I wonder whether allegory is a special case, in as much as to say that "X is an allegory of Y" may be a shorthand way of saying that "the author intended X to be an allegory of Y". It was this element of intent, as I take it, that for Tolkien distinguished allegory from applicability.
On the other had, an assertion such as "There are homoerotic elements in the relationship between Frodo and Sam" seems (whether or not one agrees with it) to be more about the text and/or possible ways of reading it, and less about what Tolkien intended. I don't think any of these cases are clear-cut, though, any more than the nature of intent itself is unitary, stable or well defined.
Whether there's a difference depends on how the critic puts it. So far, almost every serious discussion of the homoerotic elements in Frodo and Sam I've seen has carried its own distinct air of either 1) "I'm determined to see homoerotic elements whether they're there or not," thus saying much about the critic and exactly nothing about the work, or 2) "Frodo and Sam are gay lovers whether the author knows it or not," which is the critic declaring a certain knowledge of the work denied to the author. Both these fail my credibility test. It'd be possible to make a fair point out of a homoerotic reading, but I haven't seen anybody do it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
On the other had, an assertion such as "There are homoerotic elements in the relationship between Frodo and Sam" seems (whether or not one agrees with it) to be more about the text and/or possible ways of reading it, and less about what Tolkien intended. I don't think any of these cases are clear-cut, though, any more than the nature of intent itself is unitary, stable or well defined.
no subject