Split Personality? [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

alatar

09-13-2007, 10:28 AM

So is there anyone who wants to argue in defense of Jackson's handling of Gollum/Sméagol in terms of the split personality? (Elempi is itching for a good debate, can you tell?)
Can't say that I'll provide good debate, but from a novice point of view (alatar pretends to never have read the Books before seeing RotK), I think that Peter Jackson was showing the anguish of the murder of Deagol in Smeagol/Gollum. From what I viewed, Smeagol was just an ordinary hobbit that just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sure, he could have used some sun and cucumber slices on the eyes, but he had friend, and that seemed like a sign of good character.

So in the heat of the moment he kills Deagol. Think that a good loyer could get him off with time served. It was the Ring, not he, that compelled the deed. Note that bringing Sauron to the stand to verify the power of the Ring may be interesting, but even Gandalf said that the Ring had a mind of its own and was evil.

So Smeagol, in what started as a simple case of misunderstanding, ends up killing Deagol, and by the time they wrestled on the ground, Smeagol acted in self defense as there was no way he was leaving that glade with knowledge of the Ring.

So he leaves everything behind and punishes himself with a self-imposed banishment, and his outward appearance reflects his guilt, shame and remorse. He's so distraught over the deed that he develops a split personality that allows Smeagol to function - Gollum is the bad guy who wanted the Ring and murdered Deagol, not Smeagol, and this is the way he lives, alone, keeping the killer Gollum away from everyone - except fish.

A few hundred years later, S/G is robbed by Bilbo Baggins ("Hey, I found your Ring on your lawn. Let's play a game so you can have a slim chance of getting your property back.") Smeagol tries to find the Ringstealer and ends up in Mordor - where else would someone with that evil Ring go? This torture furthers his split personality, as it allows him to deal with the pain (see the pattern?). From Mordor Gollum emerges dominant and so pursues Frodo. Frodo, after initially harming Gollum (see how Sam drags the creature) shows him some kindness, and this sign of love brings Smeagol to the fore.

The debate where Smeagol wins shows that with Frodo's acts of kindness, Smeagol was ready to reenter society and help this 'Deagol' with the Ring. It's not until Faramir and his boys mercilessly beat the small wretch does Gollum come back yet again. It's not an internal struggle but the outside world that brings on the G.

After that, as I've said, everyone is fair game. Even so, Smeagol still struggles with acquiring the Ring, harming Frodo and potting down Gollum. It could even be said that Gollum did not intend Shelob to kill Frodo - if Gollum could pass through her lair without harm, why not the hobbit with which he identified?

In the end, S/G just wants the Ring back. Does he fear Deagolling Frodo, and so if Gollum reclaims the Ring, he can yet again keep it secret and keep it safe? When he gets it, Smeagol comes back, happy for a moment, then it's a fall into lava, bringing healing to this poor creature.

PJ's Gollum is more sympathetic. The evil creature comes when the world calls it, not when Smeagol wills it, and as far as we know, there's only the blood of Deagol and fish on the creature's hands.

Sauron the White

09-13-2007, 11:02 AM

Alatar seems onto something here. I do think that Gollum suffers from a prolonged case (hundreds of years) of severe disassociative disorder. From too many movies, we get the idea that split personality is where two distinct personalities - almost two different people - can inhabit the same person. In many films, each of these personalities functions independently and with ignorance of the other. It is my understanding that such cases are the extreme of an extreme. Most disassociative disorders manifest themselves in far more subtle ways. The person is aware that sometimes they act differently but feel powerless to answer the question as to why. They sometimes develop complicated intellectual rationalizations or explainations for their behavior. Even in therapy, when confronted with the reality of a disassociative personality, the person still can seem puzzled and confused until they accept it.

I see the Jackson Gollum as someone who has undergone a stonge disassociative break and it has lasted hundreds of years. Frodo extends kindness and an offer of partial redemption to him and that causes the twinklings of the Smeagol personality to surface again after a long hiatus.

The debates with himself illustrate the conflict within the creature. Davem said it reminded him of the old cartoons with the devil on one shoulder and the angel on the other. That comparison suggests that there are three involved in that discussion - the good, the bad and the actual person in the middle who can then make a decision about which side to go with. In the Jackson films, there is no third in the middle. Its just a true disassociative disorder where one personality tries to control the person independent of the other.

One does not altogether cancel out the other. Even as Gollum extends a hand to Frodo on the stairway to Shelob - a positive gesture - , he looks at the Ring with wanton lust and desire. He could as just as quickly shoved Frodo off that winding stairway and climbed down to pick through his remains. But he did not.

Alatar mentions that the fall into lava brought healing to this poor creature. I would not agree with that characterization. That was not so much a healing as it was a simple finish to his life. A healing would have been the elimination of the Gollum side of his personality and a return to Smeagol. After hundreds of years and the effects of the Ring, that would have probably been impossible. Sam was probably right.

Boromir88

09-13-2007, 12:49 PM

From what I viewed, Smeagol was just an ordinary hobbit that just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.~alatar

In the films you are definitely left with that impression, but I don't think that is the right impression (of Gollum) to be leaving. Because not only does it create a wrong impression of Gollum but also misrepresents the Ring, and I also think causes some conflictions within the movie itself.

The Ring was without a doubt a factor with Smeagol. The Ring did take control. However, as Tolkien puts it in Letter 181, Smeagol would never have had to of endure such a test had he already not been 'predisposed' to evil:
'The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path.'
So, I think davem's visualisation is dead on (with the little angel and little devil). But the little devil already existed within Smeagol before coming across the Ring, and along with the Ring the little devil takes control over the weaker angel. As muc has the Ring was a factor, Smeagol's own 'evil' played just as big of a role (if not bigger) in his corruption to the Ring.

The movies give of a more sympathetic view of a nice little hobbit, living his own life, and he is thrust into an unfortunate situation that he loses control of. The Ring is a factor, but it is only half the story.

I understand Jackson maybe wanting to show Smeagol in a better light, showing him in a more sympathetic way. But the art of Tolkien, was that not only does he present Smeagol as this vicious mean-spiritted character that is out to 'throttle' the Hobbits. But he is also able to strike up pity and sympathy:
'Gollum!' cried Frodo. 'Gollum? Do you mean that this is the very Gollum-creature that Bilbo met? How Loathsome!'
'I think it is a sad story,' said the wizard, 'and it might have happened to others, even to some hobbits that I have known.'~The Shadow of the Past
We have Frodo come in, not understanding Gollum's full story, who just decides he's an evil wretch that should be killed. But, then Gandalf enters in with the sympathetic view of 'No, it's a sad story' and that this very think could have happened to others. Then Gandalf finishes up with, one day perhaps Frodo could understand:
'You ought to begin to understand, Frodo, after all you have heard,' cried Gandalf. 'He hated and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.'~ibid
The ring does take over Gollum's will, but Gollum himself is just as much to blame for that as was the Ring. Frodo does end up understanding, and why Frodo is able to pity him once he actually does see him. So, Tolkien does create a sympathetic view for Gollum, even amongst all the 'evil' Gollum committed, and the bad light Gollum is put it.

I think the way Jackson shows it is just too simplistic, yes it does strike up more sympathy for Gollum, but the whole 'little hobbit running into a wrong situation at the wrong time' is just too simple. Also, it creates some conflictions in the movie which leaves viewers rather confused.

Jackson talked about why he had Faramir bring the Ring to Osgiliath and not reject the Ring in Hennuth Annun like Faramir had done in the books. He said that he thought Faramir's rejection of the Ring (in the books) lessened the power of the Ring, and he didn't want to go in that direction. So we have the whole Osgiliath business. But, I take a different view from Jackson's interpretation, it's not that the Ring's strength was lessened by Faramir's rejection of it, but it shows how strong of a character Faramir actually was; as opposed to his brother who was supposedly the 'hardier and better' of the two...indeed the 'best in Gondor.' So, when I view the scene I don't think 'wow the Ring is just so strong and powerful' I think 'Wow, Faramir is weakened.'

Plus Jackson shows moments where the Ring was rejected (by Gandalf and Galadriel) and he also throws in a made up moment where Aragorn rejects the Ring and sends Frodo 'away.' So, we have conflicting moments here of Jackson saying he wants to show the power and influence of the Ring...and that's why he has Faramir originally be tempted by it, then he makes up his own scene of Aragorn rejecting the Ring. Just doesn't make any sense and leads to confusions (which is why there have been so many questions regarding the Ring in various forums...probably just as many as Balrogs :rolleyes:).

Sauron the White

09-13-2007, 01:24 PM

The movies give of a more sympathetic view of a nice little hobbit, living his own life, and he is thrust into an unfortunate situation that he loses control of. The Ring is a factor, but it is only half the story.

In the film we see Deagol get the ring. Smeagol simply has to look upon it and the worse side of his nature comes out very quickly. Within moments he has murdered.

Question: why was Deagol not so negatively impacted by his possession of the ring? Why later is Bilbo not suddenly turned evil when he gets the ring in his possession? Why is Frodo able to retain his essential goodness despite having the ring?

Perhaps the answer is in the character of the one who has it. Smeagol was most likely not a very nice person to begin with -- of course in the film we know nothing of his background -- but it is interesting that the appeal to his darker nature is instant while with the others it does not happen that way.

I do not think Jackson needed to have big arrows and neon signs or a five minute additional backstory telling us that Smeagol was not so good to begin with but it is implied when you contrast the behavior of the other ring holders.

Meriadoc1961

09-13-2007, 02:47 PM

Very interesting comments from all. My answer will be much simpler: I, too, thought the portrayal of Gollum/Smeagol was probably the best and truest to form adaptation from the book character into the movie. So I can not say I have a preference.

I hated that Hennuth Annun beating of Gollum, which is just another example of how Jackson ruined the Faramir character. Faramir, even more so than Aragorn, has always been my favorite man character in the books.

Merry

MatthewM

09-14-2007, 02:39 PM

Interesting, I like that interpretation. And davem talking about Frodo's 'writhing' reminded me of Boromir's own struggle with the Ring. And I think Boromir's situation is much like Gollum's, only Boromir's impulses are a bit different.

I can't see Boromir's situation at all like Gollum's, excluding the fact that they both wanted the Ring. Their situation is entirely different, with completely different motives. Boromir also repents in the end, and Gollum as we know fails and falls.

Boromir's flaw of pride is entirely different. He was a warrior. Fighting for Minas Tirith is what Boromir lived for. He never commited murder in the sense that Gollum did, he was not shunned from his society as Gollum was in his younger days. Quite the opposite, Boromir was Gondor's "celebrity". Another huge difference- Gollum was a treacherous murderer, evil from the start. Boromir was never evil. The Ring tipped him to the edge, playing on his pride, his initial good intentions for his home. The Ring also played on Sam's intentions in just the same way, although Sam, obviously not having Boromir's way of life and status, was able to resist it. I also would not say that Boromir was "too weak"...his motives were just entirely different...the Ring played on him best.

Boromir88

09-14-2007, 04:43 PM

Matthew, well I wasn't exactly meaning that Boromir was a vicious and hated murderer, I meant that what they had gone through (with the Ring) was rather similar. They both faced the same struggle, there were just some different impulses between the two.

Smeagol wanted the Ring as a birthday present. Boromir wanted to use the Ring as a weapon and thereby win 'glory.' So, yes their impulses were different, but the way the Ring used them all the same.

Boromir was 'predisposed' to the temptation of the Ring, just as Gollum was, because of his personality. The difference is Smeagol already had seeds of evil, even before coming across the Ring, which is my guess as to why he almost instantly kills for it and instantly starts using the Ring for 'malicious and wicked' purposes.

Boromir already had his own weaknesses, which made him a target of the Ring, even before coming across it. Gondor was bearing the brunt of Sauron's attacks, he loved Gondor, he wanted victory for Gondor, he was also a 'glory-seeker,' and this is what the Ring uses to corrupt Boromir. The Ring used different ways to 'woo' Boromir and Smeagol, but in the end it's all the same. Boromir falls to the lust of the Ring just as Smeagol did.

We can look at a character such as Denethor who was like Boromir 'in face and pride'. Also as mad as Denethor became, he never gave up in the struggle against Sauron (until the very end when his mind was overthrown), because he, like Boromir, loved his country. Denethor doesn't even come close to seeing the Ring, yet he desires it:
'Nay it should have been kept, hidden, hidden dark and deep. Not used, I say, unless at the uttermost end of need, but set beyond his grasp,...'~The Siege of Gondor
So, there are people who are simply predisposed to the corruption of the Ring; because of their desires.

The point in comparing Smeagol and Boromir was that their character before even knowing about The One Ring is what made them targets of the Ring. The Ring doesn't create any impulses within the individual, it uses what's already there. The Ring didn't create 'Gollum' in Smeagol, Gollum was already there:
'The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path.'
The Ring didn't create any impulse for Boromir to use it as a weapon in defeating Sauron and winning his own glory. The Ring used those impulses already in him. Just as Denethor already wanted to use the Ring and he never even saw it. It didn't even have to be a Ring, bottomline is Boromir and Denethor would have used anything that promised them victory over Sauron. It could have been a chicken foot, if that chicken foot could be used to destroy Sauron, Boromir and Denethor would have wanted to use it.

Boromir also repents in the end, and Gollum as we know fails and falls.
But what would have happened to Boromir had he gotten the Ring and held it in his possession for over 500 years?
'He would have stretched out his hand to this thing, and taking it he would have fallen. He would have kept it for his own, and when he returned you would not have known your son.'~The Siege of Gondor
Would he have been able to repent that easily? Boromir repents because the Ring is out of his presense. Gollum possessed the Ring for over 500 years, a bit different.

He never commited murder in the sense that Gollum did...
He very easily could have had Frodo not been smart and kept a large rock between him and Boromir; and then was able to escape. The Ring has a tendency to get people to act in ways they normally wouldn't. Look at Bilbo he's ready to fight Gandalf over the Ring (that's certainly un-bilbo like). Boromir was consumed by a madness:
He rose and passed his hand over his eyes, dashing away the tears. 'What have I said?' he cried. What have I done? Frodo, Frodo!' he called. 'Come back! A madness took me, but it has passed. Come back!'~The Breaking of the Fellowship
This is just my own personal interpretation, but I imagine Smeagol's situation quite the same. The Ring got Smeagol into this 'blinding rage' and Deagol was unable to get away. Boromir was in this same rage, lucky for Frodo (and him), Frodo (and the Ring) were able to escape. When the Ring's out of Boromir's grasp, the madness passes. What would have happened had Deagol been able to get away? Smeagol may have been a 'mean son of a thief' but he was no murderer before coming across the Ring.

I also would not say that Boromir was "too weak"...his motives were just entirely different...the Ring played on him best.
But Galadriel, Elrond, and Gandalf all had the same desires as Boromir did. They too wanted to use the Ring as a weapon, but they all came to the conclusion this was not the answer and so were able to reject the Ring. True they are the 'wise' ones, but hey Sam, Faramir, and even Isildur to a point, all reject the Ring. Yes, there is an evil that the Ring exudes, but the individual has just a big of a part to play. Which is why there are characters (such as Smeagol, Denethor, and Boromir) who are targets of The Ring (or anything 'powerful' that would give them what they want), who all fall to the Ring.

littlemanpoet

09-14-2007, 06:31 PM

Alatar, an interesting reading. Almost persuasive. However, it reveals a PJ Sméagol of modernist, overly psychologized sensibilities. I find the Tolkien version more subtle and true to life.

SaurontheWhite, my problem with what you say is that PJ claims to have tried to stay true to the theme and spirit of Tolkien's books, and utterly failed to do so. I don't think PJ was trying to undermine Tolkien's LotR; rather, he just didn't really "get it", and under the rationale of trying to "make a good movie" and "tell a better story" (yes, he actually said that), he ruined Faramir, psychologized Gollum, Gollumized Frodo, demeaned Sam with a supposed "Gollum rivalry", and demeaned Aragorn's nobility. PJ just doesn't get it. I'm glad he won't be doing The Hobbit, although I don't hold great hopes for that "interpretation" either. :rolleyes:

Boromir was 'predisposed' to the temptation of the Ring, just as Gollum was, because of his personality. Whereas I agree with most things you have said on this thread, I must disagree with this because the logical implication is that some personalities are not disposed to the temptation of the Ring. This cannot be true because Tolkien makes it quite clear that no-one is safe, certainly not even Gandalf. "Do not tempt me, Frodo!"

Every character in LotR had desires. The Ring's modus operandus is to work on them. Sam dreams of becoming "The Great Gardener". Boromir imagines himself as the revered savior of Gondor. Saruman wants to be the new and better Sauron. Denethor wants to secure the Ring to overthrow the old supposedly extinct line of the ancient kings and set up his own line as the new kings of Gondor. Frodo wants to be home safe. Gollum unabashedly wants the Ring to slake his lust for riches.

So the success of some characters in rejecting the Ring is not based in personality, but in will. Frodo, though repeatedly tempted by the Ring, fell to the temptation only a few times because his will was strong enough to hold firm, though weakening as the Ring approached Mordor and strengthened. Gollum was predisposed to murder for the sake of the Ring because he had already committed evil and had a will to do more evil.

No personality is immune. Every character in Middle Earth, having desires, would have had choices to make when/if confronted by the Ring. The test of their character would be whether they had the will to withstand the temptation or not. This is one thing PJ just didn't portray with any consistency.

Nogrod

09-14-2007, 07:17 PM

I do agree with you Boromir with the point that the Ring wanted different things with different creatures it fell upon. But it's aim stood the same all the way even if it had to apply different tactics with different chances it was given.

I'm not sure if I'm corrupted by PJ's films but I do tend to think the One Ring is a power of it's own as well - even if in the end swaying to the ways of its master Sauron - and ready to use whatever way it has to attract creatures to be found. And there is also the kind of fatalistic world-view of Gandalf and others (Tolkien!) which leads us to think that everything that happens happens for a purpose eg. every encounter with the ring is somehow predetermined.

So the Ring might take on the creed or vanity of Gollum in the beginning - or of Bilbo as well. But what it transformed Gollum during the decades into is another matter and why it didn't manage to wield Bilbo under it's command...?

With Isildur and Boromir the temptation is somewhat different from Gandalf, Galadriel or Elrond as they know more and decide not to lay their finger on it. After a struggle against yeilding to the will of the Ring (or Sauron) - or to the temptation of the power of the good - the latter refuse and the former try to conquer.

To Gollum it gave security and during the centuries identity as one who is not seen and who does not want to be seen. To Boromir it offered a way to defeat the enemy under the pressure of his father. To Gandalf or Galadriel it represented the frightful power which might win but also consume the one who used it and thus turn evil with the power of the power.

Also the ring had different ways of catching the "mighty" than catching the "non-cognizants". To an average person it promised success, to a military leader it promised victory but to the wise it promised the final frontier. Although "wisdom" seems not to be the key here as Sam was not a "wise-hobbit" even if he was the most imortant person in the story, "Samwise" indeed and practically was the "wisest" of all (well, that's just my opinion).

~~*~~

But coming to the original question...

In the end I think Tolkien was working around the themes of acceptance and power, of the difference between personal identity and the communal approval of what one has to do, of the challenge between personal liberty and responsibility in face of others, of personal might and duty vs. surrender, believing in one's own cause against all the odds and the personal survival vs. the inevitable-loking fate of death (that it must have felt in the trenches).

It's easy to see why Isildur or Boromir are so real. Looking at the trenches of the WW1 kind of makes it paranoically real.

Would you use a ring to make you invisible in a war? Would you use a ring that would quarantee a good fighting position against an overwhelming enemy? Would you use a Ring to make sure the enemy does not run through your trenches or nail all of you down with their artillery or machine-guns when you attack?

Would you use a ring if you knew - or believed - that the enemy might use your ring-gathered force against you?

Could you say no to the Ring?

Would you dream of the ring that made you invisible or all powerful?

Sauron the White

09-15-2007, 06:43 AM

from littlemanpoet

PJ just doesn't get it. I'm glad he won't be doing The Hobbit, although I don't hold great hopes for that "interpretation" either.

Bill Clinton made headline when he said "it depends on what the meaning of is is".
So with this issue I guess it depends on what the meaning of IT is. Did Jackson get IT in the same way that so very much of the book purist community gets IT? Obviously not. Of course, I am sure that that same book purist community does not get IT referring to the process of making a motion picture that is successful and is seen by a wide audience.

I am sure that Jackson and his team will tell you that they most certainly did get IT and tried to portray IT as best as they could within the confines of a film. But like Clinton, its probable that the Jackson definition of IT is a whole lot different than the book purist community definition of IT.

Lets face it - nobody ever really thinks they are wrong. Especially when the world seems to validate your efforts with money, critical praise and industry awards.

Lalwendë

09-15-2007, 08:34 AM

Maybe I should bring my old signature back from the dead than. :p

I was more impressed by Andy Serkis' performance than anything else. I got the sense that not only was he committed and liked doing what he did (eventhough if it meant wading down a quasi-frozen river several times until the scene was 'right' for Peter Jackson). But also when he talked about the Ring being like a 'drug' (or anything for that matter which creates an addiction) was a nice way of describing the 'lust' of the Ring. Basically, I got the sense that Serkis understood his character and liked what he was doing, so Gollum came off well. (I have no clue where Jackson - or whoever decided - got the idea for Gollum's appearance, but whatever).

Yes, what brought Gollum to life was that superior performance by Andy Serkis - but then he is one of our best actors, and quite under-rated to my mind, mostly as he usually sticks to low budget films/TV - he is simply ace in 24 Hour Party People. :cool: I've been thinking recently that the CGI on Gollum is starting to look dated already! Which is not to say the CGI was bad (oh no) just that it has moved on in leaps and bounds since then - what will 'hold' the portrayal in years to come is the work of Andy Serkis. Funny to think that he based a lot of the voice on the sound of a cat coughing up a furball (whereas Viggo Mortensen no doubt did not have that in mind when he said Mordor/Morgul/Whateveritwas in that funny way).

But anyway...

To my mind, the portrayal of Gollum could have been done in any number of ways. We're discussing if PJ kept to the way it was done in the books, but none of us have ever, and will ever agree on Gollum's character anyway. The 'split personality' reading is one that some people get from the books anyway, as is the idea that the Ring was the primary corrupting force behind Gollum's drive.

Jackson of course was working in film, an unsubtle medium, and had to settle on a defined way of explaining Gollum and his motivation. Tolkien had the luxury of some 1,000 pages in which to be ambivalent.

I do find it fascinating that so many people I know who have never read the books, found the character of Gollum as seen in the films as 'cute'; surely there's some meat for discussion in that?

littlemanpoet

09-15-2007, 11:03 AM

Bill Clinton made headline when he said "it depends on what the meaning of is is".I hope it doesn't come as a surprise to you that this was not a stellar moment for Mr. Clinton, as there is only one meaning of the word, "is".

So with this issue I guess it depends on what the meaning of IT is."IT" is Tolkien's themes and spirit, which PJ said he was trying to emulate.

Did Jackson get IT in the same way that so very much of the book purist community gets IT? Obviously not. Of course, I am sure that that same book purist community does not get IT referring to the process of making a motion picture that is successful and is seen by a wide audience. If "purist" means "true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien", then I gladly accept the appellation. The point is that PJ said he was trying be true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien, and completely failed. I was actually cutting him slack by suggesting that he didn't really know what he was doing. LotR is not merely an "action/adventure" flick, even though PJ stamped it that way for millions of viewers. When the story Tolkien wrote didn't fit the genre clichés, PJ decided that Tolkien was wrong and "improved" the story. Frustrating.

I am sure that Jackson and his team will tell you that they most certainly did get IT and tried to portray IT as best as they could within the confines of a film. But like Clinton, its probable that the Jackson definition of IT is a whole lot different than the book purist community definition of IT.You do not help your case by invoking Clinton's Saruman-like blandishment on truth and fact. And all I can say to your probability is, "more's the pity".

Lets face it - nobody ever really thinks they are wrong. Especially when the world seems to validate your efforts with money, critical praise and industry awards.
This does not speak highly of the world.

As to why Gollum looks like he does in the movies, PJ's original intention was to have him look like the classical representation from the books; but when Andy Serkis did such an amazing job of acting the part, PJ asked his animators to mix together Gollum with Serkis' own face. The result was to create a face from Gollum that reminded Serkis of his own grandfather.

Funny, I found the "cat coughing up a hairball" speaking technique for Gollum in the movie to be difficult to understand, distracting, and unfortunate. Ah well. Minor issue.

"Cute!?!" What a shame. No, I cannot accept that the medium alone explains all the differences as "necessary". There are too many movies made that are too well done for that to explain the entirety of why (not if) the movies are inferior to the books.

Sauron the White

09-15-2007, 01:23 PM

littlemanpoet .......... I remember my early high school English courses where we were asked to read some classic story and surprisingly enjoyed it. At least we thought we did. Because, much to our collective surprise, we often found out that the story we thought we read was not really what it was about. There were all these deep and dark secret themes, messages, double and triple meanings, allegories, metaphors and other stuff that the teacher soon held court expounding upon. We read a story and liked it for what we thought it was only to be told "you stupid idiots --- its not that at all". By the time most of us got to be seniors our attitude was "screw it - just tell me what you think it was so I can throw it all up back on the test."

So once again, the ugly and smug head of superiority and purity raises its head in these discussions. Once again the Enlightened Gaurdians of the true themes and spirt of JRTT look down their aristocratic noses upon the great unwashed and pronounce them as sad and pathetic creatures beneath contempt for their ignorance and intellectual poverty.

It has been my understanding that each person brings to the table what is in themselves and uses that to experience what they encounter in life. When I read a book, and you or others read a book, we do not always walk away with the same opinion. At least not if we are thinking people who have not been programmed, educated or outright brainwashed to the ways of proper and acceptable thinking.

Lalwendë

09-15-2007, 04:58 PM

lmp - I agree with you that I don't read Lord of the Rings as an action/adventure either, but to be fair on PJ, not every book fan is like us! For one, a friend of mine says he enjoys the action and the adventure most of all in the story, and that's what he centres on (plus he likes all the weapons ;) ) - he hasn't seen the films for the simple fact that he's blind!

I wonder how much PJ brought out the other aspects that we get from the book? Maybe only someone who saw the films first could answer that properly as we will have watched with 'an agenda', like it or not!

I also wonder how someone who was introduced to Tolkien via the films first would see Gollum in the text? More or less sympathetically? My own personal introduction to the fella was via the pages of the Hobbit and although I found him really frightening because he had scared poor Bilbo to death, after reading Rings I began to find him much more sympathetic and began to feel quite sorry for him - and over time this feeling has only grown. Would my reaction be more or less like someone who met him via the films?

Sir Kohran

09-15-2007, 05:00 PM

So once again, the ugly and smug head of superiority and purity raises its head in these discussions. Once again the Enlightened Gaurdians of the true themes and spirt of JRTT look down their aristocratic noses upon the great unwashed and pronounce them as sad and pathetic creatures beneath contempt for their ignorance and intellectual poverty.

I'm afraid that there's quite a bit of snobbery from many Tolkien fans where the movies are concerned; their constant statements that their interpretations of the story are 'right' and PJ's and the rest of the world's are 'wrong' are annoying - for instance, in the book the hobbits' room in The Prancing Pony is attacked and vandalised. The book leaves the incident unclear - we don't know if it was the Wraiths' agents or the Riders themselves that attacked. PJ chose the latter option. Anything wrong with that? No, he just chose one of two perfectly possible options. However, one raving book fan on a different site said that having Mordor agents in Bree being mentioned in the previous chapter was 'undoubtedly' foreshading to the attack and therefore PJ was 'wrong' to have the Riders do it. :rolleyes:

Lalwendë

09-15-2007, 05:12 PM

I'm afraid that there's quite a bit of snobbery from many Tolkien fans where the movies are concerned; their constant statements that their interpretations of the story are 'right' and PJ's and the rest of the world's are 'wrong' are annoying

Why are they annoying when they are right? :P

*this is tongue in cheek*

Remember, Tolkien fans are uber-nerds, so getting pedantic about the films was an inevitability. I do try to pick up on those things which I've seen or heard those who aren't into the books criticise as inconsistent or shoddy - though I can't honestly say I always do that - but I try to be balanced ;)

And the guy on t'other forum was wrong anyway...Meh.

