I have an article...

[Mrs. Maggott]

An article entitled "The Subversion of Middle Earth" (Tolkien's Symphony of Virtue Meets Hollywood) by Garrin W. Dickenson appeared in Touchstone Magazine in October, 2002. The article critiques the film from a strictly Christian viewpoint, but much of its criticism has already been expressed in the threads of this forum even if not for the reasons Mr. Dickenson propounds.

I am going to see if I can get my husband (the computer maven) to scan it into my machine. Barring that, I am willing to type it in manually providing there is interest in it. It's a fairly long article, very articulate and covers the following subjects: The Real Value of the Story; Strength, Goodness & Simplicity; Evil & Temptation; The Virtues of Masculinity & Femininity and finishes up with Notes on Virtue. The last paragraph of the article says:
***************************
"In contrast to this vision of evil, Tolkien weaves together a pattern of many GOOD characters, all adding their notes of virtue to the great symphony that is THE LORD OF THE RINGS. This is what I particularly missed in Jackson's movie. I sorely missed Tolkien's vision of righteousness - his great symphony of virtue."
***************************
If there is interest, perhaps the complete article can be posted somewhere or if that is not possible, I will try to make it available via e-mail or even regular mail to those who would like to receive it. I am offering it here because Touchstone is not exactly a "fanzine" and most people won't ever see the article if it is not made available through a site like this. This article touches upon the things that many people found "wrong" about the film although they might have been unable to say exactly WHY they were "wrong".

[Mrs. Maggott]

Have learned where you might go to view article (I think):

www.touchstonemag.com

As noted, the article is found in the October, 2002 edition so it should still be around.

[Leto]

The link for that article isn't there anymore. The title is there, but you can't select it. You should post it, if you still have a copy of it. paste it into a thread here.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I have been given permission to reprint the article on the forum and since no one is charging for it and all due credit will be given to those who wrote and published it, I cannot imagine that there will be a problem doing so. However, I will have to sit down and do it when I get the chance which may be tonight. :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

The Subversion of Middle Earth
(Tolkien’s Symphony of Virtue Meets Hollywood)
by Garrin W. Dickinson

On December 19, 2001, the long-anticipated cinematic event of the decade opened – The Fellowship of the Ring, the first installment of Peter Jackson’s film rendition of J. R. R. Tolkien’s masterpiece, The Lord of the Rings. The movie opened to rave reviews and Golden Globe nominations. Many of the Christians I know even liked it. But I believe that both these viewers and the director himself have missed something of supreme importance in Tolkien’s work.

The Real Value of the Story
I first heard The Lord of the Rings read by my father when I was five years old and have returned to it again and again. With apologies to the psalmist, I lived with this story “until the iron entered into my soul.” I found in it an unadulterated tribute to virtue – virtue in its many forms and guises. The virtue of the great and of the less: faithfulness, courage, justice, courtesy, kindness, self-control, long-suffering, costly repentance, true humility – in short, righteousness, agape.

In my ongoing struggle up the path of Christian maturity, Tolkien’s exposition has been my roadmap. This statement might scandalize some people; certainly I would never consider Tolkien a basis for doctrine. But his story shows truth and virtue in a way that the Church rarely does. His foray into the realm of Faerie has the power to inculcate in the reader a desire to be righteous and a vision of what righteousness looks like. I know, because it did that for me.

I believe that Tolkien’s work can be powerful pre-apologetic material. Written in the twentieth century, it draws on the strengths of ancient and medieval literature to build something that exceeds its sources: a vision of truth and virtue that is completely counter cultural. Thousands of pagans love The Lord of the Rings and don’t know why it is worth loving. Thousands more will see the movies. A faithful rendition might have been a great force in bringing people to the Light. (go to next post)

[Mrs. Maggott]

But instead of faithfully representing the spirit of the book, Jackson has reduced the story to a hack-and-slash “sword and sorcery” yarn on a par with Conan the Barbarian, thus emphasizing from the book only what is not counter cultural. The movies may even help innoculate many people against the real value of the story.

Strength, Goodness & Simplicity
Jackson undervalues and misrepresents Tolkien’s various expressions of goodness and virtue and strength. One case in point is the character of Elrond. While Tolkien’s Elf-lord is powerful, he is noting if not courteous. He is a paragon of wisdom and almost impossible to ruffle. He may at times be stern, but he is always kind. However, the only way the movie seems to be able to portray strength is with a scowl. Jackson’s Elrond has a chip on his shoulder, a 3,000-year-old unresolved grievance with the Man Isildur, who did not destroy the Ring when he had the chance. He speaks disparagingly about his future son-in-law Aragorn, to whom (in the book) he is a surrogate father figure. He never smiles but is always acerbic and irascible. In fact, none of the Elves every laughs or really smiles, though their race is supposedly renowned for merriment and singing.

If Jackson misrepresents the Elves, it is the humble Hobbits who suffer the worst from his lack of understanding of virtue. Tolkien’s Hobbits (at least the members of the Fellowship) are simple but basically virtuous. Indeed, one might say that their virtue grows out of their simplicity. We laugh at them out of identification. It is the warm laughter of finding a friend in an unexpected place. They, like us, fight the petty battles of physical comforts and “stick-in-the-mud-ness”, but they also win the small battles of friendship and loyalty that finally add up to great victories over evil.

Frodo’s cousins, Merry and Pippin, leave the Shire with him out of loyalty. They have learned the whole truth of the Enemy’s Ring and, notwithstanding what they are getting into, go on the adventure with Frodo for the sake of fellowship. Later, after the Council of Elrond, they continue on as a part of the Company for the same reason. Jackson, on the other hand, reduces these two characters to buffoonery and comic relief, like the druids or ewoks in the Star Wars movies. This is a matter of emphasis. Instead of laughing in sympathy with them over their desire for more meals in the day, we laugh at their slapstick antics as Pippin gets hit in the head with an apple. Loveable they are, but not to be taken seriously. This is underscored when they are dragooned into the flight from the Shire rather than thoughtfully joining the venture.

Frodo, the Ring-bearer himself, is undercut particularly in two key scenes where he makes decisions with far-reaching effects. These scenes also reduce other characters in the process. The first is the Council of Elrond, where noble representatives of the races of Middle Earth are gathered to decide the fate of the Ring. In both the book and the movie, Frodo’s offer to take the Ring is made with the same words: “I will take the Ring, though I do not know the way.” In Tolkien’s presentation, this sacrifice is made in the midst of silence. The wise have come to an impasse in their deliberations. They have agreed that the Ring must be taken to the Dark Lord’s stronghold in Mordor and destroyed. But because they are wise, they are not willing to impose such a heavy burden on anyone. They all site with downcast eyes until Frodo the halfling offers himself on the altar of necessity.

