Irrationalism in 'Rings'? So sayeth he...

[DaughterofVana]

I thought that this would be a more fitting forum for this little jewel that I found in the newspaper tonight (IE, "Advanced Discussions of Middle Earth," stress on the 'advanced'), though the author of this article, like most laymen, deal exclusively with the movie aspect of LOTR. I hope everyone can keep their heads (if there's any danger of losing them).

Here goes...

-------------------------------------

Title: The 'Ringworld' vs. the abyss of our real world
Author: James P Pinkerton, Newsday
Source: The Waterloo Courier

Let me write a nation's songs, so goes the saying, and I care not for its laws. That is, culture trumps politics.

And so, with the second installment of the 'The Lord of the Rings' Trilogy showing at theatres, one might learn more about the direction of America by watching that film than by watching the fate of Al Gore or Trent Lott.

The first "Lord" movie--a tale of good vs. evil coincidentally released just after 9-11--crystalized the mood of the country. We were grimly resolved to settle accounts with evildoers. The film was a huge hit in the United States, selling more than $300 million in theater tickets and another 20 million in VHS and DVD units.

And now comes "Lord the Rings: The Two Towers." From the eerie edginess of the title to the mystical militarism of the storyline, the movie is three hours of encouragement to the combat-bound. At the beginning the climactic battle scene, a good king declares, in resident cadences, "If this is to be our end, then I would hope to make an end that is to be worthy of remembrance." To which a heroic warrior responds, "Your men will follow you to whatever end."

Indeed, to enter into the Ringworld and its realm of elves and orcs, is to be reintroduced to what "Rings" creator JRR Tolkien called "that noble northern spirit"--that is, Nordic lore. Yup, we're blasting back to the past, to paganism, to the blood-and-fire bombast of Richard Wagner operas, to a rejection of Judeo-Christianity in favor of a different vision, a vision of violent gods with names such as Wotan and Thor.

The historically minded will remember that the Natzis loved this mythology. The whole of teh Third Reich was awash in runes, lightning bolts and Valkyries riding. Yet Adolph Hitler discredited these sagas when he went off to his own 'Gotterdammerung' in 1945.

But now the Norsemen, minus the swastikas, are making a cultural comeback. The "sword and sorcery" genre--seen in games and movies such as "Dungeons and Dragons," "Conan the Barbarian" and "Harry Potter"--dominates much of the youthful imagination. For years, the Marine Corps sponsored a commercial featuring a warrior fighting a fire-spouting monster, then becoming a uniformed Marine. The spot was 50 percent medieval adventure, 50 percent video game--and 100 percent cool.

And why not? Who wants to live in ordinary borikng times? Who, especially the young, wants to miss the call of trumpets, the heroism and hoopla of what in World War I was called "The Big Parade"? What youthful heart fails to beat faster after hearing Henry V's oration--"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers"--on the eve of the Battle of Agincourt, in 1415, as imagined by Shakespeare? Never mind that the real Agincourt was just another bloody battle between dynasties that solved nothing. The Bard's words have such poetic potency that they became the title of a best-seller and then an HBO miniseries lionizing American soldiers in World War II.

But amid all the energy and adrenaline, amid all the presidental war speeches and cable-news war specials, the question remains: Does a celebration of martial magic and mysticism provide the basis for rational policies aimed at preserving peace as opposed to perpetuating war? Can we have a culture that imbibes the drama of Vikings and Valhalla and a politics that embraces such dull virtues as security and multilateralism?

Right now, of course, most Americans don't care. They are cheering the rise of armed and armored values and thrilling to the collective soul-feeling that comes from uniting behind firefighter martyrs and Hellfire missles.

And now, as a booster, the next "Rings." The forces of the evildoing Saruman get clobbered in the film, just as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have been wasted a trillion times in video games. It's all fun for the moment, but countries must think soberly for the longer haul. National leaders are supposed to do more than give belligerent speeches; they should have learned lessons from history, full as it is with cautionary tales of overreach, however righteous. And all Americans might recall that the basic irrationalism exalted in "Rings" once led other peoples into the abyss.

----------------------------

Oh, boy. (Cringes) Thoughts?

-'Vana

[Aylwen Dreamsong]

a tale of good vs. evil coincidentally released just after 9-11

I get annoyed with how they keep referring to that. They say it like it was on purpose, not just coincidence.

The historically minded will remember that the Natzis loved this mythology. The whole of teh Third Reich was awash in runes, lightning bolts and Valkyries riding. Yet Adolph Hitler discredited these sagas when he went off to his own 'Gotterdammerung' in 1945.

Okay...did that just come out of nowhere? Or did I miss something?

The forces of the evildoing Saruman get clobbered in the film, just as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have been wasted a trillion times in video games

Okay, now I have to wonder how much this actually has to do with LotR.

This was a strange Article...to me at least...

Aylwen

[Nenya]

USA,USA,USA. And if someone still didn't get the point, let me repeat: U S A!
Does everything always have to come back to that country?!! No offense to my fellow american downers. It's just that I'm sick and tired of hearing how everything we get to see/hear has something to do with Mr. Bush and his war against terrorism. Honestly, the sun doesn't quite yet revolve around the United States, even if some of the people there seem to think so. (Yet again, I apologise for my rudness.)

But to be fair, the writer does have some points. I'm too tired now to start pondering them,so I'll let someone wiser than me do the job.

