Morthoron
I'm surprised and to be honest a little perturbed as to why you unable to acknowledge Tolkien's statement that Tom is an 'allegory'. I am even more surprised that you are unable to entertain that Tom was an exception – and to Ms Seth's inference - fell outside the general use of no allegory.
Either Tolkien said/implied these things or he didn't. But because he did, we have to live with them.
We can try pushing Tom as 'allegory' under the carpet (as so many scholars have done). Or we can try to come up with some rational explanation as to what he meant or why he said it.
Ms Seth has asked the reader to look at the issue dispassionately and objectively. Many of us think we know Tolkien well, but the bottom line is – we really don't. And so, a logical person would say - okay let's entertain the possibility and see where it leads.
I am so glad you brought up 'Occam's Razor' because guess what – we find more than any other theory out there, with Ms Seth's - a lot of things automatically fall into place. These include:
(a) Remarks in the novel about Tom or his own very words.
(b) Tolkien's own somewhat enigmatic remarks about Tom in his letters.
(c) The 'tricks' Tom plays in front of the hobbits
(d) The issue of 'eldest' between Treebeard and Tom.
Shippey, Jensen, Hargrove, Ranger from the North, etc. are only able to partially explain these many matters. Ms Seth is able to explain them all within the confines of her theory. That is the big difference.
That is why her simple and straightforward theory, which fits the known facts is so alluring. In short it aligns perfectly with Occam's principle. For very importantly and once again – a lot of what fits is what Ms Seth terms as 'automatic' and in itself elegant. Per Part IV of her essay, repeating what she said:
…. an ideal audience member is always automatically:
(1)*
“First”*and*
“last”*to actually see the ‘play’
(2) A*
“natural pacifist”
(3)*
“Eldest in Time”*– Time being counted from when the performance officially begins (curtains open)
(4)*
“watching”*and*
“observing”
(5)*
“unconcerned with ‘doing’ anything with the knowledge”*gained from the ‘play’
(6) One that*
“desires knowledge of other things”
(7)*
“Not important to the narrative”
(8) One that*
“hardly interferes”
(9) One who has*
“renounced control”
(10) One who has unknowingly*
“taken a vow of poverty”*(non-ownership of anything inside the theater)
(11) A being that is*
“other”*(to those on stage)
(12) There to take*
“delight”*in the performance
(13) One that can never be an*
“owner”*of anything on the stage
(14) One who understands*
“the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control”*is not for them to decide
(15) Aware that*
“night will come”*when the ‘play’ is over.
I really think you should have another read, and ponder on it with an 'open-mind'.
As to Christopher Tolkien's lack of disclosure – I cannot answer you. One would have to ask him personally. If you read Priya Seth's thesis carefully – she provides a perfectly acceptable answer for me. It appears that Tolkien has hidden things in TLotR for researchers to discover. This is undoubtedly true. I suggest you read the quote from Clyde Kilby and chew on it:
“…*if I would hold it confidential, he would “put more under my hat” than he had ever told anyone.”
– Tolkien and The Silmarillion, Clyde Kilby, Summer with Tolkien*
Note my underlined emphasis on
“anyone” (which would include CT). According to Ms. Seth, the statement was made many years after TLotR was published.
I have no reason to believe Kilby was a liar.
Have you?