Article

2004-01-31 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-01-31 2:19:44 AM|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Ah,lady it is just a great story and excellent movie.If you want to discuss High Philosophy talk to your"partner".

Posted by Raptor 2004-1-31 6:52:28 AM|| 2004-1-31 6:52:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 NO surprise that a Unitarian minister, who worships at the alter of "no particular diety" has trouble with this whole good vs. evil thing...........

Posted by debbie 2004-1-31 7:00:01 AM|| 2004-1-31 7:00:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 D'OH! I meant deity...

Posted by debbie 2004-1-31 7:02:31 AM|| 2004-1-31 7:02:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 deity...diety lets call the whole thing off. :)

What a monumental prig. Can the Rev. just enjoy a friggin movie without all the blah, blah, blah? I'll bet she considers the political implications of her bowel movements as well.

Posted by whitecollar redneck 2004-1-31 8:32:52 AM|| 2004-1-31 8:32:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 In LotR, the Bad Guysâ¢ are ruled by a demon. Demons stamp out as much good as they can.

On the other hand, you have to admit it does take a certain level of courage to go into battle.

Posted by Korora 2004-1-31 8:51:38 AM|| [http://basementburrow.blogspot.com] 2004-1-31 8:51:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Tolkien still remains a figure of controversy. Tolkien attended daily Mass, insisted his Anglican fiancÃ©e Edith convert to his faith in order to marry him, and his son John became a priest. His ethics, as well as his Catholic beliefs, make him a center of debate.

Am I alone in reading this as saying that Tolkien's Catholicism and his commitment to his faith are what make him "a center of debate"? So isn't this really some people expressing their anti-Catholic bigotry?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-31 9:06:43 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-1-31 9:06:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 It is another example of the disdain some people have towards anyone who believes in something greater than the "Temple of Man".

Posted by whitecollar redneck 2004-1-31 9:11:05 AM|| 2004-1-31 9:11:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 ...and in related news, belly button gazers agree: more lint is better lint...

Posted by Hyper 2004-1-31 9:25:29 AM|| 2004-1-31 9:25:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Ungar believes Tolkienâs Catholicism isnât reflected in the epic. She said, "There are writers whose writing is about their personal religion. I donât see âLord of the Ringsâ as particularly Christian.

Christianity *is* about the struggle between good and evil in its starkest form. Ungar's religion isn't Christianity - it's Druidism stripped of human sacrifice.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-1-31 10:07:48 AM|| 2004-1-31 10:07:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 are you the Gatekeeperâ¢?

Posted by Frank G 2004-1-31 10:42:02 AM|| 2004-1-31 10:42:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Ungar's moral prism goes like this: The holocaught wasn't evil since they didnt kill everyone, therefore the nazis were not evil. They just hated Jews.

Or: Sure my son gun took a gun and shot up a restaurant, killing ten people. At least he didn't kill everyone, therefore he isn't all bad.

This is just my view, but in the realm of morality there is absolute good and evil. If bin Laden gives out lollypops to children the day after he murders 3000 plus Americans, does the second act mitigate the first? Of course not! Unless you are Ungar.

Some things are always evil, and they are so not just because we are told they're evil, but because he KNOW they are evil.

But not to Ungar. Nothing is evil, just as there is nothing good. I think that concept is in itself unredemptively evil.

Posted by badanov 2004-1-31 11:11:05 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-1-31 11:11:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Is Ungar demented? What about when a certain hobbit tried to take the ring for himself? Several people in the books who were good tried to take the ring because of it's power. They were corrupted into this gray linethat Ungar speaks of.

And she watched the MOVIES. You can only fit so much into a movie theatre. The books have more stroy and detail. It's obvious that Ungar is just another "didn't represent me enough" person.

I think the overall representation is more like this: The One Ring represents greed, lust, jealousy, immorality, fear, ect. The alliance of Elf and Man represent the different branches of Christianity. Mordor is basicaly hell on earth. If you look at all the factions and see the struggles they go through, you'll see parellels between the certain groups in Tolkiens time.

For example: The prejudices between Rohan and Gandor translate into the squabbling between Presbytarians and Catholics. Others are the first war with Mordor being the defeat of Islam in Europe, the Elves leaving the squabbling of Humans being people going to America to escape Religious Pursecution, and the betrayal of Sarumon being dictators forsaking their people for power.

Ungar is more like the people of Hobbitsville, hoping for the best and thinking nobody will harm them if they just stay put.

Posted by Charles 2004-1-31 2:16:27 PM|| 2004-1-31 2:16:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 deity...diety lets call the whole thing off. :)

Now that is Rantburgian! I salute you.

Posted by Shipman 2004-1-31 4:46:53 PM|| 2004-1-31 4:46:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I read Tolkhein back in the 1970's, and was entertained by the four major books. I enjoyed them. Most of the chatter these days are from people who have no moral compass, and who have never lived in any kind of environment but one of plenty. They've never had a really dangerous moment in their entire lives, and they think THEIR life is "typical". If "Miss Unitarian" spent a year in Rwanda, I'm sure she'd never ever blubber about "no such thing as pure evil". Of course, she's too perfect to ever do anything "crazy" like that.

Life isn't a game, where one side represents "good and the Angels", while the other side represents "evil and the devil", where the majority of the folks can sit in the stands and root for their favorites. It's more "you're either with us, or you're with the enemy", with no room for "neutrality". The neutrals will soon find themselves shoved in with the bad guys, and treated with equal contempt.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-1-31 6:27:39 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-1-31 6:27:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 I think those guys are way off. Sure there were absolutes but there are constant movements between good and evil. Take for example Boromir who betrayed The fellowship to regret later. Saruman who fell in with Sauron because he wanted to have some degree of control (like the french) over his place in the world. Even Aragorn and gandalf and the other principals feared the taint of evil. Each of them knew how easy that road is entered.

Posted by Capt Joe 2004-1-31 6:48:19 PM|| 2004-1-31 6:48:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Ungar must have missed the Christian undertones in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe as well. The Silmarilion is more obvious.

What did she thing of Lethal Weapon II?

Posted by Super Hose 2004-1-31 6:59:48 PM|| 2004-1-31 6:59:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 If you recognize the existence of Good and Evil you're expected to take sides.

Some people don't (recognize good and evil). Apparently it's possible to call Hitler a good artist, and forget about that other obsession of his.

Posted by Rafael 2004-1-31 7:29:20 PM|| 2004-1-31 7:29:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Ungar is an idiot -- she seems to think that the movies, created by Peter Jackson, represents the book's or Tolkien's worldview.

Denethor was one of the most interesting, ambiguous characters in the book even if he's turned into nothing but a cruel madman in the movies. Gollum was one of the most tormented and complicated characters -- calling this figure "completely evil" is plain stupidity.

And Silmarillion has even more ambiguous characters - people like Feanor, greatest of the elves in talent, in courage, in understanding, in *everything*... who nonetheless *fell* and led his people to destruction because of the cruel arrogance in him and the madness of his grief at his father's murder.

People like Thingol, wise ruler of his people, but who could at the same time be arrogant and even occasionally cruel and unjust, e.g. when dealing with this Mortal Man who presumed to fancy and be fancied by his daughter....

And if people want to judge Tolkien's worldview, people should really take a look at his letters.

But I mainly blame Peter Jackson on this -- with one or two exception, he pretty much ignored all of Tolkien's themes of redemption and possible repent. Or this Ungar would have known that even Sauron wasn't evil in the beginning -- and she would have known how deeply Christian morality is mirrored in the books. From Mercy, to Providence, to Redemption, to even the Returning King for chrissakes who breaks down the gates of hell!

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-1-31 8:01:25 PM|| 2004-1-31 8:01:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 I think "Ungar is an idiot" is about all that needs to be said.

Posted by Highlander 2004-1-31 10:07:01 PM|| 2004-1-31 10:07:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 "Hitler loved his dog." Now see thats what has me all conflicted. A dog is mans best friend. god spelled backwards. And Hitler could work a crowed better than even Cinton.

What really got me tho was the birthing of an army by the bad teeth bunch. Who does that remind you of as it relates to todays demographics. If you answered christian Euro's take three steps back and lose a turn.

Posted by Lucky 2004-1-31 10:42:17 PM|| 2004-1-31 10:42:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Thanks Shipman, I'm flattered.
Excellent post Aris. I see we agree on the transcendant if not the mundane. Tolkein saw the human condition as it is and not as he wished it were. He captured the conflicts within all of us.

Posted by whitecollar redneck 2004-1-31 11:05:25 PM|| 2004-1-31 11:05:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I have been thinking about this posting all day. It is easy to pick at good and evil and turn them into morally relativistic concepts when protected from the real evil that is stalking the world right now. How 'bout you or one of your friends and family blown to bits on a bus in Israel? There are alot of dedicated people who see good and evil at their duty every day and have to live with it while they are defending us both at home and in sick little sh-tholes around the world. Unger can sit around and pontificate while others die or are injured or maimed to protect them.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-1-31 11:13:27 PM|| 2004-1-31 11:13:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Your analogy with "up and down' is very good.

Posted by David Foster 2004-2-1 5:00:07 PM|| [photoncourier.blogspot.com] 2004-2-1 5:00:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I can give Rev. Prissy that the evil characters are purely evil. But of course they are. It's kind of hard to write about an Orc with a tender side that only his 'partner' orc can see. But if she contends that the good characters are wholey good I would have to question if she actually saw the movies or if she was munching box in the back row. Several less than good attributes were exhibited in the heros. The whole reason a Hobit had to carry the ring was because of man's greed.

Posted by Kingfish 2004-2-1 10:11:56 PM|| 2004-2-1 10:11:56 PM|| Front Page Top

22:11 Kingfish
17:00 David Foster
13:57 Daniel King
09:22 Raptor
00:23 Mike Sylwester
23:58 Mike Sylwester
23:57 Phil Fraering
23:34 Alaska Paul
23:20 Alaska Paul
23:13 Alaska Paul
23:05 whitecollar redneck
23:03 Bomb-a-rama
22:42 Lucky
22:33 Old Patriot
22:28 whitecollar redneck
22:21 Lucky
22:21 mhw
22:20 Robert Crawford
22:13 mhw
22:07 Highlander
22:04 Lucky
21:57 Lucky
21:49 TS
21:49 Lucky