Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[InfiniteCharger]

Shakespeare originally had all his female parts played by men on stage. Is that "the artist's vision" which we can't deviate from?

Or is that a product of the time Shakespeare lived in, when women were second class citizens and not allowed to be involved in the arts? Hamlet and Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet have been played by people of all walks of life for literally more than a hundred years at this point.

Your main argument against diversity is that these authors lived in times that weren't diverse, and in fact, very oppressive of people of color/women, and thus, their work through all of time cannot be diverse. To believe that, you have to basically say that the environment which these works were created don't matter, or, worse yet, that they were good, and to change them is to defy that environment in which they were created.

The example is perhaps more clear elsewhere. H.P. Lovecraft was a vile racist. But because his brand of vile racism was socially acceptable at the time, his work gained traction and noteriety. You're arguing that his racist depictions should be untouched and unaltered, that the story somehow depends on them (they do not), and to deviate from them is a faithless adaptation. I'm arguing that the themes of his work *are* worthy of adaptation IN SPITE OF the racism, which should be excised out. Meanwhile, works where the racism is the point, like The Birth of a Nation, can be relegated to the history books.

You remind me of people who take the Bible literally. The type who say women can't be priests because Jesus's 12 Apostles were men, ignoring 1) the political cobbling together of the New Testament to fit the Roman Empire's needs in the 3rd century, 2) apocryphal gospels which showed Jesus having some very close female apostles, and, most importantly, 3) the context: that Jesus would have been an unmarried Jewish man and to have close traveling companions (who would sleep and eat together in the same place) of the opposite sex would be highly abnormal and culturally taboo.

We know the history of European expansionism and colonialism over the last 500 years.
That doesn't mean ancient Europe was as "diverse" as modern Europe.
To suggest that because of that history of colonization we should pretend ancient Europe was always diverse is ridiculous.
Actually to even be more honest, why would any group that was subject to injustice want to be part of European culture in that case?
Who is making the argument that changing these stories is somehow "repayment" for the wrongs of the past.
Last I checked it was executives at these companies making up these talking points and most of them are white.

Doesn't mean that there cant be diverse stories based in a European setting as fiction.
But to argue that all fiction based on European history and mythology MUST include diversity is a problem.

It takes talent and creativity to define a world and all the different cultures, conflicts and controversies.
That includes defining the different customs, mannerisms, languages, traditions, styles of fighting, costume and so forth.
Tolkien did that and is admired for that which is how you now have D&D based games like WOW which are all directly influenced by Tolkien.
All of these games have diversity baked in, but that includes a lot of world building in defining all these "races" their customs and traditions.
So it is not like there isn't plenty of diversity in high fantasy already. It is just that Tolkien himself wrote a very specific story.
And that story had specific characters, cultures and customs. There were no night elves, void elves, night borne and so forth.
All of that kind of diversity came later, but exists in the greater genre of high fantasy.

This obsession with Tolkien is basically more or less trying to attach his prestige to a set of diversity mandates from studios.
Otherwise they would just make a new high fantasy story and do whatever they want with it.


In European mythology elves were often depicted as pale, angelic like ethereal beings or sometimes like fairies and gnomes.
And outside of high fantasy, they are most often seen associated with Christmas and Santa Claus.

[Nurasu]

takes place in a region of the world notably lacking any sort of diversity due to numerous reasons.

Notably usually means someone noted it, which in this case didn't happen.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

What the fuck does that have to do with it? That's not even remotely relatable to this.


Wrong.

The main argument is that the story -- an alternative history of the Earth -- takes place in a region of the world notably lacking any sort of diversity due to numerous reasons.

But I'm sure you'd be totally fine with T'challa being a Chinese woman ruling over Wakanda, whose population has huge swatches of Caucasians, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and other Aboriginals, and so on. Because that's literally what's going on here. The sad part is it makes even more sense for Wakanda due to how easy it is for people to travel across the world now, amongst other reasons. But I'm sure you'd lose your shit if they tried doing that in a Black Panther movie.

