Split Personality?

[Sauron the White]

Wide wonder came into Eomer's eyes. 'Strider is too poor a name, son of Arathorn' he said. 'Wingfoot I name you. This deed of the three friends should be sung in many a hall."

- from The Riders of Rohan, THE TWO TOWERS -


Okay... for the purposes of posing a question lets go with this speculation about Dwarves being as different from Men as Elves are.

If indeed all of these explainations have some validity in them, perhaps Eomer was greatly exaggerating the case for praising the Three Hunters for thier achievement at running and striding those leagues. Ater all, if Dwarves have all these special abilities, and Elves have all these special abilities, and Aragorn is of superior race with gifts not given to mere mortals, then Eomer was judging what they did by human standards and he was wildly off base to do so.

Perhaps any old run of the mill elf or dwarf or Dunedain could have done this on most days of the week. Seems to be that all these explainations greatly reduce the significance of the achievement.

People here say I was wrong because I was judging Gimli by human standards in the real world. Okay. Seems that is just what Eomer was doing in proclaiming their achievement as so worthy of being sung about.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

If indeed all of these explainations have some validity in them, perhaps Eomer was greatly exaggerating the case for praising the Three Hunters for thier achievement at running and striding those leagues. Ater all, if Dwarves have all these special abilities, and Elves have all these special abilities, and Aragorn is of superior race with gifts not given to mere mortals, then Eomer was judging what they did by human standards and he was wildly off base to do so.

Arguably Eomer may not have been the best judge in this matter. And again, as I've stated, these three are the best of the best at the top of their game. They are so good in fact that one day they might even appear in movies.

Perhaps any old run of the mill elf or dwarf or Dunedain could have done this on most days of the week. Seems to be that all these explainations greatly reduce the significance of the achievement.

That would be, "run of the mine" in regards to Dwarves. And note that half - if not more - of the running/walking was down hill as the Three were traveling south.

People here say I was wrong because I was judging Gimli by human standards in the real world. Okay. Seems that is just what Eomer was doing in proclaiming their achievement as so worthy of being sung about.

And that's exactly why Peter Jackson cut most of Eomer's part from LotR, as he is of little worth except that he has a famous sister who ends up doing something or other then runs from a dough-malled orc.

[Folwren]

I think the point that you're missing, STW, is that it is possible for the dwarf, man, and elf, but it also is very difficult. Tolkien never wrote that it was easy, and Jackson never protrayed it to be. It wasn't an everyday occurance in Rohan for someone to run so far in just three days. These three hunters had motivation and a long journey behind them, giving them will power and endurance, giving them the ability to do something that was uncommon and surprising to Eomer.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

from Alatar

Arguably Eomer may not have been the best judge in this matter. And again, as I've stated, these three are the best of the best at the top of their game.

I wonder if Eomer had access to the rules and regulations issued by the equal of the Middle-earth Olympic Committee? Without a doubt, records set with the aid of substances such as lembas would have been invalidated in much the same way as the recent biking scandal in Paris. Superhuman individuals hopped up on lembas with muscles which do not process gylcogen - or even need it - yeah, Eomer did not know what he was talking about.

from Folwren

I think the point that you're missing, STW, is that it is possible for the dwarf, man, and elf, but it also is very difficult. Tolkien never wrote that it was easy, and Jackson never protrayed it to be. It wasn't an everyday occurance in Rohan for someone to run so far in just three days. These three hunters had motivation and a long journey behind them, giving them will power and endurance, giving them the ability to do something that was uncommon and surprising to Eomer.

Sounds to me like you want it both ways here. Eomer was right in that it was an achievement for the ages even though
a- each of the three was in some ways non-human and had special physical gifts or abilities beyond the normal possessed by humans
b- the normal rules about running, glycogen and muscles do not apply to the three
c- they were hopped up on a special athletic performance enhancement substance which gave them prolonged strength, vigor and power
d- they may have some divine intervention assisting them as well as some here speculate that Eru himself willed it

Nope, sounds to me like its either they did something that is pretty near darn impossible or what they did was vastly overrated by Emoer who was judging them by his own standards.

