Purity and the Critics

[Snaga]

One viewpoint may be more correct than an opposing viewpoint. Galileo was burned for asserting a particular viewpoint against another viewpoint. He saw that looking at something another way made more sense out of it. All words have limited utility. I reject a viewpoint of total relativity. For one person to claim a better perspective on a problem than another person's perspective equally reinforces difference and disagreement.

I don't believe in total relativity in general, but in terms of judging the merits of art, it seems to work. In science and politics this seems more problematic. Having said that, an appreciation of why people reach there opinions is still useful to have.

One can claim that to his or her perspective all perspectives are equally valid (or invalid), all are equally true (or false). That perspective logically fails because it denies its own truth against the perspective that perspectives can be relatively more or less true or false compared to one another. Accordingly all perspectives are not equally valid/invalid.

To take a practical example: if someone argues the perspective that homosexuality ought to be accepted by society and someone else argues the perspective that homosexuality ought not to be accepted by society, neither will agree with the perspective that neither party is correct because all perspectives are equally valid. There is now more disagreement rather than less, three positions rather than two.

That argument assumes the goal is to reduce the number of opinions out there. But in any case, this is an example in a different sphere.

There are white Aryan supremist websites who claim Tolkien as their own. Tolkien is also claimed by the ultra-right wing politicos in Italy. See One Vote to Bind Them All

Sounds like another "border" perspective to me. Insofar as they are saying that Tolkien could be read that way, I do not dispute it. I would say I do not read it that way myself. Nor does that mean I have to believe that their political aspirations and ideas have any merit.

You can only first experience a work through its parts. For me it was as though Fellowship provided some unpleasant mouthfuls. But many parts tasted excellently. That partly makes one able to overlook the bad. But it would be wrong to say that it was good as a whole, if you mean that the bad parts therefore cease to be bad.

A good analogy, although mouthfuls are discontinuous, where as a movie is not. The viewer engages the work with expectations and reference points, builds a conception as the movie progresses, so that they have at once the immediacy of what is on screen, and the growing knowledge of the whole. These two things are in tension: the immediacy is more on the surface, phenomenal and intuitive, the knowledge of the whole is an ordering of this immediate material, placing it into a framework based on their expectations, reference points and culture. At the same time the "growing knowledge of the whole" is in a state of flux, where one's ability to order it may be challenged (or not), where the way one has order it may prove disatisfactory when further material is added, and where anticipation of what is to come is weighed against what has gone before, and this may lead to a reframing of the movie in the mind of the viewer. A complex process, which I do not satisfactorily describe. However, my point in attempting to do so, is mainly to illustrate that whether a "mouthful" appears good or bad to the viewer is a complex process, and will not have the same outcome in each person. Moreover, all though each "mouthful" may have an immediate impact, the viewer may deal with that in differing ways. One could decide it was a fatal flaw, recategorise the movie (by placing it in a different genre or context the issue may be resolved), embrace the unexpected "mouthful" as 'interesting' or 'different', downplay its significance, ignore it completely.... etc

But more often than not book readers find films adaptatoins of books to be trivialized and dumbed-down.

That in itself is interesting. It sounds true, but it may prove to be a whole can of worms when looked at carefully. Is that a statement about book readers as much as it is about film adaptations? I wish I had more time to go into that.

You look too deep for most cases.

Ah well, that sounds like a fundamental difference of opinion. I don't I have looked nearly deep enough.

Your examples of Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan are interesting parallels. It seems to me that these issues lack the explicitly moral tone of a lot of the criticism that is found in relation to the Jackson movies. I would need to look closer to see how the criticisms of movie adaptations of these works were worded. One may dislike an adaptation without it being expressed in the same language, and this signals a different root for the dislike.

Non-extremist Americans may be just as addicted to "purity". They want to be normal, to follow the norms of the culture in which they find themselves, to go along with the crowd, an attitude of conformity that may be no different than those who find themselves in an extremist crowd. But the non-extremist needs less self-justification and can use the argument: "Why can't you think and believe like most of us?"

