1. #2541
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    So what you say is "objective fact", and what I say is "my opinion".

    Really? You're making it THAT easy to dismiss you?


    But that's not the fact anyone is disagreeing with (and I love how you went from "she's white" to "she has silver hair" all of a sudden).

    The problem is that you claim "her skin color is NOT just a cosmetic detail" as "objective fact". And that is bullshit you cannot (and apparently don't want to) substantiate.

    It seems you really cannot stop going back to your safety blanket no matter where things go, huh.


    Since we're on the topic of "stop making up BS", I'd like you to prove this is true, please.

    You wouldn't be making up BS. WOULD YOU?


    So the reason YOU brought it up is...?


    Allow me:


    So yeah, liar liar pants on fire.


    But you didn't talk about "the entire work", you talked about VERY SPECIFIC things.

    I'd like proof THESE SPECIFIC THINGS are protected, like you said. Because that is very different from THE WHOLE WORK being protected - legally as well as in the vernacular.

    Prove your claims or GTFO, really.


    I want YOU to PROVE what you said is TRUE.

    Just going "lmao don't you know it is?" is not going to fly here, maggot.

    You've been lying your ass off for close to a week. I'm tired of this BS-slinging.

    PROVE YOUR OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS OR SHUT UP.

    YOU brought this whole legal stuff up. YOU DID. Not me. YOU. YOU. YOU.

    Now demonstrate you actually know wtf you're talking about, or admit you just made shit up.
    Come on dude. Just come off it. Your opinion on this show is all you can talk about.
    The point of white hair is that this is something that is also different in the show vs the source material.
    The point is that Amazon is not following the source material and they don't have to and are well within their right not to.
    Just as any other company that buys the rights and does another work set in Tolkien's world doesn't have to.
    Whether those changes that are made from the source material are "good", "cosmetic", "releavant" or anything else is pure interpretation on Amazons part or any other studio. Just the ability to like those changes and see the result as "good" is purely subjective opinion on the part of the viewer separate from the facts of what Tolkien wrote.

    Stop pretending this is about anything more than that.

    I don't need to prove facts because they are facts. You just keep doing this silly duck dance around things you cant refute.

    Surely your point here is not to pretend to argue with me about the facts of copyright law or what legally Amazon can and cannot do with this adaptation.
    Last edited by InfiniteCharger; 2022-08-11 at 11:58 PM.

  2. #2542
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Even as a pure work of fiction within the 'Middle-Earth' universe, I don't think anyone is really mistaking this to be an authentic retelling of any of Tolkien's work.

    Like, even games like Shadows of Mordor took huge creative liberties with the LOTR material. I don't really quite understand why people are dying on a hill on having Rings of Power be super authentic. It never will be.
    I agree with this. I'll just be happy to see Elves, Orcs, and Rings of Power running around.

  3. #2543
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    You're misquoting.

    The objective fact in question was how a certain character was visually described in the books (Hair color in the example), and how that description is by all accounts factual, objectively.
    Actually not.

    THAT fact no one would dispute (it's there, black and white). What was in question there was whether "skin color is NOT just a cosmetic detail" was an objective fact, which is NOT in evidence.

    Here's the original quote:
    if Tolkien spent a large portion of his life writing the geneology of Numenor, then obviously he had a narrative reason for it and that these things weren't "simply cosmetic".
    And here's my responses:
    Prove this. That's not self-evident.
    "Skin color is not just a cosmetic detail" is not an objective fact
    I was not - there or anywhere else - disputing what was actually in the books. In fact this whole thing STARTED with me saying I don't know what's in the books because I haven't read them in a while, but I'm fine with just accepting what people say is in there is in fact in there, because my argument isn't contingent on that anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    So applying a statement such as 'Skintone is just a cosmetic detail' is really just an opinion, because there isn't anything pertaining to actual facts when it comes to Tolkien's work.
    No. There is an easy test for this, that doesn't require personal preference: does the narrative change in any way by changing this detail, outside of the detail itself?

