It started with How the Hobbit should Happen...

[belfalasboy]

On the subject of the Hobbit being made into a Film, I would venture this opinion:

The reason why LoTR trilogy of films were soo successful is exactly because it was made (albeit with Newline, ie Hollywood money) in N.Z, with NZ scenery, by Weta workshops and with Peter Jackson Directing. It was also the excellent cast and scenery, costumes and special effects, together with the Script by Fran Walsh etc... All these people were dedicated to making the films as true to the books and spirit of Tolkien as possible. Such a film would never have been possible within the context of American culture or a Hollywood based venture. For example, no doubt there would have to have been an ethnic minority or something in the fellowship due to the constraints of political correctness etc....

Therefore, I think that it is only right and proper that after PJ has produced his current film venture - "King Kong", that he be offered as much cash as he wants or needs to make two, two hour films, Hobbit part 1 and 2, and total artistic freedom. This should allow him to keep the same relevent cast members, utilise the same CGI Gollum effects that we all love soo much, and allow him to create a suympathetic scipt, such that the Hobbit can be viewed as a "prequel" to the three films we have just enjoyed. Fot Peter Jackson is the only person who canm recreate the Middle Earth that he created for the first three films, an endeavour that was so successful that his images and scenes are brought to mind now when I re-read LoTR, and that is a sign af real talent and ability to stick close to the books. I even think the genius, Tolkien himself would have grudgingly enjoyed watching the films, despite his professed feqars abbout any attempt to turn his works in film.

For Weta, PJ etc... they already have the skills, studios and workshops to remake all the things from LoTR to tie the look of a future Hobbit project into the first three films. For them, it was a "Labour of Love", and it's clerar that PJ and everyone involved were fans of the book and greatly respected the source material. I hear that CS Lewis's the Chronicles of Narnia are going into production soon, and with films such as "Troy" being produced, it's clear that PJ and LoTR have already changed cinema history and there is a new climate of adventure fioms, and big battles. But, these will be poor imitations of the original, by which I mean LoTR, and they will undoubatbly not match up to the standards that PJ et al set themselves. I suppose there is potential for "The Silmarillion" to be mined if further Tolkien work wanted to be made?

Hollywood, and an american-based project in general, would be a bad move. They have already shown themselves up with this scrabble for film rights and to be only interested (as usual) in a quick-buck and a commerical exercise rather than any artistic merit. They should progress as they did with the LoTR films...provide the money, distribution and backing...but absolutely nothing else!

[FIUT]

"Political correctness?" With all due respect, I think you are living in the past Belfalas Boy. The U.S. is enormously conservative right now, enormously consumer oriented, and so far as I can see, not particularly interested in ethnic balance corrections of any sort. The real danger of a Hollywood version LR or Hobbit would be the display of a MacDonald's Golden Arches in Rivendell, Tang instead of Miruvor, and Nike swoosh shoes on all the Dwarves.

I find it intersting that you only mention skin color as a corrective here, didn't PJ totally re-write the LR to a more "politically correct" standard by changing the roles of Arwen and Eowyn? Maybe New Zealanders are more into wimmin's lib than the U.S. so PJ HAD to give the ladies more "umph?" But, it didn't really seem to hurt the story line much, did it? Though I missed Glorfindel, I thought it was good to update Tolkien on women's issues a bit.

I even bet a few dark-faced Bree folks, Elves, Dwarves and other assorted "good guys" would not have been that noticeable a break with the story line anyway, unless there really is a strong race bias element in Tolkien? I hope not. My readings give me the feeling that Tolkien lived in a racist world, a time when it was thought to be scientific proved, but that he himself was never really prejudiced against others on the color issue. I always read the "Black and White" issue in Tolkien as a metaphor of Evil (Night) vrs Good (Light), not a race bias statement, but I could be wrong.