Boromir88

09-15-2007, 07:07 PM

Whereas I agree with most things you have said on this thread, I must disagree with this because the logical implication is that some personalities are not disposed to the temptation of the Ring.~Elempi
Good point, and nice post. I think the one exception to this would be Tom Bombadil though.
You will notice that though the Ring is a serious matter and has great power for all the inhabitants of the world of The Lord of the Rings even the best and most holy, it does not touch Tom Bombadil at all.~The Lord of the Ring's Companion: Letter to Christopher Fettes, 1961
If we think about the Ring, it is about mastery and control. Mastery over your foes, of power, of wealth,...etc whatever you desire. The Ring is about having control. Well this has no effect on Tom, because Tom somehow has achieved his own self-mastery. (Goldberry and even Tom himself says 'He is Master'). So, anything that relies on control (such as the Ring) has no effect on Tom:
'No,' said Gandalf 'not willingly. He might do so, if all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand the need. And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe guardian; and that alone is answer enough.'~The Council of Elrond
Good point, but I would say Tom B. is the one exception. :)

But what it transformed Gollum during the decades into is another matter and why it didn't manage to wield Bilbo under it's command...?~Nogrod
Bilbo was just falling under the control of the Ring, he was:
'Thin and stretched he said. A sign that the ring was getting control.'~The Shadow of the Past
But Bilbo had acquired the Ring out of pity and because he acquired the Ring out of good intent, it took longer for the Ring to get a hold over Bilbo. Bilbo is never able to completely forget about the Ring, but he was the only person (up to that point) who had willingly given it up after possessing it.

Let me first start off, before I say anything else, by saying I've really enjoyed this discussion so far. I would hate to see it be reduced and squelched into a 'purists are snobs' and 'filmists are ignorant know-nothings.' So lets just stop assuming those two things and get to the discussion.

Obviously the movies are very popular, and there are a lot of people who love them. I'm sure those who do have good reasons for liking the movies. But it doesn't matter how popular a movie is or how many awards its won, there's still going to be people who don't like them. If posts can be made about how great Peter Jackson was in making the films, I expect the same treatment be shown to his critics. This is a forum, not a consensus. As popular as the books were, before anyone even considered making them into movies, Tolkien had his fair share of critics. I don't agree with them, but there have been several good critics who have supported their opinions. We all have different tastes. Ok with that out of the way...

There is a difference between 'interpretation' and an outright alteration. With interpretation, the same end is reached, it's just how that end is reached which is what makes one interpretation different from the other. Many of our popular folktales (Little Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel...etc) have a variety of interpretations.

As an example, I'll take Wolfgang Petersen, who directed Troy. Troy was slammed by critics for not being historically accurate and for it becoming 'Hollywoodized.' In many ways they are probably right that it was Hollywoodized, but here is an example of interpretation. We all know the story of Achilles being shot in the heel with an arrow and he dies.

The Greek interpretation was that he was dipped in the River Styx and the only part that wasn't was the heel that his mother held him by. So, when he's shot in the heel he dies.

Petersen shows a different, more modernized interpretation that takes out the 'Gods.' And I absolutely love what Petersen does, he keeps in the importance in the belief of the Gods in his movie, but he takes 'myth' out of the story and creates a new interpretation. In the movie, Achilles is first shot by 3 arrows in the chest, and then one in the heel. Super-man hunk Brad Pitt is able to pull out the 3 arrows in his chest, but doesn't pull out the one in his heel. When the soldiers come to see their unstoppable killing machine dead, the only arrow that remains is the one in the heel...ahh.

That is interpretation, the same conclusion is reached...Achilles dead and an arrow in his heel. How Achilles reached his end is the various interpretations. Did Petersen make changes to the Iliad, he sure as heck did. But he knew he was making very well the type of movie he was making and never made the boastful claims that he thought he was improving the story.

Basically, I fail to see out of the books, how Jackson 'interpretted' Sauron as an eyeball, or the Mouth of Sauron goes back to Mordor without a head, or Saruman and Gandalf have a wizard duel, or Saruman shoots a fireball and falls to a spikey death, or Gimli is a belching cheap comedic character, or Denethor is an incompetant punching bag for a wizard, or Gandalf getting completely owned by the Witch-King, or a bunch of Elves teleporting there way to Helm's Deep, or there is some Uruk leader named Lurtz...these are not 'interpretations' they are complete changes. And these are the ones that just sprung into my head within a couple minutes.

Sauron the White

09-15-2007, 07:28 PM

from Boromir88

or a bunch of Elves teleporting there way to Helm's Deep, or there is some Uruk leader named Lurtz...

I have seen TTT more than 20 times and I never saw any teleportation in that film.

The Uruks did not have any leaders in the field? Your objection is to one of them actually having a name? And this name - Lurtz - when is that spoken in the film?

But he knew he was making very well the type of movie he was making and never made the boastful claims that he thought he was improving the story.

In the final analysis, this then seems to be Jacksons greatest and most serious sin in the eyes of the True Believers and Tolkien Purists. He actually had the temerity to believe that he could improve upon Holy Writ. Did he not know that he was dealing with the equal of sacred scripture written with the aid of Divine Inspiration?

Last time I looked JRRT was a human being and his work - as great as they are - were and are not perfect. What is so wrong with feeling that you can imporve upon something? In fact, if a filmmaker does not believe he cannot improve in some way upon the written text, they probably should let someone else do it.

littlemanpoet

09-16-2007, 06:35 AM

ugly and smug ... look down their aristocratic noses ... contempt for their ignorance ... programmed, educated or outright brainwashed Perhaps you might like to dispense with the "name calling" and stick to arguments? I harbor no ill will toward you personally, but I hold a strong opinion. I would appreciate the same respect in return.

Sauron the White

09-16-2007, 08:01 AM

lettlemanpoet...

Rather than name calling I was simply commenting on the tone of your reply which is typified by this comment regarding the world response to the Jackson LOTR films

This does not speak highly of the world.

I do find that to be smug and very condescending. Forget that the world made the LOTR films a great financial success because the world is wrong. Forget that the LOTR films recieved an extremely high level of professional ciritical acclaim because the world is wrong. Forget that the LOTR films won a ton of awards from many professional groups because they are wrong too.

And who is right?

A very small cadre of pretend Tolkien intellectuals who read the same publications, attend the same conferences, share each others group think idealogy and see themselves as the Defenders of the Faith.

If you do not think that comes across in spades in your posts and others who share your approach, perhaps you need to go back and read some again.

You want to argue on the merits? Fine. I asked you specifically where you got off criticizing the teleportation devices in TTT when they are none in the film ... BUT ... you ignored it. I asked you about the Lurtz name objection that you voiced ... BUT ... you ignored that.

Lalwendë

09-16-2007, 08:19 AM

A very small cadre of pretend Tolkien intellectuals who read the same publications, attend the same conferences, share each others group think idealogy and see themselves as the Defenders of the Faith.

Oh there's nothing like that :) Even in the Tolkien Society, which is very small, there are huge differences of opinion. I can imagine the usual debates about Balrog Wings have been happening this very weekend! Plus this most 'bookish' of societies also has plenty of film fans - you can buy all manner of film stuff at Oxonmoot and there are usually talks about the films. At the Birmingham event in 2005 the most popular talk was one by Alan Lee (who I met - he is lovely) about his artwork for the films - people had to be turned away! And they showed the films on a loop in a special overnight showing; apparently someone came in and started ranting about the films being terrible and he was met with a hail of abuse and popcorn before being bodily ejected from the room ;)

I'm sorry if you think there's a divide, as there isn't really in my mind. I enjoy much about the films despite them not being 'as good' as the books for me - I've collected a lot of film memorabilia for example, including around 90 action figures.

I think the teleportation joke about the Elves is a fair point - after all, exactly how did they get to Helm's Deep, sneaking past that huge army of Uruk Hai? ;)

MatthewM

09-16-2007, 08:48 AM

Like lmp said, everyone was subject to the Ring's power. It played on others different. Yes, Boromir's motives made him vulnerable from the start- however, I still would not compare Boromir and Gollum so closely. Their situations are completely different, and although they both wanted the Ring, they are on opposite spectrums. You know when someone is so bent on making connections between things to fit what they want to see? That is how I feel about someone trying to compare Boromir and Gollum. The only thing similiar to me is that they both fall to the Ring at some point.

But what would have happened to Boromir had he gotten the Ring and held it in his possession for over 500 years?

That's a rather un-fair question though, isn't it? Boromir probably would not have been able to keep it that long, as he is completely different than Gollum and he is a warrior who would be so often in battle that the chances of loosing the Ring would have been that much greater than spending all your days in a cave.

Would he have been able to repent that easily? Boromir repents because the Ring is out of his presense. Gollum possessed the Ring for over 500 years, a bit different.

We all know Faramir's words, and yes, Boromir would have been different, doubtless. He would be carrying the Ring of Power, making him subject to none. But you isolate Boromir here. Anyone who claimed the Ring would be changed and different.

He very easily could have had Frodo not been smart and kept a large rock between him and Boromir; and then was able to escape. The Ring has a tendency to get people to act in ways they normally wouldn't.

Yet it didn't happen, and "murderer" was not one of Boromir's qualities.

What would have happened had Deagol been able to get away? Smeagol may have been a 'mean son of a thief' but he was no murderer before coming across the Ring.

Smeagol's murderous tendencies were still there. He was evil at the start. If Deagol escaped, he probably would have found him again and murdered him anyway.

Which is why there are characters (such as Smeagol, Denethor, and Boromir) who are targets of The Ring (or anything 'powerful' that would give them what they want), who all fall to the Ring.

Yet they all would have fallen to the Ring. Even Faramir eventually would have fallen. These "targets for the Ring" were simply the first round of combatants if the Ring was not destroyed.

Although I agree with parts of your post, I still can't compare Boromir's situation to Gollum's. They are so different, in my opinion.

Boromir88

09-16-2007, 10:04 AM

You want to argue on the merits? Fine. I asked you specifically where you got off criticizing the teleportation devices in TTT when they are none in the film ... BUT ... you ignored it. I asked you about the Lurtz name objection that you voiced ... BUT ... you ignored that.~Sauron
That was me who brought up that stuff, not elempi. :)

Anyway, as Lal said, the teleportation was a joke to poke fun at exactly how the Elves got there. As it creates a distance problem with the movies. (One noticed not just be the 'book people' but many many movie fans who question the same thing). In the movies Gimli at the beginning of TTT says they have been on pursuit for 3 days (this would be from about Amon Hen and into Rohan).

The Elves presumably came from Lothlorien, which is much farther than the distance Aragorn et all were able to travel in '3 days.' Yet in the films the Elves manage to arrive their overnight? Plus as Lal says they would have had to of gotten past the Uruk-hai army...so how do they do it? This isn't explained in the films and you see it does create a problem with distance. So, I made a joke that the Elves teleported there as that is the only explanation I can think of how they got there so fast. This wouldn't create a problem in the movies if Jackson didn't feel the need to change things around and throw in a bunch of Elves. Why couldn't he have used the 2,000 Rohirrim soldiers who were fighting in Helm's deep? This has been noticed by many many people to and has been a consistant question in the Movie forums.

The Uruk dude Aragorn kills at the end of FOTR is Lurtz. There is no such character in the books. The Uruk-hai's are led by Ugluk and the group from Mordor is led by Grishnakh. In TTT it is Ugluk who leads the Uruk-hai, but for some reason Jackson invented this Lurtz character that got pep talks from Saruman and then gets killed by Aragorn in FOTR. So, I see it as Jackson inventing his own character.

Sauron the White

09-16-2007, 11:24 AM

Lalwende.... I am sorry to appear to tar everyone with the same brush when many do not deserve it. Thank you for pointing out the diversity within the Tolkien community. I will certainly keep that in mind when making future observations. I do think my remarks do apply to some - especially those Purists who seem to view any attempt to improve on any aspect of the book as something equal to a serious sin.

Boromir ... sorry to confuse your remarks with someone else. Allow me to discuss your reply.

The Elves in Helms Deep distance problem: It only becomes a problem when you calculate the distance based on the knowledge of the books because the films never make a big issue about it. And even if someone does put it all together based on the distance that others traveled then we have the situation of Elves being able to go without sleep and perhaps would be a great deal faster than mere humans. If people can accept that a short stocky untrained Dwarf can run 140 miles in 3 short days, I would think they would believe almost anything reasonable involving travel from Elves. Both are examples of willing suspension of disbelief. Some are willing to extend it to one area of the medium but deny it to the other.

Neither the book nor the film is perfect. They both contain errors and mistakes and holes.

Lurtz: yes, I know who that character is. Where in the film is he named? As far as I can remember, he never is. What is so wrong about the Uruks having a field commander? How is that some serious violation of the book? So what if Jackson invented an Uruk and gave him more personality, even an off screen name? He knew that the audience would better latch on to one identifiable Uruk than a whole slew of nameless orcs. Lurtz comes to personify the might and brutality of the Uruks both in his slaying of Boromir and in his battle with Aragorn. Having an identifiable character you can hang your hat on means so much more to viewers than waves of unwashed orcs outside of a major battle scene.

littlemanpoet

09-16-2007, 02:05 PM

I would say Tom B. is the one exception.I agree that he is the exception to the temptation of the Ring, but do you think he is the exception based on personality, or will, or something else?

Let me first start off, before I say anything else, by saying I've really enjoyed this discussion so far. I would hate to see it be reduced and squelched into a 'purists are snobs' and 'filmists are ignorant know-nothings.' So lets just stop assuming those two things and get to the discussion.Thanks for this.

In the final analysis, this then seems to be Jacksons greatest and most serious sin in the eyes of the True Believers and Tolkien Purists. He actually had the temerity to believe that he could improve upon Holy Writ. Did he not know that he was dealing with the equal of sacred scripture written with the aid of Divine Inspiration?If one is going to use such obvious sarcasm, then one is going to be seen as attacking people instead of their opinions. Nevertheless, I'll deal with both the exaggeration and the actual question that lies underneath: First, to the exaggerration. No, I don't consider LotR to be Holy Writ. And no, I don't consider it to be sacred scripture. And no, I don't see it as Divine Inspiration, although I do consider it to be inspired. ;) Now, to the underlying question: Yes, I take exception to the difference between what Peter Jackson said he was going to do, and what he actually did. He did say that he would be true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien, and then he proceeded to improve upon the story when it didn't fit the clichés he wanted to use. The result was to (to varying degrees) compromise, needlessly, some of the strongest characterizations Tolkien achieved, notably in Aragorn and Faramir.

What is so wrong with feeling that you can imporve upon something?Not a thing. But then admit that is what you are trying to do.

STW: Lets face it - nobody ever really thinks they are wrong. Especially when the world seems to validate your efforts with money, critical praise and industry awards.

LMP: This does not speak highly of the world.

STW: I do find that to be smug and very condescending.Mea culpa. It was an overgeneralization. I grant that LotR-the-movie was an impressive feat of moviemaking. There are scenes that I love from it (Balrog vs. Gandalf at the beginnig of TTT). I cheered when it won the oscars it did. However, there are points at which I cringe because Jackson simply did the story a disservice. Most notably in my mind is Faramir's character, and to a lesser degree the psychologization of Gollum.

I asked you specifically where you got off criticizing the teleportation devices in TTT when they are none in the film ... BUT ... you ignored it. I asked you about the Lurtz name objection that you voiced ... BUT ... you ignored that.You have me confused with Boromir. I actually don't object to Lurz as a representative leader of the orcs. I do wish, however, that Ugluk and Grishnakh (what a great evil character!) had made it into the movie; I simply can't see why they were excluded. After all, Lurz dies at the hands of Aragorn, and then the orcs are shown for the rest of the "run to Isengard" with nameless leaders. Why not include the names and characterizations of Ugluk and Grishnakh? Surely there was money to spare to pay two more actors to play such intriguing bit roles! Grishnakh has to be one of the most effectively realized characters in the entire story. He's my favorite orc. :p

Hmmm..... I didn't realize that Lurz is never named in the movie itself. So apparently that must have been for marketing purposes. And that orc that serves the role of Grishnakh in the movies, I was really, really disappointed that he wasn't Grishnakh. What would it have cost the story to include him? Bummer.

I do think my remarks do apply to some - especially those Purists who seem to view any attempt to improve on any aspect of the book as something equal to a serious sin.If Jackson tried and succeeded, I would be happy to acclaim him for it. I do see a number of points at which PJ did a disservice to the story, and I don't see any examples where he actually improved the story. Can you give some examples of where he did?

Sauron the White

09-16-2007, 04:23 PM

from lettlemanpoet

If Jackson tried and succeeded, I would be happy to acclaim him for it. I do see a number of points at which PJ did a disservice to the story, and I don't see any examples where he actually improved the story. Can you give some examples of where he did?

Where did Jacksons films improve from the book version of LOTR?

I would have to sit down and watch each of the three films - some 11+ hours to give you a thorough answer. But off the top of my head..... and this is just my opinion based on a recent viewing of FOTR and reading that portion of the book...

--- the death scene of Boromir is both more dramatic and more emotionally touching in the film than in the book. I felt that making it a personal mano-on-mano thing with Lurtz and giving Lurtz larger and thicker arrows and the attitude and manner of an assassin was a very good way to focus all of the Uruk brutality into one central figure. The actual moments of death with the exchange between Boromir and Aragorn works better than the book.

--- the entire portrayal of Boromir in the film presents a far more likable character than the books did. I remember in the book - outside the Gates of Moria when Boromir is the one to distrub the Watcher with his silly throwing of stones. Hardly the smart move of the great warrior of Gondor. Jackson wisely made it a hobbit mistake. The moment on the snow where Boromir picks up the chain of the ring makes it a far more personal attraction that the audience can visibly see. I even liked the playful teaching Merry and Pippin to swordfight and then they get the better of Boromir. All that added to the character and improved the character of Boromir.

-- Even with eleven hours Jackson could not show everything and this may have motivated his decision not to depict any of the Elves actual battles against the forces of Evil but to instead incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep. For me, it worked. The blowing of the horn announcing their arrival, their march through the gates, that great pivot and turn, their bravery in battle... it all worked for me. I thought that was an improvement. I did not so much see this as a Jackson complete new invention as much as combining a story element that he did not have time to show with one that he was showcasing. ( I realize this is from TTT and not FOTR but it was a subject in your post)

-- Putting more emphasis on the character of Arwen was an advancement. With the exception of Eowyn, its pretty much a male "let me save you" story. Thats probably fine it is day. But in these times women and girls need something more to relate to. Giving them a female character in a leading role who is more than just arm candy was a wise move.

-- Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil was a wise decision which made for a tighter tale and better film. I only wish JRRT had done the same. To this day I see no value in the dancing hippie with the doggerel sing-songs. The idea of introducing the Ring and how its power corrupts everyone, and then you showcase a being who is beyond its power, and THEN DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WITH IT was not the strongest part of the story. To me its pointless. Even if you get rid of the silly clothes and screwball songs its still pointless. For Jackson, this was addition by subtraction.

-- Lots of folks hate what he did to Aragorn, but I think it is understandable given the developments of post WWII literature and film. In the 21st century, we are used to the anti-hero, the figure who is not comfortable in his own skin and the role he has been cast into. It also makes for a significant character arc as Aragorn can build up his resolve and comfort level with his savior role over thre films. I am sure that Cecil B. DeMille would have had Aragorn as the penultimate HERO from minute one of the film and he would have never had a doubt about anything. That was fine for the first half of the 20th century but there is too much water under that dam to go completely back now. So I looked upon the character developemnt of Aragorn as a positive and more interesting than the Aragorn of the books.

-- And then there is the physical visualization of the world of Middle-earth that was near perfection. From the Shire to Isengard to Minas Tirith and everything included. You have to give the Jackson team credit for bringing ME to life.

And thats just from FOTR. Please give me more time to watch the others.

Yes, I take exception to the difference between what Peter Jackson said he was going to do, and what he actually did.

Obviously you care about this deeply and it means something to you. Speaking for myself, I could not care less what Jackson said in an interview, press release, or any other bit of pre-release information. All I wanted was a great film. That is what I felt I got. Further, I do think that Jackson was tiptoeing on fragile glass during the entire pre-FOTR release period. He badly wanted fan support and did not want to do or say anything to dampen pre-film enthusiasm. Were some Tokien purists seduced by that and later felt abandoned? Possibly. But I view this as just part of the film business and its means nothing to me or my feelings. Its the final product that counts. Like Shakespeare said "the plays the thing"... not how it was written or the anguish of getting it right.

But deeper than that, it seems that perhaps your belief in what are the themes and spirit of LOTR and what Jackson sees as important may not be the same thing. As I said in an earlier post, I do not think this is a complete 100% cut and dry situation. Every reader is free to read and bring to the table what they have in themselves. Every reader closes those 1200 pages and internalizes and interprets what they read for themselves. But I would bet that Jackson feels that he was as faithful as he could possible be given the change of medium from a book to three films. You and he would probably never agree, but I guess he feels he was true to the books as much as possible.

In these discussions, it seems that there may be a difference in priorities. Many people I would characterize as Purists, seem to place a very high priority - maybe their highest priority - on being as faithful as possible to the books. I do not know of any filmmaker who would agree with that as their highest priority. Their priorities would include
-- making a good or great film
-- making a profit for the studio so they can keep on working
-- making a film that is praised and will advance their career

I recall the admonition that Ernest Hemingway gave to other authors when selling their work for adaption as a film. Hemingway said there was only one way to do it. The author and producer meet on a deserted beach late at night. The author tosses the book to the producer. The producer tosses a briefcase filled with money to the author. And they never bother each other again.

I think Hemingway had it right and understood the realites of the film business.

Tolkien himself said he did not think the book was filmable. Christopher is still clinging to that fiction. But he went ahead and sold the film rights anyways (and you have to wonder about the ethics of that... "sure I will sell you the rights to build a high rise on this marshy swamp land" hahaha) thinking he could have it both ways keeping the cash without having to see a film made. He may have been right in his time ... but technology caught up with the process.

But Hemingway was right then and Tolkien should have read about it.

I hope this post is more in the spirit of a honest debate and intellectual exchange without name calling or meanness.

Gwathagor

09-16-2007, 05:51 PM

Giving Gollum multiple personality disorder is Pete Jackson's cheap and easy way out of a complex character. Gollum isn't that simple.

Folwren

09-16-2007, 06:44 PM

Why does everything have to get so fiesty and mean? It's kind of fun sitting on the side lines and just watching - cheering for the people you agree with, and laughing when they make a good point that will apparently squash their opponent's reasoning, but...well, I've done enough of that. I'll throw in my two cents.

The original question of this thread was:

How do you see as the differences? Do you like the book's representation, or the movie's, better? And why?

I don't know if you all had forgotten, but just in case, I figured I'd post it. :)

A lot of people here have made very good points. I won't site all the posts or anything, but if you've read the thread, you should know what I'm talking about. Gollum in the book had a very deep and intriguing character - one that I could never simply say was 'good' or 'bad' until the end of the TT (at which point I hated him with a vengeance). He was a very pitiable character, but at the same time, he was repulsive you knew he was evil. But something struggled within me to think, "No...he's not so bad...there is a glimmer of good in him..." It's harder the more I read it. I know how it all ends up, I'm no longer surprised and shocked when he betrays them in Shelob's lair, but still as I read it, I always hope, and every time, I think, "If only Sam hadn't woken and snapped at him on the stairs. If only he had repented."

Okay, so that's the book. In the movie it was different. I still pitied him, but I never hoped that he would turn good. I never wished that Sam had slept longer (they didn't even have that part in the movie, instead it turned out that Sam was right about him Sneaking). The struggle between good and evil didn't seem quite so desperate. In the one scene where the good wins - great! It seems finished. In the struggle wherein the bad wins - after Faramir's men are wicked to him - Of course it won! Frodo had just betrayed him.

But I did think he was a great villain. Andy Serkis did an awesome job on his motions and his voice and the crew did a supurb job turning the thing in to Gollum. I will prefer my strong yet subtle feelings while reading the books, but I will also greatly enjoy watching Gollum on screen.

---

As for what PJ did to improve the story...well, we didn't think long, but my Mom could only think of one thing - he drew out the grief of the company a lot more after Gandalf's death than Tolkien did. A valid point.

Pop thought the elves coming to Helm's Deep was cool. I didn't argue with him. :D

I have nothing to say to that point just now.

-- Folwren

Quempel

09-16-2007, 07:33 PM

Giving Gollum multiple personality disorder is ..... Gollum isn't that simple.

As a therapist in training I couldn't agree with you more. Gollum has a much more complex personality problem. DID very rarely presents so evil, and the splits usually do not know about each other, much less talk to each other. There are a handful of Cluster B personality types Gollum could easily fall into, but DID isn't it.

That said I belive anyone would have a hard time putting Gollum's personality into film, and maybe that is why Jackson did it the way he did it. And maybe the professor was right on some aspects not being filmable. And for the record the whole Gollum/Smeagol conversation is a favorite of mine in the movie.

littlemanpoet

09-16-2007, 08:18 PM

STW, what you call PJ's improvements on the book may be separated into two categories. First: works better for movie medium

the death scene of Boromir
incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep
Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil
the physical visualization of the world of Middle-earth

Second: improvement on the book

entire portrayal of Boromir
more emphasis on the character of Arwen
Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil
character developemnt of Aragorn

One of the two, "getting rid of weaker elements", overlaps into both categories.

I grant you that the death scene of Boromir was moving and was better for the movie than the book version, which was better for the book.

Incorporating Elves into Helm's Deep, I'm not sure it was necessary to the plot for the sake of the movie. It went against my sensibilities at the time, but I see why PJ did it; just not sure it was necessary.

I knew PJ would remove Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire. I recognized that they wouldn't fit into his movie, but I do contest that Tom Bombadil was not necessary to Tolkien's story. You say that Tolkien did absolutely nothing with it. This is not actually true. The issue of Tom came up in the Council of Elrond, and more is learned about him there. However, Tom Bombadil is used effectively by Tolkien to bring about the "growing up" of Frodo. But that's only his plot purpose. Tom Bombadil's setting and theme purpose within the whole corpus goes far beyond that, but that's an entirely different discussion.

As to the physical visualization of Middle Earth, it seems that you put the cart before the horse. The two Tolkien artists John Howe and Alan Lee base their art on Tolkien's descriptions, and PJ's art department based their work on Howe and Lee's work. So what you call an improvement, I would call PJ actually achieving (in this one case) what he said he was trying to. So kudos to PJ on living up to Tolkien's descriptoins; but improving upon them? I don't think so.

Now onto what you claim as actual improvements over the book.

As to the entire portrayal of Boromir, it is certainly different. Boromir is more noble in the movie ( I can't help but place that beside his brother Faramir who is less noble in the movie). Boromir in the book is very much the son of his father, whereas in the movie the father is a ridiculous fool, which Denethor was not in the book. But back to Boromir. In the movie (seems odd to say but this just came to me) he had to die because he was more attractive to the viewing audience than Aragorn was. In the book Aragorn is clearly the more noble character. The problem with the representation of Boromir in the movie is that his brand of heroism is unabashadly glorified, whereas in the book the same type of heroism is shown to be shallow as compared to the purposeful and sacrificial heroism of both Aragorn and Faramir. So the book brings it deeper than the movie does. Sorry, I can't call that an improvement on the book per sé, but perhaps I can accept it in the movie (especially since Sean Bean is the actor).

I knew the movie would put more emphasis on the character of Arwen, since that's just the way Hollywood works. Again, not an improvement over the book in my opinion, but a necessary alteration for the movie.

As to the character development of Aragorn: this could take up an entire thread of its own, and I'm betting it already has. Notice that I could not discuss Boromir without mentioning Aragorn. Someone else has said that this is one of the biggest areas PJ "didn't get", and that the latter 20th into the 21st century just can't seem to "get", and that is the possibility of an actual good person, that such an entity simply cannot be believed. If so, that's just downright sad, and not a good sign for our times. If that comes off as smug and condescending, then all I can say is that western culture has apparently descended from something better that has been lost, and that's a shame. One of the things that Tolkien did best, was to communicate nobility of character. The death scene of Boromir in the movie was about the best I've seen it done by Hollywood! - - - and that was actually borrowed from another script (so I'm told)!

Jackson was tiptoeing on fragile glass during the entire pre-FOTR release period. He badly wanted fan support and did not want to do or say anything to dampen pre-film enthusiasm. Were some Tokien purists seduced by that and later felt abandoned? Possibly.... Its the final product that counts.What you're saying, essentially, is that the end justifies the means. Your contention here seems to be that PJ lied in order to seduce Tolkien fans to watch his movie. And that's not a problem? In other words, PJ was saying to Tolkien fans the same kind of thing Saruman said to Gandalf when he was trying to win him over in order to use him as a pawn. If you are correct, then what PJ did was base betrayal. Do you really think that was what PJ was doing? If so, then it's worse than anything I've critiqued him for.

But deeper than that, it seems that perhaps your belief in what are the themes and spirit of LOTR and what Jackson sees as important may not be the same thing.This comes as no surprise. And of course I think PJ has it wrong. :)

Boromir88

09-16-2007, 11:36 PM

Folwren, nice insight about Gollum. The books set Gollum up as an even more repulsive and wicked person than the movies. So 'wicked' in fact that he has phantom stories about taking babies in the night and drinking their blood. But despite this, there is still that glimmer of hope that Tolkien created...and since there always is that small hope, I always wanted Gollum to pull through in the end.