    As I've said many times, where there are actual narrative reasons for someone's skin color, I'm 100% fine with preserving that in casting. It's just that in the vast majority of cases, there isn't actually such a reason, and skin color is on the same narrative level as any number of other details that can be and are changed in adaptations all the time without anyone ever complaining, such as height, eye color, hair color, horse coats, color of clothing, etc. etc. If you want to elevate skin color above those details which are tacitly accepted as mutable by practically everyone, give me a REASON.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    One could make a point that it doesn't matter what color the Eggs and Ham is, the core story is about trying something new while the actual color is merely cosmetic. It could be Purple Eggs and Ham, or Blue Eggs and Ham, and the story wouldn't play out any differently. But if we're going by objective facts of the story, then the Eggs and Ham are objectively Green. So one could say the Ham and Eggs don't need to be Green in order to be told because color is purely cosmetic, but that would be purely opinion.
    Why would that be purely opinion if you can DEMONSTRATE that nothing about the story changes if you switch out the color to green?

    Opinions are preferences outside of evidentiary contingency. They need no justification and have no refutation. This example, however, is easy to provide evidence for and justify. Having an opinion that is identical to an argument is pure redundancy; it's like saying "I have faith in physics" - you're free to do that, but it's redundant because faith is belief without justifiable reason and you can already believe in physics WITH a justifiable reason.

    If you refuse to engage with the argument for a position YOU HOLD and only want to engage with it as an opinion, you're free to do so; but that means the discussion is over, because there is no arguing about opinions. And of course you can't do that for arguments made by SOMEONE ELSE, because turning them into a redundant opinion is not up to you, only to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    We can't just pretend the story doesn't exist
    Which no one is doing, or ever claimed they were, or ever said they wanted to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    On the other hand, changing the color of the Eggs and Ham takes away from the spirit of the original story which was written specifically to have Green Eggs and Ham
    That's saying "the color is important because it was written like that originally, and it was written like that originally because it's important". Circular arguments aren't arguments. If you think there is a reason, name it; don't turn things into a tautology.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Come on dude. Just come off it. Your opinion on this show is all you can talk about.
    You're objectively wrong. I can make arguments about it, which aren't simply subjective preference - which is what I'm doing. If you want to refute those arguments (which I encourage), do it by bringing better arguments.

    You don't get to bring in your opinion against my argument; and you also don't get to turn my argument into an opinion. That's dishonest discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    I don't need to prove facts because they are facts.
    And we need to take your word for that, or something? The whole POINT of providing proof is to show they ACTUALLY ARE FACTS. That's what proof means.

    Are you for real? Like actually?

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    You just keep doing this silly duck dance around things you cant refute.
    That's not how the burden of proof works.

    You don't just get to say things, claim they're facts, and then wait to be disproven. YOU make a claim, YOU have to prove it. That's how discourse functions.

    Otherwise please disprove that you are not just being a massive troll and writing these things wrong on purpose, because you actually agree with me and just want to have a laugh RP-ing as someone with bad arguments. Which is, according to you, A FACT I don't need to prove because it's a FACT. And if you disagree, disprove it.

    See how that works?

  4. #2544
    Quote Originally Posted by Orby View Post
    I think we should all look at this Rings of Power show as a show very distant from Tolkien's work and is more as a show that's based loosely on Tolkien's work instead. At the end of the day we still have the books always there for us when we want them and we'll always have the movies that you loved, nothing is changing. I think we should try and be more open minded when looking at the show. Try and separate yourself from a faithful adaptation and see something as a loose work,

    Look at Jurassic Park, a movie that is nothing like the book, at all, and still is praised as a great movie. Men in black is another movie based on a comic that is very different from the movie they created, and get this, 'they replaced a white dude from the comics, with a black dude in the movie (Will Smith)' *gasp*. How about Jaws... the classic movie, I have read the books, its very different from the classic movie. and I wont even go into Starship Trooper, Die Hard and many others that ignored source material and changed a lot for the sake of finding success.

    Now that's not to say the show will be a success, it'll probably flop (I don't think it will flop due to the name recognition), but the biggest bit of whinging I have seen on this forum so far has been, 'they changed the source material' which isn't a big deal when it comes to adaptations. It happens a lot, sometimes for the best sometimes for the worst.

    We should try and embrace the show for what it is, not what it is compared to. That's how I am going into it anyway. Let's try and look at it as its own thing. Like Jurassic Park, or Die Hard or Men in Black was.

    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.

  5. #2545
    Quote Originally Posted by Gumble View Post
    Getting Will Smith [...] made that movie WAY better due to his acting ability.
    Well, here's something I never thought I'd hear said XD

  6. #2546
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Actually not.

