"Do You Hate Women?"

[Boromir88]

http://collider.com/lee-pace-evangeline-lilly-orlando-bloom-the-hobbit-interview/

I shouldn't be surprised Evangeline Lilly doesn't know what she's talking about. My reaction is, how is her character any better than having no females at all? Is Tauriel's inclusion better simply because "woo female!" Even if she spends most of the time in the 2 movies forgetting about her position as captain of Thranduil's guard and just runs around after the "hot" dwarf.

[Bêthberry]

Since I haven't seen the movie or her character, I really have no grounds to join the discussion. But a romance is a trite, tripe, stereotype. She's nothing like the valkyries, is she?

I'm not automatically adverse to adding female characters if it is done to assure significant character development. At least that is what Tolkien tried to do with Eowyn and the shieldmaiden concept.

It would have been very cool, I think, had some of the dwarves turned out to be female. After all, Tolkien says they have beards and are not distinguishable from their male counterparts. It could have made for a stunning discovery somewhere along the way, for Bilbo and for the audience. Image a dwarf leading a lament at the end disclosing her gender.

[Galadriel55]

It would have been very cool, I think, had some of the dwarves turned out to be female. After all, Tolkien says they have beards and are not distinguishable from their male counterparts. It could have made for a stunning discovery somewhere along the way, for Bilbo and for the audience. Image a dwarf leading a lament at the end disclosing her gender.

Don't give them ideas, or Kili will turn out to be secretly female. :eek:

[Inziladun]

It would have been very cool, I think, had some of the dwarves turned out to be female. After all, Tolkien says they have beards and are not distinguishable from their male counterparts. It could have made for a stunning discovery somewhere along the way, for Bilbo and for the audience. Image a dwarf leading a lament at the end disclosing her gender.

Ah, but Dwarves, of whatever gender, don't lend themselves to sex appeal. Appearance, not character, is the gold standard for the motion picture. Why else is Legolas there? :rolleyes:

[Morthoron]

In the Jackson/Boyens manner of formulating scripts as if they were writing teenage fan-fiction, Tauriel is first a Mary-Sue with supernatural combat ability, descends into a sex object with the "what has the dwarveses gots in his pantses?" and eventually plummets completely into a weak female who must be rescued in battle by a male and ends the film whimpering like a Southern belle jilted at the plantation cotillion.

This is poorly written trash inserted to fill a viewer demographic (because the story would survive just fine without her, as it did for 70 years previous to the films). All one needs is misspellings and bad grammar for it to be included as adolescent spam on fan-fiction.net., just a notch above the various inane Legolas mpreg stories.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

http://collider.com/lee-pace-evangeline-lilly-orlando-bloom-the-hobbit-interview/

I shouldn't be surprised Evangeline Lilly doesn't know what she's talking about. . . .

That seems a little harsh. She admitted the question was flippant (Appropriately enough for the context.) and that she knew the real answer was 'no'. It sounded to me like she knew a bit of what she was talking about.

I think it's actually an interesting subject too, underneath the flippancy. Certainly one I wish we could quiz Tolkien on directly.

[Faramir Jones]

While I agree with you, IxnaY AintsaY, that Ms. Lilly was trying to say something coherent, it was drowned in a greater amount of incoherence.

She began by saying that her question was 'sassy', and that she was in a 'sassy mood'. Miriam-Webster online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sassy) defines this as '1. Impudent; 2. Vigorous, lively; 3. Distinctively smart and stylish'. I'm taking it from the context that definitions 1 and 2 are relevant here.

If Ms. Lilly, or anyone else, wants to ask a provocative question, that's fine. The point is that the questioner should then be prepared for a response, and to argue his or her point, presenting evidence, in this case that J. R. R. Tolkien hated women.

After asking it, she then undercut her own question, saying that Tolkien 'started writing incredibly well for women in the 1970s, once the women's lib movement happened'. She said that what Tolkien did in the 1930s was 'then not so much'. It was 'a societal thing'.

In my view, if Ms. Lilly began with such a provocative question to Tolkien, of 'Do you hate women?' I would have expected her to be ready to defend it; but she undercut it by a claim which showed her ignorance of Tolkien and his works, including that he died in 1973.

She then groped towards a coherent point when she said that Tolkien's writing in the 1930s was influenced by the society in which he grew up in and in which he lived, like the works of any writer. Certainly he was educated in, worked in, and socialised in mostly male-dominated environments, which may have influenced what he wrote; but it's not an indication of any 'hate' regarding women, a very strong term to use.

The problem was that she had already showed (in my opinion) she didn't have the evidence (shown by her ignorance about Tolkien in the 1970s) to coherently argue her question.

What do you and others think of this?:confused:

[Inziladun]

She then groped towards a coherent point when she said that Tolkien's writing in the 1930s was influenced by the society in which he grew up in and in which he lived, like the works of any writer. Certainly he was educated in, worked in, and socialised in mostly male-dominated environments, which may have influenced what he wrote; but it's not an indication of any 'hate' regarding women, a very strong term to use.

Tolkien was certainly, and unavoidably, a product of his time. However, I think you can point to Éowyn in LOTR alone as an indication that his ideas of the place of women in society were not necessarily totally in line with his contemporaries.

Granted, she might appear at first to be the lovesick, housekeeping maiden with little other purpose than to give Aragorn another problem to deal with.
Instead though, she herself rebels at her position and decides to ride off with the Rohirrim to an almost certain death, and ultimately accomplishes a tremendous deed in arms.

The fact that in The Hobbit we see no female characters at all could simply be explained by positing they it just didn't occur to Tolkien to add one, not through any conscious decision.

[Boromir88]

The fact that in The Hobbit we see no female characters at all could simply be explained by positing they it just didn't occur to Tolkien to add one, not through any conscious decision.

Exactly and I'm wondering how adding Tauriel just for the sake of having a female character is better than Tolkien not having a female in The Hobbit, or better than the female characters he did create in his other books? When Tauriel's "character" is exactly as described by Morthoron.

If I could ask Jackson a question, it wouldn't be "Do you Hate Women?," but based on Tauriel, I think it's more of an appropriate question for him than Tolkien. Quality, not quantity. I don't think Jackson understands that concept.

[Faramir Jones]

Would we get the same kind of response if an actor playing a character in an adaptation of a work by Jane Austen said that he would have liked to ask her the question, 'Do you hate men?':rolleyes:

[Bêthberry]

After asking it, she then undercut her own question, saying that Tolkien 'started writing incredibly well for women in the 1970s, once the women's lib movement happened'. She said that what Tolkien did in the 1930s was 'then not so much'. It was 'a societal thing'.

In my view, if Ms. Lilly began with such a provocative question to Tolkien, of 'Do you hate women?' I would have expected her to be ready to defend it; but she undercut it by a claim which showed her ignorance of Tolkien and his works, including that he died in 1973.

She then groped towards a coherent point when she said that Tolkien's writing in the 1930s was influenced by the society in which he grew up in and in which he lived, like the works of any writer. Certainly he was educated in, worked in, and socialised in mostly male-dominated environments, which may have influenced what he wrote; but it's not an indication of any 'hate' regarding women, a very strong term to use.

The problem was that she had already showed (in my opinion) she didn't have the evidence (shown by her ignorance about Tolkien in the 1970s) to coherently argue her question.

What do you and others think of this?:confused:



Oh, all right, I will chime in about Lilly. Faramir's telling arguments about her quotes are too much to ignore.

"Feminism" did not start in the 1970's, Ms Lilly, so Tolkien just might have heard about women's rights before then. You might want to do some reading on the Suffragettes and other women's groups who won the right for women to vote in the early century. You might also want to consider the impact of Betty Freidan's 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique regarding the timing of feminism. You might furthermore want to check out what Tolkien said about Simone de Beauvoir, who is known for her 1949 book, The Second Sex, which had just a wee bit of feminist influence.

