by Dave Simmons

Created on: August 06, 2008

There's a pretty simple answer to this, but it doesn't make for a very long article: How is the Lord of the Rings an allegory?

It isn't.

Let's start again here, by looking at what an allegory is. According to Merriam Webster, an allegory is "the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression".

In other words, it's a story told to symbolise another thing altogether. A classic example of this would be George Orwell's 'Animal Farm', which was clearly an allegory for the events during and following the Russian Revolution. It's unambiguous, and the author is on record as stating that was its intention; a decrying of the Soviet state in the form of a children's fable.

Now let's return to Lord of the Rings. Since its publication, there have many interpretations as to what the tales 'means', what the Ring represents, which country or event would be Mordor, or Gondor. The popular theory is that, given the books were written during the Second World War, they must clearly be an allusion to the events of that war. Mordor is seen as Nazi Germany, rising from the shadow of its past, seeking to reclaim its power. It's not really an allegory that holds well, however; in the books, Mordor does little to try and claim the lands around it, at least not in the scope of the book; for a nation of pure evil, it pretty much sits there for 2/3rds of the trilogy, and makes an abortive attempt to overwhelm one city state in the last third. It's hardly sweeping across Middle Earth annexing everything in sight. But still, the adherents to this particular theory hold on to it tenaciously.

There's a pretty compelling argument to why the books aren't an allegory, and it's appeared in bold print in every edition of the book I've ever read - The foreword, written by the author himself. To quote a short section of it:

"I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them... as for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical."

Tolkien goes on to discuss how the roots of the story (including the central chapter of the first book, 'The Shadows of the Past'), were written and laid out long before the shadow of Nazi Germany was apparent. He also makes the point that if we were to point to a weapon of ultimate power in the Second World War, it would have been the atomic bomb; not a weapon of the Enemy, but one built by the forces of good. Failing that, had the ring been an allegory for the bomb, it would have been used against Sauron, but perhaps Saruman would have mastered the Ring Lore himself and created another, bringing about two opposing Superpowers in Middle Earth. As Tolkien says, "In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves."

Tolkien was a storyteller, and sometimes, as he says, story tellers just want to tell stories. In this, he excelled with Lord of the Rings. One can impose any form of allegorical meaning onto it one wishes, but has to accept this was never the intention of the author.

Learn more about this author, Dave Simmons.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.