Purity and the Critics

[Mrs. Maggott]

Well, whereas you state much that is certainly food for thought, one point you make is seminal: purists are apt to take to heart the moral philosophy that undergirds Tolkien's work and are therefore quite upset when they see it being discarded or even presented diametrically in the films.

On the other hand, many "centrists" do not espouse those beliefs and therefore whether they are well or poorly presented in the films is moot. They are more likely to see the surface aspects of the story (whether or not it has the same people, places and events) and respond accordingly even if some of those aspects have been diamentrically changed. As a result, they either cannot comprehend the purists' angst or, understanding, dismiss it out of hand as unimportant.

However, I will say that I do not believe that centrists are on the whole older than purists. Perhaps they are older than FADs in general, but I would say that age is not the criteria here. Upbringing is more apt to be definitive. Those who come from "religious" backgrounds are more likely to be purists than those who don't - especially given the problems many purists have with Jackson's changes affecting the moral "vision" of the story. However, I would agree that most centrists are probably well past adolescence and sufficiently self assured that they have achieved a measure of inner confidence about their feelings on the matter.

Yet, as you yourself noted, it is interesting that centrists appear determined to put to rest (destroy?) any purist's contention that Tolkien in fact did have a moral message and that it was decidely Christian - and even Roman Catholic - in nature. As you have said, any such contention is met with the old "no allegories allowed" riposte even though a story does not require allegory to present any message, Christian or otherwise!

Therefore, I believe that you are right about the reason centrists are so adamant about refuting purists when, supposedly, they are far less "wedded" to defending the films as uncritically and wholeheartedly as the FADs are. And also, why it is that they do not contend equally with the FADs who are rather apt to defend anything that Jackson does, even when it is obviously inferior. I would posit that the vast majority of centrists take issue with purists rather than dividing their responses between both ends of the spectrum because (given the above post) of the nature of the sea-change in the moral essence of the story - that is, from absolutist to relativistic. It is in this arena that they prefer to "do battle" rather than simply taking on a discussion of whether or not the lighting was good or the costumes right in this or that scene.

I cannot speak for any other purist - nor do I wish to - but this issue is the crux of my disappointment and dislike of these films. I have admitted that they are great cinema, but to me, they look fair but feel foul and no amount of physical beauty, inspired acting and/or directing or spectacular special effects is going to change that, alas.

 

[Sarde]

If consistencies come up in Tolkien’s writing, these are acceptable imperfections, not worrisome problems to be painstakingly overcome.

I sure hope you mean inconsistencies.

 

[Snaga]

A point of clarification. I meant to say that the Centrist is older than the TMFs, not than the Purists. The Purist is not a group that I associate with a particular age.

 

[joxy]

Firstly Jallan specifically attacks the chase scene as "mediocre" because "nothing flowed", because....and because....
What I am trying to establish is that this view can only come from an attitude of general hostility in which the demand for "realism" is a stick to beat the movies, taking parts up against the whole, in an anti-modernist demand for realism.

He also said it is excellent, purely to look at, and I agreed and said it is a fine spectacle. That is before the thinking starts, and then the mediocrity, the inconsistency, creeps in.
I think this business of describing one opinion as realism, and the other as impressionism, is taking things much too far. Those ideas have full weight in respect of the great movements in the arts, in respect of the great artists of both movements whose names and works have been quoted. I really don't think that they transfer or translate comfortably to a few minutes' horse race on a cinema screen. I prefer simplicity: the scene looks great, but when you think about it and its context, it has faults which could and should have been avoided. Avoiding the faults would have produced a better few minutes of realism, or impressionism, whichever you prefer. To extrapolate from such a simple notion to "hostility" and "beating" is to exaggerate, imho.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

A point of clarification. I meant to say that the Centrist is older than the TMFs, not than the Purists. The Purist is not a group that I associate with a particular age.

Ah, I thought perhaps I had read it wrong or in some other way misinterpreted that particular observation! Given, at least, the antedelluvian nature of your's truly, I was surprised to think that you considered centrists older than purists! And, again, you are right when you say that purists don't fall into any particular age category; we are young and old whereas most "white hot FADs" tend to be a more youthful group. (And, by the way, that is not a "put down"!) Centrists tend to be "in the middle" as one can see by their more astute and thoughtful observations.

