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

[Alcuin]

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

Yeah, basically. Tolkien would, I think, readily admit that the elements of his book came from things he knew about in life; I think he would also readily deny that he was using them to represent something else. To paraphrase Dr. Freud, sometimes a sword is just a sword.

Good luck, BlackCaptain.

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

I can’t find my copy of Pearce, but my copy of Carpenter’s Tolkien (George Allen & Unwin, 1977) definitely has both the main quotation and the footnote on p.147. The quote in the main text is

But, said Lewis, myths are lies, even though lies breathed through silver. 1
No, said Tolkien, they are not.

and the footnote referenced says, in toto,

1 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.’.

For the record, Philomyth would be “Lover of Myths,” Tolkien, and Misomyth would be “Hater of Myths,” Lewis.

Walter, I take the footnote to mean that the italicized text in the quote was taken from “Mythopoeia,” not that the entire story of the walk in the rain was a fabrication, much less the substance of its conversation. I am not quite certain what you are saying: that the italicized quote is “poetic,” or that the whole story is “poetic” in a loose and sloppy (at best; dishonest would be more accurate) fashion. I am not disturbed if the italicized quotation is “poetic”; I must take issue if you are claiming that the whole story was created out of whole cloth, but I trust that is not the case.

Both Tolkien and Lewis might have remembered the exact quotes a little poetically, if that is your position. I believe Lewis’ poem on the conversation from Rehabilitations begins,

We were talking of dragons, | Tolkien and I
In a Berkshire bar. | The big workman
Who had sat silent | and sucked his pipe
All the evening, | from his empty mug
with gleaming eye | glanced towards us;
‘I seen ’em myself’, | he said fiercely.

I am afraid I do not know if that is the entire poem or not. However, Tolkien wrote to one Walter Hooper in Letter 300 dated 20 February 1968 that, in regards to this discussion of dragons, “The occasion is entirely fictitious,” and proceeds to blame Lewis’ recollection on cryptic comments made another professor. Myths are lies, even though lies breathed through silver, may be “poetic” as well. (Regardless, the identity of “the big workman” is unclear: it might be Tolkien but rather seems to refer to another unknown or unnamed person in the public house.)

In the end, memory is an odd thing. I would find it unusual if, with all their conversations about Narnia and Middle-earth, not to mention the admixture of Charles Williams and his Arthurian romances, the subject of dragons were not broached at least once or twice over beer at the Eagle and Child.

(Have we really spent two days debating this?)

 

[Walter]

Alcuin,

my copy of Carpenter's Tolkien is from 1995 and thus probably more in sync with Pearce's page reference.

As for the footnote I take it, that this part of the account regarding the conversation of Dyson, Lewis and Tolkien is what the footnote relates to (for this is part of the content of Mythopoeia):

But, said Lewis, myths are lies, even though lies breathed through
silver.1
No, said Tolkien, they are not.
And, indicating the great trees of Magdalen Grove as their
branches bent in the wind, he struck out a different line of argument.
You call a tree a tree, he said, and you think nothing more of the
word. But it was not a 'tree' until someone gave it that name. You
call a star a star, and say it is just a ball of matter moving on a
mathematical course. But that is merely how you see it. By so naming
things and describing them you are only inventing your own terms
about them. And just as speech is invention about objects and ideas,
so myth is invention about truth.
We have come from God (continued Tolkien), and inevitably the
myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a
splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with
God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a 'sub-creator'
and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that
he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they
steer however shakily towards the true harbour, while materialistic
'progress' leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the
power of evil.

In his Inklings, where we find a very similar account, Carpenter gives Mythopoeia and a Letter from Lewis to Greeves from 22 September 1931 (which I unfortunately do not have) as the sources for the account of this conversation.

----

My main point in this issue - sorry, if that didn't come across - was, that this is one of the many examples why IMO Pearce's book (which I mentioned already in a previous post in this thread) should be considered "tertiary literature" at best, because he is relying mostly on other - secondary - sources. Moreover he takes great liberties in arranging and emphasizing the information from his sources - while at the same time ignoring these parts which don't suit him well - to drive his point home...

 

[Walter]

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?

Do you really think we could find a consensus in such little time?

A few months ago - when I read Shimon Malin's book Why Nature Loves to Hide - I came across a curious quote from Einstein: "Only the theory decides what we can observe". It is evidently from a dispute between Heisenberg and Einstein, published in Heisenberg's Der Teil und das Ganze, and I must not have noticed it when I had read that book some 25 years ago. If we would take this quote literally (which I prefer not to, since it should IMO rather be: "Only the theory decides how we interprete our observations") this would turn our - scientifical - view of the world and reality upside down...

