How We Read Rings of Power

[mark12_30]

I liked it.
Okay, I Loved it.
We got over squashed timelines before. And wympy Treebeard, and waffling Strider. So I can forgive Squashed timeline… and mangled Faramir-I-mean-Finrod. And short-haired elves. It’s a fanfic, streaming once a week.

Looking back over PJ’s movies, I have favorite sections and I have scenes I skip. (Same with the soundtrack.) This will be no different. I just get to take several years to decide what parts are keepers and what parts are skippers.

Did you know they are offering the soundtrack for each episode?

[Michael Murry]

I truly appreciate Bêthberry's thread-opening post entitled How We Read Rings of Power although I think the word "View" would more accurately distinguish film-watching from book-reading: two very different mental and emotional -- if not sensory -- activities.

The post begins with two quoted observations.

(1) Originally Posted by Galadriel55: "I am very much in agreement with the general idea of both points. We very much do bring along baggage of expectations to any adaptation, and it can't not colour our opinion of it to some extent."

(2) Bêthberry's response: "It is far more than mere "baggage". It is one's philosophical predispositions, which can often operate seemingly unconsciously but not necessarily so, that predetermine how one reads a text."

Again, to stress the nature of reading, we have this famous observation:

“Tis the good reader that makes the good book; in every book he finds passages which seem confidences or asides hidden from all else and unmistakenly meant for his ear; the profit of books is according to the sensibility of the reader; the profoundest thought or passion sleeps as in a mine, until it is discovered by an equal mind and heart.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

Then, with respect to watching or just looking, this from the director of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, generally considered the best Star Trek movie:

"All the traditional artistic venues -- literature, music, painting – they exercise a good deal of their impact by virtue of what they leave out. A painting does not move. Music has no image. In each case, it is the willing and unskilled participation of the imagination on the part of the viewing listener that completes the work of art. The painting moves when it meets your eye, and so forth. Only movies, the twentieth century art medium has the hideous capacity to do it all for you. And in doing so, it tends to render the audience passive [emphasis added]. The great commercial directors who make movies are taught to put everything in. And the result is that sometimes I find myself sitting at these movies which are visually stunning. Every image is perfect. There is no distinction in priority between what is an important image and what is an unimportant image. It's all perfect. Everything is in it [emphasis added]. And, as a director, I'm always looking to leave things out." ― Nicholas Meyer

Now, I have not read any text -- which I assume would mean the script -- of The Rings of Power television series, so I have nothing to work with there. Nor have I sat passively in front of a television display letting visual images and sound wash over me, manipulating my senses and emotions -- over which I would rather keep control if at all possible. But I do read the text written by those here who have voluntarily subjected themselves to viewing all the sounds and images, whether passively and uncritically -- as the studio and advertisers no doubt hope -- or more actively, maintaining an intellectual and emotional distance from the intended manipulation. My thanks to those who have viewed the television series so that I can read what they have to report about the experience.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

I truly appreciate Bêthberry's thread-opening post entitled How We Read Rings of Power although I think the word "View" would more accurately distinguish film-watching from book-reading: two very different mental and emotional -- if not sensory -- activities.

The post begins with two quoted observations.

(1) Originally Posted by Galadriel55: "I am very much in agreement with the general idea of both points. We very much do bring along baggage of expectations to any adaptation, and it can't not colour our opinion of it to some extent."

(2) Bêthberry's response: "It is far more than mere "baggage". It is one's philosophical predispositions, which can often operate seemingly unconsciously but not necessarily so, that predetermine how one reads a text."

Again, to stress the nature of reading, we have this famous observation:



Then, with respect to watching or just looking, this from the director of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, generally considered the best Star Trek movie:



Now, I have not read any text -- which I assume would mean the script -- of The Rings of Power television series, so I have nothing to work with there. Nor have I sat passively in front of a television display letting visual images and sound wash over me, manipulating my senses and emotions -- over which I would rather keep control if at all possible. But I do read the text written by those here who have voluntarily subjected themselves to viewing all the sounds and images, whether passively and uncritically -- as the studio and advertisers no doubt hope -- or more actively, maintaining an intellectual and emotional distance from the intended manipulation. My thanks to those who have viewed the television series so that I can read what they have to report about the experience.

Where to begin? Well, with literary and cinematic theory, which use "text" as a metaphor for anything which is conceptualised as conveying meaning. These meanings are then interpreted. This is a relatively recent (well, in the last fifty years or so) meaning of the word "text" so perhaps you can be forgiven if you aren't aware of it, especially if you don't know much critical theory.

Oxford Reference:

film text (text)

The internal structure and organization of any one film; or simply a film wherever it is conceptualized as a system of meanings. In literary theory, the use of the term ‘text’ (whose original meaning is tissue, or weave) in relation to, say, a novel signals that the work is being treated as a constellation of meanings rather than as an imitation of reality—as construction ....

