The Amazon Series: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly [NO SPOILERS]

[Dungeon Delver]

I wonder if it's more the way pop culture/fandom trailers are presented that makes it look so formulaic and boring. If you look at any trailer we saw from SDCC this weekend, there are a lot of similar looking trailers, sweeping epic music, quick cuts of characters without telling the viewer who they are, ominous voice overs, quippy one liners, and a final "BOOM" moment at the end with a slow title reveal. I think we've just seen that formula over and over and over and over for the last 20-30 years now so nothing feels new or original.

I could be wrong though

[Smaug the Gold]

Judging from the comments it looks like I'm more optimistic than other members here. Admittedly the lead up, including image teasers, the short trailer during the Super Bowl, etc. didn't inspire much confidence. However the two most recent trailers makes it appear far more promising. Looking forward to it regardless. Might even have to find the time to reread the Silmarillion. Certainly looks better than The Hobbit movies in any case.

[Silky Gooseness]

https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/entert ... nor-images

A glimpse into Númenor! It does look very aesthetic - I hope there’s the focus on seafaring that we expect and it looks that way for now.

Edit to add: looks like the set was properly built, not a green screen, which I find to be a huge positive as well!

[Lirimaer]

I don't think I can bear to watch it.

[Silky Gooseness]

Another article:

https://www.looper.com/964906/morfydd-c ... interview/

It doesn’t tell us much except that Morfydd’s Welsh-speaking helped inspire some of the feelings she had when speaking Quenya - and that they meet on a shipwreck. Hmmmm

[Dungeon Delver]

Poor Teleporno it seems in every adaptation he's forced to watch as millions of people ship his wife with anyone but him

[Silky Gooseness]

https://www.looper.com/968315/nazanin-b ... interview/

I’m a bit disappointed that they’re going down the route of elf-other species forbidden love again. It was written into LotR by Tolkien, it was shoehorned into the Hobbit and didn’t work, and now they’re trying it again??? Can’t we find a new story device for why they couldn’t be together - as the article itself says, all elf-mortal romances were for a specific purpose. Even the Aegnor/Andreth which didn’t work out because it wasn’t for a specific uniting of the lines

[Fingolfin of Hithlum]

I'm inclined to give the show the benefit of the doubt. Most of what I've seen and definitely-NOT-thought-too-hard-about so far seems palatable. I share your sense of cringe, however, at yet another elf-human romance. Surely there is a better way to work the angle of romantic angst into these characters? Just because Tolkien said it can happen doesn't mean that it should happen. I'm going to take it in stride for now, but I can't say I am looking forward to watching them try to make that work in a passable way.

[Boromir88]

I'm expecting to be stunned by the visuals (but they should be for the amount of money pumped into the series). On some level, if the visuals and music are stunning than the series will entertain me. But to truly hook me in, the characters and action scenes have to be good.

Not so much on this small corner of the internet, but in the wider fandom there are so much griping about the woke agenda. It got tiresome and I stopped following the news leaking out about the series. My hopes aren't high with how the status quo seems to be let's include diversity to check off boxes and create for mass appeal; like "different skin colors, female warriors. Diversity, yay!" That's the lazy way to be inclusive, just so people can pat themselves on the back. Do something more with diversity, deeper than the surface; add depth, show it in the different languages, cultures, society's morals, costume design, how the different races interact with each other. If that's what the intention and goal is, that can truly be a remarkable pro about the series. However, this is just my Fool's hope, so I'll find out soon enough.

While thinking about the series beginning this week...@Winddancer @Silky Gooseness @Pele Alarion , are there any forum policies about posting spoilers? Because, I fully intend to discuss the episodes here. My guess is no, with how relaxed it is here, but it can't hurt to ask before capsizing the boat.

[Winddancer]

@Boromir88 I think if you add SPOILERS in the title of the thread, you should be good to discuss what you want. Then it's up to people to stay out of that thread if they don't want to see any.

[Dungeon Delver]

What if, just a thought, we had two threads? This one for nonspoilers and another with a big neon "SPOILERS ABOUND" added to it so that people can have it both ways?

[Winddancer]

Ya, that's what I was assuming was gonna happen. To make a new thread when the series goes live, with spoilers in the title :D Sorry if I wasn't clear!

[Boromir88]

Makes sense.

[Silky Gooseness]

Would it be helpful to have a spoiler thread per episode, or just have people put SPOILERS FOR EPISODE TWO at the top of their posts etc?

