"Do You Hate Women?"

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

That is essentially my attitude with any "additions" to Tolkien's canon.

I did have a philosophical objection to a Woman being the Captain of Thranduil's Guard, as I think that she is as out of place as Thranduil's "Captain" as is Thranduil's Moose (Irish Elk)... For whatever that Moose was supposed to be (Wrong Mythology - mixing Celtic Mythology in the wrong place within Tolkien's Cosmology).

But the character ultimately did not alter the Canon, as she was effectively non-existent in that regard, being a clumsy Love-Interest for a Dwarf.

Tuariel would be an example of a Post-Modernist alteration of Tolkien's works. She is a forced character that pretends that Tolkien's defined female roles simply do not exist.

While Éowyn was seen as having martial capabilities, she is not represented as an officer in the Riddermark. She has a role that is separate from that of the official Military Establishment, even if she can take-up Arms.

We see the same thing in the First Age, with the Bëornings and Haladim. We see Women taking up Arms in defense of Dor-Lomin, Mithrim, Dorthonion, and Brethil, but it is not as a structural part of a military apparatus for those communities; rather it is in response to a direct and final need.

And I don't think we have any examples of female Elves taking up arms. This doesn't mean they do not exist, but the Archetypes for the Elves in Earthly Myths don't tend to match up with having Elven Women as officials within the Elves' Militaries.

It was egregious pandering to Commercialism.

There could have been any number of strong female characters they could have included that would not have disturbed the Canon, yet would have lent something to the story for commercial interests (even as a Love Interest).

Anyway.... I think "Egregious Pandering" about sums up the character of Tauriel (and the many other changes in those train-wrecks).

MB

Marwhini, forgive me if I'm being rude, but I feel you're a little over-rigid and dogmatic here in your interpretation of "Canon" (with a capital C!). For my part I'd say Tolkien leaves enough ambiguity on the issue that the films can add a female guard in Mirkwood without instantly shattering the universe. Really, I'd have been fine with Tauriel as a bit part with a couple of lines. The problem is that she's elevated into a major, recurring character- who nonetheless has little actual function in the story. Really pointless and more reminiscent of a fan-fic "original character" than anything.

[Faramir Jones]

At the start of The Hobbit, Bilbo asked if Gandalf was 'responsible for so many quiet lads and lasses going off into the Blue for mad adventures?' (My emphasis) Tolkien therefore allowed for female as well as male hobbits to go off on adventures.

When I saw what Jackson and others had done in their adaptation of The Hobbit, I wondered why they bothered with Tauriel, when they could have put in a female hobbit instead, and then claimed some authorial support for this.

[Faramir Jones]

Marwhini, you said that outside the Shire, Middle-earth was a 'pre-industrial, Feudal, Pagan world'. I would disagree with this description in the last 2 parts:

1. Lake-town: This appears to be a republic, headed by an elected Master. While we don't know how large the electorate is, and how long a term of office the Master serves, the Master we see in The Hobbit is recognisable as a more 'modern' leader, whose main business is dealing with the town's economy, and who has been elected on his supposed ability to manage that economy. While I feel Lake-town can be compared to medieval Venice, with its Doge having more power, it certainly isn't 'feudal'.

2. Monotheism: When you use the term 'Pagan', do you mean adherents to polytheistic, pantheistic or animistic beliefs? It appears that the beings we meet are monotheistic in their beliefs, including those who worship Sauron as a God-king. The issue is that Tolkien did not represent religion in LotR in a way that many of us readers would recognise, either from our own times, or from what we've read of previous times.

If we try and make comparisons with Medieval Christian Europe, things are still very different. Satan (i.e. Sauron) actually exists, and has a mighty stronghold in a land with huge numbers of followers and allies, many worshipping him. Also there are beings (Elves) who can remember having dealings with other beings (the Valar) who have had dealings with God. This would be the equivalent of an Elf telling a Pope that not only did he remember that man's predecessors; he also remembered Jesus and the Twelve Apostles.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

If we try and make comparisons with Medieval Christian Europe, things are still very different. Satan (i.e. Sauron) actually exists, and has a mighty stronghold in a land with huge numbers of followers and allies, many worshipping him. Also there are beings (Elves) who can remember having dealings with other beings (the Valar) who have had dealings with God. This would be the equivalent of an Elf telling a Pope that not only did he remember that man's predecessors; he also remembered Jesus and the Twelve Apostles.

