Re: Homosexuality and LotR

by Eldorion Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:41 am

Oh yeah, and Thorin is David Ben-Gurion, but I'mma let you guys hash out the implications of that.

by Tinuviel Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:10 am

Eldorion wrote:Aragorn's status as an exile reflects the Marxist theory that dispossessed elements of the bourgeoisie will lead the proletariat in revolution. The civil wars of Arnor are a metaphor for the endless competition and internecine fighting inherent to capitalism. Mordor obviously is the extreme end point of industrial society. The Shire is the communist ideal in which the state has at long last withered away. The Elves are intellectuals and, uh ... Sauron being an Ainu is a commentary on how even the supposedly good capitalist countries in the West (like America ... Valinor = West = US/UK) are really akin to fascist regimes a la Sauron, who is similar to Hitler. The decline of Numenor mirrored that of Germany and Ar-Pharazon's coup was like the Enabling Act of 1933. Saruman, also being an Ainu, is Neville Chamberlain. No, make that Henry Ford or Oswald Mosley. Or maybe the Duke of Windsor. Fuck if I know, I'm just spitballing here.

The first three sentences of that make perfect sense to me. The rest started to unravel quickly... but the first sentence is particularly helpful!!!

by Norc Thu Dec 12, 2013 8:03 am

Tinuviel wrote:Wow! Thanks everyone! I see this has gone off on another tangent, but I'd like to say my newer topic. Sauron is the hegemonic class in society, the Ring is the power people think they can achieve through wealth. The Ring is a disciplinary apparatus that teases folk of power, making them bound to the One (the rings of power are the same-- a way for Sauron to control others through the idea of personal power, when really they are bound to his One). The hobbits succeed because they are altogether ignored by Sauron because they are a subculture and are not a threat to the main culture, therefore they can't be disciplined by him either. Aragorn succeeds because he's a hybrid, so he doesn't exactly have one identity. He's a rugged ranger but also the highest lineage of men in Middle Earth. He also has elven blood in his veins, making him kind of biracial, and therefore not subject to a racial identity either. I was thinking of adding the bit that he's driven by love to achieve his goal of becoming king instead of getting power, which is why he's successful. He can see beyond the ideology and can fight against it.

interesting theory Smile

i like it. i also like to think that the reason bilbo and Frodo aren't as affected as men and gollum is because they didn't kill anyone for the ring.. i dunno. also, the hobbits don't strive for power. Gollum was a greedy little shit, but remember Sam's vision? making Mordor into a huge garden.

by Norc Thu Dec 12, 2013 8:06 am

Eldorion wrote:Aragorn's status as an exile reflects the Marxist theory that dispossessed elements of the bourgeoisie will lead the proletariat in revolution. The civil wars of Arnor are a metaphor for the endless competition and internecine fighting inherent to capitalism. Mordor obviously is the extreme end point of industrial society. The Shire is the communist ideal in which the state has at long last withered away. The Elves are intellectuals and, uh ... Sauron being an Ainu is a commentary on how even the supposedly good capitalist countries in the West (like America ... Valinor = West = US/UK) are really akin to fascist regimes a la Sauron, who is similar to Hitler. The decline of Numenor mirrored that of Germany and Ar-Pharazon's coup was like the Enabling Act of 1933. Saruman, also being an Ainu, is Neville Chamberlain. No, make that Henry Ford or Oswald Mosley. Or maybe the Duke of Windsor. Fuck if I know, I'm just spitballing here.

eeeh... wow. i didn't know LOTR was as deep as that..

by RA Thu Dec 12, 2013 9:48 am

Norc wrote:
Eldorion wrote:Aragorn's status as an exile reflects the Marxist theory that dispossessed elements of the bourgeoisie will lead the proletariat in revolution. The civil wars of Arnor are a metaphor for the endless competition and internecine fighting inherent to capitalism. Mordor obviously is the extreme end point of industrial society. The Shire is the communist ideal in which the state has at long last withered away. The Elves are intellectuals and, uh ... Sauron being an Ainu is a commentary on how even the supposedly good capitalist countries in the West (like America ... Valinor = West = US/UK) are really akin to fascist regimes a la Sauron, who is similar to Hitler. The decline of Numenor mirrored that of Germany and Ar-Pharazon's coup was like the Enabling Act of 1933. Saruman, also being an Ainu, is Neville Chamberlain. No, make that Henry Ford or Oswald Mosley. Or maybe the Duke of Windsor. Fuck if I know, I'm just spitballing here.

eeeh... wow. i didn't know LOTR was as deep as that..

And we're just scratching the surface. Strap in everyone, we're going down the rabbit hole: An adventure, one might say.

by azriel Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:03 am

I agree with Eldo's idea about Aragorn,or rather the interpretation of an "Aragorn". Ive also had my ideas of the whole structure of LOTRs & how I interpret the hidden meaning behind it, (or what,in my candy floss mind,I see as an interpretation Wink

) But, that can be the excitement of books, what we can all see in a story & what we think of a story. Bit like an accident, 100 witnesses & all will give a different point of view.Some will just see an "action,adventure" tale while others will see deeper meanings, it COULD go on deeper for a long time? Or, it could just be read,put down & life goes on,uneffected.

by Mrs Figg Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:38 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I find the notion a woman can only be deemed strong if she chops her way through a million orcs and fights like a man depressing and these days very tired and cliched.

Arwen in the films didnt 'chop her way through orcs' though did she? so that comment is useless in this context. Arwen was RIDING AWAY from the Nine, she only turned and challenged them when she had set up a trap, no kick assing necessary, she was using her intellect Then she used the power of the River, she just sat on her horse, NO kick butting necessary. So in effect, it was the River itself that kicked butt.

I dot see what is wrong with a woman having a role that is female and still strong, men have roles in literature that are masculine why cant women have female ones? Whats wrong with that?

Arwen is the epitome of a feminine and yet strong character.

Arwen in the world as presented would not be expected to go off an fight in a war- hell Queen Elizabeth the 1tst put on the armour and gave the speech but she didnt go into battle- it doesnt make her any less strong a woman for it. Its just thats how woman acts in those societies.

What on earth has this got to do with Arwen? nobody was talking about Arwen going into a battle. I am pretty sure Reniassance Princes were expected to head battles, especially as Elizabeth wished to be considered equal to her father ie a Prince.
:

by Radaghast Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:10 pm

I've seen stronger women characters in women than Arwen. Again, after her moment in FotR, she spends a lot of time in unnecessary dream sequences or pining over Aragorn. I'm not sure how this makes her strong, though it does give her extra screen time.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:38 pm

Figg you earlier made a comment-

"The people that dont like her in LOTR films call her a kick ass Elf" and several about her being proactive.

I was pointing out that what Tolkien has the character do during the War itself its perfectly in line with the sort of society he presents, and would also have resonated with many women who first read the book, as they might well have direct experience of being left at home while their husband or brothers or fathers went to fight war in a distant land during WW1 and 2.

"Arwen is the epitome of a feminine and yet strong character."

In the book yes she is.
Not in the film.

There are two scenes in the film I think are important to reflect upon.

The first is where Elrond reveals to her his vision of her future.
Its a future in which good seem to win as Aragorn does become King- so in this vision she gets the love of her life Aragorn.
Elrond then goes on to lie to her by telling her he will die and then she will pine away alone until she too dies (whilst we watch her cry)

The future Elrond offers his daughter is one in which she gets Aragorn but nothing more.

And she rejects this. Her love for Aragorn alone is not enough to make her stay.

The other scene is where she has a vision of her future child and realises her father had lied to her. And she changes her mind and chooses to stay.

So what has changed for her?

The answer has to be the child, the fact they will have children and the line will go on.

It is clear therefore she does not think Aragorn worth giving up her immortality for unless she can be certain it will produce a line of heirs. A certainty she never has in the book where her love is total and unconditional (the conditions being set by Elrond).

Aragorn alone is not enough for her love.

And that for me is a change way to far from book Arwen and makes her love come with major attachments.

And thats putting aside the fact that PJ's version is emotionally and easily manipulated and does what the men in her life tell her- first Elrond tells Aragorn he is sending her away, then Aragorn tells her she is to go away, then Elrond lies to her and emotionally blackmails her into going away.

I dont see Arwen of the films as a strong female character at all. She is overly emotional, often seems far too young and naive and she is easily swayed and led by others, particular male figures in her life.

by azriel Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:47 pm

When you spell it out like that,Petty, it does look clearer. Sorry, Mrs figg, but Im leaning towards what Petty offers in his description of Arwen. Plus, youde think she would have more sense as she has seen so much come & go,(or youde think she would ?) in the case of relationships & emotional psyche ? PJ makes her look closeted & naive, which she's not. Even HE manipulates her !

by Radaghast Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:50 pm

I'm inclined toward PT's POV as well, though the end of Aragorn and Arwen's story in the appendices is just a downer, imo. As I read it, Aragorn insists on laying down to die (literally) despite Arwen's pleas. After Aragorn goes to sleep forever, Arwen (iirc) goes to live in Lothlorien for a while, then wanders off, never to be seen again Sad

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:55 pm

Like all Tolkien tales in the words of the man himself "its about death". And so is poignant.

Things pass in Tolkiens world, not just people but whole lands too- Numenor is gone, the plains Treebeards sings of walking on are under the sea- it part of what gives the book its sense of real historic and physical depth, its not a stagnant world, its a living changing one. And you dont get life or change without death.

by Mrs Figg Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:02 pm

[quote="Pettytyrant101"]Figg you earlier made a comment-

"The people that dont like her in LOTR films call her a kick ass Elf" and several about her being proactive.

I was pointing out that what Tolkien has the character do during the War itself its perfectly in line with the sort of society he presents, and would also have resonated with many women who first read the book, as they might well have direct experience of being left at home while their husband or brothers or fathers went to fight war in a distant land during WW1 and 2.

No it wouldnt have resonated at all, this is pure conjecture. Women in the 2WW didnt sit at home knitting banners, they went to work in factories, they tilled the land, they went to the front line as nurses, they became Landgirls, their stature and work experiences during the War were so diverse from their traditional roles as housewife and mother that it went on to start the Womens Lib movement in the 60s, women DID NOT want to go back to passive roles. so you are mistaken.

"Arwen is the epitome of a feminine and yet strong character."

In the book yes she is.
Not in the film.

She is the epitome of supportive femininity in the film

There are two scenes in the film I think are important to reflect upon.

The first is where Elrond reveals to her his vision of her future.
Its a future in which good seem to win as Aragorn does become King- so in this vision she gets the love of her life Aragorn.
Elrond then goes on to lie to her by telling her he will die and then she will pine away alone until she too dies (whilst we watch her cry)

That bit is true, she is alone when Aragorn dies and presumably she mourns him, if she didnt 'pine' she would have been a very strange wife, so your point is not valid.

The future Elrond offers his daughter is one in which she gets Aragorn but nothing more.

And she rejects this. Her love for Aragorn alone is not enough to make her stay.

Aragorn himself urges her to leave

The other scene is where she has a vision of her future child and realises her father had lied to her. And she changes her mind and chooses to stay.

Not sure why you keep repeating this endlessly, it has nothing to do with my argument about her femininity, or her strength, it could have taken more strength to leave everything behind, and this is more about moments of doubt, it just makes her more human in a way, its not because she didnt love Aragorn.

So what has changed for her?

The answer has to be the child, the fact they will have children and the line will go on.

so that makes her feminine, she wanted a child and a future, so what?

It is clear therefore she does not think Aragorn worth giving up her immortality for unless she can be certain it will produce a line of heirs. A certainty she never has in the book where her love is total and unconditional (the conditions being set by Elrond).

thats your opinion and yours alone, thats your interpretation coming from your hatred of all things Jackson

Aragorn alone is not enough for her love.

And that for me is a change way to far from book Arwen and makes her love come with major attachments.

And thats putting aside the fact that PJ's version is emotionally and easily manipulated and does what the men in her life tell her- first Elrond tells Aragorn he is sending her away, then Aragorn tells her she is to go away, then Elrond lies to her and emotionally blackmails her into going away.

I dont see Arwen of the films as a strong female character at all. She is overly emotional, often seems far too young and naive and she is easily swayed and led by others, particular male figures in her life

'Overly emotional' that sounds like a subjective judgement, are you saying she wasnt allowed to have emotions unless they were to your liking?

by halfwise Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:07 pm

The first is where Elrond reveals to her his vision of her future.
Its a future in which good seem to win as Aragorn does become King- so in this vision she gets the love of her life Aragorn.
Elrond then goes on to lie to her by telling her he will die and then she will pine away alone until she too dies (whilst we watch her cry)

Except that this wasn't a lie.

The future Elrond offers his daughter is one in which she gets Aragorn but nothing more.

And she rejects this. Her love for Aragorn alone is not enough to make her stay.

The other scene is where she has a vision of her future child and realises her father had lied to her. And she changes her mind and chooses to stay.

Okay, that's a good point.

And thats putting aside the fact that PJ's version is emotionally and easily manipulated and does what the men in her life tell her- first Elrond tells Aragorn he is sending her away, then Aragorn tells her she is to go away, then Elrond lies to her and emotionally blackmails her into going away.

I dont see Arwen of the films as a strong female character at all. She is overly emotional, often seems far too young and naive and she is easily swayed and led by others, particular male figures in her life.

Another good point.

But I feel that what was well done was
• Arwen watching over Aragorn
• Elrond outlining to Arwen what her fate would be. It's a valid observation that by this time Arwen is thousands of years old so wouldn't need such things laid out for her, but I think the audience needed it laid out, and needed to see the sacrifice she made via her emotional response to it.

Having her turn back because of seeing the baby in retrospect was a bad choice, I think it would have been more powerful if we have the crying scene without her journey to the havens, directly connected to Elrond discovering she has chosen mortality. It's damn well the same scene, may as well join them. I suspect Petty did this in his edits? Haven't done the TT edit yet, sorry.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Women in the 2WW didnt sit at home knitting banners, they went to work in factories, they tilled the land, they went to the front line as nurses, they became Landgirls- Mrs Figg

Some did those things yes, not everyone. And I think it would still resonate today- there is not a modern war comes along that our tv's are not soon filled with reports of the wives (most commonly) waiting at home with the kids- they arent in factories. (And Im still curious what it is about knitting that you dislike so much?)

And Tolkiens setting is much earlier too, making it less likely in the society he presents that the only daughter of a Lord would be sent to do anything. Even today, how many politicians and important people send their children to fight in the army?

"so your point is not valid."

In what manner? The point was to describe the scene, which you admit I do accurately, and then to point out that in that version she is offered a future with Aragorn which she rejects.

"Aragorn himself urges her to leave"

Only because in the preceding scene Elrond puts him in a position where he has too. Aragorn would not defy the word of Elrond, the man who raised him and has given safety to his family line for generations.
Aragorn does not tell her to leave out of choice, he is manipulated into by Elrond, who goes on to further his manipulation of her by lying to her about her future.

"she wanted a child and a future, so what?"

The what? is that film Arwen only accepts Aragorn once she knows for certain there will be a son. When she thinks there will not be she rejects him.

That is completely different from her love in the book which does not come with conditions from her and in my view that is therefore a purer form of love and truer. Book Arwen is willing to give up everything for him, not for some certainty of a future happy family, but because her love for him is so strong.

"thats your interpretation coming from your hatred of all things Jackson"

No it comes from my reading of the text and my reading of PJ's film version. And I have presented the examples from the film that I believe make my case.

"'Overly emotional' that sounds like a subjective judgement"

Its based solely on how she acts in the film- first she is fiesty warrior Arwen at the Ford (when PJ still planned for her to be fighting at Helms Deep) then she is meek eyes down Arwen in Rivendell accepting what the men tell her, and so demure she cant even raise her eyes from the ground at the Fellowship parting scene in Rivendell. Then she is mystic Arwen appearing in his dreams.
Then she is crying sad Arwen when Elrond tells her the future, then she is crying meek I will do what you tell me Arwen.
Then she turns up at the end to get married peeping out shyly from behind a fan or something and looking like she expects to get into trouble for being there and is relieved when she does not get a bollocking.
And then despite having her most important moment in the book at this point, we dont see her again in PJ's. She has fulfilled her role in the film- to marry the hero and PJ has no more use for her.

"Except that this wasn't a lie."- Halfwise

Its based on the ending of the tale of Arwen and Aragorn but a large part of its importance in PJ's is that he does commit a lie of omission- he delibretly doesn't tell her about the child.

When she has her vision and comes back she accuses him of this "You saw their was a child!"

I am not against the ending of Arwen and Aragorn be in inserted in- I'd set it up ion Rivendell and work it into the Frodo vision from the book in Lorien and flesh it out probably in the parting scene between Galadriel and Aragorn. And keep her parting scene from her father as in book- they would go away together into a room and the door would close- none would see the parting as in the book- but the emotion of it would be in the faces of Aragorn and others who know what it means. As I thnk seeing her actually choose to go through with it is important.

I am however against what PJ made up instead.

So I stand by that Elrond delibretly lies to her in that sense and emotionally blackmails her in to leaving.
Presumably he knew she didn't love him enough to stay just for him, but that if she knew they would definitely have kids she would stay.

by Eldorion Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:12 pm

Recoveryanonymous wrote:And we're just scratching the surface. Strap in everyone, we're going down the rabbit hole: An adventure, one might say.

Adventure is clearly a metaphor for revolution. And Ted Sandyman is the petty bourgeoisie. Hmm, maybe the Shire is actually a feudal society that is ripe for revolution? After all, it clearly has significant social inequality (Tolkien says in the Prologue that only the richest and poorest Hobbits live in holes anymore).

{{{I was taking the piss with my original Marxist "interpretation" of LOTR. Razz

}}}

by Norc Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:33 pm

richest and the poorest? that doesn't make sense.

by Eldorion Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:34 pm

The richest Hobbits lived in big mansion style holes (smials) like Bag End. The poorest just lived in simple little holes dug directly from the dirt or sand.

by Norc Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:37 pm

oh.. didn't know there were poor hobbits.. like that poor.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:39 pm

Theres a passge early in Fellowship somewhere when Tolkien mentions in passing there a lot more hobbits about, prepared to dig a hole in a bank for the night to sleep in, wandering about outside the Shire than those in the Shire think.

by Eldorion Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:40 pm

Well ... I went back and re-read the relevant portion of the Prologue and it set that the even the poor Hobbits' holes sometimes had windows. But I just imagine them as being like the equivalent of log cabins on the frontier, and those tended to have dirt floors. Shrugging

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:41 pm

No its somewhere after they set out- but cant remember where, could be anywhere between Maggots Farm and Bree. drunken

by Eldorion Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:42 pm

I vaguely recall something like that, but I was referring to the descriptions of holes in the prologue. Smile

I simulposted with you though. Wink

by halfwise Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:05 pm

I think poor hobbit holes run the gamut. I was always impressed that Tolkien saw fit to mention them, being as we never meet any of them.

by Mrs Figg Thu Dec 12, 2013 8:18 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Women in the 2WW didnt sit at home knitting banners, they went to work in factories, they tilled the land, they went to the front line as nurses, they became Landgirls- Mrs Figg

Some did those things yes, not everyone. And I think it would still resonate today- there is not a modern war comes along that our tv's are not soon filled with reports of the wives (most commonly) waiting at home with the kids- they arent in factories. (And Im still curious what it is about knitting that you dislike so much?)

And Tolkiens setting is much earlier too, making it less likely in the society he presents that the only daughter of a Lord would be sent to do anything. Even today, how many politicians and important people send their children to fight in the army?

why would she be sent? is she a servant or does she have a mind of her own? I find your contortions a bit desperate, what exactly are you arguing against, that Arwen in your opinion is not allowed to fight, ever? that it is not her place to fight? that Tolkien would somehow be against females that fought? why then invent Eowyn if he was against women in battle? so my point stands.

