Tom Bombadil – An Intriguing Answer !

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Balfrog, I think you and your alter-ego, Dan Brown code-deciphering authoress should just take Tolkien at his word when he says:

"I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about."

And in that regard, use the advice Tolkien gave to an over-eager correspondent:

"As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being far too serious."

I tend to think in this case it is over thinking Bombadil as well.

And... As for the ring disappearing???

Really?

Would no one in Middle-earth be capable of simple slight-of-hand?

And that isn't the only explanation for the person who literally commands the Ontological Identification (What things Are) of Middle-earth.

I still think Shippey's explanation fits the best.

It even applies when dealing with why he is confined to such a small area (Goldberry is the primarily answer).

Shippey skirts around the issue of Archetypes here as well, as what he is describing of Tom Bombadil is an Archetype (First Man, The Namer, . . . ).

As for Tolkien using Allegory. Tolkien addressed that in several places, indicating that there is a difference between Allegory and Significance.

Letter 203:

That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability.

Or.

From Letter 215:

I do not like allegory (properly so called: most readers appear to confuse it with significance or applicability

And he deals specifically with Allegory with respect to Tom Bombadil in Letter 153, he says of Tom Bombadil.:

He is then ... a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture .

It was from this, and from The Adventures of Tom Bombadil that Tom Shippey got the idea of Bombadil as "First Man" (Do not confuse "Man" here with Human - First Man is an Archetype, or a form of Mythic Personification, and not a human being, or any other form of Child of Ilúvatar, in the terms of Middle-earth).

Tom Shippey was not well educated in Campbell's work (not wholly ignorant of it, I understand, but not deeply studied).

I am.

And when I read Shippey's account (Echoed elsewhere by other Tolkien Scholars), I immediately recalled from Campbell's The Masks of God, vol. 1: Primitive Mythology the various accounts of the First Man and other such spirits whose job it is is to simply know "What is." (The Ontology of the World).

So it is not that people are "allergic" to Allegory WRT Tolkien's works.

It is that Tolkien himself utterly rejected it as a conscious application.

And what this girl is describing in her attempts to force an allegorical explanation onto Tom Bombadil (one that Tolkien has already held-forth upon) is to claim that Tolkien consciously and intentionally wrote an Allegory, where Tolkien has utterly rejected that.

This makes Tolkien a liar, at worst, and deluded, at best.

Why would there be an INTENTIONAL allegory in Tolkien's works where he has explicitly rejected it?

MB

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

Digging deep is something I enjoy. And Tom Bombadil as I have said before is a particularly interesting character. Though I am quite aware that not everyone think's the same way.

I know a lot of us who have studied Tolkien' works, correspondences, biography's etc in depth – think that we know the professor quite well. But do we really? I prefer to have an open mind on the 'Dan Brown' connection. Those that knew Tolkien best were certainly his own family and I take particular heed of their words. From Priya Seth's essay:

“I had a lot of fun times with my grandfather … We played endless word games and I asked him innumerable questions about Middle Earth…”
– J.R.R. Tolkien’s Grandson (Simon Tolkien): In my Grandfather’s Footsteps, Huffington Post, 26 April 2010

“He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.”
– The Life and Works of J.R.R. Tolkien as experienced by a grandson (Michael Tolkien), Leicester College Lecture, October 19th 1995

Also from one that worked closely with him on his mythology; again from Priya Seth's essay:

“… 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

Tolkien was seemingly a fairly private person and was reluctant to tell too much; once more from Priya Seth's essay:

"I feel diffident, reluctant as it were to expose my world of imagination to possibly contemptuous eyes and ears.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #Letter 282

I don't think there's anything wrong pursuing an academic look at Bombadil from a puzzle standpoint. There seems to more there than anything Dan Brown could factually lay his hands on in the Da Vinci Code.




Marwhini

Tom has immense power. That is quite clear. There was no 'sleight of hand' in putting the Ring on his little finger – at least I have never heard that suggested before. Nor does there appear to have been one in warding off the rain.

You are quite right to point out that Tom could have used 'sleight of hand' in the Ring toss. But to me it doesn't make much sense to mix 'street tricks' in with other exhibitions of 'raw power'. The hypothesis of using 'a different plane of reality' to make the Ring disappear makes more sense. Particularly as Tolkien (when discussing TB in his 1964 letter to Professor Mroczkowski - as Priya Seth points out) alludes to such a solution through:

“… the simultaneity of different planes of reality touching one another … part of the deeply felt idea that I had …”.

