• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

What Tolkien May Have Thought...

Ugh. If we're to believe that it is impossible for a moth and an eagle to communicate without the latter eating the former, then what is our take on Beorn? Eagles are described in the Hobbit as eating large things- sheep for instance. I can't imagine a timy moth providing much sustenance for a "great" eagle. On the other hand, Beorn is a bear-man who lives peacefully with sheep, ponies, and dogs. I've ran across a bear or two in my life- none of them looked like I could trust them to cuddle up with a pony. Complaining about moth-eagle interactions is exactly what I would call symptomatic of complaining about something in the movie that you (presumably) enyoy in the books.
 
aragil said:
Complaining about moth-eagle interactions is exactly what I would call symptomatic of complaining about something in the movie that you (presumably) enyoy in the books.
Click to expand...

The difference is that moth-eagle interactions don't occur in Tolkien's writing. Of course there are "fantastical" things that Tolkien writes about; but they are things that he writes about. They are part of his world, and once you accept that they are part of his world, you have accepted the process of subcreation. The moth is creation of Jackson. To a reader of Tolkien, seeing a moth substitute for Radagast is jarring because it pulls us out of that secondary world, and we pretty much have to wonder what the hell is going on.

Now, the viewer that has never read Tolkien may not notice anything at all other than a moth: it is just another fantastical thing in this subcreated world. As a plot device, however, it seems a tad silly.
 
rs691919 said:
Now, the viewer that has never read Tolkien may not notice anything at all other than a moth: it is just another fantastical thing in this subcreated world. As a plot device, however, it seems a tad silly.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would have made much more sense to have and eagle fly there, and explain that Radagast, a wizard you can read from in the hobbit sent him. That would have been much better.
 
Ol'gaffer said:
Yes, it would have made much more sense to have and eagle fly there, and explain that Radagast, a wizard you can read from in the hobbit sent him. That would have been much better.
Click to expand...

Yep, it would have. Talking Eagles and Radagast are part of Tolkien's world; talking moths are not. The moth doesn't make any sense from the standpoint of adaptation of Tolkien's book; but in terms of internal consistency within the movies themselves, the moth is just silly.
 
There is evidence in Tolkien's work that hounds, ravens, thrushes, wolves, and spiders talk. There is evidence that trees and foxes think to themselves in a manner similar to humans. There is evidence that horses and crebain can be reliably used as spies, thusly requiring that they can communicate with humans. Even Bill the Pony is allowed to communicate quite clearly to Sam.
Is there any evidence that would say that moths are fundamentally different than the above mentioned creatures, i.e., that they can not facilitate comunication between humans and other animals? Unless you can provide some evidence specifically addressing moths and their abilities, I would say that "talking moths" (I'd say a deliberate misnomer- the moth never "talks") seem to fit into Tolkien's subcreation at least as well as non-talking moths, probably better. Saying that they do not "make any sense from the standpoint of adaptation of Tolkien's book" is, well, rather exactly what I've been talking about: ignoring the books for a chance of casting asparagus on the movie.
In terms of a plot device- precisely why is it silly? I mentioned that from a symbollic perspective it certainly fits in well. It applies right to Saruman's achilles heel: his tendency to overlook the natural world when involved with his machinations for conquest. But I suppose that when you look only to find fault, well, then just about anything can be described as "silly".
 

I think you are overlooking something: namely, that no moth appears in any of Tolkien's writing. One can look high and low through The Lord of the Rings and any of Tolkien's supplementary works, and one will not be able to find anything about a moth--still less a moth that comes to Isengard and communicates first with Gandalf and later with Gwaihir. Thus, from the standpoint of adaptation, it makes no sense because it is a complete fabrication on the part of the screenwriters. Is the moth possible, considering Tolkien's assigning sentient behavior to other animals? I guess so. But, as I have stated elsewhere, we are dealing here with literature. This is a book; a story. The moth is nowhere evident in that story. So it makes no sense.


aragil said:
In terms of a plot device- precisely why is it silly?
Click to expand...

