JMLEWIS1

truthfully, I didn't read this entire thread, but I thought I would add that I watched this movie with my husband - I've read the books (after I saw the first one) and he never has. I had to explain several things to him for him to really be able to enjoy it.

I think that to most people if you've read the books the movies are spectacular, if you haven't read the books the movies are average to a little above.

I think the most confusing things to someone who has never read the books would be:

*the difference between Saruman and Saron
*the significance of Aragon (for me Frodo was never really the main character, Aragon is the main character, but I understand that to most people who have only seen the movie it would appear that Frodo is the main character)
*the significance of the elves (particularly where they were sailing to, their place in history and the Arwen/Aragon relationship)
*the general significance of Gondor vs Rohan
*the reason Frodo keeps Gollum around (and also the internal conflict of Gollum vs Smeagol)
*the significance, not to mention magnificence, of the ents
*Gandalfs returns

I really can't think of any way that these things could have been adapted to the screen so that they would be fully understood without making a 10 hour movie.

I think Jackson did the best he could at explaining these things, but really, in order to really appreciate the movies, you must read the books.

These books come with pages and pages of indexes and appendixes. Not to mention the crazy number of characters. I doubt if anyone read the book without flipping back to reread something at least once. It makes since that the movies would be a little confusing and seem incomplete to some people.

Duckie

Probably not... either way it's just a scene in a film that has nuances which are open to interpretation. I'm not insisting that LOTR (the book) should top some newfangled list of gay lit. Really, I think of this 'gay' subtopic as just an amusing observation that's led to other points, but it's not that important in itself. As you say, it has no serious implication on Tolkien's original intent.

raithen

Tolkien himself admits that it is entirely possible that his writings were influenced by the events of WWI and WWII, but the book was not intended to be allegorical - and truth be told, it would be a poor one if it were to be.

Many point to the Scouring of the Shire as Tolkien's reaction to the devastated England after the War, but I tend to discount that allusion. He wanted to show the devastation that war has on a population - and the after affects. This is not a theme that is exclusive to only WWII - it is one that can be applied to any war.

Are you saying that mercy is an exclusively Christian "principle"? There are many myths, religions and stories that allude to this theme. While he was a devout Christian, and no doubt some of his beliefs may have influenced his writings, there are many other sources throughout his books that he plundered (and I say that as delicately as possible). Once again, I recommend the book Tolkien's Ring as it provides an in depth look as to what provided inspiration to the world of Middle-Earth (and beyond).

While Tolkien had much contempt for over-industrialization, he did not write Lord Of The Rings as an essay in opposition. And if we really want to get pedantic here, every author incorporates allegory into their work whether the want to or not - it's simply the byproduct of experience. You write what you know and what you feel - whether it's unconscious or not. But Tolkien maintains it was not a conscious decision to write an allegorical or referential body of work - and I'm willing to take his word for it. His primary goal was to establish an epic myth for Britain - so yes, allegory with the country of England was intentional. But politically charged allegory? I personally think that's a stretch.

Oh come on. It is allegorical only in the sense of setting. Hobbits do not represent the serf/landowner hierarchy, and certainly does not reflect on feudalism. Social structure? Romanticizing an era? If anything, Tolkien was romanticizing the countryside and nature. He was not attempting to put his stamp of approval on feudalism or romanticizing some kind of "glory" days of yore in merry olde England.

I'm sorry but I think you need to read the book again. If anything, Hobbits were a classless and very anti-hierarchical society - and if memory serves correctly, while he gushes over the Hobbits he plainly weaves his distain for humanity from the start. Aristocracy, nobility and the feudal class system is ever present in the human race in his books - yet the distain. So with that being said how does he "support" such a system?

Admittedly, there are Hobbits who are rich and those who are poor - and Sam Gamgee is an example of the latter. While he does "serve" Frodo (he's the gardener), he is not a slave - nor does he exclusively work for him.

Frodo was given Bag End by Bilbo - he was not the "master" of it, he merely inherited it. The position of owning that particular homestead was of no status beyond the fact that Bilbo managed to land some serious coin in a previous adventure.

Sam is fiercely loyal with Frodo because they are best friends. Yes there is a modicum of subservient behaviour displayed by the Gamgee's towards the Baggins, but how is that any different from present day society? Or Tolkien-day society? The bottom line is that Frodo and Sam are great friends, and the entire point of their journey is to prove that the bonds of friendship can overcome anything. Perhaps Sam feels that Frodo is his "master" to some degree, but there is a definite bond of loyalty through mutual love and affection (platonic of course!) for eachother.

I would think that most gardener's are happy with their status as gardeners - though I can't speak for them. As for Faramir ceding the throne - he was the steward of Gondor, not a King. But anyway, I fail to see how Tolkien implies the re-establishment of nobility in Gondor is representative of his desire for the restoration of nobility and the two tier class system in England.

Tolkien made it explicitly clear that Sam was not gay. As for Frodo, who knows?

-matt