Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rogoth]

Jesus, read my post again you blundering goon. I specifically first used African/black with a direct European line through Parants or grand parents before asking about a second group being African Americans with a “ Europe esc” culture as there not in Europe.

I went out of my way to separate African Americans and African/black people with generations in Europe and you were to thick to get it.

this is what you said:

Just curious as it's come up a few time from a few different posters.

How many generations would you or others say a African/black person has to live in Europe before they can want of be a part of European storys? Is it like the one drop rule were if they have mixed parants/grandparants who imbued them with the history and culture first hand they still shouldn't get to take part? what of African American's or other ex slave family's who actually don't have a history or culture beyond an Europe esc one because of slavery are they just out of luck and only get post slavery stories?

your convoluted question was 'how long does it take for people to be accepted as part of the historically and predominantly white portion europe or are they never accepted at all?'

that's fundamentally what your asinine question was, and I clarified that ONLY IN THE USA is that moronic term 'african american' used, in most other places in the world anybody who migrated to a different place whether their ancestors wanted to or not, are simply referred to as being from that country, there's no racist segregation that goes on from a naming perspective, but you're purposefully ignoring that to try and rile people up with pointless questions that have no merit whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong. But that's usual for you.

People here are whining about the black dwarves (and to a lesser extent elves) by crying, weeping, and pounding their fists to the ground about how it doesn't "make sense" for these 100% cosmopolitan cultures to be cosmopolitan (that's a fancy way to say "mixed races and cultures"). They're whole argument is that they're compartimentalized and have absolutely no contact with anyone else, even though that's not only ridiculously stupid, but demonstratively wrong.

It really is amazing how strong the connection between racists and (voluntary) ignorance is.

this is my point >>.

this is the point you think you're arguing against >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

you are lightyears beyond the mark it's actually impressive how badly you have misunderstood what's being said and you are doubling down on your own stupidity, I'm done trying to explain to you something you're never gonna get because you keep making it abundantly clear that you will NEVER GET IT.

enjoy your little tirade of ist/ism/phobe name calling, it works great I'm told.

[Rocksteady 87]

this is my point >>.

this is the point you think you're arguing against >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

No, I know what point I'm arguing. I've been consistent with it, as always. It's you twits who keep trying to change things, because that's the only way ignorant people can argue. "No, I didn't mean THAT, even though I just said it, what I ACTUALLY meant was this. No, not this, even though I literally said it in the same breath, I meant that OTHER this." Wash, rinse, repeat.

And racists wonder why everyone treats them like they're morons.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

this is what you said:



your convoluted question was 'how long does it take for people to be accepted as part of the historically and predominantly white portion europe or are they never accepted at all?'

that's fundamentally what your asinine question was, and I clarified that ONLY IN THE USA is that moronic term 'african american' used, in most other places in the world anybody who migrated to a different place whether their ancestors wanted to or not, are simply referred to as being from that country, there's no racist segregation that goes on from a naming perspective, but you're purposefully ignoring that to try and rile people up with pointless questions that have no merit whatsoever..

No you’re just illiterate.

This is one question

How many generations would you or others say a African/black person has to live in Europe before they can want of be a part of European storys storys? Is it like the one drop rule were if they have mixed parants/grandparants who imbued them with the history and culture first hand they still shouldn't get to take part?

where I specific African/black people and even mention directly European heritage through mixed race families.

This is a separate question

what of African American's or other ex slave family's who actually don't have a history or culture beyond an Europe esc one because of slavery are they just out of luck and only get post slavery stories?

with a completely different framing and presume which I even briefly expanded on by mentioning the lack of history or culture actual African Americans have in many cases as I’m not using the term for a catch all for black people but for its actual historical meaning of people who had there culture destroyed by slavery and had go build a new American one without ties to there actual home land.

