Comments on: [Part I]   [Part II]   [Part III]

Part I: Faerie and the Purpose of Escape
[back to top]

Concerning Russell Kirk's "diabolical imagination" as stated in Part I of Dr. Birzer's article
Dr. Birzer writes:
     Kirk took his definition of the "diabolic imagination" from T.S. Eliot's 1933 University of Virginia lectures, published as After Strange Gods: A Primer on Modern Heresy.
     "If one denies the divine incarnation, Eliot believed, one must affirm a different though inferior power. The diabolical enters into literature, and into society, when we grow fascinated with 'the unregenerate personality, partly self-deceived and partly irresponsible, and because of its freedom, terribly limited by prejudice and self-conceit, capable of much good or great mischief according to the natural goodness or impurity of the man; and we are all, naturally, impure." [Quoted from Russell Kirk, Eliot and His Age: T.S. Eliot's Moral Imagination in the Twentieth Century (1971), 215.]

     Bradley Birzer's first installment of a three part series on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson's movie trilogy concludes with the assertion that making the fantastic "general" has the effect of "demeaning the integrity of the art." Birzer's' shortsightedness misses what may prove to be a blessing.
     Yes, Tolkien may not have been that happy with the trilogy. But Tolkien and the likes of C.S. Lewis and Russell Kirk would not be disappointed in the fact that the movie trilogy has spurred both adults and children to revisit Tolkien's work. What could be more important than our youth reading Tolkien instead of sitting in front of the television. What could be better than exposing our youth and reintroducing adults to Tolkien's wake-up call for the West. We should not, as Birzer does, underestimate the effects of Jackson's trilogy. We should, instead, embrace and stoke the interest in Tolkien. We may not have another opportunity like this. To ignore it because Jackson is supposed to embody the "diabolical imagination" would be folly.
Jordon B. Barkalow, Ph.D., Bridgewater State College
1/22/04

     I can't help but wonder if Bradely J. Birzer and I saw the same film when he describes Heavenly Creatures as "one of the most diabolical films I have ever seen." His interpretation of Jackson's moral stance, in my opinion, couldn't be further off-base. Describing the climactice murder scene, Birzer states "I knew which side Jackson took in the dispute between mother and daughter, and it certainly wasn't my side."
     By "my side," I assume he means that of the mother, and the position that murder is wrong. I believe this is the position Jackson is taking as well.
     Throughout the film, we've been drawn in to these two girls' world; Jackson makes us feel their alienation, we understand their need to escape, to create an alternate reality where all the boundaries of the real world, the world of their suffering, can be ignored — including moral boundaries. But we also feel how selfish both girls are; how unmerciful and self-absorbed they become, using their pain to justify shutting everyone else out. This is one of the major strengths of the film, that Jackson never moralizes — he allows the complex psychological story unfold on its own terms. We sympathize with the girls, but we also see their moral failings.
     You don't have to watch the murder scene very carefully to see how, as the girls' self-imposed delusions lead them to the ultimate act of brutality, their consciences are overwhelmed; Jackson paces the scene slowly, deliberately, so we can almost feel the exact moment when reality, and the staggering guilt of what they've just done, sets in and shatters their, world, not only their fantasy world, but their real lives. After the act is committed, they don't try to hide their act or carry on with their plans — they are hysterical. They hadn't bargained for this — conscience, guilt, and remorse. It's a stunning scene, not only for its violence, but for the acute way Jackson shows, as Dostoevsky did with Raskolnikov, that conscience always has the final word; and in so doing, has given us in Heavenly Creatures a profoundly moral film.
Dave Sims
1/23/04

     I came to read your essay on the effects of Tolkien's work on "Western Culture" after following a link from theonering.net.
     After reading to the end (of part I at least...), I was almost immediately fascinated. I have recently had a very similar converstaion with my housemate (about the current gulf between mind and body) and my bell was therefore struck.
     I agree with much of what you said — Especially the statement that communism and consumer capitalism share some features. Both -isms are designed to control, One through collective struggle (whereby the struggle becomes common, then ordered, then entrenched and programmed, even imaginary) and the other through collective deception (whereby there is a removal of empathy, and a concentration of selfishness.)
     However, I *think* you may have misread the message in 'Heavenly Creatures' . If you'll indulge me :) ... My interpretation is that the mother's death was the end result of a tragic relationship that was shunned and not understood by others. It was this lonelyness combined with the inherent absorbtion of creating make-believe worlds that drove them towards such a twisted world view — where murder can fix things.
     Having listened to Jackson talk at length (on the LOTR DVDs and many interviews), I have noticed that he is quite the scholar of human nature — he knows what motivates us and makes us tick. I think what he was trying to show us in "Heavenly Creatures" is what happens when we cut ourselves off from the rest of humanity. Being amongst (and interacting with) other people is a major part of what makes us human. When 1 or 2 people cut themselves off, their only reference is each other — they can only spiral in towards themselves-ultimately ending in disaster.
     I do not wish to raise the issue of "right or wrong" personal relationships — regardless of any opinion on this subject, we must always respect and care for our fellow human. Those girls were in need, and could have been helped, had their self-esteeem renewed, but the rigid social structure around them prevented that.
     It is this understanding of human emotion and when 1 or 2 people cut themselves off, their only reference is each other - they can only spiral in towards themselves-ultimately ending in disaster. I do not wish to raise the issue of "right or wrong" personal relationships — regardless of any opinion on this subject, we must always respect and care for our fellow human. Those girls were in need, and could have been helped, had their self-esteeem renewed, but the rigid social structure around them prevented that.
     It is this understanding of human emotion and drives that, I believe, makes Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien so good. We are given such a powerful message of the power of the ring's temptation, the corruption of Frodo (& Gollum), and the strength of Sam; that it makes us all re- recognise our basic human nature — in all it's shades.
[ t o m ]
1/24/04