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Whew!

Methinks that in the end, the subject of "Is There Allegory in LOTR?" will end up in the same drawer as "Do Balrogs Have Wings?" and "How Many Angels Dance on the Head of a Pin?"...

At least we have some things clear now:

For Gothmog (and probably for others here), a statement from an artist about the nature of his or her work should be taken as definitive and accepted as such, and the reactions from others should be taken simply as what they bring to the work and project upon it. And it is this very projection upon which so many flimflam artists and frauds depend for the "legitimacy" of their works. Quite literally anything can be called art — all that is necessary is that someone of "authority" says it is — and therein lies the hornet's nest of dupery prevelant in every field of art. Further, it happens at times that with the passage of time and increase of education, an "artist" will be revealed for the fraud that he is, and his works fall into the disrepute they deserved from the first. So much chicanery depends for its success upon the naïvete and ignorance of the viewers of the time and period, and their knee-jerk readiness to fool even themselves, all-too readily believing the artistic drivel and rubbish coming from a chicanorous "artist" in their desperate need to pose, posture and be seen as connoisseurs.

In the world of music, I have read in various books about composers, instances in which a composer has come to a different point of view about his music when interpreted by a certain conductor or artist: "I never thought of it that way before, that's a legitimate approach — even better than what I first thought of myself." This much of a shift is rare, but it's happened. And many times a composer (Berlioz and Brahms for instance) will insist that something be changed even after publication.

For me, I believe that with the passage of time and history, the insight of serious aficionados of any work of art or body of art can be legitimate, and under certain circumstances even trump or at least add more elements of value to what the artist himself or herself has said about it.

Painting and sculpture are notorious for this kind of thing:

I once saw at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art a collection of car parts taken from several accidents that had been fastened together and mounted on a pedestal. This was "art," and took its legitimacy from its supposedly being a comment on modern life. (Which brings up the question: To what extent is the artist responsible for creating art the meaning of which is self-evident, and what is the responsability of the viewer to educate himself about the artist and what that artist "is about"?)

Another "piece of art" at this museum on display at the same time was a structure called "House of Mirrors." It was indeed a small house constructed of mirrors: walls, ceiling and floor. There was a sign inviting us to actually walk through it, and would we please leave our shoes outside, thank you.

So I walked in behind a couple of pretty girls. Well, it was fun: the mirrors did their job, and we saw endless myriads of ourselves and each other as we walked through the maze.

As we proceeded through, the ceiling began to slant lower and lower until we were forced to angle our heads down, and we ended up looking at the mirrors that formed the floor. It was then that I found myself looking right up the dresses of the girls ahead of me! It was then that the mystery of all the laughter coming from the House became clear, and why there were so many little boys lining up (over and over again BTW) behind women and girls! But is this art???

When I was at university working on my master's degree in music, I came across a score in the library the notes of which were bullet holes from a machine gun(!), and this was the basis from which the music was developed — IMO, an obvious case of the worst sort of artistic chicanery. There was another score consisting of a background of a blank score page, and several cellophane overlays with different-colored dots. Lay the sheets one way, and you play this, lay them another way and you play that...

There was also the case of a painting (I saw this on a PBS special) which was produced via tricycle (the more senior members among us may resonate to the term "velocopede"). He had rigged little paint cans of various colors to be mounted over the tires, and which leaked streams of paint.

The "artist" then put the canvas on the floor and rode around on the tricycle leaving paint tracks, and this was supposed to be taken as serious art. Pardon me while I knock back a shot of Pepto Bismol. The reason I need the Bismol is that so many people accepted what the artist said.

And I once saw a short film in an art house: A man was on a pier, and he had a big piece of plywood, say 10x10 feet lying on the pier, and he was walking around throwing splotches of paint on it in a completely random fashion. Then he took a power saw and cut up the wood into a number of separate pieces that were something like 2x3 feet. Then he stopped and sat down.

In a few seconds a pontoon plane landed and shored up to the dock. The pilot got out and walked around looking at the paintings, selecting some, leaving out others. He put what he wanted into the plane, dug a big wad of bills out of his pocket, and gave some to the "painter." They shook hands, the pilot got back in his plane and took off, while the other man collected the other pieces and walked off the pier. Not a word was said from start to finish. Slow fade to black.