[Winddancer]

I would think that people would not enter a thread labelled spoilers if they have not stayed up to date on the current episodes :P

[Dungeon Delver]

Spoiler thread per episode is better, especially if it is demarked clearly. For those not sincerely not wanting to be spoiled, having to navigate through "SPOILERS FOR EPISODE XX" posts still has a high likelihood of seeing something they don't wish to see. Pin this thread, or the weekly episode's spoiler thread, so people can find the place they want to comment/praise/complain.

Just my 2 cents.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

I don't think I can bear to watch it.

My thoughts are likewise. I have new Tolkien books and they are pretty insightful and enjoyable. Digest the essay adventures of Beren and Luthien in old classic High English. Do I read Shakespeare?

[Romeran]

Spoiler thread per episode is better, especially if it is demarked clearly. For those not sincerely not wanting to be spoiled, having to navigate through "SPOILERS FOR EPISODE XX" posts still has a high likelihood of seeing something they don't wish to see. Pin this thread, or the weekly episode's spoiler thread, so people can find the place they want to comment/praise/complain.

Just my 2 cents.

Yeah agreed. I can imagine watching an episode or two, go in for some discussion, but being forced into a thread which may cover spoilers for episodes ahead of which you've seen may be irritating and having to white out spoilers for all possible episodes even in a SPOILER thread is going to make it rather painful to read.

[Fuin Elda]

I'd go for spoilers per episode that way it can be discussed and people can talk about the different episodes they have watched without being exposed to spoilers for newer episodes that they haven't watched.

[Silky Gooseness]

Based on the feedback it sounds like people would largely prefer individual threads per episode where we can go spoiler free! we can set this up as the episodes start screening and link them into a master thread we pin up so they’re easy to find.

[Dungeon Delver]

Wunderbar

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Today this article of the upcoming series was in my local newspaper. Warned it is in Dutch, but still.... It is a big resolution, so it can be viewed well if you want. I wanted to share it though, even I am as much against the making of it. Largely the article flashes out the amount of costs, the war of Amazon for new members with Netflix, Disney, HBO Max and Apple TV. And a paragraph about Galadriel. Articles closes down with: "One thing is clear, money plays just as important role in this Tolkien series as the elven queen Galadriel, who in all her battles with the most hideous monsters yet seems to have a clearer overview." It is not very flattering of tone.

NB: I have no membership on any of those movie series flatforms.

[Boromir88]

Oh wow, I just saw that it premieres in my area tonight @9 EST. Apologies to non-North and Latin America residents. So, it sounds like there will be a main thread pinned for spoiler-free discussion. And there will be links to each episode for the spoiler warning threads?

[Dungeon Delver]

That's gist of it! If no one has any objections to it, I'll keep track and make the new threads for the new episodes as they appear.

Also, if an admin might be kind enough to pin this particular thread?

[Silky Gooseness]

Thanks @Metatron Omega - I came on to do just that and you’ve done it for me! I will pin this thread and also make a “master thread” just as directory.

[Dungeon Delver]

[Silky Gooseness]

Read a great article recently shared by @FireroseArien on Social Media which sort of rang true. However, just because they don’t have the time allotted doesn’t mean they can’t put love in?? We’ll see

Written by Nolan Yost

In case anyone else is super annoyed by every single new show ending up being “mid” and wondering why it’s basically because of the New Studio System™ of streaming services and the constant push for content at all cost as fast as possible, and here’s what you’re not noticing (that you actually do notice every time) that’s making it worse.

Basically because of the extreme push to make the New Best Thing that executives believe can grab a huge dedicated fan base, the pre-production time for creating MASSIVE new visual feasts is fractured into mere months alongside a severely lessened budget because of the huge extra costs of rushing each department to meet the proposed deadline. I can’t speak professionally for set design or VFX and cinemomatography, but I can say that the toll it takes on costuming and hair/makeup has made almost every new release from Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu have a B movie visual quality that’s becoming harder and harder to ignore the more we’re flooded with it.

For instance with the upcoming Rings of Power by Amazon, the reason Peter Jackson’s original trilogy stands so strongly 20+ years later is partly because the production spent years hand making every single piece of armor with real metal, hand dyeing all natural fiber fabrics and designing distinct embroidery and hairstyles specific to each race in middle earth that had continuity through the story. The natural dyes and dedicated layers of fabrics for elves/weaves for hobbit wool/dyes for Men had a much more muted medieval look, yet ethereal because of the slight detail you don’t REALLY notice but the depth draws your eye to every inch of the costume regardless. In figure 1 you can see they barely scrapped together an unnaturally gilded scale mail breastplate and just screenprinted a stretch long sleeve shirt to match underneath, all over a skirt in a single layer of a warped poly skirt. In figure 4 they just saved money on an elven wig altogether for a 2022 pompadour, with a velvet pleated priest smock (with crushed parts not even steamed out) and a neckline that isn’t tailored to fit like weve seen previously with Elrond or Celeborn.

Bridgerton (figure 2)I’ve bagginsed about enough already and it’s obviously not meant to be historically accurate which is totally fine, but the extreme RIT dye colorways on the multitudes on synthetic fabrics, the lack of topstitching on any of the mens tailoring and complete lack of any embellishment like beadwork or embroidery or proper undergarments to make the costuming fit correctly just make them look like a “regency gentleman” pattern from a McCall’s catalogue someone made really well for a Halloween party.

With the new house of the dragon show there’s already articles written about the wigs, and one of the main reasons they look so terrible is because they had to use synthetic hair for the Targaryen wigs. I’m 100% sure it’s due to budget, Daenerys’ wigs for season 8 were in the tens of thousands in cost. Because long white blonde human hair that has to be custom made into multiple wigs for a single character is a HUGE ask for a studio to approve budget-wise, there’s was most likely someone that decided to go with synthetic because of how many white bLondres they have in the show. The problem is that synthetic hair reflects light throughout the whole hair shaft, and it tangles extremely easily. With any shot where a character isn’t actively moving or is performing dialogue and the hair isnt being actively smoothed down every couple of second between shots, each flyaway is going to show up on camera if there’s any indirect lighting and look messy. Not only that, synthetic hair is also twice as thick per strand than human hair, so regardless of that the wigs are going to look bulky in an uncanny valley sort of way.

It’s been noticeable af with marvel the last few years, and it’s been super noticeable recently with every new show that gets rushed through to filming in order to get a release date within 1-2 years of a green light, but it’s going to be so fredegar awful in 15-20 years looking back at all the potentially great but cheaply made media from this time period, the Shein era of Mass Media.

[Rivvy Elf]

Perhaps animated shows would be the exception then? Invincible was (muah) high class and they are certainly not rushing the second season out.

Edit: and I heard Arcane was awesome too

[Dungeon Delver]

I look at all the TV series that Mike Flanagan has done recently (Haunting of Hill House, Haunting of Bly Manor, Midnight Mass, and several more upcoming) and each of them have been created within a year or two of being greenlit while being absolutely phenomenal. I'm not denying to overall premise of the article but it feels very sour grapes.

[Silky Gooseness]

Perhaps animated shows would be the exception then? Invincible was (muah) high class and they are certainly not rushing the second season out.

Edit: and I heard Arcane was awesome too

Yes - looking forward to the Rohirrim film on this premise - that they won’t be limited in set design or purchasing wigs or making costumes and can just be as Dramatic As They Like!

[Boromir88]

An interesting bit of news, Amazon trying to combat “review bombing.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.avclub ... 493204/amp

[Dungeon Delver]

I'm not surprised by Amazon having to do this, it's a knife's edge tactic, but I think it's a necessary one because of the wild amount of vitriol the series received. I remember looking at Twitter for a whole two minutes after I'd watched the episodes and saints below it was baaaaaaaaad. Many of the comments had nothing to do with the show itself either, just mocking anyone who enjoyed the show and "defending Tolkien's legacy."

Maybe this is why we can't have nice things.

[Androthelm]

Yup! This is unsurprising. I'm really glad there have been such good-faith discussions of the show here on the plaza, because most of the talk over on LOTRO has been "hey I thought the show was pretty cool" vs "its woke trash." Quickly becoming a culture wars touchstone, which is unfortunate.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Silky: Thanks sharing that article of Nolan. It confirms what I have concluded myself on costumes for example.

Edit: Just found a reference in the Economic Times about the bad remarks of Elon Musk. I am not a fan of his character in general.

[DalMaegil]

Hello. I was a member of the prior Plaza, who took a somewhat long hiatus.

The only thing I can say about the series comes from the Professor's own words:

The canons of narrative in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies.

Anything more on my part, I'm afraid, will step on a number of toes.