Instead of this portrayal of willing self-sacrifice, the movie turns the Council into a brawl, where the hatreds and prejudices of Elves, Dwarves, and Men devolve almost into a melee. Into this pathetic wasteland of virtue comes the voice of Frodo, making his offer as a way of breaking up the fight. In this setting, his lines takes on the pitiful tone, if the not the actual sub-text, of Rodney King’s “Why can’t we all just get along?” It is not the voice of someone making a costly offer thoughtfully, courageously, at the prompting of a “still, small voice”. And the other characters at the Council are reduced to feuding adolescents, not the wise and noble of Middle-earth. Instead of being unwilling to impose the Ring on each other, they are loath to bequeath the Ring quest to the others present. Indeed, one wonders how they can possibly form a cohesive and supportive Fellowship of the Ring to support the halfling Ring-bearer, since he seems to be the only compromise candidate among the other races. [go to next post]

[Mrs. Maggott]

The other turning point for Frodo is his decision to leave the Fellowship and go to Mordor alone. The Company is debating whether to go directly to Mordor or to go first to the city of Men, Minas Tirith. But Frodo discovers the evil of the Ring at work in the Company itself when his companion, Boromir attacks him to acquire the Ring. At this point, he decides that he must leave the Company and continue to Mordor alone. This is a complex decision, made for several reasons. In the book, the chief reason for his flight is the protection of the rest of the Company. Frodo does not want any of them either to succumb to the power of the Ring or to be harmed in the desperate journey into the Enemy’s land. Furthermore, he knows that the Company will faithfully follow him into Mordor if that is the path he chooses. So he leaves them without their knowledge, trying to save them from their own virtue.

Again, this is a subtlety lost in the movie. As in the book, Frodo’s faithful servant Sam insists on accompanying him. Yet Jackson’s Frodo receives permission and assistance from his other friends to go to Mordor without them. Thus, Frodo’s decision to leave is based solely on the fear of the Ring’s power over the Company (and perhaps its effect on his own safety), and the other members of the Fellowship are deprived of their opportunity to do what is right (i.e. to be righteous). They have abandoned their responsibility to the Ring-bearer and, by extension, to Middle-earth.

Evil & Temptation
A corollary of this misunderstanding of virtue and righteousness is a similar misunderstanding of evil and temptation. Tolkien’s Middle-earth clearly does not exist in a dualistic universe. Rather evil is simply the rejection and the absence of goodness and virtue. In the book, the wise Elf-lord Elrond speaks for Tolkien: “For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so.” Thus is captured the vision of evil that is played out throughout the story.

If nothing is evil in the beginning, then the twisting of the characters to evil is the long process of the soul’s rejection of goodness and virtue. The result of this process in one who is powerful is the Dark Lord Sauron. The result in someone who is not powerful is the pathetic, petty, vicious, but largely ineffectual evil of Gollum, who for so long possessed the Enemy’s Ring. Either way, it is the same long, slow process. Evil seduces before it bluntly dominates, and temptation is therefore present even to the most virtuous characters. Indeed, their virtue is proven in their response to this temptation.

While one cannot expect a movie to portray this entire process of decline into evil, one can expect it to capture the essence of temptation in the scenes in which it is addressed. In two parallel scenes, the Elf-queen Galadriel and the elderly Hobbit Bilbo (previous keeper of the Ring) are tempted by the evil power of the Ring. The latter is a brief encounter in which Bilbo experiences again his desire for the ring and turns nasty before mastering himself. Galadriel, on the other hand, is offered the Ring freely by the Ring-bearer himself, the Hobbit Frodo. In her response to his offer she gives a telling account of her temptation: to wield the evil Ring for good initially, but eventually for her own domination of Middle-earth.

In the book, both temptation scenes are masterful renditions of the seduction of evil. These two characters must master themselves, their own desire for power, not some external force that seeks to dominate them. Jackson, however, imposes animated special effects over both characters in their moments of temptation. It is an actual visual imposition of their figures on the screen that seems to imply that they are “not themselves,” that they are “overwhelmed” by something from without. In Jackson’s Middle-earth, the Ring itself is the source of evil and must be mastered. [go to next post]

[Mrs. Maggott]

Equally misunderstood and misrepresented are those who have succumbed to the forces of evil. An excellent example is in the depiction of the Orcs, a race that was bred to be the minions of evil. They are the scions of snared Elves and Men, twisted and broken over the centuries. In Tolkien’s depiction, these hordes are just that – hordes. They are surprisingly faceless in battle. One gets the impression that, if the average swordsman came upon a solitary Orc, he would be revolted and saddened, but not particularly threatened. In numbers, however, they are the overwhelming masses of bureaucratic evil: the nameless, faceless denizens of the dark, tied to their Lord by mutual hatred and fear, rather than by loyalty and love. Even the “fighting Uruk-hai”, the larger, stronger Orcs bred by the turncoat wizard Saruman to fight in the sunlight, are not individual “personalities” so much as a powerful cohort.

Yet, Jackson, though he expends valuable screen time on the exposition of their lineage, misses this crucial point when he dedicates huge amounts of time to brief shots of snarling individual Orcs. In so doing, he nullifies the true horror of the Orcs; this faceless horde is what broken and twisted people can become. Instead, his Orcs are persons to be reckoned with. Their lack of virtue has made them personalities, individually important. The only pace where they are really frightening as a horde is in the Dwarf-mines of Moria, and there they are transformed into an insectile swarm that descends the columns of the hall to surround the Fellowship. They have lost all connection with us. They are not twisted versions of recognizable people. They are totally other. Jackson’s cartoonish Orcs are evil because they are foreign, not foreign because they are evil.

The final point at which the movie flattens the story’s depiction of evil is the character of Saruman. The fall of Saruman is of monumental significance, for he and Gandalf are Maiar, “angelic” beings sent to guide and protect the free peoples of Middle-earth. In a sense, he is the inversion of Galadriel, one who has capitulated to the same temptation that she overcame. Tolkien’s Saruman is a noble character in the process of being corrupted by his own desire for mastery. He only plays at submission to Sauron, all the while plotting his own mastery. His “industrialization” of his fortress Isengard and his breeding of the Uruk-hai are a bid for his own ascendancy among the evil powers of Middle-earth. Contrarily, Jackson’s Saruman seems to be a willing pawn of Sauron, his efforts undertaken at Sauron’s command. Gone is the working of evil upon a noble mind and heart. Instead we are given a “faithful” servant of the Dark Lord, an expressionless automaton of evil.

The Virtues of Masculinity & Femininity
Finally, there is one more virtue to be considered, or rather a pair of virtues: masculinity and femininity. Perhaps I should not have expected a faithful representation of these virtues from Hollywood, as our culture does not see these two traits as virtues at all.

A minor observation from the movie may serve as an introduction to this problem. As the Company enters the elven kingdom of Lothlorien, they are challenged by a small band of warrior Elves. The sex of these Elves is ambiguous. Some of them might be male or female, while the only one with a speaking part is, although male, strikingly effeminate. The only explanation I can think of for this strange production choice is that Jackson was attempting to make his Elves beautiful. It is a sad commentary on our cultural understanding of beauty that the only way he could devise to accomplish this was to make them androgynous.

While Jackson in this scene cannot seem to find any value in distinguishing clearly between males and females, this is perhaps one of the areas in which Tolkien is most counter-cultural. Because of this, there is a wide-spread opinion that Tolkien was a misogynist. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that Tolkien has many more male characters than female. But he creates some wonderfully strong female characters. The reason he has more male characters is that he writes mostly about war, a masculine activity. The problem is in our culture’s misunderstanding of war as a matter of domination and mastery of others, rather than as a masculine form of submission and self-sacrifice. For these things are, to Tolkien, the heart of both the masculine and the feminine.

