LotR - an allegory? No, not WW2 this time, I promise... ;)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

All right, Bb, great, you have actually said things I wanted to include in my post at first, but then decided that they are too off-topic. But now, I can say it was you who started about that, so it's not entirely just my fault

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

However, I do wonder if this is a true way to think of dragons, elves, fairies, that they belong to an age of ignorance. I think they belong to the imagination, and the imagination and fantasy is a central feature of the human mind. After all, we have the new (for the twentieth century) genre science fiction which began as a way to imaginatively apprehend what science brings to us (and I don't mean just space science fiction, but SF placed in the here and now or the immediate future.)

Certainly. However, let's be careful on not mixing things together. One thing is that fiction does not belong to the era of imagination. Quite so. Another is SF: now we have SF which is not in fact a story with the primary goal of being "'just' a story", but has a message (some G.Orwell, 1984 or such). Then, there is SF which is mainly a story and has no other value, what more, we cannot even hope to meet those characters, unlike the Elves or Dragons (example: Star Wars - the only way you can meet people from there is a certain fake, when you and your friends dress up as Darth Vader and go fighting with fake lightsabers). But then, there is also a SF (or similar) literature which tries to appear "real", but the story is unreal (like a story that right now, aliens have landed in South American jungle and nobody noticed them, except for a group of random travelers and a secret NASA mission).

To this third thing - Michael Crichton said that we have lost our myths, and thus now, we are making "techno-myths": conspiracy theories about the world governments, secret scientific experiments, dealings of alien invaders with human beings etc. There is quite some truth on it - that is a sort of our modern Béowulf. Although, I think Tolkien did not probably approve of this, he would have liked to preserve the "magic myth", not the "techno-myth".

And now to a completely different thing, again:

Just because we have learnt many things about the earth and the stars does not mean we know everything or that the world operates only according to those rules or that we really understand how those rules work. Sometimes, the things we think we know best may surprise us and we are then faced with dragons where before we were--or thought we were--in control.

Tolkien did say in OFS that he desired dragons immensely but not that he ever wished to actually meet one. Dragons are challenges and while one form of dragon might die out or hide from us, others are bound to appear, like the sudden appearance of the balrog on the bridge or the evidences of global warming. This might be a rather Jungian way of thinking about dragons.

But these are two different things. Or rather, many different things. There is a dragon and a dragon, there is a real dragon who is real in the Faërie and a real dragon who is real in truth, and therefore is dangerous.

I could say it simply: I am certain I would have liked to meet a Dragon, however at the same time of course I would not have liked to really meet him, just like Tolkien did. I would like to read about Dragons, but to read about them the way that I would believe they are real (Tolkien calls this "Secondary Faith"), but at the same point, of course not really believing that they are real! I hope you understand what I mean. But anyway, I will elaborate a bit on the subject.

First, there is one important difference - which many people don't understand, I think - there is a big difference between a belief in a Secondary-world Dragon living in the forest next to my home (whether I am a child or adult) and a belief that such a Dragon comes from the Primary World and really exists here. I could compare it also to the way some people believe in aliens (for they have taken the Dragons' place, in many ways, at least by their function. Certainly not by their beauty, though). Although I do not know of anybody who would believe in aliens coming from the Secondary World like people do believe in Dragons. But people in general cannot believe in Dragons anymore the way some of them do believe in aliens: our ancestors perhaps did.

So, that's one thing. There is this, kind of, "pathologic" Secondary Faith, which even becomes Primary. In the sense, that you start to believe that if you go out at night, there will really be the Dragon (or aliens) and eat you (or kidnap you).

Then there is this Secondary Faith, which is believeable: that is the way the Middle-Earth is believable for me, for example (and for many of us, I am sure). Even now I really cannot say that Middle-Earth does not exist, because I won't be telling the truth: it does. The same way as you can still encounter an Elf in the woods, if you are lucky (children have generally more chance of that happening). This chance, however, was not bigger for our ancestors any more than it is for us (cf. what Bethberry said about the elves not belonging in the era of ignorance). It is the same. Our ancestors were perhaps more prone to the thing I mentioned in the paraghraph above. (Hmm... or were they... *thinks about whether there is a difference in how many people believed in dragons and how many people believe in aliens*)

The thing Bb spoke about in her last paraghraph is yet something different. That is about real things which actually are there and we don't know about them. But they are things which exist in the Primary World, come from the Primary World, and have nothing to do with Faërie at all. They are serious threats and the only connection they have to the Dragons are, like you say, Jungian: people disappear at night in the forest, and the villagers say it was a Dragon who did it. But that is the psychologisation of mythology, or the psychology-based creation of mythos, which is there as well, but it is another thing which needs to be separated from the Fantasy itself.

