[Boromir88]

I understand both your opinion and Tolkien's. I'm just ignoring them in favor of my own. Hope you don't mind too much, darling.

Are you allowed to do that? What I mean is it's perfectly ok to completely disregard Tolkien's opinion, but ignoring davem's that's blasphomy!

But, seriously now I completely understand what you're saying and I agree. Looking further in and 'analyzing' doesn't necessarily destroy the magic of the books. Especially if you have a deep interest in the 'how it came to be.'

Believe it or not, one of the most touching and thought-provoking scenes (for me) in LOTR is with Tolkien's war experience:

Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering bank, a man fell, crashing through the slender trees, nearly on top of them. He came to rest in the fern a few feet away, face downward, green arrow-feathers sticking from his neck below a golden collar. His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of his sword.

It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace-...

Eventhough Tolkien does deny using allegories to the World Wars:

’Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and litttle or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.'

’The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or conclusion.’
~Foreward to LOTR

I can not look at that moment with Sam and say it wasn't Tolkien reflecting on his World War experiences. Now, Tolkien said the 'legendary war' (or the war that he created) in not influenced by the real wars. While this moment with Sam looking at the dead Haradrim soldier has no importance on the main story, the story of the War and the Ring, it's more of just a sidebar, a step away from the action. As I can't look at that passage and not think that Tolkien was being influenced by his war experiences, but this passage with Sam does not play any major part in the storyline itself, it feels more like a 'step away from the story for a brief second.' it's a moment outside of the main plotline...if anyone has any clue as to what I'm saying.

Fea, I think Letter 109 will fit what you are trying to explain quite perfectly:

Of course, Allegory and Story converge, meeting in Truth. So the only perfectly consitent allegory is real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human ’literature’ , that the better and more closely an allegory is the more easily it can be read ’just as a story’; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it. But the two start out from opposite ends.

'The Story' and 'allegory' start out totally opposite, but as that song goes...'They meet in the middle.'

Tolkien strongly resisted his books as being labeled 'allegorical' but because of their very nature and depth provided- better and more closely woven a story is - those searching can - more easily find allegory in it.

It still all boils down to reader applicability. It is our freedom to think 'hey this reminds me of something in life.' I think of it as a story with allegories that anyone can find - or choose not to find- but it is not an 'Allegorical story.' Meaning there was no intentional authorial design to make allegories. Because, intentionally writing in allegories limits the reader's mind, the reader's applicability. It would mean that we all must see 'Elrond as a Jesus figure,' and this was why I think Tolkien strongly resisted his books being 'allegorical.' Because if they were allegorical, the freedom of applicability would be taken away. And it is this very freedom of the reader, that I believe (at least for me), adds to the stories magic. It makes me as a reader be able to identify and connect with the story and form my own 'allegories.'