Uses & misuses.... - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lalwendë · 03-28-2005, 03:32 PM

Just to begin with, an appetiser as t'were, Tolkien himself owned a car, so where does that place him in relation to his own philosophies? He had a car when he had a family of children so I would suppose that practicality would have been his consideration, as it is is so many things where we must compromise on principle. I'd like to go everywhere on a horse but I dont have the room for one, so I have a car. It doesn't mean that a car is what I'd prefer, simply what I can have.

About the 4x4s (SUVs). I can see exactly why it seems at the least incongruous and at the worst an insult to make use of Tolkien's work to advertise an overly large vehicle, and not least of which, to show it tearing through a forest (no doubt making huge ruts in the ground, running down hikers, scaring the wildlife etc... but that's my own little side rant...

). But I do think the car companies were latching onto the films' popularity. Burger chains always latch onto the latest films or toy crazes, so it isn't a new phenomenon. Though I do question the logic of the car company concerned in going for this campaign as anyone who has read Tolkien (and that's a mighty sum of people) will likely go "eh?"

Those who have watched the films for 'fun', i.e. those never likely to read the books may well not have got any environmental message at all because it wasn't prominent in the films, so it might be this group the ads were aiming at. From a business perspective, it is clear neither the PR company nor the car company were aiming at book fans, and possibly had little awareness of the message of Tolkien anyway.

There's nothing wrong with analysing it though. We should always analyse the stuff that's shoved at us by the media, as it contains so many messages, not all of which are entirely wholesome. Which gets me onto when messages from Tolkien are appropriated by extremists. Just like advertisers, they also need something which people can latch onto, and that will be why they have a Tolkien quote. It could just as easily be a Shakespeare quote or anything else, just so long as it has a 'brand name' to attach to it, so they can go "hey, it says here...".

But, there is always the chance of someone believing the quote to be the truth, however out of context it might be. This has happened with religious texts. There is the infamous law in the Bible which says it is wrong to eat shellfish; this is often ignored, but the laws in the same passage are often applied vociferously. Can we pick and choose lines of text in this way? Or do we always have to leave them in context? In the same way, can we use the imagery from Tolkien in car adverts? Is it wrong to do this? I don't know the answer but I like to discuss the questions.

the phantom · 03-28-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

But have they chosen to quote Tolkien simply because he is a (currently) famous author, or are they attempting to latch on to the popularity of the movies (prob. not as that line isn't in the movies) or are they trying to associate themselves with (what they percievce to be) the ethos of Tolkien's work? Is the message 'This is what the heroes of LotR would drive' or 'if Aragorn was king he'd be pro gun'.?

Good grief. *shakes head* You're thinking way too hard, Davem- a common pitfall for extremly smart people.

They used the quote because it's a darn good quote. It's that simple.

Neithan · 03-28-2005, 06:51 PM

Quote:

They used the quote because it's a darn good quote. It's that simple.

Exactly, Faramir's quote says what the author wanted to say (at least it does out of context) much better than the author could have said it him/herself. That is why it was used.
And another thing, is that particular use such a horrible perversion of Tolkien's intention? Granted he was talking about war but what is wrong with taking the same concept and applying it to individual protection. The only way that the use of the quote could be called morally wrong would be if Tolkien had said that he was for gun control but (to the best of my knowledge) he said no such thing.

Parmawen · 03-28-2005, 07:23 PM

I don't really think that the usage of his quote was quite right there...Tolkein wasn't necessarily referring to gun-use or anything, and while perhaps they interpretted it that way, I know that if my writing was used like that I'd be upset.

I thought I heard in this National Geographic tape that Tolkein actually didn't want his work to be related to all the wars and stuff going on at that time. Which makes sense, if you create something so beautiful, why would you want people to start to label it and dissect it until it's no longer a masterpiece and instead a homework project or some fancy schmancy reciprocation of World War II.

So all in all, I think using that quote was wrong. It was presenting a message that Tolkein did not necessarily intend to create, and could have in fact been against. He could be turning over in his grave right now! (haha that kinda fits in with the dead theme here doesn't it?)

alatar · 03-29-2005, 11:03 AM

Starting any text with a quote (real or imagined) yields a different air to the text that follows. Writers do it all of the time - some, to set the reader's brain working along a particular line; others to show sophistication. "Those Tolkien movies were heady, so he must be a smart guy, and if this site is using his work, it must be some brainy stuff...plus wasn't he British too?"

Stealing/borrowng a quotation from another source and using the same does not automatically show 'endorsement,' though surely some would like to make you think that the quotee has endorsed the work. "Look at that...that JRRT must have loved SUVs, or why else would he be involved with that ad?"

