Seeker

caligula - ditto for me? (re pdfs)

my email is available by clicking top of message...

Inverse

caligula: "This has never been sold as a great tragedy but as a rousing adventure."

You make it sound like there will be dancing Ewoks at the end of Return of the King!

LOTR is a lot more than a rousing adventure, and the ending of ROTK is far from simple, even with the changes PJ has in mind. It will be very interesting to see how an audience weaned on Ewoks reacts reacts to it.

caligulathegod

You know what I mean, though. 1000 pages about getting the Ring destroyed and they fail? Of course not. This isn't Brian's Song or Love Story or even The Bad News Bears. As complicated a world Tolkien created to set it in, the story itself is pretty black and white as are all the characters. Is there a better 2 word description that contrasts with "great tragedy (meaning:they fail)" that applies and still echoes my point?

PS, Hobbits kinda are Ewoks, aren't they? What with their furry feet and all.

raithen

Boromir, Gollum and Frodo are "black and white" characters? These are just a few examples of characters who have a real sense of growth, regression and trauma. We have descents into madness, enlightenment, corruption and redemption. There are so many themes and shades of grey within LOTR it's not even funny. Personally, I see a lot of obvious parallels with Josef Conrad's Heart Of Darkness.

At a shallow glance I see the simple themes of good vs. evil, man vs. nature, and absolute power corrupting absolutely - but if you peel back the layers there is so much more going on. There are multiple themes and a complex tapestry of characters and situations if one chooses to see them - IMHO anyway.

Then again, some people tend to over-perceive books they love - the depth of a book is only as deep as one chooses perceive. I know there are people who see very little within a book such as Don Quixote, but I for one see much more. Not to say I'm right... I just disagree with your "black and white" analysis.

-matt

caligulathegod

I shall never allow myself to get into the position of arguing against Tolkien and LOTR. It's an obsession I've had since High School and rekindled in the last few years. I adore Tolkien and the World of Middle Earth. But, AAAARRRRRRGH!!! Of course there is some dynamism in some of the characters, but they are still pretty black and white in the sense that a character is either good or evil. It's not Star Wars, but it's not Tolstoy either.

One could argue Boromir is pretty much the same character from when he is introduced until he is killed. He has a moment of regret for trying to force Frodo but that's it. Frodo is a passive character most of the story. Aragorn walks around with the shards of Narsil the whole story telling anyone who'll listen that he's the heir to the throne of Gondor. PJ had the good sense to give him a real character arc and took stuff from the appendix to give him motive. Gandalf just becomes more focused. Merry and Pippin, maybe, but that can be argued that they just become knights out of the blue just to give them something to do rather than from any growth. Gimli and Legolas just represent their respective races but don't change. Gollum and Samwise are the only characters that have any real growth.

Don't get me wrong, I love all the characters, but I can still call a spade a spade. Tokien has never been known for creating complicated dynamic characters. The characters are what they need to be.

It's a Fantasy Adventure. It's about a little guy with furry feet who has to take a magic ring to be destroyed to defeat the bad guy. There's a secondary plot about an exiled heir to the throne reclaiming the kingship. That's it in a nutshell. The story and characters are relatively simple. You can read all you want into them, but what you see is basically what you get. It was written in the 40s-50s and they just plain weren't as cynical as we are today. It became popular in the 60s (ten years after it was published!) and pretty much established modern fantasy. That popularity did not come about because the publishers sold it well. It was all word of mouth. It would not have been as popular had Frodo failed. And on the off chance that it might have been, its word of mouth would have been about its hopelessness and futility. LOTR has never been sold (via word of mouth or by its publishers) as a story of futility. So, going in you know that he succeeds in his quest. If someone is näive enough where that is a spoiler then they are probably too young to be watching these films anyway. The fun is in how they do it.

