I mean, everyone needs to make a paycheck. And Olsen certainly isn't the first academic to act as an apologist for, and as the "expert face" of corporate interest. But some of his commentary on S1 of RoP is painfully obsequious, as he speaks about the "deep meaning and symbolism" which is entirely absent - he was angling for a job, I'm sure. Apparently, he succeeded.
I used to really enjoy his podcast, but ever since Amazon paid for him to see the premiere and lavished him with hospitality, he's been a shameless shill.
In short, his opinion ain't worth diddly to me.
I avoid the term "canon" as I think it's not helpful.
By "authentic," I mean penned by Tolkien - any iteration, at any stage. Olsen seems to think that because Tolkien constantly revised his work, it's ok for anyone else to write whatever they like and it'll be ok.
Tolkien is a beloved author, and a lot of people were hoping that the RoP would represent characters differently, and adhere to events as described in the appendices of LotR, and were disappointed when it didn't.
I don't see why this is ridiculous.
Me? As I've repeatedly said, I'm not particularly worried about the lore. I'd just like a good show.
Okay. Shrug.
Seems a bit strong to label him as a "shameless shill", just because you disagree with his approach. This is what bothers me about fandom at times, seemingly incessant, toxic negativity. It's not enough to simply disagree or dislike, but some feel the need to denigrate the work and personality of others. It's tiresome.
I am not familiar with Olsen's podcast and have no opinion on how much of a Tolkien expert he is or on how he approaches adapting Tolkien's works. But this specific idea, that there is no Middle-Earth canon, I agree with. It's not unique to Olsen by any stretch.
On an aside . . . I'm prepping for a LotR 5E game right now and I'm reading through the core book, which addresses this exact issue and comes down on the "there isn't really canon" side of that argument. Not that this should change your mind, but I found it interesting.
For me . . . when someone is adapting a beloved property to a new medium, like Rings of Power is adapting Tolkien's legendarium, rigidly adhering to "canon" or "lore" isn't important to me. Again, it's an adaptation. It is important to capture the spirit and tone of the original work, which can be difficult, but not the details of canon. Especially when that canon is inconsistent, was constantly revised by the author, and which Tolkien never actually meant to publish. Everything past "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" is Tolkien's son publishing his father's (rather extensive) notes.
The showrunners of Rings of Power not only have a license, they are working with representatives of Tolkien's estate to try and do just that, produce an adaptation. They can't get JRR's blessing, since he's dead. They can't get his son Christopher's blessing, he's dead too. But they are working with members of the family.
How well are they succeeding at adapting Tolkien's notes on Middle-Earth? That's subjective of course, many are enjoying the hell out of the show, others are not. It doesn't bother me if some fans don't care for the show and have specific things they would have done differently. But I just can't take seriously the complaint that the show is straying to far from "canon" or "lore".
Personally, while I do find the first two seasons weak in a few areas, overall I'm really enjoying the series and can't wait for seasons 3-5. But . . . I'm also really enjoying Amazon's "Wheel of Time" adaptation, another show with cranky fans complaining about adherence to canon . . . .
