[+] The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power - SPOILERS ALLOWED

[RuinousPowers]

The Stranger will end up being Tom Bombadil and the second season is going to go full on musical and poetry slam.

 

[eyeheartawk]

The Stranger will end up being Tom Bombadil and the second season is going to go full on musical and poetry slam.

I refuse to believe that any Tolkien adaption will every feature Tom Bombadil.

Every adaption always chickens out on this point.

The easiest way to never get your dreams crushed is to never dream at all.

 

[Dioltach]

My guess is the Stranger will shampoo his hair and turn out to be Legolas.

 

[Mercurius]

This is almost the kind of discussion we had in the One Ring game I mentioned upthread.

Its why I referred the problem to manuscript traditions. In New Testament scholarship, for example, there is no one verifiable text. There a multitude of manuscripts ALL with differences. (In fact noted biblical scholar Bart Ehrman suggests that there are more variations in text of the new testament then their are words in the new testament; though he does say most of those changes are insignificant to the text) What that means is there is no "canon". What you have a body of manuscripts that give you a general outline, the details are debatable.

Take for example just the crucifixion narrative. The details don't all match up very well. But the general outline remains.

And then the other non canon books of the new testament simply emphasize things that the canon books don't. John's gospel is generally recognized, for example, as kinda gnostic, but not gnostic as things like the gospel of thomas.

So, in my campaign, the idea that there is only one way to understand, interpret, or even experience the text is silly. It didn't work that way.

And more to your point:

If it is a work of art. Then at its core art is a subjective , not a objective . Which for me means any attempt to say "this is" and "that is not" is antithetical to art. because interpretation is part of the art.

I don't disagree, though would mention that there is a difference between the Bible and Tolkien's works. The former is a compilation of thousands of years of stories, while the latter is the creation of a single author.

But I completely agree that what we do with Tolkien's work/art - be it within our imagination as we read it, what we do with it in a game, or even how we present it on film - is entirely up to us, and subjective. There is no "wrong" way to imagine it or play it, or even depict it on film. There are, of course, different degrees of closeness to the original spirit and lore of Tolkien.

Tolkien and Middle-earth is still in a fundamentally different category than, say, Star Wars or Star Trek. Middle-earth, in terms of canon, is complete - unless the Tolkien estate reveals an unpublished manuscript, there is no further Middle-earth canon - it is an artifact. Star Wars or Trek - as not being the work of singular authors - is ever-developing, with new canon being established.

 

[Mercurius]

No one is calling the TV series (or indeed the movies) canon.

Not overtly, no, though I think some of the discussion has veered in that direction, as if Middle-earth is just another property that is being developed in a similar way as Star Wars or Star Trek (see the post above for my differentiation). That said, I do see some similarity to the Star Wars expanded universe, which never set out to be canonical, just new stories set in the same setting. So I suppose Rings of Power is a bit like that.

But some are taking issue with Rings of Power being called fan-fiction, while I see it as an apt description. There's nothing inherently wrong with fan-fiction, and I understand that it often has pejorative connotations. But the reason I find it more "fan-fictiony" than Jackson's films (at least LotR) is not only because it is creating new stories and characters, but because the show-runners seem more prone to inject their own philosophical, aesthetic and cultural sensibilities into it, whereas Jackson explicitly tried to avoid that (as he has said interviews).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Not overtly, no, though I think some of the discussion has veered in that direction, as if Middle-earth is just another property that is being developed in a similar way as Star Wars or Star Trek (see the post above for my differentiation). That said, I do see some similarity to the Star Wars expanded universe, which never set out to be canonical, just new stories set in the same setting. So I suppose Rings of Power is a bit like that.

But some are taking issue with Rings of Power being called fan-fiction, while I see it as an apt description. There's nothing inherently wrong with fan-fiction, and I understand that it often has pejorative connotations. But the reason I find it more "fan-fictiony" than Jackson's films (at least LotR) is not only because it is creating new stories and characters, but because the show-runners seem more prone to inject their own philosophical, aesthetic and cultural sensibilities into it, whereas Jackson explicitly tried to avoid that (as he has said interviews).

The idea that "canon" matters, or even exists, in fiction, is silly. It matters in holy books, because they are supposed to be true. But fiction is, by definition, untrue. There is no "true" version of the story, and stories continually change to suit the teller and the audience. This is a strength. To try and freeze a story in amber is to diminish it.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Canonicity is a funny thing, and - aside from "canonical" itself being a rather fuzzy word - different people will regard different works as belonging to canon. Not to belabour the biblical parallels, but the Catholic, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian etc. etc. churches all have different canons.

I suppose in the strictest sense ("Orthodox," if you will), only The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings should be considered canonical, as they were published during Tolkien's lifetime. The Silmarillion is, in a sense, Deuterocanonical, as Christopher's editorial and redactional fingerprints are over it; Unfinished Tales veers into Apocryphal territory; and later volumes in The History of Middle-Earth are full-on Apocrypha.

I mean, we trust that Christopher faithfully represented his father's work, but we don't really know. We can't really disentangle the editor from The Silmarillion.

 

[Dioltach]

Not overtly, no, though I think some of the discussion has veered in that direction, as if Middle-earth is just another property that is being developed in a similar way as Star Wars or Star Trek (see the post above for my differentiation).

But it is just another property. The original creators of SW and ST aren't involved in those properties anymore, so what sets ME apart as being "complete" while the others aren't?

You know, we might as well be complaining that New Zealand isn't actually Middle Earth. Or that Morfydd Clark isn't actually Galadriel. It's all just a retelling, adapted for a new medium and a new age, like people have always retold and adapted stories. There were probably people who disagreed with the Iliad and the Odyssee being written down, because it destroyed the freedom that reciting it offered. Or who complained bitterly that Chrétien de Troyes had butchered the themes of Peredur Son of Efrawg, or Wolfram von Eschenbach describing the grail as a jewel, or even the fact that Chrétien described a grail where the tale of Peredur has a screaming skull - and that since then the focus of the story has been on the grail, with its Christian connotations, instead of the unmanned Fisher King and his inability to keep his land alive.

My point is that stories evolve and change with every retelling. Just try to enjoy it for what it is, and otherwise just stick to your preferred version.

 

[Mercurius]

The idea that "canon" matters, or even exists, in fiction, is silly. It matters in holy books, because they are supposed to be true. But fiction is, by definition, untrue. There is no "true" version of the story, and stories continually change to suit the teller and the audience. This is a strength. To try and freeze a story in amber is to diminish it.

What you say here sounds good on face value, at least at first, but ignores the reality of the artist, and the relationship of the artist and their art - that someone created something out of their own imagination. For an artist, their work is an extension and expression of themselves - of their identity.

I wouldn't just squash this with a relativistic brush (i.e. "there is no true version of the story"), as if all versions of a story are equally true or valid. Authors and artists exist.

Again, nothing wrong with writing or telling new stories in Middle-earth, but let's not brush aside the difference between those told by the actual creator of Middle-earth and those created by others. In a similar sense, no one knows Middle-earth like JRR Tolkien did because Middle-earth is JRR Tolkien. It is an expression of his mind. We can create our own versions of Middle-earth that are valid for ourselves, but they are only ever going to be our own versions of something that originated in Tolkien's imagination.

 

[OB1]

What fascinates me about the 'canon' discussion is that for thousands and thousands of years of human history, storytelling was an oral tradition that allowed stories to evolve and change from storyteller to storyteller and generation to generation. Recorded language short circuits that process, and while it is wonderful to be able to preserve one storyteller's vision of a story, it shouldn't take anything away from another storyteller evolving and changing that story for a new audience. If it's done well, it will be remembered. It can resonate and be important to a new generation in a way that the original may not be. A new take on an old story doesn't diminish the original work.

RoP should be judged on its own merits, just as Tolkien's work should be. Jackson's films are a prime example of this. It changed much, both because of the medium it was being told in and the time it was being told for, but because it was done well, it remains beloved 20 years later. Time will tell if RoP follows that path.