Maybe it's just because I already knew Gollum wasn't going to repent, that I never got the same feeling in the movies, I don't know. Or also, I didnt like how they handled that Mount Doom scene (with the whole Frodo nearly tumbling in and Sam screaming REACH!!!)

Of course when we're talking about 'better' it's going to be subjective, on your own personal tastes. As far a who's the better 'story teller,' for me without a doubt it would be Tolkien. His knowledge of language, mythology, history...etc was just stunning. As CS Lewis said in Tolkien's obituary that Tolkien had 'been inside language.' And no matter what Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens created it could never come anywhere near the 'cauldron of a story' that Tolkien created.

I will admit that I have a soft spot for large battles and giant slugfests...which Jackson does do a nice job of creating. But that doesn't make LOTR a better story (in my opinion) that just made it cool to watch on screen.

So, let's see what we got...
the death scene of Boromir is both more dramatic and more emotionally touching in the film than in the book.
I actually preferred Boromir's death in the books. Seeing it through Pippin's eyes (as he describes it in the chapter The Uruk-hai) was more emotional than what the movie created:
His last memory was of Boromir leaning against a tree, plucking out an arrow; then darkness fell suddenly.
As great as the movies showed Boromir's final moments (absoluty the most tragic and touching parts of all the movies for me), Pippin's description of the battle made Boromir's last stand not only more heroic but more touching for me. As Boromir sent the Orcs fleeing twice, and the third time he was overcome as "they shot a rain of arrows: always at Boromir."

And I always found his last lines rather cliche: 'I would have followed you my brother, my captain, my King'? I don't know that sounds a little too cheesy and would have preferred them to just end it with Aragorn's 'I will not let the White City fall' and have Boromir's "smile" (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=530373&postcount=17) as is described in the story.

the entire portrayal of Boromir in the film presents a far more likable character than the books did.
This is a tough one because I actually think the book Boromir is a lot nicer, it's just more subtle and harder to notice. But, I see what you're saying because I've seen the movies change the opinions of Boromir in people...they actually did for me.

When I first read the story, I never hated Boromir, I thought he was a great warrior, he made a mistake that he tried to rectify, but he wasn't my favorite by any means (I was a Theoden person). However, after seeing Boromir (and Sean's performance...Bean was a favourite actor of mine even before he did Boromir) I got a different feeling about him. The movie moments of him talking to Aragorn in Lothlorien and him teaching Merry and Pippin how to 'spar' show a more likeable Boromir.

Then I went back through the books and noticed all the small things I missed with Boromir that made him my favourite character. Moments like when Pippin describes his 'lordly yet kindly manner,' moments that describe the bond between him and Faramir, moments where even Eomer of Rohan has great praise to say of Boromir, and even lines from Boromir like 'The Men of Minas Tirith do not abandon their friends in need.' Also we see that it is Boromir's strength that he adds to the Fellowship (something that the Fellowship greatly needed on Caradhras and in Moria).

Yes, I think Boromir is a sarcastic (and sometimes childish) person in the books, especially when he doesn't get his way. However, that just adds to Boromir's character and his 'growth,' plus it actually makes sense. In Gondor Boromir was used to having 'no rival,' he was used to making the decisions (as far as the military is concerned). He was used to giving orders and having people follow them. Then he's thrust into a situation where he is in far greater company than he, and he struggles with the fact that he is not the leader of the Company. He is not the one in a position of authority to 'give orders' when he's in the Fellowship. So, yes when Boromir doesn't get his way he can be stubborn (to put it lightly), he doesn't know humility. What really makes it work, is the contrast with Aragorn who is quite humble and willingly accepts orders (even orders from Boromir).

By Boromir's death however he has grown and learned humility. After trying to take the Ring from Frodo he goes back to the camp where Aragorn tells him to go find Merry and Pippin, and Boromir does so with no fight...then we have his final words to Aragorn: 'Go to Minas Tirith and save my people. I have failed.' Boromir's stubborn, sometimes childish, and 'anti-Gorn' qualities actually makes a great story because by his death we see how much he has grown through his journey with the Fellowship. Not only is he just a great warrior strongman now, but he recognized his mistake and I can't put it any better than Gandalf:
'Poor Boromir! I could not see what happened to him. It was a sore trial for such a man: a warrior, and a lord of men. Galadriel told me that he was in peril. But he escaped in the end. I am glad.'~The White Rider

I say it's a tough one because I've also seen people who have watched TTT EE when Denethor sends Boromir off to bring back daddy his little gift and seeing that Boromir's reason for joining the Fellowship was to sabotage it. I wish that part of the EE wasn't in there as FOTR did such a great job in creating Boromir's character, but that EE scene when Denethor pulls him aside is just irritating.

Even with eleven hours Jackson could not show everything and this may have motivated his decision not to depict any of the Elves actual battles against the forces of Evil but to instead incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep.
But this was a fight that 'men' had to resolve...or mostly do on their own. Some Elves were staying around and had their own battles, but it was time for Men to deal with Sauron, the Elves have been doing it for too long.

Also, as I mentioned it is a distance problem, that isn't just recognized by a few book people...Jackson has actually been questioned about it many times. The Elves came from Lorien, well that was the wooded place way back in FOTR the Fellowship went to. And then Gimli says they've been chasing the Uruks for 3 days through Rohan...so this is something anyone can put together, you don't even have to know the name Tolkien to realize we have discontinuity. Jackson was actually asked how he explains the Elves getting to Helm's Deep so fast he squirmed and looked at Walsh and Boyens...to which he answered that the Elves left almost immediately after the Fellowship left Lorien, and that scene in the movie with Galadriel and Elrond is a 'flashback.' Seems like he came up with a quick answer to cover his tail as he realized there was a mistake.

Also, Gimli being a terribly slow runner that held Aragorn and Legolas back was just something Jackson threw in because I guess he thought it would be funny. Aragorn actually remarks that he wishes he had the endurance of the Dwarves while they were chasing after the Uruk-hai (and it wasn't Aragorn making a joke). This adds to the trashing of Gimli's characters, as I've seen people making posts saying Legolas and Aragorn should have just killed Gimli because he was holding them back and he never does anything anyway. Making an argument that Gimli was a useless character that just cracks a bunch of jokes (I really liked Gimli's portrayal in FOTR, but by watching TTT and ROTK, I can't say I disagree with said people's view of Gimli when watching the movies).

Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil was a wise decision which made for a tighter tale and better film.
Yes I agree that getting rid of Tom Bombadil for the film was a very smart move. That would have been film suicide to put in Tom. But I agree with elempi that Tom certainly does have a purpose in the story, and adds a lot to the story. Afterall besides Balrogs Tom seems to have the most questions asked about him, so he has to be an interesting character to many many books fans out there. Why Tom is so interesting? Perhaps its there is so much mystery about him, and an enigma such as Tom, can attract a lot of intrigue and interest from readers. I won't add much more than what was said, but also Tom goes to help forshadow the events at the end, when Saruman takes control of the Shire.

Lots of folks hate what he did to Aragorn, but I think it is understandable given the developments of post WWII literature and film.
Grant it book Aragorn seems much more certain and the all righteous hero in the books when compared to the movies; however this isn't so. Aragorn first serves as a good foil to both Boromir and Denethor, so all of Aragorn's good traits come through, so much so that it seems like Aragorn is just the perfect hero. However, this is not so, as Aragorn also has his own struggles and doubts in the books. Particularly after Boromir's death and the capturing of Merry and Pippin. Aragorn is at a loss, and starts doubting himself as the 'leader' of the company, but luckily for him Legolas and Gimli are there to pick him up. Plus, there is the confrontation with Hama when he asks Aragorn to hand over Anduril. Aragorn shows a little bit of power-hungriness as he tries to usurp Theoden's orders by saying he's the 'heir of Elendil' and his will should therefor trump Theoden's. But, again lucky for Aragorn that Gandalf is there to tell him he's being stupid.

I think this post that I came across a little while ago sums up elempi's (and many others) complaint about what Jackson did with the movies:
Okay, I started LotR a few days ago, and I am up to page 131. So far it has been a good read, and I like the way Tolkein writes, but so far it’s been pretty dull. When I say dull, I don’t mean bad, but just a little boring. It seems like it’s taking forever for little things to happen. Anyway, I’m just wondering, by what page or chapter does the action start to pick up? By action, I mean like fighting.
After watching the movies people expect to go into reading Tolkien and thinking there's going to be just lots and lots of slash'em up fighting. They are left dissappointed and dull when they find out that of the 1000+ page story probably only 20 pages describe actual fighting (if that). They want to see the high action, Orli surfing adventure, Jackson created. There is a lot of action in the books, it's just not in 'fighting.' The action is the suspense, forshadowing, tension building, character interaction, character development, The Big Bad Read (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=13232&highlight=Mouth), and the language itself. Now, not everyone who was introduced to LOTR by the movies has these expectations from the books. But, I do think that Jackson did (whether intentionally or not doesn't matter) create a misrepresentation of the story, that leads to some fans when they go and read the books for the first time wondering why is this just a drag?

Sauron the White

09-17-2007, 09:25 AM

littlemanpoet... it would seem that there is some middleground here that we both can stand upon with a degree of comfort. I am glad to hear you say that you see that some of the things Jackson did were better for the film.

I grant you that the death scene of Boromir was moving and was better for the movie than the book version, which was better for the book.

I see it pretty close to the way you do regarding this scene. A book does not have to be as dramatic and as emotional as a film does. What JRRT wrote was excellent for the book and worked extremely well. For the film version, it would have bordered on underplaying the whole moment. So Jackson made it more dramatic, more poignant and it turn took on more emotional resonance with the audience. And of course, that was Jacksons intent.

I see it much the same with the expanded role for Arwen within the LOTR story (as opposed to the Appendices). The entire Arwen-Argorn story is far more emotional in the film than it is in the book. In the book that type of showcase for the love story may have distracted from the rest of the tale and tried to turn the book into something it was never intended to be. But for the movie, what Jackson did worked well and it helped make the movie the success it was.

Perhaps the difference in how some of see these things is the perspective we are coming from. Allow me to explain how I have always seen this.

A book is one thing and a film is quite another. Each has its own internal laws, rules, constructions, devices, approaches, techniques and methods that further and aid in creating the world that it becomes. And each of these elements are somewhat different when you go from one medium to another. What makes for a great book does not always make for a great film.

I accept that and do not expect my films to look like my books.

I also accept the economic and business realities of the film making business and harbor no fantasies about what the true bottom line is and what the purpose of any film is.

In the end, I view the LOTR as a magnificent tale told by two different story tellers using two very different mediums. The story tellers are divided my more than half a century in time, and separated by different sides of the world. One had complete control of their end of the tale while the other had to work within from an established and beloved template and within a corporate and team concept. One had to answer to only himself since it was his own creation. The other had to answer to a host of masters, some of which had far different agendas.

So we end up with two LOTRs. The books and the films. Of course the books are THE LOTR. No doubt about that. The films are merely an adaption and can never supplant or gain the authenticity of the books. But having said that, the films are out there and were most likely seen by more people than who have read the books. In the minds of many, the LOTR has become the films. The story as portrayed in those films - for some viewers - is the LOTR. Sheer numbers have made it so.

The books are dearly loved by me ever since I read them right out of college in 1971. Among my most valued and treasured possessions are first editions - US sadly - of both THE HOBBIT and each of the three volumes of LOTR. I have the record album of THE POEMS AND SONGS OF MIDDLE EARTH with the actual signature of JRRT himself that came from the collection of a very well known and legitimate collector. I have lost count of how many times I have read the books and THE SILMARILLION over the last 36 years. And I have in the same room, shelf upon shelf of stuff from the films. I love and appreciate both for what they are.

The same story told by two different storytellers each emphasizing different parts and different characters but largely the same. At least, that is how I see it.

In reading many posts over the last six years on many sites, it is obvious that some people do not see it that way at all. And that is fine.

The one area we can debate about seems to be the following comments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by STW
Jackson was tiptoeing on fragile glass during the entire pre-FOTR release period. He badly wanted fan support and did not want to do or say anything to dampen pre-film enthusiasm. Were some Tokien purists seduced by that and later felt abandoned? Possibly.... Its the final product that counts.

from littlemanpoet
What you're saying, essentially, is that the end justifies the means. Your contention here seems to be that PJ lied in order to seduce Tolkien fans to watch his movie. And that's not a problem? In other words, PJ was saying to Tolkien fans the same kind of thing Saruman said to Gandalf when he was trying to win him over in order to use him as a pawn. If you are correct, then what PJ did was base betrayal. Do you really think that was what PJ was doing? If so, then it's worse than anything I've critiqued him for.

Ends justifying the means? Who knows? Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. I certainly do not believe in cutting off peoples limbs but I certainly can also concede the need for it given certain medical situations. Lots of things are like that. The older I get, the less I cling to rigid principles, absolute black-and-white right and wrongs, clear cut moral choices and all that.

If we are going to engage in a discussion as to IF Jackson lied and seduced Tolkien fans with his early remarks it would probably be a good idea to find those exact remarks and reproduce them. To accuse someone of "base betrayal" is a pretty damning charge. I give you credit with the comparison to Saruman - its very cute and clever but we both know that Jackson is not Saruman or any such creature. He is a filmmaker who took on a task that even JRRT himself that was not possible. Jackson is not evil in the sense that Saruman was.

You ask if I think PJ was guilty of that. NO. What I do think happened was that Jackson wanted to make the best series of films he could that made the most money both for his studio and for himself. To do that he did not want to alienate hardcore and longtime Tolkien fans. He tried to enlist their support early on. Did he lie? Dunno. Does everybody "lie" when they promise to love someone forever and then things end sadly apart? A lie is not the words but what is in the heart as the words are spoken. Only Jackson knows what his intentions were.

Based on all the stuff I have read and watching all those features on the DVD's, it is my individual opinion that Jackson tried to satisfy all his constituencies as best he could given the realities of the situation. And that would include Tolkien fans.

Also, Gimli being a terribly slow runner that held Aragorn and Legolas back was just something Jackson threw in because I guess he thought it would be funny.
This is a sore point with me that you may have seen on another thread here. Having been a long distance runner for the past thirty plus years, the idea of an untrained dwarf running 140 miles in three days over rough terrain is simply ludicrous beyond anything remotely approaching reality. Sure, JRRT throws in the obligatory comments from other characters to help explain and justify the superdwarf feat that Gimli is undertaking, but its absurd just the same. And I do not give a single whit about how "hardy" or "strong" dwarves are. Running and especially ultralong distance running - is a world of its own that has nothing to do with strength or hardiness. I do not view the handling of that three day run any better in the film than it was in the books. But at least in the film we were spared a daily listing of milage which only added to the impossibility of it all .

from Boromir 88

Then I went back through the books and noticed all the small things I missed with Boromir that made him my favourite character. Moments like when Pippin describes his 'lordly yet kindly manner,' moments that describe the bond between him and Faramir, moments where even Eomer of Rohan has great praise to say of Boromir, and even lines from Boromir like 'The Men of Minas Tirith do not abandon their friends in need.' Also we see that it is Boromir's strength that he adds to the Fellowship (something that the Fellowship greatly needed on Caradhras and in Moria).

I would mostly agree with your statement here. I too enjoyed the book Boromir more after seeing the films and picked up far more of the subtle nuances that Tolkien employed in his devolopemnt. If the film helped make that possible for both you and I, as well as others, then it is saying something very positive. You make a good point about the childish of Boromir being contrasted with is later growth as a character and that is valid. However, in the films, we have several other characters, dare I say more important characters, in their own stages of growth and development. Perhaps Jackosn felt that you could only have so much growth and development in changing characters and some had to be more constant. Especially in a character who is around for pretty much only the first film.

from Boromir88

Jackson was actually asked how he explains the Elves getting to Helm's Deep so fast he squirmed and looked at Walsh and Boyens...to which he answered that the Elves left almost immediately after the Fellowship left Lorien, and that scene in the movie with Galadriel and Elrond is a 'flashback.' Seems like he came up with a quick answer to cover his tail as he realized there was a mistake.

Well, at least he had some explaination for it..... and I say that a bit sheepishly. There are mistakes both in the book and in the films and this could well be one of them. I do think that given the physical gifts of the Elves, you can make a far more rational and logical case for a squadron of trained Elven warriors to make that journey than you can for a squat, chunky untrained dwarf. But I do understand the point and concede some of its validity. I do think - and some will crucify me for this - that there is a "now thats cool" factor in movies. When we see something totally cool - like the Elves marching into Helms Deep - it aids to our willing suspension of disbelief and we push those nagging milage questions to the back of our mind. Perhaps only to be resurrected a few years later on sites like this one. ;)

from Boromir88

Yes I agree that getting rid of Tom Bombadil for the film was a very smart move. That would have been film suicide to put in Tom. But I agree with elempi that Tom certainly does have a purpose in the story, and adds a lot to the story. Afterall besides Balrogs Tom seems to have the most questions asked about him, so he has to be an interesting character to many many books fans out there.

Nice to see we agree on the film TB- or non-TB. I realize that this thread is not the place to discuss TB in detail. Perhaps you can refer me to where this has already been hashed out? Having read the books countless times I still see no actual purpose in him. If you excise him from the tale and come up with a different way to save the hobbits from the barrow wights, what is lost? Is that TBs main purpose? If not what is it?

from Boromir88

After watching the movies people expect to go into reading Tolkien and thinking there's going to be just lots and lots of slash'em up fighting. They are left dissappointed and dull when they find out that of the 1000+ page story probably only 20 pages describe actual fighting (if that).
If that is happeneing, then it is sad that they do not see the beauty, depth and complexity that the books offer. I quickly concede the point that there is much more action and fighting in the films than in the books. But I thinks its an unfair oversimplification to hang the label of a mere action flick on the films. Just yesterday I was watching FOTR with my six year old grandson and the amount of slash'em up fighting is rather small. There are large portions of the film which move rather slowly and have nothing to do with violence or fighting. Of course, the battles are the set pieces of the last two films, but we still have lots and lots of exposition, character development and other bits of business that the standard thud and blunder film never has.

Again, the books are one thing. The films are quite another. I am glad to see there is some middle ground here for many of us. :)

alatar

09-17-2007, 01:01 PM

Catching up a bit:
Boromir, the more I read this thread, sounds a lot like Turin "I wanna build a bridge" Turambar in they both wanted what they wanted now...or else there's going to be some complaining. I agree that not only did Sean Bean's/PJ'S Boromir come off better than in the books - and the EE version added to that - but placing the Steward's son's death in FotR was a great idea. Score one for the Anti-Purists!

Can't remember in which post it appeared, but think that I been told that certain changes had to be made to update the material from whenever it was written into today's language. And yet when I propose Gollum as a normal gent who suddenly splits his personality to deal with a horrible trauma (he lost a friend for gosh sakes! ;)), I'm told that this is not the deep character that could have been. So I'll retract that theory and add this one, based a little more on Peter Jackson's words: Smeagol/Gollum is an addict. The Ring, the "drug" effects all, but like the real world some fall sooner than others. Was Smeagol more animal that hobbit in that his id was more control than his superego, making him more open to the call? Gandalf had the sense to not touch the thing; if he did, would he have been quickly ensnared?

The elves left for Helm's Deep while Galadriel was waving. Celeborn, having seen the future of Middle Earth in the hands of Pippin, thought that he'd better send help south as soon as possible.

The elves were one of PJ's experiments. We judge the results of that experiment by (1) its result and (2) by what we already know. I was fine with PJ placing elves at Helm's Deep - initially. Couldn't help but feel emotional when Aragorn hugs Haldir. So far, so good. But when the elves rush an enemy when they have arrows to burn, and when none survive (and are quickly forgotten) then I'd have to say that PJ was careless with his thinking. I'm all for trying the new, but he could at least follow through. Given the result, I would leave them out. Score one for the Purists!

More about the running. Back in the day, we were conscripted into going on these walkathons where we'd get people to give us money for each mile/kilometer that we successfully walked. This money was then donated to charity. So we'd walk, and the first mile was like, "We're walking! We're walking!" while the later miles weren't so Yellow Brick Road and Dorothy-like. My shoes were the cheapest that my parents could afford, and my one relief was extra socks. So, on all occasions I was able to make the 18-20 mile (29-32 km) walks. Afterwards I was sore - which I guess was the point of it all - and we would complain the next day at school about what a big adventure the whole deal was. During the event, note that some passed us by like we were walking with cinder blocks attached to our legs, as they made the mileage in much less time. Now, here's how my brain works: if I can complete a distance of whatever miles in so much time, having no training, no professional equipment/support and definitely no sense, what could someone in the top 1% of all walkathoners of the world do?

The lottery, with "Powerball" odds of 1 in 146,107,962, seems like a losing bet, and yet people play daily with the thinking that they will win. If one can overcome this logic, overcoming the leap of faith that three beings in a fantasy world can run 135 in 3 + days given that these persons may represent the top Middle Earth runners ever (save Tulkas) doesn't seem too hard to believe, (yes, I know it can't be done, but...), as from above if average me can walk 20 miles in a day and live to tell about it, right or wrong, I can extrapolate that someone could do more in less. You see in the papers stories about persons hitting the lottery twice, and so if they can win, so can I (if I played).

What did Gollum want with the Ring? In the movie, as stated, it's shiny and he wants it. After this, he uses it as a way to eat (I think), but with the exception of getting him into the Books and Movies by giving him something to lose and pursue, what does the Ring do for Gollum?

And lastly, regardless of Gollum, elves at Helm's Deep, Boromir and Faramir et al, PJ made successful films, and yet we will not ever know how much more or less successful if he were to have done it my way (which, of course, is the only right way of doing things).

Sauron the White

09-17-2007, 01:22 PM

Oh Alatar... you take a great step forward but then.....

The lottery, with "Powerball" odds of 1 in 146,107,962, seems like a losing bet, and yet people play daily with the thinking that they will win. If one can overcome this logic, overcoming the leap of faith that three beings in a fantasy world can run 135 in 3 + days given that these persons may represent the top Middle Earth runners ever (save Tulkas) doesn't seem too hard to believe, (yes, I know it can't be done, but...), as from above if average me can walk 20 miles in a day and live to tell about it, right or wrong, I can extrapolate that someone could do more in less. You see in the papers stories about persons hitting the lottery twice, and so if they can win, so can I (if I played).

Walking 20 miles in one day and then resting your tired cinder-block legs for the next few days is light years different than an untrained, stocky, short-legged dwarf running 140 miles over three days time. Lottery? Allow me to quote the great Robert DeNiro in THE DEERHUNTER. "This is this. This isn't something else. This is this." We are not talking about the lottery or odds of anything. We are talking about the possibility or not of a four foot dwarf weighing some 200 pounds carrying weapons and wearing heavy boots, without running training, running 1.6 marathons each day for three straight days. It simply is not in the cards - to keep with your gambling metaphor.

JRRT was a wise man who knew lots of things. He was a great writer. But he didn't know squat about long distance running or how the human body and its muscles work.

I can concede the Elf ---- and maybe under the really right conditions Aragorn IF we infer that he has been racking up great distances striding around for years and call that long distance training. I can meet you two thirds of the way in this. But the Dwarf. NEVER!!!!!!:mad:

Quempel

09-17-2007, 02:01 PM

*pop*

Where does it say in the movies or books that Gimli was an out of shape, non-trained coach potato? Tolkien said that dwarfs were hardy....And by the time the three had taken up the chase, hadn't Gimli actually walked a long way, say from Moria to Rivendale and from Rivendale back to Moria by way of the mountain tops?

alatar

09-17-2007, 02:15 PM

"This is this. This isn't something else. This is this."
I've anticipated your reply as in rereading my post I can see where I wasn't clear. Anyway, so here we go again:

One day a long time ago in class a friend of mine was rubbing her hands in a pained way. Seems that her fingers hurt, and this did not bode well as we were in a sign language class, and that required the use of one's fingers. I asked if she were okay, and she said that her arthritis was acting up. It was then that the conversation got interesting.

"Can't figure out why it's acting up...I've been eating peanut butter."

My brain stopped for a moment and reanalyzed what I thought that I'd heard. I checked the tape; yes she was somehow saying that peanut butter would help her joints. Sure, peanut butter, as far as I knew, wasn't bad, but somehow I guessed that she meant more than eating protein was good. So I asked.

My friend looked at me as if I were stupid and replied, "Peanut butter has oil in it. :rolleyes:"

I must have still looked incredulous, so she continued, "The nuns told me that to prevent arthritis I should eat peanut butter." I figured that the nuns were just trying to get someone to eat peanut butter and found a lever in which to move one person. I asked by which mechanism peanut butter worked, and she explained, matter-the-factly that the oil therein lubricated joints, and with the quantity of peanut butter she was consuming, her joints should not be stiff.

She was and is a dear friend, and so I gently let her know that this isn't how it works.

Anyway, what does peanut butter oil have to do with Gollum/Smeagol and running? Little, but the point it that people see something - a creaky door hinge - and extrapolate from there. My friend, I think, saw the door hinge, saw how oiling it made it better, saw the hinges in her hands, knew that there is oil in peanut butter, added 2 + 2 and arrived at 22.

Tolkien gets us to 22 by choosing careful data from which to extrapolate - to go beyond the data. I can run so far (and though I am taller, not every reader obviously is, and just how much smaller do I see Gimli as being, having a mental and not real image with which to compare?) in a day. Aragorn and company are proved heroes. I've already bought the farm, and so 22.

Yes, I know you'll say 4, and in math/running/physiology/reality I agree, but Tolkien still gets most people to 22, and that's why he's one of the best. If PJ had Smeagol/Gollum wear a goofy hat each time the personality changed, the average viewer would add 2 +2 and get 4, then subtract 4 for stupidity.

0.

Sauron the White

09-17-2007, 02:18 PM

Sauron the White

09-17-2007, 02:22 PM

alatar

09-17-2007, 02:31 PM

Alatar ... aaaaahhhhh!!!! so what you are describing is your own unique way is what I call "willing suspension of disbelief". You believe it because you like the context of it all and want to go with it even though you know it makes no logical or real world sense.
Thank you. What I hope that I'm describing is the ability of an author/movie maker/etc to make you forget or dismiss the "reality" of it all and to go along for the ride. WETA's Gollum was so real that we argue the psychology of the creature. The facial emotions - all CG at the end of the day - made me feel sadness, loathing, pity. The song at the end of TTT, Gollum's song, to me is both sad and spooky - and telling of the psyche of Gollum, and yet what is it? Digital notes, assembled words, the vocal resonating of a human larynx, and yet it moves...me.

Quempel

09-17-2007, 03:24 PM

Quempel ... I refer you to the thread here in Movies labeled as DENETHORS PLUNGE. If you look at pages two and three there is a debate there about this very topic with information I posted about the unique physical demands of long distance running. Simply put, its a unique physical activity that bears no relationship to strength, how hardy someone is, or how determined or motivated one is. Its a pure mathematical physiological formula based on training running long distances and the amount of glycogen one can pump and store into their muscles.

There is only one activity that prepares you for long distance running. It is long distance running. A person can work all day in a mine and labor hard and long and be in hardy condition. But that does not permit them to run even a mile.

Let alone the equal of 1.6 marathons for three days straight.

I have read the debate and almost posted there, however, I did not. Where in the movies or books does it say that Gimli was working in the mines before he went on the chase? He had been traveling, walking and running miles and miles each day, with the fellowship for many months. Does this conditioning count for nothing?

And just because Gimli is stout doesn't rule out he can't run. Those 250 pound linebackers are pretty stout and run miles every day, and during training its with their equipment on. The claim that Gimli is unable to run for miles, or even walk for miles because he hadn't trained is illogical, simply because he had been walking and running with the fellowship for many many months, not laying around in front of his big screen t.v. mining for cinderblock.

Even in American History there are stories of the pioneers walking 13-16 miles a day westward. These are men, women and children, none of which trained for marathons.

So again I ask where does it say Gimli was not in shape to run the distance?

Funny how some of us can suspend our disbelief and actually think an eyeball can float atop a tower, but a mythical dwarf can't run.

Sauron the White

09-17-2007, 06:25 PM

Quempel .. I respectfully ask you this --- are you a long distance runner? people who are not know nothing about it. Check that - they know less than nothing because what they think they know is wrong. There is only one way to train for long distance running - check that - ultra-long distance running. And that is to put in lots of miles.

Its basic physiology and mathematics. Check it out on the net from someone other than me so you avoid my bias.

If you have evidence of Gimli doing long distance running to train to do those 140 miles in three days please post it so I can be corrected. I know of nothing that prepared him for this.

Do you? If so please post it.

Even in American History there are stories of the pioneers walking 13-16 miles a day westward. These are men, women and children, none of which trained for marathons.

This statement proves my point about non runners knowing less than nothing because what they think they know is wrong. A slow walk - the activity you are describing for the pioneers, would be about 3 miles per hour or five hours each day. The amount of calories burned would be about 250 to 280 per hour. An average person would deplete their glycogen reserves in about two hours and then experience fatigue and soreness. For a pioneer on the road for several months, they could build up where they could do this for five horus per day.