Tolkien’s vision of these virtues is perhaps most clearly viewed in his portrayal of the betrothed couple, Aragorn and Arwen. To a certain extent, these two characters represent the ideal masculine and feminine. Their love story is one of the important undercurrents of the original narrative, even though one has to read the appendix to see very much of Arwen or to completely understand the history of this couple. Aragorn is the heir of kings who has yet to claim his birthright. But his lack of a crown is not a comment on his character. He is strong, with 77 years of self-sacrificial labor and growth in wisdom behind him. When we meet him, he has already proven himself many times over by enduring countless dangers and indignities in the anonymous service of others.

This willing service of others in combat and hardship is the focus of Aragorn’s ideal masculinity. And his submission to the reality of his own creation (as male) makes him emotionally strong and confident. As Gandalf writes of him, “All that is gold does not glitter,/ Not all those who wander are lost.” Aragorn has no need to “find himself,” only to display his golden character and claim his kingdom when the time is right. [go to next post]

[Mrs. Maggott]

Arwen, on the other hand, is an Elf-lady of high lineage who lays down her elven immortality to betroth herself to Aragorn. Because her father has made their marriage contingent on Aragorn’s winning his crown, Arwen sets herself the arduous task of faithfully waiting and encouraging her beloved. Her role is less clear than Aragorn’s simply because she gets much less space in the main course of the narrative.

One thing is obvious, however: She does not go to war. Later in the story, we find that one of the activities she has undertaken during her long betrothal is the creation of the standard that Aragorn displays in the battle before the gates of Minas Tirith. This is a traditional feminine idiom, but Arwen is not the feminists’ vision of the weak, passive, traditional woman. As an immortal Elf, she is far older than the Man Aragorn, and those long years of her life had brought her wisdom that is at least the match of his. Her patience and encouragement and faithfulness, both to her beloved and to her father’s conditions on her betrothal, are her own form of self-sacrifice and service, in the context of her submission to her own creation as a female. While she, no doubt, would be able to defend herself at need, she has no need to seek martial adventure for herself. Her feminine task requires strength and courage enough.

Watching the movie, one realizes that something is wrong with the relationship the moment Arwen is introduced. Before we see her, we see her sword: it is at the throat of a kneeling Aragorn. And her first words are a taunt: “What’s this? A Ranger caught off his guard?” She then convinces Aragorn that it is she who should take the wounded Frodo to her father Elrond in Rivendell, putting her body rather than Aragorn’s between the Ring-bearer and the enemy. The sequence continues with a long equestrian chase scene in which Arwen and Frodo are driven before the Black Riders, and finishes in a flourish with Arwen brandishing her sword at the enemy (“If you want him, come and take him!”) and then raising with an incantation the flood that destroys them. (This last act also undermines her right relationship with her father, since in Tolkien the river is under his authority, not hers.)

Aragorn fares not better. Instead of a man gentle and strong because he knows himself, he is a conflicted and tortured victim of self-doubt. “The same blood flows in my veins as did in Isildur’s. How do I know I won’t make his mistake?” Thus, Jackson has transformed the story of a king ready to claim his crown into an adolescent “coming of age” story in which a “strong” woman keeps him from falling under the strain of the conflict within his soul. Thus, in a later scene, Arwen appears, having doffed her leather and steel, in a gown more appropriate to her now maternal advice. She chides him for his doubt. She knows he will grow up to be a wonderful man.

Thus are both masculinity and femininity cheapened by Jackson’s portrayal. Yet the true nature of masculinity and femininity is one of the things at the very heart of Tolkien’s vision of virtue. To truly value and live out the masculine and feminine idioms in sacrificial love is, for Tolkien, to submit to the created order, whereas the refusal to honor masculinity and femininity is tantamount to rebellion.

Notes of Virtue
I happened to see The Fellowship of the Ring with a friend who had never read the book. Afterwards, the rest of us asked him what he had gotten out of the movie. He responded by nearly quoting Lord Acton: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This is probably more profundity than many people will get from the movie, but it is not at all the message of Tolkien’s work.

As we have seen, there are several characters who are powerful in a variety of ways, who nevertheless resist temptation and use their power for good. In Tolkien’s vision, it is the use of power to dominate and enslave that must be rejected. This is the temptation of the One Ring.

In contrast to this vision of evil, Tolkien weaves together a pattern of many good characters, all adding their notes of virtue to the great symphony that is The Lord of the Rings. This is what I particularly missed in Jackson’s movie. I sorely missed Tolkien’s vision of righteousness – his great symphony of virtue.

[About the author: Garrin W. Dickinson is a recently ordained Anglican priest. He lives near Philadelphia with his wife and daughter and is awaiting the birth of the couple’s second child. He is the curate of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont.]

Just a comment or two from myself: I think there are some few places where the author of the article may be factually incorrect (were men part of the creation of Orcs?). But whatever small factoids he may have gotten wrong, do not in any way negate the points he has made. It is not that I agree with every jot and tittle of the article, but I certainly do agree with the author’s general argument and note that many of the things he has brought forth are points and observations that have been made by a number of other persons on this forum. (Mrs. M.)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Whew! That's the WHOLE article probably posted wrong, but POSTED! :eek:

[Talimon]

Before I say anything else, I have to quote this:

Thousands of pagans love The Lord of the Rings and don’t know why it is worth loving. Thousands more will see the movies. A faithful rendition might have been a great force in bringing people to the Light.

Before stating a single opinion, as a "pagan" I have already been excluded from this article, since I obviously don't understand why this book I love is worth loving. Indeed I (and Mr. Jackson no less) must be very ignorant folk, for we can't even decide why we love what we love to begin with. And Mr. Jackson ought to immediately be shunned for not doing his duty in bringing people to the "Light". After all, that is his only duty, or ought to be, right? I'd stop this post right here, were my only problem with this article it's absolute sense of self-righteousness. Unfortunately things get worse.


But instead of faithfully representing the spirit of the book, Jackson has reduced the story to a hack-and-slash “sword and sorcery” yarn on a par with Conan the Barbarian, thus emphasizing from the book only what is not counter cultural. The movies may even help innoculate many people against the real value of the story.

So the "real" value of Tolkiens story is that it's counter-cultural? Interesting. I guess we should first clear up what the "real" value is to begin with. On we go:

In fact, none of the Elves every laughs or really smiles, though their race is supposedly renowned for merriment and singing.

Um...very perceptive. I might add that we are at the end of the Third Age of Middle-earth, and the elves are a falling race. This isn't The Hobbit. This is Lord of the Rings, and it's darker for a reason. Throughout the article this same sort of dissapointment is expressed: everybody is gloomy. I don't know what book you were reading, but the one I read was about going from "danger into danger". Go reread the book. It is very dark.

And the other characters at the Council are reduced to feuding adolescents, not the wise and noble of Middle-earth. Instead of being unwilling to impose the Ring on each other, they are loath to bequeath the Ring quest to the others present. Indeed, one wonders how they can possibly form a cohesive and supportive Fellowship of the Ring to support the halfling Ring-bearer, since he seems to be the only compromise candidate among the other races.

For all this persons perception one has to wonder if they had the book with them and were making comparisons scene for scene. The point of the arguements was to show how devided the people of Middle-earth were. It was also to make clear that this wasn't a one-sided quest. Charachters had thier own ambitions, thier own goals. The scene with Frodo looking at the ring, seeing the power it was inflicting on those at the council, the devide it was creating. And the most important point here is that Frodo takes the ring for the same reasons he takes it in the book (and recieves the same reaction).