[DaughterofVana]

Yay! Intelligent posts! I was afraid that after I put that up everything would dissolve downwards into some horrible spiral of "ooooh, how dare he?!" or something to that extent.

Try it, Nenya!! I want to hear your opinion! That's why I posted this little gem in the first place.... I'm thinking of writing an editorial anway, so I was wondering what the opinions are of my friends in the Great Void. (Though maybe no one wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole... that's a distinct possibility, being as how things are politically these days. I hope people will keep it strictly LOTR-related, but if someone has some interesting views....)

-'Vana

[Manwe Sulimo]

All I can say, Nenya, is that patriotism (or any kind of nationalism, for that matter) is overrated. Maybe it's just 'cause I'm in the "anti-war East" or whatever...but the government should just give up....

I think I'll move to Britain. Always liked them better, anyway.

(Please forgive my American accent [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img])

[Aylwen Dreamsong]

*Sigh* Yes, we Americans do tend to blow things out of proportion, don't we?

Though maybe no one wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole

Thirty-Nine and a Half foot pole, to be exact.

Aylwen

[doug*platypus]

Excellent thread, Vanasdottír, hopefully it attracts some attention. I enjoyed reading the article, and didn't see it as yet another example of an Americo-centric world. I assume the writer was from the US. What are they supposed to write about? Summer fashions in Outer Mongolia?

firefighter martyrs and Hellfire missles

I think that juxtaposition was a little uncalled for. Revering the firefighters who lost their lives trying to save others at Ground Zero is far from warmongering. I'd have to say that all in all the article gives little credit to today's citizens, who are far from being duped into enlisting as so many were at the time of The Great War (nice title). Coming from Aotearoa/New Zealand I find the behaviour towards war in that time period all the more disgusting. Many of my countrymen were fooled into serving the designs only of the British Empire. But that was a long time ago.

Today's world is vastly different, and people are more educated about the horrors of war, and are better able to distinguish when a war is necessary and when it isn't. I think that most of us out there still learn more from history than from fiction. Today's world is educated like at no other time in the past. And in any case if I was to pick out recent films that glorified war, LOTR probably wouldn't make it into the top ten.

[Orual]

Not again! [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] Methinks he missed the point entirely. Warmongering? Wow. He must've slept through part of the movie. I mean, was it just me, or were they only at war because the fate of the world was at stake? It wasn't a preventative war, which is the sort of war that America's looking at right now. But even if it was, Nenya's right--the universe doesn't revolve around America. Myself, I'm an American, and I'm sick of hearing people go on about how the Lord of the Rings is a reflection of America's current state.

Oh yeah. That'll work. It was only written fifty years prior.

Honestly, apparently it hasn't stopped at the Twin Towers/Two Towers comparison, it's gone on to people saying that the whole atmosphere and storyline reflects America's future. I think that it's entirely ridiculous, but I guess everybody's entitled to their own opinion, even if it is stupid.

By the way, since when was Saruman the main bad guy? Did they change something while I wasn't looking? [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

~*~Orual~*~

[Nevvasaiel]

I found a similar article on the internet... although the article of this one seems to be somewhat ignorant in terms of Tolkien and LotR fans, (and egocentric) and disregards any opinion except for his own!

--------------------------------------
In the Mix[up in arms over Tolkien]
By: Dan Deluca

Viggo Mortensen is all bent out of shape, and who can blame him?

The hunky half-Danish actor, who plays Aragorn, son of Arathorn, in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, is agitated because the wildly popular dungeons-and-dragons movie that's making him a star is being used by pundits and agitators to further their own political agendas.

Last month, Mortensen went on Charlie Rose wearing a homemade "No Blood For Oil" T-shirt, ticked off because people keep telling him that The Two Towers, which took in more than $200 million in its first 10 days of release, makes a case for a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"I don't think that The Two Towers or Tolkien's writing or our work has anything to do with the United States' foreign ventures at this time," he told the PBS talk-show host with the uncombed hair. Fellow actor Elijah Wood, who plays ring-bearer Frodo Baggins, chimed in: "People say it's a pro-war movie, which I also have a problem with."

Oxford don J.R.R. Tolkien always denied that his Lord of the Rings trilogy, which was published nearly 50 years ago, was loaded with allegory or topical symbolism. And unless Tolkien was Nostradamus, he couldn't have intended evil wizard Saruman (who sends a genetically engineered army of Uruk-Hai to crush the good guys at Helm's Deep) to be a stand-in for evildoer Saddam Hussein (who's alleged to be a collector of chemical weapons of mass destruction).

What's more, plenty of Lord of the Rings lovers will tell you that Tolkien's books are actually shot through with antiwar and environmental themes.

Hairy-footed hobbits, after all, are peaceful creatures, and Mr. Frodo's trek to the fiery pits of Mordor to destroy the all-powerful ring has been interpreted as really being about nuclear disarmament. And the ents, those molasses-mouthed talking trees, get geared up to take on Saruman when they learn that the white-haired wizard has clear-cut large swaths of Fangorn Forest.(Wouldn't that be environmental protection?)

But while that's all well and good, it's also immaterial. Nowadays, a movie or record or book exists and is interpreted in the historical moment when it is unleashed on the world. So, even though the Lord of the Rings books were published in the mid-'50s, we're experiencing The Two Towers in this cultural nanosecond. And it is the audience, rather than Tolkien or even director Peter Jackson, that decides just what the fantastic saga means.