Please note that both you and I refer to walking. Walking is a far lower burn activity that takes a far lesser toll on muscles and glycogen reserves. A fast walk burns over twice that amount or nearly 600 calories per hours for a power walker. A runner burns 700 calories per hour.

To train for a 26 mile marathon, the normal person needs a base of 60 miles per week for 12 weeks with one day off each week to rest. This gives them a base figure of 10 miles per day. Rule of thumb is that you can do 2.5 times what you train for before you completely exhaust your body and begin to tear it down. So if you run 10 miles per day for 12 weeks you should be able to do 25 miles before "hitting the wall".

Look at the physiology of a dwarf. It is completely contrary to that of a long distance runner, let alone the ultra long distance runner. Running and power walking 45 miles in a single day would require a base of 12 weeks at nearly 20 miles per day. And then you hit the wall and need days more to recover before you can exercise at almost any level. The idea of running 1.6 marathons per day for three days in a row is something that only the extremes of the elite ultra-marathoners could ever attempt and do.

If you have solid evidence that Gimli trained at those levels please present it. I would be interested in reading it.

Funny how some of us can suspend our disbelief and actually think an eyeball can float atop a tower, but a mythical dwarf can't run.

I am happy you see this because that was my exact point when I brought up the ludicrous nature of Gimli running all those miles in three days time. It was my point from the very start of this that there are those who can read the books and can suspend their disbelief at those things but when it comes to things like the Denethor plunge, they get out their charts, graphs and distance measurements and show why it was physically impossible - because it was the movie. For them Peter Jackson is something a bit less than the anti-Christ and anything they can do to heap scorn or ridicule upon his movies is considered as fair game. But when it comes to the books, they give it wide latitude and willingly suspend their disbelief at far worse things.

I simply want all of us to play by the same rules. The books and the movies cannot work unless we engage in willing suspension of disbelief. Lets just have it work both ways.

alatar

09-17-2007, 08:01 PM

MatthewM

09-17-2007, 08:05 PM

--- the death scene of Boromir is both more dramatic and more emotionally touching in the film than in the book. I felt that making it a personal mano-on-mano thing with Lurtz and giving Lurtz larger and thicker arrows and the attitude and manner of an assassin was a very good way to focus all of the Uruk brutality into one central figure. The actual moments of death with the exchange between Boromir and Aragorn works better than the book.

--- the entire portrayal of Boromir in the film presents a far more likable character than the books did. I remember in the book - outside the Gates of Moria when Boromir is the one to distrub the Watcher with his silly throwing of stones. Hardly the smart move of the great warrior of Gondor. Jackson wisely made it a hobbit mistake. The moment on the snow where Boromir picks up the chain of the ring makes it a far more personal attraction that the audience can visibly see. I even liked the playful teaching Merry and Pippin to swordfight and then they get the better of Boromir. All that added to the character and improved the character of Boromir.

Can you be more ignorant and wrong? I do not think so. Sauron the White, your argument holds no substance. You are arguing that Boromir of the movies is better than Boromir in the books. WRONG. You can call me ignorant yourself if you like, but you are wrong. Boromir in the books is far more superior than PJ's mush ball Boromir. You obviously have little to no knowledge on the character, or at least have not studied his character. Maybe you should do that before making horrible misjudgments on Boromir.

I wish you would, before blurting out about Boromir, read the discussion Boromir88 and I had, in which he (Boromir88) kindly gave you the link. Here it is-

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=530373&postcount=17

I would go on and on about defending book Boromir, the lordly and kind, and continue to tell you how wrong you are about movie Boromir's death scene being better than the book (for what Tolkien wrote is better) yet I see no need right now as Boromir88 laid it out on the table nicely.

You are never going to win this battle, defending the films against the books so irriationally. Say all you want about your cinderblocks. You are wrong. The book always rules out the movies. They are not supposed to be two different things, they are both "The Lord of the Rings" and the way that PJ chose to portray certain characters and events counter to the book does not rest well with the true Tolkien enthusiast, except for you and a small majority.

And alatar...I'm disappointed in you.

alatar

09-17-2007, 08:36 PM

You are never going to win this battle, defending the films against the books so irriationally. Say all you want about your cinderblocks. You are wrong. The book always rules out the movies. They are not supposed to be two different things, they are both "The Lord of the Rings" and the way that PJ chose to portray certain characters and events counter to the book does not rest well with the true Tolkien enthusiast, except for you and a small majority.
:rolleyes:

You've made Sauron the White's point rather well, and just when I was hoping that he was coming over to the Books side. ;) Read the SbS to see my scene by scene criticisms regarding Peter Jackson's work where I quibbled on most everything; yet in all of that I hope to never ever to be on 'your' side as it's been the Movie-lovers' points of view that have extended my appreciation for both the movies and books.

And alatar...I'm disappointed in you.
Why? I never knew that you appointed me...:confused:

Sauron the White

09-17-2007, 09:30 PM

Alatar - I read the very short article you linked to. It said nothing which changes the information I have been giving in this and the other thread on running and the necessity for extensive long distance training to run long distances. The only mention of glycogen is that is not exclusive and that other things can be employed in addition to the function glycogen serves to fuel the muscles of the body. "Limited use of free fatty acids" are not the same as fat people or a 4 foot 200 pound dwarf. Again, walking, be it on level ground or up a mountain, does not prepare one for the equal of 1.6 marathons a day for three days. The only thing that would do that is extensive training sessions over at least a three month period structured around long distance running possibly mixed with nearly equally strenuous power walking. . By my calculations, it would take a three months base base of nearly 18 miles per day to be able to run the 45 miles necessary in a single day. And then what happens on days two and three? Answer - you are flat on your back nursing a very tired, aching and depleted body which would not be ready for exercise for many more days. And what would it take to get up to that 3 month base of 18 miles a day. Most probably a year of serious training. Again, this is all mathematical and psyiological.

The article you linked to has no research stats beyond 10,000 meters or 6.2 miles. That was the limit of their research. The training methods for ultra-marathon distances does not change because of the discovery of using fatty acids. Again, not the same as fat people or fat dwarves. But I think you already knew that. ;)

Matthew M ... since Alatar already said it, I will allow his words to speak for me

You've made Sauron the White's point rather well, and just when I was hoping that he was coming over to the Books side.

more from Matthew

Say all you want about your cinderblocks. You are wrong. The book always rules out the movies.

Well it seems that indeed you have all four aces up your sleeves. You will willingly engage in playing with me and others but in the end you can always play your aces as you have now done. Since the books will always triumph in any discussion, any debate, any difference of opinion, we might as well all just shut up and go home right now.

more from MatthewM

They are not supposed to be two different things, they are both "The Lord of the Rings" and the way that PJ chose to portray certain characters and events counter to the book does not rest well with the true Tolkien enthusiast, except for you and a small majority.

Regardless of your opinion, you cannot change reality. A book is one thing. A film is a different thing. In this case, the subject matter is the same, however, they are clearly not the same thing. And how is it that you speak "for the true Tolkien enthusiast". What is the litmus test for being "true"? I suspect I know the answer to that one. Were you elected or appointed to this position? Or perhaps self- appointed? And how did you determine that a "small majority" agreed with the Jackson films and me? Please show me the stats on this as many here would find them most illuminating.

It is most interesting that cooler heads here and myself seem to be able to find some middle ground on these issues. But you come along and we go back to square one with the Defenders of the Holy Word denying even the possibility of value in the Jackson films.

As Alatar said - you prove my point for me. Thank you MatthewM.

Folwren

09-18-2007, 07:54 AM

My word! Why do things have to get so defensive and nasty?

Honestly, people, this isn't even on topic! If you want to discuss the three runners, why don't you do it on a thread made just for that? It seems that there is enough stuff to argue about!

This thread of Elempi's isn't even meant for whether or not the movie was accurate - or if the book was better. It was merely asking 'which do you prefer - the books' Gollum/Smeagol or the movie's - and why?' I don't believe Elempi meant for it to become a battle of whether or not PJ did a good job - because Gollum happened to be something that PJ did a particularly good job with.

Be reasonable and stop acting like children.

-- Folwren

Quempel

09-18-2007, 09:02 AM

StW

I have been a long distance speed walker for some time now, and ok its not running, but I like my backbone and knee joints. Your assumption that Gimli wasn't physically able to run is just that, your assumption. No where in the book or the movie does it say that Gimli was unable to run. He would not have been able to keep up with over 6 foot tall Legolas and Aragorn simply because of stride length, but he is in shape. He had been walking and running with the fellowship for a long time, thus building up his endurance. And sorry StW, walking at a fast pace builds the same endurance as running, there are many medical studies that show walking does as much good as running, without the pain. So here is Gimli who has been out walking at a rather fast clip, in snow, over mountains, through mountains, and now all of the sudden he is so out of shape that he can't do anything.

The other flaw in your argument is that you are applying modern day human standards to non-human. Gimli is not human, he is a dwarf. You assume that Tolkien’s dwarfs fall under the same standards of humans, and Tolkien clearly distinguished the differences between the races in middle earth. Dwarfs did not have the same physical characteristics as humans. Same as humans did not have the same characteristics as elves. In fact the only paring of human with other races were with elves. There are no hobbit dwarf mating, no human hobbit mating. Perhaps this is because the DNA would not mix. Applying modern human standards to a fictional non-human dwarf is assuming that you know everything about Tolkien's dwarfs. The same standards you believe you know about the human body and running can and possibly do not apply to Dwarfs.

By the way are you a trained doctor? Or just a runner? There is a difference between a doctor who has spent years studying the human body and a lone runner who has only his own experiences to draw upon. It's like saying since you fix your own car you are certified mechanic.

And one more question, are you on Pete's payroll? Your disdain of Tolkien comes out loud and clear in your posts, and I have to wonder why you even read the books to begin with and simply didn't wait for Pete's much superior action flicks to come out.

Sauron the White

09-18-2007, 10:01 AM

Quempel...

no I have never recieved on thin dime from Mr. Jackson. I have no disdain of JRRT - in fact I count LOTR as my all time favorite book. I truly love it. I have been reading it and rereading it for over 35 years now. I do however, view JRRT as a human being who created a book which has its own beauty, its own wonder and its own flaws. After all, it is a creation of a flawed human being and we are all in that category. Divine perfection is not achieved by any of us, JRRT included.

My entire point here began in the thread labeled as DENETHORS PLUNGE. In it, someone, I believe Knight of Gondor, went to great lengths to reproduce stills from ROTK to show the exact distance that Denethor had to run while on fire before his plunge off the edge. It was concluded that this would have take at least three minutes to complete and thus was impossible for a man to do while being consumed in flames.

Fine. He did a good job and was technically correct in his findings.

I pointed out two things: one, we only see Denethor on fire for a total of ten seconds in his run not three minutes - so what the audience saw was a ten second sprint - something they have seen many times in many movies with people on fire for far longer durations. Two - what ever happened to willing suspension of disbelief? You know what that is right? Its what every fantasy, horror and science fiction tale needs to survive beyond the "that cannot really happen" statement from viewers who apply actual science and reality to these type of tales.

None of us could enjoy the LOTR as a book or as a film if we did not employ a healthy dose of willing suspension of disbelief.

My point was a simple one: Why is it that when it comes to the books, many here can willingly engage in suspended their disbelief and just go with it - while at the same time - doing what Knight of Gondor did in the previously mentioned thread, applying reality and science to mock and ridicule the films?

In fact, when something in the books is criticized for not being feasible, even in the confines of a fantasy world, many here go to great lengths to come up with all manner of intellectual exercises to show that Tolkien could never have made a mistake. But when it comes to Jacksons films, its a whole different ballgame with a whole different set of rules.

I see that as a hypocritical double standard.

I merely used the example of Gimli not being able to run 140 miles in three days as an obvious hole in the book. As predicted by myself, many Tolkien book enthusiasts came up with all manner of intellectual explainations to show why a four foot, 200 pound dwarf, in heavy boots and carrying heavy weapons, with no long distance running training, could accomplish what a marathon runner could not do with months of training.

You still cling to this fiction. Your latest tact is that Gimli is not human and thus all bets are off. I refer you to this site

http://www.answers.com/glycogen?cat=health

If you read the article about glycogen and how muscles utilize it you will read that it applies not only to people - of which I thought Gimli was one - but to all animals as well. Somewhere in there is Gimli. Or is he such an alien creature that all normal rules of muscles do not apply to him. Thats a pretty big loophole if you are going to maintain that.

Even in a fantasy novel such as LOTR there is an internal logical structure that applies to its inhabitants. It is not by job to show you that Gimli DID NOT TRAIN. How does one point to what is not there? Proving a negative comes to mind. It is your job to demonstrate that he did. The book gives us no evidence that Gimli engaged in the type of long term long distance running or even race walking that is necessary to rack up the kind of miles that Tolkien uses. Tolkien gives us no evidence of it. Its simply not there. If it is please quote me the edition, the chapter and the page. I will be glad to read it.

alatar

09-18-2007, 11:11 AM

And did we mention that Frodo may have been doomed to the same split in personality as affected Gollum? At times in TTT and RotK he's nice then ready to kill Sam. It's Sam's love that keeps the split from occurring. PJ even has Frodo draw Sting to Sam's throat!

Frodo does seem to oscillate between the normal hobbit and the socio/psychopathic one. This same event happens to Gollum where the creature is about 80-90% on the evil side with a few moments of old tired hobbit breaking through. Frodo always starts and ends the movies well enough, but in between he can really go crazy mad. With more than five hundred years of the same influence - and no tempering by Sam - Gollum is what Frodo (or, presumably any Ring user) would end up being.

Does Sauron wish, however rarely, for simpler times when he wasn't even Aulendil, let alone Annatar?

Formendacil

09-18-2007, 11:24 AM

Even in a fantasy novel such as LOTR there is an internal logical structure that applies to its inhabitants. It is not by job to show you that Gimli DID NOT TRAIN. How does one point to what is not there? Proving a negative comes to mind. It is your job to demonstrate that he did. The book gives us no evidence that Gimli engaged in the type of long term long distance running or even race walking that is necessary to rack up the kind of miles that Tolkien uses. Tolkien gives us no evidence of it. Its simply not there. If it is please quote me the edition, the chapter and the page. I will be glad to read it.

Running? I have no idea if Dwarves are generally runners or not... but as regards their ability regarding stamina? Well, allow me to quote from the Silmarillion:

Since they were to come in the days of the power of Melkor, Aulë made the Dwarves strong to endure. Therefore they are stone-hard, stubborn, fast in friendship and enmity, and they suffer toil and hunger and hurt of body more hardily than all other speaking peoples; and they live long, far beyond the span of Men, yet not forever.

From Chapter II of the Quenta Silmarillion proper: "Of Aulë and Yavanna".

Furthermore, from the Lord of the Rings, I quote with regards to Gimli's running:

'Well, after them!' said Gimli. 'Dwarves too can go swiftly, and they do not tire sooner than Orcs. But it will be a long chase, and they have a long start.'

'Yes,' said Aragorn, 'we shall all need the endurance of Dwarves....
--from the last page of the Two Towers, Chapter I: "The Departure of Boromir"

'Even I, Dwarf of many journeys, and not the least hardy of my folk, cannot run all the way to Isengard without any pause,' said Gimli. 'My heart burns me too, and I would have started sooner; but now I must rest a little to run the better. And if we rest, then the blind night is the time to do so.'
--from about the seventh page of the Two Towers, Chapter II: "The Riders of Rohan"

So the third day of their pursuit began. During all its long hours of cloud and fitful sun they hardly paused, now striding, now running, as if no weariness could quench the fire that burned them.
--from the same chapter, approximately page eight or nine of that chapter.

As you can see, it is quite clear that Gimli, a Dwarf, was a hardy and resolute member of a hardy and resolute species, and it is quite clear that there was a good deal of running involved, though not constantly. Within the internal consistency of Tolkien's world, it seems fairly clear that he envisioned Gimli running--and keeping up with the others. There is a difference between "never been trained" and "unable to do something". The former implies the lack of a teacher, which I will grant: Gimli probably never had a long-distance, mile-covering teacher. However, given that he is said to be a Dwarf of many journeys, and given that Dwarves don't ride horses, and given that Aragorn admires his Dwarven resiliency, I think the implication is that Gimli was quite capable of the feat.

Quempel

09-18-2007, 11:45 AM

Formendacil

Thats the Sil quote I have looking for. Bingo. Thanks.

Sauron the White

09-18-2007, 11:49 AM

Hardy and strong does not equal training for ultra marathon distances - not once, not twice but on three consecutive days.

We will agree to disagree then.

Again, aside from the running, my main point was that many Tolkien book purists will go to the nth degree with all type of intellectual exercies and rationalizations to attempt to prove that the book is perfect and no errors or holes are in it. I think this discussion shows that beyond any shadow of a doubt. But it is our willing suspension of disbelief that helps us accept the improbable or even the impossible.

All I am asking for is the same willing suspension of disbelief when it comes to the films. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Someone should go back and read the first page and one-half of the thread DENETHORS PLUNGE and the mocking ridicule heaped upon the films by many here. The films seem to be fair game --- but heaven help anyone who raises a question about the books being inconsistent.

That is all I was trying to say from the beginning this subject came up.

Sir Kohran

09-18-2007, 01:33 PM

As you can see, it is quite clear that Gimli, a Dwarf, was a hardy and resolute member of a hardy and resolute species, and it is quite clear that there was a good deal of running involved, though not constantly. Within the internal consistency of Tolkien's world, it seems fairly clear that he envisioned Gimli running--and keeping up with the others. There is a difference between "never been trained" and "unable to do something". The former implies the lack of a teacher, which I will grant: Gimli probably never had a long-distance, mile-covering teacher. However, given that he is said to be a Dwarf of many journeys, and given that Dwarves don't ride horses, and given that Aragorn admires his Dwarven resiliency, I think the implication is that Gimli was quite capable of the feat.

You provide some good reasoning, but I prefer to simply put it down to very subtle divine aid from Eru. Like Gollum's slip, it was something that had to be done for the triumph of good - Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli needed to reach Rohan for everything that was to follow to occur properly. Therefore Eru gave them an extra boost in speed and endurance to get them there.

And it's not as if Tolkien doesn't have ridiculous 'feats' elsewhere in his works...Hurin manages to kill *seventy* Trolls when he's completely surrounded. In a real battle he would have been overwhelmed and killed in seconds. And yet in Tolkien, he carries out this heroic, ridiculous deed and no-one criticises Tolkien...because this is a fantasy story and we can suspend our sense of reality.

As for the films...I think you're exagerrating the dwarf running thing a bit. Gimli is not shown as slow or weak, just not as fast as Aragorn and Legolas, which is quite fair as he has the shortest legs and (presumably) the most and heaviest armour. He doesn't break down and moan that he can't go on any further; he just has some trouble keeping up - however, he stays with them and doesn't actually fall behind.

MatthewM

09-18-2007, 02:43 PM

Why? I never knew that you appointed me...

My comment towards you was pertaining to your remark on Boromir from book to film.

Since the books will always triumph in any discussion, any debate, any difference of opinion, we might as well all just shut up and go home right now.

Please do!

Regardless of your opinion, you cannot change reality. A book is one thing. A film is a different thing. In this case, the subject matter is the same, however, they are clearly not the same thing. And how is it that you speak "for the true Tolkien enthusiast". What is the litmus test for being "true"? I suspect I know the answer to that one. Were you elected or appointed to this position? Or perhaps self- appointed? And how did you determine that a "small majority" agreed with the Jackson films and me? Please show me the stats on this as many here would find them most illuminating.

Yeah, right, because your posts did not hint at anything doubting your belief in JRRT's work... (extreme sarcasm)

It is obvious that there are, here at least, few people who agree with your book bashing movie thumping opinions.

It is most interesting that cooler heads here and myself seem to be able to find some middle ground on these issues. But you come along and we go back to square one with the Defenders of the Holy Word denying even the possibility of value in the Jackson films.

Touching. Funny enough, I happen to love the films. In fact, they are my favorite movies of all time. I am just not about to defend them over the books, and the things/characters/events wrongly portrayed in the films deserve talking and complaining about. Again, keep your apples and your cinderblocks. You can use me as an example to prove your relentless point if you wish, I care not.

It's also rather funny how my post toward you was concerning your skewed opinions of Boromir, and not so much on your flawless movie talk.

As Alatar said - you prove my point for me. Thank you MatthewM.

You are very welcome, Sauron the White.

Sauron the White

09-18-2007, 03:13 PM

from MatthewM

I happen to love the films. In fact, they are my favorite movies of all time. I am just not about to defend them over the books, and the things/characters/events wrongly portrayed in the films deserve talking and complaining about. Again, keep your apples and your cinderblocks. You can use me as an example to prove your relentless point if you wish, I care not.

Matthew - you are mistaken that I want you or anyone to defend one over the other. I am not picking the books over the films or the films over the books and I want nobody else to do that either. All I have asked for is one thing and only one thing: you employ your willing suspension of disbelief to aid in your appreciation and love of the book version of LOTR. That is great. Please also employ it when viewing the film version of LOTR. That is all I am asking.

Quempel

09-18-2007, 03:51 PM

Dwarfs apparently, according to Aragorns qoute, also have high endurance. Is that not the main quality a long distance runner needs?

And you ask us to suspend our disbelief about the movies, yet are unwilling to suspend your own disbelief about Gimli.

Sauron the White

09-18-2007, 04:19 PM

Quempel ... now you are aproaching wisdom. The only reason I brought up the entire Gimli running issue was to illustrate my point about willing suspension of disbelief and the necessity of being fair in its extension to BOTH THE BOOKS AND THE MOVIES. In doing so, I played Devils advocate and fought the fight to show how something in the books made little sense - at least to me based on my real world experience and knowledge. Knowledge which I believe Tolkien did not have.

I am more than willing to extend willing suspension of disbelief to the books. I have for the past 36 years of multiple readings. All I am asking is for the same courtesy for the films. I love both dearly. I really bothers me when I read the first page of the DENETHORS PLUNGE thread and I see the smugness, the ridicule, the "lets all pile on and show what a horses behind Jackson really is" attitude that comes in post after post. Oh sure, they will claim that its all in good fun. But only because its their favorite target.

ENDURANCE - yes runners have a special kind of it because they train for it. People who labor hard can also have endurance. It can also mean putting up with a lot of grief. Dwarves are described as a strong and hardy folk. There is nothing in the SILMARALLION or LOTR to indicate they prepared themselves to be ultra marathoners.

But that is not my point.

Does anyone out there see this?

Quempel

09-18-2007, 04:32 PM

There is also nothing in the Sil or LoTR to say the peoples of middle earth were subject to our standards.

And I am rather wise already, thanks.

littlemanpoet

09-18-2007, 04:49 PM

Sauron the White

09-18-2007, 05:42 PM

Thanks for pointing that out. I will check it out.
Does anyone here get my higher point about double standards on these boards?

Formendacil

09-18-2007, 08:13 PM

Thanks for pointing that out. I will check it out.
Does anyone here get my higher point about double standards on these boards?

I think your comment regarding double standards is well understood. You've certainly hammered at it enough that only the densest should fail to get it. Put simply put, you want us to overlook the unrealities in the movies in the same way we do with the books.

Which is a fair point, in my opinion--and the reason I left the Denethor plunge alone has nothing so much to do with the fact I'm no scientist/runner/pyromaniac (though that is case), but because when I watch the movies I'm able to suspend disbelief there.

There. Not everywhere else.

Basically, I think our willingness to suspend disbelief has to do with the "magic" cast by the work in general. Yes, for the Book, most fans are willing to go to outrageous lengths to gloss over how an inconsistency works out. That is a suspension of disbelief in practice, as you point out. And the reason so many fans will do it is because of the "magic". That is, they love the book.

Most book fans, simply put, found that the "magic" did not translate evenly into the Movies--regardless of consistencies in story, adaptation of plot, and other situations requiring suspension of belief. Myself, I found the "magic" there in the Fellowship, albeit dimmed from the book, and less so in the latter two movies.

Without the "magic" to motivate it, there is little or no point to the suspension of disbelief. It isn't just a rational exercise. If so then you would go to the movie, gloss over the part you needed to, then either forget about it, or deem the need to gloss in the first place a defect in the movie.

For a lot of fans--particularly those enamoured of the book magic--the "magic" was not in the movies, so the need to suspend disbeliefs was a defect in the movies.

I hope I'm making some sense... it seems clear up here.

alatar

09-18-2007, 08:17 PM

Does anyone here get my higher point about double standards on these boards?
Obviously not. ;)

I've actually considered resurrecting or creating a thread where we can hash out which is better, the movies or the books and any piece, person or part therein, but then immediately realized while the thread would provide much heat (or not), little light would shine through. Neither side, when it comes down to it, can provide an objective argument as to why one is better than the other. In the end, it will boil down to opinion, and so we'd be no farther than we are today. If you think otherwise, go for it, and let's see me proved wrong - and I have no problem posting for posting's sake.

Speaking of dwarves, Galadriel or Arwen? Sound familiar?

We nitpick Jackson as he's given us the large target and some arrows to use. The movies are easy to criticize given the medium, to my knowledge we always rate movies and it's not hard in that we can look and see that! just ain't right. Doing the same thing in the books is a little harder as one might have to do more research before nocking an arrow (and in some cases, we only have one shot to get it right before persons return fire).

My previous post was yet another attempt to get this thread back on track for those so inclined.

Sauron the White

09-19-2007, 07:01 AM

Thank you to both Formendacil and Alatar for the very good explainations. Some very good points were raised - and I like the part about "magic" since that seems the prime motivation for excercising ones willing suspension of disbelief. I will give it up on the running and Gimli --- for the time being bowing to discretion. :)

alatar

09-19-2007, 08:07 AM

Some very good points were raised - and I like the part about "magic" since that seems the prime motivation for excercising ones willing suspension of disbelief.
I've been thinking about this as well, and even considered a new thread. Is it truly "willing?" I can never remember ever sitting, either in the theater or at home with a book, saying to myself, "Oh, this Balrog thing is going to take some belief suspension." alatar assumes the lotus position..."Hmmm. Hmmm. Balrogs exist. Balrogs exist..."

Whether Jackson or Tolkien, I think that when they're at their best, you don't even have to try to suspend belief. That, to me, is why LotR is so good, and why PJ really scored with Gollum.

I will give it up on the running and Gimli --- for the time being bowing to discretion. :)
Note that Sisyphus would quit if he could.

littlemanpoet

09-19-2007, 09:02 AM

I also understand your point on "double standard"; I just disagree, for one simple reason: Middle Earth is Tolkien's creation. Jackson was given permission to borrow it. So the standard lies with Tolkien, and Jackson had a responsibility to be true to the standard.

Subsequent posts on "the magic" and "willing suspension of disbelief" bring to mind what may be objective distinctions between the book and movie, something to which I need give more thought: with "magic", are we talking perhaps about those old "mythic unities" that are all over the book but not in the movie? And with willing suspension of disbelief, Tolkien posited a higher level, which he called "secondary belief". I think these two concepts may bear upon this larger discussion.

By the way, I have no problem with this thread detouring onto bigger topics, so long as the original is considered to have been more or less resolved, and these new detours arise naturally from discussion of the initial topic.

Bêthberry

09-19-2007, 09:16 AM

Is it truly "willing?" I can never remember ever sitting, either in the theater or at home with a book, saying to myself, "Oh, this Balrog thing is going to take some belief suspension." alatar assumes the lotus position..."Hmmm. Hmmm. Balrogs exist. Balrogs exist..."

Whether Jackson or Tolkien, I think that when they're at their best, you don't even have to try to suspend belief. That, to me, is why LotR is so good, and why PJ really scored with Gollum.

A good belt of sub-creation beats suspenders any day, hey?

Lalwendë

09-19-2007, 09:37 AM

STW, you make much real world sense. Trouble is, we're talking about Middle Earth here. Gimli's famous run with Aragorn and Legolas is not the only instance in which Tolkien describes a Dwarf or Dwarves with such incredible running endurance. In The Hobbit, the Dwarves of the Iron Hills run a "forced march" trot all the way from the equivalent of the Aral Sea to Finland in (I believe) three days. That's a lot of miles. So Tolkien apparently intended Dwarves to be understood as capable of the kind of thing he describes.

That's all I have time for right now. I'll see to your previous post directed to me when time avails.

To my mind there's no reason why a Dwarf would not be able to run an exceptional long distance at speed, after all, they are not homo sapiens! It's no more odd to me than an Elf having exceptional long life or the ability to walk on snow (or custard ;)) lightly as the fact that they are different species explains a lot. I have more problems with accepting that the Dunedain could live for a few hundred years as that seems to be not compatible with the species.

Middle-earth of course has three species of 'human ape' - Men, Elves and Dwarves. At one point in prehistory the earth itself supported at least three species too - homo sapiens, neanderthals and homo erectus. We can accept that each of these had quirks and big differences, so why not accept these between Men, Elves and Dwarves? They are not all the same, biologically speaking.

Formendacil

09-19-2007, 09:43 AM

To my mind there's no reason why a Dwarf would not be able to run an exceptional long distance at speed, after all, they are not homo sapiens! It's no more odd to me than an Elf having exceptional long life or the ability to walk on snow (or custard ;)) lightly as the fact that they are different species explains a lot. I have more problems with accepting that the Dunedain could live for a few hundred years as that seems to be not compatible with the species.

Middle-earth of course has three species of 'human ape' - Men, Elves and Dwarves. At one point in prehistory the earth itself supported at least three species too - homo sapiens, neanderthals and homo erectus. We can accept that each of these had quirks and big differences, so why not accept these between Men, Elves and Dwarves? They are not all the same, biologically speaking.

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

alatar

09-19-2007, 10:03 AM

TMiddle-earth of course has three species of 'human ape' - Men, Elves and Dwarves.
I'm guessing that the Dwarves were completely different as they were made in private by Aulë. Now, in his mind he may have had some of Eru's thinking, but from my point of view, the Dwarves were distinctly different from the other two races.

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

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

Sauron the White

09-19-2007, 10:52 AM

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

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

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

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

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

alatar

09-19-2007, 11:08 AM

If indeed all of these explainations have some validity in them, perhaps Eomer was greatly exaggerating the case for praising the Three Hunters for thier achievement at running and striding those leagues. Ater all, if Dwarves have all these special abilities, and Elves have all these special abilities, and Aragorn is of superior race with gifts not given to mere mortals, then Eomer was judging what they did by human standards and he was wildly off base to do so.
Arguably Eomer may not have been the best judge in this matter. And again, as I've stated, these three are the best of the best at the top of their game. They are so good in fact that one day they might even appear in movies.

Perhaps any old run of the mill elf or dwarf or Dunedain could have done this on most days of the week. Seems to be that all these explainations greatly reduce the significance of the achievement.
That would be, "run of the mine" in regards to Dwarves. And note that half - if not more - of the running/walking was down hill as the Three were traveling south.

People here say I was wrong because I was judging Gimli by human standards in the real world. Okay. Seems that is just what Eomer was doing in proclaiming their achievement as so worthy of being sung about.
And that's exactly why Peter Jackson cut most of Eomer's part from LotR, as he is of little worth except that he has a famous sister who ends up doing something or other then runs from a dough-malled orc.

Folwren

09-19-2007, 11:29 AM

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

-- Folwren

William Cloud Hicklin

09-19-2007, 11:34 AM

StW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sauron the White

09-19-2007, 11:42 AM

from Alatar

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

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

from Folwren

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

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

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

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

Lalwendë

09-19-2007, 11:58 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Folwren

09-19-2007, 12:06 PM

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

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

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

alatar

09-19-2007, 12:18 PM

From Eomer's words, expressing surprise at Aragorn's fitness, it could be that Men are the usual tortoises of Middle-earth, whereas Elves and Dwarves are the hares.
Maybe Eomer was a bit shocked that Aragorn and company followed the enemy for three days on foot, being a rider or personally been inattentive.

I definitely count Elves, Men and Dwarves as distinct species - each has a different origin in terms of the Creation, and each has definite characteristics.
I understand what you mean, but always thought of the word 'species' as being a group that can interbreed, meaning that those not of that species cannot. But that definition may be antiquated. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem)

This if course does not mean that they could not interbreed if they desired it, as there is real world evidence that homo sapiens and neanderthals could have mated, and that does not just come from the pages of a Jean M Auel novel! I have even read that the genes for red hair stem from neanderthals - though we shall quickly brush over that one. Ahem. ;)
They're working on this issue now as seen here. (http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/neanderthaldna/index.html)

The Dunedain are more thorny though - maybe their freakish long lives can only be put down to divine intervention as there is little biological explanation for say the long life of Aragorn, besides him having a superior diet and a mega-slow metabolism.
As it could be bred out, I'm guessing it's a gene, but anything more than that I'll attribute to Eru.

And what about Orcses? Right can of worms... :eek:
They got the speed of the elves, iron-clad shoes (which allowed them to hover somewhat do to Arda's magnetic field) and the Saruman effect that lowered their wind resistance when they ran towards Orthanc.

Sauron the White

09-19-2007, 12:21 PM

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

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

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

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

Folwren

09-19-2007, 12:26 PM

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

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

-- Folwren

Sauron the White

09-19-2007, 12:30 PM

Folwren
thank you for your last post. No harm no foul. I admit I am pushing things to force the issue so a little anger now and then is partly my fault.

Lalwendë

09-19-2007, 12:50 PM

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

Eomer, the Horse Potato? :D

I understand what you mean, but always thought of the word 'species' as being a group that can interbreed, meaning that those not of that species cannot. But that definition may be antiquated. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem)

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

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

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

alatar

09-19-2007, 12:58 PM

However you could not get all species to interbreed, e.g. a cat and a dog.
It's their different tastes in music that keeps them from even dancing together.

Maybe we see no Dwarf combos with other species as they physically cannot manage the 'act'? Or maybe it was the beards? ;)
Are male dwarves attracted to females of other races? Seems that Gimli gives a hint of that. Are Dwarven females attracted to males of other races? Seems that they're not much attracted to even their own kind, but lacking any evidence I cannot say more. Do any AD&D like games support half-dwarves?

True, and this could be accounted for when the text tells us that bloodlines have become 'dilute'.
That's exactly why I stated that. Plus it's said that in some the 'gene' is recessive and only certain combinations of persons produce long-lived children in the Mendellian sense.

Finduilas

09-19-2007, 01:18 PM

Does anyone find it amusing that Gollum hasn't been meantioned for about two pages?

alatar

09-19-2007, 01:21 PM

Does anyone find it amusing that Gollum hasn't been meantioned for about two pages?
Who? And how fast can he run?

Lalwendë

09-19-2007, 01:33 PM

Who? And how fast can he run?

If you were offering him fishes then fast, I'd imagine. Though that depends on his soles? I guess he cod run quite fast though.

Maybe you simply didn't get Dwarf women interbreeding due to the beards? ;)

How long do Orcs live? If they have similar freakish life spans to Elves then this would support the idea that they were originally created from them. Somehow I don't think it would be appropriate within the context of Middle-earth that Orcs were mortals with similar lifespans to the Dunedain if their long(er) lives were a special gift.

Anyway, Dwarf runners...was that the topic? ;)

William Cloud Hicklin

09-19-2007, 01:55 PM

I don't imagine Eomer knew much of anything about Elves or Dwarves or their abilities. He had never seen one, nor I expect ever met anyone who had (save perhaps Gandalf). He was aware of Lorien, but is plainly ignorant of its inhabitants. Some other Rider at Helm's Deep says "Dwarves are cunning folk with stone, *they say*," which implies a very rudimentary, rumour-based awareness of the Naugrim.

It's noteworthy that "Wingfoot, I name thee" is addressed specifically to Aragorn, the Man. He doesn't apply it to the other two, mysterious creatures whose folk weave magic camouflage cloaks.

Quempel

09-19-2007, 01:56 PM

Is gollum running with the ring or without the ring? Is he a trained runner? Is he human or what? Did Tolkien consult PJ to make sure PJ was ok with everything, being it's PJ's story and all?

And most importantly which one of gollums personalities showed up for the marathon?

alatar

09-19-2007, 02:09 PM

Is gollum running with the ring or without the ring?
Without. Gollum clearly dances when he has the Ring, meaning motion in a non-linear trajectory, which precludes running.

Is he a trained runner?
Swimmer and tree climber. His lapses into running like a dog, though he being obviously humanoid, would make running slow. Built not for speed but for stealth, though he does have that hobbit gene for perseverance.

Is he human or what?
Hobbit kind. Even Tolkien gets this one right.

Did Tolkien consult PJ to make sure PJ was ok with everything, being it's PJ's story and all?
No. Bet if they could have, the two may have sat down together and hashed things out as it seems that we do here. (Note that in one universe, PJ's films are the basis for Tolkien's works as in that world, and only that world, does time move backwards.)

And most importantly which one of gollums personalities showed up for the marathon?
Exactly my question. What happens when Smeagol wants to go north and Gollum wants to go south? Because the two function so well as both two and one, think that PJ may have presented the creature accurately in that they have one body, one goal yet two means of getting there - kill Frodo and take the Ring, or help Frodo to some misfortune and pick the ownerless Ring off of the cave floor - which would be fitting and circular, as this is how Gollum lost the Ring in the first place.

Folwren

09-19-2007, 02:12 PM

Exactly my question. What happens when Smeagol wants to go north and Gollum wants to go south? Because the two function so well as both two and one, think that PJ may have presented the creature accurately in that they have one body, one goal yet two means of getting there - kill Frodo and take the Ring, or help Frodo to some misfortune and pick the ownerless Ring off of the cave floor - which would be fitting and circular, as this is how Gollum lost the Ring in the first place.

Hey...! That does provoke some thought, doesn't it? If Smeagol conquered over Gollum, why did he continue to lead the hobbits forward, towards Shelob? He clearly meant to do Frodo good, and yet he was still ... well, it does cut immediately to the rabbit scene and from there it goes directly into Faramir, and yet the rabbit scene seems to have taken place half way through a day of journeying in the direction of Shelob. Interesting.

Thoughts?

Sauron the White

09-19-2007, 02:29 PM

littlemanpoet

09-19-2007, 08:04 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enter the movie.

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

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

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

littlemanpoet

09-20-2007, 02:59 AM

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

I have a little time for "mythic unity".

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

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

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

Sauron the White

09-20-2007, 05:40 AM

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

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

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

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

Quempel

09-20-2007, 09:17 AM

If Gollum is portrayed in the films as having some type of disassociative disorder - and I think he does - it is important to understand this is clearly not the same as the typical Hollywood version of the split personality. In many films over the years, and in countless TV shows, we see the split personality as the 100% take over of a person by a different personality almost like a possession. That is an extreme of an extreme.

Most people who experience disassociate disorder maintain a personality with a middle constant that can vacilate in part to different ends. Most people around them can live for years seeing them everyday and never realize they have the disorder. Its not like "today I am me.... now look ... I am Rasputin". It really does not work that way.

Frodo wakes up the Smeagol portion of his personality and it battles back and forth with the Gollum side. In the middle is a constant that permits to serve his new master, enjoy rediscovering his more pleasant side, while at the same time leading him to Shelob. People without the disorder would see those two things as a contradiction, but someone with the disorder sees nothing at all wrong with what they are doing.

It is my understanding that typical DID do not have their personalities communicate with each other much, but I am only in my third year. However, I don't disagree that he may have had a split personality, but I think he presents with a side order of DID as it were. Most DID patients are not manipulative and mean, just sick. That said a person with a serious Cluster B personality disorder can also have DID. Cluster B are the psychopaths, boardrline, Histrionic (Hysterical),Narcissistic, Antisocial, Borderline types. Actually come to think about it he could easily fall into the Cluster A and C personality disorders too. It shows how much the ring can do. But Smeagol was already a murderer and theif before Gollum showed up. I have to wonder just how much the ring did to turn him into Gollum, since Smeagol wasn't that good of a hobbit to begin with. I wonder where he would rank in the most evil ranking.

MatthewM

09-20-2007, 02:07 PM

Please also employ it when viewing the film version of LOTR. That is all I am asking.

No.

alatar

09-20-2007, 02:19 PM

I wonder where he would rank in the most evil ranking.
Middle to low. Both Jackson and Tolkien make the Ring a semi-sentient entity that controls its destiny via others. Smeagol was chosen by the Ring, and for the Ring to move to that bearer, Deagol had to be removed. There being no orcs around, as in the case of Isildur, the Ring made Smeagol kill Deagol.

Note that Smeagol and Deagol previously hung out together, and the two always returned home, and so it's because of the Ring that only one returns that fateful day. Bilbo could have 'dun murder' as well, but that would not have served the Ring's purposes. If Bilbo slew Gollum before Gollum led Bilbo to the Goblin's exit, then it would have likely remained where is was for another eon - and just weren't the first 500 years just peachy?

Bilbo does not murder Gollum when he's exiting the cave as that would have drawn attention to the bearer, and hence the Ring. But this wasn't the Ring's doing (I think) as wasn't there another power at work that was trying to get the Ring into Frodo's hands? ;)

Gollum may have been evil, but I'm guessing that he would have been listed lower than Sandyman if it weren't for the Ring.

littlemanpoet

09-20-2007, 07:28 PM

Sauron the White

09-20-2007, 08:16 PM

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

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

What exactly did I have wrong in my facts?

Seems to me one of two things went on here.

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

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

This from Humphrey Carpenter

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

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

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

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

littlemanpoet

09-22-2007, 09:40 AM

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

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

Upon further consideration it occurred to me that something else might be happening here:I admit I am pushing things to force the issue so a little anger now and then is partly my fault.If this is the case, which I think may well be, I have no desire to be involved in such a (in my opinion) useless debate as Tolkien's personal character, which simply should not be in question; the facts are already well laid out in Carpenter's biography and Tolkien's Letters (despite the above attempt to create "a seeming" of what's not really there). Tolkien's character is not the issue of this thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sauron the White

09-22-2007, 10:51 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Formendacil

09-22-2007, 12:52 PM

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

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

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

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

Sauron the White

09-22-2007, 02:04 PM

JRRT was a responsible adult who willingly entered into a binding legal contract to sell LOTR to a third party for the purposes of dramatic or film rights. He willingly did so knowing full well what this process entailed and involved. He could have
a- not sold the rights at all, or
b - negotiated a sale for possibly less money but retaining some type of artistic control over the result.
But he did neither of these.

At the same time, JRRT believed that the book would not lend itself to a film or stage presentation. He believed that such a transition to another medium would not be successful.

I think rather than me tell you what these facts may mean, I ask others here what they mean to you?

Why would you sell someone somthing when you were on record as believing that the purchasing party would not be able to realize the value in their part of the bargain?

obloquy

09-22-2007, 03:00 PM

Why not? It's good money, and what difference, ultimately, does it make? Knockoffs were inevitable, anyway. Besides, if Tolkien had maintained a closer relationship with those who wanted to adapt his story (i.e. greater creative influence), he would have had to share the blame for the results.

littlemanpoet

09-23-2007, 05:54 AM

But now you introduce something different. This entire line of SECONDARY BELIEF that Tolkien talks about. To be frank, I think you are taking willing suspension of disbelief, dressing it up in a more expensive gown, attempting to put some lipstick and make-up on it and declaring it something unique and special that covers only the writings of Tolkien. I think you are doing this to have another trump card ready. I really do not buy it.If this is what you think, then you misunderstand. I'm not ingenious enough to trot out something new and different as some special trump card. Secondary Belief has been discussed by me and others over the years quite often in other threads, notably in Books discussions.

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

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

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

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

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

davem

09-23-2007, 06:20 AM

I suppose that the things that broke my 'Secondary belief' in the movie had more to do with the illogicalities than anything else - I could list Boromir being hurled a good twenty feet across the Chamber of Mazarbul into a stone wall & just being mildly stunned, Frodo falling from the Seat of Seeing on Amon Hen the equivalent (given his size) of about thirty feet for a man onto his back & just getting up & shaking his head, the Rohirrim charging down a 45 degree scree slope into pike (or the same suicidal manouvre carried out on the Pelennor Fields - Tolkien was well enough informed to know that cavalry never, ever, charge pike & so has the Rohirrim smash into the enemy flank without warning). I won't even go into Denethor's 3 mile run from the Hallows to the precipice while aflame (or the silliness of having no wall there - the Gondorian Health & Safety executive would have had apoplexy!) I could go on....

I think that that kind of thing, far more than the character changes, was what really made it impossible for me to accept the movies.

Sir Kohran

09-23-2007, 06:52 AM

davem

09-23-2007, 07:52 AM

So? Tolkien does ridiculous things too. What do you make of Hurin, all alone and completely surrounded, killing *seventy* trolls?

No. That's typical of ancient heroes - Arthur is credited with killing five hundred men in one battle. Besides I don't think its logically impossible that Hurin killed 70 trolls. And logical impossibility is what we're talking here. Its also subjective. The capture of Hurin I, personally, found incredibly moving. The incidents I cited in the movies I found silly. If you didn't that's fine.

Sir Kohran

09-23-2007, 08:27 AM

Besides I don't think its logically impossible that Hurin killed 70 trolls.

I cannot see how it is logically possible for a single man, who had been fighting all day and was armed with a borrowed orc axe and was completely alone and surrounded by opposing forces, to kill seventy enemies (and apparently more additional orcs). Heck, that's almost as many as Legolas and Gimli together killed during the entire battle at the Hornburg.

And there are other cases, too - six thousand Rohirrim, six or seven thousand men of Gondor and several thousand more reinforcements with Aragorn somehow manage to defeat a force of eighteen thousand Haradrim, countless thousands of orcs and trolls, and many other evil men. The victory at the Pelennor seems a miracle to say the least.

davem

09-23-2007, 08:51 AM

I cannot see how it is logically possible for a single man, who had been fighting all day and was armed with a borrowed orc axe and was completely alone and surrounded by opposing forces, to kill seventy enemies (and apparently more additional orcs). Heck, that's almost as many as Legolas and Gimli together killed during the entire battle at the Hornburg.

Hurin was the greatest (human) hero of the First Age - which surely makes it entirely possible that he could kill 70 trolls - in fact, the killing of 70 trolls would be exactly the kind of thing that would beget, & confirm, such a reputation. Anyway, He killed 70 trolls because Tolkien says he did. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?

And there are other cases, too - six thousand Rohirrim, six or seven thousand men of Gondor and several thousand more reinforcements with Aragorn somehow manage to defeat a force of eighteen thousand Haradrim, countless thousands of orcs and trolls, and many other evil men. The victory at the Pelennor seems a miracle to say the least.

Many ancient battles were lost by superior forces to numerically inferior ones. And I think you're forgetting the morale destroying effect of the killing of Angmar. The point is the forces of Mordor went in expecting a walkover & found themselves being hit from all sides by forces they were not expecting. Add to that the death of the Witch King & consequent loss of a controlling hand, & its entirely likely that they would start to panic, become confused & go to pieces. At that point it would have become a walkover for an organised force under the command of experienced leaders like Aragorn, Eomer & Imrahil.

obloquy

09-23-2007, 02:57 PM

the killing of Angmar.

Who is Angmar?

Sauron the White

09-23-2007, 03:40 PM

from davem

Hurin was the greatest (human) hero of the First Age - which surely makes it entirely possible that he could kill 70 trolls - in fact, the killing of 70 trolls would be exactly the kind of thing that would beget, & confirm, such a reputation.

Isn't this some type of strange circular logic? Hurin is the greatest hero because of course he have killed 70 trolls. And of course he could have killed 70 trolls because he was the greatest hero.

What came first the chicken or the egg?

This is exactly the type of thing I come back to again and again. When its in the books everyone reads it and says "okay". But put this in the movies and its page after page of contemptuous posts showing how it is impossible by all the known laws of man and nature.

That's typical of ancient heroes - Arthur is credited with killing five hundred men in one battle.

I hope that happened in a book so its accepted as believable. If you put that in a movie, of course it would be ridiculous and attacked to no end.

Formendacil

09-23-2007, 03:54 PM

Hurin was the greatest (human) hero of the First Age - which surely makes it entirely possible that he could kill 70 trolls - in fact, the killing of 70 trolls would be exactly the kind of thing that would beget, & confirm, such a reputation. Anyway, He killed 70 trolls because Tolkien says he did. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?

Tsk, tsk!

Davem, you cannot argue from the authority of Tolkien, when Tolkien's right to authority is being called into question. That simply won't do.:p

There are ways to argue how this may have been possible for Húrin--some more spectacular and others not. First of all, trolls are not necessarily particularly fast-moving, and Húrin would have the advantage there. Secondly, he may have been better armoured. Thirdly, given the size of the trolls, it may have been impossible for more than three or four to get close to him at the same time, so he wouldn't have been fighting off seventy SIMULTANEOUSLY. Fourthly, we don't have exact details about terrain and where the bodies of his kinsmen and former enemies fell. Those trolls are big guys, you kill a couple and you've got some decent cover.

Certainly a spectacular feat, but not necessarily an impossible one. I would say that killing seventy orks would have been a greater feat, provided one had the strength and knowledge of how to properly kill trolls, which it would seem inductively that Húrin had.

Now, whether or not one finds Húrin's feat worthy of automatic belief or not is another matter--this may be rather subjective. Personally, I think that Davem is getting close to an important issue in saying that Húrin was the "greatest hero of the First Age". The manner in which the Silmarillion is presented affects the way it is received. The remoteness of the events written about, and their presentation as legends rather than the more immediate view of the Lord of the Rings can lead to easier acceptance and belief, or so I have found.

Many ancient battles were lost by superior forces to numerically inferior ones. And I think you're forgetting the morale destroying effect of the killing of Angmar. The point is the forces of Mordor went in expecting a walkover & found themselves being hit from all sides by forces they were not expecting. Add to that the death of the Witch King & consequent loss of a controlling hand, & its entirely likely that they would start to panic, become confused & go to pieces. At that point it would have become a walkover for an organised force under the command of experienced leaders like Aragorn, Eomer & Imrahil.

I would also add that we are not given much comparative literature regarding the training, discipline, and equipment of the forces--though what we are given would indicate that the armies of the West had, in general, higher quality soldiers. Certainly, the soldiers of Gondor, particularly those of Minas Tirith and Dol Amroth, with the legacy of Númenor, have reason to be thought as having the superior arms and armour--certainly we are told that the enemies of the West did not have comparable cavalry. With regards to discipline, the West similarly has the upper hand after the fall of the Witchking, since Sauron's armies are held together primarily through fear, and the removal of the Witchking is the removal of central order.

Of course, that merely speaks as to whether the Battle of the Pelennor is plausible. I think it is quite clear that it is. The matter under discussion here is immediate believeability. Like Davem, I had absolutely no trouble reading about the battle and the victory by the smaller force, since apart from numbers it seemed apparent to me that they had advantages in many other respects.

obloquy

09-23-2007, 04:12 PM

I am glad to have the opportunity to link to one of my favorite articles on this site (http://www.barrowdowns.com/articleshifi.php).

davem

09-23-2007, 04:40 PM

Who is Angmar?

Bit like asking who is Wellington isn't it?

Isn't this some type of strange circular logic? Hurin is the greatest hero because of course he have killed 70 trolls. And of course he could have killed 70 trolls because he was the greatest hero.

No, its accepting the only source of evidence we have. If we accept that Hurin is the greatest warrior of the First Age then we'd expect him to be able to perform pretty spectacular feats. As there are no contradictory reports the incident merely has to be logically possible, which Formy has shown it to be. We know for a fact that it is logically impossible for a man on fire to run 3 miles - even one of Numenorean descent. I accept Hurin killed 70 trolls because its not logically impossible for him to do that. In fact, I'd suggest its actually more likely that he did it, given that if he hadn't done it no-one in their right mind would have believed the story that he had........:p

Sauron the White

09-23-2007, 06:32 PM

obloquy

09-23-2007, 06:39 PM

Bit like asking who is Wellington isn't it?

I guess so, since both Wellington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington%2C_Somerset) and Angmar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angmar) are places and not individuals. Still, when you use Wellington as a personal name (meaning any one of the line of dukes, I assume), you're using a place name that was derived from a surname of the individual, which is a bit different than using Angmar as a personal name for the Witch-King, since Angmar means, according to the article I just linked "iron home."

alatar

09-23-2007, 07:36 PM

Apples and cinder blocks.
...at the atomic level are much the same. At some level we are talking about the same things.

You are using information from the book to show how the film was in error. Not fair or proper. If one were being fair, I would think you would only use the information from the movie to show if that film world of LOTR was proper or not. In fact, the film shows Denethor in full run for a period of just ten seconds. Over the years we have seen lots of people in films on fire for much longer periods than that. Very believable in the context in which it was shown.
Initially for me that was the case. Too many years of reading the books to see it otherwise. But then I studied the films using the films as a reference, and many exits from the secondary world appear, such as Gandalf suggesting in Hollin to take the Ring past Saruman, and Saruman's fireball, which would have been useful if he were ever attacked by creatures made of wood. ;)

This just reminds me that some people having too much knowledge of the books was their greatest handicap in enjoying the films. That, and their preconceived attitudes and prejudices.
Not so. Here at the Downs, that's mostly the case, but my illiterate sister - she can read, but never would bore herself with reading LotR - was confused by some of the movie, and she, unlike me, did not have every piece of dialogue stuck in her head.

Note about Huin: (1) The trolls were to capture, not kill him, and (2) trolls not being very bright, fell for the 'toll booth' trick as seen in Blazing Saddles, and with the appropriate delay time between trolls, Hurin wasn't too hard put to it.

davem

09-24-2007, 12:56 AM

You miss my point which was one of using circular logic rather than what Tolkien actually said. Which is it
a- Hurin was the greatest warrior of his age because he killed 70 trolls
b- Hurin killed 70 trolls and was proven the greatest warrior of his age

You were using the proof of one statement to proof the validity of the other. Formendacil seemed to sense this also and provided a more rational and logical explaination consistent with Tolkiens statement of fact.

That is all I was trying to get you to see.

It may be circular logic, but its perfectly logical - for a warrior to be considered the greatest he must perform some spectacular feat(s) of warrior stuff (I think that's the technical term, otherwise I'm sure Oblo will correct me...). Killing 70 trolls is more likely to be a simple fact, because, as I pointed out in my last post, its not the kind of thing you'd invent & expect people to believe. It must be true because, frankly, if it wasn't no-one (let alone a historical chronicler) would make it up. In fact, quite probably the chronicler himself felt it was a bit much (rather like claiming that Glorfindel actually killed the Balrog by hiding behind a rock & jumping out suddenly, shouting Boo! thereby causing it heart failure. Killing 70 trolls is so fantastic it must be true....

You are using information from the book to show how the film was in error. Not fair or proper. If one were being fair, I would think you would only use the information from the movie to show if that film world of LOTR was proper or not. In fact, the film shows Denethor in full run for a period of just ten seconds. Over the years we have seen lots of people in films on fire for much longer periods than that. Very believable in the context in which it was shown.

It has also established, by a number of shots - both long shots of the City showing the hallows' location, & general shots of characters walking about infront of the citade, the distances involvedl. We can see how long the distance from the Citadel to the spot at the end of the precipice where the bit of wall has been taken to feed the ballistae. One could not run even that distance in a few seconds - particularly not if one was engulfed in flames. I'm still amazed, btw, that being so completely engulfed in flames he managed to miss the tree & the ornamental fish pond both.....

Sauron the White

09-24-2007, 04:21 AM

Alatar - very good point about Hurin slaying so many trolls because they were sent to capture him. Also the Saurman fireball trick --- never wondered before why he did not use it against the Ents- interesting.

davem - yes, I remember the stills that Knight of Gondor used on page 1 of the Denethors Plunge thread to show just what you are referring to with the establishing shots. And yes, they were in the movie. And they were in previous scenes. Only problem as I see it is that in the infamous Denethor flaming run scene HE DOES NOT RUN THE DISTANCES SEEN IN THOSE ESTABLISHING SHOTS. We do not see them at all. What we do see in a flaming steward running through the doors and then down the causeway off the edge. It takes ten seconds.

Again, we can get out all the charts, graphs, diagrams, stills, maps and other devices to show that Jackson had it wrong. Or you can use the same thing that you use to onjoy the books - namely your willing suspension of disbelief.

Seems like hundreds of millions of people had no problem with it.

Bêthberry

09-24-2007, 07:26 AM

Or you can use the same thing that you use to onjoy the books - namely your willing suspension of disbelief.

Seems like hundreds of millions of people had no problem with it.

My willing suspension of sub-created belief while watching RotK in the cinema was continuously interrupted by five girls two rows down from me whose sole enjoyment was to experience the disruption of said belief and to laugh uproariously at the ridiculousness of it all.

Their antics couldn't help but suggest to me that at least some of those millions might have gone to the movie/s with similar intent. I can only hope that the object of their derision was PJ and not Tolkien.

littlemanpoet

09-24-2007, 10:37 AM

Or you can use the same thing that you use to onjoy the books - namely your willing suspension of disbelief. Does this mean that you still don't get it? I'm not sure about others, but I think I can safely say that davem and I are saying that one has to willingly suspend disbelief because it is constantly disrupted in the movies.

davem

09-24-2007, 10:49 AM

Only problem as I see it is that in the infamous Denethor flaming run scene HE DOES NOT RUN THE DISTANCES SEEN IN THOSE ESTABLISHING SHOTS. We do not see them at all. What we do see in a flaming steward running through the doors and then down the causeway off the edge. It takes ten seconds.

So did he teleport from the Hallows to a point five feet from the edge? Did a passing Nazgul pick him up & drop him there, or did he hop onto one of the ballistae & get catapulted the three miles?

