Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Sure, you could say it doesn't apply universally, but the 'cosmetic change' of Green Eggs and Ham to another color could be argued to be on the same level as having Black Dwarves in Tolkien's work. In both cases, we're talking about changing something that isn't meant to be changed and does have narrative relevance no matter how you look at it.

Okay...what's the narrative significance regarding the skin colour of dwarves?

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless of whether Sam is disgusted or not in the narrative, we don't know enough about his past experiences to fully grasp his motivations against trying something new. Had he even tried regular Eggs and Ham? And if so, is the food merely being Green the reason why he chooses not to eat it? The narrative is open enough to be interpreted multiple ways, even if the overall moral being about being open to trying new things. There's no way to pin point any change to affecting the 'spirit of the original' because any change is going to be a change regardless of how minor it is, and I don't think it's fair to waive anything away on the basis of a few people considering the change 'merely cosmetic'. As I explained above, many people associate 'Green food' with spoiled or moldy food, which brings about an immediate reaction of disgust. It's possible that maybe Sam had a previous bad experience with 'Green food' which sours his opinion on any other Green colored food, and Green happens to be significant to Sam's personal history. The narrative plays out differently to each reader who may be self-inserting themselves into Sam's story and building their own interpretation of the narrative.

First of all "Sam" is not digusted by green eggs and ham... "Sam-I-Am" is the one trying to get the unnamed subject to try Green Eggs and ham.

Also, if you want to dig that deep into it...than not even the type of food matters in the story. The important thing is that the subject has already decided that he does not like X...even though he has never actually tried X. X could be anything. Sam-I-Am could be presenting Red peas and lamb and we'd arrive at the same point...without even changing the rhyming scheme. Sam-I-Am is not telling the subject that he should try rotten food. The moral of the story is that you should try new foods before writing them off. It's really not that complex.

[Triceron]

Okay...what's the narrative significance regarding the skin colour of dwarves?

So firstly; Tolkien never specifies the skin color of Dwarves. We merely assume them to be white. There is no official source on what exactly their skin tone is.

Tolkien never actually addressed the skin color of the dwarves, but it’s assumed that they were also white. ((REWRITTEN AFTER FURTHER RESEARCH: Men see more variation that elves and dwarves. Some men are described as fair skinned (this is usually the men of Rohan, and the Dunedain/descendants of Numenor, such as the men of Gondor.) Others are described as “swarthy” or as having slightly darker skin - such as the Dunlendings, and some small communities in Gondor. And the men of the far south (Harad) are consistently described as having dark skin. https://askmiddlearth.tumblr.com/pos...%20dark%20skin.

Getting that out of the way, in the narrative there is a section where the Hobbits see 'Black' people for the first time. They witness these foreign men as a part of Sauron's armies, and their appearance is alien to the Hobbits, and they are shocked by their appearance. Whether intentional or not, there is a level of xenophobia at play in how the Hobbits and the 'fair' races regard men with 'Swarthy' skin complexions. There is narrative significance because this shock is meaningful to how the Hobbits know the world to be. They have never seen men with Dark skin before. No one in the narrative has openly discussed the existence of people with dark skin tones. The world they do know of does not contain Hobbits or Men or Elves or Dwarves with Swarthy complexions; otherwise they wouldn't be as shocked to see people existing with such complexions as they were.

And considering Bilbo would have been witness to MANY Dwarves at the Battle of 5 Armies and would have been absolutely down to the details in describing each and every one of them to Frodo as a child, there would have been assumed that Bilbo would have made mention of a Black Dwarf or Black Elves had he seen them himself, and thus passed that knowledge down to Frodo as well. Skin color does have significance in the overall narrative, even if it may not seem important.

If Black skinned Dwarves were a normal thing and not worth even mentioning, then Bilbo would still have made note of their presence and existence and Frodo and crew wouldn't have been so surprised to see other humanoids with such complexions.


Now, whether you feel this part of the narrative has 'aged well' or not, and whether you feel like it's worth considering for modern audiences, that's a completely separate topic. I'm merely answering your question here, in that it DOES have impact on the narrative, because specifically we have a scene where the Hobbits openly react in shock in first time becoming aware that any human(oid) with dark skin tones could even exist. And the significance of this in the overall narrative is that Frodo's shock is meant to be relayed to the reader, because he is the POV narrator that we follow the journey of. It is his experiences that we experience the world of Middle Earth through the lens of. And if Frodo is shocked to see a dark skinned man for the first time, so are we in the context of the overall narrative.

And if you want to argue that 'Well there could exist Black Dwarves that Bilbo and Frodo never seen', that could be very well true. That is a possibility. However, the narrative comes through the perspectives of Bilbo and Frodo, and not some other-wordly narrator beyond, so any existence of a Black Dwarf in Tolkien's work would be beyond the narrative.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So firstly; Tolkien never specifies the skin color of Dwarves. We merely assume them to be white. There is no official source on what exactly their skin tone is.

Which is a big strike against the whole "Skin colour is not subjective" POV

Getting that out of the way, in the narrative there is a section where the Hobbits see 'Black' people for the first time. They witness these foreign men as a part of Sauron's armies, and their appearance is alien to the Hobbits, and they are shocked by their appearance. Whether intentional or not, there is a level of xenophobia at play in how the Hobbits and the 'fair' races regard men with 'Swarthy' skin complexions. There is narrative significance because this shock is meaningful to how the Hobbits know the world to be. And they have not explored or known much of the world, but the world they do know of does not contain Elves or Dwarves with Swarthy complexions; otherwise they wouldn't be as shocked to see people existing with such complexions as they were.

Black Humans. And is that even that important to the narrative? If you swapped "Black Skin" with "Pink Hair"...wouldn't that make them just as notable?

[Triceron]

First of all "Sam" is not digusted by green eggs and ham... "Sam-I-Am" is the one trying to get the unnamed subject to try Green Eggs and ham.

Also, if you want to dig that deep into it...than not even the type of food matters in the story. The important thing is that the subject has already decided that he does not like X...even though he has never actually tried X. X could be anything. Sam-I-Am could be presenting Red peas and lamb and we'd arrive at the same point...without even changing the rhyming scheme. Sam-I-Am is not telling the subject that he should try rotten food. The moral of the story is that you should try new foods before writing them off. It's really not that complex.

Thank you for the correction. Yes, I meant the unnamed character refusing to eat Green Eggs and Ham.

You are right that the overall moral of the story doesn't change, but the narrative does if you switch the color and food item entirely. For example, many kids don't like peas period, so they may actually side with the unnamed character's opinion on refusing to eat Peas altogether. Eggs and Ham are chosen because they are commonly known good-tasting foods that not many people have problems with. Peas and Lamb on the other hand are much more questionable. I know some people who absolutely hate the taste of Lamb.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is a big strike against the whole "Skin colour is not subjective" POV

Why would it be a big strike? It's not like the Dwarves would suddenly be Blue just because Tolkien was never specific to assigning a particular skintone to the race.

Black Humans. And is that even that important to the narrative? If you swapped "Black Skin" with "Pink Hair"...wouldn't that make them just as notable?

If Frodo were reacting in shock to pink haired men from the south instead of them being dark skinned, I would say that the narrative is changed quite a bit. To the reader, it would be more confusing or amusing, depending on how seriously this is meant to be depicted. I'm not sure why you even use this as an example.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Thank you for the correction. Yes, I meant the unnamed character refusing to eat Green Eggs and Ham.

Here's the clincher... in later versions of the story...the unnamed subject is named "Guy-am-I". Does this change from the source material alter the narrative in any significant way?

You are right that the overall moral of the story doesn't change, but the narrative does if you switch the color and food item entirely. For example, many kids don't like peas period, so they may actually side with the unnamed character's opinion on refusing to eat Peas altogether. Eggs and Ham are chosen because they are commonly known good-tasting foods that not many people have problems with. Peas and Lamb on the other hand are much more questionable. I know some people who absolutely hate the taste of Lamb.

Many kids don't like any type of food that's new. In this particular version... this person doesn't like green eggs. To another person, it could be red peas.

There was even a petition once created by a "save the pigs" organization that wanted to change the story to "Green eggs and JAM"...complete with new art replacing the ham with jam...would that also change the story? Once again, every other line in the story would be exactly same...you would just swap out that single word. Does it change anything important?

And it doesn't matter if people hate the taste of lamb...because the point of the story is that the character has never actually tried the food being presented. Once the character actually tries the dish in question...they discover that it is their very favourite thing and they would eat it in all of the situations previously presented. Whether its Green Eggs and Ham or Red Peas and Lamb..it makes no difference.

Why would it be a big strike? It's not like the Dwarves would suddenly be Blue just because Tolkien was never specific to assigning a particular skintone to the race.

Why not? Dwarves are an entirely fictional race in an entirely fictional world with magic. They are just as likely to be blue or black as they are white.

If Frodo were reacting in shock to pink haired men from the south instead of them being dark skinned, I would say that the narrative is changed quite a bit. To the reader, it would be more confusing or amusing, depending on how seriously this is meant to be depicted. I'm not sure why you even use this as an example.

How has the narrative changed? Frodo is still shocked by seeing humans that look different.

[Triceron]

Why not? Dwarves are an entirely fictional race in an entirely fictional world with magic. They are just as likely to be blue or black as they are white.

Just because it's fiction doesn't mean there are no rules.

How has the narrative changed? Frodo is still shocked by seeing humans that look different.

There is a change, because Frodo was not shocked by seeing men with Pink Hair. He was shocked at seeing men with Dark Skin. There is a narrative difference because we don't actually know if Frodo would be shocked by Pink Hair; that's speculation beyond the narrative we're given.

Now, if you're asking how the narrative is different in your personal interpretation, then that's really up to you to decide. If your suspension of disbelief does not change whether they have pink hair or dark skin or whatever, then that is really up to you to decide. It's a subjective opinion that you're allowed to have.

If you're implying that the narrative has not changed at all, then that is an argument in ignorance, because we're literally talking about a change in the narrative.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Just because it's fiction doesn't mean there are no rules.

That's exactly what it means. Or, more precisely, you can make the rules up as you go along. And there is no "rule" in the Tolkien universe that states the Dwarves have to be white.

Also, rules can change. When a rule no longer works... you change it.

There is a change, because Frodo was not shocked by seeing men with Pink Hair. He was shocked at seeing men with Dark Skin. There is a narrative difference because we don't actually know if Frodo would be shocked by Pink Hair; that's speculation beyond the narrative we're given.

That's not a significant change. His reaction to pink hair is the same as dark skin. And it's no different with the dark skin. We know Frodo was shocked by dark skin...because the story tells us so. If the story instead told us he was shocked by pink hair... then we would know Frodo was shocked by pink hair.

Now, if you're asking how the narrative is different in your personal interpretation, then that's really up to you to decide. If your suspension of disbelief does not change whether they have pink hair or dark skin or whatever, then that is really up to you to decide. It's a subjective opinion that you're allowed to have.

I'm not asking about personal interpretation. I'm asking what significant change it makes to Frodo's quest to destroy the ring.

If you're implying that the narrative has not changed at all, then that is an argument in ignorance, because we're literally talking about a change in the narrative.

A purely cosmetic change... which is the exact thing being discussed.

[Orby]

Thing is for ever Jurassic Park you have 10 Eragons, and this sure does look like an Eragon especially considering all the interviews they have done really only talk about how diverse and inclusive the show is, and not anything about the show. THe actress for Diza even had the comment they "aren't changing anything, but they are interpreting everything", like bruh come on.

You know all those interviews and commentaries are for shareholders and PR people as well as talk that are conducted by those that interview them anyway. They are not meant for us. Just listen to them everything they say sounds like corporate speak. Maybe start looking at the show not what goes on behind it, if you start judging the show based on PR then man you are gonna hate it

The difference between those movies you listed and the stuff that has come our recently is that the changes made to those previous properties made the product better. Getting Will Smith for MiB made that movie WAY better due to his acting ability.

It is entirely possible that the changes they have made to Tolkien's world will make for a better product that makes people go "wow this really is better!"

However, judging from the works that have come out over the past few years, the trend says that simply won't be the case.

Who knows, maybe everyone will be wrong, but I'd wager that not a single person in this thread defending the show would actually put money on it being good.

I am not so much defending as I am trying to be optimistic, the show may be shit for all I know, but that second trailer did look far better than the first trailer, despite some complaints I had about the costumes, and CGI. I just dont see much to judge just from watching a trailer, its a TV show, I don't expect quality on the level of the movies, that's some big shoes to fill, I think we should realise that, lightening doesn't get caught in a bottle twice. Look at the Hobbit, despite the fact I personally liked the first Hobbit movie, its the other two movies that were a problem. :P

Maybe I should learn my lesson after getting burned by Wheel of Time, and I do see some resemblance in production which worries me, but I doubt I will come out of the show with at least some praise. I think there is going to be plenty to like, unless it is on the quality of Wheel of Time then we're fucked, but I remain optimistic due to the amount of money poured into it. I think there's plenty of time for complaints after the show is done, I just think a lot of people that are hating the show now are not going to have their minds changed when the show is released, its like you pre-booked the hate, and have pre-ordered the pitchforks.

