The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Refugees and Victims of War-- something that's not been mentioned.

Bêthberry · 12-22-2002, 05:27 PM

Dear Child,As so often, you have reminded us of the human cost of evil. The scenes with the Rohirrim refugees were well done, neither maudlin nor destroyed by that cheeky humour which freighted down the Battle at Helm's Deep itself.Yet I would like to step back from that emotional response to think a bit about the place of this human cost in Tokien's epic of war.Insistence upon recognizing this cost is a particularly modern taste or value. Perhaps it took the brutality of the wars of the twentieth century to pound this into our thick skulls. It is not a quality noted particularly in the old warrior epics, although it is present. (In Beowulf, the discord, fear, and disruption to the community are important, but not central to the hero's role.)What I am suggesting is that PJ's use of the plight of the refugees represents another way in which he has displaced the heroic epic of the past to create a modern story. He is writing a contemporary interpretation of Tolkien, and not rendering an epic in itself. There are problems with this, not simply a complaint that PJ isn't being faithful to Tolkien. When he brings in the social cost of war, he changes the nature of the battle between good and evil, of the heroic endeavour itself. He paints those who are victims of Sauron/Saruman with greater sympathy. Suddenly, they have more at stake, are more at risk.Yet this experiment in social perception is one-sided. It is expended only on the Rohirrim. The orcs and the Uruk-hai remain limited to their traditional role of usurpers. They are the "Other", the outsiders, those beyond the pale. There is nothing to humanize them as the People of the Mark are humanized. It is a one-sided expansion of vision and thus, I would say, a misappropriation of sympathy. It emotionalizes the heroic epic without making us understand, in our bones, what the real nature of evil is. To me, Peter Jackson has trivialized evil because the presentation of the struggle is lop-sided. Some would say that Tolkien did this in his limited portrayal of Saruman. Perhaps so. Peter Jackson, however, has taken a quantum leap forward in that depiction. Despite the moral worth of the refugee scenes, I'm not sure they represent a consistent aesthetic.And I'm not sure I've explained my point well here, either. I might have to come back and rewrite this. Bethberry

12-22-2002, 05:27 PM	#12
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	Dear <B>Child</B>,<P>As so often, you have reminded us of the human cost of evil. The scenes with the Rohirrim refugees were well done, neither maudlin nor destroyed by that cheeky humour which freighted down the Battle at Helm's Deep itself.<P>Yet I would like to step back from that emotional response to think a bit about the place of this human cost in Tokien's epic of war.<P>Insistence upon recognizing this cost is a particularly modern taste or value. Perhaps it took the brutality of the wars of the twentieth century to pound this into our thick skulls. It is not a quality noted particularly in the old warrior epics, although it is present. (In <B>Beowulf</B>, the discord, fear, and disruption to the community are important, but not central to the hero's role.)<P>What I am suggesting is that PJ's use of the plight of the refugees represents another way in which he has displaced the heroic epic of the past to create a modern story. He is writing a contemporary interpretation of Tolkien, and not rendering an epic in itself. <P>There are problems with this, not simply a complaint that PJ isn't being faithful to Tolkien. When he brings in the social cost of war, he changes the nature of the battle between good and evil, of the heroic endeavour itself. <P>He paints those who are victims of Sauron/Saruman with greater sympathy. Suddenly, they have more at stake, are more at risk.<P>Yet this experiment in social perception is one-sided. It is expended only on the Rohirrim. The orcs and the Uruk-hai remain limited to their traditional role of usurpers. They are the "Other", the outsiders, those beyond the pale. There is nothing to humanize them as the People of the Mark are humanized. <P>It is a one-sided expansion of vision and thus, I would say, a misappropriation of sympathy. It emotionalizes the heroic epic without making us understand, in our bones, what the real nature of evil is. <P>To me, Peter Jackson has trivialized evil because the presentation of the struggle is lop-sided. Some would say that Tolkien did this in his limited portrayal of Saruman. Perhaps so. Peter Jackson, however, has taken a quantum leap forward in that depiction. Despite the moral worth of the refugee scenes, I'm not sure they represent a consistent aesthetic.<P>And I'm not sure I've explained my point well here, either. I might have to come back and rewrite this. <P>Bethberry __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.