You have smashed the two togather and failed to answer either

[Triceron]

This is a separate question
with a completely different framing and presume which I even briefly expanded on by mentioning the lack of history or culture actual African Americans have in many cases as I’m not using the term for a catch all for black people but for its actual historical meaning of people who had there culture destroyed by slavery and had go build a new American one without ties to there actual home land.

You have smashed the two togather and failed to answer either

It's a very odd question for a fantasy world filled with actual different races.

Like asking how many generations of Orcs have to live in Rohan before they get to become Rohan's peoples? I don't think that's how it works.


Even with Aragorn, who is of mixed blood, is defined as an individual of a certain descent, rather than a representative within a certain culture. We don't really have a lot of examples of Human subcultures that still exist through retaining said distinctions. Like people of Gondor are a mix of Numenorean and non-Numenorean peoples, and are all collectively seen as people of Gondor now. There has not been any notable distinction between them, and no labels applied to make any distinction in traditions or cultures.


And I kind of think that speaks to Rogoth's point. In terms of Middle Earth, 'African Americans' wouldn't exist as a term. It would just be Americans. Whatever generation or subculture may exist, it would just be folded into a part of the location and nation that they adopt and become a part of, with no other subclassification. You become a part of it as soon as you live there, since that's generally how things are defined in Middle Earth.

Subculture may extend to certain family name or clans, but otherwise it isn't really seen as a distinct subculture in Middle Earth. As far as I interpret it.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It's a very odd question for a fantasy world filled with actual different races.

Like asking how many generations of Orcs have to live in Rohan before they get to become Rohan's peoples? I don't think that's how it works.

The question isn’t about any fantasy world it’s about real life and people wanting to take part in the story’s of real cultures.

First question is about people who live in those cultures and may even be part of them by blood, the second is about those who lack a ancestral culture of there own due to slavery and how they are suppose to pull from others.

[Triceron]

The question isn’t about any fantasy world it’s about real life and people wanting to take part in the story’s of real cultures.

First question is about people who live in those cultures and may even be part of them by blood, the second is about those who lack a ancestral culture of there own due to slavery and how they are suppose to pull from others.

It shouldn't be defined by labels of being 'peoples' then, it should be regarded through individuals.

I mean as a Second Generation Chinese Canadian who has no connection to hundreds of years of Chinese Canadian history that existed before my parents even came to Canada, am I supposed to be defined by that history? Am I supposed to adopt the immigrant work on the Railways as my own culture because of a shared history of peoples who came from HK/China? Am I to adopt the communist cultural ideala of immigrants who are coming from China or HK today? Those are all pointless labels. It doesn't have meaning to me, and I am not defined by those labels or cultures, despite being a part of it. The choice to identify with history and culture is ultimately up to the individual.

I push forward not as a Chinese Canadian, but of a Canadian of Chinese descent. I regard Chinese Canadian history and culture in the same facet that I regard Black or Irish or Indian Canadian or First Nations history in Canada. It is all a part of our shared culture as a Canadian, and also not a label that defines me as an individual or 'group of peoples'.

[Rocksteady 87]

It shouldn't be defined by labels of being 'peoples' then, it should be regarded through individuals.

I mean as a Second Generation Chinese Canadian who has no connection to hundreds of years of Chinese Canadian history that existed before my parents even came to Canada, am I supposed to be defined by that history? Am I supposed to adopt the immigrant work on the Railways as my own culture because of a shared history of peoples who came from HK/China? Am I to adopt the post-communist cultures of immigrants who are coming from China or HK today? Those are all pointless labels. It doesn't have meaning. And the choice to identify with history and culture is ultimately up to the individual.

No. The real point is that if true, you shouldn't fucking be shocked to find people who look Asian in Canada even though you (possibly) never stepped foot in China. That's the actual, god damned, fucking point of the discussion.

[Triceron]

No. The real point is that if true, you shouldn't fucking be shocked to find people who look Asian in Canada even though you (possibly) never stepped foot in China. That's the actual, god damned, fucking point of the discussion.

