[ SECRET POST #2624 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2624 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Outlander]


__________________________________________________



03.
[The Walking Dead]


__________________________________________________



04.
[How I Met Your Mother]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Twitch Plays Pokemon]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Batman, Kill La Kill, Borderlands]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Overlord]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Red Dwarf]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Paranatural]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Pitch Perfect]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Insidious: Chapter 2]


__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 053 secrets from Secret Submission Post #375.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Lord of the Rings fucking was not about World War II. Not only did Tolkien say it wasn't, the only basis in the text for thinking that it was about World War II is a set of comparisons so vague as to be meaningless. Lord of the Rings DOES have a lot to do with World War I (as several other anons pointed out), and more generally has a lot to do with lots of things in the real world and experiences of Tolkien (the English countryside, industrialization, modernity, war, folklore, good and evil, etc).

To get at what this means and square it with Tolkien's statements about his fiction, we have to look at what Tolkien said. What he said is that he did not write allegory. He did not say his fiction had nothing to do with reality; he said it was not allegory, and that's a very specific thing. Allegory is when there is an explicit and precise relationship between the events of a story and the author's intended meaning - the events of the story have meaning only insofar as they represent something outside it, for instance the story of Jesus Christ or the events of World War II. Tolkien was saying that he did not write this (and it's hard to say he was wrong, both because there's no textual evidence for his work being allegorical, and because it's hard to see how he could have written allegory unintentionally). At the heart of Tolkien's objection to allegory was the idea that in an allegory, the events of the story have no significance on their own terms, but only as personifications of something else.

So it's perfectly compatible to say that Lord of the Rings was about World War I and to agree with Tolkien's statement that it was not an allegory. The real experiences Tolkien underwent informed his writing and shaped his themes, his treatment of the matter, and the language he used to describe it - but the work stands on its own and cannot be reduced to a rewriting or either World War. And in writing it, we can think and interpret it in whatever broad sense we want - so long as we keep the story itself in view, the basic events of the text. And this is why we can say that LotR has more to do with the first world war than the second - because there is a much closer relationship in the text.

[arcadiaego]

Omg thank you, the amount of people I hear saying using Tolkien to justify 'it's just a book it's not real' nonsense...