I don’t know much about _Gangs of New York_, but I’m rather annoyed that Rushdie so blithely classified LotR as a simplistic story of absolute good versus absolute evil. While it’s true that Sauron is absolutely evil, few, if any, of the other characters are absolutely good. Indeed, many of their most significant acts are fraught with moral ambiguity: Gandalf used torture (“I put the fear of fire on him”) to learn where Gollum went and what he did. Frodo, at the last, claimed the Ring for his own. Treebeard would have “trodden on” Merry and Pippin as “little orcs” if he had not heard their voices first. Saruman — intending evil — inadvertently did good by bringing Merry and Pippin to Fangorn. Bilbo stole the Arkenstone to broker peace. Sam violated Frodo’s confidence out of friendship, to insure he’d have more than one companion on his journey. And on and on.
And then we have the central, the blindingly obvious, theme of moral ambiguity, that Rushdie (yes, even the usually-incisive Rushdie) somehow managed to miss: the loathsome yet pitiable Gollum. Is he “good” or “evil”? Some of both? Something else entirely? How much moral responsibility does he have for his state? Does he have free will, or has the Ring entirely subsumed it? Did he kill Deagol because he was evil, or because the Ring forced him to do so? He might have killed Frodo in his sleep, and stolen the Ring, yet he did not. He wishes for the Ring, but for himself, not to serve Sauron. Is that evil (selfishness) or not (refusal to serve the Ultimate Evil)? Or does he have no choice?
It might be interesting for a noted critic — such as Rushdie — to explore some of these moral issues. I’m disappointed he did not.
i have always been of the impression that lord of the rings was more about choices… what is it sam says “they had an oppertunity to turn back but they didnt” all the charactesr were faced with a choice between being good and not… like saruman im sure he started with good intentions but hte ring corrupted him, as it did anyone who spent a long time thinking of it.
gangs of new york rates among one the worst films i have ever seen, pointless hideously violent, they all just killed each other, no sense of right or wrong… i hated it.
in watching TTT i felt sad for all involved in the war., the orcs and the wildmen were after all just pawns really, they were fed with lies until they believed them and wanted revenge. all of the deaths in the film made me sad.
comparing TTT or the world of tolkien to modern day problems… this war on terrorism, its ridiculous. the book is a work of FICTION, its an imaginary world with pretend characters and situations.
grrr im not happy about that article. but i have ranted long enough. one more thing
“I am a big fan of the book version of The Lord of the Rings, but nobody ever read Tolkien for the writing” um i like the writing, its elegant. 😛
2 responses to “LotR vs. Gangs of New York”
I don’t know much about _Gangs of New York_, but I’m rather annoyed that Rushdie so blithely classified LotR as a simplistic story of absolute good versus absolute evil. While it’s true that Sauron is absolutely evil, few, if any, of the other characters are absolutely good. Indeed, many of their most significant acts are fraught with moral ambiguity: Gandalf used torture (“I put the fear of fire on him”) to learn where Gollum went and what he did. Frodo, at the last, claimed the Ring for his own. Treebeard would have “trodden on” Merry and Pippin as “little orcs” if he had not heard their voices first. Saruman — intending evil — inadvertently did good by bringing Merry and Pippin to Fangorn. Bilbo stole the Arkenstone to broker peace. Sam violated Frodo’s confidence out of friendship, to insure he’d have more than one companion on his journey. And on and on.
And then we have the central, the blindingly obvious, theme of moral ambiguity, that Rushdie (yes, even the usually-incisive Rushdie) somehow managed to miss: the loathsome yet pitiable Gollum. Is he “good” or “evil”? Some of both? Something else entirely? How much moral responsibility does he have for his state? Does he have free will, or has the Ring entirely subsumed it? Did he kill Deagol because he was evil, or because the Ring forced him to do so? He might have killed Frodo in his sleep, and stolen the Ring, yet he did not. He wishes for the Ring, but for himself, not to serve Sauron. Is that evil (selfishness) or not (refusal to serve the Ultimate Evil)? Or does he have no choice?
It might be interesting for a noted critic — such as Rushdie — to explore some of these moral issues. I’m disappointed he did not.
— Orondo
well said orando.
i have always been of the impression that lord of the rings was more about choices… what is it sam says “they had an oppertunity to turn back but they didnt” all the charactesr were faced with a choice between being good and not… like saruman im sure he started with good intentions but hte ring corrupted him, as it did anyone who spent a long time thinking of it.
gangs of new york rates among one the worst films i have ever seen, pointless hideously violent, they all just killed each other, no sense of right or wrong… i hated it.
in watching TTT i felt sad for all involved in the war., the orcs and the wildmen were after all just pawns really, they were fed with lies until they believed them and wanted revenge. all of the deaths in the film made me sad.
comparing TTT or the world of tolkien to modern day problems… this war on terrorism, its ridiculous. the book is a work of FICTION, its an imaginary world with pretend characters and situations.
grrr im not happy about that article. but i have ranted long enough. one more thing
“I am a big fan of the book version of The Lord of the Rings, but nobody ever read Tolkien for the writing” um i like the writing, its elegant. 😛