Such expectations exist because Canada has generally become a multicultural melting pot, with plenty of history to make sense of it.

If such a history doesn't exist and we're talking about Chinese people being in Canada in a time period when they weren't known to be present there, then yes I would consider that shocking, and be looking for an explanation that makes sense of it. And it isn't as simple as 'you can come up with an explanation'.


Such as recent history indicating that Vikings may have been in America before Columbus. There is no definitive proof, but there are hints and indications, and when I first heard of this I would say that I considered it a shocking revelation. Columbus being the first white man who came to the Americas was what was established across the board for a whole generation of people who grew up learning American history in the 80's (residually from American educational TV programs in Canada). The revelation challenged that expectation. It's a normal reaction to question new information that revises what we understand as being history. It's also a fairly recent part of our own history that has outlined the controversies surrounding Columbus, of the oppression and genocide that American history education had chosen to omit.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It shouldn't be defined by labels of being 'peoples' then, it should be regarded through individuals.

I used person at first and then “people who”, which would mean individuals not “peoples”.

I mean as a Second Generation Chinese Canadian who has no connection to hundreds of years of Chinese Canadian history that existed before my parents even came to Canada,

and my questions are about people who would have said connection to years of Chinese Canadian history, would have just “Canadian” blood through race mixing, or for the second question those who don’t know they come from China at all.

[Rocksteady 87]

Such expectations exist because Canada has generally become a multicultural melting pot...

Congratulations. You figured it out.

Middle-Earth has TONS of international trade going on, as repeatedly mentioned and repeatedly shown.

Glad you finally got there. Though somehow I'm guessing you're going to spin it some other way to keep on with the racism.

(And it's weird how all the racists around here claim to be 'diverse' themselves. Weird coincidence, that.)

[Triceron]

Congratulations. You figured it out.

Middle-Earth has TONS of international trade going on, as repeatedly mentioned and repeatedly shown.

Glad you finally got there. Though somehow I'm guessing you're going to spin it some other way to keep on with the racism.

(And it's weird how all the racists around here claim to be 'diverse' themselves. Weird coincidence, that.)

Yes, but the depictions had never been establishing that until recently, and even then it's been a very extreme and liberal adaptation of the original source. That's what makes it controversial and contentious.

And no, none of this discussion between you and me has anything to do with racism. Fictional international trade not being recognized is not racism since it is fiction. No one is being discriminated against. Numenoreons not having their fare share of depiction as a culture and race in the artistic depiction of the Gondorian peoples is not racist. It is artistic liscence. This is neither real life racism, nor a fictional portrayal of racism.

Same way any depiction of Jesus as white or non-white is not a product of racism, since he is a figure that transcends the borders of humanity and is represented however people wish him to be portrayed. Jesus can be portrayed however people wish to interpret his looks, because he has transcended human ethnicity and has become a symbol that is not solely subject to accurate historic depictions. The same way Tolkien's works are not defined by such restrictions.


What we're dealing with is having decades of established depictions being challenged by modern interpretations. Again, nothing to do with actual racism. That you wish to jump directly to that excuse tells me more of your agenda to argue for the sake of arguing, than recognizing the actual topic.

[Rocksteady 87]

Yes, but the depictions had never been establishing that until recently, and even then it's been a very extreme and liberal adaptation of the original source.

And no, none of this discussion between you and me has anything to do with racism. Fictional international trade not being recognized is not racism since it is fiction. No one is being discriminated against. Numenoreons not having their fare share of depiction as a culture and race in the artistic depiction of the Gondorian peoples is not racist. It is artistic liscence.

Same way any depiction of Jesus as white or non-white is not a product of racism, since he is a figure that transcends the borders of humanity and is represented however people wish him to be portrayed.

Bullshit. Your peoples' entire "argument" is just your weak and feeble attempt to rationalize your raging racism over seeing a black fucking dwarf on screen. Not the Scottish accents. Not speaking English even amongst themselves. Not the flaming red hair. Nope, just because some of them have black skin. That's the shit you can't handle.