Or you can use the same thing that you use to onjoy the books - namely your willing suspension of disbelief.

I honestly couldn't see why I should have made the effort. Tolkien never required that of me.....

alatar

09-24-2007, 12:01 PM

It may be circular logic, but its perfectly logical - for a warrior to be considered the greatest he must perform some spectacular feat(s) of warrior stuff (I think that's the technical term, otherwise I'm sure Oblo will correct me...). Killing 70 trolls is more likely to be a simple fact, because, as I pointed out in my last post, its not the kind of thing you'd invent & expect people to believe. It must be true because, frankly, if it wasn't no-one (let alone a historical chronicler) would make it up. In fact, quite probably the chronicler himself felt it was a bit much (rather like claiming that Glorfindel actually killed the Balrog by hiding behind a rock & jumping out suddenly, shouting Boo! thereby causing it heart failure. Killing 70 trolls is so fantastic it must be true....
Your argument here is unconvincing. To say that because it is unbelievable and so over-the-top it must be true is ridiculous. We have many ancient texts that tell of all sorts of heroic and somewhat supernatural events, and I suspect that you don't believe a one of them, Hurin's stand being the exception.

Were the pyramids built by space aliens? Did Bigfoot vote in the last US of A Presidential election? Would intelligent beings travel light years in order to make designs in farmer's fields? What? Trans-galaxy travel and no Etch-a-Sketches?

Regarding texts of old heroes, what about all that was written about the life of J.C.? I've read a book about his life, and I'm suspicious about much that was attributed to him. Supposedly he came from a divine lineage, was known far and wide throughout the ancient Mediterranean region, has had a large impact on our lives even today down through the centuries (we see his mark on the calender at least one a year) and his death, having been betrayed by someone in his closest circle, is still remembered even today and purportedly was marked by signs and wonders.

Of course I'm talking about (Gaius) Julius Caesar.

Did he really kill an elephant? Did a lion whelp when he died? Did shooting stars also mark his death? Just what did he say when he crossed the Rubicon?

And I won't annoy our British cousins with tales about our father, General George "cherry tree chopping, never lying" Washington. Must be true, whatever was writ.

My questions regarding Hurin are thus:
Who observed his deeds and how reliable is this observer? How reliable is the observation? Could seven become seventy due to a transcription error (if only that would happen with my paycheck)?
Is there any independent corroboration of the facts? Did Melkor have a ledger that states that 70+ trolls lost capturing Hurin?
How did each troll die? Did they die from Hurin's direct action, or is Hurin credited with the kill when others in his command actually help kill or actually killed the troll? Commanders are always given the credit, and when we're lucky, the blame when something happens under their command.
What species of trolls were these? If they are like the ones encountered by Bilbo, then it's one level of heroism; if it's PJ's Battle trolls (and isn't PJ's the definitive word? ;)), then taking more than one down single-handedly is more than enough for one man to be the best? Seventy at that point might as well be a gagillion for the impact that more than two makes on my non-heroic brain (I killed seven flies once in one day, without an axe, but seeing Aragorn bested by one, I cannout fathom seven let alone seventy).

It's been said that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' In my head I've watched every painful swing of Hurin's, right down to his last when he is finally overwrought and overrun, and is dragged, struggling, to the Hells of Iron, but this won't convince anyone of anything, which I think is what we're trying to do here.

davem

09-24-2007, 12:28 PM

Your argument here is unconvincing. To say that because it is unbelievable and so over-the-top it must be true is ridiculous. We have many ancient texts that tell of all sorts of heroic and somewhat supernatural events, and I suspect that you don't believe a one of them, Hurin's stand being the exception.

Were the pyramids built by space aliens? Did Bigfoot vote in the last US of A Presidential election? Would intelligent beings travel light years in order to make designs in farmer's fields? What? Trans-galaxy travel and no Etch-a-Sketches?.

Hurin killing 70 trolls seems at first sight 'fantastic' but it is not logically impossible, or, given his reputation, even 'possible but unlikely'. Is it more likely that a chronicler just made it up? It seems to me that if someone was just making up the number they would have gone for a smaller one (to make it more 'acceptable' why not 7?) or a much larger one (to emphasise Hurin's victory - why not 100?). The examples you cite are either logically impossible, or at the very least infinitely improbable.

So, again, Hurin could have killed 70 trolls. Any chronicler who simply wanted to have his account accepted without question would have said 7. One who wanted to present him as a superhero would have said 100, or 1000.

(Or, stepping outside the Legendarium, one could argue that Hurin killed 70 trolls because Tolkien said he did, & Tolkien is the only source we have, or can have. - which is equally 'circular logic'. Its a fact Hurin killed 70 trolls for the same reason that there are dragons in M-e is a fact - because Tolkien says so)

but this won't convince anyone of anything, which I think is what we're trying to do here.

I'm not. I just got caught up in this one. I can only think that anyone who doesn't, or can't, believe that Hurin killed 70 trolls is going to have a major problem with about 100% of the Legendarium. If you hold Hurin's killing of the Trolls may have been made up, or seriously exagerated, then you put the same question-mark over every single event in the stories - maybe Glorfindel didn't kill the Balrog on his own, maybe Turin didn't take down Glauring single-handedly.......

alatar

09-24-2007, 12:46 PM

Hurin killing 70 trolls seems at first sight 'fantastic' but it is not logically impossible, or, given his reputation, even 'possible but unlikely'. Is it more likely that a chronicler just made it up?
Again, who recorded the event? If our answer is 'Tolkien,' I argue no further. But in the heat of battle things can become confused, and some men count each enemy head twice, or something.

It seems to me that if someone was just making up the number they would have gone for a smaller one (to make it more 'acceptable' why not 7?) or a much larger one (to emphasise Hurin's victory - why not 100?). The examples you cite are either logically impossible, or at the very least infinitely improbable.
That's not evidential. What you or I believe to be what people would or would not do would be great discussion (of course ;)), but add not one jot to the stack of evidence. Seventy to me sounds immediately suspicious as it's too 'round' of a number...not 68, 69 but 70? There's that magic number (at least in my culture) 7 again. Was 70 chosen to make some mythic point that escapes more causal readers like myself?

I'm not. I just got caught up in this one. I can only think that anyone who doesn't, or can't, believe that Hurin killed 70 trolls is going to have a major problem with about 100% of the Legendarium. If you hold Hurin's killing of the Trolls may have been made up, or seriously exagerated, then you put the same question-mark over every single event in the stories - maybe Glorfindel didn't kill the Balrog on his own, maybe Turin didn't take down Glauring single-handedly.......
Back to one of the origin points is that Tolkien's work rarely makes me think that Hurin could have done otherwise, and that's why it works. To me, what you state does happen, and I'm not using pretzel logic in that that maybe Hurin could have shone the last glint of sunlight off of his huge dwarven axe and turned the seventy to stone, and their heads fell off, and so technically he does behead them with an axe.

When in Arda, I'm a believer.

And just a thought: I find Legolas's count at Helm's Deep actually low.

davem

09-24-2007, 01:19 PM

. Seventy to me sounds immediately suspicious as it's too 'round' of a number...not 68, 69 but 70? There's that magic number (at least in my culture) 7 again. Was 70 chosen to make some mythic point that escapes more causal readers like myself?

I'd be more inclined to put the round number down to it being something like a 'Company' of Trolls sent out specifically to capture Hurin, rather than a bunch of Trolls who just got together & decided to take him on. It seems they were obeying specific orders - to capture him. Hence, one assumes that witnesses would only have to see a Company of Trolls assaulting Hurin to know that there were 70 of them. One would only then have to see them all piled up to know he had slain 70 of them. Anything else, it seems to me, calls the exact number into question, & it may well have been a tale that 'grew in the telling', & the reality that he actually killed 27 of them - or 7.

Lalwendë

09-24-2007, 03:07 PM

Well, this thread having a pop culture bent, I have some pop culture evidence for some matters at hand.

1. According to American Pie 2, there is this rule that guys have where if anyone asks how many girls they have 'romanced', they must multiply the number by three. Thus if they have 'known' three girls then they must up the number to nine. In the case of Hurin he probably slaughtered approx 23 trolls but the rules state he must multiply this by three. ;)

Incidentally the reverse rule is true for girls...

2. According to an experiment undertaken by one Johnny Knoxville, it is impossible to live once set on fire, beyond about eight seconds as you inhale the fumes and so...you die. I suspect that many people watching the films will also have seen Mr Knoxville's experiment and will have known just how wrong Denethor's run was, and this is probably why the cinema was rocking with laughter at that point.

I happen to think PJ threw that scene in as a reference to his old humorous gore fests. There are no lawnmowers in Middle-earth but a flaming Steward was just as funny.

3. Alan Moore was quite happy to sell film rights to his books and then having nothing more to do with them, until a lawsuit over The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Now he is not so carefree.

Sauron the White

09-24-2007, 04:29 PM

from Lalwende

According to an experiment undertaken by one Johnny Knoxville, it is impossible to live once set on fire, beyond about eight seconds as you inhale the fumes and so...you die. I suspect that many people watching the films will also have seen Mr Knoxville's experiment and will have known just how wrong Denethor's run was, and this is probably why the cinema was rocking with laughter at that point.

You must hang out in very weird communities. I saw ROTK eleven times in the theaters and not once was the cinema rocking with laughter at that point. Not once. I only hope the Johnny whatever reference was in jest and not serious. To consider that third rate celebrity an authority on anything would be a real stretch.

from Bethberry

My willing suspension of sub-created belief while watching RotK in the cinema was continuously interrupted by five girls two rows down from me whose sole enjoyment was to experience the disruption of said belief and to laugh uproariously at the ridiculousness of it all.

I think those same five girls disrupt lots of movies that are not kissing the collective behinds of the high school set. I truly support the death penalty for people that do that in a theater. No trial. No jury. A sniper next to the upper area of the screen who drill them with a bullet. An usher then hangs a sign around the offending corpse "I TALKED". It would be a good thing.

Lalwendë

09-25-2007, 02:39 AM

from Lalwende

You must hang out in very weird communities. I saw ROTK eleven times in the theaters and not once was the cinema rocking with laughter at that point. Not once. I only hope the Johnny whatever reference was in jest and not serious. To consider that third rate celebrity an authority on anything would be a real stretch.

I am of course pulling your chain ;)

Not about the cinema laughing at Denethor though. Someone even yelled "Woo-hoo!" as he went over the edge. :cool:

William Cloud Hicklin

09-25-2007, 10:44 AM

I guess so, since both Wellington and Angmar are places and not individuals. Still, when you use Wellington as a personal name (meaning any one of the line of dukes, I assume), you're using a place name that was derived from a surname of the individual, which is a bit different than using Angmar as a personal name for the Witch-King, since Angmar means, according to the article I just linked "iron home."

It happened to be the case that Wellington's title was derived from his personal name (Wellesley), but by no means always, especially with older titles which referred specifically to a shire or manor; it was certainly common enough (just read your Shakespeare) to refer to the nobility by fief alone, as Norfolk, York, Albany, etc etc etc, which were entirely unrelated of course to the surnames Brandon or Plantagenet or de la Pole or Howard.

alatar

09-25-2007, 10:46 AM

Sorry that this post is about Denethor's plunge and not Gollum, but I've already posted about running Dwarves in that thread, and seems that this thread is more about Denethor...

Faramir, having greeted his new King and having gotten plans started for marrying his wild shieldmaiden friend from the North, turns his thoughts backwards a bit, to those days just before the Battle of the Pellenor "Dad, you were a crazy ole coot sometimes, and had the table manners of an orc chieftain, but still I loved you."

Faramir walked the lower level of the city to the spot where poor old dad had met his abrupt end. Although the city was being repaired, still, some stains remained from those dark days. At one dark stain Faramir knelt down and set a round red tomato on the paving stones, marred and blackened from the war.

"Excuse me? Captain Faramir, can I help you?" A guard had walked up, checking on his lord.

"I'm fine. Just paying homage to my dear father, the late Denethor, the Soaring Steward." The guard looked a bit perplexed, then, being caught up mayhap in the jubilation of the Fourth Age, decided to speak further.

"Uh...Captain Faramir? Your father, sir, actually landed over there. I saw it myself with my very own eyes, thinking it some new devilry from Mordor. I think that on this particular spot a brave soldier met his demise by one of those Battle Trolls. Squished with a mace, he was."

...

PJ robs us, however briefly, of any chance of a scene where Faramir briefly laments the loss of his father. No glimpse down Rath Dínen, no blackened and burned room - and I'm not even going to mention the palantir - no tomb.

It's all Gandalf's fault as he had to cover up the scene where he assaulted the lord of the city. No body, no crime.

William Cloud Hicklin

09-25-2007, 10:56 AM

Back to Tolkien and the film rights- I do recall, but can't locate, the reminiscence of one friend just after JRRT sold the film rights- the old boy was positively gleeful, convinced that no film could ever be made at least in his lifetime, and grinning like the cat who ate the canary (or sold it some worthless swampland).

So he had his cake and ate it too. Is this a problem?

What hasn't been brought up is that Tolkien was very unlikely to have agreed to the sale given his druthers. The fact was, he had just purchased a pricey house in the toney resort town of Poole, and then, after tying up all his liquid assets, was hit with an enormous tax bill at the confiscatory rates of 1960's Britain. He needed ready money and needed it fast.

Sauron the White

09-25-2007, 12:39 PM

WilliamCH .. if you do find the support that goes with that story I would be most interested in reading it.

So he had his cake and ate it too. Is this a problem?

Only if you see the selling of something you think is worthless swampland for a good amount of money as possibly unethical or at the very least questionable.

Morwen

09-25-2007, 12:45 PM

Back to Tolkien and the film rights- I do recall, but can't locate, the reminiscence of one friend just after JRRT sold the film rights- the old boy was positively gleeful, convinced that no film could ever be made at least in his lifetime, and grinning like the cat who ate the canary (or sold it some worthless swampland).

So he had his cake and ate it too. Is this a problem?

I don't see why it should be.

The purchaser bought the film rights of a published work. Presumably, someone would have read it before money changed hands. If that's the case, Tolkien could not misrepresent what was being sold nor could the purchaser claim to be mistaken about the nature of what was being purchased. Tolkien may have thought the film rights were worthless but he isn't guilty of duping anyone. If people know that you are selling swampland and they agree to purchase it anyway, then good luck to them.

alatar

10-03-2007, 08:46 PM

Just thought, while it was fresh in the mind to note that in the Christian Bible (Judges 15: 15-16) Samson kills a thousand men with a donkey mandible.

Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men.

Then Samson said,
"With a donkey's jawbone
I have made donkeys of them.
With a donkey's jawbone
I have killed a thousand men."
How is this perceived? As an exact counting, or as a way of saying, 'more than would be considered normal'?

Note that we're not discussing religion, but I think the author's intent and precise history.

littlemanpoet

10-04-2007, 11:34 AM

This is an arena, alatar, in which, first if possible, the nature of the work must be considered. What did the author intend? Is it meant as history, or is it meant as folklore? This is unanswerable without getting into a theological debate, so I won't go into it. Thus Primary Belief is no longer part of the equation.

Next question then, is, how does it read? Does this work in terms of Secondary Belief? Tolkien's criterion (he did coin the term and therefore is its definer) is: the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator" by making a Secondary World which one's mind can enter such that inside it, what the story-maker relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world.

As I said before, this is an objective standard. Samson's deed fits within the milieu of the literature in which it is found. Whether the reader chooses to accept the milieu is another question entirely.

Apply that to LotR - the book - it also succeeds, if the reader chooses to accept the milieu. Those readers who refuse to, have much negatively to say about the books because they refuse to understand them. That is not, however, what the LotR book lovers are saying about the Lotr movies. The secondary world doesn't come off because there are too many inconsistencies such that it doesn't work: some scenes and events in the movies don't accord with the laws in the world of the movies.

So I acknowledge the distinction that davem implied a while back: on one hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the books; on the other hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the movies themselves. This second (e.g. internal logic problems) is a failure of secondary belief while the former (e.g. characterization) is a failure of Jackson to pull off what he thought he could in terms of the books.

alatar

10-04-2007, 12:11 PM

This is an arena, alatar, in which, first if possible, the nature of the work must be considered. What did the author intend? Is it meant as history, or is it meant as folklore? This is unanswerable without getting into a theological debate, so I won't go into it. Thus Primary Belief is no longer part of the equation.

Next question then, is, how does it read? Does this work in terms of Secondary Belief? Tolkien's criterion (he did coin the term and therefore is its definer) is: the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator" by making a Secondary World which one's mind can enter such that inside it, what the story-maker relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world.

As I said before, this is an objective standard. Samson's deed fits within the milieu of the literature in which it is found. Whether the reader chooses to accept the milieu is another question entirely.
Not exactly sure what you're saying, but my point is that the Samson story doesn't stick out in my head, and isn't featured large in skeptics criticisms with all things religious as it seemingly 'fits.' Whether it were 100 or a thousand, the point is made that Samson put a big hurt on the enemy and did so by himself. And his weapon of choice I assume was also chosen to humiliate his enemies and to show how weak they were. Hope that that's more clear.

Sauron the White

10-04-2007, 01:25 PM

littlemanpoet

10-05-2007, 09:17 AM

littlemanpoet .... since this has come up before and now you are utilizing the concept again here, I wonder if you could explain (perhaps again) what the serious differences are between 'willing suspension of disbelief' and 'secondary belief'. I read your information when you directed it to my posts a week or two ago and did not see much difference.I will try with an example.

I just finished reading the final Harry Potter novel (I'll give nothing away here). While reading it, I never came across anything that didn't fit the logic of the story and world. That is to say, I was in the milieu and the story never set anything up that contradicted the milieu. Rowling was quite consistent from beginning to end of the entire project, as far as I can tell. Her ability to do this was an achievement that Tolkien, in On Faerie Stories (a very important essay about writing myth and fantasy that ought to be read by anyone who wants to discuss such things), denoted as successfully subcreating a secondary world; the proof of her success is that it engenders Secondary Belief in her readers. If, at any point, Rowling had written anything in her story such that, say, Newtonian Physics overruled wandlore, it would have contradicted the entire milieu and the "spell" of Secondary Belief would have been broken. At this point I would have had to choose to adopt Suspension of Disbelief in order to overlook the contradiction and try to re-enter the milieu.

In the first case, there is an organic belief occurring such that the reader and writer are more or less communicating mind-to-mind, as it were. In the second, the organic connection has been broken, and the reader must make a conscious effort of the will to make work of interacting with the "breached edifice", trying to ignore the breach.

Are you saying that anyone with negative feelings about LOTR after reading it has these feelings purely because they refuse to understand? That seems like a real Catch-22 situation which attempts to paint with a very wide (an unsympathetic brush) anyone who has read LOTR but does not care for it. Sorry, I was referring without naming to a specific school of thought, often called on these "the literati", who confronted Tolkien upon the original publication of the works. They did and still do look down their noses at fantasy and myth as not worthy of their consideration as serious literature, because it does not fit the rules they believe every work of literature ought to follow, by which they mean the modern novel with its flawed characters, relative morality, in-the-head characterization, etc. Be sure that I'm not condemning the modern novel; what I don't appreciate is the out of hand rejection of myth and fantasy because the literati refuse to countenance it, demanding it to fit their own terms.

:) I can see from what I've just written that you would criticize me of doing the same thing to Jackson's movies as opposed to Tolkien's books. But there is a seminal difference: Tolkien didn't buy the rights to Hemingway, for example, in order to write LotR.

Is it not possible that a reader can swallow the entire concept and suspend their disbelief but still walk away with these negative feelings?One would be foolish to deny such a possibility.

Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?Yes. Being an opinion, it could be wrong, but I don't think so. :)

Morwen

10-05-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:
Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?
Yes. Being an opinion, it could be wrong, but I don't think so. :)

Perhaps I'm not following, but whether or not an problem of logic exists can't simply be a matter of opinion, can it? The author presents rules governing his/her fictional universe. Determining whether there is an internal problem should then be a question of deciding whether those rules are adhered to it. It's not for the reader to simply decide well that doesn't make sense to me but to ask does it make sense given the rules/laws defined by the author.

Sauron the White

10-05-2007, 11:08 AM

This has been brought up before, and I must say the answer has always struck me as --- to be frank --- just full of it. Self serving and mealy mouthed drivel trying to justify an obvious defect. So, again, the one huge flaw that is at the heart of the book LOTR (and thus the film also).

We are told that the One Ring must be destroyed because if Sauron obtains it, the world will be at his mercy and quite possible he will enslave it. The world, as we know it, will come to terrible things with a Dark Lord ruling over nearly everyone.

The problem here is that good old Sauron once had the ring firmly upon his finger. Yes boys and girls - Sauron had that ring right there on his finger and had all the power of it as his disposal. He had ensnared the others to whom he gave other rings and had firmly established himself unchallenged in his own kingdom will protected by legions of slavish devotees. And what good did it do him? Not very much. The Last Alliance of Elves and Men marched right up to his door, rang the bell, and kicked his butt when he came out to play. They even cut that tremendously powerful ring right off of his finger and he vanished like a puff of smoke on a windy day.

So Sauron had the Ring. And it did him no good. No dominion over the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. No lording over everyone. No all powerful kneel down and bow before me. It simply did not work when he had it firmly upon his finger.

But the entire book is predicated upon the belief that the Ring must be destroyed or all of these terrible things will come to pass.

Now, as usual, some will start to post about the legions of powerful Elves who once roamed Middle-earth in massive numbers and were the main obstacle to Sauron at the time he had the ring in the Second Age. So what? That does not cut it for me. If Sauron and that darn ring were so incredibly powerful, he should have been able to deal with them and come out on top. And okay, the Elves are waning in the Third Age, but Men are on the rise. Perhaps not legions of Numenorians, but armed and trained men.

The usual justification for this reminds me of what comedians say about a bad or too complicated joke, if you have to go into a detailed explaination, it probably does not work in the first place. Which is just how the weak explaination hits me.

So this idea of Secondary Belief, and all the layers JRRT constructed to make it work, just has a serious flaw right up front in the very bedrock of the story.

But using my Willing Suspension of Disbelief, I can go with it and accept the premise because I love the book - and the movie. And to be quite frank, this entire idea that JRRT's invented Secondary Belief and it simply dwarfs suspension of disbelief sounds to be like more rationalization and self serving mumbo-jumbo.

Acceptance of fantasy comes down to willing suspension of disbelief. You can put some lipstick on it and dress it up in a fancy party dress and call it Secondary Belief if it makes you feel better, but in the end, its pretty much the same thing.

The book is flawed in its very premise. The film has the same flawed premise. And I love them both.

William Cloud Hicklin

10-05-2007, 11:19 AM

So Sauron had the Ring. And it did him no good. No dominion over the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. No lording over everyone. No all powerful kneel down and bow before me. It simply did not work when he had it firmly upon his finger.

That's not true. Sauron ruled all of the Great Lands save Lindon and Rivendell for nearly two millenia- his lordship was only broken by Ar-Pharazon.

Sauron the White

10-05-2007, 11:30 AM

So its not true that the Last Alliance marched right into his own backyard, called him out and cut the ring from his hand? Lot of good it did him then. Why is that fact being ignored?

alatar

10-05-2007, 11:45 AM

The usual justification for this reminds me of what comedians say about a bad or too complicated joke, if you have to go into a detailed explaination, it probably does not work in the first place. Which is just how the weak explaination hits me.
He just needed a few thousand years to contemplate how to best use it, as it's been said about new Ring Lords. Did Sauron simply overreach?

Morwen

10-05-2007, 11:54 AM

We are told that the One Ring must be destroyed because if Sauron obtains it, the world will be at his mercy and quite possible he will enslave it. The world, as we know it, will come to terrible things with a Dark Lord ruling over nearly everyone.

The problem here is that good old Sauron once had the ring firmly upon his finger. Yes boys and girls - Sauron had that ring right there on his finger and had all the power of it as his disposal. He had ensnared the others to whom he gave other rings and had firmly established himself unchallenged in his own kingdom will protected by legions of slavish devotees. And what good did it do him? Not very much. The Last Alliance of Elves and Men marched right up to his door, rang the bell, and kicked his butt when he came out to play. They even cut that tremendously powerful ring right off of his finger and he vanished like a puff of smoke on a windy day.

So Sauron had the Ring. And it did him no good. No dominion over the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. No lording over everyone. No all powerful kneel down and bow before me. It simply did not work when he had it firmly upon his finger.

But the entire book is predicated upon the belief that the Ring must be destroyed or all of these terrible things will come to pass.

Yes, the Ring is cut from Sauron's hand. Does Tolkien at any point claim that the One Ring makes the wearer invulnerable? In all that we are told about the properties of the Ring, are we ever told anything to suggest that the Ring gives one invincibility? If it is that the Ring and the Ring alone supposedly made Sauron invincible then to have it cut from his hand would be illogical within the context of the story. Tolkien would have established a rule (Ring = invincibility) that he then proceeds to disregard. But if Tolkien never established such a rule, then where is the flaw?

alatar

10-05-2007, 12:00 PM

And just what was PJ's Sauron going to do with the Ring anyway, lacking even a lid within which to place it (piercing an eyelid - ouch!)? ;)

Sauron the White

10-05-2007, 12:22 PM

alatar

10-05-2007, 12:40 PM

It was an arm's race - predator and prey sort of thing. If Sauron regained the One Ring, the prey may not have the time to adapt.
It was just PR/spin. The Wise, seeing Sauron rising again and contesting their hold on the world, decided that whipping up the troops with, "If he regains the Ring, then we'll have to go back there again and cut off another finger, and wasn't it so boring the first time?" wouldn't be as successful at raising an army as it was the first time.
Sauron learned from the mistakes that he brashly made the first time, and so this time he had a better chance of getting it right - less elves, less Men of the West (and he hunted them), poorer weaponry, better soldiers (Olog-hai), the fall of Minas Anor and Osgiliath, the recession of Gondor's control of the south, etc. What he didn't add in were the hobbits.

Morwen

10-05-2007, 01:01 PM

The flaw is a simple one. If Sauron gets the ring then he can rule the world and end all proper civilization. However, he once had the ring, attempted to do just that and was unsuccessful. The ring did not give to Sauron in the Second Age what the Free Peoples fear he will get by obtaining the ring in the Third Age. He had the ring. It failed to deliver. In fact, he had the ring right there in the Barad-dur in his own kingdom of Mordor and the Last Alliance came there, defeated his armies, then laid siege to his fortress for seven full years. What good did the ring do for him in that time? Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

But the whole premise of LOTR is that if Sauron gets the ring its all over but the dying... and that will soon follow.

But that was not true. Sauron had the ring, did some bad things with it on his finger .... but, in the end, had his sorry behind kicked and he vanished with the winds after it was cut off.

So much for the power of the ring on Saurons hand.

I see this as a huge flaw. I could have accepted the idea that there is this powerful being who is just inches away from total domination of all creatures if he can just get his hands on this powerful weapon. Of course, he has never had his hands on this powerful weapon but now must obtain it. But that is not the case. Sauron is NOT going after some powerful weapon that will tip the scales completely in his favor. He is simply trying to recover what was once his. In fact, the power in the ring was power that came from him in the first place.

When Sauron puts the One Ring on his finger and the Elves realise that they have been betrayed they take off their rings , as far as I recall, the Three are not used until after the defeat of Sauron at the end of the Second Age. The concern that presents itself at the end of the Third Age is that if Sauron gets back his Ring all the work done by the Three would be laid bare. It compounds the problem that the Free Peoples have, that they cannot mount the kind of force sent against Sauron at the end of the Second Age. They are far more vulnerable at the end of the Third Age than they were in the second and it makes sense that they should be more worried about Sauron getting back his Ring. While the Ring may not render him invulnerable, the chances of repeating the feat of Isildur are slim. They may have defeated Sauron once while he bore the Ring. But that victory came at great cost and they, realistically, were skeptical of being able to do so again.

As for why Sauron wants the Ring back, this is an object as you note into which he had put the greater part of his power. Even though he may not have foreseen that his enemies would attempt to destroy it, he would not have been anxious to have one of them show up wielding it. Is it not prudent for him to guard against this?

alatar

10-05-2007, 01:06 PM

Sauron got a copy of The Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord (http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html) and began to act accordingly.

Sauron the White

10-05-2007, 01:09 PM

Morwen... lets accept your explaination for the moment. So in order for this to make sense, the reader has to know and understand not only all of this history of the Ring, Sauron, the relative balance of power in the Second Age as compared to the Third Age, the changing ethno-demographics of Middle-earth over time, and vital information contained in Tolkiens essay which appeared at the end of THE SILMARILLION. Only then does my flaw not become a flaw. This is tons more info than was ever delivered in LOTR or at the Council of Elrond. Tons more.

It like comedians say about a joke that is way too complicated. If you got to explain it - forget it.

