Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonsolo | Hacker News Reader

That makes sense, though I’ve never been able to find evidence on that (and I’ve looked). The allegory is too spot on to be accidental.

View on HN

Last chapters of LOTR, after the victory. The heroes come back at home and it is destroyed, no nature, no trees, and a big factory in the middle. Takes magic to restore the natural ecosystem.

THAT is reality. It would take magic to restore many ecosystems by this point.

Uh, no, it does not.

It takes Samwise Gamgee, a devoted and skilled gardener, spending a year of his life planting new trees to replace the ones that were lost.

Yes, he uses a magical resource he was given as part of his reforestation campaign, but it just speeds up the growth. The real factor is still Sam's tireless labor.

Well, industry destroys the nature and we can argue if 20 years of growth in 1 year of actual work is significant or not, but the main point remains: there is substantial evidence that Tolkin didn't like industrialization. Can we agree on that?

Oh, absolutely. It's clear in the books, and outside that he made it very explicit that he mourned what it was doing to the English countryside he loved.

I was just being pedantic about the events of the narrative, because it's close to my heart.

He also wrote that he despised allegory in all it’s forms though, so ::shrug::

He specificaly wrote that he despises allegory but appreciates applicability. So he wouldn’t write the Shire as a 1 to 1 allegory about the industrialization of the english countryside, but he would write on general themes like nature vs industry and good vs evil. What he mostly didn’t like was the idea of writing something to have a specific intended interpretation as opposed to readers having more flexibility in how they experienced a work of writing.

'Allegory' has a pretty specific meaning when talking about literature - the practice of speaking in coded meanings.

Example: I write of a 'garden door opening' but what I really mean is 'penis-in-vagina intercourse'. Or I say 'anthill', but what it really means is 'urban sprawl'.

So no, there are no allegories in LotR; the One Ring doesn't really stand for the atom bomb or whatever.

Right. "Industrialization destroying nature" in the book isn't an "allegory" for "Industrialization destroying nature" in reality. It's an illustrative example.

This quote often comes up when people discuss Tolkien's works. However:

- either "allegory" is meant to be a very strict one-to-one map, like Gandalf is really Jesus but has a different name in this story. Then the quote is irrelevant to almost discussion because nobody is trying to make such a point.

- or "allegory' is meant to be some loose inspiration, like the War of the Ring drawing from Tolkien's experiences in the Great War, the role of providence being similar in Catholic theology & in the legendarium, or more controversially the description of evil men or women being a product of its times. If such is the meaning of allegory, and Tolkien denied using it, then he is wrong.

I think Tolkien meant meaning 1. In either case it is irrelevant to most claims of some connection between a real word thing and a legendarium thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com