[Bêthberry]

Well now, after being rudely kept away by the Primary World, I return to find that this Secondary World of our internet community has quietly waited for further posts. I must say that I am very awed by Legate's classifications of so many different dragons.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

All right, Bb, great, you have actually said things I wanted to include in my post at first, but then decided that they are too off-topic. But now, I can say it was you who started about that, so it's not entirely just my fault

Perhaps we can remain on-topic-ish this way, which I hope will satisfy Lommie.

Allegory is a form of story or extended metaphor in which elements in the story are equated--and that's the rub--with elements outside the story. Lommie sees this equation between the passing of the elves in LotR and the passing of a pre-technological world in the recent history of our world, so it isn't so much that features in LotR represent something specifically outside Middle-earth but rather that the whole feel of the story somehow seems to replay the historical change in the Primary World. Morthoron thought of this thematic equation in human psychological or developmental terms, the movement from the fantasy, wonder, and idealism of youth to the sobre thoughts of dour middle age. I responded by wondering if indeed the old passing world really represents a naive or ignorant response to the world, suggesting that the impulse behind the epic fantasies still exists in humans today--and I would suggest also exists in that middle age which Morth was talking about. And Legate responded by elaborating upon several things, a main point being the great variety of things that dragons may represent. (Although to be fair, I think he was classifying the dragons in my post rather than in Tolkien--and really, if I have that many dragons about, why it just goes to show that there's no diminishment of wonder in the mythos of my age.)

I think this variety of response to the equation of allegory suggests Tolkien was wrong about allegory, that it need not in fact represent the tyranny of the author but the fecundity of readers' responses. This of course is a more elastic definition of allegory than the one Tolkien ascribed to, but we are not alone in this stretching. And if we continue down this road, why, we might eventually end up where Fordim's Canonicity thread feared to tread, however far and long it did tread.

But did Legate really discuss those things that dragons, in an allegory, may represent, so much as set us up for an extended discussion on the relationship between Tolkien's Secondary World and our Primary World?

Originally Posted by Legate

Certainly. However, let's be careful on not mixing things together. One thing is that fiction does not belong to the era of imagination. Quite so. Another is SF: now we have SF which is not in fact a story with the primary goal of being "'just' a story", but has a message (some G.Orwell, 1984 or such). Then, there is SF which is mainly a story and has no other value, what more, we cannot even hope to meet those characters, unlike the Elves or Dragons (example: Star Wars - the only way you can meet people from there is a certain fake, when you and your friends dress up as Darth Vader and go fighting with fake lightsabers). But then, there is also a SF (or similar) literature which tries to appear "real", but the story is unreal (like a story that right now, aliens have landed in South American jungle and nobody noticed them, except for a group of random travelers and a secret NASA mission).

To this third thing - Michael Crichton said that we have lost our myths, and thus now, we are making "techno-myths": conspiracy theories about the world governments, secret scientific experiments, dealings of alien invaders with human beings etc. There is quite some truth on it - that is a sort of our modern Béowulf. Although, I think Tolkien did not probably approve of this, he would have liked to preserve the "magic myth", not the "techno-myth".

And now to a completely different thing, again:


But these are two different things. Or rather, many different things. There is a dragon and a dragon, there is a real dragon who is real in the Faërie and a real dragon who is real in truth, and therefore is dangerous.

I could say it simply: I am certain I would have liked to meet a Dragon, however at the same time of course I would not have liked to really meet him, just like Tolkien did. I would like to read about Dragons, but to read about them the way that I would believe they are real (Tolkien calls this "Secondary Faith"), but at the same point, of course not really believing that they are real! I hope you understand what I mean. But anyway, I will elaborate a bit on the subject.

First, there is one important difference - which many people don't understand, I think - there is a big difference between a belief in a Secondary-world Dragon living in the forest next to my home (whether I am a child or adult) and a belief that such a Dragon comes from the Primary World and really exists here. I could compare it also to the way some people believe in aliens (for they have taken the Dragons' place, in many ways, at least by their function. Certainly not by their beauty, though). Although I do not know of anybody who would believe in aliens coming from the Secondary World like people do believe in Dragons. But people in general cannot believe in Dragons anymore the way some of them do believe in aliens: our ancestors perhaps did.

So, that's one thing. There is this, kind of, "pathologic" Secondary Faith, which even becomes Primary. In the sense, that you start to believe that if you go out at night, there will really be the Dragon (or aliens) and eat you (or kidnap you).