Part II: Jackson vs. Tolkien
[back to top]

     A comment regarding Mr. Birzer's discussions of the "Lord of the Rings" films:
     I recently completed Brad Birzer's book "J. R. R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth" and enjoyed it thoroughly, so I respect Birzer's viewpoints on not only Tolkien's work but also Peter Jackson's films. However, after reading Part II of his essay "Reclaiming the West..," I have to disagree wholeheartedly with his comments about the films' depiction of the character of Faramir. I disagree with several of his assessments regarding "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King" (the films), but I'd like to say that his "reading" of Faramir is, in my opinion, completely off-base. I have found that many die-hard fans of the book who thoroughly disliked Faramir's portrayal on-screen reacted "hastily" (as Treebeard would say) due to their perception that Faramir is so unlike the character in the book. In other words, they tend to be defensive to a fault. They also tend to be people who do not have as much knowledge of the "language" of film and the requirements for translating/adapting written works to the screen. But, on to Faramir...
     Contrary to what Birzer implies, the Faramir seen in "The Two Towers" is not in fact worse than Boromir. It is true that many of Faramir's men appear at first to be "bullies" when they take Frodo and Sam (and especially when they capture Gollum), but Faramir himself is a different story. Faramir does not rush to act, and he does show concern and sympathy. (A scene in the extended edition of "The Two Towers" completely contradicts Birzer's claims, for it shows Faramir stopping and reflecting sadly on the brutality of war...looking at a fallen enemy, he questions whether the man was truly "evil"—this is not consistent with Birzer's interpretation of the character.) He is hesitant to kill and obviously regrets the necessity of war ("it will make corpses of us all," he says in the theatrical version). Even though Faramir is briefly a foil for Frodo and Sam, he does seem to be decent on the inside, and he does not rush to take the Ring or deliver it to his father. Even when he does decide to take Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath, he is clearly affected by their protestations, even before he decides at last to release them. Finally, as both the extended edition of TTT and the theatrical version of "Return of the King" strive to show (and do so effectively), Faramir is largely motivated by a desire to please his father. His decision to let Frodo and Sam go at the end of TTT, even though it means his "life is forfeit," clearly shows his unselfish nature and his willingness to sacrifice himself for others. The same is conveyed in ROTK.
     I could go on. The short of it is that Birzer (and other "purists" who share his perception of "problems" with Jackson's rendition of "The Two Towers") has "missed the point" with regard to Faramir's character. He is, essentially, very much the same character he is in the books (though I do wish Jackson had more time to include his relationship with Eowyn), but Jackson and company simply made him a little more complex...and in the process, more realistic, to be honest. The fact that he's a little flawed does not damage his character. If anything, it speaks more to the reality of human nature...even the best human beings (and even when they are Christians) have failings and are tempted. What matters is that Faramir made the right choices and was willing to sacrifice himself for the greater Good.
David Flanagin
1/29/04

     Too much ranting interspersed with the illuminating commentary. In the first essay, Mr. Birzer assumes the role, needlessly, of Tolkien Protector. I say needless because the author's son, Christopher Tolkien, already commands that role. Birzer's overly dramatic condemnation of 'Heavenly Creatures' is irrelevant and his judgment of Jackson's capability to translate Tolkien's book to film is entirely in character with the brand of Christian so quick to judge others.
     The second place where his veneer of enlightened Christian scholar wears thin is in the second essay, where he makes assumptions about Jackson calling Tolkien an ineffective writer. Does Birzer assume that we all must subscribe to his analysis of Tolkien's works? Apparently so, else how could Jackson have committed this unpardonable sin of not making Faramir exactly like the book? And does Birzer really believe the movie would have had such widespread appeal had it treated this "serious book" so seriously? This is one reason why the world rejects Christ: because so many of His people are boring, dogmatic, and rigid.
     I appreciate his opinion and expect him to state it, but the emotionally-charged comments made against Jackson seem totally out of character for such a learned and informed man.
     Thank you for the opportunity to state my opinion.
Darrell Curtis
Baton Rouge, LA
2/9/04