It's silly because it's a moth. It's silly because, as a plot device, it doesn't really explain itself and is rather confusing.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Tolkien was so busy making all the other animals communicate that he didn't have time to include the delicate little moth.

Moths are not silly! Did you know that moths can navigate by the moon and stars? Are the largest insects in N America? The Luna moth has no mouth and never eats or drinks? I guess the real question is, do you care?

I think PJ's moth fits very nicely in with the theme of even the smallest person can change the course of the future. The Eagles are so powerful and grand - I appreciate the homage to somthing tiny that most people would just ignore as a bug. Besides, Saruman was bound to get suspicious if the orcs had reported there was an eagle hovering around the imprisoned Gandalf...
 
I finally found the quote I was thinking of (by Leto), and in the process came across a few more:

Here, here, and here Mrs. Maggott (a Purist by anyone's definition) explained to joxy why the moth worked for her, calling it "corking good cinema", and saying that it "definitely do{es}n't go against the grain of the tale".

Here's an example of my good friend Aldanil (who is, unfortunately, a Purist) responding to joxy quite directly by saying "I don't so much mind the moth".

jallan, while not quite a purist, is a person who is not shy of saying he doesn't like the films. Yet here, here, and here (an ongoing discussion in which joxy was quite active) he fairly gushes about the moth, saying it "worked wonderfully", for him, and indeed that it "worked for most people".

Finally Leto, who might not be precisely a purist, but who does tend to be negative when discussing the movie, had this nice thing to say to (surprise) joxy while explaining why the moth was one of the better parts of FotR: Very well put, Leto. (He also speculates that the moth in the movie is simbelmyne's non-eating, non-drinking Luna Moth!)

I think I can now add simbelmyne's post to the list, though I'm not sure if she'd characterize herself as an "ardent purist" either- but she's definitely been vocal about some creative differences she has with PJ! What do you know, here's another example of simbelmyne explaining to joxy that she likes the moth scene, even though there is much else she doesn't care for.

Of course, there probably have been some purists who have complained about the moth. I've even seen some, though most of them fall into the same category as rs691919's (surprisingly) lame "The moth doesn't make any sense from the standpoint of adaptation of Tolkien's book ... Is the moth possible, considering Tolkien's assigning sentient behavior to other animals? I guess so." / "It's silly because it's a moth." Here's a clever reversal for you: It's not silly because it's a moth.
The moth clearly fits into Tolkien's world, it equally clearly expresses some of Tolkien's themes, and it does so precisely because it is just a humble moth. Many Purists can see that, and are not afraid to admit that they can see something nice coming out of Jackson's work, even though they might feel otherwise about the work as a whole. If even rs691919 can say "I guess" that the moth fits into Tolkien's world, then I suppose my point is proven, even if neither rs691919 nor joxy cares to admit it.
 
At the risk of repeating myself but wishing to give credit where credit is due:

* applauds aragil's post *

Well spoken!
 
Aragil, I must say. That was a great post.

And as for rs691919, you've made your point clear. Nothing can be good that the writers made, even if it can be explained rationally and can be used well in the movie. You apparently believe that only the book can be used in the screenplay and everything that the writers made is just stupid fabrications.

Even when you are confronted with the idea that if every other animal speaks in Tolkiens world, why can't a moth? You only counter with,

This is a book; a story. The moth is nowhere evident in that story. So it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

And to answer, this is a movie. The moth is evident ther, it serves as a saviour of Gandalf for the audience, and so far everyone I've talked to, has said that they loved the moth. That it was a beautiful moment to see it flying innocently there in middle of all that destruction. And it worked again to notify the audience of the coming of the eagles in the end of RotK, people recognized the moth and it most certainly wasn't confusing like you said. It certainly is better than having the eagles to just appear again and in the middle of the battle to have a eagle swoop down and tell Gandalf and the audience what the heck they're doing there...
 
I agree.