"so your point is not valid."

In what manner? The point was to describe the scene, which you admit I do accurately, and then to point out that in that version she is offered a future with Aragorn which she rejects.

I never mentioned your point being accurate. The problem you seem to be having is mixing up your gender stereoytpes with personality. You are equating femininity with having to be 100% loyal 100% of the time without any doubts You are confusing Arwen having doubts with her being a woman. You accuse Arwen of deserting Aragorn and only going back when she knew about the child, according to you she did this just because she was a woman not because of her character. You seem to have a problem with Arwen showing emotions or crying, as if this is a bad thing. You seem to think a female shouldnt believe her father, shouldnt have doubts and shouldnt leave her partner under any circumstances and you equate all of this to her gender rather than her personality. weird.

"Aragorn himself urges her to leave"

Only because in the preceding scene Elrond puts him in a position where he has too. Aragorn would not defy the word of Elrond, the man who raised him and has given safety to his family line for generations.
Aragorn does not tell her to leave out of choice, he is manipulated into by Elrond, who goes on to further his manipulation of her by lying to her about her future.

He doesnt lie to her

"she wanted a child and a future, so what?"

The what? is that film Arwen only accepts Aragorn once she knows for certain there will be a son. When she thinks there will not be she rejects him.

you are making this all up maybe you need to watch the film again. Yet again you are judging her as a ad female because according to you she isnt allowed to have doubts. You are judging her because you are assuming she isnt allowed to have any because women are not supposed to put their own needs first. gender stereotype.

That is completely different from her love in the book which does not come with conditions from her and in my view that is therefore a purer form of love and truer. Book Arwen is willing to give up everything for him, not for some certainty of a future happy family, but because her love for him is so strong.

judgement based on the correct behaviour of women. Her love in the book is based on Aragorn gaining his birthright.

"thats your interpretation coming from your hatred of all things Jackson"

No it comes from my reading of the text and my reading of PJ's film version. And I have presented the examples from the film that I believe make my case.

I have read the text and seen the films and come to the opposite view

"'Overly emotional' that sounds like a subjective judgement"

Its based solely on how she acts in the film- first she is fiesty warrior Arwen at the Ford (when PJ still planned for her to be fighting at Helms Deep) then she is meek eyes down Arwen in Rivendell accepting what the men tell her, and so demure she cant even raise her eyes from the ground at the Fellowship parting scene in Rivendell. Then she is mystic Arwen appearing in his dreams.
Then she is crying sad Arwen when Elrond tells her the future, then she is crying meek I will do what you tell me Arwen.
Then she turns up at the end to get married peeping out shyly from behind a fan or something and looking like she expects to get into trouble for being there and is relieved when she does not get a bollocking.
And then despite having her most important moment in the book at this point, we dont see her again in PJ's. She has fulfilled her role in the film- to marry the hero and PJ has no more use for her.

Tolkien didnt have any use for her thats why she is merely a shadow. You critsize her for being meek for being strong for every single reason its more based on your personal hatred than legitimate criticizm

"Except that this wasn't a lie."- Halfwise

Its based on the ending of the tale of Arwen and Aragorn but a large part of its importance in PJ's is that he does commit a lie of omission- he delibretly doesn't tell her about the child.

When she has her vision and comes back she accuses him of this "You saw their was a child!"

I am not against the ending of Arwen and Aragorn be in inserted in- I'd set it up ion Rivendell and work it into the Frodo vision from the book in Lorien and flesh it out probably in the parting scene between Galadriel and Aragorn. And keep her parting scene from her father as in book- they would go away together into a room and the door would close- none would see the parting as in the book- but the emotion of it would be in the faces of Aragorn and others who know what it means. As I thnk seeing her actually choose to go through with it is important.

I am however against what PJ made up instead.

So I stand by that Elrond delibretly lies to her in that sense and emotionally blackmails her in to leaving.
Presumably he knew she didn't love him enough to stay just for him, but that if she knew they would definitely have kids she would stay.