Board Thread:Suggestions forum/@comment-26149161-20170221225823/@comment-31907131-20170223031922

High King Ithilion wrote: Gandalfthegreatestwizard- EpicMithrandir wrote: No, no, no and NO! Ithilion, much of your suggestion is based on an incorrect premise.

I quote Tolkien, in his Foreword to the Second Edition [of LotR]:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and  The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, "The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in the war that began in 1939 or its sequels modified it.

The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves.

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.

An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous. It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences. One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead. Or to take a less grievous matter: it has been supposed by some that  The Scouring of the Shire reflects the situation in England at the time when I was finishing my tale. It does not. It is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset, though in the event modified by the character of Saruman as developed in the story without, need I say, any allegorical significance or contemporary political reference whatsoever. It has indeed some basis in experience, though slender (for the economic situation was entirely different), and much further back. The country in which I lived in childhood was being shabbily destroyed before I was ten, in days when motor-cars were rare objects (I had never seen one) and men were still building suburban railways. Recently I saw in a paper a picture of the last decrepitude of the once thriving corn-mill beside its pool that long ago seemed to me so important. I never liked the looks of the Young miller, but his father, the Old miller, had a black beard, and he was not named Sandyman.

So no, none of the story is allegorical, and therefore Mordor is in no way connected to the industrial parts of England, except by coincidence and chance. So no factories, and nothing else of the sort. Some parts of your suggestion do have merit, but I suggest you edit out the relevant passage and any suggestions inspired by it. If you don't, this suggestion is not fit for endorsement, judging by the statement of a clear mistake, and the fact that parts of the suggestion were drawn from this misinterpretation. More than anyone I am an advocate for the lore, and I stand with my decision here.

Firstly, as Rayn said, the letter denies any allegorical relation to World War II. Tolkien used various things as inspiration, however. The Battle of Vienna, I believe, was the model of Minas Tirith. Rohan is a rather Germanic-style nation. And the Dead Marshes are rooted in the trenches of the Somme. He certainly used inspiration from real life.

Tolkien watched his home get bulldozed and burnt in the fires of the industrial revolution, He took basis from that-look at the Scouring of the Shire. Saruman destroys a beautiful countryside with smokestacks and filthy mills.

Ithilion, Discussions Moderator (Auta i lome) 11:57, February 22, 2017 (UTC) Ithilion.. did you even read the quote? Firstly, he specifically states that the Scouring of the Shire was not based upon England.

Or to take a less grievous matter: it has been supposed by some that  The Scouring of the Shire reflects the situation in England at the time when I was finishing my tale. It does not. It is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset, though in the event modified by the character of Saruman as developed in the story without, need I say, any allegorical significance or contemporary political reference whatsoever.

Second, he does actually deny that the book was linked to major events of the time.

It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences.

Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, he denies that the book has any allegory at all, except in the mind of the reader.

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.

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.

There you go. You, and Rayn both either misread or misinterpreted the passage. Rayn, what you say is quite true, to an extent. It does deny the situation in Europe had any links to the book. That is one of Tolkien's greviances with allegory, which he is denouncing in this foreword. Just because it talks about the war as a central example of the reader's mistake, doesn't mean he does not deny allegory and state his dislike of it, and the fact that the book has little to none of it.

Ithilion! Do you have a quote from Tolkien that states Mordor was connected to England in some way? Otherwise the foreword and its condemnation of allegory is final, in lore.