[Andorinha]

Hmmm. Belfalas Boy and Heril B. -- Looks like the "new improved" Tolkien's Ring will soon be needing a special section/ forum for "Tolkien Controversies!" Apparently Tolkien is TOO universally applicable! Just as Gildor told the happy, isolationist Hobbits in the Woody End: " 'But it is not your own Shire, ... Others dwelt here before hobbits were; and others will dwell here again when hobbits are no more. The wide world is all about you: you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out.' " (LotR, Omnibus edition, chapter III, p. 97)

So I guess, sooner or later, the controversial topics of modern, real life nationalism, racism, liberalism vrs conservativism, religious allegory or applicability, and maybe even whether Tolkien would have voted for or against GW Bush, will all climb over the nice hobbit fences here to disturb those who wanted just to blow smoke rings, quaff ale and discuss the small, quiet doings of the Shire -- *BIG GRIN here, cannot get the icons to work!*

While some topics are inherently "disturbing" I do hope that an appropriate space can be made for such discussions somewhere on this site rather than a blanket suppression of anything that might lead to "uncomfortable" exchanges. Glad I'm not an administrator!

I can see where a statement like Belfalas' : "Such a film would never have been possible within the context of American culture or a Hollywood based venture. For example, no doubt there would have to have been an ethnic minority or something in the fellowship due to the constraints of political correctness etc.... " is provocative, but I rather like the provocation, and if it engenders respectful, even friendly rebuttal as in Heril's rejoinder, I'm all fer it!

And there were ethnic minorities in Tolkien's work already *BIG GRIN* the Hobbits! They move as a small people (size-wise and in terms of absolute numbers) through vast seas of Orcs, Men, and Elves.

A movie version of The Hobbit, with a "dark-faced" Dwarf or two would also be acceptable, even in the strict Tolkien sense, I think. There were Seven Races, or Houses of Dwarves, and who knows what physical attributes any of them had? If PJ could show a broad spectrum of skin colors for his version of Tolkien's orcs (Tolkien mentions sallow -- greenish pale - yellow goblins as well as "black Uruks") then why not ignore skin color for the other races of Middle-earth except, perhaps, where Tolkien specified eye, hair, skin tone? As Heril puts it "I even bet a few dark-faced Bree folks, Elves, Dwarves and other assorted "good guys" would not have been that noticeable a break with the story line anyway..."

BTW: I've read both of your contributions to TR, here and at the older site for Belfalas B. -- I think you both are excellent writer/ thinkers, and I am very glad BOTH of you are here! Looking forward to some good, educational interactions with you two, as well as with the many other excellent thinkers that I've found here in some of the other discussions!

[Fangorn]

Very interesting thoughts on this topic. While I agree that often the Hollywood machinery is mired in mediocrity at times, it has also broken many Taboo's, and provided the funding for exceptional film making. The bottom line is that the public is not always as dumb as they seem. The three PJ LOTR movies would never have landed in the top ten box office grosses of all time, if they had not had the financial backing. In order for Tolkien's story to achieve the epic sweep it needed, it needed Hollywood money. That some executive suit had the foresight to greenlight the project, is the amazing factor.

So lets not belittle the Hollywood money. The success of the PJ films and the money they made, are exactly what will help 'Make the Hobbit Happen'.

Political correctness, ethnicity and race, will all take a back seat to profit. In the end, the public votes with it's ticket buying power. With PJ's track record now, unelss King Kong bombs big time, he should have carte blanche, and only an idiot would deny him the chance to make The Hobbit. Even if King Kong does bomb, Hollywood is notorious for mining successful franchises. Will Tolkien become a franchise? Even the wisest cannot tell.......

[Desi Baggins]

First of all I would like to mention how I forgot that I want Andy to still help with all the Gollum stuff!

I don’t think LotR was a success just because it was not done in the US. It was great because those making it took pride in it. I don’t think here in the US there are any great places to have filmed the movies, so I am glad it was done in NZ for that reason. I have to agree that as far as having to be PC and cast all kinds of races in the film would not have changed the film that drastically. I don’t think other actors could have been cast for the Fellowship since those characters are described very well in the books, but some minor actors and extras could have been changed. I think everywhere there are people all for PC and others saying ‘who gives a flying rats uncle’ about it! I do think that PJ should make the movies no matter what happens with King Kong cuz he has been to ME already so to speak.