Ms Lilly might also be well advised to read some early Tolkien writing, in BoLT. Or, heck , even the Silm, for evidence of and development of female characters. TH was written for Tolkien's sons and it is quite possible that he deliberately left out female characters because of them, not because of some misguided attitude towards women.

And, finally, I would recommend Ms Lilly and anyone else read some of David Doughan's work on Tolkien and women. He is an erudite and educated long time reader of Tolkien and member of the Society which bears the author's name. His articles are available in old editions of the Tolkien Society's magazine, Mallorn. David examines Tolkien's treatment of his students at Oxford, specifically his mentoring of graduate female students, several of whom went on to distinguished work. David also does a good job putting Tolkien's letter to his son which questions women's abilities in a particular personal context, possibly to dissuade him from a particular marriage prospect. Check out his 1995 and 2008 papers, references to which can be found here (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/David_Doughan)

Bothersome ignorant actress.

And concerning Jane Austen's attitude towards men . . . well, sadly, her sibling heirs destroyed most of her letters, so we have hardly any strong biographical sources. She did have several brothers, though. ;)

EDIT: I still think it would have been brilliant to turn some of the dwarves into women. But then I am currently reading Viriginia Woolf's Orlando, after whom I believe the Legolas actor was named.

[Galadriel55]

Would we get the same kind of response if an actor playing a character in an adaptation of a work by Jane Austen said that he would have liked to ask her the question, 'Do you hate men?':rolleyes:

And considering that Tess of the d'Urbervilles was written by a man... I'm not sure what gender the question should be posed in. :D

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I'm really rather amused by the notion- a childish one, really - that tossing in a grrrl-power female action hero somehow makes a story "feminist" or gives it "feminine energy" or renders it less toxically "patriarchal" or some darn thing.

Let's be real: Tauriel is less a "female" character than a male one with boobs: Legolass. She really introduces nothing "feminine;" nor does her character have a role a male neolovir wouldn't have filled equally well (or poorly), provided Kili were gay. Galadriel (Tolkien's, not Jackson's) is an infinitely more feminist character.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

BTW, Morth, the system won't let me give you any more 'reputation' but I have to congratulate you on your marvelous facility with alkaline polemic when it comes to PBJ; you spin it with the admirable and effortless invention of a Mozart spinning counterpoint.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

While I agree with you, IxnaY AintsaY, that Ms. Lilly was trying to say something coherent, it was drowned in a greater amount of incoherence.

She began by saying that her question was 'sassy', and that she was in a 'sassy mood'. Miriam-Webster online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sassy) defines this as '1. Impudent; 2. Vigorous, lively; 3. Distinctively smart and stylish'. I'm taking it from the context that definitions 1 and 2 are relevant here.

If Ms. Lilly, or anyone else, wants to ask a provocative question, that's fine. The point is that the questioner should then be prepared for a response, and to argue his or her point, presenting evidence, in this case that J. R. R. Tolkien hated women.

After asking it, she then undercut her own question, saying that Tolkien 'started writing incredibly well for women in the 1970s, once the women's lib movement happened'. She said that what Tolkien did in the 1930s was 'then not so much'. It was 'a societal thing'.

In my view, if Ms. Lilly began with such a provocative question to Tolkien, of 'Do you hate women?' I would have expected her to be ready to defend it; but she undercut it by a claim which showed her ignorance of Tolkien and his works, including that he died in 1973.

She then groped towards a coherent point when she said that Tolkien's writing in the 1930s was influenced by the society in which he grew up in and in which he lived, like the works of any writer. Certainly he was educated in, worked in, and socialised in mostly male-dominated environments, which may have influenced what he wrote; but it's not an indication of any 'hate' regarding women, a very strong term to use.

The problem was that she had already showed (in my opinion) she didn't have the evidence (shown by her ignorance about Tolkien in the 1970s) to coherently argue her question.

What do you and others think of this?:confused:

I think, in this instance, my standards are set lower than yours. ;)

[Morthoron]

BTW, Morth, the system won't let me give you any more 'reputation' but I have to congratulate you on your marvelous facility with alkaline polemic when it comes to PBJ; you spin it with the admirable and effortless invention of a Mozart spinning counterpoint.

Thanks, WCH, but hoisting PJ on his own petard is as easy as shooting dwarves in a barrel (if I may mix metaphors).

From my standpoint, if one wishes to deviate from a classic book, and in particular add a main character extraneous from the original plot, the changes must a) be required to advance the story from a visual rather than literary medium, b) be plausible within the context of the story, and c) offer the actor a memorable role and script with which to work.

I think PJ/Boyens failed on all 3 counts, and in baseball parlance that is a strike-out.

[Kuruharan]

as easy as shooting dwarves in a barrel (if I may mix metaphors).

Hey! :mad:

You may not mix your metaphors, sir! :p

[Mithadan]

In your case, Morthoron may, if he wishes.

Through the lens of willing suspension of disbelief (and pretending that I have never read the books) I do not dislike Tauriel. From the perspective of a "purist", I find Tauriel slightly less annoying and offensive than the portrayal of Radagast. The two are followed by my distaste for the "White Orc" whose inclusion seems only necessary to provide action and expand the material to stretch it into three movies.

Regarding Ms. Lily's comments in the interview, if she wanted to discuss substance, she should have been more familiar with the author and his work. I wasn't too thrilled about the "why are all the kings underground" query either.

[Boromir88]

Through the lens of willing suspension of disbelief (and pretending that I have never read the books) I do not dislike Tauriel. From the perspective of a "purist", I find Tauriel slightly less annoying and offensive than the portrayal of Radagast. The two are followed by my distaste for the "White Orc" whose inclusion seems only necessary to provide action and expand the material to stretch it into three movies.


I will say, I don't dislike Tauriel's inclusion anymore than I dislike Alfrid's. Even though that's not saying much, both are useless and unnecessary.

[Zigûr]

In one of the critical works I used in my thesis, the author discussed the traditional dichotomy associating the masculine with the mental, rational and artificial and the feminine with the physical, emotional and the natural. I touched upon how, in Professor Tolkien's work, he does not necessarily support such a dichotomy by portraying emotionality and nature across gender.

I wonder if a more sophisticated production which was less interested in fulfilling Hollywood quotas could have explored gender in the narrative by doing something more interesting than inserting a female love interest for one of the Dwarves, perhaps by going further in contrasting Bilbo's appreciation of nature to Thorin's increasing obsession with the man made and non-living and working with the different masculinities presented.

The nature-artifice divide was actually touched upon in the third film but only to a very limited extent. I think there were definitely more interesting ways of handling the exclusively male nature of the original text. I like the idea of some of the Dwarves being female, but again they would require more of a role and characterisation than they received.

[Michael Murry]

My compliments to the commenters for their various acidic views on the promotional interview that took place over a year ago featuring three marginal cast members of The Hobbit films. I have refrained from viewing it, primarily because I haven't yet rid my system of the rancid bile induced by watching the last -- thankfully -- of the tree "tent pole" films, each shamelessly seeking to vacuum the last penny from the pockets of every conveivable teenage fantasy film demographic.

Still, I would like to extend my most sincere gratitude to Morthoron for mentioning "the inane Legolas mpreg stories," rated only one notch below the Jackson/Boyens scripts for these films. I had thought that in my Elf Chick Security Guard cylce of poems I had successfully lampooned the most cheesy/sleazy film gimmicks personified in the Itaril (release 1.0) / Tauriel (release 2.0) character. But even I, a jaded swab-jocky veteran of Uncle Sam's Canoe Club, could not top:

Legolas Mpreg

“This is basically a community who love Legolas as well [as] pregnant. It can be Aragorn[,] Gimili[,] even one o[f] the twins[,] but please no Thranduil or Elrond.... I just can't bear that …”

See: https://www.fanfiction.net/s/1208495/1/Secret-Love-Secret-Life

"Secret Love, Secret Life"
by slightly-psychotic

[An excerpt from a scene where the pregnant Legolas experiences morning sickness while trekking through the wilds of Middle Earth with Gimli and Aragorn]:

“All of this he kept to himself. He did not want to worry the others. Especially Aragorn. The thought of the King of Gondor brought a smile to his face and he smiled happily remembering the feel of those rough calloused hands caressing him as they had the previous night. All too suddenly the wonderful thoughts were knocked from his mind as another wave of nausea hit and he threw up once more.”