You have a point here. I distinguish between conformity and purism, but there are some similarities. Nonetheless people are more like to choose an extremist crowd than to find themselves in it, and if they do find themselves in it, they may return to the mainstream if they do not like it there (or choose a different border group). It is this voluntarism that leads to border groups' attachment to notions of purity, because it allows themselves to define themselves and give a moral imperative to membership. Without this, the border group is always at risk of losing their members to the "centre" or mainstream. On the other hand, most people are members of their culture by birth, they conform by habit, and there is little pressure from elsewhere for them to leave that group. Therefore there is less need for moral imperatives to sustain the group, and accordingly notions of "purity" are less important (but not entirely absent).

 

[Grond]

I don't think it's true, but I think it is an implication of Snaga's theory. I could be wrong, however.

Now Aragil!!! I loved the movies for their own sake. I hated them as a rendering of the works of JRRT. They get an A+++++ for being an entertaining movie BASED on Tolkien's world of Middle-earth. They get an F----- for their interpretive value.

So there you have it. An anomoly... a purist who loved the movies.

 

[aragil]

Hehe- I was implying that Snaga's theory might be wrong on this point, in which case many such anomolies would be eggspected. As I also pointed out- I myself would be an anomoly, because I read the books like a purist but appreciate the movies like, well, a centrist I suppose. Snaga himself would fall into the same category- and, as I think Snaga has pointed out at some length, this is just a theory of general tendencies. Nobody should be surprised to find out that all of the described characteristics don't apply to themselves in equal measure.

 

[jallan]

I don't believe in total relativity in general, but in terms of judging the merits of art, it seems to work. In science and politics this seems more problematic. Having said that, an appreciation of why people reach there opinions is still useful to have.

Why appreciation? Knowledge of why people reach opinions is useful. Wrong ideas of why people reach opinions are not useful, and are often used as a form of slander, e.g. the common charage that someone says something because it is politically correct (when the fact that it is politically correct among certain people may make it easier to voice the opinion but does not mean that it is not held for quite other reasons).

That argument assumes the goal is to reduce the number of opinions out there. But in any case, this is an example in a different sphere.

You argued that you were trying to reduce conflict between opinions by introducing another perspective, which suggested you were attempting to show that your persepective was valuable because it transcended the other perspectives. Such arguments usually fail in the concrete because the supposed transcendent perspective is indeed just another perspective and may be in opposition to other supposedly transcendant perspective as well as the perspective it attempts to transcend.

Such a perspective may be useful, if it is has some validity ... but you attempt to avoid suggestions that viewpoints do have different levels of validity, except for your own.

Sounds like another "border" perspective to me. Insofar as they are saying that Tolkien could be read that way, I do not dispute it. I would say I do not read it that way myself. Nor does that mean I have to believe that their political aspirations and ideas have any merit.

I think many of us do disagree that Tolkien can be validly read that way. They are not saying that "Tolkien could be read that way". They are saying that the meanings they find in Tolkien are meanings properly derived from the works.

If you do not read it their way, then is your reading better than theirs? If not better, then why do you not read it the way they do? Is your reading no more defensible than theirs?

Also, is a border perspective is not always wrong.

A good analogy, although mouthfuls are discontinuous, where as a movie is not.

Not so.

The viewer engages the work with expectations and reference points, builds a conception as the movie progresses, so that they have at once the immediacy of what is on screen, and the growing knowledge of the whole.

The same is true of a multi-course dinner, one expects things more or less in a certain order, but the actual items and even order may vary and one does not necessarily know at all what is coming. This is especially true for a dinner provided by an ethnic group with which the diner is unfamiliar.

These two things are in tension: the immediacy is more on the surface, phenomenal and intuitive, the knowledge of the whole is an ordering of this immediate material, placing it into a framework based on their expectations, reference points and culture. At the same time the "growing knowledge of the whole" is in a state of flux, where one's ability to order it may be challenged (or not), where the way one has order it may prove disatisfactory when further material is added, and where anticipation of what is to come is weighed against what has gone before, and this may lead to a reframing of the movie in the mind of the viewer. A complex process, which I do not satisfactorily describe. However, my point in attempting to do so, is mainly to illustrate that whether a "mouthful" appears good or bad to the viewer is a complex process, and will not have the same outcome in each person. Moreover, all though each "mouthful" may have an immediate impact, the viewer may deal with that in differing ways. One could decide it was a fatal flaw, recategorise the movie (by placing it in a different genre or context the issue may be resolved), embrace the unexpected "mouthful" as 'interesting' or 'different', downplay its significance, ignore it completely.... etc

Of course. All quite true and all quite irrelevant when talking about a particular film or particular dinner or particular arguments about why people are purists. As a cook, you presumably claim the arguments you cooked up are good ones, or why are you suggesting that any eat of them? Are you suggesting that any other arguments by anyone are probably equally as good as yours even though opposed to them?

