JRR Tolkien: Ringing in a Liberal or Conservative New Year

Tech Central Station ^ | January 4, 2005 | Joshua Livestro

[Angry Republican]

Window's open. Good night.

[Angry Republican]

If you thought that was funny, check out Losing Lois Lane. Laugh a minute riot!

[Gondring]

Thanks for the ping!

Sure is amazing how the anti-industrial edge of the books was taken out of the later movies, isn't it?

[Gondring]

Tim Benzedrine!

[Samwise]

I knew there was a reason why I can't stand Tolkien freaks.

We love you too.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Don't think potheads can't be conservatives.....

or those with hairy feet, for that matter

[Corin Stormhands]

I would be interested to know your analysis of how Gollum fits into this black/white world. Was he good or evil?

In his original state, Gollum/Smeagol was a simple creature, one of the river folk. Jackson got it right even in the brief scene that we see. Smeagol is happy that Deagol has a fish and is concerned when Deagol falls in the water.

It is only when he sees the ring that he turns.

And yes, Frodo was weak at the end.

To put it in a theological context, which Tolkein would have hated...It is a matter that, while God allows man to make choices, in the end His divine purpose will still be accomplished.

[cspackler]

Smeagol was basically good, Gollum was the evil alter-ego.

I think that Frodo's weakness was a showing of the corruptive influence of absolute power. The old absolute power corrupts absolutely thing.

[katana]

Been smoking some Old Toby yourself, eh? Most photos I've seen of Professor Tolkien show him puffing on a nice briar pipe, so I would think "pipeweed" is tobacco and one of a few anachronistic items mentioned in the story. Another is potatoes, as in the debate between Sam and Gollum about "taters" and rabbit stew.

The extended version of Return of the King, by the way, is a much better film than what appeared in the theaters. Lots of loose ends tied up (including Saruman's fate - no Scouring of the Shire added but the White Wizard meets his allotted end nonetheless) and the story flows much better.

[StoneColdGOP]

Tolkein said that LotR doesn't include political or social commentary. Gandalf is not Jesus, Sauron is not Satan, it's not pro-liberal pro-conservative. It's just a good story. Sit back and read (or watch.)

THANK YOU. I was thinking I was the only person reading this thread who had a bit of common sense and didn't feel the need the claim a treasured work of literature for my own ideology.

[infidel29]

Most of the libs in question are early to mid thirties.

[Melas]

Damn. I've seen all the Harry Potter movies, but only because I have children. My son has all the books, and is totally enthralled. It's juvenile literature. It just doesn't have as much appeal to me. I don't see how an adult could prefer it to Tolkein.

[infidel29]

I've seen them too, and although it was for the reason of children at the time, I would have eventually seen them all anyways, I love mythology, magic, and the medieval. That having been said, I don't see the allure over Tolkien either. Harry Potter is geared toward the teenager.

This makes sense when it comes to liberals though, most of them have juvenile minds as compared conservatives. They still live in the sixties when free love and free everything else ruled the day, Personal responsibility was ignored.

[GatorGirl]

Thanks everyone. I guess looking at it that way, none of the characters are inherently good or evil, they are merely operating within the framework of an epic battle of good and evil. Just like the rest of us are, in our "real" world!!!

Perhaps I'll start hanging out at the Hobbit Hole! GG

[HairOfTheDog]

Please do, we'll do our best to make you feel welcome!

[SuziQ]

Perhaps I'll start hanging out at the Hobbit Hole! GG

Come on in!

[Corin Stormhands]

Perhaps I'll start hanging out at the Hobbit Hole! GG

We'd love to have you. Just don't let the elves bother you. They tend to be a bit persnickety.

[HairOfTheDog]

Nothing they do is as objectionable as the dwarves...