Too Much To Dream

Wow. Kurtz actually took time away to write on this from watching out for homosexual attempts to undermine the foundation to his and other upstanding, moral citizens' properly ordered houses so that they'll flood in spring, or their constant attempts to unscrew the tops of his salt shakers to tear down his enjoyment of breakfast? Doesn't he know allowing himself a distraction like this could allow the homosexuals to achieve their agenda to undermine the expiration dates on all his milk products?!?

At least for once he wasn't droning on about marriage.

That's why I can't read the Corner.. Between him and Derbyshire, there's a lot of willful ignorance and pathetic reactionary sentiment there. I cannot stand people who wish it was still the 19th century.

I just got back from a third veiwing of RotK which was marred by stupid parents with out of control kids. Next time it's going to be a weekday when school's back in!

Anyway, even with that, it still was magical. It's about 45 min. from the the theater to home and Nin and I talked nonstop about the movies, the books, and the intersecting of the two.

I see what you found offensive in Kurtz's statements, but I'm guessing he was trying to say that the Christian themes of the movies flew right over the head of the elites in question, and all they were left with was a pseudo-environmentalist theory of the movie (which, unfortunately, seems to be what most of the actors were left with. Execept JRD, apparently). But still, think he could have phrased that a bit better...

Great post. Your analysis is dead on.

What bugs me a lot more are the "experts" they had on the appendicies of the FOTR, which made no reference at all to the importance of Tolkein's religious beliefs, but did talk about pagan themes in the book? WTF? Seems purposeful to me. Hopefully we'll get better with ROTK, since Jonah will probably be on the disc.

Hm -- haven't gotten through all the interviews on the FOTR dvds... And I am allergic to expert-speak in general. I did listen to more of the Two Towers interviews. While the experts there ran the gamut from irritating to "eh," I am afraid that the guy I hated most was that executive producer guy, whatsisname... Ostrowski? (Too lazy to go to the other room and get the disc set out.) I couldn't put my finger on why his standard Hollywood spiel was more irritating than anyone else's on the discs, then I realized he reminded me of the World's Most Irritating Show Host, Don Kirschner of the Don Kirschner's Rock Concert show from the seventies. My no-doubt irrational inability to endure his flat, achingly slow, giving-every-word-equal-emphasis delivery made me miss many performances by stars of the time (such as David Bowie, Iggy Pop, etc.). I was told I should regret this but somehow I never did.

(PS: I am sure that Ostrowsky or whatever it is is a capital fellow, and he helped bring this film to me so I have no beef with him. I realize I am being irrational.)

It will be interesting to see what is in the "extended" version of the DVD. A mate of mine, Mr Tyke, has seen the movie and said he thinks he knows where exactly a scene was cut. Another friend of mine saw a cut for "industry types" that was 6 (or 7)) hours long...eek. I don't think I could sit in a movie house for the length the present one, probably because I loath going to the movies.

unfortunately they were from stupid (okay, less informed) people saying "it's a catholic (sic) allegory."

Stupid indeed . . . Tolkien was always crystal clear that if there was one thing he didn't want the trilogy perceived as, it was allegory.

I find my blood pressure's stabilized nicely since I quit reading the Corner. Bunch of asswarts in there, mostly.

unfortunately they were from stupid (okay, less informed) people saying "it's a catholic (sic) allegory.

However, that is exactly what LotR is about: The Lord of the Rings - Catholic Epic leading to Bulletin, November 25 2001:

Building on this philosophy of myth, Tolkien explained to Lewis that the story of Christ was the true myth at the very heart of history and at the very root of reality. Whereas the pagan myths were manifestations of God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using the images of their "mythopoeia" to reveal fragments of His eternal truth, the true myth of Christ was a manifestation of God expressing Himself through Himself, with Himself, and in Himself. God, in the Incarnation, had revealed Himself as the ultimate poet who was creating reality, the true poem or true myth, in His own image. Thus, in a divinely inspired paradox, myth was revealed as the ultimate realism.

Cheers,--binkley

Yay binkley. Where in that paragraph is Lord of the Rings mentioned? That's what this post is about -- that particular novel and the movie based on it.

By the way, I take my knowledge of what the book is not (an allegory) from the words of its author:

"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical." (from the "Foreward" to the first volume, Fellowship of the Rings

In other words, Frodo is not Christ, Sauron is not Hitler, etc. That's what an allegory is, by the way -- characters directly symbolize other things -- definition from Dictionary.com: "The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form." You can claim that the characters and situations are meant to be something else other than what they are until you are blue in the face and it won't make it any less of an untruth. Lord of the Rings is a fantasy written by a Christian (Roman Catholic) British male of the scholarly class, and thus of course was shaped by his beliefs and attitudes but it is not meant to be read as a lesson or lecture on anything. It's a novel not a pamphlet.