|
Tolkien can, at times, cause some problems reinterpreting himself. I mean, does anybody really see the topic of 'the Machine' in connection to the LotR the same way as he does?
I've actually difficulty understanding what 'the Machine' means there, nor do I consider the Ring a really good metaphor or symbol for technology. It is way to mystical/magical for that. In my opinion, Tolkien's depiction of magic completely failed to convey the meanings he attributes to magic in some of his letters or in other writings. The magia-goeteia difference doesn't even show up in any of his writings and only causes more confusion.
The tidbit of self-interpretation of Gandalf truly living Eä and being called to Ilúvater after his death is something that isn't really in the text because, you know, Tolkien didn't really include Eru Ilúvater as a character into the book. If Tolkien wanted his readers to figure this out by themselves then he should have actually written about that in his book.
Another thing would be the symbolic meaning/importance of the two unions between Elves and Men - Lúthien getting mortal in the process, and Tuor getting immortal. That is expressed very clearly in the Waldman letter but was not exactly executed all that well in the written work. Perhaps in part because he never got around to rewrite the Tuor story later in his life.
Insofar as we are concerned with the secondary world his comments in the letters are very much appreciated and on that level they are, in a sense, the voice of god. But you don't have to take him too seriously when you see him interpreting his own work or commenting on the meaning he intended to convey.
And of course one should always keep in mind that a letter is part of a private conversation usually not destined to be collected and published in a book; anybody writing letters or emails him-/herself knows that the intention thereby is to actually have a conversation of sorts. And you usually want to present yourself in a good light.
|