DIRECT Symbolism in LOTR

[Formendacil]

This cannot be symbolism directly intended by Tolkien (or any other symbolism for that matter) because he had a strong distaste for allegory, and explicitly denies it, as has already been noted by Child of the 7th Age.

The problem with symbolism, quite apart from the author's actual intent, is that you start looking at everything as a symbol of something, and lose sight of the fact that it is all a part of a story and world where it has it's own purpose to fulfill. Here are some reasons that I can come up with about why these things are as they had to be, within the context of the story, and thus negating any reason for them to be symbols.

Gondor --> A kingless kingdom --> Britain?

Gondor had to be kingless, because Aragorn's story was to become it's long-awaited king returning.
Isildur --> A king who gave fell due to temptation --> Edward

Someone had to take the Ring from Sauron. And that someone had to go on to lose it and not destroy it, and so make the story possible.
Denethor --> An ineffective "steward of the state --> Chamberlain

First of all, Denethor was far from ineffective. He was doing the best anyone could do under the circumstances, unlike Chamberlain. Secondly, Denethor's "ineffectiveness" in so far as it went, was due to personal grief and distorted knowledge from the Palantir, and was not due to ineptitude. That doesn't exactly negate the symbolism, but I think you'd be stretching it to say that Denethor was ineffective.
Faramir --> A true steward --> Churchill

So Chamberlain was Churchill's father? Faramir fulfilled Elrond's prediction of meeting unexpected friends along the road. It was then in character for him to remain on the side of Gandalf and Aragorn.
Seige of Gondor --> A great state seiged for many years --> Battle of Britain

The story included huge armies massing against a smaller state. Tolkien wasn't writing about death-seeking glory-idiots, hence a Siege was bound to happen. Again, dictated by the needs of the story, and not by symbolism.
Isengard --> A place of wisdom fallen into darkness --> Germany

Saruman begins as the plot device to make Frodo leave on his own. He has to be of great power to prevent Gandalf from helping Frodo. Thus, he becomes wise and a lord of Orks and men. Isengard, as his home, HAS to turn evil.
Uruk-Hai --> "Superior orc-men" --> Nazis

Right.... A race that is BORN evil represents a race that was forced into evil deeds by a madman and his fanatical followers... Besides which, Saruman (as already noted) HAD to be evil. In order to force the Fellowship through Moria, he HAD to present a major military threat. Orc-men was a convinient abomination that helps solidify him as total traitor and gives him a more fearsome army.


I could go on, but I think that you get my point. These choices in the story were made because they followed the logic of the story as far as it had gone, and in the direction Tolkien wanted to take it. The reasons given above are unlikely to have been on Tolkien's mind in anything near the way I have presented them. More likely, he was just writing a very good tale, and these are the elements that he mixed to make them. The real events of Britain in that era might have been a part of the "leaf-mould" of his imagination, and may have influenced where he decided to go, but he did not consciously intend to symbolise anything. As he noted himself, the better a story is written, the more allegorically applicable it will seem. This is only natural, since the better a story is written, the more like real life it will seem. That doesn't mean that it isn't still just a story. Maybe with lessons, but still a story first and foremost.

[The Saucepan Man]

Gondor --> A kingless kingdom --> Britain?

Britain was not kingless.

[Encaitare]

Yes, it is a story first and foremost, and certainly is not meant to be allegory, but this does not mean that all historical parallels and other connections must immediately be tossed aside.

