Applicability of T.S Eliot's Depersonalization From 'Tradition and the Individual Talent' In Peter Jackson's 'The Lord of The Rings' Trilogy

           Some time ago, I was heavily inspired  to create a series of graphic novels which would personify certain important metaphysical realities. I had just finished poring over seven volumes of Neil Gaiman's 'The Sandman' series of dark fantasy novels, written in a similar fashion. The budding creative within me, thus set out to imitate. I had rounded up a decent first issue, when faced with the reaity that I lacked an illustrator, soon ended up abandoning this little project. While in the process of conceptualization, I found myself increasingly challenged in coming up with an apt anthropomorphic personification for the character of Time, who would have a significant role with context to the narrative. I settled upon a solitary old man, who would be found at random, meditating in an endless stretch of desert as his realm. Consulted only on his own terms, he would be discovered only after one had undertaken much toil of travel. Within the series, the wisdom of Time would be imparted to Truth, the personification of order (and a proper gentleman too, at that) who would have to undertake these emergency pilgrimmages to the desert in a bid to seek counsel on how to properly deal with the exploits of his chaotic and wayward younger sister, Delusion. The old man after having spoken in riddles and offering a few words in advice, would always then disappear into thin air. In Neil Gaiman's The Sandman, the protagonist Morpheus, or Dream of the Endless (Death, Desire, Destruction, Despair, Delirium, Destiny: his siblings) as he is known, engages with humans, his siblings, gods and monsters; all the while fulfilling his duty and simultaneously, as a personification of a metaphysical concept, his role as a lens with which to better understand our mortal experience on an existential and cosmic level. 

         The above paragraph, if at all important, should in my view, make clear only two things: my fascination with the concept of time which we shall properly explore, through the mature lens of T.S Eliot, and the spontaneity of the process of creation, governed by inspiration as a result of existing literature. Had I not traversed the vast intricacies of Mr. Gaiman's intellect, through the supporting canvas of brilliant drawings, I would not have incorporated similar themes and ideas in a bid to create something of my own. Now, let's move on to the essay in question. 

          Allow me to introduce Mr. T.S Eliot, a man who actually deserves no introduction: poet, writer, literary critic and above all, a genius of the written word. His essay is a treatise on the power of creativity as well as the responsibiity that goes along with that power. Hence, he establishes his thesis: that true art, or rather creativity, lies somewhere at the intersection of literary tradition and individual talent.

Eliot goes into much elaborative detail in his essay with regards to both of these concepts. However, the most important link in the chain connecting both is the 'historical sense' which, as I understand it, refers to the intuitive faculties of any artist or creative individual to strike the appropriate balance among the 'timeless' and temporal' in his art which would only then be truly considered as traditional. It would not only conform to existing pieces of art from which it is inspired, but would also give acknowledgement to them should it deviate at any point, in the spirit of novelty. Eliot's views thus, chalked up to those of a 'traditional' critic, especially one with a sense of propriety can also be heavily scrutinized by his more modern readers and yet, in their argumentation, they would also be accrediting him indirectly. This is the point which I believe is also made clear by this essay. After all, it is our traditions that properly define us as human beings. Interesting to note also, is that literary tradition, according to Eliot, is not restricted to mere by-the-book conventions. It is always relevant. It is vintage, yet fresh. Perfectly balanced, as all things should be. Putting it more simply, only by paying homage to the primary source of any form of creative expression, be it film, literature or painting, can an artist truly create something traditional, which is not only a testament to his own inspiration, but also an inadvertent acknowledgment of the erudition of those that came before. Works of art are not studied as monads or in isolation. They are subject to critique and evaluation with respect to other works that have come before them and with the possible emergence of discernible patterns, what's to come after them.