    THAT fact no one would dispute (it's there, black and white). What was in question there was whether "skin color is NOT just a cosmetic detail" was an objective fact, which is NOT in evidence.
    "Skin detail is (not) cosmetic" is purely opinion. It is interpretation. It isn't objective fact. I'm not sure what you're confused about otherwise, since what you're talking about here is not fact to begin with, and no one has agreed upon your use of the term to be factual whatsoever. Defining whether any detail as being cosmetic or not is all rooted in opinion.

    I'll even go back to the Green Eggs and Ham example. Is the color of the Eggs and Ham merely a cosmetic detail? There is no such thing as an objective, factual answer to this question. It is purely subjective.

    No. There is an easy test for this, that doesn't require personal preference: does the narrative change in any way by changing this detail, outside of the detail itself?
    You'd fail your own test since your own question is subjective. One can only interpret a narrative change though any change in details. There is no way to measure whether a change to the story is a narrative one or a non-narrative one, everything is contextualized through the reader's opinion. Does changing Green Eggs and Ham to Purple Eggs and Ham change the narrative? There is no objective answer to this, because the color of the Eggs and Ham are subjectively tied to the narrative. John can say yes it affects the narrative, Kevin can say no it doesn't affect the narrative, and neither of them would be wrong.

    Why would that be purely opinion if you can DEMONSTRATE that nothing about the story changes if you switch out the color to green?
    The entire concept of Green Eggs and Ham is meant to invoke an idea of tasty food that is visually abnormal and unpleasing. It'd be quite different if we're talking about Yellow Eggs and Pink Ham, wouldn't you agree? I could argue that the narrative changes if the story was about normal colored Eggs and Ham. And I could also argue that the narrative doesn't change if we're only concerned about Sam being stubborn in trying any type of food regardless of its color, even if its normal like yellow eggs and pink ham. It's really up to interpretation, that is the whole point. There is no objective factual answer here.

    Let's put it this way - if all the Dwarves in this new show were digitally altered to have bright-blue skin like the aliens in Avatar, would you still argue that skin color is merely cosmetic? Extreme example this may be, this hammers in the point that there is no objective factual answer to this question.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-12 at 01:36 AM.

  7. #2547
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It isn't objective fact.
    Exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I'm not sure what you're confused about otherwise, since what you're talking about here is not fact to begin with, and no one has agreed upon your use of the term to be factual whatsoever. Defining whether any detail as being cosmetic or not is all rooted in opinion.
    I've given an empirical test. You don't have to take this on faith, you can just... test it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Is the color of the Eggs and Ham merely a cosmetic detail?
    Yes, but with one caveat - it matters, in this case, that they're NOT yellow. Aside from that, pretty much any color works. The only narratively important part is that it's a color other than yellow, not that it's green specifically. (Rhyme aside, of course, which you can include by limiting it to any color of appropriate syllabic structure, if you like)

    These things are TESTABLE. They're not just subjective preferences. You can check if something changes or not.

  8. #2548
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    On the one hand, it'd be perfectly acceptable to swap out Green Eggs and Ham for any other color with no loss to the integrity of the story; completely valid and viable. On the other hand, changing the color of the Eggs and Ham takes away from the spirit of the original story which was written specifically to have Green Eggs and Ham; yet a different completely valid and viable point. There is no right or wrong here.
    Your logic breaks down here. The "spirit of the original" is subjective. Specific detail by an author isn't indicative of spirit at all, it is purely descriptive. Whether that description informs the "spirit" of the work is different from work to work.

    I hate to go back to the same well again: Black Panther vs. Nick Fury.
    Both are described as black.
    The spirit of the Black Panther story is about an African Prince of a country which purposefully hid and isolated itself during European colonization.
    The spirit of the Nick Fury story is about a government bureaucrat putting together a team of superheroes.

    The former's spirit is changed by changing the description of the character. The latter is not. These are analyses made independent of the same descriptors.

    The question is if there's an objective reading of when a description is tied to the spirit of a work. And I think Biomega's definition is perfectly fine: Does the description changing change the spirit of the story? I'd add another question: if it does change the spirit of the story, is there another worthwhile story to be told there as well?

    Of course, there's bad faith arguments to be made that changing Nick Fury (or War Machine's race) does change the spirit of the story, but it seems obvious to me that that can be dismissed for the bad faith it is.

  9. #2549
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Yes, but with one caveat - it matters, in this case, that they're NOT yellow. Aside from that, pretty much any color works. The only narratively important part is that it's a color other than yellow, not that it's green specifically. (Rhyme aside, of course, which you can include by limiting it to any color of appropriate syllabic structure, if you like)

    These things are TESTABLE. They're not just subjective preferences. You can check if something changes or not.
    You can't exactly waive away Yellow as though it were an exception to your rule. It is the singular point I'm using to illustrate how a cosmetic detail CAN have a crucial impact to overall narrative, if interpreted so.

    And if you were to pass off any other variation of Green Eggs and Ham, would you say that everyone would accept this new color variation as nothing more than mere cosmetic detail? It would be mired in controversy. You would have people coming out of the woodwork both in defense on both sides of the fence. Meaning it is NOT an objective fact that this is merely a cosmetic detail that has no impact on the overall narrative. It can, because the narrative itself is subject to the reader's interpretation of the product of the whole.

    Someone could interpret the narrative as singularly focusing on Sam's stubborness, and they could be fine with any color of Eggs and Ham. Another person could see the signficance of the Eggs and Ham being Green to be narratively important to invoke a sense of disgust, since it is visually comparative to moldy food. There is no singular objective way to define the narrative.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-12 at 01:56 AM.

  10. #2550
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    And if you were to pass off any other variation of Green Eggs and Ham, would you say that everyone would accept this new color variation as nothing more than mere cosmetic detail? It would be mired in controversy. You would have people coming out of the woodwork both in defense on both sides of the fence. Meaning it is NOT an objective fact that this is merely a cosmetic detail that has no impact on the overall narrative. It can, because the narrative itself is subject to the reader's interpretation of the product of the whole.
    .
    There is such a thing as literary analysis. Once the analysis is made that the "spirit" of Green Eggs and Ham is about "trying new things," you can objectively say that any color eggs which don't conform to "old things" is fine to maintain the spirit of the story.

  11. #2551
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Your logic breaks down here. The "spirit of the original" is subjective. Specific detail by an author isn't indicative of spirit at all, it is purely descriptive. Whether that description informs the "spirit" of the work is different from work to work.
    The 'Spirit of the original' is purely subjectively defined. Just as my explanation to Biomega here about the narrative, there's no way you can define the spirit of the original through the Author, it can only be defined through the lens of the reader and how they choose to interpret the works.

    Like with Lovecraft's work and some of his more controversial racially insensitive inclusions in his story. Would we say it's in the 'Spirit of the originals' to include the racism as originally depicted? Or could we have a story that is just as relevant to the "Spirit of the original" with its removal? These are only answerable through the reader, nothing more or less.

  12. #2552
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    You can't exactly waive away Yellow as though it were an exception to your rule.
    Why not? I've ALWAYS included a provision for characteristics that DO have a narrative reason - if it matters a character has white skin, then casting should preserve that, too. It's only irrelevant for cases without a narrative reason. That was always my point from the beginning, and it's the same case here.

    I'm not saying it NEVER matters, I'm saying where it DOESN'T, you can change it. And that's always been what I was saying, from the start.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    And if you were to pass off any other variation of Green Eggs and Ham, would you say that everyone would accept this new color variation as nothing more than mere cosmetic detail?
    That's a flawed question. I can't control people's minds.

    What I can say is that people who wouldn't accept it wouldn't have a GOOD REASON to not accept it. That doesn't mean they WILL.

    And by the way: NOT changing it ALSO doesn't mean "everyone would accept the old color variation" either. So it's really not a good point to be trying to make.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It would be mired in controversy.
    Yes, and? Is something only valid if it causes no controversy? Or perhaps only if it causes minor controversy? How much controversy do you say is acceptable?

    The best you can do is check for good reasons; popularity isn't always going to follow that, but that's not a disqualifier. Lots of things were unpopular in some way but were done anyway WITH GOOD REASON; and I'm sure lots of things will be done in the future that will be unpopular in some way but also be done with good reason. Popularity isn't really a great measure here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Meaning it is NOT an objective fact that this is merely a cosmetic detail that has no impact on the overall narrative.
    That's entirely independent of whether or not people LIKE it when you change something. This is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

  13. #2553
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    There is such a thing as literary analysis. Once the analysis is made that the "spirit" of Green Eggs and Ham is about "trying new things," you can objectively say that any color eggs which don't conform to "old things" is fine to maintain the spirit of the story.
    https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/t...is-subjective/

    Sure you can do an analysis on it but it'd only ever be a subjective analysis.