Now onto Belf's thoughts on a Part 1 and 2 of the Hobbit....Wow that would be great, no details would have to be skipped or left out!

[belfalasboy]

Hmm...Good to see that TR is still full of well-balanced and informative Hobbits!

In response to the comments made, I was simply trying to demonstrate why I think the films were/are a success. The main reason I sited was the fact that artistic value and the importance of staying true to Tolkien's vision was possible as it was made in N.Z...My hypothesis being that anything Hollywood touches that is sacred and of value is transformed into something of lesser value.
For example, the Coen brothers have just re-made the classic Ealing comedy "The Ladykillers". I happened to see the original on T.V the other day. Now, I know that this film is rubbish, a bland and relatively unfunny distortion of the original. I’m sure Tom Hanks is fine in the role previously played by Alec Guiness, but the subtle and off-centre British style of comedy and humour and the settings are only really workable in the context of post-war England. So the question would be...why make it, as they also did a poor copy of “The Italian Job”?
Well...I could be uncharitable and frankly anti-American by muttering something that the Europeans or French (perhaps) would hold to be true....that the Yanks are trying to smoother the world in their "dumbed-down" unsophisticated culture...a kind of subtle but devastating "Cultural Imperialism" to match their military oppression.

Now..I'm NOT saying that is my personnel point of view...though many might hold to that... and neither am I trying to make a racist comment concerning the lack of an ethnic minority in the Fellowship. It was a stupid example of the evils of “Hollywood-isation” to pick...because I knew that someone would take offence or jump on it without seeing what I was really trying to say. So..let me apologise whole-heartedly if any offence was caused.. It was certainly not intended and was in hindsight a silly example!

And, as someone commented in a reply post, the Fellowship IS made up of different races, Dwarfs Hobbits etc...and Tolkien preaches a positive message of races getting on together, such as the friendship between Gimli and Legolas, and I'm sure we all applaud that?

As you can note..the real point I was trying to make is that it is important to preserve the spirit and accuracy of Middle Earth. However, I would also concede to the earlier message that some weakness (dare I say it..?) in the LOTR book itself is Tolkien's underdeveloped female role-models and their lack of a role in the fight against Sauron. While in many ways this might be viewed as a reflection of the time the author grew up in and the kind of society he lived in, it would also be true to say that in the past women unforntunatly did not actually feature heavily in pre-Christian literature and Tolkien wrote LoTr to give back to Middle England some sense of a pre-Christian, Anglo-Saxon heritage that was systematically removed from the Noman Invasion onwards. From that point of view, Tolkien is not chauvinistic, but adopting a deliberate writing style for clear and concise reasons. If you do not like the books for these reasons, then by all means don’t read Tolkien and find some other interests outside TR, perhaps?!

Having said that...the films are far better and well-balanced with the greater roles of the two primary women, Eowyn and Arwen, and the films are much better in many ways, and more accessible to everyone…making Tolkien’s messages more powerful.
I’m sure we all applaud the fact that they are made to resonante and have relevance for people today, of whatever background because of these minor alterations and plot changes. On the other hand, however, There was a move from the Hollywood producers to distort Tolkien’s ME, while PJ lobbeyed the producers, Mr Ordesky etc.. not to have Arwen turn up as a sword-wielding “Buffy the vampire slayer” type person at Helm’s Deep, which is a scary thought and something to demonstrate how good it was that PJ maintained overall artistic control.

The nature of Evil:
C.S Lewis, in his writings had some views on the nature evil which Tolkien also shared. Apart from the classic, absence of good hypothesis, or personal lack or self-awareness or moral compass ones, I.e.. Evil within and without…. There is a more modern view that Lewis accurately saw.