I really do not think it is fair to try and have it both ways.

[Lalwendë]

From Eomer's words, expressing surprise at Aragorn's fitness, it could be that Men are the usual tortoises of Middle-earth, whereas Elves and Dwarves are the hares.

Originally Posted by Alatar

I'm guessing that the Dwarves were completely different as they were made in private by Aulë. Now, in his mind he may have had some of Eru's thinking, but from my point of view, the Dwarves were distinctly different from the other two races.

Now, we know that elves and humans can mate, meaning that at best each is a subspecies. I cannot think of any Dwarf-human/hobbit/elf cross, and so I'm guessing that they are completely different.

Not that Gimli didn't didn't consider the experiment with Galadriel...

I definitely count Elves, Men and Dwarves as distinct species - each has a different origin in terms of the Creation, and each has definite characteristics. This if course does not mean that they could not interbreed if they desired it, as there is real world evidence that homo sapiens and neanderthals could have mated, and that does not just come from the pages of a Jean M Auel novel! I have even read that the genes for red hair stem from neanderthals - though we shall quickly brush over that one. Ahem.

Originally Posted by Form

One might also add that the home sapiens of the Middle-Earth seem to break down into three very distinct subspecies themselves: homo sapiens, homo sapiens hobbitas, and homo sapiens drúadan--that is, regular man, Hobbit, and Drúadan. And, if one wants to add the Dúnedain as an effective subspecies as well, you get four.

Would they be sub-species though or simply different racial groups? Within homo sapiens we have/had a lot of physiological diversity ranging from tall slender and fair Northern Europeans to small dark pygmies - and putting aside the slightly freakish nature of the Dunedain, most of the races which come under the banner of Men seem to retain similar characteristics, even shared linguistic heritage in the case of Hobbits and the Rohirrim.

The Dunedain are more thorny though - maybe their freakish long lives can only be put down to divine intervention as there is little biological explanation for say the long life of Aragorn, besides him having a superior diet and a mega-slow metabolism.

And what about Orcses? Right can of worms...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

From Eomer's words, expressing surprise at Aragorn's fitness, it could be that Men are the usual tortoises of Middle-earth, whereas Elves and Dwarves are the hares.

Maybe Eomer was a bit shocked that Aragorn and company followed the enemy for three days on foot, being a rider or personally been inattentive.

I definitely count Elves, Men and Dwarves as distinct species - each has a different origin in terms of the Creation, and each has definite characteristics.

I understand what you mean, but always thought of the word 'species' as being a group that can interbreed, meaning that those not of that species cannot. But that definition may be antiquated.

This if course does not mean that they could not interbreed if they desired it, as there is real world evidence that homo sapiens and neanderthals could have mated, and that does not just come from the pages of a Jean M Auel novel! I have even read that the genes for red hair stem from neanderthals - though we shall quickly brush over that one. Ahem.

They're working on this issue now as seen here.

The Dunedain are more thorny though - maybe their freakish long lives can only be put down to divine intervention as there is little biological explanation for say the long life of Aragorn, besides him having a superior diet and a mega-slow metabolism.

As it could be bred out, I'm guessing it's a gene, but anything more than that I'll attribute to Eru.

And what about Orcses? Right can of worms...

They got the speed of the elves, iron-clad shoes (which allowed them to hover somewhat do to Arda's magnetic field) and the Saruman effect that lowered their wind resistance when they ran towards Orthanc.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

Maybe Eomer was a bit shocked that Aragorn and company followed the enemy for three days on foot, being a rider or personally been inattentive.

Eomer, the Horse Potato?

I understand what you mean, but always thought of the word 'species' as being a group that can interbreed, meaning that those not of that species cannot. But that definition may be antiquated.

