Is Book 1 an Allegory?

Dear Friend,

Is Book 1 an allegory?

You might be surprised to know that I’ve already touched upon this subject once before and answered it to the best of my ability at the time, but I believe it bears repeating. (You can find my old version here, if you’re interested in reading that one, too).

Why does this bear repeating?

If only for the reason that I’ve discovered new insights into exactly what the difference is between allegory and the one classification my book actually is.

What is this classification? And from whom did I learn this valuable lesson between allegory and this new-to-me categorization?

Let’s read on to find out.

So, what would Book 1 be classified as?

It would actually be classified as an analog, not an allegory.

How do I know this?

A wondeful little book by C.R. Wiley entitled In the House of Tom Bombadil.

I wrote a post speaking a little more about Wiley’s book in my Writer’s Nook series. It was mainly discussing what type of a writer the Master of Fantasy himself is. If you’re interested in learning more about that, then you can check it out here.

But it was within the pages of Wiley’s book that I also stumbled upon the difference between allegory and analog.

Let’s first look at how Wiley classifies allegory.

Definition of Allegory

Wiley describes allegory as a story in which “characters don’t really have lives of their own; they just represent other things; they’re like cardboard standees” (Wiley, page 17).

The classic example of allegory is John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress, in which Christian represents the Christian’s journey through this difficult, evil world on a trek to reach the end of all Christians’ hope: heaven. And throughout this sometimes weary journey the Christian takes, there is temptation at every turn, and yet we can overcome this through Jesus Christ.

Another example of Allegory?

Another classic example of allegory that literary elites and readers alike hang the classification of allegory upon is J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Like myself, you may be surprised, however, to discover that Tolkien had a high distaste for allegory and officially declared his popular tome as being no such thing.

Wiley includes this in his book In the House of Tom Bombadil, where he records Tolkien’s staunch perspective on the use of allegory itself.

“[Tolkien] disliked [allegories] because they tend to be bossy, leaving little room for the reader to think for himself. That’s because they work by simple one-to-one correspondences–THIS means THAT–as we see in [none other than] The Pilgrim’s Progress” (Wiley, page 17).

Tolkien was so averse to the use of allegory within his story, as well as others’ application of the term allegory when referring to his work, that he addressed it himself in the foreward of his second edition of The Lord of the Rings.

I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author. (Wiley, page XII)

Does this surprise you?

It certainly surprised me! I was more than a bit shocked at the idea that Tolkien never had in mind any sort of allegory when composing one of his greatest works.

I wondered then to myself what exactly his book could be, if not allegory. For is there not some shadowing of allegory within his telling of The Lord of the Rings?

Once I learned the definition of an analog, however, my mind was open to a much different understanding, one in which I felt I grasped a fuller meaning of the choices available to a writer when writing a story.

What is the definition of an Analog?

Again, I’ll refer to Wiley’s definition of an analog, as it is an apt description of the term and as he was the first to bring such a term to my attention; and lastly, I loved his explanation of it.

Analogs, on the other hand, are real in themselves. Characters in a story should have lives of their own, even if they remind readers of other things. That’s the essential difference between an allegory and an analogy: in an allegory the reader is at the mercy of the author; when it comes to analogy, the association is made in the mind of the reader–or not. (Wiley, pages 17-18).

Wiley goes on to say:

The characters in The Lord of the Rings are as rich as any you’ll find in literature. But they can remind us of other people, sometimes from other stories. Or they can just remind us of things, such as courage or loyalty. (Wiley, page 18).

This is what I found most intriguing: that in an analog, characters “have lives of their own,” and they can remind us of characters from other stories, or virtues, such as meekness, faithfulness, loyalty, chivalry, etc.

In summation, analogs make the characters an embodiment of us, though they are ficitional. They have real lives, real hurts, real wants, real temptations, real failures, etc. We can identify more fully with these characters because they aren’t just a one-dimensional representation of something. They are real, living, breathing “people” we encounter between the pages of a book. They inspire and motivate us onward toward being a better version of ourselves. How beautiful is that?

What about my book?

All that being said, is my Book 1 an Allegory?

Long story short, no.

The subject has come up a time or two, which made me reconsider whether my Book 1-The Lost King’s Daughter-was, in fact, an allegory. At first, I thought it must be, as it could very well be construed as such (I’ll talk about this in a minute). I also began to believe that perhaps I did write an allegory, without even knowing it. However, after reading through C.R. Wiley’s book In the House of Tom Bombadil and discovering there the true definition of an allegory versus an analogy, I have since changed my mind…for the better.