Evil is blandness, and can create no art, nothing of beauty or originality. Evil is the absence of choice and free will. Sauron’s Mordor is BORING and bland and lacks real meaning, and the Orcs have pitifully dull lives, with no light of music or anything we enjoy. The Taleban regime in Afganistan had created a so-called “Pure Islamic” state, and apart from the terror they unleashed on their people and the lack of basic human rights, it is astonishing how dull and inane the lives of those people must have been, for example, all music was banned, and all forms of education.

Basically, the ignorant or brain-washed are easy for governments to control, and what is evil if not the pursuit of power or fulfilling an agenda of self-interest?
Evil cannot truly create but only mock the original and never excel the beauty of the original, but corrupt to it’s own uses. I hope we all agree with this sentiment and definition. The Uruk-Hai and Orcs are corrupted and spoiled versions of Elves and Men, right? Try reading Orwell’s “1984” to get a sense of Big Brother’s society in that nightmare future that is portrayed in that book.

Hollywood, you could say (a little provocatively) matches this definition of evil closely, and is it not the case that vast swathes of “Middle America”, from Colorado to the Deep South are indeed soulless and bland places from whence very few persons of note emerge. Perhaps the rendering of the earth open at the Black Gate at the end of Lord of the Rings is a metaphor for the San Andreas Fault?

I jest, of course, so don’t take the above comments too seriously. I’m just pointing out, provocatively, that an objective view of the Hollywood monopoly and it’s underlying forces are interesting….and at the end of the day, they feed the audiences what they want, or what they think they want.

[Greenleaf]

This topic has definitely provoked such an interesting discussion. From what I understood, I think we all agree that LotR was a huge success because the people who made it loved and respected Tolkien’s work and took a great effort to stay as true as possible to the spirit of his world. I’m afraid, though, that without the money that was spent on the movies, this great and spectacular result we all loved might not be possible. And in this case I’m not sure whether there’s anyone else apart from Hollywood, who could afford spending so much money on the production of such a movie. Therefore, if we want to have a Hobbit film as amazing as the LotR films, Hollywood’s big bucks might be necessary. However, I’ll be greatly disappointed if the director is not Peter Jackson. And I do want to see Ian McKellen as Gandalf, Hugo Weaving as Elrond, Ian Holm as Bilbo (they can certainly make him look younger as in that scene in FotR when he found the Ring) and Andy Serkis as Gollum. (Did I forget anyone?) If it’s directed by someone else and/or if the actors are different, it won’t feel as part of the trilogy.

Now as for Hollywood, I don’t think their major concern is to make good movies (although there are undoubtedly a lot of great Hollywood movies) but to make movies that make money. And they do tend to take the edge off things in order to make them more digestible for the public. In the case of movies based on books, they almost always make drastic and needless changes, which according to their opinion, will make the movie appeal more to the people, and consequently sell more tickets.

A few weeks ago I watched Troy and I found it quite a good movie as long as you forgot the fact that it had anything to do with Homer. So I “forgot” this fact and I really enjoyed watching it but deep down I knew they missed the chance to make a really great epic movie. It was not that they totally altered a lot of the important mythological facts what annoyed me a bit, but rather that the movie lacked Iliad’s spirit. (Some of the actors’ lines in particular were extremely poor. Sean Bean, though, was perfect as Odysseus! His performance was excellent.) Only after watching Troy, it really sank in how truly high are the standards set by LotR, and that they won’t easily be surpassed. That’s why I hope Hollywood will just give PJ the money for the Hobbit, and not meddle in the making of it but let him create another great movie of the LotR quality standard.

I’d also like to add a few comments on political correctness. But first, to avoid any misunderstanding, let me state that I strongly support the rights of every ethnic or social minority, of every oppressed individual or people, and I hate racism and nationalism. However, I also like historical accuracy. I believe, if a movie deals with a certain age, it should present social facts as they actually were in that age and not try to distort and “improve” them in order to be more appealing to modern audiences. One might argue that Middle-earth history is not real history but anyway, I don’t think there are any racist or chauvinistic elements in it that need “correction”.