And whenever a product gets as wildly popular as The Two Towers, any nuances the artist might have intended are likely to be missed.

Consider this: Bruce Springsteen may have written "Born in the U.S.A." as a critique of the treatment of Vietnam veterans, but Ronald Reagan appropriated it, and the song was widely seen as a jingoistic anthem.

Randy Newman may have meant "Short People" to point out the stupidity of discrimination, but people thought the songwriter hated short people himself.

And the Harry Potter books may seem like charmingly magical coming-of-age stories, but there are those who believe they are diabolical tales of devil worship.

So it goes.

With impending war with Iraq the lead story around the world, it's inevitable that The Two Towers would be seen as applicable to today's geopolitical situation. Perhaps after The Return of the King comes out next Christmas, the "War is hell" vision of Tolkien, who fought in the trenches in World War I, will reestablish itself.

Never mind that The Two Towers is a movie about a king who needs to get over his reluctance to fight and about countries that must band together to stop the relentless forces of absolute evil (which just happen to be subhuman, and thus easier to kill with a clear conscience).

"There's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for," says hobbit Samwise Gamgee.

It doesn't matter what Tolkien meant or what Viggo Mortensen thinks. In the here and now, The Two Towers is a powerful piece of war propaganda.

------------------------------------------

Grrrrrrr... I HATE it when someone misinterprets Lord of the Rings, although i have to admit, LotR IS being used quite a lot in references to the war on terrorism.

[Nevvasaiel]

Oh, and a another little thought......

Why are there so many references to 9/11?
i know the title {The Two Towers} may bring back unwanted memories, and call me whatever you want for not being entirely sympathetic, but honestly, the rest of the world is getting quite sick of American politics, and Bush's failed attempt to divert attention away from his hugely unsuccessful economic policies... * Sorry... I'm rambling on about politics, which i did not mean to do at all. Americans, please don't be offended, i just cannot resist rolling my eyes every time Bush's new patriotic pro-war speech appears on the news. And anyway, there is no parallel between the war now and war in Middle Earth. Since when did the members of the Fellowship disregard the opinions of the general public? When was the last time they carried out operations individually without any support/allies?*

Tolkien wrote LotR 50 years ago, and unless he had the gift of foresight, he could not possibly have known about the war on terrorism, or how his work would be used to promote it.
LotR is considered the world's greatest literary piece of the twentieth century, and I applaud Peter Jackson for not changing the name of the film, even though several petitions were sent out asking him to change the title of TTT - I doubt he would be able to even if he wanted to.

well, to tell you guys the truth, i'm getting just a little miffed with how everyone takes J.R.R.T.'s work and tries to make it fit into whatever they are trying to do... i mean, do we really think that J.R.R.T. meant to write these books to make a statement about the war on terrorism? may he rest in peace, he was a genius coming up with languages and all the other stuff he imagined for the books, and the writing is terrific, but i don't think he was a prophet or psychic, which is what these people are claiming if they say that's what his work meant... he couldn't have known about all the things that people are comparing his work to. everyone wants his books to fit in with their religion, political stance, or whatever, but look, he just wrote the books...if we could go back in time, maybe we could ask him what he "meant" them to mean, but we can't.
that isn't to say that some of his thoughts are not clearly evident in his writing, you can hardly write something, and then not have your own views prominent throughout it...but come on. i think people are taking it just a little too far...
and all these people that have only seen the movies, do you think that this is a new thing? they just came up with this whole trilogy after 9-11? the movies were practically already done before that even happened! (not to mention that the books were first published almost 50 years ago!) sheesh.
people see what they want to see, it's true, but you can't prove that his writtings were meant to make a politcal statement, i mean, please! me, I'm a Christian, so of course i'd like to compare his writings to the Bible, and what I believe, and i see some great allegories, but that's not to say that that is what he meant to happen. and i don't go around writing articles about how this represents the need of war or whatever. (and there is a difference between attacking iraq and saving all life from eternal darkness.) can't people just enjoy his work? why must it always come down to politics. for that matter, why must it always come down to what is happening RIGHT NOW? in twenty years from now, you just know that someone is going to be saying that he meant his stories to represent whatever war, or catastrophe is happening them. people, there is a possability that not everything represents what YOU are going through. of course we'll see the correspondance and similarities, but...that doesn't mean he was trying to make a statement about us...
and about the above artycle, everyone loves heroism. everyone wants to be a hero... and just because he makes similaries between vikings or whatever, doesn't mean he's making some pagan comparison to the nazis... (?!) am i right? isn't that what he said? okay, sorry, i've rambled. i doubt any of what i wrote makes any sense anyway...

[Bill Ferny]

The only point made here was the stupidity of the author.

At the beginning the climactic battle scene, a good king declares, in resident cadences, "If this is to be our end, then I would hope to make an end that is to be worthy of remembrance." To which a heroic warrior responds, "Your men will follow you to whatever end."

Hint: If you don’t know the names of the characters, it might be a good indication that you haven’t done enough research.

The historically minded will remember that the Natzis loved this mythology. The whole of teh Third Reich was awash in runes, lightning bolts and Valkyries riding. Yet Adolph Hitler discredited these sagas when he went off to his own 'Gotterdammerung' in 1945.

How can one seriously reduce Tolkien to the Sturm und Drang movement? Only someone who knows nothing more than surface appearance could make such a connection. The Nazis were hardly the lawful heirs of the Sturm und Drang movement, anyway. Geothe was not a seminal Nazi.

--"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers"--on the eve of the Battle of Agincourt, in 1415, as imagined by Shakespeare? Never mind that the real Agincourt was just another bloody battle between dynasties that solved nothing. The Bard's words have such poetic potency that they became the title of a best-seller and then an HBO miniseries lionizing American soldiers in World War II.

Solved nothing? Depends on what you mean by solved, but the battle of Agincourt was a very import turning point in the Hundred Years War. Anyone who has read Band of Brothers (the author recently passed away) knows that it is hardly a lionization of soldiers, but a portrait of real young men, their fears, horrors, foibles, sufferings and triumphs. Nothing in that book glorified war, but I doubt if Mr. Pinkerton even read it, otherwise, he wouldn’t attempt such a disrespectful and ignorant comment.

Since when is security (a condition) and multilateralism (another condition neither good or bad per se) virtues? No, things like justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude are virtues.

I find it hard to connect any irrationalism (which, like multilateralism, is not a real word in the English language) outlined in the column with LotR. Mr. Pinkerton obviously sees many irrational things in the world, but never once does he pin point any irrational tendencies in LotR save only a meager, appearances only, similarity to the Sturm und Drang movement and an assumed Nazi connection.

Nenya is, of course, right. Mr. Pinkerton is an ugly American.

[Maylin]

(deep breathe) Will not get mad, will not get mad, will be understanding...

ok, I'm completly lost as to how you can
think that that LotR is prowar. The whole book is about trying to end war. When you have evil, something has to be done.
and as for people trying to find allagory and such in a book were it's not supposed to be, it can be looked at a million different ways.
The ocrs could easily be looked on as demon, elves as angels. I mean, in the book, never once can I remember an elf doing something bad, or an orc doing something good. ( In the silmarillion, i guess elves made mistakes, but that can be looked on as an allegory, too)
I don't know why people insist that there's allegory the author claims theres not.

well, my rambling is done.........

[Diamond18]

Mr. Pinkerton, like others, takes an anti-war stance too far. The whole article was bent on trvializing LotR as a jingoist-moot. Granted, it was talking about the movie, but if you know anything at all about the books you know about Faramir's opinions on war (which are also Tolkien's). Hardly jingoism. But when you must fight a war, you must have a reason to keep yourself going. You must have some motivation. Otherwise you become like Denethor. Just like King Théoden said in the very quote Mr. Pinkerton included: If we must fight for our exisistence, let's do it for pete's sake! That is what LotR is about, moreso than glorifying war as an ideal state of exisistence.

The book has nothing at all to do with America, nothing at all to do with Iraq, nothing at all to do with Al'Quiada. Why try to make it so? And like someone else said, the movie, too, was practically finished by the time of 9/11. As an American, I am just plain sick of people trying to parallel the two. If it were a parallel, I wouldn't enjoy it. Not the least bit. I hate everything about the situation our world is in today. There is nothing the U.S.A can do that is right. Anyone who thinks that is fooling themselves. We're living in a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of world, and I hate it. Forgive the pessimism, but when you're reminded every time you turn on the TV or log onto the internet that people hate you and that the world would be a better place without you, it gets rather depressing.

In LotR at least good and evil and the right path are clear. The good guys never doubt that they're good guys, and the bad guys are really truely bad throughout. Mr. Pinkerton seems to think this a bad thing—I need this sort of entertainment to keep me sane. And it is just entertainment. When you try to say it's a parallel for our situation, you're forgetting it's entertainment: and in that case you might as well just turn on the news and forget about reading books or watching movies.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Well I've already angered people on another thread talking about this subject, and I thought they were being very harsh to me and missing my point. I cannot stand it when people compare real life to The Lord of the Rings. That's all I'm saying.

The distinction between good and evil is far, far clearer in the book than it is in real life. Regardless of your politics, why would anyone try and bring down this great book by claiming it to be a metaphor for our world.

Oh yeah, to get people riled up. Just think, people get paid to write articles like that. Actual real money.

i totally agree with you, eomer...why does everything have to be an allegory, or symbolic? sorry, but i'm sick of my english teacher telling me to figure out what the author "really" meant. maybe, he just meant to write a really exciting story, or a funny novel, or maybe he was hallucinating and the whole thing is crud, why should we know? why should we care?

[hobbitlass]

Perhaps the best final word on John Ronald Reuel Tolkien and his world of Middle-earth is told by an unknown admirer, an Oxford electrician who liked Lord of the Rings, so much that he named his tools after characters from the book (his wrench was "Smaug's horde'). The man had been called in to repair some wiring in the English faculty library, and as he began, he noticed the bronze bust of Professor Tolkien by Christopher Tolkien's ex-wife Faith that had been done at the time of Tolkien's retirement. Without hesitation or embarrassment, he downed his tools, walked over to the bust and clapped his arm around the bronze shoulder.
'Well done, Professor,' he said, addressing the bust as if it were a living person. 'you've written a smashing good yarn!'

-JRR Tolkien Architect of Middle Earth. A biograohy by Daniel Grotta

And that, my friends, is what it's all about.

