The LOTR Movie Site
November 15, 2000

Arwen in Army Boots
Max B.


I find point form is all that I have time for, and you'll's adequate. To continue the numbering system:

1) Ah, too subtle for me.

2) No, through exaggeration the point becomes ridiculed rather than addressed. But in any case, the line of my response to this will be covered below.

3) No, I don't believe in a perfect piece of literature, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in striving for one. And I think, with your words on God, that I've seen our disagreement can never really be reconciled, as we come from entirely different discourses on life/philosophy.

4) This was my attempt to turn your Smurfs discourse back on you. Maybe this time I was the one being too subtle. In any case, the point still stands. Arwen can have an active role in the fellowship without having to slay everything in sight.

5) Hmmm, well we could move it elsewhere.

6) Addressing this at the end.

7) Yes, science and religion have both been abused by those with power. In any case, I can't see how I can possibly admit your distaste for PM or PPM any further than I did. As for my own distaste, I've already voiced it. I find some worthwhile qualities in PM theory, though in all honesty, I can't think of one PM work I could say I enjoy.

8) Below.

9) Our disagreement comes down to this: we hold different levels of interaction with the text and author valuable. While I believe that a text can exist and evolve independent of an author, you believe that they are intrinsically linked. You say, "why reinterpret" and I say "why not"? Are we to believe that simply because Tolkien wrote this book (which was more or less reinterpretations of older myths that he did not write), that nobody else is allowed to play in the sandbox? I don't believe that reinterpreting text is disrespectful towards the author or the original text in any way. Rewritings of King Arthur's story abound (ever since the Normans "Camelotted" him and before), and I have enjoyed many of them. Likewise, many modern reinterpretations of Shakespeare's plays have been wonderful. And it's not just modern society that reinterprets these things, each new stage in history brings new societal discourses which in themselves bring about new performances (or at least) new ways of viewing them. Another point to consider is that I find the audience a more important creature than the author. So, if I were to write or rewrite something for those bushmen, I would consider them more than an old British scholar turned writer.What I believe it comes down to is that Lord of the Rings is not Tolkien's. It's the world's. So yes, the movie becomes Peter Jackson on top of Tolkien as author, and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that. Artists should continually build and learn and evolve works and one another. There is nothing "inherently wrong" there. But then of course, when Tolkien writes, it's "art", when someone else does it's " Whee!".


1) No, it does not surprise me to "learn" that Legolas was a prince (but thank you for assuming I didn't know), and nor does it concern me in the slightest. You've missed the point. Whether Legolas is Father Christmas or not is unimportant, there is nothing his character did that could not be done by Arwen. Bridge the gap between Elves and Dwarves? Surely Arwen could do this? As for looking silly lugging a sword around, I believe Legolas used a bow (I do remember his morbid body count with Gimli. I'm sure he shot them down)? It's not the most overly hyper-masculine of weapons, Arwen could still carry one around. And again, it's not necessary that she should bring home a collection of orc heads on a stick, after all I don't remember Sam acquiring a body count (correct me if I'm wrong) or slinging a huge sword around, come to think of it.

2) Historic figures and goddesses. All I will say is- research further. And I mean extending beyond Roman/Greek pagan beliefs that have been accommodated by our modern culture. Dig further into the past of goddesses, and you'll find not all were fertility driven. And that warrior goddesses did indeed wage war. The same goes for actual figures in history. Dig further and you'll see. I believe Britain even has statues in honour of some (and at least one in particular and her two daughters). There is even further evidence to suggest entire cultures built upon female warriors, but since this is still yet to be solidified, I'll refrain.