He specificaly wrote that he despises allegory but appreciates applicability. So he wouldn’t write the Shire as a 1 to 1 allegory about the industrialization of the english countryside, but he would write on general themes like nature vs industry and good vs evil. What he mostly didn’t like was the idea of writing something to have a specific intended interpretation as opposed to readers having more flexibility in how they experienced a work of writing.
This quote often comes up when people discuss Tolkien's works. However:
- either "allegory" is meant to be a very strict one-to-one map, like Gandalf is really Jesus but has a different name in this story. Then the quote is irrelevant to almost discussion because nobody is trying to make such a point.
- or "allegory' is meant to be some loose inspiration, like the War of the Ring drawing from Tolkien's experiences in the Great War, the role of providence being similar in Catholic theology & in the legendarium, or more controversially the description of evil men or women being a product of its times. If such is the meaning of allegory, and Tolkien denied using it, then he is wrong.
I think Tolkien meant meaning 1. In either case it is irrelevant to most claims of some connection between a real word thing and a legendarium thing.
'Allegory' has a pretty specific meaning when talking about literature - the practice of speaking in coded meanings.
Example: I write of a 'garden door opening' but what I really mean is 'penis-in-vagina intercourse'. Or I say 'anthill', but what it really means is 'urban sprawl'.
So no, there are no allegories in LotR; the One Ring doesn't really stand for the atom bomb or whatever.
Right. "Industrialization destroying nature" in the book isn't an "allegory" for "Industrialization destroying nature" in reality. It's an illustrative example.