Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Biomega]

Anyone truly interested in Tolkien's legendarium, and understanding how Rings of Power misses and fails (while Jackson largely succeeded) in capturing Tolkien's intent ought to enjoy, "Why Celebrimbor Fell but Boromir Conquered: the Moral Universe of Tolkien" over at A Collection of Unusual Pedantry.

Not all that surprising for a modern show tbh. They are very reluctant to provide nuance and accountability. Especially when it comes to "good" characters. Either these can outright do no wrong, or when they do something wrong it's completely trivial ("see, this isn't a Mary Sue! THEY CROSSED A RED LIGHT ONCE! Basically a morally grey antihero!!!!"), or they're not culpable because they got tricked, mind-controlled, whatever. Making a decision that's not immediately obviously right or wrong? Practically eliminated. Taking accountability for their actions? Either completely absent or reframed to comically stupid levels - like the aforementioned mind-control now being somehow portrayed as the character deeply struggling with their actions (hi there, Anduin!) which by definition were not... their actions.

Moral responsibility is either avoided or tokenized, and there's preciously little middle ground. But Tolkien - like the classic myth-tellers of old - knew that part of telling an intricate story is making characters that are otherwise glorified do something bad, and living with the consequences. Not because the devil made them do it, but because they're flawed characters even though they're "the good guys". But it seems modern writers are very reluctant to create any kind of ambiguity like that, because they're afraid of exposing themselves to accusations that the wrong actions they wrote for their good characters means that they writers themselves actually support those wrong actions.

This is part of a larger cultural shift that increasingly conflates people and positions. You no longer hold an opinion on <insert issue>, but you are "an <insert issue> person". And if someone attacks someone's position on something, they are immediately assumed to be attacking the person holding the position. And, true and perverse enough, very often people instead of attacking a position do in fact attack the person holding the position. But this then creates a feedback loop for cultural producers where they tend to insulate themselves - consciously or unconsciously - against conflation of themselves and their products. And that changes the kind of narrative they produce, and the kinds of characters they write, the kinds of visuals and tropes they employ, and so on.

It's detrimental to writing and, ironically, to cultural discourse. Instead of genuinely trying to create a more ideologically and morally diverse discourse, discourse is Balkanized and fragmented and fronts are hardened and insulated. There is no more exchange and mingling of ideas, but clashes of ideas that are vigorously and vehemently defended not on the merits of their positions but on the identities of those who hold the positions. And that is a dramatic shift, because when an idea is defeated the expectation is that it changes and adapts - but when an identity is defeated the expectation is that it vanishes. So instead of being exposed to the necessity of adapting your ideas, people are now exposed to the fear of losing their identity. And they fight even harder not to lose, resorting to the most desperate tactics and the most extreme measures.

Soft, bullshit writing like this is a good cultural barometer. It's not causative by any means - people didn't shift their culture because of this writing. But rather it is a correlation to and often a consequence of other cultural paradigms shifting. You see plenty of this right here on these forums! Where oh-so-often we see people immediately resort to "I like/don't like this; I can't be wrong because that would mean defeat of my position and that would mean losing my personal identity, therefore you not liking/liking this must in fact be the one who's wrong QED gg no re!".

[ringpriest]

Not all that surprising for a modern show tbh. They are very reluctant to provide nuance and accountability. Especially when it comes to "good" characters. Either these can outright do no wrong, or when they do something wrong it's completely trivial ("see, this isn't a Mary Sue! THEY CROSSED A RED LIGHT ONCE! Basically a morally grey antihero!!!!"), or they're not culpable because they got tricked, mind-controlled, whatever. Making a decision that's not immediately obviously right or wrong? Practically eliminated. Taking accountability for their actions? Either completely absent or reframed to comically stupid levels - like the aforementioned mind-control now being somehow portrayed as the character deeply struggling with their actions (hi there, Anduin!) which by definition were not... their actions.

Moral responsibility is either avoided or tokenized, and there's preciously little middle ground. But Tolkien - like the classic myth-tellers of old - knew that part of telling an intricate story is making characters that are otherwise glorified do something bad, and living with the consequences. Not because the devil made them do it, but because they're flawed characters even though they're "the good guys". But it seems modern writers are very reluctant to create any kind of ambiguity like that, because they're afraid of exposing themselves to accusations that the wrong actions they wrote for their good characters means that they writers themselves actually support those wrong actions.

This is part of a larger cultural shift that increasingly conflates people and positions. You no longer hold an opinion on <insert issue>, but you are "an <insert issue> person". And if someone attacks someone's position on something, they are immediately assumed to be attacking the person holding the position. And, true and perverse enough, very often people instead of attacking a position do in fact attack the person holding the position. But this then creates a feedback loop for cultural producers where they tend to insulate themselves - consciously or unconsciously - against conflation of themselves and their products. And that changes the kind of narrative they produce, and the kinds of characters they write, the kinds of visuals and tropes they employ, and so on.

It's detrimental to writing and, ironically, to cultural discourse. Instead of genuinely trying to create a more ideologically and morally diverse discourse, discourse is Balkanized and fragmented and fronts are hardened and insulated. There is no more exchange and mingling of ideas, but clashes of ideas that are vigorously and vehemently defended not on the merits of their positions but on the identities of those who hold the positions. And that is a dramatic shift, because when an idea is defeated the expectation is that it changes and adapts - but when an identity is defeated the expectation is that it vanishes. So instead of being exposed to the necessity of adapting your ideas, people are now exposed to the fear of losing their identity. And they fight even harder not to lose, resorting to the most desperate tactics and the most extreme measures.

