I am just saying that Tolkien had no such thing in mind. To use
LotR as an example of decontructionist theory is like using it as an example of
the virtues of atheism or paganism -- which is how many readers do take it, by
the way. There is nothing wrong with that, because Tolkien
purposely wrote a tale free from topicality or allegory, so that it could work
for many different readers in many different ways. Similar analyses can
be made of a story like The Book of Job, or Ecclesiastes, which to some people
seem very out of place in the Bible. But that is certainly not what
Tolkien had in mind.
As for deconstructionism itself, I would say that yes, the ultimate conclusion
of that theory, which seems to me heavily influenced by existentialism, is that
life is meaningless, but also that it doesn't mean anything that life is
meaningless. The brilliance of the theory is not in that conclusion,
though, but in how cleverly Derrida and others poke holes in attempts to draw
distinctions and ascribe meaning. And as I said above, there is much to
be said for such a philosophy. It can be freeing, and exciting, to
question everything we have ever been taught. And if there are no rules,
well, then anything is possible, and life is a blank canvas waiting for us to
draw upon it whatever we choose to draw. Seize the
day!
“I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story.)” (From Tolkien Letter # 131.)
