I quoted Tolkien himself. Let me quote Tolkien again, and this comes from his preface to The Lord of the Rings:
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.What do you not understand about the words "inadequate" and "ambiguous"?
Tolkien makes the point specifically about the difference between allegory and myth. Again this is what Tolkien said, again in the preface to the The Lord of the Rings:
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots and threw out unexpected branches...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.What is it you do not understand about the words "none", "freedon", and "domination"? Tolkien states very clearly that he is not imposing any meaning on the story, and he specifically wrote a myth, not allegory, so that the reader is free to interpret as that reader wants.
You claim to know exactly what Tolkien's meaning was. Please produce a specific quote from Tolkien.
Such hostility in your churlish and pendantic challenge. I am not defining “process” nor are my citations...they looked at perspective, not process...are you truly that dense. Furthermore, Tolkien’s dislike of allegory is precisely my point and others-—it narrows a message-—that is a message he leaves the reader to explore and to discern what one might get out of it. That the work is explicitly Catholic is not in dispute—except by you. Finally, you set up straw men and beat the puss out of them. I never anything about knowing exactly his meaning-—but it does have meaning—which is the very fun of his work.
Again, as Tolkien says he dislikes allegory because it gives the story his intent he then says, if you would for goodness sake read more carefully what he and i are saying—”I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers.” He wants the reader to explore his mythology, even as feigned history-—and for your pride that history is biblical in part. Yet in your earlier silly post you claim that if a reader does what Tolkien insists he do, then that is reductionism. Give it a rest or give it a read but you need not be so pompous over something the author told me to enjoy as i see fit.