ago
  I think LoTR has much deeper connections to the First World War than the second. WWI is outside of our frame of reference, but for example LoTR was very much a ground war.
  - reagency 11y ago
    Would lotr have a deeper meaning if I read a wwi history or novel first?
    - Retric 11y ago
      Possibly, though I am more thinking about how combat worked in WWI vs WWII. Cavalry for example was still useful in WWI at the start and become less useful over time. Trench warfare in WWI often devolved into hand to hand fighting where firearms where more useful and machinguns far more common and better used tactically making tanks a requirement vs simple massed charges. Running out of ammo was also a common issue in WWI though this still happened in WWII. WWI saw a lot more walled fortifications where bunkers where the preferred WWII due in no small part to increase aircraft use. LoTR used walled fortifications, some ranged combat but a lot of hand to hand combat, artillery where there but of minimal value, you can even think of the eye as eairly aircraft useage, where you can't really hide, but aircraft can't Effectivly attack. Etc.
- camperman 11y ago
  I'm not going to cut and paste (or type out) the whole forward but more than half of it talks about this claim in considerable detail. It's not new. Tolkien says: - He dislikes allegory in all its forms - The relationship between any author's experiences and his writing are amazingly complex. - The story is meant to provide a good long tale that would move, delight and surprise readers. It is not meant to have a deeper meaning by intention. - Parallels between WWII and LoTR simply don't work. - The key parts of the story are by far the oldest. - The old miller had a black beard and his name was not Sandyman (his final dig). He was far more influenced by his classical background and philology than current affairs.
dogecoinbase 11y ago
An author fully understands their own work the way a programmer knows about every bug in code they've written. This is why we have QA and literary critics.
- manigandham 11y ago
  I don't get that analogy... wouldn't that be an author has basic writing mistakes and this is why we have book editors? How do bugs/mistakes change the intent and meaning of the actual work by the person creating it? When I create a software program, I don't expect people to come along and point out that I'm actually creating it for different reasons or a different purpose.
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    > When I create a software program, I don't expect people to come along and point out that I'm actually creating it for different reasons or a different purpose. You must be new. :) It happens all the time.
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    Have you ever heard of "talk to the duck"? It's the idea that you're so close to a problem and tied up in the details that you haven't stepped back to see the whole picture and truly understand what's going on. Or alternatively, have you ever been struggling with a concept and someone comes along and says "oh, you're building a [design pattern]" and suddenly it all makes sense? While I'm not sure I agree with the Tolkien assessment above, I understand the sentiment of being too close to one's work.
  - scarecrowbob 11y ago
    "How do bugs/mistakes change the intent and meaning of the actual work by the person creating it?" Often a bug comes into being because our ability to translate our intents into language is limited by our perceptions. In code, this works out that we think we told the machine to do one thing, but in practice our instructions have side effects or unforeseen meanings in corner cases. In language, this could be seen in two way. On one hand, even the best of us can't grasp all the possible meanings of our language and stories, especially given the fact that they will be read in a future that might create a whole new context for those words. And, on the other hand, sometimes we are strangers to ourselves and are, to over simplify, acting on subconscious impulses that we don't fully understand.
D-Coder 11y ago
I don't think this sentence is important to the review. The quoted bit is the entirety of the reference to Tolkien and WWII.

revscat 11y ago

I'm not sure I agree with Tolkien on this front. Yes, I know: I'm disagreeing with an author's assessment of his own work. But authors are necessarily a part of their environment. It is -- literally -- inescapable. The good Professor was directly involved in the first World War, and the second was at his doorstep. His aversion to modernity could have led to him simply denying a a conscious connection between those real world epics and those created by his own mind. But the works themselves put doubt to his claim. If we take him only at his word, and stop there, then that is the end of it. But if we recognize the imperfect ways we self-assess, well...

