The Return of the Controversy Over Tolkien (People-who-should-be-poked-with-sticks alert!)

Napa Valley Register ^ | January 30, 2004 | Anna Abbott

[quidnunc]

Over the Christmas and New Year's season, "The Return of the King" has been a box-office success, while the books by J.R.R. Tolkien have been rivaling the Harry Potter series in sales. While some evangelicals and Catholics have viewed Tolkien's series favorably in comparison to Harry Potter, Tolkien still remains a figure of controversy. Tolkien attended daily Mass, insisted his Anglican fiancée Edith convert to his faith in order to marry him, and his son John became a priest. His ethics, as well as his Catholic beliefs, make him a center of debate.

Though the books and movies are popular, local people of faith find Tolkien's values debatable. Some disagree with his Catholicism, while others take issue with his morality. In the Wine Country, Tolkien is at once praised and reviled.

Rev. Lynn Ungar, the Consulting Minister for the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of North Bay, said she saw all three movies. Ungar commented, "The movies are very violent. They are epic, grand, and large."

However, she objected to Tolkien's world view, observing, "My largest objection is that good and evil get neatly divided. The evil ones are entirely evil. There is no blurring of the lines like in reality. I'm disturbed about clear lines between good and evil. I have a view of human nature is both realistic and hopeful. Rarely there are the good people and the bad people." After seeing the movie, she said her partner Kelsey and herself commented there wasn't much character development and that the characters tended to be one-sided.

Ungar believes Tolkien's Catholicism isn't reflected in the epic. She said, "There are writers whose writing is about their personal religion. I don't see 'Lord of the Rings' as particularly Christian. It's not Christian. Tolkien based it on Scandinavian mythology."

-snip-

[RightWingAtheist]

I think the good Reverend (will she object to being called "good"?) and her partner poke themselves with sticks and other tubular objects quite often.

[.cnI redruM]

poked with a stick? Quid, this turkey needs a thorough hiding!

[Koblenz]

"My largest objection is that good and evil get neatly divided. The evil ones are entirely evil. There is no blurring of the lines like in reality. I'm disturbed about clear lines between good and evil. I have a view of human nature is both realistic and hopeful. Rarely there are the good people and the bad people."

Yeah, didn't I hear somewhere that that Osama fellow built a bunch of day care centers and schools? So he can't be all bad...

[Leroy S. Mort]

My largest objection is that good and evil get neatly divided.

That's why they call it "fantasy", Reverend. This is not a religious work.

[Mr. Mojo]

"There is no blurring of the lines like in reality. I'm disturbed about clear lines between good and evil. It's not Christian. Tolkien based it on Scandinavian mythology."

Yeah, so? LOTR is fantasy, get it? Some people just love to get riled about ....nothing.

[GeronL]

They object to separating good and evil??

are these people crazy?? How can this pass as a christian viewpoint in the media?

[irishtenor]

PING!!!!!

[Billthedrill]

Ungar commented, "The movies are very violent. They are epic, grand, and large."

Hmm...you gotta wonder what her take on the Old Testament is...

[JRandomFreeper]

When leftists start their relativism BS, I always ask them how much poison they want in their food. They can be pretty absolutist about the purity and goodness of their food.

Her most telling quote? : "I'm disturbed about clear lines between good and evil." Satan certainly doesn't want to draw a distinction between good and evil. He calls evil good, and good, evil. Go figure. UNITarians are pre-packaged evil.

/john

[Doctor Stochastic]

I thought these were among the most unpleasant movies I ever switched channels on. Of course, that's only based on the production values and acting. There seemed to be little attempt to catch the spirit of the books. The acting and dialogue seemed to have been lifted from a kung-fu movie.

To be fair, I didn't think that realistic sets were very good; a naturalistic set style would have been better (Chariots of Fire, Excalabur, Greystoke).

I would put the movies on a par with Pulp Fiction and The Godfather; people doing violent things but not much motivation is shown.

[Essie]

This makes me think of a woman who Emailed CNN about the Return of the King. She thought that the movie was very childish and couldn't sit through it. She just couldn't connect with a story that had talking trees. When I hear things like that, I just don't try. Some people are so far out that you can't reach them.

[Unassuaged]

What movie are you talking about.

[Technogeeb]

They object to separating good and evil??
are these people crazy??

No.

Just evil. The reason that they are so "disturbed about clear lines between good and evil" is because at some level even they recognize that they are on the wrong side of those clear lines.

[quidnunc]

Doctor Stochastic wrote: I thought these were among the most unpleasant movies I ever switched channels on. Of course, that's only based on the production values and acting. There seemed to be little attempt to catch the spirit of the books. The acting and dialogue seemed to have been lifted from a kung-fu movie. To be fair, I didn't think that realistic sets were very good; a naturalistic set style would have been better (Chariots of Fire, Excalabur, Greystoke). I would put the movies on a par with Pulp Fiction and The Godfather; people doing violent things but not much motivation is shown.

I couldn't disagree more.

However, stay tuned to this channel to see what Deb has to say about it.

I am given to understand that she was one of the writers for this production.

[MarkL]

"My largest objection is that good and evil get neatly divided. The evil ones are entirely evil. There is no blurring of the lines like in reality. I'm disturbed about clear lines between good and evil. I have a view of human nature is both realistic and hopeful. Rarely there are the good people and the bad people." After seeing the movie, she said her partner Kelsey and herself commented there wasn't much character development and that the characters tended to be one-sided.

You know, he's right... Adolf Hitler... Not entirely evil... Pohl Pot... Not entirely evil... Idi Amin... Not entirely evil... Joseph Stalin... Not entirely evil... Robert Mugabe... Not entierly evil... Joseph Mengele... Not entirely evil... Sadam, Uday, Qusey Hussein... Not entirely evil... Never mind the use of poison gas, rape and torture rooms, and the ever-popular chipper/shredders!

Damn moral relativists!

Mark

[Roscoe]

I thought these were among the most unpleasant movies I ever switched channels on.

"The Return of the King" has never been on TV.

[MarkL]

Hmm...you gotta wonder what her take on the Old Testament is...

She's a "Unitarian Universalist." They don't like the Bible... It's too "mean, sexist, homophobic, and judgemental."

Mark

[Roscoe]

Adolf Hitler... Not entirely evil...

Vegetarian, doncha know.

[Trampled by Lambs]

Its just a story...