I can well understand the nausea. Only in the case of the three Hobbit films, Peter Jackson and Phillipa Boyens provided that without even requiring interspecies, homosexual pregnancy -- although they hinted at the possibility of mating a female horse (elf) with a male donkey (dwarf) which would produce ... ?

I really can't let that Legolas Mpreg thing go unchallenged in verse. Now I have to go back through all of my poems to see what, if anything, I missed ridiculing.

Thanks again, Morthoron. .

[Faramir Jones]

An interesting contribution, Michael, which leaves the question open about how this pregnancy happened without some magical or divine intervention, or both...:confused::eek:

It reminds me of the scene in Money Python's The Life of Brian when one of the Jewish resisters told his comrades that he wanted to be a woman, because he wanted to have babies. Even if he couldn't physically have a child, he still wanted the right to have one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

I also recall a piece of X-Files fanfiction where Fox Mulder ended up pregnant by Dana Scully, the baby being genetically theirs.:rolleyes: Certain people badly disposed to them decided to do an experiment by putting them both to sleep, extracting the relevant material, fertilising an egg and implanting it in Agent Mulder. I found it just about acceptable, due to the nature of the X-Files universe. That story you linked us to, however...

Zigûr, I liked what you said here:

if a more sophisticated production which was less interested in fulfilling Hollywood quotas could have explored gender in the narrative by doing something more interesting than inserting a female love interest for one of the Dwarves, perhaps by going further in contrasting Bilbo's appreciation of nature to Thorin's increasing obsession with the man made and non-living and working with the different masculinities presented.

In my opinion, the book itself offered some suggestions on how this could be done. First, there was a reference by Bilbo to Gandalf being 'responsible for so many hobbit lads and lasses' going on adventures. (My emphasis) I contend that putting a female hobbit into the films would have made more sense than a female elf; because one could have made an argument that Tolkien himself hinted in the text that female hobbits also went off on adventures.

Second, it's clear that Bilbo was fully capable of looking after Bag End on his own, without any help. He was able to bake seed cake; and after waking up the following morning after the party, did the (considerable) washing up and cleaning. The first film could have shown him doing this, quite competently, without him grumbling that it wasn't his job. He would be shown as a hero who does considerable housework as a matter of course.

[Michael Murry]

I realize that the "Hobbit" movies have come and gone, and the Elf Chick Warrior Queen sequels have not yet entered pre-production, but for those longing for more of the "strong woman," "shield maiden" thing in films, I note that the the History Channel has announced Season Four of the Canadian/Irish program "Vikings," which begins Thursday, February 18 in North America and Friday, February 19 here in Asia. Since J. R. R. Tolkien had something of an interest in Scandinavian/Anglo-Saxon history and languages, perhaps this series will provide something for retro-projected feminism to enjoy. The first three seasons had quite a bit of that. Just saying ...

[Andsigil]

Legolas Mpreg

“This is basically a community who love Legolas as well [as] pregnant. It can be Aragorn[,] Gimili[,] even one o[f] the twins[,] but please no Thranduil or Elrond.... I just can't bear that …”

So, (ahem...) a pregnant Legolas is okay, as long as it wasn't Thranduil or Elrond who impregnated him? Okay. Got it. Thank you, Legolas MPREG.

SMH. Nonsense like this is enough to cause me hesternopothia.

[Aaron]

If they wanted a strong female character - which, I'm sorry to say, Tauriel wasn't - why not have an orc or goblin character?
Let's say they were going more by the books, and having Bolg as the leader of the orcs instead of Azog. They could have easily have given him a sister - who could have fought with him, and spurred him on, reminding him of the genuine grievances they had with Thorin and his company: In regards to both his father's death, and the death of the Great Goblin.
In the war between the Dwarves and the Orcs, Tolkien explicitly states that there was much cruelty on both sides. It wasn't a case of good and evil. You could easily show the family dynamic of an Orc dynasty looking for revenge.

Instead, we had to have a female character who ceased to really be a character. She looked perfect, fought perfectly, and seemed to exist only to pine and whine about love.
There was no personality to her, no zest, she was there to make up the numbers - and I actually find that more offensive than there being no female characters in the first place.

[Andsigil]

If they wanted a strong female character - which, I'm sorry to say, Tauriel wasn't - why not have an orc or goblin character?

I would even ask, if one wants a strong female character, why does she have to be shown slaying warriors by the dozen?

Gladriel killed nobody in any of three films, and she radiates strength. But, this contemporary desire to highlight some form of blatant "girl power", or something, creates Tauriels all of the time, which are both cliche and almost obligatory.

[Aaron]

I would even ask, if one wants a strong female character, why does she have to be shown slaying warriors by the dozen?

Gladriel killed nobody in any of three films, and she radiates strength. But, this contemporary desire to highlight some form of blatant "girl power", or something, creates Tauriels all of the time, which are both cliche and almost obligatory.

Absolutely agree. A female character is not, by sheer virtue of her gender, a representation of all womankind, and I resent the weird PR speak which often suggests that this is the case. A strong female character is a character, first and last.

I am very glad you mentioned Galadriel, because she is a fine example. In a story about temptation and war, I have always found her an oddly mournful figure, who nonetheless makes the effort to do good. There is something funereal about her, which is appropriate given how the novel deals with the passing of an age, and the slow death of the fantastic. She absolutely fits the story.

But when we think of The Hobbit, how does Tauriel fit in?
True, it is a children's story, but the book is deceptively deep, and deals with more than one little Hobbit going on an adventure. In many ways, I have always felt that the Hobbit is about sin, and sin catching up with you, when you feel safest and surest. Smaug, Thorin and Gollum all feel secure, and above consequences for their actions, and are punished for their pride. Bilbo, for his humility, is allowed to survive - and be free of gold and war for the rest of his days.

When one considers this theme, or any other which could reasonably be taken from the text, how does Tauriel reflect it? She kills many enemies in pointless action scenes, she has a love affair with a dwarf, she cries.
The character does not fit the story. Well acted, for what it was, but it simply doesn't fit.
In truth, it's the result of the whole ethos of the movie. The actress isn't to blame. They wanted to make The Hobbit into an action trilogy, and she got shoehorned into the love interest role. It's quite a shame. She would have made a good Orc :D

[IxnaY AintsaY]

The actress isn't to blame. They wanted to make The Hobbit into an action trilogy, and she got shoehorned into the love interest role. It's quite a shame. She would have made a good Orc :D

Tolkien's works would certainly be refined and deepened by a sympathetic, butt-kicking (And oddly alluring!) girl-orc-character or three. Or yrcharacters as we'd be down-right obligated to call them.

Well, I'd feel obligated, anyway.

[Faramir Jones]

In terms of what you said here, Aaron:

In truth, it's the result of the whole ethos of the movie. The actress isn't to blame. They wanted to make The Hobbit into an action trilogy, and she got shoehorned into the love interest role. It's quite a shame. She would have made a good Orc.:D

What annoyed me so much was the seemingly endless publicity at the time of statements that the new female Elf wasn't being introduced as a love interest...:mad::rolleyes:

[Aaron]

In terms of what you said here, Aaron:

In truth, it's the result of the whole ethos of the movie. The actress isn't to blame. They wanted to make The Hobbit into an action trilogy, and she got shoehorned into the love interest role. It's quite a shame. She would have made a good Orc.:D

What annoyed me so much was the seemingly endless publicity at the time of statements that the new female Elf wasn't being introduced as a love interest...:mad::rolleyes:

I heard that the actress was quite insistent that she not be given a romantic subplot, but upon actually filming the thing was told that was precisely their plan.
The truth of this I don't know, but it would fit in with the wider incompetence of the troubled production.