Again, this is a subtlety lost in the movie. As in the book, Frodo’s faithful servant Sam insists on accompanying him. Yet Jackson’s Frodo receives permission and assistance from his other friends to go to Mordor without them. Thus, Frodo’s decision to leave is based solely on the fear of the Ring’s power over the Company (and perhaps its effect on his own safety), and the other members of the Fellowship are deprived of their opportunity to do what is right (i.e. to be righteous). They have abandoned their responsibility to the Ring-bearer and, by extension, to Middle-earth.

This is not entirely correct, for the simple reason that in the book Aragorn has the direct option to follow Frodo to Mordor, but doesn't. In fact his words are very similar to what they are in the movie:

'I would have guided Frodo to Mordor and gone with him to the very end; but if I seek him now in the wilderness, I must abandon the captives to torment and death. My heart speaks clearly at last: the fate of the Bearer is in my hands no longer. The Company has played it's part.'

As such, PJ's change hasn't detracted anything, and added one scene that in my eyes is of utmost importance: Aragorn being tempted by the ring. The reviewers claims the film lacks a sense of righteousness. What is this action by Aragorn? Both in the book and in the movie Aragorn knew he shouldn't follow Frodo.

In Jackson’s Middle-earth, the Ring itself is the source of evil and must be mastered.

Not the ring, but ones desire for it. Those additions of special effects do nothing to suggest that it isn't the charachters themselves who want the ring. But what is true, in both book and movie, is that the ring had a power, a will of it's own. A will, I might add, that was purely evil. This reviewer, by negelcting this, is in my opinion neglecting one of Tolkiens stronger themes. What we find here is that not everyone agrees on Tolkien. In my opinion this reviewers understanding is wrong, since I think it is quite plain, in reading the book, that it is the ring that is evil, that must be destroyed. Otherwise, why couldn't it be used to do good? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Tolkien's Middle-earth, "the Ring itself is the source of evil." This seems to be one of the most basic themes in the book.

Even the “fighting Uruk-hai”, the larger, stronger Orcs bred by the turncoat wizard Saruman to fight in the sunlight, are not individual “personalities” so much as a powerful cohort.

Others have expressed thier opinions on this quite well, but I think there is plenty of proof in Tolkien that the orcs weren't faceless.

Their lack of virtue has made them personalities, individually important.

Wait a second...hadn't we just said something about this...

Rather evil is simply the rejection and the absence of goodness and virtue.

So let me get this straight...the first quote says that PJ has altered them by giving them a lack of virtue... then the second quote says that evil, as Tolkien describes it, is the absence (or lack) of virtue? That's a direct contradiction of ones own arguement if I've ever seen one.

As the Company enters the elven kingdom of Lothlorien, they are challenged by a small band of warrior Elves. The sex of these Elves is ambiguous. Some of them might be male or female, while the only one with a speaking part is, although male, strikingly effeminate. The only explanation I can think of for this strange production choice is that Jackson was attempting to make his Elves beautiful.

WHAT!?!?! Sorry, I honestly can't comment here. For one it is PJ's complete right to express beauty as he see's fit. But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, what does it say about beauty when the most beautiful of Elves, Arwen, loves not another "beautiful" elf, but rather a man, a very "masculine" one at that? I think this reviewer is cheapening beauty by assuming PJ's intentions.

The problem is in our culture’s misunderstanding of war as a matter of domination and mastery of others, rather than as a masculine form of submission and self-sacrifice.

This gets worse by the minute. Now I'm being told war is a masculine form of submission and self-sacrifice?!? Do I even need to go to the book to disprove this...?

This willing service of others in combat and hardship is the focus of Aragorn’s ideal masculinity. And his submission to the reality of his own creation (as male) makes him emotionally strong and confident.

All I can say is that we have very different views on masculinity and femininity. I think the viewpoint this person is taking is extremely archaic, moreso then Tolkien. I believe that one of the great themes throughout Tolkiens books (particularly in the tale of Beren and Luthien) is the lengths to which men, but perhaps more dramatically women, go in the name of thier loved ones. Arwen sacrificing her immortality, Luthien following Beren... if Tolkien followed any set of guidelines for femininity/masculinity, I don't believe they were at all parrallel to those existing in our world, something the writer here is claiming. In fact, I believe the writer is prescribing christian roles of femininity to a tale that was meant to occure in pre-christian times. I'd be very curious to see how this writer would analyze the actions of Eowyn, or for that matter justify them as being "feminine". If the ideal here is to "submit" to ones creation as male/female, then Eowyn certainly doesn't rank very highly, does she? After all, let's not forget:

To truly value and live out the masculine and feminine idioms in sacrificial love is, for Tolkien, to submit to the created order, whereas the refusal to honor masculinity and femininity is tantamount to rebellion.

I guess Eowyn should have just stayed at home. :rolleyes:

As we have seen, there are several characters who are powerful in a variety of ways, who nevertheless resist temptation and use their power for good. In Tolkien’s vision, it is the use of power to dominate and enslave that must be rejected. This is the temptation of the One Ring.

And this is percisely what PJ brings across on screen. If nothing more, the one place where PJ does not slack-off is in displaying the ring and it's power over others. And, perhaps more importantly, the power of others to refuse it. Gandalf does so, Galadriel does so, Aragorn does so. Either the reader was watching a different movie, or they simply chose to ignore what they were watching.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Let me remind you this appeared in a CHRISTIAN magazine, NOT a "fanzine". That it was oriented towards Christians should come as no shock to anyone who reads it.

I will not go into all that you have posted (since the article is not mine to defend - I have merely made it available for forum members to read). However, I will disagree with your contention that the book and the film "agree" on the business of Frodo's departure to Mordor. In the book, Aragorn does NOT give Frodo a "blessing" to depart nor does he "let him go" off alone. When Aragorn returns to the lake shore after he, Gimli and Legolas have discovered what has happened (that Boromir has been killed, Merry and Pippin taken by the orcs and Frodo and Sam have taken a boat and gone East), after some time to consider the situation, he simply decides that "the fate of the Bearer is no longer in (my) hands" and chooses to follow the orcs who have taken the two younger hobbits. AT NO TIME does Aragorn give Frodo leave to go without him. In fact, he specifically says to the Fellowship as they are awaiting Frodo's decision (before the orcs come), that he has chosen to accompany Frodo and Sam (who won't be left behind) to Mordor and that the only other member of the Fellowship he chooses to go will be Gimli. He also indicates that Boromir will go to Minas Tirith which was his original destination and, it may be assumed, take Legolas and the two hobbits with him since a considerable affection appears to have grown up between Merry and Pippin and Boromir.

Jackson's representation of Aragorn abandoning Frodo because he fears his own weakness in the matter of the Ring, is akin to him allowing Arwen to put her body between the Riders and the Bearer (as is also noted by the author of the article) and is a DEFINITE abasement of the character.

[aragil]

Mrs. M- With your justification I would have no need to clean up a carton of milk that I just dropped on the floor. "The milk is in my hands no longer". I think (it is OK to admit to an opinion, you know) that Aragorn's decision in the books was at least partly based on Frodo's desire to leave the Fellowship, partly on what his 'heart' said. These same motivations are present in the movie, and in addition we get to see Aragorn succeeding where Boromir and Isildur failed. He is expressing no more fear here than Galadriel or Gandalf when they rejected the call of the Ring. If you missed these motivations it is a shame, but please don't rale against the filmmaker.

