Sorry, Tolkien purists, but I LIKE the movies!

Tweet

I've always liked a good story, and I love J.R.R Tolkien's timeless tales. But, unlike many who critcize the movies for not being completely faithful to the books, I say, "So what if they're not entirely faithful?" Tolkien himself would be the first to admit that there is more than one version of the story out there. He was constantly rewriting his own works, because he was never satisfied with them. And he himself said that there the "Red Book" wasn't the only version of the story. My take on the movies is this; Tolkien invented a fictional tale, and in so doing, invites the reader to suspend disbelief, and accept his fiction as a reality. Well, within that reality there would be many chroniclers who would hand down the story, including Bilbo Baggins, Frodo Baggins, and Samwise Gamgee. These three characters become the main "sources" for what Tolkien calls "The Red Book". Now, let's suspend our disbelief, and assume that this work of fiction is real, so that we may be drawn in, as the author intends. As we explore his world, we come to the knowledge that The Red Book is not the only version of the story out there. We learn that there is also the Thain's Book, written in the Fourth Age,with annotations and corrections added in Minas Tirith, as well as Findegil's copy of the Thain's Book, written even later. These latter works are presumably the finalized versions of the story. But what if there were other versions floating around? Perhaps even oral versions, told by some story teller who added his or her own details, to enliven the story? He or she may have left out some details, while adding others. Said story teller, or possibly even story tellers, may even have had information that Frodo may have missed, such as elves at Helm's Deep. And maybe some of Frodo's information was mistaken. As just one example, if we were to assume that the Rohirrim were in fact a Germanic people, whose culture was similar in many respects to that of the Anglo-Saxons', then wouldn't Eomer being banished make more sense than his having been put under house arrest? It certainly makes for a more exciting tale from a story teller's point of view. And, let's face it. cinema is more akin to story telling than it is to literature. Peter Jackson's version of the tale is more in keeping with an oral tale based on the events than an actual written historical account of the same events. So it deviates from the original. Again, so what? I myself am a story teller, and I can tell you from experience, that each story teller tells the same story in a slightly different way. I would tell Jack and the Beanstalk differently than either Benjamin Tabart or Joseph Jacobs, but the tale would remain essentially the same. That's how I lok at Peter Jackson's works. They are told differently than the original, but they remain the same tale in essence.