I apologize for rehashing this topic
Oh, I just can't resist commenting on a swollen bit of psychoanalysis, particularly when it is so broad and so liberally sprinkled with pseudo-intellectual terms like "deconstructed".
Snaga said:
Firstly it worth remembering what lies at the root of their their rejection of
Tolkien.
Why is it worth remembering why so many critics despise Tolkien? If it is worth anything, is it also worth noticing the revisionism of critics more current than Edmund Wilson who regularly praise Tolkien as a way of tearing down the next fantasy superstar, J.K. Rowling?
In no particular order, the criticisms that can be laid at Tolkiens door are that his works are childish and simplistic in their portrayal of the complexity of human nature, and the nature of good and
evil. Evil does not, in anything other than a pre-modern mindset, exist outside the mind of humans. But Tolkien embodies evil as an external force. He also consigns certain
peoples and
creatures as inherently evil, whilst others are innately morally superior. These can pass on their superiority through their blood line, in a eugenic-***-feudal conception of heredity. This is the more disturbing aspect of the overwhelming feature of Lord of the Rings, which is a backward looking and nostalgic text. Modernity itself is attacked throughout the text, but in a way that is disempowering and regretful; we are invited to be sad at what have lost, which is a pastiche of a rural idyll that never existed with a hierarchical deference to monarchy. Characterisation through the novel is often either archetypal or non-existent. Major characters such as
Legolas and
Aragorn remain scarcely revealed at all, while others talk in an absurd quaint countrified dialogue. This is itself in contrast to the lengthy attention to intricacies of geography and landform: location is preferred to people. Meanwhile the plot itself is meandering. Episodes like the
Tom Bombadil chapters make the book appear directionless at times. Meanwhile, other important aspects of plot are relegated to the Appendices (Aragorn and
Arwen), recounted second hand (the
Ents march on
Isengard), or entirely glossed over. Finally we have the long lingering death of the novel, stretching to seven chapters of loose ends being tied up at a painfully slow rate.
I find it unclear whether the author of this post agrees with the criticisms. I would be interested in finding out.
The hostility derives from this: that in adopting myth over novel, Tolkien was turning his back on the modern cultural norm, established in the 17th and 18th century, and which some (eg Levi-Strauss) now believe is liable to be superceded.
Having read many of the author's posts on this thread, I feel that he disregards the "Moral Absolutes" presented by (in the author's opinion) the Purists. And yet here we have a rather Absolutist opinion not only as to why Tolkien is disregarded by critics (assuming that he still is) but also as to how Tolkien turned his back on modernism. I thought there were no Absolutes, only interpretations.
But although the detail works as literary effect, for some the desire to plunge ever deeper into
Middle Earth becomes a quest for ever greater understanding of the detail, to a point where the original text is viewed not as story which sweeps you along (a whole) but as a repository of facts about Middle Earth (a collection of parts). Thus the text becomes fragmented, and deconstructed in the mind of the devotee who interlocks information in other works prepared for publication by Christopher Tolkien, which are themselves fragments.
At last, after a lengthy discourse on the Critics, we come to the semblance of a point! At last, we delve into the psyche of the average Purist.
Hence emerges the sectarian mentality that is inward-looking, obsessed with greater understanding of the world more than the tale, the 'facts' and not the text.
.
And now we have something that can finally be related to the eternal debate of book versus films. The Purist, the author appears to claim, immerses himself in the details of Tolkien's work, while the story and text are less important. Does the Purist then concern himself more with the color of Legolas' hair, height of the Tower of
Ecthelion, the length of the reign of the twelfth
king of Gondor, the geneology of the
house of Finwe than with meaning behind the story? The author seems to answer "yes". Yet in observing the posts of many so-called Purists, rarely do I see anger at the presence of Aragorn's goatee. Rather, the anger stems from alterations to the text which do damage to the themes which Tolkien weaves into his writing. Ah but of course, the themes are a matter only of interpretation, right? So says our pscyhoanalyst:
In reality of course, everyone who reads Lord of the Rings does so with their own cultural expectations, with their own understanding of the world, their own norms and values, and these are inevitably brought to bear upon the text.
Does the author claim to speak on behalf of everyone who has ever read Tolkien? How did he discover this "reality"? Is it a "reality", or is that merely the author's intrepretation?
Thus isolated from the mainstream, inward-looking and obsessive, the devotees regard each other from a standpoint where 'knowledge' and the ability to martial facts in support of arguments is important, and where the search for 'objectivity' is everything. Thus status is derived from the ability to cite passages, and to quote Tolkien. Other knowledge, other perspectives and other works are rejected, not per se, but as inapplicable. This leads to the drive to purity that is so very evident amongst Tolkien fans. It provides the sectarian sense of community, the feeling of 'them' and 'us'. In some there is the messianic desire to recruit others, spreading the word and gaining new readers. But this is tempered by an anxiety that perhaps the new readers won't "truly" appreciate the
novels.
Now we devolve into the
realm of observation. In a later post, the author eschews the necessity of data, and instead relies on, as he calls it, his own observation. Of course, this fits in nicely with his explanation of Purists as "obsessive", "inward-looking", and for whom the search for objectivity is the end-all, be-all. For if anyone asks, "Where's the proof," the author can inwardly smile at having proven his point: a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In translating from book to film, there are unavoidable changes that will need to be made.
Ah yes,
the old stand-by when it comes to arguing for inexplicable adaptations of book to film. Rarely do we have an answer other than that film is different than literature. OK, but that doesn't really explain anything.
Perhaps it is unsurprising if those who are better acquainted with the
books have more to say: you would expect them to have parts that they thought should have been handled differently. But a normal reaction would be to shrug, and move on.
Why would this be a normal reaction? Because it would be the author's reaction? By normal, does the author mean, "common", "trite", "lazy", "apathetic"?
In the end, I find this to be a rather obvious attempt at getting a rise of "Purists" (kudos to the author for doing just that), couched in half-baked psychoanalytical terms designed to conceal the author's patent disdain for people who really, really, really hate this movie and aren't afraid to say so.
With regards to these movies, it is interesting that so much weight is given to the notion that they merely represent an "interpretation" of Tolkien's writing. And, because we live in modern (maybe even post-modern) times, interpretation trumps intent. And that may indeed be the case. I for one cannot argue if someone interprets
events differently than I do.
Yet what Jackson has done is not "interpret". He has changed. Changed events, changed character, and changed dialogue. That is not interpretation. That is alteration. If Jackson were so interested in interpretation, he would have left the story well enough alone and simply concentrated on interpreting those things which Tolkien did leave very ambiguous. And that is where Mr.
Snaga's "explanation" of the Purist phenomenon falls woefully short: the Purist like myself does not really care if Jackson's
Balrog has wings, irritating though that may be to some. But the Purist like myself
does care if
Frodo is carried across the Ford by someone else; does care if
Gandalf expressly tells
Saruman where
the Ring is; does care that Ring is destroyed in a wrestling match between Frodo and
Gollum. For those alterations take interpretation out of the hands of the viewer, and place it firmly in the hands of the artist. And, as we have all been lectured, the text is more important than the author. Right?