What Tolkien May Have Thought...

[joxy]

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.

The moth follows no pattern that I've ever discerned in many years of reading Tolkien.
The only effect it might have, if such a matter were worth considering, on the themes of the book, would be to make fun of them.

 

[rs691919]

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?

In Tolkien's writing there are trees that can move and think and destroy an entire army of Orcs. It stands to reason, then, that the same could be true of any form of vegetation. Well, fungi are of course not vegetation but a kingdom unto themselves, if my distant memory of biologic classifcation is not too fogged. So if you prefer, take geraniums or any form of shrubbery or any plant you like. Any plant should be able to behave similarly to the Huorns, which are indeed a part of Tolkien's world--and it would symbolize nature banding together to defeat the machines of industry.

Also in Tolkien's writing is a mountain that has a "spirit" of its own which can hurl snow at the Fellowship and force them to take a different road. And a mountain is really just a big rock formation, right? So why not have smaller rocks which can behave in a sentient manner? Like Caradhras, these pebbles and stones could hurl themselves at the Orcs of Helm Deep--and it would symbolize humble little rocks making a difference in the course of events. Even more importantly, they would serve as an illustration of the choice that all in Middle-earth face: the big mountain chose to serve evil; the little stones chose to resist temptation.

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?

No, not entirely. Firstly, the director and screenwriters are allowed to do anything they wish within the bounds of their contractual obligations. Secondly, there are some mechanical differences between text and film that would require rearrangement and rewriting. Thus, I have no misconceptions that there will ever be an "exact" translation. Finally, the creation of material which purports to illustrate Tolkien's themes does not substitute for the portrayal of those themes as Tolkien originally intended. Thus, the santification of the humble, a very important theme in Tolkien, can be illustrated by the moth--but not at the expense of illustrating it through the story of the Hobbits. In this case, however, I fear the moth is nothing but a plot device in the minds of the writers, and it is others who have rationalized its presence into containing themes which were crucial to Tolkien's literary art.

Another question: Why would someone who has continually expressed a fervent dislike of the movie try to rationalize thematic material in it?

I'm not sure I understand this question; could you clarify it?

A third question: Is not admitting to being in error more important to you than any shred of credibility?

Well, that depends on a lot of factors. Where specifically do you consider me to be in error, and what is so incredible about what I have posted?

Care to mention any acceptable adaptation from book to film?

One that comes immediately to mind is Schindler's List. Which is a bit of a cheat, because the novel did not tell a story in a linear, traditional sense and therefore lent itself to a more liberal adaptation in terms of mechanics. Another that was relatively decent was the first Harry Potter movie.

 

[joxy]

....it is others who have rationalized its presence into containing themes which were crucial to Tolkien's literary art.

The selection of "rationalisations" that were quoted, from "this" side of the general debate, certainly surprised me. I found it very hard to see what substance there was in them, and I very much doubt that they were in accord with anything that PJ actually intended. I don't see anything in the rest of the films that suggests that he has any interest in such subtle matters.

I've always seen the moth as just another example of a line of curious but trivial PJisms which include broken carrots, squirrel droppings, boxes of salt, indigestion, worms, and orcs' spinal columns. I assumed he was fascinated by such things and wanted
us to share in the pleasure they give him; I don't read any more significance into his moth than I do into any of the others.

 

[aragil]

I've always seen the moth as just another example of a line of curious but trivial PJisms which include broken carrots, squirrel droppings, boxes of salt, indigestion, worms, and orcs' spinal columns. I assumed he was fascinated by such things and wanted us to share in the pleasure they give him

From a book called Lord of the Rings:

Sam eased the pack on his shoulders, and went over anxiously in his mind all the things that he had stowed in it, wondering if he had forgotten anything: his chief treasure, his cooking gear; and the little box of salt that he always carried and refilled when he could;
...
but Sam was a good cook, even by hobbit reckoning, and he had done a good deal of the camp-cooking on their travels, when there was a chance. He still hopefully carried some of his gear in his pack: a small tinder-box, two small shallow pans, the smaller fitting into the larger; inside them a wooden spoon, a short two-pronged fork and some skewers were stowed; and hidden at the bottom of the pack in a flat wooden box a dwindling treasure, some salt.

