So, I've been watching (part of) acollierastro's video "The Scourge of the Shire" - and basically she try's to make
the point, while totally not trying to say, that Tolkien definitely did do Allegory. And for some reason I feel partial
about it.
Like ... as Morpheus used to say: There are things in this world, that will never change; But some things do change.
Or something along those lines.
Saying, I've noticed that myself; Where - along the lines of "Never say Never", sometimes things just change ... the
moment you've taken them for granted.
I suppose it takes experience - and a life with lots of moving pieces - to fully wrap your mind around it - and
with some of it, I've grown accustomed to things I deem certainties; Round about which there's just this ... nothing,
leaning into making a Neverending Story reference. Yea, like playing "the floor is Lava" - kindof.
So, the contention here is about that part of the ending of Lord of the Rings that didn't make it into the movies.
Spearheaded by this insinuation that the Lord of the Rings is about World War II. It starts roughly around
the 21 minute mark.
And so - perhaps I should also insert the quote here:
“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.”
And ... I feel this. So, if not for anything at all - at least this I can talk to. Or work with. Now - to be fair though -
I do LOVE allegory. For its humorous application. It's a nice supplement for any mood of cynicism or sarkasm - as it lends
itself to emphasize whatever serious fervor one might have by such utterances.
But eventually ... the lines are also somewhat blurry. Or if you're familiar with it ... fractal. To say that it's difficult
to draw a clear line as one can zoom in on any point on a line and find that it's far from simple.
Is 'this' allegory?
As a literary device or artistic form, an allegory is a narrative or visual representation in which a character, place, or event can be interpreted to represent a hidden meaning with moral or political significance. Authors have used allegory throughout history in all forms of art to illustrate or convey complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible or striking to its viewers, readers, or listeners.
Sure - so ... I used ... the Mandelbrot Set as an allegory for allegories. Or words - and 'allegory' happens to be one. And also
not the full set - just a property of such fractals.
As from a creative standpoint however - and that I think is at the heart of Tolkiens 'cordial dislike' of allegory - whatever
there is that one would want to allegorize, it competes with ones own creative vision. As ones creative vision is however
informed by ones mental resources - there is a chance that it allegorizes itself. Sotospeak.
So, it may then at this point just be a technicality - as to ... whether or not the Scourge of the Shire is an allegory for
Fascism. But - given that Tolkien felt so strongly about it, I think it is fair to suggest - that rather than trying or wanting
to write an allegory on Fascism, he merely felt like expressing how he felt about it.
So - what's striking here, in my opinion, is that Saruman is the big bad of that Chapter - and also does Fascism for no real
reason other than being Evil. And that I also think speaks to the essence of this discourse. So, while I'm sure you can find
applicability of this idea - it's not a sound allegory. And that's ... like ... what he said.
Whatever reasons Fascists might have to be Fascists - are reasons we might want to ignore, as at the end of the day, it's still
just petty nonsense if one is willing to go to such lengths about it. Yet, at this point it is us - using the works of an
author as allegory. And in this case - it might just be one that naturally lends itself to that.
However - as for the story itself, is it rather so that "a Fascism is happening" - within the confines of a work of fiction;
Wherever that inspiration came from.
For, if we were to say that it IS allegory - and that all of the work is allegory - we'd be bent to associate every stroke of
his work to some real life event and from there try to assert what Tolkien must have believed. Althewhile it is far simpler
to just take the work itself - the Characters in it, the qualities they have or don't have, and see the meaning within that.
I mean, what gets briefly touched upon here and there and elsewhere, is the matter of women in Lord of the Rings. And many
would stand up to say, that Tolkien took inspiration from the world he lived in. England. So, all has to be white and straight
and stuff. But that is also unfair. Tolkien created a varied world - and his story merely unfolded in that part of that world
that he was able to "buff with familiarity". A technicality perhaps - but important nonetheless.
Like, you don't have to take the 'real world' into it - to make a case for what ethnicities are to be found here and there.
I'm pretty sure - that's just how it works in the real world.
So - the women, for instance. We can read the book as that of a straight white male - living in his high castle and thusly
putting women in their place. And since I'm not familiar with the book - I don't know how legit that is. But I do know, that
regardless of how much some people might want to have women put in their place, that there are women in the story that do
not comply, as it were.
But - furthermore, the issue with allegory is that it is ... somewhat ... shallow or uncreative. And as we here talk about
'accidental allegory' from fiction, we do on the flipside get to 'accidental fiction' from allegory. While, with allegory,
one has to be careful. And yet, one usually can't get around having an idea - a point to be made - so, that caution ...
might be neither here nor there. And yet one is basically merely flipping assets. A Nuke becomes a Dragon - a crazy woman
becomes a witch - and as these assets change, our perception of a situation can change - for better or worse.