Quote:
Originally Posted by Balfrog
Despite that – I am happy to stick to my assertion – though I emphasize they do not reflect in any way on Ms. Seth's position. Yes, with a 150 million plus readers having been left wondering, Tom was to all intents and purposes - unsolvable  . From what I can gather, it took the 1964 Mroczkowski letter for Ms. Seth to unravel it. Though now I believe she has further undisclosed information that adds weightily to her hypothesis. |
Where exactly does this "undisclosed information" come from? What font of knowledge does Seth have access that is unavailable to any other scholar...or casual reader making assumptions from their living room couch? How enigmatic of you...and her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balfrog
In terms of Tolkien's thoughts on 'allegory', unfortunately, I think you have totally misconstrued or misunderstood what Tolkien wrote. Here is the entire sentence of debate again:
“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.” FotR, Foreword to the second edition
In no instance does Tolkien state that an 'allegory' has to be solvable by the reader. As far as as I am concerned an 'allegory' - can range from the impossible to solve, to the practically overt. It is entirely dependent on the writer, and on how much he/she wants to disclose. Indeed an allegory can be included for no purpose other than self-amusing the author. Perhaps only a select few might be in the know. |
No, I have not misconstrued anything; rather, you haven't a clue what an "allegory" is.
More on that shortly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balfrog
" ... then why did Tolkien not ever refer to him as such?" Well – maybe you've missed the point Ms. Seth made about Tom being not just allegory but also a puzzle. Maybe the author was reluctant to give away the answer to the puzzle? Who knows? But I could certainly be sympathetic with such a stance.
Well what's the upshot of this? Very succinctly: this means practically the entire argument of your last post is without merit. |
And yet you assert Ms. Seth is correct on assumptions and conjecture, while you, yourself, devolve into "maybes" and "who knows". Laughable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balfrog
Or taking it further – go ahead and ignore any number of other statements we don't like. Now where would that leave us???? On a slippery slope perhaps??? To be honest, I really don't see Tolkien's letters littered with inaccuracies or contradictions. Indeed I see very few. The “symbolism” versus “no symbolism” one is a rarity.
|
You are aware that in every doctoral thesis on the subject, "allegory" is not "symbolism". They are not the same and even the most cursory review of the subject (almost, but not as cursory as your light sprinkling on the matter) will show you they are not the same, and cannot be the same, due to the direct intention of the author. You do not comprehend what Tolkien meant when he said “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.” He understood the definitions and the difference between "allegory" and "applicability". Again, he uses "symbolism" which is not "allegory". Here is a definition one can simply cut and paste from the internet:
"Although an allegory uses symbols, it is different from symbolism. An allegory is a complete narrative which involves characters, and events that stand for an abstract idea or an event. A symbol, on the other hand, is an object that stands for another object giving it a particular meaning."
Let that sink in. It is the simplest definition with the smallest words I could find for you. Now, relate that to Tolkien.
The Lord of the Rings is not a Christian allegory, like Lewis's
Narnia, but there is Christian symbology subsumed in the story. The symbology is part of the story, but the author does not assert his domination to force the reader into a particular point of view (which is why atheists and agnostics read and enjoy the story without feeling 'preached to').
In the same way, Bombadil is symbolic, not allegorical. He is a personification or "exemplar" of something Tolkien wished to include, but Tom is not an allegory that leads the reader to a specific point of view. Here is another description of "allegory":
"Allegory is a story or poem which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one. Abstract ideas and concepts, political or historical situations are represented through the characters, events and the setting of the story. Although the story in an allegory appears to be simple, it always has a more serious, deeper meaning; the characters and the events of the story may also stand for something larger than what they literally stand for. Therefore, the story and characters are multidimensional."
Bombadil may be a symbol, "representative" of the fading Oxfordshire of Tolkien's youth, but the plot and events of the story does not lead one to make that assumption.
Allegory is a narrative.
Symbolism is a literary device.
There is no direct evidence in any of Tolkien's voluminous writings or in his letters that Bombadil is the audience and "the play's the thing" (if I may use
Hamlet for applicability's sake). None. Neither a hint nor whisper.
Allegory is a story or poem which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
Symbolism is the method of representing things by symbols, or of imbuing things with a symbolic meaning or character.
Based on Tolkien's letters, he has imbued Bombadil with symbolism (and only mentions the fact long after publication, because it is in no way evident to the reader or scholar, thus maintaining an "enigma"), but he certainly did not in any way craft some allegorical parable around Bombadil; hence, he preferred not to use the word "allegory" in regards to the character, except in the sense that allegories use symbols, but symbols can be and are independent of narrative allegory. And Bombadil does not evoke a moral, political or any tangible allegorical trope. If anything he is benign and apolitical, as uninterested in aiding good as he is disinterested in destroying evil like the Old Man Willow.
I will not be posting further on the issue.