JRR Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien on allegory

[@JohnDoeofArda]

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism." -- Letter to To Fr Robert Murray, SJ. 2 December 1953

[@lanas.2093]

I don't understand

[@josephhilditch5086]

he says he removed all religious elements/references (the One: meaning God) that he originally put in the story because religion itself is already enshrined in the narrative as a whole

[@Hero_Of_Old]

@@lanas.2093 its not that difficult, what don't you understand?

[@tva7263]

CS Lewis set out to write a children’s story, an allegory, that conveyed the Gospel message found in the New Testament. Tolkien did not set out, in his creation of Middle Earth, to write a Christian (or religious work) but as he wrote he found is thoughts and views were manifested more and more in his writings.

[@Dadecorban]

@@tva7263 but largely on a deeper meta level than most people pay attention to.

[@SCARRIOR]

He wrote it, because it was a hobby, it was something he did for entertainment in his free time after a long hard week of working at an intensive formal education building, marking papers.

[@hansnyman9546]

Bravo! What an erudite and well composed comment on the subject. This gent is articulate.

[@wetmink]

The Tolkien's were master linguists.

[@Hardrada_129]

What I took from this is that Tolkien more or less wrote his books simply to entertain people, and not to lecture to them about any moral or spiritual lesson. And that anyone who sifts through his work for such things may find something if they look hard enough, but they'd ultimately be wasting time and breath.

[@Tim_Climie]

Nah. Ingrained ideas and a high estimate of their own conduct; A. leaving the world, and pursuing uncommon ways; talking loftily and in resentful disparagement of others;--all this is simply symptomatic of arrogance. This is what scholars who betake themselves to the hills and valleys, who are always blaming the world, and who stand aloof like withered trees, or throw themselves into deep pools 2, are fond of. *B. Discoursing of benevolence, righteousness, loyalty, and good faith; being humble and frugal, self-forgetful and courteous;--all this is simply symptomatic of (self-)cultivation. This is what scholars who wish to tranquillise the world, teachers and instructors, men who pursue their studies at home and abroad, are fond of.* C. Discoursing of their great merit and making a great name for themselves; insisting on the ceremonies between ruler and minister; and rectifying the relations between high and low;--all this shows their one object to be the promotion of government. This is what officers of the court, men who honour their lord and would strengthen the state and who would do their utmost to incorporate other states with their own, are fond of D. Resorting to marshes and lakes; dwelling in solitary places; occupying themselves with angling and living at ease;--all this shows their one object to be to do nothing. This is what gentlemen of the rivers and seas, men who avoid the society of the world and desire to live at leisure, are fond of. E. Blowing and breathing with open mouth; inhaling and exhaling the breath; expelling the old breath and taking in new; passing their time like the (dormant) bear 1, and stretching and twisting (the neck) like a bird 1;--all this simply shows the desire for longevity. This is what the scholars who manipulate their breath, and the men who nourish the body and wish to live as long as Päng Zû, are fond of.

[@SCARRIOR]

@@Tim_Climie Nah

[@Tim_Climie]

@@SCARRIOR How do you figure? Tolkien was Capricorn.

[@syystomu]

I've gotten the impression that he did realize it, but the point is that it isn't intentional or planned or contrived. And it can't be seen as a straightforward depiction of this world's history. Some of the elements, yes, but not specific events or people or things.

[@BelegaerTheGreat]

The allegory part I agree with.

[@pryletoncyo]

His life story does give a good backing to this idea. He lost all his friends in the Great War. I can't even imagine what it was like during the Blitz. Not a lot of people talked about that. He worked on his duties. No complaint. Stiff upper lip you might call it these days, but it was out of necessity.

[@ItsSVO]

Yet he says he came up with a lot of it when he was in his teens

[@tamerofhorses2200]

One might say that the fundaments of Tolkien's philosophy, being integral to the way he perceived the world, was inadvertently poured into his works, as everything a person does bears the marks of his personality. So we, the onlookers, draw meaning from these imprints and think of them as being consciously woven into the universe, being allegories of some kind.

[@squaeman_2644]

Stories are representations of our own desires, phobias and neuroses. The similarities between stories we tell across time, continents and cultures reveals unconscious truths about ourselves and our adaptability and drive to defeat adversity, or shy from it. Authors can't help but unconsciously write their own views into their work.