Then there is this Secondary Faith, which is believeable: that is the way the Middle-Earth is believable for me, for example (and for many of us, I am sure). Even now I really cannot say that Middle-Earth does not exist, because I won't be telling the truth: it does. The same way as you can still encounter an Elf in the woods, if you are lucky (children have generally more chance of that happening). This chance, however, was not bigger for our ancestors any more than it is for us (cf. what Bethberry said about the elves not belonging in the era of ignorance). It is the same. Our ancestors were perhaps more prone to the thing I mentioned in the paraghraph above. (Hmm... or were they... *thinks about whether there is a difference in how many people believed in dragons and how many people believe in aliens*)

The thing Bb spoke about in her last paraghraph is yet something different. That is about real things which actually are there and we don't know about them. But they are things which exist in the Primary World, come from the Primary World, and have nothing to do with Faërie at all. They are serious threats and the only connection they have to the Dragons are, like you say, Jungian: people disappear at night in the forest, and the villagers say it was a Dragon who did it. But that is the psychologisation of mythology, or the psychology-based creation of mythos, which is there as well, but it is another thing which needs to be separated from the Fantasy itself.

So, we are left with: what did Tolkien mean by dragons? If they are allegorical, then they must "represent" something, be equated with something outside the narrative (unless one wishes to provide a different way of thinking about allegory).

So how does an element of Faerie come to be equated with something not Faerie, or outside Faerie--or is it maybe something else inside Faerie? Or does this view of allegory suggest that the dragon in Faerie somehow is not real because the real reality lies with what it points to? That is, if we start thinking of LotR as allegory, does that lessen the reality of the fantasy that Tolkien created?

At least, I think this how I can respond and maintain on-topic-ness.

[Formendacil]

Just a quick comment, before I slip off to Sunday Mass...

I think there's a bit of unnecessary confusion arising here from Lommy's use of the word "allegory." Now, I will not impinge upon her authorial intent in her original post, so she can correct me if I'm wrong, but as I read it, what she was asking could have been stated in a different way, using the word "theme."

The thing about "allegory" is that is carries specific meaning, and the idea is that an allegory is, more or less, a this-for-that reflection of some other thing that is being put forward, quite deliberately by the story in question, and this putting forward is the chief purpose of the story.

Granted, my definition here may be brought into question, but I think we can sidestep the issue nicely if we just use another word... and since I think the definition I have given is mostly accurate, I'm inclined to argue, with Tolkien, against its use of Tolkien's work, and here's why:

Although a regret for the fading of the old days is prevalent throughout Middle-earth, this very fact is one that argues against any specific work being an allegory. Although this sense of fading splendour is captured from the destruction of Almaren clean through "The New Shadow," it seems to me that in no way can all Tolkien's writing on Middle-earth be considered a unified tale, though the theme is present in all.

Again, it could just be my own sense of the word, but "allegory" seems more applicable to a single work, whereas "theme" seems more appropriate to a body of works, and also sidesteps the issue of whether this is the author's planned browbeaten topic.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Again, it could just be my own sense of the word, but "allegory" seems more applicable to a single work, whereas "theme" seems more appropriate to a body of works, and also sidesteps the issue of whether this is the author's planned browbeaten topic.

While I agree with your explanation of allegory as a one for one pointing, with the pointing being the main purpose, it could be argued that allegory is not limited to one work alone. Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress was a two-parter, with the first book Pilgrim's journey and the second his wife's. (By the way, a 1778 edition of PP includes a fold out map of the places to which Pilgrim travels. Shades of LotR's maps!). Spencer's The Fairy Queen was first published in three books and then re-released in six. Spencer's letter to Raleigh actually outlines plans for 24 books. Now these works might have more thematic purpose or unity than Tolkien's works, but they do suggest that allegory need not be limited to one work alone.

I like this clarification, athough it would be fun to discuss the nature of dragons in Tolkien, none of which, I just remembered, exist in LotR.

[morwen edhelwen]

Bethberry, if you don't mind being corrected.. Pilgrim's Progress' hero is named Christian and his wife is Christiana. The book is mentioned in Little Women by Louisa May Alcott.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Legate

I could say it simply: I am certain I would have liked to meet a Dragon, however at the same time of course I would not have liked to really meet him, just like Tolkien did.

Very neat observation!


I think that the allegory/theme is about the disappearance of magic (as much as Galadriel objects to that word in LOTR). Now we want proof for everything. Logic. Evidence. What evidence is there in immortal creatures with pointy ears who sing about stars or their glowing swords? None, in "our" world. Therefore it's all a myth/fairy tale/simply lie. But at the same time, they are here, whatever the "here" is.

Sci-fi novels today are usually based on a set of scientific rules/assumptions/proofs/abilities (either current or futuristic), and they hardly ever include the beauty of unexplained things - things that shouldn't be explained. If we found out everything, the world woulfd be a very boring place. However, we never know if we indeed found out everything, because there might be something else lurking around the corner witing for us to relax...........

Anyways, the acceptance / belief in magic is one thing that makes legends and mythologies so beautiful.