[Aeros]

Yup! This is unsurprising. I'm really glad there have been such good-faith discussions of the show here on the plaza, because most of the talk over on LOTRO has been "hey I thought the show was pretty cool" vs "its woke trash." Quickly becoming a culture wars touchstone, which is unfortunate.

Everyone in more mainstream online spaces has been dutifully and predictably playing their part in this culture war-- the show is either "woke trash" that's destroying western culture, or conversely it's somehow seen as revolutionary, morally righteous, and anti-racist to consume a streaming TV show produced by a massive multinational corporation.

Can't help but feel like Amazon easily predicted this outcome and intentionally crafted the show to produce these responses, to generate news and attention about what is otherwise a pretty mediocre and generic fantasy story with a high budget

[Rivvy Elf]

@Aeros quite myopic of them when the majority of the earth’s population (Asia) isn’t even represented in the show yet

[Boromir88]

Hell0 DalMaegil, welcome back after a long hiatus. The biggest problem I see the showrunners are facing is the copyright. They don't have the rights to The Silmarillion, so the scope of what they have to work with is quite limited (to the LOTR Appendices) or else they risk infringing on copyright. It's weird and at this point I'd call it alt-fic, but the series can't even do simple things like have Celebrimbor say Feanor was his grandfather. Since that's information that's not in Lord of the Rings.

[DalMaegil]

Hell0 DalMaegil, welcome back after a long hiatus.

Thank you for the welcome. Hopefully, I can start to get back into the swing of things and re-connect with Tolkien Society members in particular.

The biggest problem I see the showrunners are facing is the copyright. They don't have the rights to The Silmarillion, so the scope of what they have to work with is quite limited (to the LOTR Appendices) or else they risk infringing on copyright. It's weird and at this point I'd call it alt-fic, but the series can't even do simple things like have Celebrimbor say Feanor was his grandfather. Since that's information that's not in Lord of the Rings.

Well, if they don't have rights to the Silmarillion, perhaps they ought to just stick to the "canons of narrative" the good Professor mentioned. After all, a series of "Game of Thrones" already exists and does not require a poor competitor with Tolkien-esque trappings. Perhaps the wiser course is to abandon the effort and put forth more documentaries regarding those narratives, many of which do not necessarily have to be licensed. Many books have been written regarding themes presented in the Professor's works, and those would make wonderful source materials for said documentaries.

I would call it fan-fiction, but that would be insulting to fan-fiction. The efforts at introducing "unwarranted matter" are laughable, with a vain attempt to insert modernistic themes into a classical mythology, expecting an "apples-for-apples" result.

[Rivvy Elf]

@DalMaegil
Welcome back! It's good to shake the rust off, isn't it?

What do you consider to be modernistic themes?

I ask this because in the Appendices and the UT, in Arnorian and Gondorian history especially, there are political science concepts that one could interpret as "modern." For instance, when I see the Kin-strife I see a huge waste of a civil war that leads to a reinforcement of blood-purity even though it was Eldacar who won that war. I can only justify this result using what I consider to be "modern" concepts, like vengeance for his slain son rather than fighting for the integrity of the Northmen, and either a hidden shame of his heritage or a failure to incorporate his political beliefs into his kingdom.

[Eldy Dunami]

Hi, @DalMaegil, welcome back to the Plaza!

I would call it fan-fiction, but that would be insulting to fan-fiction. The efforts at introducing "unwarranted matter" are laughable, with a vain attempt to insert modernistic themes into a classical mythology, expecting an "apples-for-apples" result.

Perhaps I'm missing something of your meaning, but I find it curious to characterize Tolkien's work as "a classical mythology," considering how informed his work was by modern concerns. Tolkien drew a ton of inspiration from historical literary and mythological works, of course, but his treatment of industrialism (most things related to Sauron and Saruman), degradation of nature, colonialism (Númenor), the horrors of industrial warfare (the original version of the Fall of Gondolin), and other themes clearly mark his work as the product of a modern—specifically, 20th century—author. That's not a criticism; I think all art reflects the context its creator(s) lived in. Adaptations are no exception, so I'm not bothered by ROP being recognizably the product of 21st century writers. Though I don't think this has been unusually blatant in the themes of the series so far, so like @Rivvy Elf, I'm curious which specific parts you find objectionable.

[Androthelm]

Welcome back @DalMaegil!

Well, if they don't have rights to the Silmarillion, perhaps they ought to just stick to the "canons of narrative" the good Professor mentioned.