Your examples of Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan are interesting parallels. It seems to me that these issues lack the explicitly moral tone of a lot of the criticism that is found in relation to the Jackson movies.

Moral tone? The idea that it is wrong to be untrue to the source material occurs again and again, especially when it is seen as watering down the original or modifying it in the direction of vulgar sensationalism or low comedy. Each producer of a Tarzan film makes great noises about at last being true to Burroughs (as though that were indeed the right thing to do) and there follows the usual complaints about lying directors. I don't see morality per se entering into it more in discussions of The Lord of the Rings.

You have a point here. I distinguish between conformity and purism, but there are some similarities. Nonetheless people are more like to choose an extremist crowd than to find themselves in it, and if they do find themselves in it, they may return to the mainstream if they do not like it there (or choose a different border group).

People are born into Mennonite families, into families and communities with strong racist feelings, into families and communities that follow a religions different than most of those around them and so forth. Or people may fall into what the others see as a "wrong" crowd or "extreme" crowd without a great deal of conscious choosing.

It is this voluntarism that leads to border groups' attachment to notions of purity, because it allows themselves to define themselves and give a moral imperative to membership. Without this, the border group is always at risk of losing their members to the "centre" or mainstream.

An evil reversal. People who have a particular viewpoint or liking are liable to group together to further it. But the viewpoint or liking may have nothing moral about it. A border group that tries to be very pure is also always at risk of losing their members.

A bridge club may be unsatisfactory for some members either because too much emphasis is placed upon bridge and not enough on the social aspects of the club (non-Purist) or because too much emphasis is placed on the social aspects of the club and not enough on bridge (Purist). But both very Purist and very non-Purist bridge clubs may survive.

Sometimes what was originally a border position becomes mainstream. Would anyone in the 1950's believe there could large celebrations of Gay Pride Day in cities all over the world in only forty years. When I was younger the largest parade in yearly in Toronto was the Orangeman's Parade. The Orange Lodge was very central in Ontario. Belonging to it was almost essential for any politician who wished to be elected regardless of party. (It had also become much watered down from its original anti-Catholic roots). Yet today almost no politician seriously trying to be elected would have anything to do with the Orange Lodge.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Perhaps we might agree about some things here:

1. Jackson had the legal right to do what he did with the films. There is no disputing that.

2. When the films were in "pre-release", Jackson gave many interviews and even filmed shorts wherein he was specific in his desire to "do it right". We saw sets, costumes, props, locations - all chosen and/or created in the effort to produce Tolkien's Middle-earth and Tolkien's description of the people and places therein. Why Jackson even fired his first "Aragorn" because he was too pretty and/or too young (although there was a lot of blather about "artistic differences"). In short, most Tolkien afficianados - myself very much included - looked forward keenly and eagerly to these films.

3. However, upon the release of the first film, many of us recognized changes that Jackson made that went above and beyond those necessary to bring the story to the screen. We did not complain about the editing of the Old Forest-Bombadil-Barrowdowns thread (indeed, many purists thought that it helped clarify and simplify the plot), but many of us began to get concerned about the direction in which Jackson was going as evidenced by his translation of the characters. Bilbo and Gandalf were fine; Boromir was very good as was Sam, but many thought Frodo was far too weak and Aragorn was confusing and also greatly weakened.

4. When the second film was about to be released, many purists (again, myself included) hoped to be able to enjoy it as "Jackson's version" of the tale. We assumed he would deviate (but not too much) and the essence of the tale would remain intact. He did - and too much - and it did not. TTT was the final straw for many purists as far as being able to accommodate Jackson's version as anything comparable to the original and/or acceptable.

5. When the third film was about to be released, there were those of us who went with high hopes (again) and those of us who did not (I count myself in the latter group). Many found the film to be the "best" adaptation of the story - it probably was - but that may simply have been because Jackson had no time for inventions and had to "finish off" his plot threads before his audience died of old age. That alone made it "more akin" to the book!