I have never seen any decent discussion on what he really meant by these words – apart from Priya Seth's theory. Have you?

On the matter of Tolkien calling Tom an 'allegory' – it is there in black and white. Is it the truth or is it not?

What would an independent party (unbiased and who had no knowledge of TLotR) conclude?

On one side we have a bunch of statements that talk about the tale in general which deny allegorical content. And on the other we have a letter that specifically tells us Tom is 'allegory'. And furthermore another later that basically tells us that Tom is an exception to the rules.

Hmm … I know which way I would judge. But there again I am probably biased!

To me – there is every reason why its academically right to investigate the possibility of some sort of 'cover-up'. Of course there also exists the possibility there were just some honest moments of forgetfulness when Tolkien denied 'allegory'. I think it's a step too far to call him 'a liar' or 'deluded'. But undeniably there are conflicting statements – on what I believe is a crucial matter.

[Barrel-rider]

I don't think he was lying in denying allegory, like you said, but I also think that his works are fantasy stories with "real" figures in them. The reason I put "real" in quotation marks is because, Eru Illuvatar was to him another name for the Biblical God. If Eru Illuvatar was just another name for the Biblical God, then can't Tom be just another name for himself, or in the very least a kindred spirit?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"Balfrog" just never gives up.

I can't wait to see how Opus Dei and the Illuminati figure into this.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Morthoron

Digging deep is something I enjoy. And Tom Bombadil as I have said before is a particularly interesting character. Though I am quite aware that not everyone think's the same way.

I know a lot of us who have studied Tolkien' works, correspondences, biography's etc in depth – think that we know the professor quite well. But do we really? I prefer to have an open mind on the 'Dan Brown' connection. Those that knew Tolkien best were certainly his own family and I take particular heed of their words. From Priya Seth's essay:

“I had a lot of fun times with my grandfather … We played endless word games and I asked him innumerable questions about Middle Earth…”
– J.R.R. Tolkien’s Grandson (Simon Tolkien): In my Grandfather’s Footsteps, Huffington Post, 26 April 2010

“He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.”
– The Life and Works of J.R.R. Tolkien as experienced by a grandson (Michael Tolkien), Leicester College Lecture, October 19th 1995

Also from one that worked closely with him on his mythology; again from Priya Seth's essay:

“… 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

Tolkien was seemingly a fairly private person and was reluctant to tell too much; once more from Priya Seth's essay:

"I feel diffident, reluctant as it were to expose my world of imagination to possibly contemptuous eyes and ears.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #Letter 282

I don't think there's anything wrong pursuing an academic look at Bombadil from a puzzle standpoint. There seems to more there than anything Dan Brown could factually lay his hands on in the Da Vinci Code.




Marwhini

Tom has immense power. That is quite clear. There was no 'sleight of hand' in putting the Ring on his little finger – at least I have never heard that suggested before. Nor does there appear to have been one in warding off the rain.

You are quite right to point out that Tom could have used 'sleight of hand' in the Ring toss. But to me it doesn't make much sense to mix 'street tricks' in with other exhibitions of 'raw power'. The hypothesis of using 'a different plane of reality' to make the Ring disappear makes more sense. Particularly as Tolkien (when discussing TB in his 1964 letter to Professor Mroczkowski - as Priya Seth points out) alludes to such a solution through:

“… the simultaneity of different planes of reality touching one another … part of the deeply felt idea that I had …”.

I have never seen any decent discussion on what he really meant by these words – apart from Priya Seth's theory. Have you?

On the matter of Tolkien calling Tom an 'allegory' – it is there in black and white. Is it the truth or is it not?

What would an independent party (unbiased and who had no knowledge of TLotR) conclude?

On one side we have a bunch of statements that talk about the tale in general which deny allegorical content. And on the other we have a letter that specifically tells us Tom is 'allegory'. And furthermore another later that basically tells us that Tom is an exception to the rules.

Hmm … I know which way I would judge. But there again I am probably biased!