Can I ask what you mean by this? I'm not totally seeing the connection between the decision to create a second age story and Tolkien's "canons of narrative." It seems like you're applying that in the sense of "canon" as in "agreed-upon 'lore' of a secondary world" (where things might need to be adjusted thanks to the rights or lack thereof) which is not T's usage — which I have always taken as to suggest that the "canons of narrative" are the established tools, techniques, and requirements of particular medium (which necessarily will cause change in adaption). After all the full clause is: the canons of narrative in any medium cannot be wholly different;.

While I agree that the rest of that sentence (the failure of films, exaggeration and the missing of the core of the original) suggests that Tolkien is to some extent interested in what we might now call "canon-accuracy," I would call attention to the pluralization of 'canons' and its position to "medium" suggests that Tolkien sees multiple "canons" in each "medium" — which is confusing if we're talking about canon in the sense of "narrative accuracy" but makes more sense if we read "canons" as the established tools and guidelines, since there are certainly multiple tools and guidelines in any media. If that seems nit-picky, well, its unfortunately what happens when we try to derive ultimate, consistent meaning from letters that were not written or edited with public reading in mind — you might be more content if you'd consider that Tolkien himself may not, in fact, be totally consistent or omniscient when it comes to this stuff.

I would call it fan-fiction, but that would be insulting to fan-fiction. The efforts at introducing "unwarranted matter" are laughable, with a vain attempt to insert modernistic themes into a classical mythology, expecting an "apples-for-apples" result.

I'd also like to echo other posters concerns over what it is you mean by "modernist" and "classical" here (thanks @Eldy Dunami for an excellent note on some of the vitally 20th century themes of Tolkien's work — I just read your comment after finishing up this post, so sorry to not acknowledge it more clearly ), though also expand that and ask about "vain" and "apples-for-apples." I suspect the third is an idiom I'm not familiar with... but I'm both intrigued that an effort to insert something by a new author into a new text could be "vain" (isn't it successfully inserted, whether we like it or not?) and also want to raise some concerns about the specific deployment of "modernist" and "classical" here.

The truth of the matter is that Tolkien is not a "classical" author in the firmest sense (greek or roman) and I don't necessarily agree that he's classical in a colloquial sense either (traditional, long-established). There's a stronger argument for the second sense — in that T is working in a (sometimes) medievalist mode, and has in many ways been influential, but there has really been nothing quite like them — and I think much of contemporary fantasy is really better linked to authors like Moorcock than to our jolly old Ronald.

The truth is that Tolkien's works are, in a very real sense, concerned with many of the same issues the "modernists" were — he was, after all, only a decade younger than Joyce, only four years younger than Eliot, and lived through the same War which was so defining to so many of the "modernist" generation. Concerns over the machine, the "modern" city, the destruction of nature, the jingoist or parochial close-minded development of a national identity — these appear both in Middle-earth and James Joyce's Ulysses. Tolkien may have held a distaste for the "modern" world — but we should recall, so did the "modernists".

Unfortunately, there's an alternate reading which I feel we should address: it's possible not to read "modernist" in reference to the literary generation or T's own nuanced relationship with the "modern" world, just as "classical" could be read in reference neither to the Greeks nor the traditional way of writing fantasy. I don't want to throw around meaningless accusations, but I do think its vitally important as we all continue along this specific thread to acknowledge that modernist versus classical (in art, ideas, aesthetics, whatever) are COLOSSAL ideological buzzwords, historically deployed by those whose real interests were oppression and subjugation — the orcs in government, as Tolkien called them. I do not want to get any more political than that here on the Plaza, but, while I am interested to hear your critique I might recommend a slight adjustment of language.

quick edit: oh dear, my [/quote]s and [/b]s have gone astray, patched now.

[Melahny_oftheWoods]

Read a great article recently shared by @FireroseArien on Social Media which sort of rang true. However, just because they don’t have the time allotted doesn’t mean they can’t put love in?? We’ll see

Great article, thanks for sharing that. So my question is... how come they are rushing the production of shows/films then? PJ took years to make the LOTR and Hobbit trilogies. Why don't they take their time so they can produce better wigs, for instance, so more of the Elves have long hair? And better armour for the Númenóreans? I mean, how long did they take in the production? Maybe they should have worked on pre-production stuff for a couple years before they even started filming?

