Applicability as Metaphor
Locked down at Twin Oaks while riding out the pandemic, we have been watching more movies than usual. Last week we finished the 11-hour extended cut of Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings. Afterwards we watched a few of the special features including a splendid short documentary on J.R.R. Tolkien and how he came to write the trilogy in the first place.
At one point, the documentary quotes extensively from the Forward that Tolkien wrote for the revised version of the work which was what I purchased back in 1976-ish as a first-time reader. I still enjoy those old dog-eared yellowing pages which I last read completely in 2011. But I had forgotten some of the things Tolkien addresses in his Forward even as I discovered that I had highlighted them during some past reading.
Tolkien was as much obstinate as he was anything else. He discusses his impetus for writing the books. “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 […] Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.”
One of the great troubles that Tolkien found after the work was published was that readers were trying to construe elements of the narrative as if they applied to the Second World War or the atomic bomb. Tolkien unequivocally stated that this was not his intent at all. “As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.”
In particular, what he has to say about allegory caught my attention. “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 through and experience of the 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.”
I realize that sometimes in the past when I have used the word “metaphorical” when “allegorical” might have applied better. Re-reading the Forward brought this into sharper focus for me. Nevertheless, I think what I generally intend when I say the work (or anything else) is “metaphorical” is close to what Tolkien means when he uses “applicability.” That is, when someone reads Tolkien’s trilogy, each reader finds their own meanings within the text and, further, all of these meanings cannot be lumped together but are, rather, unique to each reader’s experience.
It is the act of reading something and finding that the narrative speaks to the reader in a way that is not spelled out in the story nor intended that I generally mean as “metaphorical.” I take it to mean “a thing regarded as representative or as symbolic of something else.” Now, I understand that if this symbolism comes directly from the author we are talking about allegory. But if the story itself contains no allegory and is merely written so that each reader can find their own meaning in what happens (the film 2001 comes especially to mind here as another example) I think the specific things that create this multiplicity of possible meaning (themes, for example) summon the force of metaphor.
But Tolkien does not use the word "metaphor" at all. He uses "applicability." This is interesting. Perhaps, what I have always intended as metaphorical (dating back further than even my metaphorical analysis of the film Titanic) is, better stated, applicability. For Tolkien, the reader is free to apply whatever meanings or messages he or she chooses to invoke in reading the trilogy. This is apparently fine by Tolkien so long as the reader understands that Tolkien only intended to write a story that invited applicability and does not possess any specific symbolism at all.
This might seem like a minor thing and certainly it isn’t of much importance to anyone who simply wishes to enjoy the books. You can just enjoy the story as a story without any further fuss. But I have always been someone who seeks meaning, diversity of meaning, and am attracted most to things that offer meaning – for me. I perfectly understand that what I find meaningful in The Lord of the Rings is not what you or any other reader will find; but the fact that we can all read it and apply it our lives differently is important to me.
This is the best sort of fiction, whether the genre be fantasy or romance or dramatic. If the story does not assign meaning to anything and welcomes a plethora of interpretations it approaches the universal themes (like, say, Carl Jung’s archetypes) in our humanity. But notice that, as fiction, Tolkien clearly prefers a sense of “history” in his reading – “true or feigned.” So, it is the depth and bredth of history whether actual or imagined that Tolkien finds most appealing and most applicable to readers.
Applicability applies metaphorically to a given text. Something that is not intended as a symbol at all may become symbolic to certain readers depending upon their personal experience. Aragorn, for example, might be seen as Christ-like to some readers. To others he is just a hero in the sense of Joseph Campbell’s “hero with a thousand faces.” Still, others might find him as simply a man torn by his desires and his destiny. To each his own, Tolkien might say. He is actually simply a character in a complex story.
My sister-in-law is as big a Tolkien fan as I am. I know that in times of trouble, like 9/11 or certainly today, she always reads “The Battle of Pelennor Fields” chapter from The Return of the King. She says that she always finds comfort in it. I can see why. It is the biggest battle of the novel, a battle against seemingly impossible odds. Overcoming those odds brings her comfort. I do not relate to the chapter that way at all. I find it merely exciting, action-packed entertainment. I look elsewhere for comfort. But the point is, this is precisely what Tolkien means by applicability. She applies her experience to that battle and finds inner reassurance. That’s cool that she can do that.
The fact that we apply our own meanings to the characters and to the story as a whole allows us to relate to the work within freedom. Whereas, in allegory, which I apparently admire more than Tolkien does, the reader is presented with a puzzle out of which they must discover the author’s intent. Tolkien would rather give us the liberty to join with his creation and make it our own in our own way.
