XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid   
      
   In message    
   Ronald O. Christian  spoke these staves:   
   >   
   > On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 02:39:30 -0400, "Clams Canino"   
   >  wrote:   
   >>   
      
   Thematic content fulfillng the following criteria:   
   - it is an ethical or philosophical question   
   - it is a question that was important to Tolkien   
   - it is treated in both book and films   
   - the solution that is offered is the same   
      
   >> The virtue of  Hope vs the sin of Despair - made it through for   
   >> me.   
      
   It is quite close, at least -- the solution that is offered is not   
   quite the same though, as Jackson's version, in my view, doesn't rely   
   on the 'high hope' or 'trust' (/Estel/) that looks to grace and   
   providence.  But a very good example that nearly makes it ;)   
      
   > Redemption is still possible even for the most wicked.   
      
   Not in Jackson's world, surely -- that is, if not the point, then the   
   effect of his changes to the climb up the stairs to the Pass of the   
   Spider: no near-redemption to Gollum.  Boromir is redeemed in both   
   versions, but the film downplays the sinfulness of his pride (his   
   /ofermod/) quite dramatically, so his 'sin' in the film is to fall   
   prey to active agency of the Master Ring to corrupt and possess those   
   about it. In any case I wouldn't count Boromir as among the wicked in   
   either version.   
      
   > A good man may be tempted to do evil for a good cause.   
      
   Tolkien's version would be that a good man could be tempted to   
   /become/ evil by his desire for /power/ to do good.  Jackson, again   
   in my opinion, de-emphasizes the temptation part quite strongly in   
   favour of the view that it is the Evil that actively corrupts good   
   from the outside, whereas Tolkien's view was mostly that evil has no   
   existence in itself -- it is an absense of good, and the temptation   
   is the temptation to be not good.   
      
   The whole question of the nature of Evil is one where the films   
   offers a markedly different solution from that of Tolkien's work.   
      
   > How does it go?  I don't have the books in front of me.  "He   
   > deserves death."  "Some who are dead deserve life, can you give it   
   > to them?"   
      
       'He deserves death.'   
         'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve   
       death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to   
       them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in   
       judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.'   
       (LotR, I,2)   
   The phrasing is slightly different when Frodo recalls the   
   conversation after meeting Gollum, and the last sentences are changed   
   to   
       Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of   
       justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot   
       see all ends.   
       (LotR, IV, 1)   
      
   The application of this is, however, too inconsistent to be of value   
   in the films (give no mercy for you shall recieve none!).  If you   
   look at the films as a whole the skills to kill others (the warrior   
   skils) are highly praised simply for being good at that. The position   
   that is propounded by the book is expressed explicitly by Faramir in   
   the 'I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow   
   for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory' speech.  In   
   Jackson's version we are exactly presented with a love of the warrior   
   for his glory, of the sword for its sharpness etc.  This ready   
   acceptance and glorification of the warrior undermines the statement   
   about not dealing out death in judgement -- dealing out death in the   
   name of justice, even without fearing for your own life or that of   
   your loved ones, becomes an accepted solution to a problem.  And I am   
   /not/ claiming that Tolkien presents a naturally pacifist view   
   (though some have claimed that he does, but I don't agree with them),   
   but he does present a view in which the killing of others is always   
   regrettable, even if occasionally necessary.   
      
      
   And yes, I do set a rather high bar here -- the point of the last   
   criterion, that the solutions offered are the same, is to ensure that   
   Tolkien would accept the position propounded by the films as a fair   
   representation of his own position.   
      
   --   
   Troels Forchhammer    
   Valid e-mail is    
   Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.   
      
       Giving in is no defeat.   
       Passing on is no retreat.   
       Selves are made to rise above.   
       You shall live in what you love.   
    - Piet Hein, /The Me Above the Me/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)