Part III: Tolkien and the Economy of Grace
[back to top]

Dear Sir,
     First, I would like to start off by congratulating you on writing such a well-researched article. I am a Tolkien-lover and even though I am firmly against Christianity/Catholicism and the morals it and their offshoots profess to teach, your article made me aware of a number of things about Tolkien that I was not aware of and I can definitely see the validity of your claims. There are two points, however, that I would like to contend.
     The first is your insistence on Grace as the chief force that saves the characters and gives them the qualities that make them so worthy. While the evidence drawn from Tolkien's life may indicate this as a possibility, there is little or no textual evidence for this. One of the things that I have always loved about Tolkien's works is that it is the inner strength of people, forged by themselves, that allows them to do the things they do and not some outside power or force. Aragorn is never referred to as having strength from some outside force, Grace, but he is the person that he is because of his long years in the Wild and because of his experiences with Arwen. When he uses the palantir in The Return of the King, it is not some outside force that allows him to contend with Sauron but his own will. If you contrast Aragorn with Boromir, Boromir falls because he allowed his pride to get the best of him and he got too attached to his city. Aragorn does not fall because he practices humbleness and non-attachment which have all been tempered by his experiences in the Wild, experiences that Boromir did not have. There is no textual evidence for Grace as a saving force but there is plenty of textual evidence for the idea that it is experience and your own developed personality that saves or damns you. Frodo succumbs to the temptation of the Ring because he has had to carry it for so long and it has got such a strong hold on him. You can see the evidence for this when Sam saves him from the Orcs in Cirith Ungol. Sam has had the Ring for a short time and so he is slightly resistant to giving up the Ring but Frodo has had the ring for a long time and so he is VERY resistant to the idea of Sam holding it. Their experiences with the Ring, the duration they have carried it, is what determines their actions. In no place in the novels will you find reference to a higher power saving the character. There are references to forces directing events (such as Gandalf's line that "Bilbo was meant to find the Ring and not by its maker") but not to saving the characters. Even Gandalf's line in Moria, that he is a Servant of the Secret Fire, is not evidence for this for Gandalf may "serve" the Secret Fire but he is not "saved" by it. Experience is the defining force for the characters as evidenced by the text.
     The second point of contention is your comments on Faramir. To be honest, I have never believed that the movies strayed Faramir's character too far from what it was portrayed as in the books especially with the release of the Extended Edition. In the novels, Faramir does wish to please his father and is hurt by the scorn that his father shows him. This is evidenced in the Return of the King by Denethor's lines to Faramir and Faramir's constant hurling of himself into battle until he is wounded. The movies simply introduced this concept earlier. Also, Faramir does struggle with the temptation of the Ring. When Sam blurts out the fact that Frodo is carrying the Ring and Faramir comments on the fact that they have brought it here to him and he could have it, there is a tense moment where Frodo and Sam wait to see what he will do. Faramir struggles internally for a moment and then decides to let the Ring go. The movies simply took this moment of internal struggle and extended it to cover a few days rather than a brief moment. This struggle IS in the novels but as movies are a visual medium, having Faramir take the hobbits at first allows the viewer to understand this struggle which they would not be able to do otherwise (it also introduces Osgiliath while still focusing on the main characters, a very effective technique). Plus with the Extended Edition, we have two great scenes that show Faramir's better nature. The first is his comments about the Easterling soldier that is killed (the lines being taken from Sam in the novels) and the second is the last scene with Faramir where Sam tells him that he has shown his quality, "the very highest" (again, notice how Jackson takes the route that it is the characters' qualities and not Grace that 'saves' the characters). I believe that Faramir is very much the character that he was in the novels but since Jackson did not have him release the hobbits right away, fans made themselves blind to the subtlety that is in the novels that Jackson chose to expose on-screen.
     Again, your essay was very well researched but I do not feel that you looked enough at the text for evidence, especially in the third section of your essay where you quote Biblical and Scholastic sources rather than the Return of the King itself for evidence of Frodo's lack of 'Grace.' While there are elements of Tolkien's religion in his works there is also an enormous lacking of them and Grace is simply not an element that Tolkien introduces textually in the work itself.
     I would be very interested in hearing your comments and also the comments of those who may read this if it is posted on ISI's forum. Thank you for reading,
Sincerely,
Chris
2/5/04