That is an important distinction; one that I have not genuinely considered until now. I will be more careful about what I label as “metaphorical” going forward. I have no qualms with allegory personally, but I do have a greater appreciation for Tolkien’s accomplishment now that I have a clearer understanding of his preference for applicability.
At one point, the documentary quotes extensively from the Forward that Tolkien wrote for the revised version of the work which was what I purchased back in 1976-ish as a first-time reader. I still enjoy those old dog-eared yellowing pages which I last read completely in 2011. But I had forgotten some of the things Tolkien addresses in his Forward even as I discovered that I had highlighted them during some past reading.
Tolkien was as much obstinate as he was anything else. He discusses his impetus for writing the books. “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 […] Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.”
One of the great troubles that Tolkien found after the work was published was that readers were trying to construe elements of the narrative as if they applied to the Second World War or the atomic bomb. Tolkien unequivocally stated that this was not his intent at all. “As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.”
In particular, what he has to say about allegory caught my attention. “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 through and experience of the 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.”
I realize that sometimes in the past when I have used the word “metaphorical” when “allegorical” might have applied better. Re-reading the Forward brought this into sharper focus for me. Nevertheless, I think what I generally intend when I say the work (or anything else) is “metaphorical” is close to what Tolkien means when he uses “applicability.” That is, when someone reads Tolkien’s trilogy, each reader finds their own meanings within the text and, further, all of these meanings cannot be lumped together but are, rather, unique to each reader’s experience.
It is the act of reading something and finding that the narrative speaks to the reader in a way that is not spelled out in the story nor intended that I generally mean as “metaphorical.” I take it to mean “a thing regarded as representative or as symbolic of something else.” Now, I understand that if this symbolism comes directly from the author we are talking about allegory. But if the story itself contains no allegory and is merely written so that each reader can find their own meaning in what happens (the film 2001 comes especially to mind here as another example) I think the specific things that create this multiplicity of possible meaning (themes, for example) summon the force of metaphor.
But Tolkien does not use the word "metaphor" at all. He uses "applicability." This is interesting. Perhaps, what I have always intended as metaphorical (dating back further than even my metaphorical analysis of the film Titanic) is, better stated, applicability. For Tolkien, the reader is free to apply whatever meanings or messages he or she chooses to invoke in reading the trilogy. This is apparently fine by Tolkien so long as the reader understands that Tolkien only intended to write a story that invited applicability and does not possess any specific symbolism at all.
This might seem like a minor thing and certainly it isn’t of much importance to anyone who simply wishes to enjoy the books. You can just enjoy the story as a story without any further fuss. But I have always been someone who seeks meaning, diversity of meaning, and am attracted most to things that offer meaning – for me. I perfectly understand that what I find meaningful in The Lord of the Rings is not what you or any other reader will find; but the fact that we can all read it and apply it our lives differently is important to me.
This is the best sort of fiction, whether the genre be fantasy or romance or dramatic. If the story does not assign meaning to anything and welcomes a plethora of interpretations it approaches the universal themes (like, say, Carl Jung’s archetypes) in our humanity. But notice that, as fiction, Tolkien clearly prefers a sense of “history” in his reading – “true or feigned.” So, it is the depth and bredth of history whether actual or imagined that Tolkien finds most appealing and most applicable to readers.
Applicability applies metaphorically to a given text. Something that is not intended as a symbol at all may become symbolic to certain readers depending upon their personal experience. Aragorn, for example, might be seen as Christ-like to some readers. To others he is just a hero in the sense of Joseph Campbell’s “hero with a thousand faces.” Still, others might find him as simply a man torn by his desires and his destiny. To each his own, Tolkien might say. He is actually simply a character in a complex story.
My sister-in-law is as big a Tolkien fan as I am. I know that in times of trouble, like 9/11 or certainly today, she always reads “The Battle of Pelennor Fields” chapter from The Return of the King. She says that she always finds comfort in it. I can see why. It is the biggest battle of the novel, a battle against seemingly impossible odds. Overcoming those odds brings her comfort. I do not relate to the chapter that way at all. I find it merely exciting, action-packed entertainment. I look elsewhere for comfort. But the point is, this is precisely what Tolkien means by applicability. She applies her experience to that battle and finds inner reassurance. That’s cool that she can do that.
The fact that we apply our own meanings to the characters and to the story as a whole allows us to relate to the work within freedom. Whereas, in allegory, which I apparently admire more than Tolkien does, the reader is presented with a puzzle out of which they must discover the author’s intent. Tolkien would rather give us the liberty to join with his creation and make it our own in our own way.
That is an important distinction; one that I have not genuinely considered until now. I will be more careful about what I label as “metaphorical” going forward. I have no qualms with allegory personally, but I do have a greater appreciation for Tolkien’s accomplishment now that I have a clearer understanding of his preference for applicability.
Comments