[Faramir Jones]

I heard that the actress was quite insistent that she not be given a romantic subplot, but upon actually filming the thing was told that was precisely their plan.
The truth of this I don't know, but it would fit in with the wider incompetence of the troubled production.

That's very interesting, Aaron. If true, she, as well as ourselves, was also lied to by the relevant people.:mad::(

[Kuruharan]

I heard that the actress was quite insistent that she not be given a romantic subplot, but upon actually filming the thing was told that was precisely their plan.
The truth of this I don't know, but it would fit in with the wider incompetence of the troubled production.

I find that very interesting because I don't remember seeing that anywhere before.

Is there a source you could point to? I'm curious to see this.

[Aaron]

I find that very interesting because I don't remember seeing that anywhere before.

Is there a source you could point to? I'm curious to see this.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/bp/the-promise--hobbit--filmmakers-broke-to-evangeline-lilly-211339686.html
To her credit, she did the best she could with the material she was given. But it's sad she was treated so badly.

[Faramir Jones]

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/bp/the-promise--hobbit--filmmakers-broke-to-evangeline-lilly-211339686.html
To her credit, she did the best she could with the material she was given. But it's sad she was treated so badly.

Thanks for the link, Aaron. What I read is, very sadly, not surprising...:(

[Lalaith]

But it's sad she was treated so badly

Indeed - I felt very sorry for her having to act it. I also felt very sorry for myself having to watch it. Excruciating.

[Kuruharan]

Indeed - I felt very sorry for her having to act it. I also felt very sorry for myself having to watch it. Excruciating.

She at least received compensation for her work.

I had to pay for the privilege...or rather some other people did. :cool:

[Marwhini]

Interesting that someone mentioned the Stan/Loretta character of Eric Idle from The Life of Brian.

I cannot think of a more appropriate reference with which to Mock the actor who played Tauriel, and her weird observations about Tolkien, nor mocking PJ's inclusion of this character into The Hobbit.

The Stan/Loretta character in The Life of Brian was/is mocking the Post-Modernist and Identity Politics that had arisen during the 60s/70s/80s.

And Lilly's critique of "Does Tolkien hate Women?" is itself such a manifestation of Identity Politics, and Post-Modernist revisionism.


As is the character's inclusion into The Hobbit by Peter Jackson.

It is an egregious addition whose sole purpose is to pander to a female Post-Modernist Identity.

Tolkien's works are not "Modern" even.

Anyway.... The interview in the OP just shows the contempt of Tolkien's work held by most people. Very sad.

MB

[Zigûr]

Tolkien's works are not "Modern" even.
I disagree with this. Tolkien may have been heavily inspired by medieval sources, but he lived for almost his entire life in the twentieth century and was influenced by his context. Tolkien was not a "Modernist" but I believe he was "Modern".

[Morthoron]

I disagree with this. Tolkien may have been heavily inspired by medieval sources, but he lived for almost his entire life in the twentieth century and was influenced by his context. Tolkien was not a "Modernist" but I believe he was "Modern".

Depends on what you define as "modern", Zig. For a writer in the 1930s, Tolkien's style certainly wasn't modern in the sense of contemporaries like Steinbeck, Hammett, Huxley and Orwell, and is on a different planet entirely, comparatively-speaking, from Wm. Faulkner, F.S. Fitzgerald, Viriginia Woolf, James Joyce, etc.

Tolkien's wording and even his grammar is old-fashioned, more Edwardian than modern from a comparative standpoint to his peers, but I suppose Robert Graves, writing-wise, would be more his peer than someone like Faulkner or Joyce. And this decided conservative, dare I say, archaic, style is evident in Lord of the Rings (and even more so in The Silmarillion).

Follow along with T.H. White, who wrote sections of The Once and Future King nearly contemporaneously with Tolkien from 1938 (The Sword in the Stone) through 1958 (A Candle in the Wind), and the difference in tone and phraseology is dramatically different, even though both were writing stories of distant events.

Tolkien was conservative in the old-fashioned sense (and not at all what we view absurd conservatives today in the U.S.). He dressed conservatively, despised motors and engines, was an arch-Catholic (pre-Vatican II), and his prose fits his Oxonic (Oxfordian?) linguistic predilections. From strictly a prose-style he is not 20th century.

[Faramir Jones]

My own view is that you can call J. R. R. Tolkien 'Modern' in terms of dealing with, not just the issues of industrialisation and urbanisation, which he was familiar with, having grown up close to and in the city of Birmingham, but also the impact of the two World Wars of the twentieth century, in particular the First. He did so, however, in a different way from those who have been called 'Modernists'.

I think of him as 'modern' in his treatment of at least the following three things:

1. Bilbo and Frodo looking after themselves: It appears that Bilbo, and later Frodo Baggins, do their own cooking, baking, cleaning and washing up. The only people shown as employees are the gardeners, including the Gamgees. While it was presumably intended not to show them as heartless employers, who went off leaving the status of their employees so uncertain, the effect is to show them as quite 'modern', not needing the help of even a single manservant. (Sam does look after Frodo in terms of the Fellowship, but this is in the context of the War of the Ring, and like an officer's batman.)
2. Aragorn II and Faramir: Both are looking to save their own people, even at the cost of their own lives, not looking for personal glory, and are fully aware of the devastation of war, even when fought in a just cause.
3. How Sam and Rose are treated: After Sam returns with Frodo, not only are he and his wife Rose allowed to live in Bag-end with their increasing family; Frodo makes Sam his heir. Sam and Rose also appear to inherit his social position, he being Master Samwise, and his wife Mistress Rose. There appears to be not the slightest criticism of their new status by other hobbits, including perhaps how 'vulgar' and 'jumped up' they are. Indeed, one of their daughters, Goldilocks, marries into the Took family, Pippin's son Faramir.

[Marwhini]

I disagree with this. Tolkien may have been heavily inspired by medieval sources, but he lived for almost his entire life in the twentieth century and was influenced by his context. Tolkien was not a "Modernist" but I believe he was "Modern".

The term "Modern" isn't referring to the time-and-place in which they were written.

It is referring to the philosophical themes and Beliefs held by Tolkien, and depicted within the works.

The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are "modern" only in that they are novels, a Post-Enlightenment product.

Tolkien, though, was not a fan of much of the products of Modernity, and the novels both tend to be Romantic Epics ("Romantic" in the sense of a "Chivalric Romance" and not in the terms of a Modern "Romance" Novel, where the theme is involving women and men seeking personal love, and/or lust) which highlight his distaste for Modernity.

Tom Shippey, in The Road to Middle-earth covers this relationship to "Modernity."

And he isn't the only one to point out the decidedly non-Modern aspects of the world and works.

Only the Hobbits, within Middle-earth are a narrative link to Modernity, as the Hobbits represent a narrative connection between an archaic world, and that of a Pastoral Victorian England of the Shire (This is Tom Shippey's Thesis, I just happen to agree with it, as it is well-supported - others seem to share that Thesis).

MB

[Marwhini]

My own view is that you can call J. R. R. Tolkien 'Modern' in terms of dealing with, not just the issues of industrialisation and urbanisation, which he was familiar with, having grown up close to and in the city of Birmingham, but also the impact of the two World Wars of the twentieth century, in particular the First. He did so, however, in a different way from those who have been called 'Modernists'.

I think of him as 'modern' in his treatment of at least the following three things:

1. Bilbo and Frodo looking after themselves: It appears that Bilbo, and later Frodo Baggins, do their own cooking, baking, cleaning and washing up. The only people shown as employees are the gardeners, including the Gamgees. While it was presumably intended not to show them as heartless employers, who went off leaving the status of their employees so uncertain, the effect is to show them as quite 'modern', not needing the help of even a single manservant. (Sam does look after Frodo in terms of the Fellowship, but this is in the context of the War of the Ring, and like an officer's batman.)
2. Aragorn II and Faramir: Both are looking to save their own people, even at the cost of their own lives, not looking for personal glory, and are fully aware of the devastation of war, even when fought in a just cause.
3. How Sam and Rose are treated: After Sam returns with Frodo, not only are he and his wife Rose allowed to live in Bag-end with their increasing family; Frodo makes Sam his heir. Sam and Rose also appear to inherit his social position, he being Master Samwise, and his wife Mistress Rose. There appears to be not the slightest criticism of their new status by other hobbits, including perhaps how 'vulgar' and 'jumped up' they are. Indeed, one of their daughters, Goldilocks, marries into the Took family, Pippin's son Faramir.

