Tolkien in General

[Philipa]

The words of professor Tolkien have found shape and form and so this "world" has come into being. And was this not the idea behind Middle Earth - to find a world where the languages of the linguist Tolkien could find a shape?

Definately Elorin. Tolkien's world through his literature found it's way in many hearts. The films created a wider audience Tolkien never would have dreamed of. He himself was the "Iluvatar" of M.e. All my opinion of course.

[Merry]

I think you're right, Elorin and Philipa. Tolkien saw an analogy between his creation of M-e, the creation of Iluvatar, and God's creation of the world. He saw his own work as 'subcreation'. Cool thoughts!

[Merry]

TOR.n has a new link today to an on-line survey that a doctoral student is doing for his research about the relationship between LOTR (books and movies) and religion. It has some interesting questions and I'm sure he'd appreciate some help on his research!

[librislove]

I took the survey--just as a point of information, Regent University is connected to Pat Robertson, and the survey is skewed toward the representation of LOTR as a Christian work with Judeo Christian themes. and evangelical overtones. I am not passing judgment--please understand that, but because of its orientation, I found it difficult to complete in some respects--the way the questions are asked almost demands that you answer from an evangelical viewpoint..

[Merry]

Well, I wondered why I had never heard of Regent University! Thanks for the info, librislove. I'm not sure that I see the survey as skewed, though. I answered many of the questions as neutral and, if you look at the survey results, you can see that many other people who took the survey did not fall into the obviously religious answer. Although it is also the case that most of those people identified themselves as seriously religious.

Anyway, I suppose the more people who take it, the more accurate the representation will be.

[Iolanthe]

Good point. The general answers are interesting, if you can go through the questionnaire to get to them. I found myself answering neutral a lot as well. I think a lot of respondents can see very well what Tolkien intended the work to be and what Jackson intended to make of it and won't be led up other paths.

I found the fact that some questions referred to the books, some to the films and some to both very confusing though - especially as they are very different animals. It's not a well thought out survey.

Looking at the questions and statistics at the end I realised that I had ticked a box that, by omission, said I hadn't watched any of the films . That'll skew things .

[Iolanthe]

On a completely different note - I'm now reading my way through The History of Middle-earth: The Lost Tales. I may well be completely lost myself. It's a bit like Smith of Wooton Major - getting an unexpected entry into fairyland and finding that you are never likely to be able to a) get out b) be ever the same again. It's fascinating, not just the early stories but all Christopher Tolkien's notes. My HoM-e is the big thick bound volume that has Vols. 1-5 and I feel like I've been handed the keys to the kingdom.

[Merry]

You'll certainly be an expert by the time you finish, Iolanthe! I've made only the most tentative of forays into the texts.

I agree that linking the books to the movies in the survey questions was a problem. I also found it difficult to answer questions like, will the movies bring people closer to Christ? I have no idea!

On another line, TOR.n has scans of some in-flight magazine article about LOTR that is about the best short summary of the importance of the books I have ever read. If I wanted to give someone who was totally unfamiliar with Tolkien a brief introduction, this would be it.

[Iolanthe]

Here's the article here:

Southwest Airlines: Spirit Magazine

© Southwest Airlines

To see the actual PDF's just scroll down to the 'Read Complete Article' PDF link at the bottom .

[marbretherese]

thanks Iolanthe and Merry, this is a great article!

[Iolanthe]

I've copied lyaness's post about Tolkien and war over here from the Children of Hurin thread so we can discuss it without interruption .

Beren's original post (to put it in context) is here

Beren writes: Maybe that is why i dislike the third PJ movie so much... all that remains there is fighting and war; while the books so clearly show Tolkien's dislike against war, violence and anything to do with arms.

