[Durelin]

As always, we return to focus so much on this one word and it's Oxford Dictionary defined meaning. 'Allegory' is a mere word, and is very specific in its definition, as Bêthberry just stated. I know that any author can purposely place parallels, or perhaps 'tributes' to other works, aspects of life, religion, history, etc. And they can purposely, even strategically place these for the benefit of the reader or the work itself, without writing allegorically. It is obvious that Tolkien was influenced by certain things, and that he chose to include them in his writing (I really do like to think of them as tributes), but never would he use the word allegory to express this. For one thing, readers of this century are too mixed up in making separations and definitions. And so an allegory has its own specific definition, is a specific genre, and we still are trying to define what exactly an allegorical work expresses. What Tolkien obviously was not aiming for was a work that had symbolism, merely, the fact that aspects of his story resemble things the readers and, of course, Tolkien himself, are (were) familiar with shows that Tolkien was influenced by certain things in devising his world, characters, names, etc. I hope that this may be separated from the narrow-minded label of 'allegory'.

Stated by Fordim Hedgethistle: The thing that always strikes me about the Foreward is Tolkien’s very clear insistence that the LotR is a ‘historical’ work

He insists, and it shows. I have heard complaints before that The Lord of the Rings is too much like a historical text, and so bores the reader. Most of this had to do with Tolkien's style of writing, which often did convince you that these events were real and had already taken place. And, of course, Tolkien's love and respect for history most certainly shown through in his work, his respect for history also driving him away from allegory.

Speaking of history...I'd like to comment on this quote a bit more (though since Fordim covered it already, my comment will be decidedly short ):

Then when the ‘end’ had at last been reached the whole story had to be revised, and indeed largely re-written backwards.

It is obvious that Tolkien was writing a history, and a love of his style of writing tends to come with the attachment of love of the epic: which is, essentially, a historical piece (more details to come...). History does not end, as Tolkien's tale did not truly end. There are many ways Tolkien's tale could have lived on, with history continuing and repeating itself. It could continue in the real history of the world (as it does fit in rather nicely, in its way, as I will elaborate upon...), or in the world of its readers, and in their imaginations (as corny as that may sound!).

In accordance with the epic, it is a historical piece in more ways than one. (Perhaps how I describe the epic is limiting, but taking this particular 'type' of epic as the 'original' epic might help justify.)

The first is basic: it usually takes place in a historical time period, and may deal with true events, people, places, etc. More of it may even be true than these basics. The second I think is less basic, and I like to think less obvious: I relate the epic to the ancient author, who wrote long, winding tales that echo through time and inform us on our history as man. These epics are immortal in this case, and yet are old and dusty in a comfortable sort of way. Though they have survived far down the timeline, they are set in a specific place on it, a relatively large and unspecific place in history, that they cannot be freed from. They are, in this sense, a historical piece.

The Lord of the Rings has often been described as an epic, and I like to think that this helps to make it just what Tolkien wanted it to be: an history. The thing about Tolkien's epic is that it is not stuck in its specific place in history. It can tell of history in general, expressing all the parts of an epic and all the epic parts of history that we should be continually searching for and remembering. Tolkien's history can fit so well into the history of man because of this. (Told you I'd get back to that.)

One last thing for the moment....(and I'm back to allegory!)

Stated by Fordim Hedgethistle:...defining "allegory" as something simplistic (Ring=Bomb) and using a term of his own "applicability" to describe what he is doing...

It is truly sad when people define a meaning for ideas (not words, mind), saying that all reason should lead to this certain conclusion.

Well, the final conclusion I have come to is this: my organizational skills for discussion need improving. Oh, and do forgive all the quotations. I like using them a bit too much, for a certain emphasis on the trickery of words.

-Durelin

EDIT: cross-posted with mark12_30. I still think, with all said concerning myths, 'history' can still be accurate. And whether we say 'myth' or 'history', we are still drawing conclusions. And let me say that, in my mind: myth ~ epic.