Hi Iain and all,

Rather jet-lagged (just flew in from a Mythopoeic Society convention /
holiday), I apologise for this less than coherent reading of Iain's post
and far less than coherent reply.

I am not sure whether Iain means that Peter Jackson's film was a 'shabby
and racist treatment of Tolkien's orcs' or whether he means that
'Tolkien treated the orcs in a shabby and racist way'.

My own view is that Peter Jackson, with orcs, and other species, may
have got confused between species and 'race' - or at least opened the
door to such confusion in his viewers.... Middle-earth isn't _real_!

The 'English heritage' of the book (it was, after all, envisioned as
part of a 'mythology for England' - not, n.b., for 'the English') I
thought came across fairly strongly in the films.  OK, the hobbits could
be viewed through a mist of 'oirishness' when 'mummerzet' might have
been preferred (if false regionalism was needed).  But I don't get the
reference to the British Army - do you mean the way that battlefield
movement takes place in squares and (sometimes) lines?  Or do you mean
the importance of cartography and military intelligence?  (plug here for
John Garth's book on 'Tolkien and the Great War')

Best wishes to all,

Pat
(who, inter alia, is archivist of the Tolkien Society)

In message <[log in to unmask]>, Automatic digest processor
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Personally I was appalled at the shabby and racist treatment of the orcs =
>in Lord of the Rings and you will notice the role of the British Army =
>and English heritage in the Lord of the Ring was never mentioned in the =
>films although some commentators mentioned it on the more intellectual =
>discussions of LoR.
>
>Iain Stuart
>
>[log in to unmask]

--
Pat Reynolds
[log in to unmask]
   "It might look a bit messy now,
                    but just you come back in 500 years time"
   (T. Pratchett)