"J.R.R. Tolkien and the Reclamation of the Pre-modern West and the Vision Presented in Peter Jackson's Film Trilogy"

Tolkien and the Economy of Grace

ISI WEB EDITOR'S NOTE: This is Part III in a three-part series by Bradley J. Birzer, author of ISI Books' J.R.R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-Earth.


While one can certainly find an adamant defense of pre-modern Western civilization within The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien also offers a means by which to reclaim society in the name of Christendom. The answer is frustratingly simple. One must drain away one's will, allowing Grace to fill the void and make one whole. Born in a certain time and a certain place, each person—animated, called, and judged by Grace—is allotted a set amount of time on this Earth. A participant in God's Story (or God's Spell, Gospel), each person has a role to play. Some persons have multiple roles, some few roles, some great roles, some lesser roles. Yet, each has his place, his importance, his uniqueness, and his dignity in the Economy of Grace. The light of the Incarnate Logos "enlightens every man."14 One must order one's self, then, according to His Will. Through tradition, scripture, what is written on one's heart, the Magisterium, and the Natural Law, one knows what is right and what is wrong. Nature makes nothing in vain, Aristotle told us. But, wrote St. Thomas Aquinas, finishing the thought, only Grace perfects nature. Hugh of St. Victor described the Church militant in terms which bear on Tolkien's work:

quote:

---

For the Incarnate Word is our King, who came into this world to war with the devil; and all the saints who were before His coming are soldiers as it were, going before their King, and those who have come after and will come, even to the end of the world, are soldiers following their King. And the King himself is in the midst of His army and proceeds protected and surrounded on all sides by His columns. And although in a multitude as vast as this the kind of arms different in the sacraments and the observance of the peoples preceding and following, yet all are really serving the one king and following the one banner; all are pursuing the one enemy and are being crowned by the one victory.15

---

As Texas scholar James Patrick has argued, the Fellowship represents the Church, traversing perilous landscapes and attempting to survive the world as it carries with it the burden of the world.

Each of the members of the Fellowship ultimately fulfills his purpose. Gandalf, known as Olorin in the True West, had been the least of the Istari sent to Middle-Earth to aid Men and Elves in their war against Sauron. Though the least powerful, he was the wisest, and he spent many of his days walking among the Elves "unseen, or in a form as one of them, and they did not know whence came the fair visions or the promptings of wisdom that he put into their hearts." The Silmarillion records that "those who listened to him awoke from despair and put away the imaginations of darkness."16 So as not to become too taken with any one people or place, which might lead to temptations to power, Gandalf became the "Grey Pilgrim" and wandered from place to place. Even at his imminent death at the Bridge of Khazad-dum, Gandalf states his place in Creation as he faced the Balrog: "You cannot pass [for] I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass." The Secret Fire, Tolkien told Clyde Kilby, was the Holy Spirit.17 So empowered, Gandalf plunges to his death, but not without taking the Balrog to his doom.

The men of the Fellowship humble themselves as well. When Aragorn first appears in the story, he does so as Strider, the mysterious Ranger who remains untrusted by those he protects. Yet he quickly reveals himself to be the true king of Middle-Earth, a descendent of the Númenóreans and the Elves. He reveals this through his physical and mental prowess, his never-ending willingness to sacrifice himself for the greater good, his power as a healer, and especially, in his wrestling with Sauron through the Palantir. Even Boromir, who betrays the group because of his pride, finds redemption in self-sacrifice as he attempts to protect Merry and Pippin from the Uruk-hai. "I tried to take the Ring from Frodo," Boromir confesses, his body riddled with Orc arrows "I am sorry. I have paid. . . . I have failed." In response, Aragorn takes Boromir's hand and assures him, "You have conquered. Few have gained such a victory. Be at peace!"18 As Boromir's pilgrimage ends, he smiles.

Legolas the Elf and Gimli the Dwarf play vital roles in the Fellowship as well. Not only do they offer the skills of bow and axe, wit and wisdom, as they endlessly cleave the heads of the enemy soldiers, but more importantly, they also begin the healing process between their two races. Since the awakening of the Dwarves, the two races had been mutually antagonistic to one another. Now, in the Third Age, with a common enemy, they must put their differences aside to defeat the common foe. In the process, they become fast and life-long friends. This is an especially important lesson in our period of divided Christendom.

The Hobbits play the most interesting role in the Fellowship, for they are the least of all creatures in Middle-Earth. That is, they wield hardly any form of political power. An agrarian people, they shun adventure.19 There are exceptions, though, in the history of the Hobbits. The most important, prior to the days of Bilbo and Frodo, was their ancestor, Bull Roarer Took, who loved to knock heads off of invading Goblins. Indeed, when Gandalf sought a thief for Thorin's expedition, he said, "I want a dash of the Took (but not too much, master Peregrin), I want a good foundation of the stolider sort, a Baggins perhaps."20 In the novels, Pippen Took and Merry Brandybuck become famous warriors and aids to kings and stewards.

Frodo establishes himself as a suffering servant at the end of the Council of Elrond. "I will take the Ring," Frodo said, "Though I do not know the way."21 He trudges through the various terrains of Middle-Earth, is betrayed by Gollum, suffers near-fatal wounds from Ungoliant's spawn, Shelob, and the indignities of the Orcs who hold him prisoner. Yet he makes it to the precipice of the Cracks of Doom before succumbing to the weight of the Ring. While Frodo offers a means by which to act in a Christ-like fashion, he also offers an example of what not to do. The claiming of the Ring had been only a minor sin, though, as Ilúvatar had not given Frodo the Grace to overcome the temptation. Frodo's only serious failure came after he claimed the Ring as his own. When Gollum dances for joy into the Cracks of Doom, carrying the Ring with him, Frodo feels stunned that he has remained alive. Frodo desired martyrdom, and yet, Ilúvatar's task for him was over; he was to live. Martyrdom, Tolkien tells us, cannot be claimed by the will; it can only be accepted through an act of Grace. The "Divine economy [is] limited to what is sufficient for the accomplishment of the task appointed to one instrument in a pattern of circumstances and other instruments."22 To claim more would be to claim the sole right of the Christ, the savior of mankind. "In its highest exercise," Tolkien explained, mercy "belongs to God" and to God alone.23

Sam, the real hero of The Lord of the Rings, begins the trilogy appearing merely to be a simpleton. Yet graces flow to Sam as he proves to have one virtue in spades: the virtue of loyalty. He is Wiglaf to Beowulf, Sir Gawain to King Arthur, St. John to Jesus. Though Sam would much prefer living the good life as all Hobbits desire—a good beer, a good smoke, a well-tended garden, the company of friends and family, and the fathering of a large family—he knows that only if Frodo's task is accomplished will the Hobbits of the Shire live in peace. Like a good citizen-republican, Sam puts down his plow, picks up his sword, fights the good fight, and returns to hearth and home. Ultimately for Tolkien, the truest heroism, then, stems from "obedience and love, not of pride or willfulness."24 This remains true in ordinary as well as in extraordinary life.

And Sam is well rewarded: with the good life, life as it is meant to be. In fact, God has blessed him and Rosie with many children. Most likely, a number of children have yet to arrive. "Regular ragtag and bobtail," Sam says of his children, "old Saruman would have called it."25 Evil sees children merely as obstacles. Sam wisely knows they are essential for the good life. Sam also notes that while Frodo received proper acclaim for his deeds, it is he who has "had lots of treasures."26 When King Aragorn writes Sam a letter, almost twenty years after the destruction of the Ring, he translates Sam's name in Elvish not properly as "Half-wise," but instead as "Plain-wise" or "Full-wise," reflecting Sam's significant growth during and after the quest to destroy the Ring. As Aragorn's letter reveals, Sam has grown from the silly Hobbit arguing with Ted Sandyman in the pub to a wise and virtuous statesman. Perhaps most important, his many children treat him with immense love, and with respect for his authority as father. When Sam speaks, Tolkien wrote, his children respond to him "as hobbit-children of other times had watched the wizard Gandalf."27 Indeed, the adult Samwise carries the authority of an incarnate angel.

Tolkien, then, teaches us that each one of us, as Imago Dei, can redeem the world. Each act of love is a revolutionary act in a cynical world of machines and ideologies. Each person is "an allegory," Tolkien conceded to his former student, the famed poet W.H. Auden, "each embodying in a particular tale and clothed in the garments of time and place, universal truth and everlasting life."28

So, what will the place of Jackson's version of the myth of Middle-Earth be in popular culture? It is hard to determine. Twenty-five years later, Ralph Bakshi's incomplete, animated version of The Lord of the Rings is an embarrassment. Most likely, no one will claim that of Jackson's version in 2029. It is well-acted, well-imagined, and well-directed, even with all of its flaws. Still, as Joseph Pearce has recently argued, Jackson's version is so technologically driven that the movie and its many effects will seem outdated rather quickly. Pearce is mostly likely right in his judgment.

In sum, however, I think these films will always have an important place in popular culture as well as in Tolkienian and mythological circles. While Jackson committed some terrible errors in what seem like arrogant changes from the novel, he did produce three brilliant movies (if we take them just as movies), each a defense not only of Western civilization and its many virtues, but also of the significance and dignity of each human person. After a century of absolute governmental and technological horrors, bloody ideologues and dictators, and the desecration and dismembering of the human person, we should applaud Jackson for once again making heroism exciting and attractive. Jackson used modern technology to uphold Western civilization. In other words, no matter what the accidents appear to be, the essence is good.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISI WEB EDITOR'S NOTE: This concludes the final installment of a three-part series on J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson's movie trilogy by the same title. Bradley J. Birzer is the author of ISI Books' J.R.R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-Earth.


14The Gospel of St. John, Chapter 1, Verse 9 (RSV).
15Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis, II.2.1-2.
16Tolkien, The Silmarillion, 30-31; and Tolkien, Unfinished Tales, 406.
17Clyde Kilby, Tolkien and the Silmarillion (1976), 59.
18Tolkien, The Two Towers, 16.
19Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, 10.
20See, "The Quest of Erebor," in J.R.R. Tolkien, The Annotated Hobbit, ed. Douglas Anderson (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002), 371.
21Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, 284.
22Humphrey Carpenter, ed., Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 326.
23Carpenter, ed., Letters, 326.
24Tolkien, "The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhtelm's Son," 14.
25Tolkien, ed., The End of the Third Age, 115.
26Tolkien, ed., The End of the Third Age, 125.
27Tolkien, ed., The End of the Third Age, 117.
28Tolkien, Letters, 212.

When it first appeared on ISI's website, individual comments on the article were solicited and posted. The following is an example of one such reply.

quote:

---

Dear Sir,
First, I would like to start off by congratulating you on writing such a well-researched article. I am a Tolkien-lover and even though I am firmly against Christianity/Catholicism and the morals it and their offshoots profess to teach, your article made me aware of a number of things about Tolkien that I was not aware of and I can definitely see the validity of your claims. There are two points, however, that I would like to contend.
The first is your insistence on Grace as the chief force that saves the characters and gives them the qualities that make them so worthy. While the evidence drawn from Tolkien's life may indicate this as a possibility, there is little or no textual evidence for this. One of the things that I have always loved about Tolkien's works is that it is the inner strength of people, forged by themselves, that allows them to do the things they do and not some outside power or force. Aragorn is never referred to as having strength from some outside force, Grace, but he is the person that he is because of his long years in the Wild and because of his experiences with Arwen. When he uses the palantir in The Return of the King, it is not some outside force that allows him to contend with Sauron but his own will. If you contrast Aragorn with Boromir, Boromir falls because he allowed his pride to get the best of him and he got too attached to his city. Aragorn does not fall because he practices humbleness and non-attachment which have all been tempered by his experiences in the Wild, experiences that Boromir did not have. There is no textual evidence for Grace as a saving force but there is plenty of textual evidence for the idea that it is experience and your own developed personality that saves or damns you. Frodo succumbs to the temptation of the Ring because he has had to carry it for so long and it has got such a strong hold on him. You can see the evidence for this when Sam saves him from the Orcs in Cirith Ungol. Sam has had the Ring for a short time and so he is slightly resistant to giving up the Ring but Frodo has had the ring for a long time and so he is VERY resistant to the idea of Sam holding it. Their experiences with the Ring, the duration they have carried it, is what determines their actions. In no place in the novels will you find reference to a higher power saving the character. There are references to forces directing events (such as Gandalf's line that "Bilbo was meant to find the Ring and not by its maker") but not to saving the characters. Even Gandalf's line in Moria, that he is a Servant of the Secret Fire, is not evidence for this for Gandalf may "serve" the Secret Fire but he is not "saved" by it. Experience is the defining force for the characters as evidenced by the text.
The second point of contention is your comments on Faramir. To be honest, I have never believed that the movies strayed Faramir's character too far from what it was portrayed as in the books especially with the release of the Extended Edition. In the novels, Faramir does wish to please his father and is hurt by the scorn that his father shows him. This is evidenced in the Return of the King by Denethor's lines to Faramir and Faramir's constant hurling of himself into battle until he is wounded. The movies simply introduced this concept earlier. Also, Faramir does struggle with the temptation of the Ring. When Sam blurts out the fact that Frodo is carrying the Ring and Faramir comments on the fact that they have brought it here to him and he could have it, there is a tense moment where Frodo and Sam wait to see what he will do. Faramir struggles internally for a moment and then decides to let the Ring go. The movies simply took this moment of internal struggle and extended it to cover a few days rather than a brief moment. This struggle IS in the novels but as movies are a visual medium, having Faramir take the hobbits at first allows the viewer to understand this struggle which they would not be able to do otherwise (it also introduces Osgiliath while still focusing on the main characters, a very effective technique). Plus with the Extended Edition, we have two great scenes that show Faramir's better nature. The first is his comments about the Easterling soldier that is killed (the lines being taken from Sam in the novels) and the second is the last scene with Faramir where Sam tells him that he has shown his quality, "the very highest" (again, notice how Jackson takes the route that it is the characters' qualities and not Grace that 'saves' the characters). I believe that Faramir is very much the character that he was in the novels but since Jackson did not have him release the hobbits right away, fans made themselves blind to the subtlety that is in the novels that Jackson chose to expose on-screen.
Again, your essay was very well researched but I do not feel that you looked enough at the text for evidence, especially in the third section of your essay where you quote Biblical and Scholastic sources rather than the Return of the King itself for evidence of Frodo's lack of 'Grace.' While there are elements of Tolkien's religion in his works there is also an enormous lacking of them and Grace is simply not an element that Tolkien introduces textually in the work itself.
I would be very interested in hearing your comments and also the comments of those who may read this if it is posted on ISI's forum. Thank you for reading,
Sincerely,
Chris
2/5/04

---

When it first appeared on ISI's website, individual comments on the article were solicited and posted. The following is an example of one such reply.

quote:

