'Lord of the Rings' a fairy tale but can teach lessons of life

SLC Tribune ^ | December 28, 2003 | Ed Firmage Jr.

[Chi-townChief]

The final installment of Peter Jackson's magisterial adaptation of The Lord of the Rings has sparked a lot of discussion about the meaning of J.R.R. Tolkien's story.

Incredulous that an Oxford don would devote the better part of his life to thinking and writing about an imaginary world filled with elves, dragons, sorcerers and the like, many readers suppose that in the guise of a fairy story, Tolkien is talking allegorically about something more "serious," something such as World War II (where Sauron is Hitler), nuclear weapons (where the ring is the atom bomb), or the like.

Tolkien, never an admirer of allegory, even in the writing of friends such as C.S. Lewis, flatly rejected any allegorical interpretation.

The value of a fairy story, in Tolkien's view, lies in the fact that it helps us to create and then participate in the life of an alternative world. We become creators, as well as heroic participants. In a good story, and The Lord of the Rings is about as good as fairy stories get, the sense of being part of that other world is complete.

And yet, paradoxically, the more complete the illusion of that world -- the more real it feels to people of this world -- the more the story speaks to us as part of this world. That's the essential power of myth. That is also why allegorical (mis)interpretations sometimes seem plausible.

As an imaginative (as opposed to didactic or allegorical) exercise, a good fairy story has no point, no moral. It is not reducible to a sermon. (When was the last time, for example, you were inclined to sit through a 3 1/2-hour sermon?)

In this respect, too, it seems real, for that's how life is. Life is more complicated and more interesting than any of the platitudes to which moralists and theologians are inclined to reduce it. This does not mean that one cannot derive lessons from a fairy story. One can, and they may even be good lessons.

Our present administration might do well to heed Gandalf's caution that there is no way to defeat evil militarily. Good lesson. What makes that lesson meaningful, however, in Tolkien as in life is coming to such a realization not through preachment but through experience, even if the latter is only vicarious in the case of stories.

Hopefully, we emerge from our experience in fairy land not armed with ready sermonettes, but, like the hobbits on their return to the Shire, wiser for having had an adventure and returning to tell about it.

Ed Firmage Jr. is a fine-art photographer based in Salt Lake City.

[Chi-townChief]

It just occurred to me that the author may view the Ring as the religious fanaticism of the Islamonazis but he is too P.C. to spell it out.

[lepton]

Our present administration might do well to heed Gandalf's caution that there is no way to defeat evil militarily.

Maybe not eradicated, but certainly hemmed in, and made less potent - not to mention not bursting through your door and stomping on your head.

[Mercat]

"Our present administration might do well to heed Gandalf's caution that there is no way to defeat evil militarily."

Boy did he miss the whole point of the series/books/movies!!!!

The point is - you cannot defeat evil. In the Lord's Prayer we ask God to deliver us from evil, not to defeat evil.

All we can do is keep evil at bay and in the fighting of it, strengthen ourselves and distract the evil one from doing greater harm but ultimately, we go into the light and the bright dawn, like Gandolf explains to Pippin during the battle of Gondor.

[kcar]

In the story Denthor was reputed to be wise, and did assemble all the wisdom of the ages in his library / archives, which Gandalf often consulted. But the movie couldn't bring all subtle character nuances out - in the end it just portrayed him the way he essentially was, a coward who would have sacrificed his surviving son, and who believed victory was impossible and that all greatness was pastward. Bad steward. Very French.

I was less disappointed by the failure to draw out his character than to the total omission of Tom Bombadil and his good lady, Goldberry. They could've made a 4-hour movie of the escape from the Shire to Bree.

[baseballfanjm]

One of thems name is Mary

His name is MERRY, short for Meriadoc.

[baseballfanjm]

Nay! 'Twas one of the greatest films ever made! The Trilogy, in its eventual 10+ hour mini-series style form, is now my #2 favorite film ever.

[Ditter]

I wondered about that. lol

[ecurbh]

Ring Ping!!

There and Back Again: The Journeys of Flat Frodo

Anyone wishing to be added to or removed from the Ring-Ping list, please don't hesitate to let me know.

[lepton]

Tolkien was creating a myth for England, a pre-history. That is not the same thing as a fairy tale. You might want to actually read the books.

I thought Tolkien was creating an etymology for an imaginary/invented language.

[Chi-townChief]

It's funny, the different things we all focus on - I'm not so much bothered by the omission of Tom Bombadil or Saruman's anti-climactic return as "Sharkey" as I am by the smaller changes such as the crossing of the Ford of Brunien, changes in Eowyn's, Faramir's, and Denethor's characters, the de-emphasis of the palantirs, Frodo's truncated claim of the Ring at Sammath Naur, etc.

[kcar]

I was also sorry about the omission of the palintirs influence as well, and of the scouring of the Shire, which basically showed how much the four Hobbits had matured versus the simpler ones left behind.

Would have at least liked to have seen them sail beyond the Grey Havens - one last glorious view of Faery - like the view inside the spacecraft in Close Encounters

But that's expecting too much of the non-print media. Tolkien was a master of words, and will always be someone who is best read than envisioned. Like SciFi master Poul Anderson.

[Sir Gawain]

I thought #2 was a little better than #3. ROTK just seemed to push all the characters aside except Aragorn and Frodo.

[Uncle Miltie]

"Our present administration might do well to heed Gandalf's caution that there is no way to defeat evil militarily.

True, but one can limit its effectiveness militarily. Soldier on!

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Nay! 'Twas one of the greatest films ever made! The Trilogy, in its eventual 10+ hour mini-series style form, is now my #2 favorite film ever.

I agree. A grand film. What an adventure. But sad to say it is #2 for me as well. Right behind "Jeremiah Johnson".

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

There has been talk that RoTK will be nominated for Best Picture.

As much as I would thrill to that news, IMHO, it cannot be.

For ROTK cannot stand alone as a complete story without the other 2 films. I hope I'm wrong and this film captivates the voting members as much as it did me.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

in the movie, he's merely a buffoon to be shoved aside.

I too thought he was portrayed as too psychotic for comfort.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[B Knotts]

The Ring is pure power. It is the love of it that must be destroyed. Mankind has a weakness for power, however.

[keri]

Tolkien, never an admirer of allegory,...

He didn't like allegory, but was a big admirer of applicability...

The guy who wrote this was going okay though, until the end. I don't think he understands Tolkien very well.

[xzins]

"a fairy tale"


Sheesh

Corin, there any "fairies" in LOTR? I don't remember any.