Bear with me here.... An Argument of Allegory

[Gothmog]

I understand this, but I think it's dangerous. It means we are each charged with, in every case of written work by any author, the responsibility of finding out that author's definition of allegory (or any other element claimed to be present or absent for that matter), rather than applying a definition agreed to by one and all whose business it is to study allegory in its various forms. I am leery of a concept which changes its definition with every writer. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

In the end then, I must insist upon a definition of allegory accepted by the general community of writers and scholars, and then apply it to any written body of work, no matter who wrote it. If we cannot use words the definitions of which are accepted by one and all, we are at sea in a boat with no rudder.

I see. So a statement by the author as to his intent is not enough. It must go to the Witch-Finder-General of books to decide. Problem is, I have read the books many times and I don't believe his opinion. So where does that leave us?

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I see. So a statement by the author as to his intent is not enough. It must go to the Witch-Finder-General of books to decide. Problem is, I have read the books many times and I don't believe his opinion. So where does that leave us?

It leaves us in a situation wherein an author may be blind to the presence of allegory (or whatever) in his own work. It also leaves us open to the fanged presence and influence of Witch-Finder Generals. And, it also leaves us open to the possibility of agreeing upon a definition satisfactory to one and all, and applying it objectively. To that end, we might profit by beginning here.

Barley

 

[Gothmog]

Ok. from your source

Allegory recognizes that it is not presenting an everyday experience and is not meant to be realistic in time and/or space; there is something magical or dreamlike about the highly symbolic scene and action about to take place. The audience is openly invited to suspend credulity and receive the deeper meaning unfolding in the presentation.

Judging from this description. All fiction is Allegory.

However, to me this

The purpose of allegory is to reveal the essence of what is being portrayed. In literature, an allegory is defined as "a narrative in which the agent and action, and sometimes the setting as well, are contrived both to make coherent sense on the 'literal,' or primary level of signification, and also to signify a second, correlated order of agents, concepts, and events."

Requires that the author intends this. Unless you can show that the author consciously does so, I cannot see how Allegory can be presumed. In fact to look at the opening of the essay we find

The literature and pictorial arts of the Middle Ages and Renaissance were almost entirely didactic in nature. That is, they were made with the intent to educate their audience in some manner. Plays, poetry, treatises, pageants, sculpture, and painting were all meant to convey a message.

So, without the intent of the author to place such meanings in the story, it is not Allegory.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Ok. from your source
Judging from this description. All fiction is Allegory.

However, to me this...Requires that the author intends this. Unless you can show that the author consciously does so, I cannot see how Allegory can be presumed.

Well, it sounds to me that between what you're saying and what the article is saying, (a) allegory doesn't exist unless the author has consciously intended it, and (b) any kind of writing which conveys a "moral of the story" is allegorical in at least some minimal degree no matter what.

So we come back to the difference between what the author intends and what the reader brings to the writings. We come back to whether or not the author's statement about his works are to be accepted, even if they fly in the face of what most serious readers see in the work. If this is the case, then nothing will ever be settled. "Allegory," then, "is in the eye of the beholder..."

If an author (not necessarily Tolkien) insists that his or her work is allegory-free, and the large body of serious readers over time sense its presence, then I would say that what they assert trumps what the author asserts. The more that time passes, the less what the author asserts counts, as the passing of time allows for more and more objectivity by an ever-larger body of serious students of the author's work. (Of course then we have the "battles" among various schools of thought.) So I go back to what I said in the first place: we need an objective, accepted definition of allegory, objectively applied, no matter the protestations of the author.

Barley

 

[Gothmog]

So we come back to the difference between what the author intends and what the reader brings to the writings. We come back to whether or not the author's statement about his works are to be accepted, even if they fly in the face of what most serious readers see in the work. If this is the case, then nothing will ever be settled. "Allegory," then, "is in the eye of the beholder..."

No, Allegory is in the intent of the Author. Applicability is in the eye of the reader.

If an author (not necessarily Tolkien) insists that his or her work is allegory-free, and the large body of serious readers over time sense its presence, then I would say that what they assert trumps what the author asserts.