I'm thinking along the lines of each species having a latinate name - this does not mean, like you say, that they cannot interbreed, as Lions and Tigers are distinct species but can breed. Likewise a horse and a donkey can produce a Mule - but the Mule, interestingly, is sterile. However you could not get all species to interbreed, e.g. a cat and a dog. Maybe we see no Dwarf combos with other species as they physically cannot manage the 'act'? Or maybe it was the beards?

As it could be bred out, I'm guessing it's a gene, but anything more than that I'll attribute to Eru.

True, and this could be accounted for when the text tells us that bloodlines have become 'dilute'.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I have even read that the genes for red hair stem from neanderthals - though we shall quickly brush over that one. Ahem.

An update regarding Neanderthals and red hair can be found here. Also, they may have even worn large yellow boots, but that's still conjecture.

And regarding power, can we ask the opposite question: If one were completely powerless (relatively), would that mean that one could not become evil/corrupted? Seems to me that even those lowly on the pole still have that choice.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What about Smeagol, then? Or for that matter Lotho Sackville-Baggins?

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Nope, sounds to me like its either they did something that is pretty near darn impossible or what they did was vastly overrated by Emoer who was judging them by his own standards.

I really do not think it is fair to try and have it both ways.

Very well. Think what you want. I'm through.

[Sauron the White]

Folwren ... I am not trying to get you angry or bait you. Forgive me if you think that. All I am trying to do is to take the varied explainations for the Three Hunters achievement and compare it to the evaluation given by Eomer. Either he is right or he is grossly overstating the achievement because of his ignorance to the special circumstances involved. He is making the same mistake some here have accused me of, namely juding the Three Hunters by normal human standards.

Okay, thats not all I am trying to do. I have far more complex intentions.

What I really want to do here is to get everyone to admit that this whole willing suspension of disbelief thing, this magic thing, this special quality of JRRT's world thing, seems to cover an infinite amount of ground. One way or another it explains all the questions, all the apparent contradictions, all the paradoxes, and all that some would call holes in the story. Its like a huge catch-all that can be employed to make Middle-earth work no matter what logic or reason or even internal story contradictions mayy otherwise tell us.

And I have no problem with that. I just want equal liberty given to the other LOTR - the one in the movies. Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander.

[Folwren]

STW, you shouldn't apologize. I was in the wrong. Sorry for losing my temper. I believe I may have misunderstood something.

I doubt you'll get everyone to admit about the double standard. Sorry again.

-- Folwren

[William Cloud Hicklin]

StW:

I appreciate the obvious physical impossibiliy of the Three Hunters running, marathon-like, all that distance.

But the point is they *didn't*. Just do the math. They moved from dawn to dusk- that's eleven or twelve hours per diem. I fully agree that nobody could run for 36 hours out of 72. You're absolutely right. But then, had they somehow nonetheless done so they would have covered some 375 miles!

By the same token, 33-36 hours on the move divided into 135 miles shows that they weren't 'running' in your sense.

A real-world comparison: a standard day's march for a Roman legion in light order (ie with pack-mules rather than oxcarts) was 24 miles in eight hours, with a brief rest every three miles. This comes to just over 3 mi/hr- a steady but certainly not hurried marching pace. On a forced march the pace wasn't increased, merely the duration: 36 miles over 12 hours, and in some exceptional circumstances even farther during long European summer days.

If Caesar's boys (and mules) could cover 108 miles in the time alotted by Tolkien, why couldn't our three do 135?

On to the capabilities of mythical races- here's what Tolkien said about Orcs' ability to cover ground: they could move at a steady 4 mph for five hours, and then needed 1 hour's rest; they could keep up this pace uninterrupted for five days, but then required an extended rest. Thus 4 x 5 x 4 = 80 miles per day, and 400 miles in a single forced march! Talk about tough! Better yet, at need they can jog at 6mph for 50 miles (over 4 hrs!) And that's just regular Uruks- Saruman's hybrids move faster and only need a half-hour's rest in six.

Elsewhere T states that Grishnakh and his companions covered the 100+ miles from Sarn Gebir to the eaves of Fangorn between midnight and 11:20 AM two days later- about 35 hours, which accords with the previous numbers.

At an earlier point in the Time-scheme, T says that Orc-runners bring news of the Bridge of Khazad-dum from Moria to Isengard (260 miles) in four days, which comes to a 'mere' 65 mi/diem- but perhaps we have to allow for mountainous terrain, since perforce they bypassed Lorien on the west.

Even so, this is still a mere fraction of a marathoner's pace (10 mph or better). It's just steady, brisk walking.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

People here say I was wrong because I was judging Gimli by human standards in the real world. Okay. Seems that is just what Eomer was doing in proclaiming their achievement as so worthy of being sung about.

Iconoclasm, my friend, is easy.

But mayhap it can be said that Elves, Dwarves, and Dunédain are exceptional. Eomer's exclamation does not necessarily reduce the accomplishment of the Three Hunters, who together can still be said to have done something exceptional by Eomer's standards, as well as by "exceptional Dwarf/Elf/Dunedain" standards.

But back to "mythic unities" and "secondary belief". (I have passed by most of page 3 in order to say this, so if someone feels neglected, apologies).

"Willing suspension of disbelief" is a concept invented by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, to account for the reader's task of setting aside 'real world' doubts in order to accept some 'difficult to believe' things in works of fiction.

"Secondary belief", a concept invented by J.R.R. Tolkien, means that a reader does not merely suspend disbelief, but for the purpose of full enjoyment of the work of fiction, chooses to believe the story, on the whole, on its own merits. Within this understanding, the author's dedication is to realize the world s/he creates as believably and completely as possible.

Tolkien made every attempt to make Secondary Belief possible for his readers. The result is that readers and lovers of LotR "believe in" Middle Earth in a way that they do not necessarily believe in other created settings from fiction.

Enter the movie.

Lovers of Middle Earth watch the movie and find their secondary belief in Middle Earth compromised, countered, and even violated, by images with which they are confronted in the movies, such as the glaringly different character of Faramir (among numerous other examples).

"But such people are not being realistic," one might say. That's not the point. The point is that Tolkien did something that had never been done before by a writer, at least not to the degree that he did it, which makes LotR qualitatively different from any other book out there. It is the most completely realized world of imagination ever created. Therefore, Peter Jackson was dealing with something with which he was completely out of his reckoning. So I think J.R.R. was right: the thing should not have been turned into film. That it was, is a fact. That it did not succeed for lovers of Middle Earth is an undeniable fact. That some of these same lovers of Middle Earth are willing to accept the movies as far as they can (such as myself), such that they enjoy what they can while wincing at other parts, is also - - a fact.

I guess I better show how "mythic unities" has to do with this in another post. I gotta go to bed now. G'night all.

[littlemanpoet]

Here's one additional thought. Due to the completeness of LotR in terms of Secondary belief, perhaps we lovers of Middle Earth are to a certain degree spoiled? Clearly Jackson is not of the same calibre as Tolkien; could we with justification expect better than having to suspend disbelief? I'm not certain; it's a query.

I have a little time for "mythic unity".

Actually, I started a thread with those words in the title, and it might be well for those interested, to take a look at that. I'd link to it here, but this computer (at work) is severely limited in its capabilities.

Suffice it to say that with "mythic unity", one sees a world writ large and whole. In terms of many things that we in the modern era have become used to seeing as distinct, Tolkien achieved a unity. Gollum/Smeagol is one example. He is not psychologically ill, something deeper and more complete is going on. Something more unified. With the movie, only one aspect of this unity was achieved. Could better than that have been done? That's debatable.

Are there any movies that DID achieve mythic unity? Food for thought.

[Sauron the White]

So I think J.R.R. was right: the thing should not have been turned into film.

Ah but it was. And who do we have to thank for that?

JRRT sold the film rights with full knowledge of the process. This is not like some author in 1918 selling film rights to a fledgling film industry and then claiming that they had no idea of what they were getting into. To this day I wince when I read the comments of JRRT in is letters saying that he felt they could not make the film anyways. "Okay, I will sell you this swamp land to build a highrise building on since I know you cannot do it ." That certainly brings up some ethical questions.

