There is such eloquence here. Lush, Lord of Angmar, Lyta, SaucepanMan, you have all in various ways given voice to my own feelings that this article is a horrible perversion of Tolkien's trust in free will and the intimacy of faith and moral understanding. I will repeat here Tolkien's rejection of allegory as residing in "the purposed domination of the author" and in favour of applicability, "the freedom of the reader."
Rather than reiterate the points which these Downers have made I would like to provide some observations about the article itself. It's rhetoric is, to me, specious, manipulative, untrustworthy. The author seems to be preaching to those already converted to her own form of faith and understanding.
As Lush pointed out, a press junket is not a time to engage in extended discussion of philosophical points. I would go further, however, and wonder what precisely were the questions which were posed to the actors, writers and director which elicited these responses. There are questions which bait the receiver, questions which beg the question (no matter which way one answers, one is contemned), questions which unfairly provide scope for only one choice out of two offerred, questions which imply or direct an answer which recipients do not wish to give, questions which make the receiver feel personally threatened (and which result in self-defensive responses). Until I know what questions were posed, I cannot estimate the tenor of the responses.
Secondly, if the point of the article is to discuss Lord of the Rings, why open with a general castigation of Hollywood? This is a cheap form of argument, creating a "strawman" which once can then either tear apart or support. The author spends no time proving the truths of Hollywood's wickedness--she merely asserts it--and then she simply proceeds to condemn Jackson et al with guilt by association.
There are as well many places where the author resorts to phrases and words which unfairly colour interpretation. What do I mean here? Expressions such as "begrudgingly paid lip service to" about Peter Jackson. Or her manner of using "apparently" and "unknowingly" to modify verbs. Or this bit,
Quote:
|
Something close to desperation drifted palpably on the air as the interviewees grasped at any trendy 'ism'
|
For me, it is not only the presumptuous way the author would impose her beliefs on mine; it is also the suspect and unfair way she presents her argument. One wishes she had taken this line of hers a little closer to heart:
Quote:
|
Bringing this belief to bear on his work, he [ie, Tolkien] infused his novels with the biblical principle that no one is righteous
|
How ironic that the author is named Megan Bashem.
Edited to revise Mary to Megan in author's name.