Posted on 12/13/2003, 8:49:52 PM by Extremely Extreme Extremist
What's the appeal? Reconsidering "The Lord of the Rings"
By Sarah Bryan Miller
Post-Dispatch
12/13/2003
Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins in 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of The King.' (New Line)
Actor Viggo Mortensen isn't everyone's idea of Aragorn, the Ranger turned ruler in "The Return of the King." But that's all right with the legions who love "The Lord of the Rings." Their overwhelming desire to see a film version of the classic books they love draws even the critical to return to each new video chapter. Millions more who have never picked up the books are glued to the movies and the story they recount.
What accounts for their devotion?
Since the mid-1960s, when his trilogy burst on the scene as a featured component of the baby boomers' adolescent angst, J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973) easily has been the world's most popular and best-known fantasy writer. "Rings," its prelude, "The Hobbit" and volumes of ancillary material such as "The Silmarillion" continue to sell steadily, eclipsing the works of all of Tolkien's near-contemporaries, and even shoving his good friend C.S. Lewis into the shadowlands.
What keeps his stories in the spotlight of popular culture while many other fine works languish in the twilight? What makes "The Lord of the Rings" a fit subject for the Harvard Lampoon, whose classic parody "Bored of the Rings" was recently reissued? Why would anyone waste five minutes on Ralph Bakshi's deplorable animated version?
The answer is not the obvious one, given that this is a series built around a fantasy world. Stranger than fiction, it's the reality of Middle Earth that gives it its staying power.
Adolescent boys may flock to these movies to enjoy the myriad sound-effect-enhanced ways in which Our Heroes hack up Our Villains. Some nostalgia-ridden boomers may be revisiting an early interest. But others are drawn by the physical settings: the kings of the Argonath, the tower of Isengard, the elven magic of Lothlorien, the valley of Rivendell. Those who love the books have an intense desire to see the familiar places of this mighty epic.
The books are mythical in feel, but they are far more nuanced than actual myth. The story is more about conservation of the old and the inevitability of change than it is about alabaster gods and heroes. Those who were once good can turn to evil - and even those long soaked in evil can still do good, even unwittingly. So "The Lord of the Rings," in both its book and film versions, meshes better with the gestalt of today's pop culture than all of the old Hercules movies of the 1960s.
No other author has built a world with such detail and scope as Tolkien's creation. Other writers' efforts are more akin to fairy tales. They may illustrate a point of human nature, shed light on virtue or vice, or touch us emotionally, but like any parable they do not strive to be taken as reality.
A rich background
Tolkien's chosen field was linguistics, and his learning is reflected in the 15 languages he created or synthesized for his books, all with rules of grammar and pronunciation, vocabularies and well-developed cultures to match. That makes for a richness of background that no other fantasy world can offer.
There are parallels with our own history (ever notice the similarities between the Numenorian kingdoms in exile and the failing Roman empire?) and cultures. The Rohirrim are simply Anglo-Saxons with horses, right down to their language, poetry and funerary customs: Beowulf and Co. as equestrians. There is even a theology for Middle Earth; it seems to be basically Zoroastrian in nature, with a single powerful god ruling over competing spirits of good and evil.
But Tolkien's own theology was Christian; he was a devout Roman Catholic. He populated his world with fantasy creatures like dwarves (Tolkien's preferred spelling for the plural of dwarf), elves, orcs and hobbits. These resemble the best-drawn of science fiction characters, partaking of the human, yet not human (well, the hobbits are pretty thoroughly human), and a part of their own convincing reality.
Men and hobbits have free will: They can choose the light or the dark, the cause of good or of evil. But Tolkien's high elves are above human nature; his orcs (closely related to the ogres of fairy tale) are below it. In this, they mirror the Judeo-Christian tradition of angels and demons.
Angels, before they devolved in popular culture into avatars of the Cute, had a terrible beauty that awed their human observers, as do elves like the Lady Galadriel. Angelic messengers had to start out with reassurance - "Fear not!" - before they could get to the point. Orcs are entirely demonic, and just as devils are fallen angels, so orcs are degenerate descendents of elves. Neither gets a real choice about whether to be good or bad: They are what they are.