As a side note, I find it extremely distasteful that you have posted an article which begins by alienating a large portion of the Tolkien Forum membership with the derogotory (IMO) label of pagan.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Jackson's "motive" for Aragorn "allowing" or "giving his blessing to" Frodo to go off to Mordor without his or any other aid from the Fellowship but Sam's is OBVIOUSLY his fear of his own weakness regarding the Ring. Just remember the scene wherein he carefully closes Frodo's hand over the Ring as if to acknowledge that if he couldn't SEE it, he would be safe. Therefore, he puts the WHOLE burden on the hobbit (while at the same time assuring him that he would have helped, honest he would!) Jackson has already had a scene or two which expresses the character's concern about this very matter. You remember, the famous "You are not Isildur" bit with the now maternal and not martial Arwen.

In the book, Aragorn is faced with a difficult decision: follow Frodo and protect him DESPITE his obvious desire to leave the Fellowship and by so doing abandoning Merry and Pippin to Saruman and his orcs (consider the consequences of Saruman getting his hands on the two hobbits who knew all about the quest!) - or allowing Frodo to go in order to follow the orcs with the hope of rescuing the two hobbits or, at the very least, preventing them from falling into Saruman's clutches.

Do you actually suggest that these two motivations are one and the same? If so, and if other film defenders see no difference between the two situations, then frankly we are talking at cross purposes because you will NEVER understand what I (and I assume other critics) are saying about the film.

As for "alienating" readers: I posted an article from a CHRISTIAN magazine. It was not my right to edit same for then it would not have been Mr. Dickensen's article, but a fraud. However, I have noticed here as in other places in the culture, few people are concerned about "insulting" or "alienating" Christians. People are quite "up front" in their criticisms of traditional Christianity.

As for the article: the author calls those who are of "the world" (rejecting of traditional religion in general and Christianity in particular) "pagans". That is not an insult, it is an observation. Indeed, many people describe themselves today as "neo-pagans"! Others are atheists or secular humanist atheists or "agnostics" or nothing at all. Gone are the days when one could assume that the culture was by and large traditionally "religious"; indeed, America's culture today can certainly be considered "pagan" in that it is not "Christian" or "Jewish" or any traditional faith of our nation's past.

The author did not make a disparaging remark about anyone. He simply pointed out that many of those who have no understanding of or sympathy with Christianity are "taken" with Tolkien's work although they may not understand the reasons why. He further lamented that the Director's treatment of the story was not going to help them in that understanding - which is true enough.

[Eriol]

A very interesting article, Mrs M., and I, for one, appreciate your effort in typing this stuff. Even if some people disagree or are offended by it, you did it in good faith, and that's what matters.

Now for the article itself... I usually side (in thought) with Talimon in debates about the movie. And I never compared the movie and the book, for me they are two separate works. So while I agree with the reviewer's vision about the book, I think he was a bit too harsh (and inaccurate in some places) with the movie. He was actually saying "One of the things I love about LotR is that it is a gateway into Christianity, but Jackson's movie is not". So what, one could ask? (Even if one is a Christian). I don't know Jackson's beliefs, but surely he can not be blamed for following his own beliefs instead of Tolkien's. This is a delicate point. Jackson had to stray true to the story, and to the 'feeling' of Middle-Earth, if he wanted to portray it well to the fans, but if his (Jackson's) feeling is not consistent with the feeling of the reviewer, bad luck. And his feeling was bound to be constrained by his beliefs, just as Tolkien's feeling was.

I really think it IS bad luck. I loved the movie, but I think that the reviewer's feeling is closer to Tolkien's own feeling, and to my own. I hate vague words such as 'feeling', but I can't think of anything better, maybe you can help me. I don't think a great movie must be 'pre-apologetic', as the reviewer put it, in order to be great, even if the source material was (and I surely think LotR, the book, is pre-apologetic). This is in response to Talimon’s (sarcastic) assertion that Jackson’s main goal should be to spread the Light – of course it isn’t, if he does not believe in this Light.

Having said that, I think the scenes pointed out by the reviewer are a good example of the change of mood between movie and book (even though they did not detract, and in some cases even enhanced the movie; e.g. IN THE MOVIE I think the direct refusal of the Ring's power by Aragorn was extremely important). Regarding the lack of virtue in the orcs and the Eowyn 'problem' in the masculine/feminine question, I side with Talimon, I think the reviewer was too extreme -- especially in comparing the movie with Conan, and the 'counter-cultural' theme (which I find quite shallow, by the way). But on other places I think Talimon is also too harsh, and perhaps inaccurate (always hard to establish in matters of opinion). Mainly:

Elves' merriment: Even in the darker mood of LotR, Elves are merry. Gildor's elves, and Lindir & Co. in Rivendell are an example of that. Even in war-troubled Lórien the Elves laugh at the company when they meet them (after the tense moment when Legolas touches the tree and bids everybody to be quiet). Of course, this is the book. Was it better in the movie to have gloomy elves? I don't think so. I missed their laughter :( .

The Council of Elrond: Yes, in the movie the divisiveness of the Ring was well portrayed. But on the book, the peoples were not 'divided', as Talimon put it, but rather 'apart', 'estranged'. They did unite to decide the doom, in that very council. No division is seen during the Council itself. Which is better, book or movie? Again, I think the book, but I don't hate Jackson for that ;) . The movie scene is OK.

I wrote a lot, but still wanted to say something else -- what was it? Oh, yes, regarding the word 'pagan'. This is simply a technical term, in no way derogatory. It is as derogatory as 'Christian', 'atheist', 'agnostic', i.e., they can (and often are) used as insults, but not in this particular case (I think -- just my opinion).

See ya (I had to stand up for you, Mrs M., especially after all your typing!)!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Just a note about the Aragorn/Frodo/Ring situation. In the book, Frodo NEVER "fears" Aragorn with respect to the Ring. In the film, he asks the question that Jackson's entire construction of the character of Aragorn makes necessary, "Can you protect me from YOURSELF?!" In that one sentence, we see forever set in "stone" (or film) the Aragorn of Tolkien vs. the Aragorn of Jackson. This is a HUGE difference.

In the book, Frodo doesn't want Aragorn to go with him NOT because he is afraid that he will attempt to take the Ring, but because he knows that the man's heart yearns for Minas Tirith and now that Boromir has "fallen" (as he thinks), Aragorn will be needed in that place more than ever.

In the film, Frodo simply fears both Aragorn's strength AND his weakness (or supposed weakness) where the Ring is concerned. He loves the man, but he fears him also. Frodo does not WANT Aragorn's company not because he knows Strider the Ranger would prefer to be elsewhere, but because he suspects that somewhere along the long dark road ahead, Aragorn COULD change his mind about the Ring, especially when the danger became even more immanent! If this isn't a totally different - and alien - understanding of the character, I don't know what would be except to have Aragorn rather than Boromir attempt to take the Ring at Parth Galen.

NOTE:
pagan: somebody who does not follow one of the world's main religions, especially someone who is not a Christian, Muslim or Jew; a follower of an ancient or (even modern) polytheistic or pantheistic religion (ie. The New Age movement, Wiccan etc.); can also mean someone who holds no religious belief in which case it might be considered derogatory since paganism usually suggests SOME form of "belief system". This term is also frequently used to describe cultures that do not ascribe to one of the world's main religions; a member of a particular motorcycle gang (the Pagans). :rolleyes:

[Talimon]

loves the man, but he fears him also. Frodo does not WANT Aragorn's company not because he knows Strider the Ranger would prefer to be elsewhere, but because he suspects that somewhere along the long dark road ahead, Aragorn COULD change his mind about the Ring, especially when the danger became even more immanent!