6. Many people who either do not know the book or know it and have no problem with the films have a hard time understanding those of us who feel differently.

7. There is room on the planet - indeed, even on the forum - for both groups! So for film lovers: enjoy! For those who have been disappointed and cannot enjoy these films: let's go and have a nice "read", shall we?

 

[rs691919]

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".

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?

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

As a proud purist I can say that inconsequential changes in the plot or even the characters did not bother me. I didn't miss Bombadil et al. because they would only have confused the audience. I was unfazed by the fact that Frodo remained very young and no time at all passed (relatively) between the time Bilbo gave the Ring to Frodo and the Quest began. I didn't mind Arwen taking Glorfindel's place but I very much did mind what Jackson did to the characters of Arwen and Aragorn when he made that change.

In short, my problem with Mr. Jackson was his reinvention of the essence and meaning of the story which he did by virtue of changing not so much plot, but character. To suggest that purists were "wrapped about the axle" by hair color, tower heights and even "wizard swinging" is to miss the point. Had Mr. Jackson given us Professor Tolkien's characters, he could have made a great many other changes and I certainly would not have had any problems. But the changes he made were central to the theme, vision and meaning of the story and that's where Mr. Jackson and I part company.

 

[rs691919]

In short, my problem with Mr. Jackson was his reinvention of the essence and meaning of the story which he did by virtue of changing not so much plot, but character. To suggest that purists were "wrapped about the axle" by hair color, tower heights and even "wizard swinging" is to miss the point. Had Mr. Jackson given us Professor Tolkien's characters, he could have made a great many other changes and I certainly would not have had any problems. But the changes he made were central to the theme, vision and meaning of the story and that's where Mr. Jackson and I part company.

Well, I do think that wizard swinging was a bit too much.

 

[Snaga]

FS, a brief reply.

Swollen or not, my analysis is not psychoanalytical. Psychoanalysis deals with individuals. Cultural analysis deals with groups. I do not "eschew the necessity of data", I merely have presented an analysis based on observation rather than the rigour of properly collected data from fieldwork. You may use this as a basis for rejecting my opinions if you wish, and undoubtedly that would be sufficient to invalidate it if I were presenting this as a rigorous study. I am not. But I suspect that you would dismiss a more professionally conducted study as "pseudo-intellectual" if you didn't agree with it.

You ask why it is worth recalling mainstream criticisms of Tolkien. The answer is because it is germaine: Tolkiens works are outside the literary mainstream, and this conditions the viewpoints of those who are strongly pro-Tolkien. Your point about critics using Tolkien to criticise Rowlings is interesting, but not germaine.

You ask if I agree with the criticisms of Tolkien. I can see their point, but the fact remains that I love Tolkien's works so I am tolerant of any shortcomings. I feel that mainstream critics tend to overstate the problems, and exaggerate their importance.

You feel that my account of why Tolkien is rejected by the mainstream is "absolutist" and therefore at variance with my rejection of (supposed) moral absolutes. You misunderstand. I reject the notion of a single interpretation of art. Trying to improve our understanding of history is a different matter. Of course, if you disagree with my statement, please explain why.

On the matter of whether the purists immerse themselves in details of the world rather than the theme... I was slightly surprised to find a point in amongst the scorn. Thank you, I will consider this point since it seems to fit with Aragil's earlier objection.

I claim that people bring their own cultural values and norms and ways of looking at the world with them when they read a book. You (appear to) disagree. You ask some rhetorical questions:

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?

It would be more constructive of you if you could explain why you disagree. Does your mind go blank when you open the pages of a book? How do you seperate culture from language? An obvious example: what does the word "gay" mean to you? You will be instantly aware of two meanings, one new and one old. The moment you read that word, you have to start choosing how to interpret it.

I'm sorry that you(?) "really really really hate" the movies... I've been told off many times for even suggesting that purists hate the movies.

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?