Yes, it's a bit like if, in the Middle Ages, the Devil had a castle somewhere and a country he ruled, from which he directed armies of slaves.

As "incarnate evils" I think Professor Tolkien's use of demonic tyrants tends to blend a more traditional idea of "spiritual struggle" with a more modern concept of the illegitimate conqueror or dictator who seeks to bring nations under his deeply undesirable "rule" - not a specific ideological system, but a a total revolutionising of the social order with the complete eradication of liberty; only the tyrant's will matters.

I actually find that what Professor Tolkien achieved with such a representation is quite unique.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

Marwhini, you said that outside the Shire, Middle-earth was a 'pre-industrial, Feudal, Pagan world'. I would disagree with this description in the last 2 parts:

1. Lake-town: This appears to be a republic, headed by an elected Master. While we don't know how large the electorate is, and how long a term of office the Master serves, the Master we see in The Hobbit is recognisable as a more 'modern' leader, whose main business is dealing with the town's economy, and who has been elected on his supposed ability to manage that economy. While I feel Lake-town can be compared to medieval Venice, with its Doge having more power, it certainly isn't 'feudal'.

Lake-Town remains both Pre-Industrial, and essentially "Feudal." The occupants are the displaced inhabitants of Dale, a former Kingdom of the Northmen of Rhovanion (or, from HoM-e, more likely one of the Principalities of the Northmen of Rhovanion).

Lake-Town itself is a caricature, or critique of Modernity, where we can clearly see that Lake-Town is in a "Fallen" state, failing to attain the rightful Glory of the prior Incarnation of the Realm of Dale due to its clinging to "Modern Ideals."

I think the Tolkien Scholar Patrick Curry made a similar observation.

2. Monotheism: When you use the term 'Pagan', do you mean adherents to polytheistic, pantheistic or animistic beliefs? It appears that the beings we meet are monotheistic in their beliefs, including those who worship Sauron as a God-king. The issue is that Tolkien did not represent religion in LotR in a way that many of us readers would recognise, either from our own times, or from what we've read of previous times.

Heathen would be a more precise word, but Pagan applies as well (Pagan, derives from Paganus, which is Latin for Heawhen, from which is derived "Heathen" - both mean "rural Dwellers").

In the Religious sense, though, the inhabitants of Middle-earth are ALL "Heathens," or Pagans.

This is because NONE are Christians.

They might have a Monotheistic (of sorts) Spiritual Belief, but in Christian Mythology salvation only occurs because of the Sacrifice of Jesus upon the Cross.

Tom Shippey elaborates on this at great length in The Road to Middle-earth. Beginning at p. 196 of this book is the section titled "Middle-earth and Limbo" where Shippey details at great length. And on pp. 198 - 199 we have the following:

Above all, to Tolkien's mind, there must have been present the problem of Beowulf. This is certainly the work of a Christian writing after the conversion of England. However, the author got through 3182 lines without mentioning Christ, or salvation, and yet without saying specifically that his heroes, including the kind and honest figure of Beowulf himself, were damned – though he must have known that historically and in reality they were all pagans, ignorant even of the name of Christ. Could the Christian author have thought his pagan heroes were saved? He had the opinion of the Church against him if he did. Could he on the other hand have borne to consign them all to Hell for ever, like Alcuin, the deacon of York, in a now notorious letter to the abbot of Lindisfarne, written about A.D> 797: 'What has Ingeld to do with Christ?' he asked scornfully – Ingeld being a minor character in Beowulf. 'The King of Heaven wishes to have no fellowship with lost or pagan so-called Kings; for the eternal King reigns in Heaven, and the lost pagan laments in Hell.' The Beowulf-poets dilemma was also Tolkien's.
.
.
.
The Lord of the Rings is quite clearly, then, a story of virtuous pagans in the darkest of dark pasts, before all but the faintest premonitions of dawn and revelation.

