I have an article...

[Eriol]

as for "pagan", the reviewer was clearly using it there to refer to non-christians.

Talimon said that. I don't think so. I don't think there is a quarrel between Christians and Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, that was being addressed by the author. I think "pagan" meant "secular, non-religious", which is not quite the same thing as "non-christian".

(rats. I wrote a lot and it was lost when I tried to submit it. Let me try again.)

Ii find it interesting that the author is being scolded for having said that this movie could use more virtues. Are more virtues a bad thing? I know that in art, and especially in drama, the goal is often cathartic (sp?), to show us our dark side, but surely LotR (the book) is not like that, so why should the movie be? That is a question I would like to see discussed, if you think less virtue is good for the movie. In my view, the guy listed some virtues and bemoaned their weakening in Jackson's rendition. You can say he is inaccurate regarding this 'weakening' -- a good discussion. (I think he is inaccurate in many places, especially when he compares the movie with Conan - argh!). But to say that his argument (more virtues = better rendition of Tolkien's work) is wrong is really strange.

And now a pre-apology to Talimon: rest assured that I don't want to ruffle or offend you, my friend, but let me ask you this, regarding your first post:

Before stating a single opinion, as a "pagan" I have already been excluded from this article, since I obviously don't understand why this book I love is worth loving. Indeed I (and Mr. Jackson no less) must be very ignorant folk, for we can't even decide why we love what we love to begin with.

Well... why do you love the things that you love in the book? And as a more general question, why do you love the things you consider lovable? Please try to avoid circular reasoning. This question has haunted me for years, and was one of the main factors in my conversion (people strong in the faith tell me this is rare, an intellectual conversion). I certainly would not classify people who don't know that as 'very ignorant folk', as most people have never thought about it. When I realized that the only answer is to accept the supernatural side of man, that ethics can not be grounded in empirical reality only, it was the first step for me.

See ya!

P.S. Nóm, my friend, what's this about "the one truth"? Are there many? We may not know it (the truth), but we know it is.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Many of the problems that people have with issues like these are ones of perception. For instance: if something is GOOD, it must be absolutely OTHER than something that is considered evil or BAD - and, of course, vice versa. Thus, when something that has been presented as "good" from a religious point of view appears OUTWARDLY, to be little or no different from something that is labled as BAD, then many conclude that the faith-based point of view must be stupid or irrational or simply without merit. Hence, something like human sexuality causes many to discard a "religious" view since it can be both "good" AND "bad" - and, after all, how can the same thing be both?

But what is missing here is PERSPECTIVE. For instance: a hammer may be used to build a house - or split a skull. The hammer does not change, but the motive for its use DOES. Hence, the first use is admirable, the second, wicked - unless, of course, it is a matter of self defense or even accident, which again changes the moral parameters of the situation!

One of my favorite parables about this "perspective" issue is an old Jewish one about a Rabbi who is asked by God if he wishes to see what hell is like. The old man, interested, says "yes" and God opens a door to a huge room. Within, are long tables heavily laden with food at which sit people reduced to mere skeletons in the throes of starvation. Their screams and cries of agony resound eternally about the huge room. In every person's hand is a spoon whose handle is four feet long so, of course, those seated at this enternal banquet, though they can get food on the spoon, cannot get the spoon into their mouths. Thus they sit in the midst of plenty, eternally starving.

God closes the door and the Rabbi, who is VERY shaken by this scene of perpetual suffering, asks if he might now see Heaven so as to take away with him some comfort. God then takes him to another door and opens it. To his shock, the Rabbi sees EXACTLY THE SAME THING: great tables laden with food surrounded by people who are holding spoons with four foot handles. But here are no shouts and screams of agony, but jolly conversation, laughter and eternal delight. Why? Because all of those at the tables ARE FEEDING EACH OTHER!

So you see, in the end it is all a matter of perspective and what we CHOOSE to do with the truth that great souls like Tolkien give to us. He has fed us, now we must feed those around us if we are to gain the Eternal Banquet and perhaps be fortunate enough to ask the author himself all these wonderful questions.

 

[Parrot]

To begin with, I would point out that this author’s statements are just as subjective as those of anyone else here, so much of this is, again, just matters of opinion. Example; the author points out, as Mrs. Maggott has before, that movie M & P are originally swept up in the adventure without making the conscious and informed decision to actively go along; ergo the virtues of friendship, loyalty, and sacrifice basically give way to “wrong-place, wrong-time”. This is fairly accurate in as far as it goes, but he just leaves it at that,never mentioning that they later, fully informed of all that is at stake, choose to continue the journey, and actually willingly sacrifice themselves for Frodo in a far more direct way than Tolkien’s M & P ever did. So have the virtues in question really been discarded or just portrayed differently? We must each answer that individually, but I know what I think;it is possible to take different roads and still come to exactly the same place in the end.