Most purists will say that some changes are necessary. The trouble is, which changes are ok and which are not? Your interpretation says that these changes are bad changes, but for example the Bombadil removal is (I guess) deemed less important. I've seen some people state that losing the Scouring of the Shire was acceptable removal of potential anti-climax, and others say it destroys the essence of the book, that no land can remain untouched by war/evil. When filming a movie based on a book, the filmmaker obviously exercises interpretation by deciding what is essential to the telling of the tale, and what is not, what will make for a good movie, and what needs to be reworked. This doesn't remove the ability of the viewer to interpret: the viewer now interprets the new work, ie the movie. That some have found in PJ's movies a tale of moral ambiguity and anti-heroes epitomising the decadence of Hollywood, while others have found it an inspiring tale of good vs evil is probably as clear a case of this as you could wish for!

 

[rs691919]

I deliberately chose (for the most part) not to argue your points, because I didn't see many points in your post, amidst the (as you call it) scorn. As you are obviously skilled in the use of the English language, it does not take a very discerning eye to see that you have chosen your words very carefully: just biting enough to awaken the irritation of the so-called Purists (a task in which you have deftly succeeded), but also couched in such a way that you may at any time claim simply to analyze dispassionately. Very clever.

Swollen or not, my analysis is not psychoanalytical. Psychoanalysis deals with individuals. Cultural analysis deals with groups.

Cultural analysis deals with cultures. "Tolkien Purists" do not represent a culture. They do not even represent a group. What you categorize as Purists is in reality a collection of extraordinarily disparate backgrounds who harbor extraordinarily disparate opinions regarding Tolkien. You choose to categorize people who have seen these films into three arbitrary groups based on your own observation. It is this artificial division that makes your analysis--psycho- or cultural--fail ultimately.

I do not "eschew the necessity of data", I merely have presented an analysis based on observation rather than the rigour of properly collected data from fieldwork. You may use this as a basis for rejecting my opinions if you wish, and undoubtedly that would be sufficient to invalidate it if I were presenting this as a rigorous study. I am not. But I suspect that you would dismiss a more professionally conducted study as "pseudo-intellectual" if you didn't agree with it.

More than likely, you are correct. Both subjective observation and "rigorous" data gathering and presentation are subject to bias. Observation is clearly subject to the analyst's whims and objectives. It is based on an unknown number of interactions. It, in the case of an internet forum, is based on nothing but a few typed words--without any consideration as to the context in which the subject being observed makes his or her point. From there, the observer extrapolates--always a dangerous proposition--and pontificates about inward-looking obsessions. Data, on the other hand, is easily manipulated at the hands of an analyst--particularly when attempting to explain someone's opinion of a book. How does one control for differences in background, language, experience? And then again, both observation and data gathering will fail to account for those who defy packaging into neat and artificial groupings. How then does the analyst handle these individuals who fall somewhere in between the predicted cohorts?

You ask why it is worth recalling mainstream criticisms of Tolkien. The answer is because it is germaine: Tolkiens works are outside the literary mainstream, and this conditions the viewpoints of those who are strongly pro-Tolkien. Your point about critics using Tolkien to criticise Rowlings is interesting, but not germaine.

Nowhere do you define the literary mainstream. Is the literary mainstream Tom Clancy and Ann Rice novels? Is it Nobel Prize winners? Do college professors decide what is the literary mainstream? And once you have a definition, is Tolkien really outside the literary mainstream. For the moment, I'll play along and give my own opinion. Let's say that the literary mainstream consists of works considered by the Authorities (now who the hell they may be I have no idea) to be worthy of serious discussion and study. Well, then I would say that Tolkien's has existed outside of the literary mainstream for much of the end of the twentieth century. But, I would also say that as time has worn on, Tolkien has become more and more embraced as part of the academic world. Therefore, the point about Rowling is indeed germaine: Tolkien has become more accepted as the critics find new and "worse" villains to despise.

You feel that my account of why Tolkien is rejected by the mainstream is "absolutist" and therefore at variance with my rejection of (supposed) moral absolutes. You misunderstand. I reject the notion of a single interpretation of art.

And I reject the notion that there are necessarily multiple interpretations of "art". You suppose that modern literary criticism denies the single interpretation. You create, then, a Monolithic entity called modern literary criticism, and all must adhere to your definition. In fact, your entire analysis is based on the variance between the flexibility of interpretation (mandated by modern literary criticism) and the Moral Absolutes supported by the "Purists". That's quite the Absolutist point of view. For myself, modern literary criticism does not necessitate looking at any particular work from any particular point of view. Rather, it stresses examining the context of the author's work--the time in which he lived, the experiences he underwent, his own thoughts on what he created--in addition to rote examination and dissection of the text. To that end, there may be multiple interpretations possible. But then again, there may not.

