Nerwen
In response to:
I am still not sure whether you have understood my point and rejected it, or just haven't grasped it in the first place.
I did get your point. But I believe it is only of minor significance – thus the mildest of rejections on my part. Sam as a co-author of the Red Book employed allegory in his poem. And this was I believe just a way of connecting Tolkien's mythology to ours. There is nothing to suggest that other authors of the Red Book could not employ allegory. In other words allegory was as alive and well in Tolkien's mythical age as it is today.
The take-away from Ms. Seth's essay on this issue – I think was to give the reader a ready-made example of
embodied allegory. Moreover one in the tale. In which case Bombadil as embodied allegory himself, might be more acceptable to a skeptical reader and not an outlier.
Also, to what does the phrase "Tolkien's emphasis" refer? His putting "allegory" in quotation marks? That is certainly not a standard way of showing emphasis- in fact, in that context, it should be an example of what are known as "scare quotes" . Like if I say, "I was served 'Chinese' food", I'm saying "It wasn't*real*Chinese food".*
Maybe in today's day and age it might be less usual to use quotes to provide emphasis – but I wonder if it is as true in Tolkien's time. In those days word processor's were unavailable. Letters were mostly written or typed. The use of italics to convey emphasis was perhaps a tad more difficult using such means.
From The Letters of JRRT – I have pulled out a several usages of the word allegory that are in quotes.
Though it is not an 'allegory'. - Letter #34
For 'romance' has grown out of 'allegory' - Letter #71
But in spite of this, do not let Rayner suspect 'Allegory'. - Letter #109
There is no 'allegory', moral, political, or contemporary in the work at all. - Letter #181
The Hobbits are no more an 'allegory' than are (say) the pygmies of the African forest. - Letter #181
But it is true. An enquirer (among many) asked what the L.R. was all about, and whether it was an 'allegory'. - Letter #205
It is not really or properly an 'allegory' so much as 'mythical' - Letter #241
Clearly Tolkien is trying to highlight/bring attention to/emphasize the quoted words. That appears to be his style and is actually consistent with what I was taught being brought up in England in the 60's and 70's.
Ms. Seth has not told us whether the emphasis is mild or strong – indeed can we really know?
I am quite all right with her succinct:
“Tolkien's emphasis”.
What the state of being a not-quite-allegory consists of is murky indeed.
Yes indeed what exactly is a “murky” “not-quite-allegory”? If you could provide me what you think the Professor's intentions were as regards Bombadil – then I would be happy to consider them.
I certainly believe Tolkien contradicted himself at times, and sometimes forgot what he had written.
Maybe, but once again the above appears to be an excuse for the Professor – when indeed there may be no need for one. In itself such a judgement instantly dismisses the need for further scholarship.
As I said before the default position in trying to establish interpretations is to firstly believe the words at face-value. From there context may be taken into consideration to establish 'truth'.
But you are reversing the burden of proof here. It is not up to us to show that Tolkien didn't use "conscious allegory" in his work, it's up to you/Priya to show that he did.
Ms. Seth right up-front said her position is a theory. She therefore has declined to proclaim the essay as absolute proof. But what she has implied is that all the pieces of the puzzle snap together to make her theory very strong.
This is rather like an unsolved murder case whereupon the death of a suspect – a confession is found. Despite numerous denials during all the years in which the suspect was alive, a written note is finally found that admits to the dreadful deed. Upon a re-hash of the old evidence and some new stuff that has come to light after death - the case detective realizes that everything now fits.
What should he do, ask to re-open the case or not?
Morally of course he should.
And what do you think the Judge and Jury's verdict will be with this written confession along with a trail of evidence that leads to a motive and directly points to the likely murderer?
All Detective Seth has done – is pull out Tolkien's straightforward 'hidden' confession which was made under no pressure while alive. The 'confession' which came to light after Tolkien's death is of course at odds with many public statements made while alive. Upon looking at all the evidence – Detective Seth has arrived at a coherent and simple theory, along with a motive, which seemingly matches the facts very well.
I'm afraid, If I were to judge Tolkien – I would find him guilty as charged.
Others may not do so and try to come up with alibi's.
I think that's a shame – but I am still respectful of such a view.
But one thing I want to convey – is that not at all the facts are in yet. Though to me, Ms. Seth has already provided information that is beyond reasonable doubt, some matters have been missed. Undoubtedly there is more evidence to come.
In the mean-time, I am happy to continue discussing the theory on its own merits.