There is an obvious relationship between willing suspension of disbelief and secondary belief. Many of us like to think that the things we love are so very different than anything else and their are special rules which only apply to that one thing. "Don't tell me about that other stuff because my love is unique and special." Almost everything is unique and special in its own way but still can have much in common with other things. I think these two concepts are certainly family members and not so different from one another.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

JRRT sold the film rights with full knowledge of the process. This is not like some author in 1918 selling film rights to a fledgling film industry and then claiming that they had no idea of what they were getting into. To this day I wince when I read the comments of JRRT in is letters saying that he felt they could not make the film anyways. "Okay, I will sell you this swamp land to build a highrise building on since I know you cannot do it ." That certainly brings up some ethical questions.

If you're going to cast aspersions on J.R.R. Tolkien, at least get your facts straight. It's time for you to do some research, if you care. As in, Tolkien died in 1973. The film rights were sold, when? However, there seems to be a bit of a "mosquito near the ear" ambience to the post, so if you're just trying to get someone's dander up, never mind.

[Sauron the White]

And just what is it that I am suppose to research? Am I mistaken that JRRT sold the film rights to his movies of his free will and with a sound mind? Will research tell me differently? Am I mistaken that JRRT expressed the feeling that the book was unfilmable? Will research tell me otherwise?

Authors had been selling film rights to their books for several decades before JRRT did so. It is not like he was the first to do so and the entire book-to-film territory was virginal and untouched.

What exactly did I have wrong in my facts?

Seems to me one of two things went on here.

Either 1) JRRT sold the film rights to LOTR as a responsible adult with his eyes wide open, of sound mind, and with knowledge of how the entire process worked. He knew that by selling the rights, the purchaser had the right to use the story, make changes to it, leave out portions, add new portions, and basically do anything they wanted to do. JRRT knew that and sold the rights, signed the contracts and cashed the check.

0r 2) JRRT sold the film rights thinking that no producer could make the film, he himself speculated that possibly the LOTR was essentialy unfilmable. Thinking that he would have the best of both worlds - the Hollywood money without the Hollywood movie.

This from Humphrey Carpenter

"Last Friday morning (11 August) Kim Hill of Radio New Zealand interviewed Humphrey Carpenter, the biographer of J.R.R. Tolkien. The interview was on the subject of Humphrey Carpenter's latest work, a biography of playwright Dennis Potter, but towards the end of the interview Ms Hill asked Carpenter what he thought Tolkien's reaction would have been to "The Lord of the Rings" being filmed.
Carpenter's response was interesting. He said that he had known JRRT fairly briefly (unlike Potter, whom he never met), and that he (Carpenter) had staged a production of "The Hobbit". JRRT's reaction to this production was that he considered his works to be unstageable; he simply didn't feel that they could be successfully translated to a dramatic form. Although he had sold the film rights long before this took place, he had no real expectation that "The Lord of the Rings" could be successfully filmed.

In front of me is a volume of THE LETTERS --- #202, the famous line "I have agreed on our policy: Art or Cash. Letter #207 - "But I need, and shall very soon need very much indeed, ,money ..."

And to reenforce the assumption voiced by JRRT's biographer Carpenter, we have Letter #194.... "Here is a book very unsuitable for dramatic or semi-dramatic representation."

Which one was it? What did JRRT opt for? What was his goal in selling the film rights when he did?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

JRRT sold the film rights with full knowledge of the process. This is not like some author in 1918 selling film rights to a fledgling film industry and then claiming that they had no idea of what they were getting into. To this day I wince when I read the comments of JRRT in is letters saying that he felt they could not make the film anyways. "Okay, I will sell you this swamp land to build a highrise building on since I know you cannot do it ." That certainly brings up some ethical questions.

