Spoilers Rings of Power is back!

[Maxperson]

I'm a huge Tolkein enthusiast. I've read much of the supplementary material, listen to several podcasts by Tolkein scholars, and would already be getting my Master's at Signing University (which specializes in Tolkein and medieval literature) if I had the time and the money. I can't experience any version of Tolkein's works without comparing them to the texts, and there are places where RoP just fails for me to capture the core of the original or the themes Tolkein was exploring. The Jackson movies weren't perfect in that regard either, although it ultimately didn't harm my enjoyment of them (the Hobbit films, though...)

Beyond that, I'm also a simulationist, and care deeply about setting consistency and narrative logic. I feel they are necessary for immersion and to have an emotional stake in the characters and the plot. In many places throughout both seasons (although it was certainly worse in season 1) RoP just falls down in that regard, sometimes pretty hard. Fun, pretty fantasy show just isn't enough for me to ignore these things.

All of that said, I am enjoying the show. I just refuse to do so uncritically.

Same here. At least for season 2. Season 1 was unmitigated trash with the exception of the scenes with the dwarves. Season 2 was pretty good overall, but with spots of bad writing and too much deviation for my taste.

 

[Maxperson]

The book is unclear. It hints that Gollum’s better nature throws him into the volcano. After all, it’s already established that Gollum is extremely agile. He doesn’t fall by accident. He falls because Frodo used the power of the Ring to curse him, also, but the Ring works by influencing the mind.

Right. When Gollum swears the oath to Frodo on "The Precious," Frodo says that the ring will hold him to that oath.

 

[Maxperson]

"archetypal embodiment of evil" is Sauron's role in LotR. Different story, different role. Tolkien uses him as the boss monster for the hero to fight in Beren and Luthien.

Because when someone is the central character, if they have no personality it will be a very very boring story.

Sure, that's his role in LotR. Obviously, that in not his role in RoP.

Right. Sauron steps into that role with the creation of the rings and downfall of Eregion, followed by the downfall of Numenor. Prior to that, Morgoth was the embodiment of evil until he was finally dragged off, and then the role was vacant for a long while.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is a False Dichotomy. It wasn't, give Glorfindel's part to her or she just sits round doing embroidery. I had no problem with giving her a larger part and having her say and do more, but I didn't at all like giving her that one scene. They absolutely could have both done more for the role of Arwen and still had Glorfindel carry Frodo to Rivendell.

But you would still have a superpowered balrog-slaying elflord sitting on the bench.

And where TF was he during the Last Alliance anyway?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I have to agree with this. Sauron's been around a long time. Over the Ages he's performed many roles.

I don’t disagree. And I’m not suggesting that Sauron doesn’t have a personality. But that isn’t the same as him being personalised in the sense that he has a relatable character for the reader.

We know quite a lot about Sauron’s character: he is grasping, petty, malicious, vindictive, cruel, paranoid, and obsessed with extending his dominion to control all of Middle Earth. He’s farsighted and lays meticulous plans. He plays a very long game. He brooks no rivals, has no mercy, can extend no compassion, and is ruthless in his pursuit of power. He will use anyone and anything to achieve his goals. His blindspot is that he cannot comprehend that others are not as he is.

We don’t need to interact with his character directly in order to know this.

There is only one line in the whole of the legendarium - at least to my knowledge - that suggests that Sauron, perhaps, at one point, might have considered recanting. And it’s an awfully big might.

 

[Maxperson]

Indeed. If you look at the lore surrounding Sauron, rather than meta ideas, we learn that he is a maia, like Gandalf and the other istari. We know they have personalities, wants and needs, can fall and be redeemed, etc. At least one of them fell in love with a human and had kids. As for Sauron himself, we know that prior to the fall of Numinor he was capable of impersonating a human, and holding an intelligent conversation. Which would seem to require a personality.

Really? Which one? The only one I can think of that had kids with a "mortal" race was Melian with Thingol, but he was an elf.

We also know he is a shapechanger (not something all maia can do).

That's not exactly true. The Simarillion establishes that the Valar and the Maiar can change forms like we would change clothing. They create a form to interact with in Middle Earth, can shed it, and assume a different form. It might not be shapechanging like D&D has it, but it is the ability to change shapes.

Sauron loses his ability to change his forms when he becomes too tied to Middle Earth due to his evil and the creation of the ring. That's when he can no longer assume a pleasing form.

 

[Maxperson]

But you would still have a superpowered balrog-slaying elflord sitting on the bench.

And where TF was he during the Last Alliance anyway?

Along with a dozen or more others who were still alive at the time of LotR. Old elves in Middle Earth are apparently like old vampires in the World of Darkness. They eventually get tired and just stop getting involved.

 

[Stalker0]

Right. When Gollum swears the oath to Frodo on "The Precious," Frodo says that the ring will hold him to that oath.

Honestly I never understood that line in the movie, which is:

"The ring is treacherous; it will hold you to your word".


I mean, isn't the very definition of treacherous is that is WON'T hold you to your word? Honor and oaths don't matter to it preciously because it IS treacherous

 

[Stalker0]

I don’t disagree. And I’m not suggesting that Sauron doesn’t have a personality. But that isn’t the same as him being personalised in the sense that he has a relatable character for the reader.

We know quite a lot about Sauron’s character: he is grasping, petty, malicious, vindictive, cruel, paranoid, and obsessed with extending his dominion to control all of Middle Earth. He’s farsighted and lays meticulous plans. He plays a very long game. He brooks no rivals, has no mercy, can extend no compassion, and is ruthless in his pursuit of power. He will use anyone and anything to achieve his goals. His blindspot is that he cannot comprehend that others are not as he is.

We don’t need to interact with his character directly in order to know this.

While we don't HAVE to interact with him to know these things....its certainly enjoyable to see it in action. Show don't tell as they say.

This Sauron is all of those things, but what's interesting is his blindness to his faults. I think he genuinely believes he "loves" Galadriel, and he genuinely believes that putting all of Middle Earth under his thumb will make the world a better place. As Celebrimbor said, you are so good at deceiving, you deceive even yourself. That to me is interesting to watch.

The comparison I think is also poignant for women, of which the notion of a "perfect" man you start to fall for is actually a monster is a genuine fear for many women and adds oomph to the story.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Honestly I never understood that line in the movie, which is:

"The ring is treacherous; it will hold you to your word".


I mean, isn't the very definition of treacherous is that is WON'T hold you to your word? Honor and oaths don't matter to it preciously because it IS treacherous

The dialogue in the movie is pretty hacked up. In the book, Frodo says:

Would you commit your promise to that, Sméagol? It will hold you. But it is more treacherous than you are.

Suggesting it will try to pervert the spirit of Gollum’s oath when a literal interpretation suits it. Like a wish spell and nasty DM.