    There is nothing objective to glean from this. There is no objective singular way to define the "Spirit" of any given narrative. The closest thing you can come to is a general concensus or agreed-upon collective opinion. It is not objective by any means.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post

    That's entirely independent of whether or not people LIKE it when you change something. This is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
    The very nature of being able to be interpreted subjectively makes it subjective.

    There is no objective way to define the change of the color of Green Eggs and Ham as not affecting the narrative.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-12 at 02:33 AM.

  14. #2554
    I don't really understand why it was made this way, well i do kinda "woke" ripping off LOTR as much as possible to make a cash cow but.
    Why not make an interesting series even a short one about Drawves who do end up living outside and in that case.. TAN and become dark skinned, there are tribes of drawves who aren't explored in Tolkens work where a story as to why they live above ground would be a good start.. however i don't think they could have their cake and setup the excuse for Diversity at the same time, I don't think anyone looks at a black person being cast and is like "Right lets get the triple letter folks and march" they don't care as a rule until it recasts a role that isn't written that way.

    Then magically you are racist for pointing out a species who live underground don't get much Sun..
    The two blues wizards are also a great jumping off point for a series why not follow their adventures see who they encountered far off from the main cast, I think its also acceptable they could've had a fairly large part behind the scenes in LOTR for good or ILL, perhaps it becomes a brother vs brother thing where one is evil one is good, and the counter each other out.. allowing the war of the ring to proceed how it does without a tipping of good or evil from either one.
    And these fellows can encounter, and perhaps encourage the Drawves to live on the surface even have them live along side Hobbits...

    Writing for Tolken is REALLY easy if you spend a few hours looking into the material its just sad this team doesn't seem to have done that.
    I predict a disaster its already blaming men for not wanting it, If by some Magic they manage to turn it around a little like the Witcher isn't 100% bad.. then Great.. wont hurt to have something decent to watch.
    However these people can never make one statement about politics and leave it at that.. they have to keep trying to follow the same muddy path every other woke production does.
    Dragonflight Nerfs vs fun again show a Blizzard that hasn't learnt a lesson, Actions speak louder than words afterall watch what they do and do not do.

  15. #2555
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    There is no objective way to define the change of the color of Green Eggs and Ham as not affecting the narrative.
    What's the problem, exactly, with checking if changing a characteristic changes anything about the story other than the characteristic itself?

    Seems like a reasonable AND practicable test to me.

  16. #2556
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    What's the problem, exactly, with checking if changing a characteristic changes anything about the story other than the characteristic itself?

    Seems like a reasonable AND practicable test to me.
    Because like I said, it's subjective.

    Just because you think it's reasonable and practical doesn't make it agreeable.


    I could say adding one more brush stroke to the Mona Lisa wouldn't change 99% people's perception of the painting. They may never even notice. But it wouldn't be true to the original painting, and not everyone would agree that even a single brush stroke would be an acceptable change to the painting, even if there was a good reason to do so. There's no objective way to come to a conclusion on whether adding a brush stroke to an existing work of art would be considered a reasonable or practical change.

    "GOOD REASON" is always going to be subjective.

    Yes, and? Is something only valid if it causes no controversy? Or perhaps only if it causes minor controversy? How much controversy do you say is acceptable?
    Controversy validates nothing. Even objective facts like 'the world is round' can be mired in controversy. I don't understand the point of your questioning other than to be argumentative.

    My point is there is no singular approach to how to 'reasonably change Green Eggs and Ham with GOOD REASON'. There is no way to define this in any objective basis.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-12 at 05:12 AM.

  17. #2557
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayia View Post
    I don't think anyone looks at a black person being cast and is like "Right lets get the triple letter folks and march" they don't care as a rule until it recasts a role that isn't written that way.

    Then magically you are racist for pointing out a species who live underground don't get much Sun..
    Both of the black characters that racists have their panties in a wad over were literally written for the show, and don't appear in Tolkien's work. So complaints about them being "recast" are made purely in ignorance and, you guessed it, racism.