 

[Snaga]

I see. You "prefer simplicity".

But if you can find a "fault" by thinking about something after initially enjoying it, does this makes for good objective criticism? Perhaps you are actually "breaking a thing to find out what it is". If it conveys the idea of a horse chase, and looks great, is there a need to pick it apart?

If you see a painting, do you demand that it is an exact representation of the subject?

Is all ballet flawed, because people (or animals) do not in fact dance as they conduct themselves in real life? Do those pointy-toed shoes offend you?

Do you object to opera, because that singing is not realistic? If they remove the singing, then you would get your simplicity, no?

 

[jallan]

But of the characters you mention:

Gildor -- seemed like a relatively minor, transient character in the book (though he does reappear again in the end)

Imrahil -- I have always thought of as a significant character in the book and I kind of missed him in the movie (but not enough to make a difference to me)

Farmer Maggott -- once again, a relatively minor character; books are filled with minor characters that the main characters meet in passing; if you call a waving scythe and a distant voice a movie appearance, well than he appeared but barely

Arwen -- certainly not a minor character; there are passing references to he sprinkled through the books and she marries the King!

Glorfindel -- Ah, the mighty Glorfindel; strong enough to face the assembled Nine and then what does he do -- nothing!

I was not suggesting that these should necessarily be included in a film.

You missed entirely the point I was making of the effect that one-use characters, such as Glorfindel, can have in books and in films. They open up the story and make it more realistic, set it in an open universe in which all sorts of things are happening outside of the particular tale we are being shown or the particular branch of a more complete tale.

This creates a realisim lacking in a tale where everywhere character is re-used throughout the story. Of course eonomizing tales also have their own virtues. There is also an aesthetic satisfaction in having everything fit even despite it being untrue to life. Fielding had great fun with this in his Tom Jones, commonly cited as the first novel, pointing out the contrivances of his own plotting.

But, if you think that conflating Arwen and Glorfindel is good and think that conflating Éomer and Erkenbrand is good, why not, for example, conflate Merry and Pippin? Do we need both? Why not conflate Gandalf and Elrond? After all, in the book Elrond really has only a bit role in the Council scene. Gandalf would have done as well as a wizard who was also ruler of Imladris with Arwen as his daughter.

Indeed, we can conflate Arwen with Legolas, and make Arwen far more central to the tale.

In the end, how about Gandalfa, a sorceress who replaces Gandalf, Elrond and Arwen and Legolas and Galadriel (she having a second home in Lothlórien)? We certainly don't need Celeborn.

I don't think there’s anything wrong in such a suggestion as a workable way of keeping all the themes and incidents. Imagine Aragorn's grief when Gandalfa dies facing the Balrog and his joy when she returns.

If economy of characters is so very important to someone ... rather than the texture provided by an increased number of characters. Either can work.

And I was not suggesting that any of the characters above should necessarily have appeared in the film, only giving examples of such characters and why they work. It is an obvious contrivance in the film Council of Elrond that only those who will be principles in the rest of the film are allowed to speak (except when everyone but Frodo starts shouting rhubarb at each other). In the book things are handled more realistically.

Arwen's appearance at the end is a surprise to any new reader who has not been paying extraordinarily close attention because she seemed to be as much a one-off character as, say Celeborn, the kind of clever plot development that a writer drops hints about so that the reader can be surprised and yet realize that it had in fact been made obvious.

And Gildor does not appear at the end of the tale.

Using Arwen rather than Glorfindel involves both gain and loss.

Why have the same character doing many things when we can enrich a tale with a multitude of characters each doing one thing?

For one, a cameo means that a person involved making a movie or a person linked to that story is seen for a few moments or says a few things, it won't be a cameo anymore if the charecter has an entire scene devoted to him or her.

An interesting and idiosyncatic defintion. I thnk a person who appears in one scene only in a film is making a cameo appearance.

And like I've said, you can keep your opinions, they don't affect me, but don't try and tell me what I'm watching mindlessly or not.