[doug*platypus]

Dan Deluca's Article

Thanks, Nevvasaeil, for providing the article in your post above. Even better than providing a link, cos I actually read it! I think the author has summed up the situation eloquently and with great insight and common-sense. What he says makes more sense than anything any of us has posted on this thread. I think you misconstrue him when you think that it's an attack on Tolkien, and leap immediately to the Professor's defence like this was some kind of bar brawl.

Nowadays, a movie or record or book exists and is interpreted in the historical moment when it is unleashed on the world. So, even though the Lord of the Rings books were published in the mid-'50s, we're experiencing The Two Towers in this cultural nanosecond. And it is the audience, rather than Tolkien or even director Peter Jackson, that decides just what the fantastic saga means.

Dan points out the root of the problem right here - not PJs vision, certainly not Viggo's or Elijah's, and probably not Tolkien's (but I think that assuming he would not sanction war on Iraq is hasty to say the least), but the audience's perception. This is all a result of a few small-minded people seeing the movie, without reading the book, and jumping to a ridiculous conclusion. It's a shame that there are people out there like that, but it's something that we have to put up with, hoping in our small way to influence them to see the films as something other than pro-war propaganda.

I think the comment Deluca ends with is extremely apt:

It doesn't matter what Tolkien meant or what Viggo Mortensen thinks. In the here and now, The Two Towers is a powerful piece of war propaganda.

He cites several examples of how politicians or the media have stolen and bastardised films or music in the past (another example would be Money by Pink Floyd), distorting their meaning to further their own ends. The best we can do is to try and put a stop to this whenever we see it happening, by protesting against it however we think appropriate.

[Mandos]

What is this crap of the world going back to paganism? The last time i checked the dominant religions were stable. and the words the are written in red still change hearts and lives, though many refuse to see it. I swear, this man has obviously not read the last book of the bible. he is a pessimist (pardon me if i offended anyone but this gets on my nerves

[Gorwingel]

Interesting article, Yes I too hate them comparing everything in the story to what is going on right now. Tolkien hated when people compared it to modern times, and I do too. And I also don't like when these writers think fantasy is bad, they did the same thing in the Time magazine article about LOTR, this author should go read the books.

[LOTR_know-it-all55]

I hate articles like this. Do they realize that TTT was written like 50 years before 9/11??!! Are they suggesting that Tolkien could predict the future or something [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

[willkill4food]

If they call the Fellowship of the Ring coincidently released with the 9/11 tragedy, and The Two Towers was coincidently released when we start bombing terrorists and Iraquis, then I wonder what The Return Of The King with coincide with..

-willkill

[Bill Ferny]

Doug,

Great take on the article by Dan Deluca. The big difference between Mr. Deluca and Mr. Pinkerton is that Deluca doesn’t throw the baby out with the bath water. He is able to see through the predominate predisposition and misconception of the masses concerning the “nanosecond.” Mr. Pinkerton, however, rates with those who say that Norse mythology is nazism, Harry Potter is Satanism, and anything Celtic is occultist.

There’s nothing wrong with looking beyond the words of any work of literature to see the influences at work in a given author. This holds true for Tolkien just as it would hold true for any other writer. Tolkien may have striven to keep his work free of allegory, but he, as the creator, can not help but leave a reflection of himself, his life, beliefs and psychology behind on the pages containing the ink he put there. Trying to get a glimpse of this man through his work is perfectly respectable and valid.

However, I’ve seen Tolkien’s work used to advocate some pretty strange things, such as the Tarot, paganism, racism, and now its being characterized as pro-war propaganda. Anyone who knows Tolkien the man would know that he would hardly advocate such ideas. That’s why trying to analyze the author behind the work is actually an important thing; it helps one refute those who would misinterpret and thus misconstrue that author’s work. Its far more open minded than just rejecting it altogether just because some neo-nazi or Satanist, or in this case a war-ready society, misconstrues it.

Tolkien wanted to achieve applicability not allegory, but applicability in the hands of the wrong people can be just as annoying and in some cases just as stupid.

[ January 05, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

[Mandos]

Well said. Tolkien HATED allegory and wanted his books to have nothing to do with it. If he was still with us today, he would have some pretty loud things to say of how others have interpretted his work to be Satanism or pro-nazi. It's sickening how these people who havent even read the books think they can judge what it is "truly" about and condemn those who read it.

[hobbitlass]

If 'The Two Towers' is about 'The Twin Towers', and we ALL know how blatant that is, then that means 'The Fellowship of the Rings' is about the airplane that the passengers banded together (ie. formed a fellowship) and brought it down in Pennsylvania before it hit any buildings. AND, 'The Return of the King' is really about the hit on the Pentagon in D.C. and since it has been rebuilt, 'King' George W. has returned.
After all, an English professor/author and a New Zealand film maker both knew this would happen and they know that the United States IS SOOOO cool and the best country in the world so they wrote/ made films for us.
Please note the sarcasm for those who interperet these films as war propaganda. I do agree that people will see things how they want to.
And no disrespect for those who lost loved ones in these tragedies. I have friends that lost them at the Pentagon.

[Nenya]

I agree with doug and Bill Ferny. I think Mr Deluca's article was actually quite good. He dealt with the same subject as Pinkerton, but succeeded in actually saying something worth hearing. Nevvasaiel, he wasn't misinterpetreiting Tolkien, but pointing out that some people can and will do that.

