Yeah, never mind. I think I read it wrong. Essentially, what he's saying, at least from what I can tell, is that allegory grants less freedom to the reader and presents a single, limited message derived by the author, whereas applicability is the opposite, where the reader has more freedom on the general Idea or message of the story. Not sure though.
I think he's just saying that if you see some allegory in his books then that's you, as he did not intentionally write allegories in his books to preach a specific message.
The hack tries to "dominate" the reader by hitting him over the head with a specific allegorical meaning. The midwit tells stories thinking there's no allegorical meaning, like not noticing your own Christian ideals running through them. The real author tells stories with awareness of the many allegorical layers in the stories, like the Bible does.
So all literature written from a perspective is allegorical for the things that created that perspective? At that point allegory seems like a meaningless distinction.
More subtle hints of a specific perspective can be communicated without it being allegorical, even through the tiniest details in the sculpture of a face. Elevate a stoic face and you've presented a perspective that values a stoic attitude but you haven't told an allegory about how stoicism pays.
In LOTR having the virtues the author likes saves the world. How is that not an allegory? It's not some kind of realistic exploration of an alternative history like he presents it in that quote.
11 months ago
Anonymous
To be clear, bravery and self-sacrifice being key to saving the world means the work must be an allegory? How do you feel about the contrapositive?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>To be clear, bravery and self-sacrifice being key to saving the world means the work must be an allegory?
It's promoting specific virtues through a made up story. If the value of a virtue comes up incidentally when you explore a scenario that's different from setting up all the devices around the virtues you like. That's "dominating the reader" like Tolkien accuses others of.
The spooky magic ring exploits greed and hunger for power so that only the most humble and content slave peasant can carry it.
In my story I just made up the ultimate evil uses the content and timid peasants as its main instrument. That story is partly an allegory about the dangers of gay hobbits.
11 months ago
Anonymous
That's not allegory, it's moral fiction. I find your concept of "com[ing] up incidentally" strange when applied to fiction. Is an author supposed to roll dice and hope a good story comes out?
I disagree fundamentally with your conception of virtue. Virtues evolved as memes providing superior fitness, it is no surprise that both they and their promotion are linked with victory.
11 months ago
Anonymous
It's what Tolkien calls allegory in the quote. His problem is with authors "dominating" the reader by leading them to conclusions as allegories do. I'm pointing out that he does that himself but apparently doesn't have the self-awareness to realize this. >I disagree fundamentally with your conception of virtue
You're disagreeing with something I didn't say or imply, implying you don't understand anything I said.
You're engaging in sophistry, stop it.
You're engaging in being a mindless moron. Stop it.
11 months ago
Anonymous
No, it isn't. Allegory must be of the form "x is an allegory for y", like "the Chronicles of Narnia are an allegory for Christianity because they involve a Christ creator figure that forgives and is sacrificed for the sake of others". What is the Lord of the Rings an allegory for? Is anything where the author thinks something might work dominating the, reader, because they are not presenting the view that it might not work?
And does Tolkien even do that? Are bravery and self-sacrifice always rewarded?
11 months ago
Anonymous
The other Anon is saying Tolkien inevitably uses allegories in his work, not that the work itself is a huge allegory, or just an allegory
What's the ring?
The hack tries to "dominate" the reader by hitting him over the head with a specific allegorical meaning. The midwit tells stories thinking there's no allegorical meaning, like not noticing your own Christian ideals running through them. The real author tells stories with awareness of the many allegorical layers in the stories, like the Bible does.
This is just Tolkien calling out Lewis. Tolkien certainly had a significant amount of catholic influence that runs through LOTR, but he never inserted a character who's literally the son of god who sacrifices himself for the world's sins who later gets resurrected to defeat the evil and save everyone. Or any of the other paper thin allegories that Lewis inserted in his work.
No he's wrong. For something to exist, even an imaginary thing, it is neccessarily compossible with every other thing that exists, even imaginary things, and interacts with them. There are no discrete worlds inaccessbile to allegorial understanding, all things are metaphors to all things.
Even Tolkien is wrong sometimes huh
Explain.
Yeah, never mind. I think I read it wrong. Essentially, what he's saying, at least from what I can tell, is that allegory grants less freedom to the reader and presents a single, limited message derived by the author, whereas applicability is the opposite, where the reader has more freedom on the general Idea or message of the story. Not sure though.