Explain that scene as it would be seen my someone not watching mindlessly.

I am not trying to be insulting. I've done my share of mindless watching of films as all of us have, just wasting a few hours.

But I noticed the jumped cutting and general unrealism of that scene immediately, perhaps in part because I was critical of the claim that the Arwen chase scene would be more cinematic than the book scene. It didn’t hold up for reasons that had nothing to do with whether Frodo was riding or Arwen was riding and carrying Frodo.

 

[Confusticated]

And Gildor does not appear at the end of the tale.

He is mentioned as being present at the Grey Haven scene.

But regarding the movie... I think a merry and humorous elf would have gone some ways to improving Jackson's overall depiction of the race. On the other hand, I suspect a Jackson Gildor would have been wooden anyhow.

They open up the story and make it more realistic, set it in an open universe in which all sorts of things are happening outside of the particular tale we are being shown or the particular branch of a more complete tale.

I thought the worst thing about Aragorn's bringing the dead to Minas Tirith was that we did not see the other people of Gondor.

Glorfindel -- Ah, the mighty Glorfindel; strong enough to face the assembled Nine and then what does he do -- nothing!

Reminds me of Jackson's Arwen.

 

[jallan]

Firstly Jallan specifically attacks the chase scene as "mediocre" because "nothing flowed", because the Nine look (to him) as though they were trying not to catch Arwen; and because the Nine reigned in their horses to confront Arwen.

What I am trying to establish is that this view can only come from an attitude of general hostility in which the demand for "realism" is a stick to beat the movies, taking parts up against the whole, in an anti-modernist demand for realism.

And I thought I was just disappointed because parts of the films didn’t make sense to me in the same way as the source material.

How naive. I didn’t understand that the films aren’t supposed to make sense in that way. Do only purists try to make rational sense out of things?

I’m not sure whether you are insulting purists or RAD's or both.

This is wholly characteristic of the purist.

Well, you have provided your own definition of a purist so anything you wish to add to the defintion you can. I will try to appreciate your definition modernistically without worrying about whether it’s true.

It has very little to do with 'adding thought to the process'. Firstly, because the implication that those who do not approach the scene with the intent to criticise are unthinking is highly sectarian.

Yes indeed. I’m not a purist by my own defintions. But what do I know?

I do believe, whether this is sectarian or not, that it is good not to be over-accepting and that it is good to question. I don’t believe everything every politician says is true and I try to learn from observing and by examining different viewpoints. I guess I do have difficulty turning off my critical faculties on occasion.

I even think that most of us might benefit from using our critical faculties more than we do. You seem to disagree.

Secondly because the thought process that you are 'adding' is one that you are culturally predisposed towards: the attempt to find fault with that that poses a threat to your ideal.

It is possible that seeing more realistic horse chases in B-westerns has culturally predisposed me to expect the same level of competence in a big-budget film. It’s probably too late for me not to expect it. I got off to a bad start. It also used to bother me when the riders shot more than six shots from the same gun.

I honestly thought that a competent producer and director should notice things like that. Silly me.

Is there a support group to cure people who want things to make sense?

Of course, one can enjoy such silliness when it’s taken as part of a genre.

The Arwen issue is very interesting too. The hostility to her presence at the Fords is quite revealing. Purists find this particularly disturbing, because the idea of the strong female character is one they are not predisposed to.

Ah! That should stir up the purists and make the RAD's feel good.

Whereas Eowyn is accepted, as the exception to the rule, there it should end.

Don’t forget Lobelia and Shelob.

Moreover, elves as represented the ideal beings - perfected humans, in many ways - then the idea of the passive princess awaiting the victory of Aragorn is, to the purist, compellingly archaic. The attempt to provide a more modern role for Arwen is therefore bitterly resisted.

Yes. The real reason purists want to see the Tolkien’s own writing followed closely in an adaptation is because purists are actually sexist (and are responding to Tolkien’s sexism). Sounds reasonable. The unspoken reason for rejecting the films is a dislike of strong women (and perhaps even a greater dislike of being kissed by a horse).