Per the religious slant; as I take it, what the author seems to be saying is that people from outside the Judeo-Christian (or even Muslim) frame of reference, lack the spiritual/emotional wherewithal to TRULY appreciate virtues like "faithfulness, courage, justice, courtesy, kindness, self-control, long-suffering, costly repentance, true humility", even though they don't know it. Though it is a Christian oriented magazine and he is quite literally preaching to the choir, the implication is still somewhat insulting to those who don’t share this bent.

Despite the label of "Christian Values", these values are not the exclusive domain of Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, in either their execution or appreciation. I would suggest that Pagans, or non-religious types in general, might appreciate the beauty of these types of actions and traits, in and of themselves, done out of love and respect for their fellow man (elf, hobbit, dwarf, and so on), without the necessity of seeing them as part of some larger religious design. To some, they are admirable because they are prima facie admirable and not because some ancient scroll or high-priest says they are admirable. Some people choose to do the right thing simply because they know it is the right thing and not because it will get them a gold star in the Great Big Book of Final Reckoning.

 

[Talimon]

He said that those who are "pagans" (whatever meaning that word has for him) may not understand the true MEANING of what they "like" in the story even though they DO know what appeals to them. There is a VAST difference between the two. For instance, it is the difference between my saying that I don't know WHAT color I like - and saying that I like blue, but I don't know WHY. As you can see, these are NOT the same contention at all!

That still makes me out to be ignorant. If I know what I like but I don't know why I like it, I must be ignorant. My main issue with this article is that it claims that the meaning it presents is the only one. To me that sort of outlook is very opressive, and the very essence of disagreement. I have tried to make the point before that different people can have different opinions on Tolkien and PJ, and no one is more right or wrong then the other. This article goes right against that.

I would suggest (as I have included in an earlier post the e-mail address of the publication) that anyone who is horrified by the word "pagan" for whatever reason, should contact the author through the magazine and take it up with him.

I am not horrified in the least, and indeed couldn't care any less. My main point in my original post was that this article, by making this sort of statement, is excluding a large portion of it's audience. It's not as though this is the only place where the article makes this self-righteous claim that there is only one meaning to Tolkien. It's an arguement that is repeated throughout.

Of course, Tolkien's presentation of virtue within the book IS "Christian" because Tolkien WAS Christian. Non-christians who read and love the book because of its Christian values (even though they might not recognize them as such) would not have the possibility of seeing those values carried over into the film because of the adaptation made by the Director and others.

That is percisely what I am talking about. To me that sort of outlook is highly prejudiced. By making that claim, you are saying that anyone who does not read the book for it's Christian values does not understand Tolkiens presentation of virtue. I have disagreed with the article that virtue is absent from the film in my previous post, and one point I might make again is that many of these themes that the author of the article stresses mean absolutely nothing to me. The whole interpretation of femininity/masculinity is, in my humble opinion, absurd. I have no problem with the author having that opinion, but I can't agree with the claim that Tolkiens tale has been stripped of virtue because those highly subjective interpretations are absent.

I think "pagan" meant "secular, non-religious", which is not quite the same thing as "non-christian".

Even if this is true (which I believe in that context it wasn't), does this make the claim any less offending?

Ii find it interesting that the author is being scolded for having said that this movie could use more virtues.

Where did anyone make that claim? In my opinion the film is packed with virtues. My main disagreement is the authors claims that the virtues he percieves are the only ones worth noting. Many of these virtues he mentions are completely foreign to me, and I've read a plethora of discussions and essays on Tolkien. As a personal interpretation of Tolkien it is interesting, but as the basis of an arguement against PJ's movie it carries little weight. The author does not once acknowledge that this is PJ's movie and his interpretation of the book. As far as he is concerened there is only one interpretation worth mentioning, and since PJ didn't capture it the movie is by it's very nature flawed. It's not even a fair review to begin with, since it doesn't attempt once to state the positive aspects of PJ's movie, something that even it's most vehement critics have done.