Why did I change my mind?

Again, I’ll get to that in a minute. Let’s first examine why my Book 1-The Lost King’s Daughter could actually be miscontrued as allegory…

The Title

I think the number one reason readers might be tempted to consider Book 1-The Lost King’s Daughter as an allegory is the title.

The Lost King’s Daughter in and of itself could potentially point to a variety of allegorical themes. Is it the Lost King’s daughter? Or is the the Lost King’s daughter?

The slight emphasis on either of these changes the idea of who the Lost King’s Daughter actually is and indicates one of the following: that the King’s Daughter, meaning God’s daughter, is lost, or that the Lost King has a daughter.

So, which is it?

Mostly the latter.

Perhaps you’re now asking? Mostly? But shouldn’t you, as the author, know what you intended your book to convey to readers?

And yes, I do know. I only ever intended the title to convey the latter to readers. That the Lost King has a daughter. And yet there are elements of Finockt being “lost” in more than one context.

While Finockt is “lost” to her own family and hidden away from the enemy to protect both her identity and her royal role, without a doubt, there is also a spiritual aspect to her “lostness.” She is on a journey to discover the true heir to the throne, and yet she is also on a spiritual journey–a journey to reclaim the faith and trust she had in her Savior, Jesus Christ, despite the trials and tribulations that assail her upon her quest to find the true heir to the throne.

Why is Book 1 not an allegory then?

Simply based on definition and application of the characters themselves.

Returning to Wiley’s definitions of character representation in allegory vs. analogy, I would have to say that I don’t see my characters as “cardboard cutouts.” Rather, I see them as characters who have “lives of their own.” Who think and breathe and make decisions based on pride, greed, selflessness, or love. They are characters who embody the essence of who each of you might be as people, as readers, as human beings. I see them as “real” without being so.

I might also add that each of my characters can represent a character quality or virtue or might even be similar to another character you’ve read about in another story, or he/she might even reflect the character qualities of a person about whom you’ve read in Scripture.

A beautiful conclusion

So, is my Book 1 an Allegory?

No.

Am I pleased with this?

Actually yes. I love knowing that The Lost King’s Daughter is an analogy in which my characters are real enough to be called friends, who might remind you of someone close to you, or someone you want to be. This is special to me and important because it is my intention to write authentically enough so that whatever character or prose is splashed upon the page, you, dear reader, might see an extension of yourself or another. It is this authenticity that further draws one into the beauty of the story and leaves an impression that one will not soon forget nor will they want to.

Before I go…

I’d like to leave you with a link so that you can purchase C.R. Wiley’s In the House of Tom Bombadil for yourself. It is an excellent piece of literature.

I was given Wiley’s book as a birthday present from my older brother this year, and it has been one of the best gifts I’ve ever had the privilege of receiving. Thus, I will give a shameless round of praise to C.R. Wiley himself before I go.

Wiley is actually a pastor and his book In the House of Tom Bombadil is a compilation of his own thoughts regarding who Tom Bombadil truly is, who he can’t be, and the importance behind why Tolkien may have included this character in The Fellowship of the Ring, despite the fact that his presence is brief and short-lived.

Love him or hate him, Tom is a singularly interesting character, one made even more interesting upon reading Wiley’s intelligent literary review of the role of Tom and his wife, Goldberry, in Tolkien’s masterpiece of a story.

After thoughtfully contemplating and analyzing Wiley’s perspective on Tom, I’ve since drawn my own conclusion regarding who Tom is and what his role might actually entail. However, this will have to be saved for another post.

Want to read Wiley’s book for yourself?

Check out his hardcover edition on Amazon!

Here’s the link. I hope you enjoy reading this short analysis of Tolkien’s bizarre and yet delightful character, Tom Bombadil. Only 102 pages it is sure to make your afternoon or evening pass quickly.

Interested in my own books?

Read more about them here. Or if you’d like to make a purchase, find Book 1 on Amazon for a reduced price here. I also sell discounted versions of my book at my store. If you’d like to review why they’re discounted, visit here.

If you’d like to know more about me, please visit my About section of my website.

Libraries

And don’t forget to check out my books at your local library! Currently, the following libraries stock my books, for which I am truly flattered and grateful: Dayton Metro Library, New Carlisle Public Library, Arcanum Public Library, and Wabash-Carnegie Public Library in Wabash, IN.

If you’d love to read my book for free in your own local library, don’t hesitate to submit your request on your library’s website. Or tell your librarian he/she can find my books on Ingramspark.

Until next time…God bless, and happy reading. xoxo