Anchorhead said:
C3PX said:
I could be way off here, but I have never had any problem believing that Tolkien really did write Lord of the Rings allegory free (as he claims he did).

I believe the term he used to describe his work was applicable, as opposed to allegorical. He was certainly free to use whatever term he wanted, but they are very similar - in this case, a story being used to explain or demonstrate something that at first may appear unrelated.

I just don't see how it is even possible for a writer to delude himself out of truly understanding what he himself actually wrote about.

I don't think he was deluded about what he wrote at all. I think he may not have wanted to appear as a political writer, so he chose to sometimes deny a connection. He said his work was more of a religious-based story about good vs evil - again, allegory or applicable. He was a devout catholic and very outspoken on the evils of industrialization. To think or state that those core beliefs aren't present - and at times a major theme - seems like quite a stretch.

Just because important beliefs influence a work doesn't mean that work is allegory. Allegory is when the story is just code for a message and no more. You can have lots of influence from personal beliefs without having allegory. You can even have plenty of message without making a work allegory. Allegory is when the message is not only the sole reason for the work but when everything in the work is subordinated to the message to the point where the work is nothing but code for the message. Tolkien's Middle Earth work was not that. He knew what allegory was and when he said his work wasn't allegory he meant it.