 

[joxy]

Of course Sam carried salt; and he "carried and refilled it" - a flimsy excuse for intruding it into a moving and dramatic scene, and for switching on the "memories of the Shire" dialogue and music.
Surely I wasn't the only one who was certain that PJ was going to continue the excellence of that scene by having Sam produce his precious box of the earth of Lothlorien?!

 

[simbelmyne]

I found it very hard to see what substance there was in them, and I very much doubt that they were in accord with anything that PJ actually intended...I've always seen the moth as just another example of a line of curious but trivial PJisms...

Well, looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. To me its obvious that PJ WAS intending to carry his theme of the smallest creatures changing the future. He certainly echoed that theme enough times in the preview. The moth was the focus of the entire scene, complete with a close-up and beautiful music (IMO). The bad taste and quick gags belong in another category all together, and do seem afterthoughts of an "overactive" imagination. Although I have to confess I laugh at the broken carrot.

Yeah, I gasped when I thought the box was Sam's soil. That's one of my favorite parts of the book. Although after the initial let down, the salt didn't offend me - I was too busy being repulsed by Gimli.

So if there had been no moth, what would have taken its place? Besides Radagast - anyone who hadn't read the book would not understand why he wasn't helping Gandalf. Matter of fact some of us who read the book don't completely understand either (don't see the explanantion as enough).

 

[aragil]

Of course Sam carried salt; and he "carried and refilled it" - a flimsy excuse for intruding it into a moving and dramatic scene, and for switching on the "memories of the Shire" dialogue and music.
Surely I wasn't the only one who was certain that PJ was going to continue the excellence of that scene by having Sam produce his precious box of the earth of Lothlorien?!

1) PJ had already changed Sam's gift from Lorien from earth to rope. Since Sam didn't have the box of earth, it would have been hard for him to drop it (although yes, I too hoped for it upon my first view of the EE).
2) Sam didn't just carry it in the book, he also treasured it. Twice it is mentioned in the books, twice it is mentioned as an special treasure of Sam's. Tolkien doesn't use the word "treasure" lightly- it was very important in the books to Sam. Saying that it was overblown in the movie is, well, ignoring what is written in the book. Not that there isn't plenty of that going around.

 

[rs691919]

I'm still curious as to why a moth is compatible with Tolkien's writing but a vicious geranium or intelligent pebble is not.

In the meantime, it's interesting that of all the "PJsm's" that joxy lists, only one is commented upon and referenced within the text. Does this mean that the others are indeed not to be found within the original?

Anyways, consider the referenced passage:

Sam eased the pack on his shoulders, and went over anxiously in his mind all the things that he had stowed in it, wondering if he had forgotten anything: his chief treasure, his cooking gear; and the little box of salt that he always carried and refilled when he could;

I wonder if movie Sam refilled his Shire salt--that "little piece of home" which the film so lovingly lionizes--along the way. I guess that either Shire salt is found in places other than the Shire (in which case it is not really a little piece of home) or Jackson simply ignored that part of the passage in order to create an overblown scene involving something that only superficially resembles the book.

 

[joxy]

Thanks for the further quotation, rs, about Sam's salt; it reinforces the points from both of us that there's really no point in trying to explain these "isms" by reference to the books.
Where in the Shire would there be a salt lake or mine, or has it acquired a coastline perhaps?
And why does salt hold a special nostalgic place in the hearts of hobbits? One could go on asking........
I've mentioned before that when I introduced a friend to the superb opening of TTT he was as impressed as I always am, until the salt appeared. Then it was: "what was that all about?", "how can salt, of all things, be special to a place, be reminiscent of it?", "what a load of nonsense!", "how can the same guy produce a superb start like that, and then that triviality?", and he lost interest and I had to switch off the player. That's what the salt does from a strictly film point of view, and it's the sort of reaction that any of the other "isms" could easily produce. They clash within the film, and to those who know the books, they clash with the "real" story.
The "defence", of finding obscure links with the books, really doesn't work. It is one that could indeed be used to justify all manner of talking geraniums and malevolent pebbles. It would be much better, more realistic, if people who like the "isms" simply admitted that they were solely due to the personal delectations of Mr Jackson. I doubt if he would claim more for them than that, though no-one has yet found the quotations from him, about them, that I've enquired for.