With the exception of 2 (which I think is equally archaic, as that is a common theme of the Chivalric Romance), this is what Tom Shippey means when he points out that the Hobbits, and The Shire are a link between an Archaic World, and our Modern World (which Tolkien arrests at an idealized Pastoral Victorian England).

But outside The Shire, Middle-earth is a pre-industrial, Feudal, Pagan world.

MB

[Zigûr]

I would recommend a couple of "modern" takes on Professor Tolkien's work if anyone is interested.

One is "Tolkien and Modernism" by Patchen Mortimer, published in Tolkien Studies volume 2 in 2005, pages 113 to 129.

Another is Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon by Brian Rosebury, published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2003.

Rosebury argues "The modernity of Tolkien's work, from the point of view of its content, lies not in coded references to specific contemporary events or phenomena, but in the absorption into the invented world – no doubt a partly unconscious absorption – of experiences and attitudes which Tolkien would scarcely have acquired had he not been a man of the twentieth century."

Neither Mortimer or Rosebury argue that Professor Tolkien is a modernist, mind you, just that his work is "modern" (and has some crossover with modernism).

I also don't mean to dogmatically argue that Professor Tolkien is "modern" in some very hard, specific sense. I'm probably being too binary, and imagining that an argument saying Tolkien is not modern means he must be medieval, which I don't agree with, but which I realise no one is actually proposing. I'm getting ahead of myself.

There are chapters in Stuart D. Lee's 2014 A Companion to J.R.R. Tolkien which also discuss modernity in his works, particularly the 24th chapter, "Modernity: Tolkien and his Contemporaries" by Anna Vaninskaya.

I might argue that a useful comparison would be with one of Professor Tolkien's most clear non-medieval influences, William Morris, who drew heavily on medieval ideas and forms, but engaged with modernity through them; Morris's work is much more political and much less "spiritual" than Professor Tolkien's, but operates in a very comparable "modern through the medieval" kind of approach.

Peter Jackson's Hobbit films, of course, are "modern" in a different sense, as they have been produced according to the consumerist concerns of the modern Hollywood film industry with the primary motive of making money, which explains things like the invention of the character Evangeline Lily plays – a character not even used in a very "modern" or progressive way, even, because she largely exists to be a love interest to motivate male characters.

[Marwhini]

I have read the Stuart Lee work.

And I have notes to read the others you have listed (I tend to shy away from such types of criticism and analysis of Tolkien as often verging on the Post-Modernist; a feature I detest - Post-Modernism. Post-Modernism is a pathology that often becomes toxic).

But, yes... I get the point that it is not a binary issue, where the choices are absolutes.

Literary Analysis of Tolkien's work is something that I have not delved too deeply into, being concerned primarily with the investigation into the Archetypes used (something that it is a great Pity Campbell did not take Tolkien's works more seriously - Campbell tended to look down on Tolkien as a Religious Reactionary, and his works as not being "serious" Myth), and in sorting out a coherent Metaphysics for Middle-earth that would explain it (which, as I have pointed out elsewhere, I think I have done... I would just need to formalize it to a greater degree).

But the whole issue of Tolkien "Hating women" or being a "Racist" (because of his use of Early/Mid-20th Century Tropes and Stereotypes of non-Europeans tends to be claimed to be "racist" by modern Identity Politics and Theorists) is one I find to be overblown and tiring.

While I suspect that he was not an explicit racist, or Misogynist, I understand he was a product of his time, and that this presents attitudes that do not align with a Modern, Progressive Values we find in Liberal Western Democracies.

But Middle-earth ISN'T supposed to be reflective of a Modern, Liberal, Western Democracy.

So why would we hold it to those standards?

This reminds me of the outrage caused over people wanting to remove the a certain word for Blacks used by Mark Twain in his works Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer. I.e. the word "Nigger" (pardon my explicit use of the term. It isn't reflective of any attitude, merely pointing out that Mark Twain intentionally used the word to call attention to the pervasive racism that remained in society, even among those who considered themselves the "Friends" of Black Americans). Removing that aspect of Twain's work would diminish it.

The same is true of Tolkien's works. Trying to make them conform to our present attitudes regarding Women, or the Non-Christian World would diminish them. And this does not make one a misogynist, bigot, or racist to wish to preserve his works as they were intended.



MB

[Zigûr]

I tend to shy away from such types of criticism and analysis of Tolkien as often verging on the Post-Modernist; a feature I detest - Post-Modernism.
I've gained that impression, yes. :p
Personally, literary analysis is my area. I'm no advocate of or expert in postmodernism but I don't especially object to it either. I'm not fond of postmodernism as a conscious element in texts as I find that, in the hands of some authors or writers, the whole thing tends to devolve into self-referential self-parody and meaninglessness.
While I suspect that he was not an explicit racist, or Misogynist, I understand he was a product of his time, and that this presents attitudes that do not align with a Modern, Progressive Values we find in Liberal Western Democracies.

But Middle-earth ISN'T supposed to be reflective of a Modern, Liberal, Western Democracy.
Personally on reflection I find the lack of female characters in The Hobbit a little odd, I suppose, but nothing else. But that's purely my position; I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way.
The same is true of Tolkien's works. Trying to make them conform to our present attitudes regarding Women, or the Non-Christian World would diminish them. And this does not make one a misogynist, bigot, or racist to wish to preserve his works as they were intended.
I would be more concerned if anyone was seriously advocating censoring Professor Tolkien's works or something to that effect. I fear that many people who may have gained a mistaken impression of The Hobbit by watching the film adaptations would be unlikely to read the book in any case. In the other thread you mentioned "rewriting the canon". This bothers me as well, but at least we can take some solace in the fact that, unlike the films of The Lord of the Rings, the adaptations of The Hobbit do not appear to have achieved very much, if any, purchase in the popular consciousness apart from a common sentiment that they weren't very good.

My primary issue with the addition of the character is that they didn't do it well. Even if they were trying to make the story more in-tune with "modern values" or what have you (which I don't think they actually really were), they did it very incompetently. But the whole project was a bit of a mess.

[Marwhini]

My primary issue with the addition of the character is that they didn't do it well. Even if they were trying to make the story more in-tune with "modern values" or what have you (which I don't think they actually really were), they did it very incompetently. But the whole project was a bit of a mess.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was egregious pandering to Commercialism.

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

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

MB

[Nerwen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was egregious pandering to Commercialism.

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

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

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

[Faramir Jones]

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

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

[Faramir Jones]

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

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

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

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

[Zigûr]

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

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

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

[Marwhini]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

This is because NONE are Christians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Satan isn't Sauron.

Satan is Morgoth.

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

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


But that is beside the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MB.

[Zigûr]

Satan isn't Sauron.

Satan is Morgoth.

Tolkien even calls Morgoth "Satan" and "The Devil" in several of his only known film appearances.
To be fair, in Letter 175 Professor Tolkien does refer to Sauron, at least indirectly, as "the Devil":
I think the book quite unsuitable for 'dramatization', and have not enjoyed the broadcasts – though they have improved. I thought Tom Bombadil dreadful — but worse still was the announcer's preliminary remarks that Goldberry was his daughter (!), and that Willowman was an ally of Mordor (!!). Cannot people imagine things hostile to men and hobbits who prey on them without being in league with the Devil!

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

[Marwhini]

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

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

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

I tend to side with Tom Shippey in that regard.


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MB

[Zigûr]

Thus when referencing Mordor, he is addressing its allegiance to Morgoth.
[...]
And, Mordor remains in League with Morgoth, even if ruled by Sauron.
I find that to be a bit of a stretch, personally, but each to their own.