That's exactly what I thought as well
nah catholocism has ages of the earth
middle earth has ages
middle earth is catholic
I think he's just saying that if you see some allegory in his books then that's you, as he did not intentionally write allegories in his books to preach a specific message.
Apart from it being fundamentally christian that is.
So all literature written from a perspective is allegorical for the things that created that perspective? At that point allegory seems like a meaningless distinction.
More subtle hints of a specific perspective can be communicated without it being allegorical, even through the tiniest details in the sculpture of a face. Elevate a stoic face and you've presented a perspective that values a stoic attitude but you haven't told an allegory about how stoicism pays.
In LOTR having the virtues the author likes saves the world. How is that not an allegory? It's not some kind of realistic exploration of an alternative history like he presents it in that quote.
To be clear, bravery and self-sacrifice being key to saving the world means the work must be an allegory? How do you feel about the contrapositive?
>To be clear, bravery and self-sacrifice being key to saving the world means the work must be an allegory?
It's promoting specific virtues through a made up story. If the value of a virtue comes up incidentally when you explore a scenario that's different from setting up all the devices around the virtues you like. That's "dominating the reader" like Tolkien accuses others of.
The spooky magic ring exploits greed and hunger for power so that only the most humble and content slave peasant can carry it.
In my story I just made up the ultimate evil uses the content and timid peasants as its main instrument. That story is partly an allegory about the dangers of gay hobbits.
That's not allegory, it's moral fiction. I find your concept of "com[ing] up incidentally" strange when applied to fiction. Is an author supposed to roll dice and hope a good story comes out?
I disagree fundamentally with your conception of virtue. Virtues evolved as memes providing superior fitness, it is no surprise that both they and their promotion are linked with victory.
It's what Tolkien calls allegory in the quote. His problem is with authors "dominating" the reader by leading them to conclusions as allegories do. I'm pointing out that he does that himself but apparently doesn't have the self-awareness to realize this.
>I disagree fundamentally with your conception of virtue
You're disagreeing with something I didn't say or imply, implying you don't understand anything I said.
You're engaging in being a mindless moron. Stop it.
No, it isn't. Allegory must be of the form "x is an allegory for y", like "the Chronicles of Narnia are an allegory for Christianity because they involve a Christ creator figure that forgives and is sacrificed for the sake of others". What is the Lord of the Rings an allegory for? Is anything where the author thinks something might work dominating the, reader, because they are not presenting the view that it might not work?
And does Tolkien even do that? Are bravery and self-sacrifice always rewarded?
The other Anon is saying Tolkien inevitably uses allegories in his work, not that the work itself is a huge allegory, or just an allegory
What's the ring?
You're engaging in sophistry, stop it.
The hack tries to "dominate" the reader by hitting him over the head with a specific allegorical meaning. The midwit tells stories thinking there's no allegorical meaning, like not noticing your own Christian ideals running through them. The real author tells stories with awareness of the many allegorical layers in the stories, like the Bible does.
He had a valid point to make about the drawbacks of allegory stories. He's not right or wrong.
>Author prefers something
>anon lazily asks if it’s right to have a preference like this.
>other anons answer him instead of flagging or ignoring him.
I tried reading that quote, but about halfway in all the words just turned into lorem ipsum
It makes sense.
>J.R.R. Tolkien
>Christian
>dislikes allegory
what
This is just Tolkien calling out Lewis. Tolkien certainly had a significant amount of catholic influence that runs through LOTR, but he never inserted a character who's literally the son of god who sacrifices himself for the world's sins who later gets resurrected to defeat the evil and save everyone. Or any of the other paper thin allegories that Lewis inserted in his work.
It is crazy how many of you probably think you're above reading Tolkein when you don't even know what allegory is.
Man he says this and then writes "history" that is literally good vs evil, beautiful people vs monsters
No he's wrong. For something to exist, even an imaginary thing, it is neccessarily compossible with every other thing that exists, even imaginary things, and interacts with them. There are no discrete worlds inaccessbile to allegorial understanding, all things are metaphors to all things.
This board would be so much better if Tolkienposting was banned
Demented confusion like almost everything anglos type.
I'm going back to read the Greeks.