The ad with the Faramir quote did not make me think that Tolkien was pro gun, just that the site's creators wanted to start with a 'hook' that might get me to read more. And though there are many ways to say the same thing, some people (hmmm...like JRRT perhaps?) just say it better.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."

or...

"War sucks, but ya gotta protect yourself."

Which would get your attention? You won't be reading my trilogy any time soon.

03-28-2005, 03:32 PM	#1
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	Just to begin with, an appetiser as t'were, Tolkien himself owned a car, so where does that place him in relation to his own philosophies? He had a car when he had a family of children so I would suppose that practicality would have been his consideration, as it is is so many things where we must compromise on principle. I'd like to go everywhere on a horse but I dont have the room for one, so I have a car. It doesn't mean that a car is what I'd prefer, simply what I can have. About the 4x4s (SUVs). I can see exactly why it seems at the least incongruous and at the worst an insult to make use of Tolkien's work to advertise an overly large vehicle, and not least of which, to show it tearing through a forest (no doubt making huge ruts in the ground, running down hikers, scaring the wildlife etc... but that's my own little side rant... ). But I do think the car companies were latching onto the films' popularity. Burger chains always latch onto the latest films or toy crazes, so it isn't a new phenomenon. Though I do question the logic of the car company concerned in going for this campaign as anyone who has read Tolkien (and that's a mighty sum of people) will likely go "eh?" Those who have watched the films for 'fun', i.e. those never likely to read the books may well not have got any environmental message at all because it wasn't prominent in the films, so it might be this group the ads were aiming at. From a business perspective, it is clear neither the PR company nor the car company were aiming at book fans, and possibly had little awareness of the message of Tolkien anyway. There's nothing wrong with analysing it though. We should always analyse the stuff that's shoved at us by the media, as it contains so many messages, not all of which are entirely wholesome. Which gets me onto when messages from Tolkien are appropriated by extremists. Just like advertisers, they also need something which people can latch onto, and that will be why they have a Tolkien quote. It could just as easily be a Shakespeare quote or anything else, just so long as it has a 'brand name' to attach to it, so they can go "hey, it says here...". But, there is always the chance of someone believing the quote to be the truth, however out of context it might be. This has happened with religious texts. There is the infamous law in the Bible which says it is wrong to eat shellfish; this is often ignored, but the laws in the same passage are often applied vociferously. Can we pick and choose lines of text in this way? Or do we always have to leave them in context? In the same way, can we use the imagery from Tolkien in car adverts? Is it wrong to do this? I don't know the answer but I like to discuss the questions. __________________ Gordon's alive!

03-28-2005, 07:23 PM	#4
Parmawen Haunting Spirit Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Stuck in the center of Spooky Hollow... Posts: 75	I don't really think that the usage of his quote was quite right there...Tolkein wasn't necessarily referring to gun-use or anything, and while perhaps they interpretted it that way, I know that if my writing was used like that I'd be upset. I thought I heard in this National Geographic tape that Tolkein actually didn't want his work to be related to all the wars and stuff going on at that time. Which makes sense, if you create something so beautiful, why would you want people to start to label it and dissect it until it's no longer a masterpiece and instead a homework project or some fancy schmancy reciprocation of World War II. So all in all, I think using that quote was wrong. It was presenting a message that Tolkein did not necessarily intend to create, and could have in fact been against. He could be turning over in his grave right now! (haha that kinda fits in with the dead theme here doesn't it?)

03-29-2005, 11:03 AM	#5
alatar Doubting Dwimmerlaik Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Heaven's basement Posts: 2,466	Starting any text with a quote (real or imagined) yields a different air to the text that follows. Writers do it all of the time - some, to set the reader's brain working along a particular line; others to show sophistication. "Those Tolkien movies were heady, so he must be a smart guy, and if this site is using his work, it must be some brainy stuff...plus wasn't he British too?" Stealing/borrowng a quotation from another source and using the same does not automatically show 'endorsement,' though surely some would like to make you think that the quotee has endorsed the work. "Look at that...that JRRT must have loved SUVs, or why else would he be involved with that ad?" The ad with the Faramir quote did not make me think that Tolkien was pro gun, just that the site's creators wanted to start with a 'hook' that might get me to read more. And though there are many ways to say the same thing, some people (hmmm...like JRRT perhaps?) just say it better. "I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." or... "War sucks, but ya gotta protect yourself." Which would get your attention? You won't be reading my trilogy any time soon.