This also resonated with me: “Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or view of those who like allegory or topical reference.” This hearkens back to my point that an allegorical interpretation is not necessarily invalid; if a reader sees allegory then, to that reader at least, allegory is there. But claiming that the author is trying to deceive readers is, to me, disrespectful to that author and also very funny when the allegory that is being lied about is Christian.

I would love to have your screeching on here whenever you feel the need to screed coming on. If ever you want me to toss something up here, please let me know. I will be creating a guest account for this purpose. If you’d like to post on a more regular basis, I can create an account for you.

French Pony–You’re welcome regarding the email issue. Having the emails of commenters is not something I think I’ll need, but it’s part of the WordPress software, and I’m too incompetent where PHP/MySQL is concerned to chance taking it out and not collapsing the whole thing. I respect your views on sharing your email and always love your contributions to discussions, so I’m glad it could be worked out!

I agree with you that it is not the author’s place to claim that there is no way for allegory (or any interpretation!) to be found in his or her writings. I’m not sure if Tolkien ever says this, per se; I really need to build a collection of his quotes on allegory since there are so many and this topic inevitably comes up. But, as a matter of satire and proving a point, I am trying to turn Tolkien’s writings into an allegory of Egyptian mythology. It’s meant as a joke, but someone for whom those myths formed the basis of their belief system, who saw great profundity in them, might really see a connection between green!Osiris and Gandalf the White. Surely, Tolkien didn’t intend this, but it doesn’t mean that, for that person at least, it’s not there.

I do see Tolkien’s point on the allegory involving the “purposed domination of the author” if that allegory is intended by the author. By my understanding of allegory as a story that operates on two parallel levels–as a coherent story and also as an extended metaphor–than I don’t see how it couldn’t be purposeful and how the author isn’t choosing an interpretation that she or he hopes readers will see. But I also think that, in the “freedom of the reader” that he also notes in the same sentence, it is possible to find allegory where the author did not intend it. I don’t think it’s possible to allow that “freedom of the reader” in totality and also exclude finding allegory; allegory is a perfectly valid interpretation. To want to do otherwise is definitely, imho, an instance of having one’s cake and eating it too.

Rhapsody–I completely agree with you that a reader brings his or her background into a story and that background colors that person’s interpretation of the story. I see Tolkien’s world through an agnostic’s eyes; someone for whom Christian mythology is the most moving story s/he knows is going to want to see reflections of that in the writings of someone who s/he knows shares the same beliefs.

For me, this is part of what makes discussing literature so much fun. Talking about stories with people who see everything the way that I do is no fun at all!

But I do draw the line at confusing my own personal interpretations with the author’s intent. Lack of intent on the author’s part doesn’t make my interpretations any less valid, but I sometimes feel like readers believe their interpretations of a text less worthy if they do not come with a rubber stamp of approval from the author.

I do see this matter coming into play with regards to fanfic as well. Authors that decry fanfic writers, in my opinion, do so in part because they don’t like to see interpretations other than their own taking hold. I’m sorry but, if you share your writing with an audience, this is cheating. If ever my work is good enough to be published and good enough to have fanfic written about it, I don’t doubt that there will be stories and interpretations that make me gnash my teeth, much as Tolkien gnashed his teeth whenever a reader found allegory in his stories. But, in the end, in turning my stories over to a readership, as you said in the start of your post, I am inviting them to come to my world with their own personal beliefs and experiences governing how they see my world. If I can’t stand that idea, I should keep my stories to myself where they can remain “pure” in interpretation forever.

I may not always agree with an author on how her or his work should be interpreted and I reserve the right to see the story however it best makes sense to me, but I draw the line at insisting that my reading of the story trumps the author’s intentions. As an author myself, that just bugs me.

I am so relieved to read this to be honest because it is something as a ff writer for relaxation mostly, is still something I don’t find that easy when it comes down to my own works. I can see why writers will feel annoyed when people will make such claims, however at the same time I can also see how my own background makes me look at things differently. For example when it comes down to allegory’s, I find it easier to see them based on old European myths than Christian allegory’s, but that has to do with my personal backpack. This is a great blog, much in nodding here

Anyway, on the subject of Tolkien and allegory.

One of the things that is most wonderful about literary interpretation — or any interpretation, for that matter — is that you can look at works from so many different angles. The more angles you can use, the better the work. People find new meaning in texts all the time, throughout the ages, and their commentary, in turn, becomes another source of inspiring ideas. That’s how Torah begat Talmud, for instance.

