Enjoy The Lord of the Rings in Immersive 3D Audio Check out The Long-Expected Soundscape and more at: jordanrannells.com/shop 25% off your entire cart: INK25
I do understand why he disliked allegories. It can be a real pain in the ass when people see allegories in things one have written without them being there.
I wonder how much Tolkien would hate the "They are taking our jobs!!" moment of Rings of Power. If he already despised allegories in general, imagine what he would say about a completely forced and non-sensical one 💀
@@Palendrome I guess so if you're not familiar with Tolkien's books. In Tolkien's LotR Wormtongue was not accusing Eomer of "warmongering" or claiming that Saruman was friendly, but that Eomer would leave Edoras defenseless by taking all able men to the battle. Or maybe you're just not familiar with the political environment of the early 2000s. Back then the Neoconservative movement demanded that USA should invade Iraq again and overthrow Saddam Hussein. The liberals called them "warmongers" and they called liberals "peaceniks", so that's what the movie is referring to.
@@corrinflakes9659 Yes, but so is xenophobia. In a sense, Pharazon is correct in his argument, because in the First Age Noldor came to understand that it was not good for Men and Elves to live in the same place under same rule. So you could say he just puts a complicated philosophical issue in simple and easily understandable terms just like any populist politician would :-)
i find it very amusing that the reason why everyone thinks lotr is allegorical is because it isn't lol, i haven't always understood tolkien's distinction between allegory and applicability but i really appreciate it now that i do. i don't hate allegory in the same way he did, i do think there's a place for it in specific stories (for example animal farm would be completely pointless if it wasn't an allegory for the russian revolution), but in the majority of cases it is far better to leave things open to interpretation. i also find it strange how people think him following his own beliefs means that he's writing an allegory to represent them, if i write a book where the bad guy is rude to his cat it doesn't mean i'm forcing you to interpret the story as a criticism of animal cruelty, it just means i consider it to be evil
Mmm... I don't want to be the one to say the hateful phrase "Ehm, actually 🤓☝️...", but it must be specified that Tolkien, although he certainly adopted the symbol as a narrative tool, does not fully embrace the philosophy behind symbolic narration. To be clear, this type of interpretation of Tolkien's works is common to various currents, such as the confessional or traditionalist ones; the result is not dissimilar to the allegorical one: reading "something else" in the author's work, beyond his intentions. The two criticisms cited above are only partially true, in the sense that Tolkien, as he himself admits in one of his letters (a text that I always recommend everyone to read), by virtue of being a scholar of pagan myths and legends (see the topos of heroic death: Éomer, Théoden...) and a fervent Catholic (see all the narration around the value of small things, the importance that the humble have in his stories, the presence of a Providence in opposition to Destiny...), could not help but include such experiences in his work. Despite this, to return to the question of the symbol, it must be specified that this is an element, an extremely problematic key of reading, which does not allow for an overall reading: symbols are "vectors of meaning", a symbol is therefore linked to one or more traditions and can have one or more interpretations, but cannot ignore them. The symbolist reading, consequently, is silent about all the other surrounding elements, and for this reason it is partial and contradictory. Tolkien should, in my opinion, be read in an archetypal key, in the sense that Tolkien refers to a whole series of traditions and symbols from which he took inspiration to build a new narrative, then adding and separating these archetypes, transforming them into something new, critical and problematic. Tolkien can only be read as a whole, since these archetypes can only function if placed within a broad narrative. This is why we speak of Legendarium, to refer to all the works set in the universe of Eä and the world of Arda, referring to them as a single corpus, a single monumental work.
@@PauloRicardo-ctrc I would like to clarify a point that I have left out: the Legendarium is very rich in symbolism, and these symbols cannot be left out. As a Catholic, I myself enjoy tracing Christian symbols in Tolkien's work... but one must not fall into an interpretation "per se" of such symbols, and they must always be contextualized within the complex of the work itself; in fact, to read them as archetypes that have their roots in a vast tradition, which however is placed within Arda, which is a Secondary World, not Our World, although the first has, for Tolkien, the same consistency as the second. It is in the morals of the characters that the signifiers of pagan and Christian traditions must be traced. It is therefore important not to fall into a supertextual reading.