Aragil: I've taken a more careful look at the moth scene now, and still feel about it the same way as rs did when first seeing it: baffled as to what is meant to be going on, and mildly amused by the silliness of the whole thing. As the moth flies up from the delvings, conveniently not being attracted, typically moth-like, to the lights, it looks like a cross between a bat and a pterodactyl; when it sits patiently on Gandalf's hand it looks like a spider with wings more like those of a diptera than a lepidoptera, though I am open to hearing which species of the latter it actually is! It then flutters away, again avoiding the lights, and takes - how long? - to find the nearest convenient eagle, avoids being snapped up by the eagle as a morsel, conveys its message, then disappears into PJ's record book. How emotional and meaningful is that? It's simply a bit of PJ's fun, and none the worse for that.

simbelmyne: I've suggested the solution to the Radagast/moth "problem" before: don't have an intermediary at all. Surely any audience that would accept a moth, of all things, without a qualm or a query, would accept that an eagle happened to be flying past, at a height much more appropriate to eagles than to moths, and that Gandalf managed to attract its attention as easily as he was able to grab the moth?
About Radagast's role, it's not exactly the thing from the books that is clearest in my memory right now, but I would have thought the answer was that he didn't know the level of danger that Gandalf was in. He was simply doing what came most naturally to him, using his knowledge of wild life to gather as much information as he could, and taking action on it as he thought best.

 

[Ol'gaffer]

Now it's confirmed, atleast to me.

Joxy and his friend are the pickiest people ever.

"WOW an amazing and brilliant start to a movie! this wil be so good!"

"Huh? Salt? why? it's too confusing! turn it off! turn it off!"


now it's my turn to say:

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!

 

[joxy]

I don't switch off - I just fast-forward!
I hope that software developments will eventually allow me to make a copy - strictly for my own personal use, within the confines of my own home, of course! - with all the little sillinesses edited out! That will economise on the remote control's batteries....
My friend was very doubtful about Tolkien's story being worth watching, and needed some persuading to try it. When he thought the silly bit was Tolkien's work he couldn't be persuaded to keep on trying, even when I told him about Jackson - he knew there'd be more "isms", and he didn't want them.

 

[Greenwood]

Thanks for the further quotation, rs, about Sam's salt; it reinforces the points from both of us that there's really no point in trying to explain these "isms" by reference to the books.

joxy,

Do you actually read the posts or do you just sort of have some sort of knee-jerk nervous reaction that causes you to make silly posts such as the above? RS691919 did not provide any further quotation about Sam's salt from the book, he merely repeated aragil's already posted quotation. You once got upset when I suggested that discussing things with you was a waste of time. It certainly seems like a waste of time for anyone to discuss things with you if you are apparently not even reading the posts.

 

[joxy]

I gave in to an attack from you in another thread about my use of the word "any".
I can't retreat any further, about "further".
(Just dusted off the soh again; to no avail, no doubt)
One word, that you consider inappropriate, renders my whole post "silly", and gives justification for disregarding it?
Of course I knew that rs' quotation was part of the quotation that aragil gave previously.
The word "further" has a multitude of definitions and usages.
One of the usages is common in the business world. It is used in that context when someone wishes or needs to raise a matter again, that has already been discussed. There is no implication in the word of anything additional or new.
I could have been ill-mannered and told rs he was wasting his time by repeating the extract.
I chose the good-mannered alternative of treating his repetition as a helpful reminder of the original quotation,
and as a timely and relevant emphasis of it.

 

[Eledhwen]

The use of words like "silly" and "absurd" in the place of a counter-argument are the first indication that the person making the attack is running out of real arguments, and is only a few posts away from the thread being closed for degenerating into abuse. I am rather enjoying reading these posts (being the one who first coined the phrase "Radagast the Moth" and astonished at the reaction), and I would like to read more. However I would prefer to read scholarly ripostes rather than surly superlatives.