It'd be one thing if, say, all the dwarves on the show were portrayed by black actors. That'd be far more believable within the context of the story than a wide diversity of people. "So why is one of them black, especially a noble, while no one else is?" "I 'unno, shut up racist, it's magic. Something something Shakespeare something something DaVinci." Those are the dumbest arguments, yet it's the only thing you people seem to offer up to anyone pointing out how it doesn't make a lick of sense within the context of the story and when/where it's set.

The whole “same world alternative history” thing makes me wonder, if the the birth of man was in the first age and said age ended 500 years later according to the wiki, surely men should all be various shades of black as there is no where near enough time in the first/second age for them to have all turned white or other shades.

It very much seems like a have your cake and eat it to scenario where we should abide by it being the same world and thus limit who would be where but also ignore that by the same merit there shouldn’t even be white people at all.

[InfiniteCharger]

No, the conflict is in two contradictory statements, as outlined above.

Answer the question asked, not some other racist tangent you want to get out.


I'm not telling you what you wrote, I'M ASKING YOU WHAT YOU WROTE, you illiterate snot noodle.

This is just devolving into nonsense. Now you are arguing that I did not literally write "A story about 3 white men in the woods".
Are you saying you did not read that or are you saying you purposely ignored the part of "3 white men" because you seem to have a problem with that?

Which one is it? I really cannot understand the point of this debate now because you are really seriously being dishonest if you don't understand what "3 white men in the woods" means.

Are you just incapable of correctly parsing the most banal statements?

I am capable of reading and writing just fine. You just keep moving goal posts when your lose your argument.
To the point of pretending that this is somehow about reading comprehension.

To what extent? To practically anyone, it doesn't matter if a character is 6'1" but the actor is 6'2". Yet somehow skin color differences matter? Where do you draw the line between what is CLEARLY not a problem to deviate on, and what is?

You're throwing out vague statements like "background", but that's never going to be 100% accurate to the books; so where do you deviate, by how much, and why?

How on earth do we get into a discussion of height when we were specifically talking about my made up story called "3 white men in the woods". This is what I mean about you being dishonest and changing goal posts to avoid the fact your argument makes no sense. The story is about "3 white men in the woods". There is no other narrative. You cannot talk your way out of the logical conclusion that an adaptation of this story can only cast 3 white actors and be faithful to the source material. All this talk about misrepresenting your point is just you trying to avoid the logical fact that your point about "narrative" makes no sense and is irrelevant.

The only spouting nonsense here is you, because no casting in the history of the world has been absolutely 100% accurate to the source material. Period. You're retreating into an illusory argument that holds no merit, neither logically nor practically.

This isn't about 100% accuracy, it is about the point you made which is that they should not be "excluding" people. You brought it up and now you want to pretend that this isn't what you said. Now it is about how tall these people are and not about skin color? Are you seriously saying this is all about how tall someone is when casting? Just stop. If the story is explicitly written about a certain group of people with certain characteristics, then of course the casting should follow that. Your nonsense about "narrative" is irrelevant unless the studio or those making this adaptation are deliberately making changes in casting for some other reason than staying true to the original story. We have been over this many times relative to the rings of power but you refuse to admit that this isn't about "narrative" but about DEI policies specifically for promoting diverse casting choices. This is a fact. You are just making up irrelevant talking points and then get mad when shown to be wrong.

And how do you know what an author INTENDED for a character to be, in the absence of direct statements? Clearly it can't just be 100% text accuracy, because that's NEVER fulfilled. So how do you get this information, then? How do you decide what can and can't be changed?

Tar Miriel was written explicitly as white. Stop ducking this specific example. You are so desperate to defend your made up theoretical casting argument that you ignore the specific examples that I am giving you from this show. And you keep doing it because you keep getting proven wrong. This isn't about staying true to the source material. They have said it multiple times now. That is my point and the casting goes along with this "new narrative" and it has absolutely nothing to do with what Tolkien wrote. He was very specific about this character and therefore it wasn't "open to interpretation". You are just making up nonsense that is totally and completely irrelevant to the facts at hand.

