Wheel of Time - No Spoilers

[Dave Goff]

I enjoyed the episodes I've seen. I see it as something like an alternative universe version of the books I read and it's all works better.
Although, I did think the introduction of Thom Merrilin was kind of terrible, but it's okay. It's fun either way.

I agree with Rand's look not fitting with any of the rest of the cast. I get that they wanted to set him apart for "reasons" but it's a bit much.

And... I seem to be very much in the minority in my view of Witcher. I'm not familiar at all and I watched the first 2 episodes and wasn't really impressed. Is there something I'm missing?

 

[Mercurius]

As for Lord of the Rings, applicability was the author’s intent! If fiction is metaphor for Truth (I would argue there is always at least an element of that, though some works aim more directly at that than others do), Lord of the Rings tells its Truths in an especially effective and layered way that reveals ever more through repeated exposure.

The impressive depth of context Tolkien provided was important to the work, but the applicability lies in the recurring themes shaped by that context. Of all works of literature, I personally find it the most applicable to the real world.

But, then again, I am a cynical Gen-Xer who needs to be reminded from time to time that cynicism does not equal wisdom.

Just a little nit-pick. I agree with the gist of what you're saying here (and like your bit about the cynicism of Gen-X), but I don't think even applicability was Tolkien's intent, he just somewhat famously disliked allegory and was resistant to allegorical interpretations of his work.

I think his stance was more, "If you want to apply it to some kind of meaning, great, but I'm just trying to write a good story." Or rather, he was deeply immersed in bringing Middle-earth to life, and his books were a way of both exploring Middle-earth and sharing what he "discovered." Obviously his life--and perhaps especially his experiences of the two world wars, and the overall impact of industrialization in England--were deeply impactful. But he didn't like the crudeness of saying, "the One Ring is nuclear power" or "Sauron = Hitler" or "Mordor = the industrialized Midlands."

One of the great struggles of his life was his inability to publish what would later become the Silmarillion. When his publishers asked for a sequel to the Hobbit, he showed them bits of the Silmarillion and they said, "Uh, very interesting, but can you give us a story about hobbits and not a bible on the elves?" Thus LotR. Even up to the point of its publication in 1954-55, he tried to fold the Silmarillion in as a package deal, but Allen & Unwin were hesitant, and he even talked with a different publisher, but they wanted to heavily edit LotR, so he went back to Allen & Unwin.

But my point is that what he cared about, more than anything, was the Silmarillion - and the entire creation of Middle-earth. I imagine that if he were a more prolific writer, and/or he lived a lot longer, we would have seen novels written about about earlier periods in Middle-earth's history, fleshing out segments of the Silmarillion. To him it was a living, breathing secondary world - an imaginary world that was true in its own way. So whether we're talking about allegory or even deeper meanings that can be read in the text and applied to stuff in the real world, Tolkien's focus was on the world itself.

That said, he did discuss some of the meanings he saw in his creation, but it was more in an "after the fact" sort of way. Meaning, he wasn't trying to make a point in the guise of a fiction story, even in an open-ended way (applicability). He was approaching Middle-earth as a living reality, and expressing what he discovered in his writings. In a way, any deeper meanings he saw in the text were seen after the fact - he would write and create, and then reflect upon what he came up with.

 

[payn]

And... I seem to be very much in the minority in my view of Witcher. I'm not familiar at all and I watched the first 2 episodes and wasn't really impressed. Is there something I'm missing?

Nope.

 

[Parmandur]

Just a little nit-pick. I agree with the gist of what you're saying here (and like your bit about the cynicism of Gen-X), but I don't think even applicability was Tolkien's intent, he just somewhat famously disliked allegory and was resistant to allegorical interpretations of his work.

I think his stance was more, "If you want to apply it to some kind of meaning, great, but I'm just trying to write a good story." Or rather, he was deeply immersed in bringing Middle-earth to life, and his books were a way of both exploring Middle-earth and sharing what he "discovered." Obviously his life--and perhaps especially his experiences of the two world wars, and the overall impact of industrialization in England--were deeply impactful. But he didn't like the crudeness of saying, "the One Ring is nuclear power" or "Sauron = Hitler" or "Mordor = the industrialized Midlands."

One of the great struggles of his life was his inability to publish what would later become the Silmarillion. When his publishers asked for a sequel to the Hobbit, he showed them bits of the Silmarillion and they said, "Uh, very interesting, but can you give us a story about hobbits and not a bible on the elves?" Thus LotR. Even up to the point of its publication in 1954-55, he tried to fold the Silmarillion in as a package deal, but Allen & Unwin were hesitant, and he even talked with a different publisher, but they wanted to heavily edit LotR, so he went back to Allen & Unwin.

But my point is that what he cared about, more than anything, was the Silmarillion - and the entire creation of Middle-earth. I imagine that if he were a more prolific writer, and/or he lived a lot longer, we would have seen novels written about about earlier periods in Middle-earth's history, fleshing out segments of the Silmarillion. To him it was a living, breathing secondary world - an imaginary world that was true in its own way. So whether we're talking about allegory or even deeper meanings that can be read in the text and applied to stuff in the real world, Tolkien's focus was on the world itself.

