I quoted what Tokien said himself:
the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous.You are making "guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous". The license you talk about is exactly the freedom that Tokien meant to give to the reader of his work. You are quite welcome to think you know more about Tolkien's intentions and motivation than he did. But I see a lot of literary criticism like that coming out of academy today. The idea is that the author really didn't know what he was talking about when he spoke about his own work. But we in the early 21st century know all about psychological reductionism, so all we have to do is find the authors political party, religion, social conditions, etc., and then we interpret the work in those terms, as if the author were only a passive conduit pipe of forces beyond himself. This sort of quellenforschung has become the stalest of cliches. I find little of this approach convincing, but rather an indulgence in self-flattery.
Actually, the “literary criticisms” referenced by you are not from “today” but many are from his contemporaries. I too have read what you quoted and see no contradiction to what his contemporaries have commented upon or what i have said. Again, the main point of his contemporaries is that it is the work of a Catholic perspective-—that perspective btw is not a matter of “guesswork” as you have posited-—indeed, it is for certain. Other than that point, your comments about “reductionism” (psychological, political party, etc) are misplaced for you are not addressing the very simple point which many have made. Again, thank you for allowing me my “license” but others obviously more qualified than i have already taken such license to understand the Catholic perspective of Tolkien.