BtW, isn't it a sign of a good book, that it can be applied to the current time as well? So even if Tolkien really hated all sorts of allegories, we should still be able to find some life instructions from LotR that we can all use in our lives, even fifty yrs after the book was published.

Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement

How's that for a guideline for Mr Bush, huh?
This is what I'm talking about here: Anyone with half a brain should know that Saddam isn't Sauron, and that the Ring War isn't the same as the terrorism-war. This is just the kind of thing professor Tolkien hated. But I don't think he would've opposed to the fact that the same moral and ethics he belived in can still be seen good and useful. In short: Gandalf's words are wise, regardless of the year we read them.

Uh, I dread to to think all the grammatical mistakes in this post...Let's just say that it's very late and my english skills are on holiday too. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Greyhame]

Until our beloved United States stops trying to emulate the Roman Empire and goes back to the emphasis on education, art, and culture that truly made her great, then the author of the second article is right. Every piece of pop culture that comes down the pike, regardless of whether it possesses true artistic merit or not (I would posit that the film TTT and its source material DOES), will be interpreted by the unconscious hermeneutic of "let's bomb Saddam and take his oil before he bombs us and takes away our children". Thanks to the jumbled mess of postmodern thought (Whatever I believe to be true MUST be true, at least for me...), TTT has indeed become an effective piece of propaganda. Does that mean it was intended to be propaganda? Of course not... but neither was the Bible nor the Quran nor the US Constitution.

Look at what they are now. They've been twisted and perverted by both sides to justify this principle:

Tragedy and injustice serve as a pretext for retributionary bloodshed and oppression.

St. Paul, Mohammed, and the Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.

[ January 08, 2003: Message edited by: Greyhame ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Tolkien wasn't a pacifist, but he certainly believed that wars should not be undertaken lightly, to bolster one's popularity or achieve some financial end. I doubt whether the Professor would have worn T-shirts under any circumstances, but he'd probably have written some very stiff letters to the Times about the current situation; and I expect that he'd be livid if he heard that his own work was being taken as a justification of it.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: No person, alive or dead, is like Sauron or Morgoth. No political or military leader, no country, army or system is as completely evil as they, so no human conflict at all is like the War of the Ring. No, not even World War II. If people are missing the point, it is because this is not made as clear in the films as it could have been, and because they themselves are so infected with stupidity and jingoism that they can no longer tell propaganda from epic fantasy.

Why on earth would a New Zealander twist his 50-year-old English source material to turn it into such a tasteless allegorical call to arms? It makes no logical sense, and what some brain-dead minority of Americans think about it doesn't change that. An artist cannot be blamed for what people do with his work, and to reduce the Lord of the Rings trilogy to some sort of American version of Jud Suss is frankly an insult to all involved.

I would also say that perhaps, just perhaps, people are drawn to the War of the Ring because it is justified: on one side its motives are noble, its cause is just, and its armies are led in person by those who made the decision to fight. Perhaps a lot of people find this a welcome alternative to the modern political climate rather than a justification for it.

[doug*platypus]

If people are missing the point, it is because this is not made as clear in the films as it could have been, and because they themselves are so infected with stupidity and jingoism that they can no longer tell propaganda from epic fantasy.

Absolutely true, Squatter. The film adaptations have done far too much to advance the cause of people who already thought that The Lord of the Rings was an oversimplified 'good vs evil' story. The role of men in Saruman's armies has been whittled away to almost nothing, and it seems as if evil is only applicable to horrible, deformed creatures like Orcs or Nazgûl, which can be destroyed without guilt. The presentation of a wholly just war unfortunately comes at a very difficult time, especially for the U.S. Which I am sure is why so many Americans have leaped to either attack or defend the idea of the movies as propaganda. I don't think that it is simply because there is a brain-dead minority there, as you say. Besides which, Americans are certainly not the only people willing to go to war against Iraq. You might be surprised at what some of your own countrymen think.

Why on earth would a New Zealander twist his 50-year-old English source material to turn it into such a tasteless allegorical call to arms? It makes no logical sense, and what some brain-dead minority of Americans think about it doesn't change that.

Admittedly, The Lord of the Rings was written by an Englishman, warped in film adaptation by a New Zealander, and misunderstood by some Americans (among many others). But if you think that your nationality alone gives you some kind of bragging rights, you're mistaken. I happen to come from Aotearoa/New Zealand. Does this mean I swell with pride whenever someone splits the atom, as Ernest Rutherford did, or do I mention the name Edmund Hillary whenever someone climbs Everest/Jomolungma? No. I would ask you to extend similar courtesy here.

[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.

[Magician of Nathar]

Why do I have the feeling that the arthur of that article knows very little about LOTR and is quite a Wagner scholar? Why did he write an article on LOTR while he pulls all the refrence from The Ring? Not that I have a problem with that, being a huge Wagner fan myself. But he gave me a feeling he knows nothing about Tolkien's work, but just mentioned the movies to sell his article. Which, is really not noble despite every noble thing he said.

[Kalessin]

Of course it seems ludicrous to suggest that the LotR films are either (or both) a reflection of, or influence upon, the current American national psyche - as it could be argued the "It came from Outer Space" B-movie genre was a reflection of politically-inspired cold war paranoia in the 1950s.