And let’s not forget that Tolkien created a world of the very distant past and it would not seem plausible if that world were as “democratic” as the present one (although whether our world is actually democratic is very debatable). In that distant past, countries (not only in Middle-earth but in real Earth too) were not as multinationally populated either, so I don’t think dark-faced people would be a common sight in the north of Middle-earth, since that’s where our story takes place and not in Harad. Not that I would mind if there were a few in the Prancing Pony, since I seem to recall that a lot of people from distant lands were coming to Bree for whatever reason. Plus, I don’t think Middle-earth lacked in ethnic pluralism, given all those races of Men, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits. As Andorinha said, the Hobbits could be very well considered as an ethnic minority.

I also didn’t mind the enhanced roles of Arwen and Éowyn (although I really missed Glorfindel), since I didn’t find them inconsistent with Tolkien. To tell the truth, I would prefer it if women were presented as equal and as capable of fighting as men (which I certainly believe is the case), but unfortunately I cannot ignore the fact that after the ancient matriarchal societies, women were relegated to a lower social position until the women’s liberation movements of the twentieth century. (One of the reasons I’m grateful I was not born in the past; I would probably have been burnt as a witch, lol.)

And as for what Fangorn said, about Tolkien becoming a franchise… brrr, that’s a horribly nightmarish thought!

[Stormrider]

Another small mention of strong women in Tolkien's works is that of the Lady Haleth and her people. She was the first chief of the Haladin and led her people on a dangerous journey through the Mountains of Terror and the Girdle of Melian into the Forest of Brethil. Although they suffered hardships and great loss, she brought them through with the strength of her will and her people loved her and went were she led. ("Of the Coming of Men Into the West" The Silmarillion)

In Unfinished Tales, in the Chapter on the Drúedain, it states that many of the warriors of the Folk of Haleth were women.

It would have been interesting to have the Folk of Haleth fit into LOTR somewhere, too.

[FIUT]

Now these are murky waters.

It is a hallmark of the right wing, politically conservative, nationalistically chauvinistic media pundits (talk TV and radio) in the U.S. to label everything they disagree with as being measured by some "liberal conspiracy" that seeks to fit all things to some standard of "political correctness." Calling something "politically correct" is no longer a trendy-trenchant observation in the USA; overuse of the term has rendered it little more today than a cheap, demagogic trick that uses an emotionally-laden "set phrase" to elicit a conditioned response among the supposedly half-educated, easily swayed members of our TV-Radio audiences. Its appeal is almost always to the reactive, less charitable aspects of our all too human natures. So, Belfalas Boy, when you use - for your own arguments - such loaded jargon (a verbal ersatz imported from this "'dumbed-down' unsophisticated culture..." ) you should realize that you will probably be touching off a set of automatic responses in those readers who do not happen to be of the militant, right wing persuasion.

Well, let me apologize in turn, if I overreacted to the stimulus that your "playing the card" of political correctness has elicited. Perhaps it is a knee-jerk reaction of my own to groan each time I hear that phrase?

But then, another node of "challenging stimulation" seems to be "provoked" in your follow-up statement, one I hope I am mis-interpreting: "If you do not like the books for these reasons, then by all means don’t read Tolkien and find some other interests outside TR, perhaps?!"

Just what is one to make of this? It smacks heavily of another right wing, Vietnam era, jingoistic sentiment that has also, apparently, been exported by this "dumbed-down, unsophisticated" U.S. culture:

"Love it or leave it!"

So, if I find a minor chauvinistic element in Tolkien, that does indeed make me uncomfortable, I am simply to abandon the entire corpus, ignore all the other vast pleasures and deep honesties I find there? Sorry Old Bean, but I'd rather stay and discuss such issues, I sort of thought THAT was the purpose of forums like TR?

Well, we do at least seem to agree that there are certain aspects of the current expression of U.S. culture, politics, G-8 expansionism, and militaristic adventurism that can be considered deplorable. Perhaps all the more deplorable because the U.S. seems, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, to be repeating history, making exactly the same deplorable mistakes of cultural imperialism/ militarism as marked the British Empire in the Victorian-Edwardian eras?