I do feel judging from this thread if your only complaint is skin colour, then this show has it good.

[Triceron]

That's exactly what it means. Or, more precisely, you can make the rules up as you go along. And there is no "rule" in the Tolkien universe that states the Dwarves have to be white.

Also, rules can change. When a rule no longer works... you change it.

At this point, I would assume you'd have no perception issue if Green Eggs and Ham were changed to Green Shit and Phlegm. As long as the moral is the same, right?

Well you have that right to an opinion. But the fact is, the narrative would change. It changes because we are literally talking about changing it.

Whether you consider the rule to be significant or not is not the point. We are talking about whether it is a change to the narrative, and that it is.

Whether anything is considered significant is merely a personal measure of suspension of disbelief. If you think blue skinned Dwarves is fine, then that is what it is to you. It does not mean the rules are changeable at the reader's behest.

That's not a significant change.

In your opinion, which is the beauty of subjectivity.

You are allowed to have that opinion just as I am allowed to disagree with your conclusion.

A purely cosmetic change... which is the exact thing being discussed.

If your suspension of disbelief allows it, then of course you'd be okay with it. But at no point does your opinion extend beyond your own regard of the situation.

We are talking about a speculations beyond the narrative if you're telling me that Frodo would be shocked to see pink hair. We have nothing in the narrative to go on how he would have reacted to it, and your personal opinion that he'd be just as shocked is by no means anything but pure and baseless speculation.

I'm not asking about personal interpretation. I'm asking what significant change it makes to Frodo's quest to destroy the ring.

You're asking personal opinion if you're asking someone what they think the significance of something is. You understand this, right?

'Significant' can only be quantified subjectively. We can objectively quantify a change happening. The significance of the change can only be defined by the individual.

I can point to this as a narrative change because Frodo has never encountered someone with Pink Hair. How significant that change would be is up to the reader to decide.

If you're asking my opinion, then it is significant because there is no record of Pink hair exosting naturally or artificially in tthe novels, and it has a butterfly effect to the rest of the mythology that Tolkien has built. No different than if you'd suggested Frodo whip out a celphone and call a taxi. It would be considered an anomoly in the context of Middle Earth as we know it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

At this point, I would assume you'd have no perception issue if Green Eggs and Ham were changed to Green Shit and Phlegm. As long as the moral is the same, right?

A story about a person trying to convince another person to eat Green Shit and phlegm would be an entirely different story...because that is not food. It casts the character of "Sam-I-Am" in an entirely different light.

The point of the story is that the person has decided they do not like a certain type of food even though they have never tried it.

In your opinion, which is the beauty of subjectivity.

What is the significant change?

If your suspension of disbelief allows it, then of course you'd be okay with it. But at no point does your opinion extend beyond your own regard of the situation.

If we're talking about my suspension of disbelief...I don't find black skin shocking in the slightest. I am also not shcoked by pink hair... but it is less common.

We are talking about a speculations beyond the narrative if you're telling me that Frodo would be shocked to see pink hair. We have nothing in the narrative to go on how he would have reacted to it, and your personal opinion that he'd be just as shocked is by no means anything but pure and baseless speculation.

We have nothing in the narrative to go on about how he would react to black skin either...until the story says "this is shocking to Frodo". If the story instead said "He was shocked by their pink hair" it would have just as much significance.

Let me give a different example from a different series.

In the Sandman comics...Rose Walker is a white girl. In the TV series, she is a black girl.

What significant change to the narrative results from this change from the source material?

[Triceron]

A story about a person trying to convince another person to eat Green Shit and phlegm would be an entirely different story...because that is not food. It casts the character of "Sam-I-Am" in an entirely different light.

The point of the story is that the person has decided they do not like a certain type of food even though they have never tried it.

There is a significance to Eggs and Ham because they're not just a certain type of food, it's a food that has universal appeal and is generally agreed upon as good-tasting. Even if we were to go with your previous example of Red Peas and Lamb, the narrative would still change.

There is no way to change it cosmetically and imply that the narrative didn't change. It surely would, because the story isn't about Red Peas and Lamb, it is about Green Eggs and Ham. The unnamed character is made out to make a judgement call that is unreasonable, while having a more questionable food choice would make his decision less unreasonable.

While green shit and phlegm is an extreme example... It doesn't exsctly change the narrative that you deemed to have clear moral to that is not subjective. Like, Green Eggs and Ham don't exist and we don't know what it really tastes like. We wouldn't know if Sam I Am and the unnamed character would enjoy eating Green Shit and Phlegm either. If the story played out the same then we're still talking about the same morals. Yet it's clear that the narrative has changed

What is the significant change?

Significance is subjective.

If you don't consider any change to be significant, then no answer I give you would matter. Right? You're asking a loaded question which only you can personally answer.

If we're talking about my suspension of disbelief...I don't find black skin shocking in the slightest. I am also not shcoked by pink hair... but it is less common.

I totally get that, and in my opinion I am not shocked by it either.

Would it be shocking to see in Middle Earth though? Arguably yes, because it would be highly abnormal to see that in this particular setting.

Same can be said about Dwarves with Blue Skin not fitting the setting. It's a butterfly effect that puts the integrity of the rules of the fictional universe into question. Are we even regarding these blue skinned creatures as Tolkien's Dwarves any more?

We have nothing in the narrative to go on about how he would react to black skin either...until the story says "this is shocking to Frodo". If the story instead said "He was shocked by their pink hair" it would have just as much significance.

And regardless, the narrative would change.

Indiana Jones is afraid of Snakes. If we talk about changing that fear to something else, then there is a narrative change involved. How significant the change would be would only be up to the individual to decide. If he had a fear of pufferfish instead of snakes, would it be the same narrative significance? I would say no, because it is established that he has a fear of snakes and not a fear of pufferfish, and the movie illustrates his fear in situations that involved snakes. The stakes would not be the same even if they swapped all the Snakes to Pufferfish.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

There is a significance to Eggs and Ham because they're not just a certain type of food, it's a food that has universal appeal and is generally agreed upon as good-tasting. Even if we were to go with your previous example of Red Peas and Lamb, the narrative would still change.

Again, it doesn't matter how popular the food is...because the point is that the character decided they did not like Green eggs and ham before ever tasting them.

There is no way to change it cosmetically and imply that the narrative didn't change. It surely would, because the story isn't about Red Peas and Lamb, it is about Green Eggs and Ham. The unnamed character is made out to make a judgement call that is unreasonable, while having a more questionable food choice would make his decision less unreasonable.

The "unreasonable judgement call" is deciding that the character does not like the food before they have even tried it. It doesn't matter what the food is...the judgement is stilll unreasonable.

Significance is subjective.

If you don't consider any change to be significant, then no answer I give you would matter. Right? You're asking a loaded question which only you can personally answer.

I don't consider cosmetic changes to be significant.

Again, we can only speak out on our own opinion on the matter, because the interpretation of the narrative and the significance of the event is only relevant to us as individuals.

It does not mean no change has happened. And if you are asking what is significant about it, then you're merely asking an opinion rather than making any point

I'm not saying no change happens. I'm saying that the change doesn't matter to the story.

No different than if I pressed you on whether adding pineapples on pizza is a significant change or not. We could both agree that it's not very significant at all, and it doesn't prove anything. We'd just be giving out opinions on the matter. It doesn't mean it is universally insignificant just because we both agree it isn't.

Adding pineapple to a pizza does significantly change the pizza, though. It would have been one thing...and now it is something new. It smells different, it tastes different, it feels different in your mouth, it will be more filling, you might even get more nutrients if the heat of the oven hasn't completely destroyed everything of value.

Liking pineapple on a pizza is a subjective opinion. Putting pineapple on a pizza creates a different pizza is an objective fact.

What you personally feel about pink hair or black skin has no bearing outside of your own opinion. Understand? It has no bearing on how anyone else would interpret the narrative

You're right, my feelings about black skin or pink hair don't matter. Only Frodo's. And the only reason we know the Frodo was shocked by black skin was because we are told he found it shocking. If instead we were told he found pink hair shocking...the same result would happen. Yes, there was a change...but it was a change that didn't actually alter anything.

How I or anyone else view the narrative doesn't matter. The writer can't control that. What the writer can control is whether pink hair or black skin shocks one of the characters they are writing about.

You ignored my question about Sandman

I'll ask again:

Does Rose Walker being Black in the Netflix series significantly change the story?

[Triceron]

Again, it doesn't matter how popular the food is...because the point is that the character decided they did not like Green eggs and ham before ever tasting them.

The "unreasonable judgement call" is deciding that the character does not like the food before they have even tried it. It doesn't matter what the food is...the judgement is stilll unreasonable.