Open Oregon Educational Resources, "What is a text?"

In academic terms, a text is anything that conveys a set of meanings to the person who examines it. You might have thought that texts were limited to written materials, such as books, magazines, newspapers, and ‘zines (an informal term for magazine that refers especially to fanzines and webzines). Those items are indeed texts—but so are movies, paintings, television shows, songs, political cartoons, online materials, advertisements, maps, works of art, and even rooms full of people. If we can look at something, explore it, find layers of meaning in it, and draw information and conclusions from it, we’re looking at a text.

Gary Gillard in Film as Text:

The notion of 'film as text' is a metaphor drawn from the idea of reading a book. It suggests that in many ways reading a book is like watching a film, and that we might take some of the things we know about the one and apply them to the other....

Our metaphor (film as text) means that in both cases, book and film, we can 'read' the story, both in the sense of taking it in as it goes along and in that of being able to hold 'all' of it in our minds, after taking it in, for evaluation, analysis and enjoyment. The various chapters in this book are about these last activities, considering films after we've 'read' them, and talking about our 'readings' of them.

The word 'text' comes from Latin and has to do with weaving. The idea is that there are several stories and ideas in a given book or film, usually associated with several people, and that these cross over each other and join to create something (in our minds) a bit like a weaving. The different strands seem to combine to make a 'whole' novel or movie, although we can still see and make out the different strands if we wish (without pulling the weaving apart).

I could go on, but I think you'd get the picture from these.

[Pitchwife]

I've been in two minds for some time about whether or not to watch this, not because woe it's going to suck and sully Tolkien's memory forevah but because I've become a bit detached from genre fantasy in general over the years - but that hasn't kept me from watching and enjoying GoT and The Witcher, and we have Prime anyway, so why not. So I've now watched the first two episodes and found them far from my new favourite thing, but entertaining and *gasp* in some parts even enjoyable.

I think part of my approach to this is distinguishing between
a) Tolkien's writings, born from his very personal creative vision and love of language, which I'm convinced have now deservedly attained their place in the canon of 20th century literature, and
b) the multimedia franchise that has grown around them, which is ruled by capitalist market forces. Some may regret that b) ever came into existence, but that ship sailed long ago (with the release of MERP at the very latest).
No matter which antics b) gets up to, I'm confident that a) will endure and continue to enchant readers long after Peter Jackson, Jeff Bezos and all participants in this discussion are dead and dust, and if some of these readers sought out the books after watching some movie or series and discover that they have much more to give than they were led to expect, so much the better.

So I never expected RoP to be anything but Mr Bezos's personal Tolkien fanfic and was therefore willing to be pleasantly surprised. (I think Bêthberry's distinction between fan fic and alt fic is useful, but I'm afraid I can't really be bothered to go into this.)

And pleasantly surprised I was! I mean, I could get my knickers in a twist nitpicking any number of details they got wrong (starting with Finrod calling his sister Galadriel), and 10 or 20 years ago I probably would have, but I've become much less obsessive-compulsive about Tolkien's worldbuilding than I was, and honestly, at 60 time is too preciousss for that. I'm not too happy with some of the names (Elanor Brandyfoot? Bronwyn? Theo?) and some casting choices (Gil-galad and Celebrimbor looking older than Galadriel?), but that's no big matter. (Actually I think Theo is defendable - it's probably short for Théodwurst or some such, like Tolkien used other RL names and retconned an alternative etymology for them, whereas Bronwyn is not only out of place but also bad Welsh.) Not too happy with Scottish Dwarves stuffing themselves with salted pork and malt beer, but very happy with Dísa, although some more facial hair wouldn't have hurt.

I can forgive the makers for making things up to fill in the gaps between the scraps of material they have the rights to, and also for some canon-violating temporal condensation. Would I rather they'd made a 100 season series faithfully covering both the First and Second Ages? Well of course, but since that's unlikely to happen in our lifetimes...

I can live with RoP's Galadriel, although she reminds me more of Avatar Korra than of Tolkien's White Lady of Lórien, but if we see her maturing from her present self into the Sorceress of Dwimordene in the course of the series I'll be happy. (Actually, come to think of it, Morfydd Clark would make a stellar Éowyn IMO.) I'm fine with her being a swordswoman - I mean, yes, there are other ways of portraying a strong female protagonist than making her an armed fighter and a rebel against authority, but they've got that covered with Nori and Bronwyn, and if someone must needs be the action girl young Nerwen Artanis is not a bad choice. (Of course she should be beyond that stage at this point in her life, but since we can't have Melian, oh well.) I do hope that we'll still see Celeborn though - maybe even Celebrian? She is mentioned in LotR after all.

Does the whole plot around Galadriel, Gil-galad and Elrond make a lot of sense? Not really. Is the dialogue sometimes cringy and overly expository à la "As you know, Elrond..."? Quite.

The Harfeet, like many others have said, are the big heartwarmer and major forte of the series so far, and yeah, the Stranger is probably Olórin, who obviously has no business being there, but if they limit his role to protecting the proto-Hobbits without meddling in the larger affair of the Rings directly it'll be fine. If the makers are messing with us and he turns out to be Sauron I'll be seriously grumpy. Or he could be Catweazle marooned not just in the wrong time but wrong continuum too. We'll see.

The plot around Arondir and Bronwyn could go interesting places, giving us a close glimpse of Sauron's rise to power in the South-east. Yes I know, there have only ever been three unions between Elves and Men... that we know of. (What about Mithrellas?) Good choice making it an Elven man and mortal woman for a change, we haven't seen that since Andreth and Aegnor.

One thing they've got resoundingly right so far is the visuals. The glory of light and colour in the scenes set in Valinor, and to a slightly lesser degree in Lindon and Eregion, captures the essence of Elvishness better for me than anything in Peter Jackson's movies. You get an impression of the Light the Elves wish to restore and conserve, the Light that is spiritual, not just physical. The scene where the ship sails to Valinor conveys that this is as much a spiritual journey as a physical one for the Elves, that the Blessed Realm is more than just another shore, and even if Valinor was at this point still part of the physical plane(t) I'd rather have that notion in the wrong place than not at all.


That's probably quite enough for now. Let's see what happens on Friday.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I even enjoyed the bits that annoyed me, feeling self righteous grumps at Finrod being wronged (his real death is so much more...), and laughing at Galadriel's Michael Phelps stint.

During this scene Alfie started going "durrr-der, durrr-der" like the Jaws theme.

Good to know that there are more people who did this. Great minds think alike, as they say. You can tell him that "Uncle" Legate sends regards.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

A slashy Galadriel? Let's see. It looked good, a bit weird and Wagnerian, but I tend to think she got her power from her ring anyway going by what the Osanwe Kenta says. She's a bit po faced just now, but it may change. She plays 'sad' very well.

I agree especially with the last sentence. I was not sure what to expect, but overall the acting in the series is pretty good. (A pity the script hasn't been so far as good as the acting.)

Originally Posted by mark12_30

We got over squashed timelines before. And wympy Treebeard, and waffling Strider. So I can forgive Squashed timeline… and mangled Faramir-I-mean-Finrod. And short-haired elves. It’s a fanfic, streaming once a week.

Basically this. I was able to accept bearded Strider, so...

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I think part of my approach to this is distinguishing between
a) Tolkien's writings, born from his very personal creative vision and love of language, which I'm convinced have now deservedly attained their place in the canon of 20th century literature, and
b) the multimedia franchise that has grown around them, which is ruled by capitalist market forces. Some may regret that b) ever came into existence, but that ship sailed long ago (with the release of MERP at the very latest).
No matter which antics b) gets up to, I'm confident that a) will endure and continue to enchant readers long after Peter Jackson, Jeff Bezos and all participants in this discussion are dead and dust, and if some of these readers sought out the books after watching some movie or series and discover that they have much more to give than they were led to expect, so much the better.

Hear, hear!

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

(Gil-galad and Celebrimbor looking older than Galadriel?), but that's no big matter.

Others have mentioned it but I feel like underlining it because it is one of the things that bothers me the most - there should be some consistency, a relative one at least, if not absolute. If it was a casting choice to redefine Celebrimbor as old mad scientist-type, then perhaps I am willing to forgive that, but Gil-Galad and Galadriel could have easily swapped places. Obviously the culprit is the still-present thinking "we need to make the lady young and attractive, while nobody cares if the men are older". Once again - I am against the "cult of youthfulness" that still seems to exist to this day, but there would have been a justified opportunity to do that here and have a cool young Gil-Galad and co.

Originally Posted by Pitch

Actually I think Theo is defendable - it's probably short for Théodwurst or some such

You, sir, are amazing as always.

Originally Posted by Pitch

The Harfeet, like many others have said, are the big heartwarmer and major forte of the series so far, and yeah, the Stranger is probably Olórin, who obviously has no business being there, but if they limit his role to protecting the proto-Hobbits without meddling in the larger affair of the Rings directly it'll be fine. If the makers are messing with us and he turns out to be Sauron I'll be seriously grumpy.

I find it increasingly less likely. If he is not Mothrandir Himself, he may be Radagast. Or Pallando. I personally would cheer for the plot twist that he is the Balrog. You know, a shadow of a man-like figure surrounded in flames... quite easy to transform into that from here. Obviously, his wings burned away during the flight. Lo! How to satisfy both parties of pro-wingers and anti-wingers.

Originally Posted by Pitch

The plot around Arondir and Bronwyn could go interesting places, giving us a close glimpse of Sauron's rise to power in the South-east. Yes I know, there have only ever been three unions between Elves and Men... that we know of. (What about Mithrellas?) Good choice making it an Elven man and mortal woman for a change, we haven't seen that since Andreth and Aegnor.

I think showing Sauron's rise among the folk of Middle-Earth (which is not really described in detail in any of Tolkien's stories) is just the opportunity and the niche this show could fill. I hope they will, and that they will do it well.

As for any half-elven dalliances... I am not giving them high chances, but hey, why not. And obviously all the Dol Amroth people need to come from somewhere.

Originally Posted by Pitch

One thing they've got resoundingly right so far is the visuals. The glory of light and colour in the scenes set in Valinor, and to a slightly lesser degree in Lindon and Eregion, captures the essence of Elvishness better for me than anything in Peter Jackson's movies. You get an impression of the Light the Elves wish to restore and conserve, the Light that is spiritual, not just physical. The scene where the ship sails to Valinor conveys that this is as much a spiritual journey as a physical one for the Elves, that the Blessed Realm is more than just another shore, and even if Valinor was at this point still part of the physical plane(t) I'd rather have that notion in the wrong place than not at all.

If there comes in any way anything more "spiritual" in the broad sense, or "deeper", if you wish, I'd be very happy. I can't remember when I have last watched a fantasy or somesuch that dared to go "under the surface" with such topics. (And by this I do not mean "show physically what Blessed Realms look like", or, Eru forbid, "show Valar" - that is the very opposite of what I mean - but exactly exploring what the light means, what is its significance, some more of the "fundamental truths of the universe" etc.)

[Galadriel55]

First and foremost:

Originally Posted by Legate

I personally would cheer for the plot twist that he is the Balrog.

++Legate for script writer.

Originally Posted by Bb

Oh my, you are quite angsty aren't you? Will you be calling down a fatwa on the showrunners and writers even before you view any of the series? Because really you are not here talking knowledgeably about the actual TV series itself but about the epitexts which preceded it. I guess this is your statement about what you will bring to viewing the series, but it really does not tell us anything about the series itself.

Indeed. It's well and good to say you'll be starting to read/watch something without any expectations, but the truth is, you always bring some expectations, even if you think you know nothing about what you're about to see. Not judging books by their covers is not really a thing; best you can do is give it a chance in spite of the cover. But "covers" are also created with the knowledge that they will be the first impression, they set the tone that determines the audience (perhaps based on the audiences' pre-existing preconceptions) and creates the audience's expectations. It is quite possible that the cover is not representative, but, on the whole, covers are meant to be judged: that is, in fact, their purpose. The show's "cover" has been the various trailers, but also the PR campaign they've been doing these past few months. And while I had mixed thoughts on the trailers and have been able to reconcile the negative knee-jerk emotions, I had largely negative reactions to their PR position which just sunk me into deeper disappointment. I started out with a pretty positive outlook of how this could be a good semi-Tolkien fanfic-y fantasy show, which has gradually deteriorated the more they talked about it. So their "cover" has effectively filtered me into a subset of the population who would not be particularly lured by the product, and who does not expect to find the product much to their liking. What am I going to do about it? Since I wouldn't be paying any more or less money either way, I will still watch it to give it that try. I will be ranting about all the things that bug me most before I watch the show, to get it out of my system and come in with as little of a negative bias as possible. I am purposefully spoiling the first two episodes and reading people's commentary here so that I would be prepared for the bad elements and look forward to the good ones, so that I would be prepared to look past things like awful haircut choices to try and appreciate the larger story. And then I will see how I feel about it after the (unspoiled) third episode, by which point I expect the story to start unfolding sufficiently to be past the obligatory "intro stage" and start evolving into a more concrete form. Then after that I plan to post my impressions on the corresponding threads, and loop back here with more of a self-reflection on what "expectation baggage" might have been behind which reaction and how that changed from reading the comments and then seeing the show itself.

[mhagain]

All I've ever wanted was for it to not be crap. I think it's still too early, after only two episodes, to form any kind of judgement in that regard, and I'm happy to stick with it to the end of the first season at least.

As for it's status as fanfic - well, what did people actually expect? Did people even know what the source material was actually like? Did people even read Tolkien? Put it this way - even if Amazon had full unrestricted access to all of the Second Age material, a show constrained to only what Tolkien wrote would be a 1-hour history documentary. Of course there was going to be a lot of filling in the gaps, and not having full access just makes those gaps bigger.

That brings us down to good fanfic or bad fanfic, and as I said, I think it's far too early to make that judgement. How they handle Númenor is going to be very telling. Celebrimbor's motives are going to be very telling. But this is the kind of thing we only ever get full clarity on when looking back at a finished work. I'm at least willing to give it a chance.

