Rings of Power -- all opinions and spoilers welcome thread.

[Sepulchrave II]

Chiastic would be correct, I do believe. Chiasm is all over the show, both within this Deason and between this show and LotR/The Hobbit and with the Silmirillion (circumspectly, since they can't explicitly use the text), and many elements are clearly setting up parallels to come.

Chiasmal, chiasmic and chiasmatic are all valid variants; chiastic now tends most to apply to the literary construction of religious texts - hence I added the (!). The Gospel of Mark and the Quran both have many examples.

Chiasm is not simple parallelism or echoing; it follows an inverse-parallel pattern. Its construal in texts is notoriously subject to apophenia; I could apply a chiastic lens to the Silmarillion, for example:

Morgoth steals the Silmarils

A doom is pronounced​

The Noldor pursue Morgoth to his hidden fastness​

The Noldor make war on Morgoth​

There is a great defeat at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad​

Morgoth makes war upon the Noldor​

Morgoth pursues the Noldor to their hidden fastnesses​

A doom is revoked​

The Silmarils are taken from Morgoth

But it wouldn't necessarily represent an intentional structural conceit on the part of the author.

 

[ART!]

To one person, a banana nailed to a wall is a gimmick, while to another it is a powerful artistic statement. Art is funny like that. At the very least, much (if not all) of what we call "art" or "artistic" is in the eye and mind of the beholder.

What is strange, presumably for both of us, is that we seemingly have very different criteria as to what constitutes "artistic merit," as if we come from entirely different schools of literary and cinematic aesthetics.

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but having studied art and art criticism, I'll add that proper art criticism (if I've said this already in this thread, pardon me) requires knowledge of art history (particularly of the medium in question), techniques used in that medium, iconography and symbolism, and really should never include "I like" or "I don't like". Some approaches exclude considerations of the creator's intent, and some include that.

So, I'd argue that a decent level of objectivity can be achieved.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Indeed, I'd agree about some objectivity when it comes to art criticism. "Fantasy show reviewing online" might on the other hand be mostly "I like" and very marginally art criticism (and, increasingly, opinion on the actor's or showmaker's personal life).

I'd be very surprised to see a review praising the artistic direction, giving 5 stars, and ends saying "Oh and by the way, don't waste time watching this, this B&W film is the most boring piece of crap you'll ever see despite Godard's mastery of the filmmaking art."

 

[ART!]

Indeed, I'd agree about some objectivity when it comes to art criticism. "Fantasy show reviewing online" might on the other hand be mostly "I like" and very marginally art criticism (and, increasingly, opinion on the actor's or showmaker's personal life).

You've hit the nail squarely on the head.

I'd be very surprised to see a review praising the artistic direction, giving 5 stars, and ends saying "Oh and by the way, don't waste time watching this, this B&W film is the most boring piece of crap you'll ever see despite Godard's mastery of the filmmaking art."

True - although I wonder how much of that is the job of film criticism - how are you going to keep the job if you praise things and then tell people not to go see them?

I'm sure we've all seen things that we recognize the high quality of but aren't interested in sitting all the way through, or watching again - and stuff we admit is crap but we love anyway.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but having studied art and art criticism, I'll add that proper art criticism (if I've said this already in this thread, pardon me) requires knowledge of art history (particularly of the medium in question), techniques used in that medium, iconography and symbolism, and really should never include "I like" or "I don't like". Some approaches exclude considerations of the creator's intent, and some include that.

So, I'd argue that a decent level of objectivity can be achieved.

Certainly, and I think having knowledge of a given field tends to lend credence to one's opinion of something within that field. But that only goes so far; and "experts" aren't inherently more right than "non-experts" (not to mention the difference between being an art critic and an artist). If I have a Master's degree in American History, it doesn't mean my opinion on a given historical event is inherently more correct than a high school drop-out. They may be self-taught, or maybe they're just more reasonable and/or knowledgeable about the subject. On the other hand, I'm not going to ask someone who hates IPAs about whether an IPA is good or not. And of course the problem with judging one field through the lens of another.

But herein lies the larger problem: Both Parmandur and I (in this context) think we're more objective about the artistic merit of Rings of Power. We can devolve into an endless back and forth pissing contest about who is more objective or qualified, but it won't go anywhere good. And as I said above, ultimately qualifications don't determine truth. Recognizing the subjective element--which I would say is the dominant factor with regards to our opinion on a given piece of art, and is always a factor even if one is trying to be, or thinks they are being, objective--at least allows us to recognize that, well, there's no accounting for taste. And more so, that there's nothing wrong with feeling a certain way about (in this case) Rings of Power - that we don't need to write it off as ignorance or a hidden agenda or even poor taste...at least as far as communication is concerned (we can all think what we want, but some things are best left un-spoken!).

What I keep trying to point out is that it is interesting how wide a range of opinions exist on Rings of Power -- even among those with deep knowledge of Tolkien, and/or film aficionados. Some say it is great, others crap...that is kind of interesting, no? Both Parmandur and I seem to have a good deal of knowledge about Tolkien, but still fundamentally disagree on Rings of Power and whether it captures the "spirit of Tolkien." We also both seem to have a sense of what makes good art (or at least believe we do!), but have very different views on the artistic merits of Rings of Power.

So where does that leave us? I think the best compromise is: "Different strokes for different folks." This is not to say that conversations can't and shouldn't be had on why we think the way we think about it, but we all know where the endless back-and-forths go...at best, unsolved disagreement (which is where we're at now), at worst, insults and arguments (which is where none of us want to go).

 

[Mercurius]

I'm sure we've all seen things that we recognize the high quality of but aren't interested in sitting all the way through, or watching again - and stuff we admit is crap but we love anyway.

Yup. I was almost going to mention this. Most of my very favorite films usually aren't on the "greatest films" lists that are usually bandied about - and I recognize that, in terms of what is generally considered good film-making among film-makers and aficionados, aren't necessarily on the same level as The Godfather or Godard, etc. And that isn't even touching upon films that are "guilty pleasure favorites."

And furthermore, when it comes to canons and lists of "all-time greatest" films or books or albums, they are still compiled by human beings, people who approach the issue from a certain orientation - be it a school of criticism, or some other paradigm. There is still a set of at least partially arbitrary criteria involved.

A couple years ago I was doing an in-depth study of fantasy literature, with the goal of creating a kind of "fantasy literary canon." But it is very, very hard to separate out what is "good quality" or holds especial influence on the tradition, and my own personal tastes. Not impossible, but even when one tries to be objective, the subconscious mind has the tendency to sneak in.

 

[gorice]

Late to this party, but: I think it is possible that aesthetic facts exist. It's generally a difficult thing to argue, though, especially in support of a particular fact. Fortunately, this show was an exception: the dialogue was so wooden, the drama so forced, and the action so cliched that I didn't even make it through the first episode. Rings of Power is a fantastic argument in favour of objective artistic merit, by way of negative example.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

It is indeed interesting that the opinions seem to be very polarized... I don't think it is so much the result of the current zeitgeist that tend to make every expression of opinion more extreme (as we can have a peaceful discussion here, even when we disagree) but for other reasons. It could be because some have a quasi-religious reverence for Tolkien but the gap is still wide between people who never read it and are only familiar with the Jackson films. I have no interest in GoT nor HotD, but are reviews from those shows divisive as well?

 

[Mercurius]

Late to this party, but: I think it is possible that aesthetic facts exist. It's generally a difficult thing to argue, though, especially in support of a particular fact. Fortunately, this show was an exception: the dialogue was so wooden, the drama so forced, and the action so cliched that I didn't even make it through the first episode. Rings of Power is a fantastic argument in favour of objective artistic merit, by way of negative example.

Well I would tend to agree with this--in that my aesthetic observations are the same as yours, and find it strange that some think the opposite. But some do, so....

It is indeed interesting that the opinions seem to be very polarized... I don't think it is so much the result of the current zeitgeist that tend to make every expression of opinion more extreme (as we can have a peaceful discussion here, even when we disagree) but for other reasons. It could be because some have a quasi-religious reverence for Tolkien but the gap is still wide between people who never read it and are only familiar with the Jackson films. I have no interest in GoT nor HotD, but are reviews from those shows divisive as well?

No, not at all, afaict. It is generally agreed that GoT plummeted in quality after season 6 and especially with season 8, though there are variations as to how badly it plummeted. But I haven't heard anyone argue that the last season was handled well, or as good as what came before. And among those that don't like it, it is mainly genre/style, not quality.

Not sure about HotD, though I think the consensus is that it is good but not as good as GoT (which I agree with).

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, of course. And the contrary is also true: just because you perceive the show to have artistic merit, doesn't mean it is present in some kind of objective, intrinsic way.

Well, you see, that is a fraught philosophical question. While on a practical level "agree to disagree" is eventually the only terminus here, a solid argument can be made for objective aesthetics (a case I learned from...J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis). Indeed, that is historically the assumed approach to questions of beauty, "it's, like, all subjective, man," is a fairly recent idea, although it was always held that receiving is in the mode of the receiver even if aesthetics are considered objective.

I don't see anyone making a case that "Manoa: Hands of Fate" is well crafter, even weirdos like me who enjoy it.

One potential difference I can imagine is that I actually quite like the Abrams style "Mystery Box" approach to story telling, and indeed I think it is a result.of TV writers who grew up playing and DMing TTRPGs applying the lessons learned into a more formal setting. I like Lost, all of it, especially the ending.