Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Sam Cree
I think context is always important in understanding what Tolkien meant when he said it was not allegorical in any way. I have not read the letters, because I don't have them...yet....but the one time when I read the quote about allegory when context was provided it was in the context of either WWI or WWII.

Maybe someone can provide more info on that, but it seems to me that in terms of Tolkien's religious background, the symbolism is there, since he specifically mentions symbolism in the quote from OT above, it's just a question of how explicit and exact it is.

All that to say, I think your sister and I would tend to see eye-to-eye on this one. ;)

492 posted on 05/05/2002 12:24:53 AM PDT by Penny1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies ]


To: Penny1;Sam Cree
...readng more of The Letters today....
494 posted on 05/05/2002 4:29:22 AM PDT by Overtaxed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies ]

To: Penny1
Good Morning All!

I think context is always important in understanding what Tolkien meant when he said it was not allegorical in any way. I have not read the letters, because I don't have them...yet....but the one time when I read the quote about allegory when context was provided it was in the context of either WWI or WWII.

Perhaps it's because I haven't had my coffee fix yet, but I'm starting to get confused about this allegory business. Is everyone talking about "allegory" allegory or is the discussion really about symbolism? The definition of "allegory " is:

The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.

A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby Dick are allegories

. A symbolic representation: The blindfolded figure with scales is an allegory

I've started reading references to allegories (or rather..."not an allegory") in The Letters. When he first starts LOTR he states in Letter #34 dated 13 October, 1938 :
When I spoke, in an earlier letter to Mr Furth, of this sequel getting 'out of hand', I did not mean it to be complimentary to the process. I really meant it was running its course, and forgetting 'children', and was becoming more terrifying than the Hobbit. It may prove quite unsuitable. It is more 'adult' - but my own children who criticize it as it appears are now older. However, you will be the judge of that, I hope, some day! The darkness of the present days has had some effect on it. Though it is not an 'allegory'. (I have already had one letter from America asking for an authoritative exposition of the allegory of The Hobbit).
Still reading......
495 posted on 05/05/2002 6:33:57 AM PDT by Overtaxed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies ]

To: Penny1
I bought the "letters" to read on the train on the way home from visiting my daughter in Syracuse.

I really enjoyed them, I found out alot about LOTR that I had never even suspected.

503 posted on 05/06/2002 12:55:46 PM PDT by Sam Cree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson