Spoilers Rings of Power is back!

[Paul Farquhar]

Could you maybe give an example? Not where Eomer, Wormtongue, Theoden, Faramir or Aragorn are articulating what might be considered consistent commentary in-universe with regard to the presumed role of women in Middle-Earth

None of the characters make any comment - that’s the point - none of them question the Edwardian notion that the role of women is to be utterly passive and await the return of the men from war. Apart from Eowyn herself of course.

And in the book Tolkien treats the reveal that Dernhelm is Eowyn as if it is a big surprise. Which it might be to someone brought up a hundred years ago (ie Tolkien’s imagined reader), but to a modern reader it is blindingly obvious, and PJ didn’t bother with the alias in the movie.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

It makes it a more interesting story for a modern audience, it’s not made for a medieval one. Evil as a choice is rather more meaningful than evil for the hell of it.

The point I was trying to make - apparently I did not articulate myself clearly - is that the locus of conflict in a mythic fiction is located in the reader; it is not dependent on external conceits of characterization.

It’s the same with any mythology. We don’t need to ascribe internal conflict to Tiamat, or Hel, or Mara or Typhon; rather, they act as facets or functions of our own inner struggles. Their role is part of our psychology; they do not need to possess complex human motivations: bestowing such upon them removes them from the archetypal realm and places them in the mundane one.

It’s also why I reject psychological characterisations of Sauron - e.g. “Sauron is a narcissist.” It also seeks to humanize - and thus devalue the power of - the mythotype.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Point of order: shades of greybanalysis of people and their motives is very Medieval. Per Thomas Aquinas, literally everyone always believes they have good intentions. It is perfectly in line with Medieval, and Tolkienian, thought to have sympathetic portrayals of those doing evil, as they are worthy of pity and sympathy. And the "good" are always in danger of falling and being corrupted!

Redemption is certainly a central theme in Christianity, and the corrupting effect of power central to LotR (and wealth in The Hobbit). Corruption and redemption are opposites - one cannot exist without the other.

And we know that Tolkien was himself later troubled by the inclusion of irredeemable evil in LotR. After all, if you have no choice, you cannot be blamed and punishment would be unjust.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

We don’t need to ascribe internal conflict to Tiamat, or Hel, or Mara or Typhon

We do if we want to use them to tell an interesting story for a modern audience.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

None of the characters make any comment - that’s the point - none of them question the Edwardian notion that the role of women is to be utterly passive and await the return of the men from war. Apart from Eowyn herself of course.

And in the book Tolkien treats the reveal that Dernhelm is Eowyn as if it is a big surprise. Which it might be to someone brought up a hundred years ago (ie Tolkien’s imagined reader), but to a modern reader it is blindingly obvious, and PJ didn’t bother with the alias in the movie.

This seems to be an argument from silence - which has merit - but I still think it’s a stretch to assert that Tolkien viewed his depiction of Eowyn as “frightfully progressive.”

 

[Sepulchrave II]

We do if we want to use them to tell an interesting story for a modern audience.

The audience need not be modern. Milton does exactly this with Satan in Paradise Lost. The idea is hardly new.

The cost is that Satan is no longer a mythotype; he becomes a humanised protagonist.

But it’s hard to execute well. Milton pulls it off, but his writing skills were rather better than P&M.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’m simply drawing inferences from the tone of the writing. Tolkien clearly came across shield maidens over the course of his studies, and realised the idea that women could fight was radical to the society he grew up in. And Tolkien’s sensibilities were early 20th century. He studied the past, he didn’t want to live there.

I’m more inclined to think Tolkien simply wasn’t interested in the craft of the professional novelist. He had his arm twisted to write LotR after all.

It makes it a more interesting story for a modern audience, it’s not made for a medieval one. Evil as a choice is rather more meaningful than evil for the hell of it.

I was disappointed that PJ rejected a redemption arc for Sméagol, which is hinted in the text.

Perhaps because he was telling someone else's story, and despite that hint there was no redemption?

 

[Micah Sweet]

None of the characters make any comment - that’s the point - none of them question the Edwardian notion that the role of women is to be utterly passive and await the return of the men from war. Apart from Eowyn herself of course.

And in the book Tolkien treats the reveal that Dernhelm is Eowyn as if it is a big surprise. Which it might be to someone brought up a hundred years ago (ie Tolkien’s imagined reader), but to a modern reader it is blindingly obvious, and PJ didn’t bother with the alias in the movie.

But PJ also didn't have her declare herself until she needed to, just like the book. A good compromise.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Perhaps because he was telling someone else's story, and despite that hint there was no redemption?

The book is unclear. It hints that Gollum’s better nature throws him into the volcano. After all, it’s already established that Gollum is extremely agile. He doesn’t fall by accident. He falls because Frodo used the power of the Ring to curse him, also, but the Ring works by influencing the mind.

Which is why the PJ version doesn't work for me. He has Gollum completely dominated by his evil side and falling in as a result of random idiocy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But PJ also didn't have her declare herself until she needed to, just like the book. A good compromise.

Indeed. But Merry knows immediately who he is riding with, whereas in the book he somehow manages to remain oblivious for days (toilet breaks anyone?), because the author expects to surprise the reader.