I suppose I know the answer.... money money money. LOL. They want quicker profits...but that's a pretty poor plan, because if the show is rushed and not as good as it could be, they won't make as much money as they could have.

On another note, personally I would love to see a mini series of some of the Silmarillion stories. You know they could do an episode that is Beren and Luthien's story, and then Feanor and the Sils could feature in another couple of episodes... and the kinslaying... but basically I just want to see Beren and Luthien

[Boromir88]

Since I don't have enough time this morning, before heading off to work, to watch Episode 4, here are some quick predictions. From the episode blurb:

Elrond uncovers a secret- Elrond uncovers Gil-galad's covers, uncovering Gil-galad has bed bugs.

Arondir is given an ultimatum - Adar demands Arondir surrender. Arondir says no.

Theo disobeys Bronwyn. - Bronwyn tells Theo to get rid of the sword. Theo says no.

[DalMaegil]

Welcome back @DalMaegil!

Thank you.

Can I ask what you mean by this?

I think you already have.

I'm not totally seeing the connection between the decision to create a second age story and Tolkien's "canons of narrative." It seems like you're applying that in the sense of "canon" as in "agreed-upon 'lore' of a secondary world" (where things might need to be adjusted thanks to the rights or lack thereof) which is not T's usage — which I have always taken as to suggest that the "canons of narrative" are the established tools, techniques, and requirements of particular medium (which necessarily will cause change in adaption). After all the full clause is: the canons of narrative in any medium cannot be wholly different;.

And yet, you are detaching that portion from the quote from the entire quote's context, which most certainly shows that the such canons are his own work.

While I agree that the rest of that sentence (the failure of films, exaggeration and the missing of the core of the original) suggests that Tolkien is to some extent interested in what we might now call "canon-accuracy," I would call attention to the pluralization of 'canons' and its position to "medium" suggests that Tolkien sees multiple "canons" in each "medium" — which is confusing if we're talking about canon in the sense of "narrative accuracy" but makes more sense if we read "canons" as the established tools and guidelines, since there are certainly multiple tools and guidelines in any media. If that seems nit-picky, well, its unfortunately what happens when we try to derive ultimate, consistent meaning from letters that were not written or edited with public reading in mind — you might be more content if you'd consider that Tolkien himself may not, in fact, be totally consistent or omniscient when it comes to this stuff.

It does quite seem to be nit-picky, as Tolkien's own works involves reams of revisions, leading to, from his rightful perspective, multiple canons. Those, however, still remain his. To imply that someone other than the authour and his rightful heir or heirs can snap new "canons" into existence is automatically suspect and capricious.

I'd also like to echo other posters concerns over what it is you mean by "modernist" and "classical" here (thanks @Eldy Dunami for an excellent note on some of the vitally 20th century themes of Tolkien's work — I just read your comment after finishing up this post, so sorry to not acknowledge it more clearly ), though also expand that and ask about "vain" and "apples-for-apples." I suspect the third is an idiom I'm not familiar with... but I'm both intrigued that an effort to insert something by a new author into a new text could be "vain" (isn't it successfully inserted, whether we like it or not?) and also want to raise some concerns about the specific deployment of "modernist" and "classical" here.

You seem to be confusing the word "modernistic" with "modernist". I carefully used the former, not the latter.

The truth of the matter is that Tolkien is not a "classical" author in the firmest sense (greek or roman) and I don't necessarily agree that he's classical in a colloquial sense either (traditional, long-established). There's a stronger argument for the second sense — in that T is working in a (sometimes) medievalist mode, and has in many ways been influential, but there has really been nothing quite like them — and I think much of contemporary fantasy is really better linked to authors like Moorcock than to our jolly old Ronald.

The Greeks and Romans do not hold a monopoly on classical mythology (another term that I chose with precision). The Professor was a classicly-trained student, philologist and teacher of Norse and Teutonic mythologies, both of which were contemporaries of the Greeks and Romans.

The truth is that Tolkien's works are, in a very real sense, concerned with many of the same issues the "modernists" were — he was, after all, only a decade younger than Joyce, only four years younger than Eliot, and lived through the same War which was so defining to so many of the "modernist" generation. Concerns over the machine, the "modern" city, the destruction of nature, the jingoist or parochial close-minded development of a national identity — these appear both in Middle-earth and James Joyce's Ulysses. Tolkien may have held a distaste for the "modern" world — but we should recall, so did the "modernists".

Ignoring your mis-quoted use of the term "modernist" again, I shall point out that the Professor was a not at all a lover of allegory, from his own very admission.