What is complicated is the world in which it is set. All the stuff about Elves is background. If you want to dig deeper (which I do), there's plenty of depth in the background to give everything meaning. There's languages, histories, geographies, cosmologies, legends, etc. That is the genius of Tolkien. The sheer breadth of imagination and obsession to detail is awe inspiring. When you put it into perspective of Tolkien's entire life's work, it has many meaningful themes (principle among these is the transfer of Middle Earth from Elves to Men), but going back to my Saving Private Ryan metaphor, that film is about getting that young soldier out while the larger theme is the fight against evil and why we go to war. Tolkien's LOTR is a simple story with simple characters that illuminate a larger theme.

Inverse

Frodo's not complicated? Gollum's not complicated? Saruman's not complicated? I think maybe you need to read the books one more time. (Especially as you keep saying that Frodo succeeds, when of course ... well, we enter spoiler territory here.)

I think many people mistake Tolkien for a simplistic writer because they think the raw plot premise of the book (a clash of good and evil) can be taken as the true theme of the book.

The book isn't about good and evil at its heart. It's about loss, first and foremost, and about how loss is inevitable, even when you succeed. It's also about corruption, hope, despair, victory in the face of defeat (Field of Cormallon) and defeat in the face of victory (Mt. Doom, Scouring of the Shire). It's about free will and fate. It's about how heroes like Aragorn can be quite good at kicking ass and taking names, but the same time be totally incapable of dealing with the really important issues like the Ring. It's about how the important burdens of life are inevitably borne by the Frodos and Sams of the world, who are the real heroes despite their lack of a PR machine. It's about ...

Well, it's about quite a lot of things. But it isn't simple, and the complexities extend to much more than the languages and the geneologies in the back.

caligulathegod

ARRRRRGH! It's the ONE damned spoiler in the climax and everytime I try to avoid mentioning it get accused of not knowing the story. Frodo takes the Ring to Mt Doom and it gets destroyed. It's what he went for and it's what happens. I'm making a point of saying the Ring getting destroyed is not a spoiler but how it happens is. I "Keep saying" that? Did you read what I put under spoiler bars when I was accused of it the first time?As to the rest, I was making a point and feel I made it. I don't want to argue every statement to death. I never said that there weren't multiple complex themes. Just that the basic story itself is relatively simple and the characters are relatively simple. Sure they are well defined but this isn't James Joyce's Ullysses or Tolstoy's War and Peace. (and I included Gollum in my list of characters that ARE Dynamic. Please read closer next time) Please don't take my statements so damned literally. You know what I mean when I say they are relatively simple. Please don't put me in the position of arguing Tolkien in the negative.

Inverse

Whoops, sorry, caligula ... If we keep talking about the end of the book we should start a new thread with a spoiler warning, so we can talk freely!

I ramble on like this because I once thought exactly like you. The first time I read LOTR, I assumed it was a typical adventure tale with a typical adventure ending. But something seemed terribly wrong with the last part of ROTK. It just didn't fit.

After reading the book a couple of more times, I finally diagnosed the problem: me. I was uncomfortable with the ending because I hadn't allowed myself to actually accept it for what it was. I had been trying to fit the square peg of LOTR--an immensely complicated, idiosyncratic work--into the round hole of standard adventure fiction. It doesn't fit, it wasn't meant to fit, the reason the book is great is that it doesn't follow the standard blueprint.

We two are not alone in misunderstanding the end, of course. There are thousands of Tolkien imitators out there who earn their living by sanding down the square peg so it fits into the round hole. They do this by completely ignoring the last part of ROTK, as well as all the more melancholy and skeptical aspects of the rest of the book. This has resulted in thousands of adventure tales that follow the standard blueprint, with plenty of dancing Ewoks at the end. But you mustn't judge Tolkien himself by the works of his imitators.

Try this: read the books one more time, but this time *as a tragedy.* Because that's what a lot of it is, you know.

raithen

The basic story of Joyce's Ullysses, Tolstoy's War And Peace and Conrad's Heart Of Darkness are all simplistic. As I said previously, the themes are as complex or naive as you want them to be. If you dissect each book to its core components, you have the very basic themes of human nature - but what tends to distract a lot of people when they read Tolkien is the high fantasy and other-worldliness of the books. It is a little more difficult to immerse yourself into and take seriously a world of magic, elves, rings of power and goblins then it is to delve into turn of the century Dublin. That being said, if you honestly feel that Sam and Gollum are the only characters who undergo any significant transformation or growth/regression, I would say you need to read the books again more carefully. No offense of course.

I do agree that not every situation or character is a complex tapestry - but then, in life, there are those situations and persons who are shallow and single-purposed. Every book has its simpler themes and motivations - yes, even Ullysses. Will I argue that Frodo and Samwise are as in depth and fleshed out as Dedalus and Bloom? An emphatic no. But then again, Tolkien has inbued his world with an incredible amount of characters - some who are one-dimensional, some who are complex - and of course, has dealt with an incredible number of pressing themes and created a land as rich and vibrant in setting and narrative as anything ever imagined.

I think it is unfair to compare a work that focusses so keenly on a select few characters and then decry another work whose scope and content is so much larger that it cannot possibly focus (nor should it) the majority of its depth to such single purposes as an exploration of the streams of consciousness of 2 - maybe 3 - people.

Perhaps the multitude of characters in LOTR provide less clarity and realism as those in Joyce's work - but to say that his book is any less or more complex is a little difficult to swallow (for me anyway). How can one even compare as the books of each author are almost polar opposites in every facet?

I'll simply maintain that you're comparing apples and oranges and not giving even close to enough credit to Tolkien's depth. Black and white is the last thing I think about when describing LOTR.

To each his/her own though.

Cheers!

caligulathegod

Fine. I'm sorry. I'm 33 years old and haven't had English Lit in quite a few years. I grabbed 2 well regarded books out of a hat. Ullyses as an extreme example of its delving into a specific character with such complexity. I'm not saying Tolkien is a cartoon because he can't do that with his multitude of characters. I love Tolkien and understand what you are saying and in another context I'd be saying it myself. I was making a point and part of it has been taken out of context and it's escalated. I was only speaking of the basic story and basic characters to make a basic point. I was saying the sky is blue and you guys are arguing light scattering different wavelengths of the visible spectrum of radiation through the atmosphere absorbed by the rods and cones in our retinas give us the impression that the sky appears blue at certain times of day in certain weather so the sky is many shades of blue and grey or even orange or black and.... (now I'm going to get a treatise on that too)

I was distilling it down to its most simple elements. As you said, all stories can be distilled to simple elements as can characters. Of course all the characters have growth and the things that happen to them affect them. Sam, especially, goes through the most dynamic change. I'm only talking surfaces here to make a point. Saying the Ring getting destroyed is not a spoiler doesn't require micro-freaking-analysis. Please don't accuse me of not being capable of the microanalysis. Does every post involving Tolkien require 1000 word essays hitting every aspect of every element and every theme? Grrrr.

Mr. Cornell

Caligula: thanks for the pdfs as well!!

caligulathegod

NP.

Hey, tell you what. I'm in the middle of a move but give me a couple months to re-read the entire trilogy (last time was last March) and then we'll have a real conversation on this. I've been thinking and I think I can eventually prove my point but I don't want to do so from memory. Come March I'll either document what I'm saying or concede.

raithen

Yes, I did say that and I stand by it. The point, which I'll make again, is that any book can be deemed "black and white" if one is to distill the elements within to its basic core. Be it Ullysses, Heart Of Darkness, War And Peace, Don Quixote or whatever, each book can be broken down into simple components. But by doing so you've broken the very essence and the very point that each book is striving to tell.

Yes, the basic themes behind LOTR are those of good vs. evil, man vs. nature, industrialism vs. naturalism, etc. But of course, the themes and characters run much deeper than simple black and white - there are many shades of grey. Sure Sam is the best example of a character growing, but surely Frodo's descent into corruption is every bit as interesting and complex.

And bloody well yes, posts about Tolkien require 1000 word essays when you lay the gauntlet down by implying the book is naive and shallow in content. I might add that you have written just as much (if not more) in this thread then anyone else.

But anyway, I don't think it takes a degree in micro-analysis to realize that the book has tremendous depth, but as I made clear before: "To each his/her own". Your opinion is as valid as mine, I respect it, but I just don't necessarily agree with it. I think you're over-simplifying and I just wanted to give a counterpoint to that opinion.

Lastly, I'm 27 and haven't take English Literature in many years but I could really care less what books are highly regarded or despised. I understand how you were just picking books out of a "hat" for comparison, but I found Ullysses to be a tremendous bore and certainly wasn't illuminated by any of it - though I did find Conrad's Heart Of Darkness absolutely brilliant. So what? The books are completely different. Different goals, different styles, and different moral endings.

In the end, what is important is personal subjective opinion. If you only see a sky of blue, but we see a multitude of spectrums so be it. If you can rant, so can we.

Cheers!

-matt

Giantrobo

After finally having seen TTT...

My major criticism is with the editing. The film seemed to jump all over the place story wise but maybe that's just me.

I still liked it alot.


Ents =

caligulathegod

Yeah, my apologies. I got a little hot for being accused of what I didn't feel was correct (especially regarding the climax-twice { ! } ). What I actually meant might not have come out right and implied something that I didn't intend. I made an off hand reference that referred to one level of the story to make a point and it unfortunately escalated out of control. If anything, I was just talking about their basic good or evil qualities and not any deeper. While it is everything you say (and I myself say in every other occasion), it is also a story of good versus evil. I never once meant to imply that was all it was. It's just my words got taken too literally(and exclusively) and like an idiot, I tried to defend them and sank into a morass. I just didn't want to get into the position of taking the other side of a Tolkien argument. I prefer to just read it and learn and if I can, illuminate. Oh well, no hard feelings. Just don't think I'm an idiot who thinks it's a cartoon with nothing beneath its surface because of an offhand comment. I think I've contributed enough in this forum and DVDFile's to show how much I respect the story.

Whirled peas-

-Duane

ScandalUMD

To see homoeroticism in Tolkien is to completely misunderstand the work. Tolkien champions a pastoral pre-industrial England in his work, and, in order to do that, he has to justify the social structure that follows necessarily from such a society.

The England Tolkien mythologizes is intolerable from a modern liberal perspective. Royalty and aristocracy are a rigid system. Enfranchisement is passed down by birth and the low-born have no mobility.

Sam's fierce devotion to Frodo is Tolkien's way of justifying his idealization of a feudal society. The relationship between Frodo and Sam is, to Tolkien, an embodiment of the idealized relationship between master and servant.

Sam is implicitly an argument that the lower born classes are pleased with their role as servants and are dedicated to serving their betters. Frodo's affection toward Sam is that of a judicious master treating his servant kindly.

People who interpret this otherwise do so for their own political purposes.

Giantrobo

Plus, Tolkien was a Christian...

...they probably think it's gay because Elijah Wood comes across that way

raithen

Or, Sam could embody the fierce devotion soldiers have for their brothers in arms during The Great War - a conflict in which Tolkien himself took part in? Recall that all but one of his friends were killed during this period. World War I had a profound affect on J.R.R. Tolkien and his writings, which he even admits, owe a lot to the traumatic events in which he lived through.

That being said, I've never heard the interpretation you have suggested in this thread - that Tolkien idealized master/servant relationships or that he particularily approved of the feudal system as a way of governing the masses.

In fact, Tolkien even goes on at length that the book itself was merely an outlet for him to develop a "history" or "mythology" for England - something that the country does not have a rich abundance of. It was also a tool started to further his desire to create a language - that of elvish.

He has long maintained that his story was never intended to be allegorical or political. In fact, he despised the idea that his writings could be interpreted as either. While he did have a love of nature and distain for industrialization (a theme no doubt employed) - the book was never meant to be a treatise or political statement against this growing affliction.

I would be interested if you could provide sources where Tolkien himself alludes to what you have suggested here. Not saying you are wrong, it's just something I've never heard.

Lastly, while it is true that Tolkien was a devout Christian, and that there are some biblical parallels, the book owes as much to Norse, Arthurian, Finnish, and even Oriental myths (among many others). This was not a work created to push Christian ideals or any other religion.

I strongly recommend David Day's book Tolkien's Ring for background and insight into the origins and influences that comprised Tolkien's vision.

-matt

caligulathegod

From The Letters of Tolkien is a passage regarding his view on "Feudalism" and its affect on English social class distinctions.

Tolkien Letter 58 to Christopher Tolkien:
3 April 1944

ScandalUMD

Tolkien often claimed that "Lord of the Rings" is not meant to be allegorical, but it is one nonetheless. When he insisted it wasn't an allegory, he meant that his characters do not represent individuals or nations. It is not an allegory about World War II. Certainly, however, themes Tolkien believed in and ideas pertaining to his world view are prevalent in The Lord of the Rings.

Look, for examply, at the recurring theme of mercy; mercy toward Gollum, towards Wormtongue, towards Saruman. Though Tolkien expressly wished for Middle Earth to be a mythology independent of Christianity, this key Christian principle plays heavily and repeatedly within the story. Note also Gandalf's death and resurrection.

There is certainly an allegorical statement in Tolkien's condemnation of technology and industry. Tolkien's opinion of what industry did to the English countryside is well documented, and his opinions about machines are unambiguous in the books.

The very notion of mythologizing the English countryside is allegorical in itself because it romanticizes that era and, by extension the social structure that supported it.

The industrial revolution that Tolkien condemns was a democratic revolution which disrupted the aristocratic system of social immobility among the lower classes and of success through birth for the royalty.

In "Lord of the Rings," Tolkien implicitly supports such a system. Why is Aragorn better suited than Faramir to rule Gondor? The House of the Stewards was defending their beseiged country while the line of Elendil was tramping around in the woods. But Aragorn is of the royal bloodline, so of course Faramir must step aside. Tolkien even introduces an element of divine right by enabling Aragorn to ride through the Paths of the Dead.

Sam and Frodo, similarly, are not "brothers in arms." Sam is Frodo's servant. Frodo is master of Bag End by birth, and, by birth, Sam's job is to tend Frodo's garden. Sam is fiercely loyal and dedicated to his master, because he must be, or the aristocratic social structure Tolkien has aligned with the side of "good" is as problematic in Middle Earth as it is in reality.

Thus, Sam must be happy with his status as Frodo's gardener, and if Faramir must be willing to cede the throne of Gondor to Aragorn.

In any case, I doubt you'd agree with the idea that Tolkien intended to suggest Frodo and Sam are having gay sex.

Inverse

No, Frodo and Sam *are* brothers in arms. And Sam is, in fact, every bit as much a hero as as Frodo.



As for the idea that Sam is "kept in his place,"



Lord of the Rings is not a story about how a society fights off a threat and yet remains completely untouched. It's a story about how fighting off the threat changes the society, even such a sleepy, isolated society as the Shire. Which is the whole reason Tolkien put in "The Scouring of the Shire" in the first place.

caligulathegod

I'd even venture that Sam IS the hero of Lord of the Rings. The majority of the story is even told from his point of view.

chess

that was my take.

Duckie

One of the difficulties in discussing an adaptation with devotees of the original work is that the criticism gets misdirected. The film is not the book, and in any of my posts it is the existing film I am referring to. Call it 'blasphemous' if you like, but my reaction was not politically motivated.

ScandalUMD

I don't think it was Peter Jackson's intention to make them gay either. If it was, he wouldn't have shot the scenes with Sam and Rose Cotten at the beginning of the movie.