[Marwhini]

Then did Arda have two "Devils?"

Because Tolkien clearly uses the word in the two videos I posted in reference to Morgoth.

Morgoth still existed in the Second Age and Third Age. He was just thrust, bound, into the Void.

And his evil still penetrated Arda/Middle-earth (not just through the Morgoth Element present in Arda, but in that his Malice and Spite seemed past the Walls of Night to continue to work its evil).

Even in Christian Mythology, The Devil is the Devil, even if he is trapped, frozen into the Ninth Circle of Hell, which exists "outside the Circles of the World" (by Christian and Khabbalistic Myth). And like God, there is only One "The Devil."

MB

[Nerwen]

I agree that technically Sauron is "a" devil rather than "the" Devil (that being Morgoth)- but how does that change the basic point made by Faramir and Zigur
at #49 and #50?

By the way, I gather that for you "pagan" and "heathen" are just synonyms for "non-Christian"? (c.f. #51). I believe this needs to be clarified as, not being standard, it's liable to lead to confusion at some point. I don't think anyone has been claiming the inhabitants of Middle-earth practise Christianity- as you say, it wouldn't make sense.

[Nerwen]

Also-
Originally Posted by Faramir Jones View Post
Marwhini, you said that outside the Shire, Middle-earth was a 'pre-industrial, Feudal, Pagan world'. I would disagree with this description in the last 2 parts:

1. Lake-town: This appears to be a republic, headed by an elected Master. While we don't know how large the electorate is, and how long a term of office the Master serves, the Master we see in The Hobbit is recognisable as a more 'modern' leader, whose main business is dealing with the town's economy, and who has been elected on his supposed ability to manage that economy. While I feel Lake-town can be compared to medieval Venice, with its Doge having more power, it certainly isn't 'feudal'.
Lake-Town remains both Pre-Industrial, and essentially "Feudal." The occupants are the displaced inhabitants of Dale, a former Kingdom of the Northmen of Rhovanion (or, from HoM-e, more likely one of the Principalities of the Northmen of Rhovanion).

I don't understand this. You're saying that a place cannot be a republic if the ancestors of some of its inhabitants lived in a kingdom?:confused:

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

[Zigûr]

I agree that technically Sauron is "a" devil rather than "the" Devil (that being Morgoth)- but how does that change the basic point made by Faramir and Zigur
at #49 and #50?
Personally, I think that in Letter 175 the reference to "the Devil" is a figure of speech; Sauron is, after all, "a reincarnation of evil". Hence, for all intents and purposes, at the time of The Lord of the Rings he, not Morgoth, is "the Devil" - but specifically in that context.

I would say that, most literally, "the Devil" is Melkor, specifically Melkor - not Morgoth (although Morgoth is still "the Devil", as he is referred to in Letter 294 for instance, but bear with me); Melkor is the originator of evil. Morgoth is only part of Melkor - Melkor after he has spent much of his power trying to dominate Arda. Morgoth is Melkor's mind and personality, but with much of the potency and substance of his fëa split, separated from himself and attached to other things, like Orcs, Balrogs, dragons and the "matter" of Arda in general. Morgoth thinks of himself as Melkor; we know from his conversation with Húrin that he still referred to himself by that name, but as Húrin says, "you have spent your strength upon yourself and wasted it in your own emptiness. No more are you now than an escaped thrall of the Valar." There is continuity between his experience as Melkor and as Morgoth, but he is not really Melkor anymore.

Thus both Morgoth and Sauron are "incarnations of evil"; thus they are "the Devil" in the sense that they are "incarnations" of evil (ie of the malevolence of Melkor at work in the world).

Morgoth is still more directly "the Devil" than Sauron is, naturally. He is some of Melkor, while Sauron is a different being. But Sauron in the Second and Third Ages is the "incarnation of evil", evil as a physically present demonic tyrant trying to take over the world. After the defeat and explusion of Morgoth and the final defeat of Sauron (the destruction of the Ring), "the Devil" now exists solely in the more Biblical or Christian sense - not an incarnate presence, but an insidious, invisible permeation of the world drawing and tempting people towards evil (ie, the spirit of Melkor infused throughout all Matter, which cannot be eradicated without the destruction of Arda itself).

That might be a bit figurative for some but that's one way in which I think it might be interpreted, possibly.

[Marwhini]

I agree that technically Sauron is "a" devil rather than "the" Devil (that being Morgoth)- but how does that change the basic point made by Faramir and Zigur
at #49 and #50?

By the way, I gather that for you "pagan" and "heathen" are just synonyms for "non-Christian"? (c.f. #51). I believe this needs to be clarified as, not being standard, it's liable to lead to confusion at some point. I don't think anyone has been claiming the inhabitants of Middle-earth practise Christianity- as you say, it wouldn't make sense.

Pagan, and Heathen mean basically the same things.

One of the words is Latin, the other Saxon/Goth (or, rather Goth/Saxon, since the Saxons are an offshoot of the original people who are the Goths).

As I explained, both mean "rural bumpkins" to the Latins, or the Anglo-Saxons of Sub-Roman Britain.

But to the Early Church, "Heathen" (In England) or "Pagan" (In Rome - whether that is Latin Rome or Byzantine Rome) Heathen/Pagan meant "Any non-Christian."

Toward the Renaissance, the meanings of the words bifurcated, and the word "Heathen" was used to mean "Any non-Christian" and the word "Pagan" was then used to refer specifically to Classical Antiquity Polytheism (2000 BCE to 400CE), or to European Polytheism of the same period. Heathen tended to refer more to the Polytheists found in Northern Europe among the Germanics and Nordics (500CE to 1100CE).

After the Renaissance, the words were used to refer to anyone "un-saved," but "Heathen" tended to dominate by the 1700s, as the English by then had begun their ascendency to Global Empire, and the English term pervaded the New World.

But in terms of Middle-earth... The Occupants are "Heathen" in the sense of "un-saved."

As Tom Shippey Points out, they are the "Virtuous Pagans" (where we return to Pagan and Heathen having the same meaning) that one finds in the Beowulf Myth.


Unlike C.S. Lewis' Narnia, which is an Explicit Allegory (and Tolkien spoke very derisively of it as a result) of Christianity, very poorly disguised, in fact, Middle-earth has had Religion very nearly completely excised from it.

In Tolkien's criticism of his own writing in the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, he scorns himself for such a transparent Christ-Myth in the dialog/narrative of Andreth regarding the human incarnation of Eru (and utterly rejects it - his wording was very strong for a person who never cursed/cussed).

And, as I pointed out, Europe, The Levant, Eurasia (Anatolia and the Crimea - basically the Black Sea Regions), and much of the Middle East ALL contained Monotheistic Religions that were NOT Christianity (including the many Christian Heresies).

Middle-earth contains no real "Religion" (that word has a very specific meaning, involving having an organized structure - even if having no fixed churches, an official dogma - statement of belief like the Catholic Credo, and recognizes rites/rituals).

The Occupants of Middle-earth are not "saved" (they are explicitly Non-Christian).

Thus the terms "Heathen" or "Pagan" not only directly apply, but are the only terms we have to apply.

MB

[Marwhini]

Also-

I don't understand this. You're saying that a place cannot be a republic if the ancestors of some of its inhabitants lived in a kingdom?:confused:

No, I am saying that to Tolkien, the place represented a corruption of the Natural Order, where the population was cursed because they rejected the Natural Authority of the King of that Realm.

If you go up to the post I made where I linked to two YouTube videos, the second of which is just an audio-interview of Tolkien, and listen to the second one....

In it, Tolkien is asked directly about his Political Views, Monarchy, and Feudalism.

He is VERY CLEAR in that he considers Democracy to be a bad way to run a country, or government, and that Kings present the rightful means of "doing business" (with government).

This is an aspect of Tolkien that most people today have a hard time accepting, as it is a Reactionary Conservative view that is totally at odds with Modernity (as was Tolkien - He rejects the Enlightenment as well).