Back to cognitive M-e species: I suspect PJ intended the moth to be operating on the same principle as the talking birds in The Hobbit "Suddenly out of the dark something fluttered to his shoulder. He started - but it was only an old thrush. Unafraid it perched by his ear and it brought him news." The thrush, you remember, brought the Raven to the Dwarves.

However, I can't get past the extremely short livedness of a moth, which even if its life was extended five-fold, would live for less than a week (barring being stomped, swatted or eaten). Therefore I will have to stretch my credulity further and say that the moth was a Maia

 

[joxy]

It's obvious that you realise, Eledhwen, that the first requisite for taking part in this particular thread is a soh!
I really do think that is the only way to approach the little "PJ-isms". I've seen any amount of elaborately worked ideas and theories, trying to account for one or another of them, and haven't seen one yet that hasn't, at best, been mildly amusing,
or, at worst, suggested that the contributor was trying to work a spoof on us all.
I ought to resist joining in the serious analysis, but I am ready to admit that the thrush does take us one stage further down the evolutionary ladder from the eagles, but there's still an awfully long way to go before we reach the world of moths!
The explanations are mostly more curious than the isms themselves, so I prefer, and indeed I think it's kinder to PJ, to think that, rather than going through tortuous mental processes to devise them, he simply dreamed these things up spontaneously, and decided to share his delight in them with us innocent film-viewers.

 

[simbelmyne]

I can't get past the extremely short livedness of a moth, which even if its life was extended five-fold, would live for less than a week

Not to be a NPW, but i think many moths can live up a year. at least i think i remember reading that, but can't be bothered to research it right now. Regardless, Eledhwen, I have to agree it's pretty improbable that the moth made it anywhere furhter than the next light source.

But, hey, I still stand behind it (hopefully not on it), because it is unusual and interesting to look at. Moths are creatures that don't get much play on the big screen - their delicatre beauty is easily overlooked. I'd much rather see a moth than some showy thrush. I think the moth's place in the animal realm is analagous to many "peoples" opinions of hobbits in ME. Both are quietly everywhere but nowhere in many's estimation of greatness.

Ok, PJ might not have taken it to this level, but part of his job is to show us new things. They used a real moth, NOT completely computer generated, and it fit into the story tolerably well. And I admire that.

joxy, whether we are innocent film-goers is, IMO, debatable. . Although the concept brought your jaded self to snicker, was there no part of you that found the real, furry legged moth interesting, or even *gasp* cute?

 

[joxy]

Did I snicker?
Here the only snicker we have is a sort of chocolate biscuit (cookie), so if I did have one, I hope I enjoyed it.
Others have said the moth in close-up is real. Are you sure it was, and if so, what makes you sure?
I've said before it looks to me like a mixture of a miniature pterodactyl and a spider- and with an added soupcon of bat, but I'm open to more detail from any lepidopterists we may have among us here.

 

[aragil]

Best guess

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/r...bratesprog/invertid/bug_details.asp?Bu_ID=136

It sort of reminds me of what we see in the movie, but without the funky antennae. Other possibilities can be viewed here: http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/r...ertebratesprog/invertid/listpage.asp?Ca_ID=24

I'd say the White spotted tussock moth is an exact match, except that it was eradicated from Auckland in 1996.

 

[Inderjit S]

The Ultimate Movie Critic

 

[Eledhwen]

Did I snicker?
Here the only snicker we have is a sort of chocolate biscuit (cookie), so if I did have one, I hope I enjoyed it.

I still call them Marathon bars.

I've said before it looks to me like a mixture of a miniature pterodactyl and a spider- and with an added soupcon of bat, but I'm open to more detail from any lepidopterists we may have among us here.

I'm pretty sure I've seen that sort of moth before ~ you don't forget antennae like that in a hurry. Is it a hawk moth?

The ultimate movie critic This is an excellent piece of work! Having read Tolkien's letters I recognised his comments. Though I'm not sure his criticism of Zimmerman's treatment is quite applicable to PJ's work, the piece is powerful because, even so, they are views expressed by the professor himself.