Well, Andorinha, whom I followed to TR, will soon be gently reminding me that I should, as a "newbie" play very nicely here, and that you, Belfalas Boy, are an established member of TR, held (quite properly) in high repute for some very well written, well argued and valuably educational posts. And, after several long dips into the TR archives, I find I agree with that evaluation. I hope in future to engage you in some more discussions wherein our various "cholers" will be displayed less than our various "eruditions" concerning Tolkien lore.

Now to make all this "truely" relevant for the topic at hand: The suggestion of a two-part Hobbit, I VETO! To follow the track from Bag End to Erebor and back should take at least 20 hours. So I'll vote for a TV mini-series, two hours at a crack, and done by the BBC crew that came up with Masefield's "Box of Delights," suitably armoured with modern special effects. And if becoming a millionaire has not corrupted him, "Hollywoodized" him, PJ can remain as director!

[Fangorn]

Well, we do at least seem to agree that there are certain aspects of the current expression of U.S. culture, politics, G-8 expansionism, and militaristic adventurism that can be considered deplorable. Perhaps all the more deplorable because the U.S. seems, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, to be repeating history, making exactly the same deplorable mistakes of cultural imperialism/ militarism as marked the British Empire in the Victorian-Edwardian eras?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it odd that statements like this repeatedly find their way into discussions here on Tolkien and his works, and in the most unusual topics too! While these discussions can be challenging and fun, do we really want to deviate from the topic at hand that much? Or would the general concensus here find it appropriate? It seems rather hard for alot of us, myself included, to discuss Tolkiens works without relating it to many contemporary topics and mores, whether they be allegorical, political, sexual or financial.

Suffice to say I do not agree at all with the aformentioned quote, but I take no great offense by it. I just find it unsympathetitic to the great majority of the people's hearts in my country. I can quite understand the reasoning behind it, but most of my fellow country men, albeit they are from "the dull interior which produces no great people", or the Hollywood moguls who entire agenda is to make money at the ruination of art, or even our imperialistic push to take over the world, no great segment of our country is, or will, stand for that.

Am I crying "misundertood"? Maybe. "Misdirected"? Perhaps. "Underinformed"? Definately. But the heart is there. Both the good will and sense of justice too. It is inherent in our people. We have to trust that when all is said and done, we will have made the right choices, and done the right deed. We are like Hobbits that way......

[Andorinha]

Er, yes, ah hoom, Fangorn...

RE: "I find it odd that statements like this repeatedly find their way into discussions here on Tolkien and his works, and in the most unusual topics too!"

I do not find it odd that "statements like this repeatedly find their way into discussions" concerning Tolkien. As you imply with the word "repeatedly" they must be rather frequent expressions of reader interest. And, as I recall from the old TR, you started many "politically" sensitive lines yourself, and generally they had what some might call a right wing bias to them. So long as the answering posts echoed your sentiments you seemed not to mind "off topic" political commentary at TR, but I noted that when one of our European members expressed a variant opinion the line was stifled quickly.*

Well, this is, maybe, a testament to just how seriously people take Tolkien's creation? When you create a completely believable, fantasy universe it does invite endless comparisons with the "Real World" in which we live. Perhaps, though, you are correct here and now, Fangorn. Maybe things have left the tidy envelope of this topic heading. A new topic for "alternative views and interpretations" of Tolkien's Middle-earth might be opened elsewhere to accommodate such expressions (as I suggested above)? They are, afterall, just as valid a part of the Tolkien phenomenon as discussing how many Dwarves in "The Hobbit" wore red stockings.

I do find it heartening that Belfalas B. and Heril B. have at least found one point of agreement concerning the current state of world politics and the role they see the US playing in it -- controversial though it may seem to "right thinking" Americans.

One point I would like to emphasize before quitting my tirade and returning to the actual topic of this thread, is that your statement, Fangorn, "I just find it unsympathetitic to the great majority of the people's hearts in my country." also presupposes that you actually do know what the majority thinks? Well, maybe you do -- anyway let's wait a bit before speaking for the majority of us, the next election will offer as good a poll on that point as anything...

