"Do You Hate Women?"

[Boromir88]

http://collider.com/lee-pace-evangel...bit-interview/

I shouldn't be surprised Evangeline Lilly doesn't know what she's talking about. My reaction is, how is her character any better than having no females at all? Is Tauriel's inclusion better simply because "woo female!" Even if she spends most of the time in the 2 movies forgetting about her position as captain of Thranduil's guard and just runs around after the "hot" dwarf.

[Bêthberry]

Since I haven't seen the movie or her character, I really have no grounds to join the discussion. But a romance is a trite, tripe, stereotype. She's nothing like the valkyries, is she?

I'm not automatically adverse to adding female characters if it is done to assure significant character development. At least that is what Tolkien tried to do with Eowyn and the shieldmaiden concept.

It would have been very cool, I think, had some of the dwarves turned out to be female. After all, Tolkien says they have beards and are not distinguishable from their male counterparts. It could have made for a stunning discovery somewhere along the way, for Bilbo and for the audience. Image a dwarf leading a lament at the end disclosing her gender.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It would have been very cool, I think, had some of the dwarves turned out to be female. After all, Tolkien says they have beards and are not distinguishable from their male counterparts. It could have made for a stunning discovery somewhere along the way, for Bilbo and for the audience. Image a dwarf leading a lament at the end disclosing her gender.

Don't give them ideas, or Kili will turn out to be secretly female.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It would have been very cool, I think, had some of the dwarves turned out to be female. After all, Tolkien says they have beards and are not distinguishable from their male counterparts. It could have made for a stunning discovery somewhere along the way, for Bilbo and for the audience. Image a dwarf leading a lament at the end disclosing her gender.

Ah, but Dwarves, of whatever gender, don't lend themselves to sex appeal. Appearance, not character, is the gold standard for the motion picture. Why else is Legolas there?

[Morthoron]

In the Jackson/Boyens manner of formulating scripts as if they were writing teenage fan-fiction, Tauriel is first a Mary-Sue with supernatural combat ability, descends into a sex object with the "what has the dwarveses gots in his pantses?" and eventually plummets completely into a weak female who must be rescued in battle by a male and ends the film whimpering like a Southern belle jilted at the plantation cotillion.

This is poorly written trash inserted to fill a viewer demographic (because the story would survive just fine without her, as it did for 70 years previous to the films). All one needs is misspellings and bad grammar for it to be included as adolescent spam on fan-fiction.net., just a notch above the various inane Legolas mpreg stories.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

http://collider.com/lee-pace-evangel...bit-interview/

I shouldn't be surprised Evangeline Lilly doesn't know what she's talking about. . . .

That seems a little harsh. She admitted the question was flippant (Appropriately enough for the context.) and that she knew the real answer was 'no'. It sounded to me like she knew a bit of what she was talking about.

I think it's actually an interesting subject too, underneath the flippancy. Certainly one I wish we could quiz Tolkien on directly.

[Faramir Jones]

While I agree with you, IxnaY AintsaY, that Ms. Lilly was trying to say something coherent, it was drowned in a greater amount of incoherence.

She began by saying that her question was 'sassy', and that she was in a 'sassy mood'. Miriam-Webster online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sassy) defines this as '1. Impudent; 2. Vigorous, lively; 3. Distinctively smart and stylish'. I'm taking it from the context that definitions 1 and 2 are relevant here.

If Ms. Lilly, or anyone else, wants to ask a provocative question, that's fine. The point is that the questioner should then be prepared for a response, and to argue his or her point, presenting evidence, in this case that J. R. R. Tolkien hated women.

After asking it, she then undercut her own question, saying that Tolkien 'started writing incredibly well for women in the 1970s, once the women's lib movement happened'. She said that what Tolkien did in the 1930s was 'then not so much'. It was 'a societal thing'.

In my view, if Ms. Lilly began with such a provocative question to Tolkien, of 'Do you hate women?' I would have expected her to be ready to defend it; but she undercut it by a claim which showed her ignorance of Tolkien and his works, including that he died in 1973.