Is Aragorn being kissed by the horse only dreaming of Arwen or is it really Aragorn being kissed by Arwen who falls asleep and dreams he is being kissed by his horse? Jackson poses such intriguing philosophical questions when you look it his work properly.

If it conveys the idea of a horse chase, and looks great, is there a need to pick it apart?

No need at all. Looks are everything. No-one need go beyond an initial surface impression. Execution doesn’t matter at all. Nine prancing men in white clapping coconuts would have done as well in conveying the idea.

If you see a painting, do you demand that it is an exact representation of the subject?

No.

Is all ballet flawed, because people (or animals) do not in fact dance as they conduct themselves in real life? Do those pointy-toed shoes offend you?

Well actually I don’t have much appreciation for traditional ballet but I understand and accept your slippery slope point on this.

The chase is quite acceptable if one looks at it as a stylized representation of what is really supposed to be happening. That the black horses remain together is symbolic of the lack of individuality of the nine riders who have been devoured by the Ring.

You can interpret Arwen carrying Frodo to be in truth an image of Frodo riding supported by the feminine part of his inner self, saved by the power granted him by Elbereth, this being Jackson’s wonderful transformation of Frodo’s words from the source:

‘By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair,’ said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, ‘you shall have neither the Ring nor me!’

The resistance associated with the feminine Elbereth and Lúthien by the sexist Tolkien has been transformed by Jackson into the Arwen figure whose grace keeps Frodo alive. That Arwen saves Frodo by calling on the power of the river is Jackson’s transformation of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, for Goldberry is daughter of the River. Arwen calls on a higher power just as Frodo calls on Tom in the Barrow. Arwen here is Tolkien’s Frodo.

Do all RAD’s actually see all this?

 

[Greenwood]

Incombustibility is a quality which refers to things in the class of inanimate objects. It is possible to establish scientifically which things qualify to be placed in that class. The members of that class have meanings which are absolute, which resist qualification.
Other qualities of which the names begin with "in", "un", etc can refer to things in other classes, such as the class of animate beings. Such qualities are "inadequacy", "incongruity", "inexactness", "ingloriousness"; they do sustain qualification in terms of time, place, agent, and recipient. I include "incompetence" in such a class.
There are fewer members of the first class than of the others. Therefore the quality of "incumbustibility" is in a minority in respect of its inability to be qualified. "Incompetence", being a member of a different class, is not comparable to it.

This seems to me to be proof one does not need firewood to produce smoke (see).

joxy,

Your problem seems to be with the dictionary and generally accepted usage.

He is mentioned as being present at the Grey Haven scene.

Nom,

Shussh! Please don't confuse jallan with facts, he is busy debating himself.

 

[joxy]

This seems to me to be proof one does not need firewood to produce smoke.
Your problem seems to be with the dictionary and generally accepted usage.

And it appears that my attempt to produce substantial clouds of pseudo-mathematical smoke worked to the extent of encouraging you to repeat my entire stock of combustibles.
I have no problem with my dictionaries, and am quite happy with my experience of generally accepted usage. I am interested in the differences that we have found between my main dictionary and yours, and I hope we can both learn from that experience. If you believe that you have a wider experience of generally accepted usage, I would be interested to hear what grounds you have for that belief, and indeed to know whether you really believe that such matters are quantifiable.
Spoof-mathematics didn't work; let's try spoof-logic:
You say that "incombustibility" is an absolute, that it can't be qualified in the ways I listed. I agree.
You say, or imply, that it is the prefix "in-" that establishes the absolute quality.
You then extrapolate from that, to say that any other word which includes the prefix "in-", such as "incompetence", must also be an absolute.
I say that extrapolation is invalid.

 

[Snaga]

Perhaps I better interrupt him, Greenwood.

Jallan, your sarcasm is amusing but mostly because it all comes back to bite you.

Do only purists try to make rational sense out of things? ...
I’m not sure whether you are insulting purists or RAD's or both.

I'm not insulting anyone. You appear to have taken offence. Sorry about that. The purist uses their critical faculties to unpick that which they feel hostile to. The Centrist, by contrast, tries to understand what is on the screen. The TMFs may be accused of viewing uncritically at times, but if you say I am advocating that approach, you are merely inventing.