The really sad part is that you honestly think you're being clever and intellectual about it, despite EVERYONE seeing right through it.

If you were really upset about the show, you'd instead be bitching and moaning about the objectively awful things with the show, such as Tom Bombadil's portrayal. But no. "BLACK DWARVES OMFG!!!!!!!!!!! I'M NOT RACIST, BUT BLACK DWARVES HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Triceron]

Bullshit. Your peoples' entire "argument" is just your weak and feeble attempt to rationalize your raging racism over seeing a black fucking dwarf on screen.

Have you seen me once rage over Disa being black?


I've challenged you on this statement before. You accuse me of something that has never happened.


You're just fucking trolling, and I'm calling you out for your accusations. Show me once where I've 'raged over seeing a black fucking dwarf' on screen.

If you were really upset about the show, you'd instead be bitching and moaning about the objectively awful things with the show, such as Tom Bombadil's portrayal. But no. "BLACK DWARVES OMFG!!!!!!!!!!! I'M NOT RACIST, BUT BLACK DWARVES HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

You're just projecting dude.

I've not bitched or moaned at Black Dwarves existing in the show at all. I've been comfortable with the concept since I've been accustomed to dark skinned Dwarves existing in fantasy from other media well before we've seen it in Middle Earth, like the Dark Iron Dwarves of Warcraft. And I honestly don't see any controversy around Dark skinned Dwarves existing in Warcraft, do you? Well, because we have had years of lore and exposure to the concept, well before they ended up being integrated into Ironforge and be given out as customization options for Dwarves.


All I have ever done is point out why people are upset over it in Rings of Power. My personal beliefs aren't reflected by the problems I'm pointing out. They're problems that exist because of a poor choice of execution that abruptly challenges decades worth of depictions of Middle Earth.

It doesn't ease it in, it doesn't make it comfortable to accept as a norm. It just passes its vision off as the new status quo, and that is what people have reacted to. In my opinion, if it were a concept that were introduced and eased into place, there wouldn't be much need for controversy or contention. Just like every Warcraft fan openly accepts the existence of dark skinned Dwarves, since everyone has become familiar with Dark Irons for over almost two decades before they were made playable.

In contrast, we can see what happened when Blizzard decided to introduce Pandarens without making that same level of ease. It wasn't a slow introduction. They openly avoided having and Pandaren being depicted in WoW, and the whole race remained in easter-egg territory, and very ambigiously regarded by canon. Dropping MoP in the audience's lap was immediately met with controversy. And considering we're talking about Pandas, I'd hardly doubt this is purely a product of skin tone discrimination. It's much more to do with how people didn't see Pandarens fitting the setting of Warcraft, and part of the problem was in how Blizzard failed to present them as being a part of the setting to ease in the concept prior to the announcement of MoP. It's a point of contention that exists today.

My observation is that these cases are very similar, with many people indicating that the issue is rooted in expectations being challenged more than it has anything to do with actual discrimination. And minds are difficult to change when those first impressions are so strongly rooted in one's biases.

[rogoth]

Bullshit. Your peoples' entire "argument" is just your weak and feeble attempt to rationalize your raging racism over seeing a black fucking dwarf on screen. Not the Scottish accents. Not speaking English even amongst themselves. Not the flaming red hair. Nope, just because some of them have black skin. That's the shit you can't handle.

The really sad part is that you honestly think you're being clever and intellectual about it, despite EVERYONE seeing right through it.

If you were really upset about the show, you'd instead be bitching and moaning about the objectively awful things with the show, such as Tom Bombadil's portrayal. But no. "BLACK DWARVES OMFG!!!!!!!!!!! I'M NOT RACIST, BUT BLACK DWARVES HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

what do you mean by 'your peoples''? What kind of racist fucking statement is that, holy crap that's some next-level racism right there.

also, can you stop using words you clearly don't know the meaning to, it's making you look even more stupid than you already have, which is itself a feat.

THAT'S THE POINT, we already fucking have, ad nauseum, it's people like you and the other cult members who are harping on about other things because you can't grasp the simple concepts presented and you cannot, despite multiple attempts to explain it to you, grasp these simple concepts and understand the point being made, you can't think for five seconds in front of your own face and it's painfully obvious to anybody reading your childish and asinine comments so far, hence my initial assessment of you which you have proven correct with every response you make.

and just to correct you, it's a single black dwarf and a single black elf, they are entirely unique and alone, with no backstory or ANY form of world-building to explain their existence in a world with fully pre-established notions of what their respective races would look like, making it impossible for the characters to actually exist, yet your pathetically small smooth brain can't fathom this simple concept, it really can't be explained in simpler terms so if you still can't grasp it, then I truly pity you and everyone who knows you because Jesus wept.

[rhorle]

and just to correct you, it's a single black dwarf and a single black elf, they are entirely unique and alone, with no backstory or ANY form of world-building to explain their existence in a world with fully pre-established notions of what their respective races would look like, making it impossible for the characters to actually exist, yet your pathetically small smooth brain can't fathom this simple concept, it really can't be explained in simpler terms so if you still can't grasp it, then I truly pity you and everyone who knows you because Jesus wept.

There doesn't need to be a backstory. There doesn't need to be world building. They just exist and that is perfectly fine. Did Tolkien follow his own world building and write Gondor had a diverse population? Gondor borders Rhun and Harad and has invaded or been invaded by them before. There would be mixing of the peoples through out various times of the history.

[Triceron]

There doesn't need to be a backstory. There doesn't need to be world building. They just exist and that is perfectly fine. .

Yes, that works for some people. Not all.

And when it doesn't work for everyone, it honestly shouldn't surprise you as long as you have empathy to put yourself in other peoples shoes.

Clearly, you lack that empathy.

[Dhrizzle]

Its rly not that complicated, but the point stand that there is canon in tolkien.

You're perfectly entitled to regard only the published works (Hobbit and Lord of the Rings) as canon and disregard the rest but it damages your arguments if you then refer to other bits of Tolkien works.

No, it literally a scene in the show, here are his words, verbatim from the script:

you may try to nitpick the "job" part, but that is what trade is, it very on the nose.

Yeah, of course they would not mention, otherwise it would not be an allegory

Trade and job are not synonyms. Concerns over losing trade to a rival nation is not the same as being worried about losing jobs to immigrants, the applicable situation would be a factory shutting down in the US because manufacturing has moved to China, it does not mean that US citizens are worried about Chinese immigrants taking their "JERBS." Also you really need to read what Tolkien had to say about the difference between allegory and applicability, RoP is no more an allegory for US>China trade relations than Lord of the Rings is an allegory for World War 1 just because Tolkien applied some of his experiences to the novel.

Ok, what the actual hell are you trying to do here.

"galadriel story was ever change" <- what this have anything to do with the amazon hacks butchering and changing tolkien story? are you for real trying to give then excuse with the previous nonsense talk about "difficulty to determine canon in Tolkien"?

Only Tolkien can change his own shit, period, and just because he could, doesn't means things WOULD have changed neither they SHOULD, by a bunch of amateurs who only worked on a star trek movie.

Either way this quote doesn't rly address the problem that YOU brought up yourself about the movie sidelining stuff to make room for others. Its a flaw that you mentioned in the movies but you want to give a free pass for the show who did FAR worse with the excuse that tolkien could change his work, how this make any sense?

It means that Rings of Power is playing around with a bunch of ideas that Tolkien had but never finalised, that's a far cry from making changes to Lord of the Rings that had been painstakingly finalised with each character and event tying solidly into themes that Tolkien wished to convey.

He doesn't, again, this is you twisting it, just because he used the term amazon for her, doesn't mean she was a soldier - neither 'commander of the northen armies, or whatever the shit they came up with - I never heard she being called gothwin, only Nerwen , which means man-maiden, because she was taller than other elves and had great feats in athletics.

Trying to use that as a justification for make "warriorguyladriel, who lead an army of numenorians that slay orcs and hunt Sauron and seek revenge for her brother" because 'tolkien changed his stuff" is... is not even funny

As I already told you Tolkien uses the term "Amazon" several times and always to describe female combatants or soldiers. "Gothwin" isn't a name that was given to Galadriel, it is the translation of "Amazon" in Gnomish, the language that precedes Noldorin, the language of Galadriel's people. It translates roughly to "war maiden."

She being a Warrior is the exact the same as she being a sorcerers that you spoke off

Except Elves being warriors is well established in the lore which also stresses that they are not Sorcerers and seldom if ever use magia, especially not for combat.

None of then make sense, and both have zero idea how tolkien Galadriel works.

How Tolkien's Galdriel works is something that is not fully fleshed out in the lore Tolkien produced, though at different points she is described as an Amazon, a commander, as fighting against Feanor at Alqualonde, as active in resistance against Sauron and as pursuing activities traditionally reserved for male Noldor. The idea of Galadriel as a warrior was discussed in the fandom long before Rings of Power came along.

???? just because they CREATE one nonsense to justify doesn't mean it falls in line with orcs in tolkien setting

Orcs are made for war, to raid and kill, there is no such thing as orcs wanting a "nice and lazy life of raiding the weak", because why would be afraid off? death? pfff

It shows orcs not being like the lotr orcs.

Even the hobbit orcs made sense.

>.< Shagrat and Gorbag are characters in Lord of the Rings, the novel written by Tolkien. If you don't like the idea of Orcs wanting to leave war behind for a nice easy life raiding and looting your issue is with Tolkien himself. You seem to have got muddled up with modern Orcs from DnD and Warhammer if you think they're some sort of warrior race. They're small, wretched and cowardly things.

[Syegfryed]

You're perfectly entitled to regard only the published works (Hobbit and Lord of the Rings) as canon and disregard the rest but it damages your arguments if you then refer to other bits of Tolkien works.

Why?

Where is wrong about saying there is canon in tolkien? can you refute this statement? you can argue there is no canon in tolkien? try

Trade and job are not synonyms.

They actually are:

trade
/trād/
noun
1.the action of buying and selling goods and services.

2. a skilled job, typically one requiring manual skills and special training.
"the fundamentals of the construction trade"

Concerns over losing trade to a rival nation is not the same as being worried about losing jobs to immigrants,

Except he was concerned about elves who don't sleep and get tired GOING TO NUMENOR to take their trade - their job -, it have nothing to do with a rival nation.

It means that Rings of Power is playing around with a bunch of ideas that Tolkien had but never finalised

You actually mean rings of power is twisting and misunderstanding tolkien ideas, butchering his canon lore and creating their own crap

they are not "playing around tolkien ideas", not by one bit

that's a far cry from making changes to Lord of the Rings that had been painstakingly finalised with each character and event tying solidly into themes that Tolkien wished to convey.

You know your point here falls flat when LITERALLY the rings of power show CHANGES finalised stuff, right?

As I already told you Tolkien uses the term "Amazon" several times and always to describe female combatants or soldiers.

And i already told you, just because he uses the term to describe one person, doesn't mean every person who got that nickname are related to soldiers, or are soldiers

An Amazon is a tall woman with great athletics, that CAN be used for soldiers, because soldiers are great in athletics AS WELL.

Using that as justification for Guyladriel in the show - who goes against finalized and canon lore - is laughable

Except Elves being warriors is well established in the lore

Except Galadriel warrior from the show is NOT well established in the lore.

Galadriel warrior and Galadriel sorcerer are exact the same, nonexistent and not canon.

