http://chivalrytoday.com/ring-and-knightly-virtues/ Reimagining the Code of Chivalry Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:02:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://chivalrytoday.com/ring-and-knightly-virtues/comment-page-1/#comment-16208 Tim Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:37:28 +0000 http://chivalrytoday.com/wp/?p=1412#comment-16208 Though I loved the movies, one of the most disappointing changes made to the story by the screen writers was the change to Faramir's character. In the book, he is the quintessence of chivalry. He is never tempted by the ring - or more correctly, there is a temptation (solicitation) by the ring, but Faramir never waivers in his character. In the writers' commentary accompanying the DVD, they state that they felt the character needed an "arc" which seems to be mandatory in modern storytelling; to see him go through an internal "journey" of some type. But Tolkein, I believe, set Faramir as an example to us of unwaivering constancy, honor, integrity, and other chivalrous traits. Has it become impossible for us to relate to such a character? Do we NEED to inject a flaw into such a character in order to relate? I think this is less "good story telling" than it is a reflection of our own loss and distance from such a vision of integrity. Tolkein set Faramir as the antithesis of the perfectly evil Sauron, Nazgul, & cohort who, as far as we know, never waivered toward goodness. He is the story's anchor of hope in human kind and our example, whether we can personally relate or not. Tolkein, in this respect, was by far the better storyteller, and modern screenwriters would do well to follow his example. Though I loved the movies, one of the most disappointing changes made to the story by the screen writers was the change to Faramir’s character. In the book, he is the quintessence of chivalry. He is never tempted by the ring – or more correctly, there is a temptation (solicitation) by the ring, but Faramir never waivers in his character. In the writers’ commentary accompanying the DVD, they state that they felt the character needed an “arc” which seems to be mandatory in modern storytelling; to see him go through an internal “journey” of some type. But Tolkein, I believe, set Faramir as an example to us of unwaivering constancy, honor, integrity, and other chivalrous traits. Has it become impossible for us to relate to such a character? Do we NEED to inject a flaw into such a character in order to relate? I think this is less “good story telling” than it is a reflection of our own loss and distance from such a vision of integrity. Tolkein set Faramir as the antithesis of the perfectly evil Sauron, Nazgul, & cohort who, as far as we know, never waivered toward goodness. He is the story’s anchor of hope in human kind and our example, whether we can personally relate or not. Tolkein, in this respect, was by far the better storyteller, and modern screenwriters would do well to follow his example.

]]>