Lemme play devil's advocate here:

Should it not matter with Green Shit and Phlegm? If all the importance of the narrative is about an unreasonable judgement call and a suspension of disbelief that whatever is being eaten is tasty, then does it really matter to the story that we're talking about shit and phlegm? Either way, the unnamed character has never tried it, and either way both Sam I Am and the unnamed character proclaim enjoying it.

Frodo pink hair reaction, right?

I don't consider cosmetic changes to be significant.

I'm not questioning your beliefs.

I'm making a point that you're asking me something that only subjectively pertains to your own regard of what a significant change means. It's not something I can evaluate on your terms if you explicitly say you are not asking for a personal opinion

I can't quantify any answer as being a significant change if you only give me examples of changes that you don't consider to be significant. Again, my point is that this is a loaded question

I'm not saying no change happens. I'm saying that the change doesn't matter to the story.

And all regard of the story is subjective.

So all you're saying is.. it doesn't matter to you.

Adding pineapple to a pizza does significantly change the pizza, though. It would have been one thing...and now it is something new. It smells different, it tastes different, it feels different in your mouth, it will be more filling, you might even get more nutrients if the heat of the oven hasn't completely destroyed everything of value.

Liking pineapple on a pizza is a subjective opinion. Putting pineapple on a pizza creates a different pizza is an objective fact.

You don't think skin color or pink hair is subjective, but it also creates a subjective experience and it creates a different product from Tolkien's original depiction. That is also objective fact.

Let's make no mistake here, Amazon's Rings of Power is not Tolkien's depiction of Middle Earth. It is a different pizza.

How I or anyone else view the narrative doesn't matter. The writer can't control that. What the writer can control is whether pink hair or black skin shocks one of the characters they are writing about.

Yet that is exactly my point above. How you or I view the narrative doesn't matter... And defining whether a change matters to the story or not is a viewpoint of the narrative...

The writer sets the rules of the universe, makes the pizza. If another writer jumps in and adds pineapple to the pizza, are we still talking about the same pizza?

By your own admission, it is a new pizza.

You ignored my question about Sandman

I'll ask again:

Does Rose Walker being Black in the Netflix series significantly change the story?

I can't answer because I don't know anything about the sandman series other than it exists.

I will however say that no matter how faithful the show may be to the comic... It's a different pizza to the comic as well. That is the nature of being an adaptation.

[Adamas102]

The full story of Miriel (not Tar Miriel because she wasn't a Queen), is not told in LOTR. There are only references.

I already posted this. To even do an appropriate adaptation of the 2nd age they need more than the appendices and they don't really have much more than that.

So a lot of this being created from scratch because they really don't have the rights to a lot of what Tolkien actually wrote.

The appendices IS the source material. The Silmarillion is a supplement and obviously the Tolkien estate didn't deem it necessary for setting the show in the Second Age. If you disagree then that's on you, but the appendices has all the barebones structure for the people, places, and events of this time period, which is what is most important for developing a dramatic adaptation.

I'm also going to point out a few things in what you re-quoted that should be addressed:

Tolkien wrote a detailed genealogy for line of Numenorean Kings. That is the source material from which we know about this character. It is literally a genealogy, showing the family tree from the first King and Queen all the way to Tar Miriel who died at the destruction of Numenor. For her to be black, would mean others in that family tree would also have to be black. There is no way for her to just pop up as black in the middle of a line of people who are not black. Her cousin is Ar Pharazon who is also in this series and is not black. So how is it possible for a black woman to show up in a family tree that is white? It doesn't make sense.

A detailed genealogy, huh? It only takes a cursory glance I notice that half of the couples that produced this line of descendants is absent. Who was Tar-Miriel's mother? Who was Al-Pharazon's? Their grandmother was Inzilbeth, but who was their great grandmother? There are A LOT of links missing in this chain, and while the names there are obviously the important ones for following the line of succession, when it comes to genetics it hardly gives the full picture.

We know that the Edain were mixed race, with those of the Houses of Beor and Haleth expressing genetic markers for darker hair and skin than those of House Hador. As descendants of the Edain, Numenoreans would certainly carry all those genetic markers which would lead to a fairly varied group of people (wide variety in hair, eye, and skin color). Without a full knowledge of the fictitious genetic mutations that led to the differences between the Edain, there's no definitive way to say how these traits were passed down through the line of kings or how dark a Numenorean's skin could be depending on their parentage or how those traits were expressed. Without knowing that, or anything about Tar-Miriel's mother, or being beholden to the Silmarillion, there's plenty of room for interpretation.

You could also argue that it's likely that further mixing of Numenoreans with darker skinned people might have occurred during the time of Aldarion and his travels setting up havens in places like Umbar. Not enough mixing to dilute the Numenorean lineage as what happened later on, but for a good 1,000 years there were friendly relations between Numenor and the peoples of Harad. Would it have been completely inconceivable?

And lastly, Cynthia Addai-Robinson is (like the Numenoreans) of mixed heritage, and thought it doesn't need to be I'd say her skin tone falls well within the range for someone who strongly inherited the genetic markers of House Beor. And without knowing anything at all about who her mother was, who knows what other inherited genes might have played a role in how she looked.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Lemme play devil's advocate here:

Should it not matter with Green Shit and Phlegm? If all the importance of the narrative is about an unreasonable judgement call and a suspension of disbelief that whatever is being eaten is tasty, then does it really matter to the story that we're talking about shit and phlegm? Either way, the unnamed character has never tried it, and either way both Sam I Am and the unnamed character proclaim enjoying it.

Frodo pink hair reaction, right?

Do you really think it's unreasonable to not want to eat green shit and phlegm? I

You don't think skin color or pink hair is subjective, but it also creates a subjective experience and it creates a different product from Tolkien's original depiction. That is also objective fact.

Tell me how it changes the story then.

Let's make no mistake here, Amazon's Rings of Power is not Tolkien's depiction of Middle Earth. It is a different pizza.

It was always going to be a different "pizza" just from moving from books (and notes) to television. Peter Jackson's LotR wasn't Tolkiens middle earth either. Neither was Ralph Bakshi's.

I'm asking how a black dwarf changes anything. You've already said yoursself that Tolkien never said Dwarves had to be white.

The writer can control whether black skin or pink hair shocks the character. If another writer jumps in and adds pineapple to the pizza, are we still talking about the same pizza?

By your own admission, it is a new pizza.

The difference is when you add pineapple...you end up with a fundamentally different pizza. It's more than a cosmetic change.

How does a black dwarf change the flavour of the "pizza". It's entirely cosmetic.

I can't answer because I don't know anything about the sandman series other than it exists.

I'll answer it for you then. It doesn't change anything about her character. She fullfills the same role she filled in the comics. There are changes to her background...but those are a result of other factors and have nothing to do with her skin color.

[Adamas102]

There is a change, because Frodo was not shocked by seeing men with Pink Hair. He was shocked at seeing men with Dark Skin.

Was he, though? He didn't see the Haradrim at the Black Gate. Gollum identified them while Frodo and Sam hid. The description he gives the hobbits is pretty detailed, so focusing in on their skin color rather than their war paint or striking red banners or just the feeling of evil that they exude (according to Gollum) might be reading too much into it. When they were with Faramir's men during the ambush, the reaction was from Sam's point of view and the shock was at the violence. In fact, Sam's contemplation about whether the dead Haradrim had even been evil seems to show more recognition of him as just another man rather than some sort of oddity.

It has been a while since I read the books so if there was another point you're referring to, let me know. As far as I remember, there really is no moment where skin color is specifically cited as causing a reaction of shock or curiosity.

[Triceron]

Do you really think it's unreasonable to not want to eat green shit and phlegm? I

At the outset, it is already unreasonable to want to eat Green Eggs and Ham.

There is nothing normal about this except what we are told through the narrative. In real life, I wouldn't eat green colored eggs and ham, even after reading the book. It's inly within the context of the story that this absurdity is treated as normal.

If we're talking about absurdities being cosmetic, then green shit and phlegm shouldn't be much different if all we're looking at is the narrative. And that you do regard it as a significant change means it can be subjectively evaluated

Tell me how it changes the story then.

I did explain, and you straight up said it wasn't significant and started bringing up examples of pink hair.

You see, you weren't asking my opinion on significant change. You're asking a loaded question which you'd shoot down as bit meeting your own personal standard of being significant.

There's no way I can answer you if I don't know what you actually regard as a significant change. I'm hoping you aren't asking me a question in bad faith.

It was always going to be a different "pizza" just from moving from books (and notes) to film.

I'm asking how a black dwarf changes anything.

If you regard it as a different pizza then my reply that everyone has a subjective opinion to the change should easily suffice.

Tolkien never created a pizza with pineapples on it. It was just an undescript pizza, with toppings that are regarded by all the people in the fictional world as being a standard, like having tomato sauce and cheese. If a new writer jumps in and decides that the pizza should have pineapples and say it's always had pineapples, then that isn't something that Tolkien explicitly wrote the pizza to be.

It is a different pizza. And people can have opinions about the pizza being different.

All you're questioning here is 'what"s so bad about pineapples? It doesn't really change anything'. Cuz in this case, you're viewing the pineapples as mere cosmetic change, even though you fully regard this to be a different pizza and acknowledge the existence of pineapples on there and recognize that the original author never had them on the pizza to begin with.

already said yoursself that Tolkien never said Dwarves had to be white

It doesn't mean we can apply revisionist history to say the pizza always had pineapple on it.

If the pizza was described as being normal and with tomato sauce and cheese, then that is what it is. And if pineapple is explained elsewhere in the fictional world as being an exotic topping, then there is no reason to retrofit them onto the pizza as a 'normal topping'. It would be an exotic one in regards to the rules outlined by the author.

How does a black dwarf change the flavour of the "pizza". It's entirely cosmetic.

The same way Pineapple changes the flavour of the pizza.

It was never a topping and it changes the look and taste, and we both regard it as a different pizza to the one Tolkien originally made. Pineapple is regarded by the author as being an exotic topping, one not normally found on pizza in the locations depicted in the greater main narrative. That an exotic topping suddenly gets retroactively applied as a normal topping does not mean it is and always has been normal, nor should it be treated as a normal topping. The rules have outlined that it is an exotic one.

It doesn't matter if you don't think the taste is significantly different. The objective fact is that it is a different pizza. And we're talking about a very clear exception to the rule that is trying to be passed off as always having been the rule. Just because this new pizza restaurant has pineapple as a main ingredient on all its pizzas doesn't mean the pizzas are no different to the originals.

I'll answer it for you then. It doesn't change anything about her character. She fullfills the same role she filled in the comics. There are changes to her background...but those are a result of other factors and have nothing to do with her skin color.

Thank you for your opinion.

That's all I can regard it as.

[Sialina]

Do you really think it's unreasonable to not want to eat green shit and phlegm? I




Tell me how it changes the story then.



It was always going to be a different "pizza" just from moving from books (and notes) to television. Peter Jackson's LotR wasn't Tolkiens middle earth either. Neither was Ralph Bakshi's.

I'm asking how a black dwarf changes anything. You've already said yoursself that Tolkien never said Dwarves had to be white.

The difference is when you add pineapple...you end up with a fundamentally different pizza. It's more than a cosmetic change.

How does a black dwarf change the flavour of the "pizza". It's entirely cosmetic.



I'll answer it for you then. It doesn't change anything about her character. She fullfills the same role she filled in the comics. There are changes to her background...but those are a result of other factors and have nothing to do with her skin color.

For me it's about verisimilitude, elves comes from a time of only starlight and they live very long lives, some of the elves alive in middle earth existed before the sun. For them to have melanin with such slow evolution and being born under starlight makes no sense.

Dwarves live underground, also not known for having a lot of sunshine, so it makes no sense for them to have a lot of melanin.

Hobbits are not very common in the world, they live far north, not quite far enough for permanent ice, but pretty close, this is likely partially based on Great Britain, hobbits are not fond of adventure, and because you travel on foot, most won't have gone very far outside of the shire, they are cut off from the events of the world, living their own slow lives. It makes no sense for hobbits to have different skin colors from each other, they could've all been black, brown yellow like me or white.

If you want to have people with darker skintones in a Lord of the rings adaptation there are perfectly fine people to choose from without having to change anything from the source material. How about the people of Rhûn? they are a sea faring people so it would be easy to have a ship arrive in Numenor, traders with guards, now you have the darker skinned characters there, no lore broken, noone would care, you can add all the cool characters you want.

[Accendor]

That's exactly what it means. Or, more precisely, you can make the rules up as you go along. And there is no "rule" in the Tolkien universe that states the Dwarves have to be white.
Also, rules can change. When a rule no longer works... you change it.

I really do not want to get into the other part of that discussion, but hard disagree on this. Creating your rules and then changing them randomly at some point just makes for very bad storytelling and world building - You can see that on WoW, where the story never was great, but after they abandoned all continuity and adapt on the fly, it really has gone to shit.

[cyberglum]

I'll answer it for you then. It doesn't change anything about her character. She fullfills the same role she filled in the comics. There are changes to her background...but those are a result of other factors and have nothing to do with her skin color.

Genuine question; If race/gender swapping doesn't matter in adaptations of stories from one media to another then why do it?