594
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
594 points (99.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
8714 readers
598 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not surprising considering it's partially allegory for the world wars.
"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. 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." -JRR Tolkien
Edit: I think a lot of people in this thread are conflating a story that is meaningful with one that is allegorical. See my comment elsewhere in this thread for more of my thoughts on the matter.
A distinction without a difference, really. I think he's wrong to say that people confuse these. What he says here boils down to "when it's heavy handed it's allegory and when it's good it's applicability" but I don't think most authors or scholars use these terms this way. He's right to say that it isn't good to beat your readers over the head with the relationship between your story and real events, and it makes sense that he felt strongly enough about that to want to use different words. But it's IMO still totally fine to say that LOTR has some allegorical character.
I interpret it quite differently to mean that a good (hi)story is indeed its own unique creation which can exist and be judged and enjoyed on its own accord without necessarily being a commentary or reflection of anything in the real world. Of course, all imagination relates to the real world to some extent—and that's where applicability comes in—but it's possible to reject the elements of allegory and in doing to build your own world which feels just as real and nuanced as our own.
I don't really believe that it's possible to write a fictional history which draws heavily on themes from real history that can't be described as somehow allegorical. You can reject it all you want but if it quacks like a duck...
That's fair, I don't be necessarily disagree, but perhaps another way of thinking about it is simply by looking at the diversity and types of interpretations that there may be for a particular work. For example, a book club reading 1984 would likely discuss the author's intended reflection on the real world; whereas a book club reading LOTR (depending on the individuals) is much more likely to be discussing the emotions and individual travails and growth of the characters and how the relate to a world which is distinctly its own (even if there are inevitable similarities to our own). In practice, I feel that is a clear enough distinction.
Yeah, I mostly agree with you too. I do think it's important to consider that diversity of interpretations, and it's why I say "has some allegorical character" rather than it having some kind of direct correspondence with real events as something like 1984 does, but the parallels to the political environment that Tolkien was personally experiencing at the time that he wrote it are too strong to ignore entirely. Although it has plenty of depth in the relationships of the individual characters to each other and their own world, it is also grounded in the intellectual ideas of early 20th century Europe and those ideas come through in the various factions and the characters that lead them or shape them. I think that kind of applicability to the political thought and events of that time can correctly be called allegory, even if he wouldn't have liked it much that I'm saying so.
What's the difference between distinction and difference? I hate this silly platitude.
A distinction is made actively, labelling things distinctly, with different names. A difference refers to some properties of the things not being the same. The phrase just means "to label things differently while they are not actually different", and you could qualify it a bit to say "except maybe in degree".
The guy who wrote about trees smashing industrialism dislikes allegory. I love Tolkien but come on.