| Alles zu Tolkien > News > 2003 | Index News |
| Bush, Blair, Saddam - und J.R.R. Tolkien (28.7.) |
| Die Bedeutung des rechtskonservativen Christentums für die US-amerikanische Politik ist kein Klischée, sondern in seiner Lobbyarbeit oftmals traurige Tatsache. Hugh Hewitt ist einer dieser Lobbyisten. Für ihn ist Tolkien als Blockbuster nun ein gelungender Aufhänger für scheinbar jegliches Thema. Ein weiteres gutes Beispiel für den politisch motivierten Mißbrauch von Literatur bietet seine folgende Kolumne. Er ist ein bekannter Journalist und Radiomoderator in den USA, der Emmys für seine Arbeit eingeheimst hat. Trotz dieser Beweise für qualitativ hochwertigen Journalismus läßt sich eine grundlegende Tatsache in den US-amerikanischen Medien nicht leugnen: Für Erfolg schreibt man fast alles. |
|
| Zusammenfassung In einem Gespräch mit einem Freund beginnt Hugh Hewitt ein Spiel, das interessante Folgen hat. Nach der Rede Tony Blairs vor dem Kongress am 17. Juli 2003 werden die Charaktere des Herr der Ringe mit tagesaktuellen Figuren gleichgesetzt. Beachtung finden muß die Aussage, daß seiner Meinung nach der Kampf heutzutage zwischen freien Demokratien und islamischen Faschisten stattfindet. Zugleich behauptet er, daß es sich eben nicht um einen Kreuzzug gegen den Islam handelt. Seine Darstellung von Gut gegen Böse läßt Tolkiens Werk als schlichtes "Schwarz-Weiß" Opus erscheinen, das es nun einfach nicht ist. Er argumentiert zum Schluß gegen "politische Opportunisten", die den Irakkrieg und seine Konsequenzen zu ihrem eigenen Nutzen ausschlachten wollen. |
|
| Tolkien in the White House? |
| My friend Hans is as much a lover of Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" as I am, and after Tony Blair's magnificent speech to the Joint Session of Congress, he e-mailed an off-the-cuff thought: Blair is playing Sam to the president's Frodo. |
| The game was on, and I posted the exchange at my website and discussed it on my radio program. The analogy was launched and the e-mails began to flow. |
| The exercise sought analogies to various LOTR figures in the individuals, institutions and nations involved in the defining conflict of our times – the struggle between the liberal democracies and Islamicist fascists. Many thought the U.S. military ought to be cast as Frodo – slow to anger, but diligent, deadly and successful in its prosecution of its mission. Others suggested the Ents as stand-ins for the troops. |
| Elrond – the eternally wise, long-lived background warrior was Reagan in one letter; Gandalf, another old warrior, brusque but focused, was Rumsfeld in another. Gollum, the misshapen, dangerous mutant, was in various missives, France, Chirac, or Bill Clinton. Wormtongue had bunches of nominees. Mine was Dominique de Villepin, who deserves it for ambushing Secretary of State Powell. |
| Bush also was nominated for a role as Aragorn, Gimli as Australia (down under, smaller than the others, but marvelous in a fight), and Boromir as either Putin or Hans Blix. Legolas was cast as Poland or other surprising allies from the old world. One wit suggested Hillary as Shelob, but if you are only a movie-goer, you won't get the humor in that. One thoughtful writer cast Israel as Faramir – who had been on the front lines long before the reinforcements arrived, and who had taken much abuse from people who did not understand the danger. |
| Bilbo was perhaps the easiest: George H.W. Bush, who got the story started, but didn't finish it. Canada reminded one writer of Pippin: "Often ridiculous, but in the end, a hobbit at heart," while I thought our neighbors to the north more like Theoden. A hard core LOTR reader came up with Radagast the Brown as Kofi Annan. |
| Oh yes: Condi Rice as Galadriel. |
| The e-mails keep coming, despite the essential silliness of such a game. What is remarkable, though, is how easy it is to explain the premise, and without any direction whatsoever, to anticipate the results. |
| The significance of that is the current conflict is understood by my audience – and I think by most people in the U.S. and the West, generally – to be one of good vs. evil, and starkly so. It is not an ambiguous, shadowy conflict, but a stark clash of diametrically opposed visions of how men and women ought to live. There can be no compromise, just as there could be no compromise in Tolkien's world, no matter how much some characters wished for compromise and an end to conflict. |
| Tony Blair was right: This isn't a war of civilizations and we are not fighting for Christianity. It is rather a struggle for the universal value of freedom, and for the essential human right of liberty. That was also the theme of Tolkien's books and why analogies to it are easy to produce and not difficult to grasp. |
| (...) |
| Hugh Hewitt. © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com. |
|
| [Hugh Hewitts komplette Kolumne bei Worldnetdaily.com, 23. Juli 2003] |
| [Hugh Hewitts Homepage] |
| [Wortaut der Rede Tony Blairs vor dem Kongreß, 18. Juli 2003] |
|
| Vielen Dank an Momo für den Hinweis! |
|
| Alles zu Tolkien > News > 2003 | Index News |
