lord of the rings= Allegory

[Khadrane]

It was not an allegory. There was perhaps some symbolism, on purpose or by accident I do not know, but an allegory has to be like The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It has to be constant in representing things, if you know what I mean. Although Tolkien's works do seem to represent Christian stuff (like Melkor being a high angel and falling like Satan did) it doesn't do that consistently. That's my opinion.

[Wayfarer]

Are the Ainur more of angel type beings or are they more along the lines of demi-gods?

Ok, before I actually go and answer your question, I have to set you straight on a few things.

The Hindu mythologies have a number of creation stories. The most common one is something along the lines of 'vishnu (or whateverever) split himself in two, and each half split itself in two, and so on and so forth, and eventually the different parts became everything we have here. And so it's sort of central to hindu mythology that everything is God.

The greek gods were basically superhumans, representing different facets of nature. In this sort of mythology, demigods are someone who has one mortal and one divine parent

Lastly, I question why you think angels would have no free will? After all, some angels rebelled and became demons, and rebellion takes free will, doesn't it?

Now, I'll answer your question-Neither.

The Ainur were, like angels, the first race created by God. However, like the greek gods, they identify with different facets of nature. They do not represent human ideals, because they are not human. They are like us in some respects, unlike in others.

[Ñólendil]

I'm confused by the title. "Allegory no no"?

[cassiopeia]

I think it also says at the start of LOTR not to confuse applicability with allegory.

PS is the thead meant to be called "Allegory a no no"?

[Ñólendil]

Or maybe "Allegory or no"?

[Nienna Grey]

It's a well-known fact that Tolkien disliked allegory of any kind but I still believe that it crept into his work, albeit on a subconscious level.

He hated industrialisation but clear examples of this can be seen when Saruman tears up the trees in Isengard so he can build his "factory" or later in the Shire when it is spoilt by Lotho and then by Sharkey.

Also his experiences in the trenches of WW1 would almost certainly have manifested themselves in his writing of the various battle scenes.

[Nariel Starfire]

Okay, maybe Tolkien did say he hated allegory. But if so, why did he enjoy C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia so much? Huh? And Lewis even proofed The LOTR series for him. So he had to have some tolerance for allegory, even if he said he didn't like it. That is all.

[Wayfarer]

Possibly because JRRT and CSL were best friends for much of their lives. I know I manage to tolerate a bunch of stuff from my friends that I would rail against in anyone else.

Incidentally- I think it might be 'allegory-Yes or no?'

[Ñólendil]

It's a well-known fact that Tolkien disliked allegory of any kind but I still believe that it crept into his work, albeit on a subconscious level.

Allegory cannot creep into any work on a subconscience level. Subconscience means "secretly with thought". Allegory by definition is intended. Things in the Lord of the Rings can apply to our own lives and other things not related to the Lord of the Rings, it depends on your perception, but Tolkien was just writing a story. He didn't even intend any inner meaning. The story is about something ("death and the desire for deathlessness" according to the author), but it does not mean something other than itself. Tolkien was not trying to express (say) something else by the staffs of the Wizards. Gandalf's staff is Gandalf staff. It may be a device to show something about Gandalf or about Wizards, but it isn't supposed to be sight, or warmth or intelligence or anything like that. It's a staff.

And allegory in a story or not is an expression. The author has to express it. When something is "expressly" stated, according to the Online Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, it is being stated "in an express matter: explicitly", or is being stated for "the express purpose: particularly, specifically".

Things that are express are "directly, firmly, and explicitly stated", "exact, precise", (or here we go) "designed for or adapted for its purpose". Allegory is expressive and in a very particular sense. It is an "expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence;"

J. R. R. Tolkien was not expressing anything about human existence by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations in his story. There is thus no allegory in the Lord of the Rings.

It's rediculous that I or anyone else should have to go through all this to proove this point, because it is already proven. J. R. R. Tolkien said this, he said there's no allegory in his story, he went into detail. Because of the definition of the word "allegory", he must be telling the truth. He cannot be mistaken and there's no reason for him to be dishonest or for us to assume he was being dishonest. There's no allegory in the Lord of the Rings.

He hated industrialisation but clear examples of this can be seen when Saruman tears up the trees in Isengard so he can build his "factory" or later in the Shire when it is spoilt by Lotho and then by Sharkey.

Also his experiences in the trenches of WW1 would almost certainly have manifested themselves in his writing of the various battle scenes.

None of this, you may now see, has anything to do with allegory. Because you can not say "Saruman is industrialism" or "Isengard is factories" or "the War of the Ring is World War I".

[Wayfarer]

If I may add to your case, Dylan?

It boils down to this: Things in tolkien's universe are not meant to represent things in our universe,

The scouring of the shire was about the industrial revolution in hobbiton. If you'd rather read about the industrial revolution in england, I hear dickens is pretty good. ]: )

Frodo is emphatically not 'a christ figure'. He's a hobbit from the shire, who due to a rather nasty stroke of luck gets saddled with a heroic quest. That is all.

Tolkien himself called his writings feigned history. That is, you're supposed to treat the Silmarillion and the LOTR the same way you would any other ancient manuscript purporting to record factual happenings. If you wish to read into it, by all means, do! I myself quite enjoy being able to surmise exactly what Elrond is talking about when he chastens Gimli on the problems of making rash oaths. I find pleasure in being able to deduce causes and motivations that aren't visible on the surface. But for heaven's sake, don't go pretending that they're something other than what they are!

[Ñólendil]

Thank you Shannon, that's putting it very well.

[samwiselvr2008]

hey, i know that tolkien did not wont lotr to have to do with the bible, but lets face it, some stuff in it dose have to do with the bible anyways right?

my questions are this:
1. what charicter reminds you of someone out of lotr?
2. what thing that is said in lotr reminds you of something that is said in the Bible?
ex. Gandalf says, "get down on your bally and crawl!
3. what things that happen remind you of things that happen in the Bible?
4. Are there any morals represented here and in the Bible?
i don't know, posably there are some!
5. Any thing else that is simular to the Bible???

Thanks in advans to anyone who answers!!!

[IronParrot]

Tolkien's rejection of allegory was founded on the difference between connections to previous works intended by the author, versus those interpreted by the audience. The second, which he termed "applicability", is acceptable in any case.

So LOTR is not an intentional device for propelling Biblical teachings, but it's no stretch at all to say that Tolkien's Catholic background had an influence on the moral dynamics in his work. That in itself is an openly debatable issue, particularly regarding whether the portrayal of good and evil in LOTR is more absolute or relativistic - the Bible's teachings clearly belonging to the former.

The strongest parallels, I find, are actually found in The Silmarillion and Tolkien's background "creation story" to his mythos, the fall of Melkor, mightiest of the Ainur being an example... (i.e. Lucifer and all)

[Faramir]

I thinkwhen Tolkien said that it wasn't biblical, he might've been trying to keep non-catholics and prejudice people off his back maybe. Who know's? I don't think I'm right, it's just a theory. I think IP had a very good point.

[Comic Book Guy]

LEtters of J.R.R Tolkien #142.

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."

[TinuvielChild]

For more in-depth exploration of that theory, samwiselvr2008, go read "J.R.R. Tolkien, Author of the Century" by Tom Shippey.

[Snowdog]

Certainly the man's religion is reflected in his works. And in reading the Silmarillion, that really starts off paralleling Genesis.

[samwiselvr2008]

thank you Snowdog! please stop with the he wonted it/ he did not wont it to have to do with the Bible and answer the questions, PLEASE???

seriosly, i wont your vews on how it relates to the Bible, stop with what Tolkien did and did not wont! i love the guy and his work, but please, answer my questions!

[Sween]

do you reckon with time people will mistake lord of the rings for religion like they did with the bible. ITS A BOOK, ONLY A BOOK THAT SOME LOON CALL JESUS WHO WAS PROBABLY ON DAY RELEASE AND CLAIMED TO BE A SON OF GOD HMMMMM HAHAHAHA PEDDLED.

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

The first similarity I noticed was how the Hobbit is roughly the story of the Hebrews journey to the promise land, the trials they went through there and then the defeat of Satan by Jesus. It doesn't fit exactly, but it is interesting to think of it that way.

But my fav. is one pointed out by a fellow mooter (who's name I can't remember). The creation of the dwarvish and elvish races are very similar to the Hebrews and Arabs. One was the result of impatience with God and the other was God's plan. In time the races came to not like each other very much.