She then groped towards a coherent point when she said that Tolkien's writing in the 1930s was influenced by the society in which he grew up in and in which he lived, like the works of any writer. Certainly he was educated in, worked in, and socialised in mostly male-dominated environments, which may have influenced what he wrote; but it's not an indication of any 'hate' regarding women, a very strong term to use.

The problem was that she had already showed (in my opinion) she didn't have the evidence (shown by her ignorance about Tolkien in the 1970s) to coherently argue her question.

What do you and others think of this?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

She then groped towards a coherent point when she said that Tolkien's writing in the 1930s was influenced by the society in which he grew up in and in which he lived, like the works of any writer. Certainly he was educated in, worked in, and socialised in mostly male-dominated environments, which may have influenced what he wrote; but it's not an indication of any 'hate' regarding women, a very strong term to use.

Tolkien was certainly, and unavoidably, a product of his time. However, I think you can point to Éowyn in LOTR alone as an indication that his ideas of the place of women in society were not necessarily totally in line with his contemporaries.

Granted, she might appear at first to be the lovesick, housekeeping maiden with little other purpose than to give Aragorn another problem to deal with.
Instead though, she herself rebels at her position and decides to ride off with the Rohirrim to an almost certain death, and ultimately accomplishes a tremendous deed in arms.

The fact that in The Hobbit we see no female characters at all could simply be explained by positing they it just didn't occur to Tolkien to add one, not through any conscious decision.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The fact that in The Hobbit we see no female characters at all could simply be explained by positing they it just didn't occur to Tolkien to add one, not through any conscious decision.

Exactly and I'm wondering how adding Tauriel just for the sake of having a female character is better than Tolkien not having a female in The Hobbit, or better than the female characters he did create in his other books? When Tauriel's "character" is exactly as described by Morthoron.

If I could ask Jackson a question, it wouldn't be "Do you Hate Women?," but based on Tauriel, I think it's more of an appropriate question for him than Tolkien. Quality, not quantity. I don't think Jackson understands that concept.

[Faramir Jones]

Would we get the same kind of response if an actor playing a character in an adaptation of a work by Jane Austen said that he would have liked to ask her the question, 'Do you hate men?'

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

After asking it, she then undercut her own question, saying that Tolkien 'started writing incredibly well for women in the 1970s, once the women's lib movement happened'. She said that what Tolkien did in the 1930s was 'then not so much'. It was 'a societal thing'.

In my view, if Ms. Lilly began with such a provocative question to Tolkien, of 'Do you hate women?' I would have expected her to be ready to defend it; but she undercut it by a claim which showed her ignorance of Tolkien and his works, including that he died in 1973.

She then groped towards a coherent point when she said that Tolkien's writing in the 1930s was influenced by the society in which he grew up in and in which he lived, like the works of any writer. Certainly he was educated in, worked in, and socialised in mostly male-dominated environments, which may have influenced what he wrote; but it's not an indication of any 'hate' regarding women, a very strong term to use.

The problem was that she had already showed (in my opinion) she didn't have the evidence (shown by her ignorance about Tolkien in the 1970s) to coherently argue her question.

What do you and others think of this?

Oh, all right, I will chime in about Lilly. Faramir's telling arguments about her quotes are too much to ignore.

"Feminism" did not start in the 1970's, Ms Lilly, so Tolkien just might have heard about women's rights before then. You might want to do some reading on the Suffragettes and other women's groups who won the right for women to vote in the early century. You might also want to consider the impact of Betty Freidan's 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique regarding the timing of feminism. You might furthermore want to check out what Tolkien said about Simone de Beauvoir, who is known for her 1949 book, The Second Sex, which had just a wee bit of feminist influence.

Ms Lilly might also be well advised to read some early Tolkien writing, in BoLT. Or, heck , even the Silm, for evidence of and development of female characters. TH was written for Tolkien's sons and it is quite possible that he deliberately left out female characters because of them, not because of some misguided attitude towards women.

And, finally, I would recommend Ms Lilly and anyone else read some of David Doughan's work on Tolkien and women. He is an erudite and educated long time reader of Tolkien and member of the Society which bears the author's name. His articles are available in old editions of the Tolkien Society's magazine, Mallorn. David examines Tolkien's treatment of his students at Oxford, specifically his mentoring of graduate female students, several of whom went on to distinguished work. David also does a good job putting Tolkien's letter to his son which questions women's abilities in a particular personal context, possibly to dissuade him from a particular marriage prospect. Check out his 1995 and 2008 papers, references to which can be found here

Bothersome ignorant actress.