How Tolkien's Galdriel works is something that is not fully fleshed out in the lore Tolkien produced

It was, there was nothing else to flesh out, because its not her story.

The idea of Galadriel as a warrior was discussed in the fandom long before Rings of Power came along.

Headcanon and fanfics exist since the beginning of fandom yes

They're small, wretched and cowardly things.

No, they are evil, wicked and twisted, they are there to kill and pillage, who have nothing to do with dnd orcs btw.

The small orcs are goblins and but one of their subspecies, since there are big orcs, even darker ones

>.< Shagrat and Gorbag are characters in Lord of the Rings, the novel written by Tolkien. If you don't like the idea of Orcs wanting to leave war behind for a nice easy life raiding and looting your issue is with Tolkien himself.

If you actually mean the guys who took frodo when he was fucked by shelob, yeah very nice and easy life they wanted when they tried to kill each other and caused a slaughter in the place, such nice orcs lmaoooo

[ringpriest]

Where is wrong about saying there is canon in tolkien? can you refute this statement? you can argue there is no canon in tolkien?

Yes.

Generally students of Tolkien's work use the term legendarium, because his works relating to Middle-Earth are vast and sometimes contradictory, while 'canon' implies a single unified body of work, which Tolkien's writings are not.

Except Galadriel warrior from the show is NOT well established in the lore.

Galadriel warrior and Galadriel sorcerer are exact the same, nonexistent and not canon.

Galadriel is not particularly well established in the larger legendarium. Tolkien had lots of ideas about her and her history, but everything before her role in the Third Age was seemingly in flux for him. While with a character like Glorfindel he might eventually "collapse the wave function" and arrive at a firm view of their nature, role, and history, that never happened with pre-Third Age Galadriel. But she is described in Unfinished Tales as,

"Galadriel was the greatest of the Noldor, except Feanor maybe, though she was wiser than he, and her wisdom increased with the long years."

If she is, "the greatest of the Noldor, except Feanor maybe" of a list that included Fingolfin, Finrod her brother, Gil-galad and many more, arbitrarily excluding her from wizardry or war is nonsensical.

An Amazon is a tall woman with great athletics, that CAN be used for soldiers, because soldiers are great in athletics AS WELL.

Tolkien wrote,

"[Galadriel] was then of Amazon disposition and bound up her hair as a crown when taking part in athletic feats"

An Amazon is a warrior-woman from Scythia, used broadly to refer to all Classical warrior-women. Tolkien damned well knew what the word meant when he used it over a half-century ago, no matter what slightly more current interpretations may have attached to it in the last few decades.

But that's hardly the only references to Galadriel as a warrior or soldier. As I posted in this thread years ago, before the show had even premiered, here are a number of quotes about her from the legendarium.

"she with Celeborn fought heroically in defence of Alqualondë against the assault of the Noldor,"

and

"She fought fiercely in defence of her motherkin against Feanor"

"She looked upon the Dwarves also with the eye of a commander, seeing in them the finest warriors to pit against the Orcs."

"In Eregion Sauron posed as an emissary of the Valar, sent by them to Middle-earth (‘thus anticipating the Istari’) or ordered by them to remain there to give aid to the Elves. He perceived at once that Galadriel would be his chief adversary and obstacle, and he endeavoured therefore to placate her, bearing her scorn with outward patience and courtesy."

"In Lórinand Galadriel took up rule, and defence against Sauron."

"she deemed it her duty to remain in Middle-earth while Sauron was still unconquered"

So we've 'fought heroically', 'eye of a commander', 'rule, and defence', 'conquered'. She doesn't swing a sword in the Lord of the Rings. Nor does Elrond. Nor Cirdan. But that by no means implies that she did not ever do so, while a great deal from the Professor himself suggests she did exactly that.


And finally, as to sorcery, setting aside the mind-reading and telepathy and clairvoyance in Fellowship, in the Appendices of LotR,

"when the Shadow passed, Celeborn came forth and led the host of Lórien over Anduin in many boats. They took Dol Guldur, and Galadriel threw down its walls and laid bare its pits, and the forest was cleansed."