That said, he did discuss some of the meanings he saw in his creation, but it was more in an "after the fact" sort of way. Meaning, he wasn't trying to make a point in the guise of a fiction story, even in an open-ended way (applicability). He was approaching Middle-earth as a living reality, and expressing what he discovered in his writings. In a way, any deeper meanings he saw in the text were seen after the fact - he would write and create, and then reflect upon what he came up with.

Tolkien's writing was meant to be a sub-creation tying into something Real, on a higher plane. Basically, he wanted to make his readers Platonists, and may have succeeded beyond his imagining.

 

[Stalker0]

And... I seem to be very much in the minority in my view of Witcher. I'm not familiar at all and I watched the first 2 episodes and wasn't really impressed. Is there something I'm missing?

the other 6 episodes

 

[Mercurius]

Tolkien's writing was meant to be a sub-creation tying into something Real, on a higher plane. Basically, he wanted to make his readers Platonists, and may have succeeded beyond his imagining.

Well again, I don't see the same degree of intent ("meant to be") as you, at least if we take his words at face value.

Sure, he was in the general Platonist stream. His writing is deeply Romantic (big R), and he generally wasn't impressed with the modern world, especially industrialization. But I don't think he as trying to convert people. There's no heavy-handed proselytizing, like CS Lewis or many contemporary writers and film-makers who foist this or that agenda upon us. There's more of a sharing of his own experience of the numinous.

I think this is exemplified in the whole dynamic of light: the pure, archetypal light of the Two Trees that were poisoned by Ungoliant, the last flowers of which became the Sun and Moon, and the light captured in the Silmarils through the high craftsmanship of Feanor. And contrasted with the false light of the One Ring, and the infernal glow of the fires of Mordor.

 

[Parmandur]

Well again, I don't see the same degree of intent ("meant to be") as you, at least if we take his words at face value.

Sure, he was in the general Platonist stream. His writing is deeply Romantic (big R), and he generally wasn't impressed with the modern world, especially industrialization. But I don't think he as trying to convert people. There's no heavy-handed proselytizing, like CS Lewis or many contemporary writers and film-makers who foist this or that agenda upon us. There's more of a sharing of his own experience of the numinous.

I think this is exemplified in the whole dynamic of light: the pure, archetypal light of the Two Trees that were poisoned by Ungoliant, the last flowers of which became the Sun and Moon, and the light captured in the Silmarils through the high craftsmanship of Feanor. And contrasted with the false light of the One Ring, and the infernal glow of the fires of Mordor.

There is armor difference between offering to share an experience and prostylyzing an ideology, definitely. I think the Lord of theNrings ended up being the single most successful attempt in the 20th century of a person trying to share their interior life experience with others through art.

 

[Mordhau]

I mean, to be specific here - it isn't our world, isn't our turn of the Wheel.

The Medieval period lasted a thousand years, and Europe is an entire continent - fashion varied across the lands and across time. Why should this place that isn't any of the places we know, in a time that isn't our history, have fashions that match some specific place and time in our world?

Costume in Wheel of Time.

Jordan was famously a writer who was meticulously, famously, often tediously very detailed about what everyone was wearing.

Although I'm not hugely bothered by faithfulness to the books - my main impression is that a lot of the clothing in the show, by it's design, doesn't take into account a lack of sewing machines - and is thus, as I said, 'too modern'.

That, and the fact that clothing that too closely resembles current fashions, doesn't really help the work of worlbuilding which the show seems otherwise interested in (and which is the only way it's going to work).

 

[Mercurius]

There is armor difference between offering to share an experience and prostylyzing an ideology, definitely. I think the Lord of theNrings ended up being the single most successful attempt in the 20th century of a person trying to share their interior life experience with others through art.

That's an interesting way to put it, and you may be right. We do know that Tolkien was interested in creating a cohesive mythology for Britain, that embodies its archetypal spirit. While he wasn't trying to offer it as actual history, I do find it intriguing when he relates it to our world - he has said that we are either at the end of the Sixth Age or the beginning of the Seventh (if he were alive today, I would think he'd consider us definitely in the Seventh Age).

 

[Mercurius]

Costume in Wheel of Time.

Jordan was famously a writer who was meticulously, famously, often tediously very detailed about what everyone was wearing.

Although I'm not hugely bothered by faithfulness to the books - my main impression is that a lot of the clothing in the show, by it's design, doesn't take into account a lack of sewing machines - and is thus, as I said, 'too modern'.

That, and the fact that clothing that too closely resembles current fashions, doesn't really help the work of worlbuilding which the show seems otherwise interested in (and which is the only way it's going to work).

I kind of share this, although it isn't to a point that my enjoyment of the series is lessened. I also felt that the clothing was all too new and clean looking. And for some reason, I found Rand's fuzzy sweater distracting, even if that was actually realistic.