The ellipsis omits a section that explains that Tolkien's knowledge of Norse, Germanic, Greek, and Gothic myth would have acquainted him with this dilemma and given him the understanding that was revealed in Danté: That Christian Mythology includes a Metaphysical solution for the Virtuous Pagan, such that the Heroes of Tolkien's works were not damned to Hell.

And Tom shippey is not alone in his examination of Middle-earth as a Pagan/Heathen world. Almost every published Tolkien scholar has made this observation at one time or another.

I believe that another such Scholar, a Matthew Dickinson, wrote a paper that was published in the JRR Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment edited by Michael Drout, titled Heathenism and Paganism that explores the link between the two words, and looks at its application to Middle-earth, and the etymology of the words "heathen" and "pagan."

If we try and make comparisons with Medieval Christian Europe, things are still very different. Satan (i.e. Sauron) actually exists, and has a mighty stronghold in a land with huge numbers of followers and allies, many worshipping him. Also there are beings (Elves) who can remember having dealings with other beings (the Valar) who have had dealings with God. This would be the equivalent of an Elf telling a Pope that not only did he remember that man's predecessors; he also remembered Jesus and the Twelve Apostles.

Satan isn't Sauron.

Satan is Morgoth.

Tolkien even calls Morgoth "Satan" and "The Devil" in several of his only known film appearances.

Sauron would be the equivalent of one of the fiends of the Pit from Danté's Inferno, or an Arch-demon from with the Khabbalistic or Gnostic accounts of Hell, from which Danté no doubt drew upon for the Mythology of Hell and the Diabolos.


But that is beside the point.

That the Elves have had direct dealings with Angels, who have told them that the world was created by Eru Ilúvatar still leaves the world in a Fallen State, with the population "Unsaved" (indeed, the Elves themselves will never enter into "Heaven" as the Mythology now stands - they are bound to the Circles of the World for as long as it lasts). So we can't say that the Elves are "Saved," how then does one define that? Simply stating that they are "Pagan" or "Heathen" remains the most appropriate label.

Indeed, since they venerate the Valar, primarily, and not Eru Ilúvatar himself (who, interestingly, IS a "He"), this makes them even more "Pagan."

We have various Quendi songs to Varda/Elbereth, Manwë, suggestions of Songs to Oromë, and Lórien... It would not be unlikely that they had other songs to other Valar.

Yet, as Tom Shippey points out in The Road to Middle-earth, Tolkien was wary of verging into outright Blasphemy, so he would likely have avoided having the Elves sing to Eru Ilúvatar, worship him in any way... Or indeed set up Religious Worship of any kind.

The ONLY instance we find of the veneration of Eru is on Númenóre, with the twice yearly ascent to the top of Meneltarma. But, again, this doesn't mean that they are not Heathens, since not all Heathens/Pagans were polytheists

Joseph Campbell's The Masks of God, vols. 1 - 4: Primitive Mythology, Oriental Mythology, Occidental Mythology & Creative Mythology offer a panoply of different Pagan Religions that are of any variety you can imaging, including Pagan Religions that have NO GOD (Not all Pagan Religions were/are Polytheistic: Atenism, Manicheanism, Zoroastrianism, Some of the Asian Steppe Religions, etc.). .

If the inhabitants of Middle-earth are not worshipping a God who incarnated as Jesus Christ, and then was Sacrificed to atone for the Fallen state of the World.... Then they are not "Christians" and thus they are Pagan/Heathen (of some variety), even if they remain Monotheistic.

The issue of the world being "Pagan" is the whole point of Arda Marred.

MB.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

Satan isn't Sauron.

Satan is Morgoth.

Tolkien even calls Morgoth "Satan" and "The Devil" in several of his only known film appearances.