I even struggle with accepting that view. But in as far as I love Middle-earth, I wish to understand its creator (or, as Tolkien would say "Subcreator" - look more deeply into what he means by that, and you might find some pretty disturbing things out about Tolkien), and thus I need to understand both what he believes and why, as they are manifested in his works.

I even need to find those things I disagree with (although currently I am beginning to suspect he may be correct about Democracy, as much as it pains me to think that).

That the world is Feudal is not negated by the existence within it of a Democratic City-State. All this means is that there exists an exception to The Rule, and one that was fairly short-lived, and immediately corrected upon the destruction of Smaug, when Bard again took up the Crown of Dale, and his rightful place in Society.


But you just said it was "essentially Feudal"...

Again. it being Feudal isn't contradicted by the existence of a small, isolated realm that was momentarily (and disastrously) flirting with Democracy.

This is akin to saying that a person isn't "Essentially biological" if they happen to wear False-Teeth, or have a Prosthetic Limb.

Especially in a case where that same person re-grows their teeth or missing limb (Dale again becoming a Monarchy that ruled even the re-established Lake-Town).

That is misunderstanding how Falsification or Counter-Examples work.


Personally, I think that in Letter 175 the reference to "the Devil" is a figure of speech; Sauron is, after all, "a reincarnation of evil". Hence, for all intents and purposes, at the time of The Lord of the Rings he, not Morgoth, is "the Devil" - but specifically in that context.

I would say that, most literally, "the Devil" is Melkor, specifically Melkor - not Morgoth (although Morgoth is still "the Devil", as he is referred to in Letter 294 for instance, but bear with me); Melkor is the originator of evil. Morgoth is only part of Melkor - Melkor after he has spent much of his power trying to dominate Arda. Morgoth is Melkor's mind and personality, but with much of the potency and substance of his fëa split, separated from himself and attached to other things, like Orcs, Balrogs, dragons and the "matter" of Arda in general. Morgoth thinks of himself as Melkor; we know from his conversation with Húrin that he still referred to himself by that name, but as Húrin says, "you have spent your strength upon yourself and wasted it in your own emptiness. No more are you now than an escaped thrall of the Valar." There is continuity between his experience as Melkor and as Morgoth, but he is not really Melkor anymore.

Thus both Morgoth and Sauron are "incarnations of evil"; thus they are "the Devil" in the sense that they are "incarnations" of evil (ie of the malevolence of Melkor at work in the world).

Morgoth is still more directly "the Devil" than Sauron is, naturally. He is some of Melkor, while Sauron is a different being. But Sauron in the Second and Third Ages is the "incarnation of evil", evil as a physically present demonic tyrant trying to take over the world. After the defeat and explusion of Morgoth and the final defeat of Sauron (the destruction of the Ring), "the Devil" now exists solely in the more Biblical or Christian sense - not an incarnate presence, but an insidious, invisible permeation of the world drawing and tempting people towards evil (ie, the spirit of Melkor infused throughout all Matter, which cannot be eradicated without the destruction of Arda itself).

That might be a bit figurative for some but that's one way in which I think it might be interpreted, possibly.

Isn't this kind of equivocating on the meaning of the word "The Devil?"





MB

[Zigûr]

Isn't this kind of equivocating on the meaning of the word "The Devil?"
Perhaps. Allow me, if you will, to approach it from another direction.

In Letter 175, Professor Tolkien says that Willowman is not "an ally of Mordor" and is not "in league with the Devil".

Now if we argue that Mordor is "in league with the Devil", ie Morgoth, surely that can only really be true in a fairly abstract sense; Morgoth was expelled into the Void over a thousand years before Sauron founded his realm in Mordor, so surely Mordor cannot really be "in league" with Morgoth in a personal sense. It might be "in league with the Devil", meaning in this case Morgoth, in the sense that it is the primary stronghold of evil at the time Professor Tolkien is talking about, and Melkor-Morgoth is the originator of evil.

Surely by that logic, Willowman is also "in league with the Devil" because he is an evil being as well, or at least a malevolent and malicious one, "hostile to men and hobbits", and as Melkor-Morgoth is the originator of evil, Willowman is just as much "in league with the Devil" as Mordor is; ie, only rather indirectly.

But if Willowman is neither "an ally of Mordor" nor "in league with the Devil", surely then "the Devil" cannot mean Morgoth.

Then again, maybe I'm making Willowman out to be more evil than he actually was, and thus he is not "in league with the Devil" while Mordor is. But to me I feel the implication is that if being "an ally of Mordor" means being "in league with the Devil", in the context of that letter "the Devil" is a figure of speech referring to Sauron as the "incarnation of evil" of that time, or at least more generally referring to "the chief evil of that time" (which at that time happened to be Sauron).

At any rate, this thread has spiralled wildly off topic, and it's partly my fault, for which I apologise.

[Morthoron]

At any rate, this thread has spiralled wildly off topic, and it's partly my fault, for which I apologise.

Not really, Zig. Peter Jackson is "the chief evil of our time" (and if we consider the malign nature of Warner Brothers he is "in league with the Devil"). He has a Ring and with it meant to do good, but through him the Ring wielded a sophomoric and asinine power that completely corrupted Middle-earth with far more precision than either Morgoth and Sauron combined. Jackson enfeebled Elrond (having him mope about opining that "Arwen is dying"), stripped Denethor of any nobility, almost made Faramir a carbon copy of failed Boromir, stoned Radagast on mushrooms, made dwarves pretty, caused Sam to abandon Frodo, made Thranduil a constipated and dyspeptic moose-rider, and he even caused Aragorn to french his horse! Sauron could not do that.

[Marwhini]

Not really, Zig. Peter Jackson is "the chief evil of our time" (and if we consider the malign nature of Warner Brothers he is "in league with the Devil"). He has a Ring and with it meant to do good, but through him the Ring wielded a sophomoric and asinine power that completely corrupted Middle-earth with far more precision than either Morgoth and Sauron combined. Jackson enfeebled Elrond (having him mope about opining that "Arwen is dying"), stripped Denethor of any nobility, almost made Faramir a carbon copy of failed Boromir, stoned Radagast on mushrooms, made dwarves pretty, caused Sam to abandon Frodo, made Thranduil a constipated and dyspeptic moose-rider, and he even caused Aragorn to french his horse! Sauron could not do that.

I cannot tell you how happy it makes me to hear those words spoken about Peter Jackson regarding what he did to Middle-earth (even if you are joking, which would make me a little sad).

But to my mind, Jackson did no less than Rape the works of Tolkien.

He debased them, and defiled them, as Morgoth did to Ard-Galen and the Springs and Pool of Ivrin in Beleriand, or as Sauron, through the Nazgûl did to Minas Ithil. Or as the Orcs did to Celebrían or Finduilas.

I realize that is giving him too much in the way of Intentionality, as Jackson's goal wasn't to rape the works. But that was the result, regardless of his intent.

Did you know that there is Thranduil/Moose fan-fiction? That is something that the world could do without, and it exists because of that insipid man from New Zealand, his wife, and that faery-F***er Boyens, who cannot tell the difference between Celtic, British, and English, much less between Nordic, Swede, Dane, or Fin.

Jacksons! We HATES it forever!!!

To be fair... I don't "hate" Peter Jackson, precisely. He is one of those people whom I admire personally (for many things he stands for). Yet I DETEST their "Art."

At least I can sit through a Bruce Springsteen or Jon Von Jovi song.

But I cannot stand to see anything of that man's movies. He has a LOT to atone for.

And what he, New Line, and Warner Bros. did to the Tolkien's was deplorable.

I am not very religious, but I hope they burn in hell for that alone.


Oh! And you missed something in your critique that many people overlook:

Elves with Crooked Swords.

There is a reason (several reasons) that Tolkien used words like "crooked" and "bent" for the Swords of the various Evil Men or creatures (Orcs), instead of the more obvious word: "curved".

