Amazon, Lord of… Lies

J.R.R. Tolkien

I’ve already made plain how I feel about Amazon’s upcoming generic fantasy project very loosely based on JRR Tolkien’s works, which I covered in my post titled ‘Defending Tolkien’, so I wasn’t planning on writing anything more on the topic.

But as the release date for Amazon’s ‘The Rings of Power’ gets closer, we’ve been subjected to interviews, various teaser trailers, more interviews, and an actual trailer.

I watched the trailers and read some of the interviews because I like to give poeple a fair shake.

And I will say, there is a good enough story buried in that last trailer… IF all references to Tolkien are removed.

Having those references, mainly in the form of characters and places, coloured my perception tremendously.

Which meant a lot of head-shaking and mutterings of ‘that doesn’t make any sense’.

Anyway, what I want to talk about is the ongoing lies put forward, especially, by the writers, Patrick McKay and JD Payne.

In 2019, the renowned Tolkien scholar, Tom Shippey, who had been hired to work on the show, gave an interview to a German Tolkien fan site, which asked about the content that was allowed to be used:
’“Amazon has a relatively free hand when it comes to adding something, since… very few details are known about this time span. The Tolkien Estate will insist that the main shape of the Second Age is not altered… But you can add new characters and ask… questions, like… Where was [Sauron] after Morgoth was defeated? Theoretically, Amazon can answer these questions by inventing the answers, since Tolkien did not describe it. But it must not contradict anything that Tolkien did say… It must be canonical, it is impossible to change the boundaries which Tolkien has created, it is necessary to remain ‘tolkienian’.”’

Tom Shippey speaking at an event in Tempe, Arizona (image by Gage Skidmore - Wikipedia)

Tom Shippey is no longer involved with the production and neither he nor Amazon have confirmed the reason for his departure.

It would appear Amazon has invented a whole other story, which is only very lightly inspired by Tolkien’s work.

Yet, McKay and Payne seem to take umbrage when people point this out.

In an article by ‘The Hollywood Reporter’, a reporter asking questions at the Television Critic Association’s semi-annual press tour said, ‘The Rings of Power’ is ‘only “vaguely connected” to author JRR Tolkien’s work compared to The Lord of the Rings movies, which were “based on actual printed materials.”’

McKay’s reply was prefaced with wanting to ‘“… quibble with the ‘vaguely connected’”’.

He then proceeded to talk about how he and Payne feel…
‘“We feel like deep roots of this show are in the books and in Tolkien… We feel that this story isn’t ours. It’s a story we’re stewarding that was here before us and was waiting in those books to be on Earth. We don’t feel ‘vaguely connected.’ We feel deeply, deeply connected to those folks…”’

Instead of telling us how they feel, why don’t they show us where in Tolkien’s printed material that story they’re stewarding is?

His assertion of feeling ‘“that this story isn’t ours”’ contradicts what he said in a Vanity Fair article – ‘“Can we come up with the novel Tolkien never wrote and do it as the mega-event series that could only happen now?”’

Never mind the sheer arrogance of thinking they could write anything in Tolkien’s league, the thing is Tolkien did tell us what happened in the Second Age.

Annatar and Celebrimbor - Kapriss (DeviantArt)

‘The Rings of Power’ is their story, not Tolkien’s.

By compressing the timeline from about 3400 years down to a single point in time, they’ve changed the sequence of events.

By rights, there should be a little over 1600 years between the forging of the Rings and Elendil’s birth, but in their show, not only Elendil but both his sons, Isildur and Anárion, have already been born and the Rings of Power haven’t been forged yet.

Another thing that’s been changed is family dynamics, one example being, Elendil now has a daughter.

By the Second Age, Galadriel was already married to Celeborn, but, so far, he’s nowhere to be seen.

Galadriel, Queen of Light - Celtica-Harmony (DeviantArt)

Instead, we have a ‘young adult’-type warrior Galadriel who’s out to avenge the death of her brother…

Which one? She had 4 who all died in the First Age. If it’s supposed to be Finrod, that’s messing with the history of another beloved, well-established character.

Finrod, first encounter with Edain - EKukanova (DeviantArt)

Galadriel never went to Númenor but in the show she’s not only there, she’s also teaming up with the queen, Tar-Miriel, and they’re both leading armies.

As for Tar-Miriel, according to Tolkien, her position as queen had been usurped by her cousin, Ar-Pharazon, who forced her to marry him so he could claim the throne.

