DIRECT Symbolism in LOTR

[Morquen]

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...

[Child of the 7th Age]

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:

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and weary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that "many "confuse "applicability" with "allegory"; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed determination of the author.

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!

[Formendacil]

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.

[The Saucepan Man]

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

Britain was not kingless.

[Encaitare]

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.

[Michael Wilhelmson]

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.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Michael Wilhelmson

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

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.

[Michael Wilhelmson]

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