And concerning Jane Austen's attitude towards men . . . well, sadly, her sibling heirs destroyed most of her letters, so we have hardly any strong biographical sources. She did have several brothers, though.

EDIT: I still think it would have been brilliant to turn some of the dwarves into women. But then I am currently reading Viriginia Woolf's Orlando, after whom I believe the Legolas actor was named.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

Would we get the same kind of response if an actor playing a character in an adaptation of a work by Jane Austen said that he would have liked to ask her the question, 'Do you hate men?'

And considering that Tess of the d'Urbervilles was written by a man... I'm not sure what gender the question should be posed in.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I'm really rather amused by the notion- a childish one, really - that tossing in a grrrl-power female action hero somehow makes a story "feminist" or gives it "feminine energy" or renders it less toxically "patriarchal" or some darn thing.

Let's be real: Tauriel is less a "female" character than a male one with boobs: Legolass. She really introduces nothing "feminine;" nor does her character have a role a male neolovir wouldn't have filled equally well (or poorly), provided Kili were gay. Galadriel (Tolkien's, not Jackson's) is an infinitely more feminist character.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

BTW, Morth, the system won't let me give you any more 'reputation' but I have to congratulate you on your marvelous facility with alkaline polemic when it comes to PBJ; you spin it with the admirable and effortless invention of a Mozart spinning counterpoint.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

While I agree with you, IxnaY AintsaY, that Ms. Lilly was trying to say something coherent, it was drowned in a greater amount of incoherence.

She began by saying that her question was 'sassy', and that she was in a 'sassy mood'. Miriam-Webster online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sassy) defines this as '1. Impudent; 2. Vigorous, lively; 3. Distinctively smart and stylish'. I'm taking it from the context that definitions 1 and 2 are relevant here.

If Ms. Lilly, or anyone else, wants to ask a provocative question, that's fine. The point is that the questioner should then be prepared for a response, and to argue his or her point, presenting evidence, in this case that J. R. R. Tolkien hated women.

After asking it, she then undercut her own question, saying that Tolkien 'started writing incredibly well for women in the 1970s, once the women's lib movement happened'. She said that what Tolkien did in the 1930s was 'then not so much'. It was 'a societal thing'.

In my view, if Ms. Lilly began with such a provocative question to Tolkien, of 'Do you hate women?' I would have expected her to be ready to defend it; but she undercut it by a claim which showed her ignorance of Tolkien and his works, including that he died in 1973.

She then groped towards a coherent point when she said that Tolkien's writing in the 1930s was influenced by the society in which he grew up in and in which he lived, like the works of any writer. Certainly he was educated in, worked in, and socialised in mostly male-dominated environments, which may have influenced what he wrote; but it's not an indication of any 'hate' regarding women, a very strong term to use.

The problem was that she had already showed (in my opinion) she didn't have the evidence (shown by her ignorance about Tolkien in the 1970s) to coherently argue her question.

What do you and others think of this?

I think, in this instance, my standards are set lower than yours.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

BTW, Morth, the system won't let me give you any more 'reputation' but I have to congratulate you on your marvelous facility with alkaline polemic when it comes to PBJ; you spin it with the admirable and effortless invention of a Mozart spinning counterpoint.

Thanks, WCH, but hoisting PJ on his own petard is as easy as shooting dwarves in a barrel (if I may mix metaphors).

From my standpoint, if one wishes to deviate from a classic book, and in particular add a main character extraneous from the original plot, the changes must a) be required to advance the story from a visual rather than literary medium, b) be plausible within the context of the story, and c) offer the actor a memorable role and script with which to work.

I think PJ/Boyens failed on all 3 counts, and in baseball parlance that is a strike-out.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

as easy as shooting dwarves in a barrel (if I may mix metaphors).

Hey!

You may not mix your metaphors, sir!

[Mithadan]

In your case, Morthoron may, if he wishes.

