Christian Virtues Tolkien

[Mercutio]

I realize now that I didn't mean the virtues were inherently Christian.

If you doubt the presence of Christianity in Lord of the Rings, Tolkien himself wrote the book "is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciuosly in the revision," and later "I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic. The latter 'fact' perhaps cannot be deduced."

Please read some of these articles:

This one

Another

[Fat middle]

Originally posted by Ultimatejoe
As it was published Tolkien envisioned a world where the fate of the world was a mystery, even to Eru.

I don't think the fate of the world is a mystery to Eru. He decides to let the free will of his creatures to play a very important part, but he has absolute foreknowledge of their fate.

He also can interferre in the history if he wants as we see him doing during the Music of the Ainur and as we perceive him doing in other momments of the story through comments about "luck".

In Christian terms we are all creations of God. In Tolkien the Eruhini are creations to be sure, but they also posess the Flame Imperishable; making them creative entities of their own, which he can no more command than he could Melkor.

That concept of the Flame Imperishable seems very related to how Thomas Aquinas explains "being" and the participation in the "perfect being".

[Ultimatejoe]

Thomism is definitely an element of any vestigal traces of Tolkien's Middle-Earth (and I have read the two articles.)

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Mercutio
If you believe that Tolkien acknowledged a "created order," Eowen's breaking that (when, in the movie, she fights--normally at this point a task for the men), she would be, in part, rebelling against this "created order."

I'd agree with that; look at her eventual fate- she becomes 'healed' by giving up war and the ideal of the shield-maiden.

I think Tolkien was very clear that Eowyn's attitude came from twisted motives.

Galadriel, though....

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Mercutio
[B]Strength, Goodness, Simplicity

Elrond--powerful, but nothing if not courteous. He may be stern, but should always be kind. The movie only portrays that strength with a scowl--he has "chip on his shoulder", a grievance with Isildur who did not destroy the Ring when he had the chance. The elves are suppsoedly renowned for merriment and singing, but he never smiles and is alwasys acerbic and irascible.

The hobbits suffer the worst, though. Tolkien's hobbits are simple but virturous. We laugh at them with the warm laughter of finding a friend in an unexpected place; they also win small battles of friendship and loyalty that finally add up to great victories over evil. Merry and Pippin are reduced to mere buffoonery and comic relief. Insteda of laughing in sympathy with them over their desire for more meals in the day, we laugh at their slapstick antics as Pippin gets hit in the head with an apple. Loveable, yes, but not to be taken seriously.

Agree, totally, on both- with the proviso that Merry and Pippin do grow in the end.

Also, Sam in Rivendell whining to go home

Frodo is undercut in two scenes:
1. Council of Elrond--in the books and the movies Frodo's offer is with the same words: "I will take the Ring, though I do not know the way." In Tolkien's presentation, this sacrifice is made in the midst of silence. The wise have come to an impasse in their deliberations. Because they are wise, they are not willing to impose such a heavy burden on anyone. They all sit with downcast eyes until Frodo the halfing offers himself on the altar of necessity. The movies turns this willing self-sacrifice into a brawl, where the hatreds and prejudices of the Elves, Dwarves, and Men devolve almost into a melee. Frodo makes his offer in this pathetic wasteland of virtue as a way of breaking up the fight. The other characters at the Council are reduced to fueding adolescents, not the wise and noble of Middle-earth. One wonders how they can possibly form a cohesive and supportive Fellowship of the Ring to support the halfing Ring-bearer, since he seems to be only a compromise candidate among the other races.

Though I agree that the quarrelling was a terrible addition, I don't think it undercuts Frodo's sacrifice- it seems to me to be just as weighty as in the book.

2. His decision to leave the Fellowship and go to Mordor alone. This is a complex decision: In the book, the chief reason is the protection of the rest of the Company. He knows they will follow him faithfully anywhere, and he does not want them to succumb to the power of the Ring. He leaves them, trying to save them from their own virtue. This too is lost in the movie. Sam insists on accompanying him (also in the book), yet Frodo recieves permission and assistance from his other friends to go to Mordor without them. His decision is based solely on the fear of the Ring's power over the Company (and perhaps its effect on his own safety), and the other members are deprived of their opportunity to be righteous. They have abandoned their responsiblity.

Disagree here- it simply extends to Merry and Pippin the same decision that Aragorn made- (which was, in the book, totally irresponsible.)

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Mercutio
[B]Evil & Temptation

In Tolkien's Middle Earth, evil is simply the rejection and the absence of goodness and virtue. In the book, Elrond speaks "For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so."

If nothing s evil in the beginning, then the twisting of the character to evil is the long process of the soul's rejection of goodness and virtue. In some one powerful, this leads to Sauron. In some one not powerful, it leads to Gollum.

One cannot expect the movie to portray this entire process of decline into evil, but one can expect it to capture the essence of temptation in the scenes in which it is addressed. In two parallel scenes, Galadriel and Bilbo are tempted by the evil power of the ring. In the book, both temptation scenses are masterful renditions of the seduction of evil. The two characters musst master themselves, their own desire for power, not some external force that seeks to dominate over them. Jackson, however, imposes animated special effects over both characters in their moments of temptation. It is a visual imposition that seems to imply they are "not themselves", that they are "overwhelmed" by somtheing from without.

I'd disagree with this about Galadriel- it states pretty clearly in the book that this is how she looked to Frodo. I didn't think the 'photo-negative' effect was very good, but something of the sort was called for.

"She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful."

As for Bilbo, again, this is how he looked to Frodo- I have wondered how this scene looked to people who haven't read the book- did they realize the change was in Frodo's perception, rather than a real change in Bilbo?

How else would you convey this?
"You know, Bilbo, for a minute there I had an urge to strike you..."

And (very briefly) the Orcs. In Tolkien's depiction, they are Men and Elves,twisted and broken over centuries. Hordes. Individually faceless, but not particularly threatening. Not individual personalities. Jackson misses this point. He spends huge amounts of time on individual orcs. They have become persons to be reckoned with. Their lack of virtue made them personalities, individually important. They only place they are really frightening as a horde is in the mines of Moria.

Disagree here- from the book, Ugluk and Grishnakh, Gorbag and Shagrat- (though the Orc captain at Pelnnor fields had too big a role.)

[Mercutio]

Interesting comments/ideas GrayMouser.