The way I understand it, Tolkien preferred implementing Christianity in his work through archetypes, and not through allegories. For example, there are many characters that take on Christ-like roles, or that have Christ like motives. But each character will represent a different teaching or aspect of Christ. Since we know Tolkien has said on numerous occasions that his books are a "Fundamentally Christian work" then we know for a fact that he has incorporated Christian elements into his story. But what separates Tolkien's legendarium from other stories, is his refusal to use allegory. Which is why he delves into Christian thought through archetypes, Aragorn as a Christ-like figure, who is humble and kind, even though he will be King (Just like Jesus) or Elendil who is a Noachian figure. Furthermore, the entire world view is crafted from a very Christian point of view, the battle vs good and evil, Eru's wish to give free will to all beings. These aren't allegories, rather they are objective truths (at least from a Christian Standpoint)
2:55 I already commented on this about Narnia NOT being allegory in anotherof, Aslan being Jesus Christ doesn't make Narnia an allegory for the Bible..... if that is the case then, who would be Edmund?? maybe Judas right?! he was a traitor after all..... oh, but except Edmund betrayed his siblings and not Aslan; and Judas also hung himself, while Edmund repented and went back to his siblings. And who would the White Witch be?? maybe the hebrew priest who crucified Jesus..... or maybe the tyrannical roman emperors.... but she's also also an evil seducer and deceiver, kinda like Satan....... sooooo, does that means she's an allegory for the jews, romans AND the Devil????!!!!
@Psalmist6693 I recommend you to watch Into the Wardrobe's video on why Narnia shouldn't be considered an "allegory", he explains it better than I could.
There have been countless sacrifice and resurrection stories in mythologies around the world. So I would argue aslan is just another one of the many - not necessarily jesus christ
As I know God, JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, and Chas. Williams, allegory is symbolic thinking, therefore essential to spiritual expression, as they well knew. Words themselves are symbols of thing they represent. Spiritual experience can only be put into words by allegory, God knows. Any love poet knows he never wrote the perfect love poem. How much less expressible then is God's Love? That is where literalists fail miserably. As a lifelong poet, composer, scholar of Bible, literature, history, mythology, linguistics, Chomsky, etc., I actually chuckled at the paradox in this video. But I'm not writing an essay here, so I cut to the end: Lewis converted bc Tolkien said Jesus' resurrection was history, not mythology. Decades later, he said LOR was history, not allegory. That contradiction is not irony; it's paradox. The highest order of truth is beyond the mind. It is of the heart. There is no evidence per se of the mind. But is only of the heart. When we open our hearts to God's Love in secret, only then we can receive It/Him. After that, the mind trots along like a puppy. In my As I know God, JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, and Chas. Williams, allegory is symbolic thinking, therefore essential to spiritual expression, as they well knew. Words themselves are symbols of thing they represent. Spiritual experience can only be put into words by allegory, God knows. Any love poet knows he never wrote the perfect love poem. How much less expressible then is God's Love? That is where literalists fail miserably. As a lifelong poet, composer, scholar of Bible, literature, history, mythology, linguistics, Chomsky, etc., I actually chuckled at the paradox in this video. But I'm not writing an essay here, so I cut to the end: Lewis converted bc Tolkien said Jesus' resurrection was history, not mythology. Decades later, he said LOR was history, not allegory. That contradiction is not irony; it's paradox. The highest order of truth is beyond the mind. It is of the heart. There is no evidence per se of the mind. But is only of the heart. When we open our hearts to God's Love in secret, only then we can receive It/Him. After that, the mind trots along like a puppy. In my experience, the mind needs a training course. (That was a joke. 😅), the mind needs a training course. (That was a joke. 😅)
I really respect Jackson and Bakshi for trying to not get political allegories into their LOTR adaptations. Bakshi even deserves more recognition. Considering the fact he made the year prior LOTR a fantasy movie in which literal N3zis appear, I kinda expected him to depict Sauron and Saruman with the looks of the austrian painter and Richard Nixon 😂😂😂
It’s not allegory it’s history. However since so many people have found their own meanings for the story, it has been labeled as allegory. Tolkien did intend for his readers to find their own meanings in his stories, I guess he should be happy that his book is labeled as allegory, since so many people connected with it and found their own meanings, even though it’s 100% not an allegory :)
I’m sure for him it would be another Machine, though maybe less egregious than coal since (some of them) release an awful lot of steam rather than smoke. Then again, maybe they’d be more egregious because (some of them) can be used to enrich uranium and plutonium to create weapons.
