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

[DalMaegil]

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.

Well, I imagine that would ultimately rely on the perceptions and actions of the moderation team.

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.

I do not perceive that as being so. If anything, I could claim that you are calling my intelligence into question. However, that would be a nonsensical stretch that would be comparable to certain claims in your post. Perhaps you meant to say that you "doubt the benefit" instead ... ?

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.

... until certain perceptions and claims are stated concerning said perceptions, it seems.

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.

Ah, but allegory was implied in the specific language and references used. As such, I questioned it accordingly, without offering an "attack" or a questioning of Eldy's character in the slightest. If I am entitled to "opinions", as you say, I would submit that I have a proper right to challenge assertions that, from my perception, are either overt or underlying.

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?

I have not been anywhere near a teen-aged anything, much less a teen-aged girl. What I perceive is an over-wrought sensitivity to what may be deemed to be uncomfortable questions in a debate, and I am quite certain that such sensitivity is rather unlike any manner of debate that was a hallmark of the interactions of the Professor and his fellow Inklings. Perhaps a mirror is necessary to resolve the matter ...

[Dungeon Delver]

Well, I imagine that would ultimately rely on the perceptions and actions of the moderation team.

Interesting way to start...

I do not perceive that as being so. If anything, I could claim that you are calling my intelligence into question. However, that would be a nonsensical stretch that would be comparable to certain claims in your post. Perhaps you meant to say that you "doubt the benefit" instead ... ?

No, mellon, you could not claim I am calling your intelligence into question. I have no doubt you are quite an intelligent person willing to make intelligent conversation

... until certain perceptions and claims are stated concerning said perceptions, it seems.

Let's not go down that road, shall we? I can tell you dislike the show and respect your opinions on the matter, it is what I perceive to be bickering and fighting that I will not abide. If you hate the show, give us reasons, give us conversation, give us debate and analysis.

Ah, but allegory was implied in the specific language and references used. As such, I questioned it accordingly, without offering an "attack" or a questioning of Eldy's character in the slightest. If I am entitled to "opinions", as you say, I would submit that I have a proper right to challenge assertions that, from my perception, are either overt or underlying.

I'll allow Eldy to address this

I have not been anywhere near a teen-aged anything, much less a teen-aged girl. What I perceive is an over-wrought sensitivity to what may be deemed to be uncomfortable questions in a debate, and I am quite certain that such sensitivity is rather unlike any manner of debate that was a hallmark of the interactions of the Professor and his fellow Inklings. Perhaps a mirror is necessary to resolve the matter ...

Debate and entitlement to one's own opinions are one thing, I perceive your intentions as somewhat other. I do not believe you are debating in good faith.

[Boromir88]

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?

I think you are mistaking allegory for what experiences and influences Tolkien drew inspiration from.

Allegory is a 1:1 correlation. Allegory is people who claim...
"The Ring is the atomic bomb."
"The War of the Ring is World War II"

These are allegories, and would be the "domination of the author" that Tolkien disliked. That's not what @Eldy Dunami wrote. I'll just put it as Tolkien wrote, from The Foreward to Lord of the Rings:

An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous. It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences. One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead. Or to take a less grievous matter: it has been supposed by some that "The Scouring of the Shire" reflects the situation in England at the time when I was finishing the tale. It does not. It is an essential part of the plot foreseen from the outset, though in the event modified by the character of Saruman as developed in the story without, need I say, any allegorical significance or contemporary political reference whatsoever. It has indeed some basis in experience, though slender (for the economic situation was entirely different), and much further back. The country in which I lived in childhood was being shabbily destroyed before I was ten, in days when motor-cars were rare objects (I had never seen one) and men were still building suburban railways. (bolding my emphasis)

[Eldy Dunami]

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?

I'm not really sure how to reply here. Your either/or question hinges on the continuing conflation of allegory and influence. I could disagree with this again, but as you've already dismissed that reply out of hand once, I don't really feel like engaging in a repetitive back-and-forth right now. @Boromir88 already posted one of the quotes I sometimes point to in conversations like this, so I don't think there's much more I could say.

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

Does it matter? Leaf by Niggle is really, really obviously an allegory for Tolkien's concept of sub-creation, and I don't think we need abase ourselves so thoroughly at the altar of authorial authority that we can no longer exercise our own critical faculties enough to call a spade a spade. But, as it happens, Tolkien did in fact offer confirmation in this case: "I tried to show allegorically how [sub-creation] might come to be taken up into Creation in some plane in my 'purgatorial' story Leaf by Niggle" (Letter 153).

