‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

Using your definition, it is impossible, by definition, for the reader to perceive an allegory which the author did not intend. The reader is, however, still free to perceive 'applicability' with regard to the same matters in respect of which the author has denied allegory, and so the 'prohibition' raised by Lalwendë does not arise. In other words, the reader is free to 'apply' LotR to WW2, even if the author did not intend the work as an allegory of that event.

No, the prohibition is still in force as to apply what we have read is just to draw parallels, while to see it as an allegory is to take those parallels and draw deeper significance or meaning from them. So for example if I was to say that the situation with Sauron reminded me of the situation with Hitler, that would be applicability. But if I was to go on and attribute the Sauron/Hitler link as being the meaning, then I would be saying it was allegory. And the author tells us explicitly that this is not the meaning.

The other thing is that Allegory is not necessarily forced on the reader in any case - it can be incredibly subtle, or the reader can simply miss it, and by the same token, it is also easy to 'read' something as an allegory even when it is not.