To be fair, in Letter 175 Professor Tolkien does refer to Sauron, at least indirectly, as "the Devil":

I think the book quite unsuitable for 'dramatization', and have not enjoyed the broadcasts – though they have improved. I thought Tom Bombadil dreadful — but worse still was the announcer's preliminary remarks that Goldberry was his daughter (!), and that Willowman was an ally of Mordor (!!). Cannot people imagine things hostile to men and hobbits who prey on them without being in league with the Devil!

Sauron was, after all, "a reincarnation of Evil" (Letter 131). I think there is potential in considering "Melkor" and "Morgoth" to, in effect, be two different people (just in a sense; don't take me too literally).

[Marwhini]

I am not sure that the reference here to "The Devil" is indeed directly to Sauron.

I need to go dig up the video interview of Tolkien, but in it he tends to refer to anything associated with Morgoth as being "in league with the Devil."

Thus when referencing Mordor, he is addressing its allegiance to Morgoth.

I tend to side with Tom Shippey in that regard.


Here is the First video where he refers to "The Devil" (at 3:40 - 4:00):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFcjBzP7H-E


And here, where Sauron is a "Petty-Lieutenant" of the "Prime Evil, Morgoth" (between 5:50 - 5:60):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFexwNCYenI


I cannot find the other two (One of them might be Christopher Tolkien, and not JRR). I shall continue looking over the next few days, as I know that there is an explicit discussion of "Satan" and "The Devil" in the interviews or documentaries.

But as for "Sauron being the Devil..."

It would be strange for Tolkien to be referring to Sauron as "The Devil" and a "Petty-Lieutenant of the Devil" simultaneously.

As I said before.... I think that the reference in Letter 175 is referring to "Servants of the Great Evil" when it says "in League with The Devil."

This is often a feature of Khabbalistic and Occult writings as well:

When they discuss "Evil" they tend to refer to the Ultimate Evil, as it is the Origin of All Evil.

And, Mordor remains in League with Morgoth, even if ruled by Sauron.

MB

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

Thus when referencing Mordor, he is addressing its allegiance to Morgoth.
[...]
And, Mordor remains in League with Morgoth, even if ruled by Sauron.

I find that to be a bit of a stretch, personally, but each to their own.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marhwini

Can there be TWO "Devils" in a world which is supposed to be somewhat representational of an Idealized (And I don't mean "Ideal" as in "perfect," I mean "Idealized" as in "someone's romanticized") Mythological Christian Universe?

But I suppose this tangent has run as far as it needs.

I understand the basic inference, but have lost track of where the original thread was going at this point...

MB

Well, if you mean the Great Devil Debate, it started at #49 and has now seemingly come full circle. As for the original original thread topic, I fear it has passed into the West and left us.

(Seriously, is there anything left to say about Tauriel now? So much discussion of such a pointless character...)

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, if you mean the Great Devil Debate, it started at #49 and has now seemingly come full circle. As for the original original thread topic, I fear it has passed into the West and left us.

(Seriously, is there anything left to say about Tauriel now? So much discussion of such a pointless character...)

In true Tolkien fashion, Tauriel is a Tragic character.

It is a tragedy that she was included simply for the sake of pandering to "diversity," where so many other possibilities existed for Female Characters that were not pandering.

But my personal preference would for the Movie to have been shot without altering Tolkien's canon.

They had PLENTY to make a Trilogy out of The Hobbit without including anything from the associated materials for the period. You reasonably could have made six movies out of The Hobbit, and nine out of The Lord of the Rings.

And as for "inserting" female Characters....

If they were going to include the Assault upon Dol Guldur... Is not Galadriel enough?

I just wish that someone were able to make a movie of it that was just the book.... As written.... Songs and all. No additional characters. No diverting to Dol Guldur.

Those scenes could easily have been included as additional productions in their own right if we are going to go there.

MB

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

They had PLENTY to make a Trilogy out of The Hobbit without including anything from the associated materials for the period. You reasonably could have made six movies out of The Hobbit

Beg to differ- I don't think they should ever have been trying to make it into a trilogy in the first place.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Beg to differ- I don't think they should ever have been trying to make it into a trilogy in the first place.

Agreed. Two films tops. One film, even with a three hour length, may not have encompassed the whole tale appropriately.