If nothing else, it should get a few more people reading the Silmarillion, and that has to count for something.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

First and foremost:

Indeed. It's well and good to say you'll be starting to read/watch something without any expectations, but the truth is, you always bring some expectations, even if you think you know nothing about what you're about to see. Not judging books by their covers is not really a thing; best you can do is give it a chance in spite of the cover. But "covers" are also created with the knowledge that they will be the first impression, they set the tone that determines the audience (perhaps based on the audiences' pre-existing preconceptions) and creates the audience's expectations. It is quite possible that the cover is not representative, but, on the whole, covers are meant to be judged: that is, in fact, their purpose. The show's "cover" has been the various trailers, but also the PR campaign they've been doing these past few months. And while I had mixed thoughts on the trailers and have been able to reconcile the negative knee-jerk emotions, I had largely negative reactions to their PR position which just sunk me into deeper disappointment. I started out with a pretty positive outlook of how this could be a good semi-Tolkien fanfic-y fantasy show, which has gradually deteriorated the more they talked about it. So their "cover" has effectively filtered me into a subset of the population who would not be particularly lured by the product, and who does not expect to find the product much to their liking. What am I going to do about it? Since I wouldn't be paying any more or less money either way, I will still watch it to give it that try. I will be ranting about all the things that bug me most before I watch the show, to get it out of my system and come in with as little of a negative bias as possible. I am purposefully spoiling the first two episodes and reading people's commentary here so that I would be prepared for the bad elements and look forward to the good ones, so that I would be prepared to look past things like awful haircut choices to try and appreciate the larger story. And then I will see how I feel about it after the (unspoiled) third episode, by which point I expect the story to start unfolding sufficiently to be past the obligatory "intro stage" and start evolving into a more concrete form. Then after that I plan to post my impressions on the corresponding threads, and loop back here with more of a self-reflection on what "expectation baggage" might have been behind which reaction and how that changed from reading the comments and then seeing the show itself.

My apologies for a tardy reply but events in RL have kept me away from the internet and not given me time to make a thoughtful reply.

I will go back to a comment I made to Michael Murray, to put things in context: >>>"It is far more than mere "baggage". It is one's philosophical predispositions, which can often operate seemingly unconsciously but not necessarily so, that predetermine how one reads a text.".<<<

I will limit my comments specifically to the complaints about Galadriel to explain what I mean, which is not that one can come to a text without "aforethought". It is about how readers or critics construct, invent, or fabricate a conception about a character. Most of these critics, who are largely but not exclusively, male, claim to be restoring Tolkien's depiction of Galadriel. They aren't because what they are doing is presenting a construction of her that prioritises their own political ideology or imposes it on Tolkien's depiction.

The complaints about "acshun girl" and sword Gal use a terminology and point of view that has nothing to do with Tolkien but belong to current or contemporary thought that objects to new imaginative readings. These thoughts post date Tolkien's death, so they involve events he could not have commented on. We can of course make suppositions about what he might have thought, but they remain suppositions.

The complaints about sword Gal construct a contemporary reading of the character and do not return us to or salvage a pure historical reading. To demonstrate how these complaints are enmeshed with the readers/viewers own thoughts--objections to new imaginative depictions of women--I will ask why there are no objections to another aspect of the Galadriel in RoP that does not appear in Tolkien's writing, either his fiction or his prose comments, the scene where she creates an origami swan ship. (At least I haven't heard of any and that silence or paucity speaks for itself.)

Why is sword Gal so objectionable but not origami Gal?

Origami Gal is not so directly or obviously related to contemporary visions of women's agency. It is creative play and as such not as threatening as warrior action and can more easily be accommodated into the anti-woman ideology of the complainants. Yet it is wise to recall that her first name, given by her mother, was "Nerwen", that is, "man-maiden" and in her athletic feats she matched those of other athletes, who presumably were male. The hair thing is a later name related symbolically to the colours of the two trees.

It is this act of ideological construction I was referring to when I rejected the claim of "baggage". It is much more than the biases we pick up from the epitexts or pretexts (I use these terms from their use in literary theory); it is a prophylactic action rather than historical recovery. It does not bring us back to what Tolkien intended but mires us in current culture wars.

[Pitchwife]

Bêthberry, hat is very much the impression I got as well, and many of the objections against warrior-Galadriel remind me a lot of the irate protests when the BBC cast Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor a few years ago. It's the same discussion still going on.

However, I feel bound to play devil's advocate for a bit and point out that if the question is women's agency, then putting a weapon in a character's hand is just one way of showing agency, and not even a particularly imaginative one. For example, Lúthien is as active and self-determined a character as they come and certainly did more to ensure the success of the quest for the silmaril than Beren accomplished himself, but she managed all that without using a physical weapon. It seems to me many critics of warrior-Galadriel (certainly those I've seen posting on the Downs) would have been fine with a more Lúthien-like Galadriel using magic instead of a sword - which would also have been truer to what we read about her in LotR and the Silmarillion.


So what's the problem? It seems it's fine for a woman to be badass as long as she does it within the parameters of traditional gender roles where it's men who are tough, physical, aggressive, whereas women are sensitive, spiritual, caring (and let's not forget sexy! The Lay of Leithian has some downright creepy verses in the passage where Lúthien stands before Morgoth). The problem with 'ackshun gurls' is that they're perceived to be usurping a role and behaviour previously reserved for men (similar to how Jodie Whittaker was perceived to usurp the hitherto male role of the Doctor) - so if you're a guy and have hitherto defined yourself all your life by conforming (or at least trying to conform) to the male gender role described above, but now all of a sudden women do all that too, what have you got left? That is the part that hurts, the part where you lash out.



To be clear, I don't think presenting Galadriel as a swordswoman was a stellar decision on the makers' part - it's a rather lazy visual shorthand for agency, and it seems like they felt they needed to have their own Brienne to keep up with Game of Thrones; but it doesn't bother me, and I think there are worse problems with RoP's writing of Galadriel - like, what in the name of diplomacy did she think she was going to accomplish by being all haughty and lick my boots (oh wait I'm barefoot) with Míriel? Shouldn't Finrod's sister have been a little more sympathetic towards mortals?

[Formendacil]

I think Galadriel is especially a cipher for Tolkien fans coming to the RoP. Quite beyond the hot-button issue of "Gender Roles at the Intersection of Politics and Wokeism," Tolkien simultaneously wrote too much and not enough about her.

Too much: the LotR, its drafts and ephemera (including the Appendices and the 2nd Edition), her insertion into the Silm and its associated texts, to say nothing of the various texts that were intended to specifically fill in her history.

Too little: well... we still really only have an outline--and a contradictory one--of her movements and actions through the better part of three ages. Insofar as Celeborn should be considered her narrative appendage, it's unclear when they meet, where, and how/if he's her kin.

It is kind of funny that Galadriel in particular should give rise to complaints about "a woman holding a sword," since she's explicitly named "Nerwen" in what was is not a peripheral text, and fairly well delineated as being about to compete in physical masculine activities with the male Elves. Whether this continues past her encounter with Melian (which does seem to have been a revelation of sorts to Galadriel about another, even better, kind of power she could exercise) is an open question, and I think it's probably right to look in askance at her being made a general in the 2nd Age when her role seems to already be queenly (and in the mode of Melian). But to complain that RoP is smushing various parts of timelines into a smudged whole is different from saying "Tolkien believed women should never fight with swords!"

Although, I think there is an argument to be made that Tolkien made Galadriel more and more powerful, even Virgin Marian, as he aged and that, consequently, the best canonical complaint is that RoP makes Galadriel way too underpowered.

There certainly were complaints about Arwen wielding a sword in the LotR, and I think that--as far as being an interpretation of Tolkien's text goes, that's actually MORE valid, since Arwen's role is deliberately more passive and her likeness is specifically to Lúthien (though Tolkien's a bit coy there--Lúthien is very much not a passive heroine: the likeness is visual and dynastic more than narrative).

So, as I said, Galadriel makes a particularly good cipher because there's both so much known about her and so much unknown about her: to form a strong complaint (or, for that matter, a strong preference) for her usage in RoP--and through three episodes, at that!--really shows to what extent the particular reader has formed their own opinions about the conflicting information Tolkien left.

The absence of Celeborn and Círdan, now, is a tragedy! Sindarin erasure, I tell you.

[Galadriel55]

Having caught up to the show, I am looping back here, as promised. First, a general reflection, and then some specific responses.

I don't think there was ever a time when I didn't esteem fellow Downers' opinions highly, but I think this watch goes to show it. I was ever so much more excited about things I liked that I knew other people here liked too, and felt a somewhat disproportionate disappointment about things which have been praised highly here but did not quite meet my vision - disproportionate because they are still goon elements, IMO, just not bullseye. And that is discernably not anything to do with the show itself, but part of my own expectations for it. I feel like on a subconscious level the fact that certain elements were praised by Downers somehow led me to believe that they will be reflective of my vision of what it should look like - a grievous error, perhaps, since I was trying hard to psych myself up to not fall into that trap. It does point out an interesting aspect though that my mind associates "what Downers think" to be representative for "what I would think". I'm certainly happy to have found a community where though we might disagree on this or that we still end up respecting each other's opinions to such a degree. You sociology experts can keep working away at the deeper meanings of this observation, my own self-psychoanalysis will stop here.

Now, in answer to the last couple posts. I wasn't going to bring up Galadriel, because there has been much chaffing about her that's left a sore spot on everybody, I think - and no less on myself, as I find myself arguing with both of the extreme camps. But that box is open now, so might as well.

Originally Posted by Pitch

To be clear, I don't think presenting Galadriel as a swordswoman was a stellar decision on the makers' part - it's a rather lazy visual shorthand for agency, and it seems like they felt they needed to have their own Brienne to keep up with Game of Thrones; but it doesn't bother me, and I think there are worse problems with RoP's writing of Galadriel - like, what in the name of diplomacy did she think she was going to accomplish by being all haughty and lick my boots (oh wait I'm barefoot) with Míriel? Shouldn't Finrod's sister have been a little more sympathetic towards mortals?

This. The armour is the least ridiculous thing about that character, and I am saying this having now watched the episodes and not just speaking from the promo material. I don't have much against the armour itself, but it is done in a way that cheapens Galadriel as a character. She literally says herself in the show that all she is is a sword. All she is, is a sword. And a loud mouth, and zero patience and negative scores on wisdom. Even Brienne was more than just a sword. Galadriel's raison d'etre seems to be to be as outrageous as possible - but because we the audience know that she's supposed to be right in the end, we're supposed to... cheer for her?

...Sorry, I'm starting to rant again.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Why is sword Gal so objectionable but not origami Gal?

It's interesting you ask. Because I did have a minor objection to the origami - not because it's origami, but because Galadriel didn't seem to ever be much of a builder, or much of a shipwright, and I thought that if you had to pick an activity that would be representative of her, this was an odd choice. However, I then immediately rebutted my own objection by arguing that she may have done any number of things in her youth, just did not develop enough of an inclination to pursue them further, and this may be her exploring her Telerin heritage. And when she punched the kid who sunk her origami boat, my reaction was "this is perfect Nerwen".

So what issue do I have with the concept of shieldmaiden-Galadriel? For one thing, in my mind she was so much more than that. For another, that the chronology of her character development is all wrong. She is Nerwen in Valinor. I can well see a young Galadriel getting all hot-headed and rushing off on a vengeful quest or even leading an army in the Valinor days, or at Alqualonde, or Helcaraxe, or perhaps shortly after. In Beleriand I can see her donning armour to stand guard with other soldiers and/or generals during the wars of her kingdom(s). Perhaps she might even have marched up to Morgoth's gate with Fingolfin's host, or done a tour of the Leaguer. She might certainly still do whatever masculine sports Nerwen might have enjoyed - but as sports, not as raison d'etre. And had there been reason for them to be more than sports, I think she would have used her skills accordingly. But I think she would have respected Doriathrin politics of minimal interference in the Noldor messes, standing by her husband's house in that, and by the time Thingol and Melian died she and Celeborn were no longer there, or else the Dwarves and Cel&Cur might have found more resistance. Then, as time goes by, she devotes less care to swinging the sword, and more care to building a kingdom - after all, that was her ambition in coming to Middle-earth in the first place, and it is a natural progression from soldier to general, from hot-tempered youth to wisdom. Her energy is directed less into brute force and more into other forms of power. Her power grows not in martial prowess but in her "magic" and in her position in the world. Does she still have the martial prowess? Sure. Is that what she values most about herself? No. Does she wear armour as she marches on Dol Guldur? Probably. In the end, is it her sword-bouncing skills that take it down? No. The progression is from Nerwen to Galadriel, not the other way around.

What we see in the show is a Galadriel who seemed a little bit of an outcast as a kid, and had a bit of a temper - which was actually still tempered by none other than Finrod. She then spends the glimpses of the First Age in presumably a more docile role - she comes to the battlefield to bury the fallen, not to fight. And then she decides it's time for her to get all fiery and start swinging the sword. She goes from a generic bereaved female to Nerwen, in a backwards progression - the bereavement is one of the things that's supposed to temper her manners, not fuel them.

So I dislike that, and I would argue that the Nerwen argument loses its weight here - not because of the physical presence of sword and armour but because of the timing and development of what she does with them. It's not her holding the sword so much as that this seems to be her character's only positive attribute so far. An attribute that is made ridiculous by cheap fight scenes like that troll. She's not the only one to suffer from ridiculous fight choreography, but the troll scene so far stands out from the rest by virtue of highlighting the alleged skills of one person against a bunch of failures and breaks all semblance of realism and suspense. But that's another rant altogether, more to do with fight sequences in general - so far they do not make their heroes stand out more positively, but on the contrary.