Because Tolkien made it clear. It's a stroy about immortal themes like friendship, faith, perseverance, fear and despear. It's not about fascism or antiracism or ecology... The reader will pick on that in the text because Tolkien's view on the world sank in the book. But it isn't the point.
This is what I've been argueing for a while now. This is a comment under an interview with Tolkien: "People always over-analyze literature, talk about the themes and symbolism and deeper meanings, but then the authors are just like “No, I just wrote a story I thought would be a good one.” And it’s as simple as that. Tolkien is the biggest example of this, where there are college classes dissecting every little word he wrote, like what Galadriel giving Gimli her hair symbolizes etc… when in reality it’s just something Tolkien thought up as being an interesting scene so he put it in." Tolkien might not have thought about the meaning behind every line he wrote, but the meaning is in the text as a result of who he was. The reason why he wrote what he wrote is because of who he was and how he thought, which was influenced by his experiences and his upbringing etc. There are deeper truths and thoughts to be revealed from what he wrote, not because he had a specific idea or allagory in mind for every line, but because his whole structure of though has formed every single line of his book and those thoughts come from the literature and ideologies that influenced him.
The reason why I like Tolkien that he shied away from any obvious religious themes in his books. He expounds his preference of goodness, if you will, and it always win out in the end. But in his created world there is a decided low key religion. Yes, there is a god Eru Illuvatar, and he seems to intervene directly and indirevtly quite often, but such intervention is only visible to us, the reader, even though Gandalf regularly wonders why many things happen not according to the wishes of the dark lord and his minions miraculously, as if fate wants it that way. Was it the intervention of God or via the agency of the powers of the world (The Valar), none can say. For the Valar can go about the world, unclad, unseen and without form but still able to manifest their will. Many strange events in the story show the enduring will of the divine to make things better, but the agency of the characters is never undermined ( we would not have a story otherwise).
“Writers write according to their worldviews and morals.” Which is why GRR Martin writes about a bunch of awful people and many somehow still see it as great. I stick to Tolkien.
To be fair, there are some good people in GRRM’s books. Jamie has a pretty good redemption story and Brienne despite being a subversion of the beautiful warrior maiden, she still has morals and is one of my favorite characters. But you’re right that many characters are more Machiavellian than genuine heroes. Even characters like Jon have to get his hands dirty.
i don't like asoiaf, nor do i consider grrm on the same level as tolkien, but that's not a very fair statement. just because you're writing about bad people doesn't make you a bad person, martin makes it very clear that he condemns the bad things his characters do and at no point does he condone any of it, he just chose to write a morally grey story about morally grey characters and he's entitled to do so. i've also never seen martin compare himself to tolkien, he's a humble guy who was inspired by tolkien and clearly has a ton of respect for him
He wrote his stories according his worldview - he believes that politics is dirty, that it is difficult for politicians not to get dirty. He has cynical view at the world, but that doesn't make him a bad person. He simply doesn't believe in mankind, especially that part of them who make politics. This tells us nothing about his own moral choices in difficult situations. He only says that most people would fail. Which is probably true. I cannot believe I am actually defending him (I don't like him at all).
My problem with GRRM books is that the writer goes out of his way to punish anyone who tries to make fair, decent or in any way moral or sentimental decisions.
how is the LOTR Not an allegory: Because its a mythology based in history, not just some adventure story. They're not parables but the personifications of what good and evil are, filtrated through the writers intentions. I don't believe in Death of the Author. The only authors who die when their work hits the public are those who's stories are products, not passions.
As I understand, the Tolkien quote about allegory was talking about CS Lewis and his book "The Jesus, the Satan, and the Stargate". He eventually had something of a change of heart on allegory when it came to his own works. I don't know if he outright embraced the term, but he openly said it was a Catholic tale.
