Defending Tolkien
JRR Tolkien (probably taken in the 1940s) - Wikipedia
I hadn’t paid much attention to Amazon’s upcoming series based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s work set in the Second Age, between the events of ‘The Silmarillion’ and ‘The Lord of the Rings’, as I have no intention of watching it.
I still have no intention of watching it – not having a ‘Prime’ subscription helps – but, in this day and age, its nigh on impossible to ignore some things.
After much secrecy, Amazon, in quick succession, released a load of posters featuring the cast – which only showed their hands over their torso – followed by a ‘Vanity Fair’ article and a teaser trailer.
Let’s just say, the fans were not amused by the obvious deviations from Tolkien’s lore.
Many have already voiced their displeasure (that’s putting it mildly!) and I dithered before finally deciding that I love and admire Tolkien and his work too much to stay quiet.
Before I go any further, let’s first look at why Tolkien wrote ‘The Lord of the Rings’, devoting so much of his life to building the Middle-earth legendarium.
In ‘The Letters of JRR Tolkien’, he explains this in a letter (letter #131) to Milton Waldman, an editor with Collins, the publisher.
I won’t quote the whole thing as it’s quite a long letter, but here’s the pertinent part; the emphasis is my own:
“… I hope I shall not sound absurd – I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing…
“Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story – the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths – which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country. It should possess the tone and quality that I desired, somewhat cool and clear, be redolent of our ‘air’ (the clime and soil of the North West, meaning Britain and the hither parts of Europe: not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East), and, while possessing (if I could achieve it) the fair elusive beauty that some call Celtic (though it is rarely found in genuine ancient Celtic things), it should be ‘high’, purged of the gross, and fit for the more adult mind of a land long now steeped in poetry.”
It's no wonder ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is one of the most popular books worldwide, having sold around 150 million copies.
Tolkien wrote a fantastic story, not only of good overcoming evil but also of the dangers of ignoring or forgetting the lessons of the past, and he filled it with memorable characters who encompass traits we recognise in ourselves or which we strive to have.
His stories show how even the most ordinary, unassuming characters are able to find their own courage and inner strength to overcome the most awful, terrifying evils even when it appears that all hope is lost.
When Peter Jackson made ‘The Lord of the Rings’ films over 20 years ago, he was mindful of staying as true to Tolkien as he could, as he said in this interview:
“… in terms of the thematic material, we didn’t want to put any of our own baggage. I mean we had no interest in putting our messages into this movie, but we thought we should honour Tolkien by putting his messages into it, and we thought he cared about things… the countryside and the rise of evil and he cared passionately about certain issues and we thought what we should do to honour him is to make sure that what he cared about ends up in the movie, that’s what we tried to do.”
Contrast that with what Lindsey Weber, the executive producer of Amazon’s series, ‘The Rings of Power’, said in the ‘Vanity Fair’ article – “It felt only natural to us that an adaptation of Tolkien’s work would reflect what the world actually looks like.”
The only world the production needs to reflect is the world Tolkien wrote, peopled with the races he created as he created them.
When people questioned Amazon’s choices after that VF article, instead of taking the time to listen to what the fans were saying, they accused them of being ‘trolls’… “who are these people that feel so threatened or disgusted by the idea that an elf is Black or Latino or Asian?”
Instead of engaging positively with fans who love Tolkien’s work and simply want to see it treated with respect, Amazon and those involved with this production instantly deployed the race card, bombarding fans with base accusations, which are not true.
No one – not in the real world anyway – is “threatened or disgusted” by people purely because of the colour of their skin. That’s a lie that’s continuously pushed by the legacy media and corporations like Amazon and Hollywood – for some bizarre reason, they seem to think that sowing division is profitable.
The majority of people have other things to think about, be it problems or responsibilities and such like, and don’t have the interest, time or inclination to be “threatened or disgusted” by skin colour. In fact, I’d wager that, for many of us, it hardly registers, if at all.
Knowing that Tolkien was so meticulous in the crafting of his world and its people, going so far as filling in the details of the history and genealogy of many of them, why even introduce an elf who’s Black?
The answer to that and similar casting choices is made clear when perusing Amazon Studios’ inclusion policy for its productions, which includes:
“Aiming to include one character from each of the following categories in speaking roles, with minimum 50% of these to be women: LGBTQIA+, person with a disability, and three regionally underrepresented race/ethnic/cultural groups. A single character can fulfil one or more of these identities.”
It doesn’t matter then how talented the actors are, at the end of the day, it’s a box-ticking exercise.
As for the female dwarf, listen to or read any fan-complaint – the first thing we want to know is, where’s her beard?
Dis, dwarf woman, sister to Thorin Oakenshield ~ ancalinar (deviantart)
By having their production reflect what the world looks like, Amazon are creating a world that contradicts Tolkien’s.
It leads to one big question – as black elves and dwarves aren’t seen in the ‘The Lord of the Rings’, what happened to them?
How will Amazon handle their disappearance?
Assuming they will address it and not simply ignore it and hope no one notices.
No one questions the lack of other races and cultures in the myths and legends of non-white countries; those myths are accepted as they are and not changed to make them reflect what the world looks like.
Yet, it annoys me no end that the myths and legends of white people are considered fair game.
Detractors may well say, but Tolkien’s work isn’t a mythology, it’s just fantasy.