Tolkien certainly never intended any explicit allegory in his works, that’s for certain. But I think it was disingenuous of him to state categorically that there is no allegory there. That’s really not something that the author gets to decide. It’s the readers who look at the text and make connections. That’s part and parcel of engaging with the text, and it’s what makes readers want to come back to the text, the promise of new layers of meaning to be discovered there. Because each layer of meaning is reader-generated, there will never be any shortage of meanings, and the text will continue to have a life, in the sense that it will still engage readers.

Tolkien’s comment that allegory lies in “the purposed domination of the author” is too simplistic. For simple and blunt allegory, he’s correct — John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, and George Orwell’s Animal Farm work this way. Bunyan and Orwell both had a specific point they wanted to make, and they used utterly transparent allegory to do it. But when works get more complex, then allegory becomes open to readers and other interpreters. What to make of 1930s operas such as The Emperor of Atlantis or Brundibar, for instance? Those works have agendas, but the allegory cannot be obvious — even veiled as it is, The Emperor of Atlantis was censored, and Brundibar was not performed outside of Terezin until many years after the war.

Brundibar is an especially interesting case, because of its performance history. Opera companies have chosen to intensify the allegory, especially in the set design, by including Nazi imagery that the story itself doesn’t support, but is totally valid to anyone who knows the first thing about the work’s history. And yet, Maurice Sendak’s illustrations of the character of Brundibar conjure up more than just Hitler — there’s Napoleon in there as well, and also a childhood bully, and the old Austro-Hungarian emperors. The allegory works for each figure, precisely because so much of allegory depends on “the freedom of the reader” over “the purposed domination of the author.”

I think it’s useless to look at a work and say, “the author did not insert purposeful allegory, and therefore there is none to be found here.” Allegory is a type of interpretation, and interpretation happens when readers bring their own imaginations to an active engagement with the text. People will find allegories, and so the chain of imagination will continue.

I’m home for lunch and a bit pressed for time since I have an FDA submission (FDA = a true bastion of Pharma-dûr, the “Watchers” if you will ;^)) hovering around my desk for this afternoon’s work, but allow me to pull out this quote from JRRT’s foreward of the second edition of The Lord of the Rings:

“Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or view 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.”

Back later, but thought I’d toss that up as an addition to this excellent post. His comments on applicability absolutely ring true.

Oh, and if you want any contributions from my usual screechy and heretical viewpoint (I’m sure people are sick of that by now), please let me know. :^)

The text Tolkien and Modern Epic Fantasy covers a lot of what is discussed in texts beyond TH and LotR; the course is only eight weeks long and is undergrad, so delving into the Silm, HoMe, and Letters would be impossible. But I believe (and I doubt you’d disagree! that all of these are really necessary to understand Tolkien’s works. So far, I find that the text gives good coverage of those sources for understanding in full TH and LotR. The allegory chapter does mention Tolkien’s insistence that his stories are not intended as allegory and doesn’t really take one side or the other but presents arguments for both.

The definition of allegory given is pretty much what you said. However, one complaint I have about the text is that, while it defines allegory “a systematic symbolism which is a form of extended metaphor,” it frequently points to instances of “allegory” that I’d sooner define as allusion, symbolism, or theme. For example, the “allegory of good versus evil.” Say what? It defies its own definition. I’ve found this rather odd and off-putting.

In fact, I think that one of the reasons that people remain so bloody insistent that there is allegory in Tolkien’s stories is because they are mistaking other things for allegory. Tolkien admits that much of the construction of his mythos was based on his Catholic faith, but this doesn’t mean that the story is allegory. But I’m getting ahead of myself … that is the subject for my next post!

Apparently, the instructor wants you to argue about this? If that is true I hate that as a method: I’ll let you argue for days and make asses out of yourselves and then I will tell you what I have learned by studying the works in more detail than you have.

How is allegory being defined? I would define allegory as an extended metaphor inserted into a story by the author. Things like people or actions or objects have meanings that are not explicitly expressed within the narrative. Allegory is conscious, unlike influences, cultural bias, or what the writer may or may not presume are commonly shared assumptions which might be present in either case.

Are Tolkien’s letters part of the readings for the class? If not, then the question is a bogus setup from the get-go.

Sorry you hit a nerve with me. I automatically mistrust teachers having shephered two kids through school in my recent past.