||The LOTR Movie Site
November 15, 2000
Arwen in Army Boots
I find point form is all that I have time for, and you'll agree...it'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
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.
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.