I think you are ignoring Aragorns actions in that scene (in the movie). He directly refuses the ring, and says, "I would have followed you to the end, into the very fires of Mordor." To which Frodo replies, "I know." Frodo's surprise and innitial fear at seeing Aragorn are the result of just having beeing tackled to the ground by Boromir. He fears men, and I think Aragorns actions remind him that there is still goodness to be found. The only difference here between book and film is that Aragorn proves to the audience that he doesn't want it in one (the film), and in the book we more or less just left to assume it.

And as for "pagan", the reviewer was clearly using it there to refer to non-christians. And in my opinion it is quite offensive to say, regarding LotR, that non-christians "don’t know why it is worth loving." I know that I love it and I know why I love it. The reviewer is suggesting that if you are not christian you must be ignorant of the meaning of Tolkiens work. I'm afraid I can't agree here.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Aragorn does not trust HIMSELF in this or - just as he would never have let Arwen place herself between the Riders and the Bearer - he would not have allowed the Bearer to go on to Mordor essentially alone. The only reason in the book that Aragorn does not follow Frodo is that Merry and Pippin have been taken by the orcs. If they had been killed, then I think the rest of the Fellowship would have simply followed Frodo and gone with him whether he wished it or not. But because the quest was seriously endangered by the possibility of Merry and Pippin being questioned by either Saruman or Sauron, Aragorn chose to deal with the danger he KNEW existed rather than the danger that, however probable, was still in the future.

And as for "pagans not knowing what they like" in the story, that is NOT what the author said. He said that those who are "pagans" (whatever meaning that word has for him) may not understand the true MEANING of what they "like" in the story even though they DO know what appeals to them. There is a VAST difference between the two. For instance, it is the difference between my saying that I don't know WHAT color I like - and saying that I like blue, but I don't know WHY. As you can see, these are NOT the same contention at all!

[Mrs. Maggott]

It is religious prejudice, thats why. <quote by Nom>

Of course it is! Who on earth would bother to believe in a religion that he or she did not think was the truth? Would you worship God the Fairly Competent? If I say I am a Christian, what I am saying is that I believe that faith to be the TRUE faith and anyone who believes otherwise is wrong, mistaken etc. There is nothing "wicked" in this, nor is "wrong" or "mistaken" a synonym for "evil".

Everyday we make decisions about something with which others disagree. If I root for the Yankees and you root for Boston, I think you're wrong and MY team is best and I'm sure you would feel the same way. Good heavens! If we all believed the same things, what need would there be for forums such as this or for literature at all?

This article was posted for those who wished to see the author's position on the Director's adaptation of Tolkien's work and how he believed that Jackson missed the great theme of virtue within Tolkien's work. Whatever he has posited about things other than that are of no consequence, nor do they invalidate the points he has made. Indeed, I have heard many of the same points being made by others on this forum, myself included (especially with regards to Arwen and Aragorn). To get "wrapped around the axle" and take "offense" at something that may not even APPLY to the one being offended, is to allow political correctness to stifle debate lest someone else become "offended".

I would suggest (as I have included in an earlier post the e-mail address of the publication) that anyone who is horrified by the word "pagan" for whatever reason, should contact the author through the magazine and take it up with him. In the meanwhile, since the article was posted purely for informational purposes and not intended as anything other than the presentation of a different perspective on the subject matter under discussion, that we all relax and get back to the point at hand. :rolleyes:

[Mrs. Maggott]

If I understood the author correctly, what he was saying is that Tolkien's story presented many different aspects of "virtue" in different ways and that this particular meaning of the story was lost in the film because of the changes he elucidates throughout the article. When the story no longer offered this tribute to virtue, then many of those who were NOT Christian would NOT have the opportunity to learn from Tolkien's story as it was presented in the film, his Christian view of virtue.

Of course, Tolkien's presentation of virtue within the book IS "Christian" because Tolkien WAS Christian. Non-christians who read and love the book because of its Christian values (even though they might not recognize them as such) would not have the possibility of seeing those values carried over into the film because of the adaptation made by the Director and others. The author of the article lamented that loss and, frankly, I think the author of the book would have done so as well.

[Eriol]

as for "pagan", the reviewer was clearly using it there to refer to non-christians.

Talimon said that. I don't think so. I don't think there is a quarrel between Christians and Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, that was being addressed by the author. I think "pagan" meant "secular, non-religious", which is not quite the same thing as "non-christian".

(rats. I wrote a lot and it was lost when I tried to submit it. Let me try again.)

Ii find it interesting that the author is being scolded for having said that this movie could use more virtues. Are more virtues a bad thing? I know that in art, and especially in drama, the goal is often cathartic (sp?), to show us our dark side, but surely LotR (the book) is not like that, so why should the movie be? That is a question I would like to see discussed, if you think less virtue is good for the movie. In my view, the guy listed some virtues and bemoaned their weakening in Jackson's rendition. You can say he is inaccurate regarding this 'weakening' -- a good discussion. (I think he is inaccurate in many places, especially when he compares the movie with Conan - argh!). But to say that his argument (more virtues = better rendition of Tolkien's work) is wrong is really strange.

And now a pre-apology to Talimon: rest assured that I don't want to ruffle or offend you, my friend, but let me ask you this, regarding your first post:

Before stating a single opinion, as a "pagan" I have already been excluded from this article, since I obviously don't understand why this book I love is worth loving. Indeed I (and Mr. Jackson no less) must be very ignorant folk, for we can't even decide why we love what we love to begin with.

Well... why do you love the things that you love in the book? And as a more general question, why do you love the things you consider lovable? Please try to avoid circular reasoning. This question has haunted me for years, and was one of the main factors in my conversion (people strong in the faith tell me this is rare, an intellectual conversion). I certainly would not classify people who don't know that as 'very ignorant folk', as most people have never thought about it. When I realized that the only answer is to accept the supernatural side of man, that ethics can not be grounded in empirical reality only, it was the first step for me.

See ya!

P.S. Nóm, my friend, what's this about "the one truth"? Are there many? We may not know it (the truth), but we know it is.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Many of the problems that people have with issues like these are ones of perception. For instance: if something is GOOD, it must be absolutely OTHER than something that is considered evil or BAD - and, of course, vice versa. Thus, when something that has been presented as "good" from a religious point of view appears OUTWARDLY, to be little or no different from something that is labled as BAD, then many conclude that the faith-based point of view must be stupid or irrational or simply without merit. Hence, something like human sexuality causes many to discard a "religious" view since it can be both "good" AND "bad" - and, after all, how can the same thing be both?

But what is missing here is PERSPECTIVE. For instance: a hammer may be used to build a house - or split a skull. The hammer does not change, but the motive for its use DOES. Hence, the first use is admirable, the second, wicked - unless, of course, it is a matter of self defense or even accident, which again changes the moral parameters of the situation!

One of my favorite parables about this "perspective" issue is an old Jewish one about a Rabbi who is asked by God if he wishes to see what hell is like. The old man, interested, says "yes" and God opens a door to a huge room. Within, are long tables heavily laden with food at which sit people reduced to mere skeletons in the throes of starvation. Their screams and cries of agony resound eternally about the huge room. In every person's hand is a spoon whose handle is four feet long so, of course, those seated at this enternal banquet, though they can get food on the spoon, cannot get the spoon into their mouths. Thus they sit in the midst of plenty, eternally starving.