My initial reaction to this was, "Surely he has got to be kidding! Is he actually going to try to drag Tolkien's good name through the mud? This is a new low."

Upon further consideration it occurred to me that something else might be happening here:

I admit I am pushing things to force the issue so a little anger now and then is partly my fault.

If this is the case, which I think may well be, I have no desire to be involved in such a (in my opinion) useless debate as Tolkien's personal character, which simply should not be in question; the facts are already well laid out in Carpenter's biography and Tolkien's Letters (despite the above attempt to create "a seeming" of what's not really there). Tolkien's character is not the issue of this thread.

Peter Jackson's character was not an issue in this thread either, until it was raised by the one person most bent on defending the movies, and I don't think it was intentional even if the logical implications of what was said were clear. I still don't think Jackson was intentionally misleading Tolkien fans; I think he really believed he could do what he said he could; he just didn't succeed.

There is an obvious relationship between willing suspension of disbelief and secondary belief. Many of us like to think that the things we love are so very different than anything else and their are special rules which only apply to that one thing. "Don't tell me about that other stuff because my love is unique and special." Almost everything is unique and special in its own way but still can have much in common with other things. I think these two concepts are certainly family members and not so different from one another.

I'm happy to discuss this, but you're beating around the bush. Please come to the point.

However, it's clear enough to me that one of the implications being raised in the above quote is that the distinction between suspension of disbelief and secondary belief are purely subjective. They are not. I will quote Tolkien at length from On Fairy Stories

Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called "willing suspension of disbelief." But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successfuly "sub-creator." He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; {my underline} the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed.

This is precisely what many lovers (from the books) of Middle Earth experience when confronted with the failures in the movies. The spell is broken when Aragorn and Farmair lack in nobility; when Gollum is portrayed as a psychologically ill victim instead of as evil; when the Elves arrive at Helm's Deep where they cannot logically be (that is, within the logic of the Middle Earth created by the master). And so forth.

Again, let me stress that I do not consider Jackson to be a "shyster" who "faked us out"; rather, he believed he could do it and was wrong. Therefore we lovers of Middle Earth must, of necessity, willingly suspend our disbelief because too often the spell is broken. Mind you, there are many points in the movie at which Middle Earth is beautifully realized, and Secondary Belief happens, but it is a hit-and-miss game such that the spell is too often broken and we hang in there until and unless the experience becomes "intolerable", as Tolkien has described it.

One more point: there is a "for us" in the last sentence of the text I've quoted from Tolkien. This would be wrongly construed to render the entire quote "subjective". The distinction between "willing suspension of disbelief" and "secondary belief" remains an objective distinction which readers and viewers, as group of "subjects," experience. The distinction remains an objective reality.

[Sauron the White]

Okay -- here is what I think you are attempting to do. Over the past couple of weeks, I have said repeatedly that I see a double standard in use by some members of this board, a type of hypocrisy if you will. They have a deep love for the writings of JRRT. As is necessary in this type of fiction, they employ willing suspension of disbelief to get past various flaws, holes, internal conflicts or other things that may get in the way of enjoying the stories. That is fine and we all do it. I mentioned that when it comes to the films, the same people who can go through all manner of intellectual gymnastics to explain away any problem, cannot or will not extend that same spirit to Jackson. Instead, they relish and rather enjoy attempting to poke holes throught the Jackson movies. I use the examples in both the Denethors Plunge and the whole "Gimli running 140 miles" debate.

I asked for fairness -- please use that same willing suspension of disbelief in discussing the movies.

But now you introduce something different. This entire line of SECONDARY BELIEF that Tolkien talks about. To be frank, I think you are taking willing suspension of disbelief, dressing it up in a more expensive gown, attempting to put some lipstick and make-up on it and declaring it something unique and special that covers only the writings of Tolkien. I think you are doing this to have another trump card ready. I really do not buy it.