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Allegories? I won't recognise them.

[Androthelm]

Hey all, sorry -- I've been away for a couple of days and haven't managed to keep up with the plaza too well. That being said -- and understanding that there's been some hostility in this thread this weekend -- I'd love to pull things back and ask some legitimately good-faith questions as part of the ongoing discussion.

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.

I'd love to know what you mean here! I'm really not sure how the "canons of narrative art" could be read as exclusively Tolkiens, so I'd love to hear this expanded.

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.

This is an interesting take... especially here? Isn't all the fan-engagement we do, particularly over in the regional forums, the creation of some sort of fan-accepted (even at a local or individual level) canons? I think we might just have to agree to disagree on the nature of fan-engagement here, but I'd love to hear you expand on this and how you feel it applies to RP, speculative worldbuilding, or Tolkien's own willingness to let "other minds and hands" attend to the creation of his world etc.

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

That's entirely fair! I was construing (although I'll say not confusing) one word for the other -- I assumed you misused the word, since "modernistic" is hardly a common one. That being said -- I'd love to hear you expand on this as well. What elements of the show do you feel are (to quote the oxford page you link, and make sure we're all looking closely at the definition) "(of a painting, building, piece of furniture, etc.) painted, designed, etc. in a very modern style"? Is there something particular to this production that you feel this way about, or was this applicable to the PJ movies as well? (If you feel the same way about the PJ movies I might actually agree with you -- I just want a clearer picture of what it is exactly we're talking about. If you'd like to move threads to discuss spoilers, I'm glad to do that as well.

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.

This is a place I'm going to have to politely disagree with you again -- I discussed multiple possible definitions of "classical" in my original post, and settled on the Greco-Roman as being the most likely way you might have meant it. That being said -- lets turn to the OLD, which says of "classical"

1. ​relating to classical music
2. ​widely accepted and used for a long time; traditional in style or idea
3. ​connected with or influenced by the culture of ancient Greece and Rome
4. ​(also more frequent classic) with all the features you would expect to find; very typical
5. ​(of a language) ancient in its form and no longer used in a spoken form
6. ​simple and attractive*

Now, I have a bone to pick with dictionaries as a whole, and the project of the Oxford in particular -- but if we're agreeing to this as the standard of meaning, I'd once again like to know what usage you're implying here. These mythologies are certainly not related to Classical music (definition 1), I addressed the "traditional" usage (definition 2) in my original post (which I frankly think covers 4 and 5 as well). "connected with [...] the culture of ancient Greece and Rome" is the definition which you seem to disagree on. Do you mean that the Norse and Teutonic mythologies (which, for the record, I agree were contemporaries of the Greeks and Romans) have a simplicity and attractiveness (def. 6) which is shared with Tolkien's books but not the Amazon show? I'd love to hear more, I really am interested to know what you mean.

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.

This is fair -- although Tolkien was entirely content with applicability and went so far as to warn us not to confuse the two. Other have replied better to this point already -- just want to throw that in.

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.

Why don't we move to one of the episode-specific threads, then? (You may have posted there already -- like I said, I've been away). That being said, I want to be entirely clear that my final point was not angled at you or meant to suggest ill-intent. Simply: we are, for better or worse (worse, to be clear -- far far worse) in a world where bad faith critiques use buzzwords and dogwhistles to convey darker ideas "under a fair cloak." I think we should be cautious with our language lest we get mixed up among them. That's all -- I don't mean to suggest you were intentionally making references to any of that.

Again, I'm sorry to see tensions have gotten high in this thread and apologize for any degree to which my post contributed to that. I hope we can all continue to have a thoughtful, nuanced discussion here and lower the personal stakes a bit -- one of the best parts about the Plaza is the way it gathers all of us together, even those with different interpretations of the text.

*side note to my list: could anyone give me a quick tutorial on how the bulleted or numbered list functions in BBcode work? I clicked the preset but had no idea where to go from there. It seems like the numbered list expects another value inside the bracket?

[Androthelm]

Allegories? I won't recognise them.

A spectre is haunting Arda... the spectre of literalist allegory...

[Eldy Dunami]

side note to my list: could anyone give me a quick tutorial on how the bulleted or numbered list functions in BBcode work? I clicked the preset but had no idea where to go from there. It seems like the numbered list expects another value inside the bracket?