The entire premise of the book hangs on this plot device. If Sauron gets the ring then we all kiss our collective behinds goodbye. Except for a few things like
---- Sauron already had the ring
---- it did not protect him previously when he did have it
---- the power in the ring came from Sauron in the first place
--- even with the ring upon his hand, a man was able to cut it off and defeat him

Its an internal contradiction that is at the very heart of the plot.

Morwen

10-05-2007, 01:23 PM

The entire premise of the book hangs on this plot device. If Sauron gets the ring then we all kiss out collective behinds goodbye. Except for a few things like
---- Sauron already had the ring
---- it did not protect him previously when he did have it
---- the power in the ring came from Sauron in the first place
--- even with the ring upon his hand, a man was able to cut it off and defeat him

Its an internal contradiction that is at the very heart of the plot.

where in the LotR is it stated that the Ring was supposed to protect him or that it operates as a protective device? Where is this suggested?

Where is it stated or suggested that Sauron while wearing the Ring is invulnerable to attack making it impossible for Isildur to in fact cut it from hand?

And if neither of these things is stated or suggested then how is it a flaw if the Ring doesn't do something that it's never said that it could do?

Raynor

10-05-2007, 01:48 PM

Its an internal contradiction that is at the very heart of the plot.
I also don't see such a contradiction. One element that seems to be missing from the conversation is the elves: for one thing, Sauron with the ring would control all that they have created with their rings. For another, the elves are diminishing and leaving Middle Earth. By design, they are far more endowed than Men are or were, in spirit, mind or body. While the elves were capable of keeping even Morgoth's armies at bay, the Men, who make up the dominant opposition to Sauron, cannot face him at this hour, even if Sauron is far less powerful than in the Second Age. While it could be argued that both the strength of the good and evil forces has diminished, the good side suffered most, due to the lessening numbers of the elves. I believe this is the deciding element in the projected success of Sauron if he regained the ring: he would regain much of his former power, control what the elves have achieved - while the strongest element of his opposition is all but gone.

littlemanpoet

10-05-2007, 02:23 PM

STW: Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?

Elempi: Yes. Being an opinion, it could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Morwen: I'm not following, but whether or not an problem of logic exists can't simply be a matter of opinion, can it? The author presents rules governing his/her fictional universe. Determining whether there is an internal problem should then be a question of deciding whether those rules are adhered to it. It's not for the reader to simply decide well that doesn't make sense to me but to ask does it make sense given the rules/laws defined by the author.

You are right, Morwen. However there is a distinction between what is actually there and that which I am able to perceive. Since I have not made a thorough study of the point, I can only offer opinion.

The Last Alliance of Elves and Men marched right up to [Sauron's] door, rang the bell, and kicked his butt when he came out to play. They even cut that tremendously powerful ring right off of his finger and he vanished like a puff of smoke on a windy day.Your colorful choice of words is amusing. :) In any case, you are incorrect. The Alliance of the Free Peoples, though still relatively strong at the end of the Second Age, were on the verge of defeat, but Isildur cut the Ring from Sauron's finger.

Why would Sauron let them get so close as to cut off the Ring? He was arrogant and perceived himself to be invulnerable though he was not. This relates to one of the central themes Tolkien was working with: the will to unjustly lord it over others results necessarily in self-destruction because evil is by its nature self-consumed and cannot understand selfless motivation and action.

The usual justification for this reminds me of what comedians say about a bad or too complicated joke, if you have to go into a detailed explaination, it probably does not work in the first place.This is a mere truism and assertion absent of any supporting evidence.

So this idea of Secondary Belief, and all the layers JRRT constructed to make it work, just has a serious flaw right up front in the very bedrock of the story.

But using my Willing Suspension of Disbelief, I can go with it and accept the premise because I love the book - and the movie. And to be quite frank, this entire idea that JRRT's invented Secondary Belief and it simply dwarfs suspension of disbelief sounds to be like more rationalization and self serving mumbo-jumbo.There is no condescension intended; rather a distinction. There is no hidden agenda here. The distinction is clear. I wonder why you can't comprehend it.

Acceptance of fantasy comes down to willing suspension of disbelief. You can put some lipstick on it and dress it up in a fancy party dress and call it Secondary Belief if it makes you feel better, but in the end, its pretty much the same thing. I'm trying to picture a concept in a party dress and lipstick and it just isn't happening; no secondary belief, I guess. ;) Feelings have nothing to do with it. It is a clear distinction. Again, why can't you see it, STW?

He had the ring. It failed to deliver.Precisely. But it does not mean what you seem to think it means. He made the Ring. It could not deliver that which he was incapable of achieving precisely because he had become evil and therefore, by definition, blind to his own weaknesses. "Wise fool." So the flaw you see is not extraneous of the work, but built into the entire milieu. I suppose it's only really a problem if one wants Sauron to win.

Sauron learned from the mistakes that he brashly made the first time, and so this time he had a better chance of getting it right - less elves, less Men of the West (and he hunted them), poorer weaponry, better soldiers (Olog-hai), the fall of Minas Anor and Osgiliath, the recession of Gondor's control of the south, etc. What he didn't add in were the hobbits.Gobtwiddle. :) He would have walked right over the hobbits too, except for events that occurred beyond anyone's (including Gandalf's) expectation. Just like during World War 2, there were a series of "hair's breadth" incidents that, had they gone the other way, the Free Peoples would not have had a chance: Bilbo finding the Ring; Gildor's party happening across the three hobbits just as a Ringwraith is about to discover the Ring; Glorfindel showing up just before Rivendell; Sam taking the Ring from Frodo at Cirith Ungol; Frodo having pity upon Gollum; etc.

...as far as I recall, the Three are not used until after the defeat of Sauron at the end of the Second Age.Actually, Galadriel's ring is used to enhance everything having to do with Lorien, which is part of why she has so much to lose by the Ring's destruction. And Gandalf has Narya, which he uses a lot (fire). But yes, everything done by the three Elven rings would be laid bare if Sauron had recovered the One.

So in order for this to make sense, the reader has to know and understand not only all of this history of the Ring, Sauron, the relative balance of power in the Second Age as compared to the Third Age, the changing ethno-demographics of Middle-earth over time, and vital information contained in Tolkiens essay which appeared at the end of THE SILMARILLION.This is an absurd suggestion, not only because of its hyperbole. If one reads fiction with this kind of analytical process going on all the time, enjoyment of the work would be deeply compromised.

alatar

10-05-2007, 02:37 PM

Gobtwiddle. :) He would have walked right over the hobbits too, except for events that occurred beyond anyone's (including Gandalf's) expectation. Just like during World War 2, there were a series of "hair's breadth" incidents that, had they gone the other way, the Free Peoples would not have had a chance: Bilbo finding the Ring; Gildor's party happening across the three hobbits just as a Ringwraith is about to discover the Ring; Glorfindel showing up just before Rivendell; Sam taking the Ring from Frodo at Cirith Ungol; Frodo having pity upon Gollum; etc.
Hogwash...which is what you want to do before applying lipstick.

Sauron, like Saruman and the Ents, did not anticipate this line of attack. He was worried about a new Ringlord, preferably of Rohan or Gondor make. He knew that there was some tark or man-dwarf-elf ("Man/Bear/Pig" ;)) running around spying on his land, but he did not think that this were that problematic or he would have had more agents/soldiers looking for the hobbits instead of going for Aragorn's band of ruffians - which would have been thwarted by the Black Gate regardless.

Did not the Witch-King, one of the fingers of the hand of Sauron, make the same mistake at Weathertop? "He will fade, then we will have him as there are no She-Elves around that can thwart us." ;)

littlemanpoet

10-05-2007, 04:57 PM

Okay, I'll give you that one, alatar, since I recollect now that Tolkien said much the same kind of thing in the story itself. :)

Sauron the White

10-05-2007, 06:19 PM

from littlemanpoet

In any case, you are incorrect. The Alliance of the Free Peoples, though still relatively strong at the end of the Second Age, were on the verge of defeat, but Isildur cut the Ring from Sauron's finger.

Did not the free peoples army win the decisive battle seven years before? Did they not lay siege to the Barad-dur for the next seven years before dispatching Sauron? How is this on the verge of defeat? JRRT himself, writing in Of The Rings of Power in THE SILMARILLION says they had the victory and their siege was so powerful that if forced Sauron out from his fortress.

from Morwen

where in the LotR is it stated that the Ring was supposed to protect him or that it operates as a protective device? Where is this suggested?

Where is it stated or suggested that Sauron while wearing the Ring is invulnerable to attack making it impossible for Isildur to in fact cut it from hand?

And if neither of these things is stated or suggested then how is it a flaw if the Ring doesn't do something that it's never said that it could do?

This is the second post where you mention these questions and I do not know what I wrote to elicit this line of inquiry. I am not suggesting that the ring has the power to make anyone invulnerable. No way. I am not suggesting it was suppose to protect him from Isildur. No way - no how.

My point is very simple.

The entire LOTR revolves around the idea that the ring must be destroyed because if Sauron gets it he will then take over Middle-earth. Supposedly, the ring is the only thing standing in the way of his all out domination of all the peoples of the world.

But that is a serious flaw in the entire underpinnings of the novel and plot. You see , Sauron already had the ring and had it for a good long time. And while he did conquer some lands and the peoples upon it, he certainly was not able to do what everybody at the Council of Elrond fears will happen if he gets it again.

Premise: we have to destroy the ring or Sauron will get it and rule the world and kill or enslave us all.
Flaw: Sauron already had the ring for a long time and did not rule the world and kill or enslave everyone.

That is my point.

Morwen

10-05-2007, 08:14 PM

My point is very simple.

The entire LOTR revolves around the idea that the ring must be destroyed because if Sauron gets it he will then take over Middle-earth. Supposedly, the ring is the only thing standing in the way of his all out domination of all the peoples of the world.

But that is a serious flaw in the entire underpinnings of the novel and plot. You see , Sauron already had the ring and had it for a good long time. And while he did conquer some lands and the peoples upon it, he certainly was not able to do what everybody at the Council of Elrond fears will happen if he gets it again.

Premise: we have to destroy the ring or Sauron will get it and rule the world and kill or enslave us all.
Flaw: Sauron already had the ring for a long time and did not rule the world and kill or enslave everyone.

That is my point.

At the Second Age the Free Peoples were capable of matching the military might of Sauron (with Ring) with military might of their own. They are NOT able to do this in the Third Age and in fact a Ringless Sauron was already a grave threat to them. To argue that "Sauron already had the ring for a long time and did not rule the world" ignores the fact that the ability of the Free Peoples to oppose him has changed dramatically.
Given that they cannot hope to overcome Sauron by mililtary means they have to look for other options to defeat him. And in discussing their options at the Council of Elrond it is made clear that sending the Ring to the Fire is not merely a matter of keeping it out of Sauron's hands. It is in fact considered their best hope of defeating him. The premise therefore isn't simply that "we have to destroy the ring or Sauron will get it and rule the world and kill or enslave us all". No, "we have to destroy the Ring because doing so will rid us of the problem of Sauron once and for all".

Sauron the White

10-05-2007, 08:41 PM

Morwen... yes, yes, yes... I have heard that standard explaination before and it seems to be part of the doctrine among the faithful. But it just rings hollow with me. After all, the army of men did pretty well against Sarumans Uruks at Helms Deep. How could anyone know so without a doubt in advance that the free peoples had no chance? Battles and wars are not fought or won on paper.

One thing I have learned here in the past year is there is some type of general rules which apply to all debates here. It goes something like this.

JRRT never made a mistake. His books are perfect and without error. If you think you have found an error, it is you who are in error because the books are perfect. The standards which apply to JRRT and his books apply to nothing else and are special and are little understood by the great masses. And the films suck because they are not the books.

Do any of you ever concede anything? This gets really frustrating after a while. :(

Finduilas

10-05-2007, 08:54 PM

Some of us are willing to concede to minor mistakes. But do you really expect any of us people who defend the books so much that you call us 'purists' to concede that the very foundation of the book and incredible story is faulty? That's really asking a lot.

littlemanpoet

10-05-2007, 09:24 PM

Did not the free peoples army win the decisive battle seven years before? Did they not lay siege to the Barad-dur for the next seven years before dispatching Sauron? How is this on the verge of defeat? JRRT himself, writing in Of The Rings of Power in THE SILMARILLION says they had the victory and their siege was so powerful that if forced Sauron out from his fortress.Oops. I guess you're right. That means that the Eldar allied with the Numenorean Faithful, were still strong enough at the end of the Second Age to defeat Sauron with the Ring, and Isildur threw away their chance. Wow. That really puts Isildur's foolishness in stark relief. No wonder the Valar sent the Istari, especially with the waning of the Eldar.

I have heard that standard explaination before and it seems to be part of the doctrine among the faithful. But it just rings hollow with me.If you have evidence to prove Morwen's argument false, you'll have to do better than "rings hollow with me".

By the way, I've conceded a couple of points to you. You haven't conceded any, in spite of the clear explanations and examples I've given you, especially in regard to the objective, real distinction between secondary belief and willing suspension of disbelief. What it seems to come down to is that you're accusing the lot of us of "closed mindedness", which appears to be the pot calling the kettle black. ;)

Morwen

10-05-2007, 09:29 PM

StW, I am not attempting to give you a "standard explaination" of any sort. I am presenting my opinion of the text, how I understand what Tolkien has written.

Helm's Deep was one battle. When the representatives of the Free Peoples meet in Rivendell their own assessment of their position is that they cannot hope overcome Sauron by force of arms. Hence the the plan to send the Ring to Fire. Indeed when Aragorn and co march to Black Gate , I don't recall anyone saying they hoped with an army of about 6000 to defeat Sauron. They are simply hoping to buy the Ringbearer time. This is what is presented in the text. If I am to find this reasoning flawed then it would have to be on the basis that there is evidence in the text to suggest that everyone, at the Council of Elrond and afterwards, is being unduly pessimistic; that despite their assertions they really were capable of somehow defeating the war machine of Sauron by military means and that capability is being ignored so everyone could embark on a quest to Mount Doom.

At this point I'm not sure what it is that I'm supposed to be conceding. Why is it that you find it difficult to concede that the position of the Free Peoples in the Third Age is markedly different from that in the Second? What is it about that assertion that seems hollow to you or doesn't make sense?

Quempel

10-05-2007, 11:15 PM

Winning one battle does not mean there is enough military strength to win the war. And wars are won in the mind and on paper long before they are won in the battle field. No general is going to send troops out all willy-nilly without a plan, well not a winning general. So yes there was a victory at Helms Deep, but had it not been for the Army of the Dead, Rohan and Gondor would have fallen during the battle at Pelenor Fields, fact it the free living men could not over come the massive army without the aid of the Army of the Dead, and they were a one time shot.

davem

10-06-2007, 02:44 AM

Morwen has already stated the situation perfectly. The 'Free People' are already, by the time of the story, effectively finished. Sauron is going to win - he has overwhelming forces & is moving towards the final victory. Its not that the Ring will enable him to break a stalemate, let alone to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Its not a case of 'If Sauron gets this he'll win' but of 'If he gets this then our only chance of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat is gone - but if we can destroy the Ring he will fall'.

Of course there are some (as at the Council) who seem to believe that just keeping the Ring from him ('send it over the Sea'/'give it to Bombadil' etc) will be enough, but they are soon put in their place.

The basics of the plot: Sauron has arisen again & is about to destroy us & take over the world & we thought there was nothing we could do but surrender or go down fighting. Now, however, we have found his Ring, his one vulnerability. If we can destroy the Ring we can destroy him. If he gets hold of it again our only chance to defeat him will be gone.

Sauron doesn't need the Ring to win, he just needs to stop any enemy capable of using it claiming it for himself (or, though this never crossed his mind, destroying it)

alatar

10-06-2007, 06:53 AM

Didn't Gandalf say something about your valor being vain, as even without the Ring, the tidal waves of Sauron were coming Westward, and so one could either ride out to meet him or endure siege after siege in whatever strong places remained - regardless, the end of the Free Folk was certain. Sauron, even before his first cup of coffee in the morning was already planning total domination of Middle Earth, and there were few if any on the other side that had the same devotion for keeping that from happening - even Gandalf took a break now and again.

With the Ring Sauron's victory was certain; without, his victory was mostly certain and only delayed somewhat, and a few islands (Rivendell, Lothlorien, the Old Forest) eventually would be all that remained free, and in time even these would fall. Was destroying the One Ring the Third Age's 'Eärendil moment?'

And I concede lipsticked pigs and glycogen. ;)

Sauron the White

10-06-2007, 07:17 AM

After reading and rereading the points made by several people here, I do admit that it makes sense now. This particular point from davem rings true

Sauron has arisen again & is about to destroy us & take over the world & we thought there was nothing we could do but surrender or go down fighting. Now, however, we have found his Ring, his one vulnerability. If we can destroy the Ring we can destroy him. If he gets hold of it again our only chance to defeat him will be gone.

Sauron doesn't need the Ring to win, he just needs to stop any enemy capable of using it claiming it for himself (or, though this never crossed his mind, destroying it)

That does make sense and fits in with some of the Council speeches. I thank all of you - Morwen, alatar, Quempel and littlemanpoet for making good arguements. Findulias said

Some of us are willing to concede to minor mistakes. But do you really expect any of us people who defend the books so much that you call us 'purists' to concede that the very foundation of the book and incredible story is faulty? That's really asking a lot.

Kind of makes me feel like Homer Simpson and should say "DOH".

I do think that the whole Sauron needs the ring appears at first to be a contradiction... but you have all explained that to me to my satisfaction. I guess he really did not need it and that was the weakness in my position.

I am learning that sometimes looking at this stuff is like somebody from the 19th century explaining why a huge battleship made of metal and concrete could never float. The more you learn, the more it makes sense. Thanks to all.

alatar

10-06-2007, 08:02 AM

I am learning that sometimes looking at this stuff is like somebody from the 19th century explaining why a huge battleship made of metal and concrete could never float. The more you learn, the more it makes sense. Thanks to all.
:eek: What happened? Don't tell me you suddenly believe a laden Dwarf can run 135 miles in 3.5 days?!? My heart can only take so much...:eek:

William Cloud Hicklin

10-06-2007, 08:53 AM

Is that an African Dwarf or a European Dwarf?

Sauron the White

10-06-2007, 08:57 AM

The dwarf run all those miles?????

NEVER!!!!!!

littlemanpoet

10-06-2007, 06:13 PM

AND NOW BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED SPLIT PERSONALITY....

:p

alatar

10-06-2007, 08:31 PM

So when Gollum finally regains the Ring before he takes his lava swim, is he Smeagol, Gollum or still the split personality?

Folwren

10-06-2007, 08:41 PM

littlemanpoet

10-06-2007, 10:39 PM

Not Smeagol. I believe Smeagol was before the Ring...not an innocent figure, but certainly more innocent than the creature that owned the Ring.

He was Gollum...Gollum as Gollum was when Bilbo took his Precious. Not happy, but able to survive and willing to be consumed.Yeah. I agree with this. But I don't buy "split personality"; I think that all the Smeagol that had remained inside the creature got snuffed out when Sam chose his words badly at the moment he almost repented.

davem

10-07-2007, 02:35 AM

Yeah. I agree with this. But I don't buy "split personality"; I think that all the Smeagol that had remained inside the creature got snuffed out when Sam chose his words badly at the moment he almost repented.

And of course, it was Smeagol himself who did the 'snuffing'. He chose to respond the way he did to Sam's words. Sam , effectively, passed him a loaded gun & Smeagol chose to put it to his own head & pull the trigger. One could argue that if Sam hadn't given him the 'gun' he wouldn't have killed himself, but one can't argue that Sam pulled the trigger himself.

But ... Gollum is Smeagol & vice versa. They are not two different beings in the same body, he is a single being who makes a moral choice. We are dealing here with Smeagol making a final choice that he doesn't care anymore - Smeagol is Gollum with the remnants of a conscience, Gollum is Smeagol having decided that conscience is going to get him nowhere - he casts it aside with less regret than Sam later casts away his pans.

We have here not so much a 'split personality' as an individual who makes a moral choice to finally & completely become a monster - of course, by that time its actually easier to take that last little step than to turn around & trek all the way back, but the point is all along his long road Smeagol has been in control of his choices. Smeagol/Gollum is no more a 'split personailty' in the psychological sense than any of us who have had that inner argument with ourselves over whether or not to take the last cake or leave it for the missus, whether or not to leave our details when we shunt that parked car when there's no witnesses about or to use the Bart Simpson Get out of jail free' card - 'It was like that when I got here'. Of course, the first few times we argue with ourselves over whether or not we should do it, but the more often we choose the former & give in the easier it becomes. That's simply about having a conscience & choosing to act in accordance with it or ignoring it or more usually constructing complex justifications ('the cake would have gone off/they wouldn't mind me having it', 'Its only a small scratch & hardly worth making a fuss over - in fact, anyone who would make a fuss over such a small scratch is such a petty minded jerk that they're not worth the hassle I'd have to go through', 'That vase was an accident waiting to happen - balanced so precariously on that little table....'). As I said, every step down that road gets easier to make, & turning around & going back gets harder & harder, but I think that's the kind of person Tolkien is showing us in Smeagol, rather than an individual suffering from a mental disorder. Smeagol/Gollum is not mentally ill, but morally corrupt - as a result of his own choices.

Of course, that's not to say that his failure to repent isn't tragic - it is (didn't Tolkien say he wept?) - but by that point it was pretty much inevitable. One feels that if Sam had woken up & simply said 'Good morning' Smeagol would have taken it the wrong way. The idea that at that point, so close to getting his hands on his Precious, anything was going to stop him, is I think mistaken. He still, I believe, intended to lead them to Shelob & take his Precious back, but in what would prove to be the last flare of conscience & empathy in him (before he killed it) he fleetingly considered the consequences of that act.... Sam's words simply enabled Smeagol to make the choice he really wanted to make all along. He could proceed with his plan, but blame Sam for 'forcing him into it'

Raynor

10-07-2007, 05:47 AM

We have here not so much a 'split personality' as an individual who makes a moral choice to finally & completely become a monster
I do think that there are two personalities acting in our villain. As Gandalf says:
Even Gollum was not wholly ruined. He had proved tougher than even one of the Wise would have guessed -as a hobbit might. There was a little corner of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past. It was actually pleasant, I think, to hear a kindly voice again, bringing up memories of wind, and trees, and sun on the grass, and such forgotten things. But that, of course, would only make the evil part of him angrier in the end – unless it could be conquered.
Thus, I would say that what Tolkien was trying to portray in Gollum was not a split personality in the sense of multiple personalities of rather equal standing, split from the same root - but a mind crushed by a power greater than it, which has taken under its dominion almost all its willpower. I believe it is safe to say that Smeagol would not have done worse deeds than theft or pranks if he didn't have the ring. If we are to take the Shire as a point of reference for Smeagol's lands too, then killing another hobbit is rather out of the question, and his past wouldn't justify, in my opinion, his going down that road by himself. To be more exact, the two personalities at work would be Smeagol - and the ring's taint on his mind.

littlemanpoet

10-07-2007, 04:13 PM

Although I see where Raynor is coming from in regard to the "chink in his mind", and even though the Ring is an overwhelming artifact, davem's point remains valid that Gollum lusted for the Ring and committed murder to get it.

Unlike Frodo, who fought the Ring's influence all the way to the Crack of Doom, Gollum colluded with the Ring's influence. The only exception to this collusion was Frodo's mercy, which opened the door on that chink.

That said, I don't think there is quite the determinism going on that davem implies (or ast least I infer ;) ). There was just as much a chink of hope as there was a chink of light that Gollum might repent; otherwise it would not be the kind of tragedy that it was.

But it's interesting to consider that Tolkien wept over this scene. I remember doing so too. One grieves only for those things that one loses, that one loves (or at least likes). So for all of Gollum's moral corruption and monstrous deeds, we still are helped to see something piteous and, well, human and sympathetic, about this fallen Hobbit.

Raynor

10-07-2007, 04:25 PM

Gollum lusted for the Ring and committed murder to get it
True, but with the exception of Tom, everyone in the book is susceptible to lusting for the ring. Do you think he would have killed if this wasn't the one ring?

littlemanpoet

10-07-2007, 04:48 PM

It's likely since he was already a thief before the Ring was ever found. Gollum was already corrupt. The others who fell to the temptation of the Ring, lusting after it, were Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (were there others?); it may be argued that whereas they had moral weaknesses, they had not yet, when they discovered that the Ring existed, committed any deeds of moral failure.

alatar

10-07-2007, 08:47 PM

Nice post, davem. But what of PJ's Gollum?

davem

10-08-2007, 02:54 AM

Nice post, davem. But what of PJ's Gollum?

PJ's Gollum is an innocent, a nice, friendly guy out fishing with his friend who is instantly corrupted by the Ring. That's PJ's take on it - the Ring instantly corrupts anyone who comes into contact with it, rather than just tempting them. The point of the Ring in the book is that its both the most powerful & the weakest thing in M-e - if you claim it & use it its the most powerful thing. If you ignore it, leave it by the wayside (as Faramir put it) its powerless. In Tolkien's M-e you can make a moral choice not to claim it, & therefore it can gain no hold on you. It only has power over those who succumb to it. Anyone 'taken over' by the Ring has made a choice to be taken over - even Frodo right at the end has chosen to claim the Ring, though at that point he is so weakened & psychologically vulnerable that it was almost (but only almost) inevitable.

Raynor

10-08-2007, 03:15 AM

The others who fell to the temptation of the Ring, lusting after it, were Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (were there others?); it may be argued that whereas they had moral weaknesses, they had not yet, when they discovered that the Ring existed, committed any deeds of moral failure.
Then again, their situation is not comparable, since they were not in the vicinity of the ring when they discovered that it existed. Furthermore, I didn't say all the others lusted, only that they were susceptible to lust - given the rather irresistible possessiveness the ring inspired. That Gollum was already weakened further takes some of his blame away; he was not in the same situation of dealing with the ring as a normal person would have been, and he did not take the road of petty theft aware of the deadly threat it would open him to. Should we all know the consequences of our small evils, our guardian angels would likely be less busy.
If you ignore it, leave it by the wayside (as Faramir put it) its powerless. In Tolkien's M-e you can make a moral choice not to claim it, & therefore it can gain no hold on you. It only has power over those who succumb to it. Anyone 'taken over' by the Ring has made a choice to be taken over - even Frodo right at the end has chosen to claim the Ring, though at that point he is so weakened & psychologically vulnerable that it was almost (but only almost) inevitable.
If you imply that one can have the ring and not be influenced by it, simply by not claiming it, I disagree. After Gandalf says that
If [a mortal] often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he_ fades:_ he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings. Yes, sooner or later – later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last – sooner or later the dark power will devour him.
From Gandalf's own words, even he would succumb to the ring, due to his pity and desire to use it for good (not out of lust for the ring itself).

davem

10-08-2007, 04:09 AM

If you imply that one can have the ring and not be influenced by it, simply by not claiming it, I disagree. After Gandalf says that

From Gandalf's own words, even he would succumb to the ring, due to his pity and desire to use it for good (not out of lust for the ring itself).

No - I imply that one is free to reject it altogether - refuse to have it at all, even if that means inevitable defeat. If one rejects it (like Faramir) one is not tempted by it & will not succumb to it. Even if one bears it one does not have to surrender to it - though it becomes increasingly difficult not to. Gandalf & Galadriel refuse to take it because they feel they would eventually succumb & use it, but they would still have a choice in the matter. They just don't trust themselves to have it & not use it in extremis.

Raynor

10-08-2007, 04:59 AM

Your post is somewhat equivocal, davem. Don't you agree with Gandalf that anyone would eventually succumb to the dark power of the ring, regardless of one's moral nature?

davem

10-08-2007, 05:13 AM

Your post is somewhat equivocal, davem. Don't you agree with Gandalf that anyone would eventually succumb to the dark power of the ring, regardless of one's moral nature?

I'm saying that surrender to the Ring must be a willed act, but the longer ones bears the ring the harder it will be not to surrender to it. The Ring cannot overwhelm an unwilling victim, but it can wear the bearer (or those in the vicinity of the Ring) down to the point where that surrender is almost inevitable.

But we're back to the Boethian/Manichaen dichotomy here. If an individual can be made evil against their will, rather than making a conscious decision to surrender to it this calls in to question the nature & power of evil in M-e. I don't see anywhere in Tolkien's writing anything that can support that. Individuals can be corrupted by evil but they must surrender to it to some degree - otherwise we must see the evil individuals in the story as victims of a force beyond themselves & thus as having no capacity for repentance - but even the worst characters are offered the opportunity to repent. The opportunity to choose is a central theme of the books.

Raynor

10-08-2007, 05:35 AM

I'm saying that surrender to the Ring must be a willed act, but the longer ones bears the ring the harder it will be not to surrender to it. The Ring cannot overwhelm an unwilling victim, but it can wear the bearer (or those in the vicinity of the Ring) down to the point where that surrender is almost inevitable.