The moth was there as a substitute to Radagast, to save having to introduce another Wizard to the audience. The moth wasn't called Radagast (not like how JRR Tolkien was critisizing Zimmerman for calling an Eagle 'Radagast'), but was just something that needed less explaining then having to say who this new Wizard was- yet another case of vulgarisation: something that Tolkien said that he would accept if LotR was portrayed in a visual media. This first appearance of the moth made the audience associate the moth with the coming of Eagles, and I found it to be quite a nice touch to see the moth appear at the Black Gates.
 
I just thought a moth was a bit fragile and short-lived for the job.

And maybe it didin't talk. It listened to Gandalf, and the Eagles (maia, in some explanations) may have had other means of understanding the moth than audio. Interesting that it spotted the need a second time, bringing the Eagles to the Black Gate. That's some smart moth!
 
Ol'gaffer said:
Nothing can be good that the writers made, even if it can be explained rationally and can be used well in the movie.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think rs# is saying quite that.

And while I'm all for the moth in FOTR, it really isn't very "rational", is it? Moths are tiny creatures...it probably would have taken months and months for it to reach the eagles in the Misty Mountains, if it didn't die first. And there's no rational explanation for why a moth would be fluttering around in the intense battle in front of the Black Gates. It would have had to leave the mountains several months before the eagles. Just so it could flutter above Gandalf's head for about 3 seconds before the eagles show up. It's not logical, but still good cinema.
 
Well, there's an awful lot of you who ARE serious!
I've read you all, carefully, and you all strike me as sincere in your belief that the moth was a wonderful creative stroke, and that it moved some of you almost to tears.
The result: I'm more incredulous than ever; I've joined the John McEnroe fan club and hope he'll come and shout at you all: "you can't be serious".
The first time I saw the moth I thought I'd suddenly been switched into a different film, maybe some throwback from PJ's previous oeuvre. It was hilarious, ludicrous, and I simply laughed at it, as others here have said they did. It doesn't even look like a moth; it's more like a miniature pterodactyl. What IS it doing: the moth equivalent of talking, or some form of telepathy? Why couldn't the eagle just get there on its own without any intermediary? What has Jackson himself ever said to explain it??
It's all so absurd that I feel like something from Alice in Wonderland trying even to discuss it.
Thanks for telling - and reminding! -me about all those on "this" side who love it. Mrs M's high praise and Leto's poetic outpouring,
in particular, astonish and impress me in equal measure. I withdraw my comment about that aspect.
However, I'm still delighted to remain a solitary exception! I think it was a weird concoction of PJ's imagination that he, they, and you, are welcome to. WHY, of all things, a MOTH?!

That's all from the strictly film point of view; from the aspect of adaptation then of course I am totally with rs in saying that certainly Tolkien invented all manner of strange things, but he specifically didn't invent a communicating moth, or any other kind of moth, and therefore the moth has no justification in reference to the works. If PJ had happened to have a particular fondness for some other member of the mighty animal kingdom, that Tolkien had inexplicably failed to include in his works, and if he had then devised some equally vital role for it, that could not have been validated either by reference to Tolkien.
 
Last edited:
Ol'gaffer said:
Nothing can be good that the writers made, even if it can be explained rationally and can be used well in the movie.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there is confusion between rational explanation and rationalization. So far, I've seen a good deal of rationalization.


Ol'gaffer said:
You apparently believe that only the book can be used in the screenplay and everything that the writers made is just stupid fabrications.
Click to expand...

If the writers made something up, then it is indeed fabrication on their part. They (and others) may believe (or rationalize) that their fabrications are "rational" or "symbolic", and in some cases they may be correct. But they remain fabrications.


Ol'gaffer said:
Even when you are confronted with the idea that if every other animal speaks in Tolkiens world, why can't a moth?
Click to expand...

Are you perhaps confused with the Narnia stories by C.S. Lewis? Some animals in Tolkien's writing demonstrate sentient abilities, some do not. The fact remains that there is no moth anywhere in Tolkien's writing, and thus Jackson's use of one in his movie is a complete fabrication.
 
joxy said:
It doesn't even look like a moth; it's more like a miniature pterodactyl.
Click to expand...
Rather your own strange opinion, I'm afraid. The moth flying over Orthanc was computer animation, the moth in Gandalf's hand (the close-up shot) was an actual living, breathing moth. I don't know if you're complaining about realism or just saying that that particular brand of moth appeared strange to you, but if it's not too late I'd suggest the latter.

You and rs691919 are ignoring something essential here. In Tolkien's world, almost all creatures are possessed of some sentience, and can be communicated with for good or ill by man/hobbit/dwarf/elf/orc/ainur. PJ's moth fits right into this world through simple extrapolation- an explicit mention is not required, if we are willing to use the grey matter resting between our ears (an exercise which I recommend, whether viewing a movie or reading a book). It also expresses thematic material from the books. Saying it doesn't belong in the books because it wasn't actually in the books is a willfull neglect of our own mental faculty.
 

To expand upon my lame response: this moth does not fit clearly into Tolkien's world. Would it be possible in his world? Yeah, I guess. So would a talking squirrel, a fungus that could throttle an Orc, pebbles that could hurl themselves at enemies so that Merry and Pippin wouldn't have to. It all depends on how far into the realm of the ridiculous you can tolerate adventuring.

In a story that deals with the fantastic, as does Tolkien's, there are of course elements which require suspension of disbelief--or as Tolkien preferred, entering into a Secondary world. But the limits on that Secondary world are limits that Tolkien himself set. Thus, he does not give us communicating rodents, violent fungi, or sentient stones. Nor does he give us moths that interact with wizards and eagles. Therefore, ascribing some kind of high thematic undertones--in this case, "sanctification of the humble" (which Tolkien reserved primarily for the Hobbits) or "Nature vs. Machine" (which Tolkien reserved primarily for the Ents)--is simply a form of rationalization of changes which Jackson made to the text. The moth, then, does not make sense from the standpoint of adaptation because it does not occur in Tolkien's world.

Now, Jackson and his merry band of writers clearly used the moth as a substitute for Radagast, whom they did not wish to introduce (because reputedly introductions are "death in cinema"). Thus, the moth is a pure plot device. As a plot device, it may work for some; I, however, find it silly. When I first watched the movie, I didn't follow it at all initially. It was confusing, and above all, it was amusing in its ridiculousness.
 
Wow. I agree, a talking squirrel would fit into Tolkien's world, just as much as a talking raven or a thinking fox. Do you have evidence to support the fungus or the rocks, or are you purposefully being quite ridiculous in order to try and make the moth look ridiculous? The latter seems rather like the last resort of someone who has no sound argument in the first place.

Let me get this straight: in an adaptation you are only allowed to present themes in exactly the same way as the author. Would that be a fair characterization of your argument?
Another question: Why would someone who has continually expressed a fervent dislike of the movie try to rationalize thematic material in it?
A third question: Is not admitting to being in error more important to you than any shred of credibility?

rs691919 said:
The moth, then, does not make sense from the standpoint of adaptation because it does not occur in Tolkien's world.
Click to expand...
Right. Anything not explicitly mentioned in the book does not belong in the adaptation, regardless of whether it follows the pattern of things which do occur in the book, and regardless of whether or not it expresses the themes of the book. Hmm. Care to mention any acceptable adaptation from book to film?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Similar threads

  • Solved
Should these life forms be considered real in Tolkien's universe?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Ugluk
U
The Mythical status of Tolkien's Works
Replies
2
Views
860
Eldacar
A
Mind’s 👁️Eye Hobbit 4-CD: Need Track Times (Have BBC Indices to Share)
Replies
0
Views
155
Arvidd
A
R
Tolkien's latest thoughts about the fate of Aman and Tol Eressea
Replies
6
Views
2K
Ricardo
R
  • Question
Was JRR Tolkien his own plagiarist?
Replies
12
Views
783
Wetwang
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…