But the second article posted makes perhaps a more valid point about the way in which audiences project contemporary issues upon their interpretation of art. In fact, it's probably impossible not to do so in an age where postmodernism is taken for granted. And, it is arguably an ultimately flawed venture to attempt to experience art without acknowledging the psychological and cultural context in which one does so.

It is also the case that, as these boards illustrate, Tolkien's masterpiece is simply in itself open to a whole range of 'definitive' yet antithetical interpretations - for example, as outright Christian allegory, against a near-pagan pastoral environmentalism.

In the wider context, both reviewers have a point in that the presentation of war in the vast majority of Hollywood films is absolutely smothered in a straightforward and often politically-tinged morality of one shade or another. Perhaps this is inevitable, as it is similarly the case in ancient epic myths. Battle lines are drawn, and there is rarely ambiguity or moral relativism. In history, and our teaching of history, the victors tend to dictate the judgment about any conflict.

And for any film to achieve a certain universality, and this profitability, the identification of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' has to be reasonably obvious.

It IS worthwhile to question the effect and validity of the dumbed-down homogenous moral sensibility propogated by Hollywood, although I tend to agree that the LotR movies are a decent attempt to capture the essence of the narrative and bring it to the screen. And, actually, in most cases I doubt there is any sinister political conspiracy.

But if one considers, for example, the morality of Star Wars, you could argue that there is a snapshot of current American (and increasingly, worldwide) understanding of right and wrong. I will misquote a famous theatrical review - "it runs the full gamut of meanings from A to B" - by which I mean that C to Z are increasingly ignored [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

The Wagner reference in the first article is highly dubious, as Bill points out. Wagner, The Brothers Grimm, Goethe, and Neitzche may have belonged to a jingoistic society with a somewhat insecure sense of identity and an attachment to pseudo-cultural artefact, but neither they, nor their work when honestly appraised, can be seen as having any real connection to Nazism, which was more a political ideology driven by innovative PR and the economy, among other things. The parallels are more valid with reference to say Eisenstein's 'Alexander Nevsky' in post-revolutionary Russia, or the pre-war films of Leni Reifenstahl in Germany.

But, as I have said, the parallels themselves are flawed. There are movies which, while not part of any conspiracy theory, are driven by a particular political perspective - from Dr Strangelove to The Alamo (great films both) to John Milius' Conan the Barbarian - and there are films that are simply in and of their time.

For Peter Jackson's LotR, that time just happens to be now.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ January 11, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Claptrap. The article I mean. Once again I am awed by the capacity of the human brain to function as a veritable dustbin, sweeping up unrelated bits and shaping them - like so many bits of clay - into something that will suit one man's pre-conceived notions and bigotry.

Harry Potter is to Dungeons and Dragons is to Lord of the Rings is to current US politics? It stretches the imagination alright.

-Maril

[doug*platypus]

I think we all need to remember that it is the movies that are largely being discussed in those articles, and not the books. Obviously both reviewers have a shallow grasp at best of any difference, and possibly if we brought the topic up with them they'd say something like, "Different? In what way?", requiring months and months of schooling.

PJ and co. (unfortunately for PJ he bears the brunt of any aggression, even though there were other 'creative' forces at work) have seen fit to modify, delete and add willy-nilly, despite assurances to the contrary. I'd like to point out one scene that many of you may have underestimated the importance of - the scene in which Pippin suggests to Merry that they just leave the war and go home:

"We've got The Shire."

- Pippin

To anyone from Aotearoa/New Zealand this comes as a smack in the face, because this has time and time again been the position we are in. At the current time we are more distant than ever from military allies the UK, US and Australia, and some people are suggesting the same thing as Pippin does - stay at home and forget about what are, at first glance, someone else's problems. We are after all the most hobbit-like country in the world, and hardly much more ready to fight a war. This particular Pippin/Merry scene in Fangorn seems an almost blatant wake-up call directed to New Zealanders, made to point out that many problems we fact today are global problems.

Tolkien did an admirable job of pointing out the dangers that The Shire was facing, but it took the movie version to throw it directly in our faces as a possible call to arms. Proof that there may be more of a political agenda, intended or otherwise in these films than we at first would like to believe. Sauron does not have to perfectly match Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden for the movies to be effective as propaganda.

[Kalessin]

Hi Maril [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Dungeons and Dragons was clearly the creation of Sino-Communist agitators intent on corrupting the innocent (such as you and I) and weakening the flawless democracies and constitutional monarchies that have served us so well. I should know, I was there back in the day, and let me tell you Chairman Mao's little book came in very handy indeed [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

Just as Harry Potter is merely the unacceptable face of the rampant occultism that threatens to rend the very fabric of our society. It says so on the internet.

But as I said, finding fault with the conclusions or research of either of the articles is not the same as dealing with the premise, albeit more reasonably explored in the second. And indeed you are making that point in a roundabout way.

We do project our own aspirations, prejudices, agendas and so on upon works of art. It's not just "other people" who do this. It's all of us. And where a film contains war between clearly identifiable oppositional morality, it'll happen too.

It IS silly to simply heap blame inappropriately upon the author or film-maker, or necessarily infer a sinister political agenda, but you only have to view any pre-1950s western to see how most films are both of and for their time. Even at their worst, such films probably do no more than simply reassure us about our existing moral worldview. At their best, they may challenge us and make us think. They do not provide us with a rational legitimisation of political acts. We choose who we think the bad guys are in real life, or we choose to believe what someone tells us.