Time, according to Eliot, is also vibrant and alive. The past, present and future, as its offshoots, are not just rigid constructs but complement each other. This proves the interactions between them to be quite dynamic in nature. This is probably also why the works of Shakespeare and Homer, as examples given by Eliot, continue to be relevant today as aforementioned. Should anyone endeavor to, say, compose a tragedy in contemporary times, they would inevitably have to hearken to any of Shakespeare's tragedies: Macbeth, Hamlet etc. or Homer's The Iliad for inspiration. A great example here would be Ian Doescher and Jacopo della Quercia (pseudonym)'s 2019 book 'MacTrump'- a contemporary political satire written as a Shakespearean tragi-comedy chronicling former U.S President Donald J. Trump's rise to the echelons of power amid the greivances of his political rivals. Even as I type this, I cannot help but get a strong feeling of the same intrigue as can be experienced while reading Macbeth.    . 

To study how much literary tradition influences translation of literature to cinema, let's take the case of The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R Tolkien, an epic 'cosmogonical' myth which as of today, continues to be popular. The author famously wrote in a preface to The Silmarilion, a companion piece, that The Lord of the Rings is to be strictly considered as myth, not allegory. Yet, in the film and television adaptations of said source material, there are differences. While the Peter Jackson trilogy of films takes only some creative liberty in its approach (like swapping a minor male character for a major female character from the books only to give her more agency on camera), it largely stays true to the the original text in spirit, by incorporating the same transcendent moral themes: hope, fellowship and virtue triumph over evil in the long run. The films, made as a labour of love and sincere respect for J.R.R Tolkien's legacy, became timeless. In stark contrast, lies Amazon Prime Video's webseries The Rings of Power. The showrunners of the series completely did away with the lore of The Lord of the Rings, in somewhat of a frenzy to make their commercial product all the more appealing for consumption by modern audiences while competing with similar products of other streaming services. Instead of telling a story, they went on to prioritize checking as many political boxes as possible: DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion), Marxist class struggles, radical feminism, you name it. To sum it up, the depth and narrative richness of a timeless myth devolved into the shallow temporal allegory it was never meant to be. It proves Eliot's point of balancing the old with new: giving too much weightage to contemporary considerations, one loses sight of the soul of the craft. To give just one example of a common character from both adaptations to best hit the point home, is that of Lady Galadriel. In the books and the Peter Jackson film trilogy, she is a being who wields immense power in Tolkien's fictional world of Middle-earth, perfectly capable of taking on the full might of the Dark Lord Sauron, all by herself if need be. Her character possesses an inherent feminine agency that is powerful without having to lay claim to itself on any occasion. On the other end, her counterpart from the television series is nothing short of a cringeworthy caricature of entitled adult white women than a portrayal of an immortal being of great foresight: embarrassingly childish, foolishly arrogant and unnecessarily assertive, without proper character growth and whose narrative arc serving only as a bold political statement that has to be forcefully made again and again. Adding insult to injury is the radical feminist mould of 'woman empowerment' as the embodiment of traditionally masculine traits by women. Galadriel, in the series, is thus made out to be a 'one-man army' kind of warrior archetype, whereas in the books and Peter Jackson films, she never has had to assume such a role to declare her power and is simply a strong feminine woman with great mystique, who rules a woodland kingdom at the outskirts of Middle-earth, with her husband. 

The above examples give us a clear picture of the relevance of art, once separated from the artist, in the case of Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film series. Jackson, in an interview, openly stated that while adapting The Lord of The Rings for cinema, he made sure that no personal beliefs or individual political inclinations of any sort would impact the creation of the films and that they would be reflective of the considerations of the author and the author alone.

To conclude, as we now live in a globalized present, there is an over-abundance of perspectives encroaching upon the once linear process of history. Artists, producing art in these tumultuous times, must still acknowledge and respect tradition even when they think themselves talented enough to break the mold, as certain modern trends have indicated. However, that is tantamount to desecration, as it is also heavily premised around that seemingly innocent ideal. T.S Eliot states that we stand out from dead poets and writers, given as to how we know so much more than they did. Our knowledge alone may be powerful, but the criterion of greatness is in humility. One only sees infinitely more by standimg on the shoulders of giants. Here, it means giving credit where credit is due.