Except Tolkien didn’t write it as ‘just fantasy’ – as clearly stated in the letter quoted earlier, he wanted to make a ‘body of legend’ and that’s how his stories read.
Just as I expect there to be Chinese people in a film based on ‘The Romance of the Three Kingdoms’, black people in a film about Shaka Zulu, Indian people in a film on the ‘Mahabharata’, I expect white people in Tolkien’s Middle-earth.
All we want is to see Tolkien’s world as he created it… Not a big ‘ask’ really.
Apart from ‘diversity’ – ironic, considering Middle-earth is filled with it – another thing that appears to be a huge selling point with this series is ‘inclusivity’, the notion that films and books have to mirror those watching or reading it; that people need to see characters who look like them before they can enjoy a film/book.
What absolute tosh!
Growing up in the 1970s, Westerns were one of my favourite genres to watch on TV.
And I loved watching war films with my father.
In my teen years, my childhood love of fairy tales progressed to ‘fantasy’, and that’s all I’d read.
One of my favourite films back in the early 2000s was ‘Master and Commander’ – apart from a few minutes early in the film, there’s not a woman in sight.
And how does this inclusivity nonsense explain my total enjoyment of ‘Kingdom’, a medieval Korean zombie series?
Back to the topic at hand…
Numenor ~ FelixSotomayorArt (deviantart)
To begin with, many thought Amazon only had the rights to the Appendices found at the end of ‘The Return of the King’, which cover events of the Second Age.
However, in another Vanity Fair article, the writers, JD Payne and Patrick McKay, say they have the rights to ‘The Lord of the Rings’ – ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’, ‘The Two Towers’ and ‘The Return of the King’ – ‘The Hobbit’, and the Appendices at the end of ‘The Return of the King’.
They don’t have the rights to ‘The Silmarillion’, ‘Unfinished Tales’, and the Histories.
While this does limit events and characters they can use, there are still a fair number of characters mentioned in the Appendices, mainly the Kings of Númenor.
There’s nothing stopping the writers coming up with new characters who could make up the households of the Númenóreans.
Instead of inserting new characters where they shouldn’t be simply to tick boxes, why not look to the non-white peoples who already exist in Middle-earth, the Haradrim and the Easterlings?
Amazon had the perfect opportunity to explore the lands to the south and far-eastern Middle-earth and tie them in with events in Númenor, especially as the Númenóreans had direct dealings with the Haradrim.
Easterling King ~ Yzah (deviantart)
Write a story around the Easterlings. Think outside the box and give us good Easterlings, they don’t all have to be bad.
When Amazon take existing characters, well-loved characters, and change them, is it any wonder fans get annoyed?
It seems as if Galadriel may be the main female character in the first season, at least.
Instead of portraying her as the feminine, powerful elf she is, she’s been turned into a warrior woman.
It’s as if showing a woman’s femininity is somehow weak.
She doesn’t need to wield a sword or lead an army to prove how strong she is.
Amazon’s version is, compared to the one in ‘The Lord of the Rings’, ‘thousands of years younger, as angry and brash as she is clever…’ and commander of the Northern Army.
Apart from not commanding any army in her lifetime, in the Second Age, Galadriel certainly is thousands of years younger but still over 1900 years old.
In her youth, she was said to have a proud and wilful nature, but this was before she came to Middle-earth.
Tolkien’s elves are considered fully-grown by the time they reach 100, so Galadriel would already be as we see her in ‘The Lord of the Rings’.
Galadriel ~ IcedWingsArt (deviantart)
Also, she was already married to Celeborn by the Second Age, and they had a daughter, Celebrian early in the Second Age, neither of whom have been mentioned.
Amazon has stripped this great character, described in ‘The Silmarillion’ as ‘the mightiest and fairest of all the Elves that remained in Middle-earth’, of her mystique.
To quote McKay from that first VF article – “Can we come up with the novel Tolkien never wrote and do it as the mega-event series that could only happen now?”
Come up with the novel Tolkien never wrote?
That anyone can think they can write the novel he never wrote and do it justice while not respecting all that he’s already written completely blows my mind.
All McKay and Payne have to their name is the third Star Trek film, ‘Star Trek Beyond’, which is all that’s listed on IMDb before this series; even then, they were uncredited.
I know I can be a cynical hag but come on!
From the above-quoted letter, #131, Tolkien had also said, “I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama…”
By leaving ‘scope for other minds and hands’, I think it’s fair to say Tolkien assumed they would honour the bounds of his world as any author would.
So, instead of attempting to imitate Tolkien, the writers of Amazon’s series could simply write their own story, which would leave them free to tick as many boxes as they wish and insert as many politically driven agendas as they want.
With the number of beloved franchises that have been and are still being trampled on with little to no regard for the fanbase, I can’t help but wonder if that may be the plan with the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.
I believe there is one good thing that’s come of this – the way it’s bringing Tolkien fans – the true fans – together who are refusing to step back, weathering the ‘attacks’ being thrown their way.
On the subject of adaptations, I’ll leave the last word to the great man himself, taken from letter #210, written to Forrest J. Ackerman, the American magazine editor, science fiction writer, literary agent and actor, in relation to the first proposed film of ‘The Lord of the Rings’, a project created in 1957 by Ackerman and Morton Grady Zimmerman:
“… Z [Zimmerman] and/or others… may be irritated or aggrieved by the tone of many of my criticisms. If so, I am sorry (though not surprised). But I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about…
“The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies…”