__________________________

Now, back to the fantasy:

1. Fangorn has I think a very good point in stating that "Hollywood" is not consistently the purveyor of junk that debases world culture. I was favorably impressed with the way "Hollywood" followed the intent and the word of "Cold Mountain" despite the book's Anti Lost Cause Mythology, something that might have pained many Southern viewers who still see only glory in the Confederate cause, and something money-conscious Hollywood might have used as an excuse to alter the movie -- but did not!

2. I really agree with Greenleaf's statement : "From what I understood, I think we all agree that LotR was a huge success because the people who made it loved and respected Tolkien’s work and took a great effort to stay as true as possible to the spirit of his world."

Whether Hollywood-backed, or done up in an independent studio, I think popular demand that the films be as true to the spirit of the books as possible would have won out in the end. No reader, in this new millennium, would put up with significant alterations that violated that spirit. When Bakshi's version came out (gosh was it in the early 1970s?) there were far fewer readers of Tolkien to make their demands for accuracy felt. Even so, very few of those 1970s readers bothered to see Bakshi's version a second time, and his projected film continuation, covering TTT and RotK, never got off the ground. How many repeat viewings did PJ get, and how many CD-Videos were purchased? Hollywood does pay attention to such things. If the proposed, new version, Hobbit comes out, Hollywood will, if they control the option, be sure to keep the same successful formula closely in mind, and there should be no major breaks in continuity with PJs LotR trilogy, and few with Tolkien's own intent. Whether they can get exactly the same cast is another matter entirely. Andy S. -- as Gollum -- would be the most important!

3. Excellent point Stormrider! It is good to be reminded that there were other strong, active, even assertive women in the whole corpus of Tolkien's Middle-earth. Now that you remind us, the Druadan also give us a glimpse of Tolkien presenting a "minority ethnic" group in a favorable light, even detailing their persecution by the supposed good guys (the Men of Rohan and Gondor) who had been hunting them in the not so distant past: "But if you live after the Darkness, then leave Wild Men alone in the woods and do not hunt them like beasts any more." (RotK, chpt 5, omnibus edition, p. 865)

I am also reminded of the rather athletic acts of derring-do performed by Luthien herself! So there are a number of fine examples of females, of one "race" or another, who do have, dare I say it, liberated female statuses? At the same time, even with the sterling example of Eowyn, I think it fair to point out that these are the rather rare exceptions to the general rule of female behavior in Middle-earth, where most of that gender conforms quietly to the pre-World War I gender standards of Tolkien's formative years. Even Belladonna Took, who supposedly had some adventures in her early days, is not regarded as a "properly decent" Hobbit Lass until after she settles down with the respectable -- read "do-nothing" -- Bungo Baggins.

_____________

* Fangorn: if this sounds abrupt or even cruel, then I will just have to live with it as another example of my failing as a decent human being. The incident to which I refer, rankled greatly way back then, still does I guess, though I let it slide by at the time as I was not posting to that line myself.

Nonetheless, I am fully aware of your outstanding contributions to the old TR, and I will always consider you, Fangorn, to be one of the greater, more enduring lights of the TR firmament -- but, by gum, we will forever be, I think 180 degrees apart on certain real life matters that do, continually, and always intrude upon both our Tolkien studies!

[Andorinha]

Stormrider and Desi -- you two are marvelous! Faced with a clash of titanic TR proportions among four "grumpy old men" (at least that many) you come up with the perfect "quaranteening" solution: a "looney bin" where we may growl, grumble and protrude our tongues to their very roots at one another! ;D

Of course there is that icky clause about offering due respects -- and does this mean we all have to shake hands at the end of the posting day?

Oh well, at least this should keep the other lines from getting too clogged up with "off topic" comments...

Seriously though, my sincere thanks, Stormrider and Desi, for handling this matter with such tact and dispatch!

