[The Saucepan Man]

I just love this topic. And I’m quite surprised that, although it involves politics, there is such a measure of agreement.

So, Sauron is Saddam Hussein is he? Or is he Bin Laden? And the War of the Ring represents the war against terrorism, or is it the potential war against Iraq?

You might just as well say that Sauron is George W Bush sitting in the good ol’ US of Mordor, and Saruman is his faithful lap dog, Tony Blair of Isengard/UK, both wishing to spread darkness and evil and western values throughout the world. And Gondor is Palestine … and Denethor is Arafat … and Osgiliath is Jerusalem … And … And … And …

What I am trying to say is that people can twist the story to fit whatever they want if they are so inclined. The two articles are spot on (although the first is somewhat badly expressed). Those who are prone to not using their brain too much will often see a film like TTT and interpret it to fit in with whatever they believe in. And I’m sorry to say that this is something to which many in the US are particularly prone, the US being such a self-obsessed nation. (I mean no offence here and I make no excuse for us Brits, many of whom are almost as bad – it is heartening to see so many thoughtful and intelligent people from the US contributing to this site – it restores my faith in the US people).

And so TTT does transform in the minds of self-obsessed, lazy thinking people into this great, jingoistic, nationalistic, let’s kick the Iraqis’ butts kind of film, even though many of the characters are portrayed in the film as considerably less inclined to war than they are in the book. As others have commented, Tolkien, although no doubt influenced by his own experiences of war, never meant LotR as an allegory of WW2, which was raging at the time he wrote it.

Does this matter? Well, I think it does, for two reasons. First, it is a product of woolly thinking and woolly thinking is always upsetting. But, more than that, it can be outright dangerous. Cultural works should not be used to justify political actions which they were never intended to justify. And when those political actions become morally disagreable (as many, myself included, believe a pre-emptive and unjustifiable attack on Iraq would be), then their adoption by those seeking to promote the cause becomes a matter of concern.

One cannot, I think, to blame the book for this (or the film, however you might disagree with the adaptation). Tolkien meant the books (and I’m sure PJ meant the films) neither as propaganda for war, nor as propaganda for pacifism. But, as the articles point out, that’s unfortunately the way (one way or the other) that many will take them.