The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - LotR

davem · 06-07-2004, 01:21 PM

It almost seems that Tolkien is saying its not about anything - or at least he's denying its about whatever any reader thinks its about. Whatever suggestion was made to him he seemed to take particular delight in disabusing them of the notion. In fact the only interpretation of it that he didn't reject was that it was a Christian work.

He 'seemed' not to want it to mean anything, or relate in any way to the primary world - at least the primary world as it was when he lived. Yet he acknowledged it could be applied to events in the primary world - yet every single attempt anyone made to apply it in such a way was instantly refuted. Applicability = a good thing in Tolkien's eyes, yet when people 'applied' what they found in the work to WW2, or to atomic power, he instantly corrects them & shows them they are 'wrong' to interpret it that way. Yet, if it is NOT applicable to 'x' or 'y', if Tolkien repeatedly refutes these interpretations as wrong he must have some idea of what it does mean. Why can't a reader 'apply' the events of the War of the Ring to the events of WW2? Why does Tolkien keep feeling it necessary to deny 'free' individuals interpretations? He doesn't want to 'dominate' the reader's interpretation, yet he'll tell them in no uncertain terms that they're WRONG if they claim its an allegory of WW2, or that the Ring is the Bomb. Maybe he's not attempting to dominate their thinking by presenting them with an allegory, but he'll damn sure dominate them by telling them what it doesn't mean, & showing them that their attempt to apply it is mistaken. He'll even construct his own 'allegory' (much though he hates it!) to show them what a real allegory of WW2 would be like.

In short, I don't believe him when he says its just a fairy tale & should be read by the individual reader who should take from it what they will, because he just keeps on telling them exactlywhat it doesn't mean & why they're all wrong. Why shouldn't I interpret it as being about WW2 if I want - why shouldn't I find such applicability in it? He isn't offering it to the reader to interpret as they want. He wants us to interpret it in a specific way, it seems to me, but he seems very reticent to tell us in exactly what way.

Sorry, being a bit controversial & provocative, but I don't believe he spent 12 years writing a story simply to entertain - if he had he wouldn't care how people interpreted it as long as it entertained them. He at least had a moral agenda - as Garth shows in Tolkien & the Great War, & he reinforced that 'agenda' in his letters, & in his references to men with chainsaws as 'Orcs', the devil as Sauron, etc. He won't stand by & see readers apply events in the book willy nilly. Those who destroy the natural world are 'mythologised' into Orcs, & then the term 'Orc' is 'applied' to those who destroy the natural world. And the reader is NOT free to apply the term or concept Orc to anyone behaving in any other way, not if Tolkien has anything to do with it.

He will attempt to 'purposely dominate' any reader who interprets the Ring as the Atomic Bomb, because he knows the Ring isn't the Bomb, its Sin, the Machine, will to power, etc. Its not 'strict allegory', of course, more a case of 'What's it got in its pocketses?Not string, but not nothing, precious'.

06-07-2004, 01:21 PM	#23
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	It almost seems that Tolkien is saying its not about anything - or at least he's denying its about whatever any reader thinks its about. Whatever suggestion was made to him he seemed to take particular delight in disabusing them of the notion. In fact the only interpretation of it that he didn't reject was that it was a Christian work. He 'seemed' not to want it to mean anything, or relate in any way to the primary world - at least the primary world as it was when he lived. Yet he acknowledged it could be applied to events in the primary world - yet every single attempt anyone made to apply it in such a way was instantly refuted. Applicability = a good thing in Tolkien's eyes, yet when people 'applied' what they found in the work to WW2, or to atomic power, he instantly corrects them & shows them they are 'wrong' to interpret it that way. Yet, if it is NOT applicable to 'x' or 'y', if Tolkien repeatedly refutes these interpretations as wrong he must have some idea of what it does mean. Why can't a reader 'apply' the events of the War of the Ring to the events of WW2? Why does Tolkien keep feeling it necessary to deny 'free' individuals interpretations? He doesn't want to 'dominate' the reader's interpretation, yet he'll tell them in no uncertain terms that they're WRONG if they claim its an allegory of WW2, or that the Ring is the Bomb. Maybe he's not attempting to dominate their thinking by presenting them with an allegory, but he'll damn sure dominate them by telling them what it doesn't mean, & showing them that their attempt to apply it is mistaken. He'll even construct his own 'allegory' (much though he hates it!) to show them what a real allegory of WW2 would be like. In short, I don't believe him when he says its just a fairy tale & should be read by the individual reader who should take from it what they will, because he just keeps on telling them exactlywhat it doesn't mean & why they're all wrong. Why shouldn't I interpret it as being about WW2 if I want - why shouldn't I find such applicability in it? He isn't offering it to the reader to interpret as they want. He wants us to interpret it in a specific way, it seems to me, but he seems very reticent to tell us in exactly what way. Sorry, being a bit controversial & provocative, but I don't believe he spent 12 years writing a story simply to entertain - if he had he wouldn't care how people interpreted it as long as it entertained them. He at least had a moral agenda - as Garth shows in Tolkien & the Great War, & he reinforced that 'agenda' in his letters, & in his references to men with chainsaws as 'Orcs', the devil as Sauron, etc. He won't stand by & see readers apply events in the book willy nilly. Those who destroy the natural world are 'mythologised' into Orcs, & then the term 'Orc' is 'applied' to those who destroy the natural world. And the reader is NOT free to apply the term or concept Orc to anyone behaving in any other way, not if Tolkien has anything to do with it. He will attempt to 'purposely dominate' any reader who interprets the Ring as the Atomic Bomb, because he knows the Ring isn't the Bomb, its Sin, the Machine, will to power, etc. Its not 'strict allegory', of course, more a case of 'What's it got in its pocketses?Not string, but not nothing, precious'. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."