[Fangorn]

Andorinha: Thanks for your sensitive reply. Agreeing to disagree is always a civilized way to continue debating on controversial subjects. However, the dabate over US forgein policies is one I have grown weary of as of late. It seems to be flooding the media, and I assume it will continue and perhaps intensify as elections grow near. I am content at this time to put my views on it to bed for a while.

Please everyone remember to vote in our June Poetry contest polls and consider entering our July contest. With all the knowledgable and articulate members out there, I am sure we can have the best submissions to date!

[FIUT]

Fangorn, the following quote from my second post on this line was not addressed to you, and certainly I was not aware of your political leanings at the time I made it. Any stress it caused you was entirely incidental.

"Well, we do at least seem to agree that there are certain aspects of the current expression of U.S. culture, politics, G-8 expansionism, and militaristic adventurism that can be considered deplorable. Perhaps all the more deplorable because the U.S. seems, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, to be repeating history, making exactly the same deplorable mistakes of cultural imperialism/ militarism as marked the British Empire in the Victorian-Edwardian eras?"

This passage was meant to establish a departure point in the discussion between Belfalas Boy and myself, and it is very pertinent (I think) to a discussion on Tolkien. Although Tolkien liked to protest that a knowledge of an author and the times that author lived in were irrelevant to understanding his/ her body of writing, I find myself in complete disagreement with his sentiment. It is my belief that if we wish to understand Tolkien's role assignments for the female characters in his Middle-earth, or come to grips with his concepts and uses of "race," we really do need to put him into his own developmental, historical context. This is a point I think Belfalas Boy was quite correctly making when he stated: "While in many ways this might be viewed as a reflection of the time the author grew up in and the kind of society he lived in..."

Part of Tolkien's social context was the high tide period of British Imperialism. Tolkien's own sojourn in South Africa came about as a direct consequence of the British imperial expansion there, an expansion made possible by a series of very bloody wars of conquest mounted against native tribal units like the Xosha, and more familiar to modern readers, the Zulu. The Great Zulu victory of Isandlawana (Pyrrhic in nature) was fought not all that far from where Tolkien lived in Bloemfontein, and as this battle occurred in 1879 it was well within "living memory" for JRRT who could have heard first-hand, eyewitness accounts of it in 1895 (though he would have been only four at the time).

Tolkien was not a fool, was not devoid of an interest in history, and as he grew up the daily announcements of imperial events in all the papers of the British realm would have kept him well informed of the feats of arms his nation performed all the way down to the epochal World War I in which he himself served. Tolkien had to be impacted by his nation's imperialism/ militarism - whether it revolted him, or enthused him with a chauvinistic vigour, I honestly do not know. But it is a very legitimate topic to be pursued somewhere here at TR.

Now I must admit that I was also responding to Belfalas Boy's "tweaking the beak" of the present day "imperial" U.S. eagle by pulling the British Lion's tail in turn. It is ironic that many British people who do not feel comfortable with the surging U.S. militarism of today, tend to forget their own imperial past.

Now where was I? Yes: Belfalas Boy, I am working my way through your material on the nature of good and evil, and I'll probably have some questions and comments on that section of your post as well - more questions, I think, as I've done a lot of historical reading but not much on Christian philosophy, especially the Inkling brand.

BTW - Desi and Stormrider, let me echo my friend Andorinha's praise of you both for finding us "grumpy old men" a corner in which to grumble. Thank you both, greatly.

Wait a minute, Andorinha, who're you calling OLD?

[Stormrider]

This thread has stirred a thought in my head.

The few and sparse mention of strong women in Tolkien's works could have been his way of showing how women were starting to come up in the world and ask for more rights and privileges. Wasn't women's sufferage movements beginning to excellerate in the late 1800's and early 1900's?

This could have given him his idea to have a few women in his story who were making those women's lib type overtures themselves and giving women readers something to relate to also.

You can't imagine how I really love Éowyn and her valiant desire to fight for those she loves despite the consensus against that. And when she brought down the Witchking.....wooo hooo! I was jumping on the bed and bouncing off the walls! Especially since I did not realize at all that Dernhelm was Éowyn! What a high that was for me!