It is possible that seeing more realistic horse chases in B-westerns has culturally predisposed me to expect the same level of competence in a big-budget film. It’s probably too late for me not to expect it.

Many a true word spoken in jest. I think you should accept there is more than one way to film a horse chase, and that because Jackson doesn't follow the same formula, it doesn't make it incompetent.

Don’t forget Lobelia and Shelob.

Ahhh fantastic examples of positive portrayal of women. I'm enjoying that a lot!

As to your amusing pseudo-analysis, the fact you seek to criticise by mocking anyone who might either try to see things differently to yourself, or to apply literary theory of any kind, is a great illustration of the mindset I have identified. I thank you for it.

 

[joxy]

You "prefer simplicity".

But if you can find a "fault" by thinking about something after initially enjoying it, does this makes for good objective criticism? Perhaps you are actually "breaking a thing to find out what it is". If it conveys the idea of a horse chase, and looks great, is there a need to pick it apart?

Yes, simplicity, in the sense of seeing a few moments on a cinema screen for its face value, rather than as the subject for a discussion of the great artistic and aesthetic movements of the last two centuries.
My turn for rhetorical questions:
Do you judge everything on first impressions?
Is it impossible to enjoy something after it has been found to have faults?
Is there only one way of assessing any specific thing?
If something looks great, is any discussion of ways in which it could have looked greater to be forbidden?
And an answer:
No, I don't have to break a thing to find out what it is, but I can examine it more closely, the second and subsequent times, in such an attempt.

 

[Greenwood]

You say that "incombustibility" is an absolute, that it can't be qualified in the ways I listed. I agree.

We agree so far. It is always nice to start on common ground.

You say, or imply, that it is the prefix "in-" that establishes the absolute quality.

No. Never said it. Never implied it. I never said anything about the change in meaning by the use of the prefix "in-" in all cases. You stated that since there are levels of competence there must be levels of incompetence, implying, it seems to me, that the use of the prefix "in-" could not change something that had levels of possibility to an single, absolute negative . I merely stated your implication did not fit with the dictionary definitions of the words under discussion. I then gave an example where such a change to an absolute negative is caused by the use of the prefix "in-" and gave dictinary definitions to back up the example. You have agreed my example was correct.

You then extrapolate from that, to say that any other word which includes the prefix "in-", such as "incompetence", must also be an absolute.

Once again, no. This is your extrapolation, not mine. I gave the dictionary definitions of the words competence/incompetence and pointed out that they seemed to me to fit what I have understood them to mean when I have seen the words used. I made no statements/implications/extrapolations/etc. about the prefix "in-" in all cases

I say that extrapolation is invalid.

It may be. It is your extrapolation. I don't know if it is valid or invalid. I have never thought about it.

 

[jallan]

Perhaps I better interrupt him, Greenwood.

Jallan, your sarcasm is amusing but mostly because it all comes back to bite you.

No.

Seeing what you are doing provides immunity.

I'm not insulting anyone. You appear to have taken offence. Sorry about that.

I took no offense. It is the RAD's who have more reason to take offense.

The purist uses their critical faculties to unpick that which they feel hostile to.

Who can spot the chicken and egg assumption?

The Centrist, by contrast, tries to understand what is on the screen.

Who can spot the chicken and egg assumption? Hint: what happens when a supposed Snaga-Centrist finds that he or she cannot understand what is on the screen? How long does the Snaga-Centrist keep trying? What happens if the supposed Snaga-Purist does understand what is on the screen?

The TMFs may be accused of viewing uncritically at times, but if you say I am advocating that approach, you are merely inventing.

The difference here is revealing. The Snaga-Purist and Snaga-Centrist do things the Snaga-TMFs are only accused of doing things, perhaps falsely accused. Where is the Snaga-invented chicken-and-egg category for those who accept uncritically what is on the screen?

But to adapt Snaga’s words:

The Snaga-Purists may be accused of viewing too critically at times, but if you say I am advocating that approach, you are merely inventing.

The Snaga-Centrists may be accused of being wash-washy at times, but if you say I am advocating that approach, you are merely inventing.

