On this one I can't agree with your analysis GB. For me the problem with Jacksons version is the Providence is not clear enough and (and i hope I'm remembering this aright) after Gollum retakes the ring Frodo gets up from ground and goes for him/ring- either way this extra bit of aggression from Frodo is not present in any form in the book (where Frodo remains on the ground until after ring is destroyed).
For me it is the shot in particular Jackson uses of Frodo almost snarling as he gets up lurching for the ring in Gollums possession that's the problem. Jackson makes Frodo the aggressor right at the end. For me its not in the spirit of the character from the book and I think it's one of the things Tolkien may have disliked about the films if he'd lived to see them.

I had a great rebuttal earlier, but I had to go to work at 6 this morning and now I'm too tired . I WILL be back (eventually).

[b:10wg0lku]GB[/b:10wg0lku]

I think there must be some kind of confusion about what qualifies as Providence.

First, Eldo and Petty, it makes not a whit of difference whether or not there is a One part, Two part, or 15 part, struggle . The destruction of the Ring required a struggle, Period; and Providence provided it. How? by choosing Smeagol, Bilbo, and Frodo to be Ring-bearers.

Halfwise (wisely ) points to the reasons the book version of the struggle would not work on-screen. Most people who hadn't read the books would have found it a comically anticlimactic let-down if, after all that effort to get to Mt Doom, the Ring was destroyed because Gollum was dancing on the edge with glee. A grander, more epic struggle was required for the film.

However, this in no way minimizes Providence Halfwise. If anything, the extended struggle actually enhances the perception of Providence by making it clear that the Ring could not be destroyed by an Act of Will. A merely accidental slip and fall could be more easily chalked up to a Random Act of Chance. But by battling on the ledge of of the lava pit, Frodo and Gollum are fulfilling their destined roles. And when they BOTH topple over the edge and Frodo Lives while Gollum dies, it couldn't be more clear that a Greater Power has a hand in the proceedings.

Thus, Jackson actually [i:2k5xnv5g][b:2k5xnv5g]strengthens[/b:2k5xnv5g][/i:2k5xnv5g] Tolkien's intended Climactic Theme, which he had been building on throughout the films by including key dialogue and elements from the books that point to a "Higher Power".

And for the record: I am an Agnostic, so I cannot be accused of having a Theological axe to grind . But I have spent years studying Mythology, Religion and Philosophy and I recognize Providence when I see it .

[b:2k5xnv5g]GB[/b:2k5xnv5g]

Gaaaah! Yes, I agree that many film-goers who aren't theologians aren't going to pick up on Providence--that was part of my point. But the other part of my point is that it is patently obvious to those that are looking for it.

[b:3ig2rvgp]GB[/b:3ig2rvgp]

P.S. While I acknowledge that the dangling from a cliff device is a common filmic practice, I respectfully disagree that it is a cheap shot. It's a common dramatic device because it WORKS. And it works particularly well in that scene. I would have been disappointed with anything less.

I think Odo we may be of a similar mind when it comes to where PJ went wrong. He seems to have performed a sort of reverse filmic alchemy on Tolkien, turning all his high matter into base matter- Legolas single handily hopping about and killing a Mumakil and surfing down its snout! Frodo rejecting Sam and sending him away in favour of Gollum. Faramir taking the ringbearer to Osgiliath. Frodo dangling from the Crack of Doom. I could go on listing examples, sadly, but I think the point is made- these changes can be defended but only on the grounds you are pandering to studio expectations of what people are willing to accept- I think the continued success of the books should have told PJ people were happy with the story as it was, not taken it as a licence to meddle as they saw fit and where it suited their preconceptions of an audiences thresholds.
The production, the costumes, the sets are all outstanding- the script is a disgrace. And for me that's the tragedy- everything else is as good as could have been wished for but the heart of it is gone, sold down the commercial river.
It saddens me that for many people those films will for ever be Lord of the Rings- now [i:eh3it3qh]I'm[/i:eh3it3qh] crying over my keyboard.

Stop it you two, now you're making me cry . There, there now...*virtual pat on the shoulders*...all is not as bad as it seems.

You still have the books. And the film-script is not as dire as you make it out to be. Those of us who carry the books in our heart have the double joy of seeing some of our imagination brought to life, even if not to all our expectations. The alterations are not nearly so great as to topple Tolkien's Edifice. And we shouldn't be sad for those that didn't read the books. Tolkien's Story is what made the films the commercial success they are in the hands of an imaginative director. It could have been REALLY BAD (as in Michael Bay or George Lucas directing ).

[b:11o1aimd]GB[/b:11o1aimd]

Ok I admit calling the entire script a disgrace was a bit strong- but that's how parts of it make me feel, like my bloods boiling- where it sticks close to the source (large chunks of Fellowship) it works as well as I could have hoped (although I'd still liked to have seen less "modernising" of the dialogue but that's a smaller issue -sort of), but where PJ and co take a flight of fancy and think they can "improve" Tolkien it is a disgrace- I listed some of those disgraces previously but I think its worth dwelling on one of the ones that bugs me most, because it perfectly illustrates how these changes betray a complete misunderstanding of the source material (warning this may get technical!)
Lets take Faramir and his capture of Frodo. Almost all the main players in the book get a shot at seizing the Ring and some succumb and some don't (most don't, interestingly) the difference between the two is outright rejection. Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel,Faramir, and Sam all reject the ring when their turn comes and they never look back. Those who don't, Boromir being a good example, the ring works on, feeding their delusions and sneaking into their mind until the moment comes when they will try to seize it. Had Faramir not rejected the ring and captured Frodo then gone on a long march to MInas Tirith by time they reached Osgiliath he would not have let the ring go. And within the context even of their own script the part where Faramir chooses to release Frodo after witnessing him trying to give the ring to the Nazgul makes even less sense- there is no excuse for this sort of change within the narrative. Plus it wastes a remarkable amount of time in an adaptation where its going to be impossible to get all the source material in as it stands. So those who defend PJ's changes should consider their purpose which has nothing to do with Tolkien and everything to do with conceptions of what a mass audience wants- and that's a shame cause Tolkien proved if you write what you really want to and love, it doesn't have to conform in any way to be a success. Pj should have trusted his source far more than he did.
If they ever try to make LOTR again they should come here for help with the script! Hopefully it would be for tv- 20 episodes, 1 hour each easily be able to do the books justice!

An echo of appreciation only - I wondered where I got that phrase about trust from! Take it as a compliment your comment stuck so firmly in my mind that it wormed its way into my own arguement! (Besides that sounds better than plagiarism!)

Only if some swine isn't making money out your words! Sadly nobody has been kind enough to pay me for my words- yet.

Yes it is but dare I say, from the recent lack of critical counter comments we Tolkien purists may have won the arguement with our fine array of points raised and silenced the heathen PJ lovers!
And if that doesn't bring em back out the woodwork don't know what will - looking at you here GB seen as your are (courageously) the only willing spokesman for the PJ apologists brigade at moment. (Did you previously destroy all the others Odo?)

Dear Tyrant, I think I've worn some of those Liberals and Heathens down over time. I guess my method is a bit like the Chinese water torture.I also never rely on logic unless it makes sense, nor do I refrain from making up ridiculous statements if it deflects them away from any lack of facts I might have to support my arguments. It's a tried and true method in politics, I do believe. As you'd be aware, winning the Tolkien Purism argument is almost, but not quite as important, as actually winning the argument full stop. (But stay alert! They're still lurking out there... somewhere... like goblins...)

Dear GB, you'd been gone so long I thought you'd died and gone to Heaven, which saddened me because that would mean I'd never be able to chat with you ever again (unless of course you were appointed Gate-Angel at Hell's Portico, I guess). Now... seeing you're here... back to business! Please don't use French words in future. I don't speak French! I don't now what a non-sequitur is (though you may have just spelt it wrong?) Or did you mean a numb-secateur? These are words that sound French too and yet I at least recognise them as units of English language (from the French?). But what do you mean by them? How do they serve your argument? (I hope you're not utilizing them as some kind of [i:10x3fo2j]cutting [/i:10x3fo2j]remark - boom boom!)

Odo

So a non sequitur is a kind of fish, is it?

GB, I really don't know how that's relevant.

Odo

Fishy, if you ask me - and certainly not cogent argument!

Frodo trying to grab the ring was plain wrongedness! And certainly not necessary. And generally a bad idea smelling (metaphorically)of rotting fish Ha! Touche! (That's French, so there!)(I don't mean [i:2d13fs42]metaphorically[/i:2d13fs42], on this occasion, in its strict nasal sense, only indirectly).

Btw I think it quite Racist of you to snub kilts! (I myself admire and respect any man with legs nice enough to shamelessly show them off in all weathers - especially when the wind is gusting up the glen!)

Odo

Aha! Mon frew, ooo la la, c'est me Kate (French), but Frodo didna grab at och nellie ring (Scots)!So,son, whywouldyaputsumpininzaflickthatweren'tinzabook? Nah mate! Don'tmakenosense!(Australian commonsense).

Odo

Didn't know I was linguistic, did you, GB? (Neither did I until I tried it, but i shouldn't have been surprised, we Australians are never daunted by a challenge).

Wonderfully put.

It does not fly - it flitters prettily on the butterfly wings of sweet reason. Oh how little your eyes see, GB, and then only the most banal even then (I mean this kindly).

The thing is Petty, I'm not questioning your characterization of canon. Indeed I accept it and willingly concede it's veracity. It's your characterization of Providence I question, and thus your dismissal of Jackson's version and characterizing it as being somehow antithetical to Tolkien's .

[b:ddieucmt]GB[/b:ddieucmt]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree .

In my view, Jackson's changes make Providence more obvious, not less. Therefore I don't see him as altering the themes, merely the scenario.

In any case, Jolly Good Show Petty!!!

[b:ivj3jiw2]GB[/b:ivj3jiw2]

Come on, Mr Tyrant, don't let him slink off like this! Chase after him and give him a piece of your mind!

I know neither what a Noob or a Leet is, but never mind, the important thing is to give that Scottish git a right royal British-American drubbing! March forth GB! (But be careful, they're a canny race, let's not have any Bannockburns here).

Take the time you need GB! I look forward to reading what you come up with (and then destroying it in the name of Tolkien)!

Alrighty Then Petty!!!

After some second thoughts I wanted to give your thoughtful argument the attention it deserved, and analyse the Tolkien quote in greater context. I found a more sizable chunk of letter 246 and also relevant sections of letter 181 (I don't personally own Humphrey Carpenter's collection of Tolkien letters and it's been a number of years since I read it).

At this point it's worth noting the Theological views of Tolkien because as a Roman Catholic he clearly was no "Calvinist" . Much like his Anglican friend CS Lewis, he believed that Mankind (and by extension Hobbitkind) had Free Will. Most Calvinist Theologians (at least the ones at Narniaweb ) gently mock this view with the term "Free Willie", because their view essentially deprives Mankind of any REAL Free Will. God not only knows all that will be, but ACTIVELY Predestines all that will be.

Catholics and Anglicans (for the most part) see God as stepping back and allowing Sentient beings to Choose whether or not to follow His Plan. This is particularly relevant, because it means that for "Calvinist" Protestants Providence is so ubiquitous as to be nearly meaningless (EVERYTHING is God's Will); and that for Catholics, Providence works in a more subtle manner.

In their case, Providence is still God's Will (which is the Highest), but it acts "situationally". In other words, one can choose to act against God's Will or for a path that [i:3ei8gzmq][b:3ei8gzmq]coincides[/b:3ei8gzmq][/i:3ei8gzmq] with God's Will. And only when one's Own Will is depleted is Providence at Full Strength.

[quote:3ei8gzmq] [b:3ei8gzmq]letter 246:[/b:3ei8gzmq]
"[u:3ei8gzmq]At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum -- impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist[/u:3ei8gzmq], certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. [b:3ei8gzmq]Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence)[/b:3ei8gzmq] and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honor; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed."[/quote:3ei8gzmq]

[quote:3ei8gzmq][b:3ei8gzmq]letter 181:[/b:3ei8gzmq]
Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete trap: [u:3ei8gzmq]a person of greater native power could probably never have resisted the Ring's lure to power so long; a person of less power could not hope to resist it in the final decision[/u:3ei8gzmq]. (Already Frodo had been unwilling to hard (sic) the Ring before he set out, and was incapable of surrendering it to Sam.)


The Quest . . . was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was concerned. He 'apostatized' -- and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he should have been executed as a traitor, not honoured. . . .
[/quote:3ei8gzmq]

Thus, the moment Frodo's Will was completely subsumed by The Ring, he ceased to be an Active Agent of Providence. His Will (as was Gollum's) was at that point "utterly spent". He had completed his Quest (i.e. "produced a situation"--get the Ring to Mt Doom--and could do no more than that, no-one could (which means he is NOT a "failed Hero" as so many erroneously believe, including Frodo himself). So the only Force greater than the Ring's Will, [b:3ei8gzmq]at that point[/b:3ei8gzmq], was Eru's Will, i.e. Providence, which shifted the odds in favour of Frodo, and against the Ring and Gollum.

This is true in both Tolkien's version AND Jackson's version. As I've already pointed out, it makes no difference to Providence how long the struggle lasted, or whether Frodo attacked Gollum, because they were both controlled by the Ring, and only the Power of Providence could act against it.

In Tolkien's version, Providence alters the odds causing Gollum to fall into the pit while dancing with Glee. In Jackson's, Providence uses the protracted struggle to send both over the ledge, but allowing Frodo time to clasp the edge while Gollum continues on down with the Ring.

So I'm sorry Petty. I wanted to give your argument a fair shake. But in no way do Tolkien's comments contradict my argument.

But again, you proffered a valiant and cogent argument , but it doesn't shake out in the context of how Providence works, or how Tolkien understood it, and how Jackson filmed it.

[b:3ei8gzmq]GB[/b:3ei8gzmq]

Had Tolkien written the ledge dangling scene, he would have had to craft a similar outcome as Jackson's (unless he planned to write the Hero's Sacrifice, as in Arthurian Romance. But that WOULD have been an utter alteration of his themes, which included Redemption. Jackson thus supported Tolkien's themes more than I think you realize).

The thing is, in Jackson's version, Frodo chooses Hope in the end, because the Ring has finally been destroyed and he has some modicum of Will left (the Ring melting in the Fires from which it was born, no longer has a hold on him). Providence caused him to reach out and grasp the Ledge, and caused Gollum to NOT do so. This also is in keeping with Tolkien's theme. As we both agree, Frodo believes he's failed and not a Hero in canon; yet, in canon, he also chooses Hope in the end.

I agree that Frodo is as physically exhausted as his Will is spent, canonically. Yet in canon there is still a brief Struggle--Jackson extends it and he is still within Reason for doing so. Gollum is also a rather physically spent creature, yet the Ring's influence still gives him strength to go on. Similarly, Frodo could just as easily been written by Tolkien to have that Supernatural energy propelling him to fight for the Ring, drawing on both the Ring's Power and Providence itself.

Now I can certainly see why you think that Jackson choosing an archetypal film convention is a "cheap shot", but that fails to take into consideration that Tolkien himself was writing from archetypal and archaic convention, The Hero's Journey. Tolkien and Lewis both were captivated by ancient Myth and Medieval Thought; and both believed that "Originality" (in the sense of wholly and utterly unique) was a false and Modern concept. For the Ancients and Medievals, all artifice was Variation on an archetypal theme.

And finally, as the Ring and Providence, are in the end, the two Forces actually battling on the Ledge, I can only reiterate that Frodo is not in control of his mind or body, and thus the loss of Will and the ensuing Struggle in no way diminishes the Mercy and Kindness Frodo previously showed towards Gollum in either the book or the film--something Tolkien himself refers to in both of the aforementioned letters as to being one of the key factors that grants Frodo the Grace of Eru, and thus passage to The Undying Lands (with a little help from Arwen ).

So in the end, I do not expect to convince you to like Jackson's version any better, and Reason alone is no reason for you (or anyone) to enjoy something that doesn't resonate with you. My only hope is that you will see that your reasons for despising the films are not, in fact, based on actual deviations of themes, but deviations from the original narrative as written--[u:23er9bdb]And there is certainly nothing wrong with that.[/u:23er9bdb] .

No-one can, or should, force someone to love something they do not.

[b:23er9bdb]GB[/b:23er9bdb]

I actually think Tolkien would be rolling in his grave to hear you call his beloved Archetypes "Cliches" . In any case, villains falling off cliffs due to their own error or during battles with the hero is indeed an ancient trope. In fact, a quite famous one that Tolkien would have been quite aware of would have been Holmes and Moriarty at Reichenbach Falls. Holmes reappears in a later story to explain how he survived (some sort of Japanese Jiu Jitsu technique) and Moriarty died.

Not only that, some unpleasant critics have gone so far as to suggest that villains falling to their deaths at their moment of apparent victory is Deus Ex Machina , a "cliched" plot device meaning literally "God in the machine" (as a writer yourself, I expect you are well aware of it ), which is a nasty way to put down Providence (though to be fair, SOME writers do use the technique merely to write their way out of a plot hole when they have no intention of literally ascribing the event to a Higher Power or Magic ).

[b:1mi8fszj]GB[/b:1mi8fszj]

I'm not certain actually . I seem to have some vague recollection of something a bit like that, possibly from the telly or a film, but I can't put my finger on it. Probably just my imagination .

Anyway, the Verite style you suggest would probably work better as a screenplay than a book. That's a really cool idea Odo .

[b:3f1x54as]GB[/b:3f1x54as]