To me – there is every reason why its academically right to investigate the possibility of some sort of 'cover-up'. Of course there also exists the possibility there were just some honest moments of forgetfulness when Tolkien denied 'allegory'. I think it's a step too far to call him 'a liar' or 'deluded'. But undeniably there are conflicting statements – on what I believe is a crucial matter.

Occam's Razor would in this case incise the incredulity of Ms. Priya's postulation down to laughable bits of hocus-pocus with less prestidigtation than Bombadil's parlor trick.

The simple, elegant solutions are either, as Marwhini reiterated from Shippey and suffused with Campbell, that Tolkien intended Tom to be a representation of the "First Man", with the attendant naming capabilities and mythological motifs inherent in real-world folklore, or as I stated in more than one instance, that we take Tolkien at his word that Bombadil is an external manifestation, a character Tolkien simply wanted to add to Middle-earth because of his significance to things the writer felt important and which were not reflected in the story otherwise.

In either case, there is no jumping through hoops and contorting in all manner of tortured mental gymnastics to define Bombadil. There are ample direct references to who and what Tolkien believed Bombadil to be that do not require a Templar conspiracy or elaborate coded messages to make an informed conclusion about the character.

Tolkien's son, Christopher, has never made mention of any hidden ciphers in his father's work. Why wouldn't he, given that he compiled a mammoth 12 volume recapitulation of Middle-earth writings? Why would no one, like Shippey, who actually worked with the Tolkien Family, publish a book about such a secretive literary phenomenon that would set Tolkien's work on its ear and alter the very concepts we once thought were clear (and sell several million copies in the process)?

To make these mental leaps (and in the process, as others have inferred, calling Tolkien either a blatant liar or hopelessly deluded), one must ignore what Tolkien said about Bombadil and instead rely on quotes that do not refer to Tom directly, and in turn ignore everything Tolkien stated about allegory, applicability and significance, while fashioning an alternate universe in which Tolkien has by design sought to directly mislead everyone about his intentions.

But back to Occam's razor and simplicity of design. The assertions of Ms. Seth requires an abandonment of reason that I am unwilling to make. And in regards to your continued and incessant disemboguing of Priya Seth's daft theory, Balfrog, I can only quote Shakepeare: "I would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Termagant. It out-Herods Herod. Pray you, avoid it.

[Balfrog]

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?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

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.

Oh, gosh, I have perturbed you. Whatever shall I do?

Originally Posted by Balfrog

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.

Simply put, it is not an allegory because Tolkien defined "allegory" with the caveat: " 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." This is the crux of the entire conversation and why Ms. Priya's theory falls like a deck of cards in a wind storm.

The refusal of Tolkien to define him directly and with any specificity, and the multiplicity of definitions by every commentator who has ever considered Bombadil, leads me to believe it is not an allegory. If one is to strictly read the story (whether that reader is a Professor of Literature or a high school student) and then is asked to define Bombadil, how many would choose to believe he is an allegory? An allegory of...what? There is no basis to specifically infer Bombadil is allegorical to anything by reading the book.

This is not like Plato's Allegory of the Cave or even C.S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles in which one can draw a direct line or parallel to what is being implied. The reader has the "freedom", as Tolkien put it, to infer just about anything regarding Bombadil. Hence, adroit readers at all reading levels will insist he is a Maia, he is Eru, He is Adam, he is Tolkien himself, etc. Tolkien does not in any way force the reader to allegorize Bombadil. He neither imputes nor infers a status on Bombadil. He simply "is". Even the other characters in the book, whether it is one of the Hobbits or lore masters like Gandalf and Elrond, cannot define him with any assurance, and offer only bemused guesses as to what Bombadil is.

For Ms. Priya (and you in your sycophantic insistence on precluding all else from your lap-dogged adherence to her theory) to conclude that Bombadil is an allegory based on selected quotes from Tolkien after the fact, precludes all other quotes that contradict the assumption. "The play" that Priya provides is just another theory in the long line of theories that lacks authorial authority to surmise it is the correct assumption. Tolkien refers to him on more than one occasion as an "enigma" which, in itself, would preclude an allegory, because allegorizations require an imputed goal, an artifice, to draw the reader to a conclusion the author wishes the reader to make. That is not the case with Bombadil.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Nerwen

I like the way you used the phrase: 'fiction within a fiction'.

