2 of 4

One last thing, especially regarding the question of evil. Tolkien may have taken things too far in his attack on The Screwtape Letters as diabolical. But, I still think there is something to focusing only on that which remains good in creation. For a Catholic, there is no such thing as "once saved, always saved." In his first letter, St. John wrote: "If anyone see his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death" (1 John 5: 16-17). Catholics interpret this as relating to those who are "saved." That is, there is some sin (mortal) that can destroy salvation, and other sin that is merely annoying (venial). Either sin, though, weakens the soul, as it takes us off the path of sanctification. We can will our selves to hell, but only by grace can we get to heaven.

Thanks Mark. This has been a wonderful and edifying discussion. Thanks for your thoughts, and for a great contribution to Tolkien and Christian scholarship. Believe it or not, though I should be grading finals, I am off to see Peter Jackson's version of The Two Towers!

In Christ,
Brad

Dear Brad,

Well, I just saw The Two Towers and fortunately had the chance to debrief afterwards with friends. I don't want to give away too much in deference to anyone reading this who hasn't yet seen it, but after some truly insipid previews for upcoming movies and a brilliant Coca-Cola commercial, The Two Towers began with an exhilarating scene that erased the twelve months since the Fellowship movie and had me on the edge of my seat, eyes wide and mouth undoubtedly open. Unfortunately, my enjoyment cartwheeled rather quickly downhill after that, as departures from Tolkien's text became more and more disheartening and disorienting.

As I was trying to reconcile these differences and to respect the filmmakers' poetic license, I found myself thinking about your comments on evil and modernity, because it seems to me that Peter Jackson, et al., are more comfortable, better equipped—something—to portray evil than they are to portray the good. None of the good characters in the movie live up to their counterparts in the book. One of the few things they capture brilliantly is Gollum's inner turmoil. I hope to deal with my frustrations and see the movie again (and, no doubt, again and again), in the hopes that, knowing what to expect, I will learn to enjoy the movie on its own merits, rather than being infuriated by the deviations from my beloved LotR.

There are wonderful moments, don't get me wrong, and more stunning scenery, but Théoden's thralldom to Saruman, and the ents' ignorance and naïveté are, I think, unfaithful to the spirit of Tolkien's work. So few of his characters are ever on the fence between good and evil. Boromir is one, but as soon as he understands the evil he has done, he is ready to lay down his life for Merry and Pippin, and dies firmly on the side of good. Gollum is another, from the opposite side of the spectrum. But by and large, Tolkien's characters are good or evil, and if they once change sides, they are unlikely to change back. The movie versions of these characters seem to waver almost constantly between despair and hope. Heroism in the "minor" characters seems minimal, whereas in Tolkien, there really are no minor characters, only characters we don't know as well as the others. But they have their own history, their own heroism or villainy. Some of the changes the movie made seem tantamount to portraying David the shepherd as having to be convinced by his brothers that he could take on Goliath.

next page... |  2 of 4

share this page

December (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46