Well... why do you love the things that you love in the book? And as a more general question, why do you love the things you consider lovable? Please try to avoid circular reasoning. This question has haunted me for years, and was one of the main factors in my conversion (people strong in the faith tell me this is rare, an intellectual conversion). I certainly would not classify people who don't know that as 'very ignorant folk', as most people have never thought about it. When I realized that the only answer is to accept the supernatural side of man, that ethics can not be grounded in empirical reality only, it was the first step for me.

LOL... I am quite well off, mind you. Thank you nonetheless. But at least realize that people have different answers to those questions, and some are actually willing to accept different answers for themselves. And some, by some miracle, can actually accept different answers for others.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

To begin with, NO Christian says that those who do not profess a belief in Christ are immoral or amoral or without decent morals. St. Paul writes about the pagans (honest and TRUE pagans) who have the Law (of God) "written on their hearts". That is what is known in the West as "Natural Law"; the recognition of things that are inherently good and inherently evil. One need not belong to any particular "religion" to have that innate understanding - although Christians believe that Jesus Christ represents the most complete revelation of God's Law.

Secondly, there are MANY things which we "like" without knowing why. Some people cry when a certain piece of music is played - and have absolutely NO idea why! Our preference for certain colors is not something that most of us can readily "explain"; we just LIKE green or blue or red. Indeed, there really are many things having to do with our likes and dislikes for which we can give no logical reason if we were to be asked. Can you explain why you prefer cats to dogs - or vice versa? Unless one has had a bad experience at some time which makes that animal a figure of fear, most of us cannot explain our preferences. Therefore, when it is posited that a non-christian might not "understand" exactly WHY he is "moved" by a certain moral value as expressed by Tolkien does not mean that he is ignorant, but merely that he might be unable to elucidate his response since he cannot equate it with any religious belief he holds.

<That is percisely what I am talking about. To me that sort of outlook is highly prejudiced. By making that claim, you are saying that anyone who does not read the book for its Christian values does not understand Tolkiens presentation of virtue. quote Talimon>

No, what was said was that non-christians who find Tolkien's Christian values appealing will certainly NEVER understand that what appeals to them IN THE BOOK is in fact CHRISTIAN - by watching the film since those values have been changed and altered by the Director.

You are putting it altogether backward and wrong when you intimate that the reader must read the book FOR it's "Christian" values and if he does not, he cannot understand what the author is saying. How you could possibly come up with that particular understanding of what has been said rather boggles my mind!

And as for the pagan issue - which LONG AGO should have been dismissed as inconsequential: guess what?? We have NEO-PAGANS today. Ever heard of the New Age Movement? Wicca? The "new" Druids? The worship of Gaia (goddess of Earth)? Pagans, my friend are here, right now, today! I don't know if this is what the author meant, but I would not find the word too "offensive" if I were you, or you are liable to "offend" a lot of people who are going back to "the old ways" and do not find the label of "pagan" at ALL offensive.

And, frankly, if you are not one of these "neo-pagans", then perhaps you should consider that the author is not addressing your particular situation when he used the word and disregard it entirely.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

No, you have heard people who THINK they are Christians say this. To be a Christian is not the same thing as being a German or even a Jew, things that can be INHERITED. A Christian must be someone who follows Christ, not someone who SAYS he or she follows Him. That is what is meant in Scripture when Christ talks about those who will say to Him at the time of Judgement, "we cast out demons in Your Name" and He will say, "I NEVER KNEW YOU!"

When Christ forbids "judgment", He is not speaking about that kind of ordinary human judgment that tells you not to trust a liar or a thief, but the very type of "judgment" about which you have spoken. We are forbidden as Christians to sit around and try to discover where our fellow man stands with God. That is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS! It is enough that we are to make sure that WE are "right" with God.

Now that does not mean that one may not arrive at - and voice - the conclusion that John Gotti and other equally blatant villains are not exactly a "virtuous" people. But anyone who makes a stupid blanket statement that all Jews, or all Protestants, or all Catholics or all Muslims, or all ANYBODY have no morals, are immoral or amoral, is a fool and certainly NOT living as a "Christian" no matter how much of the external ritual that person has undergone or how often he or she reads the Bible. So please do not say that you have heard CHRISTIANS speak that way. What you have heard is ignorant or foolish people who need the prayers of all believers that they may be delivered from their prelest.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question.

The author of the article certainly does NOT say that non-believers (forgive me, but I'm thoroughly tired of the "pagan" debate!) have no morals. What he does say, is that there are non-believers who find that Tolkien's "Christian" values have meaning for them when they read the book. Because they have no foundation in Christianity, they may not understand WHY these values resonate with them and they certainly may fail to equate them with Tolkien's religious faith. However, in time, their affinity with Tolkien's value system MIGHT lead them to Christ.