And if being true to the source was the goal or of any interest, that'd be relevant. But that's not the goal, and it can't be, for reasons I've explained 50 times now and you just keep ignoring because you have no answer.

You have not explained anything, because the people making this show have said specifically why they made these changes and part of that is to add more inclusion in the casting process. This is not about Tolkien it is about DEI policies at Amazon itself. Your made up argument about "narrative" is irrelevant because they have changed the whole narrative of the 2nd age by compressing timelines and many other things. It is a totally different story and has no real relationship to Tolkien other than in name only. You keep trying to argue that this is the same as Tolkien but it is not. You keep saying it is about "narrative" as if what Tolkien literally wrote is not the most important reference point. You have made it abundantly clear that you don't care how much the source material has changed.

Below is the only narrative that is relevant to this discussion about casting. Stop trying to pretend your made up "narrative" theoretical argument has any relevance to reality. The literal writing of the author is being changed to suit the policies of the studio. This is not a debate. The studio is open and public about it. Just admit you are wrong and stop pretending to be right.

We recognize that ensuring equity in the future requires correcting inequities of the past. This policy will focus on specific goals with respect to the stories we tell and the people we engage to tell them. Going forward, we’ll hold ourselves accountable by tracking data, and we plan to increase representation both on screen and behind the camera year-over-year. As our trusted creative and production partners, we ask you to join us in these efforts so we may move the industry toward a more representative and inclusive future.

https://dei.amazonstudios.com/inclusion-policy/

Also: you've never seen West Side Story, have you. Not to mention that Romeo and Juliet IS ALREADY AN ADAPTATION based on earlier material (like "Pyramus and Thisbe" by Ovid). You didn't know that, either. Because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Romeo and Juliet is Romeo and Juliet. It is not an adaptation of anything. You are so desperate to win, changing goal posts, ducking and dodging to avoid the fact that some stories are written specifically to include only white people. There I said it. And that is what you seem to have a problem with. Otherwise, why are you constantly bickering with me about it?

Then take them to task for that. Call it a bullshit statement, I'm fine with that.

I have said this before but somehow you keep trying to argue in justification for it as if you are defending it. Otherwise what are you arguing?

But it has NOTHING to do with the fact that you don't want black people in it. And stop trying to pretend it does.

I gave the example of Tar Miriel. You keep avoiding that in order to promote a diatribe that is irrelevant to the point.
You are calling me racist but have a problem with calling Tolkien racist for explicitly writing Tar Miriel as a white woman.
Then you want to sit here and claim that making such a change shows how "I am racist" for not liking it because it isn't in the source material.
Your circular inconsistent logic is the problem because by definition, if you don't like the fact that Tolkien wrote her as a white woman, then by definition you are calling him racist in defending this casting change. You introduced this issue of casting and therefore you are implicitly making that argument.

And I have said, MANY TIMES, that IF YOU HAVE A GOOD NARRATIVE REASON for a specific skin color, then I am ENTIRELY FINE with casting for that skin color. And that I have a problem ONLY for those stories where there IS NO GOOD REASON to restrict casting.

What narrative is there other than the source mateiral? You keep saying this like there is some "other" narrative at work here. If Tolkien literally wrote that Tar Miriel was a white woman born from a white mother and a white father who in turn had white grand parents, then how is there some "other" narrative. What the hell are you talking about? That is not Tolkien is the point. You can certainly change the narrative but stop calling it Tolkien. I keep saying this but you keep going on in circles about this BS about some made up "narrative" other than the actual source material.

I've written this out a half dozen times, with detailed instructions to read and re-read. And you're STILL refusing to acknowledge it.

So at this point let's clarify: are you just incapable of having an honest conversation engaging with what people ARE ACTUALLY AND REPEATEDLY SAYING, or are you aware of it, but ignoring it intentionally because you know it completely deflates your entire standpoint?

Just let me know, please. Almost every paragraph you wrote has the same response from me: that is not what I'm saying, I've explained it twenty times now and asked you to carefully read it, and the next paragraph you AGAIN go on with the same shit.