Actually, Aslan is not an allegory of Christ. You could just as well say the Pevensie children are allegories of the Pevensie children. Aslan IS Christ, literally, not allegorically. Narnia as a whole cannot really be considered an allegorical retelling of the Christian story, because its central conceit is that it takes place in a parallel sort of world - Christianity already exists in the Narnia universe, it's just different in Narnia.
The problem is that Tolkien himself used allegorical language in his letters and other commentaries that he never intended to publish, and there are lot of fans who now say that we must accept these allegories as the only true interpretation of LotR. Main example of this is the "LotR is a Catholic Christian work" -argument, which I have to admit I have used often myself.
As an anarchist and knowing Tolkien was an anarchist, I think it's pretty clear the ring is supposed to represent hierarchical authority, specifically government. No one can wield such a power and not be corrupted and charged in negative ways. Tolkien understood this and put this element into the ring which corrupts all so carry it, even Frodo was falling for the false power of the ring towards the end. The belief in authority is a dogmatic religious worldview where some people have the right to issue commands and others have the moral obligation to obey these commands. These commands are backed by violence. This is the most destructive and corrupting belief to ever exist. I would think since Tolkien was an anarchist, he understood this and made it a central theme in his story.
Enjoy The Lord of the Rings in Immersive 3D Audio
Check out The Long-Expected Soundscape and more at: jordanrannells.com/shop
25% off your entire cart: INK25
I do understand why he disliked allegories. It can be a real pain in the ass when people see allegories in things one have written without them being there.
I wonder how much Tolkien would hate the "They are taking our jobs!!" moment of Rings of Power. If he already despised allegories in general, imagine what he would say about a completely forced and non-sensical one 💀
Or Wormtongue accusing Eomer of "warmongering" which is just as bad.
@@meduseldtales3383was not even 5% as bad or cringe as the RoP scene
@@meduseldtales3383 I haven’t watched RoP to compare to Jackson trilogy, but isn’t warmongering a thing that has existed throughout history?
@@Palendrome I guess so if you're not familiar with Tolkien's books. In Tolkien's LotR Wormtongue was not accusing Eomer of "warmongering" or claiming that Saruman was friendly, but that Eomer would leave Edoras defenseless by taking all able men to the battle. Or maybe you're just not familiar with the political environment of the early 2000s. Back then the Neoconservative movement demanded that USA should invade Iraq again and overthrow Saddam Hussein. The liberals called them "warmongers" and they called liberals "peaceniks", so that's what the movie is referring to.
@@corrinflakes9659 Yes, but so is xenophobia. In a sense, Pharazon is correct in his argument, because in the First Age Noldor came to understand that it was not good for Men and Elves to live in the same place under same rule. So you could say he just puts a complicated philosophical issue in simple and easily understandable terms just like any populist politician would :-)
i find it very amusing that the reason why everyone thinks lotr is allegorical is because it isn't lol, i haven't always understood tolkien's distinction between allegory and applicability but i really appreciate it now that i do. i don't hate allegory in the same way he did, i do think there's a place for it in specific stories (for example animal farm would be completely pointless if it wasn't an allegory for the russian revolution), but in the majority of cases it is far better to leave things open to interpretation. i also find it strange how people think him following his own beliefs means that he's writing an allegory to represent them, if i write a book where the bad guy is rude to his cat it doesn't mean i'm forcing you to interpret the story as a criticism of animal cruelty, it just means i consider it to be evil
Tolkien did hate cats though. And cats in the legendarium are usually evil like Tevildo and the Beruthiel clowder.
@@specialnewb9821 lol i didn't know that, that's pretty funny
Tolkien loved symbolism too much to like allegories.
Mmm... I don't want to be the one to say the hateful phrase "Ehm, actually 🤓☝️...", but it must be specified that Tolkien, although he certainly adopted the symbol as a narrative tool, does not fully embrace the philosophy behind symbolic narration. To be clear, this type of interpretation of Tolkien's works is common to various currents, such as the confessional or traditionalist ones; the result is not dissimilar to the allegorical one: reading "something else" in the author's work, beyond his intentions. The two criticisms cited above are only partially true, in the sense that Tolkien, as he himself admits in one of his letters (a text that I always recommend everyone to read), by virtue of being a scholar of pagan myths and legends (see the topos of heroic death: Éomer, Théoden...) and a fervent Catholic (see all the narration around the value of small things, the importance that the humble have in his stories, the presence of a Providence in opposition to Destiny...), could not help but include such experiences in his work. Despite this, to return to the question of the symbol, it must be specified that this is an element, an extremely problematic key of reading, which does not allow for an overall reading: symbols are "vectors of meaning", a symbol is therefore linked to one or more traditions and can have one or more interpretations, but cannot ignore them. The symbolist reading, consequently, is silent about all the other surrounding elements, and for this reason it is partial and contradictory. Tolkien should, in my opinion, be read in an archetypal key, in the sense that Tolkien refers to a whole series of traditions and symbols from which he took inspiration to build a new narrative, then adding and separating these archetypes, transforming them into something new, critical and problematic. Tolkien can only be read as a whole, since these archetypes can only function if placed within a broad narrative. This is why we speak of Legendarium, to refer to all the works set in the universe of Eä and the world of Arda, referring to them as a single corpus, a single monumental work.
@@PhilomarinusPalianus Thought you'd get away with it?
🤓
@@PauloRicardo-ctrc Lol, no 😎
@@PauloRicardo-ctrc I would like to clarify a point that I have left out: the Legendarium is very rich in symbolism, and these symbols cannot be left out. As a Catholic, I myself enjoy tracing Christian symbols in Tolkien's work... but one must not fall into an interpretation "per se" of such symbols, and they must always be contextualized within the complex of the work itself; in fact, to read them as archetypes that have their roots in a vast tradition, which however is placed within Arda, which is a Secondary World, not Our World, although the first has, for Tolkien, the same consistency as the second. It is in the morals of the characters that the signifiers of pagan and Christian traditions must be traced. It is therefore important not to fall into a supertextual reading.
I appreciate this video, because a lot of people seem to equate "allegory" with "symbolism" and thus weaken both.
Tolkien would turn in his grave if he could see England today.
The way I understand it, Tolkien preferred implementing Christianity in his work through archetypes, and not through allegories. For example, there are many characters that take on Christ-like roles, or that have Christ like motives. But each character will represent a different teaching or aspect of Christ. Since we know Tolkien has said on numerous occasions that his books are a "Fundamentally Christian work" then we know for a fact that he has incorporated Christian elements into his story. But what separates Tolkien's legendarium from other stories, is his refusal to use allegory. Which is why he delves into Christian thought through archetypes, Aragorn as a Christ-like figure, who is humble and kind, even though he will be King (Just like Jesus) or Elendil who is a Noachian figure. Furthermore, the entire world view is crafted from a very Christian point of view, the battle vs good and evil, Eru's wish to give free will to all beings. These aren't allegories, rather they are objective truths (at least from a Christian Standpoint)
So interesting, thank you!
2:55 I already commented on this about Narnia NOT being allegory in anotherof, Aslan being Jesus Christ doesn't make Narnia an allegory for the Bible..... if that is the case then, who would be Edmund?? maybe Judas right?! he was a traitor after all..... oh, but except Edmund betrayed his siblings and not Aslan; and Judas also hung himself, while Edmund repented and went back to his siblings.
And who would the White Witch be?? maybe the hebrew priest who crucified Jesus..... or maybe the tyrannical roman emperors.... but she's also also an evil seducer and deceiver, kinda like Satan....... sooooo, does that means she's an allegory for the jews, romans AND the Devil????!!!!
Narnia is not an allegory for Bilbe but allegory for Christianity - which is not the same.
Edmund was Peter
@Psalmist6693 I recommend you to watch Into the Wardrobe's video on why Narnia shouldn't be considered an "allegory", he explains it better than I could.
There have been countless sacrifice and resurrection stories in mythologies around the world. So I would argue aslan is just another one of the many - not necessarily jesus christ
As I know God, JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, and Chas. Williams, allegory is symbolic thinking, therefore essential to spiritual expression, as they well knew. Words themselves are symbols of thing they represent. Spiritual experience can only be put into words by allegory, God knows. Any love poet knows he never wrote the perfect love poem. How much less expressible then is God's Love? That is where literalists fail miserably.
