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

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

The artist is dead, both figuratively, and in this case literally. And stories are not paintings. The vast majority of Shakespeare's plays are based on older, less well-known stories. Only a few of the comedies are "original IP". And they have been retold in a multitude of different forms, from operas, to movies, to novels, to comic books to science fiction comedy musicals. Like Shakespeare, Tolkien did not create Middle Earth out of thin air. It is based on Saxon mythology, as it might have evolved in the mid twentieth century had the Normans not crushed the culture in the eleventh.

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.

There only thing that is TRUE is that there is no true version of a story. And in that sense, they are all equally true (as in not true at all). What do you mean by "valid"? Certainly not all retellings are of equal quality, and not all are of equal legality. But how can you measure "validity" of something that is inherently false?

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

Who is the "original creator"? All stories are based on older stories, as I'm sure Tolkien would explain in one of his lectures (e.g. The Hobbit is a retelling of the 3rd part of Beowulf). You cannot give special kind of status to some "original teller" of a story, because no one know who that is.

no one knows Middle-earth like JRR Tolkien did because Middle-earth is JRR Tolkien.

Which is irrelevant. We can't ask him because he's dead. The various versions of Middle Earth that existed in his mind are gone forever. But that doesn't matter. When you write you don't share what is in your mind, you put something into your reader's mind. It's their imagination that generates the pictures, the voices, and the meanings.

 

[Hriston]

Perhaps interestingly, according to Wikipedia, the second part of the name of the Slavic god Radogost, from whom JRRT seems to have cribbed the name of the brown wizard, contains the noun gost "guest" which is cognate with the Latin hostis "stranger".

ETA: I still think he's Sauron.

 

[TheSword]

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).

Fan-fic implies amateur work, without licence, shared on little-read forums. It is undeniably derogatory to refer to professional writers that have the rights to use the IP as making fan fic. They are making a TV adaption for cripes sake. It isn’t the same medium.

RoP is definitely the best thing I’m watching at the moment. Up there with Yellowstone!

 

[Mercurius]

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?

Again, they are different for a variety of reasons, some of which I mentioned above. But another key difference: the Peter Jackson films are adaptations of literary works; Rings of Power is one step further removed, as not only adaptations, but new creations.

And furthermore, the creators of SW and ST licensed their work for further development. JRR Tolkien did not.

Again, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't create new stories set in Middle-earth, but that they can never really be anything other than "extended universe" (at most) and fan-fiction.

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.

Yes, but you're comparing Tolkien's work to stuff that is hundreds--even thousands--of years old, some with no clear original author.

But the same applies to the Iliad - there is an original version, and then re-tellings. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't see why there's an issue with pointing out that A) There's a difference between the original and re-tellings/re-creations, and B) When discussing the work of a distinct, singular--and known--author, anything written or created by anyone else, unless it is with the approval of the original author, is "fan-fiction" to some degree or another.

I mean, let me put it this way. It is one thing for von Eschenbach to imagine the Grail--which was not created by anyone, nor originated from any known singular author--as a jewel, quite another for some new author or show-runner to re-imagine the Silmarils as cell-phones left by the Valar, who are actually ETs, and then see that scifi as equally valid or canonical as Tolkien.

 

[Hriston]

The Urban Dictionary definition of canon is not very useful for discussion because it is entirely subjective what counts as official and what constitutes fanfic.

As it relates to JRRT, canon can only mean one thing: the body of his written work. That's Tolkien's canon.

 

[Mercurius]

The artist is dead, both figuratively, and in this case literally. And stories are not paintings. The vast majority of Shakespeare's plays are based on older, less well-known stories. Only a few of the comedies are "original IP". And they have been retold in a multitude of different forms, from operas, to movies, to novels, to comic books to science fiction comedy musicals. Like Shakespeare, Tolkien did not create Middle Earth out of thin air. It is based on Saxon mythology, as it might have evolved in the mid twentieth century had the Normans not crushed the culture in the eleventh.

I had a feeling someone would cite "the artist is dead" (aka death of the author). But need I remind you, it is a literary concept, not fact. It might be accepted by a majority in the circles of literary criticism, but that doesn't make it something that is somehow sacrosanct and unquestionable.

But I'm not sure what you are arguing here, other than to say that...Tolkien had influences?

There only thing that is TRUE is that there is no true version of a story. And in that sense, they are all equally true (as in not true at all). What do you mean by "valid"? Certainly not all retellings are of equal quality, and not all are of equal legality. But how can you measure "validity" of something that is inherently false?

Again, I just disagree with this - that "all stories are equally true" when we have a clear and distinct author and work in mind. That would be like me writing Legolas as an MCU character and saying it s equally true as the Legolas of Tolkien's work.

Now that doesn't mean that Marvel Legolas couldn't be valid (if a bit silly) in the context of the MCU. But it would always be an alternate.

Also, I wouldn't call a story "inherently false." Sure, Middle-earth is not (afaik!) literally true, but that doesn't make it "false." That is a duality--true vs. false--that only applies to a literal interpretation, as if truth can be reduced to what is factual. Or as Ursula Le Guin said, "Fantasy isn't factual, but it is true." To understand what she meant, check out her seminal essay "Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?"

Who is the "original creator"? All stories are based on older stories, as I'm sure Tolkien would explain in one of his lectures (e.g. The Hobbit is a retelling of the 3rd part of Beowulf). You cannot give special kind of status to some "original teller" of a story, because no one know who that is.

This seems to be a bit of mental gymnastics. Again, it goes without saying that Tolkien had influences, that all artists have influences. But each artist work is unique and original.

Which is irrelevant. We can't ask him because he's dead. The various versions of Middle Earth that existed in his mind are gone forever. But that doesn't matter. When you write you don't share what is in your mind, you put something into your reader's mind. It's their imagination that generates the pictures, the voices, and the meanings.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is here - I don't disagree, as I have stated several times that we all have our own versions of Middle-earth in our imaginations. I'm not sure why you resist any kind of differentiation, as if Rings of Power (or Peter Jackson, for that matter) is an equally true expression of Middle-earth as Tolkien's books are.

So in that sense, it is relevant because Tolkien is the creator of Middle-earth. Why is that controversial? It doesn't mean we can't make new stories, just that they can never be as "true" as Tolkien's own works. They can be written better, be better stories, and great new ideas, but will never be the original. So yes, I am saying that--at least in this context--original = true. Everything else are just versions and variants.

Or rather, why must we insist on killing Tolkien and taking his stuff?

 

[Mercurius]

Fan-fic implies amateur work, without licence, shared on little-read forums. It is undeniably derogatory to refer to professional writers that have the rights to use the IP as making fan fic. They are making a TV adaption for cripes sake. It isn’t the same medium.

RoP is definitely the best thing I’m watching at the moment. Up there with Yellowstone!

I'm making no statement as to whether Rings of Power is of quality or not, whether it is amateurish or masterful. But I also don't think that a license or identification as "professional" automatically equates with quality or masterful work. A big budget production can still seem "fan-fiction-y," especially if it diverges significantly from the original work.

And you are right, it isn't fan-fic in that it is licensed - at least legally, by the Tolkien estate (if not Tolkien himself). But what I mean, and what I think others mean, when they describe it as fan-fiction (or, as "fan-fictiony") is that it feels less like an adaptation ala the original Peter Jackson trilogy--that was a clear attempt to depict Middle-earth as faithfully to Tolkien as possible--and more like someone telling new stories set in a version of Middle-earth that veers a bit further from Tolkien's original works, certainly than Jackson's films did. A lot of people find this jarring.

Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with that unless, of course, it is presenting itself as a faithful adaptation. It is done all the time in the artistic and literary world. But I'd also put forth that there's nothing wrong with suggesting that it feels like fan-fiction. Opinions may differ on such things.

 

[Dioltach]

We're getting bogged down in the "This is/isn't Tolkien" discussion again. The fact is that it's been licensed and approved by the Tolkien Estate, and they're really the only ones with any authority to make that distinction.

How about we talk about the show on its own merits? And anyone who wants to can start a new thread about the legitimacy of altering an author's vision. Perhaps they can start with Dennis L. McKiernan's awful Iron Tower trilogy.

 

[vilainn6]

We're getting bogged down in the "This is/isn't Tolkien" discussion again. The fact is that it's been licensed and approved by the Tolkien Estate, and they're really the only ones with any authority to make that distinction.

How about we talk about the show on its own merits? And anyone who wants to can start a new thread about the legitimacy of altering an author's vision. Perhaps they can start with Dennis L. McKiernan's awful Iron Tower trilogy.

The Estate must be just interested by the big check given by Amazon because no one respecting Tolkien work would have agreed on the terrible writting in the show

 

[Mercurius]

We're getting bogged down in the "This is/isn't Tolkien" discussion again. The fact is that it's been licensed and approved by the Tolkien Estate, and they're really the only ones with any authority to make that distinction.

All they really have is legal authority - that is, who can use the names and concepts of Tolkien, not the authority to decide what "is" Tolkien. That said...

How about we talk about the show on its own merits? And anyone who wants to can start a new thread about the legitimacy of altering an author's vision. Perhaps they can start with Dennis L. McKiernan's awful Iron Tower trilogy.

...I hear you (oh, and read the first book of that trilogy some 30ish years ago...I remember thinking, "This makes Sword of Shannara seem original").

The only point I'll add is that considering Rings of Power as fan-fiction--or at least, re-affirming in my mind that this is not Tolkien, but the show-runners' depiction of Tolkien--has actually allowed me to better enjoy it on its own merits. Meaning, when I stopped looking it at as JRR Tolkien's Second Age adapted for film, and more as Payne & McKay's Rings of Power, I've been better able to enjoy it for what it is.