February 27, 2003

On Oral Tradition and Religion
Everett

Over the past few days, people have been making two points to justify the changes made to the film version of TTT. One is that Tolkien "adapted" LoTR from "The Red Book of Westmarch." The second is that Tolkien himself points out that stories such as Beowulf were passed on by means of oral tradition before finally being written down, being changed many times over the course of many years. I suspect, though cannot be sure, that these posts were made in order to attempt to sate the purists in our midst who would brook no change to the story whatsoever. This is all well and good. However, the reasons put forth fail to justify the alterations because they present situations fundamentally different from that in which we find ourselves as lovers of Tolkien and whih Jackson found himself in creating the LoTR films.

First of all, Tolkien did not really adapt anything from the "Red Book of Westmarch" because it is his own creation. It is Bilbo's diary, not some ancient history from a source independant of Tolkien. Secondly, even if it were, for Tolkien, an outside source, the degree of leeway he would have in making alterations to the story would be much greater because most, if not all of us (I believe Christopher Tolkien published The Red Book a number of years ago)have never read it. We therefore have no grounds upon which to determine the degree of accuracy in LotR as it relates to The Red Book. This is not the case with the films. There are many of us posting here who have read the books, multiple times even, giving us a basis upon which to judge the film adaptation.*

My point on oral tradition is along similar lines. When stories are passed on orally, they are not remembered perfectly by either those who tell the story or those who hear it. This is also true for the reading of books, but there are crucial differences. When a story is passed on orally, there is no hard copy against which to comparew the version told by the narrator, only memory, which is imperfect. This makes changes to the story easier to accpet. Another thing that makes change easier to accept is the fact that major changes to the story generally take place over a period of time, and those changes which don't work are generally changed again until the situation meets wit the approval of the audience. You don't get this with something written down. How many alterations have beenmade to Beowulf since it was written down (not how many different translations have been done)?

It is perfectly legitimate to look at LotR and look at the movies and attempt to determine which changes are good or acceptable (Merry and Pippin launching the dragon firework at Bilbo's party) and which ones are bad (Xena . . . I mean Arwen, Faramir, the Ents, etc.). Ultimately, changes had to be made in translating the book to film, but saying that changes had to be made and that it is justifiable to make changes does not make any given change good, or even justifiable.

Moving on, I thought the discussion on Tolkien and religion had ended a few months ago, but new blood shows up, and things get started again.

It is true that Tolkien did possess a great reverance for nature, but it is completely ridiculous to go from there to saying that Tolkien condemns monotheism in LotR. For starters Tolkien was a deeply devout Roman Catholic for all of his life. As such, I find it highly unlikely that he would find monotheism something to be condemned. His reverance for nature ultimately derives from his reverance for God and toward the beauty of His creation, as does his condemnation of industrialism.

That said, Tolkien also said that LotR is a fundamentally Catholic book. I have deatiled a number or ways in which this is so in my 8/5/02 piece "Replies Out the Wazoo." I will give a few more examples here. When the men of Westernesse came to Middle Earth after the destruction of Numenor, they established a knigdom with two regions. One in the north of Middle Earth (Arnor), and one in the south (Gondor). Eventually, the two regions spilt in two to become separate kingdoms. Arnor was overthrown, and the remnants of the Dunedain of the north became Rangers, guarding the lands of northern Middle Earth from the machinations of Sauron. In Gondor, the line of kings failed, and the rule of Gondor was taken up by the Stewards, who ruled in the stead of the king until he should come again to claim his throne. In this way, the role of the Steward of Gondor is similar to the role the Catholic Church hierarchy plays in the world. It is not what it once was. It is divided, and it it under siege. However, it governs the Church, guiding the faithful until Christ returns and restores all. Aragorn, being the heir to the throne of both Arnor and Gondor by virtue of being Isildur's heir, plays a Christ-like role in his taking up his claim to the throne.

Another Christian element that plays a large role in LoTR is resurrection. There are at least three moments in LotR (I would argue more). One is obviously the return of Gandalf. The other two occur in RotK. One involves Aragorn, and the other Frodo. Another (spoiler ahead) way in which resurrection plays a role in LoTR is in the day on which the Ring is destroyed: March 25. March 25 was the day on which, for the early Church, the Resurrection of Christ was celebrated.

Fianlly, one last element in LotR and The Silmarillion, though not explicitly Christian, is the fact that Middle Earth and the universe in which it is contained (ours) is monotheistic. The Silmarillion begins with the line "There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Iluvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, and they were with him before aught else was made." Elves and men are the Children of Iluvatar, and Elves, after they are slain go to the Halls of Mandos in Aman, while the exact fate of men who die is unknown to the Valar, the Ainur (read angels) to whom governance of Middle earth was given.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble Messr. Fontaine, but there really is no room for either New Age thought or Wicca in LotR.

*To say that one element or another in the movies was bad or should not have been changed is not to claim the ability to do a better job than was done by PJ.