God closes the door and the Rabbi, who is VERY shaken by this scene of perpetual suffering, asks if he might now see Heaven so as to take away with him some comfort. God then takes him to another door and opens it. To his shock, the Rabbi sees EXACTLY THE SAME THING: great tables laden with food surrounded by people who are holding spoons with four foot handles. But here are no shouts and screams of agony, but jolly conversation, laughter and eternal delight. Why? Because all of those at the tables ARE FEEDING EACH OTHER!

So you see, in the end it is all a matter of perspective and what we CHOOSE to do with the truth that great souls like Tolkien give to us. He has fed us, now we must feed those around us if we are to gain the Eternal Banquet and perhaps be fortunate enough to ask the author himself all these wonderful questions.

[Parrot]

To begin with, I would point out that this author’s statements are just as subjective as those of anyone else here, so much of this is, again, just matters of opinion. Example; the author points out, as Mrs. Maggott has before, that movie M & P are originally swept up in the adventure without making the conscious and informed decision to actively go along; ergo the virtues of friendship, loyalty, and sacrifice basically give way to “wrong-place, wrong-time”. This is fairly accurate in as far as it goes, but he just leaves it at that,never mentioning that they later, fully informed of all that is at stake, choose to continue the journey, and actually willingly sacrifice themselves for Frodo in a far more direct way than Tolkien’s M & P ever did. So have the virtues in question really been discarded or just portrayed differently? We must each answer that individually, but I know what I think;it is possible to take different roads and still come to exactly the same place in the end.

Per the religious slant; as I take it, what the author seems to be saying is that people from outside the Judeo-Christian (or even Muslim) frame of reference, lack the spiritual/emotional wherewithal to TRULY appreciate virtues like "faithfulness, courage, justice, courtesy, kindness, self-control, long-suffering, costly repentance, true humility", even though they don't know it. Though it is a Christian oriented magazine and he is quite literally preaching to the choir, the implication is still somewhat insulting to those who don’t share this bent.

Despite the label of "Christian Values", these values are not the exclusive domain of Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, in either their execution or appreciation. I would suggest that Pagans, or non-religious types in general, might appreciate the beauty of these types of actions and traits, in and of themselves, done out of love and respect for their fellow man (elf, hobbit, dwarf, and so on), without the necessity of seeing them as part of some larger religious design. To some, they are admirable because they are prima facie admirable and not because some ancient scroll or high-priest says they are admirable. Some people choose to do the right thing simply because they know it is the right thing and not because it will get them a gold star in the Great Big Book of Final Reckoning.

[Talimon]

He said that those who are "pagans" (whatever meaning that word has for him) may not understand the true MEANING of what they "like" in the story even though they DO know what appeals to them. There is a VAST difference between the two. For instance, it is the difference between my saying that I don't know WHAT color I like - and saying that I like blue, but I don't know WHY. As you can see, these are NOT the same contention at all!

That still makes me out to be ignorant. If I know what I like but I don't know why I like it, I must be ignorant. My main issue with this article is that it claims that the meaning it presents is the only one. To me that sort of outlook is very opressive, and the very essence of disagreement. I have tried to make the point before that different people can have different opinions on Tolkien and PJ, and no one is more right or wrong then the other. This article goes right against that.

I would suggest (as I have included in an earlier post the e-mail address of the publication) that anyone who is horrified by the word "pagan" for whatever reason, should contact the author through the magazine and take it up with him.

I am not horrified in the least, and indeed couldn't care any less. My main point in my original post was that this article, by making this sort of statement, is excluding a large portion of it's audience. It's not as though this is the only place where the article makes this self-righteous claim that there is only one meaning to Tolkien. It's an arguement that is repeated throughout.

Of course, Tolkien's presentation of virtue within the book IS "Christian" because Tolkien WAS Christian. Non-christians who read and love the book because of its Christian values (even though they might not recognize them as such) would not have the possibility of seeing those values carried over into the film because of the adaptation made by the Director and others.

That is percisely what I am talking about. To me that sort of outlook is highly prejudiced. By making that claim, you are saying that anyone who does not read the book for it's Christian values does not understand Tolkiens presentation of virtue. I have disagreed with the article that virtue is absent from the film in my previous post, and one point I might make again is that many of these themes that the author of the article stresses mean absolutely nothing to me. The whole interpretation of femininity/masculinity is, in my humble opinion, absurd. I have no problem with the author having that opinion, but I can't agree with the claim that Tolkiens tale has been stripped of virtue because those highly subjective interpretations are absent.

I think "pagan" meant "secular, non-religious", which is not quite the same thing as "non-christian".

Even if this is true (which I believe in that context it wasn't), does this make the claim any less offending?

Ii find it interesting that the author is being scolded for having said that this movie could use more virtues.

Where did anyone make that claim? In my opinion the film is packed with virtues. My main disagreement is the authors claims that the virtues he percieves are the only ones worth noting. Many of these virtues he mentions are completely foreign to me, and I've read a plethora of discussions and essays on Tolkien. As a personal interpretation of Tolkien it is interesting, but as the basis of an arguement against PJ's movie it carries little weight. The author does not once acknowledge that this is PJ's movie and his interpretation of the book. As far as he is concerened there is only one interpretation worth mentioning, and since PJ didn't capture it the movie is by it's very nature flawed. It's not even a fair review to begin with, since it doesn't attempt once to state the positive aspects of PJ's movie, something that even it's most vehement critics have done.

Well... why do you love the things that you love in the book? And as a more general question, why do you love the things you consider lovable? Please try to avoid circular reasoning. This question has haunted me for years, and was one of the main factors in my conversion (people strong in the faith tell me this is rare, an intellectual conversion). I certainly would not classify people who don't know that as 'very ignorant folk', as most people have never thought about it. When I realized that the only answer is to accept the supernatural side of man, that ethics can not be grounded in empirical reality only, it was the first step for me.

LOL... I am quite well off, mind you. Thank you nonetheless. But at least realize that people have different answers to those questions, and some are actually willing to accept different answers for themselves. And some, by some miracle, can actually accept different answers for others.

[Mrs. Maggott]

To begin with, NO Christian says that those who do not profess a belief in Christ are immoral or amoral or without decent morals. St. Paul writes about the pagans (honest and TRUE pagans) who have the Law (of God) "written on their hearts". That is what is known in the West as "Natural Law"; the recognition of things that are inherently good and inherently evil. One need not belong to any particular "religion" to have that innate understanding - although Christians believe that Jesus Christ represents the most complete revelation of God's Law.

Secondly, there are MANY things which we "like" without knowing why. Some people cry when a certain piece of music is played - and have absolutely NO idea why! Our preference for certain colors is not something that most of us can readily "explain"; we just LIKE green or blue or red. Indeed, there really are many things having to do with our likes and dislikes for which we can give no logical reason if we were to be asked. Can you explain why you prefer cats to dogs - or vice versa? Unless one has had a bad experience at some time which makes that animal a figure of fear, most of us cannot explain our preferences. Therefore, when it is posited that a non-christian might not "understand" exactly WHY he is "moved" by a certain moral value as expressed by Tolkien does not mean that he is ignorant, but merely that he might be unable to elucidate his response since he cannot equate it with any religious belief he holds.