Nevertheless its' all fiction and its all the work of Tolkien – however we gloss his application of allegory!

I'm not quite sure how to reply to this. Perhaps I didn't make the point clear enough. Basically, I am contending that no, they are not "all the same".

Her link to Fastitocalon, for me, projects a good practical example of what Tolkien possibly meant by calling Tom a “particular embodying” of allegory.

How so?

Originally Posted by Balfrog

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.

That's rather a tall order, I think, given that in the very post you quote- the very sentence, in fact- he also states that Tom is not an allegory.

“I do not mean him to be an allegory – or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name – but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying …”.
Letter #144

Really, what are we to make of this?

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

Fortunately the 'perturbation' lasted about the time I took to write the sentence.

I agree with the following partially:

"There is no basis to specifically infer Bombadil is allegorical to anything by reading the book."

There is more evidence to come in future posts, and I request your patience.

Clearly – you are far from convinced. I suspect that Ms. Seth knew the problems she was going to face
- hence the large amount of effort she has devoted to discussing the matter. It's persuasive to me and I'm interested in the subject - so quite happy to spend some time on it. I'm not sure why you would have a problem with that or even make mention for that matter – because it really doesn't add anything to the debate. I certainly don't believe Tom is a case of 'applicability' – specifically because Tolkien said he was 'allegory'. He certainly didn't state the reverse.

Yes, you are quite right that Ms. Seth's theory is one in a long line – but I feel we are finally homing in on the truth. It seems you chose not to comment on the 'circumstantial evidence'. On its own – isn't it a good fit?



Nerwen

"I'm not quite sure how to reply to this. Perhaps I didn't make the point clear enough. Basically, I am contending that no, they are not "all the same"."

I don't understand you're blanket 'no'. It isn't really helpful without some explanation.

"How so?"

This was explained by Ms. Seth quite reasonably (I think). Both the 'turtle-fish' and 'Bombadil' are 'creatures'. Yes maybe fictional ones, but nevertheless within the mythology they exist. If one can represent a concept allegorically (the turtle-fish as embodiment of the 'Devil') there is no reason why Bombadil can't represent a different embodied allegorical concept.


"That's rather a tall order, I think, given that in the very post you quote- the very sentence, in fact- he*alsostates that Tom is*not*an allegory."

Ms. Seth also addressed that within her essay (you might want to take another look). She viewed the statement:

“I do not mean him to be an allegory ...”
Letter #153

as a kind of humbling apology – again quite reasonably in my opinion. In any case – if we were to intepret this statement as directly contradicting the: “he is then an 'allegory' ” statement – then it's just as damning. In other words - we can't really trust anything Tolkien said about allegory.

Indeed:

"Really, what*are*we to make of this?"

In my opinion, Shippey called Tolkien out on this (most diplomatically of course) in Author of the 20th Century. It's worth having a read and digesting what exactly was said about the professor and allegory.



Nerwen, Morthoron & All Others

I really think it's time for the community to actively doubt Tolkien on the matter of allegory and indeed bring the edifice built on 'a pack of cards' tumbling down – namely finally remove the sand-foundation built around a premise of no allegory in the story.

The professor was human just like the rest of us. Yes subject to emotions, in possession of weaknesses and vices, and sometimes not altogether truthful.

Here is another example of a contradiction. In that very same letter where he said there was 'no conscious allegory' guess what - he also said (with an emphasis on 'no') there was:

“There is no 'symbolism' … in my story.
Letter # 203

Oh really Professor Tolkien – then why do you state:

For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.
Letter #142

Really Professor – which one is it?

Nerwen, Morthoron or anyone else – can you give me an explanation?

Sorry – I simply don't believe everything Tolkien wrote was entirely truthful. And I certainly have good reason to doubt him.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Nerwen

"I'm not quite sure how to reply to this. Perhaps I didn't make the point clear enough. Basically, I am contending that no, they are not "all the same"."

I don't understand you're blanket 'no'. It isn't really helpful without some explanation.

"How so?"

This was explained by Ms. Seth quite reasonably (I think). Both the 'turtle-fish' and 'Bombadil' are 'creatures'. Yes maybe fictional ones, but nevertheless within the mythology they exist. If one can represent a concept allegorically (the turtle-fish as embodiment of the 'Devil') there is no reason why Bombadil can't represent a different embodied allegorical concept.