BBcode requires each item in an ordered or unordered list to be preceded by an asterisk within square brackets. Like so:

Code: Select all

[list=1][*]​relating to classical music
[*]​widely accepted and used for a long time; traditional in style or idea
[*]​connected with or influenced by the culture of ancient Greece and Rome
[*]​(also more frequent classic) with all the features you would expect to find; very typical
[*]​(of a language) ancient in its form and no longer used in a spoken form
[*]​simple and attractive[/list]

Note that the "=1" within the opening LIST tag is necessary for it to be an ordered list, specifically. Leaving it out means you'll get bullet points, not numbers. As it is, the above code produces the result:

1. ​relating to classical music
2. ​widely accepted and used for a long time; traditional in style or idea
3. ​connected with or influenced by the culture of ancient Greece and Rome
4. ​(also more frequent classic) with all the features you would expect to find; very typical
5. ​(of a language) ancient in its form and no longer used in a spoken form
6. ​simple and attractive

Hope this helps!

[Androthelm]

[snip]

tysm! This is what I was looking for exactly.

[Eldy Dunami]

tysm! This is what I was looking for exactly.

You're very welcome!

[Boromir88]

Oh hey, we are apparently getting a Cirdan (and with a beard) for season 2. Lovely. https://time.com/6205027/cirdan-the-rin ... -season-2/

Still no word about Celeborn.

[Eldy Dunami]

Encouraging news about Círdan!

I'm holding out for a Galadriel/Halbrand/Celeborn love triangle, myself. Preferably resolved by them becoming an OT3.

[Ravion]

GUYS GUYS GUYS GUYS

Erm, hi.

Can we address the elephant in the room that Galadriel looks way way younger than her brother's grandson Gil Galad?

Also, hi all, yet another resurrected soul back from the Old Place is here!

[Eldy Dunami]

Welcome back to the Plaza, @Ravion!

To be honest, I've given up wondering what they're going for with Elf ages. You raise a fair point about Gil-galad, though I've been more hung up on Celebrimbor. He should be younger than, or at most of comparable age to, Galadriel, but instead he looks like a middle-aged man. Maybe they have a reason for this, though I can't recall offhand any that has been mentioned in interviews.

[Ravion]

Welcome back to the Plaza, @Ravion!

Thx for the welcome! It's gooood to be back!

To be honest, I've given up wondering what they're going for with Elf ages. You raise a fair point about Gil-galad, though I've been more hung up on Celebrimbor. He should be younger than, or at most of comparable age to, Galadriel, but instead he looks like a middle-aged man. Maybe they have a reason for this, though I can't recall offhand any that has been mentioned in interviews.

Indeed, you're right... Not to mention - huh - Elrond. Who chose to be counted among Firstborn and is a baby compared to the rest of that host. Yet looks significantly older than Galadriel.

[Istya Alassea]

My husband and I finished with Season 1 last week. Speaking of things that irked me about Galadriel: oh, I was perturbed about Galadriel mentioning her husband Celeborn only once to Lord Halbrand. Why did her flashback have to be about her brother, not her husband?

[Silky Gooseness]

Welcome back @Ravion!

Yeah - the ages seem really weird. Like, Elrond is going to be Galadriel’s son in law at some point but looks older than her - but it’s the age of Celebrimbor that seemed most “off” to me. I can imagine they cast him on his performance when auditioning but would it not be easy enough to enhance him a little via filtering or make-up (I genuinely do not know the answer to this). I am also wondering if there is going to be some Celeborn plot set up in season two?? I can’t imagine why else he’d be so starkly absent but Galadriel mentions him once as her husband - at one point I genuinely thought in this version she just hadn’t met him and married him yet and there’d be a romance plot later on. Instead, there seems to be an odd estrangement. Galadriel isn’t portrayed as the type of person who would give up on a loved one easily, either, so… what’s going on there?

[Reikon Suchi-ru]

Watched the series with my wife, a non-LOTR fan. Liked it well enough, interested to see where it goes. But it just didn't strike the right tone with me overall. I'm not sure what was off about it, but it did just feel off. Wife enjoyed the Harfoots the most.

[OlorinW81]

I'm not a fan of this show, I've just read the books too much. I know too much I can't just turn that part of my brain off and enjoy it for what it is. Basically fan fiction, though was it even made by true Tolkien fans?

[OlorinW81]

My husband and I finished with Season 1 last week. Speaking of things that irked me about Galadriel: oh, I was perturbed about Galadriel mentioning her husband Celeborn only once to Lord Halbrand. Why did her flashback have to be about her brother, not her husband?

It made sense for it to be about her brother because in the Silmarillion it actually was Sauron who kills her eldest brother Finrod, so it would make sense as to give her a reason to have a particular grudge against Sauron. That's actually not the part of the show that bothered me. Pretty much everything else was lol