I respect your veiw regarding the above, Beren, but in his defence, Peter Jackson had compiled the film for people who did not know about the books. PJ and the two other writers of the film actually took into consideration what the Professor would think of their work and how best they could be true to the spirit of the book. They didn't change things willy-nilly and for the ratings. In proof you should buy the extended version dvd's and watch the 'behind the scenes' segments. PJ and the writers share their reasoning for the changes made. I am actually thankful to PJ for leading me to Tolkien.
Coming back to your comment above, I put this question to you: knowing the pure evil that Sauron was, was there any other way, realistically, to save Middle Earth?
My argument has two segments.
Firstly, as someone who did not know the story, during the first, second and third films, Sauron was established as someone that was evil, hatred and malice in a solid form. For one of the characters to go to him and say something along the lines of: "lets be friends" and both of them kiss and make up with Sauron becoming a "goodie" after that, would not give much credibility to his character, and many would leave the cinema disappointed and never pick up the book. Its the same as smiling at an axe murderer about to kill you, give him a hug and say:"lets be friends". It's just plain unrealistic. If someone is about to kill you, you would, realistically, fight back to save yourself, and that realism is what Peter Jackson was trying to portray. Yes, there was a huge battle at the end, but just go back to the book and see how many orcs the Roherem and Gondorian armies were trying to save Minas Tirith from. It makes Helms Deep look like a walk in the park. In order to save Minas Tirith, there would need to be an equal force against the mighty force of Mordor, plus, I feel, a miracle.

Secondly, what would have been the point if Frodo succeeded in destroying the ring and hence distroying Sauron if there were no people left in Middle Earth? The fighting in all of Lord of the Rings is seen as completely functional. Kill or be killed. Defend or be completely wiped out. It was not a blood-thirsty bunch of men out to have fun, it was about pure and utter survival. The dwarves had taken a knock in the mines of Moria thanks to the goblins, the elves had mostly left for Valanor and the Followers (us) would have been wiped out as well as the Hobbits in Hobbiton if Aragorn and his group, the Roherem and the Gondorians hadnt put there feet down and plainly and simply defended.

Tolkien fought in a war that didn't have much meaning, I mean what started it? A Austrian-Hungarian Archduke got shot and the suspected country was attacked. And thousands of Britains died to keep the peace in Europe. It was a meaningless war (unlike the 2nd world war that fought against the oppression of a nation). I think that Tolkien saw the meaningless of the war of world war 1 that his friends and other fellow countrymen had died for and in his book portrayed a war much more meaningful - survival of good and the survival of life.

Saying this, I would just like to ask again: was there realistically any other way to save Middle Earth from the might of Mordor and Isengard (with Saruman's Uruk hai)? If there is, I would love you to share it with me.

This is my veiw and you or anyone is welcome to disagree.

I look forward to any comments.
Lyanness

Thoughts everyone?

[librislove]

PJ and Company took a work in which much of the actual fighting took place "offstage" and translated it to the screen, a medium in which some of the dialogue and much of the description and narration of LOTR would have been unfilmable. And they did this while maintaining the work's essential integrity and themes. While ROTK may have been a bit heavy with "battle scenes", I agree with Lyanesse--this is not a group of war-happy people, but one of weary defenders who have no other choice.
With the possible exceptions of Gimlii, Eomer, and an inexperienced Eowyn who thinks glorious death is her destiny--none of these people are eager to fight. No one, for example, could possibly see Aragorn, Gandalf, and Faramir as eager to do battle. They are too well aware of the price. And those who come to battle inexperienced quickly learn its horrors--think Merry and Pippin., and ultimately Eowyn. The movies show us as much of Frodo and Sam as they do of battle, and as much of the treachery and pathos of Gollum--certainly these were themes more important to Tolkien than battle, as was the essential decency of most of his main characters, also apparent in the films. PJ does battles very well--but not to the point where the rest of the story is lost.

[Beren]

One day, if i have time, i will put together an essay on languages. There I will show the difference in speach between Gandalf, a man, a dwarf, ... one can (if you play 'guess who said this sentence' a lot you will know what i mean) see clearly that some sentences are Gandalf sentences, some are clearly Dunedain, some are Hobbit talk, some are Elvish,... One line is most of the time enough for Tolkien to understand which type of race or which person is speaking. The strenght of the books is that every character, every race has his typical way of speaking English. It is clearly a well thought of system and it is clearly that Tolkien did not just pick words...