There is no doubt they’ve changed the ‘“boundaries that Tolkien has created…”’

And yet McKay and Payne continue to claim their show is deeply rooted in Tolkien’s work.

At the San Diego Comic Convention, while answering questions, Payne said, “we had the privilege of working with Tolkien scholars, like Tom Shippey…” – even though its common knowledge he left.

He continued – “… always back to Tolkien… when Tolkien was silent, we tried to invent as Tolkienian a way as possible.”

And McKay chimed in with, “Go back to the book, go back to the book, go back to the book.”

Another question was asked, why is there a hobbit-story in the Second Age, as, according to Tolkien, hobbits remained unknown in the Second Age and did nothing of note.

Payne’s answer – “It’s not technically a hobbit-story, it’s a harfoot-story, and Tolkien doesn’t say anything about harfoots not having done anything amazing in the Second Age… so we felt we had licence to tell a good harfoot-story…”

We’ll follow McKay’s declaration, shall we, and ‘go back to the book, go back to the book, go back to the book’…

In the Prologue of ‘The Lord of the Rings’, which begins with ‘Concerning Hobbits’, Tolkien wrote this, which is on the third page:
‘… the Hobbits had already become divided into three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides… The Harfoots had much to do with Dwarves in ancient times, and long lived in the foothills of the mountains. They moved westward early… They were the most normal and representative variety of Hobbit, and far the most numerous. They were the most inclined to settle in one place, and longest preserved their ancestral habit of living in tunnels and holes.’

Harfoots are hobbits; to say otherwise is like saying a Maine Coon isn’t a cat.

I don’t understand why McKay and Payne keep fervently insisting the show is deeply rooted in Tolkien’s lore when it’s clearly not.

Unsurprisingly, any criticism of the show is promptly declared a racist attack.

These past 2 years have brought home to me, without a doubt, that when people resort to name-calling it usually means they’ve lost the argument as they can’t come up with any facts to back up their so-called arguments.

Calling Tolkien fans ‘racists’ and ‘trolls’ is no way to make your case especially as we also include the portrayal of characters like Galadriel, Celebrimbor, Elendil, Elrond – all white – in our criticisms.

The only reason the inclusion of black elves and dwarves are criticised is because that is not what Tolkien wrote.

Dwarves and elves have their origins in Germanic and other European folklore, and Tolkien drew on these, and Scandinavian and Norse mythology to create his world and the peoples who inhabit it, to write “… a body of more or less connected legend… which [he] could dedicate… to England; to my country…”

If you want to have different coloured elves, dwarves, hobbits, the onus is on you to explain how they came to be.

They cannot simply be dropped in with no explanation just because there are diversity and inclusivity boxes to tick.

This is not racism but an expectation for the programme makers to stay true to the source material.

If you want or need to have elves and dwarves of different colours, then write your own story and make it make sense.

The first time I came across dark-skinned elves was in the 1980s when I discovered Wendy Pini’s ‘Elfquest’.

‘Elfquest’

She knew from the start she wanted to have dark-skinned elves, so she created a world and setting where she had elves who were not only very pale but also dark-skinned, and she gave full explanations – which were all gradually revealed as the story progressed – as to how this came to be.

I find it most odd that the cast, when given free rein to express themselves, talk at length about skin colour and diversity and equality and inclusivity and activism but barely mention the story itself.

Which begs the question, just how important is the story to them?

It makes me sad, angry, frustrated that anyone who hasn’t read Tolkien or watched the Peter Jackson ‘Lord of the Rings’ films, may well believe that this is what Tolkien is about, and not his beautiful prose, remarkably vast world and characters, and the weight of history that grounds his legendarium.

To those who say, ‘what’s the big deal? You still have the books,’ they’re missing the point.

Anyone who’s carefully and lovingly created anything – be it a story, a work of art, a piece of music, a recipe, furniture… anything – will know that the creator invests something of themselves in what they make.

And Tolkien worked on his Middle-earth legendarium for over 50 years.

That’s why I detest what Amazon, McKay and Payne and their ilk are doing.

Instead of putting in the sweat and effort to come up with their own, original story and characters, they’ve decided to take the easy option and ride on the coattails of a great man and his prodigious imagination while ignoring all the work he’s already done.

And then lie about it.

As the young folk say, ‘not a good look’.