<That is percisely what I am talking about. To me that sort of outlook is highly prejudiced. By making that claim, you are saying that anyone who does not read the book for its Christian values does not understand Tolkiens presentation of virtue. quote Talimon>

No, what was said was that non-christians who find Tolkien's Christian values appealing will certainly NEVER understand that what appeals to them IN THE BOOK is in fact CHRISTIAN - by watching the film since those values have been changed and altered by the Director.

You are putting it altogether backward and wrong when you intimate that the reader must read the book FOR it's "Christian" values and if he does not, he cannot understand what the author is saying. How you could possibly come up with that particular understanding of what has been said rather boggles my mind!

And as for the pagan issue - which LONG AGO should have been dismissed as inconsequential: guess what?? We have NEO-PAGANS today. Ever heard of the New Age Movement? Wicca? The "new" Druids? The worship of Gaia (goddess of Earth)? Pagans, my friend are here, right now, today! I don't know if this is what the author meant, but I would not find the word too "offensive" if I were you, or you are liable to "offend" a lot of people who are going back to "the old ways" and do not find the label of "pagan" at ALL offensive.

And, frankly, if you are not one of these "neo-pagans", then perhaps you should consider that the author is not addressing your particular situation when he used the word and disregard it entirely.

[Mrs. Maggott]

No, you have heard people who THINK they are Christians say this. To be a Christian is not the same thing as being a German or even a Jew, things that can be INHERITED. A Christian must be someone who follows Christ, not someone who SAYS he or she follows Him. That is what is meant in Scripture when Christ talks about those who will say to Him at the time of Judgement, "we cast out demons in Your Name" and He will say, "I NEVER KNEW YOU!"

When Christ forbids "judgment", He is not speaking about that kind of ordinary human judgment that tells you not to trust a liar or a thief, but the very type of "judgment" about which you have spoken. We are forbidden as Christians to sit around and try to discover where our fellow man stands with God. That is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS! It is enough that we are to make sure that WE are "right" with God.

Now that does not mean that one may not arrive at - and voice - the conclusion that John Gotti and other equally blatant villains are not exactly a "virtuous" people. But anyone who makes a stupid blanket statement that all Jews, or all Protestants, or all Catholics or all Muslims, or all ANYBODY have no morals, are immoral or amoral, is a fool and certainly NOT living as a "Christian" no matter how much of the external ritual that person has undergone or how often he or she reads the Bible. So please do not say that you have heard CHRISTIANS speak that way. What you have heard is ignorant or foolish people who need the prayers of all believers that they may be delivered from their prelest.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question.

The author of the article certainly does NOT say that non-believers (forgive me, but I'm thoroughly tired of the "pagan" debate!) have no morals. What he does say, is that there are non-believers who find that Tolkien's "Christian" values have meaning for them when they read the book. Because they have no foundation in Christianity, they may not understand WHY these values resonate with them and they certainly may fail to equate them with Tolkien's religious faith. However, in time, their affinity with Tolkien's value system MIGHT lead them to Christ.

He further posits that non-believers who experience an affinity with the Christian values as presented in the book, will NOT find these values faithfully reproduced in the film and, as a result, an opportunity for revelation of the Faith has been lost. And, finally, those who have NOT read the book will have NO opportunity whatsoever of experiencing those values and so the opportunity for revelation again has been lost.

I cannot imagine how that translates into what I have seen posted: that Christians have contempt for non-believers and consider them amoral, immoral and people without decent values.

I have told you that a true Christian would never hold that opinion or voice any such judgmental accusation. However, ANYONE can call themselves a Christian. I can call myself a member of he Knights Templar, but that doesn't mean that it is true! Christ said, "By your fruits you shall know them." I would suggest that you take heed of this admonition and listen carefully to what people say. If they are voicing the opinions that you have posted (providing, of course, you have not misunderstood what they have said), then please take what these people choose to call themselves with a LARGE grain of salt.

[Talimon]

Dropping the articles remark about pagans, I think we can return to the subject at hand. And my main point here was this: the articles interpretation on Tolkiens tale is highly personal and subjective. If they resonate with you then all the better, I say. But to use that as the basis of an arguement against PJ's movie is in my opinion very thin. I'd even risk saying that that it's view on Tolkien isn't shared by all Christians, indeed perhaps (:eek: ) not even Tolkien himself. In my opinion there are some themes in LotR that are universal, that all people, from all cultures, can relate to. For the most part I do not feel that the themes this article touches on qualify. As I said before, as interpretations of Tolkien they are quite legit. But they are not any sort of "proof" that PJ's movie did not capture the essence of Tolkien. You also stated earlier that many of these opinions are shared by other members of this forum. I do not wish to speak for them, but from my debates here I'd say the reasons the article gives for some scenes failing are very different form the reasons I've heard before. Perhaps both despise the same scenes, but I think the articles rationale as to why these scenes are "bad" doesn't carry nearly as much weight.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I don't remember the author commenting upon the cinematic value of the scenes, only their shortcomings with regard to the particular virtue Tolkien's tale was eliciting for the character or characters in the scene. To say a scene is "bad", is to make a CINEMATIC judgment: i.e. that the scene didn't "work" as film. However, one may have a really GREAT scene that is lacking in every worthwhile value the author intended for that particular part of the story! I return to the intro bit with Arwen and the sword! NOT that I think it was a great piece of cinema, but it certainly sounded a death knell to the virtue of femininity that the author believes Tolkien was presenting within the story in the character of Arwen!

Dickensen is not a film critic, nor does he present himself as one. He is simply stating when, where and how the film "lost contact" with the author's vision with respect to the quality of virtue. Considering that a good many posts have been made regarding those who believe that the film "lost contact" with quite a bit of the author's "vision" - including that of virtue, I stand by my contention that some of these points have been made before.

[Ariana Undomiel]

I am currently sick with a bad head cold or othewise I would take a lot more time reading this article and all the opinions have been stated. I would say that the author does nail a few ideas on the head but there are some things that he said that I would disagree with. Number 1, he says that the books by Tolkien could be a median for bringing people to Christ through their moral truths. He also says he doubt that the movies could do that. However, due to the movie, thousands of more copies of the books have been printed and sold.

Also, he says that the main idea of LOTR in the books is not that power corrupts but he says that is what his friend got out of it. All this long time that I have been reading the Lord of the Rings I have perceived the main message to be that "Power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely." I know there are gobs of other themes and ideas but I also thought that this one was probably the biggest idea.

- Ariana

P.S. He also says that the elves never smile. That's a bunch of bull. Arwen smiles and Aragorn before leaving with Frodo on Asfoloth. Elrond smiles in greeting of Frodo. He smiles at the council when he proclaims the company of nine. Galadriel smiles at Sam in Loth Lorien and in the EE she smiles at Gimli when he firsts comes to Loth Lorien. She smiles at Frodo in her glade after her temptation of the ring. At the scene with the giving of the gifts she smiles at Sam and even laughs delightedly at Gimli's gracious adoration of her. In the boats Legolas smiles at the thought of Galadriel's gift to him and also at Gimli's delight about his gift. The elves do indeed smile. And what the heck was that whole deal about feminist elves? The elves were supposed to be fair of face with long hair. That might be considered feminine considering on screen PJ had to use people since he couldn't hire any real elves. ;)