Through the lens of willing suspension of disbelief (and pretending that I have never read the books) I do not dislike Tauriel. From the perspective of a "purist", I find Tauriel slightly less annoying and offensive than the portrayal of Radagast. The two are followed by my distaste for the "White Orc" whose inclusion seems only necessary to provide action and expand the material to stretch it into three movies.

Regarding Ms. Lily's comments in the interview, if she wanted to discuss substance, she should have been more familiar with the author and his work. I wasn't too thrilled about the "why are all the kings underground" query either.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Through the lens of willing suspension of disbelief (and pretending that I have never read the books) I do not dislike Tauriel. From the perspective of a "purist", I find Tauriel slightly less annoying and offensive than the portrayal of Radagast. The two are followed by my distaste for the "White Orc" whose inclusion seems only necessary to provide action and expand the material to stretch it into three movies.

I will say, I don't dislike Tauriel's inclusion anymore than I dislike Alfrid's. Even though that's not saying much, both are useless and unnecessary.

[Zigûr]

In one of the critical works I used in my thesis, the author discussed the traditional dichotomy associating the masculine with the mental, rational and artificial and the feminine with the physical, emotional and the natural. I touched upon how, in Professor Tolkien's work, he does not necessarily support such a dichotomy by portraying emotionality and nature across gender.

I wonder if a more sophisticated production which was less interested in fulfilling Hollywood quotas could have explored gender in the narrative by doing something more interesting than inserting a female love interest for one of the Dwarves, perhaps by going further in contrasting Bilbo's appreciation of nature to Thorin's increasing obsession with the man made and non-living and working with the different masculinities presented.

The nature-artifice divide was actually touched upon in the third film but only to a very limited extent. I think there were definitely more interesting ways of handling the exclusively male nature of the original text. I like the idea of some of the Dwarves being female, but again they would require more of a role and characterisation than they received.

[Michael Murry]

My compliments to the commenters for their various acidic views on the promotional interview that took place over a year ago featuring three marginal cast members of The Hobbit films. I have refrained from viewing it, primarily because I haven't yet rid my system of the rancid bile induced by watching the last -- thankfully -- of the tree "tent pole" films, each shamelessly seeking to vacuum the last penny from the pockets of every conveivable teenage fantasy film demographic.

Still, I would like to extend my most sincere gratitude to Morthoron for mentioning "the inane Legolas mpreg stories," rated only one notch below the Jackson/Boyens scripts for these films. I had thought that in my Elf Chick Security Guard cylce of poems I had successfully lampooned the most cheesy/sleazy film gimmicks personified in the Itaril (release 1.0) / Tauriel (release 2.0) character. But even I, a jaded swab-jocky veteran of Uncle Sam's Canoe Club, could not top:

Legolas Mpreg

“This is basically a community who love Legolas as well [as] pregnant. It can be Aragorn[,] Gimili[,] even one o[f] the twins[,] but please no Thranduil or Elrond.... I just can't bear that …”

See: https://www.fanfiction.net/s/1208495...ve-Secret-Life

"Secret Love, Secret Life"
by slightly-psychotic

[An excerpt from a scene where the pregnant Legolas experiences morning sickness while trekking through the wilds of Middle Earth with Gimli and Aragorn]:

“All of this he kept to himself. He did not want to worry the others. Especially Aragorn. The thought of the King of Gondor brought a smile to his face and he smiled happily remembering the feel of those rough calloused hands caressing him as they had the previous night. All too suddenly the wonderful thoughts were knocked from his mind as another wave of nausea hit and he threw up once more.”

I can well understand the nausea. Only in the case of the three Hobbit films, Peter Jackson and Phillipa Boyens provided that without even requiring interspecies, homosexual pregnancy -- although they hinted at the possibility of mating a female horse (elf) with a male donkey (dwarf) which would produce ... ?

I really can't let that Legolas Mpreg thing go unchallenged in verse. Now I have to go back through all of my poems to see what, if anything, I missed ridiculing.

Thanks again, Morthoron. .

[Faramir Jones]

An interesting contribution, Michael, which leaves the question open about how this pregnancy happened without some magical or divine intervention, or both...