I claim that people bring their own cultural values and norms and ways of looking at the world with them when they read a book. You (appear to) disagree.

My disagreement stems from the Absolute way in which "reality" is stated. I find it quite amusing given the tenor of your argument.

Does your mind go blank when you open the pages of a book? How do you seperate culture from language? An obvious example: what does the word "gay" mean to you? You will be instantly aware of two meanings, one new and one old. The moment you read that word, you have to start choosing how to interpret it.

I happen to agree about individuals bringing their own backgrounds, but I find it interesting that you do so, since the premise of your analysis is that the group called the "Purists" is a culture unto its own. You seem to say that the Culture of the Purists is that of Moral Absolutism. So then would you argue that the Purists all have essentially the same background, and that Moral Absolutism colors every aspect of that background?

I'm sorry that you(?) "really really really hate" the movies... I've been told off many times for even suggesting that purists hate the movies.

I have no problem saying that I despise the movies as adaptations of Tolkien. And as movies in their own right, I find them extremely banal. I think of Peter Jackson as a poor director who is interested in primarily the grotesque, and I think of he and his fellow writers as rather boorish.

When filming a movie based on a book, the filmmaker obviously exercises interpretation by deciding what is essential to the telling of the tale, and what is not, what will make for a good movie, and what needs to be reworked.

In a sense, that is indeed interpretation. If deletions were the only issue, it wouldn't be much of an issue. Sure, I personally chafe at the fact that the scene at the Gate of Minas Tirith was left out. But that was Jackson's decision, and while I think he is a moron for deciding to leave it out, it did not fit with what he wanted. Fine. But for most people it is the addition of "unwarranted matter" and the alteration of that which remains that is so irksome.

That is not interpretation. That is creation of, as you correctly state, a new work. Understand, I do not find that process of "plagiarism" objectionable only because it's Tolkien, but with any work. But I'm just not a big fan of Wuthering Heights, so I wouldn't state my opinion so strongly regarding the evils done to that work.

This doesn't remove the ability of the viewer to interpret: the viewer now interprets the new work, ie the movie. That some have found in PJ's movies a tale of moral ambiguity and anti-heroes epitomising the decadence of Hollywood, while others have found it an inspiring tale of good vs evil is probably as clear a case of this as you could wish for!

Bully for them. I find Peter Jackson's lack of creativity to lack integrity (how's that for Absolutism?): if you want to make a new movie with your own point, then don't use someone else's creation to do so. Come up with something original, something of your own--even if it is imitation, at least it does not appropriate someone else's work for your own purposes.

 

[jallan]

Snaga posted:

You may use this as a basis for rejecting my opinions if you wish, and undoubtedly that would be sufficient to invalidate it if I were presenting this as a rigorous study. I am not.

It is therefore more sufficient to invalidate it when you yourself will not and cannot support the foundations of your argument. You admit your argument such as it is to be weakly supported. I find it no more than innuendo.

But I suspect that you would dismiss a more professionally conducted study as "pseudo-intellectual" if you didn't agree with it.

If so, that would be wrong, unless the study could be shown to be biased or otherwise inadequate. But that someone might disagree with such a study for the wrong reasons is irrelevant to the strengths of your argument. Your suspicion is irrelevant innuendo.

I reject the notion of a single interpretation of art.

You claim to. But you also become perturbed when others disagree with your interpretations. In any case, rejection of the notion of a single interpretation of art does not mean that you or anyone is compelled to equally accept all interpretations.

This doesn't remove the ability of the viewer to interpret: the viewer now interprets the new work, ie the movie. That some have found in PJ's movies a tale of moral ambiguity and anti-heroes epitomising the decadence of Hollywood, while others have found it an inspiring tale of good vs evil is probably as clear a case of this as you could wish for!

Evasion. No-one has questioned that viewers interpret and interpret differently. But do you continue to pretend that all attempts at criticism and analysis of Jackson’s films or Tolkien’s writing or any creative work are entirely equal?

Some find Mein Kampf to be an inspiring program for good. Some still believe that Saddam had numerous mass weapons of destruction ready for immediate deployment.