[@squamish4244]

Sure. But that isn't allegory.

[@morothane1]

@@squaeman_2644Sure, but there is a difference between a Lewis character like Aslan actually being Christ, and a Tolkien character like Gandalf having Christ-like traits. Allegory relies heavily on the author’s conscious intent to implement these influences, and usually requires the reader’s knowledge of these imprints. But universal mythology relies heavily on the innate themes in humanity, and the reader is able to apply their own meaning without prior knowledge of the story or the influences behind it.

[@pryletoncyo]

John Ronald Reuel was against using fantasy as a tool to prosetylise, which his once friend C.S. Lewis did, he was very much against using fantasy as allegory. But as we know, Ronnie did it too, but he did it in a more subtle way. He wrote what he believed was universal, and many agree with his philosophy, despite him being a devout catholic.

[@Albert_Herring]

Hey dude, Lovecraft's cat name was pretty cool, don't you think?

[@sebastianmunozochoa1485]

@@Albert_Herring can you remind me of the name, please?

[@Siegfried5846]

I hate to call Tolkien fantasy, since that cheapens the books. It shouldn't be in the same category as George R R Martin.

[@Ludwig.-.Wittgenstein]

Allegorical thinking in the sense that allegory serves to portray an already-known truth is dogmatic thinking. On the other hand, thinking directly by means of primary objects obtains its conclusions without reference to pre-established elements outside of the thinking framework.

[@Digganob590]

Though the world and its troubles are important, so is rest from them. Even God had to rest, once.

[@ifyouloveChristyouwillobeyhim]

*Rested. Not "had to rest".

[@stustig9430]

very theological@@ifyouloveChristyouwillobeyhim

[@pryletoncyo]

Ronnie actually struggled with the philosophical implications of his work, and wrote and rewrote a lot of the texts.

[@squamish4244]

@@iamme25yago He went by the name Ron. I doubt a 50-years-dead author is likely to feel any more disrespected by people calling him 'Ronnie' as is Dostoevsky by people calling him 'Teddy'. The work doesn't change lol.

[@brainrich1358]

I see it as whenever someone asks an artist/creator if "their project is about this?" and the creator replies with, "It's open to interpretation."

[@neonKow]

Just came across this, although it is 3 years old, and it's fascinating. What is it from, and is the full video available anywhere?

[@HabarudoD]

Hello nine years from the future. You've probably forgotten all about this, but I think some of this comes from "A Film Portrait of J.R.R. Tolkien", and "BBC Archival Footage-In Their Own Words British Authors J.R.R. Tolkien" (if searched on youtube). It may be 9 years since you made your comment, but love for Tolkien rarely fades that fast. Happy viewing!

[@Fl4wles5]

These interviews resumes WHY I hate Amazon's fanfic.

[@marna_li]

So simply, Tolkien said that the world he created exists for itself and not to refer to any real-world events. Themes might be inspired from stuff from the real world but they are not for him to make judgements of events. Instead, his works is escapism and enjoyment of the consumer.

[@ifyouloveChristyouwillobeyhim]

He put it pretty simply. . .

[@Siegfried5846]

He borrowed so much from Richard Wagner, who puts a lot of deeper meanings into his work, that I am left wondering what the point of his books were? Aren't they just a lesser version of what he borrowed from then? I would love to be proven wrong.

[@sopranosfan11]

Art comes out of the subconscious so Tolkien may have been mirroring the real world without even realizing it.

[@wetmink]

But the point was that it was never intentional and any similarities were coincidence or in the readers mind. Tolkien never set out to make allegory, merely to create a tale so you didn't have to think of the real world.

[@platypipope328]

Okay Freud "either it's allegorical or you're in denial it's allegorical"

[@ItsSVO]

@@platypipope328 allegory requires intention mate, you’re wrong.

[@platypipope328]

@@ItsSVO I was being sarcastic

[@SamiP-ik7vj]

"Lord of the rings" = Saturn/Chronos (and the Greco-Roman-style worshipping of him as a deity)

[@roderickspode6657]

Poor old Chris, forever stuck with his dad's dreary creation.

[@Ludvik789]

Said a famous nobody.

[@seanmoran6510]

@@Ludvik789 😂😂😂😂 well said

[@platypipope328]

Shit baitis shit

[@stustig9430]

😁@@Ludvik789