It reminds me of the scene in Money Python's The Life of Brian when one of the Jewish resisters told his comrades that he wanted to be a woman, because he wanted to have babies. Even if he couldn't physically have a child, he still wanted the right to have one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

I also recall a piece of X-Files fanfiction where Fox Mulder ended up pregnant by Dana Scully, the baby being genetically theirs. Certain people badly disposed to them decided to do an experiment by putting them both to sleep, extracting the relevant material, fertilising an egg and implanting it in Agent Mulder. I found it just about acceptable, due to the nature of the X-Files universe. That story you linked us to, however...

Zigûr, I liked what you said here:

if a more sophisticated production which was less interested in fulfilling Hollywood quotas could have explored gender in the narrative by doing something more interesting than inserting a female love interest for one of the Dwarves, perhaps by going further in contrasting Bilbo's appreciation of nature to Thorin's increasing obsession with the man made and non-living and working with the different masculinities presented.

In my opinion, the book itself offered some suggestions on how this could be done. First, there was a reference by Bilbo to Gandalf being 'responsible for so many hobbit lads and lasses' going on adventures. (My emphasis) I contend that putting a female hobbit into the films would have made more sense than a female elf; because one could have made an argument that Tolkien himself hinted in the text that female hobbits also went off on adventures.

Second, it's clear that Bilbo was fully capable of looking after Bag End on his own, without any help. He was able to bake seed cake; and after waking up the following morning after the party, did the (considerable) washing up and cleaning. The first film could have shown him doing this, quite competently, without him grumbling that it wasn't his job. He would be shown as a hero who does considerable housework as a matter of course.

[Michael Murry]

I realize that the "Hobbit" movies have come and gone, and the Elf Chick Warrior Queen sequels have not yet entered pre-production, but for those longing for more of the "strong woman," "shield maiden" thing in films, I note that the the History Channel has announced Season Four of the Canadian/Irish program "Vikings," which begins Thursday, February 18 in North America and Friday, February 19 here in Asia. Since J. R. R. Tolkien had something of an interest in Scandinavian/Anglo-Saxon history and languages, perhaps this series will provide something for retro-projected feminism to enjoy. The first three seasons had quite a bit of that. Just saying ...

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

Legolas Mpreg

“This is basically a community who love Legolas as well [as] pregnant. It can be Aragorn[,] Gimili[,] even one o[f] the twins[,] but please no Thranduil or Elrond.... I just can't bear that …”

So, (ahem...) a pregnant Legolas is okay, as long as it wasn't Thranduil or Elrond who impregnated him? Okay. Got it. Thank you, Legolas MPREG.

SMH. Nonsense like this is enough to cause me hesternopothia.

[Aaron]

If they wanted a strong female character - which, I'm sorry to say, Tauriel wasn't - why not have an orc or goblin character?
Let's say they were going more by the books, and having Bolg as the leader of the orcs instead of Azog. They could have easily have given him a sister - who could have fought with him, and spurred him on, reminding him of the genuine grievances they had with Thorin and his company: In regards to both his father's death, and the death of the Great Goblin.
In the war between the Dwarves and the Orcs, Tolkien explicitly states that there was much cruelty on both sides. It wasn't a case of good and evil. You could easily show the family dynamic of an Orc dynasty looking for revenge.

Instead, we had to have a female character who ceased to really be a character. She looked perfect, fought perfectly, and seemed to exist only to pine and whine about love.
There was no personality to her, no zest, she was there to make up the numbers - and I actually find that more offensive than there being no female characters in the first place.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Aaron

If they wanted a strong female character - which, I'm sorry to say, Tauriel wasn't - why not have an orc or goblin character?

I would even ask, if one wants a strong female character, why does she have to be shown slaying warriors by the dozen?

Gladriel killed nobody in any of three films, and she radiates strength. But, this contemporary desire to highlight some form of blatant "girl power", or something, creates Tauriels all of the time, which are both cliche and almost obligatory.

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

I would even ask, if one wants a strong female character, why does she have to be shown slaying warriors by the dozen?

Gladriel killed nobody in any of three films, and she radiates strength. But, this contemporary desire to highlight some form of blatant "girl power", or something, creates Tauriels all of the time, which are both cliche and almost obligatory.