For one, it was an English word (words: Both "crooked" and "bent" have Saxon and Goth roots, whereas Curved is from the Latin).

But the biggest reason is that Tolkien's works contain a sizable influence of what is called "Physiognomy" (from the roots "Physio" - the Body - and "Gnomon" - To Know).

Physiognomy is the Philosophy that "The Appearance" (body) reveals the "Mind/Spirit/Quality."

Thus something that is Beautiful will be "Good" and something that is Ugly will be "Evil."

Obviously there are exceptions to this, but in a world where forms of Property Dualism are True, then the inverted aspects of Physiognomy (such as Gil-Gilad, Círdan, Elrond, and Galadriel seeing through Sauron's guise as Annatar). Those who possess a keen sense of "Spiritual Insight" and "Spiritual Beauty" will "know" those whose Body does not match their Soul.

But back to "Crooked Swords."

Here is an example of Physiognomy: The Sword reflects the Soul of the bearer. It is "Bent" and "Crooked" or "Corrupted" from the Straight, Honest, and True Sword.

Remember Tolkien rarely did not deeply consider the words he was using to describe things.

And Jackson giving the Elves "Crooked Swords" is akin to having Catholic Priests pray using a Rosary with a Pentagram rather than a Crucifix.

Chivalric Romances also use this depiction of a Sword to show the Nature of a Wielder.

Those who bear a Straight, Unblemished, Double-edged, Cruciform sword will be Faithful, Righteous, and Good.... Incorruptible.

Yet those whose swords are Tarnished, Bent, or Curved will be Unfaithful, Wicked, and Evil.

Jackson could be forgiven for missing something so subtle if he did not screw-up so much else.

And... It is likely that if he hadn't screwed-up so much else, he would have noticed some of the more subtle things.

MB

Sorry I run on at the mouth so much.... I don't get out much (have a hard time walking).

[Nerwen]

Marwhini,


1. Faramir's example of Laketown was to show that you are over-generalizing. You've responded with a string of non sequiturs (as I pointed out) followed by a blanket statement that his argument doesn't count anyway, followed in turn by the assertion that he, or I (not sure which) suffer from "a misunderstanding of how Falsification or Counter-examples work". And this is a general problem I'm having with your posting- to me it appears- perhaps incorrectly- to arise from a basic assumption of absolute rightness, such that you often feel the need merely to declare your beliefs and interpretations right and others' wrong, rather than actually addressing their arguments or considering their points of view.

Now, by saying what I've just said I'm breaking a forum rule against criticising other's posting style. Okay, well, I still stand by it- you've been a very active poster and have some interesting things to say, but I believe you need to work on the "discussion" aspect.;)

2. Re: "heathen" and "pagan". Yes, I do understand that's what the words mean to you, but please consult a dictionary for current standard usage(s). It just helps if we're all on the same page, no? (NB even historically, they were used, so far as I'm aware, more often to mean non-Abrahamic rather than non-Christian.)

Here are some sources for "pagan".
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pagan

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pagan

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pagan

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Religion-Questions/Does-pagan-just-mean-not-Christian

Edit: x'd with Marhwini's last. Um. Look... in the end, they're just movies...:(

[Nerwen]

At any rate, this thread has spiralled wildly off topic, and it's partly my fault, for which I apologise.
Zig,, the fair Elven vessel "On-topic" departed from the Havens long ago. I don't think you did any more to see it off than the rest of us...

[Nerwen]

Not really, Zig. Peter Jackson is "the chief evil of our time" (and if we consider the malign nature of Warner Brothers he is "in league with the Devil"). He has a Ring and with it meant to do good, but through him the Ring wielded a sophomoric and asinine power that completely corrupted Middle-earth with far more precision than either Morgoth and Sauron combined. Jackson enfeebled Elrond (having him mope about opining that "Arwen is dying"), stripped Denethor of any nobility, almost made Faramir a carbon copy of failed Boromir, stoned Radagast on mushrooms, made dwarves pretty, caused Sam to abandon Frodo, made Thranduil a constipated and dyspeptic moose-rider, and he even caused Aragorn to french his horse! Sauron could not do that.
Blasphemy! "The Tale of Aragorn and Brego the Horse" is one of the great love stories of Middle-earth!:mad:

[Marwhini]

Perhaps. Allow me, if you will, to approach it from another direction.

In Letter 175, Professor Tolkien says that Willowman is not "an ally of Mordor" and is not "in league with the Devil".

Now if we argue that Mordor is "in league with the Devil", ie Morgoth, surely that can only really be true in a fairly abstract sense; Morgoth was expelled into the Void over a thousand years before Sauron founded his realm in Mordor, so surely Mordor cannot really be "in league" with Morgoth in a personal sense. It might be "in league with the Devil", meaning in this case Morgoth, in the sense that it is the primary stronghold of evil at the time Professor Tolkien is talking about, and Melkor-Morgoth is the originator of evil.

Surely by that logic, Willowman is also "in league with the Devil" because he is an evil being as well, or at least a malevolent and malicious one, "hostile to men and hobbits", and as Melkor-Morgoth is the originator of evil, Willowman is just as much "in league with the Devil" as Mordor is; ie, only rather indirectly.

But if Willowman is neither "an ally of Mordor" nor "in league with the Devil", surely then "the Devil" cannot mean Morgoth.

Then again, maybe I'm making Willowman out to be more evil than he actually was, and thus he is not "in league with the Devil" while Mordor is. But to me I feel the implication is that if being "an ally of Mordor" means being "in league with the Devil", in the context of that letter "the Devil" is a figure of speech referring to Sauron as the "incarnation of evil" of that time, or at least more generally referring to "the chief evil of that time" (which at that time happened to be Sauron).

At any rate, this thread has spiralled wildly off topic, and it's partly my fault, for which I apologise.

I guess my question would be:

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

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

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

MB

[Nerwen]

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

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

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

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

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

[Marwhini]

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

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

In true Tolkien fashion, Tauriel is a Tragic character.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MB

[Nerwen]

They had PLENTY to make a Trilogy out of The Hobbit without including anything from the associated materials for the period. You reasonably could have made six movies out of The Hobbit
Beg to differ- I don't think they should ever have been trying to make it into a trilogy in the first place.

[Morthoron]

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

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

[Marwhini]

The Hobbit has 19 chapters.

At 20 minutes, average, a chapter that is 380 minutes.

Or 6.33 hours.

MB

[Morthoron]

The Hobbit has 19 chapters.

At 20 minutes, average, a chapter that is 380 minutes.

Or 6.33 hours.

MB

They made three movies already. It was unnecessarily long and full of extraneous flummery. A concise two-film set would've been more than adequate to detail all the important sequences from a relatively short book.

[Marwhini]

They made three movies already. It was unnecessarily long and full of extraneous flummery. A concise two-film set would've been more than adequate to detail all the important sequences from a relatively short book.

The way they produced it... Yes, it was full of all manner of extraneous junk that needn't have been in it.

But as I pointed out, 20 minutes (on Average) a chapter is trimming things pretty much to the bone as it is, to include the entire book.

Some chapters would need considerably more than 20 minutes (An unexpected Party and the Mirkwood chapters, to say nothing of the BoFA). While some might need only 10 to 15 minutes.

But why must anything be cut from the story? If we are going to make Tolkien's works as Films, or as a Mini-Series on Cable, then why must anything be left out of the Novel Proper (I am not talking about adding extraneous material from the Appendices, nor from Unfinished Tales, nor NoM-e. But solely the content of The Hobbit)?

There are no reasons, in terms of Production necessities, that demand that material be cut out of the Novel other than simply to reduce the total running time of the production.

MB

[Faramir Jones]

I agree completely with Zigûr that some of us (including myself) went off-topic with this thread. :eek::o It started out with Evangeline Lilly, and an interview in which she showed she didn't have a clue about Tolkien, his attitudes towards women, and his portrayal of female characters in his works.

I like the new topics that have emerged, and with others have participated in them. But I suggest we consider ending this thread, and continuing these new topics on new threads.