Of course Tolkien had what these others didn't: integrity and seriousness of purpose. So while I am inclined to take Gothmog's view as far as Tolkien is concerned, I am absolutely not so inclined with very many others.

That is why I insist that — as far as possible — accepted objective standards developed over time out of the art in question — be applied to a work, standards agreed-upon by serious people, if only to separate the wheat from the chaff, the genuine from the fraudulent, which abounds aplenty.

For me there is one gold standard by which a work of art — be it in painting, music, sculpture, dance, photography, cinema, writing — is shown to be worthy, and that is that it holds up over the passage of time, and whose appeal is universal: speaking to one and all, transcending its own period and culture. The longer it's around, and the longer it gives upliftment to the many no matter their culture of origin, the more obviously it's a masterpiece.

(Hey Blackie — you see what you started??? )

Barley

 

[Thorondor_]

@Alcuin

Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of allegory; concerning the first quote I gave, my interpretation was that the Tolkien myth could only be an allegory for the higher truth, since it could never dirrectly transmit it.

Concerning the second quote I provided, I wasn't reffering to the tale of Arwen and Aragorn, though they were mentioned in the paragraph; I tried to "refute" (I know, blasphemy) Tolkien's assertion in the introduction of LotR, ("as for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical"). As it is apparent from the letters, there is a message (or even messages - at least concerning the meaning of Gandalf's situation or the "ennoblement of the humble"). Sorry if I blundered.

 

[Alcuin]

A few months ago - when I read Shimon Malin's book Why Nature Loves to Hide - I came across a curious quote from Einstein: "Only the theory decides what we can observe".

That may be a reaction to phenomenology, which emerged in the late 1920s and early 1930s as an attempt to explain how science was making such strange conclusions about the universe. Without the context, it is not immediately clear from your quotation whether Einstein is saying whether he believes theory determines interpretation, or whether theory determines whether or not we deign to notice an event (i.e., without a sufficient theoretical framework, we ignore or disregard things we do not expect to see). Certainly the first reading would be the more comfortable of the two, as you suggest; the second is an extremely disturbing concept. (Otherwise, how would we ever notice anything? Surely it is better to misinterpret what we see and keep alive the hope that we might notice the inconsistency over time rather than to fail to notice the event at all.)

As for notion that “Mythopoeia” indicates allegory in Tolkien’s work, I still cannot see the link. I think you can argue that there exists some Divine Allegory come to Life in the world of Man, but even that would seem outside the scope of the poem, a really long stretch. And while it might not have been outside the scope of the original conversation on a rainy night in the 1930s, it does not seem to have been part of it. The crux of the matter from “Mythopoeia” seems to me:

Man, sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with elves and goblins, though we dared to build
gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sow the seed of dragons, ’twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which were made.

That does not seem an assertion of allegory, but more akin to some of the old laws of protoscience (alchemy, in this case): “Like from like,” and “It is below as it is above.” These are two very different concepts, allegory and imitation of a natural law or pattern.

…my interpretation was that the Tolkien myth could only be an allegory for the higher truth, since it could never dirrectly transmit it.

I think agree with Tolkien: allegory is a deliberate form, not an accidental one. An author who claimed he “accidentally” wrote an allegory might as well claim he “accidentally” painted his house red or “accidentally” robbed a bank. Writing allegory isn’t something in which you can engage without being immediately and completely aware of it: it is a premeditated act on the part of the author that normally requires considerable effort and contemplation. Animal Farm is allegory, and purposefully so; 1984 is not.

Concerning the second quote I provided, I wasn't reffering to the tale of Arwen and Aragorn, though they were mentioned in the paragraph; I tried to "refute" (I know, blasphemy) Tolkien's assertion in the introduction of LotR, ("as for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical"). As it is apparent from the letters, there is a message (or even messages - at least concerning the meaning of Gandalf's situation or the "ennoblement of the humble"). Sorry if I blundered.

I can’t find the message Tolkien is transmitting to his readers. You can draw lessons from the story, but you can draw lessons from both real history and real (historical, as in Greek) mythology as well. I respect your position and Barley’s (and anyone else who finds the story rife with allegory), but I strongly disagree. Lewis used allegory in the Narnia cycle, and although the story is well-written and apparently compelling for many people, its allegory prevents my developing any sympathy for it: I have never been able to complete even one of the books. Lewis’ other material I generally enjoy: I found Screwtape Letters a howling delight, and Mere Christianity a quieter pleasure.