Absolutely agree. A female character is not, by sheer virtue of her gender, a representation of all womankind, and I resent the weird PR speak which often suggests that this is the case. A strong female character is a character, first and last.

I am very glad you mentioned Galadriel, because she is a fine example. In a story about temptation and war, I have always found her an oddly mournful figure, who nonetheless makes the effort to do good. There is something funereal about her, which is appropriate given how the novel deals with the passing of an age, and the slow death of the fantastic. She absolutely fits the story.

But when we think of The Hobbit, how does Tauriel fit in?
True, it is a children's story, but the book is deceptively deep, and deals with more than one little Hobbit going on an adventure. In many ways, I have always felt that the Hobbit is about sin, and sin catching up with you, when you feel safest and surest. Smaug, Thorin and Gollum all feel secure, and above consequences for their actions, and are punished for their pride. Bilbo, for his humility, is allowed to survive - and be free of gold and war for the rest of his days.

When one considers this theme, or any other which could reasonably be taken from the text, how does Tauriel reflect it? She kills many enemies in pointless action scenes, she has a love affair with a dwarf, she cries.
The character does not fit the story. Well acted, for what it was, but it simply doesn't fit.
In truth, it's the result of the whole ethos of the movie. The actress isn't to blame. They wanted to make The Hobbit into an action trilogy, and she got shoehorned into the love interest role. It's quite a shame. She would have made a good Orc

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Aaron

The actress isn't to blame. They wanted to make The Hobbit into an action trilogy, and she got shoehorned into the love interest role. It's quite a shame. She would have made a good Orc

Tolkien's works would certainly be refined and deepened by a sympathetic, butt-kicking (And oddly alluring!) girl-orc-character or three. Or yrcharacters as we'd be down-right obligated to call them.

Well, I'd feel obligated, anyway.

[Faramir Jones]

In terms of what you said here, Aaron:

In truth, it's the result of the whole ethos of the movie. The actress isn't to blame. They wanted to make The Hobbit into an action trilogy, and she got shoehorned into the love interest role. It's quite a shame. She would have made a good Orc.

What annoyed me so much was the seemingly endless publicity at the time of statements that the new female Elf wasn't being introduced as a love interest...

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

In terms of what you said here, Aaron:

In truth, it's the result of the whole ethos of the movie. The actress isn't to blame. They wanted to make The Hobbit into an action trilogy, and she got shoehorned into the love interest role. It's quite a shame. She would have made a good Orc.

What annoyed me so much was the seemingly endless publicity at the time of statements that the new female Elf wasn't being introduced as a love interest...

I heard that the actress was quite insistent that she not be given a romantic subplot, but upon actually filming the thing was told that was precisely their plan.
The truth of this I don't know, but it would fit in with the wider incompetence of the troubled production.

[Faramir Jones]

Originally Posted by Aaron

I heard that the actress was quite insistent that she not be given a romantic subplot, but upon actually filming the thing was told that was precisely their plan.
The truth of this I don't know, but it would fit in with the wider incompetence of the troubled production.

That's very interesting, Aaron. If true, she, as well as ourselves, was also lied to by the relevant people.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Aaron

I heard that the actress was quite insistent that she not be given a romantic subplot, but upon actually filming the thing was told that was precisely their plan.
The truth of this I don't know, but it would fit in with the wider incompetence of the troubled production.

I find that very interesting because I don't remember seeing that anywhere before.

Is there a source you could point to? I'm curious to see this.

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I find that very interesting because I don't remember seeing that anywhere before.

Is there a source you could point to? I'm curious to see this.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/bp/the-...211339686.html
To her credit, she did the best she could with the material she was given. But it's sad she was treated so badly.

[Faramir Jones]

Originally Posted by Aaron

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/bp/the-...211339686.html
To her credit, she did the best she could with the material she was given. But it's sad she was treated so badly.

Thanks for the link, Aaron. What I read is, very sadly, not surprising...

[Lalaith]

But it's sad she was treated so badly

Indeed - I felt very sorry for her having to act it. I also felt very sorry for myself having to watch it. Excruciating.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Indeed - I felt very sorry for her having to act it. I also felt very sorry for myself having to watch it. Excruciating.

She at least received compensation for her work.