If you then see in the movies that quotes can be switched of persons, that complete Hobbit texts are spoken by humans and the other way around, if a Dunedain can speak with the words of Gandalf,... you can't say any longer that this is in the spirit of Tolkien; it hurts my ears, it is incorrect and a big mistake.
It is the power of the books, the weakness of the movies.

Tolkien was in a war and he followed all that happened with his son who was in the second war. We all know how Tolkien felt about war. The tales by Tolkien are filled with tales of pain, war and the horror he knew is reflected in the books. For sure The Lord of the Rings is a tale which could only have been written by a man who lived through the horror of the great war. He is a post-war writer and has all the aspects of such a writer in his works. The movies clearly show us a different picture, there is this slightly different touch, this heroic and bold type of war which Tolkien would never agree to. War was never the central theme in Tolkiens books; it is clear that it is only the last option and not a must. When we see the movies, the war is the most underbuild item, the scenes are tremendous, enlarged in every possible way, we can almost adore the might and power, the duels, the bloodshed... every existing visual technique has been used to make the battles even larger, bigger and more impressive. It is for sure a cinematic achievement, a brilliant piece of cinema,... but is all Tolkien detested. It is wrong and a complete misundestanding of the books.

If you count the time spent on battle scenes and reduce them to a minimum, for example compare the lenght of the battle at hemsdeep in hours in the movie to the amount of pages in the book... one can clearly see that the time spent on this battle could have been much better spent on other scenes. If you look at the time and scenery used at shelobs lair and just before where Frodo sends back Sam, we see a horror movie specialist showing the best he has, but it could have been better if the actual events like they happened in the books where shown... why add more drama? Why, why, why,... i can only say that all the rewriting, added time to drama and battle, twisting of the plot was not needed to make this a good tale. The tale in itself was brilliant enough...

I have read (and heard) the answers of the script writers why they enlarged the Shelob scene, why Sam had to be sent back, why it was Arwen and not Glorfindel who had to put a spell on the river,... all the answers are plain stupid and make no sense. I'm sorry but the movies where cinematicly very outstanding, but it was not a good translation of the book. I remain with the idea that even if it is technically possible to make an adaption of the Lord of the Rings, it is not needed to do so... for me it would have been better that no such movie was made. They make me sad and angry.

[librislove]

I am sorry the movies were so painful for you, Beren--I do not think you are alone in your feelings concerning them. But what Tolkien could tell, Peter J ackson had to show, and that accounts for some of the differences. Yes, the films were battle heavy, but in a movie you can't just describe a batttle that takes place offstage or simply have a character say there was one. Does Jackson get carried away--yes (think Legolas and the mumakil or the skateboarding shield)--but his occasional excesses don't mar the work for me.

More importantly, I think there are places in LOTR (book canon, now ) in which Tolkien can and does find nobility in the fighting of the war, whatever he may think about war in general. The examples which come most readily to my mind are the Ride of the Rohirrim and the death of Theoden, and the confrontation involving the Witch King and Merry and Eowyn. Even the doomed ride of Faramir, which more than any other episode in the story symbolizes the futility of battle for battle's sake, has a true nobility about it. PJ does capture this feeling well, perhaps in no other scene more powerfully than when Aragorn, almost sure the cause the is lost, turns to his friends and says "For Frodo," and fights anyway. The theme of loyalty to one's comrades in arms is one of Tolkien's, and PJs, strongest and best portrayed.

[Merry]

Hello, all!

I have just finished reading Farmer Giles of Ham and Smith of Wootton Major for the first time. I can't believe I've waited so long to read these little gems: they are nice and short, and they are full of little seedling images and ideas that find their full expression in LOTR. The charming illustrations by Pauline Baynes are also worth looking at. Here is what author Paul Kocher says about SoWM:

A short prose meditation on the gift of fantasy, what it is, whence it comes, and what it means to the life and character of the man who receives it.

So I'm wondering if enough of us have read them to have a bit of a discussion here. Is anyone interested? Please respond in this thread.