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?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.
Gothmog said: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?
Judging from this description. All fiction is Allegory.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.
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 findThe 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."
So, without the intent of the author to place such meanings in the story, it is not Allegory.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.
Gothmog said: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.
No, Allegory is in the intent of the Author. Applicability is in the eye of the reader.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..."
Why?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.
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.A writer/artist/musician is oftimes so close to his work that he cannot/will not see it objectively.
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 LotRwe need an objective, accepted definition of allegory, objectively applied, no matter the protestations of the author.
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.
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.Barliman Butterbur said: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..."
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.Gothmog said:No, Allegory is in the intent of the Author. Applicability is in the eye of the reader.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..."
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 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.
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.Lewis Carroll said:.
‘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.’
Personally, I think they would give better value in bagging groceries and digging ditches than in the perpetuating of such farce.Alcuin said: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.
You look at trees and label them just so,...
Things are said to be named 'equivocally' when, though they have a common name, the definition corresponding with the name differs for each.
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.
Ah, so it is more inline with a discussion on the matter similar to this thread.Walter said: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...
Yes it is quite a blazeBarliman Butterbur said: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
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."[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.
So, at least two more proofs about the presence of allegory.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.
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.The above also shows, in my opinion, that if all else fails,
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?Thorondor_ said: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.
Could it be that there is a mistake?Thorondor_ said: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.”
....
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.'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?