# ATTENTION ALL AUSSIES!!! (actually EVERYONE can read this, I'm not being elitist)



## Flammifer (Dec 10, 2003)

Hi.

Did any of you Aussies just watch that Lord of the Rings thing on the ABC at 8:30? Man that thing sucked.

I hated it. Apart from the gross misinterpretations of Aragorn's character, there were the terrible parodies of the War of the Ring to the Second World War - indeed most of the other parallels that the program drew were also ridiculous.

Have a look at this (you needn't read it all; just the bold bits are important, but if you're interested then you should read the whole thing):



> _The Lord of the Rings: Foreword to the Second Edition (written by JRR Tolkien)_
> 
> *As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.* As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but *its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, 'The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939* had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. *Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.*
> 
> ...



It says plainly there that The Lord of the Rings is completely unallegorical. The book was *completely irrelevant* to the Second World War!

The fact that supposed Tolkien "experts" made statements that were so blatantly contrary to the _published thoughts_ of the author is to me outrageous.

Also I can't believe that Christopher Lee (haughty and arrogant as he may be) agreed to participate in such a program that was so incredibly contradictory.

So, if any other Aussies saw it, what did you think?


----------



## Lúthien Séregon (Dec 10, 2003)

I also saw it just then, and I can’t say I liked it much either. They seemed to be more focused on comparing the characters with significant people throughout history ( Wormtongue and Rasputin? Aragorn and Queen Elizabeth? ), and situations in particular wars, rather than actually talking about the story as a non-allegorical story as Tolkien intended it to be, and the film interpretation of this. To be honest, I watched it most of the way through purely because I was on the look-out for new Return of the King footage  But even that it didn’t have too much of, just a couple of shots here and then.


----------



## Flammifer (Dec 10, 2003)

I know! I totally agree - I mainly watched it for the ROTK footage, but there wasn't much I haven't already seen. Actually, to be honest, the most new footage I've seen (besides the trailers) is on that KFC ad! Hahaha.....

Anyway, comparing Wormtongue to Rasputin was a little bit obscure, I thought................and it really does sound ridiculous now in hindsight to think of Aragorn being compared to Queen Elizabeth.....


----------



## MrFrodo (Dec 14, 2003)

There maybe a link with the races issue..Hitler wanted to get rid of any one NOT Aryan ......Maybe it is possible to suggest that the combining of the races fo elves, Men, dwarves are a link to maybe the russians ..British and French....



> It says plainly there that The Lord of the Rings is completely unallegorical. The book was completely irrelevant to the Second World War!



Sorry Tolkien.....as much as i love your books....nothing is unallegorical....as 'Human' experinces will always effect the way we think...therefore write.

Didnt Tolkien start thinking about the Hobbit during the war...sorry i m not sure on this....please correct me if im wrong....


----------



## Flammifer (Dec 17, 2003)

I'm sorry MrFrodo, but I can't agree. One may still write based on observations of humans traits such as greed and power but it does not have to be relevant to the current events of the time in which the piece is written. Indeed it would have been quite ridiculous for Tolkien to create humans in his world that are in no way similar to the ones in the real world!

What Tolkien is trying to say is that LotR is not in any way topical.

Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines _topical_ as:

*pertaining to or dealing with matters of current or local interest.*

Tolkien states that it is not topical, therefore it is not relevant to the Second World War, which he also states plainly. I have provided these quotes in my original post.



> There maybe a link with the races issue..Hitler wanted to get rid of any one Aryan ......Maybe it is possible to suggest that the combining of the races fo elves, Men, dwarves are a link to maybe the russians ..British and French....



Actually Hitler wasn't trying to get rid of the Aryans, he wanted a completely Aryan race - basically that meant people with blonde hair and blue eyes - people of mainly Nordic background, seemingly.

But I understand your point. However, I must still disagree. Tolkien started writing LotR before WWII. I believe that any observations that Tolkien made of tyrants that tried to erase other races were still nothing to do with the War, and, though they were applicable at the time, they were completely coincidental.


----------



## MrFrodo (Dec 17, 2003)

Big sorry there...I cant believe i typed that.....sorry .......aryans were the master race to Hitler.....sorrry!!!!!! i will edit that post!!

Flammifer i understand were your coming from...I dont think the books have any real connection the war i was just suggesting it.



> Tolkien started writing LotR before WWII. I believe that any observations that Tolkien made of tyrants that tried to erase other races were still nothing to do with the War, and, though they were applicable at the time, they were completely coincidental.



I agree.......but i do feel lord of the rings will always have a connections like any other book......to anything related to humans...I have always believe the ring is a symbol of sin..i dont believe Tolkien intentionally did this...but the best storys..will always have an elements we can related to...


----------



## Flammifer (Dec 18, 2003)

First of all MrFrodo I really do apologise for sounding a bit aggressive there, it's just that when supposed Tolkien "experts" make comments that are so contradictory to the published comments of the author I get rather annoyed. Once again, I apologise. Sorry.



> I agree.......but i do feel lord of the rings will always have a connections like any other book......to anything related to humans...I have always believe the ring is a symbol of sin..i dont believe Tolkien intentionally did this...but the best storys..will always have an elements we can related to...



Yep I totally agree with you there. I think that the "humanity" side to The Lord of the Rings is one of the things that makes it such a classic - a book that will never die out, because it will always be applicable.....the characters and themes displayed in LotR are just as prominent now as they were when Tolkien wrote LotR.....and they will continue to be.


----------



## MrFrodo (Dec 18, 2003)

Ok then we totally agree..


one other thing

It takes one JONNY to screw Australia     

sorry but it had to be said....


----------



## Flammifer (Dec 19, 2003)

Hahaha......yes it's true it's true.......but no, I can't think of it anymore......*bursts into tears at the thought of losing to the Poms*


----------



## Rangerdave (Dec 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Flammifer _
> *
> I can't believe that Christopher Lee (haughty and arrogant as he may be) agreed to participate in such a program that was so incredibly contradictory.
> *




Always remember, Christopher is an Actor, and not a very good one at that.

The old saying remains true. 
_Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, actors gotta eat_

Look at the man's film history. He's never turned down work no matter how foolish or low quality the project.

As long as the check clears, Christopher Lee will say anything you ask him to.

The last time this man did anything interesting on screen was in the 1952 bomb _babes in Baghdad_



RD


----------



## Flammifer (Dec 20, 2003)

Haha, that's very true RD! But you misundersand me. 

What I mean with the part of my original post that you quoted was that Christopher Lee is something of a Tolkien expert himself - he reads it at least once a year and has done for about 20 years as I understand it. He's even met Professor Tolkien himself. My point was that he also was a Tolkien expert, but took part in this stupid TV show.

Sorry, I should have made my point clearer to start with.


----------

