LotR (was Re: reviews (but not of MC))
ottertee at silverwinggraphics.com
Fri Dec 12 14:31:40 EST 2003
On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 10:41 AM, Robyn Starkey wrote:
> Not to harp, but why is authorial intention a conclusive
> argument-ender to this discussion? I know Tolkien said the book wasn't
> an allegory, but it is damn easy to read as one. There seems to be
> some space here for debate: just because Tolkien made these
> pronouncements doesn't mean he's *right*.
I think that an allegory has to be intentional.
I'm not saying that an author's intention affects whether a work can be
as an allegory. In a way, _anything_ can be interpreted as an allegory.
But if the author says she or he didn't write one, then she or he
didn't write one.
[Melville was astonished when Hawthorne commented on what an amazing
allegory _Moby-Dick_ was.]
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj