Are you allowed to do that? What I mean is it's perfectly ok to completely disregard Tolkien's opinion, but ignoring
davem's that's blasphomy!
But, seriously now I completely understand what you're saying and I agree. Looking further in and 'analyzing' doesn't necessarily destroy the magic of the books. Especially if you have a deep interest in the 'how it came to be.'
Believe it or not, one of the most touching and thought-provoking scenes (for me) in LOTR is with Tolkien's war experience:
Eventhough Tolkien does deny using allegories to the World Wars:
I can not look at that moment with Sam and say it wasn't Tolkien reflecting on his World War experiences. Now, Tolkien said the 'legendary war' (or the war that he created) in not influenced by the real wars. While this moment with Sam looking at the dead Haradrim soldier has no importance on the main story, the story of the War and the Ring, it's more of just a sidebar, a step away from the action. As I can't look at that passage and not think that Tolkien was being influenced by his war experiences, but this passage with Sam does not play any major part in the storyline itself, it feels more like a
'step away from the story for a brief second.' it's a moment outside of the main plotline...if anyone has any clue as to what I'm saying.
Fea, I think
Letter 109 will fit what you are trying to explain quite perfectly:
'The Story' and 'allegory' start out totally opposite, but as that song goes...
'They meet in the middle.'
Tolkien strongly resisted his books as being labeled 'allegorical' but because of their very nature and depth provided-
better and more closely woven a story is - those searching can -
more easily find allegory in it.
It still all boils down to reader applicability. It is our freedom to think 'hey this reminds me of something in life.'
I think of it as a story with allegories that anyone can find - or choose not to find- but it is not an 'Allegorical story.' Meaning there was no intentional authorial design to make allegories. Because, intentionally writing in allegories limits the reader's mind, the reader's applicability. It would mean that we all must see 'Elrond as a Jesus figure,' and this was why I think Tolkien strongly resisted his books being 'allegorical.' Because if they were allegorical, the freedom of applicability would be taken away. And it is this very freedom of the reader, that I believe (at least for me), adds to the stories magic. It makes me as a reader be able to identify and connect with the story and form my own 'allegories.'