How about this: write it out. Acknowledge what my point is. Repeat it back to me. Then I don't have to re-write the same fucking thing to every one of your inane responses that have this massive blind spot to the actual argument.

And if you don't want to do that, then we all know that you're just unwilling to honestly engage with the discussion, and if you're just a dishonest interlocutor only interested in spewing incoherent racist tirades, just go away and do it somewhere else.

I gave the specific example of Tar Miriel as an example of casting that goes against the source material, not just because of skin color but because of wholesale changes to Tolkien's lore. You keep AVOIDING that because you want to keep going on about some made up BS of some other "narrative" more important than the source material. And I have shown you that the only reason this casting was done by the studio is for their DEI policy. That is the only narrative that matters here. You keep claiming that somehow these wholesale changes to the source material are still "faithful to Tolkien". They are not, this is what this argument is about and there is no other "narrative" that is going to make that true. You just keep going in circles trying to avoid that logical conclusion.

Okay, quote me where I said this. In any way.

You're just lying to my face now.

QUOTE WHERE I SAID THIS.

You literally said this a page or so ago:

Sorry, what? We've literally had people say "they're just changing it for the money", and then had you say "no, if it was just for the money they wouldn't change anything".



That depends on how you got there. Did you have a good REASON for it, or was it just "idk man, black people just don't, like, fit"?

I specifically said my problem is with an exclusionary casting process; you can't just gloss over the core part of my argument and jump straight to the end result.

Why would you have a problem with the exclusionary casting unless the source material is not inclusive to begin with? Which by extension means the source material is not inclusive. How do you sit here and go pages of pages arguing that somehow I am misunderstanding your point when you literally keep talking about casting as the crux of your argument. You just do not want to accept that this literally is what you are saying. Otherwise, why are you introducing casting into a discussion about sticking to the source material unless you believe that the nature of the characters in the source material isn't part of the problem? You cannot keep following this line of debate without coming to the logical conclusion that there must be something wrong with the source material if it doesn't allow for diverse casting. Don't try and pretend that this is not what you are saying. Otherwise why are you arguing with me about it?

[Nurasu]

Why would you have a problem with the exclusionary casting unless the source material is not inclusive to begin with? Which by extension means the source material is not inclusive. How do you sit here and go pages of pages arguing that somehow I am misunderstanding your point when you literally keep talking about casting as the crux of your argument. You just do not want to accept that this literally is what you are saying. Otherwise, why are you introducing casting into a discussion about sticking to the source material unless you believe that the nature of the characters in the source material isn't part of the problem? You cannot keep following this line of debate without coming to the logical conclusion that there must be something wrong with the source material if it doesn't allow for diverse casting. Don't try and pretend that this is not what you are saying. Otherwise why are you arguing with me about it?

The source material is ambivalent. To ignore its ambivalence would mean introducing racist casting measures.

[InfiniteCharger]

The source material is ambivalent. To ignore its ambivalence would mean introducing racist casting measures.

There is nothing ambivalent about Tar Miriel being the daughter of King Tar Palantir in the lineage of the Numenoreans.
She is described as the "most beautiful" and in "The History of Middle Earth" has silver hair unlike most Noldor.
All of the Numenorean rulers are descended from a union of Elves (Noldor) and Men.
Noldor are described as fair skinned with black or brown hair.

[Biomega]

This is just devolving into nonsense. Now you are arguing that I did not literally write "A story about 3 white men in the woods".

Holy shit are you blind.

I. Am. ASKING. YOU. For. Details. About. What. You. Wrote.

I am not saying saying what you did or did not write.

I AM ASKING YOU. ASKING. ASKING.

Got it now? Is that enough to get through?

I am capable of reading and writing just fine.

No.

QED above.

How on earth do we get into a discussion of height

Because that's an arbitrary characteristic like any other. Pick something else if height doesn't work for you. The point is that you can never be 100% text accurate, and this is an example of something that while not text-accurate, doesn't bother anyone. Yet skin color does.

That's all.

This has nothing to do with your hypothetical 3-white-men story. This is a general point.

This isn't about 100% accuracy, it is about the point you made which is that they should not be "excluding" people. You brought it up and now you want to pretend that this isn't what you said. Now it is about how tall these people are and not about skin color? Are you seriously saying this is all about how tall someone is when casting?

I'm not sure I believe that you genuinely didn't understand the point I'm making.

If you REALLY and HONESTLY did not understand, I am very sorry. Clearly you have some kind of intellectual disability, and I should not have railed on you. That's my bad, and I'll refrain from doing so any further.

If you're just pretending you don't understand, then fuck right off.

Tar Miriel was written explicitly as white. Stop ducking this specific example.

I'm not. I have no idea if it's true, since I don't recall the original, but that doesn't really matter. I'm entirely willing to humor the point, and say she was written explicitly and in no uncertain terms as white. 100% on board with that.

The point is, DOES THAT MATTER for the narrative, or is it just some cosmetic detail like many others, MANY of which are often ignored when casting for adaptations and nobody cares.

So you would have to show that either:

1. Her being white has a narrative function and is not just a cosmetic detail
-or-
2. No other cosmetic detail can ever be changed either, about anything in any adaptation

I'm fine with a demonstration for either one.

You have not explained anything, because the people making this show have said specifically why they made these changes and part of that is to add more inclusion in the casting process.

Something which I've never denied nor ever endorsed. But that's not what I'm talking about. I've said what I am talking about explicitly, WITH INSTRUCTIONS, about 10 times now. I really cannot see how it's unclear, unless you're deliberately ignoring it.

You have made it abundantly clear that you don't care how much the source material has changed.

Finally you have said something accurate.

Romeo and Juliet is Romeo and Juliet. It is not an adaptation of anything.

I can only repeat: you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. R&J is not an original story. It's an adaptation of previous materials, told in a different setting. That's, you know, PROVEN FACT.

I have said this before but somehow you keep trying to argue in justification for it as if you are defending it. Otherwise what are you arguing?

The thing I've stated explicitly in big letters and with instructions to read a half dozen times. You may find it if you look.

What narrative is there other than the source mateiral? You keep saying this like there is some "other" narrative at work here.

No. I've never said anything about an "other" narrative, in any way shape or form. I've said I need NARRATIVE REASONS for something to be relevant, I've never claimed or suggested that there is more than one narrative going on somewhere or somehow.

Engage with WHAT I SAID, please. Stop making shit up.

I gave the specific example of Tar Miriel as an example of casting that goes against the source material, not just because of skin color but because of wholesale changes to Tolkien's lore.

And I've said, repeatedly, that something being not like it is in the original isn't relevant unless there's a NARRATIVE REASON for it to be relevant. Everything else is just cosmetic details that can be AND ARE changed in all adaptations, all the time. If you have a good reason not to change something, then that's fine and it shouldn't be changed. BUT ONLY IF YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A GOOD REASON.

Why would you have a problem with the exclusionary casting unless the source material is not inclusive to begin with?

That's a false statement. The CASTING PROCESS should not be exclusionary; that doesn't mean the SOURCE MATERIAL is. At most you could say it's "not racially diverse", which is a very different thing. That doesn't mean it's "exclusionary" or "not inclusive", because it's not contemporary and thus not held to the same standards of inclusivity. But a contemporary casting process IS. YOU are smuggling in the racism by using the wrong words to describe things.

You're playing it fast and loose with terminology here without understanding what it really means.


Also, you completely ignored my request for you to please demonstrate that you understand my argument, despite me being VERY clear about it. So that probably means you know your argument holds no water, but if you admit as much, you look like a racist tool.

[Nurasu]

There is nothing ambivalent about Tar Miriel being the daughter of King Tar Palantir in the lineage of the Numenoreans.
She is described as the "most beautiful" and in "The History of Middle Earth" has silver hair unlike most Noldor.
All of the Numenorean rulers are descended from a union of Elves (Noldor) and Men.
Noldor are described as fair skinned with black or brown hair.

You're conflating fair with white, and are disregarding Tolkien's own rather passionate disapproval of comparing LoTR with the real world by continuing in this vein.

[gamz247]

You're conflating fair with white, and are disregarding Tolkien's own rather passionate disapproval of comparing LoTR with the real world by continuing in this vein.

4: having very little color, coloring, or pigmentation : very light
- fair hair
- fair skin
- a person of fair complexion

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair

[Nurasu]

4: having very little color, coloring, or pigmentation : very light
- fair hair
- fair skin
- a person of fair complexion

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair

5: pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality
The innkeeper had two fair daughters.


Considering how little skin color played into the rest of his work (Dwarves' are never even mentioned, for instance), I'm leaning toward this one as far as his intent.

[eschatological]

What the fuck does that have to do with it? That's not even remotely relatable to this.

Someone mentioned how Shakespeare actors should be all white because Shakespeare wrote plays about all white people.

Wrong.

The main argument is that the story -- an alternative history of the Earth -- takes place in a region of the world notably lacking any sort of diversity due to numerous reasons.

You are the only one saying this. As someone else pointed out, if this was genuinely an alternate history of man, it would START would black people. Also, Europe as a whole was very diverse from even before medieval times, in terms of Middle Easterners, North Africans, and, religiously, Muslims, Jews, and pagans. Now, maybe the British Isles were never really diverse then, but that's not what you suggested. In fact, if Rohan is based on Spain, and Gondor France (since the LOTR most closely mirrors the conflicts of the World Wars), you would expect some darker skinned people there pretty much through their history stretching back to the Roman Empire.

- - - Updated - - -

We know the history of European expansionism and colonialism over the last 500 years.
That doesn't mean ancient Europe was as "diverse" as modern Europe.
To suggest that because of that history of colonization we should pretend ancient Europe was always diverse is ridiculous.
Actually to even be more honest, why would any group that was subject to injustice want to be part of European culture in that case?
Who is making the argument that changing these stories is somehow "repayment" for the wrongs of the past.
Last I checked it was executives at these companies making up these talking points and most of them are white.

Firstly, I didn't suggest these times were diverse as modern times. I said that *because* they're not as diverse, we shouldn't care about casting black actors to play race-neutral parts. In this case, race neutral means - "race not being an integral part of their CHARACTER" as opposed to "race not being a part of their DESCRIPTION."

Secondly, Europe has been fairly diverse since the Roman Empire. The British Isles, the Germanic tribes, maybe not as much, but Italy/Spain/France, those areas were literal melting pots of the three nearby continents (the Middle East/AKA Asia, Africa, and Europe)

In European mythology elves were often depicted as pale, angelic like ethereal beings or sometimes like fairies and gnomes.
And outside of high fantasy, they are most often seen associated with Christmas and Santa Claus.

So you admit they were tiny faery like creatures - but have no problem with Tolkein making them tall?!? Hypocrisy much?!? /s

[Rocksteady 87]

Notably usually means someone noted it, which in this case didn't happen.

Except he did note it... when it was a notable change. Like he did with the Southrons. Again, if it wasn't a distinguishable characteristic (compared to the 'norm' of the region), there'd be absolutely no reason to mention it.

Also again, this is the same man who spent an inordinate amount of time describing the smallest detail of his world...

The whole “same world alternative history” thing makes me wonder, if the the birth of man was in the first age and said age ended 500 years later according to the wiki, surely men should all be various shades of black as there is no where near enough time in the first/second age for them to have all turned white or other shades.

It very much seems like a have your cake and eat it to scenario where we should abide by it being the same world and thus limit who would be where but also ignore that by the same merit there shouldn’t even be white people at all.

You may have noticed the first two sentences of my last paragraph of the post you quoted. "It'd be one thing if, say, all the dwarves on the show were portrayed by black actors. That'd be far more believable within the context of the story than a wide diversity of people."

Shakespeare originally had all his female parts played by men on stage. Is that "the artist's vision" which we can't deviate from?

Having had time to let this stir in my head, I realized that this is exactly the same argument as is being made. In his time, they were using inappropriate actors to portray specific roles; just in this case it was men playing women. Why, exactly, was it okay to deviate from that in order to cast more appropriate actors for the role, but not here?

[eschatological]

Having had time to let this stir in my head, I realized that this is exactly the same argument as is being made. In his time, they were using inappropriate actors to portray specific roles; just in this case it was men playing women. Why, exactly, was it okay to deviate from that in order to cast more appropriate actors for the role, but not here?

It wasn't okay, just like blackface wasn't okay, yet he had white men playing Othello, a play he specifically wrote about a black man. The point is that that's how Shakespeare put on his plays, because of the context of the society he lived in (which didn't allow women or black men on stage). So, since that's how the play was originally put on - does that mean we have to stick with that forever? Because the society didn't allow for anything else, even if Shakespeare pretty clearly wrote about everyone?

Are all the old version of Peter Pan where Peter is famously played by a woman invalid adaptation?

Is Michael Jackson's The Wiz an invalid adaptation of The Wizard of Oz?

A hypothetical: If I put on a Lovecraft story in a movie, but changed it so it wasn't racist, but kept the eldritch horror, is that an invalid adaptation?

[gamz247]

5: pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality
The innkeeper had two fair daughters.

Considering how little skin color played into the rest of his work (Dwarves' are never even mentioned, for instance), I'm leaning toward this one as far as his intent.

"And last of all the mounting wave, green and cold and plumed with foam, climbing over the land, took to its bosom Tar-Míriel the Queen, fairer than silver or ivory or pearls."

http://www.henneth-annun.net/events_view.cfm?evid=711

It wasn't okay, just like blackface wasn't okay, yet he had white men playing Othello, a play he specifically wrote about a black man. The point is that that's how Shakespeare put on his plays, because of the context of the society he lived in (which didn't allow women or black men on stage). So, since that's how the play was originally put on - does that mean we have to stick with that forever? Because the society didn't allow for anything else, even if Shakespeare pretty clearly wrote about everyone?

Are all the old version of Peter Pan where Peter is famously played by a woman invalid adaptation?

Is Michael Jackson's The Wiz an invalid adaptation of The Wizard of Oz?

A hypothetical: If I put on a Lovecraft story in a movie, but changed it so it wasn't racist, but kept the eldritch horror, is that an invalid adaptation?

I think you are confusing adaptation and portrayal. The Wiz is an adaptation of The Wizard of Oz. It is not simply The Wizard of Oz with all black actors. Women portray Peter Pan, oddly enough, because of English labor laws in the early 20th century. However, they also happen to look like early teenage boys a lot longer than early teenage boys do.

[Biomega]

"And last of all the mounting wave, green and cold and plumed with foam, climbing over the land, took to its bosom Tar-Míriel the Queen, fairer than silver or ivory or pearls."

And what makes more sense here, "whiter than silver" or "more beautiful/precious than silver"?

Ivory, pearls, and silver or gold (depending on cultural context) are THE classical reference materials of great value in ancient times (along with jade if you're looking at East Asian contexts). They were the most precious of the widely used ornamental materials at the time, as e.g. diamonds didn't really come to the forefront as ornamental gemstones until the modern era; they were mostly used for their hardness during ancient times, e.g. for drilling holes into other precious stones, not for their beauty which doesn't really come out without sophisticated cutting and polishing technologies.

[gamz247]

And what makes more sense here, "whiter than silver" or "more beautiful/precious than silver"?

I can see that passage meaning both, actually.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I can see that passage meaning both, actually.

What does whiter then silver ivory or pearls look like on a person, a porcelain doll?

[BigToast]

Y'all gotta chill.

[gamz247]

What does whiter then silver ivory or pearls look like on a person, a porcelain doll?

Sure. Who says Númenóreans can't have skin that color?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Sure. Who says Númenóreans can't have skin that color?

Nobody I suppose, though it might be a bit hard to find some porcelain people to cast for book accuracy for those who want it.