    And given how little of Tolkien's canonical work they actually have access to, they are essentially doing exactly what you said they should. The only difference is that they're using it as an opportunity to flesh out other existing characters instead of writing a story about blue wizards, or whatever.
    Last edited by s_bushido; 2022-08-12 at 04:32 AM.

  18. #2558
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The 'Spirit of the original' is purely subjectively defined. Just as my explanation to Biomega here about the narrative, there's no way you can define the spirit of the original through the Author, it can only be defined through the lens of the reader and how they choose to interpret the works.
    It really isn't. The point of contention in the story is that the unnamed subject claims that he does not like "Green eggs and Ham" but it is revealed through the narrative that he, in actual fact, has never actually tried green eggs and ham and when he finally does just to rid himself of Sam-I-Am...he discovers that he actually likes them a lot and is very grateful that Sam-I-Am was so persistent about getting him to try them. The moral of the story is very clear and not at all subjective. So, in this case, you're right... the "green" is not just a cosmetic colour. choice... it is the entire point. If Sam-I-Am were just offering regular eggs and ham...buddy would just have some breakfast, go about his day, and nothing would have been learned.

    But that's a specific case and doesn't apply universally. The question here is "Are Black Dwarves anything more than a cosmetic change?"

    Also, this:

    “The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply,” Stephen Covey.

  19. #2559
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayia View Post
    Then magically you are racist for pointing out a species who live underground don't get much Sun..
    The racist part comes from people being so adamant about excluding non-whites that they grasp at any and every straw to do so, in this case trying to bring some sort of biological realism to the table where it doesn't belong.

    Orcs also don't get much sun and yet their skin seems to have darkened compared to the humans or elves they evolved from. Most of the fantastical creatures in Middle-earth are biological impossibilities (trolls that turn to stone in the sun, spiders the size of people, massive reptile-like creatures that can fly and breathe fire, etc). Elves and humans being able to have fertile children should be biologically impossible, and all this is just the tip of the iceberg. Tolkien was never interested or concerned with biological realism.

    Once we establish that biological realism isn't necessary, and acknowledge that Tolkien never mentioned what skin tone(s) dwarves could be, there really is no reason to deny the existence of dark skinned dwarves.

    What a lot of people don't tend to realize is that skin color is just like hair color in that it is determined by melanin and is derived more from genetic mutation than directly from the environment. Modern humans lived for tens of thousands of years in Europe after migrating from Africa before the genetic mutation for white skin even developed. Over time lighter skin did become more genetically favorable, but it wasn't necessary for people to live in these regions. Dwarves seem to have developed the mutations for a variety of hair colors independent of their environment, so why not mutations for varying skin colors as well? Given the amount of time they spend underground, the color of their skin would have little bearing on synthesizing vitamin D from sunlight and therefor there would be no evolutionary pressure for either light or dark skin.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2022-08-12 at 05:50 AM.

  20. #2560
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    It really isn't. The point of contention in the story is that the unnamed subject claims that he does not like "Green eggs and Ham" but it is revealed through the narrative that he, in actual fact, has never actually tried green eggs and ham and when he finally does just to rid himself of Sam-I-Am...he discovers that he actually likes them a lot and is very grateful that Sam-I-Am was so persistent about getting him to try them. The moral of the story is very clear and not at all subjective. So, in this case, you're right... the "green" is not just a cosmetic colour. choice... it is the entire point. If Sam-I-Am were just offering regular eggs and ham...buddy would just have some breakfast, go about his day, and nothing would have been learned.

    But that's a specific case and doesn't apply universally. The question here is "Are Black Dwarves anything more than a cosmetic change?"
    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.

    It's all a matter of subjective suspension of disbelief whether anyone openly accepts a change to Green Eggs and Ham or the skincolor of Dwarves.

    In my opinion? I'm not bothered if there are Black Dwarves being represented in an adaptation. And at the same time, I wouldn't go out of my way to prefer having them either when there has been no depiction of them in the original story. I'm openly regarding RoP to be a unique creation that is merely based on the works of Tolkien, and I can have a nuanced opinion on the matter without having it affect anyone else, or have anyone else affect mine.. But that doesn't mean I'd turn a blind eye and pretend it'd 'merely be a mere cosmetic change that has no impact on the narrative'.

    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.

    It's all subjectively valued.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-12 at 06:10 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •