Posted on 12/22/2002 2:53:12 PM PST by HighRoadToChina
Tolkien himself was never really clear on this either. In one of his letters to the publisher, he states:
The Two Towers ... can be left ambiguous - it might refer to Isengard and Barad-dur, or to Minas Tirith and Barad-dur, or Isengard and Cirith UngolAnd in another:
I am not at all happy about the title 'the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleadingIn the end, it is open to interpretation.
Actually you are right that the movie is wrong, but you are wrong too! ;~D... The Two Towers title actually refers to Orthanc (Isenguard), which dominates the first half of the story, and Cirith Ungol, the watchtower of Mordor where Frodo and Sam end up at the end of Book 4. You are right, however, that the title was not Tolkien's, and he knew it would be confusing. He was opposed to packaging the story in three books.
The movie presents Sauruman as a minion of Sauron, carrying out the will of his master. My interpretation of their relationship is that while Sauruman has clearly been corrupted by Sauron, especially after using the palantír, he is not completely under his control and is actually trying to acquire the Ring for himself, thus creating a third power opposed both to Sauron and the forces of the Wise.
In the book and in the film, Saruman begins as a minion of Sauron with delusions of grandeur. It is subtle in both the book and the film, that he slowly drops the facade of working for Sauron. We know he does it in the book, but in the film, we haven't gotten that far yet. Even so, in FoTR, Saruman is ordered to build an army for Mordor, but when Saruman is sending Lutz out, he asks, "Whom do you serve?" and the answer of course, is "Saruman". PJ is playing it subtle, but is on about the same timetable that the change became apparent in the book. Remember, Sauron did not know that Saruman had captured hobbits in the hope of getting the ring for himself until Pippin sneaks a look into the pilantir later on in the story. Saruman plays his cards close.
Although generally I'm inclined to agree with you, despite recalling the hoopla when they were built, I will observe that the symbolism needn't be in the mind of the creator in order for it to be valid to others.
That the Islamists perceived the buildings as a symbol of something evil and tried to destroy them on that basis, in '93? and '01, is at least evidence of that
Nope.
Maybe before they got knocked down, with people jumping out of the top floors you could make such a statement. But, now, such seems a little...cranky(?)
I was going to say the same thing in my message to you above. I haven't seen it yet, but hope to do so soon. I'm just fascinated with the production and the people who are involved in it. They are a different crowd from the Hollywood gang, and I'm very happy that it is such a commercial success. MAYBE, some could learn a lesson from it!
When you build the tallest building on the NY skyline, and build 2 of them side by side, then you are making a statement by that simple fact alone, regardless of design and appearance. Your statement is "I want this to be the most important building complex in this city." Those buildings, dominating the skyline, then become a visual image, or symbol for some, of the city itself.
The reason that the terrorists attacked the WTC is because it symbolizes NY, not because of what was going on inside. If they hated stockbrokers, they could target the NYSE. If they hated insurance, they could bring down a building that housed a big insurance company. If they didn't like usurers, they could bring down a bank building. But the WTC had firms in all those industries and more. It wasn't an attack on any specific business, it was an attack on New York. They couldn't blow the whole damn city up, so they went for the biggest thing in New York they could destroy, that's all.
What the buildings symbolize must depend on what their purpose is. Is it a jail? A seat of government? A library? A university? An apartment building? What the building qua building symbolizes depends on what goes on inside. How could Tolkien be so stupid as to consider a tall collection of offices as symbolic of Tyranny, unless he hated commerce in general?
I have never read these books, and never studied Tolkien, but from what I have learned about Tolkien's background, it appears that he was principled in his defense of core western values. Dreher's assumption that Tolkien would have considered the WTC a symbol of tyranny offends me, because I think it shows a great writer in a bad light without factual basis.
You are confusing the WTC as a symbol of NYC because of its place on the skyline, with its symbolism based upon on its function as an office building. Dreher seemed to be implying that because it is a place where trade was conducted, it is a symbol of tyranny. That is crap, IMO, and if Tolkien would have thought such, he would have been full of crap. I think Dreher is the one full of crap, though, not Tolkien.
As I said, otherwise an excellent article. I don't know why he felt the need to put in this attack on Tolkien's logic.
Dreher says that they Tolkien would have thought they were symbols of Tyranny. He says this after 9/11. I'm the cranky one? Explain to me how this peripheral statement in his otherwise good article needed to be made? It's not true that they are symbols of tyranny, and I doubt it's true that Tolkien would have thought them so. The Shah's prison, or the Kremlin under the Soviets, or the Tower of London, or even the Confederate Flag could all be said to be symbols of tyranny. But an office building? Only to someone who reads way too much into height.
Then why are you posting to a thread like this?
Back away from the keys for a while and read the books.
From what I have read about Tolkien, I think Dreher wrongly portrayed his views. That's all I'm saying. If someone comes on here and says they are a Tolkien Ph.D, and they believe that Tolkien would have thought the WTC was a Symbol of Tyranny, then I will have to revise my view of Tolkien downward.
For more insight into Tolkien, read The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.
"Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power (exerted for domination)"
--J.R.R. Tolkien
_The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_ p. 246 (1995)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.