That people have different opinions on matters does not make a case that all opinions are equally valid. You appear to suggest that all opinions are equal without exactly saying it and don’t apply this rule to your own opinions, including your apparent opinion about such opinions and viewpoints.

In the film Gandalf and Aragorn both urged Théoden to ride out immediately to confront the Orcs. Théoden refused their advice and instead evacuated Edoras and used his troops to escort them to Helm&#8217s Deep. Théoden also wanted to kill Gríma but spared him on Aragorn’s urging.

So in the films Théoden and Aragorn have different opinions. Are all opinions equal? Who is right? In the film Théoden is shown to be right on every count, save that Théoden should have had the sense to also summon Éomer by sending men he would trust as messengers and urging Éomer to bring his forces to Helm’s Deep. To not do so was idioctic but was contrived by Jackson to supply Gandalf with something to do parallel to Gandalf’s actions in the source. (But one can make make a case that Gandalf on Shadowfax would reach Éomer more quickly.)

All opinions are not equal within the film. And all opinions about whether Jackson’ contrivances justify Aragorn’s arguments or Théoden’s arguments are not equal. Jackson fails badly here for any viewer who thinks about the arguments compared to what actually happens.

All points of view are not equal.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

To begin with (before we get all hot and bothered), this entire matter is extremely subjective. One might be able to objectively argue that Jackson did/did not do a good rendering of a character or plot line vis a vie the book, but all the rest has to do with whether or not the poster liked or did not like what was done in the films - or, for that matter, the book! And, of course, when it comes to what I, individually, like, who better than me to express it? No one can with any credibility at all deign to tell me what I do and/or don't like! Therefore, when the debate descends into likes and dislikes, it ceases to be a supportable debate and becomes merely the expression of opinion. It remains a debate only insofar as something is being said that may be objectively defended or refuted.

We have had virtually scads of folks who hated the films as adaptations of the book but liked them - even loved them - as films. In the same way, we have had film lovers for whom the book was a distant second insofar as their approval rating was concerned. Then we had those for whom the films failed (I am one) not only as adaptations but even as unrelated fantasy films; there were simply too many holes and too much hoopla for them to hang together for me. But in each and every one of the above cases, it boils down to the individual person's opinion. One man's meat is another's poison, as the old saying goes - and it makes absolutely no sense to continually debate that which cannot be debated: personal taste.

 

[rs691919]

I'm still hoping for a response to my response!

 

[rs691919]

Drat, still no reply.

 

[simbelmyne]

LOL. Maybe a summary of what your points were/are would help get the ball rolling again ...

 

[joxy]

Simbelmyne: This is from #254:

....if you want to make a new movie with your own point, then don't use someone else's creation to do so.

But if you must, then do it well.
It's precisely where Jackson uses his own creation that he makes the worst parts of his product.
That's hardly surprising, considering the qualities of his writers compared to those of the original creator.

 

[aragil]

A few simple questions:

What do people here speculate to be the proportion of the movie going public who find the LotR mavies to be a poor product (i.e., that the movies were not 'done well')? How about proportion of film critics? How about proportion of industry professionals?

How many people here think that screenwriters exist who are better writers than Tolkien?

How many people here acknowledge that Tolkien himself was unavailable for screenwriting?

How many people here believe that a book has ever been adapted to screen without 'inventions' by the screenwriters?

Just curious, as some posts on the subject seem to be decidedly outside of what I'd expect as reasonable answers to these questions.

 

[joxy]

A few simple questions.

0% 0% 0%
0% (that's for the question as you word it: "better writers", not "better screenwriters")
100%
0%

 

[aragil]

The wording is as I intended, and your answers are as I thought any reasonable person would answer. However, they seem to go against the general grain of your previous post.

 

[joxy]

....they seem to go against the general grain of your previous post.

I can see only ONE answer to one question that MIGHT be taken as going against the grain of PART OF my previous post:
Q.: ".... proportion of the movie going public who find the LotR mavies to be a poor product."
A.: "0%"

I've never thought the whole of the films to be "poor". The relevant comment in my previous post was specifically that the parts of his product that PJ produced by his own creation are the worst, or indeed poorer, PARTS of the films. The films are not "poor" full stop/period; they are not "good" full stop/period either.