Why?

A writer/artist/musician is oftimes so close to his work that he cannot/will not see it objectively.

And those who seek for Allegory against the stated intent of the author are able to be objective? It is in the interests of such students of literature to find allegory to justify their resarch, so their objectivity is suspect to say the least.

we need an objective, accepted definition of allegory, objectively applied, no matter the protestations of the author.

Again, Why? What is wrong with simply saying that if the author intends such meanings it is 'Allegory' while if the reader finds such things unintended by the author it is 'Applicability'. After all, Tolkien had a reasonably good grasp of the meanings of words when he wrote in the foreword to LotR

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.

 

[Alcuin]

We come back to whether or not the author’s statement about his works are to be accepted, even if they fly in the face of what most serious readers see in the work. If this is the case, then nothing will ever be settled. "Allegory," then, "is in the eye of the beholder..."

No, because now you’re saying that there is no allegory in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe unless you please, when clearly there is and intentionally so. And Tolkien seems to be willing to confess that a little allegory will slip through as a matter of course; what he doesn’t want to deal with are the whack jobs in English departments – and he knew some of the whackiest jobs in the world in 1940s and 1950s Oxford, and held them in contempt; and they hated him, too – and “deliberately disparaging” literary critics in publications like New Statesman (Letter 163 to Auden), finding “allegory” the way the Modern Language Association “deconstructs” a piece of literature.

So we come back to the difference between what the author intends and what the reader brings to the writings. We come back to whether or not the author's statement about his works are to be accepted, even if they fly in the face of what most serious readers see in the work. If this is the case, then nothing will ever be settled. "Allegory," then, "is in the eye of the beholder..."

No, Allegory is in the intent of the Author. Applicability is in the eye of the reader.

Deconstructionism is the apex of forced literary analysis, depriving a piece of literature of all context and meaning and content, replacing it with tripe and nonsense. Were it not for a constant supply of naïve freshmen, Deconstructionists would be relegated to bagging groceries or digging ditches. These wolves prey upon the inexperienced and unwary, safe behind a wall of tenure.

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.

And now, the purposed domination of the English professor. It rather conjures up an image of some smelly hairy old guy still stuck in the 1960s wearing black leather high heels and a tutu terrorizing his English classes with a riding crop while in a drugged delirium, doesn’t it?

I would trust English professors for “objectivity” about as much as an opponent’s lawyer. Both start with the premise that they can support a specific outcome: Verdict first, trial later, as in Alice in Wonderland, and about as logical.

.
‘Consider your verdict,’ the King said to the jury.

‘Not yet, not yet!’ the Rabbit hastily interrupted. ‘There’s a great deal to come before that!’

‘Call the first witness,’ said the King; and the White Rabbit blew three blasts on the trumpet, and called out, ‘First witness!’
…
‘Give your evidence,’ said the King; ‘and don’t be nervous, or I’ll have you executed on the spot.’

BlackCaptain, you can only satisfy the teacher for your grade. If you must lie in order to do that, I am very sorry for you: lie through your teeth. It is a matter of academic survival. When they ask you for money as an alumnus, tell them to go to Perdition, and tell them why.

 

[Gothmog]

Deconstructionism is the apex of forced literary analysis, depriving a piece of literature of all context and meaning and content, replacing it with tripe and nonsense. Were it not for a constant supply of naïve freshmen, Deconstructionists would be relegated to bagging groceries or digging ditches. These wolves prey upon the inexperienced and unwary, safe behind a wall of tenure.

Personally, I think they would give better value in bagging groceries and digging ditches than in the perpetuating of such farce.


I have been giving this matter some more thought. I have to ask some questions,

Are we such mean-spirited souls that we cannot bare to think that the author could possibly be self-honest enough to be able to tell his own intent?

Or that we have to rip apart his character calling him either a liar or a self-deluded fool incapable of understanding his own work?

What is it that makes us so wise that we can understand his work better than he himself?