But we're back to the Boethian/Manichaen dichotomy here. If an individual can be made evil against their will, rather than making a conscious decision to surrender to it this calls in to question the nature & power of evil in M-e. I don't see anywhere in Tolkien's writing anything that can support that. Individuals can be corrupted by evil but they must surrender to it to some degree - otherwise we must see the evil individuals in the story as victims of a force beyond themselves & thus as having no capacity for repentance - but even the worst characters are offered the opportunity to repent. The opportunity to choose is a central theme of the books.
I disagree. By this reasoning, Gandalf would become evil by will. Anyway, I think Tolkien addressed the question of overpowering evil:
"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power.

davem

10-08-2007, 06:05 AM

I disagree. By this reasoning, Gandalf would become evil by will.

And how is this different from Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman - none of them were evil in the beginning. ?

I'm not saying he would become instantly 'evil' - as Shippey points out, it would begin by his using the Ring to enhance his power to do good, then the temptation to cut corners would grow, & eventually he would simply do whatever he liked. CT, in the documentary JRRT: A Film Portrait, points out Gandalf would eventually become worse than Sauron, because he would be 'self-righteous'.

Raynor

10-08-2007, 06:10 AM

And how is this different from Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman - none of them were evil in the beginning?
What I believe the difference to be is that they took that path willingly, they wanted to be/become/do evil, it wasn't an undesired side effect of one of their choices, while Gandalf would still be motivated by good intentions and would succumb to corruption against his will.

davem

10-08-2007, 07:49 AM

What I believe the difference to be is that they took that path willingly, they wanted to be/become/do evil, it wasn't an undesired side effect of one of their choices, while Gandalf would still be motivated by good intentions and would succumb to corruption against his will.

There's no evidence that Saruman wanted to become evil - he was corrupted by the belief that the end justifies the means - everything Gandalf reports of their speech together confirms that.

And it all depends how you define 'evil' Gandalf, as CT states, would become 'self-righteous', ordering things 'for the greater good' - & he would decide what that 'greater good' would mean & no-one would have any choice but to go along with it.

Did Saruman actually consider himself evil?

'Evil' is not a thing in itself but a corruption of good, where self aggrandisement, lust for power & contempt for other wills dominates. Gandalf would not 'choose evil' because evil is not a plain & simple thing which is easily identifiable. Gandalf would choose, as I said, to cut corners, over-rule others, focus on the end rather than the means. Sam's vision, of turning Mordor into a garden, would be an evil act, as would Galadriel's dream of turning the whole of Middle-earth into Lorien. Gandalf would become 'evil' of his own free will, but like the others he would not necessarily consider what he chose to be 'evil'.

William Cloud Hicklin

10-08-2007, 08:22 AM

Agreed Davem.

One might put it like this: "evil" in Tolkien is not a Thing, an ideology, a Side (PJ and several obtuse critics don't see any difference between the contending armies except one is uglier). No, Evil in Tolkien ultimately is about Selfishness, and Pride of the sort which gives selfishness full reign. Even Celebrimbor and the wielders of the Three share in this to a limited extent.

Saruman and a corrupted Gandalf would have forced Middle-earth and its peoples into their own mold, 'for their own good.' We are told that even Sauron began this way, honestly desiring order and reconstruction. Goodness knows Tolkien wrote the LR in the shadow of just such mentalities, ones that began with positive economic reforms, but which devolved into an ideologies of Death for all dissenters. The logic of the French Revolution (and the Chinese, and the Cambodian, and...): once you've created a government the people 'deserve', you decide the 'people' aren't good enough for the government*- better start lopping heads.

Denethor and Boromir fall into the conceptual trap by buying into the notion that Sauron is Evil simply because he's on the Other Side. This is of course a form of selfish pride, or solipsism- I am the Good Guy by definition; ipso facto the Enemy is Evil (sound familiar?) They've lost track of the fact that Sauron is evil because he represents compulsion and tyranny, prevailing by bulldozing opposition. The Ring is a Sauronian mechanism, its power consists in enabling the user to Do as Sauron Would Do.

*I note that Hugo Chavez' English-language propaganda website, www.21stcenturysocialism.org, there is the ominous prediction "democratic gains may have to be preserved by nondemocratic means...."

Sauron the White

10-08-2007, 10:04 AM

from davem

PJ's Gollum is an innocent, a nice, friendly guy out fishing with his friend who is instantly corrupted by the Ring. That's PJ's take on it - the Ring instantly corrupts anyone who comes into contact with it, rather than just tempting them.

Because there is no backstory that we see on screen I do not see how you can make a statement about the character of Smeagol as a hobbit regardless if it is positive or negative. We simply see him fishing with a cousin for a brief moment and then the Ring is found. This tells us absolutely nothing about what kind of person Smeagol was before the Ring came into his life. Nothing - zip - nada- zilch.

Seems like just another opportunity to take another swipe at Jackson attempting to punish him for his capital crimes and mortal sins.

Quempel

10-08-2007, 10:44 AM

I have always thought Smeagol had a look of evilness about him in the movies, something in his eyes. The whole 'it's my birthday' speach pretty much gave me the creeps and made me think Smeagol wasn't all that good.

Raynor

10-08-2007, 12:05 PM

There's no evidence that Saruman wanted to become evil
Well, if we define evil as you did:
'Evil' is not a thing in itself but a corruption of good, where self aggrandisement, lust for power & contempt for other wills dominates
then there is plenty of evidence that he wanted to become evil.
he was corrupted by the belief that the end justifies the means
I don't think that "corrupted" is the most adequate term. There was no compelling force acting upon him. He chose this path consciously and freely.
Gandalf would not 'choose evil' because evil is not a plain & simple thing which is easily identifiable.
I disagree; omniscience is not required in order to stay on the moral path:
Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.
Gandalf would choose, as I said, to cut corners, over-rule others, focus on the end rather than the means.
But these are certainly evil acts, in breach of the mission he received.
Did Saruman actually consider himself evil?
...
Gandalf would become 'evil' of his own free will, but like the others he would not necessarily consider what he chose to be 'evil'.
Well, that may be true, but self-assessment in such cases is hardly relevant being more than subjective and self-deceiving.
One might put it like this: "evil" in Tolkien is not a Thing, an ideology, a Side
I disagree; evil has all those aspects in Ea. It is physical, in the form of the Marring. It is an ideology, in the sense already defined by davem, which I quoted above. It is also a side - Tolkien had no problem seeing that way, when he talked about Bombadil, for example:
The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on

alatar

10-08-2007, 12:13 PM

Because there is no backstory that we see on screen I do not see how you can make a statement about the character of Smeagol as a hobbit regardless if it is positive or negative. We simply see him fishing with a cousin for a brief moment and then the Ring is found. This tells us absolutely nothing about what kind of person Smeagol was before the Ring came into his life. Nothing - zip - nada- zilch.
What were the difference between the theatrical and EE versions regarding Smeagol claiming the Ring, if any?

Anyway, I think that PJ tries to show a bit about Smeagol's past/life by the coloration of Andy Serkis' face. Smeagol is not your tan farmboy hobbit, but a creature with paler skin and circles under the eyes, and as we know, 'evil is as evil looks' (unless they smoke pipes, then that negates the whole soothsaying). Here (http://www.movieweb.com/news/47/647.php) are Smeagol and Deagol, neither of which I would trust as they both appear to be sociopaths at the least. And fishing without beer?!? As just why did Gollum become the anti-spokesman for the Hair Club for Men in a matter of moments, whereas Frodo retains his locks throughout the entire journey? Another indication that Smeagol was more than ready to be consumed by the Ring?

Seems like just another opportunity to take another swipe at Jackson attempting to punish him for his capital crimes and mortal sins.
Like a cup of joe, can't start my day otherwise. ;)

davem

10-08-2007, 12:46 PM

Well, if we define evil as you did:

then there is plenty of evidence that he wanted to become evil.

But he didn't think it was 'evil. He thought he was doing his job. The problem was he thought Sauron is evil, I'm fighting Sauron, therefore I must be good.

I don't think that "corrupted" is the most adequate term. There was no compelling force acting upon him. He chose this path consciously and freely.

What's wrong with 'corrupted' in this case? One can be corrupted by an idea just as easily as by a 'force' - perhaps more easily.

Well, that may be true, but self-assessment in such cases is hardly relevant being more than subjective and self-deceiving.

Which is the point I'm making. Self assessment is irrelevant. Saruman, it could be argued, never thought of himself as 'evil' - & neither would Gandalf if he'd taken the Ring.

Raynor

10-08-2007, 12:58 PM

But he didn't think it was 'evil. He thought he was doing his job.
I disagree; it may have suited what he (re)designed as good, but he wasn't that far down the road to not be aware that what he did contradicted his initial mission, to not use power, but to help. He sees himself entitled to break light and tarnish white, just as he arrogated the right to renounce his mission.
What's wrong with 'corrupted' in this case? One can be corrupted by an idea just as easily as by a 'force' - perhaps more easily.Well, because this case involves a lot of self-deceiving, convincing himself that what he does is still some type of newly defined good. It is not forced from the outside upon him (which would be the case with Gandalf struggling with the ring), but he "forces" it, to a certain extent, upon himself - as long as he has a remnant of consciousness and morality.

alatar

10-08-2007, 04:02 PM

Note that, logically - at least to me - no item can make one become evil without some intent on the part of the actor. Could just touching the Ring make one evil? If that were true, why didn't Sauron mount the One Ring on a pole and swing it around, touching all those that assailed him - like sowing dragon's teeth that'd be.

And if that were possible, then couldn't the converse be possible? Why couldn't the Free folk get together and create an anti-Ring and send it gift-wrapped to Barad-dur? Sauron, after touching it, would be planting daisies.

***

Anyone claiming the One Ring, sooner or later, would become evil - controlling, forcing others to do something that they would not freely choose to do (see Orwell's 1984 for a definition) - even if it were via a thousand slices from a chocolate cake that could have been left alone for one's spouse; eventually, you've eaten the whole thing and then you're there.

littlemanpoet

10-08-2007, 08:27 PM

It seems to me that this debate about evil breaks in two what Tolkien wrought whole.

He gives evidence for both "schools of thought" on evil because he presents it as it truly is, whole-cloth. It's an example of mythic unity. We can debate as much as we like "what Tolkien really meant", and it's just only half the story, or less. What he evoked is what evil is in its realistic complexity.

davem

10-09-2007, 02:40 AM

What he evoked is what evil is in its realistic complexity.

Just occurs to me, on the subject of evil - is evil depicted differently in CoH to the way its depicted in LotR - if we take them as stand alone works? In short, the main force/source of evil in LotR is defeated & the tale ends in hope, while in CoH evil has total victory.

I'm thinking here of the CoH review in the Church Times http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=42450

Here the fallen archangel and the dragon organise the doom that the defiant Húrin must watch helplessly, which culminates in his son and daughter unknowingly marrying one another. Is Túrin right to call himself “master of doom”? He continues defiant, and kills the dragon; but when he and his sister separately learn the truth, they both kill themselves. Tolkien offers no judgement on this; but in The Lord of the Rings Túrin is known as one of the great heroes, “the mighty Elf-friends of old”.

The Lord of the Rings is silent about his story, but its own centre might be called equally dark. Providence arranges for Frodo to bear a temptation so strong that in the end he must give way. But he endures for long enough to ensure that, when he does give in, the world can still be saved (by his dark other self destroying itself — he himself is too much damaged to go on living in the world).

It would be more reassuring to believe that God never allows us to face a temptation that we are unable to endure; but Tolkien’s view looks uncomfortably realistic.

Of course, this perhaps takes the thread off topic, but if we only had CoH from Tolkien would we take a different message from Tolkien about the nature of evil? The most interesting thing to me about CoH is that there is no Ring to either claim or reject.

Or what about this one http://www.sfreviews.net/tolkien_children_of_hurin.html

The Children of Húrin draws an impressive balance between the modern and the classical. Darker and less redemptive by light-years than The Lord of the Rings, its story is unutterably sad, but viscerally powerful in the way literature's greatest tragedies have been. And Alan Lee's peerless art — the color plate of Glaurung between pages 224-25 is beyond Hugo-worthy — enhances the story's sense of consequence. Perhaps a book better read by those already a little deeper into Tolkien than casual fans who picked up the trilogy in the wake of the movies, The Children of Húrin is an impassioned exercise in mythmaking, a story that cuts to the darkness within its hero, to find a frightened child.

Is Turin 'evil' or is he really a 'frightened child' trying to do his best & failing because of some inner fault - or is it simply a 'fault' - is it some inner 'darkness'/evil'? How different is Boromir to Turin - is it the Ring which corrupts him, or is the Ring equivalent to Morgoth's curse?

Sorry - a lot of rambling musings there....

littlemanpoet

10-09-2007, 03:58 AM

Just occurs to me, on the subject of evil - is evil depicted differently in CoH to the way its depicted in LotR - if we take them as stand alone works? In short, the main force/source of evil in LotR is defeated & the tale ends in hope, while in CoH evil has total victory. How about starting a new thread in Books on this so that anybody who's interested in this particular aspect can find it without having to dig 6 pages into a movie thread on Split Personality? ;)

Raynor

10-09-2007, 01:36 PM

Could just touching the Ring make one evil?
I certainly doubt it. Given Gandalf's words, it would take a rather long time, especially if one's nature is good and moral.
Why couldn't the Free folk get together and create an anti-Ring and send it gift-wrapped to Barad-dur?
In the event that this is not a joke (I usually fail to make such distinctions, so have mercy :p ), the Free folk didn't have the ability to match Sauron's power in making a great ring, let alone one that could affect his nature.
Anyone claiming the One Ring, sooner or later, would become evil - controlling, forcing others to do something that they would not freely choose to do (see Orwell's 1984 for a definition) - even if it were via a thousand slices from a chocolate cake that could have been left alone for one's spouse; eventually, you've eaten the whole thing and then you're there.
I agree.It seems to me that this debate about evil breaks in two what Tolkien wrought whole.

He gives evidence for both "schools of thought" on evil because he presents it as it truly is, whole-cloth. It's an example of mythic unity. We can debate as much as we like "what Tolkien really meant", and it's just only half the story, or less. What he evoked is what evil is in its realistic complexity.
I am not sure, what part of evil has my argument left out? On occasion, I rather enlarged its sphere in this discussion, compared to other positions presented.

littlemanpoet

10-09-2007, 03:42 PM

I am not sure, what part of evil has my argument left out? On occasion, I rather enlarged its sphere in this discussion, compared to other positions presented.I don't think I could tell you what you've left out, because that would be getting into specifics, which would again be teasing apart what Tolkien wrought whole. I guess it comes down to this: Tolkien was a master at holding in tension such things as evil, as well as many other things that modern minds tend to pick apart and take sides on. It's part of what he's doing to build myth in LotR. .... and to keep this on the movie topic, it's something that Jackson just seems to have had no inkling of, because the movie consistently interprets the book by splitting up these unities.

Raynor

10-09-2007, 03:58 PM

I don't think I could tell you what you've left out, because that would be getting into specifics, which would again be teasing apart what Tolkien wrought whole.
I certainly doubt that Tolkien conceived evil in Ea as something unexplainable and unapproachable. While it may have numerous ramifications, it surely has defining elements. I don't see the same reluctance in his approach to this matter.

littlemanpoet

10-09-2007, 08:00 PM

I certainly doubt that Tolkien conceived evil in Ea as something unexplainable and unapproachable. While it may have numerous ramifications, it surely has defining elements.However, we define those elements at the risk of losing the unity.

I don't see the same reluctance in his approach to this matter.

That would be because I recognize his genious and my lack.

alatar

10-09-2007, 08:02 PM

In the event that this is not a joke (I usually fail to make such distinctions, so have mercy :p ), the Free folk didn't have the ability to match Sauron's power in making a great ring, let alone one that could affect his nature.
I never joke, knowing that every word that I write may tip the balance of the world, if not the universe, into chaos. ;)

My point is that if it is possible to construct an item that can 'turn one evil' regardless of one's will, then it should be equally possible to create a similar device that turns one good. If Sauron could make the Ring, then someone could make the anti-Ring - Gandalf, Saurman, Feanor, etc.

Regardless, the Free Folk are good because they do not wish to create a device, letting Sauron and others like him stew in their own foolishness.

Raynor

10-10-2007, 03:01 AM

However, we define those elements at the risk of losing the unity.
As far as I can tell, this relates more to your personal interpretation and approach, which I respect, than to the possibility to identify such elements in his writing. Therefore, I believe this is a case where we should agree to disagree.
I never joke, knowing that every word that I write may tip the balance of the world, if not the universe, into chaos.
Wise words from a wise man :D. With power comes responsibility :p.
My point is that if it is possible to construct an item that can 'turn one evil' regardless of one's will, then it should be equally possible to create a similar device that turns one good. If Sauron could make the Ring, then someone could make the anti-Ring - Gandalf, Saurman, Feanor, etc.
In my opinion, it takes someone far stronger than the "target" to be able to make such a device. I believe that Saruman and Gandalf were such susceptible to the Ring because they were weakened by their condition. In regards to Sauron, I would say it takes a vala to make such an anti-ring.
Regardless, the Free Folk are good because they do not wish to create a device, letting Sauron and others like him stew in their own foolishness.
Hm, I would say their goodness comes also from their relative lack of power. Otherwise, one of the strongest "morals" of LotR - and Tolkien's work in general, is that power corrupts.

alatar

10-10-2007, 08:11 AM

In my opinion, it takes someone far stronger than the "target" to be able to make such a device. I believe that Saruman and Gandalf were such susceptible to the Ring because they were weakened by their condition. In regards to Sauron, I would say it takes a vala to make such an anti-ring.
That makes sense, yet I would say that such a device, whether pro- or anti-evil, is impossible. One cannot, I suppose, negate the free will that is the gift of Eru.

Hm, I would say their goodness comes also from their relative lack of power. Otherwise, one of the strongest "morals" of LotR - and Tolkien's work in general, is that power corrupts.
Lack of power? Not likely. I would say the responsible use of power. Eru's very powerful; is he corrupt?

Raynor

10-10-2007, 08:20 AM

That makes sense, yet I would say that such a device, whether pro- or anti-evil, is impossible. One cannot, I suppose, negate the free will that is the gift of Eru.
However, Tolkien did allow for situations in which one is overwhelmed by an evil far greater than one's power to resist. And he made the case that no blame is to be laid in such situations. As for the anti-ring, the presumed coming of Eru would eradicate evil from Creation - although it would likely not touch upon the free will to further choose between good and evil.
Lack of power? Not likely. I would say the responsible use of power. Hm, I must admit I don't follow :o.
Eru's very powerful; is he corrupt?Then again, the comparison is likely false, since Eru is infinite and we have zero clues about Him, other than Him being the "one wholly free Will and Agent" (letter #156). Moreover, Tolkien stated in Myths Transformed that any finite being has weaknesses - being implied that this does not apply to an infinite being.

alatar

10-10-2007, 08:37 AM

However, Tolkien did allow for situations in which one is overwhelmed by an evil far greater than one's power to resist. And he made the case that no blame is to be laid in such situations. As for the anti-ring, the presumed coming of Eru would eradicate evil from Creation - although it would likely not touch upon the free will to further choose between good and evil.
It's different if you are overwhelmed against your will, but a device that makes you evil? If Melkor did make orcs from elves, seeing the behaviour of the elves, he may have had some that were somewhat amenable to the process, though by a thousand slices.

Hm, I must admit I don't follow :o.
Th 'good' did not lack for power. Gandalf could have used much more power than he did. Saruman could have been made to bow before him. But Gandalf showed restraint and so simply made Saruman mostly impotent.

Then again, the comparison is likely false, since Eru is infinite and we have zero clues about Him, other than Him being the "one wholly free Will and Agent" (letter #156). Moreover, Tolkien stated in Myths Transformed that any finite being has weaknesses - being implied that this does not apply to an infinite being.
My point is that if power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely (hmm, I should coin that phrase ;)). Where not Melkor and Manwe brothers? Why then was Melkor corrupted and Manwe not? Would that not indicate that it's not the power, but the application thereof?

Raynor

10-10-2007, 08:51 AM

It's different if you are overwhelmed against your will, but a device that makes you evil?However, this device isn't any object, seeing the amount of power it has, its special relation to Sauron and even some presumed "intelligence"/activity of its own. I would also expect a great concentration of Melkor's marring throughout Arda to have a somewhat similar effect.
If Melkor did make orcs from elves, seeing the behaviour of the elves, he may have had some that were somewhat amenable to the process, though by a thousand slices.Well... maybe :).
The 'good' did not lack for power. Gandalf could have used much more power than he did. Saruman could have been made to bow before him. But Gandalf showed restraint and so simply made Saruman mostly impotent.I see. By Free Folk I didn't previously included our istari friend(s). We should bear in mind that the elves came rather close to this, through their Rings of power that counter the marring and the decay.
hmm, I should coin that phrase ;)You should, it sounds catchy :D.
Were not Melkor and Manwe brothers?Why then was Melkor corrupted and Manwe not?True, but Melkor had greater power and Manwe had a more special relation with Eru.

alatar

10-10-2007, 08:57 AM

True, but Melkor had greater power and Manwe had a more special relation with Eru.
Right. But my point is that 'power corrupts' is either always true or only sometimes true. Manwe and Eru would indicate that power, in and of itself, does not always corrupt.

Raynor

10-10-2007, 09:01 AM

But my point is that 'power corrupts' is either always true or only sometimes true. Manwe and Eru would indicate that power, in and of itself, does not always corrupt.
Well, I would say that a more proper phrasing would be "greater power increases the likelihood of corruption - unless balanced".

alatar

10-10-2007, 09:05 AM

Well, I would say that a more proper phrasing would be "greater power increases the likelihood of corruption - unless balanced".
Graphing power versus corruption would not show any correlation. One who is corrupted may seek power, but at every level, from Melkor to Sandyman, we have contemporaries that, having the same or similar levels of power, are not corrupted.

It's what you do with it - as you referenced previously via Spiderman.

Raynor

10-10-2007, 09:22 AM

Graphing power versus corruption would not show any correlation. One who is corrupted may seek power, but at every level, from Melkor to Sandyman, we have contemporaries that, having the same or similar levels of power, are not corrupted.
True, because what is left out is the balancing part - be it consciousness or grace manifested in inner or exterior fortunate conditions. The subsequent deeds and their moral quality are a result of this balancing.

littlemanpoet

10-12-2007, 08:59 AM

As far as I can tell, this relates more to your personal interpretation and approach, which I respect, than to the possibility to identify such elements in his writing. Therefore, I believe this is a case where we should agree to disagree.No, this is not a subjective issue. The (modern) human mind tends to analyze (break apart) that with which it is confronted. Whereas there are benefits to such activity, as can be seen from the development of modern technology, there is a price paid. The price that is paid is the part of a thing that seems of less value to the analyzer. Example: the Greek distinction between soul and body - western history shows us that there have been (at least) two schools of thought, one valuing soul higher, the other valuing body higher, with results ranging from aesceticism to naturalism. In the same way, distinguising between two aspects of evil will lead to the devaluing of one of those aspects. Evil doesn't change, but the way we deal with it does, and that could be devastating if we have lost something in our analysis that is too costly.

alatar

10-12-2007, 09:10 AM

Example: the Greek distinction between soul and body - western history shows us that there have been (at least) two schools of thought
When choosing between two schools of thought, go with the one with the better football team. ;)

Evil doesn't change, but the way we deal with it does, and that could be devastating if we have lost something in our analysis that is too costly.
There's something intriguing here, but I can't quite see it. "Evil doesn't change" strikes me as wrong, but that's subjective, obviously. If, in Arda, evil = against the will of Eru, then maybe.

Raynor

10-12-2007, 12:52 PM

No, this is not a subjective issue.
I believe it is. You refused a priori my approach, without pointing to any actual flaw when I requested it.
Evil doesn't change
In what sense? Is it precluded that any new forms/types of evil appear?

littlemanpoet

10-12-2007, 06:37 PM

I would say their goodness comes also from their relative lack of power. Otherwise, one of the strongest "morals" of LotR - and Tolkien's work in general, is that power corrupts.It is not power itself that corrupts, or else every king that ever lived would have gotten worse over time until he was unbearable. It is the will to dominate other wills that corrupts; to have one's own way regardless of the effect upon others.

Evil doesn't change, but the way we deal with it does, and that could be devastating if we have lost something in our analysis that is too costlyThis was an unfortunate expression of my thought. What I should have said was, "Evil remains what it is regardless of what we decide based on our analysis, and if our analysis fails to take into account the entirety of what Evil is, we pay a costly price." But I was in a rush when I wrote what I did in the first place, and it shows. :rolleyes:

You refused a priori my approach, without pointing to any actual flaw when I requested it.Actually, the paragraph following my "no" was an attempt at an explanation of my reasons for the "no". The reason I didn't point to any actual flaw is because I believe that the schools of thought on evil are valid, though limited, expressions of the part of Evil that they emphasize.

we're back to the Boethian/Manichaean dichotomy here Both schools of thought point to something true about Evil. When "logicked" out, they exclude each other. The exclusion is the problem. I personally lean toward the Boethian school and against the Manichaean, but there's something about the Manichaean point that just doesn't die --- because there's reality there. Tolkien captures the unity in LotR

Calvin Tucker

10-13-2007, 05:23 PM

*I note that Hugo Chavez' English-language propaganda website, www.21stcenturysocialism.org, there is the ominous prediction "democratic gains may have to be preserved by nondemocratic means...."

I would be grateful if Mr William Hickli could post the link to this quote. I have done a google search, and I can find no record of this phrase having ever appeared on the 21st Century Socialism website. If this quote does in fact exist (google may have missed it), I can assure readers of this forum that Mr Hickli is using it out of context. It does not represent the editorial viewpoint of 21st Century Socialism, and it is wrong for Mr Hickli to imply that it does.

21st Century Socialism is an independent British web magazine which promotes fact-based journalism. It receives no funding from any foreign government or political party.

I will not be commenting here again, but if anyone wishes to contact me they may do so via the website.

Calvin Tucker
Co-editor http://21stcenturysocialism.com/

Sauron the White

10-14-2007, 10:08 AM

While I cannot vouch for Chavez saying

"democratic gains may have to be preserved by nondemocratic means...."

I did teach both US History and Government for three decades and can tell you without a doubt that such people as Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt all would have endorsed such a statement. In point of fact, they did with their deeds and actions. One of the most undemocratic things you can do in a free society is to force someone to join the military and partiicpate in war and the killing of other persons. You do so with the authority of the state behind you and the threat of prison looming over the head of the draftee. That is about as undemocratic as you can get. In none of those cases did the people participate in any type of referendum to approve of that tactic.

But all three US presidents, and others also, endorsed and utilized conscription to swell the ranks of the armed forces for the sole purpose of winning the war to save democracy. So this is not an unusual concept or one restricted to the likes of Mr. Chavez and his compatriots.

William Cloud Hicklin

10-14-2007, 03:29 PM

You do so with the authority of the state behind you and the threat of prison looming over the head of the draftee. That is about as undemocratic as you can get. In none of those cases did the people participate in any type of referendum to approve of that tactic.

There I would disagree. Since when is a referendum required to qualify as 'democratic?' The draft bills were passed by the people's elected representatives in Congress, as are all other laws of the United States. When FDR's draft act was passed by a single vote in 1940 everybody knew exactly what lay over the horizon.

I'm very much opposed to military conscription, but to call the American instances thereof 'undemocratic' when instituted in Constitutional manner is simply incorrect.

By contrast, what Chavez is talking about is, of course, rule by decree and other dictatorial methods should the majority of his people get tired of him. The old "one man, one vote, one time" story.

Sauron the White

10-14-2007, 03:52 PM

The form of government in which Congress passes bills for the people is not a democratic one. It is the republic form of government. In a democracy, it is the people who are the government in a direct manner. Think of the 17th century New England town hall meeting. In the republican form of government, the people are represented by elected officials who then are suppose to act on their behalf. Perhaps they sometimes do. Perhaps they sometimes don't.

In the late 19th century and in the early 20th century, efforts were made to take the US from the standard republican form of government more towards a democratic model. The Progressives and Populists led the way in this cause. The expansion of the franchise from adult white, male property holders to a wider demographic base was a step towards that. Because of such 20th century innovations as the referendum, initiative and recall, the US has taken on elements of both the republican from of government tinged with democracy. This is one reason why many political scientists now refer to the US system as a democratic republic.

Any military organization is by definition the opposite of a democratic unit. There is no democracy in the armed forces. To conscript someone into such a unit, is by its very nature, very undemocratic.

I cannot speak for Hugo Chavez or his brand of government. But using non-democratic methods to preserve freedom is nothing new. Chavez did not invent it. Lincoln in fact suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War even though there was no foundatin in the law for that measure. But he did so in the pursuit of a higher and longer term good.

On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.

I will not defend Hugo Chavez. But to act as if he alone invented the concept of the ends justifying the means is simply to ignore history.