: Actually, Tolkien said at one point that his story was
: not intended to include any metaphorical/similistic
: (is that a word?) comments on the real world. For
: example, some have commented that LOTR was intended as
: a metaphor of the second world war, which was
: happenning at the time of writing. Tolkien countered
: by saying that, had that theory been correct, Gondor
: would have used the ring to devestate Sauron's forces,
: Barad-dur would have been occupied, not destroyed, in
: Mordor, Saruman would have discovered the last secrets
: of ring-lore and made his own master ring with which
: to devestate his foes, and hobbits would have been
: held in contempt by both sides.
: Largely, the supposed metaphorical/similistic
: significance of LOTR was a product of the Hippie
: movement, who adopted it as a kind of icon in many
: cases. Tolkien always firmly held that there was not
: intended to be a hidden (or not so hidden) message of
: any kind.
: On the other hand, Asimov took the view that it doesn't
: matter whether or not the author intends for a hidden
: message or metaphorical significance to be there, it's
: still just as valid. Or, as he put it "People
: analyse my work and find all kinds of cunning details
: that I can't remember putting in, but which I suppose
: must be there or they wouldn't have found them."
: Martel.
Tolkien was arguing that LOTR was not meant to include any allegories, (as opposed to metaphors). Small point, I know.
Anyway, I agree with Martel's last paragraph, and Phil; you'd be suprised how many hardcore literatii and college professors have spent their lives arguing that Melville, Twain, and Hawthorne are not the "Titans" you compare Tolkien with.
Lastly, though I am totally on Tolkien's side:
There was no fantasy MARKET back then but orcs, goblins and elves existed exactly with those names and in almost identical guises in local folklore. One of Tolkien's achievments was not that he created fantasy but that he utilized it with such skill.