[Michael Wilhelmson]

What I am suggesting is that Tolkien intended for his writings to have more meaning than just a simple plotline. He obviously wished for his books to serve as moral examples, and to show some truths about the world, as well as some of his own hopes for the future

Britain- The king abdicated for the love of a woman, much like Tolkien himself, in Beren and Aragorn. Since then, the Queen has taken a much lesser role in the affairs of state.
Tolkien, being a huge romantic, might have hoped for the "Return of the King", or a event that could give Britain a new sense of pride and nationalism

White Supremacy- Like the Uruks, many Nazis expressed distaste at having to work alongside "lesser" men, like the Italians or Japanese. Yet, they were all defeated equally, in that all the orcs headed for Isengard were killed, and burned together in one heap. This shows some of Tolkien's views on white supremacy, or any racism. Despite their racial strength, the uruk-hai were defeated alongside the rest of the orcs

Last, Tolkien very much realized that no creature is truly born evil. One has to become evil first. Denethor was a good man once, but was corrupted by the Palantir. Theoden, a mere child when Aragorn wandered through Rohan, himself was infected by Saruman's influence, but rescued. Even the "black" Haradrim (Understood to be "PC" in Tolkien's time) were once stated to be noble people and friends of Gondor before Sauron rose again.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Michael Wilhelmson

Britain- The king abdicated for the love of a woman, much like Tolkien himself, in Beren and Aragorn. Since then, the Queen has taken a much lesser role in the affairs of state.
Tolkien, being a huge romantic, might have hoped for the "Return of the King", or a event that could give Britain a new sense of pride and nationalism

Just to continue on an already-made point, when Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings, it was already several years since the abdication of Edward VIII, and he had finished writing it by the time George VI passed away.

In addition, the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II was an event of great national pride. It was a hugely patriotic ceremony, and was certainly well-appreciated by the people of Britain (and to a lesser degree, the Empire in general).

Also, Aragorn did not "abdicate" any more than Tolkien himself did. In fact, Aragorn had to BECOME king in order the marry the woman he loved. Elrond refused to allow Arwen to marry anyone other than the King of both Arnor and Gondor. Aragorn wasn't abdicating, he was achieving.

[Michael Wilhelmson]

Isildur was the king who abdicated, who left the throne for personal reasons, whether it was voluntary or not.

[gorthaur_cruel]

Isildur was the king who abdicated, who left the throne for personal reasons, whether it was voluntary or not.

Even Isildur did not truly abdicate. Rather, he merely decided to change which kingdom to rule. At that time, Arnor was considered to be the greater of the two kingdoms, and as Elendil's eldest son, he felt that he had the right to take over its kingship. He never stopped being a King. He just became the King of Arnor instead of the King of Gondor.

...and in reference to allegorical meanings in the story...
(This is from Tolkien's letter #203)

There is no 'symbolism' or conscious allegory in my story. Allegory of the sort 'five wizards=five senses' is wholly foreign to my way of thinking. There were five wizards and that is just a unique part of history. To ask if the Orcs 'are' Communists is to me as sensible as asking if Communists are Orcs.
That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability. There always is. And since I have not made the struggle wholly unequivocal: sloth and stupidity among hobbits, pride and [illegible] among Elves, grudge and greed in Dwarf-hearts, and folly and wickedness among the 'Kings of Men', and treachery and power-lust even among the 'Wizards', there is I suppose applicability in my story to present times. But I should say, if asked, the tale is not really about Power and Dominion: that only sets the wheel going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness. Which is hardly more than to say it is a tale written by a Man!

The first paragraph sums up nicely the absence of allegory in LotR.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Even Isildur did not truly abdicate. Rather, he merely decided to change which kingdom to rule. At that time, Arnor was considered to be the greater of the two kingdoms, and as Elendil's eldest son, he felt that he had the right to take over its kingship. He never stopped being a King. He just became the King of Arnor instead of the King of Gondor.

Let's just go a bit farther and say: Isildur did not abdicate at all. He was king of the United Kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor (compare to G.W.B. like-it-or-not, President of the United States, just as much President of Maine as of California). Isildur didn't give up the kingship of Gondor to take the throne of Arnor, rather his father Elendil had been High King of both realms and Isildur a sort of sub-king (compare, governor) under him. When Elendil died, Isildur inherited the High Kingship and simply transferred his residence to Arnor. However, Isildur was the last King under whom Gondor and Arnor were united. After Isildur's death Arnor was ruled by Isildur's heirs and Gondor was ruled by the heirs of his brother Anarion.

Sorry to drag the thread off on a tangent.

Sophia