---

Dr. Birzer,
Thank you for your articles about J.R.R. Tolkien's vision of the pre-modern West and Peter Jackson's ability (and inability) to convey it on screen. I always enjoy reading someone's interpretation of Tolkien's life and work and every time I learn a couple more interesting facts about a story I thought I knew inside and out (in this case, it was the comments on Sam's stature near the end of his life recorded in The End of the Third Age). I have a couple comments to throw in the pot.
1) First off, I want to put a plug in for all the people who assisted Peter Jackson in making his film trilogy. I always feel pangs of guilt when people talk about 'Tolkien's vision' and 'Jackson's vision' because it makes it seem like Peter Jackson is as fully responsible for the films as J.R.R. Tolkien is for the novels. I know this is unintended and not the actual view of you or anyone else, Dr. Birzer, but I think it is worth mentioning. Tolkien wrote every word of the book with input along the way from a handful of other people. Jackson headed a team of thousands whose inner circle brain trust alone included about 10-15 talented artists, writers, and producers. Well, now that I've relieved my conscience on this issue, for the rest of this post I will do the same as everyone else and shove all the time, thought, and sweat of the New Line cast and crew into the name 'Peter Jackson'.
2) There are many Tolkien experts out there (including both John and Christopher Tolkien themselves) who believe their vast knowledge of Tolkien qualifies them as film experts as well. I find Tolkien's opinions on the suitability of Lord of the Rings for film to be largely irrelevant. At the least, it has to be acknowledged that when he addresses this issue, Tolkien's opinion is no longer authoritative because he has ventured outside of his realm of knowledge. Probably far outside. How many films do you think Tolkien went to in his life? There are a lot of Tolkien experts (both academics and fans) in the world, and there are a lot of film experts in the world. But the intersection of those two groups is pretty small. To my knowledge, the only people that qualify as both live in New Zealand and worked on the films.
3) I especially liked your point in part 2 that Tolkien's view of himself as recorder or editor of the mythology leaves space for other storytellers to try their hand. "Additionally, since Tolkien regarded himself as merely the recorder of the tale, the mythology could and should be used and entered into by other artists." So it is true that Jackson's vision differs from Tolkien's, sometimes substantially. But even Tolkien differs from Tolkien! He was always tweaking his mythology. He rewrote the stories that comprise The Silmarillion until the day he died, and the significance of characters and events changed as he went. He even rewrote "The Riddles in the Dark" chapter of The Hobbit, which had already been published! To say that we now have two independent and complete - yet differing - chronicles of the War of the Ring does not sound contradictory to me. Tolkien's whole approach to his work leaves open such a possibility.
4) Along these same lines, I have to say that I disagreed with you most strongly, Dr. Birzer, when you stated how arrogant it was for Jackson to hold any negative opinions about any aspect of the book. You totally lost me when you said, "If the director and writers possess such arrogance about them and their liking and disliking of Tolkien's Middle-Earth," then they are going to make mistakes. Huh? Where does this view of LotR as monolithic and unapproachable come from? Certainly not from Tolkien, the man who was never fully satisfied with his own stories. This is a novel, not the Bible. It is sub-creation, and it can always be improved. One may disagree as to whether a given change adds to or detracts from the story, but to act like the very idea of altering the books is arrogant makes no sense. You yourself pointed out departures from the book that you enjoyed in the films and thought added to the experience.
5) The biggest temptation for Tolkienites in watching these films is to miss what actually occurs on screen because we are so aware of 'what was left out,' 'how it should have been,' 'the point that was supposed to be made.' I have done it a lot, especially while watching Fellowship for the first time. But it is counterproductive and a terribly unfair platform from which to evaluate the films. One clear example from your article stands out. Because Faramir is so much less virtuous in the movie than the book, so much more of an obstacle and threat to the Quest, you say that the message of the movie is: "Grace can now be perverted and destroyed at our whim. So much for Tolkien. So much for God!" While it is true that the movie Faramir is given less grace than the book Faramir, this only focuses on the gap between the two versions of the story. But what actually happens in the movie? Is grace perverted? Not at all. Faramir is planning to do the wrong thing with the One Ring, but events occur (Frodo nearly offering the ring to the Nazgul and Sam's speech) which show him the truth of the situation and convince him to do the right thing. That sounds like grace to me. All you could maybe conclude is that Faramir battles against grace and loses! We have to see what Peter Jackson and Co. actually put on screen and then draw themes from that to compare to the themes of Tolkien's great novel. And this is best done at the level of an entire episode or the entire trilogy, not minute by minute, scene by scene, or character by character.
If you search for the themes of the book trilogy and then independently search for the themes of the film trilogy, I believe you come away with the same basic answer: "Hope faith and love remain, but the greatest of these is love."
Thanks again.
Matthew Feig
2/13/04

---