I had to pay for the privilege...or rather some other people did.

[Marwhini]

Interesting that someone mentioned the Stan/Loretta character of Eric Idle from The Life of Brian.

I cannot think of a more appropriate reference with which to Mock the actor who played Tauriel, and her weird observations about Tolkien, nor mocking PJ's inclusion of this character into The Hobbit.

The Stan/Loretta character in The Life of Brian was/is mocking the Post-Modernist and Identity Politics that had arisen during the 60s/70s/80s.

And Lilly's critique of "Does Tolkien hate Women?" is itself such a manifestation of Identity Politics, and Post-Modernist revisionism.


As is the character's inclusion into The Hobbit by Peter Jackson.

It is an egregious addition whose sole purpose is to pander to a female Post-Modernist Identity.

Tolkien's works are not "Modern" even.

Anyway.... The interview in the OP just shows the contempt of Tolkien's work held by most people. Very sad.

MB

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

Tolkien's works are not "Modern" even.

I disagree with this. Tolkien may have been heavily inspired by medieval sources, but he lived for almost his entire life in the twentieth century and was influenced by his context. Tolkien was not a "Modernist" but I believe he was "Modern".

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I disagree with this. Tolkien may have been heavily inspired by medieval sources, but he lived for almost his entire life in the twentieth century and was influenced by his context. Tolkien was not a "Modernist" but I believe he was "Modern".

Depends on what you define as "modern", Zig. For a writer in the 1930s, Tolkien's style certainly wasn't modern in the sense of contemporaries like Steinbeck, Hammett, Huxley and Orwell, and is on a different planet entirely, comparatively-speaking, from Wm. Faulkner, F.S. Fitzgerald, Viriginia Woolf, James Joyce, etc.

Tolkien's wording and even his grammar is old-fashioned, more Edwardian than modern from a comparative standpoint to his peers, but I suppose Robert Graves, writing-wise, would be more his peer than someone like Faulkner or Joyce. And this decided conservative, dare I say, archaic, style is evident in Lord of the Rings (and even more so in The Silmarillion).

Follow along with T.H. White, who wrote sections of The Once and Future King nearly contemporaneously with Tolkien from 1938 (The Sword in the Stone) through 1958 (A Candle in the Wind), and the difference in tone and phraseology is dramatically different, even though both were writing stories of distant events.

Tolkien was conservative in the old-fashioned sense (and not at all what we view absurd conservatives today in the U.S.). He dressed conservatively, despised motors and engines, was an arch-Catholic (pre-Vatican II), and his prose fits his Oxonic (Oxfordian?) linguistic predilections. From strictly a prose-style he is not 20th century.

[Faramir Jones]

My own view is that you can call J. R. R. Tolkien 'Modern' in terms of dealing with, not just the issues of industrialisation and urbanisation, which he was familiar with, having grown up close to and in the city of Birmingham, but also the impact of the two World Wars of the twentieth century, in particular the First. He did so, however, in a different way from those who have been called 'Modernists'.

I think of him as 'modern' in his treatment of at least the following three things:

1. Bilbo and Frodo looking after themselves: It appears that Bilbo, and later Frodo Baggins, do their own cooking, baking, cleaning and washing up. The only people shown as employees are the gardeners, including the Gamgees. While it was presumably intended not to show them as heartless employers, who went off leaving the status of their employees so uncertain, the effect is to show them as quite 'modern', not needing the help of even a single manservant. (Sam does look after Frodo in terms of the Fellowship, but this is in the context of the War of the Ring, and like an officer's batman.)
2. Aragorn II and Faramir: Both are looking to save their own people, even at the cost of their own lives, not looking for personal glory, and are fully aware of the devastation of war, even when fought in a just cause.
3. How Sam and Rose are treated: After Sam returns with Frodo, not only are he and his wife Rose allowed to live in Bag-end with their increasing family; Frodo makes Sam his heir. Sam and Rose also appear to inherit his social position, he being Master Samwise, and his wife Mistress Rose. There appears to be not the slightest criticism of their new status by other hobbits, including perhaps how 'vulgar' and 'jumped up' they are. Indeed, one of their daughters, Goldilocks, marries into the Took family, Pippin's son Faramir.