Dr. Birzer,
     Thank you for your articles about J.R.R. Tolkien's vision of the pre-modern West and Peter Jackson's ability (and inability) to convey it on screen. I always enjoy reading someone's interpretation of Tolkien's life and work and every time I learn a couple more interesting facts about a story I thought I knew inside and out (in this case, it was the comments on Sam's stature near the end of his life recorded in The End of the Third Age). I have a couple comments to throw in the pot.
     1) First off, I want to put a plug in for all the people who assisted Peter Jackson in making his film trilogy. I always feel pangs of guilt when people talk about 'Tolkien's vision' and 'Jackson's vision' because it makes it seem like Peter Jackson is as fully responsible for the films as J.R.R. Tolkien is for the novels. I know this is unintended and not the actual view of you or anyone else, Dr. Birzer, but I think it is worth mentioning. Tolkien wrote every word of the book with input along the way from a handful of other people. Jackson headed a team of thousands whose inner circle brain trust alone included about 10-15 talented artists, writers, and producers. Well, now that I've relieved my conscience on this issue, for the rest of this post I will do the same as everyone else and shove all the time, thought, and sweat of the New Line cast and crew into the name 'Peter Jackson'.
     2) There are many Tolkien experts out there (including both John and Christopher Tolkien themselves) who believe their vast knowledge of Tolkien qualifies them as film experts as well. I find Tolkien's opinions on the suitability of Lord of the Rings for film to be largely irrelevant. At the least, it has to be acknowledged that when he addresses this issue, Tolkien's opinion is no longer authoritative because he has ventured outside of his realm of knowledge. Probably far outside. How many films do you think Tolkien went to in his life? There are a lot of Tolkien experts (both academics and fans) in the world, and there are a lot of film experts in the world. But the intersection of those two groups is pretty small. To my knowledge, the only people that qualify as both live in New Zealand and worked on the films.
     3) I especially liked your point in part 2 that Tolkien's view of himself as recorder or editor of the mythology leaves space for other storytellers to try their hand. "Additionally, since Tolkien regarded himself as merely the recorder of the tale, the mythology could and should be used and entered into by other artists." So it is true that Jackson's vision differs from Tolkien's, sometimes substantially. But even Tolkien differs from Tolkien! He was always tweaking his mythology. He rewrote the stories that comprise The Silmarillion until the day he died, and the significance of characters and events changed as he went. He even rewrote "The Riddles in the Dark" chapter of The Hobbit, which had already been published! To say that we now have two independent and complete - yet differing - chronicles of the War of the Ring does not sound contradictory to me. Tolkien's whole approach to his work leaves open such a possibility.
     4) Along these same lines, I have to say that I disagreed with you most strongly, Dr. Birzer, when you stated how arrogant it was for Jackson to hold any negative opinions about any aspect of the book. You totally lost me when you said, "If the director and writers possess such arrogance about them and their liking and disliking of Tolkien's Middle-Earth," then they are going to make mistakes. Huh? Where does this view of LotR as monolithic and unapproachable come from? Certainly not from Tolkien, the man who was never fully satisfied with his own stories. This is a novel, not the Bible. It is sub-creation, and it can always be improved. One may disagree as to whether a given change adds to or detracts from the story, but to act like the very idea of altering the books is arrogant makes no sense. You yourself pointed out departures from the book that you enjoyed in the films and thought added to the experience.
     5) The biggest temptation for Tolkienites in watching these films is to miss what actually occurs on screen because we are so aware of 'what was left out,' 'how it should have been,' 'the point that was supposed to be made.' I have done it a lot, especially while watching Fellowship for the first time. But it is counterproductive and a terribly unfair platform from which to evaluate the films. One clear example from your article stands out. Because Faramir is so much less virtuous in the movie than the book, so much more of an obstacle and threat to the Quest, you say that the message of the movie is: "Grace can now be perverted and destroyed at our whim. So much for Tolkien. So much for God!" While it is true that the movie Faramir is given less grace than the book Faramir, this only focuses on the gap between the two versions of the story. But what actually happens in the movie? Is grace perverted? Not at all. Faramir is planning to do the wrong thing with the One Ring, but events occur (Frodo nearly offering the ring to the Nazgul and Sam's speech) which show him the truth of the situation and convince him to do the right thing. That sounds like grace to me. All you could maybe conclude is that Faramir battles against grace and loses! We have to see what Peter Jackson and Co. actually put on screen and then draw themes from that to compare to the themes of Tolkien's great novel. And this is best done at the level of an entire episode or the entire trilogy, not minute by minute, scene by scene, or character by character.
     If you search for the themes of the book trilogy and then independently search for the themes of the film trilogy, I believe you come away with the same basic answer: "Hope faith and love remain, but the greatest of these is love."
Thanks again.
Matthew Feig
2/13/04