Joseph Campbell says that "myth is the interface between what is known and what can't be known." We have discussed mythology and the hero narrative at length this marking period, leading some of us to draw some conclusions about the subject that might we might not have otherwise come to. I would argue that Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring is a modern mythological fiction that is rightly applicable to his time as well as ours. However, some may take issue with this.
Given Campbell's off-the-cuff definition of myth, in the comment section below, venture an opnion on this matter. Is The Fellowship of the Ring what some might claim it to be: a modern mythological fiction that rightly deals with universal concepts. Or, is the novel something else entirely? As always, the goal is not to get you to agree with me, or with others for that matter. But instead the goal is to get you to think through the problem and find an answer that your concience can support.
I look forward to your responses.
Since Tolkien based a great deal of The Fellowship of the Ring on Norse mythology, I don’t see how anyone can argue that it isn’t a modern mythological fiction. The real question, I feel, is whether or not the novel is universally applicable. Personally, I think that it is, especially to Tolkien’s time. Tolkien wrote The Fellowship of the Ring during the time of the World Wars, and the very essence of this novel screams of that. Prior to the World Wars, Britain and France had hated each other, just as there is a long history of hatred between elves and dwarfs in the novel. In both situation, the groups did come together to fight off their enemy, whether it be the Germans and other members of the Axis powers, or Sauron and his armies of orcs and various other dark creatures. While this comparison is specifically applicable to the World Wars, the concepts of the fight against evil, war itself, and friendship are universal. Another universal concept is the greed and corruptibility of men and their lust for power. Tolkien deals with this through Boromir’s growing longing for the Ring that eventually results in him attempting to take it from Frodo. These are merely examples of the many universal concepts that lead me to think that the novel is universally applicable. However, I am not entirely sure if the applicability was Tolkien’s intent. It may be that these sorts of things were merely on his mind when he wrote the novel as a result of all the turmoil that was going on in the world at the time. He might not have meant for all of these comparisons to be there.
ReplyDeleteWhile Tolkien's material can be applied to the World Wars, I don't think that it's an allegory in any way. In Tolkien's forward to The Fellowship of the Ring, he addresses how many people had begun to equate his story with the struggles of the World Wars after his novel was first released. It would be folly to ignore that he specifically states "...it is not allegorical". Tolkien had no intention of creating a parallel story, and while he may have been influenced by WWII he was in no way trying to recreate the war in another world. Like any story, there are universal concepts within Tolkien's work, such as bravery, loyalty, and the struggle between good and evil. There is literally no reason for Tolkien to lie about whether or not his novel is an allegory, so I don't think there is much ground for suspicion over his statement. However well his story relates to that of the World Wars, it was not intended, and an allegory must be intended for it to exist.
ReplyDeleteIt’s hard to say whether or not Tolkien’s Fellowship of the Ring is truly applicable to the events of World War II. Many authors, knowing or not, are impacted by events that are occurring around them and very well may write based on them. It’s not necessarily the author’s opinion of what the text leads to, but the person reading it and how they interpret it. Someone could write something or predict something that seems to mean nothing at the time, but later could be applied to an event. One example that I can think of is the prophet Nostradamus. In 1654 a prediction was made that “In the city of God there will be a great thunder, two brothers torn apart by chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb, the third big war will begin when the big city is burning.” Not many thought much of this statement until 9/11 happened. I don’t believe that Nostradamus predicted 9/11, but his statement was only applied to it because it somewhat fit the description.
ReplyDeleteKnowing this it’s easy to say that Tolkien perhaps didn’t mean to use The Fellowship of the Ring as an allegory for World War II. It was only applied to it by the people reading it because of similar situations. World War II might not be the only war that this book could be applied to. It all depends on the person reading it and what they believe Tolkien’s message is in it.
I feel that Tolkein did intend for this novel to be considered a modern mythological fiction. Like Emilea said he did base most of the novel on Norse mythology. It has to deal with situations most can relate to. Throughout the novel he makes references toward important things that were happening during his time. World War ll had been happening for a while and you can tell where he makes references to it. For example if Sauron ends up getting the ring, he will take over middle earth. This can relate to hitler in a way. Hitler was a dictator, like Sauron an he had his nazi soldiers just like Sauron had his black riders. Back in tolkeins time everyone knew about World War ll. it was easy for people to relate to this topic of war and peace. It's present I everyday life for most. So much as to where people today can even relate.
ReplyDeleteTolkien's work can be considered modern mythological fiction. However, the difference between applicability and allegory must be made. Tolkien's work isn't an allegory simply because it wasn't intended to be one. The main point that separates an allegory from applicability is that the author intends the reference, and it's obvious that he didn't intend for his novel to resemble WWII. He may have been influenced by it, and aspects of that might show in his writing, but that doesn't automatically make it an allegory. Going back to what Danielle said, in the forward Tolkien specifically states "It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster...". This means that it isn't an allegory, just because it wasn't intended by Tolkien.
ReplyDeleteTolkien's trilogy The Lord of the Rings, wasn't intended to be connected to things like World War II, in my opinion. Tolkein claims that this is NOT an allegory, and i agree, because it seems that he made the connections to war unconsiously and that he never intended for the Lord of the Rings to be allegorically compared to WWII. All of the similarities are there, the fighting against many coutries/peoples, one man trying to control everyone, and then the small group of resistance who makes a huge difference in the outcome of the war, but i don't think he did this on purpose. I think that because of the time in which this book was written Tolkien added in the points similar to the war, but it wasn't his intention to copy it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are some resemblances in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series to real life events during the second world war, I do not believe the book is based entirely upon them. At the time the books were published, World War II was less than a decade from the present and many details about the war were still classified or not entirely clear. To say that he could have wrote a book on events that he would have had very little or no knowledge of is a bit obsurd. Since mankind began throwing rocks at one another, war stories have existed and many follow a set pattern. Lord of the Rings is just following the same pattern as stories before it and is not commenting on the events that happened nine years earlier. Therefore, the book is a victim of applicable comparisons, and not a work filled with allegory.
ReplyDeleteWriters write what they know, even if they don't necessarily intend to do so. Tolkien was immersed in mythological and religious knowledge for the majority of his life. With that fact, I don't see how someone could argue against Tolkien's work being a myth. It's very possible that he had no intention of his work becoming a "myth", just as he claims to have no intent of it being a allegory. His literature has influenced a few generations, thousands of people, and myths are largely considered so due to their influence, and Tolkien's work is most definitely fits the mythological mold.
ReplyDeleteTolkien's Lord of the Rings books, was supposed to be for his so so he can understand the WW2. His books were also related to C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. They both were involved with the war. The stories were related in ways that people thought were part of The WW2 but was not intended.
ReplyDeleteI believe Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is both a myth and a read for enterntainment. Tolkien has said that the book was not an allegory, or an extended metaphor that relates to something else, and I agree; on some aspects. There are parts in the book that relate to the time period he was living in (WWII). But, there are other parts that have nothing to do with anytihng in the outside world, past, present, and future. Sauron rules the land of Mordor, and Hitler ruled the lands surronding Germany. Gimli was demoralized because he was a dwarf, and Jews were put down because of their beliefs in Judaism. Another example is Boromir. He wants the ring because the ring possesses power over the entire Middle-Earth. He connects to Hitler, where Hitler longed for world power ad thought the only way he could get it was through genocide.
ReplyDeleteSo, in the end, I personally believe that Tolkien's novel is both an allegory and a book for entertainment. Even though he says it's not an allegory, there are some aspects of the Fellowship of the Ring that relate exactly to what was going on during his time of living.
I say Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is both a myth and something used for entertainment. For majority of the book, the story compares to nothing in the modern world. There are, however, certain similarities that could be compared to World War II, which would be a big inspiration to Tolkien considering the time period. Gimli is treated with conviction for being a dwarf, but such a concept can be seen in many different instances other than WWII with the Jews,such as African American slaves or homosexuals around the world.
ReplyDeleteI think that Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is a myth and entertainment. He wrote the book during world war 2 and Tolkien said that his book isn't an allegory because he didn't think that there was any connections to WW2, but In the book Sauron is closely related to Hitler because they both wanted power and control over everyone. Sauron uses the one ring for his power and Hitler used genocide toward the jews for his power, but when they lose their power their similarities is that Sauron lost his power when Isildur cuts off his finger which holds all his power and Hitler lost his power when he starting losing the war and committed suicide. Which these examples show how some aspects of The Lord of the Rings are related to WW2.
ReplyDelete