Regarding JRRT's character in the film rights. All I have done is to use the historical record as laid out by JRRT in his Letters and the comments from his official biographer. It is clear to me that, at various stages of chronology, JRRT
a) did not want a film made of LOTR and felt it could not be made
b) was interested in the idea of a film but wanted to be involved and his suggestions implemented to get the type of film he wanted to be made
c) was faced with the choice of "art or cash"
d) decided in favor of cash knowing full well what went with that

That much has been established both in the Letters and through historical developments.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Regarding JRRT's character in the film rights. All I have done is to use the historical record as laid out by JRRT in his Letters and the comments from his official biographer. It is clear to me that, at various stages of chronology, JRRT
a) did not want a film made of LOTR and felt it could not be made
b) was interested in the idea of a film but wanted to be involved and his suggestions implemented to get the type of film he wanted to be made
c) was faced with the choice of "art or cash"
d) decided in favor of cash knowing full well what went with that

That much has been established both in the Letters and through historical developments.

And I don't think anyone is disputing those facts, exactly. The disputation I'm seeing has more to do with the interpretation of what those facts mean.

On that note, I'm woefully unclear: what exactly ARE you interpreting those facts to mean?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

But now you introduce something different. This entire line of SECONDARY BELIEF that Tolkien talks about. To be frank, I think you are taking willing suspension of disbelief, dressing it up in a more expensive gown, attempting to put some lipstick and make-up on it and declaring it something unique and special that covers only the writings of Tolkien. I think you are doing this to have another trump card ready. I really do not buy it.

If this is what you think, then you misunderstand. I'm not ingenious enough to trot out something new and different as some special trump card. Secondary Belief has been discussed by me and others over the years quite often in other threads, notably in Books discussions.

I have experienced Secondary Belief in my reading of the works of J.K. Rowling, Orson Scott Card, C.S. Lewis, and other authors. I have experienced Secondary Belief watching the first three Star Wars movies, the Harry Potter movies, and most of the Indiana Jones movies.

But the Indiana Jones movies offer an example of the spell being broken. In the 2nd movie, Indiana and another character are in a mine car rolling down the track at breakneck speed, careening nearly out of control. Suddenly the track stops at a gorge, and the cart is careering wildly in mid-air - - and lands perfectly on the tracks again on the other side of the gorge. I grinned and said, "Uh uh! No way!" And suddenly I experienced myself looking at the movie screen, in which the action was occurring, rather than being inside the movie with the hero. The spell had been broken. I was able to get back into the movie and experience secondary belief again, but it took an effort of willingly suspending my disbelief.

I have also experienced secondary belief watching the LotR movies. But the spell is often broken by something that just doesn't work for me. Now this is important: if I had never read the books, these problems would not have occured. I understand that. The reason the problems occur is because the books kept me at Secondary Belief the entire way through. I believed it, writ whole. I had been in Middle Earth while I read the books. So every instance ~ yes, every instance ~ at which the movies alter from the book, the spell is broken.

At such points I am faced with the task of evaluating whether the instance must be overlooked as something necessary to make the movie work. I try to overlook these instances, for this 'moviemaking' reason, as often as possible; but sometimes it just simply cannot be done because the instance violates something deeply written into the book, and it violates my Secondary Belief. Such as the consistently noble character of Aragorn. Such as the character of Faramir. Such as the evil of Gollum. Such as the heroic suffering ~ not gollumization ~ of Frodo. Such as the unswerving loyalty ~ not rivalry with Gollum ~ of Samwise. Such as the unity of purpose between Gandalf, Theoden, Aragorn, and Legolas as opposed to the needless bickering that occurs in the movie.

But I'll end this post on a positive note. Secondary belief occurs in the movie, for me, when Eowyn and Merry overcome the Witch King. When the Rohirrim ride into battle at the Pelennor Fields. When Gandalf and the Balrog fall and fall into the deeps of the mountain. On Weathertop. Viewing Hobbiton. Watching the Seven Beacons in the White Mountains lit one by one. This is some gorgeous stuff, and I loved the realization on the cinema screen of something that had been inscribed upon my imagination by a great story from the books. I just wish more of the movie could have been that way.