As a lifelong poet, composer, scholar of Bible, literature, history, mythology, linguistics, Chomsky, etc., I actually chuckled at the paradox in this video. But I'm not writing an essay here, so I cut to the end:
Lewis converted bc Tolkien said Jesus' resurrection was history, not mythology. Decades later, he said LOR was history, not allegory. That contradiction is not irony; it's paradox. The highest order of truth is beyond the mind. It is of the heart. There is no evidence per se of the mind. But is only of the heart.
When we open our hearts to God's Love in secret, only then we can receive It/Him. After that, the mind trots along like a puppy. In my As I know God, JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, and Chas. Williams, allegory is symbolic thinking, therefore essential to spiritual expression, as they well knew. Words themselves are symbols of thing they represent. Spiritual experience can only be put into words by allegory, God knows. Any love poet knows he never wrote the perfect love poem. How much less expressible then is God's Love? That is where literalists fail miserably.
As a lifelong poet, composer, scholar of Bible, literature, history, mythology, linguistics, Chomsky, etc., I actually chuckled at the paradox in this video. But I'm not writing an essay here, so I cut to the end:
Lewis converted bc Tolkien said Jesus' resurrection was history, not mythology. Decades later, he said LOR was history, not allegory. That contradiction is not irony; it's paradox. The highest order of truth is beyond the mind. It is of the heart. There is no evidence per se of the mind. But is only of the heart.
When we open our hearts to God's Love in secret, only then we can receive It/Him. After that, the mind trots along like a puppy. In my experience, the mind needs a training course. (That was a joke. 😅), the mind needs a training course. (That was a joke. 😅)
Good examples in here - hopefully settles the question
Nice channel, keep it up.
I really respect Jackson and Bakshi for trying to not get political allegories into their LOTR adaptations. Bakshi even deserves more recognition. Considering the fact he made the year prior LOTR a fantasy movie in which literal N3zis appear, I kinda expected him to depict Sauron and Saruman with the looks of the austrian painter and Richard Nixon 😂😂😂
It was true about FotR, but Two Towers was full of political allegories, for example the suicide bomber orc and anti-war Ents.
It’s not allegory it’s history. However since so many people have found their own meanings for the story, it has been labeled as allegory. Tolkien did intend for his readers to find their own meanings in his stories, I guess he should be happy that his book is labeled as allegory, since so many people connected with it and found their own meanings, even though it’s 100% not an allegory :)
I guess we can split allegory into two forms. Those the author intends, and those the readers apply despite his intention.
On Environmentalism: Would Tolkien support Nuclear Energy? Great video. 👍
I’m sure for him it would be another Machine, though maybe less egregious than coal since (some of them) release an awful lot of steam rather than smoke. Then again, maybe they’d be more egregious because (some of them) can be used to enrich uranium and plutonium to create weapons.
@@MyAquilo Yeah, I could see him going either way on it.
Because Tolkien made it clear.
It's a stroy about immortal themes like friendship, faith, perseverance, fear and despear.
It's not about fascism or antiracism or ecology...
The reader will pick on that in the text because Tolkien's view on the world sank in the book. But it isn't the point.
This is what I've been argueing for a while now. This is a comment under an interview with Tolkien: "People always over-analyze literature, talk about the themes and symbolism and deeper meanings, but then the authors are just like “No, I just wrote a story I thought would be a good one.” And it’s as simple as that. Tolkien is the biggest example of this, where there are college classes dissecting every little word he wrote, like what Galadriel giving Gimli her hair symbolizes etc… when in reality it’s just something Tolkien thought up as being an interesting scene so he put it in."
Tolkien might not have thought about the meaning behind every line he wrote, but the meaning is in the text as a result of who he was. The reason why he wrote what he wrote is because of who he was and how he thought, which was influenced by his experiences and his upbringing etc. There are deeper truths and thoughts to be revealed from what he wrote, not because he had a specific idea or allagory in mind for every line, but because his whole structure of though has formed every single line of his book and those thoughts come from the literature and ideologies that influenced him.
Jungle Book is an Allegory also 😉 🔥
just because its not an 'allegory' for something doesn't mean there isnt typology, symbology, and inspiration.
