Uses & misuses....

[davem]

Found this link through the Tangent Universe site.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/fight-flight.html

Look at the opening quote. Reading it I found myself wondering if we'll soon see these words of Faramir on NRA t-shirts & bumper stickers, alonside the one about 'the only way you'll get my gun is if you take it from my cold, dead hand'.

Now, without getting into the whole political question of gun control, I'd be interested in other examples of use/misuse of Tolkien's work - especially in light of the popularity of the movies. Also, how far could we extend this idea? What about the crass commercialism (action figures, posters, other tie-ins) that has followed in the wake of the movies?

(Hoping that this doesn't descend into a pro-/anti-gun argument......)

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

That's pretty horrible. The other example that springs to mind is the use of Tolkien's work to promote race-hate propaganda.

But anything, seriously anything, can be twisted; and a lot of things can be twisted in millions of different ways. Think of all the groups who hijacked Nietzche's philsophy; total opposites of each other and they all claimed him as their own.

You could construct a compelling argument for either side of the gun-ownership debate from Tolkien. I just don't take it seriously.

[davem]

Well, the neo-nazi's use of Tolkien's works is familiar to most of us, but its the other uses/misuses that interest me. The idea that Faramir (of all characters) word's could be used to support the gun lobby is odd (well, it is to me, but maybe not to others)

And what about all the commercialism around the movies. I don't know if Tolkien would have been appalled by the action figures, posters, jewellery, etc, or simply confirmed in his low opinion of modern society, but it is odd that his work could provide the source for such things. Its also, perhaps, odd, that the people buying all that love the world he created. Do they also love his philosophy, or do they take something else from it, something he didn't intend...

Or am I reading too much into this?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Nice thread, davem. I know what you mean.

Example: For those who have watched the cast commentary on the EE DVDs, think of what the cast has to say about people who take the movies as being pro-war. There are constant battles, loads of killing, weapons, and such. And yet, for anyone with half a brain, it *should* (cough cough) be obvious that, like Faramir said, "I do not love the sword for its brightness", etcetera. War is a needed part of life, to protect that which is deemed right (which makes it such a tragedy, since each side thinks they are the ones correct), and yet it is a horrible part of life. Look at the way it is depicted by Tolkien: blood, horror, loss, grief, children dying, bodies hewn. War may be needed, but it is not a good thing. The only pro- part of war is that which it is waged for.

Fea

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Its also, perhaps, odd, that the people buying all that love the world he created. Do they also love his philosophy, or do they take something else from it, something he didn't intend...

This question gets close to some of the points in the C-thread. In that the reader often (if not usually) 'sees' things within a text that the author might not have intended. And indeed, there may be references within a text so personal to the author that the reader will never notice them. It might well be that what the reader picks out from a text is ultimately wrong, but nevertheless they do pick these things out.

One of the things which makes Tolkien's work so enjoyable is that it is not didactic and we must search to find the meaning. It is subtle and doesn't come along and hit you over the head (so to speak), as shown by the changing interpretations over time; Tolkien used to be interpreted as primarily an environmentalist, while nowadays we see him more as a philosopher. His work is fluid, so its no surprise that a lot of different meanings can be taken from it. I suppose the difference between 'us' and 'them' is that we all see ourselves as reasoned fans and like to refer to things like Tolkien's Letters to see 'what he thought about it'.

About merchandising, Tolkien was already a huge money making machine before the films came out. Without even mentioning the vast publishing opportunities surrounding the books and their multifarious editions, there were already several lines of toys (Middle Earth Toys made action figures including Barrow-Wights etc), pewter figures, porcelain figures, etc. There has also been a line of calendars and diaries for many years, many different posters, and there have also been lines of jewellery. Much of this was quite hard to get hold of before the films but has since surfaced on such places as ebay, but the very existence of it suggests that Tolkien fans have always been greedy for merchandise, and that includes everyone who was a fan before the films.

[davem]

Found this through a reference in the One Ring book 'People's Guide to JRR Tolkien:http://www.sorento-club.de/modules.p...article&sid=27

Click on the trailer link & you'll see an ad for the Kia Sorento off road vehicle, based around the Fellowship movie. Now, obviously, people, I accept, take different things from Tolkien's work, but using a movie of LotR to promote off-road vehicles! Surely Tolkien would have been appalled.

Heres a bit of background on the campain from Tolkien On Line:

Kia's effort is tied to the introduction of a new model, the Sorento, a midsize sports utility vehicle that is expected to be in showrooms by September, a company spokesman said. A free copy of the DVD will also be given to anyone who takes a test drive of any of its cars, a point that Kia's commercial goes to great lengths to make.

In the spot, produced by davidand goliath, an independent agency in Los Angeles, a man and his wife are driving a Sorento. They are pursued by ghostlike figures on horseback, similar to those that appear in "The Fellowship of the Ring." Finally, they catch up to the vehicle and tap on the window. The driver rolls it down, and one of the figures — it turns out that it is a Kia dealer — hands him an object.

"Here's your free DVD," he says.

Wally Anderson, vice president of marketing for Kia, said that the carmaker expected dealers to give away 60,000 DVD's over the next couple of months, Kia's full allotment. During a similar effort last autumn in connection with the video release of "Shrek," the company handed out 40,000 DVD's. That promotion, tied to Kia's introduction of its Sedona minivan, resulted in the sale of an estimated 4,000 additional vehicles, he said.

(whole article:http://www.tolkienonline.com/docs/7049.html)

[Rumil]

Even the devil can quote scripture !

[davem]

Of course, but its still interesting that certain groups & organisations want to be so closely associated with Lord of the Rings. The car manufacturer for instance. Did the advertising company know anything about Tolkien's hatred for the 'infernal combustion engine'? If they did, & if their clients did, were they ignoring that fact or trying to subvert the work? Clearly they wanted to make a connection between their product - an suv, designed for off road use, providing easy access to the countryside - & a movie which is set in 'the great outdoors'. Yet their product in particular, which brings said 'I.C.E.' into the heart of the countryside would have been Tolkien's worst nightmare. He would probably have described the drivers of such vehicles as 'orcs'.

Of course, seeing Black Riders approaching & proving to be friendly with the driver of such a vehicle could be seen as subverting the company & its products.

So, we have neo-Nazi groups, the gun lobby, motor manufacturers, fundamentalist Christians, environmentalists, pagans, the makers of fast food et al, all wanting to claim Tolkien & his works as their own. But how many of them have understood Tolkien's message & his underlying philosophy?

Another question that occurs to me is how all these 'claims' affect the public's understanding of Tolkien's work. How many people will turn to these products/philosophies because of their love of LotR (books or movies) & how many people will be turned off these products for similar reasons? Will there be movie/book fans who go out & buy a Kia Sorrento (or an uzi )because they see that ad or read that web page? Will there be fans who boycott the products because of what they know about Tolkien's feelings?

[Encaitare]

So, we have neo-Nazi groups, the gun lobby, motor manufacturers, fundamentalist Christians, environmentalists, pagans, the makers of fast food et al, all wanting to claim Tolkien & his works as their own. But how many of them have understood Tolkien's message & his underlying philosophy?

Quite a varied group you've got there, sir.

I must confess that I thought the commercial was amusing. Kind of tasteless considering the points you made about Tolkien's view of such technology, but cute in a wry smile, campy sort of way.

Something I learned in English class not too long ago just came to mind -- the idea of ethos, trying to gain credibility by citing sources of the fine reputation of the writer/company/whoever. Any group which quotes Tolkien, such as that progun site, is trying to back up its point by providing the words of the prestigious author, which seem to correspond to the idea presented later.

As for the KIA commercial... it's just more of a marketing device, a hook to make people feel like they're getting something out of the deal no matter what. You open an account at a bank, you get a toaster -- similar kind of idea here. Except toasters don't ride huge horses to the sound of Andunic choirs.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Encaitare

the idea of ethos, trying to gain credibility by citing sources of the fine reputation of the writer/company/whoever. Any group which quotes Tolkien, such as that pro gun site, is trying to back up its point by providing the words of the prestigious author, which seem to correspond to the idea presented later.

But have they chosen to quote Tolkien simply because he is a (currently) famous author, or are they attempting to latch on to the popularity of the movies (prob. not as that line isn't in the movies) or are they trying to associate themselves with (what they percievce to be) the ethos of Tolkien's work? Is the message 'This is what the heroes of LotR would drive' or 'if Aragorn was king he'd be pro gun'.?

In other words, & maybe we're back to the Canonicity question here, are these examples uses or misuses? Why do so many disparate groups & individuals want to associate themselves with Middle earth - simply because the movies are popular at the moment? It seems Middle earth has entered the public consciousness to such a degree that people want their product/philosophy to be linked with it in the public consciousness. Are they sincere, believing that they are offering us some part of Middle earth which we can take into our lives, make our own - whether that be a car, a gun or an action figure (or a burger or Christianity for that matter)?

Is there a desire for Middle earth to in some way be brought into our lives, but without actually changing our lifestyle - we can still have the cars, toys, guns but at the same time live in some way in Middle earth - after all, as the ads tell us, there were SUV's in the Shire....

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, but its still interesting that certain groups & organisations want to be so closely associated with Lord of the Rings. The car manufacturer for instance. Did the advertising company know anything about Tolkien's hatred for the 'infernal combustion engine'? If they did, & if their clients did, were they ignoring that fact or trying to subvert the work? Clearly they wanted to make a connection between their product - an suv, designed for off road use, providing easy access to the countryside - & a movie which is set in 'the great outdoors'. Yet their product in particular, which brings said 'I.C.E.' into the heart of the countryside would have been Tolkien's worst nightmare. He would probably have described the drivers of such vehicles as 'orcs'.

Whether the vehicle manufacture cares about Tolkien's take on internal combustion or not, it's the audience (i.e. us) that are the true problem. No one cares! Ask most people who saw the movies and ask them if they read the books (or if they've read any books). Did Tolkien like industry? Was he for or against gun rights? Who cares?!?

Where's my next spoonful of entertainment already?

To find out answers to even somewhat 'smaller issues' (I have to be careful here as I am amongst fellow Tolkien nuts) is just too much work.

This is not to say that after viewing a commercial obviously meant to be light and tongue-in-cheek that we need to write a dissertation on the same then marshal a world-wide protest, but I just think that most people (me too) just don't do any investigating to find out the truth/depth of an issue.

Sorry for the rant - it's the rain.

And I did see a T-shirt for sale in a outdoor goods store that said, "not all who wander are lost." It was grossly overpriced, did not acknowledge the Professor, and so I passed it by - then considered making my own...

[Lalwendë]

Just to begin with, an appetiser as t'were, Tolkien himself owned a car, so where does that place him in relation to his own philosophies? He had a car when he had a family of children so I would suppose that practicality would have been his consideration, as it is is so many things where we must compromise on principle. I'd like to go everywhere on a horse but I dont have the room for one, so I have a car. It doesn't mean that a car is what I'd prefer, simply what I can have.

About the 4x4s (SUVs). I can see exactly why it seems at the least incongruous and at the worst an insult to make use of Tolkien's work to advertise an overly large vehicle, and not least of which, to show it tearing through a forest (no doubt making huge ruts in the ground, running down hikers, scaring the wildlife etc... but that's my own little side rant... ). But I do think the car companies were latching onto the films' popularity. Burger chains always latch onto the latest films or toy crazes, so it isn't a new phenomenon. Though I do question the logic of the car company concerned in going for this campaign as anyone who has read Tolkien (and that's a mighty sum of people) will likely go "eh?"

Those who have watched the films for 'fun', i.e. those never likely to read the books may well not have got any environmental message at all because it wasn't prominent in the films, so it might be this group the ads were aiming at. From a business perspective, it is clear neither the PR company nor the car company were aiming at book fans, and possibly had little awareness of the message of Tolkien anyway.

There's nothing wrong with analysing it though. We should always analyse the stuff that's shoved at us by the media, as it contains so many messages, not all of which are entirely wholesome. Which gets me onto when messages from Tolkien are appropriated by extremists. Just like advertisers, they also need something which people can latch onto, and that will be why they have a Tolkien quote. It could just as easily be a Shakespeare quote or anything else, just so long as it has a 'brand name' to attach to it, so they can go "hey, it says here...".

But, there is always the chance of someone believing the quote to be the truth, however out of context it might be. This has happened with religious texts. There is the infamous law in the Bible which says it is wrong to eat shellfish; this is often ignored, but the laws in the same passage are often applied vociferously. Can we pick and choose lines of text in this way? Or do we always have to leave them in context? In the same way, can we use the imagery from Tolkien in car adverts? Is it wrong to do this? I don't know the answer but I like to discuss the questions.

[the phantom]

But have they chosen to quote Tolkien simply because he is a (currently) famous author, or are they attempting to latch on to the popularity of the movies (prob. not as that line isn't in the movies) or are they trying to associate themselves with (what they percievce to be) the ethos of Tolkien's work? Is the message 'This is what the heroes of LotR would drive' or 'if Aragorn was king he'd be pro gun'.?

Good grief. *shakes head* You're thinking way too hard, Davem- a common pitfall for extremly smart people.

They used the quote because it's a darn good quote. It's that simple.

[Neithan]

They used the quote because it's a darn good quote. It's that simple.

Exactly, Faramir's quote says what the author wanted to say (at least it does out of context) much better than the author could have said it him/herself. That is why it was used.
And another thing, is that particular use such a horrible perversion of Tolkien's intention? Granted he was talking about war but what is wrong with taking the same concept and applying it to individual protection. The only way that the use of the quote could be called morally wrong would be if Tolkien had said that he was for gun control but (to the best of my knowledge) he said no such thing.

[Parmawen]

I don't really think that the usage of his quote was quite right there...Tolkein wasn't necessarily referring to gun-use or anything, and while perhaps they interpretted it that way, I know that if my writing was used like that I'd be upset.

I thought I heard in this National Geographic tape that Tolkein actually didn't want his work to be related to all the wars and stuff going on at that time. Which makes sense, if you create something so beautiful, why would you want people to start to label it and dissect it until it's no longer a masterpiece and instead a homework project or some fancy schmancy reciprocation of World War II.

So all in all, I think using that quote was wrong. It was presenting a message that Tolkein did not necessarily intend to create, and could have in fact been against. He could be turning over in his grave right now! (haha that kinda fits in with the dead theme here doesn't it?)

[alatar]

Starting any text with a quote (real or imagined) yields a different air to the text that follows. Writers do it all of the time - some, to set the reader's brain working along a particular line; others to show sophistication. "Those Tolkien movies were heady, so he must be a smart guy, and if this site is using his work, it must be some brainy stuff...plus wasn't he British too?"

Stealing/borrowng a quotation from another source and using the same does not automatically show 'endorsement,' though surely some would like to make you think that the quotee has endorsed the work. "Look at that...that JRRT must have loved SUVs, or why else would he be involved with that ad?"

The ad with the Faramir quote did not make me think that Tolkien was pro gun, just that the site's creators wanted to start with a 'hook' that might get me to read more. And though there are many ways to say the same thing, some people (hmmm...like JRRT perhaps?) just say it better.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."

or...

"War sucks, but ya gotta protect yourself."


Which would get your attention? You won't be reading my trilogy any time soon.