Hacker News Reader

> He wasn't a systematic thinker, but tended to write what sounded good at the moment without much regard for consistency with what had been written before. He had to do a lot of later editing to remove logical conflicts in his stories. Remember that the impetus for his fiction was to create a world in which his created languages could live.

What is the basis of that? It doesn't match what I've read Tolkien saying. Tolkien knew exactly what he was doing, was a leading scholar in the field of myth, and thought very deeply about it. If you want to understand, read his essay On Fairy-stories.

> no good postmodernist would object to modern readers finding meanings in literature that weren't consciously in the author's mind.

What does that means specifically? Who are you referring to? What is the basis of that? What does it have to do with this discussion?

he famously got quite annoyed by people asking him about metaphors or whatever.

"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."

He very much did not want to talk about it and presumably intentionally avoided writing it.

His objection wasn't to "metaphors or whatever", but specifically to the technique of allegory. He was a professional expert in literature; it meant something very clear and specific to him (as did the word 'metaphor'). The full quote is,

"Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But 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.

Elsewhere:

"... the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human 'literature', that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily it can be read 'just as a story'; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it ..."

Not writing allegory (a very specific kind of comparison) doesn't mean nothing in the book is a metaphor. It's willful ignorance to pretend LotR has no ideology or non-narrative (moral, epistemic, metaphysical, etc.) content. Tolkien just doesn't want people to say "... and so the orcs are the Germans."

He very definitely did write at least one very clear allegory in his short story "Leaf by Niggle".

> positing a coherent ideological message in his story is a bit of a stretch. Also, Tolkien's wasn't one to focus much on real world social and political issues.

Maybe this is why I love LoTR so much. It’s just a story!