Unfortunately, there's an alternate reading which I feel we should address: it's possible not to read "modernist" in reference to the literary generation or T's own nuanced relationship with the "modern" world, just as "classical" could be read in reference neither to the Greeks nor the traditional way of writing fantasy. I don't want to throw around meaningless accusations, but I do think its vitally important as we all continue along this specific thread to acknowledge that modernist versus classical (in art, ideas, aesthetics, whatever) are COLOSSAL ideological buzzwords, historically deployed by those whose real interests were oppression and subjugation — the orcs in government, as Tolkien called them. I do not want to get any more political than that here on the Plaza, but, while I am interested to hear your critique I might recommend a slight adjustment of language.

My language was precise and presented precisely what I intended. As for specific critiques of the show, my employment of such would be in violation of both the letter and spirit of the request that there be no spoilers.

[DalMaegil]

Hi, @DalMaegil, welcome back to the Plaza!

Thank you.

Perhaps I'm missing something of your meaning, but I find it curious to characterize Tolkien's work as "a classical mythology," considering how informed his work was by modern concerns. Tolkien drew a ton of inspiration from historical literary and mythological works, of course, but his treatment of industrialism (most things related to Sauron and Saruman), degradation of nature, colonialism (Númenor), the horrors of industrial warfare (the original version of the Fall of Gondolin), and other themes clearly mark his work as the product of a modern—specifically, 20th century—author. That's not a criticism; I think all art reflects the context its creator(s) lived in. Adaptations are no exception, so I'm not bothered by ROP being recognizably the product of 21st century writers. Though I don't think this has been unusually blatant in the themes of the series so far, so like @Rivvy Elf, I'm curious which specific parts you find objectionable.

That is an odd assertion. The Professor was very clear in his dislike of allegory. Lest I be remiss, I shall leave this reminder here.

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” - J.R.R. Tolkien

In other words, the authour determines what it is about his works that is allegorical and what is not, while the applicability is left to the discernment of the reader.

[Bearamir]

I had heard so many criticisms of the show from friends and colleagues that I seriously considered not watching the show. But now that I've seen a couple of episodes, I must confess to looking forward to Friday nights. I realize that there are a lot of things about the show that do not "jibe" with the LoTR I remembered (and love) but I can still enjoy the show for what it is...an enchanting reflection of the "mythology of England" that Professor Tolkien tried so hard to create.

[Eldy Dunami]

That is an odd assertion. The Professor was very clear in his dislike of allegory. Lest I be remiss, I shall leave this reminder here.

Thank goodness I said nothing about allegory in my previous post! Acknowledging that Tolkien did not create his stories ex nihilo, but that—like every other writer in history—he was influenced by the times in which he lived (among many other influences) does not constitute a claim that any of his works were allegorical. Except Leaf by Niggle, which is 100% an allegory.

[DalMaegil]

Thank goodness I said nothing about allegory in my previous post! Acknowledging that Tolkien did not create his stories ex nihilo, but that—like every other writer in history—he was influenced by the times in which he lived (among many other influences) does not constitute a claim that any of his works were allegorical.

Really? Did he declare that he made use of allegory in his works, given that he is the final authourity on both his writing and his thoughts, or did others read in certain "influences", as you put it?

Except Leaf by Niggle, which is 100% an allegory.

According to whom? The Professor or those claimants who never conceived of nor wrote his work?

[Dungeon Delver]

Okay, I'm gonna wade into this before it gets out of hand. First off, @DalMaegil, happy to have you back and I hope you enjoy your time here.

Secondly though, belligerence is not a virtue and it certain is not becoming of a someone trying to debate the merits of a TV show with any sort of intelligence. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, however. It's perfectly fine that you don't like the show. Everyone is entitled to their opinions as well as express them in a manner befitting the professor. However, this little discussion is not going that direction. I've read through @Eldy Dunami's post and found no mention of allegory until you brought it up erroneously in order to attack her point, which did not work as you were attacking something she did not mention, nor has she said that he "made use of allegory in his work" as you put it, if you would kindly re-read what she wrote I think you will find that you might have misread something and made an error. Being influence by the world around and the things you love is not using allegory.

And so, let's behave a little more like members of the Plaza and not teenaged girls bickering on Twitter. I say all this in my capacity as Thread Runner. Feel free to debate and disagree, but don't fall into arguing and fighting, eh?