DIRECT Symbolism in LOTR
 

Hello, fellow literary scholars, and welcome to the first thread dedicated to direct symbolism, parallelism and allegory involving J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (including Simarillion, Hobbit, etc.) Feel welcome to test your opinions about the direct meanings of these amazing "fantasy" novels that can give us new views about the modern world.

THIS THREAD IS FOR CONJECTURE ONLY! NO SERIOUS DEBUNKING!

First of all, I would like to start this thread off by giving a few of direct relationships I have noticed involving the LOTR political climate:

Gondor --> A kingless kingdom --> Britain?
Isildur --> A king who gave fell due to temptation --> Edward
Denethor --> An ineffective "steward of the state --> Chamberlain
Faramir --> A true steward --> Churchill
Seige of Gondor --> A great state seiged for many years --> Battle of Britain

Isengard --> A place of wisdom fallen into darkness --> Germany
Uruk-Hai --> "Superior orc-men" --> Nazis
Ents --> A pacifistic society brought to rage by war --> America?
Rohan --> A mobile agrarian state who enters late --> America
Theoden --> A crippled leader at first --> FDR (Crippled by public isolationism)

Feel free to dispute or support! :)

woah!
that's amazing... ive never really thought about it like that... once i think about it, i can agree with most of what you say, the other stuff i dont get because of my uneducated brain. i like the thought though... im gonna find more symbolism in tolkien's work! youve inspried me! ill come back later...

Michael Wilhelmson -

First of all, welcome to the Downs! I'm always glad to see a new poster coming in with interesting ideas.

I do, however, want to voice some reservations about the analogies you are suggesting. Tolkien was very explicit that his work should not be viewed as "allegory". Unlike his friend C. S. Lewis, JRRT was not comfortable with direct symbolism. And that is what I sensed you were suggesting in your own post, although I could be mistaken in my reading.

This quote comes from the foreward to the second edition:

I guess what I am asking is this.... Are you suggesting that Tolkien "meant" to place these particular analogies within his text? If so, I do not agree. Or are you merely saying that when you read the story, it sometimes reminds you of other things, and the list of names that you present are personal examples of this?

I can understand and sympathize with the latter. My own list of "personal" mental analogies would look nothing like your own. However, I do admit that some Tolkien characters remind me slightly of other individuals or characters whom I've met in history or in other literary works. And the same would be true for "peoples" and "institutions" and "places".

Before I go any further into this, it would be helpful if you clarified the meaning of your first post on the thread so I'm sure we're both going in the same general direction.

Many thanks, and, again, welcome to the Downs!

This cannot be symbolism directly intended by Tolkien (or any other symbolism for that matter) because he had a strong distaste for allegory, and explicitly denies it, as has already been noted by Child of the 7th Age.

The problem with symbolism, quite apart from the author's actual intent, is that you start looking at everything as a symbol of something, and lose sight of the fact that it is all a part of a story and world where it has it's own purpose to fulfill. Here are some reasons that I can come up with about why these things are as they had to be, within the context of the story, and thus negating any reason for them to be symbols.

Gondor --> A kingless kingdom --> Britain?

Gondor had to be kingless, because Aragorn's story was to become it's long-awaited king returning.
Isildur --> A king who gave fell due to temptation --> Edward

Someone had to take the Ring from Sauron. And that someone had to go on to lose it and not destroy it, and so make the story possible.
Denethor --> An ineffective "steward of the state --> Chamberlain

First of all, Denethor was far from ineffective. He was doing the best anyone could do under the circumstances, unlike Chamberlain. Secondly, Denethor's "ineffectiveness" in so far as it went, was due to personal grief and distorted knowledge from the Palantir, and was not due to ineptitude. That doesn't exactly negate the symbolism, but I think you'd be stretching it to say that Denethor was ineffective.
Faramir --> A true steward --> Churchill

So Chamberlain was Churchill's father? Faramir fulfilled Elrond's prediction of meeting unexpected friends along the road. It was then in character for him to remain on the side of Gandalf and Aragorn.
Seige of Gondor --> A great state seiged for many years --> Battle of Britain

The story included huge armies massing against a smaller state. Tolkien wasn't writing about death-seeking glory-idiots, hence a Siege was bound to happen. Again, dictated by the needs of the story, and not by symbolism.
Isengard --> A place of wisdom fallen into darkness --> Germany

Saruman begins as the plot device to make Frodo leave on his own. He has to be of great power to prevent Gandalf from helping Frodo. Thus, he becomes wise and a lord of Orks and men. Isengard, as his home, HAS to turn evil.
Uruk-Hai --> "Superior orc-men" --> Nazis

Right.... A race that is BORN evil represents a race that was forced into evil deeds by a madman and his fanatical followers... Besides which, Saruman (as already noted) HAD to be evil. In order to force the Fellowship through Moria, he HAD to present a major military threat. Orc-men was a convinient abomination that helps solidify him as total traitor and gives him a more fearsome army.


I could go on, but I think that you get my point. These choices in the story were made because they followed the logic of the story as far as it had gone, and in the direction Tolkien wanted to take it. The reasons given above are unlikely to have been on Tolkien's mind in anything near the way I have presented them. More likely, he was just writing a very good tale, and these are the elements that he mixed to make them. The real events of Britain in that era might have been a part of the "leaf-mould" of his imagination, and may have influenced where he decided to go, but he did not consciously intend to symbolise anything. As he noted himself, the better a story is written, the more allegorically applicable it will seem. This is only natural, since the better a story is written, the more like real life it will seem. That doesn't mean that it isn't still just a story. Maybe with lessons, but still a story first and foremost.

Point of order
 

Britain was not kingless.

Yes, it is a story first and foremost, and certainly is not meant to be allegory, but this does not mean that all historical parallels and other connections must immediately be tossed aside.

What I am suggesting is that Tolkien intended for his writings to have more meaning than just a simple plotline. He obviously wished for his books to serve as moral examples, and to show some truths about the world, as well as some of his own hopes for the future

Britain- The king abdicated for the love of a woman, much like Tolkien himself, in Beren and Aragorn. Since then, the Queen has taken a much lesser role in the affairs of state.
Tolkien, being a huge romantic, might have hoped for the "Return of the King", or a event that could give Britain a new sense of pride and nationalism

White Supremacy- Like the Uruks, many Nazis expressed distaste at having to work alongside "lesser" men, like the Italians or Japanese. Yet, they were all defeated equally, in that all the orcs headed for Isengard were killed, and burned together in one heap. This shows some of Tolkien's views on white supremacy, or any racism. Despite their racial strength, the uruk-hai were defeated alongside the rest of the orcs

Last, Tolkien very much realized that no creature is truly born evil. One has to become evil first. Denethor was a good man once, but was corrupted by the Palantir. Theoden, a mere child when Aragorn wandered through Rohan, himself was infected by Saruman's influence, but rescued. Even the "black" Haradrim (Understood to be "PC" in Tolkien's time) were once stated to be noble people and friends of Gondor before Sauron rose again.

Hello Michael Wilhelmson.

Are you aiming for lighter fare than Books discussion? Perhaps you missed your mark and intended this for the Mirth forum?

Child has presented some of the evidence which refutes this direct equation. While I do not think we always have to accept, without question, an author's claims, I certainly think that our readings and interpretations become more meaningful for a greater number of readers if we consider how our ideas relate to the texts provided by the author.

The "Foreward to the Second Edition" suggests not only that Tolkien did not intend LotR to be read as an allegory of World War II, but that he himself disaproved of how the allies were fighting that war. Pace the line about how his story would have had the Ring "seized and used against Sauron". Tolkien's Letters also suggest his intellectual disapproval of those efforts. It seems unlikely in this case that Churchill would be a viable model for Faramir.
To the best of my knowledge, American men are not missing their entwives. ;) Nor do I think the United States has ever been a "pacifistic" state, if by that word you mean "pacifist" Isolationist yes, but certainly in its internal relations not pacifist regarding Amerinds or Blacks.

You seem to have forgotten that between the abdication of Edward and the coronation of Elizabeth, the head of state for Britain was King George, for some thirteen or fourteen years. And I wonder what is in those little state boxes that Her Majesty reads every day?

Further, I am not aware of any instance where Tolkien himself "abdicated for the love of a woman"

Some brief replies to some simian thoughts.

Here's an oldie but a goodie on WWII analogies... a little ancient history at the Downs, but still good posts to be read!:)

Just to continue on an already-made point, when Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings, it was already several years since the abdication of Edward VIII, and he had finished writing it by the time George VI passed away.