Many a true word spoken in jest. I think you should accept there is more than one way to film a horse chase, and that because Jackson doesn't follow the same formula, it doesn't make it incompetent.

Many, many ways to do many things, some good in some ways and some bad in some ways. Because Jackson follows a non-standard formula, it doesn’t make it competent.

As to your amusing pseudo-analysis, the fact you seek to criticise by mocking anyone who might either try to see things differently to yourself, or to apply literary theory of any kind, is a great illustration of the mindset I have identified. I thank you for it.

You are welcome.

As to your amusing pseudo-analysis of Purists, Centrists and RAD’s, the fact that you seek to criticise by categorizing (and in doing so mocking) anyone who might either try to see things differently to yourself, or to apply literary theory of any kind, is a great illustration of your own mindset.

But that really isn’t what you are mostly doing and that’s not the point of my responses.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears, does it make a sound? If there is a flaw in an artistic work and nobody notices it, does that flaw exist? If there is a particular virture in an artistic work and nobody notices it, does that virtue exist?

If a Snaga-hostile-Purist finds a genuine flaw in a work, does the flaw cease to exist because the investigator was hostile? If a Snaga-category accepting-RAD finds some previoiusly unnoticed meaning in a work, does the explanation fail because the investigator is often too ready to find meaning where it doesn’t exist?

 

[Snaga]

You believe to categorise is to mock. I disagree. To find categories to describe things with similar characteristics is an essential analytical technique.

Who can spot the chicken and egg assumption? Hint: what happens when a supposed Snaga-Centrist finds that he or she cannot understand what is on the screen? How long does the Snaga-Centrist keep trying? What happens if the supposed Snaga-Purist does understand what is on the screen?

Very specious. I said nothing to rule out either possibility: I was talking about the attitude with which a person approaches the work. It is my contention that people have attitudes and values that predispose them to view the movies positively or negatively. You may disagree with my account, but the argument is not circular.

The difference here is revealing. The Snaga-Purist and Snaga-Centrist do things the Snaga-TMFs are only accused of doing things, perhaps falsely accused. Where is the Snaga-invented chicken-and-egg category for those who accept uncritically what is on the screen?

Revealing of what? Go read the TMF description again. I said they are inclined to view uncritically. I don't want to put it more strongly than that, because I don't believe it is warranted.

If a Snaga-hostile-Purist finds a genuine flaw in a work, does the flaw cease to exist because the investigator was hostile? If a Snaga-category accepting-RAD finds some previoiusly unnoticed meaning in a work, does the explanation fail because the investigator is often too ready to find meaning where it doesn’t exist?

You seem rather Snaga-hostile yourself! You seem to believe that because I say that people's stances are indicative of wider attitudes, this means I think anything they say can be necessarily disregarded. If I said that anywhere, please point it out, and I will withdraw it.

Anyway Jallan, I think you ought to calm down. I'm glad I didn't offend you, but your sneering is pretty unpleasant. I don't want to discuss in that tone.

Yes, simplicity, in the sense of seeing a few moments on a cinema screen for its face value, rather than as the subject for a discussion of the great artistic and aesthetic movements of the last two centuries.
My turn for rhetorical questions:
Do you judge everything on first impressions?
Is it impossible to enjoy something after it has been found to have faults?
Is there only one way of assessing any specific thing?
If something looks great, is any discussion of ways in which it could have looked greater to be forbidden?
And an answer:
No, I don't have to break a thing to find out what it is, but I can examine it more closely, the second and subsequent times, in such an attempt.

It seems to me you are not taking things at face value at all. Besides, I wasn't saying that I enjoyed the chase scene because it was a good discussion point. I was saying that people can understand and appreciate things beyond a 'realist' portrayal because of the progression in the arts. To answer your questions:
- I don't just soley on first impressions, neither do I reject them. If something is pleasing to the eye, that gives it inherent value. That value may be greater than what would be gained by greater realism. To put it another way, who gives a damn what those horses did, from one cut to another?
- Everything has faults, and yet I enjoy them. Clearly it is not impossible. But we're more discussing questions of quality/competence rather than enjoyment, or so I believed.
- Since I have spent several long posts saying precisely that there are multiple ways of seeing things, you may take it that is not my opinion!
- Nothing is forbidden. But if something looks great, then describing the person who created it "incompetent" may not be entirely convincing.

