Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Biomega]

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

[Triceron]

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.

[Biomega]

It isn't objective fact.

Exactly.

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.

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.

[eschatological]

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.

[Triceron]

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.

[eschatological]

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.

[Triceron]

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.

[Biomega]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Triceron]

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 - - -

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.

[Mayia]

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.

[Biomega]

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.

[Triceron]

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.

[s_bushido]

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.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

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:

[Adamas102]

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.

[Triceron]

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.

[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.