Can you elucidate how Gandalf’s situation or the “ennoblement of the humble” are “messages” rather than “themes” or “motifs”? Or is it your position that every work of fiction – other than perhaps Joyce’s stream-of-consciousness – is somehow allegorical because all themes and motifs must have allegorical references or antecedents?

For me there is one gold standard by which a work of art — be it in painting, music, sculpture, dance, photography, cinema, writing — is shown to be worthy, and that is that it holds up over the passage of time, and whose appeal is universal: speaking to one and all, transcending its own period and culture. The longer it's around, and the longer it gives upliftment to the many no matter their culture of origin, the more obviously it's a masterpiece.

I agree with Barliman. It must be art. But is it allegory? And like good art, do we recognize allegory when we see it? Or like bad art – or chicanery – is allegory sprinkled about everywhere, satiating bad taste or luring the gullible?

 

[Thorondor_]

allegory is a deliberate form, not an accidental one. An author who claimed he “accidentally” wrote an allegory might as well claim he “accidentally” painted his house red or “accidentally” robbed a bank

Tolkien seems to be less cathegorical than you in this respect:

I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language.

Therefore, there is (or at least could be) such a thing as non-intentional allegory; and the rest of this quote goes along the lines of my above idea (i.e. "myth could only be an allegory for the higher truth, since it could never dirrectly transmit it").
Moreover, reffering to comments on Lotr:

In a larger sense, it is I suppose impossible to write any 'story' that is not allegorical in proportion as it 'comes to life'; since each of us is an allegory, embodying in a particular tale and clothed in the garments of time and place, universal truth and everlasting life

And he also makes the following comment concerning Tom:

I do not mean him to be an allegory - or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name - but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind

 

[BlackCaptain]

So.... I went up to him "I don't mean to be a smart guy, but have you ever read that tolkien completely disliked any type of allegory?"

Then he looks at me and says "I don't mean to be smart, either, but if you read you would know that he said his work originally started out as JUST a story, but he later admited that he put in christian refferences"

Anyone know what to say to this??

 

[Gothmog]

I would ask him for some references or quotes.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

So.... I went up to him "I don't mean to be a smart guy, but have you ever read that tolkien completely disliked any type of allegory?"

Then he looks at me and says "I don't mean to be smart, either, but if you read you would know that he said his work originally started out as JUST a story, but he later admited that he put in christian refferences"

Anyone know what to say to this??

Well, it sounds like you're dealing with a pompous ass who's structured this whole thing to show he's right no matter what.

I think it would have been better had you showed him copies of Tolkien's statements about allegory and kept totally straight, rather than give him an opening line that allowed him to be sarcastic and arrogant with you.

How far are you prepared to prod this guy? I'd say: first, do your very best: know what you want to say, make your assertions in your paper clearly, and be sure to back them up with easily accessible references and sources so that you know your assertions are fully supported by your research.

If you know you're right and he marks you down because he hates students, especially ones who are smart and know what they're talking about, be prepared to take the situation to your parents. Lay it out to them about any unfairness that's going on, and you and your parents be prepared to take the matter to his superior(s). If he disparages either you or your work out of spite, don't be afraid to take the fight right to his doorstep, and take it all the way.

Barley

 

[Lhunithiliel]

Thorondor quoted Master T.'s words from his publishe letter #131, namely:

I dislike Allegory – the conscious and intentional allegory – yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language.

However, I think that the next couple of lines right after the quoted, are also very essential in trying to better understand his own understanding and interpretaion of "allegory" and its use in fiction.

(And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story. )

Holding tightly to Tolkien's words expressing his dislike of allegory, many of his readers and especially those, who find delight in studying him, "condemn" the presence of any allegory whatsoever in his writings.

Taking into consideration, however, what a notorious 'Man of antithesis' he was, one should perhaps try to understand what it is in his writings that "suspects" the presence of allegory.
As we have a saying around here : "Where there's a smoke, there must be a fire"

Or .... could it be a metaphor instead? Some sort of an "extended" metaphor?

One of my favourite sources -- the Wikipedia, provides an excellent IMO article on this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor


What is interesting to point out, perhaps, is that this source, just as others, emphasizes on the intra-reference between 'metaphor' and 'allegory', namely:

allegory: An extended metaphor in which a story is told to illustrate an important attribute of the subject.

And still using the same source, namely at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory , one reads:

An allegory (from Greek αλλος, allos, "other", and αγορευειν, agoreuein, "to speak in public") is a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than and in addition to the literal. Through allegory a subject of a higher spiritual order is described in terms of that of a lower which is made out to resemble it in properties and circumstances, the principal subject being so kept out of view that we are left to construe the drift of it from the resemblance of the secondary to the primary subject.

This I find in Tolkien's writings.

And reading Tolkien, as well as about him, I have this "suspicion" that Master T. seems to have distinguished between various types of allegory, within the scope of the 'deliberate' / 'intentional', too.

 

[Walter]

Well, some of us find allegory in Tolkien's writing others not? What does that teach us? Is there a way to settle the issue?



Of course there is...



We gotta make a Poll!!!!!


(After all the Balrogwings issue has been settled that way...)

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Buon Natale (Bon Nadâl, Bon Natali), God Jul, Feliz Navidad, Chestita Koleda, Vesele bozicne praznike, Happy Sol Invictus

and for those who already celebrated the Yuletide (maybe with a Yule-log) or the Winter-solstice: I hope you had a good and peaceful time...

 

[Khôr’nagan]

Hello again, BlackCaptain! I too have been away for a long, long time (until very recently). Welcome back.

Everyone posting before me seems to have covered every conceiveable quote against your ignomious professor, so I will refrain from repeating him, but would rather suggest that, if you haven't already, you interrupt class in a grand display of your knowledge of Tolkien and shoot him down in front of the whole class, and in so showing your superiority. I don't know what kind of teacher he/she is, but it could either be entirely ignored/dismissed, or be miraculously glorious. And by that I mean he might admit he was wrong or he might give you detention for interrupting class. Either would be glorious in my opinion, but then, I'm a senior, and we're supposed to think that way.

Either way, however, if your professor's intention is to watch the movies in class, I'd not only let him, but suggest you all watch the Extended Edition, claiming it has lots of Allegory from Christianity that the normal left out. Maybe after that you can show him up, but watching the movies would be a marvelous waste of time, and you should take full advantage of that. Also, if by telling him before hand makes you not watch it, the rest of your class may just crucify you.

EDIT: Woops... Didn't realize there was a second page... Well, as has been suggested, tell him to prove it, and not make baseless statements that make him look foolish. I mean, I could say President Bush is a good President, but as no evidence exists to support it, I'd just be a fool to say so.

As to if he actually grades you down for being right, never, ever, ever stop fighting him for it. If he's an ass, expose him in all his assholish glory for all to see. I simply can't abide people who can't accept when they're wrong, and you shouldn't suffer for his narrow-minded idiocy.

Of course, if he sees your evidence, he might just change his mind, in which case he's a nice guy. Or he might just accept that your view is different and not penalize you for having it, which is equally good. But if he marks you down, let the dogs of war be unleashed.

 

[Gothmog]

Barley

Ok. Sorry that it has taken me so long to answer your post.

To start with, I agree with you as to the need for a standard for what is Art, some of the things put in galleries is simply rubbish that any sensible person would throw out. However, the equivalent in writing terms would be taking a more or less random collection of words and claiming them to be a story.

I also agree that

For me, I believe that with the passage of time and history, the insight of serious aficionados of any work of art or body of art can be legitimate,

But only as 'Secondary Creation', that is what THEY see or read into the work. It is not for any but the artist to say what the artist intended. So it is for this reason that I say that Allegory must include the Intent of the Artist while without this intent any valid insight by others is Applicability.

You say about

In the world of music, I have read in various books about composers, instances in which a composer has come to a different point of view about his music when interpreted by a certain conductor or artist: "I never thought of it that way before, that's a legitimate approach — even better than what I first thought of myself."

But does this very valid point about Interpretation change the original in any respect? No it does not, the original is still as it was with its original value and therefore someone else can look at the original and from the same starting point come up with a completely different interpretation.

So when you say

That is why I insist that — as far as possible — accepted objective standards developed over time out of the art in question — be applied to a work, standards agreed-upon by serious people, if only to separate the wheat from the chaff, the genuine from the fraudulent, which abounds aplenty.

For me there is one gold standard by which a work of art — be it in painting, music, sculpture, dance, photography, cinema, writing — is shown to be worthy, and that is that it holds up over the passage of time, and whose appeal is universal: speaking to one and all, transcending its own period and culture. The longer it's around, and the longer it gives upliftment to the many no matter their culture of origin, the more obviously it's a masterpiece.

In what way does your insistence on this (which I agree with) prevent us accepting a statement of intent from the artist to define if a work is allegory or not? Is it necessary that Art be Allegory?

To me, it can be Allegorical art, non-Allegorical art, Allegorical rubbish or non-Allegorical rubbish.

I say that Allegory is according to the intent of the artist while Art is something that could well do with the use of, in your words

accepted objective standards developed over time out of the art in question

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I understand you, G: If a writer maintains there is no allegory in his work, then there is none, and we should accept that, and call any tendency for others to find allegory "applicability," a synonym for projection, for bringing their own values to the work in question. All I'm saying is that the possibility still remains (and I'm not talking about Tolkien necessarily) that a writer could, despite his protestations write allegorically and not see it, and others do see it — not as a projection, but as a demonstrable fact — especially as time passes and objectivity increases.

Barley

 

[Gothmog]

Here we have an insurmountable difference of view. To me unless there is intent on the part of the author it is not allegory while to you allegory does not need intent.

So I have difficuly in seeing how

the possibility still remains (and I'm not talking about Tolkien necessarily) that a writer could, despite his protestations write allegorically and not see it, and others do see it — not as a projection, but as a demonstrable fact — especially as time passes and objectivity increases.

Can show Intent on the part of the Author.

 

[Khôr’nagan]

I think what Barliman is saying is that the author can intend to write allegorically and simply not realize it, like a subconscious intent he acts on without knowing he's doing it. In such a case, it agrees with your definition, Gothmog, and with Barliman's idea that it could happen despite the author's conscious intent. But maybe conscious intent is all you care about here, and maybe this isn't what Barliman thinks at all, but I think I agree with him if it is.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I think what Barliman is saying is that the author can intend to write allegorically and simply not realize it, like a subconscious intent he acts on without knowing he's doing it. In such a case, it agrees with your definition, Gothmog, and with Barliman's idea that it could happen despite the author's conscious intent. But maybe conscious intent is all you care about here, and maybe this isn't what Barliman thinks at all, but I think I agree with him if it is.

Thankfully "insurmountable differences of view" do not destroy friendships!

What I am saying is that there is a theoretical possibility of an author consciously intending not to write allegorically but does so unawares anyhow. Of course this brings up other elements: does he have a definition of what allegory is? If so what is it? Does he, because of that definition believe he's not writing allegorically? Why is he trying to avoid allegory? What do others see in the writing that they say is allegorical?

This is why I keep saying that there needs to be an agreed-upon definition of the term which can be objectively applied to anyone's writings, no matter what they say of their own works.

I understand Gothmog's view: One "ought" to take what the author says about his own work as the prime source, the premiere authority — if the author doesn't know the ins and outs of his own works, then what are we to do, simply be at sixes and sevens?

On the other hand, may we not apply the magnifying glass of dispassionate and sympathetic analysis despite what an author may or may not say or know about his writings?

All I'm saying is that many a penetrating and accurate analysis has been done on the bodies of works of many writers from Shakespeare to Schopenhauer and beyond. It's done all the time, as countless college English lit students will attest. And sometimes, like as not, depending on the work in question, they find allegory despite everything — the author's assertions become trumped by what Academic Lights find over the course of time.

Barley

 

[Gothmog]

Thankfully "insurmountable differences of view" do not destroy friendships!

Very true but they do make for interesting discussions

On the other hand, may we not apply the magnifying glass of dispassionate and sympathetic analysis despite what an author may or may not say or know about his writings?

All I'm saying is that many a penetrating and accurate analysis has been done on the bodies of works of many writers from Shakespeare to Schopenhauer and beyond. It's done all the time, as countless college English lit students will attest. And sometimes, like as not, depending on the work in question, they find allegory despite everything — the author's assertions become trumped by what Academic Lights find over the course of time.

Barley

First of all, I am very dubious of using the 'unconscious' to explain any allegory that one may wish to find. After all the Author is not the only one with 'unconscious'.

Of course we can apply 'the magnifying glass of dispassionate and sympathetic analysis'. However, this can only be done to the 'Secondary Creation' of the Interpretation of the work.

In all of these 'penetrating and accurate' analyses, how many were conducted by truly independent and objective persons? That is, persons not involved in reading and interpreting the primary work? By reading the work the one conducting the analysis is already becoming involved in the process of secondary creation and therefore will be analysing his/her own additions along with the primary work.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I have spoke me piece and I stands by it!

That being the case, as there seems to be no possibility of agreement between us on the point, at this point, I bow to you **deep bow with a flourish of a feathered cap** and withdraw from the field and the discussion!

Barley