As I said, PJ just happened to pick now. The debate about whether such films contribute to our perception of moral or 'just' war is reasonable. The argument that LotR in book or film subtly promotes or legitimises American foreign policy is sophistry.

Great to see you posting [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

Peace

Kalessin

[Taure Leafsilver]

It's things like this that make me ashamed to be an American. I mean, how narrow minded can you get? This guy talks like he watch the movie, fell asleep through most of it and did'nt even touch the book *her eyes start to cross* i will not blow up i will not blow up........ Maybe I'll move, England does sound nice or the barrow downers could start a new country. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ January 12, 2003: Message edited by: Taure Leafsilver ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Some very well made and thought-provoking comments.

Having read them, I went back and re-read the two articles. There is an essential difference between them.

The first is saying that TTT (the film) is a piece of war propaganda purely because of the situation it portrays: the writer of the article sees a violent struggle between good and evil and makes a direct link to the war on terorism/potential war on Iraq. That is a clear example of the wooly-thinking I mentioned in my previous post. This film is no more meant as a piece of war propaganda than was the book.

The second article seems to recognise that neither the book nor the film were intended as war propaganda, but argues that, in the current socail/political climate, they will be taken as such. That, I think is a valid point, particularly since this is precisely what the writer of the first article seems to have done.

My concern, which I sought to express in my previous posting, is that some people who see the film and read articles such as this (the first one) will take it as some kind of validation of their thoughts on US foreign policy. Surely, that is rightly a matter for concern and an issue on which the writer of the second article validly comments (albeit clearly with only a vague knowledge of the book).

[Iarwain]

All I can say is that Mr. Pinkerton, you are an outright fool.

in response to what others have said, I agree that the American sense of patriotism is stupid and blown way out of proportion. This idea of hyper-nationalism is what drives dictatorships and the media (government's best friend, and sometimes most powerful enemy) makes/forms-the-illusion-that the American people are driving into this "war for peace".

Mr. Pinkerton has twisted the Two Towers into a political allegory fitting his views, brandishing it for all to see that facist mythology has seeped its way into western culture. As previously stated, he is an outright fool. Now we see the dangers of Allegorical interpretations of the LotR.

Angrily,
Iarwain

P.S. I agree, England does sound like a nice place to live. Perhaps I'll relocate too
[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] .

[ January 12, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Diamond18]

England may sound nice, but every country has it's problems. I've never even been to England, but it's on this Earth, so I won't try to over-romanticize it in my mind. Americans over-romantcize America, and that is what seems to be disappointing a lot of the people posting here. We're not perfect and we never will be, but that doesn't necessarily make other places infinitly better. You'll just be disappointed by those people and places, too, if you sigh and say, "I wish I lived there instead of here, and I'm ashamed of myself because I live here."

Middle-earth is a highly romantic landscape, which makes it totally different from America, England, Austraila, New Zealand, or any other real-world place.

Though parallels can be drawn if you want to, I think it detracts from the enjoyment of the experience. If you go into the movie theatre or open the book with a preconceived notion of what you want to see, you'll miss the art or entertainment of either endeavor.

Doug, I don't think you should take Pippin's comment so hard. They made these movies back in 1999, before a lot of this current war posturing began. So unless you were going through a lot of isolationist unrest down there back in 99, I doubt it's aimed at you. Your comments sound like you were watching the movie with a big chip on your shoulder, and that's the big mistake that people are making who think that LotR is a propaganda machine.

Pippin's comment was just a typical movie simplification and summary of the general Hobbit attitude, which is right there in the books. After all, whenever any of the four Hobbits draws his sword he shouts, "The Shire!", and I believe one of the hobbits says, "What in the Shire" instead of "What in the world" at one point.

It also fit with the movie's theme, summarized in Sam's speech at the end, about the heroes in the old tales always having the chance to turn back. So unless you were going into the theatre expecting to be slapped, I don't think you would have interpreted it that way.

But I didn't really like the line anyway. I didn't seem like Pippin, and it was just a setup for Merry's line. Merry gets all the glory. Harumph. But it was just for Middle-earth, I thought.

I would also say that perhaps, just perhaps, people are drawn to the War of the Ring because it is justified: on one side its motives are noble, its cause is just, and its armies are led in person by those who made the decision to fight. Perhaps a lot of people find this a welcome alternative to the modern political climate rather than a justification for it.

Well put, Squatter.

[ January 12, 2003: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[Lush]

The Pinkerton dude has got it all wrong. Tolkien's books and Peter Jackson's movies are not advocating war-mongering, they're advocating smoking. This is so blatantly obvious that frankly I am shocked that it takes a ratty little college student like myself to bring this truth to light. In fact, the next time I get caught with a cigarette in the dorm, I'll tell the RA that Gandalf told me to do it. It's all right there in the books! And I don't even want to go into the movies; I mean, really, you have to wonder when Aragorn finds the time to get his pipe out of his mouth so he can proceed to kick Orc a**. I'm telling you guys, RJ Reynolds paid Tolkien, like, a million bucks to write this book. And with all the recent lawsuits and cancer awarness, you just know that Peter Jackson was enlisted to save the industry. George W. is in on it too! It's a vast right-wing conspiracy to sell ciggies to young, dweeby Tolkien readers! Geez, get it right, pal!

[ January 12, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]