 

[Greenwood]

The Arwen issue is very interesting too. The hostility to her presence at the Fords is quite revealing. Purists find this particularly disturbing, because the idea of the strong female character is one they are not predisposed to. Whereas Eowyn is accepted, as the exception to the rule, there it should end.

Snaga,

Actually many of the purists do not accept Eowyn, at least not fully. If you look at threads where the death of the Witch-King is discussed you will find some of the same purists from this thread denying that Eowyn killed the Witch-King. Many contend that it was Merry who killed him. So you see, even when Tolkien writes a strong female character, some purists do not accept her and try to reduce her role. Once again Tolkien himself is not enough of a purist.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Nothing as subjective as prose or film can be written, created, read or seen absent the existing predisposition of the individual. Only in something truly without much "wiggle room" for interpretation (say, mathematics or basic mechanical physics) can there be the assumption of a disinterested view of the matter. Hence, the writer/director has preconceived ideas as do the readers/viewers. This situation is bound to effect how the end product is both created and perceived; it cannot be helped.

Therefore, there is no real sense in predicating any argument upon the theory that someone is able to produce or understand a book or a film in some sort of intellectual vacuum absent their own already established frame of reference. Perhaps some alien from another planet might be able to do so, but then, if he/she/it is in fact intelligent, doubtless the same situation would obtain.

 

[Greenwood]

Nothing as subjective as prose or film can be written, created, read or seen absent the existing predisposition of the individual. Only in something truly without much "wiggle room" for interpretation (say, mathematics or basic mechanical physics) can there be the assumption of a disinterested view of the matter. Hence, the writer/director has preconceived ideas as do the readers/viewers. This situation is bound to effect how the end product is both created and perceived; it cannot be helped.

Therefore, there is no real sense in predicating any argument upon the theory that someone is able to produce or understand a book or a film in some sort of intellectual vacuum absent their own already established frame of reference. Perhaps some alien from another planet might be able to do so, but then, if he/she/it is in fact intelligent, doubtless the same situation would obtain.

I don't know what the above is in reference to. I don't even know if it refers to my post which it immediately follows. I will say that I agree with everything in it except for the exception you give what are sometimes called the "hard sciences". (I am expanding the category from your mathematics and basic mechanical physics, I hope correctly.) Everything is seen and interpreted through the lens of our subjective experiences. We count to ten and much of our math is based on ten because we have ten toes. Until Galileo showed that all objects fell at the same rate people thought that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects because it made a certain sort of intuitive sense to them. Complete objectivity is an impossibility. Nothing is created, or viewed in a perfect vacuum (of personal, cultural, phyiscal, etc. background).

That said, I don't know what your post is specifically referring to.

I don't see that anyone has engaged in "predicating any argument upon the theory that someone is able to produce or understand a book or a film in some sort of intellectual vacuum absent their own already established frame of reference." Quite the opposite, Snaga's point, and the point of much of the discussion on this thread, has been an analysis of the predisposition of the people criticizing these films, specifically those who have been labelled by themselves and others as purists.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

In a way, I am referring to the entire gamut of these debates including why Jackson did what he did and why individual people 'translate' what he did sometimes diametrically. It is possible to give overall "categories" to some things, but very few people fall within clearly drawn niches nor does a particular background or age necessarily result in a "categorical" response. That was all that I was trying to say, really. It was merely a general comment upon the vagries of our individual conceptive and cognitive functions which in turn, lead to the amazing range of responses generated by these films.

As for the "hard sciences": ordinarily I would agree with you, but it has been shown in the past that individual scientist's preconceptions frequently lead to disputes even in the ostensibly "proveable" disciplines. Of course, I forgot to mention chemistry which is certainly not open to very much in the way of dispute. Put a dollop of sodium in a glass of water and the result will be the same no matter what the person performing the experiment believes!

I hope this explains my point.