Is there perhaps some flaw in ourselves that we cannot give to the person who has given us so much pleasure with his book even enough trust to accept that his intent in writing the story is only what he says? Must find something wrong with his work even if it is only to say 'Haha! You are Not perfect after all!!!'

For myself, I prefer to find Allegory where the Author Intentionally put it, and Applicability where he didn't and thereby enjoy the work that took so much of the time and energy of the author. Any definition of Allegory (objective? or otherwise) must begin with the Intent of the Author else it begins with, and is consumed by, the Intent of the Allegory-Finder.


BlackCaptain Having gone to school (some years ago now) in the UK I did not realise the possible problems you could face in seeking the truth while still a student. I can only wish you well in your work and if this is the case then take care. for now it may indeed be better to avoid challenging his cherished ideas too much.

At least you can come to TTF to discuss such matters on a level field

 

[Walter]

You look at trees and label them just so,...

Above is the opening line of Mythopoeia.

But what is a tree? Is it tall or not? Does it have leaves or needles?

What is a dragon? Does it have wings? Four feet or two? Claws? Does it breath fire or no?

Can we draw a clear and unambiguous picture of a tree or a dragon?

Ever since we have moved on from mythos to logos our words have become 'symbols'. Thenceforth they have lost their clear and un-ambiguous "meanings".

Things are said to be named 'equivocally' when, though they have a common name, the definition corresponding with the name differs for each.

Aristotle (above: Categories) was already struggling with 'definitions' and Ogden/Richards (philologists, contemporaries of JRRT in The Meaning of Meaning) still did, some 2000 years later...

Thus, I am afraid, we won't be able to settle the issue whether or not the intent of the author is prerequisite to 'label' a work as allegory here and now. The fact that we are able to find quite a few "definitions" which are not entirely congruent could already indicate that.

Here's a brief passage from an Encyclopædia Britannica article which throws some more light at that issue (my italics):

Allegory may involve an interpretive process that is separate from the creative process; that is, the term allegory can refer to a specific method of reading a text, in which characters and narrative or descriptive details are taken by the reader as an elaborate metaphor for something outside the literal story.

I think Tolkien was enough of a philologist to realize the ambiguity of this term and tried to overcome it by giving his own definition, respectively by making the distinction between allegory and applicability.

What in the "Athrabeth" may be a clear allegory for the 'coming of Christ' for one reader may be as clear an allegory for the 'coming of Ahura Mazda' for the other, while a third reader prefers to enjoy the entire piece just as yet another tale of Faërie...

 

[Gothmog]

Well Walter, it seems to me that such a definition cannot be used to claim Allegory in the story but in the reading. This is nothing to do with the Author or the work. It is entirely due to the interpretation of the reader. It also seems to be a method to prove a verdict regardless of evidence. "I read it so it is there."

Therefore I can only go with the reasonable view that Allegory is in the intent of the Author and Applicability is in the eye of the reader. However, I believe that those who are desperate to find allegory will never take a reasonable view.

 

[Walter]

Sorry, Gothmog,

I was still editing and amending my post some, while you already replied to it. The passage below the quote from the Encyclopædia Britannica article may not have been there yet.

What I quoted is not a definition, but a brief passage of a longer article on allegory in the EB.

The crux is, that there is no clear and unambiguous 'definition' of allegory (most definitions avoid the issue anyway). Thus we can either decide to stick to Tolkien's definition (and consequently the distinction between allegory and applicability), or accept that it may be labeled allegory as well, based on how the reader perceives it.

The latter ("I read it so it is there."), of course, could lead us rather quickly to the question what is, and hence to the very questions of existence and reality: Is reality what is inside or outside our brain/mind?

And ... I very much agree with your last sentence...

 

[Eriol]

There’s so many different worlds
So many different suns
And we have just one world
But we live in different ones

Dire Straits, "Brothers in Arms"...

We live in different worlds. To yearn for a unanimous definition of "allegory" is a dream (and a bad one, by the way).

Edit: Whoa! This thing got posted before I finished with it.

The best that we can do is to try to express our own experiences as clearly as possible, without losing sight that they are our own. Tolkien said there is no allegory -- why doubt it? There is no ambiguity in his words, he took great pains to explain what he meant by allegory. I understand the penchant for finding "unconscious leanings", but it should never contradict the conscious ones.

Your teacher sees allegory, BlackCaptain? Well, I'd say he is not familiar with Tolkien's words about his own work, but I'd also suppose that he is either quite a vain man, to suppose that his opinion is what matters, even more than Tolkien's, or quite the pious man, to see signs of his faith so ubiquitously. Without knowing him, I don't know which. Perhaps both . The best that you can do is... to try to convey your experience of LotR as clearly as possible, without losing sight that it is your own.

And so the story goes .

 

[Lhunithiliel]

Eri says:

"Tolkien said there is no allegory -- why doubt it? There is no ambiguity in his words, he took great pains to explain what he meant by allegory."

True, and of course ! ... especially when there were readers who, in often absurd and/or most unexpected way, "transferred" particular events and characters to the fictional ones that Master T. had created in his stories!

Galadriel - Virgin Mary?
Feanor - Hitler?

Oh my!!!!

Quite understandable why Master T. dedicated so much effort to explain the lack of allegory, or at least intentional such, in his writings.

But ... they say his Legendarium form a mythological cycle. And as most myths, his, too, would teach morals...or at least express them.
Myths often use allegory to teach/expess morals and to find interpretation of those "truths" of life, the universe and everything else surrounding myth-"producers" and myth- "consumers".

So, my thoughts - Is really Tolkien's mythology free of this type of allegory?

Just my opinion on this most interesting issue!

 

[Gothmog]

What I quoted is not a definition, but a brief passage of a longer article on allegory in the EB.

The crux is, that there is no clear and unambiguous 'definition' of allegory (most definitions avoid the issue anyway). Thus we can either decide to stick to Tolkien's definition (and consequently the distinction between allegory and applicability), or accept that it may be labeled allegory as well, based on how the reader perceives it.

The latter ("I read it so it is there."), of course, could lead us rather quickly to the question what is, and hence to the very questions of existence and reality: Is reality what is inside or outside our brain/mind?

And ... I very much agree with your last sentence...

Ah, so it is more inline with a discussion on the matter similar to this thread.

Personally, I don't see why there is such a problem with Tolkien's definition. It seems to cover the problem perfectly

Now, there's an interesting question. However, first we would need to come up with a universally agreed defintion of 'Reality' to work with. Got a spare 2000 or so years for the discussion?

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

What an intellectual firestorm we have blazing!

Goth, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that as matters of honor, courtesy and trust we should accept what an author says about his work as true — even if the nature of the work strikes the bulk of its readers as otherwise. Do I have you right?

And Walter: what fun it would be to get started on a definition of Reality — woo hoo!

Barley

 

[Gothmog]

What an intellectual firestorm we have blazing!

Goth, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that as matters of honor, courtesy and trust we should accept what an author says about his work as true — even if the nature of the work strikes the bulk of its readers as otherwise. Do I have you right?

And Walter: what fun it would be to get started on a definition of Reality — woo hoo!

Barley

Yes it is quite a blaze

Yes you have me exactly right. Because only the Author can know what he intended to put in. Since a reader is quite capable of taking out of a story things that were never put in there (due to differences of experiences between Author and Reader) Allegory should be reserved for what the Author Intentionally put in and and what is not intended by the Author is down to
Applicability to the reader.

 

[Thorondor_]

The poem Mythopoeia, from which Walter has already quoted, regarding the splintered light, is opened by the following line:

"To one [C.S. Lewis] who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though 'breathed through silver'."

which could be a refference to a discussion between Lewis and Tolkien, recounted in "Tolkien: Man and Myth", by Daniel Kennelly:

"[Myths are] lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver," [said Lewis.]

"No," said Tolkien. "They are not lies."

At that moment, Lewis later recalled, there was “a rush of wind which came so suddenly on the still, warm evening and sent so many leaves pattering down that we thought it was raining. We held our breath.”


We have come from God, Tolkien argued, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God.

The above also shows, in my opinion, that if all else fails, we could only discard allegory in LotR only if this work is not a myth.

Moreover, as Tolkien notes in Letter#181 To Michael Straight (drafts):

Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees. That is why I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is pan of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble.

So, at least two more proofs about the presence of allegory.

 

[Gothmog]

The above also shows, in my opinion, that if all else fails,

Since you are intent on finding Allegory then you will do so. I prefer to accept that Tolkien knew what he meant both in the writing of the LotR and in the wording of his foreword.

 

[Alcuin]

The poem Mythopoeia, from which Walter has already quoted, regarding the splintered light, is opened by the following line:

"To one [C.S. Lewis] who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though 'breathed through silver'."

which could be a refference to a discussion between Lewis and Tolkien, recounted in "Tolkien: Man and Myth", by Daniel Kennelly:
The above also shows, in my opinion, that if all else fails, we could only discard allegory in LotR only if this work is not a myth.

Moreover, as Tolkien notes in Letter#181 To Michael Straight (drafts):
So, at least two more proofs about the presence of allegory.

I’m sorry, Thorondor_, I don’t follow your arguments. You seem to have made one assertion, that Tolkien made such-and-such a statement, which is clearly true; and then leapt to another, disconnected assertion that these must imply allegory. It looks as if you are trying to draw two separate arguments to the same end, one about C.S. Lewis and myths, and a second about the importance of the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen. What is your line of logic connecting these the premise to the conclusion in each case?

The story about C.S. Lewis and whether myths are lies or partially concealed (because they are partially and imperfectly understood) truths is also recounted in Humphrey Carter’s biography of Tolkien, pp 146-148, and are part of the story of Lewis’ conversion to Christianity. From the published recollections of this conversation and from their other works on the subject, nor Tolkien nor Lewis nor Hugo Dyson, who was a third participant, would seem inclined to call myths “allegories.” Quite the opposite.

 

[Walter]

Sorry for a somewhat off-topic post, but ...

The poem Mythopoeia, from which Walter has already quoted, regarding the splintered light, is opened by the following line:

"To one [C.S. Lewis] who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though 'breathed through silver'."

which could be a refference to a discussion between Lewis and Tolkien, recounted in "Tolkien: Man and Myth", by Daniel Kennelly:

"[Myths are] lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver," [said Lewis.]

"No," said Tolkien. "They are not lies."

At that moment, Lewis later recalled, there was “a rush of wind which came so suddenly on the still, warm evening and sent so many leaves pattering down that we thought it was raining. We held our breath.”

....

Could it be that there is a mistake?

I think that Daniel Kennelly is the one who wrote a review of Joseph Pearce's Tolkien - Man and Myth. The abovequoted text is indeed from Pearce's book (p.57f), even if the closing paragraph (the part I omitted) has the text in slightly altered wording.

But, anyhow, it is indeed a curious passage which serves to demonstrate how some authors are - purposely or inadvertently - leading the reader astray with their books:

Pearce's text has a footnote where the source for the passage is given: Carpenter's Tolkien biography p.151.

In Carpenter's book we find - on p. 151 - indeed a similar episode recounted, but Carpenter in a footnote explains:

The account of this conversation is based on Tolkien's poem 'Mythopoeia', to which he also gave the titles 'Misomythos' and 'Philomyth to Misomyth'. One manuscript is marked 'For C.S.L.'.

which means, that the dialogue is made up, based on the poem. Which is not entirely unimportant, IMO, and it would've been nice of Mr. Pearce to be diligent enough in his approach as not to forget mentioning this.

As a sidenote: A similar account can also be found in Carpenter's The Inklings, p.43.

 

[BlackCaptain]

I guess the project is just to "Find sacraments within the Lord of the Rings" (Lembas bread = Eucharist, Aragorn and the Dead Mean of Dunharrow = Reconciliation, and him making them fight for him is thier pennance, etc).

Now all I have to do is make him say "Tolkien put these in his books", and the tearing apart can begin.