He further posits that non-believers who experience an affinity with the Christian values as presented in the book, will NOT find these values faithfully reproduced in the film and, as a result, an opportunity for revelation of the Faith has been lost. And, finally, those who have NOT read the book will have NO opportunity whatsoever of experiencing those values and so the opportunity for revelation again has been lost.

I cannot imagine how that translates into what I have seen posted: that Christians have contempt for non-believers and consider them amoral, immoral and people without decent values.

I have told you that a true Christian would never hold that opinion or voice any such judgmental accusation. However, ANYONE can call themselves a Christian. I can call myself a member of he Knights Templar, but that doesn't mean that it is true! Christ said, "By your fruits you shall know them." I would suggest that you take heed of this admonition and listen carefully to what people say. If they are voicing the opinions that you have posted (providing, of course, you have not misunderstood what they have said), then please take what these people choose to call themselves with a LARGE grain of salt.

 

[Talimon]

Dropping the articles remark about pagans, I think we can return to the subject at hand. And my main point here was this: the articles interpretation on Tolkiens tale is highly personal and subjective. If they resonate with you then all the better, I say. But to use that as the basis of an arguement against PJ's movie is in my opinion very thin. I'd even risk saying that that it's view on Tolkien isn't shared by all Christians, indeed perhaps eek: ) not even Tolkien himself. In my opinion there are some themes in LotR that are universal, that all people, from all cultures, can relate to. For the most part I do not feel that the themes this article touches on qualify. As I said before, as interpretations of Tolkien they are quite legit. But they are not any sort of "proof" that PJ's movie did not capture the essence of Tolkien. You also stated earlier that many of these opinions are shared by other members of this forum. I do not wish to speak for them, but from my debates here I'd say the reasons the article gives for some scenes failing are very different form the reasons I've heard before. Perhaps both despise the same scenes, but I think the articles rationale as to why these scenes are "bad" doesn't carry nearly as much weight.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

I don't remember the author commenting upon the cinematic value of the scenes, only their shortcomings with regard to the particular virtue Tolkien's tale was eliciting for the character or characters in the scene. To say a scene is "bad", is to make a CINEMATIC judgment: i.e. that the scene didn't "work" as film. However, one may have a really GREAT scene that is lacking in every worthwhile value the author intended for that particular part of the story! I return to the intro bit with Arwen and the sword! NOT that I think it was a great piece of cinema, but it certainly sounded a death knell to the virtue of femininity that the author believes Tolkien was presenting within the story in the character of Arwen!

Dickensen is not a film critic, nor does he present himself as one. He is simply stating when, where and how the film "lost contact" with the author's vision with respect to the quality of virtue. Considering that a good many posts have been made regarding those who believe that the film "lost contact" with quite a bit of the author's "vision" - including that of virtue, I stand by my contention that some of these points have been made before.

 

[Ariana Undomiel]

I am currently sick with a bad head cold or othewise I would take a lot more time reading this article and all the opinions have been stated. I would say that the author does nail a few ideas on the head but there are some things that he said that I would disagree with. Number 1, he says that the books by Tolkien could be a median for bringing people to Christ through their moral truths. He also says he doubt that the movies could do that. However, due to the movie, thousands of more copies of the books have been printed and sold.

Also, he says that the main idea of LOTR in the books is not that power corrupts but he says that is what his friend got out of it. All this long time that I have been reading the Lord of the Rings I have perceived the main message to be that "Power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely." I know there are gobs of other themes and ideas but I also thought that this one was probably the biggest idea.

- Ariana

P.S. He also says that the elves never smile. That's a bunch of bull. Arwen smiles and Aragorn before leaving with Frodo on Asfoloth. Elrond smiles in greeting of Frodo. He smiles at the council when he proclaims the company of nine. Galadriel smiles at Sam in Loth Lorien and in the EE she smiles at Gimli when he firsts comes to Loth Lorien. She smiles at Frodo in her glade after her temptation of the ring. At the scene with the giving of the gifts she smiles at Sam and even laughs delightedly at Gimli's gracious adoration of her. In the boats Legolas smiles at the thought of Galadriel's gift to him and also at Gimli's delight about his gift. The elves do indeed smile. And what the heck was that whole deal about feminist elves? The elves were supposed to be fair of face with long hair. That might be considered feminine considering on screen PJ had to use people since he couldn't hire any real elves.