View Single Post
Old 10-25-2003, 10:08 AM   #18
Child of the 7th Age
Spirit of the Lonely Star
 
Child of the 7th Age's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,135
Child of the 7th Age is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Sting

Eurytus,

I only have time for a quick response, but here goes.

First regarding the quote you disgreed with..you have chopped off the first half of it which actually explains what I was saying.

Your comments in the thread:

Quote:
The part of my post you quoted: PJ's changes do not "improve" the book; they merely take away from the integrity of the story. Frodo and Faramir are two cases in point, which I won't get into because these have been discussed to death down in Movies.

Your response: I do not agree that the changes to Frodo or Faramir hurt the story and since I have found others with the same view I do not think that this is a universal viewpoint.
Now here's what I actually said:

Quote:
Some changes are definitely necessary in plot and timing but I do think there are instances in the movie where PJ would have been better off sticking closer to what Tolkien set down on paper. And nowhere does this ring more true than in the case of characterization. PJ's changes do not "improve" the book; they merely take away from the integrity of the story. Frodo and Faramir are two cases in point, which I won't get into because these have been discussed to death down in Movies.
As I stated earlier in my post, changes in plot and timing are frequently necessary. Changes in characterization alter the nature and spirit of the story, and I am not comfortable with them.

It seems to me that the author's preferences in this instance -- that of film adaptation -- outweigh those of either of us. Tolkien said exactly the same thing I did in the Letters when he was discussing a movie script. He was willing to consider other changes but not dramatic alterations of character.

Secondly, I do not agree with your assessment of traditional warfare. Yes, war is horrible in any context, but modern and pre-modern war are not the same. It is possible in the middle ages to have a battle with 1000 people where 999 are killed. It is also possible to have a raid on the part of a band of soldiers who go looting villages, raping and killing. But it is not possible to have this happen on such a widespread level that the entire civilian populace is wiped out. You do not have the railway trains to drag people off wholesale to a death camp or the weapons to decimate a city and flatten every building in just a moment or two. The late nineteenth and twentieth century can be proud of the fact that this age was the one to make such wholesale slaughter possible.

In pre-modern society, pestilence and famine, or hundreds of years of slaving raids, were far more likely to accomplish this than a series of battles on the field. This is precisely what happened with the Spanish in South America....even with their deceit and lies, the "explorers" could never do the damage to the Indians that smallpox did.

Could you have more vivid depictions of the widespread effects of war in the LotR? Absolutely. Tolkien could easily have added passages describing the battle deaths, villages being looted, etc. He had seen modern warfare at work in WWI, the father of all such beasts but he chose not to focus on that.

Instead he stressed individual heartache and loss and character interaction, and I am glad for that. There are many modern books, movies and tv episodes that give us widespread graphic horror. What we are in danger of losing is the personal side....something that elicits an emotional response because we actually care about the people involved. It becomes more than just characters shot down in a video game. And this is what I think Tolkien has done.

Quote:
So focused on the individuals in fact that they were all paper-thin depictions.
If you really believe the words above, I am puzzled why you choose to read Tolkien or discuss his books. Perhaps just because you enjoy a good back-and-forth? How can you enjoy a "good yarn" if you feel the characters are so lacking? Also, I did not see you make this same charge of PJ's movie. Do you feel PJ has done a 'better' or more multi-dimensional job with his characters than Tolkien?

If you truly feel Tolkien's characters are "paper thin", what is there that draws you back to read and discuss the book?

[ October 25, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote.
Child of the 7th Age is offline   Reply With Quote