Whenever I read a book or story that contains an enormous (but not overwhelming) amount of symbolism, I often wonder whether or not the symbolism was intentional, or whether "it just happened that way."
For example, "Animal Farm." This short but powerful book by George Orwell (aka, Eric Blair) is classified as an allegory because it takes a satirical and humourous look at the Soviet Union by observing the happenings on what was once Manor Farm. Obviously Orwell intended the symbolism to be there, since everything in the story matches perfectly with the historical sequence, and I believe he even wrote that he meant "Animal Farm" to be allegorical.
Here's where we get "sort-of OnT." Did Tolkien mean to include symbolism in LotR and "The Sil," or did he merely want to have several themes within the stories? Or, did "it just happen that way"?
An example: the Silmarils. A few months ago, the fact that the three Silmarils' final homes were three of the four elements - water, air, and fire - was acknowledged and discussed. Did Tolkien intend for the Silmarils to represent these elements, or did he want an exciting end to them?
Another example: the Hobbits. They are a small people, and the unlikeliest to do the brave deeds Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin did. Was Tolkien trying to get a message across (a message such as "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future") to his readers, or did he just want to throw in some irony?
(disclaimer: I'm not saying that LotR and "The Sil" are allegorical in any way. I am merely questioning the symbolism behind certain events)
 You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
 by -
sinaes
(Tue Jul 22 16:26:50)
|
|
Tolkien did say that LOTR is not allegorical, so we can take this to mean that most of the symbolism "just happened that way." Of course there are things Tolkien would have been quite aware of ... the Hobbits representing the power of the little guy :)
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless 
|
|
|
True... but I'll start this post out by quoting Tolkien in his Foreword to FotR:
As for any inner meaning of 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches; but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit[...]
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 wary 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 domination of the author.
Hmm... maybe I should've read the Foreword prior posting this thread. Oh well.
So, Tolkien believes that an allegory is formed when the author intends to make it an allegory; and that the author who writes a story with applicability does not intend to have any applicability/allegorical meanings. However, is symbolism the same thing as applicability?
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Wed Jul 23 00:35:21)
|
|
You can still have symbolism even when the author doesn't intend it to be allegorical :) Symbolism, in the sense that you can interpret hobbits, rings, dwarves, etc to represent something else on a deeper level.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
Augh, duh! *slaps self* How did I overlook that? Thanks, Sinaes.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
Well, beauty's in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure some of my short stories could be thought symbolic! 
Run, you pigeons! IT'S ROBERT FROST!!!
|
|
|
| by -
jon-334
(Tue Jul 22 23:02:33)
|
|
 UPDATED Tue Jul 22 23:04:13 |
No and yes. 
While I don't doubt that the things he wrote did have some meaning for him, it is clear from the Foreword to the Lord of the Rings that he did not expect (nor care) if others interpreted the stories in the same way.
In the Introductory Note to Tree and Leaf Tolkien remarks that
[On Fairy Stories and Leaf by Niggle]...were written ...when The Lord of the Rings was beginning to unroll itself and to unfold prospects of labour and exploration in yet unknown country as daunting to me as to the hobbits. At about that time we had reached Bree, and I had then no more notion than they had of what had become of Gandalf or who Strider was; and I had begun to despair of surviving to find out.
He didn't know what was going to happen! Also, on the FotR EE, Mr. Shippey (I think) comments that when writing LotR, Tolkien was, at least for a time, "flying blind." This leads me to believe that, if Tolkien did find symbolism in his own writing, it was after the fact. This is supported also by this quote:
"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."
J.R.R. Tolkien, 1953.
I think he meant to include in his mythology all that he found (and liked) in genuine myth. Any other "symbolism" we find in his work is just that: what we find.
Those who avoid decapitation leave more offspring.
|
|
|
 Go not to the Elves for counsel... Jon, you aren't even an Elf!
Those are very interesting quotes; I think I once read something about the first one before... a long time ago, though. Thanks, Jon. 
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Tue Aug 5 01:49:11)
|
|
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
 Oog make mission statement.
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
