What I found the most interesting about this chapter was the fact that Tolkien was not completely against the use of Allegory. Considering his work on Middle Earth, it is clearly stated by Tolkien, and has become a big topic with critics, that there is no Allegorical writing within “the Lord of the Rings”, “the Hobbit”, or any other related topic. I suppose since this is his most famous work, most people simply take his opposition to Allegory in a general sense. However, in the chapter it explains Tolkien having used allegory in other lectures and works, especially within his discussions of Beowulf. Tolkien also dismisses any allegory within “the Lord of the Rings” because the overall plot had nothing to do with the war that he was in. Several examples were brought up including the ring not being used against Sauron, Barad-dur not being occupied, Sauron not being enslaved, as well as Saruman not making a ring of his own. I thought it was quite interesting how most people focus on the things within Tolkien’s literature that can be allegorical to the war, when they never bother to look at the overall picture and see that the running themes are completely different than the major aspects of the war. These examples are also more convincing and acceptable since Tolkien discussed them himself.
One part of the chapter that made me laugh to myself was when Saruman and Denethor were compared to Socialists and Conservatives. Within my mind I made a connection of Saruman being similar to Obama, while Denethor was similar to McCain. It is interesting to see how particular labels such as Socialist and Conservative can have such different imagery when tacked onto different people or personalities. I surely do not see Obama being cunning, evil, and manipulating individuals. While I can not imagine McCain being a cranky old man who can only focus on his own personal life and tragedies instead of helping out the public. Overall, it was a peculiar simile since politics are not clearly emphasized within the Middle Earth literature. Tolkien’s work tends to focus on a fantasy element and good versus evil, not specifically over politics.
I also found it interesting how the topic of Frodo slowly turning into a Pacifist had been discussed. I truly only noticed Frodo’s abundant Pacifism by the end of the novel where he would not let anyone be harmed within the Shire. However, Shippey breaks down the events in which Frodo slowly breaks away from violence. He threatens Gollum but later protects him, he gives away Sting and uses an Orc-Blade and soon throws that away as well, he does nothing in the Scouring of the Shire, but he would still allow killing to prevent the hurting of the Hobbits. It would be remarkable to discover how Frodo would have turned out if he had a different place within the war. Perhaps he would have become a complete Pacifist, or maybe he would have never started down that road of Pacifism at all.
Lauren Brych? November 05, 2008, at 10:59 AM
