Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SpM
Generally, I would not. The majority of those here would not. But some might (particularly if they are oblivious to such limits).
It's up to the reader.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
I think the 'limits' have been set by Tolkien's definitions of 'allegory' & 'applicability'. If we take those terms & their definitions as the basis of our argument, we have to say that Tolkien was right - LotR is not an allegory in terms of the definition Tolkien set - there is no 'purposed domination of the author' - he did not write it as an allegory of WW2 or anything else. If the reader chooses to apply an 'allegorical' interpretation on it then that does not make it an allegory in Tolkien's terms, it is simply an example of the reader using his/her freedom.
|
This what I am getting at. Tolkien has established the terms in which LotR is to be understood, and he has not only stated that LotR is not allegory, but he has then defined that statement.
We could still see the work as allegory, but to do so we must choose to reject Tolkien's terms. Therefore in this case the Author is of great importance to our understanding, whether we accept or reject what he has stated.