Critic Sarah Bryan Miller
e-mail: sbmiller@post-dispatch.com
forum: stltoday.com/thedresscircle
telephone: 314-340-8249
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
*Pseudo-Intellectual Who's Heard A New Word But Doesn't Know What It Means Alert*
First of all, the proper word for the faith is "Zarathustra". "Zoroaster" is a Greek corruption. Secondly, Zarathustrianism is a dualistic theology. Tolkien's theological myth structure is monotheistic - very Catholic, in fact.
 Ring Ping!! |
Anyone wishing to be added to or removed from the Ring-Ping list, please don't hesitate to let me know.
I would, if I knew what he ~said~!
Not that I have any good reason to defend these misguided pagans, but having met a few "(east) Indian-American" Zoroastrians recently, I read this about them:
"Zoroastrianism is the ancient religion of Persia. It was founded about 3500 years ago by the prophet Zarathushtra. Arising out of the polytheistic traditions of ancient India and Iran, he was one of the first monotheists in human history. Zarathushtra preached that there was one God, whom he called Ahura Mazda. Ahura means 'Lord,' and Mazda means 'Wise,' so Zoroastrians call God the 'Wise Lord.' "
Of course, Tolkien's Catholic theological myth structure is "True Myth".
There are two gods. The "Good Spirit" is Ahura Mazda and the "Evil Spirit" is Angra Mainyu. Their relationship to one another is very similar to Yin and Yang.
The portions of the Avesta of Zarathustra which survived Islam's attempt to wipe from the face of the Earth are quite interesting reading. Also - though often considered apocrypha - the Desatir is very beautiful. I suggest them both.
Presumably the author means elves are incapable of evil. If so, she really ought to reread the Silmarillion. Lots of elves do evil things in it.
Probably one of the most unfortunate things about the current Rings phenomenon is the multiude of ignorant critics who first rushed to bash it (prior to and during the early run of the first film) and are now falling all over themselves to praise it (now that two wildly successful films ahve been released). It seems that most have read them primarily to check off the plot points as they appear-- or don't-- in the movies. I've yet to read a critique of the series that begins, "I enjoyed (or hated) the movies, but when I finally read the books..."
Perfect!
The idea of Zarathustrian thought being Monotheistic is actually a very common error.
There are two gods. The "Good Spirit" is Ahura Mazda and the "Evil Spirit" is Angra Mainyu. Their relationship to one another is very similar to Yin and Yang.
You are simply playing word games.
The point is Zarathustrians only worship one god, so they are monotheists.
You could just as easily say that there are two "gods" in Christianity: "God" and the Devil. Or three "good gods": Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Or many, many gods if you define angels and saints as "gods", and why not, since they manifest most of the attributes of gods?
All monotheists did (immitating Zoroaster/Zarathustra) was to condemn all the old gods as "devils" and to devote all their devotion to a new "good" god supposedly in charge of everything.
But even the strictest monotheism is dualist in admitting a power of evil, either equal or inferior in power to that of good, but god-like none the less. And the good and evil gods have lots of helpers, angels and demons, so what we have here is still the same old polytheism under a new name, with all the credit going to the "good god" who is supposed to be running the show.
Conversely, all polytheists admit to a greater unifying power that could be called "god" and is therefore partly monotheistic in nature. Polytheists tend not to worship "jealous" gods, naturally. Worship a jealous god, and you end up being a monotheist.
Christianity itself is simply a renamed/repurposed Zoroastrianism, by way of Mithraism and messianic Judaism (such as the Essenes and other no longer extant Jewish groups). Much of Christian ritual and belief is virtually identical to much older Mithraism and Zoroastrianism, and its eschatology and implicit dualism, though coming to Christianity through the half-way house of messianic Judaism, is straight from Persia, and is unadulterated Zorastrianism in its core assumptions.
Zoro worshippers?? I thought we were talking about the movies..er books? =o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.