review: Lord of the Rings Trilogy

[Archon]

Well, yeah you could, I suppose, but why would you, if it wasn't his intention to write one?

[Lieutenant Kije]

As for my response to the real subject of this thread (which, contrary to poular belief, is not the name Heather):

I admit that Tolkien read simply as a series of novels is not a stellar example of fiction.  Tolkien was not a master novelist.  He was, in my opinion, a master craftsman of mythology.  That is why I read, and love, his works.

[Lieutenant Kije]

Well, yeah you could, I suppose, but why would you, if it wasn't his intention to write one?

Similar conflicts and themes do not analogies make.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Well, yeah you could, I suppose, but why would you, if it wasn't his intention to write one?

Because author intention does not always dictate exactly what comes out in the end. Reader reaction, subconscious inclusions, etc, all factor in.

[Chimera]

As for my response to the real subject of this thread (which, contrary to poular belief, is not the name Heather)

Of course it is. Every thread naturally degenerates into a discussion of the most important subject in the world--me!  

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I never dated you.

[Chimera]

You still like to talk about me though.   J/k

[Master Gopher]

My boyfriend dated a Heather. This is getting creepy.

Everyone's dating the Chimera! She's leading a quadruple life!!

I think it's perfectly feasible he included surrent themes and wrote a sort-of allegory, unintentionally. It's hard not to write about the time in which you live. Even when you are writing about historic Middle-Earth.

[Chimera]

Blast! You've discovered my super power--the ability to date everybody!  

But none of you know my super weakness, so I'm still safe.

[Archon]

*Archon revs up the Batmobile ominously*

[Oldie Black Witch]

I actually wanted to throw that National Geographic "Making of" out the window. It felt more like an ad for Greenpeace than an actual serious look at Tolkien's motives. There was a lot of speculation on what Tolkien meant, and if he were truly anti-technology, but there was no concrete proof to back up that he ever had such a bias.
Of course, the whole process of finding allegory and parallels between his works and any past or current situation seems unwise considering Tolkien's outright dislike of allegory in any form. Accusing a man of deliberately placing allegory in a novel he wrote when he outright denies it, and then proceeds on the assumption that he was just lying--that's the sort of premise that this National Geographic special seemed to be operating on.

[z]

at least the books and movie were more entertaining than alot of shirt we have seen come out this year, they were just running out of ideas.

[Spriggan]

Yes the movies were good, but that's because they can show, instead of describe, all the extra stuff Tolkien wanted.  Though I think the movie's success has as much to do with the director/production crew as the material.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Of course, the whole process of finding allegory and parallels between his works and any past or current situation seems unwise considering Tolkien's outright dislike of allegory in any form. Accusing a man of deliberately placing allegory in a novel he wrote when he outright denies it, and then proceeds on the assumption that he was just lying--that's the sort of premise that this National Geographic special seemed to be operating on.

Who's accusing him of "deliberately" doing anything? The rest of us here have been pointing out that even if he disliked allegory, there's a pretty strong social metaphor going on here. Perhaps if he hadn't made the Orcs so German and the Hobbits such gentlemen English farmers and teh Rehorrim so Saxon?

And come on people, the argument that "he didn't like allegory" isn't your best defense. The best argument against "War of the Rings as analogue for WWII" (at least in my opinion) is that elvish language is heavily built on Finnish language. The Finns fought against the Soviets in WWII. Which, y'know, helped the Germans. It would be like The elves attacking Helm's Deep.

HOwever, even though it's a flawed allegory, it's still there. Whether he meant it or not. I think it's silly for him to think he could even avoid it. Especially when he chose to draw so heavily from the Kalevala and other myth -- which is always heavy on allegory.

[Fellfrosch]

e's point is the big one in any discussion of literature: everything means something, whether you intend it to or not. Tolkien might not have put it there on purpose, but that's doesn't mean it isn't there.