The reason why I like Tolkien that he shied away from any obvious religious themes in his books. He expounds his preference of goodness, if you will, and it always win out in the end. But in his created world there is a decided low key religion. Yes, there is a god Eru Illuvatar, and he seems to intervene directly and indirevtly quite often, but such intervention is only visible to us, the reader, even though Gandalf regularly wonders why many things happen not according to the wishes of the dark lord and his minions miraculously, as if fate wants it that way. Was it the intervention of God or via the agency of the powers of the world (The Valar), none can say. For the Valar can go about the world, unclad, unseen and without form but still able to manifest their will. Many strange events in the story show the enduring will of the divine to make things better, but the agency of the characters is never undermined ( we would not have a story otherwise).
Well crafted....😏
He didn’t do allegory. He did Archetypical stories.
Allegories get dated, applicability is timeless.
“Writers write according to their worldviews and morals.” Which is why GRR Martin writes about a bunch of awful people and many somehow still see it as great. I stick to Tolkien.
To be fair, there are some good people in GRRM’s books. Jamie has a pretty good redemption story and Brienne despite being a subversion of the beautiful warrior maiden, she still has morals and is one of my favorite characters. But you’re right that many characters are more Machiavellian than genuine heroes. Even characters like Jon have to get his hands dirty.
i don't like asoiaf, nor do i consider grrm on the same level as tolkien, but that's not a very fair statement. just because you're writing about bad people doesn't make you a bad person, martin makes it very clear that he condemns the bad things his characters do and at no point does he condone any of it, he just chose to write a morally grey story about morally grey characters and he's entitled to do so. i've also never seen martin compare himself to tolkien, he's a humble guy who was inspired by tolkien and clearly has a ton of respect for him
@@aldrichunfaithful3589 Yeah, most of comparisons to Tolkien come from critics who may I say have no idea what they’re talking about.
He wrote his stories according his worldview - he believes that politics is dirty, that it is difficult for politicians not to get dirty. He has cynical view at the world, but that doesn't make him a bad person. He simply doesn't believe in mankind, especially that part of them who make politics. This tells us nothing about his own moral choices in difficult situations. He only says that most people would fail. Which is probably true.
I cannot believe I am actually defending him (I don't like him at all).
My problem with GRRM books is that the writer goes out of his way to punish anyone who tries to make fair, decent or in any way moral or sentimental decisions.
how is the LOTR Not an allegory: Because its a mythology based in history, not just some adventure story. They're not parables but the personifications of what good and evil are, filtrated through the writers intentions.
I don't believe in Death of the Author. The only authors who die when their work hits the public are those who's stories are products, not passions.
As I understand, the Tolkien quote about allegory was talking about CS Lewis and his book "The Jesus, the Satan, and the Stargate". He eventually had something of a change of heart on allegory when it came to his own works. I don't know if he outright embraced the term, but he openly said it was a Catholic tale.
Actually, Aslan is not an allegory of Christ. You could just as well say the Pevensie children are allegories of the Pevensie children. Aslan IS Christ, literally, not allegorically. Narnia as a whole cannot really be considered an allegorical retelling of the Christian story, because its central conceit is that it takes place in a parallel sort of world - Christianity already exists in the Narnia universe, it's just different in Narnia.
The problem is that Tolkien himself used allegorical language in his letters and other commentaries that he never intended to publish, and there are lot of fans who now say that we must accept these allegories as the only true interpretation of LotR. Main example of this is the "LotR is a Catholic Christian work" -argument, which I have to admit I have used often myself.
As an anarchist and knowing Tolkien was an anarchist, I think it's pretty clear the ring is supposed to represent hierarchical authority, specifically government. No one can wield such a power and not be corrupted and charged in negative ways. Tolkien understood this and put this element into the ring which corrupts all so carry it, even Frodo was falling for the false power of the ring towards the end. The belief in authority is a dogmatic religious worldview where some people have the right to issue commands and others have the moral obligation to obey these commands. These commands are backed by violence. This is the most destructive and corrupting belief to ever exist. I would think since Tolkien was an anarchist, he understood this and made it a central theme in his story.
Its not allegory because the good guys lost WW1 and WW2....
How is this at all? People see what they want.
mouahaahahh
This channel is trash. If you want reliable tolkien info watch Dave, jess, yoystan or matt.
Explain.
The human mind operates on the level of metaphor.
Exactly. You said it perfectly. I wd like to talk w you by phone. How can i.message you my contact info?