Balfrog, I've already given you my reasoning on this, but here it is again:

Originally Posted by Me

He's talking about how he borrowed the monster from Anglo-Saxon lore, where it apparently has that meaning. But, unless I am much mistaken, the poem "Fastitocalon" in "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" describes a creature of Hobbit folklore- not one supposed to really exist in Middle-earth. That is, it's a fiction within a fiction. Now, in context "Fastitocalon" could in fact be allegorical without having any bearing on whether "The Lord of the Rings" or any actual characters therein are. In saying his story is not allegorical Tolkien does not logically rule out some Middle-earth cultures having the practice of creating allegorical works, since these would exist on a different level of (un)reality.

I will break this down further. I'm actually making two points here:
1. Tolkien was explaining that the monster is borrowed from Anglo-Saxon folklore, and that it was an allegory *in its orginal context*.

2. Even if he did intend the Hobbits to have a similar tradition of ascribing symbolic meaning to various animals, that doesn't imply any of the actual characters in the book are "allegories". As I said, we are talking about fiction within fiction.

Now, last time you just sort of waved your hand and said, "Nope, nope, it's all the same". I am still not sure whether you have understood my point and rejected it, or just haven't grasped it in the first place.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

"That's rather a tall order, I think, given that in the very post you quote- the very sentence, in fact- he*alsostates that Tom is*not*an allegory."

Ms. Seth also addressed that within her essay (you might want to take another look). She viewed the statement:

“I do not mean him to be an allegory ...”
Letter #153

as a kind of humbling apology – again quite reasonably in my opinion.

Well, here's the passage:

Originally Posted by Priya Seth

All the same Tom’s secret role was most definitely allegorical, both consciously and intentionally. Just a few months later, Tolkien just about confessed to hidden allegory outright:

“I do not mean him to be an allegory … but ‘allegory’ is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: …”,
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #Letter 153 (Tolkien’s emphasis)

and even more forcefully:

“… he is then an ‘allegory’ …”.
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #Letter 153 (Tolkien’s emphasis)

One might view a remarkable admission, somewhat camouflaged and couched as a half-hearted apology, as a touch humiliating. Because Tolkien had in a way betrayed one of his own strong convictions. He clearly wasn’t entirely happy about Tom representing an abstract idea:

“I mean, I do not really write like that: …”,
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #144

but it circumvented an equally abstract craving: the ‘lack of an audience’. Unfortunately allegory was the most conveniently available method to exhibit a very unusual function, and in the end – Tolkien capitulated.

Look, is this really "addressing" the problem? Seems to me it's just begging the question.

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".

Originally Posted by Balfrog

In any case – if we were to intepret this statement as directly contradicting the: “he is then an 'allegory' ” statement – then it's just as damning. In other words - we can't really trust anything Tolkien said about allegory.

No, I wouldn't say it's "just" as damning. Tolkien, with his scare quotes, seems to me to be making a distinction between a true allegory and an 'allegory', i.e. something that looks like or has some features of an allegory without actually qualifying as one.

What the state of being a not-quite-allegory consists of is murky indeed. Nonetheless, to me it implies something far short of the elaborate construction of Priya Seth's theory.

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Nerwen, Morthoron & All Others

I really think it's time for the community to actively doubt Tolkien on the matter of allegory and indeed bring the edifice built on 'a pack of cards' tumbling down – namely finally remove the sand-foundation built around a premise of no allegory in the story.

The professor was human just like the rest of us. Yes subject to emotions, in possession of weaknesses and vices, and sometimes not altogether truthful.

Here is another example of a contradiction. In that very same letter where he said there was 'no conscious allegory' guess what - he also said (with an emphasis on 'no') there was:

“There is no 'symbolism' … in my story.
Letter # 203

Oh really Professor Tolkien – then why do you state:

For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.
Letter #142

Really Professor – which one is it?

Nerwen, Morthoron or anyone else – can you give me an explanation?

Well, there's your scare quotes again...

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Sorry – I simply don't believe everything Tolkien wrote was entirely truthful. And I certainly have good reason to doubt him.

I certainly believe Tolkien contradicted himself at times, and sometimes forgot what he had written. 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.