All this to say, I suppose what it tells about me is that I do have some subconscious expectation for parallels with canon in terms of at least the broad strokes of character development for characters whose progression and story we actually know. It can be achieved by alt-fic means, but you still have to get there and hit certain milestones. It hurts me a lot more to see a beloved character's milestones mangled up. It makes me angry when I think about all the times the promos claimed to have made this storyline an improvement on what was, a more modern view, etc. The idea of a woman wielding a sword is not modern, nor is it in itself anti-Tolkien; but this woman does so little for which to be respected that I don't know what favour they think they are doing her or women in general with that depiction. I know the attitude that you are referring to in your post, and I agree that the preconceptions at play may reach quite broadly. For myself though, I feel that I would be much less angry in this case about "a generic character" taking this role, and much more angry about "this particular known character" taking this role.

All of these thoughts have made me wonder about alt-fics in general, and what we find acceptible or otherwise, and why. But I think I will put those ponderings in a separate thread, probably over in N&N as it is not necessarily specific to the movies.


Edit: X-ed with Form. It's a rare day when this happens outside of a WW game!

Originally Posted by Form

the best canonical complaint is that RoP makes Galadriel way too underpowered.

Yes!!! But not underpowered in the "how many backflips you can do while swinging your sword", but rather all the other power she's supposed to be emanating even at this point already. Becoming more queenly, like you said - being the charismatic leader, playing the political game, exerting her spiritual power Melian-style... That doesn't mean she can't swing a sword - but right now ALL she can do is swing a sword. Where is her charisma? Where is her leadership? At the very least her bit of common sense and tact???

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Bêthberry,
I feel bound to play devil's advocate for a bit and point out that if the question is women's agency, then putting a weapon in a character's hand is just one way of showing agency, and not even a particularly imaginative one. For example, Lúthien is as active and self-determined a character as they come and certainly did more to ensure the success of the quest for the silmaril than Beren accomplished himself, but she managed all that without using a physical weapon. It seems to me many critics of warrior-Galadriel (certainly those I've seen posting on the Downs) would have been fine with a more Lúthien-like Galadriel using magic instead of a sword - which would also have been truer to what we read about her in LotR and the Silmarillion.

Thanks for chiming in, Pitch. And I agree that a sword is just one way of showing agency. But ...

First, in the interests of full disclosure, let me say I am not particularly a fan of the elves. I didn't like their condescending assumption of their superiority or privilege in LotR, as if there were a hierarchy of peoples and they were/are at the top. And while I like the hobbits, I'm not especially keen on their parochialism or fearfulness of what's outside The Shire (except for our intrepid four). It was the dwarves in LotR who gained my sympathy, perhaps because I tend to look towards those who are marginalised in some way. So I'm not one to have really great admiration for Galadriel. And reading in HoMe or the Silm does not do much to improve my view of elves. They had their chance and essentially blew it and were/are as culpable of error and mistakes as any other of the peoples of the Legendarium.

That said (and take away my Lembas if you want and send me to the corner), I think there is a lot of room to show how a younger Galadriel behaved or misbehaved before she found some equanimity or serene wisdom. I think Tolkien too was conflicted about how to write Galadriel into the Silm after LotR. So I don't object to seeing swordsmanship being used to demonstrate her physical prowess and expect to see growth in her character. I also recall Tolkien's effort to explain away magic and try to explain the special effects of the elves as some kind of art which we readers cannot appreciate or yet see. I also see her in this Age as something equivalent to an angsty adolescent who isn't sure how to express herself in anything other than a rebellious attitude or stubborn self-will. So I am expecting to see her "grow out of" relying on kung fu fighting. Maybe I have greater expectations than I should of this series or maybe I am just too willing not have too strong expectations of what I want to see in her. And I remember Jael and Sisera in the Bible or Judith and Holofernes as well. We do see the woman healer beheading an orc.

To be clear, I don't think presenting Galadriel as a swordswoman was a stellar decision on the makers' part - it's a rather lazy visual shorthand for agency, and it seems like they felt they needed to have their own Brienne to keep up with Game of Thrones; but it doesn't bother me, and I think there are worse problems with RoP's writing of Galadriel - like, what in the name of diplomacy did she think she was going to accomplish by being all haughty and lick my boots (oh wait I'm barefoot) with Míriel? Shouldn't Finrod's sister have been a little more sympathetic towards mortals?

Another disclosure: I haven't watched Game of Thrones nor read Martin's books either. I just couldn't get past the third chapter of the first book, so I'm missing that context. And I agree her behaviour with Miriel seems wrong, seems destined to lead to trouble. But then, that could just be the arrogant elf aspect of her character and something she will learn is inappropriate. On the other hand, it could just be bad characterisation, bad writing.

I guess I am just willing to sit back and see what plays out rather than have any high expectations of the character. But I do object to people mixing up their ideology with Tolkien's art and calling that Tolkien's canonical statement, which you have neatly sidestepped.