XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article ,   
    Troels Forchhammer  wrote:   
      
   > >> And, since most of these characters in PJ's /LOTR/ were not the   
   > >> same as JRRT's characters, even though they had the same name and   
   > >> (at a sufficiently abstract level) the same roles, saying that   
   > >> they are back does not suggest that this film's characters will   
   > >> match JRRT's. Quite the contrary, in fact.   
   > >   
   > > There is a difference between a "character" and your   
   > > "interpretation of a character". One fits in an objective   
   > > discussion and one does not   
   >   
   > Based on our earlier problem with widely different working   
   > definitions of the word 'story'   
      
   I can't recall any such problems, care to refresh my memory?   
      
   > I strongly suspect that your   
   > definition of /character/ is restricted to more or less name, gender   
   > and race (and possibly a very reductionist, abstract summary of   
   > role), whereas I equally strongly suspect that Paul is including what   
   > might otherwise be termed /personality/  ;-)   
      
   As do I, so your assumption proved incorrect. My point, as it seems to   
   have eluded you, was that as opposed to name, gender and race - a   
   characters personality is for the most part an objective   
   interpretation of the description of said personality, based on ones   
   own experience, reference frames and other social and upbringin   
   context important to correlate personality traits with values.   
      
   A personality trait that appears stupid to one person could appear   
   heoric and clever to another.   
      
   I.e. subjective.   
      
   > The personality of a character can of course be discussed just fine   
   > in an objective discussion, and there is a universal agreement that   
   > the personality of the characters in Jackson's story is generally   
   > very different from the personality of the same characters in   
   > Tolkien's story -- even among the Tolkien scholars (including the   
   > top-rank Tolkien scholar) who have only positive things to say about   
   > Jackson's films.   
      
   I'm fine with that :)   
      
   > Whatever you may think thereof, this is not a matter of someone's   
   > "interpretation of a character" but of carefully reading Tolkien's   
   > story for what is there, and carefully watching Jackson's story for   
   > what is in that.   
      
   Yeah, so what you're trying to say is that "reading" and   
   "interpreting" has nothing to do with one another, and that the   
   personality of Tolkiens characters can be read in only one valid way.   
   I'm sure you'll find it as no surprise that I don't agree with this in   
   any way, shape or form.   
      
   > In other words, in a normal understanding of /character/, Paul is   
   > entirely correct in asserting that "most of these characters in PJ's   
   > /LOTR/ were not the same as JRRT's characters"   
      
   Incorrect.   
      
   > (and in many cases their personality was fundamentally rewritten in   
   > Mr Jackson's story).   
      
   Or rather, portrayed in such a way where your interpretation of them   
   were different than your interpretation when you read about them in   
   the books. Which is fine and all. And very much subjective.   
      
   > This has nothing to do with liking or   
   > disliking the New Line Cinema /LotR/ films -- this is merely an   
   > objective observation of fact.   
      
   Subjective.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)