In addition, the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II was an event of great national pride. It was a hugely patriotic ceremony, and was certainly well-appreciated by the people of Britain (and to a lesser degree, the Empire in general).

Also, Aragorn did not "abdicate" any more than Tolkien himself did. In fact, Aragorn had to BECOME king in order the marry the woman he loved. Elrond refused to allow Arwen to marry anyone other than the King of both Arnor and Gondor. Aragorn wasn't abdicating, he was achieving.

Isildur was the king who abdicated, who left the throne for personal reasons, whether it was voluntary or not.

Even Isildur did not truly abdicate. Rather, he merely decided to change which kingdom to rule. At that time, Arnor was considered to be the greater of the two kingdoms, and as Elendil's eldest son, he felt that he had the right to take over its kingship. He never stopped being a King. He just became the King of Arnor instead of the King of Gondor.

...and in reference to allegorical meanings in the story...
(This is from Tolkien's letter #203)
The first paragraph sums up nicely the absence of allegory in LotR.

Let's just go a bit farther and say: Isildur did not abdicate at all. He was king of the United Kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor (compare to G.W.B. like-it-or-not, President of the United States, just as much President of Maine as of California). Isildur didn't give up the kingship of Gondor to take the throne of Arnor, rather his father Elendil had been High King of both realms and Isildur a sort of sub-king (compare, governor) under him. When Elendil died, Isildur inherited the High Kingship and simply transferred his residence to Arnor. However, Isildur was the last King under whom Gondor and Arnor were united. After Isildur's death Arnor was ruled by Isildur's heirs and Gondor was ruled by the heirs of his brother Anarion.

Sorry to drag the thread off on a tangent.

Sophia

First off, the Lord of the Rings is not an allegory. Tolkien himself wrote it in the foreward to the Fellowship of the Ring. It is much more complex than that. It is simple minded to think that isengard represented Germany, that Rivendell represented Britian, or that the One Ring represented man's lust for power. I have read much about Professor Tolkien and his writing. He was a very very complex and brilliant man, he would not have made simple-minded allegories for each and every location, object, and person. In World War I, 2 close friends and members of the Tea Club and Barovian Society (TCBS) died, but only after writing him letters saying that if they die he has to carry on the torch and publish the first work, forged from the ideas and poetry of the Club. He now had a job to, and an important one at that. He wrote the LotR series with the utmost care to not make it simple, but to make a worthwhile read that sustained the ideas of the TCBS.

A friend of mine brought up an interesting thing about the Eagles. She thought they could represent the US in both World Wars because the US only entered near the end of the wars. I know that's not what Tolkien intended, but I still think it's an interesting connection, whether anyone agrees or not.

BTW I like the connection made between FDR and Theoden. Very clever. And Faramir as Churchill.

I think its easy to find these similarities - too easy - & that's the problem. Take Frodo - we can see in his withdrawal from the world after his return an echo of what happened to servicemen returning from WW1, many of whom became 'tramps', or 'Gentlemen of the Roads'. Was Tolkien deliberately allegorizing their experiences? Perhaps he was just drawing on that experience that some of his comrades had had.

Yet we can jump 'forward' to 'vets' returning from Vietnam - there are stories of some of them being unable to re-integrate themselves into 'society' & going to live in the wilderness.

Or we can jump 'back' to the story of Merlin in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Vita Merlini. Merlin fought in the Battle of Arfderydd, where two of his close kin were killed. He went mad with grief as a result & went to live in the Caledonian Forest.

What I'm saying is that you can find all kinds of 'echoes', specific & general, if you look for them. That doesn't make LotR an 'allegory' of anything, Its what makes the work timeless & 'applicable': its why we keep going back to it...

Yes, Davem, and this is exactly what Tolkien meant when he said "That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability. There always is."

But, also note that Tolkien says I think what he's saying here is that no matter how hard you try to write a story, especially fantasy, events in your world will always have an affect on what you write, even if you try not to the let them affect you. Just imagine if Tolkien had not been in the War and had not seen the death of many of his friends. Do you think we would have had the same Lord of the Rings, or even have the story at all?

So in this way, we might have some 'unconcious' allegory to events unfolding in the World at this time.