Soft, bullshit writing like this is a good cultural barometer. It's not causative by any means - people didn't shift their culture because of this writing. But rather it is a correlation to and often a consequence of other cultural paradigms shifting. You see plenty of this right here on these forums! Where oh-so-often we see people immediately resort to "I like/don't like this; I can't be wrong because that would mean defeat of my position and that would mean losing my personal identity, therefore you not liking/liking this must in fact be the one who's wrong QED gg no re!".

Thank you for the thoughtful and insightful post!

Tolkien's Galadriel is, I think, intended as such a character, although one who, unlike her cousin Celebrimbor, but like Boromir, triumphs at the end. Her decision to leave Aman in defiance of the Valar (more or less defiance, depending on which part of the legendarium you're reading), her desire to rule a land of her own and shape it (which she finally, truly achieves in Lothlorien) are acts of ego, of pride, of hubris. She is heroic, yes, and in many ways noble and wise. She was unable to resist using Nenya in the end, but when confronted by the One, as she says, she did "pass the test". (This is largely only hinted at in LotR, but once one reads more of the legendarium, the chapters in Lorien becomes like a deep pool.

As for myself... I try not to begrudge people who enjoy Rings of Power their enjoyment. Heavens know I've enjoyed enough genre pulp material of my own. (I finally watched season 2 after losing a bet with my wife, who enjoys watching me throw foam dice at the screen, and who likes the show... but she doesn't care about whether it's "Tolkien" or not; she's able to take it as a generic fantasy show, and enjoys in on that basis, which I am unable to do.) If someone makes the claim that it is well-executed... I will disagree, but that is generally amenable to honest and enjoyable argument or discussion. That in turn is different that the pretense that Rings of Power is an honest attempt to bring any of Tolkien's writing to the screen, and even more that it is a successful one. There are rare moments where it works on the surface, but it actively dis-serves the characters, the story, the setting and details of the themes of Tolkien's work so thoroughly... but I'll leave that for the nonce.

What I will mention is a show I see as the opposite of "soft bullshit writing"; for characters that are flawed but heroes, or have strengths but as villains, I very much recommend Andor (if you have not seen it) - but that is a topic for a different thread.

[Biomega]

I try not to begrudge people who enjoy Rings of Power their enjoyment. [...] If someone makes the claim that it is well-executed... I will disagree

And that is the crucial distinction: between "I like this" and "I think this is bad because...", i.e. preference and argument. And many, many, MANY people these days have great difficulty separating the two both when speaking and when listening. Anything they like becomes a quality product, anything they don't like becomes poorly executed - even though there's a giant epistemological chasm between the two, and conflating them is a serious, gross category error.

Andor is a great example for why this is so important. I've called the show the greatest Star Wars show I just can't enjoy - I recognize that it is very well written, shot, edited, etc. and has a whole catalog of things that I could point to as objectively as possible in this context and say "this is high quality". But I just don't like the show, personally. In the sense that I'm not having a good time watching it, despite its quality. Maybe its the genre, maybe its the pacing, maybe a combination of many things, but it's not doing it for me. But that doesn't impede my evaluation of Andor as a brilliant piece of entertainment, and praising its various features even in the face of personal dislike. It's a great show - I just happen to not like it. And those are two fundamentally different things.

What's weird is how common this is, or should be. I mostly deal with books academically so I'm quite familiar with the idea of separating personal enjoyment from professional evaluation. Finnegan's Wake is one of the greatest novels ever written; you won't catch me dead reading it. Moby Dick is a milestone of literary history; you couldn't pay me to read it again. And so on. Of course the same is true in the inverse, where I'll have a great time reading lots of science fiction (my main professional area of expertise) even while recognizing that it has literary flaws up to the eyeballs. Doesn't matter, had fun. And it's still valuable academically, because literary craftsmanship isn't all there is to it. Film studies no doubt works the same way; and you don't even have to go to extremes like The Room, but even mass-appeal slop like the Fast & Furious series or something has great value in terms of cultural study even in the face of blatant cinematic shortcomings.

It's real tiresome and difficult, though, to have discussions when people constantly get confused between what's good and what they like. And take it personally as soon as you point it out. VERY personally.

[rhorle]

The original trilogy was not a perfect representation of the books but it can be readily suggested that any changes made were not driven by spite and heavy handed political baggage. I would say that is the main difference between the original movies and the show.

That is your personal bias trying to explain why you accept one and not the other. One of the reasons Peter Jackson elevated the roles of Arwen and Eowyn to balance out the male dominated story. It was also to bring more romance to the story. That would be called "going woke" and political baggage if it happened today.

[rhorle]

It isn't personal bias. I think his reasoning is flawed and laid the groundwork for the current nonsense, though the rot had not yet set in within the industry at that point so such decisions can be taken at face value rather than being driven by spite.

You just described your personal bias. It is your opinion that certain things are rot in the industry. It is your own bias that labels mixed ethnicity appearing as slop and rot.