Tolkien expert likes 'Rings' flicks, pointy ears and all

CHICAGO — Hobbits don't have pointed ears.

"That's a convention of fantasy illustration," says Mike Foster, North American representative of the 33-year-old Tolkien Society. "Nowhere in the book does it say that hobbits or elves have pointed ears."

Nevertheless, director Peter Jackson cast his actors in peaked prosthetics for his film adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" books.

When literature and film collide, Foster is somewhat of an authority on all things Tolkien. As an English professor at East Peoria's Illinois Central College, Foster has taught classes on Tolkien's trilogy (which fans simply call "the book") since the 1970s.

Tolkien's epic saga of good versus evil follows pint-size hobbit hero Frodo Baggins (played onscreen by Elijah Wood) on his quest to destroy the One Ring, a symbol of ultimate power and evil, in order to save his Middle-earth.

We interviewed the 55-year-old scholar and Beatles fan about Tolkien minutiae, metaphor and the second film, "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers."

Q: Having studied Tolkien's manuscripts at Marquette University yourself, what are the most notable changes (from manuscript to publication) that had the greatest impact?

A: "Just to name a few, there were originally five hobbits in the fellowship. That didn't last very long. The other hobbit was called Odo. ... Tolkien just decided that Odo was just one Hobbit too many. In 1987, when son Christopher Tolkien was lecturing on this, he said he felt kinda bad ... because he liked Odo.

"Honestly, I can't remember much that distinguishes Odo as a character at all, which is maybe why he had to go.

"The names of many of the characters were changed. One of the most notorious ones was that the character Frodo started out being named Bingo Baggins. That was a very fortunate name change.

"The character Strider, or Aragorn, was introduced as Trotter. And he appears as Trotter clear through the manuscript."

Q: Fellow Oxford professors and folks in the literary world largely ignored Tolkien and friend C.S. Lewis (author of "The Chronicles of Narnia") when their books debuted. What are some misconceptions about "Lord of the Rings" that echo those early sentiments?

A: "That it's trivial and a childish work simply because it deals with elves and dwarves, wizards and supernatural powers. So does 'Beowulf.' So does 'Macbeth.'

"Anything that you can do with the study of literature — look at plot, look at setting, look at character, look at illusion — you can do with "The Lord of the Rings." In other words, it's a work that stands up to the serious literary scrutiny of a college or university classroom. It merits study.

"It's always been kinda interesting to me that the two great creative synergies — John Lennon and Paul McCartney being one ... and Lewis and Tolkien being another — that took place in England brought together two men who had many things in common. But what they all shared ... was the early loss of a mother. They all lost their mothers when they were boys."

Q: What does the One Ring symbolize?

A: "It's a device that would allow its user to control all of Middle-earth, to bend all beings to his will. So it's certainly power. One of the things it symbolizes is the desire for absolute power, which corrupts absolutely. Its greatness as a symbol is that it can be seen as many things. It's certainly a mistake to say, as some have argued — and I think wrongly — that the ring is the atomic bomb. It's not that.

"(Tolkien scholar) Tom Shippey argues compellingly that the ring represents addiction. It's the desire to have your own way, and that sin is as old as the Garden of Eden — to have knowledge and power that does not rightfully belong to you. That's basically what the eating of the apple in Eden from the Tree of Knowledge is. To be wiser and stronger and more powerful than you are supposed to be."

Q: Although Jackson's films are pretty faithful to the books, there are some abridgments and some characters are cut out — what do you make of them?

A: "Necessarily, they had to do a lot of abridgment of the story. I'm not speaking for the Tolkien Society, but as a reader and aficionado ... but I will say that the Tolkien Society's view of these films from the first has been that we believe that these films will bring new readers to the book. I've seen that prophecy borne out."

Q: Why do you think his film adaptations have been so successful among die-hard fans where other book-to-film projects have failed?

A: "Two simple words: New Zealand. The settings and the scenery are just magnificent. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the New Zealand tourism industry booms."

Q: You've been married since 1969. Was your wife already a fan, or did it take some persuading from you?

A: "An English professor and a librarian is a marriage made in heaven. When I endorsed the book as fully as I did, she tried it and liked it quite a bit. About a year ago, she began joining our Tolkien discussion group, which meets once a month. She took some persuading to read it, but she's very enthusiastic about it now.

"It's a book that stands up very well to many kinds of readers. It's a book that's made for a general reader. It's not obscure in language like William Faulkner. And while hardly a happy book all the way through, it's not a depressing saga, as so much of modern fiction is — unhappy people being unhappy together for 400 pages, a work like 'The Corrections.' "

Q: So, how does "The Two Towers" hold up?

A: "The (computer-generated) Gollum character gets my nomination for best supporting actor. That was really well done, the voice and the animation.

"If the first film committed some sin of omission by leaving things out, then there were some scenes of commission in this. Aragorn's wounding and disappearance that enabled him to have kind of a semi-erotic reverie and bring (elf love interest) Arwen in for some smooch time was one that stood out.

"The battle scenes were long and very intense, but they are so speedy, so there isn't room for gore. Overall, I think it was easier to like at first blush than the other one, because we're used to, by now, that these faces are playing these characters."