ende 11y ago
What Tolkien was largely dismissing is the notion that his world was a direct allegory. He readily acknowledges that the comraderie and sacrifice he experienced in the trenches of WWI manifests itself in Frodo and his companions, as well as the doomed but defiant determination of the people of England/Gondor in the face of assured destruction, etc. So there are themes that bind the two worlds but he was adamantntly dismissive of any direct mappings (ie Germany as Mordoe or whatever). Really LotR is about mortality and power.
- johnchristopher 11y ago
  I am pretty sure there is a passage in the Carter's biography where he clearly states that people drawing parallels between Sauron and Hitler or the West vs the East are idiots.
- ajslater 11y ago
  I believe Tolkien directly said it was about mortality, and that power was a sideshow to move the plot along. The power of the ring is primarily to delay the inevitable and it corrupts all who cannot accept that.
rodgerd 11y ago
> I'm not sure I agree with Tolkien on this front. Yes, I know: I'm disagreeing with an author's assessment of his own work. It hardly takes more than a smidgen of familiarity with the author's history to see it's deeply rooted in the experience of the first world war, not the second. As Tolkien notes, the themes flat out don't make sense for the second.
- camperman 11y ago
  Yep. And he points out that the Lord of The Rings as a concept and plot was finished well before WWII even started.
Retric 11y ago
I think LoTR has much deeper connections to the First World War than the second. WWI is outside of our frame of reference, but for example LoTR was very much a ground war.
- reagency 11y ago
  Would lotr have a deeper meaning if I read a wwi history or novel first?
  - Retric 11y ago
    Possibly, though I am more thinking about how combat worked in WWI vs WWII. Cavalry for example was still useful in WWI at the start and become less useful over time. Trench warfare in WWI often devolved into hand to hand fighting where firearms where more useful and machinguns far more common and better used tactically making tanks a requirement vs simple massed charges. Running out of ammo was also a common issue in WWI though this still happened in WWII. WWI saw a lot more walled fortifications where bunkers where the preferred WWII due in no small part to increase aircraft use. LoTR used walled fortifications, some ranged combat but a lot of hand to hand combat, artillery where there but of minimal value, you can even think of the eye as eairly aircraft useage, where you can't really hide, but aircraft can't Effectivly attack. Etc.
camperman 11y ago
I'm not going to cut and paste (or type out) the whole forward but more than half of it talks about this claim in considerable detail. It's not new. Tolkien says: - He dislikes allegory in all its forms - The relationship between any author's experiences and his writing are amazingly complex. - The story is meant to provide a good long tale that would move, delight and surprise readers. It is not meant to have a deeper meaning by intention. - Parallels between WWII and LoTR simply don't work. - The key parts of the story are by far the oldest. - The old miller had a black beard and his name was not Sandyman (his final dig). He was far more influenced by his classical background and philology than current affairs.

dogecoinbase 11y ago

An author fully understands their own work the way a programmer knows about every bug in code they've written. This is why we have QA and literary critics.

manigandham 11y ago
I don't get that analogy... wouldn't that be an author has basic writing mistakes and this is why we have book editors? How do bugs/mistakes change the intent and meaning of the actual work by the person creating it? When I create a software program, I don't expect people to come along and point out that I'm actually creating it for different reasons or a different purpose.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  > When I create a software program, I don't expect people to come along and point out that I'm actually creating it for different reasons or a different purpose. You must be new. :) It happens all the time.
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  Have you ever heard of "talk to the duck"? It's the idea that you're so close to a problem and tied up in the details that you haven't stepped back to see the whole picture and truly understand what's going on. Or alternatively, have you ever been struggling with a concept and someone comes along and says "oh, you're building a [design pattern]" and suddenly it all makes sense? While I'm not sure I agree with the Tolkien assessment above, I understand the sentiment of being too close to one's work.
- scarecrowbob 11y ago
  "How do bugs/mistakes change the intent and meaning of the actual work by the person creating it?" Often a bug comes into being because our ability to translate our intents into language is limited by our perceptions. In code, this works out that we think we told the machine to do one thing, but in practice our instructions have side effects or unforeseen meanings in corner cases. In language, this could be seen in two way. On one hand, even the best of us can't grasp all the possible meanings of our language and stories, especially given the fact that they will be read in a future that might create a whole new context for those words. And, on the other hand, sometimes we are strangers to ourselves and are, to over simplify, acting on subconscious impulses that we don't fully understand.

D-Coder 11y ago

I don't think this sentence is important to the review. The quoted bit is the entirety of the reference to Tolkien and WWII.