While the final reference is clearly a reference to to Luthien and her destruction of Sauron's fortress of Tol-in-Gaurhoth, that does not make it less real within Tolkien's sub-created world. And if ripping Sauron's fortress apart with her own power (this is post Ring-destruction) isn't "sorcery", then nothing is.

Amazon's show's failings come in many forms, and failure to respect the spirit or word of Middle-earth's creator are certainly among them. But the decision to make younger Galadriel a fundamentally heroic figure is not one of them.

[Syegfryed]

Yes.

Generally students of Tolkien's work use the term legendarium, because his works relating to Middle-Earth are vast and sometimes contradictory, while 'canon' implies a single unified body of work, which Tolkien's writings are not.

Yeah, no, the legendarium just encopasses the entirety of tolkien Work, the Canon is what he published.

Everything he published he himelf considered fixed, so THERE IS canon, and there is the rest.

Galadriel is not particularly well established in the larger legendarium.

Not like this matter anyhow, because What was established in the canon and in the legendarium does not support Rings of power writers to write the fuck they did, because they could have very well done anything else. By example, just because Tolkien did not fleshed out her character, as much as people think he should, it doesn't give a free pass to make a scene where she and Elrond kiss, nor that she loved "Halbrand/Sauron"

Her character was not as well established as other simple because, again, the story is not about her, doesn't mean that exist an entire new novel within the lines tolkien did not wrote, and he is the only one to decide if there was

If she is, "the greatest of the Noldor, except Feanor maybe" of a list that included Fingolfin, Finrod her brother, Gil-galad and many more, arbitrarily excluding her from wizardry or war is nonsensical.

Arbitrary putting her into warriorr caterogy is also nonsensical, and rly doesn't reflect the character with what was written about her

An Amazon is a warrior-woman from Scythia, used broadly to refer to all Classical warrior-women. Tolkien damned well knew what the word meant when he used it over a half-century ago, no matter what slightly more current interpretations may have attached to it in the last few decades.

Ye he knew what it mean, and by knowing what it mean saying someone have amazon DISPOSITION, mean you have traits for it, not that you actually are.

If you see someone tall and fit, you can say he has basketball player disposition, but he can be a chief, a driver.

So we've 'fought heroically', 'eye of a commander', 'rule, and defence', 'conquered'. She doesn't swing a sword in the Lord of the Rings. Nor does Elrond. Nor Cirdan. But that by no means implies that she did not ever do so, while a great deal from the Professor himself suggests she did exactly that.

You are jumping to conclusions by using quotes, who don't rly support your argument as much as you think.

If she was a warrior who actually grab the sword and fought in battle killing orcs, why tolkien didn't wrote exactly that?, do you seriously think, someone attached to detail as much as Tolkien would not mention this little detail?

Tolkien don't suggest stuff like that, he say what happened

Or, you would actually think Tolkien said exactly what he said, and Galadriel actually DID NOT FIGHT, but LEAD as a strategist and a commander?

Like, thats exactly what the quotes you brought actually say, Galadriel was wise and intelligent, she had the eye of a commander, she took rule and obviously her genius made her a difficult strategist to face in the battlefield.

This falls in line with 1.Her character, 2.in the canon published and 3.in the legendarium.

Amazon's show's failings come in many forms, and failure to respect the spirit or word of Middle-earth's creator are certainly among them. But the decision to make younger Galadriel a fundamentally heroic figure is not one of them.

Except they were not rly making her a "heroic figure" - that might their intention ure, but didn't turn out that way - no one would have a problem with a "heroic figure", the problem goes way more deep than that.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, apparently season 2 was such a success, and had such good writing, the entire writing team but one person was ditched and they grabbed an entire new team

https://www.thegamer.com/lord-of-the...r-new-writers/