Bjørn Røyrvik |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This person is wrong. Tolkien disliked allegory and credit cards as we know them weren't really a thing in England until 1966, well after he was done writing LOTR. To the best of my knowledge, the modern credit card debt problem just didn't exist back then. The writers of the movie had enough respect for the source material that they would not have added any such nonsense into it, so that's a non-issue as well.
Now one can argue that despite his stated dislike of allegory there are some interesting elements in his works that may show he wasn't immune to preaching a bit. Like how the humble lower class worker hobbit saves the day instead of the upper class bigger races, or protests against the destruction of the English Shire countryside, or the horrors of the Great War trenches Dead Marshes, but this can simply be elements rather than explicit allegory.
Why would someone assume that the Ring was about credit card debt? People are strange and invent all sorts of stupid connections between unrelated things. Someone once asked John Cleese if "Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail" was about the Vietnam war (in a metaphorical sense).
Werthead |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's pretty ridiculous. If the Ring was a metaphor for something, it's a general lust for power or for ever greater and more powerful weapons of war and for things that increase your power at the expense of your humanity. Tolkien was not in love with metaphors and hated allegory, but he did allow for "applicability", if someone wanted to find greater meaning in his work than he'd intended that was fine, but it should not be confused with authorial intent.
KahnyaGnorc |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tolkien did hate allegory, but he liked applicability. Allegory is a heavy-handed 1-to-1 relationship, usually like hitting the reader over the head with the connection. Applicability is more of a soft 1-to-Many relationship, where the reader can draw parallels to multiple things. The One Ring offers power and temptation, but that can manifest in many myriad ways.
Quark Blast |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tolkien did hate allegory, but he liked applicability. Allegory is a heavy-handed 1-to-1 relationship, usually like hitting the reader over the head with the connection. Applicability is more of a soft 1-to-Many relationship, where the reader can draw parallels to multiple things. The One Ring offers power and temptation, but that can manifest in many myriad ways.
Like the temptation to find layered allegory where there is in fact none.
:D
KahnyaGnorc |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
KahnyaGnorc wrote:Tolkien did hate allegory, but he liked applicability. Allegory is a heavy-handed 1-to-1 relationship, usually like hitting the reader over the head with the connection. Applicability is more of a soft 1-to-Many relationship, where the reader can draw parallels to multiple things. The One Ring offers power and temptation, but that can manifest in many myriad ways.Like the temptation to find layered allegory where there is in fact none.
:D
The sheer POWER of reading too much into things is too tempting not to pursue to many. I may or may not be part of that many...
avr |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems the OP took something like Kevin Klerck's satirical letter a little too seriously.
high G |
When you use your card and go into debt,
it is like when Frodo puts the ring on and turns invisible.
Then, when you pay off your credit card (if ever), it's like when he takes the ring off and becames visible again.
When he had the ring on, and when you are in debt,
the central bankers (those guys in black robes) can "see you". Just don't put the ring on.